35mm camera ?

Been kinda wanting to pick up a camera for this season. I was thinking digital, but considering that what I really want to shoot is action stuff (like, say, skiing!), I can get a lot more camera for a lot less money if I go film. I don't have a 'puter at home anyway, so if I go film, I won't feel compelled to then go out and spend another $k on a computer.

Anyway, anyone have any recommendations? I'm thinking e-bay may be my best bet, looking to spend in the $200-300 range. A friend here at work had a Canon EOS Elan IIe that he loved, it shoots at 3 fps, but I saw some things on a photo board about a lot of battery problems, and it not liking cold. Any input?

Big E - I have a Cannon EOS Elan something-or-other, I'd be willing to part with. It's a few years old, but only used a few times. Since I went digital, it sits in a camera bag in the closet. I haven't pulled it out in a year or so.

I'd have to check to verify, but I believe I have a 28-85mm lens and a 70-210mm lens for it, all the usual lens filters, and a nice camera bag. For a fellow mag/minion, I'd be willing to part with all of it within your price range.

Give me a PM if your interested.

Big E, you might want to take snow slider's offer. That's a hell of a deal. I've had the Canon Elan IIe and now the newer model the Elan 7e. They're great cameras.

Your other option for your price range is to go for an older camera body. Remember the lens is the most important piece of equipment. A good EF lens will set you back several hundred $ minimum. You can get cheap lenses, but you get what you pay for.

Also, prices on camera equipment on eBay can be high. Not to say you can't find good deals, but it isn't always easy.

Self-serving bump for west coast mags/mins.

BigE - Can you PM me with your email ady. I wrote it down, but left it at work. I took a couple photos of the gear and have a run down on what everything is.

Thanks,
-=Gill=-

PM sent.

Excellent. Email with photos on the way.

If yer gonna go Canon, the 7e is an awesome camera body for the money. I think it's 4.5fps too.

You could also spend a bit more and get a EOS-3 used. With the battery pack booster I think you get 6fps but don't quote me on that. That being said if you aren't big into AF then you could get an EOS-10s used for about $150 and get 5fps. The AF truely sucks balls on that camera.

All that being said, if you are planning on shooting a bunch you will spend more money in a year with film and processing costs than you would for a decent DSLR. Add in the learning curve with digital since you can review what you did immidiately after you take the shot.

Get a D10 and just deal with the frame rate limitations. The AF and light meter in that camera is very good. That being said, you could get a brand new Digital Rebel for about $900, and it is well worth the money.

I am a semiprofessional photographer. I have a Canon EOS 3. The Canon Elan IIe was my first AF SLR and I keep it around as a secondary or backup body (so no you can't have it :p). I also shoot medium format and 4x5.

You are 100% right that film will make your $ go farther. Decent digital bodies start at $1500 and film will still outperform the $2500 digital bodies. And then you haven't even factored in the $1500 editing computer, $700 monitor, $800 printer, $600 editing software, $300 color calibration software and equiptment, etc. Also, digital sucks down the batteries... and cold will kill you there.

I used the Elan II for shooting skiing. It worked wonderfully. The Elan II has the best and easiest control-by-feel-alone control layout of any AF 35mm SLR ever made (followed by the Minolta 7, A2, Elan 7, N90, and F100) I hate the EOS-3 control layout.

BATTERIES AND SKI SHOOTING
I strongly recommend the BP-50 battery pack (or the otherwise appropriate vertical grip and/or battery pack) whatever you are doing with the Elan II (I did) because it makes the grip much nicer especially for big or gloved hands and gives yo ua vertical shoot button. Once you have that, load it with 4 high capacity NiCads AAs instead of alkaline or NiMH AAs because NiCads offer superior high current and low temperature performance and longevity and its a lot cheaper than buying new 2CR5 lithiums (although lithiums also do cold weather waay better than alkalines or NiMH). NiCads are cheaper than any other rechargable and lighter than anything but Lithium Polymer rechargables.

