PDA

View Full Version : cameras and lenses



ReF
04-27-2005, 09:37 PM
While Im waiting for a cd to finish burning, I thought Id start this thread just for fun. It would be interesting to hear what cameras and lenses (accessories too) you all are using, and what you are seriously planning to get in the future (not stuff that you only wish for but would never spend the $$$ on). It would also be interesting to see what your favorite lenses are and why. Heck it might be cool if yall could also include a pic shot with your favorite lens as well. I hope people dont think Im a gear freak because of this, remember its just for fun.

jeisner
04-27-2005, 09:52 PM
Current Cameras
- Pentax ME (My GF uses this)
- Pentax P30n (nice small manual film SLR)
- Pentax *ist DS

Lenses
- Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye
- Sigma 18-125/3.5-5.6 (ist DS kit lens and only non FF lens I have)
- Sigma 20/1.8 DG EX
- Sigma 28/1.8
- Pentax-A 28/2.8
- Pentax-A 50/1.7
- Pentax-A 50/2 (lives on my GF camera)
- Sigma 50/2.8 DG EX Macro
- Pentax-M 135/3.5
- Pentax-M 200/4
- Tamron 70-300/4-5.6

Extras
- Tamron-F 1.4x Teleconverter
- Inca AT102 Monopod
- Optex PT3900 Pro Tripod
- Lowepro Nova 4
- Lowepro Nova 2
- 512+256 MB SD CARDs
- USB OTG Portable Storage Device (30GB)
- Lots of Filters...

My favourite lenses at the moment are pretty much all of them, except the Tamron 70-300 which I want to replace with a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 when I have the money (might be a few months though).... I am also interested in getting the Pentax DA 12-24 when released (late this year) and the Sigma 150mm Macro when it is released in Pentax mount (listed as 'coming soon' on BHPhoto)...

TheObiJuan
04-27-2005, 10:43 PM
Here it goes.. but if my fiance asks.. it is all ol' stuff I had lying around. :D

Canon EOS 350D
Canon NBLH x2
Canon 420EX Speedlight
Canon 200EG Backpack
Canon 18-55mm 20D kit lens
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark II
Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro DF APO
Lexar 80X 1GB CF card
Sandisk Ultra II 1GB CF card
Dynatran AT-12T Tripod x2
Manfrotto 488RC4 Ballhead
UV filters and polarizing filters for lenses...

Rex914
04-27-2005, 11:23 PM
Wish List

Canon EOS 30D
Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS
Canon 1.4x Extender
SanDisk Extreme III 2 GB CF Card
Lowepro Toploader 75AWCurrent Gear

Kodak DC3400 (http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraDetail.php?cam=230)
SanDisk Ultra II 512 MB CF Card
Soft Case

sarcazmo
04-28-2005, 11:34 AM
All I've got @ the moment is a D70 w/ kit lens. It sucks being a poor college kid.

Lenses I want
Nikkor 12-24 f/4
Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
Nikkor 70-200 VR f/2.8
Nikkor 50mm 1.8

I think those 4 lenses will be enough to satisfy any of my shooting needs.

Future Gear I want
Possibly whatever the D100 replacement is
Canon EOS 1Ds MKII

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 11:45 AM
Here it goes.. but if my fiance asks.. it is all ol' stuff I had lying around. :D

Canon EOS 350D
Canon NBLH x2
Canon 420EX Speedlight
Canon 200EG Backpack
Canon 18-55mm 20D kit lens
Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
Canon 50mm f/1.8 Mark II
Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro DF APO
Lexar 80X 1GB CF card
Sandisk Ultra II 1GB CF card
Dynatran AT-12T Tripod x2
Manfrotto 488RC4 Ballhead
UV filters and polarizing filters for lenses...

Update: Traded 350D for 20D ;)

Cold Snail
04-28-2005, 11:51 AM
On the SLR front it's.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/DCS-410front.jpg
Kodak DCS410 Pro (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/Kodak/index1.htm)
Which doubles up as a full spec Nikon N90s (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/htmls/models/htmls/slr9294.htm#f90x)
Also I use a D70 (no link required) with an assortment of affordable lenses.

A 28-80mm Nikkor that came with the D70
A 35-80mm Nikkor that came with the DCS
A 70-300 APO Sigma macro.
A 50mm f/1.8.
A Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 MF. (Works very well on the N90s, metering is disabled on the D70)
A Vivitar x2 macro teleconverter for a laugh. (works very well with the 50mm prime)
Two flashguns that work in manual on the D70, one is dedicated on the N90s.

Bags, filters, memory cards, three other Kodak p/s digitals and more stuff that I always forget.

jamison55
04-28-2005, 12:15 PM
This thread will be a good reference for the insurance man if you gear ever gets stolen!

My Current Gear:

Bodies/Cameras:
- Canon 20D
- Canon Digital Rebel
- Canon EOS 650 (35mm - cobwebbed)
- Canon A300 (always in my briefcase)

Lenses:
- Canon 50 f1.8
- Canon 85 f1.8
- Canon 80-200L f2.8
- Canon 18-55 f3.5-5.6 EFS
- Sigma 18-50 f2.8 DC
- Sigma 55-200 f4-5.6 DC
- Tamron 28-75 f2.8

- I have also been having a blast with an M42 to EOS adapter and some oldies but goodies like:
+ Promaster 28 f2.8
+ Takumur 50 f1.8
+ 2 Random ancient 135 f3.5's

- and on it's way...Peleng 8mm Circular Fisheye

Favorite lenses right now are the Tamron 28-75 (you all know my feelings about that one), Canon 80-200, and Canon 85.

- The Tamron is my most versatile "Workhorse"...sharp, warm, consistent.

- The Canon 80-200 is the lens I pull out when I want my images to pop...sizzling, contrasty, sharp throughout.

- The Canon 85 is my newest lens, and the best portrait lens I have ever used...tack sharp with bokeh that can only be described as magical...

I've posted images from the Tamron and Canon 80-200, here's a quick snap of my tired, hungry wife after a long hard day (Canon 85 f1.8, f2, ISO100, 1/6sec on a tripod, room lighting, no PS):

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 12:17 PM
did you get that fish on FM?
I saw one for sale last week, it seemed pretty neat, but way wide. :D

jamison55
04-28-2005, 12:32 PM
did you get that fish on FM?
I saw one for sale last week, it seemed pretty neat, but way wide. :D

No, I went to EBay. I wish I'd seen the one for sale on FM, probably would have saved a buck or two. I can't wait to try it out!

Bluedog
04-28-2005, 02:48 PM
Update: Traded 350D for 20D ;)

What tha' Hell ... :eek:

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 03:12 PM
I will no doubt get another one in a year or so. I will probably pay 550-600 for it too. I need the 5 fps, and magnesium body. The 350D almotst got shot by a paintball, and I didn't want any cracks or breaks in the plastic.

Plus the deal kinda just fell in my lap. No tax, no selling of my stuff, just a simple trade. ;)
I will still love the camera, and I will def. miss the shutter sound, but I have outgrown the targeted demographic.
I can see myself upgrading to the 1DMKII in a year. :eek:

TheObiJuan
04-28-2005, 03:40 PM
I'm not surprised. Congratulations.

hahaha :D
:p

Savannah
04-28-2005, 07:39 PM
Less than one day old Rebel XT with Malign lens kit
Canon 70-300.....well abused
Canon 35-80....used once
2--1G compact flash

Trusty Backup
Pentex P30T (35mm) w/ 70-210.....(Still a sweet camera!)
on the way
Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 DC Aspherical
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Autofocus Lens
Sigma EF-500 DG ST E-TTL flash
Future
20D (Some of us are not so lucky to trade up so quickly!! j/k)
Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Canon 550EX Speedlite TTL
Oh gee......this could be too long

jamison55
04-28-2005, 07:47 PM
Trusty Backup
Pentex P30T (35mm) w/ 70-210.....(Still a sweet camera!)


Congrats on the DReb.

Before I bought my first DSLR, I had a Pentax P30t. Great camera! Traded it with three lenses for an EF 50 f1.8 (at a local camera store). Don't get me wrong the 50 is a great lens that I still use...but, boy did I get ripped off! I never do business with that camera store any more.

Savannah
04-28-2005, 08:01 PM
Congrats on the DReb.

Before I bought my first DSLR, I had a Pentax P30t. Great camera! Traded it with three lenses for an EF 50 f1.8 (at a local camera store). Don't get me wrong the 50 is a great lens that I still use...but, boy did I get ripped off! I never do business with that camera store any more.



Yikes!!! :eek: That makes me hurt.....Sorry. I'm keeping mine till they quit making film

Savannah
04-28-2005, 08:24 PM
The maligned kit lens is still maligned, and justifiably so. Just out of curiosity did you buy the XT because you already had Canon glass?


No........I didn't. The Canon glass I have isn't a big investment and not all that great...... so I could have easily let that go for better quality. I looked at the Nikon (Very nice, ergonom. awesome, High quality, but just too heavy for me...I walked around with it on my neck in the store) the Evolt (again a little heavy, and didn't like the lens choice, wasn't sure about the "dust buster" on the sensor and the salesman was just too pushy ) the Pentex (just not a good fit either... not sure why)
I liked the XT because I liked the way it felt in my hands, its not too heavy, not as bulky. Its the easiest SLR I can carry around (all day around my neck if I need to) mainly to take photos of my 2 kids . High quality, great potential, great selection of future lenses, some familiarity from now broken 35 mm Rebel and the price was right at 764.00 plus tax (817.00). (Dell)

Stacy

ReF
04-29-2005, 09:11 PM
very interesting

I guess since I started the thread that its my turn now.

Canon 300D
Canon 17-40L
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK I
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Diagonal Fisheye
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di
(the thing that i find kind of odd is that i spent $425 on the camera and $1760 on lenses, not including the 50mm F1.8 mk I. i find that having good glass and a wide, flexible range to be very important.)

Other stuff:
Hoya SMC thin circular polarizer
Hoya R72 Infrared filter
Wratten #89b Infrared Gelatin filter
Hoya 77mm and 72mm SMC UV filters (only put them on in sandy or dusty conditions)
256, 512 ultra II, and 1gb ultra II all from Sandisk (lexar too expensive)
spare battery
Cheap aluminum tripod (but large and has decent build)
Normal looking bag so people dont know Im carrying around some expensive stuff

Future stuff:
Canon 100-400L IS
Sigma or Canon external flash
Better tripod (maybe the one jamison55 mentioned)
whatever replaces the 20D as soon as it comes out (sadly, it's going to be either the 100-400 lens or the camera, and the rebel's lack of speed is sometimes frustrating, so i guess the lens will have to wait)

stuff that is collecting dust:
Canon EOS for the late 80's or early 90's that i keep as a backup.

Favorite lens:
Well, I actually have two: the Sigma 15mm f/2.8 diagonal fisheye and the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8
i think i'll post a recent picture taken with each lens later, as i still have 3 gigs of recent shots that i haven't even sorted out yet.

thanks for participating guys/gals. i was also hoping to hear from those that don't have too much gear(after all, this ain't a contest); i thought it would be interesting to see which lenses people decided to go with if they could only have one or two for the time being. i found REX's #1 lens choice to be quite interesting. hey REX, you sure you won't need something for the wide shots?
well, i hope others aren't too shy to still chime in. :)

Rex914
04-29-2005, 09:19 PM
For now, nope. I think that I'll be happy with a 50mm f/1.4 for a bit. I'll accumulate the good things slowly bit by bit. :)

ReF
04-29-2005, 09:37 PM
For now, nope. I think that I'll be happy with a 50mm f/1.4 for a bit. I'm of the type that likes to collect good things slowly. :)

When I feel the urge get a wide lens, do you think it's better to get an ultra wide (i.e. 12-24, 15-30) that has no overlap with the 28-75 or 24-70, or is it still recommended that I get a 17-40L or its equivalent?

sometimes i wish the range of my 17-40L was really 10-22 or 12-24 instead and with a larger aperture (though wide + large aperture isn't one of my requirements at all). i seriously considered the 10-22 but it had it's share of problem in reviews and costs too much. the range on that lens would have replaced the 17-40 and 15mm fisheye, but 10-22 isn't as sharp as the two lens combo. the 17-40L is still the lens i bust out when there is a high risk of flare, and i know i can count on it to give me great results. i'd recommend trying out some of the super-duper wide made for digital lens or ones that are wide + have large apertures, because i found that beside "L" fever i also have "large aperture fever." once you get used to being able to shoot in low light without the flash or having a lens that is sharp thoughout it's entire aperture range, you might not want to go back :D

Rex914
04-29-2005, 09:49 PM
Oh, I've already been bitten by "big aperture" fever. I doubt I'd take any lens slower than f/2.8 now. It's a must for me because:

1) Lighting in restaurants sucks big time. Some places are even worse lit than caves.

2) I can't use flash, especially in fancier restaurants. I especially can't bounce something off the walls. :D

Luckily, I've got time to decide on the rest of my collection. Maybe by then, we'll see an official L-quality super wide lens from Canon. Nikon has one. Why can't Canon have one?

ReF
04-29-2005, 10:00 PM
Luckily, I've got time to decide on the rest of my collection. Maybe by then, we'll see an official L-quality super wide lens from Canon. Nikon has one. Why can't Canon have one?

i've been silently asking the same question. it sure would be nice to carry around one lens instead of two. my bag is already full and i just got my camera at the end of January! it's the fever i tells ya!

ReF
04-29-2005, 10:02 PM
Luckily, I've got time to decide on the rest of my collection. Maybe by then, we'll see an official L-quality super wide lens from Canon. Nikon has one. Why can't Canon have one?

edited my post, but ended up with two of the same, so i erased it and replaced it with this...

Bluedog
04-29-2005, 10:28 PM
OK ...

