Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Photography › Need a gentle push towards the Canon XSi
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Need a gentle push towards the Canon XSi - Page 2

post #31 of 85
8/24/09 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Posten View Post

The Nikon 70-300VR is superb however.  Not rubbing it in, if it were reversed I'd say it.  The 70-200F4IS is a superb lens which has no Nikon counterpart.  The 24-105IS is also amazing.
 

I too wish there's a 70-200 f/4 VR for Nikon, but yeah, the 70-300 VR is quite good and certainly great for the $$$ -- I think I only paid a net price of ~$400 for mine.  It's become my primary telezoom these days unless I know I'll need the f/2.8 -- and then must decide between my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and Nikon 200 f/2.8 prime for the long end (or 85 f/1.8 for the short end).  Usually, I'm fine enough lugging the 70-300 VR along w/ 85 f/1.8 (and maybe have my 17-50 f/2.8 already on the body).

Actually, ideally, I should've just gotten the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR (along w/ 85 f/1.8) from the get-go, but oh well.

Pat, most people who care about the quality and upgrade their lenses accordingly eventually find that they probably would've been better off going w/ the best glass in the first place.  It generally doesn't pay to go the slow upgrade path if you know there's good likelihood that you'll want to upgrade.  It's not just the $$$ that's involved, but also the opportunity costs too.

Obviously, if you don't have the $$$ yet, then you cannot make the big leap right now.  But what you might want to do is hold off on buying another lens until you really need it or have exhausted your learning curve and/or enjoyment w/ what you already own.  There's something to be said about being a minimalist in this regard:  less can indeed be more w/ photography.  For one thing, if you focus on just shooting w/ one lens, you'll probably develop/improve your photography skills a lot more quickly.  In fact, I'd suggest trying to stick w/ a fixed focal length (on the zoom) for entire photo sessions as often as you can in order to explore composition and develop your eye among other things.  I think that's why the old school approach of learning photography basics still applies even though we're in the digital age now.

_Man_
Reply
post #32 of 85
8/25/09 at 4:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Posten View Post

I love the Canon 70-200F4IS and hated the 70-300 Consumer IS Zoom.
 

While I didn't hate the 70-300mm IS, there were a few things I found lacking. It's autofocus was slow and hunted in low light, and the lens needed to be stopped down when used at 300mm or it lost its sharpness (and I used it for evening wildlife shots, so I needed to shoot wide open at 300mm quite often). The 70-200mm IS, in contrast, has lightening fast and smooth autofocus, and is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. It also takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well when extra reach is needed (the TC was useless on the 70-300mm IS).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong View Post



Is it actually worthwhile to try to resell an old kit-level lens though?  I thought about selling my old Nikon 18-75DX, which is better than typical kit lenses, but found that it'd only fetch ~$150 or so even if it was in near-mint condition in large part because it's too widely available (and discounted) -- it was ~$300 new when I got it w/ my D70.  I ended up deciding to hold off on an upgrade instead, and now, plan to just pass it (along w/ the old D70) on to my middle-school-age daughter, who is becoming interested in photography.

Honestly, I think if you have a cheap, old kit lens, you're better off just giving it away to a good friend or someone in the family, instead of selling it at a substantial loss.

If we're talking about reselling an upper-mid-tier lens (or better), that'd probably be different.  People wanting such a lens are more likely to know better and consider buying used, instead of as part of a brand new kit from some retailer.

_Man_

Well, the Canon kit lens typically only costs around $100 if purchased with the camera, so you can probably easily get your money back when you decide to upgrade.  If the lens was being purchased separately at twice the price, though, I agree that it may not make sense. It may be better to keep the lens and bundle it for sale with the camera body if upgrading that in the future.

I sold my Sigma 17-70mm lens as part of a bundle with my old Rebel XT, and later sold the 70-300mm IS for $400 to a co-worker (probably could have got another $50 - $75 online, but this sale was hassle-free).

The advantage of starting with the inexpensive kit lens is a dSLR newcomer can learn the camera and which lenses he/she needs before spending a lot of money upfront and possibly buying the wrong lenses for his/her use. The disadvantage is many people will quickly outgrow the kit lens and want something else -- although when we travel I see a lot of dSLR users with the kit lens and their camera set to the automatic "green box" mode, because they have no idea how to use a real camera. For those people, the kit lens maybe all they will ever need.
Reply
post #33 of 85
8/25/09 at 8:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield View Post

While I didn't hate the 70-300mm IS, there were a few things I found lacking. It's autofocus was slow and hunted in low light, and the lens needed to be stopped down when used at 300mm or it lost its sharpness (and I used it for evening wildlife shots, so I needed to shoot wide open at 300mm quite often). The 70-200mm IS, in contrast, has lightening fast and smooth autofocus, and is sharp wide open at all focal lengths. It also takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well when extra reach is needed (the TC was useless on the 70-300mm IS).