Back to the photo gear buying:

Rule #1: The glass is more important than the light tight gizmo box in which you keep the film. Lens before body. I've seen tons of people with $1200 cameras with $200 28-200 piece of dogshit lenses on them. A $150 manual camera with a $25 50mm f/1.8 will always take sharper and contrastier images.

Rule #2: Variable aperature consumer zooms always suck. The worst offenders are consumer 5X-10X zooms (28-200 for example) and the craptacular 28-80 and 28-90 3.5-5.6 and 4-5.6 kit zooms.

Rule #3: Fixed focal lengths are always sharper and more contrasty than zooms... even the $1000 zooms. Zooms sacrifice quality and DoF/low light versatility for versatility of speed cropping (not using your feet). The bigger the zoom range the greater the sacrifice. The sacrifice is usually huge until you start paying for your lenses with limbs and first born children (ie, proline lenses: L, EX, SP, AT-X, G).

Rule #4: Sports photography fucks up all of the above rules because you need versatiliy. Suddenly zooms are a necessity and may even need framerate.

Rule #5: If you buy somewhere besides www.bhphoto.com you are lival to get screwed, bait and switched (stuck with open box, used, or grey market), otherwise fucked over or in those places with prices $50-$100 lower, left with eternal backorder syndrome until you cancel your order or agree to buy $200 in overpriced accessories. I've made dozens of orders from a dozen places and B&H was the only place that didn't screw me. They have the best customer service repuation out there. If you have to have lower priced gear and are willing to risk it, buy ebay and buy carefully (1/3 of my gear is from ebay). (B&H has the best film prices out there too, especially if you buy USAW or grey market). Ebay is generally safe for buying camera bodies, but it's easy to mislead on ebay about lens condition if you don't ask lots of questions.

I think the Elan 7e is an inferior camera to the Elan II in many respects, however it does have a higher frame rate (although if you really want 5fps buy a used Canon A2 (EOS-5), older but much sturdier and with more features than Elan 7, or better yet an EOS-3, bomber professional camera upgradadable to 7fps with or without AF with the booster).

I really tend to think the A2/EOS-5 is the best budget sports shooter out there. It does everythign the Elan 2 and 7 do and more. It has good AF too. It does a full 5fps with AF servo engaged (focus tracking for moving subjects) The Elan 7 has poor AF (same sensor suite as the lowly Rebel 2000) and its AF cant keep up with its motordrive.

Motordrive speed. With AF servo/No Autofocus tracking
Elan II 2.5fps 2.5fps
Elan 7 3.5fps 4fps
A2 (EOS-5) 5fps 5fps
EOS 3 4.3fps 4.3fps
EOS 3 + PB-E1or2 7fps 7fps

MY RECCOMENDATIONS:
Used Elan II + BP50 $230
Used A2 / EOS 5 + BP5 and/or VG10 $250-$350
New Elan 7e + BP300 $410
Used EOS 3 $600
Used EOS 3 /w PB-E1 booser $790
Used EOS 3 /w PB-E2 booser $850

GET THIS! Email this seller and see if he has sold his shit yet... offer him like $300 or $350 for it. That would be a fantastic setup. 5fps pro/semi-pro camera with one of the best vertical grips out there, good built in zoomable flash, ultrasilent, shutter release, and the BP-5 external battery pack will let you shoot forever in the coldest cold cuz you can keep it in your jacket.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...category=15235

Lenses:

Must buy: A Telephoto
Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6 L USM Image Stabilized $1300 new
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM $700 new
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L USM $540 new
Canon 100mm f/2.0 USM (EX+ I'll sell for $300)
These are professional zooms with fast autofocus. The 100-400 is the most versatile for sports. The 70-200s and the 100 offer fantastic performance/price. (I use a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L USM) these all come with lens hoods. The Sigma 2.8 and the Canon 2.0 are fantastic portrait lenses. Whatever you do, stay away from 28-200, 28-300, 70-300 and 75-300s. If you buy the Sigma 2.8 or the canon 2.0, you can buy a 2X teleconverter for $150 to get a 140-400mm f/5.6 or a 200mm f/4 respectively.