Canon Digital Rebel XT
Canon 18-55mm II Kit Lens
Sigma 18-125 mm F3.5 - F5.6 DC
3 - 1GB SanDisk II CF, 1 - 512MB SanDisk II CF and 1 - 256MB SanDisk II CF
Canon spare battery NB-2LH
Canon RS-60E3 Remote Release
SunPak 200I UT compact lite weight tripod (cheap but very portable)
Older Tenba camera bag that fits the XT very well
Tenba CF card holder pouch
Canon A95
1 - 512MB SanDisk I CF

Future wants:

Sigma or Tamron mid range bright f/2.8 Lens (for indoors and portraits)
Canon or Sigma zoom in the 200mm ~ 300mm range

Collecting dust:

Complete Minolta SLR 7000i setup

jeisner
04-29-2005, 11:56 PM
Collecting dust:
Complete Minolta SLR 7000i setup

Thats a shame, when I visited my parents the other day I took my fathers old Minolta SR505 (absolute mint, I doubt he used it).... Its big and heavy, but fun to use, I just put a roll of Ilford B&W 3200 film in it this morning, see how it goes ;)

Bluedog
04-30-2005, 06:19 AM
roll of Ilford B&W 3200 film in it this morning, see how it goes ;)

I might need to try that too. Funny thing is the 7000i hasn't been used in like three years and the battery is still showing full capacity.

60mm
04-30-2005, 07:39 PM
I want to know how well the Peleng does!

TheObiJuan
05-01-2005, 03:22 AM
Added a
Domke F2 Shoulder bag
Canon 20D batteries
More filters ;)

jamison55
05-01-2005, 04:25 AM
I want to know how well the Peleng does!

I'll post some shots from it as soon as I get it. I bought it for those "special effects" shots that Brides want so much, but I think I am going to use it more for my hobby than my business...but the business still paid for it (cough-write off)...

jeisner
05-01-2005, 02:50 PM
I'll probably finish off the roll today. Just to get it out of my system.

LOL, ;-)

aparmley
05-01-2005, 05:05 PM
Currently:

I use a Canon A95.
512 Transcend CF card.

{EDIT}

This is the week; No later than edit*friday [I hope] my new set up will be:

Canon Digital Rebel XT.
Canon EF 50mm F/1.8.
Sandisk Ultra II 1 GB CF.

Future lens considerations:
Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro F/3.5-5.6.
Sigma 18-125 F/3.5-5.6.

Update. I ordered today from B&H, XT black body only, 50mm 1.8. 2 day air..... the waiting begins!

cwphoto
05-09-2005, 11:31 PM
Bodies:

EOS-1V HS
EOS-1N HS

Lenses:

EF 14mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 50mm 1:1.4 USM
EF 85mm 1:1.2 L USM
EF 135mm 1:2 L USM
EF 300mm 1:4 L IS USM
EF 28-70mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM
TS-E 24mm 1:3.5 L


Currently waiting for EOS-1Ds Mark II to arrive in stock (considering 1D Mark II instead if wait is too much longer). Will probably also replace my aging 28-70 with the new 24-70 at the same time and maybe stretch to a 16-35 if I can squeeze my retailer enough.

Fav lens is definitely the 70-200. Sharpest lens I've ever owned - particularly at 200mm.

Recently sold:

EF 17-35mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 300mm 1:2.8 L USM

ReF
05-09-2005, 11:46 PM
Bodies:

EOS-1V HS
EOS-1N HS

Lenses:

EF 14mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 50mm 1:1.4 USM
EF 85mm 1:1.2 L USM
EF 135mm 1:2 L USM
EF 300mm 1:4 L IS USM
EF 28-70mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM
TS-E 24mm 1:3.5 L


Currently waiting for EOS-1Ds Mark II to arrive in stock (considering 1D Mark II instead if wait is too much longer). Will probably also replace my aging 28-70 with the new 24-70 at the same time and maybe stretch to a 16-35 if I can squeeze my retailer enough.

Fav lens is definitely the 70-200. Sharpest lens I've ever owned - particularly at 200mm.

Recently sold:

EF 17-35mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 300mm 1:2.8 L USM


so how long did it take you to collect all those?

cwphoto
05-09-2005, 11:54 PM
A number of years and was certainly aided by the lack of a mortgage/wife/kids - until recently (hence the sale of the last two items) :(

TheObiJuan
05-10-2005, 12:00 AM
Update:
Lenses Purchased:
Sigma 70-300 APO Super Macro II something or another.
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX

Lenses Sold:
Canon 135 f/2.8 SF

Traded:
Canon 350D for 20D

Accessories:
E1 Handstrap
Tamron 1.4 TC

Bluedog
05-10-2005, 05:21 AM
Updated List with new stuff in bold:

Canon Digital Rebel XT
Canon 18-55mm II Kit Lens
Sigma 18-125 mm F3.5 - F5.6 DC
Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di
3 - 1GB SanDisk II CF, 1 - 512MB SanDisk II CF and 1 - 256MB SanDisk II CF
Canon spare battery NB-2LH
Canon RS-60E3 Remote Release
SunPak 200I UT compact lite weight tripod (cheap but very portable)
Older Tenba camera bag that fits the XT very well > still looking though
Tenba CF card holder pouch
Canon A95
1 - 512MB SanDisk I CF

Future wants:

Sigma or Tamron mid range bright f/2.8 Lens < accomplished
Canon or Sigma zoom in the 200mm ~ 300mm range

Sold Minotla 70-210mm AF @ fredmiranda.com ... thanks ObiJuan ;)

Rhys
05-10-2005, 05:31 AM
My current kit is all point and shoot:
Nikon 3100, Nikon 995, Canon S1 IS.

My previous kit (which is lurking in the attic) is:
Nikon FM x 2, Nikon MD12 x 2
Nikon 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm (all AIS although the 200 has rabbit ears also)
Tamron 28mm, 135mm, 300mm (all AD2)
Vivitar 2x teleconverter (I think it's Vivitar - it's been rebadged by the shop)
Vivitar macro tubes
Metz 45 CT1 hammerhead flash (2 battery packs)
Fotima 192 camera bag (the big one)
Smaller camera bag
Cobra CT30 tripod with a Manfrotto 3D Junior head.
(I did have a benbo Mk1 tripod but sold it)

My future kit will probably be:
Canon Digital Rebel XT
Canon EOS K2
Lenses in the range:
28 - 80, 50 - 135, 18 - 55, 100 - 300, 2x teleconverter, macro tubes.
A powerful flash.

I'm still looking into the future kit. I've taken a liking to Canon - haveing been a Nikon man until now.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 06:33 AM
My current kit is all point and shoot:
Nikon 3100, Nikon 995, Canon S1 IS.

My previous kit (which is lurking in the attic) is:
Nikon FM x 2, Nikon MD12 x 2
Nikon 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm (all AIS although the 200 has rabbit ears also)
Tamron 28mm, 135mm, 300mm (all AD2)
Vivitar 2x teleconverter (I think it's Vivitar - it's been rebadged by the shop)
Vivitar macro tubes
Metz 45 CT1 hammerhead flash (2 battery packs)
Fotima 192 camera bag (the big one)
Smaller camera bag
Cobra CT30 tripod with a Manfrotto 3D Junior head.
(I did have a benbo Mk1 tripod but sold it)

My future kit will probably be:
Canon Digital Rebel XT
Canon EOS K2
Lenses in the range:
28 - 80, 50 - 135, 18 - 55, 100 - 300, 2x teleconverter, macro tubes.
A powerful flash.

I'm still looking into the future kit. I've taken a liking to Canon - haveing been a Nikon man until now.

While the XT is a good camera, if you are going to hang some decent glass on it you may not like it as much as a full sized dSLR. If Canon is your choice then you might well think about the 20D. You stated that you expect to be shooting with this new camera 20 years from now.

Also consider that, in professional use, maybe the D70s would serve you better than the XT, but not quite as well as the 20D.

Rhys
05-10-2005, 06:45 AM
While the XT is a good camera, if you are going to hang some decent glass on it you may not like it as much as a full sized dSLR. If Canon is your choice then you might well think about the 20D. You stated that you expect to be shooting with this new camera 20 years from now.

Also consider that, in professional use, maybe the D70s would serve you better than the XT, but not quite as well as the 20D.

I'm happier with a lighter camera, these days. I used to hold most of my camera weight with my left hand. Since I had a wrist injury, I try not to put much weight in my left hand any more.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 11:38 AM
I'm happier with a lighter camera, these days. I used to hold most of my camera weight with my left hand. Since I had a wrist injury, I try not to put much weight in my left hand any more.

Not to beleager the point, but the only weight, generally in you left hand, is the lens. A decent f2.8 zoom will weigh more than your camera.

So, try this: Go to the camera store and hang a Tamron 28-75 f2.8 on both the 20D and the XT (and even the D70/D70s, and the *ist DS). Which one do you think that you could shoot with for 4-7 hours (arrival, wedding, portraits, group shots, and reception)? I've only shot a few weddings (again as a tag-along), and I can tell you that a good, comfortable, grip is important.

Just thought I would throw that in since you want to be a wedding photographer...

TheObiJuan
05-10-2005, 11:41 AM
I'm starting to really love the rubber grip on the 20D. I didn't mind the 350D at all, but now that I forgot how light it was, the 20D just feels 'right'.

D70FAN
05-10-2005, 12:05 PM
I'm starting to really love the rubber grip on the 20D. I didn't mind the 350D at all, but now that I fo forgot how light it was, the 20D just feels 'right'.

You're gettin' there....

FourEyes45
05-10-2005, 02:13 PM
Hi Gang
Well my new Canon EOS 20D with EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ,also the 580ex flash with a 1GB Lexmar x80 card, just landed at my front door. IT will take some getting use to ,been useing a Nikon 990. Wife said Christmas will come early for me, we plan to tour the US in June for 60 days or so.

Want List
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L is
EF 300L is USM
Canon 1.4 EF2 extender

TheObiJuan
06-30-2005, 12:01 AM
I guess I should update with this with my latest purchase.
The lovely Canon 135L has joined my arsenol. :D

Next I don't know if I should go 10-22 ef-s + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L + Canon 1.4TC.

If I go with the latter then I need to get rid of my Sigma 70-300 as it would be redundant. Then I would need to get a macro specific lens to replace the use of the Sigma. Decisions...decisions....

Rhys
06-30-2005, 05:56 AM
I guess I should update with this with my latest purchase.
The lovely Canon 135L has joined my arsenol. :D

Next I don't know if I should go 10-22 ef-s + Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L + Canon 1.4TC.

If I go with the latter then I need to get rid of my Sigma 70-300 as it would be redundant. Then I would need to get a macro specific lens to replace the use of the Sigma. Decisions...decisions....

Lol. Showing off all your L glass. You're making me drool!

TheObiJuan
06-30-2005, 02:21 PM
Hehe, I decided to ditch the the 10-22 ef-s and get the 17-40L with the Sigma 30m f/1.4.
I suppose later I could get the Canon 70-200 f/2.8IS L :p

aparmley
06-30-2005, 04:02 PM
I wouldn't mind having obi's problems... my problems:
How in the hell am I going to afford the 390 dollar Tamy. LOL...

Current Line up:
XT; 50mm 1.8, Sigmas 70-300 apo Sup Mac II, 1 GB Sandisk Ultra II, transcend 512MB.

Future Purchase considerations:
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di lens (pretty much a shoe in as the next purchase;)
I need a flash for a wedding I was talked into doing this fall: thinking Sigma 500 super, but leaning towards the 580EX...
another 1 GB Sandisk Card...
Battery grip.
Wireless Remote.
Maybe a wider lens... 18mm - something can't figure that out... I don't think I will be alive to make that purchase - the lady friend is not going to like all of these purchases, but I hoping I can let her ok most of it for the wedding I was talked into doing this fall, its for her family's friend... I might be able get by with it... I tested the waters last night... she took it well... LOL

D70FAN
06-30-2005, 08:27 PM
I wouldn't mind having obi's problems... my problems:
How in the hell am I going to afford the 390 dollar Tamy. LOL...

Current Line up:
XT; 50mm 1.8, Sigmas 70-300 apo Sup Mac II, 1 GB Sandisk Ultra II, transcend 512MB.

Future Purchase considerations:
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di lens (pretty much a shoe in as the next purchase;)
I need a flash for a wedding I was talked into doing this fall: thinking Sigma 500 super, but leaning towards the 580EX...
another 1 GB Sandisk Card...
Battery grip.
Wireless Remote.
Maybe a wider lens... 18mm - something can't figure that out... I don't think I will be alive to make that purchase - the lady friend is not going to like all of these purchases, but I hoping I can let her ok most of it for the wedding I was talked into doing this fall, its for her family's friend... I might be able get by with it... I tested the waters last night... she took it well... LOL

Give the Sigma 18-125 a try. For $270-$290 it will take care of you. The 580EX will do the rest.

coldrain
07-01-2005, 01:56 AM
Really old stuff:

Nikon Ft-n with a collection of nikor primes (50, 35 macro, 110, 28 wide angle) :)

Old stuff:

Canon Rebel 2000/EOS 300 with 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM II, Sigma 70-300 DL Super Macro :rolleyes:

Not so old stuff:

Canon S30, has been a lovely digital camera to use for the last 3 years with very good picture quality (in ways outshines the 350D for me still), even though it has its limitations. :cool:

New stuff:

Canon Digital Rebel XT/EOS 350D with Tamron SP 90 macro 2.8, new addition Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC "standard" zoom lens, and soon a Canon 70-200 F4 L zoom lens with a 1.4 extender for when a bit more range is needed. These will cover most of the things I will encounter and are reasonably travel friendly (if you call 2+ kilo travel friendly ;) ).

Rhys
07-01-2005, 06:49 AM
I wouldn't mind having obi's problems... my problems:
How in the hell am I going to afford the 390 dollar Tamy. LOL...

Current Line up:
XT; 50mm 1.8, Sigmas 70-300 apo Sup Mac II, 1 GB Sandisk Ultra II, transcend 512MB.

Future Purchase considerations:
Tamron 28-75 F2.8 XR Di lens (pretty much a shoe in as the next purchase;)
I need a flash for a wedding I was talked into doing this fall: thinking Sigma 500 super, but leaning towards the 580EX...
another 1 GB Sandisk Card...
Battery grip.
Wireless Remote.
Maybe a wider lens... 18mm - something can't figure that out... I don't think I will be alive to make that purchase - the lady friend is not going to like all of these purchases, but I hoping I can let her ok most of it for the wedding I was talked into doing this fall, its for her family's friend... I might be able get by with it... I tested the waters last night... she took it well... LOL


The Tamron 28-75 XR Di is as rare as hen's teeth. Nobody has one. Somebody suggested I tried adorama so I did (for a laugh) and got the spiel about needing a $67 polarising filter then when I refused and said I wanted just the lens, they hung up on me. Checking reseller-ratings proves they aren't the best etailer in the world with a rating of 2.24 at the time I looked.

Bluedog
07-01-2005, 09:33 AM
Try B&H Photo as they had the Tamron in stock the other day ... reseller rating of 8.87 ... although I haven't had not one issue buying from Adorama. Always shipped fast and returns are simple not needing an RMA and credit was issued the same day as receiving the returned item.

D70FAN
07-01-2005, 10:07 AM
The Tamron 28-75 XR Di is as rare as hen's teeth. Nobody has one. Somebody suggested I tried adorama so I did (for a laugh) and got the spiel about needing a $67 polarising filter then when I refused and said I wanted just the lens, they hung up on me. Checking reseller-ratings proves they aren't the best etailer in the world with a rating of 2.24 at the time I looked.

FYI, the local Ritz has this lens (Canon mount) in stock. According to my contact at Ritz locally it is available. Filter purchase not required. ;)

ReF
07-01-2005, 03:31 PM
FYI, the local Ritz has this lens (Canon mount) in stock. According to my contact at Ritz locally it is available. Filter purchase not required. ;)

hmm, that's odd. a few months ago i called 3 or 4 different ritz locations around L.A. and orange county and none had it. when i asked whether it is out of stock or if they simply didn't carry it, they all told me it was special order only. i went and bought the only copy of the tamron (at a lower price too) at a local Calumet store. i should also warn you all that Calumet sales people can be full of BS as well. one guy told me the tamron was "a great little lens" while another told me that even high end sigmas don't even come close the canon L series. or is that because the canon L's cost (and commision rate) at least 50% higher than the sigmas?

Rhys
07-01-2005, 03:56 PM
hmm, that's odd. a few months ago i called 3 or 4 different ritz locations around L.A. and orange county and none had it. when i asked whether it is out of stock or if they simply didn't carry it, they all told me it was special order only. i went and bought the only copy of the tamron (at a lower price too) at a local Calumet store. i should also warn you all that Calumet sales people can be full of BS as well. one guy told me the tamron was "a great little lens" while another told me that even high end sigmas don't even come close the canon L series. or is that because the canon L's cost (and commision rate) at least 50% higher than the sigmas?

Even Columbia Photo is out of them.

D70FAN
07-01-2005, 09:16 PM
hmm, that's odd. a few months ago i called 3 or 4 different ritz locations around L.A. and orange county and none had it. when i asked whether it is out of stock or if they simply didn't carry it, they all told me it was special order only. i went and bought the only copy of the tamron (at a lower price too) at a local Calumet store. i should also warn you all that Calumet sales people can be full of BS as well. one guy told me the tamron was "a great little lens" while another told me that even high end sigmas don't even come close the canon L series. or is that because the canon L's cost (and commision rate) at least 50% higher than the sigmas?

Things change in the Ritz/Wolf inventory very quickly. But even if you order a lens it generally only takes a few days, and it is returnable. A few weeks ago nobody had D50's (or D70's) in stock, now they do.

Like I've said before, some stores are really good and some are not so good. This is pretty much true for most chain stores.

TenD
07-02-2005, 10:53 AM
I know I'm late getting in on this, but I'll play:

Canon 10D
Canon G2
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 50 f/1.8 mk I
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L
Canon 300 f/4L

In the future I am considering a few things:
Flash: I am in debate 450 EX, 550 EX, Metz 54MZ. This is the only thing on my list right now that is a definite.
Sell the 300 and purchase a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, love the range(versatile), but I am worried about the speed of this lens, I have already wished for a 300 f/2.8($$ :( ) at times.
Keep the 300 and get a 1.4 and possibly a 2.0 teleconverter.
Tamron 28-75 XR Di, I like everything I have heard and seen about this lens, I would replace the 28-135 with it, I think. I do a fair amount of aerial photography and I find the IS helpful.
Actually I am pretty happy with my kit, everything above this would be gravy.

aparmley
07-02-2005, 12:59 PM
Well, a few weeks ago soon after blue took his trip out west, this was when I first got turned on to the Tamron... I looked around to check prices and pretty much everyone had it in stock. Over the next few weeks I noticed a huge increase in talk time over this lens, here and elsewhere, and I noticed last week and this week, every place I checked out prior, was sold out.... Then BH got stocked up again early in the week and as of yesterday were out of stock again.. LOL These things are selling like hot cakes... it will be interesting to find out if the rumors of soft copies increases due to this as well...

ReF
07-02-2005, 07:13 PM
I know I'm late getting in on this, but I'll play:

Canon 10D
Canon G2
Canon 17-40 f/4L
Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon 50 f/1.8 mk I
Canon 80-200 f/2.8L
Canon 300 f/4L

In the future I am considering a few things:
Flash: I am in debate 450 EX, 550 EX, Metz 54MZ. This is the only thing on my list right now that is a definite.
Sell the 300 and purchase a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6, love the range(versatile), but I am worried about the speed of this lens, I have already wished for a 300 f/2.8($$ :( ) at times.
Keep the 300 and get a 1.4 and possibly a 2.0 teleconverter.
Tamron 28-75 XR Di, I like everything I have heard and seen about this lens, I would replace the 28-135 with it, I think. I do a fair amount of aerial photography and I find the IS helpful.
Actually I am pretty happy with my kit, everything above this would be gravy.

hey, we have a lot of the same lenses, even the 50mm f1.8 mk 1! i'm also going to replace the 28-135 now that i have the tamron and i'll purchase either the 100-400L IS or sigma 80-400 EX OS to cover the tele end. so far after all the reviews i've read i'm leaning towards the sigma.

updated list:

Canon 300D
Canon 17-40L
Canon 28-135 IS
Canon 50mm f/1.8 MK I
Sigma 15mm f/2.8 Diagonal Fisheye
Tamron 28-75 f2.8 XR Di

New stuff:
Sigma EF-500 DG Super (flash)
Wolverine Flashpac 60gig (standalone external hard drive/card reader)

Other stuff:
Hoya SMC thin circular polarizer
Hoya R72 Infrared filter
Wratten #89b Infrared Gelatin filter
Hoya 77mm and 72mm SMC UV filters 256, 512 ultra II, and 1gb ultra II all from Sandisk (lexar too expensive)
spare battery
Cheap aluminum tripod (but large and has decent build)
Normal looking bag so people dont know Im carrying around some expensive stuff

Future stuff:
Canon 100-400L IS or Sigma 80-400 EX OS
macro lens

stuff that is collecting dust:
Canon EOS from the late 80's or early 90's that i keep as a backup.

favorite lens: it used to be a tie between the sigma fisheye and the tamron, but now this one has to go to the tamron since lately it has been on the camera about 90% of the time.

Rex914
07-15-2005, 11:44 PM
After several months of heavy shooting with my P&S, my wish list holds up with some modifications...

Current Gear

Kodak DC3400
SanDisk Ultra II 512 MB CF

Pending Approval

Canon EOS 20D ($1250)
Canon 50mm f/1.4 ($300)
Lowepro Nova 4 AW ($50)

Wish List (In order of preference)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX ($400)
Canon 70-200 f/4 L ($575)
Canon 1.4x Extender ($280)
Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($360)
Canon 135mm f/2 L ($900)

Ishkabibble
08-29-2005, 08:59 PM
I was just looking at my history with cameras, and was a little shocked. I've owned a LOT of them over the past few years.

Current Equipment:
Pentax *ist DS ($949Cdn)
18-55mm kit lens
Sigma 28-300 F3.5-6.3
1 GB 80X Lexar SD
Epson Stylus Photo 800 (still a great printer)
Canon iP90 (great portable proofs)

Previous Cameras, newest to oldest:
Panasonic Fz-30 ($979Cdn... owned 3 days, exceptional features, horrid pictures)
Olympus Stylus 800 ($549Cdn... owned 2 hours, only shoots at 8MP in broad daylight, otherwise it's only a 3MP digital)
Optio WP ($489Cdn... owned less than one day! Not waterproof after all.)
Canon S2-IS ($649Cdn... owned 2 days, poor image quality)
Panasonic Fz-20 ($879Cdn... replaced when I got my *ist DS a week ago, had 1.5 yrs, great camera)
Canon S1-IS ($699Cdn... owned 5 days, poor low light performance, constant out of focus shots)
Kodak DC280 2.1MP ($1,399Cdn... Still running strong after 6 years)
Kodak DC265 ($1,699Cdn... Why yes, ma'am, your face is flourescent purple, returned after 1 week)

If anyone is questioning why it took me so long to get it right, it was because I was determined to get dSLR image quality out of a Prosumer point-and-shoot. Took a while to realize that it just wasn't going to happen.

Rex914
08-29-2005, 09:07 PM
Kodak DC280 2.1MP ($1,399Cdn... Still running strong after 6 years)

I'm still stuck outside of DSLR land with my DC3400 (which is essentially the same as the DC280). Although the camera is sorely outdated by now, I do like how the camera still shoots about as well as it did when I first got it. Not to mention that it has a certain build quality that Kodak cameras are lacking in nowadays.

jamison55
08-30-2005, 03:50 AM
An update to my list (to keep George from losing track ;) )

Bodies
Canon 20D
Canon 10D

Zooms
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC
Canon 17-40 f4L
Canon 28-70 f2.8L
Canon 80-200 f2.8L

Primes
Peleng 8mm f3.5 (Fisheye)
Canon 50 f1.8
Canon 85 f1.8
A few old screw mount MF lenses

Flashes
Canon 550EX (w/CP-E3 Battery Pack)
Canon 420EX
Sigma EF500 DG Super
Sunpak 433D (Same as 383 Super)
2x 110ws Studio Strobes w/stands and umbrellas

Misc
Stroboframe Quick Flip
Stroboframe Camera Flip
Omni Bounces for all flashes but the 420
Flip It! bounce card (http://www.joedembphotography.com/flipit/)
Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer
A hard sided shotgun case modded to carry all the cameras/lenses/flashes

D70FAN
08-30-2005, 06:14 AM
An update to my list (to keep George from losing track ;) )

Bodies
Canon 20D
Canon 10D

Zooms
Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC
Canon 17-40 f4L
Canon 28-70 f2.8L
Canon 80-200 f2.8L

Primes
Peleng 8mm f3.5 (Fisheye)
Canon 50 f1.8
Canon 85 f1.8
A few old screw mount MF lenses

Flashes
Canon 550EX (w/CP-E3 Battery Pack)
Canon 420EX
Sigma EF500 DG Super
Sunpak 433D (Same as 383 Super)
2x 110ws Studio Strobes w/stands and umbrellas

Misc
Stroboframe Quick Flip
Stroboframe Camera Flip
Omni Bounces for all flashes but the 420
Flip It! bounce card (http://www.joedembphotography.com/flipit/)
Lumiquest Pocket Bouncer
A hard sided shotgun case modded to carry all the cameras/lenses/flashes

Looks like an "usable" kit. But mostly unsuable on the D70 so it's safe from me. Where was that rare custom Canon to Nikon adapter? ;)

jamison55
08-30-2005, 06:30 AM
Where was that rare custom Canon to Nikon adapter? ;)

Interesting that. I just did a quick search on EBay to see if there was an adapter that allowed you to use Canon lenses on Nikon bodies. There were none, however there were about a million that allowed you to do just the opposite.

If demand dictates market availablility, what does that say about Canon vs Nikon glass...?

98 SNAKE EATER
08-31-2005, 06:56 AM
DSLR: Rebel XT

Lenses:
18-55 Kit Lens
55-200 USM
100-300 USM

Digital Still: Sony T7

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 09:02 AM
Interesting that. I just did a quick search on EBay to see if there was an adapter that allowed you to use Canon lenses on Nikon bodies. There were none, however there were about a million that allowed you to do just the opposite.

If demand dictates market availablility, what does that say about Canon vs Nikon glass...?

It was kind of a rhetorical question. But it is interesting that no Nikon enthusiast has made an adapter for Canon lenses. Maybe it's an interface problem... or maybe there is no need as Nikon makes some pretty nice glass that is cost competitive with the Canon equvelents...

...but the most likely reason is that there are a lot of ex-Nikonians with a big investment in glass when they switched to Canon. Not many pros going back at this point, but I can see a few here and there hedging their bets with a D70 as a second back-up.

There is no denying that up until the beginning of 2005 Canon was smokin', but something changed after the 20D, and the recent offerings have been pretty disappointing.

Rhys
08-31-2005, 10:06 AM
It was kind of a rhetorical question. But it is interesting that no Nikon enthusiat has made an adapter for Canon lenses. Maybe it's an interface problem... or maybe there is no need as Nikon makes some pretty nice glass that is cost competitive with the Canon equvelents...

...but the most likely reason is that there are a lot of ex-Nikonians with a big investment in glass when they switched to Canon. Not many pros going back at this point, but I can see a few here and there hedging their bets with a D70 as a second back-up.

There is no denying that up until the beginning of 2005 Canon was smokin', but something changed after the 20D, and the recent offerings have been pretty disappointing.

The throat on a Canon is bigger and can accommodate about any lens - via an adaptor.

Most Nikon people changed to Canon because they were teed-off by Nikon's refusal to support older lenses while Canon supports all their older EOS lenses. There's also the fact that Canon has much more attractive glass out there that'sa lot cheaper.

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 11:09 AM
The throat on a Canon is bigger and can accommodate about any lens - via an adaptor.

That, I can believe.


Most Nikon people changed to Canon because they were teed-off by Nikon's refusal to support older lenses while Canon supports all their older EOS lenses.

That is not the case. The professional exodus was due to a better range of cameras in the 1D series. All of the Nikon D1 and D2 series support older lenses. So how many times have you used the Canon adaptor and your Nikon AI/AIS lenses?


There's also the fact that Canon has much more attractive glass out there that'sa lot cheaper.

Again, probably more personal feeling than fact... and what, cheaper more attractive lenses, might those be?

