• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Ask me your photography questions!

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
Originally posted by: thecrecarc
Cant you just take a picture of yourself and put it in your gallery? =\
Sowwy :(

I wanna remain a fuzzy wuzzy enigma baby!

:p
 

DurocShark

Lifer
Apr 18, 2001
15,708
5
56
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: ElFenix
what is the best service for digitizing film photos?
I have no idea. Anyone else?
Buy a film scanner and scan your negs. Time consuming, and a quality scanner is $$$.

Otherwise, take your negs to a local CAMERA shop. Not WalMart or whatever. It's not expensive to have good scans made by pros.
 

Eos

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
3,451
2
81
I found a lab in Boise, Idaho who does process, scan and mount of 36 exposure E-6 for $9.95 per roll. I believe they are 5 mb scans. 5x7 prints at best, but I would not print from the scans. They are for web use only.

They also do a good job on my C-41 emulsions. Same res scans.

Their website does not advertise process and scan, but call them: 208-343-4501

They are willing to accept your film shipped from your location, do the work, then call you to pay and ship the results back.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Scanning while processing film is a great option. It'll be the cheapest and most convenient, even if you have your own scanner. You can even skip the lab prints if you like, and only print your keepers -- either from the scans if they're big enough, or from your own scans or custom scans of just the keepers. Scanning all your negs yourself would generally take a huge amount of time.
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
I'm still shooting on the original Digital Rebel. (no XT). I'm starting to think about upgrading. What do you think i should do? 20D or new XTi? I know there is also the 30D, isn't there?
The original Rebel's a good camera. IMO its biggest problem is speed, and any of the latter cameras should be much faster. If the speed doesn't bother you, then you need a good reason to upgrade. What would it be? Often you might be better off with a better lens, tripod, flash, printer, or something else instead of a whole new slightly better body.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Wow! Killer thread! Well done and thank you to fuzzybabybunny and everyone else.

I'm still shooting on the original Digital Rebel. (no XT). I'm starting to think about upgrading. What do you think i should do? 20D or new XTi? I know there is also the 30D, isn't there?

Anyway i'll keep reading this thread. Good info here.
I'd go handle the 30D and 400D see if the ergonomics of the 30D appeal to you more. Otherwise, I'd get the XTi unless you really need the faster FPS, longer bursts, 1/3 stop ISOs, ISO 3200, spot metering, and slightly bigger/brighter viewfinder of the 30D. The XTi should focus just as well and offers a bigger resolution bump (VERY noticeable vs. just noticeable) over the 300D.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Tom
What are some affordable studio lights ? Preferably not too big.

I think i read that 3 light sources are good for indoor still-life type shots. For taking photos of stuff for a catalog for example.
Product lighting is a special discipline. For a studio kit you'd be okay starting with a two-light set and adding more later. Some people advocate starting with just one light. Here's a good-quality starter 2-strobe set:
http://www.adorama.com/PAINT120.html?searchinfo=interfit%20ex%20150&item_no=1
 

Eos

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2000
3,451
2
81
Originally posted by: Tom
What are some affordable studio lights ? Preferably not too big.

I think i read that 3 light sources are good for indoor still-life type shots. For taking photos of stuff for a catalog for example.
In the next couple days, I'm going to post a complete single light kit in the FS/T forum.

DC powered Lumedyne 800 w/s head, 200 w/s pack, battery charger, 2 umbrellas, light stand. Sekonic L-508 light meter too, if you want it. Top of the class in digital light meters.

This system could easily run two flash heads without a squeal of protest. Just add a second head to this and you're in business.

 

GrantMeThePower

Platinum Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,940
2
0
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
I'm still shooting on the original Digital Rebel. (no XT). I'm starting to think about upgrading. What do you think i should do? 20D or new XTi? I know there is also the 30D, isn't there?
The original Rebel's a good camera. IMO its biggest problem is speed, and any of the latter cameras should be much faster. If the speed doesn't bother you, then you need a good reason to upgrade. What would it be? Often you might be better off with a better lens, tripod, flash, printer, or something else instead of a whole new slightly better body.

Well the 300D (original Rebel) has an advantage IMO already- I really like the size and weight of the body more than the XT. I've noticed, however, that the sensor seems superior on the XT. It doesn't seem to just be a matter of megapixels (though that would be nice to print larger art sized images) but also a matter of noise levels. The speed of shooting isn't as big of a deal as the speed of startup. I do a lot of picture taking while hiking or walking and often i want to turn it on and be ready to shoot ASAP, and with this one it take 3.5 seconds or so i'd guess.

Finally, I think the software that is used for the exposure settings when not in full manual has been improved since my model...or am i wrong?