Also Consider: Midrange and wide angle
Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX $300 new
Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk II $65 new
Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM (LN extra I'll sell for $250)
Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM (LN I'll sell for $300)
Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8-4.0 EX HSM $450 new
The 50mm is an unbelievably sharp lens for an unbelievably low price. Best lens to learn with. Tiny. Weights nothing. Wide angles are great for extreme shots and landscapes. Whatever you do, stay away from 19-35s, 28-80s, 35-80s, 28-90s, 28-135s.
(I use Canon 17-35mm f/2.8 L USM, 50mm f/1.8 Mk I, 50mm f/1.4 USM)

BUY LENS HOODS!BUY LENS HOODS!BUY LENS HOODS!BUY LENS HOODS!Don't forget a *GOOD* tripod (not some PoS wallworld plastic velbon).
Oh yes... BUY LENS HOODS! They reduce flare, increase contrast, and protect your lens from snow and impact damage.

Kits:
Bottom of the barrel $600 Elan II, BP-50, Cannon 100mm f/2.0 USM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk II (this will get you by)

Recommended $1400 A2, BP-5, VG10, Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX HSM, Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, Canon 20mm f/2.8 USM (this will do everything you want!)

Sell your body setup: $2900 Canon EOS-3, PB-E2, Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L USM IS, Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX HSM, Sigma 17-35mm f/2.8 EX HSM (everything you will ever want and more)

Thanks to SummitCo 1776, for all the cool info.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GT40
Thanks to SummitCo 1776, for all the cool info.

---

I'd like to second this. I'm looking for a new camera and that's a big help. Thanks, mang!!!!

Damn there was no way I was going to write that much......

As far as what you had to say about what film bodies and lenses, you pretty much said everything I wanted to type but was too lazy to.

I have to completely disagree with the film vs. digital thing though. Especially someone that is going to be learning a lot beceause of their current ability and knowledge level. Of course I already have a computer. I didn't buy a DSLR till last season. Last season I progressed more in one ski season of shooting than I had in the previous 3 years I've been skiing around with a camera trying to get somewhere. The other thing to consider in digital vs. film.....and this was one of the most determining factors for me. How far away is the nearest photo lab you trust not to kill your slides? Mine is a half hour away. Every time I would shoot, I'd have to drive over a mountain pass, at least a half hour drive, usually in the dark after work. Then I'd have to drive back down to get the slides. Add that into the price equation if your lab is far away.

Want to try different exposure and experiment? Shoot it. 1 second later, look down at your screen. Did that work? No? Try something else till it does. Wow, you just learned something instantly. You also did not have to take notes to do that. Why? Beceause the digital image file saved all your shot's information. Shutter speed, f-stop, white balance, iso setting, af setting, flash setting, time of day, date, etc.

My camera said I took 10,000 shots before I sold it for an upgrade from the D60 to the EOS 1D. A roll of Provia 100 costs about $6 (works out to be $1,666 for film) processing at my lab is $6.50, that's $1805.55. Now granted I wouldn't have shot that many pics if it was film, probably half of that. But that's still a shit ton of money. And then there's the learning thing. If you are experimneting with different techniques, unless you are very thourough of taking notes, you are probably going to forget how you accomplished (or didn't at all) what you shot. If you even did get what you were trying to do.

Back to the overall cost. Get out of the stone age and buy a shit box computer for $300 of somebody. If you are on the boards here you should buy one considering how cheap they are now.

Cost of software? Are you kidding me? You have to know some computer geek somewhere that has every version of every piece of graphics and web software out there. If you don't then I'll get it to you.

I've shot with the D30, D60, D10, Digital Rebel and my EOS-1D. I've also shot with the above film bodies. For what it sounds like you need.....you need to learn, understand exposure, the D60, D10, or Digital Rebel will give you what you need....right now....to learn.....to learn quickly. It will cost more to get you started, but once you get everything then you are all set. No more costs.

The D60 (discontinued) or Digital Rebel ($899) (same image sensors) will give you plenty of detail as well at 6.3 mp.

here's an example:
screen shot of full frame:
http://www.seowitz.com/snapshots/tgr/thumb.jpg

zoomed in at 100%
http://www.seowitz.com/snapshots/tgr/fullsize.jpg

What I'm saying is if you can afford to get a DSLR then get one, decent one's start at $899, not $1500 as stated above.

If you can't do that then go get the film body and spend as much in film and processing at the end of the season add up your total.

I do shoot film sometimes. That's just when my batteries are dead, I've used up 1.5gb worth of memory cards and I need to shoot more.

The last thing and this doesn't matter if you have digital or film.....:D

GET A GOOD PACK TO PROTECT YOUR GEAR!!!!!!!!!!
I'm skiing around with the Burton Zoom pack. It's realatively small as far as camera packs go, and it has a shovel carrier with straps for a probe as well, all my necessary camera gear fits, and the pack sticks to my back like glue.

I have a review of this pack here:
http://www.feedthehabit.com/gear_rev...zoom_pack.html

wow. I'm finally done with my rant....sorry if that was painful for some.
.....my $2.02:eek:

Midget, also thanks for sharing your knowledge and experience. I agree with you that in the last 18 months I've used digi cams, I learned many new techniques, much more quickly.

I've been toying with the idea of buying either a Canon 1D or a Nikon D2H. If I was going to buy a minimum of lenses, what would you guys recommend?

dude summit dude knows what hes tizalking about.

If you really only have 200-300, I'd go for a point and shoot style digital camera with a reasonable zoom. Unfortunately, you'd have to use the half-depress the shutter to get it to AF ahead of time, but there are a lot of really good cameras. my sister has a 3 megapixel sony camera that took 12k photos before it finally gave up the ghost. sailing, parties, skiing, finally to college. and then it died :(.

However, what i just said is complete crap if you want an instant AF for a faster motion shot. Also, im not too fond of SLRs cause im too lazy to focus, etc.... i like to push one button :)... can't figure out all this ring bullshit.
-john

Quote:

---

Originally posted by seldon
Also, im not too fond of SLRs cause im too lazy to focus, etc.... i like to push one button :)... can't figure out all this ring bullshit.
-john

---

Ring, hell. You can use any modern SLR just like you would a point-and-shoot with the possible exception that you twist the lens to zoom rather than use a button on the camera back.

Some excellent info in this thread. Nice work everyone.

I've had good luck with Lowepro camera bags. My old one (with camera and three lenses) got stolen, but I now use the Lowepro photo runner. It has a shoulder strap or can be worn around the waist (obviously preferable when skiing). I don't like it as well as my old one. Just a little too small.

Here's a link to it on the B&H website:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=198899&is=REG

One other thing: Summit mentioned Sigma lenses. Be careful with them. I purchased one off eBay a few months ago that I had to send in to Sigma because it wasn't compatible with my Elan 7 camera body. Sigma has a history of compatibility problems.

ad, thanks. didn't know that (last time i used a SLR was my parents 70s era nikkromat (sp??)). Aren't they still a little bit harder to fit in a pocket than a smaller point-shoot camera? (trying to avoid the complete dumbass status of previous post)

wow, lots of good info, I am gonna toss in my cam, cause I have been using it for about 2 years and really love it. I have a minolta maxium 5, and I love it, light weight, like 4 fps I believe, never had trouble other than sand from two weeks in the windy sand dunes. That being said, I think the other people in the thread know more than I as I am completely self learned, and am still learning along the way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rossi BC bitch
dude summit dude knows what hes tizalking about.

---

Yup, i agree with everything he said except the digi vs. film thing.

I've heard mixed reviews about the D2H and I don't think you can even get it yet. I really don't know for sure though. Quick check on B&H's website should tell you....