Ant
08-31-2005, 02:52 PM
Again, probably more personal feeling than fact... and what, cheaper more attractive lenses, might those be?

telephotos @ 300mm or more. Nikon's range of long telephotos is quite frankly pathetic compared to Canon's. That's why Pro sports shooters, paperazzi and anyone who primarily shoots at the longer end go for Canon.

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 05:09 PM
telephotos @ 300mm or more. Nikon's range of long telephotos is quite frankly pathetic compared to Canon's. That's why Pro sports shooters, paperazzi and anyone who primarily shoots at the longer end go for Canon.

By golly you are right! But pathetic is such a harsh word, but admittedly, Nikon is certainly limited to 6 vs. Canons 7 fixed focus 300mm-600mm professional lenses. This is critical with a full-frame camera strategy.

In their defense Nikon has a, pretty fast, 200-400 f4 VR in this group that Canon doesn't yet offer. Ok, one lone VR lens versus some really primo IS L glass.

And to their credit Canon offers IS on 6 of 7 of these powerhouses, while Nikon offers only 3 of 6 with VR. Additionally, Nikons prices are about 10%-15% higher per equivalent lens and feature.

Ok, at this point maybe pathetic is looming on the horizon.

So, big point to Canon for having a better selection of 300mm to 600mm, fixed focal-length, Image Stabilized lenses at lower cost. And from the point-of-view of "body count" and cost Canon is the clear winner.

But, y'know...

The world doesn't stand still... And Nikon, being the strategist company they seem to have become, introduced the D2X... which in addition to being a pretty fast 12MP dSLR, also has a blazingly fast 7MP high-speed 2X crop mode. On the surface everyone thought this might be a gimmick, but in reality there is a strategy that is just now starting to dawn on the photography world. And with any luck it will continue through the line ala 200D (and D80?)

So now, that 200-400 f4 VR might just start looking a little better as a 400-800 f4 VR, for about $5000 (for reference, the Canon 400mm f4 IS USM is about $5300).

Just speculating, but I would imagine a high quality, fast, big zoom lens might be useful for pro sports, and paprazzi, shooters than say, a 600mm f4 L IS for $7200.

Granted you could use a 1D Mk II at 8.5fps and 1.3X crop, but you are still only going to get a 720mm fixed fl lens. And on full-frame...? 600mm and 3-4 frames per second.

So how many big, fast, image stabilized, lenses do you need to cover 300mm-800mm (at 5-8fps)? With Nikon, you now need...one.

The long term winner is not necessarily who has the most toys, but who has the best system strategy.

Pathetic is such a harsh word...

ReF
08-31-2005, 05:14 PM
ANT: "telephotos @ 300mm or more. Nikon's range of long telephotos is quite frankly pathetic compared to Canon's. That's why Pro sports shooters, paperazzi and anyone who primarily shoots at the longer end go for Canon."

i'm no nikon expert but i quickly flipped through a B&H catalogue and found only two nikon tele-primes listed that had stabilization. the 300 f4 with no VR was about the same price as the canon 300 f4 with IS. is this what you are talking about?

GR: "Again, probably more personal feeling than fact... and what, cheaper more attractive lenses, might those be?"
again, i don't know much about nikon stuff but i heard that there is no nikon equivalent of the lower cost 17-40 f4L or 70-200 f4L which are extremely popular.

GR: "maybe there is no need as Nikon makes some pretty nice glass that is cost competitive with the Canon equvelents... "

the way you put it sounds like the nikon system stands well on it's own while the canon line need help from nikon glass.

GR: "There is no denying that up until the beginning of 2005 Canon was smokin', but something changed after the 20D, and the recent offerings have been pretty disappointing."

probably more personal feeling than fact.

i personally don't care which brand or system people buy into since all the d-slrs seem quite capable. besides, the resulting photos are what really matter anyways. but George, though i don't know how you really feel, it SOUNDS like you've been knocking canon a lot. just like preference of cars or religion, it doesn't matter what others like, but when someone seems to be actively against your preferences it can be quite a bother.

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 05:40 PM
ANT: "telephotos @ 300mm or more. Nikon's range of long telephotos is quite frankly pathetic compared to Canon's. That's why Pro sports shooters, paperazzi and anyone who primarily shoots at the longer end go for Canon."

i'm no nikon expert but i quickly flipped through a B&H catalogue and found only two nikon tele-primes listed that had stabilization. the 300 f4 with no VR was about the same price as the canon 300 f4 with IS. is this what you are talking about?

GR: "Again, probably more personal feeling than fact... and what, cheaper more attractive lenses, might those be?"
again, i don't know much about nikon stuff but i heard that there is no nikon equivalent of the lower cost 17-40 f4L or 70-200 f4L which are extremely popular.

GR: "maybe there is no need as Nikon makes some pretty nice glass that is cost competitive with the Canon equvelents... "

the way you put it sounds like the nikon system stands well on it's own while the canon line need help from nikon glass.

GR: "There is no denying that up until the beginning of 2005 Canon was smokin', but something changed after the 20D, and the recent offerings have been pretty disappointing."

probably more personal feeling than fact.

i personally don't care which brand or system people buy into since all the d-slrs seem quite capable. besides, the resulting photos are what really matter anyways. but George, though i don't know how you really feel, it SOUNDS like you've been knocking canon a lot. just like preference of cars or religion, it doesn't matter what others like, but when someone seems to be actively against your preferences it can be quite a bother.

Read my reply. I'm not knocking Canon. Just trying to get people to look at the bigger picture.

How I really feel is; that the Canon 20D and the 1D series are some of the best cameras in the world and many Canon lenses are world leaders in quality and cost. Nikon has struggled with thier internal technologies, against what has become a powerhouse in the digital market, but their strategy is sound as they carefully evaluate their place in the market and implement a market strategy rather than "nuking" the market.

If you own a 350D or are planning to buy the new 5D, I'm all for it. they work great within their limitations. This is true for every dSLR, but people should realize that there is a larger world of possibility than just Canon. MegaPixels and Full-Frame sensors may not be the panacea that everyone thinks they are.

So all I'm trying to do is get people to think outside the box.

and pathetic is relative.

ReF
08-31-2005, 05:47 PM
Read my reply. I'm not knocking Canon. Just trying to get people to look at the bigger picture.

How I really feel is; that the Canon 20D and the 1D series are some of the best cameras in the world and many Canon lenses are world leaders in quality and cost. Nikon has struggled with thier internal technologies, against what has become a powerhouse in the digital market, but their strategy is sound as they carefully evaluate their place in the market and implement a market strategy rather than "nuking" the market.

If you own a 350D or are planning to buy the new 5D, I'm all for it. they work great within their limitations. This is true for every dSLR, but people should realize that there is a larger world of possibility than just Canon. MegaPixels and Full-Frame sensors may not be the panacea that everyone thinks they are.

and pathetic is relative.

well, hopefully through my wording of things i gave you a chance to stand up for yourself by saying it "sounds like" you are saying this and that without straight out accusing you of something. i also realize that you were also respond to at least one knock against nikon as well.

i didn't use the word Pathetic in my earlier writtings so maybe you put it in the wrong response?

"So all I'm trying to do is get people to think outside the box"

actually, i thought canon and nikon where both part of the "box" ;)

jamison55
08-31-2005, 06:34 PM
But, y'know...

The world doesn't stand still... And Nikon, being the strategist company they seem to have become, introduced the D2X... which in addition to being a pretty fast 12MP dSLR, also has a blazingly fast 7MP high-speed 2X crop mode. On the surface everyone thought this might be a gimmick, but in reality there is a strategy that is just now starting to dawn on the photography world. And with any luck it will continue through the line ala 200D (and D80?)

So now, that 200-400 f4 VR might just start looking a little better as a 400-800 f4 VR, for about $5000 (for reference, the Canon 400mm f4 IS USM is about $5300).

I love the Canon vs Nikon wars...it forces innovation which is good for all of us. The Nikon minority in my industry love the D2X...in fact wedding photogs are dropping their Fuji S2's and 3's in favor of it. And that 2x crop mode is genius. Any feature which helps DSLR owners not have to change lenses is fantastic, and George is right; who wouldn't want twice the range on all of your lenses. The much hailed 17-55 f2.8 DX (26-88 equivalent) - a lens BTW that I wish Canon would make - is now a 26-110 f2.8 equivalent. That's plum useful...and one of the best features to hit a DSLR in a long time.

Now, if Canon is to respond in kind, it will release the 1DsMkIII with a FF sensor and a 2x crop mode (and $2000 cheaper). That way I could shoot an entire wedding with just my 17-40 f4 (now a true 17-80), or 28-70 f2.8 (now a magical 28-140 f2.8!). You wildlife photogs, what about a 70-400 f2.8 IS! Now if that doesn't have you drooling you should retire from the photography game...

I agree with George that Nikon made a great strategic move with the D2X, but Canon fired back with the 5D. Full frame is something that Nikon still won't give its customer base. Each company improves upon its system with each new release as they attempt to come out on top.

The real winner is each of us! We get better tools each couple of years. I hope the day never comes that one of the big two throws in the towel... Long live Canon, Long live Nikon!

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 06:55 PM
well, hopefully through my wording of things i gave you a chance to stand up for yourself by saying it "sounds like" you are saying this and that without straight out accusing you of something. i also realize that you were also respond to at least one knock against nikon as well.

i didn't use the word Pathetic in my earlier writtings so maybe you put it in the wrong response?

"So all I'm trying to do is get people to think outside the box"

actually, i thought canon and nikon where both part of the "box" ;)

Actually no. The current wisdom (better known as "inside the box") continues to be Megapixels, Full-Frame sensors, and in the case of my orignal reply, a saturation of the market with expensive redundant lenses are the only way. When in fact there is more to the story.

The "pathetic" comment was added as part of the original message, under the assumption that you would read my earlier response, before responding. As it was used to describe Nikons lens offering in the professional lens market. My response was basically that quantity does not necessarily mean a better system methodology. Niether condoning nor condemming Canons strategy, but pointing out that it is not the only logical path.

Anyway I'm not going to go round and round with the Canon crowd. I did not say anything derogotory or politically incorrect, so I would appreciate it if people would read my comments as an opinion rather than a condemnation. And to set the record staight I did not use the word "pathetic" to describe anything, but meerly as a parroting of the commentary to which I was replying.

ReF
08-31-2005, 07:48 PM
Actually no. The current wisdom (better known as "inside the box") continues to be Megapixels, Full-Frame sensors, and in the case of my orignal reply, a saturation of the market with expensive redundant lenses are the only way. When in fact there is more to the story.

The "pathetic" comment was added as part of the original message, under the assumption that you would read my earlier response, before responding. As it was used to describe Nikons lens offering in the professional lens market. My response was basically that quantity does not necessarily mean a better system methodology. Niether condoning nor condemming Canons strategy, but pointing out that it is not the only logical path.

Anyway I'm not going to go round and round with the Canon crowd. I did not say anything derogotory or politically incorrect, so I would appreciate it if people would read my comments as an opinion rather than a condemnation. And to set the record staight I did not use the word "pathetic" to describe anything, but meerly as a parroting of the commentary to which I was replying.



george, i did read all the messages. where do you think i got all those quotes from? so anyways, i attempted to end our little conversation smoothly but it seems you're still pretty heated up about the whole nikon and canon thing. you should also realize it's not about being "politically correct" or whatever, it's how your words/wording is perceived by other people. hey, some politically correct politicians sound like jack@sses. you neither have to litterally condone nor condemn, we know what you mean. and right around now, you sound a little mad and bitter at the actual canon brand (why?) and the "canon crowd" that you've alienated. trying to dictate that what is considered "in the box" thinking is also IMO pretty closed minded. i don't think you would be complaining if Nikon was selling full frame and 1.3x sensors or a nice selection of primes with VR, would you? honestly? if you also think that the canon IS primes are so redundant (therefore unneccessary, according to your wording) then maybe you should tell the pros that use them that. i also don't see why we should even be worried about cameras and lenses that are $4000 and up - equipment that we'll never own. maybe someone here is really more concerned about BRANDS than anything else. i guess we'll just have to agree not to respond to each other. and i mean it, i'm tired of your constant complaints and putting down of canon equipment in general (that you don't even own), litterally said or not, but i'm not getting dragged into some embarrasing argument any further. it seems you have a lot more experience in that field anyway (i think the amount of people who have argued with you speaks for itself. really, think about it. i mean REALLY, THINK ABOUT IT.), so you can have the last word, i won't respond.

BTW, please don't ever say you're a canon fan anymore (as you have said in the past). people can't even talk about L lenses focusing faster than 3rd party lenses without you stepping in and saying that maybe it's a canon issue because everything works fine on the nikon. c'mon, enough is enough

D70FAN
08-31-2005, 10:13 PM
I love the Canon vs Nikon wars...it forces innovation which is good for all of us. The Nikon minority in my industry love the D2X...in fact wedding photogs are dropping their Fuji S2's and 3's in favor of it. And that 2x crop mode is genius. Any feature which helps DSLR owners not have to change lenses is fantastic, and George is right; who wouldn't want twice the range on all of your lenses. The much hailed 17-55 f2.8 DX (26-88 equivalent) - a lens BTW that I wish Canon would make - is now a 26-110 f2.8 equivalent. That's plum useful...and one of the best features to hit a DSLR in a long time.

Now, if Canon is to respond in kind, it will release the 1DsMkIII with a FF sensor and a 2x crop mode (and $2000 cheaper). That way I could shoot an entire wedding with just my 17-40 f4 (now a true 17-80), or 28-70 f2.8 (now a magical 28-140 f2.8!). You wildlife photogs, what about a 70-400 f2.8 IS! Now if that doesn't have you drooling you should retire from the photography game...

I agree with George that Nikon made a great strategic move with the D2X, but Canon fired back with the 5D. Full frame is something that Nikon still won't give its customer base. Each company improves upon its system with each new release as they attempt to come out on top.

The real winner is each of us! We get better tools each couple of years. I hope the day never comes that one of the big two throws in the towel... Long live Canon, Long live Nikon!

Thanks Jamie.

