WITHDRAWN: Canon 400d Camera

[RichardN]

lasted a whole 5 seconds and bought it [/b]

Yep, I too resemble that remark.

Enjoy your new toy.

[steverc]

hehehehehehe

i was out shopping today, saw one, tried to resist, lasted a whole 5 seconds and bought it

oh by the way the kit for sale, $1100 plus postage, will post some pics tonight of it all[/b]

I'm trying to resist your 400D, it was going well hmmm

this forum is costing me too much money

[Guest JohnA]

sorry again steve

just be strong and resist, i have had a few enquieries about it, so hopefully the temptation will be taken away soon...

you just need to hang in there a little longer.

[Keith_W]

i was out shopping today, saw one, tried to resist, lasted a whole 5 seconds and bought it [/b]

D300 are out in the shops already??? WOW!

(edit) just checked Fred Miranda forums ... seems as if the Americans are yet to get their hands on one. What camera did you buy JohnA?

[Guest JohnA]

i got the 40D Keith

now i am tossing up which lens to get

the canon 24-70L 2.8 or the canon 24-105L f4 IS

[Jon]

Morning John, I know the extra length is tempting but trust me, buy the 2.8 you wont regret it, when it comes to lenses faster is better, better low light capabilities and better DOF control. :wink:

i got the 40D Keith

now i am tossing up which lens to get

the canon 24-70L 2.8 or the canon 24-105L f4 IS[/b]

[Guest JohnA]

Thats the way i am leaning towards Jon

to get the 24-70L 2.8 and partner it with the 70-200L 2.8 IS

my idea for the 24-105 was more for a general walk around lens that i didn't have to change too often and slightly lighter also

[Jon]

John fwiw check out the reviews here B&H Photo The 24/70 2.8 combined with the 70/200 2.8 would be a great combination, my wife just bought a Nikon 70/200 2.8 it's a fantastic lens.

I know the 24/70 is a bit heavier but it's also a much better quality lens than the 24/105. :biggrin:

Thats the way i am leaning towards Jon

to get the 24-70L 2.8 and partner it with the 70-200L 2.8 IS

my idea for the 24-105 was more for a general walk around lens that i didn't have to change too often and slightly lighter also[/b]

[Guest JohnA]

Jon

i currently have the sigma 24-70 2.8 which i find i use alot, is also heavy and i remember my day at the zoo with this lens and my wide angle lens, flash and camera were a pain after a few hours.

Mind you, i love the sigma 24-70 so chances are my first thought of staying with this focal length.

Now only if they made a 17-70 2.8 L with IS hmmmmmmmmmm

[Jon]

Nikon do an 18/70 3.5, I have one of these on my D200 most of the time, it's a very handy lens. :biggrin:

Jon

i currently have the sigma 24-70 2.8 which i find i use alot, is also heavy and i remember my day at the zoo with this lens and my wide angle lens, flash and camera were a pain after a few hours.

Mind you, i love the sigma 24-70 so chances are my first thought of staying with this focal length.

Now only if they made a 17-70 2.8 L with IS hmmmmmmmmmm[/b]

[Keith_W]

They do make a 17-85 IS JohnA ... people who like double blind tests would be interested to know that some years ago I took some test shots with a 17-85IS and posted it side by side with a 17-40/4L. I stripped the EXIF files of all information, then asked people to vote on which one the L lens was. Result: Slightly less than 2/3 correctly identified the L lens. Sample size was about 100. Perhaps JA can do the statistics - whether it has a meaningful p-value or not

As you know I have a 5D ... and my favourite walk-around lens happens to be my 50/1.4. This is because I am fed up of carrying that great big heavy 24-70/2.8L. So I suppose it's laziness more than anything but the 50/1.4 is a great little lens.

[Guest JohnA]

i have the 50mm but it hardly ever sees the camera, except for when i do portrait shots

want me to take your 24-70 off your hands????

thats the nice bloke that i am

[Keith_W]

i have the 50mm but it hardly ever sees the camera, except for when i do portrait shots

want me to take your 24-70 off your hands????

thats the nice bloke that i am[/b]

Sure why not ... i've been contemplating a switch to a 24-105 for a while - lighter and more versatile Just be aware that the lens has been dropped and the filter ring has been bent. You can not fit a filter on my lens. It otherwise works OK though.

That 50mm is great for portraits ... but you really want an 85/1.2L

[hired goon]

G'day,

A 24-70 2.8L is on my wish list, one day. And an 85 2.8L or 50mm 1.4L.

Guess I'll just have to stick with my little 50mm 1.8 for now for portraits. Looks a bit dinky on the camera, especially when the flash is attached.

--Geoff

[Jon]

One of the nicest walk around lenses I have used is the Tokina 12/24 f4, I know it's short but it is fast to focus and is very versatile.

I also have a couple of 50mm lenses one is a brillianf f1.4 but dont use them much now, by far the best lens I have ever used is my wifes 70/200 f2.8, it does almost everything well, a great portrait lens when used between 70 and 100, fantastic for controlling DOF and sharp as a tack, I'm sure the Canon equivalent would be just as good, however it's a big lump of a thing, if size is a factor it may not suit. :biggrin:

i have the 50mm but it hardly ever sees the camera, except for when i do portrait shots

want me to take your 24-70 off your hands????

thats the nice bloke that i am[/b]

[Guest JohnA]

Sure why not ... i've been contemplating a switch to a 24-105 for a while - lighter and more versatile Just be aware that the lens has been dropped and the filter ring has been bent. You can not fit a filter on my lens. It otherwise works OK though.

That 50mm is great for portraits ... but you really want an 85/1.2L [/b]

damn, you had to spoil it for me didn't you Keith, i sometimes need to use cp filters...hmmm have to think about it, PM me a price and we shall see

As for the 85 1.2 i think it may be too long on a 1.6x camera were as the 50mm is like having an 80mm

hmm maybe i should look into the 50mm 1.2

Jon, i also have the tokina 12-24f4 absolutely brilliant lens and i would never sell that one, well not till i purchase a full frame camera anyways

[Keith_W]

JohnA I enjoyed using the 85/1.2L on a 20D - gave 136mm equivalent. I have shot with a 135 F/2L on my 5D and the results are stunning. But i'm not going to sell mine!

As for the 50/1.2L ... after reading some reviews it is in some ways a worse performer than the 50/1.4 - slower AF and only marginally sharper at F/1.4 with the difference disappearing at F/2 upwards. And F/1.2 is only 1/2 a stop faster than F/1.4.

I really don't want to part with the 24-70/2.8L at the moment in all honesty so you may be better off looking elsewhere. Mine happens to be a very nice 24-70 apart from the dented filter ring - at 50mm its sharpness is astonishing and I am otherwise very happy with it

[Young Skywalker]

If you don't intend to shoot at f2.8 very often then the 24-70 f2.8 L is overkill (from a size, weight and cost perspective) and you would be better off with the IS capability of the 24-105 L instead.

With the superb signal to noise ratio of Canon's current imaging chips you could crank the ISO up to 800 (or more) and with the IS capability be able to shoot at a hand holdable shutter speed in VERY low light. The new 40 and current 5D should be about as good as it gets in this regard.

Then again if you want very limited depth of field there is no substitute for a large shooting apeture. In that case I would have to question the choice of zoom in the first place and you would be better served by fast prime lenses (50mm f1.5, 85mm f1.2, 135mm f2).

Another thing to consider is optical distortion of zoom lenses at both the wide and long ends of the range. Even the finest Canon zooms will suffer from this to some extent (although to a lesser degree in the 70-200 f4 and f2.8 beasts).

As an aspiring professional fine art landscape photographer (shooting with good old analog technology - large format view camera with 4x5 sheet film supplemented by a Canon digital rig) hopefully my opinion and experience carries a little bit of weight.

Finally, the one thing that will improve anyone's photography more than any camera or lens upgrade is a strong, lightweight, versatile tripod and ball head combination (my choice Gitzo carbon fiber with Really Right Stuff head).

Enjoy,

Aaron

[Keith_W]

Good to see you back here Aaron Large format shooting? Ouch ... when I was recently back in Perth I helped my friend do a family portrait with a large format camera and studio flash. Took almost an hour to set everything up (including lights) and then film was about $40 per shot (including cost of film, processing, and printing). I would not want to muck around if I had to pay that much every time I hit the shutter button! He was using an old skirt of his wife's as a hood ... he said to me "this is the first and last time you get to put your head up my wife's skirt".