From what I've heard the D2H's images just aren't as good as the 1D. I like the D2H for the adjustable frame rate, 1fps - 8fps (not sure on the top end number).....that would be really nice. The 1D gives you either pistol fire or gattling gun fire....3fps or 8fps and nothing in between. The D2H also has a greater range of AF/Metering points throughout the entire frame. The 1D just has the AF/Metering points in about 50% of a centered ellipse. The extra points would be nice as well. The other thing is you can get more continuous frames before the memory buffer craps out. 21 total frames in the 1D and 40 total frames in the D2H. That's the biggest difference I see besides the image quality.

As far as I'm concerned, aside from those 3 points it pretty much becomes Canon vs. Nikkon lenses...what do you like better.....and cost. The 1D's been around longer, it's cheaper and availible right now.

Lenses? What Summit said. Pro lenses all the way.....except for that 50mm 1.8 lens. Cheap and an awesome lens. Very good portrait lens on a DSLR (with the magnification ratios) One thing to add to Summit's quiver of Lenses is the Canon 80-200 2.8L (black barrell) You can find it cheaper (if you can find one in good condition) than the 70-200 2.8L (white barrell), and many say that the old one (80-200 2.8L) has better optics. I've used both and I can't tell the difference in the optics. The main difference to me was price and the lack of a USM AF motor on the 80-200. That's what you aren't paying for in the older lens.

Main reason I went with the Canon is it was availble when I needed to get the camera body, and I already had Canon glass. If I had Nikkon glass, I would have waited for the Nikkon.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by midget
Lenses? What Summit said. Pro lenses all the way.....except for that 50mm 1.8 lens. Cheap and an awesome lens. Very good portrait lens on a DSLR (with the magnification ratios)

---

A lot of people swear by the first generation of the 50/1.8 because it has a metal mount rather than plastic. Although the plastic is certainly lighter, if that's a factor.

A really good resource for learning about camera equipment and technique is http://www.photo.net/

The BP-5 can also be used with the Elan II. (it's pretty much a big external 4D carrier... mucho juico that can be kept warm)

Regarding Snowsliders offer... if it's an Elan, it's not gonna track moving subjects worth a damn. If its an Elan II, it'll do a lot better.
I have never heard of a Canon 28-85mm... it must be very old... unless you are talking about the manual focus 28-85mm f/4 for FD mount. It's a consumer zoom and it probably sucks. If it's a f/3.5-4.5 USM it might be a decent consumer zoom.
The Canon 70-210 is an old lens as well... they made two versions... an f/4 and a f/3.5-f/4.5. One sucked, the other was pretty darn good considering it was a consumer level zoom. I think the f/4 was the good one... or was it the other way aroud... I haven't seen one of those in ages.

Nikon type person... I'd vote the D1x over the D2H unless you are almost only doing action and you *need* that framerate/buffer. I'm a bit rusty on my Nikon specs.

I thought he just wanted to spend $200-$300 on body. If his budget is $300 total for body and lenses

(from highest to lowest quality of output):

Canon AE-1, FD 50mm f/1.8, FD 135mm f/2.5 SSC or f/3.5 (manual focus, aperature priority auto exposure, quality almost as good as the bottom-of-barrel kit reccomended above, no AF, less AE features)
down several quality rungs
Canon Elan/28-85/70-210 combo offered by snowslider
and way down a whole whole whole lot of quality quality rungs
Canon PowerShot A70 3MP digicam (motordrive i don't recall the speed)
Kodak DX6340 3MP digicam (motordrive 2.2fps for 12 shots)

(Note-I've used to have an AE-1, gave it to my bro, I'm going to buy one of those two digicams just cuz I need a digital images sometimes (ebay) and I don't want to buy a film scanner)

midget: I absolutely second your reccomendation for the bag! Right on the need for a good camera bag. I'm a big Lowe Pro (same company as Lowe Alpine) but their stuff may be less suited for mixing skiing with photography.

Good call on the 80-200mm L... thats a golden oldie. I totally forgot about that one.
The 80-200mm L is a f/2.8-f/4
I would'nt call it an alternative to the 70-200 2.8 (especially with the affordable Sigma out there). But it is certainly a good alternative to the 70-200 f/4 L USM if you don't need that high speed silent USM focusing with FTM. I'm trying to remember if its a push-pull or not.