It just keeps getting better and better. While I don't think the 5D is the best move compared to the 200D, only time will tell. these guys have truely taken different paths. Both will ultimately meet the needs of us all. :D

Since we both have the best values that our respective vendors have to offer we just sit back and watch the prices drop. Man if Canon would drop the 16MP/8MP high speed crop bomb we could afford new cameras by spring. ;)

Incidentally, were you offended by my commentary about the differences in AF illuminators?

nwpoland
08-31-2005, 11:43 PM
Why can't we all just get along ;)

Just bought my first dSLR and actually still waiting for it to get to me in Poland!

- Nikon D50
- Sigma 18-200 DC
- SB-600 flash
- Wireless remote
- Sandisk Ultra II 1gb SD Card
- Sweet, Crumpler "Long Schlong" photo bag (hate the name but what can you do)

What I want?
Mikey need big zoom! Haven't decided yet what that will be but want something to shoot wildlife with (esp birds...very peaceful to me). I've thought about the Sigma 70-300 APO along with a teleconverter but (1) I've already got the 18-200 and an extra 100mm isn't that big a deal.

Also interested in the SB-29 macro flash...but again, just learning about that one.

I'm currently a pretty happy camper after having jumped up from my Canon SD100 P&S (which btw has been a great little pistol for me!). :D

Ant
09-01-2005, 01:10 AM
OK. Let me just clarify my 'pathetic' remark, which I stand by.

First of all I should have specified zooms @ or > 300mm not primes, I find them too limiting.

Take the situation I was in about a year ago, which I should imagine an awful lot of people are in at some point (I know that a great many aviation photographers are). I was using a cheap 70-300mmG Nikon lens and was unhappy with the quality of this lens, I wanted something better. After saving for a bit I had a budget of around 1600. A not inconsiderable sum and more than enough to get myself a decent Nikon telephoto zoom to do the job, or so I thought.

I took a look at Jessops web site to make my decision. The next lens up from the one I was already using was the 70-300mmD. I knew that this was only marginally better than my G lens, and at about 220 it was at the bottom end of my price scale, I was sure I could get something better. So I worked my way up the price scale to see what else was available: Nothing in the 300-400 bracket, nothing in the 600-800 bracket...in fact absolutely nothing at all until I get to the 80-400 VR at 1300. A fine lens, but with no internal fast focusing, a little limited for fast action shooting....and that was it. The sum total of 300mm zooms for up to 1600 was a measly three, two of which weren't the best quality and none of which had internal fast focusing.

Compare this to what I could have got from Canon in my price range:

90-300mm non USM 139
75-300mm non USM 150
75-300mm USM 170
90-300mm USM 220
100-300 USM 250
70-300 USM & IS 1000
100-400 USM & IS 1200
28-300 USM IS 1600

For my requirements and price range the Nikon line up, compared to Canon's, pretty much exactly matches the dictionary definition of pathetic in my book. Go to any aviation photography web site and every Nikon user will complain about Nikon's poor lens range for this type of photography. In fact if it wasn't for Sigma and my love of my D70 I'd have jumped ship to Canon by now.

Of course not everybody primarily shoots at 300mm or more, and if you don't then Nikon's range is pretty good, but if you do regularly need that reach, and aren't rich enough to afford 6000 zooms then Canon has, unfortunately, little competition.

jamison55
09-01-2005, 03:19 AM
Incidentally, were you offended by my commentary about the differences in AF illuminators?

George,

I can't find your comment on AF Illuminators, but I'm sure I wouldn't be offended by it since I don't think that Canon's is the best (as evidenced by the difficulty that all but my L lenses have focusing in extreme low light).

D70FAN
09-01-2005, 06:39 AM
OK. Let me just clarify my 'pathetic' remark, which I stand by.

First of all I should have specified zooms @ or > 300mm not primes, I find them too limiting.

Take the situation I was in about a year ago, which I should imagine an awful lot of people are in at some point (I know that a great many aviation photographers are). I was using a cheap 70-300mmG Nikon lens and was unhappy with the quality of this lens, I wanted something better. After saving for a bit I had a budget of around 1600. A not inconsiderable sum and more than enough to get myself a decent Nikon telephoto zoom to do the job, or so I thought.

I took a look at Jessops web site to make my decision. The next lens up from the one I was already using was the 70-300mmD. I knew that this was only marginally better than my G lens, and at about 220 it was at the bottom end of my price scale, I was sure I could get something better. So I worked my way up the price scale to see what else was available: Nothing in the 300-400 bracket, nothing in the 600-800 bracket...in fact absolutely nothing at all until I get to the 80-400 VR at 1300. A fine lens, but with no internal fast focusing, a little limited for fast action shooting....and that was it. The sum total of 300mm zooms for up to 1600 was a measly three, two of which weren't the best quality and none of which had internal fast focusing.

Compare this to what I could have got from Canon in my price range:

90-300mm non USM 139
75-300mm non USM 150
75-300mm USM 170
90-300mm USM 220
100-300 USM 250
70-300 USM & IS 1000
100-400 USM & IS 1200
28-300 USM IS 1600

For my requirements and price range the Nikon line up, compared to Canon's, pretty much exactly matches the dictionary definition of pathetic in my book. Go to any aviation photography web site and every Nikon user will complain about Nikon's poor lens range for this type of photography. In fact if it wasn't for Sigma and my love of my D70 I'd have jumped ship to Canon by now.

Of course not everybody primarily shoots at 300mm or more, and if you don't then Nikon's range is pretty good, but if you do regularly need that reach, and aren't rich enough to afford 6000 zooms then Canon has, unfortunately, little competition.

Ah. Thanks Ant. I completely missed the range of glass you were talking about, as professional sports photographers and many paparazzi are using some pretty expensive glass to give them an edge.

I can pretty much agree that there is a lack of variety in the Nikon 300mm consumer to semi-pro lens selection. I have to admit that it is rare that I need 300mm and above, so I can see why you would use the word pathetic, as it is.

It would be interesting to see how many of the Canon lenses you listed were worth buying, as I see a lot of Canon shooters with the Sigma APO stuck on their 20D.

The bottom line is: If you are a Nikon user looking for a decent 300mm lens for under $1500 you have 1 so-so choice from Nikon, so look to 3rd party suppliers for the answer.

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

jamison55
09-01-2005, 06:46 AM
George,

I can't find your comment on AF Illuminators, but I'm sure I wouldn't be offended by it since I don't think that Canon's is the best (as evidenced by the difficulty that all but my L lenses have focusing in extreme low light).

Actually I think I've found the perfect AF Illuminator, and it's compatible with all systems: http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/905/sesent/00

(and it can do double duty in my safe next to my Glock!)

D70FAN
09-01-2005, 06:51 AM
george, i did read all the messages. where do you think i got all those quotes from? so anyways, i attempted to end our little conversation smoothly but it seems you're still pretty heated up about the whole nikon and canon thing. you should also realize it's not about being "politically correct" or whatever, it's how your words/wording is perceived by other people. hey, some politically correct politicians sound like jack@sses. you neither have to litterally condone nor condemn, we know what you mean. and right around now, you sound a little mad and bitter at the actual canon brand (why?) and the "canon crowd" that you've alienated. trying to dictate that what is considered "in the box" thinking is also IMO pretty closed minded. i don't think you would be complaining if Nikon was selling full frame and 1.3x sensors or a nice selection of primes with VR, would you? honestly? if you also think that the canon IS primes are so redundant (therefore unneccessary, according to your wording) then maybe you should tell the pros that use them that. i also don't see why we should even be worried about cameras and lenses that are $4000 and up - equipment that we'll never own. maybe someone here is really more concerned about BRANDS than anything else. i guess we'll just have to agree not to respond to each other. and i mean it, i'm tired of your constant complaints and putting down of canon equipment in general (that you don't even own), litterally said or not, but i'm not getting dragged into some embarrasing argument any further. it seems you have a lot more experience in that field anyway (i think the amount of people who have argued with you speaks for itself. really, think about it. i mean REALLY, THINK ABOUT IT.), so you can have the last word, i won't respond.

BTW, please don't ever say you're a canon fan anymore (as you have said in the past). people can't even talk about L lenses focusing faster than 3rd party lenses without you stepping in and saying that maybe it's a canon issue because everything works fine on the nikon. c'mon, enough is enough

Ref, thanks for your input. I was unaware that my part of the discussion was mean, spiteful, or angry, as on my side it was none of those (and still isn't). But I don't think that the original participants in the conversation were done with the conversation. Now we are (more or less). And oddly enough we agree on some points, and not on others.

I think that is the difference between a monolog and a discussion.

Modified from my earlier post:

For the record low-light focusing difficulties are a Canon issue. I was trying to clarify that point so that other camera users, specifically Nikon users, might try great lenses like the Sigma 18-50 f2.8, rather than thinking they were unusable in low light.

PAX.

astro
09-01-2005, 04:04 PM
I'm kinda new to the dSLR club, but I amassed 6 lenses so far in three weeks :)
Only costed me around $400 for all of them.
Everything together only costed me around $1200.

Camera: Pentax *ist DS

Lens:
SMC DA 18-55mm kit lens - $105
SMC F 35-70mm and
SMC F 80-200mm circa early 90s from ebay for $85
SMC M 50mm F/1.4 circa early 80s from ebay for $55
SMC M 135mm F/3.5 circa late 70s from ebay for $45
Super Takumar 300mm F/4 circa late 60s for $105.

Flash: Pentax AF280T

Tripod: Amvona ball head tripod

Memory card: A-Data 2GB 150x

Rhys
09-01-2005, 05:15 PM
Actually I think I've found the perfect AF Illuminator, and it's compatible with all systems: http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/905/sesent/00

(and it can do double duty in my safe next to my Glock!)

You must attend some dark churches and have some clients that need an awful lot of encouragement to pay if you need those two.

D70FAN
09-01-2005, 07:45 PM
I'm kinda new to the dSLR club, but I amassed 6 lenses so far in three weeks :)
Only costed me around $400 for all of them.
Everything together only costed me around $1200.

Camera: Pentax *ist DS

Lens:
SMC DA 18-55mm kit lens - $105
SMC F 35-70mm and
SMC F 80-200mm circa early 90s from ebay for $85
SMC M 50mm F/1.4 circa early 80s from ebay for $55
SMC M 135mm F/3.5 circa late 70s from ebay for $45
Super Takumar 300mm F/4 circa late 60s for $105.

Flash: Pentax AF280T

Tripod: Amvona ball head tripod

Memory card: A-Data 2GB 150x

So you are planning to lug all of that glass with you? :eek:

D70FAN
09-01-2005, 07:56 PM
Actually I think I've found the perfect AF Illuminator, and it's compatible with all systems: http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/905/sesent/00

(and it can do double duty in my safe next to my Glock!)

Very nice.

But I didn't see a Glock mount!? I still haven't bought the 17 yet. Damn mortgage anyway! I could buy the 17, a box o' 50, and a decent lens for one payment. ;)

Clyde
09-01-2005, 09:23 PM
Actually I think I've found the perfect AF Illuminator, and it's compatible with all systems: http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/prrfnbr/905/sesent/00

(and it can do double duty in my safe next to my Glock!)

Hmm. If you are in the habit of using these as part of your collection routine, perhaps you are wasting too much time actually taking pictures at the weddings. Much more efficient to just skip the photography step...

If you decide to stop using the l stuff, purely in the interest of better satisfying the fiduciary interests of your investors, well, send the glass to me.

Your gain could be mine as well, a happy way to maximize return on your resources.

Clyde

jamison55
09-02-2005, 03:27 AM
You must attend some dark churches and have some clients that need an awful lot of encouragement to pay if you need those two.

Not the churches...the dance floors, black as night.


But I didn't see a Glock mount!? I still haven't bought the 17 yet. Damn mortgage anyway! I could buy the 17, a box o' 50, and a decent lens for one payment.

Forget the Glock mount, how about a tactical rail system for my 20D! (and while we're at it, Surefire sells sound suppressors. You think they could make my 20D as quiet as my 10D?)


Hmm. If you are in the habit of using these as part of your collection routine, perhaps you are wasting too much time actually taking pictures at the weddings. Much more efficient to just skip the photography step...

If you decide to stop using the l stuff, purely in the interest of better satisfying the fiduciary interests of your investors, well, send the glass to me.


Nope, the Glock stays at home unless I'm popping off a few hundred downrange. Too bulky to carry. The Taurus 85 on the other hand...(but never to weddings!)

As for you getting my glass - careful, I have a Glock :D

Rhys
09-02-2005, 05:28 AM
Nope, the Glock stays at home unless I'm popping off a few hundred downrange. Too bulky to carry. The Taurus 85 on the other hand...(but never to weddings!)

As for you getting my glass - careful, I have a Glock :D

I've always had a leaning toward the Tokarev 9mm for something with oomph (I used to carry one when I worked in Eastern Europe), the Makarov 5.56 for soemthing that gets the job done quietly or the Walther PPK 7.65 for general carry-around.

How any times have you had to defend yourself against bears and so on doing wildlife photography?

D70FAN
09-02-2005, 06:26 AM
Not the churches...the dance floors, black as night.

Forget the Glock mount, how about a tactical rail system for my 20D! (and while we're at it, Surefire sells sound suppressors. You think they could make my 20D as quiet as my 10D?)

I have Bose Quiet Comfort noise cancelling headphones. Quiets the D70 down considerably...

I figure if I can't hear it nobody else can either.

JimE52
09-02-2005, 07:36 AM
Okay, here goes... I have just finished putting four kids through college :p so funds have been extremely low for a long time and I am just starting to purchase equipment again.

Current Equipment
Nikon N80 (just purchased last month)
Nikkor 28-80mm f3.3-5.6
Fuji S5100 (purchased last fall)
Two Ricoh 35mm (equilivant to K1000) purchased in 1979
Ricoh 85mm f2.8 (purchased in 1979)
Two Ricoh 50mm f1.7 (purchased in 1979)
Vivitar 80-200mm F4.5 (purchased in 1980)
Tripod, Brand ?

Future Purchases
Nikon Digital D70s
New Tripod

As I said, it's been a long time.

jamison55
09-02-2005, 07:53 AM
I've always had a leaning toward the Tokarev 9mm for something with oomph (I used to carry one when I worked in Eastern Europe), the Makarov 5.56 for soemthing that gets the job done quietly or the Walther PPK 7.65 for general carry-around.

Commie!