Right, the Canon 70-300IS is super slow to autofocus and the stabilization mechanism is loud and clunky, plus mine was soft at all apertures at 300 and especially wide open.  Which makes the 70-300VR so amazing to me, I shoot that sucker wide open and it focuses really well on fast action in all kinds of light.  And I got mine with the Live Cashback so it came out to a ridiculously cheapy $385 or so, it's my best bang for buck lens ever, just topping the Tamron 28-75 f2.8

My problem is that I've essentially topped out on the lenses I wanted and can afford.  For baseball I could probably get by with the new 70-200VR rev 2, but I've got that range covered by the 70-300, can deal with the bokeh and speed of that lens, and often want more reach than even the 300 gives me and if I'm going to get something longer I'm not going to cheap out on it.   I'd get the 200-400VR for football and the 600 f4VR for birds, if they ever make enough of them to satisfy the huge demand that still exists.  That's over $10k in 2 lenses tho and as a hobbyist I can't justify that.  And the 70-200VR2 is now something crazy like $1800 and the 70-300 does all I ask of it for 1/4th the price.

Plus that D4 is coming this year and I want to go full frame to get the most outta my 14-24 and 24-70 lenses.  Too many good choices on what to spend dough on and not nearly enough cash to get it all.  That $250million lottery seems to be a smart bet to me!  =)
Reply
post #34 of 85
8/25/09 at 9:49am
I am reaching a similar point, Sam. I eventually need a lens with longer reach for our next serious wildlife trip, but the options are not very attractive. Canon's EF 100-400mm L IS is around $1,400 and is in serious need of an update (very old IS system), and their 400mm L f/5.6 prime lacks image stabilization. Sigma offers a 120-400mm OS HSM and 150-500mm OS HSM alternative at a lesser price, but I would rather have the quality of a Canon L. The Canon 500mm and 600mm primes are way out of my budget, plus they are too big to travel with (if I just rented one). Luckily, we are not planning any trip in 2010 where I anticipate needing something longer than I already have, so I can afford to wait.

As for full frame, my eventual ideal setup would be two bodies -- one FF for landscape and low light work, and a crop for wildlife. I could avoid some lens changes, and have a backup body on special trips. However, this would be a long way off in the plans (if ever).
Reply
post #35 of 85
8/25/09 at 10:10am
Thread Starter 
Ye gads, I'm just sitting here waiting for tomorrow to show up since I got my tracking number!  My mind still reels at the cost of the long-reach telephoto lenses...
Reply
post #36 of 85
8/25/09 at 10:40am
I rented the 100-400L for my trip to Las Vegas, the HTF MeetUp, and a helicopter tour of the Grand Canyon.  It is fantastic. 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kadath/1019645089/in/set-72157601235801888/

At $1400 it isnt a bargain but it is very good.  I definitely see it getting a new IS version sometime in the future but have been guessing that it is just around the corner for about 3 years now =)  The Nikon 80-400VR is in the same boat, due sooner than later, time will tell when it will be.

I definitely intend to have both a FF and crop camera for the reasons you list.  I'm currently juggling the D300 and D5000 as I've loved having two bodies but the D5000 will go as soon as I get a FF body.  I love the hell out of my D300, I don't see ever selling it even when 'better' bodies come along.  The D5000 is every bit the D300's match in IQ, maybe even a smidge better, but I hate the smaller body's ergonomics, worse AF, and the loss of CLS control.

Sorry to derail your thread, Pat!  =)  Hope the new cam comes in and you get to experience the addiction like never before =)
Reply
post #37 of 85
8/25/09 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun View Post

Ye gads, I'm just sitting here waiting for tomorrow to show up since I got my tracking number!  My mind still reels at the cost of the long-reach telephoto lenses...

If you want a real sticker shock, look at the price of the Canon EF 600mm f/4 L IS -- it's only $7,500.   The EF 800mm f/5.6L IS is a measly $12,000.
Reply
post #38 of 85
8/25/09 at 11:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield View Post

Well, the Canon kit lens typically only costs around $100 if purchased with the camera, so you can probably easily get your money back when you decide to upgrade.  If the lens was being purchased separately at twice the price, though, I agree that it may not make sense. It may be better to keep the lens and bundle it for sale with the camera body if upgrading that in the future.

