Re: A funny thing happened in Jessops today...
Woollyzone
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ef94um$2mf$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> First impressions are good. It's very small, almost too small, but I like
> that, I've always hated the bulk of the 300D. It's 100g lighter too, not
> much but it all helps. Lightning fast startup and very quick response, I
> can just hear the sensor shaking as I switch it on if I put my ear next to
> it. The 2.5" LCD is very nice too. The battery is much smaller, less
> than half the size, which is also good since it will reduce the weight of
> the spares, but will it last as long? Suppose I'd better take some pics
> with it now...
>
Nice... report back with a review and some pictures, because that's the path
I'm thinking of going down, the 300d is getting a bit stale and I'm pissed
off with its bulkyness too. Would like to step up to a 20/30d but its a bit
out my price range. I am just a bit reluctant because I just know (as Jhimmy
suggested) that a 450d/500d is going to come out with some tasty new
improved features!
Paul Saunders
the way to the bank, so on the spur of the moment I popped in to ask them
when they were expecting delivery of the long awaited Canon 400D, and there
it was, on the shelf! One of them, just one, the last one they had left...
So I dashed home, borrowed some extra money since I didn't quite have
enough, then dashed back, only to find that I'd left my credit card at home
in all the excitement... :-(
So I went back home and back to town again, third time lucky! And the price
had dropped to only £532.49 too :-)
Only one catch, it was silver. I wanted a black one but although they were
on order, they couldn't promise when they'd be in. The website said 2-3
weeks. I checked other websites but all the ones with good prices were out
of stock and awaiting delivery. Pixmania had a body only in stock, but not
with lens. I couldn't be bothered to wait, so I got the silver one. It's
not like it will make any difference to the photos. And anyway, October is
here in six days, and I want to make the most of that!
I think the reason they had the silver one was because it's a Jessop's only
special, all the black ones seem to be in short supply.
First impressions are good. It's very small, almost too small, but I like
that, I've always hated the bulk of the 300D. It's 100g lighter too, not
much but it all helps. Lightning fast startup and very quick response, I
can just hear the sensor shaking as I switch it on if I put my ear next to
it. The 2.5" LCD is very nice too. The battery is much smaller, less than
half the size, which is also good since it will reduce the weight of the
spares, but will it last as long? Suppose I'd better take some pics with it
now...
Never did make it to the bank.
Paul
--
Temporary Website
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/
Jhimmy
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ef94um$2mf$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
If you'd have just waited an extra 12 months, Paul, the 410D would have came
out. It'll probably be smaller, lighter, darker and only slghtly more
pricier ;-)
Jhimmy
Chris Gilbert
Chris Townsend
<mu...@jumbo.com> writes
camera you have. I bought a 350D to replace the 300D because it was much
lighter and smaller. It takes better quality images too, though I didn't
get it for that reason. The 400D doesn't offer enough over the 350D to
spend more money and I'm not regretting getting the 350D because if I
hadn't I've carried the 300D round for a year or so more.
Of course the 650D might tempt me .........
--
Chris Townsend
Martin Richardson
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Never did make it to the bank.
>
would have been.
--
Martin Richardson
610/1554 Marilyns - aiming for 777 60/89 Donalds - only 33% to go
88/211 Irish Hewitts - 123 it's easy 20/220 Corbetts - only(!)200 to go
Paul Saunders
> If you'd have just waited an extra 12 months, Paul, the 410D would
> have came out. It'll probably be smaller, lighter, darker and only
> slghtly more pricier ;-)
Quite, but I've been waiting nearly three years for this one! I think I've
been very patient! There'll always be something newer and better in the
future, but if you're going to upgrade, you have to do it sometime, the
trick is to choose the optimum time, ideally just as a new model is
released.
I'm not upgrade crazy like some people, I tend to buy every other upgrade,
rather than every one. So I started with the G3, gave the G5 a miss, bought
the 300D, gave the 350D a miss, and bought the 400D. So I've gone from 4MP
to 6MP to 10MP, which is a decent jump each time.
Paul Saunders
> Nice... report back with a review and some pictures, because that's
> the path I'm thinking of going down,
Will do, although I won't do a technical review, you can just read dpreview
if you want that. The timing is perfect though. It's exactly three years
since my October Project and I'm planning another one, although it won't be
quite the same. I'll explain more in due course.
> the 300d is getting a bit stale
> and I'm pissed off with its bulkyness too.
Yeah. Thing is, the 300D is roughly comparable to 35mm (same resolution as
PhotoCD), but the 400D is almost comparable to medium format, 645. At least
that's what was claimed of the 11MP 1Ds when it was first released. So much
bigger enlargements will be possible. This means that it's now time to
revisit all my favourite photo locations and retake my best compositions,
although the results are bound to be different due to light and weather, but
that's all part of the fun.
> Would like to step up to a
> 20/30d but its a bit out my price range.
But those are only 8MP. On the photography newsgroup they compare megapixel
sizes to f-stops, 4, 6 (5.6), 8, 11, 16 and so on. They reckon you won't
see much difference with a one stop increase, but you will with two. That's
why I gave 8MP a miss and waited for 10MP. Not sure of the price of the
20/30D, but the £530 I just paid for the 400D is amazingly cheap, and that's
with the lens too!
> I am just a bit reluctant
> because I just know (as Jhimmy suggested) that a 450d/500d is going
> to come out with some tasty new improved features!
Yeah, but it took Canon two years to upgrade from the 350D to the 400D, so
they're not going to release another upgrade any time soon.
Another good reason for getting the 400D is the issue of diffraction. The
more pixels you put on a sensor, the sooner diffraction affects it.
Basically, the more you stop the lens down, the softer the image becomes.
With the 20D/30D/350D it becomes diffraction limited at f11, so if you want
the sharpest possible image you shouldn't stop it down more than that. With
the 400D it's probably f8/11. With 12 megapixels it would be around f8. So
we're already reaching the practical limit. Any more resolution and there
won't be any useable stops left (for best quality), so I don't see APS-C
sized sensors getting much bigger (except for marketing hype and people who
like to shoot f2.8 lenses wide open).
Remember that the widest stops tend to suffer from aberrations, so they
should be avoided too. With an f4 lens you've really only got 2 or 3 stops
to choose from if you want the best quality. If you want to get much bigger
you really need to look at full frame camera, they give you at least another
useable stop (say down to f16 on the 5D). This is pretty important for
landscapes when you need plenty of depth of field.
Paul Saunders
>> Never did make it to the bank.
>>
> Sounds like the vaults would have been empty anyway - at least, yours
> would have been.
Yeah, I was going there to put money in, not take it out.
Now how am I going to pay this month's bills? :-(
Ah, who cares, I've got a new camera to play with! :-)
Oh, anybody want to buy a 300D?
Paul Saunders
> The 400D doesn't offer enough
> over the 350D to spend more money
No, it's only a 25% increase in area over the 350D, but it's a 67% increase
over the 300D.
I'm very pleased with the new anti-dust system though, dust has become quite
an annoyance with the 300D lately.
> Of course the 650D might tempt me .........
Provided you use nothing but fast fixed lenses at maximum aperture. Perhaps
a new style of arty landscape photography featuring extensive background or
foreground blur?
Woollyzone
That's sound reasoning, and words which I will use to convince myself that I
*need* (note need, not want) a 400D!
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> The 400D doesn't offer enough
>> over the 350D to spend more money
>
>No, it's only a 25% increase in area over the 350D, but it's a 67% increase
>over the 300D.