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


I'd go handle the 30D and 400D see if the ergonomics of the 30D appeal to you more. Otherwise, I'd get the XTi unless you really need the faster FPS, longer bursts, 1/3 stop ISOs, ISO 3200, spot metering, and slightly bigger/brighter viewfinder of the 30D. The XTi should focus just as well and offers a bigger resolution bump (VERY noticeable vs. just noticeable) over the 300D.
Yea, I'd say those specifics don't matter as much to me but the body size is a bit of an issue just because the XT felt too small in my hands, coming from the 300D. It isn't a big enough of a deal for me to not upgrade because of it, but it is at least some small factor. So you're saying go with the new XTi over my other choices?
 

Madwand1

Diamond Member
Jan 23, 2006
3,309
0
76
Tough call between the XTi/400D and 30D / etc. What I'd probably do is the following: (1) Wait for serious reviews to come out on at least the 400D's sensor resolution and noise performance. (2) Go to a store and price and handle them side by side, with an intended lens. (3) Maybe even shoot a few shots just outside the store and take them home on the card for pixel peeping / etc. (4) Consider how I'd feel when the 30D gets replaced. It's expected life-time at this point is not that long. (5) Consider taking advantage of the greater availability of used 20D's. (6) Pixel peep, forum haunt, theory craft. (7) Regret doing (6) and not shooting more.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
Originally posted by: Madwand1
Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower
I'm still shooting on the original Digital Rebel. (no XT). I'm starting to think about upgrading. What do you think i should do? 20D or new XTi? I know there is also the 30D, isn't there?
The original Rebel's a good camera. IMO its biggest problem is speed, and any of the latter cameras should be much faster. If the speed doesn't bother you, then you need a good reason to upgrade. What would it be? Often you might be better off with a better lens, tripod, flash, printer, or something else instead of a whole new slightly better body.

Well the 300D (original Rebel) has an advantage IMO already- I really like the size and weight of the body more than the XT. I've noticed, however, that the sensor seems superior on the XT. It doesn't seem to just be a matter of megapixels (though that would be nice to print larger art sized images) but also a matter of noise levels. The speed of shooting isn't as big of a deal as the speed of startup. I do a lot of picture taking while hiking or walking and often i want to turn it on and be ready to shoot ASAP, and with this one it take 3.5 seconds or so i'd guess.

Finally, I think the software that is used for the exposure settings when not in full manual has been improved since my model...or am i wrong?

Originally posted by: 6000SUX


I'd go handle the 30D and 400D see if the ergonomics of the 30D appeal to you more. Otherwise, I'd get the XTi unless you really need the faster FPS, longer bursts, 1/3 stop ISOs, ISO 3200, spot metering, and slightly bigger/brighter viewfinder of the 30D. The XTi should focus just as well and offers a bigger resolution bump (VERY noticeable vs. just noticeable) over the 300D.
Yea, I'd say those specifics don't matter as much to me but the body size is a bit of an issue just because the XT felt too small in my hands, coming from the 300D. It isn't a big enough of a deal for me to not upgrade because of it, but it is at least some small factor. So you're saying go with the new XTi over my other choices?
If the grip is too small it's too small. I have a 30D and love it, which should tell you where I stand, but I have also had an XT and have nothing bad to say about it. Slap a 24-70L or other heavy lens on it plus a 580EX and you're probably asking for achy hands, but that's not everyone.

I wouldn't get a 20D because you can get a 30D for only a little more (around $1150 at B & H with a discount code). For that you get a 100,000-actuation shutter (versus 50,000 for the 20D), which alone could justify the price difference. You also get a bigger buffer, both 3FPS and 5FPS, 1/3 stop ISOs, slightly better AF algorithm (supposedly), a much bigger LCD that lets you review shots more easily, spot meter, and some other minor upgrades. The 30D should also have a better resale value than the 20D, if such things matter to you.

If you can find a really good deal on a used 20D, that may be the way to go. The only thing is that there aren't that many good-condition used ones that haven't used up a big portion of the shutter lifetime, since the 20D has been around for a while now.


 

AStar617

Diamond Member
Sep 29, 2002
4,983
0
0
Now that Sony's getting into digital SLRs, do you expect them to be contenders with Nikon/Canon?

Oh, and have you ever bedded any of your subjects as a result of a shoot? :p
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,739
6,078
126
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: ElFenix
how is the sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6?

would it be a good pair to a tamron 28-75 f/2.8?
It's a great lens, although the lens caps are really hard to get on and off when the hood is on.

It's very sharp at f/8 but at around f/16 and below it really starts to show some diffraction, which kills the sharpness. This is unfortunate because a LOT of people use their wides at very small apertures to maximize depth of field.

The Sigma 10-20mm is probably one of the most affordable, relatively, ultra-wides.

One thing that I wish it had was a constant f/4 aperture, like the Tokina 12-24mm.

