Changing horses in mid-stream

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by jj@unspameljefe.net, Mar 28, 2007.

  1. Guest

    So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

    Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    still overpriced for what it is.

    What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    $550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
    Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
    using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
    work with a Rebel Xti.

    This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
    digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
    particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
    suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

    JJ
    , Mar 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ken Lucke Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    > So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    > years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    > pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    > year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    > film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    > and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.
    >
    > Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    > events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    > into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    > I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    > still overpriced for what it is.
    >
    > What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    > $550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    > the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    > now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    > 17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
    > Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
    > using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
    > work with a Rebel Xti.
    >
    > This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
    > digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
    > particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
    > suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.


    As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
    grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
    twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
    to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
    buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
    orientation.

    Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
    BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
    expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
    [sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
    don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
    less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
    charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.

    Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
    files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
    did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
    becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
    electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
    will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.

    --
    You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
    reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
    the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
    independence.
    -- Charles A. Beard
    Ken Lucke, Mar 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Matt Ion Guest

    Ken Lucke wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    >>years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    >>pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    >>year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    >>film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    >>and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.
    >>
    >>Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    >>events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    >>into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    >>I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    >>still overpriced for what it is.
    >>
    >>What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    >>$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    >>the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    >>now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    >>17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
    >>Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
    >>using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
    >>work with a Rebel Xti.
    >>
    >>This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
    >>digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
    >>particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
    >>suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

    >
    >
    > As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
    > grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
    > twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
    > to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
    > buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
    > orientation.
    >
    > Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
    > BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
    > expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
    > [sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
    > don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
    > less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
    > charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.
    >
    > Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
    > files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
    > did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
    > becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
    > electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
    > will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.


    I'll second all that. I got the XTi's predecessor, the original Digital Rebel
    (300D), about the time its price dropped to "below $1000"... paid a total of I
    think around $1400 including a 1GB CF card, one extra battery, and the battery
    grip (and taxes of course). I already had an EX420 flash and EF 75-300mm zoom
    from my 35mm Rebel and they work great with the DRebel.

    It's really a nice camera and a good starting point. I don't shoot nearly as
    much as the OP and it took me a little over a year to hit what I estimated to be
    the "break-even" point in film costs (film AND processing/printing/CDs) vs. the
    cost of the camera. Should take jj a lot less time than that to make up the
    difference, especially if it's only the body costing about $550 - if you figure
    $15/roll, all costs included, for a roll of 36, that's about 42c/shot... should
    take barely 1300 shots to reach that "break-even" point. Factor in the time you
    DON'T have to spend taking the film to the lab... then going back to pick it
    up... plus the extra control you get over your editing when you start shooting
    RAW... :)
    Matt Ion, Mar 29, 2007
    #3
  4. ? "Matt Ion" <> ?????? ??? ??????
    news:BODOh.85058$zU1.27534@pd7urf1no...
    > Ken Lucke wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    > >>years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    > >>pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    > >>year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    > >>film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    > >>and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.
    > >>
    > >>Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    > >>events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    > >>into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    > >>I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    > >>still overpriced for what it is.
    > >>
    > >>What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    > >>$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    > >>the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    > >>now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    > >>17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
    > >>Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
    > >>using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
    > >>work with a Rebel Xti.
    > >>
    > >>This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
    > >>digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
    > >>particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
    > >>suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

    > >
    > >
    > > As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
    > > grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
    > > twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
    > > to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
    > > buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
    > > orientation.
    > >
    > > Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
    > > BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
    > > expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
    > > [sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
    > > don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
    > > less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
    > > charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.
    > >
    > > Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
    > > files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
    > > did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
    > > becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
    > > electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
    > > will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.

