My mind and the tens of thousands lining up to purchase them from Canon. I continue to stand by my original claim.

WOW. The resolution, image quality etc. rivals medium format.

The 10D rivals medium format. When I shot medium format I routinely used it to produce prints that exceeded the quality I could get with 35mm. Now I (and many others) routinely use digital cameras (including the 10D) to produce prints that I previously would have used medium format for. The resolution and image quality of the prints rival what I previously made with medium format. Plain and simple.

I'm not trying to make anyone angry but If I were to stumble on a digital camera forum that went on and on as this thread has done, I'd not come back.

This thread is going nowhere IMHO.

Surely, if there were to be a digital camera forum it would contain information about digital cameras and their applications (other than, perhaps, film replacement :-) ) wouldn't there?

I use digital where I want and film up to 4x5 when appropriate. I know which is appropriate because it's what I want to use at that place and time.

Sorry if I've made anyone angry.

I agree Mike. I guess its just a really touchy subject, much the same as "Making DV look like film".

Although, I have learned alot from the arguments, I can see why someone who already knows much of this information would be driven away from such discussions.

We'll be good...Dont worry. :) lol...

Here's my experience:

I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective.

Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters.

The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches.

Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted.

I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions.

Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall.

Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget.

For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations.

There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film.

And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding.

These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

So with that in mind, where’s the best place for me to pick up a 10D? I know id have to buy lenses. Which lens could I use that would give me the most basic photographic capabilities, without breaking the bank? I guess you could say "universal" or “all around” lens?

Also, to all of those out there with "Digital Darkrooms", describe the process you go through to ensure preservation of your digital files from your camera to the final output? What gives you the best results? What are some dos and donts?

Ill briefly explain my process...mind you, it may not be correct, but that’s why I’m here...to learn. If you see a better way for me to do it, or tips, id be glad to give them a try...

For me, I load the images (jpgs) from my camera into Photoshop. I then save a copy of the image as a tiff, and proceed to color correction and touch-ups. I also convert color modes if need be. (rgb > cmyk)

Then, I open a new Photoshop document at final print size (5x7, 4x6, 8x10) and drag the tiff file onto the output document, and resize to fit. I usually like to stay about 250 dpi for output.

If I took the picture at highest resolution (2560 x 1920) I can usually produce a full sized landscape 5x7 at about 300 dpi. If I need to go bigger, I just drop the dpi in the output file then drag the tiff until it fits.

Let me know how you set your files up...

<<<-- Originally posted by Dean Sensui : Here's my experience:

I started out with 35mm and eventually acquired medium format and 4x5 equipment to do commercial work. The 4x5 was especially valuable when it came to doing anything that would require substantial enlargement or critical control of perspective.

Since then I've sold the Bronica and the 4x5 with the Schneider lenses. Sold the Omega D5VXL, Polaroid backs, and Minolta meters.

The 4x5 system went unused for three years, as I'd replaced it with a digital workflow. No Polaroids. No film holders to load and unload. No wondering if the camera might have slipped out of adjustment at the last second or if a strobe somehow failed to fire. The test shot becomes the final working shot. That cost savings alone is huge as we'd use several Polaroids just to get the lighting exactly right for wristwatches.

Also, if I was working with a graphic artist, he could bring his Quark layout and I could immediately import the images as we shot them to see if they'd work with his design. And, again, once we had something that worked, that was it. The shoot was done. The client would save hundreds of dollars in studio time and get exactly what he wanted.

I did some display ads for Pearlridge shopping center -- John Garcia knows where this is :-) One of the displays is a 5x5-foot backlighted transparency sitting over the central escalators. The photo was shot with a Fuji Finepix S1 Pro SLR. I did the color corrections and then enlarged it with Genuine Fractals. The result, even when seen at arm's length, is incredibly sharp. Much sharper than it needs to be under normal viewing conditions.

Another display was one for the optical shop in the mall. It ended up being 6 feet high and 2 feet wide. The face of the model was blown up until it was more than two feet high. The first print ended up being displayed at another store since it showed too much detail. You could see every single blemish and pore on her face. And that was after I did substantial touch-ups. I diffused the second print, and that's the one that went on display in the mall.

Had I shot with with a medium format camera (forget using a 4x5 on a model), it would have shown grain. Even with Kodak VPS. The digital image, on the other hand, was absolutely clean and clear. With the current technology, making a wall-sized enlargement is limited only by the camera's optics, the capabilities of the output device, and the client's budget.