>
>I'm very pleased with the new anti-dust system though, dust has become quite
>an annoyance with the 300D lately.
It's the anti-dust system that would attract me but I haven't really had
any dust problems with the 350D. I am very careful changing lenses.
>
>> Of course the 650D might tempt me .........
>
>Provided you use nothing but fast fixed lenses at maximum aperture. Perhaps
>a new style of arty landscape photography featuring extensive background or
>foreground blur?
Sounds horrible :-)
>
>Paul
Jim Ford
>> I'm very pleased with the new anti-dust system though, dust has become
>> quite
>> an annoyance with the 300D lately.
>
> It's the anti-dust system that would attract me but I haven't really had
> any dust problems with the 350D. I am very careful changing lenses.
I thought it had been pretty well established on www.dpreview.com, that
the anti-dust system on the Canon and Sony is pretty ineffective
compared to the Oly one!
Jim Ford
Chris Townsend
<jaf...@watford53.freeserve.co.uk> writes
systems for the sake of it :-). Any anti-dust system should be better
than none and it's the only difference between the 350D and 400D that
would make me consider changing to the latter.
Martin Richardson
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Martin Richardson wrote:
>
>>> Never did make it to the bank.
>>>
>> Sounds like the vaults would have been empty anyway - at least, yours
>> would have been.
>
>Yeah, I was going there to put money in, not take it out.
>
>Now how am I going to pay this month's bills? :-(
>
know what happened.
BTW Paul has the parcel arrived yet?
Nick Mason
I was in Jessops too this afternoon but I made a special trip. :o)
My interest in photography has recently resurfaced, a lot to do
with me upgrading my compact to a Canon A700. I've decided that I
need to get a digital SLR hence the trip to Jessops to get some
hands on. After due consideration I've decided that the release
of the 400D means I can probably pick up a bargain 350D, a camera
that will suit me just fine.
When I got there I noticed something new since my last trip a few
weeks ago when I went in for a browse, they had several signs up
stating that they'd match competitor prices including internet
prices and if you find it cheaper they'll not only match the
price but give you an extra 10%.
I wished that I'd gone better prepared but I hadn't realised that
price matching was back. When I bought the A700 I went in and
Jessops were £249 and wouldn't match a net price of £184 inc.
next day delivery.
Having done some research this evening Pixmania are showing the
350D body for £389 and in stock. I'm going to take the printout
into Jessops tomorrow and see if they really will match internet
prices and if they do give me the extra 10% I should be buying
the 350 body for £350. I've also got some Canon lenses lined up
too but with a basic 17mm-55mm lens I'm looking £398.70 complete
which I don't think is bad. :o)
It all hinges on what they say in Jessops or if there's some
weasel get out to their price matching.
I'll let you know how I get on.
--
Regards
Nick
Tom Crispin
>I wished that I'd gone better prepared but I hadn't realised that
>price matching was back. When I bought the A700 I went in and
>Jessops were £249 and wouldn't match a net price of £184 inc.
>next day delivery.
A great many years ago I fitted central heating to my home.
The Do-It-All price for the bits was £1045 inc. A local merchant
would supply for £859 exc. (£987 inc.) I took the quote to Do-It-All
hoping they would knock £58 off their quote. However, they matched
the VAT exc. price!
When I replaced the boiler two years ago I used the same local
merchant to supply and fit. Do-It-All, meanwhile, has gone bust.
Nick Mason
I thought Do-It-All became Focus ad are still going strong.
If your point is that we should pay whatever retailers ask
without trying to get a better deal for fear of putting them out
of business then I don't agree. It's called the free market and
where the phrase 'Rip of Brittain' comes from. I work hard for my
money and I demand good value from it, I expect the people who
want it to work hard to get it and if that means less profit per
item then that's fine by me.
Jessops stopped price matching a while ago and they suffered for
it, my local Jessops branch manager told me so yesterday and is
the major reason for its return. People are a lot more aware and
internet mail order is a wonderful thing for keeping greed and
profiteering in check.
I can remember the days of 'please allow 28 days for delivery'
and minimal savings on shop prices. These days you can order
before lunch time and get your goods before breakfast the next
day and save a significant amount of money too, you have to be
*very* impatient to want to pay £50 more for something not to
take advantage.
--
Regards
Nick
Peter Clinch
> Only one catch, it was silver.
Silver /is/ the new black...
> Never did make it to the bank.
You did, sort of, in a roundabout way... ;-)
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Bob Mannix
"Nick Mason" <noe...@no.net> wrote in message
news:eqCdnRKUnt7HR4XY...@bt.com...
There is nothing wrong with your logic but the cost of running a high street
shop operation is immense compared with an internet based operation. The end
result will inevitably be that the only high street shops are estate agents
and charity shops, or ones that are so expensive they are "not for the likes
of you". We'll be better of financially but I'm not so sure about our local
surroundings. Of course, everyone wants someone else to subsidise the local
shops while they buy cheaper on the internet!
--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)
Nick Mason
You have a very good point but I rarely ever go into town. I use
my local supermarkets and buy a lot of my stuff on-line. I do
make periodic forays to buy clothes but not much else.
Yesterday's trip to Jessops was a rare trip for a specific
purpose. :o)
--
Regards
Nick
Nick Mason
Update time.
Well I went back to Jessops today, a different branch as I had to
take the car to Nottingham for a service.
They were happy to match internet prices, all I had to do was
show them the screen prints I took last night.
So far so good. Now comes the confusing part. I went in all clued
up and ready to buy a 350D and they pulled the old Jedi mind
trick on me. 'This isn't the Canon you're looking for. You're
looking for a 400D.'
Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely
worth the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
I got a black one though. They tried to persuade me to have a
silver one but they had both and I wanted black.
Right, I'm off to play while the sun is still shining.
--
Regards
Nick
Gordon
>
>There is nothing wrong with your logic but the cost of running a high street
>shop operation is immense compared with an internet based operation. The end
>result will inevitably be that the only high street shops are estate agents
>and charity shops, or ones that are so expensive they are "not for the likes
>of you". We'll be better of financially but I'm not so sure about our local
>surroundings. Of course, everyone wants someone else to subsidise the local
>shops while they buy cheaper on the internet!
>
camcorder a couple of years ago......
--
Gordon Harris
Paul Saunders
> Nice... report back with a review and some pictures,
Okay then, I've been out shooting today and I've uploaded a few sample
shots.
All these photos were shot in RAW mode and converted directly to jpeg using
DPP, with no processing whatsoever. These shots look exactly as they did
straight out of the camera. No noise reduction and NO SHARPENING! I hate
it when people do that. Please add your own sharpening to taste, it
improves them a lot.
Note that I had the picture style set to "faithful" mode. Neutral looked
too flat, portrait was too warm, and landscape was too saturated and
contrasty. Faithful looks like the best default option to me (although this
can easily be changed at the RAW conversion stage). These pictures modes
are pretty cool actually, they're a quick way of tarting up an image at the
RAW conversion stage if you can't be bothered to spend a lot of time
processing them. Landscape mode gives a picture an instant oomph, but can
be too strong if there are already strong colours in the picture. Great for
flat looking shots though.
There's also a rather neat monochrome mode. Instead of just plain
monochrome, you have a choice of plain or four different filter effects, the
standard yellow, orange, red or green. Less flexible than using the channel
mixer, but much quicker and easier if you're happy with the standard
filters.