    >
    > I'll second all that. I got the XTi's predecessor, the original Digital

    Rebel
    > (300D), about the time its price dropped to "below $1000"... paid a total

    of I
    > think around $1400 including a 1GB CF card, one extra battery, and the

    battery
    > grip (and taxes of course). I already had an EX420 flash and EF 75-300mm

    zoom
    > from my 35mm Rebel and they work great with the DRebel.
    >
    > It's really a nice camera and a good starting point. I don't shoot nearly

    as
    > much as the OP and it took me a little over a year to hit what I estimated

    to be
    > the "break-even" point in film costs (film AND processing/printing/CDs)

    vs. the
    > cost of the camera. Should take jj a lot less time than that to make up

    the
    > difference, especially if it's only the body costing about $550 - if you

    figure
    > $15/roll, all costs included, for a roll of 36, that's about 42c/shot...

    should
    > take barely 1300 shots to reach that "break-even" point. Factor in the

    time you
    > DON'T have to spend taking the film to the lab... then going back to pick

    it
    > up... plus the extra control you get over your editing when you start

    shooting
    > RAW... :)
    >
    >

    And another thing, Canon makes an excellent photo-pritner, which is first in
    sales in Europe, the Pixma iP 4300.I bought one, and I think it's every
    penny worth.(It cost 130 euros).So, you can print at home your 4X6"
    snapshots and even on A4 (~8X10").It can also print on printable dvds and
    cds, has a permanent paper tray (like a laser printer)can print on both
    sides of a sheet of paper automatically...Is very economic with inks.And
    last but not least, the ink tanks are cheap, and last long,The print head is
    disposable.It's made in japan, printer, inks and paper (if you use canon
    paper),the ink tanks are the usual cyan, magenta, yellow and black for
    photos and bulk black for documents.



    --
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
    major in electrical engineering
    mechanized infantry reservist
    dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
    Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Mar 29, 2007
    #4
  5. On Mar 28, 3:53 pm, wrote:
    > So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    > years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    > pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    > year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    > film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    > and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.
    >
    > Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    > events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    > into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    > I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    > still overpriced for what it is.
    >
    > What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    > $550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    > the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    > now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    > 17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
    > Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
    > using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
    > work with a Rebel Xti.
    >
    > This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
    > digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
    > particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
    > suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.
    >
    > JJ


    My wife was also a confirmed film shooter (for considerably longer
    than 30 years). Two years ago she went on a trip to china and bought
    a Nikon N75. Last year she got a chance to go again, but did not want
    to worry about having several dozen rolls of film go through security
    inspection (previous trip they opened every cannister to assure there
    WERE rolls of film in there). Last year she decided a digital would
    be handy, and we bought a D-50, which was then the cheapest DSLR that
    Nikon made. We have been delighted with it, and neither of us has
    shot a roll of film since.

    My wife took several large cards with her. Originally I thought
    digital would NOT be a cost savings, but my wife now shoots far more
    pictures than she used to (and that was a lot). She prints only a
    small fraction, a smaller fraction than in days of film, so we may
    indeed ultimately save money.

    If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
    years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
    expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
    has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
    Rebel digital would be fine.
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Mar 29, 2007
    #5
  6. If you pass on the 30D, you might regret it. A 30D makes more sense for a
    person with your experience. Yes, your flash will work.
    Charles Schuler, Mar 29, 2007
    #6
  7. wrote:
    > So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    > years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    > pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
    > year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
    > film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
    > and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.
    >
    > Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
    > events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
    > into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
    > I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
    > still overpriced for what it is.


    So how many rolls would you shoot over those three weeks? 100? So
    you've got $1500 to play with without increasing your outgo a penny?

    But seriously, your idea of buying at the low end to "get your feet wet"
    is quite reasonable. I always figure there's a much higher than usual
    chance of my buying "the wrong thing" when I jump into a new area (I've
    been lucky three times in digital photography, though).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Mar 31, 2007
    #7
  8. Robert Coe Guest

    On 29 Mar 2007 07:11:30 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
    <> wrote:
    : My wife was also a confirmed film shooter (for considerably longer
    : than 30 years). Two years ago she went on a trip to china and bought
    : a Nikon N75. Last year she got a chance to go again, but did not want
    : to worry about having several dozen rolls of film go through security
    : inspection (previous trip they opened every cannister to assure there
    : WERE rolls of film in there). Last year she decided a digital would
    : be handy, and we bought a D-50, which was then the cheapest DSLR that
    : Nikon made. We have been delighted with it, and neither of us has
    : shot a roll of film since.
    :
    : My wife took several large cards with her. Originally I thought
    : digital would NOT be a cost savings, but my wife now shoots far more
    : pictures than she used to (and that was a lot). She prints only a
    : small fraction, a smaller fraction than in days of film, so we may
    : indeed ultimately save money.
    :
    : If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
    : years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
    : expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
    : has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
    : Rebel digital would be fine.