For detailed work I'll rent a Hasseblad with a digital back. For architecture I use a Kodak DCS 760 that provides an 18-meg file. For news work it's a Kodak DCS 620, which is especially good in low-light situations.

There are photographic problems that I can solve with digital photography which were nearly insurmountable or extremely painstaking with film.

And as for color reproduction -- if you use Colorsync in a color-managed system -- the results are outstanding.

These are just my own experiences. Others may argue the point, and that's ok. But I'm getting the job done and getting wonderful results. And things haven't been this good in the 2 decades I've been in the business. I was a nut when it came to exposure and processing. Even went through the extensive process of setting up the Zone system for anything I did with Tri-X for medium and large format. But now that I've discovered what digital can do -- and that it does it darn well -- I'll never go back.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions -->>>

AMEN! lol...awesome Dean, cant wait to learn for yah...;) lol...

B&H Photo has the lowest price going for a 10D, well, at least as low as any other low prices. Sometimes I think even this price is somewhat regulated by Canon...or a Canon dealer will lose their authorized dealer status. Anyway, the USM 35-135 lens is a workhorse and a truly outstanding lens...I'd recommend it as the most used...at least it is for me.

Another tip: Fredmiranda.com has some OUTSTANDING plugins for Photoshop, customized for the 10D...sharpen filters, highlight filters, and such that are indispensable. Many thanx to Rextillion for turning me on to this site.

John...

I always save the original camera file in its native format. With the Kodak pro cameras it's a proprietary raw TIFF file. These can be re-acquired again if the software improves, so it always pays to keep them intact and unaltered.

If the original is a JPEG, then that gets archived unaltered as well.

As for working on the file, I use Photoshop's adjustment layers almost all the time. It's non-destructive and allows me to go back to make additional tweaks if necessary.

For output, I can add an adjustment layer for a specific output device (if the profile isn't providing an exact result).

These images also are archived as Photoshop files to preserve all the adjustment layers.

Re-sizing is done on copies of that file. In general, this is called "re-purposing" in which a file has to be modified to use as a print, for an ad, for a transparency, in video, etc. I'll only convert to CMYK if it's headed for the press. If it's going to be output on my Epson 2200 then I'll let Colorsync do the conversion and also have it display a simulation on my monitor. You'll have to go to a 100 percent Colorsync workflow to do this.

If I need to do an extreme enlargement with Genuine Fractals, I'll flatten the file and save it seperately.

Dean Sensui
Base Two Productions

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". -->>>

I'm obviously being thick here, but since in most cases the lenses are the same and with the top of the range Canon the focal length multiplier is 1, where's the difference in the optics between digital and 35mm?

both formats use the same lens. since the digital CMOS is smaller than 35mm film format, there is a slight amount of magnification...i think it's 1.6x.

But that's my point. The CMOS of the Canon EOS 1Ds is the same size as 35mm film. Hence it's focal length multiplier is actually 1 (that is, a 20mm lens acts like a 20mm lens, not a 32mm lens.)

And also hence its price tag of a cool eight grand.

I purchased a 10D about a month ago. I'm using the 100-400 mm and
the 16-35 mm L series lens.
I like the results, but HATE canon's fileviewer software.
It's really clumsy, slow and . . . well, you get the idea.

SO, what I want is that plug-in for RAW images. What is it and where
should I go to purchase? I have PS 7.

Thanks!

If I’m not mistaken, Photoshop 8 will be coming out in a few months or so, and will support RAW image formats. If you wait until then, instead of paying for the plug-in, you’ll have the latest version of Photoshop AND a built in plug-in. As for me, ill wait, being that I probably wont have my new camera for a couple of months. Unless someone wants to buy my current camera package, then ill have some money to put towards the 10D ;) lol...

Sony Cybershot DSC-F707 Digital still camera
2 Sony 128 MB memory sticks
3 Sony InfoLithium battery packs
Sony remote control for zoom and shutter
Sony External flash pack
Sony Filter pack - ND Polarizing filter and clear lens protector
Sony Memory Stick Adapter
Sony Tripod
Canon WD-58 wide angle converter
1 Tiffen 58 mm ND Circular Polarizing Filter
1 Tiffen 58 mm 6 pt star filter
Ultra knit lens cleaning cloth
Nylon Carrying case with strap and handle
Lens cleaning kit

Jacques, there is a plug-in for PS7 available from the Adobe site (here (http://www.adobe.com/store/products/plugins/view_by_application.jhtml?id=catPluginsForPhotoshop)). It's $99.