I'm quite impressed by the new 9 point auto-focus. I hated the old 7 point
one on the 300D since it always focused on the nearest point. Now though,
it seems to average them or focus on where the majority are grouped. So if
most of the points cover a distant background, that's what it will focus on,
even if there are some points close to the camera, but if there are many
close points it will focus on those instead.
In the past I set the 300D to use a single point and I locked it onto the
spot I wanted to focus on, but I've been giving the new 9 point system a
chance and letting it focus wherever it wanted, and I have to say that I'm
pretty happy with the focusing of almost every shot. It's good enough to
almost forget about focusing, but there are some instances where manual
intervention is required.
Anyway, the white balance was set to daylight, lens aperture was set to f8,
ISO to 100, and did I mention that there's no sharpening? :-)
Each shot is full size at maximum jpeg quality, averaging 7MB each.
Building. Plenty of detailed brickwork in this shot.
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/400d/0609260001.JPG
Boats. Very busy shot, Lots of fine detail here.
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/400d/0609260006.JPG
Cranes. More fine detail and a clear blue sky. If anyone's worried about
sensor noise, take a close look at this sky.
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/400d/0609260016.JPG
Boat. More detail.
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/400d/0609260022.JPG
Portrait. This is a shot of my nephew. Look at the fine detail in the
hairs.
http://www.pvs1.f2s.com/400d/0609260041.JPG
Don't forget to sharpen them up a bit if you want to see how much better
they can look.
Paul Saunders
> Chris Gilbert wrote:
>> Just bought a 30D. Nice :-D
>
Just joking of course Chris, hope you weren't offended?
How do find the 30D anyway? I gather it has some features in common with
the 400D, like the 9 point focusing.
Paul Saunders
>> So I've gone from 4MP to 6MP to 10MP, which is a decent jump
>> each time.
>
> That's sound reasoning, and words which I will use to convince myself
> that I *need* (note need, not want) a 400D!
Yes, you do need one. Think of it this way, if 6MP is roughly equal to
35mm, then 10MP is practically equal to medium format. Many claim that the
1Ds (11MP) and the 5D (13MP) are as good as 645, some reckon better, so the
400D is in the same ballpark. There's no doubt in my mind now that it blows
35mm away.
Paul Saunders
> I thought it had been pretty well established on www.dpreview.com,
> that the anti-dust system on the Canon and Sony is pretty ineffective
> compared to the Oly one!
Maybe you aren't aware that the anti-dust system on the 400D is new and
improved. It copies the Oly system and adds even more features. It's the
best to date apparently. That was a big selling point for me, I was
starting to get pretty fed up of dust on the 300D. Let's just hope it works
as well as is claimed.
Paul Saunders
> It's the anti-dust system that would attract me but I haven't really
> had any dust problems with the 350D. I am very careful changing
> lenses.
So am I, but it tends to build up over time. At first it's easy to blow it
off, but later it starts sticking. It's probably because I've had the 300D
for nearly 3 years, I've only really noticed a problem in the last year. I
should upgrade more often! (Rather like buying a new car every time the
ashtray is full.)
>>> Of course the 650D might tempt me .........
>>
>> Provided you use nothing but fast fixed lenses at maximum aperture.
>> Perhaps a new style of arty landscape photography featuring
>> extensive background or foreground blur?
>
> Sounds horrible :-)
Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He liked to
focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use Kodachrome 25 and
shoot handheld.
Paul Saunders
> Next time I see a homeless Big Issue seller with a fancy camera I will
> know what happened.
:-)
> BTW Paul has the parcel arrived yet?
Oh yes. I was going to email you about that but got distracted by other
things as usual. Will do shortly.
Paul Saunders
> There is nothing wrong with your logic but the cost of running a high
> street shop operation is immense compared with an internet based
> operation. The end result will inevitably be that the only high
> street shops are estate agents and charity shops, or ones that are so
> expensive they are "not for the likes of you". We'll be better of
> financially but I'm not so sure about our local surroundings.
Given that I'd prefer to live in the middle of nowhere anyway, I don't care
much for shops. The internet is the answer to my dreams. Don't even have
to buy from the UK anymore.
Paul Saunders
>> Only one catch, it was silver.
>
> Silver /is/ the new black...
Well at least I'll be in the minority. Maybe they'll even become
collector's items one day? ;-)
Paul Saunders
> 'This isn't the Canon you're looking for. You're
> looking for a 400D.'
>
> Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely
> worth the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
Good choice! You know it was the right one really! Do you think that the
2.5" LCD helped persuade you? I know it has nothing to do with the actual
size of the image, but I think the larger LCD tends to psychologically
reinforce the fact that the resolution is higher. It "looks" like the
camera takes bigger pictures! :-)
Shall we start a Jessops 400D owners club? ;-)
> I got a black one though.
Lucky swine!
> They tried to persuade me to have a
> silver one but they had both and I wanted black.
Why would they try to persuade you to do that? Maybe they get a higher
commision on their exclusive silver model?
> Right, I'm off to play while the sun is still shining.
Hope you had fun, I did. Now where am I going tomorrow? Or is it going to
pour down? Perhaps I'll photograph some test charts to to determine at what
aperture diffraction becomes a problem.
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> It's the anti-dust system that would attract me but I haven't really
>> had any dust problems with the 350D. I am very careful changing
>> lenses.
>
>So am I, but it tends to build up over time. At first it's easy to blow it
>off, but later it starts sticking. It's probably because I've had the 300D
>for nearly 3 years, I've only really noticed a problem in the last year. I
>should upgrade more often! (Rather like buying a new car every time the
>ashtray is full.)
I had the 300D two years but rarely changed lenses - I only had two.
I've had the 350D almost a year and change lenses slightly more often as
I have three.
>
>>>> Of course the 650D might tempt me .........
>>>
>>> Provided you use nothing but fast fixed lenses at maximum aperture.
>>> Perhaps a new style of arty landscape photography featuring
>>> extensive background or foreground blur?
>>
>> Sounds horrible :-)
>
>Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He liked to
>focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use Kodachrome 25 and
>shoot handheld.
And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
mountain photography.
Chris Gilbert
> How do find the 30D anyway? I gather it has some features in common with
> the 400D, like the 9 point focusing.
Still getting to grips, to be honest. Subtly different from the 10
but light in the hand, responsive. Not quite relearning everything.
I'm much more artist than photographer anyway so I have to
build up a gut feel for the kit and use it on instinct rather than
calculation, if that makes sense. Certainly enjoying it but nothing
yet that I would show. Early days. I've only had it a week.
Chris
Nick Mason
> Nick Mason wrote:
>
>
>>'This isn't the Canon you're looking for. You're
>>looking for a 400D.'
>>
>>Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely
>>worth the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
>
>
Not really, I asked the salesman what the differences were other
than the extra resolution and the first thing he said was that
the 400 had a better finish and he was right. On their own you'd
be hard pressed to notice but side by side the 400 is definitely
better.
I still think the 350 is a great camera and I know I would have
been very happy to own and use one It's simply the case that I
could afford the extra and comparison showed it to be a
reasonable investment.
>
>>They tried to persuade me to have a
>>silver one but they had both and I wanted black.
>
>
> Why would they try to persuade you to do that? Maybe they get a higher
> commision on their exclusive silver model?
>
To be honest I suspect that black will be the more popular colour
and they'll have no problem shifting them. Perhaps they have to
push the silver ones a little harder while they have both in
stock. Of course there will always be people, who, like you, are
happy to take a silver one if they can't get black even though it
wouldn't be first choice. As you said in your first post, it
makes no difference to the pictures what so ever!