How any times have you had to defend yourself against bears and so on doing wildlife photography?

None, but I took to carrying the little Taurus while on short day hikes a few years ago after my dog started acting strangely on a hike. She usually loves the outdoors, and bounds through the snow running in all directions. This particular day she basically cowered by our feet. A little further on we came across some deer tracks with a pack of Coyote tracks in hot pursuit. I realized then, that if the Coyotes decided to attack the dog, I'd have nothing to defend her with (not exactly paranoia, since Coyotes have become quite a problem here in MA, commonly killing pets and even attacking small children. A couple of years ago a woman on the Cape looked out her back window to see her Toddler in the jaws of a Coyote. She chased it off and the toddler was fine but...). Now the small fanny pack that I use for day hikes contains matches, knife, space blanket, powerbar, iodine tablets...and my Taurus .38 (along with 10 extra rounds of Hydra-Shok +P's).

Rhys
09-02-2005, 08:06 AM
Commie!

Lol. I worked out there for 10 years, off and on. The highpoint (or lowpoint depending on your point of view) was when I worked for the Latvian Military Academy as an instructor, instructing the most unistructable phsychopaths you'll ever be glad never to have met.



None, but I took to carrying the little Taurus while on short day hikes a few years ago after my dog started acting strangely on a hike. She usually loves the outdoors, and bounds through the snow running in all directions. This particular day she basically cowered by our feet. A little further on we came across some deer tracks with a pack of Coyote tracks in hot pursuit. I realized then, that if the Coyotes decided to attack the dog, I'd have nothing to defend her with (not exactly paranoia, since Coyotes have become quite a problem here in MA, commonly killing pets and even attacking small children. A couple of years ago a woman on the Cape looked out her back window to see her Toddler in the jaws of a Coyote. She chased it off and the toddler was fine but...). Now the small fanny pack that I use for day hikes contains matches, knife, space blanket, powerbar, iodine tablets...and my Taurus .38 (along with 10 extra rounds of Hydra-Shok +P's).

Why in your backpack? BTW a "fanny" just ain't PC in Britain ;). The PPK 7.65 would fit nicely in a side pocket of your jacket.

jamison55
09-02-2005, 08:36 AM
Why in your backpack? BTW a "fanny" just ain't PC in Britain ;). The PPK 7.65 would fit nicely in a side pocket of your jacket.

The "Belt" pack actually has a little zippered pocket on the back which holds the Taurus perfectly. I can get at it just as quickly as I could if it was in my pocket with less chance of it falling out and the ability to use my pockets to keep my hands warm. BTW the Taurus Model 85 (http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?model=85B&category=Revolver) is almost as small as the PPKs (the Taurus is 6.5x4.2in the PPKs is 6.2x4.2in), but I like my chances with the +P 38's verses the little .380 popgun cartridge.

LOL on the "Fanny" reference. After 6 months in school in New Zealand I should know better! Come across any "Fanny Farmer" chocolates yet? (Oops, I guess not...they went out of business http://www.chocolatecritic.com/index.php/critic/comments/faq-fanniefarmer/)

jamison55
09-02-2005, 08:42 AM
Okay, here goes... I have just finished putting four kids through college :p so funds have been extremely low for a long time and I am just starting to purchase equipment again.

Current Equipment
Nikon N80 (just purchased last month)
Nikkor 28-80mm f3.3-5.6
Fuji S5100 (purchased last fall)
Two Ricoh 35mm (equilivant to K1000) purchased in 1979
Ricoh 85mm f2.8 (purchased in 1979)
Two Ricoh 50mm f1.7 (purchased in 1979)
Vivitar 80-200mm F4.5 (purchased in 1980)
Tripod, Brand ?

Future Purchases
Nikon Digital D70s
New Tripod

As I said, it's been a long time.


Nothing to laugh about there. I'll bet that old Ricoh glass on Velia 100 film would put my L's to shame. Welcome!

D70FAN
09-02-2005, 09:14 AM
Commie!



None, but I took to carrying the little Taurus while on short day hikes a few years ago after my dog started acting strangely on a hike. She usually loves the outdoors, and bounds through the snow running in all directions. This particular day she basically cowered by our feet. A little further on we came across some deer tracks with a pack of Coyote tracks in hot pursuit. I realized then, that if the Coyotes decided to attack the dog, I'd have nothing to defend her with (not exactly paranoia, since Coyotes have become quite a problem here in MA, commonly killing pets and even attacking small children. A couple of years ago a woman on the Cape looked out her back window to see her Toddler in the jaws of a Coyote. She chased it off and the toddler was fine but...). Now the small fanny pack that I use for day hikes contains matches, knife, space blanket, powerbar, iodine tablets...and my Taurus .38 (along with 10 extra rounds of Hydra-Shok +P's).

Always a good idea to be prepared. Especially out photographing in the desert, it can be hazardous, but the main carry along is water.

I actually never considered carrying more than a Swiss Army knife, and find the Manfroto monopod with a spiked hiking tip to work for snakes and critters. Coyotes don't generally bother people, but wild horses can get territorial so the Taurus might be an interesting idea, if only for a scare tactic.

Only a few miles West of here we might have to start worrying about the repopulation of the Mexican Grey Wolf. That's a whole story by itself. :rolleyes:

Tyger
09-02-2005, 11:02 AM
Wow, many of you guys have quite a bit of gear.

I'm rather new to photography so i don't have much:)

Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D)
18-55mm Kit lens
Sigma 70-300mm APO Macro DG

Wants:

Hope fully in the future i wouldn't mind getting any L Series lenses
I still need a decent backpack that will carry a tripod too.
Still need a flash, other than the built in one i've got.
aw, heck there's too many things that i'd like, but not enough $$$$.

ReF
09-02-2005, 06:42 PM
Commie!



None, but I took to carrying the little Taurus while on short day hikes a few years ago after my dog started acting strangely on a hike. She usually loves the outdoors, and bounds through the snow running in all directions. This particular day she basically cowered by our feet. A little further on we came across some deer tracks with a pack of Coyote tracks in hot pursuit. I realized then, that if the Coyotes decided to attack the dog, I'd have nothing to defend her with (not exactly paranoia, since Coyotes have become quite a problem here in MA, commonly killing pets and even attacking small children. A couple of years ago a woman on the Cape looked out her back window to see her Toddler in the jaws of a Coyote. She chased it off and the toddler was fine but...). Now the small fanny pack that I use for day hikes contains matches, knife, space blanket, powerbar, iodine tablets...and my Taurus .38 (along with 10 extra rounds of Hydra-Shok +P's).

we actually have a coyote problem here in southern california as well. every once in a while there will be news reports of coyote attacking pets, children, babies, adults, the police officers that arrive on the scene, anything! the ridiculous part is that on the news they tell you to call authorities immediately if you spot one, but when i see them on my block (LARGE ones too, and in a well populated area with children) and call animal control or police they don't seem to give a crap and don't show up. once i was shooting in a hilly area at night where people can't hear you yell for help and i heard a group howling coyotes coming closer and closer. i got some good shots but i had to take off running soon after. you can be sure i won't be there again when it get dark! the problem with these coyotes is that you can't be sure a gun shot will scare them off if they are desperate for food and one gun surely can't take down a pack. hey, do you guys have mountain lions there in MA? i actually worry about those more. they sneak close to you and can dash at 45mp per hour. i'm not sure if there is any time to react, and they have been know to kill a good amount of hikers. i was really surprised when my friend told me that at UCSC a few students have encounter mountain lions in the forest that part of the school is located in. i took the following shot of a warning sign there

jamison55
09-02-2005, 07:38 PM
hey, do you guys have mountain lions there in MA? i actually worry about those more. they sneak close to you and can dash at 45mp per hour. i'm not sure if there is any time to react, and they have been know to kill a good amount of hikers. i was really surprised when my friend told me that at UCSC a few students have encounter mountain lions in the forest that part of the school is located in. i took the following shot of a warning sign there

Nope, thankfully no mountian lions in MA. For those I'd have to carry the .357...not exactly a carry piece with its 6 inch barrel...makes a big boom, though :D

BTW - is it just me, or does the mountain lion on that sign look like he's using the litterbox. And if a Mountain Lion craps in the woods...?

D70FAN
09-02-2005, 10:37 PM
we actually have a coyote problem here in southern california as well. every once in a while there will be news reports of coyote attacking pets, children, babies, adults, the police officers that arrive on the scene, anything! the ridiculous part is that on the news they tell you to call authorities immediately if you spot one, but when i see them on my block (LARGE ones too, and in a well populated area with children) and call animal control or police they don't seem to give a crap and don't show up. once i was shooting in a hilly area at night where people can't hear you yell for help and i heard a group howling coyotes coming closer and closer. i got some good shots but i had to take off running soon after. you can be sure i won't be there again when it get dark! the problem with these coyotes is that you can't be sure a gun shot will scare them off if they are desperate for food and one gun surely can't take down a pack. hey, do you guys have mountain lions there in MA? i actually worry about those more. they sneak close to you and can dash at 45mp per hour. i'm not sure if there is any time to react, and they have been know to kill a good amount of hikers. i was really surprised when my friend told me that at UCSC a few students have encounter mountain lions in the forest that part of the school is located in. i took the following shot of a warning sign there

Ref, You might find this interesting.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lion/

http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html

I wondered the Santa Cruz mountains, on and off, for almost 45 years and have to admit I have never seen a mountain Lion there (my home town is Monterey), and I lived at the base of the Eastern side of those mountains, by Saratoga, for about 25 years.

Repopulation sounds good on the surface, but now with 37 million residents in the Golden State, it will be intersting to see how this coexistance works. Here in Arizona bringing back the Mexican Grey Wolf will probably have zero impact on the 4 or 5 million people here for the forseeable future, but with the influx from Southern California and the Northern states Arizona may have a problem 20 years from now.

Time to look into that Glock 31/32... to go with that 80-400 f4. ;)

jamison55
09-03-2005, 05:05 AM
We should all be happy we don't live in Australia. Talk about fierce predators with no regard for human life...http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0506_050506_kangaroos.html

erichlund
09-03-2005, 11:28 AM
The problem with the sign is that the first sentence doesn't go far enough. In all likelihood, if a mountain lion is going to attack you, you'll never know it. Like all cats, stealth is their modus operandi, and a killing blow to the base of the skull (breaking the neck) is all they need to end the issue. We humans tend to walk around without a care in the world, not realizing how vulnerable we are to something like a mountain lion. A mountain lion doesn't want to fight for its food. It just wants to eat, so you can't expect it to play fair. Your best protection is to travel in groups and not be the last person in the group.

BTW: In Thailand and other parts of tiger country, the locals are known to wear face masks on the back of their heads in the belief that the tiger is less likely to attack from the front. I don't know how effective this is, but if I were going to be bringing up the rear in known cat country, it might certainly be worth considering.

Cheers,
Eric

Rhys
09-03-2005, 11:39 AM
Lol. What a load of scae mongering. How many million people live in the US and have never ever seen any of the vicious predators mentioned? I've been in SC for 6 months and have encountered thus far only mosquitoes and fire ants. Sure, I see birds, squirrels and turtles but that's about it. No particularly nasty things such as snakes, wolves, bears, lions or even Martians.

TheObiJuan
09-03-2005, 01:32 PM
Lol. What a load of scae mongering. How many million people live in the US and have never ever seen any of the vicious predators mentioned? I've been in SC for 6 months and have encountered thus far only mosquitoes and fire ants. Sure, I see birds, squirrels and turtles but that's about it. No particularly nasty things such as snakes, wolves, bears, lions or even Martians.

Well here in Texas it is not uncommon to be attacked by javalinas while shooting in the brush. Cayotes can be annoying, but they rarely both us photogs. Alligators can be scary, so long lenses and a carefull eye will keep one safe.
I was shooting out in fredericksburg, in the hill country, and encountered some angry bats (whew, they stunk!) and a cougar.

BTW, if you only shoot in zoos or cities, all you'll ever see is birds and turtles..

Get out into nature and enjoy the wild animals and fresh air. ;)

Rhys
09-03-2005, 01:38 PM
Well here in Texas it is not uncommon to be attacked by javalinas while shooting in the brush. Cayotes can be annoying, but they rarely both us photogs. Alligators can be scary, so long lenses and a carefull eye will keep one safe.
I was shooting out in fredericksburg, in the hill country, and encountered some angry bats (whew, they stunk!) and a cougar.

BTW, if you only shoot in zoos or cities, all you'll ever see is birds and turtles..

Get out into nature and enjoy the wild animals and fresh air. ;)

I looked up Javelina. Seems a bit like a wild boar: http://www.toddshikingguide.com/FloraFauna/fauna15b.jpg

D70FAN
09-03-2005, 01:44 PM
Lol. What a load of scae mongering. How many million people live in the US and have never ever seen any of the vicious predators mentioned? I've been in SC for 6 months and have encountered thus far only mosquitoes and fire ants. Sure, I see birds, squirrels and turtles but that's about it. No particularly nasty things such as snakes, wolves, bears, lions or even Martians.

Now Martians?... those I've seen. Mostly around Roswell, but occasionally they migrate to the Phoenix and Tucson area in the winter (Snow Birds don't ya'know). ;)

Lions and Tigers and Bears...oh my!

The only dangerous wildlife in South Carolina are the "shiners".

Talk to some of the folks up in Eastern Pennsylvania around Meford (along the Delaware Watershed) about bears. And I've seen plenty of Coyotes, Scorpions, and other critters virtually in my back yard. Sometimes it pays to be prudent when hiking in the woods, or out in the desert.

And city folk have their own preditors to worry about.

TheObiJuan
09-03-2005, 04:11 PM
I looked up Javelina. Seems a bit like a wild boar: http://www.toddshikingguide.com/FloraFauna/fauna15b.jpg

That's a cute pic of one, but try smiling when a 500lbs one comes running at you and you have your tripod setup.

ReF
09-04-2005, 12:46 AM
BTW - is it just me, or does the mountain lion on that sign look like he's using the litterbox.

now that you mention it...