A $300 box is gonna suck ass to edit sizable pictures. Not to mention you need a monitor and you want a good *calibrated* monitor. Sure you can pirate photoshop no problem.

The 300D sensor is almost identical to the 10D, not a D60. The 300D is not an acceptable ccamera to me because of its build quality (like a Rebel series PoS, it is a Digital Rebel) and its limitations on exposure system and AF mode control locked by exposure mode you are using, controls (among other things). The 10D is the starting point for anyone jumping into Canon digital IMHO (watch the Nikon D70, Sigma SD series, and the Olympus DSLR series).

I am NOT going to get into a digital vs film argument here. No offense, but I've been in too many of those. I've heard all the arguments and each side has its merits. I would state the incontravertable truths:

Film
1. Initial investment for digital is much much higher than film, period.
2. Digital cameras suck up juice... lots of battery... and they do it really fast in the cold.
3. Top of the line digital camera that come close to matching film are as expensive for the DSLR body alone as an entire professional 35mm SLR and lens setup and 35mm film scanner.
4. B&W: Digital prints cannot touch a properly done 35mm FB print.
5. Wide angle is much easier and cheaper with film.
6. Film gear holds its value over the years. Digital gear is obsolete very quickly.

Digital
1. If you shoot a lot, digital will definately pay for itself if you do not print out your work often.
2. You do get extra practice with digital because shots are free.
3. It's hard to judge exposure on a 1.8" LCD, but it's better than nothing.
4. High end digital is the clear choice for photojournalists and others with mostly digital workflows who shoot a zillion pictures.
5. Low end digital is a good choice for computer savvy point and shooter tourists who shoot a ton, don't care about quality too much, and never print more than 3.5x5.
6. Those film arguments proably won't hold up so well 5-10 years from now.

I'm waiting for a 16MP Foveon 3X fullframe 35mm sensor camera fore under $2000 before I ditch my 35mm film gear and even then I'll hold onto my 4x5 gear for serious B&W work.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The AD
A lot of people swear by the first generation of the 50/1.8 because it has a metal mount rather than plastic. Although the plastic is certainly lighter, if that's a factor.

A really good resource for learning about camera equipment and technique is http://www.photo.net/

---

I swear by my first generation 50mm.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mk I with metal mount, better build, distance scale, dof scale, nonrotating filter mount, and a larger focus ring that doesnt move during manual focusing. If you see a Mk I, buy it. It is a rare gem. You see them on ebay now and then for $90-$110.

I don't like www.photo.net there is good stuff there, but there are a lot of self indulgent tards... it used to be a lot better... but Phil Greenspun is a shithead, i find his work nothing special, oh... and he is a fucking sellout (that is another story). That said, its the Louvre and MIT (yes I know) compared to bullshit critique sites like tittysig (we all know what that mediocre cauldren of mediocrity is really called) and there is good info to be found on photo.net

I prefer http://www.silver-pixel.net/ and http://www.usefilm.com/ for critique (these both have attatched Java/IRC chatrooms) and http://www.photozone.de/ (gear, news, technique, forums) and www.techphoto.org (link database, news is old, it used to be right on).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SummitCo 1776
midget: I absolutely second your reccomendation for the bag! Right on the need for a good camera bag. I'm a big Lowe Pro (same company as Lowe Alpine) but their stuff may be less suited for mixing skiing with photography.

---

I've skied with the Lowe Pro Mini Trekker, it slogs around your back real bad. Burton Zoom or the DaKine pack. Dakine has more storage though...

Quote:

---

Good call on the 80-200mm L... thats a golden oldie. I totally forgot about that one.
The 80-200mm L is a f/2.8-f/4
I would'nt call it an alternative to the 70-200 2.8 (especially with the affordable Sigma out there). But it is certainly a good alternative to the 70-200 f/4 L USM if you don't need that high speed silent USM focusing with FTM. I'm trying to remember if its a push-pull or not.