>>Right, I'm off to play while the sun is still shining.
>
>
> Hope you had fun, I did. Now where am I going tomorrow? Or is it going to
> pour down? Perhaps I'll photograph some test charts to to determine at what
> aperture diffraction becomes a problem.
>
I didn't get far, a few shots in the garden, some of the views,
the cat and an assortment of close ups of plants and flowers.
Focus is pin sharp and colour seems to be very accurate. I need
to brush up my old SLR skills and play about with aperture and
speed, plus all the rest. It would be so tempting to just leave
it on auto but it would be a criminal waste of a good camera.
I'm already thinking about another lens, a 70-200 or possibly a
70-300 zoom. :o)
I also need to get my old Pentax SLR out, I'm sure I have a
pretty decent flash gun that should be fine with the Canon,
providing it still works after years sitting in my old camera bag.
--
Regards
Nick
Phil Cook
>In message <efc40k$2me$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Paul Saunders
><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He liked to
>>focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use Kodachrome 25 and
>>shoot handheld.
>
>And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
>mountain photography.
He was rich enough to be able to afford the Leica and three lenses :-)
As ever, lightweight gear cost mucho moolah.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
Chris Townsend
<u-r-...@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>>In message <efc40k$2me$1...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Paul Saunders
>><pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>>>Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He liked to
>>>focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use Kodachrome 25 and
>>>shoot handheld.
>>
>>And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
>>mountain photography.
>
>He was rich enough to be able to afford the Leica and three lenses :-)
Money from his career as a cosmetics chemist.
>
>As ever, lightweight gear cost mucho moolah.
It did then. Not necessarily now. The lightest DSLRs tend to be the
lowest priced. I wouldn't want to carry a 1DS.
Bob Mannix
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:efc46v$2tc$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Well, again, faultless logic but always YMMV etc. It's a change that may not
be the best as perceived by all! Still looking through your urw mugshots
site (me included) not sure there's many I would want to meet in a shop (one
or two execptions of course!).
Paul Saunders
>> Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely worth
>> the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
>>
> Was this including the usual 18-55 lens, or the body only?
With lens. Without lens it costs £490, so it's only £42 extra for the lens.
It's not the best lens ever, but it's not bad either, certainly better than
you'd expect for the price. Corners are soft wide open, but provided you
stop it down to f8-f11 it can produce decent images. I prefer to use better
lenses, but it's extremely light (only 200g) so it's a good option if you
need to carry the minimum weight possible, whilst still having the
advantages of using a DSLR.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>> Was this including the usual 18-55 lens, or the body only?
>
>With lens. Without lens it costs £490, so it's only £42 extra for the lens.
>
out and Jessops were trying to shift the old stock).
It was a waste of a pound actually, I don't think I've ever used it. I
should have invested the money on beer instead!
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Paul Saunders
> I got an 18-55 for a quid when I bought my 20D (just after the 30D
> came out and Jessops were trying to shift the old stock).
>
> It was a waste of a pound actually, I don't think I've ever used it. I
So if you've never used it, how do you know it isn't worth using? Why not
try it sometime?
Like I say, it's not as bad as you'd expect. Sure it looks cheap, feels
cheap and *is* cheap, but you can still take reasonable pics with it if you
stop it down a couple of notches. Centre quality is excellent across the
range, while edge quality is mostly good, except for the wide end where it
needs to be stopped down. Some distortion at the wide end, as you'd expect,
and chromabs too. Like I say, if you keep it stopped down to f8 to f11 it
can produce decent results.
Check out this review:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1855_3556/index.htm
I used it for a while when I first got my 300D, simply because I didn't have
any other lenses. Since then I've rarely used it, but as I said, it can be
useful if you want to travel really light and the photos you plan to take
aren't critically important. I've used when out cycling and on a few
backpacking trips. I've also got an infrared filter which only fits that
lens, so it's useful for that too.
Paul Saunders
>> Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He
>> liked to focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use
>> Kodachrome 25 and shoot handheld.
>
> And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
> mountain photography.
And was my original inspiration to become a landscape photographer after
seeing his book of colour photos of Wales. His Lake District and Skye books
were very good too.
Paul Saunders
> He was rich enough to be able to afford the Leica and three lenses :-)
Yeah, the 28, 50 and 90. That's practically a medium format choice of
lenses. Somewhat limiting, but there you go.
Paul Saunders
> Money from his career as a cosmetics chemist.
He even figured out his own method of processing Kodachrome.
> I wouldn't want to carry a 1DS.
Me neither, but I wouldn't mind putting one in the boot of my car for
driving around and taking photos from lay-bys! ;-)
Malcolm Ogilvie
<noe...@no.net> writes
>Paul Saunders wrote:
>> Nick Mason wrote:
>>
>>>'This isn't the Canon you're looking for. You're
>>>looking for a 400D.'
>>>
>>>Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely
>>>worth the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
>> Do you think that the 2.5" LCD helped persuade you?
>
>Not really, I asked the salesman what the differences were other than
>the extra resolution and the first thing he said was that the 400 had a
>better finish and he was right. On their own you'd be hard pressed to
>notice but side by side the 400 is definitely better.
>
>I still think the 350 is a great camera and I know I would have been
>very happy to own and use one It's simply the case that I could afford
>the extra and comparison showed it to be a reasonable investment.
>
>>
>>>They tried to persuade me to have a
>>>silver one but they had both and I wanted black.
>> Why would they try to persuade you to do that? Maybe they get a
>>higher commision on their exclusive silver model?
>>
>To be honest I suspect that black will be the more popular colour and
>they'll have no problem shifting them. Perhaps they have to push the
>silver ones a little harder while they have both in stock.
Jessops website has the silver one as a "Featured product"! The black
one is just in the general list of SLRs. And the silver one is "in
stock", while the black one is "2-4 weeks". I guess that explains why
they wanted you to buy a silver one!
--
Malcolm
Neil Pugh
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>You can buy beer for a quid?
>
I can buy <some> beer for a quid. I did say "invested"!
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Paul Saunders
> I still think the 350 is a great camera and I know I would have
> been very happy to own and use one It's simply the case that I
> could afford the extra and comparison showed it to be a
> reasonable investment.
Yeah, well worth the extra. I'm surprised the 400D is so cheap so soon
after being released. I think I paid £850 for the 300D, or was it even more
than that?
> Of course there will always be people, who, like you, are
> happy to take a silver one if they can't get black even though it
> wouldn't be first choice. As you said in your first post, it
> makes no difference to the pictures what so ever!
Yep, and like I said, I had a good reason for wanting one NOW! The leaves
are already changing colour...
> I didn't get far, a few shots in the garden, some of the views,
> the cat and an assortment of close ups of plants and flowers.
> Focus is pin sharp and colour seems to be very accurate.
Have you compared the different picture modes? Are you shooting in RAW?
Best to do that then switch modes in DPP to see the different effects.
Adobe Camera Raw doesn't recognise the 400D RAW files yet, but apparently
they're rushing the next version to include support for it. No longer any
thumbnail files attached to the RAW files, they're self-contained now, which
is good. Never liked having two files for each image.
> I need
> to brush up my old SLR skills and play about with aperture and
> speed, plus all the rest. It would be so tempting to just leave
> it on auto but it would be a criminal waste of a good camera.