I sold my Sigma 17-70mm lens as part of a bundle with my old Rebel XT, and later sold the 70-300mm IS for $400 to a co-worker (probably could have got another $50 - $75 online, but this sale was hassle-free).

The advantage of starting with the inexpensive kit lens is a dSLR newcomer can learn the camera and which lenses he/she needs before spending a lot of money upfront and possibly buying the wrong lenses for his/her use. The disadvantage is many people will quickly outgrow the kit lens and want something else -- although when we travel I see a lot of dSLR users with the kit lens and their camera set to the automatic "green box" mode, because they have no idea how to use a real camera. For those people, the kit lens maybe all they will ever need.

 

Getting the 18-55 kit lens bundled in for $100 is fine -- you have to have some kind of lens to shoot afterall, and usually, a widezoom is a necessity for a starter.   I was refering to any additional lenses like the 55-250 IS, which is also a kit-level lens.  That to me doesn't make much sense to get unless you really don't think you'll ever want to upgrade, which is the case for most(?) casual users.  But if your intention is not to be just a typical casual user, then you're probably better off saving up for something much better instead while you work w/ that 18-55 (or anything else you might happen to already have).

I can't imagine the 55-250 IS would sell well in the used market.  And if the 70-200 f/4L IS is what you really want, there's not much point in getting the 70-300 IS first, IMHO -- just save up for the one you actually want.  However, I'd add that there may be some instances where overlap is fine, eg. owning both a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and some reasonably affordable primes for instance (or a lighter weight telezoom for when you really cannot lug the extra weight).  I just wouldn't recommend buying something knowing that you'll likely want to replace it w/ something better as soon as the funds become available.  If you think you'll end up wanting to keep and use both, that would be different.

Also, although quality lenses can be resold w/out losing too much $$$ (at least for now), I don't think it's a great idea to depend on that too much when buying a brand new lens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun View Post

Ye gads, I'm just sitting here waiting for tomorrow to show up since I got my tracking number!  My mind still reels at the cost of the long-reach telephoto lenses...
 

There are other options that may fit your budget better when you get to them.  I read/heard that the Tamron 200-500 is pretty good for ~$850 or so, but it lacks IS.  However, for the kind of uses one would want w/ such long teles, you're probably better off relying on some sort of pod (and good technique) instead of IS anyway.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500b.html

If I ever get a long tele, I'd definitely consider getting that.  But honestly, if you're not planning to go birding or shooting whatever real wildlife (or shoot outdoor sports rather seriously ... or run some kind of covert operations  ), you're not likely gonna need such long lenses.  And don't forget, the better long teles are gonna be beasts to lug around too.  A good friend of mine has the Nikon 200-400VR, and that thing dwarves my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which itself is not exactly small-and-light.

Don't think just because you can shoot farther w/ a longer tele that you shouldn't rely on your feet more whenever possible (so you don't need the longer tele as much).

_Man_
Reply
post #39 of 85
8/25/09 at 2:35pm
Thread Starter 
Please hijack away, I'm learning some interesting tidbits, like I think I'll need to look into a second mortgage to hang with this new hobby...
Reply
post #40 of 85
8/25/09 at 2:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man-Fai Wong View Post



Getting the 18-55 kit lens bundled in for $100 is fine -- you have to have some kind of lens to shoot afterall, and usually, a widezoom is a necessity for a starter.   I was refering to any additional lenses like the 55-250 IS, which is also a kit-level lens.  That to me doesn't make much sense to get unless you really don't think you'll ever want to upgrade, which is the case for most(?) casual users.  But if your intention is not to be just a typical casual user, then you're probably better off saving up for something much better instead while you work w/ that 18-55 (or anything else you might happen to already have).

I can't imagine the 55-250 IS would sell well in the used market.  And if the 70-200 f/4L IS is what you really want, there's not much point in getting the 70-300 IS first, IMHO -- just save up for the one you actually want.  However, I'd add that there may be some instances where overlap is fine, eg. owning both a 70-200 f/2.8L IS and some reasonably affordable primes for instance (or a lighter weight telezoom for when you really cannot lug the extra weight).  I just wouldn't recommend buying something knowing that you'll likely want to replace it w/ something better as soon as the funds become available.  If you think you'll end up wanting to keep and use both, that would be different.

Also, although quality lenses can be resold w/out losing too much $$$ (at least for now), I don't think it's a great idea to depend on that too much when buying a brand new lens.