---

I have the 80-200 2.8L and love it....it's not a push-pull. Could be a bit faster with the AF, but with the 1D now it's just fine for me. Not a Sigma fan at all. I've tried a few of their EX lenses and they all seem difficult to dial in just right....just seemed like less room for error with them. I still have the 15mm Sigma EX Fisheye cause it was cheap to buy.

Quote:

---

A $300 box is gonna suck ass to edit sizable pictures. Not to mention you need a monitor and you want a good *calibrated* monitor. Sure you can pirate photoshop no problem.

---

Didn't think about the monitor thing, but my puter is probably worth in the $500 shit box range and it works awesome for everything I do.

Quote:

---

The 300D sensor is almost identical to the 10D, not a D60.

---

oops...yer right.

Quote:

---

The 300D is not an acceptable ccamera to me because of its build quality (like a Rebel series PoS, it is a Digital Rebel) and its limitations on exposure system and AF mode control locked by exposure mode you are using, controls (among other things). The 10D is the starting point for anyone jumping into Canon digital IMHO (watch the Nikon D70, Sigma SD series, and the Olympus DSLR series).

---

Well, I'd just bypass all the auto rebel crap (and yes it's built like crap too) and put it in manual.

Quote:

---

I am NOT going to get into a digital vs film argument here. No offense, but I've been in too many of those. I've heard all the arguments and each side has its merits. I would state the incontravertable truths:

---

I'll say a few things then leave it be.......:D

Quote:

---

Film
1. Initial investment for digital is much much higher than film, period.
-----yup, worth every penny....tough to put a price tag on the quick learning curve.

2. Digital cameras suck up juice... lots of battery... and they do it really fast in the cold.
-----I would get 300 shots on a full charge from my D60 battery and my 1D battery has yet to die, even through almost 1.5gb of shots out in the cold

3. Top of the line digital camera that come close to matching film are as expensive for the DSLR body alone as an entire professional 35mm SLR and lens setup and 35mm film scanner.
-----how much does a drum scanner really cost? film costs money, processing costs money (it really does add up really fast)...and i hate scanning!

4. B&W: Digital prints cannot touch a properly done 35mm FB print.
---duh! :D That's why I still have my 10s....although i never take it out of manual mode so i might as well be shooting with my old AE-1

5. Wide angle is much easier and cheaper with film.
----yah, but you should have a fisheye anyways! :D

6. Film gear holds its value over the years. Digital gear is obsolete very quickly.
----money saved in film/processing can make it even out. Then there's the time (and cost if you don't have a scanner) to get good scans done.

Digital
1. If you shoot a lot, digital will definately pay for itself if you do not print out your work often.
--------well, how often do you print your slides? That gets just as expensive.

2. You do get extra practice with digital because shots are free.
-----you can experiment a lot more too

3. It's hard to judge exposure on a 1.8" LCD, but it's better than nothing.
----that's why you learn to read a histogram, you should know if you took a sharp shot or not....

4. High end digital is the clear choice for photojournalists and others with mostly digital workflows who shoot a zillion pictures.
5. Low end digital is a good choice for computer savvy point and shooter tourists who shoot a ton, don't care about quality too much, and never print more than 3.5x5.

6. Those film arguments proably won't hold up so well 5-10 years from now.
----maybe less, maybe longer, who knows.....i hope less though!

I'm waiting for a 16MP Foveon 3X fullframe 35mm sensor camera fore under $2000 before I ditch my 35mm film gear and even then I'll hold onto my 4x5 gear for serious B&W work.

I swear by my first generation 50mm.

The 50mm f/1.8 Mk I with metal mount, better build, distance scale, dof scale, nonrotating filter mount, and a larger focus ring that doesnt move during manual focusing. If you see a Mk I, buy it. It is a rare gem. You see them on ebay now and then for $90-$110.

---

Yah, I need to get one of those. MKII's are cheaply made and so much tougher to focus with and/or use a polarizing filter!