    It's hard to overstate the importance of the different shooting style that
    going digital affords to an amateur photographer. Professionals always shot
    many rolls of film to cull out a few good pictures. To them it was just a cost
    of doing business, but an amateur, especially one without a color darkroom and
    the time and skill to use it, couldn't afford to shoot that way. Digital
    changed all that by removing the cost, except in editing time, of taking
    dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots.

    Last week I covered an event honoring prominent women in the city for which I
    work. As the crowd milled about afterwards, one of the organizers, a friend
    from another department, asked me to photograph her with three of the women
    being honored. I clicked off five quick shots, and my friend laughed at me for
    bothering to take so many so close together. The next day I showed her that in
    only one of the five shots did all four women have good facial expressions;
    she was amazed that the five pictures could look so different. In film days, I
    might have posed the subjects more carefully, but I would have taken only one
    or two shots on my old Nikon F-2, and the result might not have been nearly as
    good.

    The freedom to take extra shots won't make a lousy photographer good, but any
    photographer on the right side of mediocrity, who takes the time to get used
    to the digital mindset, should see a significant improvement in his or her
    work.

    Just my 2¢ worth …

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Apr 1, 2007
    #8
  9. John Smith Guest

    "Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 29 Mar 2007 07:11:30 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
    > <> wrote:


    > : If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
    > : years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
    > : expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
    > : has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
    > : Rebel digital would be fine.
    >

    You sure nailed that...I don't mind the bells and whistles, but truth to
    tell, outside of flash work, all I need (and use) in terms of options are
    aperture priority, full manual, raw, auto focus with manual override, manual
    white balance, and a way to set the iso and exposure compensation
    quickly.and a viewfinder (real or evf).

    (With all the above quickly accessed, of course)

    In fact, I just bought a D40 for EDC, and while I can't speak to the image
    quality compared to more feature laden cameras, it has all the things
    necessary to first rate photography is a very well thought out package.

    I just wish the makers would come out with more basic high quality shootin
    machines at a more affordable price (for me) than the one or two out there
    now.

    DP
    John Smith, Apr 1, 2007
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:42:40 -0400, in rec.photo.digital:

    >If you pass on the 30D, you might regret it. A 30D makes more sense for a
    >person with your experience. Yes, your flash will work.


    Well, dammit, my decision just got more complicated. A client handed
    me $3000 yesterday for some work I did. Now I'm starting to get
    Pre-Buyer's Remorse! :) Suddenly, affording the 5D isn't so much an
    issue, and now I can also throw the 30D or a used 20D into the mix. Of
    course, the back side of this is the whole overpriced digital
    treadmill thing. Not to mention the learning curve with three weeks to
    go til the big shoot.

    So let's review: Is the Rebel XTi still the right box for the app? Or
    for that matter, will the price of a 30D or a 5D over a Rebel justify
    the difference in camera performance and/or image quality?

    John wrote:

    >I don't mind the bells and whistles, but truth to
    >tell, outside of flash work, all I need (and use) in terms of options are
    >aperture priority, full manual, raw, auto focus with manual override, manual
    >white balance, and a way to set the iso and exposure compensation
    >quickly.and a viewfinder (real or evf). (With all the above quickly accessed, of course)


    That's pretty much me, too. I run my 1n in Manual mode almost all the
    time. I use flash or fill flash about 80% of the time, since a lot of
    my work is in music clubs (where there's never enough light) or on
    outdoor stages (where performers faces are frequently shadowed). I
    don't need a whole lot of geegaws.