As John stated, the plug-in is expected to be included in PS8, but I'm not sure of its expected release time.

Other alternatives include Yarc+ and Breeze-something-or-other.

This is another vote in favor of a digital photography section here. I have been shooting stills professionally for 18 years, now 70% of it is digital. It takes a community like this one to keep up with technology. A photography section would be a great asset.

DV Info net is the only board I monitor regularly, here is why;

1. The professional advice and attitude of its members.

2. The wealth of knowledge is amazing.

3. I work hard, I don’t have time to be randomly cruising the net trying to sort through the garbage on other sites.

4. I believe your no alias policy is a great thing, anyone can click on my web button anytime to find out more about me and I look to see who other members are.

5. As a professional, some of the work I do is exciting; the majority of it is very boring! Guys here shoot because they are passionate about it, I come here because that passion is infectious and reenergizes me. Many of the non-professionals here have a technical understanding of things far beyond mine, I need their help.

I know of no digital photography site that can match this community, although I don’t look at a lot of them anymore, too discouraging.

Steve

P.S. Buy the 10D – you wont be disappointed.

I just bought the Photoshop 7 RAW file plugin and it won't work for the 10D. It's not on the list of supported cameras. I'm sure this will get updated at the next rev but Adobe's customer support couldn't tell me when that would be. I'm in the process of evaluating IMatch from www.photools.com.

hmm, thats interesting, because I could swear that someone posted that the plug-in works with the 10D... :-/ hmm...dont tell me ill have to wait for a compatible plug in...

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : The resolution and image quality of the prints rival what I previously made with medium format. Plain and simple. -->>>

Jeff's now changing his story. Before it was the 10D that rivaled medium format. Now it's his smallish prints.

I stand by original comment then. My 1MP Casio rivals medium format for 3x5 prints. Woopdedoo.

<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : hmm, thats interesting, because I could swear that someone posted that the plug-in works with the 10D... :-/ hmm...dont tell me ill have to wait for a compatible plug in... -->>>

There are patches for RAW converters that work with the D60 to enable then to support the 10D.

I'm not a Canon owner, but my understanding is that D60 owners like BreezeBrowser and CaptureOne. I use Adobe Camera Raw and like it a great deal.

<<<-- Originally posted by Nigel Moore : <<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : The fact is that current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses so until that's solved we won't see large increases in resolution "in the coming years". -->>>

I'm obviously being thick here, but since in most cases the lenses are the same and with the top of the range Canon the focal length multiplier is 1, where's the difference in the optics between digital and 35mm? -->>>

Yes, the lenses we are talking about are the same lenses that 35mm film cameras use. These lenses have their resolution limits and, believe it or not, the performance of today's digital SLR's push their resolving power. You can get more overall resulution by using a full frame imager, like the 1Ds and 14n, but they are expensive and come with their own problems. If you read the test quoted earlier in the thread, you see that the results indicate that the overall performance is dictated by the lens. Cropped sensor cameras did worse than 35mm, full frame matched it and medium format exceeded it. This is because the optics are "in the way" and is a testament to the supurb performance of today's films and digital SLR's.

The Kodak 14n has been reported to have overall resolution exceeding all but the finest 35mm film. The 1Ds matches it according to reputable reviewers. Noise performance and lack of grain are superior to film for all digital SLR's and help their images blow up to larger than ideal sizes.

Even though these digital SLR's share the same lenses with their film counterparts, the lenses don't perform the same. Digital imagers are actually a stack composed of an anti-alias filter (except 14n), a color filter, a microlens array, and the imager itself. This stackup causes optical problems not anticipated originally by lens designers and is one of the motivations behind the cropping factors of most dSLR's. Nikon started producing "digital optimized" lenses with the D1 and has now shipped its first "DX" series lens specifically made for digital. Canon, on the other hand, is pursuing full frame sensors and has had some quality issues relating to lens interoperability. Kodak has also suffered great problems. Olympus is taking a new tack with the development of an entirely new system specifically designed for digital (E-1, 4/3 system). You may wish to read up on the unique challenges of digital. The short version is that digital likes its light striking the imager orthogonal to the surface and today's film lenses don't do that.

The area digital SLR's need to improve is not actually resolution but dynamic range. Look at Fuji's developments in CCD's to see where that manufacturer is headed. Olympus, likewise, is trying to improve dynamic range in its 4/3 system. Foveon is taking a different tack with its full color imaging sensor. So far they remain the underdog but time will tell. On the resolution front, manufacturers will make progress by improving the sensors (more MP) and improving geometry. Expect resolution gains to be modest compared to the past.