Just another thing JohnA ... I have been reading reports from around the net that claim that the 40D has better sharpness at ISO3200 than the 5D, while retaining the same low noise characteristics! That is a very big call ... just one month ago the 5D / 1DS2 were the undisputed kings when it came to high ISO shooting. I have also seen one report where someone claims that ISO 800 on the new Nikon D3 is better than ISO3200 on the 1D Mk3! Given that the D3 can shoot at a (frankly unbelievable) ISO25,600 it has to be the new king. We'll have to wait for some more reputable reviews to come out.

JohnA ... would you like me to split the thread?

[Guest JohnA]

Aaron, thanks for the advice

Keith, i have read the same thing, have also seen some pics apparently taken with the new nikon at 6400 iso and they look brilliant.

Someone has already compared the 40D to the 1D and asked why you would spend the extra money, he would rather have 3 40D's for the ame cost.

haven't realy put it through its paces as yet, but will hopefully do so this weekend.

My mind isn't 100% made up on the lens as yet, but figure if i am going to get the 70-200 2.8 the obvious choice is the 24-70

but then again that 24-105 is so damn tempting, for portraits and good DOF as already mentioned i can use good primes.

I'm not too fussed about splitting this up, but if you want to, go right ahead

[jaspert]

As an aspiring professional fine art landscape photographer (shooting with good old analog technology - large format view camera with 4x5 sheet film supplemented by a Canon digital rig) hopefully my opinion and experience carries a little bit of weight.

Finally, the one thing that will improve anyone's photography more than any camera or lens upgrade is a strong, lightweight, versatile tripod and ball head combination (my choice Gitzo carbon fiber with Really Right Stuff head).

Enjoy,

Aaron[/b]

Hi Aaron,

Have you got a web/album where i can view your work? I'm very intriqued.

From a a burnt out small format amateur landscape photographer,

jasper

[Keith_W]

I'm not too fussed on splitting the thread either ... but it is your FS thread and we are cluttering it up

I used to have a 70-200/2.8L IS ... bought it when I should have known better. I had already sold my 100-400L because it was a gigantic beast and I hated carrying it around. The 70-200/2.8L IS was sold for the same reason. If I go up to that focal range again I will do it with a more compact lens ... which is why I have been also looking at the 70-300 DO IS. It does not compare to the 70-200/2.8L IS, but then at least I am more likely to carry it around with me

jaspert to avoid burnout, stop photographing bushfires.

[Young Skywalker]

Hi jaspert,

No web presence yet unfortunately. The problem with the web is it doesn't really show off the granduer of a very large print made from a 4x5 transparency. Having a gallery space or retail presence is the only way to make such work stand out from the crowd of already talented photographers with smaller cameras. This worked for the likes of Ken Duncan, Peter Lik, etc but it is a BIG financial step to consider down the track.

I am currently using this 6 month period of unemployment to travel around this BIG country expanding my portfolio. My next trip is to Central Australia in October. After that I will spend a few weeks in Tassie and then its back to my life as a research chemist. The next job will be drum scanning the best transparencies for both printing and web display, not an inexpensive proposition at US$80 for the best drum scan possible. A more affordable alternative may be eventuate in the form of the Epson Perfection V700 Photo flat bed scanner with an aftermarket wet mount film holder from www.betterscanning.com.

Thanks for the welcome back Keith. You are right about the hassle and cost of shooting large format. I recently ordered some more film and once it lands here in Australia the cost per sheet works out to around $5.50. Factor in another $6 per sheet for E6 processing at one of the better pro labs and you are looking at $11.50 every time you click the shutter. For this reason I tend to view large format landscape photography as a more contemplative pursuit akin to painting. It can certainly be frustrating when you setup hours before sunrise or sunset, often in pretty adverse conditions and the light does not come to the party or the real action happens in the opposite direction to the finely focused composition in front of you. In situations like these I would love to have a Canon 5D along with some decent lenses (70-200 f4 L IS and maybe two short primes from Contax/Zeiss with appropriate adapters) to catch the more fleeting moments. Carrying all of this stuff presents a separate issue and reminds me that I should hit the gym to bulk up a bit.

Sorry for steering your thread off topic JohnA. How long till the Octagons arrive? A truly great speaker system BTW :wink:

Happy listening and picture taking everyone,

Aaron

[Moondog]

You lasted 5 seconds , is that a record ? .

MD

[brumby]

i got the 40D Keith

now i am tossing up which lens to get

the canon 24-70L 2.8 or the canon 24-105L f4 IS[/b]

Before you make up your mind, you might want to check out a comparison between the two on Michael Reichmann's Luminous Landscape

Here it is