Oh no, you must exercise some manual control. Just remember not to stop it
down too far because of diffraction, which is more of a problem with such
high res. Haven't done any tests yet, but from what I've read it should
start kicking in at f8/11, so you shouldn't really stop it down more than
f11. F8 should give the best quality with most zoom lenses.
> I'm already thinking about another lens, a 70-200 or possibly a
> 70-300 zoom. :o)
Warning! Most consumer grade telephoto zooms are rubbish at the long end.
Specifically, the quality drops off sharply beyond 200mm. If you want a
really good quality zoom, Sigma do an excellent (EX series) 100-300mm f4.
It's not cheap and it's not light, but it is probably the best 300mm zoom
you can buy for a Canon.
"The AF 100-300mm f/4 EX HSM is the most impressive Sigma lens tested to
date. It is capable to deliver a near flawless performance with great
resolution figures, low vignetting, low distortions, low CAs and as a nice
whipped cream on top the build quality feels just right. All-in-all ...
highly recommended! "
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_100300_4/index.htm
But if you want something a bit cheaper and lighter, be very careful which
one you buy. Canon have produced at least 5 different consumer grade 300mm
zooms in recent years, and all but one are crap at the long end. The
exception is the latest one, which uses some UD glass, normally only found
in L lenses, and the quality is excellent. It's not that cheap, but it is
relatively light compared to the Sigma above, so would be more suitable for
walking/backpacking. Be sure you buy the right one!
"In fact the data was so impressive that I was already wondering whether I
had mixed up the RAW files with a (supposedly) better lens."
"The performance of the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 USM IS came as a total
surprise. Unlike its predecessor the lens is capable to produce a very high
performance throughout the zoom range without the significant drop in
quality at 300mm typical for most consumer grade lenses in this range. It
seems as if the new UD element helps to lift the optical quality
significantly. Distortions, CAs as well as vignetting are also very
respectable. So in terms of optical quality the EF 70-300mm IS can be almost
described as a hidden Canon L lens."
"If you're looking for a very good, light-weight tele zoom e.g. for travel
photography this lens should be high on your shopping list."
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm
NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THIS LENS! (which has the same name and looks very
similar). Compare the resolution graphs, especially at 300mm!
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_75300_456is/index.htm
Paul Saunders
> Still getting to grips, to be honest. Subtly different from the 10
> but light in the hand, responsive. Not quite relearning everything.
> I'm much more artist than photographer anyway so I have to
> build up a gut feel for the kit and use it on instinct rather than
> calculation, if that makes sense.
Absolutely! I feel the same way myself. I got so used to my 35mm equipment
that it almost became an extension of me. I'd set shutter speed, aperture
and focus practically without thinking, even though I always did it
manually. My internal metering died one weekend in very wet weather, but
since my OM3 had a mechanical shutter I just kept on shooting. Spent the
whole weekend simply guessing the exposures.
Kids these days, with their auto-everything, instant reviews and histograms,
they don't know the meaning of real photography... ;-)
Paul Saunders
> Sorry for another question, but I wonder if you know whether that is
> the same lens which came with the 300D and 350D.
No and yes. It's version II. The 300D came with version I, the 350D came
with version II. Don't know what the difference is, they look identical
apart from the "II" written on it. I presume they must have improved it in
some way, maybe added an extra layer of lens coating perhaps? Or just added
a "II" to impress people?
> I've got the former
> and would only want to buy the 400D body.
I thought the same at first, but then I decided to get it since I'll
probably have more chance of selling my 300D with a lens, especially to a
first time buyer who has no other lenses.
> I've other lenses; the Canon
> 100-400 IS zoom is a beauty!
Apparently so, but it doesn't half blow dust around inside the camera, so
I've heard.
Paul Saunders
>> I should have invested the money on beer instead!
>>
> You can buy beer for a quid?
Can of Carling, and you'd get some change!
Tell you what Neil, if you don't want that 18-55, I'll do you a swap! I'll
even buy you a whole four-pack of Carling in exchange!
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Neil Pugh wrote:
>
>> I got an 18-55 for a quid when I bought my 20D (just after the 30D
>> came out and Jessops were trying to shift the old stock).
>>
>> It was a waste of a pound actually, I don't think I've ever used it. I
>
>So if you've never used it, how do you know it isn't worth using? Why not
>try it sometime?
>
Like you, I had one on my previous camera, a 300D, which I used quite a
bit. I've now got better lenses which cover more or less the same focal
lengths so I'm keeping it in reserve for use if circumstances dictate.
The real bargain lens in Canon's range is the EF 50mm f/1.8, fast, light
& very sharp stopped down a bit (some say sharper than some 'L' lenses).
All this is not to say it doesn't have some problems, but for £75
quid......
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>No and yes. It's version II. The 300D came with version I, the 350D came
>with version II. Don't know what the difference is, they look identical
>apart from the "II" written on it. I presume they must have improved it in
>some way, maybe added an extra layer of lens coating perhaps? Or just added
>a "II" to impress people?
>
shipping in some Canon EOS body kits. My understanding is that only
cosmetic changes were made for the "II" designation. According to Canon,
"The major changes are the shape of the zoom ring rubber grip and the
tapered area at the front of the lens." The two Canon lenses share the
same MTF charts."
<http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-18-55mm-f-3.5-5.6-
Lens-Review.aspx>
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Phil Cook
>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> He was rich enough to be able to afford the Leica and three lenses :-)
>
>Yeah, the 28, 50 and 90. That's practically a medium format choice of
>lenses. Somewhat limiting, but there you go.
Well put into today's crop format they come out as 18, 32 and 56 so
the Canon 18-55 lens on the xxxD has the range covered.
It's probable that the 28 and 90 were the practical limits for the
Leica rangefinder camera at the time. These days you can get lenses as
wide as 12mm but they need an auxilliary view finder.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>
>Tell you what Neil, if you don't want that 18-55, I'll do you a swap! I'll
>even buy you a whole four-pack of Carling in exchange!
>
Even though underused, I reckon that lens will be more use to me than
Carling.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Neil Pugh wrote:
>
>> I got an 18-55 for a quid when I bought my 20D (just after the 30D
>> came out and Jessops were trying to shift the old stock).
>>
>> It was a waste of a pound actually, I don't think I've ever used it. I
>
>So if you've never used it, how do you know it isn't worth using? Why not
>try it sometime?
>
Like you, I had one on my previous camera, a 300D, which I used quite a
Malcolm
In article <bt54ZCFb...@wallacepugh.demon.co.uk>, Neil Pugh
<ne...@nospam.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <IQ5YAiam...@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm
><Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>You can buy beer for a quid?
>>
>
>I can buy <some> beer for a quid. I did say "invested"!
>
Please note the following warning notice:
"The value of investments and the income from them may go down as well
as up and you may not recoup your original investment."
--
Malcolm
Paul Saunders
> "According to
> Canon, "The major changes are the shape of the zoom ring rubber grip
> and the tapered area at the front of the lens."
Ah, I can see it now. It makes the crappy little manual focus ring slightly
easier to operate.
Phil Cook
>Malcolm wrote:
>
>>> I should have invested the money on beer instead!
>>>
>> You can buy beer for a quid?
>
>Can of Carling, and you'd get some change!
He said beer.
Rudi Winter
> I can remember the days of 'please allow 28 days for delivery'
> and minimal savings on shop prices. These days you can order
> before lunch time and get your goods before breakfast the next
> day and save a significant amount of money too, you have to be
> *very* impatient to want to pay ?50 more for something not to
> take advantage.