There are patches to use the Canon 10D with Adobe RAW. They were posted on fredmiranda .com (http://www.fredmiranda.com/). If the instructions on how to patch it can't be found there do a search on Google, looking for the cached version. Any needing help with the Mac version email me and I'll try to help.

In my experience, slide film has a dynamic range of about 5 to 6 stops. In very controlled studio situations I've been able to get maybe 7 or a little higher. Color negative film usually allows me at least 8 stops of dynamic range.

I find digital to be very similar to slide film in both it's exposure characteristics and dynamic range. Digital cameras like the D60 and 10D have on average 5 to 6 stops of dynamic range. Through the use of Photoshop, this can be expanded in the shadow areas. Tremendous detail can generally be pulled from the shadows. However, like slide film (and DV) it is important not to blowout the highlights. Once the highlights are gone, very little can be done to recover any lost detail. This is basically true of slide film, where a 1/2 stop of over exposure and all detail is lost.

Yes, I just found the directions on how to modify the Adobe CameraRaw Plugin for the 10D and it works. The only problem is that you get erroneous color mapping since the mod uses the D60 mapping. It's not a problem, tho', because you can see the preview window to see what the sliders are doing. For directions on how to modify, go to:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1019
and do a search for EOS 10D. After you page thru a few threads, you'll find the right patch.

So when do we get a digital camera forum?

<<<-- Originally posted by Craig Jones : the lenses we are talking about are the same lenses that 35mm film cameras use. These lenses have their resolution limits and, believe it or not, the performance of today's digital SLR's push their resolving power. -->>>

So I think what you meant , Craig, when you stated earlier that "current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses", is not that they're limited in comparison to 35mm which uses the same lenes, but that they're limited in what they could technically achieve.

If this is the case, then you're earlier comment is no longer the contradiction that I thought it was and which confused me.

Thanks for clarifying.

Dylan -- I'm currently entrenched in NYC for a couple of trade shows; new forum in a day or two hopefully.

I just received an email from a developer of tools for RAW image processing. His statement is that Canon is late delivering the SDK for the 10D, and hence, all the problems with supporting software. He also made the point that Canon may drop the RAW format at a future date. There seems to be 50 gazillion different implementations of RAW(even within the canon digital line of products), non of them cross compatible....*sigh*...how utterly typical of this business...no damn standards!!

<<<-- Originally posted by Nigel Moore : So I think what you meant , Craig, when you stated earlier that "current digital SLR's are largely limited by the resolving power of their lenses", is not that they're limited in comparison to 35mm which uses the same lenes, but that they're limited in what they could technically achieve.

If this is the case, then you're earlier comment is no longer the contradiction that I thought it was and which confused me.

Thanks for clarifying. -->>>

That's right.

Bill,

What do you mean no standards? There are thousands of 'em! ;)

Maybe I missed it but this comparison of the 10D and film it was mentioned comparing prints. How were these prints made?

If you're talking about comparing the 10D and a film negative printed on an Epson printer (or other), then you're not making a proper comparison because you're downgrading the film negative to the abilities of the printer.

If you take a medium format negative and make a proper paper print in a dark room, then make a digital transfer and everything required to make a dark room print on paper, the digital print will be god awful in comparison.

But if you download the digital file into a computer and use an inkjet to print it, then scan the film negative into the computer and inkjet print it, you won't be able to tell much difference.

Film runs circles around digital. Remember digital circuits are made using film lithography.

<<<-- Originally posted by Chris Hurd : Dylan -- I'm currently entrenched in NYC for a couple of trade shows; new forum in a day or two hopefully. -->>>

awesome, i cant wait. I have alot of questions! :)

I haven't been here since I got my 10D 2 weeks ago. I've taken over 1,100 pictures so far (a big majority have been trashed). My GL2 has been gathering dust ever since. I'd really like to see a digital camra forum here as well. I know there's alot of experience here, and you all will be thrilled to answer all my silly questions :)

I bought it with the 28-135 lens, but already want another, the 300mm f4 L IS USM, which is out of stock everywhere !!

A few decent 10D samples are on my website.