It would certainly be a good pair with the Tamron 28-75mm.
how is the tokina 12-24? i see that it's actually slightly less expensive than the sigma (though it doesn't get quite as wide, either)
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
12
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.
Yes, at F2.8 it's a fast 400mm lens. It's average for a 200mm prime and slow for a 50mm prime. As focal length increases, it becomes harder to have a fast lens because of the giant-size front glass that is required.

ZV
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,739
6,078
126
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.
Yes, at F2.8 it's a fast 400mm lens. It's average for a 200mm prime and slow for a 50mm prime. As focal length increases, it becomes harder to have a fast lens because of the giant-size front glass that is required.

ZV
doesn't look like there is currently a faster 200 mm lens for canon. nikon makes a 2.0, and it costs more than my car.

 

virtuamike

Diamond Member
Oct 13, 2000
7,845
13
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.
Yes, at F2.8 it's a fast 400mm lens. It's average for a 200mm prime and slow for a 50mm prime. As focal length increases, it becomes harder to have a fast lens because of the giant-size front glass that is required.

ZV
doesn't look like there is currently a faster 200 mm lens for canon. nikon makes a 2.0, and it costs more than my car.
Canon used to make a 200/1.8.

And Nikon used to make a 300/2. Muwhahaha.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,739
6,078
126
Originally posted by: kalster
how do you normally decide which is the best lens to use, ie, prime, zoom, etc.
depends on what you need to capture and how much footwork you can use. if you're going to be taking pictures of buildings, in hallways or cramped spaces, or of large outdoor areas, you're going to need a wide angle. (wide angle can also be very dramatic when used creatively for portrait work or candid-type shots).

if you're doing standard portrait shots or modelling work, you'll want a mild telephoto (~100mm on 35mm cameras). the telephoto will flatten out the image because with such a lens you're going to be 20 feet away and a nose that sticks out 2 inches from the eyes isn't going to be that much closer to the lens. you'll most likely want a prime lens in that situation as well because the maximum aperture is larger, and therefore better able to throw the background out of focus.

a good selection of primes can cover most photo needs, when combined with foot zooming or cropping. primes are generally sharper because there is less glass to screw up the light. primes are also generally faster. so, within their focal length range, primes usually allow the maximum creative ability.

the problem, of course, is that to cover the same range as a good zoom you might need 3 primes. so you might miss out on photo opportunities.

of course, sometimes it's best just to observe what is happening rather than mess with your camera.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.
Yes, at F2.8 it's a fast 400mm lens. It's average for a 200mm prime and slow for a 50mm prime. As focal length increases, it becomes harder to have a fast lens because of the giant-size front glass that is required.

ZV
Yep. That's my point. It's fast because it's faster than many other 400mm lenses.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,916
431
126
What are the disadvantages, if any, of using an EM CCD instead of an ordinary back-thinned CCD for capturing high-speed confocal images?
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
12
81
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Not only does that lens not have USM, but it uses an old-style stepper motor. So even if the speed of AF isn't too slow for the situation, you may miss focus wide open if you get stuck between two of the steps. That's why I don't really consider the 50mm f/1.8 a fast lens unless you manually focus wide open. Sometimes, you get what you pay for.
"Fast" in regard to a lens has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the speed at which it focuses. "Fast" in terms of a lens means that it has a very large maximum aperture (e.g. f1.4 or f1.7 as opposed to f3.5). Any f1.8 lens is fast, regardless of the speed at which it can autofocus.

ZV
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,576
431
126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
how is the tokina 12-24? i see that it's actually slightly less expensive than the sigma (though it doesn't get quite as wide, either)
Apparently 10mm is quite a bit better than 12mm. Haven't compared the two myself though.

Sample pics for the Tokina AT-X Pro DX 12-24mm f4 are located here. I can't help but think the photos aren't quite as sharp as those taken with the Sigma (here). Of course, this could be an issue of who's taking the photo.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,510
12
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
I understand. I'm just saying that the Canon 400 f/2.8, for instance, is regarded by the whole world as a fast lens-- and that's an f/2.8 prime.
Yes, at F2.8 it's a fast 400mm lens. It's average for a 200mm prime and slow for a 50mm prime. As focal length increases, it becomes harder to have a fast lens because of the giant-size front glass that is required.

ZV
doesn't look like there is currently a faster 200 mm lens for canon. nikon makes a 2.0, and it costs more than my car.
That's why I love my screw-mount lenses. $20 for a 200mm f2.8 prime. :) They're perfect for learning or anything that you don't use often enough to justify the expense. With an adaptor they'll fit just about anything and they were made for decades so there are vast numbers of them out there. The old SMC Takumars are very nice lenses and not too hugely expensive.

ZV
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY