Originally Posted by vibin247 /img/forum/go_quote.gif In fact, a couple days after I placed my order with B&H, they suddenly had some items (the 24mm f/1.4L and off shoe cord for the 580EX II flash, to be exact) in stock that I had to delete out of my wishlist! Well, I guess you can't have it all at all times. Their service is terrific, nonetheless.
Sure, 32GB is a lot, but it's easy to fill it all up. Last wedding I did with a 5D, I shot 12GB and still wanted more memory (first couple hundred were in RAW and remaining were in Large JPEG). I'm working on becoming a photojournalist, mostly focusing on long projects, and since I don't have a laptop at the moment, having more than enough memory is about peace of mind. I never want to be in that situation where I'm constantly out memory. Plus, I'm planning on getting a 1D Mark III in the future, and will be shooting more and more, possibly even sports.
Also, why did you go with haze filters instead of plain old UV filters. Aren't the former intentionally designed to give images a softer, dreamier look? (as opposed to being solely for protection).
UV Haze filters were popular back when everyone shot film since it cut through the haze found in shots like landscapes etc. Digital doesn't really need this though so it's basically just a protection filter
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sh0eBoX /img/forum/go_quote.gif ^ DO IT!!! better noise control, faster, more accurate focusing, bigger and brighter viewfinder, 6.5fps, spot metering, live view, ugh..
The viewfinder and 6.5fps is where it's the most significant. Otherwise noise is about the same. The focusing for all intents using the center point is the same. 450D has spot metering and live view also.
I think the 40D is a better choice though if it's your only camera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibin247 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm working on becoming a photojournalist, mostly focusing on long projects, and since I don't have a laptop at the moment, having more than enough memory is about peace of mind. I never want to be in that situation where I'm constantly out memory. Plus, I'm planning on getting a 1D Mark III in the future, and will be shooting more and more, possibly even sports.
Yeah it would suck to worry about running out of memory. It totally makes sense to have a lot of batteries and memory if you're in the field for extended periods.
IMO though, if you were doing what you're doing, you should be using Nikon. It's a better dynamic situation camera.
Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif IMO though, if you were doing what you're doing, you should be using Nikon. It's a better dynamic situation camera.
True, Nikon is a sturdier camera, and the D300 was my next choice if the 40D wasn't such a steal with the current instant rebates. I started photography with an FM2 with a 50mm f/1.4 and I currently have an N6000 with a 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 for when I want to shoot film. I've also used a D70s, which was joy until I started using the 5D at work. After that wedding in May, I was sold on Canon equipment. Maybe someday I'll give Nikon another shot (or even Leica).
As for the filters, I always wanted to try Heliopan filters, but unfortunately their protection filters are more expensive than the UV Haze filters, so I went with the latter route. I'm not big on the multi-coated variety, just as long as it keeps fingerprints, dust, hair and other things away from the front element, and is not too pricey.
Oh, UPS decided to ship all my packages on Friday, instead of delivering one today and the rest later. The price of fuel, and all...
Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.
BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible.
Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.
BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible.
You'll enjoy the tamron, nicely built lens. I just love how big the glass is. I find it's the perfect walkaround range for me.
Plus it comes with a nice lens hood which I'm never without.
I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future.
Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH. I am hoping it has no issues as it is supposed to be an awesome lens. I had the Tammy 28-75mm brother before and loved it on my Canon XT. I could care less about AF speed and build when the image quality is so damned good for the price.
BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part. I may still go with the f2.8 non IS as I may want that extra stop but the IS on the f4 version is pretty incredible.
The IS is incredible. Considering i would want to use that lens primarily for street shooting ( candid stuff ), the F4 is more than enough.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is incredibly sharp and fast to focus, it is and extremely good lens for the money, hope you enjoy it!
Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif You'll enjoy the tamron, nicely built lens. I just love how big the glass is. I find it's the perfect walkaround range for me.
Plus it comes with a nice lens hood which I'm never without.
I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future.
Very impressive company. I may try out the 70-200mm f2.8 IS version soon as I want to see if the IS on that lens will be required by my shooting. I am hoping not as I can save some money and grab a flash unit and the 85mm f1.8 with scratch I saved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wil /img/forum/go_quote.gif The IS is incredible. Considering i would want to use that lens primarily for street shooting ( candid stuff ), the F4 is more than enough.
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is incredibly sharp and fast to focus, it is and extremely good lens for the money, hope you enjoy it!
I grinned when using that L. It was mighty impressive to get good shots at such slow shutter speeds. I did NOT want to send it back. My eyes teared up a bit.
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
Quote:
Originally Posted by vibin247 /img/forum/go_quote.gif True, Nikon is a sturdier camera, and the D300 was my next choice if the 40D wasn't such a steal with the current instant rebates.
As for the filters, I always wanted to try Heliopan filters, but unfortunately their protection filters are more expensive than the UV Haze filters, so I went with the latter route. I'm not big on the multi-coated variety, just as long as it keeps fingerprints, dust, hair and other things away from the front element, and is not too pricey.
Yeah the price on the 40D is very good right now. I just feel the D300, although more money, is still worth it because it really is a pro camera. You get better build and pro level AF. Better programmable auto ISO, better metering, and better flash system is an ultimate combination in a fast changing environment. That's really suited for weddings and photojournalist stuff IMO. In any case, as long as you can work around the cameras capabilities and it's workable, it's no problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ordered a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 yesterday from BH.
BTW, the 70-200mm f4L IS I shot with was pretty sweet. Sharp corner to corner wide open which you cannot say about the f2.8 versions for the most part.
Congrats. If you get a lens dud, you can always just return and keep getting it until you get a good one
Just get the 2.8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punnisher /img/forum/go_quote.gif I got the 70-200 f/4L without IS, and I find myself taking more blurry pictures than I'd like. Though if I have great lighting, I can get away with some incredibly sharp pictures. Perhaps I'll audition the IS version in the future.
Was it because the shutter speed was too low? It's good to practice steady holding technique regardless.
A funny thing though Canon's IS doesn't work as well for me compared to Nikon's VR. I think the way you shake matters. I've tried each on various lens' cameras and that's my results. It's kind of annoying really because some of my shots even at 1/30 or 1/20 aren't as sharp as I'd like them compared to others' attempts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I may try out the 70-200mm f2.8 IS version soon as I want to see if the IS on that lens will be required by my shooting. I am hoping not as I can save some money and grab a flash unit and the 85mm f1.8 with scratch I saved.
Another option you have is 85 f/1.8, 135 f/2, and 1.4 teleconvertor.
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkninja67 /img/forum/go_quote.gif The 135mm L is something I would also like to own. A bargain lens for what it delivers which is sharpness and a smooth creamy bokeh.
I know BH is easy to deal with but can you say the lens is not sharp and replace it? I think they do have a no questions asked policy which is sweet.
I'm really liking the 135mm range and above with F2. I'm feeling the 85 and 100 aren't enough to wipe out distracting backgrounds.
I think B&H is fine with that stuff. Just don't get too crazy with it.
Originally Posted by lan /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm really liking the 135mm range and above with F2. I'm feeling the 85 and 100 aren't enough to wipe out distracting backgrounds.
I think B&H is fine with that stuff. Just don't get too crazy with it.
What do you use for custom WB in the field? I have a gray card but was thinking of grabbing and Expodisc.
Videographus Supremus:Makes audio cables using super-advanced materials, like "some clear tape" and "some not so clear tape."
Joined
Sep 4, 2002
Posts
8,606
Likes
18
Well if I'm shooting RAW, the white balance doesn't really matter. If I'm in the same location and lighting and want to post process faster, I could just set the white balance to anything fixed and batch adjust later. Of course if you are in a changing environment, I just use auto and fix as needed in post.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