    Another issue that's getting big for me is the weight of all the gear.
    I've been able to shoot most everything the past 30 years with only
    two lenses, but I'll have to add the 17-35 f2.8 wide if I use anything
    besides a 5D. That's not a light lens, and the 5D body with batteries
    and grip is certainly no lighter than my current 1n, which I intend to
    keep as a back-up. The 5D is, however, substantially heavier than my
    current A2 back-up. So, if I pick up the 5D, grip, etc, I'm probably
    adding several pounds to the mix at a time when I'm trying to cut the
    weight back. Hauling this stuff for eight hours a day X six days X a
    minimum of two stages a day at a big festival sounds like a good deal
    for my chiropractor. For me, not so much. Sure wish I could do this
    all with a cheesy point and shoot!

    Maybe I should just buy a Powershot, take the three grand and go live
    in Mexico for six months. Buys a lot of tacos at my favorite
    restaurant. :)

    JJ
    , Apr 3, 2007
    #10
  11. wrote:
    > So let's review: Is the Rebel XTi still the right box for the app? Or
    > for that matter, will the price of a 30D or a 5D over a Rebel justify
    > the difference in camera performance and/or image quality?


    > That's pretty much me, too. I run my 1n in Manual mode almost all the
    > time. I use flash or fill flash about 80% of the time, since a lot of
    > my work is in music clubs (where there's never enough light) or on
    > outdoor stages (where performers faces are frequently shadowed). I
    > don't need a whole lot of geegaws.


    The XTi has crammed 10 megapixels into the same size sensor as the
    20D/30D. Pixel size is directly related to low light and high
    ISO performance. The XTi has a 5.7 micron pixel pitch,
    the 20D/30D 6.4 micron pixel pitch, and the 5D 8.2 micron pixel pitch.
    Photon capture goes as the square of the active pixel area,
    so the 5D should get about double the photons as an XTi
    for the same field of view, same f/ratio, and same exposure time.

    You can see more about this subject at:

    See figure 6: unity gain ISO as an indicator of low light and
    high ISO performance:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary

    and

    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    The XTi (400D) is targeted as entry level DSLR, the 20D/30D amateur,
    and the 5D advanced amateur (1D bodies are pro). Not as the build
    quality goes up in the canon line, numbers go down, with 1 being best.
    The 20D/30D is a much better camera than an XTi in my opinion.
    With either a 20D/30D or 5D you probably will never go back
    to film once you see the image quality. The XTi would be
    similar but the lower end camera may not feel right compared
    to your quality film SLR. The XTi will do great in many
    situations, but come up a little short when pushing limits
    like low light conditions.

    Before an important shoot, you need to get comfortable with
    the new tool. Just like print film must be exposed differently
    than slide film, digital is different than either film type.
    You need to be more careful about saturating highlights, but
    you can recover image detail well into the shadows (much deeper
    than you ever could with film). I'll have a new exposure latitude
    page up soon discussing these issues on my
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail pages.

    Don't forget to budget for lots of memory cards and extra batteries!
    Best is shoot raw (requires a lot more space) and post processing
    time. You are trading film processor time for your time at the
    computer. Figure on doubling the photo count you did with film,
    and if you shoot raw, 7 to 10 megabytes per image, so a 4 gigabyte card
    holds 400 to 600 images (this means never having to change
    a "roll of film" for 400 to 600 shots!). Then figure how many
    "rolls of film" you take on a shoot. Buy good fast cards, or you
    may find yourself waiting for images to be written to the card.
    80x or faster. Stick with known brands if you value reliability.
    Some cheap cards may have low reliability.

    So, in summary, my advice, is go for a 30D or 5D. Consider everything
    you need (do you need more disk drives for backups), do you need
    photoshop (photoshop CS3 has a wonderful raw converter; all my Africa
    photos this year were done with CS3). Considering all that may impact
    your 5D decision. You mentioned weight. Consider upgrading
    to a carbon fiber tripod; they are much studier dampen vibration better
    and weigh a lot less, but are quite expensive, ~ $500 and up.