Kirk

about the price of the 707...unless the buyer is an idiot you will never get enough to buy a 10d. Right now the 707 retails brand new for about $650 and you can find it as cheap as $575-600. You have a decent amount of accesories but the only ones of considerable value are the wide angle and the two memory sticks. So considering the camera is nearly two years old, as you said it was earlier, I would expect you get $700 from it...tops. But who knows, you may find a willing buyer.
You may also want to look into the Nikon D100 which is an awesome digital SLR and definitely competes with Canon's 10d. I guess its all preference, its kind of like comparing the GL2 and the VX2000. There are distinct differences but more similarities. I had a stock in Nikon equipment like a flash and a few lenses from my analog SLR so I went with the D100. Its an amaxing camera. Good luck selling your 707.

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, I was going to sell the 707 and put the money towards a new camera. I just needed advice on how much I should sell the package for.

Ill check into the D100 and compare it to the 10D. Thanks again for your input and insite...

Best Regards,

John

DVInfo.net is the best digital video site on the Web, period. Because of this and the high quality of the participants, it's natural to assume that the quality of a digital camera section would be the same.

I don't agree.

The entire still world is going digital. It would be nice to think that the digital camera section would gravitate towards the same sort of quality the rest of this site exhibits, but if you build a better digital mousetrap the world will, indeed, beat a path to your virtual doorstep. I'm sure those numbers are attractive to our esteemed publisher, but the cost will surely be lower quality created by the arrival of a mass market.

There are also some excellent and authoritative sites out there for still digital photography. Two that come to mind are Imaging Resourse and Phil Askey's site. I use both sites regularly, especially for product information. John, if you haven't checked both those sites for information, I recommend them.

All that said, many of us here use digital stills for video work. (I shot 90 minutes of footage for some friends yesterday and also took 50 stills; call it "C" roll.) If there were some way to focus a digital camera section on the application of digital still photography to video, I think that would be an excellent addition that fits the model of this site while keeping the mass market at bay.

Will

Alright guys...I need an opinion here...

Ive got a $2000.00 intial budget for my new camera. I really want the EOS 10D which is for sale at a local camera shop for $1499.00. For $200.00 more, I could get the extended grip/battery which would give me about 800 shots of battery life. That would bring my cost up to about $1700.00 just for the body and extended batterys. No memory, and no lens.

The package already comes with a battery, so its really not necessary initially. I would need a compact flash card, and a lens.

I was thinking, what if i bought the body, a small flash card for now, would i be able to afford a lens for the camera for about $400.00? What should I do? Should i get the body and extended batteries and spend about 300 on a lens? I need to have a complete setup because ill be without a camera for a little while if i dont buy a lens right away.

Should I just focus on battery and memory, then wait a few more months to invest in one of the 1500 dollar zoom lenses?

damn...i need help...thanks!

John

Rule 1: Get the best lens you can possibly afford.

Wait a few months with no lens?! Get a lens first. Whether it's a $100-$200 50mm or something else. As sweet as the battery grip is, you can't take many pictures with it instead of a lens.

I have a 10D. I would go with an extra battery and forget the handle grip.
It's not worth it right now imo when you have greater needs:

1) Best lens you can afford like Bob said. For $800 the Canon
17-40mm f/4L USM Lens might do a good job. I have NOT used it
so beware . . . check the camera lists as there are lots
of choices. I have a 100-400 USM L and
the 16-35 mm L. I like them both, but they are $1500 each.

2) Big CF card or two (I like my 1 gig microdrive). You won't get anywhere
near 800 high resolution pics on a 1 gig card.

B&H Photo had a booth at the MacWorld show in NYC last week, handing out flyers with show discounts.


$100 off 10D, #MWED29
$200 off 1DS, #MWED34
$200 off Epson 7600, #MWED49

Use the coupon number for your discount.

Flyer says the deals are good through July 30.

I would get a 256mb card. Many retailers have them for $50 after rebates (CompUSA, Office Depot, etc.) One battery will get you started, but budget for another card and battery ASAP.

I would recommend the 28-135mm IS lens (don't forget the 1.6X focal length multiplier). If you want a faster lens consider either of the 50mm lenses (F1.4 or F1.8). The 35mm F2 is also a decent lens. You can always get a fast L lens to supplement your general purpose lens as your budget permits.

Avoid the cheap starter lenses usually sold in the kits (35-80mm, 28-80mm and 28-90mm). They are mostly plastic and the digital format will show their optical weakness.

FWIW...a small thing to remember is that the advertised f-stop setting on canon lenses applies to 35mm cameras. With a slightly smaller CMOS than 35mm, there's an aparently smaller lens aperture. For example, the 28-135 f/3.5 is really an f/4.0

John,

I can offer you this:

1. Canon D30 – Recently serviced by Canon for calibration and cleaning.
2. One battery and one 128 Meg CF Card
3. All of the software, cables, charger etc. that came with it
4. Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 zoom lens
5. Tamron 24-135mm f3.5-5.6

I’ll sell the package for $1,200.00 – I wont sell pieces of it.