But you may end up with a supplier who saves on the delivery service,
who can't be bothered to tell you when they will deliver, won't deliver
to your work address[1], and stick a note on your door that you can pick
up your parcel at your "local delivery office" only 90min round trip
away between 9 and 9:30 two days later. (true story - all names changed)
That's when you begin to question whether it was sensible to let the
local shops go bust!
[1] And that although I can see their bl**dy van from my office window
at least three times a week!
--
Rudi Winter, Aberystwyth, Wales
Neil Pugh
<Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
not go there.....
Alternatively it can be poured straight down the urinal to cut out the
middle man.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Paul Saunders
> Like you, I had one on my previous camera, a 300D, which I used quite
> a bit. I've now got better lenses which cover more or less the same
> focal lengths so I'm keeping it in reserve for use if circumstances
> dictate.
Sensible.
> The real bargain lens in Canon's range is the EF 50mm f/1.8, fast,
> light & very sharp stopped down a bit (some say sharper than some 'L'
> lenses). All this is not to say it doesn't have some problems, but
> for £75 quid......
I agree. In fact, another funny thing is, I was about to order that very
lens once I'd got back from the bank!
In spite of the better quality of primes, I prefer zooms because of their
greater flexibility with precise in-camera cropping, not to mention the
amount of time saved by not having to keep changing lenses, which is pretty
important if you're on the move.
However, the reason I've decided to buy that lens, apart from the price, is
that since buying PTGui I now have the ability to accurately stitch many
photos together, not just as a panorama but as a matrix (say 3x3 or 4x4) to
create images with massive resolution, which could then be used to make
massive prints. Since cropping isn't really an issue when stitching, the
50mm lens would be ideal, especially with its higher quality.
Longer focal lengths tend to stich far better than wide-angles, and a
moderate telephoto would be great for creating an ultra high res stitched
"wide-angle". Since the 50mm lens is very short, that would introduce less
parallax error too.
Paul Saunders
> It hasn't been a significant problem, but one that I hope will be
> eliminated if I buy the 400D :-)
Yes, fingers crossed that it really does work as well as they claim.
Paul Saunders
>>> You can buy beer for a quid?
>>
>> Can of Carling, and you'd get some change!
>
> He said beer.
Oh sorry, should have read the post first... ;-)
Paul Saunders
>> Yeah, the 28, 50 and 90. That's practically a medium format choice
>> of lenses. Somewhat limiting, but there you go.
>
> Well put into today's crop format they come out as 18, 32 and 56 so
> the Canon 18-55 lens on the xxxD has the range covered.
Indeed. Somehow I think the Leica glass would perform slightly better...
But still, it's a similarly lightweight setup.
Just to think, I spent many film years shooting with nothing more than a
24-48 zoom.
> It's probable that the 28 and 90 were the practical limits for the
> Leica rangefinder camera at the time. These days you can get lenses as
> wide as 12mm but they need an auxilliary view finder.
Yeah, I've heard about that lens.
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> Money from his career as a cosmetics chemist.
>
>He even figured out his own method of processing Kodachrome.
Yes. An important and significant figure in outdoor photography.
>
>> I wouldn't want to carry a 1DS.
>
>Me neither, but I wouldn't mind putting one in the boot of my car for
>driving around and taking photos from lay-bys! ;-)
That would be nice but I take so few photos from the car that the
expense could never be justified even if I could afford the camera.
>
>Paul
--
Chris Townsend
Chris Townsend
>>> Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He
>>> liked to focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use
>>> Kodachrome 25 and shoot handheld.
>>
>> And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
>> mountain photography.
>
>And was my original inspiration to become a landscape photographer after
>seeing his book of colour photos of Wales. His Lake District and Skye books
>were very good too.
>
>Paul
The Magic of Skye is probably his best book. I also have a copy of A
Camera In The Cairngorms, published in 1947, which is excellent. He
gives all the photo data at the back - 73 photos were taken with the
standard lens, 21 with the wide angle, 90 with an orange filter, 4 with
no filter. Film was Panatomic X. The shutter speed was usually 1/60 and
the aperture F6.3, though some are 1/100 and a few 1/30 and one 1/40 and
the aperture is occasionally F4.5. He even gives the time of day for
every photograph. Cameras didn't record such info back then!
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Malcolm wrote:
>
>>> Having played with both side by side the 400D was definitely worth
>>> the extra money. So instead of spending £400 I spent £532. :o)
>>>
>
>With lens. Without lens it costs £490, so it's only £42 extra for the lens.
>
>It's not the best lens ever, but it's not bad either, certainly better than
>you'd expect for the price. Corners are soft wide open, but provided you
>stop it down to f8-f11 it can produce decent images. I prefer to use better
>lenses, but it's extremely light (only 200g) so it's a good option if you
>need to carry the minimum weight possible, whilst still having the
>advantages of using a DSLR.
>
>Paul
I find this lens surprisingly. And so do my publishers. I got it with
the 300D and have gone on using it with the 350D. The weight is the big
attraction for hill use. As Paul says, at F8 and F11 the results are
good. F5.6 is acceptable too.
Steve Wilcox
1.4 version.
Ok, it does cost almost 200 quid more, but for that you get what is
virtually an "L" lens without the red ring . . . ..
Steve Wilcox
Neil Pugh
<steveg...@tiscali.co.uk> writes
USM.
£1150 at Walters. Hmmm, I'll have to wait for the long overdue lottery
win I think.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Chris Gilbert
> Kids these days, with their auto-everything, instant reviews and
> histograms, they don't know the meaning of real photography... ;-)
While I don't class myself as anything more than a bumbling
idiot I did cut my teeth on a Zenit E, a Pentax A1 and a
Canon AE-1 so I've perhaps had a tad more exposure
(forgive the pun) to the mechanics than those people entering
in the auto-age. I dropped my AE-1 and jammed the film
speed dial and spent the last couple of years guessing the
settings for anything over 64 ASA. As you say, you can
get cannily close, just on experience :-D
Chris
Nick Mason
Paul,
thanks for the information, a lot to think about. I'm aware of
the pitfalls of the consumer grade lenses but cost has to be a
consideration for the time being. At over £700 the Sigma you
mention is definitely out of my price range.
--
Regards
Nick
Nick Mason
I have my life well sorted, I work from home so those problems
never arise. As I can count the number of times I've been into
town this year on one hand the local shops might as well be
closed. :o)
--
Regards
Nick
Martin Richardson
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>>> Poucher was a pioneer of the blurred foreground (cairn?) style. He
>>> liked to focus on infinity and shoot at f5.6. Mind you, he did use
>>> Kodachrome 25 and shoot handheld.
>>
>> And took some excellent photos. He also pioneered the use of 35mm for
>> mountain photography.
>
>And was my original inspiration to become a landscape photographer after
>seeing his book of colour photos of Wales. His Lake District and Skye books
>were very good too.
>
relatively poor colour reproduction - you just cannot get the printers
these days.
--
Martin Richardson
610/1554 Marilyns - aiming for 777 60/89 Donalds - only 33% to go
88/211 Irish Hewitts - 123 it's easy 20/220 Corbetts - only(!)200 to go
Chris Gilbert
> Hmm, I published a book of bird photographs earlier this year and the
> photographer is absolutely delighted with the quality of the printing
> achieved by the printers I chose. And he's been published by magazines and
> in books over many years and is very fussy about how is photos look when
> printed.
My recent experience has also been very good. I don't think its
a shortage of suitable materials and tools. It may have more to do
with the ability of the print shop.
Chris
Paul Saunders
> My recent experience has also been very good. I don't think its
> a shortage of suitable materials and tools. It may have more to do
> with the ability of the print shop.
There have been big changes in the photo/print industry in recent years as a
result of digital taking over from film. I suspect that many printers still
haven't adapted to it fully. The issue of colour management is not trivial,
and it's not just photographers than need to worry about this, but printers
too.
Paul Saunders
> thanks for the information, a lot to think about. I'm aware of
> the pitfalls of the consumer grade lenses but cost has to be a
> consideration for the time being. At over £700 the Sigma you
> mention is definitely out of my price range.
Yeah, but I just thought I'd mention it as the best quality 300mm zoom you
can get for a Canon. According to the tests even Canon's L lens equivalent
isn't as good, and they don't even make it anymore! For some odd reason the
300mm zoom is a weak point in Canon's line up. The 70-300mm DO IS is their
most expensive, and its small size is very appealing, but the 70-300 IS that
I recommended is just as good optically at the long end and actually better
at the wide end.
Anyway, to help clarify the situation, here are the Canon choices currently
available, with price and weight. These are some of the cheapest prices
I've found after a quick, but not exhaustive search. The second one could
probably be found a lot cheaper.
£120 - 420g - 90-300 F4.5-5.6
http://www.buyacamera.co.uk/xsearch.asp?RecId=CANCA860&pt=k
£240 - 420g - 90-300 F4.5-5.6 USM (same but with USM)
http://www.it247.com/Canon-EF-telephoto-zoom-lens-90-mm-300-mm
£165 - 480g - 75-300 III F4-5.6
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/3079/art/canon/ef-75-300-iii-f4-5-6-tele.html
£191 - 480g - 75-300 III F4-5.6 USM (same but with USM)
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/3080/art/canon/ef-75-300-iii-f4-5-6-usm.html
£231 - 540g - 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/91665/art/canon/ef-100-300mm-f-4-5-5-6-us.html
£369 - 650g - 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (this is the one to avoid)
http://www.shopping4cameras.com/products/details.cfm?PRODUCT=0345B003AA&refer=klk&tduid=b03bcbfcf761d4db0a73497795f11a56
£370 - 630g - 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (best quality)
http://www.devoncamera.co.uk/index.cfm/photographic/Products.Details/product_id/301/subject/canon_ef_70300mm_f456_is_usm
£859 - 720g - 70-300 F/4.5-5.6 DO IS (smallest size)
http://www.pixmania.co.uk/uk/uk/41357/art/canon/lens-ef-70-300-f-4-5-5-6.html
As you'd expect, the quality tends to increase as you go down the list. USM
versions (faster and quieter focusing) cost a bit more. The last three have
IS (image stabilisation) which brings a corresponding increase in price and
weight. All of the lenses have a noticeable quality drop at the long end,
except for the last two, so those are the only ones to consider if you want
really good quality at 300.
As I said, the 70-300 IS USM is the best choice, both for quality and price.
It also has the latest version of IS which gives up to three stops of
stabilisation, plus a panning mode for shooting moving subjects. Don't
confuse it with the 75-300 IS USM, which looks very similar, and is
similarly priced. That's a real dog at 300. It's the older version, but
some places are still selling it. Note that Devon Camera's current price of
£370 for the 70-300 IS USM is really good, I believe the usual price is
£470.
If you can afford it and you want the smallest size, the DO lens is best,
but it's hard to justify the cost.
The best compromise is probably the 100-300 USM. No IS but it's a tad
lighter and it's a good price. Better quality than the cheaper ones I
think.
If you're desperate for a telezoom but are really skint, get the 90-300 for
just £120. It's cheap and nasty, but it's better than nothing, and it does
have the advantage of weighing only 420g. Actually, I've got this lens
(bought it s/h for £60) so I can confirm that it's crap at 300. However,
the quality is quite reasonable up to 200, provided you stop it down to f8
or f11. Actually, although my test chart photos are horrific at 300, real
life shots don't look so bad. Sure, they need a bit of extra sharpening,
but they're better than nothing if you really need to zoom in that far.
The design (and build quality) is the same as the 18-55 kit lens, so they
make a ideal lightweight pairing. They're the kind of lenses that you'd
rarely ever use if you own anything better, but if you really need to travel
as light as possible, e.g. when backpacking, you can get acceptable results
provided you stop them down.
Don't forget to check PhotoZone's lens reviews.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Nick Mason wrote:
>
>> thanks for the information, a lot to think about. I'm aware of
>> the pitfalls of the consumer grade lenses but cost has to be a
>> consideration for the time being. At over £700 the Sigma you
>> mention is definitely out of my price range.
>
>
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
Where I have the lenses to compare to the reviews of this chap (less
than half a dozen) I find myself in general agreement with him: which is
doubtless a great comfort to him.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Rudi Winter
> I have my life well sorted, I work from home so those problems
> never arise.
All very well, but I'd rather meet my students in a lecture theatre or
lab than in my living room...
Nick Mason
Thanks for the URL.
I plan to spend a while reading up on the information I've
gathered from this thread.
While I do that I'm going to play with the camera and the lens
that I have and get to know where all the controls are without
referring to the manual. I'm going to pick a variety of subjects
and lighting conditions then take the same picture with as many
variations of settings I can and compare the results to see what
looks good and what doesn't.
--
Regards
Nick
Paul Saunders
> Neil Pugh wrote:
>>> Don't forget to check PhotoZone's lens reviews.
>>> http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
>>>
>> Another Canon review site to look at is:
>>
>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
Thanks for that, haven't seen that one before.
Here's another one, plenty of user reviews here:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/
> I plan to spend a while reading up on the information I've
> gathered from this thread.
>
> While I do that I'm going to play with the camera and the lens
> that I have and get to know where all the controls are without
> referring to the manual. I'm going to pick a variety of subjects
> and lighting conditions then take the same picture with as many
> variations of settings I can and compare the results to see what
> looks good and what doesn't.
That's the way. Nothing like a bit of testing and familiarisation before
you start on the serious stuff.
To be honest, I'm finding myself at home with the 400D almost immediately.
Apart from one or two different buttons and slightly different menus, it
works almost exactly the same as the 300D. Haven't even looked at the
manual yet, and I don't feel I need to. The differences are mostly
self-explanatory.
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>>> Another Canon review site to look at is:
>>>
>>> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/
>
>Thanks for that, haven't seen that one before.
He seems to think pretty highly of your new camera too:
<http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-400D-Digital-Rebel-
XTi-Review.aspx>
"With each iteration of the Digital Rebel family, Canon raises the bar
on image quality and camera features while lowering the introductory
price"
Personally I always found the 300D too light and small for my liking
(years of lugging Canon A1s about probably). When I saw a reasonably
priced 20D (the 30D had just been released) I snapped it up, the last
one that Jessops had in the shop, they'd sold two between me seeing it
in the morning and going back at lunch time to buy it.
I'm very pleased with the beast, it immediately felt more comfortable
than the 300D, and I like the extra weight. All of this is of course
very subjective, I doubt my photos are one jot better, but I enjoy using
the camera much more.
I only hope that I don't get seduced by bright lights, megapixel counts,
flashy shoulder straps or something else until a 'full frame' 5D
successor appears at some relatively affordable price in a few years
time.
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Paul Saunders
> The 50mm 1.8 mk2 is a great lens for the money, but it isn't a patch
> on the 1.4 version.
So I gather.
> Ok, it does cost almost 200 quid more, but for that you get what is
> virtually an "L" lens without the red ring . . . ..
But I don't have 200 quid more, and if I did, I have more important things
to spend it on.
By the way, if you're quick, 7dayshop are selling certain 2 GB flash cards
for only £18 each! I bet they'll all be snapped up soon. I think I'll get
three.
Paul Saunders
> Have you seen that they've just released (or soon will) a 50mm f/1.2 L
> USM.
>
> £1150 at Walters. Hmmm, I'll have to wait for the long overdue lottery
> win I think.
Probably not as good as the F1.4. It's just a show off exercise to try to
design the fastest lens they possibly can. Has anyone ever managed to make
an F1 lens?
Paul Saunders
> The Magic of Skye is probably his best book.
I agree.
> I also have a copy of A
> Camera In The Cairngorms, published in 1947, which is excellent.
Don't know that one.
> He
> gives all the photo data at the back - 73 photos were taken with the
> standard lens, 21 with the wide angle, 90 with an orange filter, 4
> with no filter. Film was Panatomic X. The shutter speed was usually
> 1/60 and the aperture F6.3, though some are 1/100 and a few 1/30 and
> one 1/40 and the aperture is occasionally F4.5. He even gives the
> time of day for every photograph. Cameras didn't record such info
> back then!
I've never had the patience to do that. I've done it with my panoramic
camera, but then I don't take many photos with that.
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>> The Magic of Skye is probably his best book.
>
>I agree.
>
>> I also have a copy of A
>> Camera In The Cairngorms, published in 1947, which is excellent.
>
>Don't know that one.
I found it in a second hand shop. It's very good but has been out of
print for decades.
>
>> He
>> gives all the photo data at the back - 73 photos were taken with the
>> standard lens, 21 with the wide angle, 90 with an orange filter, 4
>> with no filter. Film was Panatomic X. The shutter speed was usually
>> 1/60 and the aperture F6.3, though some are 1/100 and a few 1/30 and
>> one 1/40 and the aperture is occasionally F4.5. He even gives the
>> time of day for every photograph. Cameras didn't record such info
>> back then!
>
>I've never had the patience to do that. I've done it with my panoramic
>camera, but then I don't take many photos with that.
I used to keep shutter speed/aperture records for many shots though not
all but other details. It's one of the things I like about digital!
By the way have you seen Ken Rockwell's "Colour management is for wimps"
piece?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color-management/is-for-wimps.htm
Paul Saunders
>>> I also have a copy of A
>>> Camera In The Cairngorms, published in 1947, which is excellent.
>>
>> Don't know that one.
>
> I found it in a second hand shop. It's very good but has been out of
> print for decades.
Well if I ever come across it...
> By the way have you seen Ken Rockwell's "Colour management is for
> wimps" piece?
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/color-management/is-for-wimps.htm
No, will take a look. I was just about to point you to a Ken Rockwell link
as it happens. Will do in my next post.
Paul Saunders
>>> 18-55 lens
> I find this lens surprisingly. And so do my publishers. I got it with
> the 300D and have gone on using it with the 350D. The weight is the
> big attraction for hill use. As Paul says, at F8 and F11 the results
> are good. F5.6 is acceptable too.
I'm very glad you said that. I was reading a very disappointing review of
it earlier. I've also become embroiled in a pedantic discussion involving
pixel density and angular resolution elsewhere, and realised that I was
wasting my time talking theory instead of actually taking photos with my new
camera. I seem to have temporarily forgotten where my priorities lie!
At the end of the day it's all about the photos. Technical issues are
important up to a point, but some people seem to get way too obsessed with
test charts and theory.
Anyway, I found an amusing article by Ken Rockwell on this issue, which is
all the more funny because there's so much truth in it.
The Seven Levels of Photographers
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
Oh, I had a quick look at your website. You've got some very nice photos
there. I particularly like the rays of sunlight over Loch Morlich.
Paul Saunders
>>> I wouldn't want to carry a 1DS.
>>
>> Me neither, but I wouldn't mind putting one in the boot of my car for
>> driving around and taking photos from lay-bys! ;-)
>
> That would be nice but I take so few photos from the car that the
> expense could never be justified even if I could afford the camera.
I think I could justify it. Not just from laybys, but there are plenty of
scenic locations which are easily accessible over short distances, so
carrying a ton of gear in a backpack for just a mile or two wouldn't be that
big a deal. I'm thinking particularly of the coastline, which typically has
many access points and short flat walks to good viewpoints. No wonder Joe
Cornish specialises in it with his large format gear.
Chris Gilbert
> I'm thinking particularly of the coastline, which typically has many
> access points and short flat walks to good viewpoints. No wonder Joe
> Cornish specialises in it with his large format gear.
Admirable. I am, however, quite prepared to hump my expensive
and heavy equipment *anywhere* to get a photograph. I don't see
the point of having it otherwise :-D
Chris
Neil Pugh
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Probably not as good as the F1.4. It's just a show off exercise to try to
>design the fastest lens they possibly can. Has anyone ever managed to make
>an F1 lens?
>
us-Lens>
Regards,
--
Neil Pugh
Jim Ford
> Probably not as good as the F1.4. It's just a show off exercise to try to
> design the fastest lens they possibly can. Has anyone ever managed to make
> an F1 lens?
Canon made a f0.95 lens in the 60's. IIRC the camera (or lens) was
called the 'Dream' and was a rangefinder.
Jim Ford
Jim Ford
Chris Townsend
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Chris Townsend wrote:
>
>>>> 18-55 lens
>
>> I find this lens surprisingly. And so do my publishers. I got it with
>> the 300D and have gone on using it with the 350D. The weight is the
>> big attraction for hill use. As Paul says, at F8 and F11 the results
>> are good. F5.6 is acceptable too.
>
>I'm very glad you said that. I was reading a very disappointing review of
>it earlier. I've also become embroiled in a pedantic discussion involving
>pixel density and angular resolution elsewhere, and realised that I was
>wasting my time talking theory instead of actually taking photos with my new
>camera. I seem to have temporarily forgotten where my priorities lie!
I take a pragmatic view. How do my photos look? I've always used
lightweight lenses that often get poor technical reviews but which
produce perfectly acceptable images. The Tamron 11-18 I bought recently
is the heaviest, most expensive lens I've ever owned. (Mind you, the
highest quality lens I've ever owned is probably the 28mm one on my
Ricoh GR1).
>
>At the end of the day it's all about the photos. Technical issues are
>important up to a point, but some people seem to get way too obsessed with
>test charts and theory.
I think that the details often don't show up in actual photographs.
>
>Anyway, I found an amusing article by Ken Rockwell on this issue, which is
>all the more funny because there's so much truth in it.
>
>The Seven Levels of Photographers
>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/7.htm
Yes, I've seen that before. It is funny and quite pointed.
>
>Oh, I had a quick look at your website. You've got some very nice photos
>there. I particularly like the rays of sunlight over Loch Morlich.
Thanks. The Loch Morlich one was taken with the 300D/18-55 combination.
It was taken on one of those dull days where getting a decent image
seemed unlikely. I was coming off Meall a'Buachaille in the late
afternoon when the sun suddenly shone through the clouds onto the loch.
It only lasted a few minutes so I had to work fast to get a few images.