ReF
09-04-2005, 01:09 AM
Ref, You might find this interesting.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/lion/

http://tchester.org/sgm/lists/lion_attacks.html

I wondered the Santa Cruz mountains, on and off, for almost 45 years and have to admit I have never seen a mountain Lion there (my home town is Monterey), and I lived at the base of the Eastern side of those mountains, by Saratoga, for about 25 years.



i probably should be more concerned about stepping on a basking rattle snake. almost did so twice, once on each of my last trips into the "wilderness". i did run into a family of deer in those woods, which according to that article is mountain lion chow. LOL the part about people thinking that a deer is a mountain lion really gets me. i guess the picture below of a deer butt could pass for a mountain lion's butt. BTW i know it's an awful picture folks, but it illustrates what that article is saying, maybe. but aren't deer a lot higher off the ground than mountain lions :rolleyes:

"And city folk have their own preditors to worry about."

true that. sure wish the places we go to relax and take pictures didn't have their own dangers as well.

OBI: Well here in Texas it is not uncommon to be attacked by javalinas while shooting in the brush

hey those pigs (in general) can do some damage! saw a television bit one time about pros that hunt down wild pigs (not even boars) in hawaii that are disturbing the eco system. the guy had 4 dogs with him and that one pig messed up at least three of them before the guy shot it. damn! didn't think a farm animal gone wild could do that!

hey, any of you guys get any new gear?

D70FAN
09-04-2005, 06:21 AM
i probably should be more concerned about stepping on a basking rattle snake. almost did so twice, once on each of my last trips into the "wilderness". i did run into a family of deer in those woods, which according to that article is mountain lion chow. LOL the part about people thinking that a deer is a mountain lion really gets me. i guess the picture below of a deer butt could pass for a mountain lion's butt. BTW i know it's an awful picture folks, but it illustrates what that article is saying, maybe. but aren't deer a lot higher off the ground than mountain lions :rolleyes:

"And city folk have their own preditors to worry about."

true that. sure wish the places we go to relax and take pictures didn't have their own dangers as well.

OBI: Well here in Texas it is not uncommon to be attacked by javalinas while shooting in the brush

hey those pigs (in general) can do some damage! saw a television bit one time about pros that hunt down wild pigs (not even boars) in hawaii that are disturbing the eco system. the guy had 4 dogs with him and that one pig messed up at least three of them before the guy shot it. damn! didn't think a farm animal gone wild could do that!

hey, any of you guys get any new gear?

Nope. That's why I'm writing about preditors. I was all ready to get a Sigma 18-200, when the daughters car broke. So maybe christmas. :(

If you go up to Los Padres, just North of SLO, there are some pretty mean Siberian/domesic mix (boar+pig). Some are almost as big as coastal deer. I did some bow hunting there when I was younger. Most times they will run, but are very unpredictable.

I think you have a good title for a new book (with stills of course)... Farm Animals Gone Wild. Might even be an interesting title for the Photo board. ;)

Rhys
09-04-2005, 08:28 AM
Sounds lke the ideal photo expedition into the American wilderness would involve:

1. A Jeep - for getting around the rough terrain - with a winch just in case.
2. A shotgun plus around 1,000 rounds of ammunition for seeing off small wild beasts.
3. A .5 rifle for seeing off larger predators and 1000 rounds of ammunition.
4. Some DDT in a handy spray can to fend off mosquitoes and fire ants. Around a gallon should do.
5. A flamethrower for clearing the area you intend to pitch your tent of scorpions, spiders and other creepy-crawlies. Around 10 gallons of fuel should suffice.
6. A .44 magnum to make sure no roving bandits cause any problems. Best to carry 500 rounds for this.
7. A heavy machine gun just in case there's a group of roving bandits and around 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
8. Just to make sure, around 50 fragmentation grenades and possibly a mortar launcher with around 50 mortar bombs.
9. A tent.
10. Some MRE with a jelly stove, KFS set.
11. A few galons of drinking water.
12. Map and compass.
13. Camera, lenses, tripod, batteries and memory cards.
14. Kevlar body-armour with ceramic plates.

Have I missed anything?

D70FAN
09-04-2005, 05:26 PM
Sounds lke the ideal photo expedition into the American wilderness would involve:

1. A Jeep - for getting around the rough terrain - with a winch just in case.
2. A shotgun plus around 1,000 rounds of ammunition for seeing off small wild beasts.
3. A .5 rifle for seeing off larger predators and 1000 rounds of ammunition.
4. Some DDT in a handy spray can to fend off mosquitoes and fire ants. Around a gallon should do.
5. A flamethrower for clearing the area you intend to pitch your tent of scorpions, spiders and other creepy-crawlies. Around 10 gallons of fuel should suffice.
6. A .44 magnum to make sure no roving bandits cause any problems. Best to carry 500 rounds for this.
7. A heavy machine gun just in case there's a group of roving bandits and around 10,000 rounds of ammunition.
8. Just to make sure, around 50 fragmentation grenades and possibly a mortar launcher with around 50 mortar bombs.
9. A tent.
10. Some MRE with a jelly stove, KFS set.
11. A few galons of drinking water.
12. Map and compass.
13. Camera, lenses, tripod, batteries and memory cards.
14. Kevlar body-armour with ceramic plates.

Have I missed anything?

I think you pretty well described my last outing... Except:

A horse and pack-mule would do better than the Jeep/4WD.
A GPS with terrain maps.

Coltess
09-04-2005, 09:14 PM
Sounds like y'all gonna need something a little more powerful than a jeep. An M113A3 APC (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m113.htm) might do the trick, or maybe a Bradley IFV (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m2.htm) is more your style. Think of them as SUVs with attitude. Lots and lots of attitude... :D

astro
09-04-2005, 09:20 PM
So you are planning to lug all of that glass with you? :eek:
Nope.. I got a lot of them just to experiment with them as I'm still new.
I generally use the 50mm as a walk around lens. I bring the kit lens if I need wide angle, or I would bring the 300mm prime if I'm going to shoot nature.
It's been fun playing with the other lens, but I'm probably going to sell the 35-80mm zoom soon as the 50mm fits most my needs and is much faster.
Still need to buy a camera bag so I can actually lug more glass around. :o

D70FAN
09-04-2005, 10:12 PM
Nope.. I got a lot of them just to experiment with them as I'm still new.
I generally use the 50mm as a walk around lens. I bring the kit lens if I need wide angle, or I would bring the 300mm prime if I'm going to shoot nature.
It's been fun playing with the other lens, but I'm probably going to sell the 35-80mm zoom soon as the 50mm fits most my needs and is much faster.
Still need to buy a camera bag so I can actually lug more glass around. :o

OK. I'm not sure that I would classify the 50mm as a walk around lens, but I guess it depends where you are walking around. ;) Using a fixed 300mm lens must be challenging as well.

astro
09-04-2005, 10:22 PM
OK. I'm not sure that I would classify the 50mm as a walk around lens, but I guess it depends where you are walking around. ;) Using a fixed 300mm lens must be challenging as well.
It works great for me. Sometimes it would help if I had a bit more zoom, but I can usually just walk closer to the subject.
I'd sacrafice the convenience of a zoom to get the sharpness and speed of a prime.

I used to have a superzoom camera(Panasonic FZ15). When I took nature photos, I find myself trying to get as zoomed in to the subject as possible. I ended up using 420mm zoom the entire time.
300mm prime is the perfect lens for nature. Unless if I want to shoot landscape, then I'd switch to a wide angle lens.

D70FAN
09-04-2005, 10:30 PM
It works great for me. Sometimes it would help if I had a bit more zoom, but I can usually just walk closer to the subject.
I'd sacrafice the convenience of a zoom to get the sharpness and speed of a prime.

I used to have a superzoom camera(Panasonic FZ15). When I took nature photos, I find myself trying to get as zoomed in to the subject as possible. I ended up using 420mm zoom the entire time.
300mm prime is the perfect lens for nature. Unless if I want to shoot landscape, then I'd switch to a wide angle lens.

If you shoot a lot of hazardous landscapes I would not recommend a fixed focus lens. I do a lot of canyon and revine shooting where backing up or even stepping forward while framing can be a little dangerous.

Your 50mm f1.4 or 1.8 probably doesn't work all that much better than a good 28-70 f2.8.

Don't get me wrong, as I use both my Nikkor 35mm f2 and 50mm f1.8 a lot, but my everyday lens is a Sigma 18-125 f3.5-5.6. The SB800 makes up for a lot of lens speed. ;)

ReF
09-05-2005, 01:54 AM
wow, i wish i could live with using all primes and getting that extra bit of sharpness and contrast. i shoot mostly landscapes so composition is more important to me. getting closer can mean falling off the cliff and backing up can mean including unwanted subjects in the frame. i also find that i switch lenses pretty darn often between my three zooms as it is, so i try to keep that to a minimum. BTW putting on and removing a teleconverter is a bigger pain in the butt than switching between 3 lenses, because it requires 3 hands!

astro
09-05-2005, 03:01 AM
So how much did you pay for your zooms that are just have slightly less bit of sharpness and contrast? Professional level fast zooms start at around $1000..

Between top notch primes and consumer level zooms, I think I'd take the top notch primes any day. It wouldn't be just an extra bit of sharpness and contrast. But the difference would be like day and night. I do have three consumer level zooms myself, so yes, I do have experience with both.

Secondly, even if I was given the choice between professional zooms and primes, I'd probably still choose primes. Now that I've become accustomed to primes, I get a sense of view I'm going to get in the picture without looking in the view finder. I already know what the camera sees as I've been accustomed to only two different focal lengths. This allows me to inherently know what my composition is going to be like without fiddling with the zoom, finding the perfect view.

Maybe I'm just lucky that I never find a moment where I'm going to fall off a cliff? :rolleyes:

D70FAN
09-05-2005, 07:58 AM
So how much did you pay for your zooms that are just have slightly less bit of sharpness and contrast? Professional level fast zooms start at around $1000..

Between top notch primes and consumer level zooms, I think I'd take the top notch primes any day. It wouldn't be just an extra bit of sharpness and contrast. But the difference would be like day and night. I do have three consumer level zooms myself, so yes, I do have experience with both.

I don't think you will get much of an argument as to primes having better characteristics for less money. Sounds like your lens collection is even more substantial than I originally thought. Since my kit is currently comprised of a 35mm f2, a 50mm f1.8, and a Sigma 18-125, I bow to experience. I have owned a lot of decent lenses, but I am a minimalist. The less I have to carry, and the more spontaneous the shot, the better. Fortunately I can rent the $1500 lenses when needed (which is rarely).

But, to each their own.


Secondly, even if I was given the choice between professional zooms and primes, I'd probably still choose primes. Now that I've become accustomed to primes, I get a sense of view I'm going to get in the picture without looking in the view finder. I already know what the camera sees as I've been accustomed to only two different focal lengths. This allows me to inherently know what my composition is going to be like without fiddling with the zoom, finding the perfect view.

Wow. You are good.


Maybe I'm just lucky that I never find a moment where I'm going to fall off a cliff? :rolleyes:

Yeah, I guess that was pretty silly. :rolleyes: So come shoot the Grand Canyon (walking the RIm Trail) or the Eastern Mogollon Rim sometime. And leave your zooms at home... but don't forget your sensor cleaning kit.

astro
09-05-2005, 09:24 AM
Sadly when I went to the Grand Canyon two years ago, I didn't have my dSLR. Only got to visit the south rim though - still an amazing sight.

Anyways, this guy already has awesome pics of the grand canyon (http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/GCpage.html) :cool:
Hey whadda ya know.. he took those pics with zoom lens too :p

erichlund
09-05-2005, 10:16 PM
Lol. What a load of scae mongering. How many million people live in the US and have never ever seen any of the vicious predators mentioned? I've been in SC for 6 months and have encountered thus far only mosquitoes and fire ants. Sure, I see birds, squirrels and turtles but that's about it. No particularly nasty things such as snakes, wolves, bears, lions or even Martians.

The real problem is the people who, for whatever reason, want to live on the edge of nature, and don't understand or take proper precautions for what that means. It means bringing your pets in at night and keeping an eye on your small children. It seems this is unfortunately driven home every spring and summer, when the big critters get hungry. Couple of years ago, we even had a mountain lion incident here in Orange County, CA.

By the way, here's a list of venomous snakes in South Carolina:
Vipers:
Copperhead - Uncommon to Common
Timber Rattlesnake - Common
Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake - Rare - Considered by some to be most dangerous snake in U.S.
Cottonmouth - Common - particularly in wetlands.

Fixed Fang:
Eastern Coral Snake - Rare

I've seen Rattlers dozing on asphault any number of times, but they are fairly common in Colorado. My wife had a close encounter with a Water Moccasin when she was in high school.

We have coyotes down by the Santa Ana River. I counted 28 in a pack one morning. They noticed us (my dog and I), but didn't show any particular interest.

Stupid people have close encounters with bears every year in Yellowstone and Yosemite National Parks. We were supposed to go on a trip to Yellowstone with some friends, but my wife needed back surgery, so we cancelled. While there, our friend witnessed a potential candidate for a Darwin award. This idiot wanted to get a better picture of a Grizzly, so he got out of his car and started pushing on it, so his wife could get a good angle. The bear must have been as surprised as the other people in the area, because it just ignored the guy. The bears hang out in this particular area looking for handouts. It's illegal, but stupid people exist in large quantities.

You may notice a recurring theme here. Generally, it's people being stupid, or at least unwary, when unfortunate encounters occur.

By the way, the Florida panther used to range up into South Carolina. However, now they are only found in the southern tip of Florida. Unlike the couger (mountain lion), they don't seem to do very well with human incursion.

Here are some facts from a Mountain Lion web page:
SOME FACTS ABOUT MOUNTAIN LIONS
Physical appearance: The mountain lion, commonly known as cougar, panther or puma, is tawny-colored with black-tipped ears and tail. Although smaller than the jaguar, it is one of North America's largest cats.

Adult males may be more than 8 feet long, from nose to end of tail, and generally weigh between 130 and 150 pounds. Adult females can be 7 feet long and weigh between 65 and 90 pounds.

Mountain lion kittens, or cubs, are covered with blackish-brown spots and have dark rings around their tails. The markings fade as they mature.

Behavior: Mountain lions are very powerful and normally prey upon large animals, such as deer, bighorn sheep and elk. However, they can survive preying on small animals as well.