Quote:

---

I don't like www.photo.net there is good stuff there, but there are a lot of self indulgent tards... it used to be a lot better... but Phil Greenspun is a shithead, i find his work nothing special, oh... and he is a fucking sellout (that is another story). That said, its the Louvre and MIT (yes I know) compared to bullshit critique sites like tittysig (we all know what that mediocre cauldren of mediocrity is really called) and there is good info to be found on photo.net

I prefer http://www.silver-pixel.net/ and http://www.usefilm.com/ for critique (these both have attatched Java/IRC chatrooms) and http://www.photozone.de/ (gear, news, technique, forums) and www.techphoto.org (link database, news is old, it used to be right on).

---

I'll have to check those sites out.

www.dprieveiw.com has some good reviews on lots of the digital cameras out there, pro and consumer level one's.

Sorry that I got away from the overall subject.......got on a rant and forgot about the $300 price range. If you do end up going at a point and shoot digi (instead of an slr film listed way back there by summit) then you should really look at the Canon Powershot A70 or A60 and get a wide angle or fisheye attatchment for it...those are tons o fun.

OK, I promise I'm done. :D

midget: Where are our manners? WELCOME TO THE BOARD!
I pretty much agree with everything you just said. I don't think a drum scanner is totally necissary for most digital applications these days given the amazing technological advances in scanning technology. Minolta and Nikon make some amazing scanners for under $500. I used to work on a SuperCoolScan 4000ED and it was mindblowing for its price (kilobuck range) and Nikon just announced its next generation for its entire scanner lineup. Good point on the histograms... I wish more of the lower end digicams had that... maybe people would learn more (and maybe the 3MP digitoys i'm looking at would be more fun to play with).

I do have to disagree on Sigma. They were company of poor repute when it came to build quality in the past and have spent the last several years working off that image with their EX line. They have amazingly innovative lens designs and seem to be the new Vivitar (well... compared the 70/80s when vivitar was amazing cutting edge and innovative with quality, not the festering crappile they have become) I have the Sigma 105mm EX 1:1 macro, the 2X EX TC, and the 15mm f/2.8 EX fisheye. All of these lenses are solidly built. I felt the 105mm was sturdier than the old Canon 2.8 100 (or was it 105) macro. The sigma fisheye is not only 2/3 the price of the canon fisheye, it is much sturdier (metal vs plastic) and it focuses closer. I think Sigma is fast becoming the lens manufacturer of choice for pros on a budget who want quality. The Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 EX HSM has an extremely good repuation (the only qualm was its HSM wouldnt qutie match the rUSM on the canon equivelent). When they license IS technology and pop a 70-200 2.8 IS $1000, I'll dump my Canon L. I'd still of avoid Sigma non pro lenses like smallpox. Sigma has always upgraded their firmware free of charge whenever canon changes their lens interface to screw with the 3rd party manufactuerers. See the Sigma website for details. http://www.sigmaphoto.com

I kinda left out dpreview.com, which is pretty much *the* site for digital news and reviews. Must be my film nazi subconcious acting up again. :p

I too kinda misunderstood his price range (I think?). But I think its readily apparent that there are plenty of others on the board looking at gear. The suggestions that we gave were aimed at people who wanted action shooting setups capable of creating professional quality output for their own artistic desires or to sell their work etc.

To all the other shooters out there (and I'm sure midget was thinking this too):
1. Take a class and/or read a book on exposure and shooting technique
2. Take lots of pictures.

Book suggestions:
Photography by London and Upton
The Negative by Ansel Adams

Photography 7th edition has lots of stuff on digital.
6th edition is fine if you wanna save $$$ and just do film.
Your local library should have these books.

Also:
The Camera by Ansel Adams
The Print by Ansel Adams

GT-40 as to your "which lenses for the 1D or D2H?"

And I got confused as to whether you mean the Nikon D1 (and which flavor) or the Canon 1D (which flavor)?

What kind of stuff do you want to shoot? Landscape? Portrait? Wildlife? Action (what kind)? Daytime mostly? Natural light? Night?

What kind of work are you doing? Freelance or personal art?

Do you mean minimum of lenses as minimum cost or minimum lenses so you don't have to swap them as often or carry as many?