There are other options that may fit your budget better when you get to them.  I read/heard that the Tamron 200-500 is pretty good for ~$850 or so, but it lacks IS.  However, for the kind of uses one would want w/ such long teles, you're probably better off relying on some sort of pod (and good technique) instead of IS anyway.

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/tamron_200_500b.html

If I ever get a long tele, I'd definitely consider getting that.  But honestly, if you're not planning to go birding or shooting whatever real wildlife (or shoot outdoor sports rather seriously ... or run some kind of covert operations  ), you're not likely gonna need such long lenses.  And don't forget, the better long teles are gonna be beasts to lug around too.  A good friend of mine has the Nikon 200-400VR, and that thing dwarves my Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, which itself is not exactly small-and-light.

Don't think just because you can shoot farther w/ a longer tele that you shouldn't rely on your feet more whenever possible (so you don't need the longer tele as much).

_Man_

Instead of the Tamron 200-500, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 120-400mm HSM OS ($780) or Sigma 150-500 HSM OS ($899) if considering third party lenses. Both are in a similar price range and have image stabilization and HSM focus motors (Sigma's answer to Canon's USM).  The 150-500 is quite large and heavy, plus it uses 86mm filters, which are quite expensive. The 120-400 is a little smaller and lighter, plus uses more common 77mm filters, but you lose 100mm of reach. I've been considering these two lenses for when I eventually add something longer than 200mm to my setup.
Reply
post #41 of 85
8/25/09 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield View Post

Instead of the Tamron 200-500, I would suggest looking at the Sigma 120-400mm HSM OS ($780) or Sigma 150-500 HSM OS ($899) if considering third party lenses. Both are in a similar price range and have image stabilization and HSM focus motors (Sigma's answer to Canon's USM).  The 150-500 is quite large and heavy, plus it uses 86mm filters, which are quite expensive. The 120-400 is a little smaller and lighter, plus uses more common 77mm filters, but you lose 100mm of reach. I've been considering these two lenses for when I eventually add something longer than 200mm to my setup.

 

Yeah, I've actually been out of that loop for a while, so my suggestion of the Tamron is probably outdated now -- it was really meant more to bring the discussion about teles back to earth for Pat's spinning head.  

If those 2 Sigma's have good optics (and Sigma is known for good teles), then either choice should be nice for those of us on tighter budgets.  I wonder though whether Sigma's IS has improved much in the last couple years.  Last I read/heard, the IS on their OS lenses doesn't really come close to Nikon and Canon -- and I think that was before Nikon (and Canon?) made improvements to their IS tech.  But having HSM -- their version of Canon USM (or Nikon AF-S) -- can certainly make a real diff.  That was part of the reason why I originally went w/ their 70-200 f/2.8 instead of Nikon's older 80-200 f/2.8 for my D70 body.

_Man_
Reply
post #42 of 85
8/27/09 at 9:27am
Thread Starter 
My head is spinning but mainly because I got sick on Tuesday from being stuck in a room with a bag of fresh basil and parsly, which made my nose run like Usain Bolt, and then I got that weird tickle in the back of my throat that signals the onset of a cold, followed by chills and sweats.  I had no idea I'd have such an allergic reaction to the stuff.  I had to wash my clothes because just sniffing it made my nose run and eyes water up.

Plus my office place is super-cold.  So I get my XSI yesterday, and barely mustered enough energy to charge up its battery.  That's it.  Went home, got some food in my system, and took some generic Nyquil and just crashed for about 10 hours (twice as much sleep as I normally get these days).  So I have the camera, and hope to play with it some today if I can find some spare time at work or home (though I plan on crashing when I get home today as well).  UGHH!!!
Reply
post #43 of 85
8/27/09 at 12:17pm
Congrats and feel better!
Reply
post #44 of 85
8/28/09 at 5:00am
Thread Starter 
Thanks.

Is there's much difference between the Hoya or Sigma or B+W UV filters (the multi-coated versions)? Don't won't to spend a mint, but don't want unwanted reflections from the filter either. Thanks.
Reply
post #45 of 85
8/28/09 at 5:31am
I am not familiar with Sigma filters, but both Hoya and B+W make high quality filters. However, I am not a big fan of using U/V filters. I always use a lens hood for protection (and help with contrast & lens flare), but only use a U/V filter if I am shooting in harsh conditions. The last time I used a U/V filter was a couple of years ago in the thermal areas of Yellowstone, due to the corrosive gases.
Reply
post #46 of 85
8/28/09 at 11:14am
Thread Starter 
I had thought about lens hoods, but for my purposes, I needed less obtrusive attachments on the lenses while affording it some protection from inadvertent brushes with humans and whatever gunk they might have on their persons in close quarters.
Reply
post #47 of 85
8/28/09 at 12:08pm
In that case, a filter may be your best bet if you want some protection. I have been happy with Hoya multi-coated U/V and circular polarizing filters. I have not tried any B+W filters, but have read nothing but good things about them.