As a fellow board member my official advice to you would be to buy Canon L series lenses. I have many of them – I am also a professional shooter and have to pay $1,500.00 for the best glass available.

I have this stuff sitting around because I used it on jobs were two of my assistants and I would have to split up and cover 3 groups at the same time.

If you don’t need the latest in Pro gear this might be a package that will get you started.

Steve

You can see my photos at www.corporateshow.com click on the photo gallery.

The aperture of the lens is as stated, and does not change in relationship to the size of the imaging chip. I've tested the metering system in the 10D vs. EOS 3, Elan 7e and hand held meter. The meter readings were all in agreement.

Buried in the Canon lens documentation is a statement to the effect that indicated f/stop settings will vary by 1.25x for digital format cameras. I don't have the documentation in front of me or I'd quote, verbatim.

I'm still learning my Canon 10D, however, at the maximum specified aperture of f3.5 for my 28-135 Zoom UHM/IS lens, my 10D shows an f-stop reading of f/4.0. I've tried manually setting the CLAP wide open and can't get above 4.0.

<<<-- Originally posted by Bill Ravens : FWIW...a small thing to remember is that the advertised f-stop setting on canon lenses applies to 35mm cameras. With a slightly smaller CMOS than 35mm, there's an aparently smaller lens aperture. For example, the 28-135 f/3.5 is really an f/4.0 -->>>

Please explain this.

Change the custom function (CF 6) to read out in 1/3 stops. That lens is also a variable aperture lens, F3.5 at 28mm and F5.6 at 135mm. The F number is derived by dividing the focal length by the physical diameter of the opening. For example a 100mm lens with a 50mm diameter opening is an F2 lens. Target size (CCD etc.) does not effect the maximum aperture (nor does effective focal length of the lens).

<<<-- Originally posted by Jeff Donald : Change the custom function (CF 6) to read out in 1/3 stops. That lens is also a variable aperture lens, F3.5 at 28mm and F5.6 at 135mm. The F number is derived by dividing the focal length by the physical diameter of the opening. For example a 100mm lens with a 50mm diameter opening is an F2 lens. Target size (CCD etc.) does not effect the maximum aperture (nor does effective focal length of the lens). -->>>

Exactly. The "focal length multiplier" is a misnomer and has no effect on the f-number.

yes, <kicking ground> of course, you're right...duh...thanx.

<<<-- Originally posted by Steven Digges : John,

I can offer you this:

1. Canon D30 – Recently serviced by Canon for calibration and cleaning.
2. One battery and one 128 Meg CF Card
3. All of the software, cables, charger etc. that came with it
4. Sigma 17-35mm f2.8-4 zoom lens
5. Tamron 24-135mm f3.5-5.6

I’ll sell the package for $1,200.00 – I wont sell pieces of it.

As a fellow board member my official advice to you would be to buy Canon L series lenses. I have many of them – I am also a professional shooter and have to pay $1,500.00 for the best glass available.

I have this stuff sitting around because I used it on jobs were two of my assistants and I would have to split up and cover 3 groups at the same time.

If you don’t need the latest in Pro gear this might be a package that will get you started.

Steve

You can see my photos at www.corporateshow.com click on the photo gallery. -->>>

hey Steve,

wow, that sounds like a pretty nice package. I checked out the D30, and the image quality wasnt too bad. It was pretty awesome for a 3.xmp camera.

I want everyones opinion. Should I buy something like the package stated above? Or should I save up a few hundred more, and get the 10D?

Hmm...thanks in advance...

Sounds like a pretty nice package at a decent price.

You can expect to pay around $3300 by the time you get a new 10D,
extra battery, decent sized flash card (or two) and at least one
good L series lens.

Remember, you get what you pay for . . . the 10D will impress and
be a good prosumer camera for the next year or two,
and if you take care of it, worth something when you go to upgrade.

(Personally, I'd pony . . . and DID! :)

The 6 mega pixel cameras are keepers, meaning unless you want to do huge prints you don't need to upgrade. I have shot with several non L lenses and I think you can be very happy with a 10D and the 28-135mm IS lens or the 24-85mm or a prime lens.

Steven's package is a great value but you might feel limited by the D30 after a year or so. It has about half the resolution of the D60/10D.