They usually hunt alone, at night. They prefer to ambush their prey, often from behind. They usually kill with a powerful bite below the base of the skull, breaking the neck. They often cover the carcass with dirt, leaves or snow and may come back to feed on it over the course of a few days. Their generally secretive and solitary nature is what makes it possible for humans to live in mountain lion country without ever seeing a mountain lion.

Habitat: Mountain lions live in many different types of habitat in California, from deserts to humid coast range forests, and from sea level to 10,000 foot elevations. They generally will be most abundant in areas with plentiful deer.

Home Range: An adult male's home range often spans over 100 square miles. Females generally use smaller areas--about twenty to sixty square miles. Along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, where competition for habitat is intense, as many as ten adult lions occupy the same 100 square mile area.

Population: In California, mountain lion populations have grown. In 1920, a rough estimate put the mountain lion population at 600. Since then, more accurate estimates, based on field studies of mountain lions, revealed a population of more than 2,000 mountain lions in the 1970's. Today's population estimate ranges between 4,000-6,000.

Cheers,
Eric

D70FAN
09-05-2005, 10:27 PM
Sadly when I went to the Grand Canyon two years ago, I didn't have my dSLR. Only got to visit the south rim though - still an amazing sight.

Anyways, this guy already has awesome pics of the grand canyon (http://www.robgendlerastropics.com/GCpage.html) :cool:
Hey whadda ya know.. he took those pics with zoom lens too :p

Pretty nice shots, but only scratches the surface. There is The Canyon and then there is the rest of The Canyon. By walking both rim trails you get a whole new perspective. I have only covered about 12 miles of the South Rim so far.

nwpoland
09-05-2005, 11:05 PM
Pretty nice shots, but only scratches the surface. There is The Canyon and then there is the rest of The Canyon. By walking both rim trails you get a whole new perspective. I have only covered about 12 miles of the South Rim so far.

George, Is that photo edited? The colors in the background are so vivid! Very beautiful!

Rhys
09-06-2005, 06:58 AM
You may notice a recurring theme here. Generally, it's people being stupid, or at least unwary, when unfortunate encounters occur.

My wife (who used to work in Alaska) states that German tourists are a popular delicacy for grizzly bears - especially when cooking and unarmed in the wilderness.

Stupidity amazes us all, the world over.

In Britain, we have two venemous snakes - the Adder and the Brown snake. The Brown snake I know of by reputation only and it is apparently restricted in its habitat to a small area from which the puiblic are excluded permanantly (a military area). The Adder, I have seen just once. Apparently somebody dies of an adder bite about once a decade. They're quite common where I was living in Wales.

ReF
09-06-2005, 03:40 PM
So how much did you pay for your zooms that are just have slightly less bit of sharpness and contrast? Professional level fast zooms start at around $1000..

Maybe I'm just lucky that I never find a moment where I'm going to fall off a cliff? :rolleyes:

ever heard of the 70-200L f4 or 17-40L f4? i find no need to pay over $1000 for f2.8 if i don't need it on certain lenses. how about the tamron 28-70 f2.8 for under $400? i own two primes myself ya know, and i honestly find the increase in sharpness in and contrast not worth switching between so many fixed focal lengths. i also don't have the $$$ to pay $900-$1500 per focal length for the "top notch" L primes that offer a bigger leap in contrast and sharpness.
i wasn't knocking your lens choices by the way. i was just saying that it would be nice to have the extra contrast and sharpness of primes in ALL my shots. that's all, geez! no harm intended :rolleyes:. i actually respect that people can head out with just primes in their bags

maybe you just don't shoot standing at the actual edges of cliffs very often if at all. anyone in that situation who tried to get a tighter composition by zooming with their feet WILL fall off the edge.

D70FAN
09-06-2005, 06:18 PM
George, Is that photo edited? The colors in the background are so vivid! Very beautiful!

Yes. Saturation increased about 20%. That's it.

The ranger I was talking to said: "too bad you missed the lightning dancing accross the North Rim about an hour ago". Doh!

This is taken with a ($1500) Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 that I rented for this particular stormy trip. It sucked out every bit of color and contrast that those rocks had to offer. I was in awe of this scene through the viewfinder, and felt fortunate to have been there.

P.S. You should see it printed at 13 x 19!!! :D

P.S.S. I almost hated to post this picture as it looses a lot in the translation to 800 x 600 and heavy compression.

BigConig
09-08-2005, 06:21 AM
Cameras:

Nikon D2Hs
Nikon D70s
Sony DSC-L1 (this on is always in the glove box, just in case I need to snap a shot)

Glass:

Tamron SP AF 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di II
Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX
Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX
Nikkor 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S
Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S VR
Nikkor 28mm f/2.8D
Nikkor 50mm f/1.8d
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8d
Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED VR AF

Jazzmanmgt
09-10-2005, 07:12 PM
Current Camera Bodies
Canon 300D
Canon 350 XT

Wish List
Canon 20D

Current Lenses
Canon EFS 18-55 (kit lense)
Canon EF 75-300mm
Sigma DC 18-125mm (everyday lense)

trikster2
09-25-2005, 12:46 AM
Current:

Canon S50 (broken)

Canon 350D w. 18-55 kit lens

Future:

To my eye the kit lens is really sucking wind. S50 took beter pictures in good light, in low light of course the S50 is no comparision.

I want to give the camera a fair chance before returning it so considering the 50mm F 1.8 Mk II prime. Main use would be inside and outside photos of my family. Gotta admit 50mm is apealing party because of what I have read about it and mostly becuase of the price (after spending $899 on a camera kind of hard to justify expensive lenses right now).

On another forum it was recommended that I spend 3 times as much on the 35mm F2. Reasoning was more useful "walking around" due to wider field of view.

Anyway I just went through most of this thread and it seems almost everyone with a canon opted for the 50mm F1.8 mk 2 prime. The only person with the 35mm F2 is George Riehm, who has both the 35mm and the 50mm.

Is the 35mm a good substitute for the 50mm (decent portaits but wider view for walking around) or should I stick with the ever popular 50mm?????

(BTW I'm not trying to start a flame war, I've done all the research and know that with the right lenses and a little post processing the rebel XT can kick any P&S's but. However I took 960 pictures last sunday alone with the rebel, unless there is some magic "make it look good" bulk processing very few of my picts are getting post processed).

D70FAN
09-25-2005, 07:54 AM
Current:

Canon S50 (broken)

Canon 350D w. 18-55 kit lens

Future:

To my eye the kit lens is really sucking wind. S50 took beter pictures in good light, in low light of course the S50 is no comparision.

I want to give the camera a fair chance before returning it so considering the 50mm F 1.8 Mk II prime. Main use would be inside and outside photos of my family. Gotta admit 50mm is apealing party because of what I have read about it and mostly becuase of the price (after spending $899 on a camera kind of hard to justify expensive lenses right now).

On another forum it was recommended that I spend 3 times as much on the 35mm F2. Reasoning was more useful "walking around" due to wider field of view.

Anyway I just went through most of this thread and it seems almost everyone with a canon opted for the 50mm F1.8 mk 2 prime. The only person with the 35mm F2 is George Riehm, who has both the 35mm and the 50mm.

Is the 35mm a good substitute for the 50mm (decent portaits but wider view for walking around) or should I stick with the ever popular 50mm?????

(BTW I'm not trying to start a flame war, I've done all the research and know that with the right lenses and a little post processing the rebel XT can kick any P&S's but. However I took 960 pictures last sunday alone with the rebel, unless there is some magic "make it look good" bulk processing very few of my picts are getting post processed).

Just for giggles you might want to give the Sigma 18-125 a try. For $270 it may get you to where you want to go. Sometimes it works on Canon cameras and sometimes it doesn't.

The 50mm f1.8 should be a part of your kit no matter what other lenses you have.

As an afterthought you could have purchased a D50 body with the Sigma 18-125 for $919, or with the very cheap, but very usable, 18-55 DX lens for $799.

Like I said, just an afterthought. ;)

jamison55
09-25-2005, 08:08 AM
Congrats on the new toy.

I have both the 35 f2 and the 50 f1.8. The 35mm is a bit more useful as a walkaround focal length (since the 50 tends to be a little tele), and the image quality from the 35 is just as good as the 50. (in fact, a bit better before f2.8).

Here's a quick test I did compating my 35 f2 to my 50 f1.8 and my 85 f1.8:

FOV Differences:
Just to give you an idea of the difference between 35 and 50. I was standing in exactly the same spot for each of these pictures.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/35FOVDifferences.jpg


And wide open 100% center crops:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y216/jamiewexler/35f2comp.jpg

D70FAN
09-25-2005, 08:29 AM
Thanks Jamie. We need to "sticky" your thread.

Just to add...

Cost $229, $70, $329 Respectively.

Should be about the same for almost any dSLR.

TheObiJuan
09-25-2005, 10:01 AM
Thanks for the test Jamie. :D

Rhys
09-25-2005, 10:02 AM
I'd thinking of getting two more lenses - the Tamron 17-35 although I'm somwhat disappointed by the fact it's not f2.8 or better and the Tamron 70-300 although I hear rumours that it's poor optically.

cwphoto
09-26-2005, 12:07 AM
Bodies:

EOS-1V HS
EOS-1N HS

Lenses:

EF 14mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 50mm 1:1.4 USM
EF 85mm 1:1.2 L USM
EF 135mm 1:2 L USM
EF 300mm 1:4 L IS USM
EF 28-70mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L IS USM
TS-E 24mm 1:3.5 L


Currently waiting for EOS-1Ds Mark II to arrive in stock (considering 1D Mark II instead if wait is too much longer). Will probably also replace my aging 28-70 with the new 24-70 at the same time and maybe stretch to a 16-35 if I can squeeze my retailer enough.

Fav lens is definitely the 70-200. Sharpest lens I've ever owned - particularly at 200mm.

Recently sold:

EF 17-35mm 1:2.8 L USM
EF 300mm 1:2.8 L USM


Update:

EOS-1N HS is sold to fund EOS-1D Mark II N coming next week. Also picked up an EF 2x II Converter and Speedlite 580EX. EF 24-70 f/2.8 coming soon.

Hoping Canon release fast unleaded 200 IS replacement for the superceded f/1.8.

cwphoto
09-26-2005, 12:14 AM
My wife (who used to work in Alaska) states that German tourists are a popular delicacy for grizzly bears - especially when cooking and unarmed in the wilderness.

Stupidity amazes us all, the world over.

In Britain, we have two venemous snakes - the Adder and the Brown snake. The Brown snake I know of by reputation only and it is apparently restricted in its habitat to a small area from which the puiblic are excluded permanantly (a military area). The Adder, I have seen just once. Apparently somebody dies of an adder bite about once a decade. They're quite common where I was living in Wales.

Our Crocodiles in FNQ/NT have taken a liking to tourists over the past few years:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/croc-hunted-after-tourists-body-found/2005/09/26/1127586773119.html

...and the shark attacks are getting popular too:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/another-surfer-mauled-by-a-great-white/2005/09/25/1127586747235.html

... a few other nasties (funnel-webs are not uncommon around most Sydney-siders backyards, I killed one a few weeks ago who was living near my front door):
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/shorter/story.htm

ReF
11-03-2005, 02:22 AM
After reading a response in a recent thread, someone pointed out that knowing what kind of equipment others use helps people see what experience/background members have, and also gives them an idea of what equipment seems to be popular.
It seems a lot of you have purchased new equipment since the last time anyone posted on this thread, and I wanted to make some updates myself. Would also be interested in hearing what kind of digital point and shoot cameras you guys/girls had before getting an SLR or what you keep as a backup/portable cam.

Canon original digital rebel/300D
Canon Rebel XT/350D
Canon EF-S 18-55 kit lens (got this virtually free)
Canon 17-40 L f4
Canon 50 f1.8 mk I
Canon 70-200 L f4
Canon 1.4x Extender II
Tamron 28-75 XR Di f2.8
Sigma 15mm f2.8 diagonal fisheye

Sigma EF 500 DG Super
Kenko Extension Tubes: 12, 20, 36mm set
Hoya SMC thin circular polarizer
Hoya SMC UV filter, 77mm
Hoya R72 Infrared filter
Wratten 89B gelatin Infrared filter

Manfrotto 3021 Pro, tripod, black
Manfrotto 679 Monopod, black
Manfrotto 488 Ball head with quick release
Modified Tripod - lightweight fixed-head tripod of medium build quality modified to:
- accept 3/8 thread tripod heads
- have center column removable/reverse mountable.
(for when the 3021 is too much)

Wolverine FlashPac 60 gig (portable hard drive/memory card reader)

Old Canon EOS film SLR
Canon A80 - giving it away as a gift in two weeks.

spare batteries for camera and flash

sold: canon 28-135 IS (wow canon lenses really retain their value - sold mine for pretty much the same price i bought it for! :D )

Yes, it would look like I’m some Canon fanatic, but really, at the time I bought the A80 there wasn’t any real competition with the same cost/features and I bought into the EOS system (that 15year old canon SLR doesn’t count, IMO) with the triple rebates run early this year/late last year

So who else has new toys?

Rex914
11-08-2005, 10:28 PM
Some changes ....

Initial Kit

• Canon EOS 20D ($1250 - $300 MIR = $950)
• Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L ($1120 - $120 MIR = $1000)
• Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 ($295 - $45 MIR = $250)
• Lowepro Toploader 75 ($80)

Wish List

• Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS ($1250)
• Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 ($700)
• 1.4X TC
• Primes (135L :D, 300 f/4 L IS)

Rhys
11-09-2005, 05:08 AM
Our Crocodiles in FNQ/NT have taken a liking to tourists over the past few years:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/croc-hunted-after-tourists-body-found/2005/09/26/1127586773119.html

...and the shark attacks are getting popular too:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/another-surfer-mauled-by-a-great-white/2005/09/25/1127586747235.html

... a few other nasties (funnel-webs are not uncommon around most Sydney-siders backyards, I killed one a few weeks ago who was living near my front door):
http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/shorter/story.htm

An update: A few days ago, I saw my first snake in the wild. It slithered away from a riverbank, into the bushes and vanished. The good news is: it was brown and gold rings all along its body. It was a young King snake. I understand they're constrictors and eat other snakes.