One of the big name filter companies actual owns either Sigma or Tamron (can't remember if it's Hoya or Tiffen). It's possible that Sigma filters are just rebadged Hoya or Tiffen products.
Reply
post #48 of 85
8/28/09 at 12:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Merryfield View Post

In that case, a filter may be your best bet if you want some protection. I have been happy with Hoya multi-coated U/V and circular polarizing filters. I have not tried any B+W filters, but have read nothing but good things about them.


I get the impression that most (highly experienced) folks prefer B+W, if they prefer either at all.  But like you, I also don't regularly use filters for protection if I feel a hood offers enough protection.
 

One of the big name filter companies actual owns either Sigma or Tamron (can't remember if it's Hoya or Tiffen). It's possible that Sigma filters are just rebadged Hoya or Tiffen products.
 

You're probably thinking of the merger of Tokina w/ Hoya (and Kenko) unless there was another relatively recent merger I missed:

http://www.thkphoto.com/company/ci-02.html

_Man_
Reply
post #49 of 85
8/28/09 at 9:12pm
Thread Starter 
I can't believe how much money I have spent over this past week on "stuff" for this XSI.  Picked up a Lowepro Slingshot 200 bag to hold a couple of extra lenses, battery/grip, filters, extra batteries, SDHC cards. I think I'm pretty much done for now (just hoping all the online orders show up by next Thursday, but I realize it's a 50/50 proposition depending on the various order fullfillment centers.  Whew!  The only thing I need to save up for is a Speedlite 430EX II flash (got some personal gas mileage bucks coming my way, so that'll ease some of the pain for that purchase). .
Reply
post #50 of 85
8/29/09 at 12:29pm
Yeah, Pat.  "Stuff" add up quickly when you get more seriously into photography, but I guess that's the way it is w/ most any significant hobby.

That's one more reason why I've decided not to go w/ 24/7 filter protection on my lenses.  The cost of high quality filters can add up quickly, especially if you have good glass to protect as they tend to have much larger front elements and thus filter sizes, ie. 77mm-plus in the case of most pro-quality zooms.  Also, there are quite a few quality wideangle lenses, eg. particularly the superwides, that cannot take front filters (nor even much of a lens hood) anyway, so in the end, you'll need to learn to be more careful and not simply rely on 24/7 filter protection anyhow.

For instance, I've generally developed a habit of keeping my (right) hand covering/holding the front of the lens hood (particularly for my wideangle lenses) when I'm moving about and not shooting -- that's of course assuming the use of lens cap is not feasible/convenient enough.

_Man_
Reply
post #51 of 85
8/30/09 at 9:58am
Thread Starter 
I'm just trying to anticipate the guerilla style photography I'll need to incorporate into next weekend's Dragon*Con festivities, so a big lens hood will just get in the way, but I can see where if you have leisurely spacing between you and the subject, lens hoods are much better.

Anyone think I can go cheap on the external with one these Opteka EF-600 DG flashes?

http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-EF-600-EO-TTL-Digital-Camera/dp/B001GD3Z02/

I'm not going to be doing much studio work, so I might need as much coordination capabilities in the slaving of the flash and use of the ETTL modes.

I need to find a diffuser cap too. 
Reply
post #52 of 85
8/30/09 at 11:11am
Don't cheap out on lenses.  Don't cheap out on Flashes.
Reply
post #53 of 85
8/30/09 at 6:19pm
I am not familiar with that flash, but I would agree with Sam. I do not do a lot of flash photography, but I am still glad I bought a Canon 430EX flash instead of a cheaper unit. It's handled all my flash needs, with the exception of our niece's wedding this summer. There I really could have used the Canon 580EX unit at the reception. If I was doing more serious indoor flash shooting, I would be looking to upgrade to that unit.
Reply
post #54 of 85
9/3/09 at 9:16pm
Thread Starter 
I cheaped out, but at least I didn't blow too much on it, plus it's arrived and I'll be able to put it in its paces this weekend.  I did try it out last night, along with the diffuser cap I ordered (I ordered the same sto-fen omni-bounce cap for the 430EX, and it fit fine on the knock-off).