    Roger
    Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com


    >
    > Another issue that's getting big for me is the weight of all the gear.
    > I've been able to shoot most everything the past 30 years with only
    > two lenses, but I'll have to add the 17-35 f2.8 wide if I use anything
    > besides a 5D. That's not a light lens, and the 5D body with batteries
    > and grip is certainly no lighter than my current 1n, which I intend to
    > keep as a back-up. The 5D is, however, substantially heavier than my
    > current A2 back-up. So, if I pick up the 5D, grip, etc, I'm probably
    > adding several pounds to the mix at a time when I'm trying to cut the
    > weight back. Hauling this stuff for eight hours a day X six days X a
    > minimum of two stages a day at a big festival sounds like a good deal
    > for my chiropractor. For me, not so much. Sure wish I could do this
    > all with a cheesy point and shoot!
    >
    > Maybe I should just buy a Powershot, take the three grand and go live
    > in Mexico for six months. Buys a lot of tacos at my favorite
    > restaurant. :)
    >
    > JJ
    >
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 4, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    Roger,

    Thanks. Those are some great tips. I had dinner with a pal last night
    who not-so-subtley set his 5D on the table within arm's reach, as if
    daring me to pick it up. So I did. Now I want one. :)

    Lots of different prices out there on the web (including the
    lowballers that reseller-reference.com's reviews throroughly trash).
    B&H is $2800. Broadway Photo is at $2300 (but a ridiculous $121 to
    ship UPS Ground. Everyone else ships for free, or maybe $20.) B'way
    also haa a "refurbished" 5D for $1999. Prestige has a refurb for ten
    bucks more. Yipes...why would anyone be "refurbishing" something that
    new? Would you buy one? (I bought this computer four years ago as a
    refurb, and it still works fine. But a camera? Hmmm...)

    Thanks again everyone for some excellent input.

    JJ

    On Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:58:21 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username
    to rnclark)" <> wrote:

    (snip)

    >So, in summary, my advice, is go for a 30D or 5D. Consider everything
    >you need (do you need more disk drives for backups), do you need
    >photoshop (photoshop CS3 has a wonderful raw converter; all my Africa
    >photos this year were done with CS3). Considering all that may impact
    >your 5D decision. You mentioned weight. Consider upgrading
    >to a carbon fiber tripod; they are much studier dampen vibration better
    >and weigh a lot less, but are quite expensive, ~ $500 and up.
    >
    >Roger
    >Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com
    , Apr 5, 2007
    #12
  13. >So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
    >years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
    >[...]
    >What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
    >$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
    >the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
    >now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
    >17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.



    I was in the same boat. I ended up going with the 30D. The Xti:

    1. was too small for my hands; and

    2. didn't have convenient full-manual access.

    Be sure to try out the camera you intend to use.

    As for where to buy th camera, the only answer is B&H. If you find a
    price much better than theirs, it's a scam. (But B&H might be closed
    this week.)

    -Joel
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Apr 5, 2007
    #13
  14. >Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
    >BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't


    I have been pleasantly surprised with the life of the batteries. I
    bought two for my 30D, and I've yet to use the second.

    -Joel

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Free Bible and Mishna printouts in Hebrew: http://liturgy.lashon.net/
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Joel M. Hoffman, Apr 5, 2007
    #14
  15. ASAAR Guest

    On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 22:09:50 GMT, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

    > As for where to buy th camera, the only answer is B&H. If you find a
    > price much better than theirs, it's a scam. (But B&H might be closed
    > this week.)


    It is, to re-open on the 11th according to their website. While I
    get cameras from B&H, it's not the only reputable dealer. It's not
    even the only reputable dealer now closed for holidays. :) In a
    pinch you could try J&R, Calumet, etc. I assume that they're open.
    ASAAR, Apr 5, 2007
    #15
  16. wrote:
    > Roger,
    >
    > Thanks. Those are some great tips. I had dinner with a pal last night
    > who not-so-subtley set his 5D on the table within arm's reach, as if
    > daring me to pick it up. So I did. Now I want one. :)
    >
    > Lots of different prices out there on the web (including the
    > lowballers that reseller-reference.com's reviews throroughly trash).
    > B&H is $2800. Broadway Photo is at $2300 (but a ridiculous $121 to
    > ship UPS Ground. Everyone else ships for free, or maybe $20.) B'way
    > also haa a "refurbished" 5D for $1999. Prestige has a refurb for ten
    > bucks more. Yipes...why would anyone be "refurbishing" something that
    > new? Would you buy one? (I bought this computer four years ago as a
    > refurb, and it still works fine. But a camera? Hmmm...)