Just for kicks, I took some photos with the XSi on badge pick-up night for Dragon*Con and took photos with just the built-in flash, just to see if I could find a suitable formula/settings for the harsh lightining condition in the hotels, and still get usable photos.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patcave/sets/72157622109847857/

I also took a set of photos with my point-n-shoot,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/patcave/sets/72157622109466631/

and it's pretty apparent the dSLR photos are much more smoother, creamier, less harsh.  But in a pinch, I still need the point-n-shoot to snap off the quickie shot that would have eluded me if I had to carry the XSi in ready position 24/7 (that just ain't happening if I value my right arm).  Gotta love the chaos of photo-opportunities of this convention.
Reply
post #55 of 85
9/4/09 at 4:54am
Patrick,

If your knock-off flash has the feature, try bouncing the flash off the ceiling when possible. You will get less harsh lighting. In the large room it looks like you were in, though, it may not have been possible to bounce in that instance if the ceiling was too high.
Reply
post #56 of 85
9/4/09 at 8:52pm
If ceiling was too high, you can still try pointing your flash up some for a bit less direct/harsh light w/ the use of the omnibounce (or some other trick like a bounce card or similar).

I often resort to that -- and the Nikon SB800 flash also comes w/ a small built-in bounce card that slides in and out from the flash head, if the omnibounce-like "dome" is not used.

Some folks also like the Gary Fong light dome (or whatever it's called now), which is similar to the omnibounce, but bigger and probably more effective, especially when you can't bounce off the ceiling/walls...

_Man_
Reply
post #57 of 85
9/4/09 at 10:09pm
Thread Starter 
I got my nifty-fifty lens today (Canon 50mm F1.8, though it appears to be a solid lens when you shot it around F3.5 or F4, but I'll be experimenting with the larger aperture sizes just for kicks), so I think I'll be using it on Saturday for the close-range shots of folks in costume.  I still used my old Canon A650 for those types of shots tonight because I can anticipate how it will react (though I get my share of blown up shots due to the strong flash.

My flash can be tilted and swivels to good effect, and since I can't really do the ceiling bounce trick, I'm going to rely on my diffuser, and angling the flash about 45 degree to try to cut the edge off the harshness from the flash, but that's Saturday's project.
Reply
post #58 of 85
9/11/09 at 7:47pm
Thread Starter 
OMG, my right index finger should be bleeding from all the shots I've taken this past weekend at Dragon*Con, and also this weekend at CEDIA. Blasted through around 7,000 shots so far on the XSi, still a lot of experimentation on my part, but that's half the fun.
Reply
post #59 of 85
9/11/09 at 8:19pm
Don't forget to budget for a bigger HD or a Home Server...
Reply
post #60 of 85
9/12/09 at 12:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Sun View Post

OMG, my right index finger should be bleeding from all the shots I've taken this past weekend at Dragon*Con, and also this weekend at CEDIA. Blasted through around 7,000 shots so far on the XSi, still a lot of experimentation on my part, but that's half the fun.

 

7K shots already?!   And I thought I went a little nutty w/ the shooting when I bought my first (D)SLR some years back.   Hmmm...  I wonder what's the MTBF and periodic duty cycle (if any) of the shutter mechanism (among other things).

Actually, the "nuttiest" machine gun style use of a DSLR I've heard of so far (from an actual user over in the dpreview forums) is some guy who shot ~85K frames (of some particular breed of "toy" dogs he sells) in ~6 months w/ his first Nikon D70 back in the first year of its production run (in 2002?).  He started complaining about his camera going a little flakey at that point, and then, IIRC, it died after he reached somewhere >100K shots another month or so later.  I think he went thru a 2nd D70 in similar fashion before getting a D2H w/ its serious machine gun speed (and greater, pro level durability).  Can't remember how many shots he went thru w/ those bodies, but IIRC, Nikon had rated their (then flagship pro) D2 series bodies at either 150K or 200K shutter actuations although one can probably get (a good deal) more out of them in actual practice -- and of course, the shutter mechanism can be replaced although it might not be worthwhile replacing given today's DSLR tech life-cycle.  I think they also bumped up the ratings for more recent bodies though.

Anyway, have fun blasting thru all those shots on your computer to sort them out, etc.  Hope you don't plan on doing much PP work w/ them, except for maybe a handful of the best ones.

_Man_
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Photography
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › Photography › Need a gentle push towards the Canon XSi