    Thanks,
    I think it would depend on the warranty. If the warranty were the same as
    a new camera, then I might go for it. Wherever you buy from, be sure
    they are reputable. If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

    Roger
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Apr 6, 2007
    #16
  17. writes:
    > I had dinner with a pal last night who not-so-subtley set his 5D on
    > the table within arm's reach, as if daring me to pick it up. So I
    > did. Now I want one. :)
    >
    > Lots of different prices out there on the web (including the
    > lowballers that reseller-reference.com's reviews throroughly trash).


    Do you mean http://www.resellerratings.com/ ?
    Check out any store there before thinking about buying from them.

    > B&H is $2800.


    If I had the bucks for a EOS 5D, B&H would be my first stop.

    > Broadway Photo is at $2300 (but a ridiculous $121 to
    > ship UPS Ground. Everyone else ships for free, or maybe $20.) B'way
    > also has a "refurbished" 5D for $1999. Prestige has a refurb for ten
    > bucks more. Yipes...why would anyone be "refurbishing" something that
    > new?


    If it's refurbished, it isn't new.

    > Would you buy one?


    Not from Broadway Photo or Prestige Camera (they're the same
    shop btw.) - along with A&M Photo World, Regal Camera, Preferred
    Photo, and several other aliases.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Gisle Hannemyr, Apr 6, 2007
    #17
  18. VK Guest

    Overall the idea if good.

    2 caveats:

    1/ The Rebel is nothing like the A2/EOS 5. That was an excellent,
    robust camera with very good autofocus and reasonably good frame rate
    as well. If you are using to a single-digit EOS body (1, 3, 5),
    you'll find the ergonomics of the XT to be less than ideal.

    2/ To me, the biggest failing of the Rebel series is the lack of a
    command wheel - with only 1 dial and 2 parameters to adjust (Av / Tv),
    you have to push buttons. I hate pushing buttons. Your mileage may
    vary.

    My guess is that if you are an experienced film shooter, you'll want a
    better body not too far down the line.

    You may want to consider a used 20D - it is an excellent camera and a
    lot cheaper than a new 30D (and FWIW, I disagree with your assessment
    that the 30D is overpriced for what it is, but that is not
    important). Or, if you want to go the Rebel route, get a used 350/XT
    instead.

    Vandit
    VK, Apr 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Guest

    On 06 Apr 2007 06:36:08 +0200, Gisle Hannemyr <>
    wrote:

    >Do you mean http://www.resellerratings.com/ ?
    >Check out any store there before thinking about buying from them.


    Yeah. My bad. I always check there. One thing I've noticed is a lot of
    padded reviews on other blogs and web sites. When I see four or five
    stars and it's not B&H, I immediately get suspicious. ;)

    JJ
    , Apr 6, 2007
    #19
  20. Tom Guest

    Buy the Rebel XTi. If you can get by with a less than stellar lens
    you can get the 17-55 kit lens for your wides but your not going to
    like it if your used to a 17-35 f/2.8 so just hump the extra lens.

    When you decide to upgrade, sell the XTi on ebay and you'll get 80% of
    your money back if you don't beat the hell out of it.
    Tom, Apr 7, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. COLIN COZENS

    horses

    COLIN COZENS, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,597
    Patrick
    Apr 21, 2004
  2. Sens Fan Happy In Ohio

    IE6 Changing Up Fonts In Mid Stream

    Sens Fan Happy In Ohio, Apr 28, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    369
    Sens Fan Happy In Ohio
    Apr 28, 2004
  3. Gary G. Taylor

    Horses sticking dildeaux the size of chicks in them

    Gary G. Taylor, Sep 1, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    471
    Gary G. Taylor
    Sep 1, 2004
  4. detorri

    evil horses

    detorri, May 3, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    529
  5. malise
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    898
    damith
    Apr 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page