Ohhhhh...so now i'm lazy?? I see how you are.

















BREW

 

I dont either, I collect vintage cameras too. My prize as soon as I can find it at my gradmas house, is my grandpa's old 1954 large format camera. Soon as we run across it again I've already put dibs on it. It's there somewhere. It's got a wodden frame, bellow lens, the whole 9 yards! Several accessories but I havent seen it since I was a kid. I really need to go look for it!

My next favorite for nostalgia only is my Kodak INSTAMATIC X-15, uses 126 film, and flash cubes!
Still have the original box and the walmart sticker for $15.88 Of course that was in the mid 70's so I would guess that to be equal to about a $100-$150 camera today. Even found some vintage magazines with ads for it so I framed them and have them in it's display too.

Edited to add:
The tripod for the large format is so heavy... when I was 10 years old I could only drag it. I could not pick the whole thing up.

 

Not lazy. You just haven't had the pleasure of an old manual camera.....yet

 

One of my favorites is an old Vivitar 220/SL screw mount. That one gets used quite often. I think my favorite one that I don't use is an old Polaroid 150 Land Camera. This is an old bellows instant camera that dates back somewhere in the late 50's to early 60's. I have the complete kit that I picked up at a garbage sale for a mere $2. There was a repair invoice in there that was dated 1961. That is as close of a vintage date that I have been able to find on it.

A big camera needs a big tripod. Big means heavy. When I bought my tripod I wanted to keep as light as possible for hiking without going carbon fiber. They are just too much $$. I also wanted a good solid one that would last for years. Mines weighs in at 9lbs, and without going carbon fiber, it is probably a bigger investment than most people these days spend on a camera.

 

Yea I bought one of those avatars or what ever they are from wal-mart. Brought it home mounted my camera and the cieling fan on medium was wiggeling it. And I had bought the most expensive one wally world had. I took it right back and went to Lawrence photo and video (local shop 45 mins away) and spent a few extra benjamins for a good one. It's like playing a video game now. Joystick ball mount. I love it! In the cradel on the pod I could do a complete 360º if my sole desired.

 

Around here we call that a pistol grip ball head.

Here is mine

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

And here is my head

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...goryNavigation

By the time I was done with a bag and Optec leg protectors I had $600 in it

 

I dont even know what mine is, it is sturdy but there in not a name anywhere on it. I lost the books for it years agom but I dont recall it having any trade marks or copy rights or a name or anything in it, pretty generic. (guessing wife thought that it was junk and threw it away.) But that's just my guess.
I definatly didn't give that much for it.
I aint that rich! Think I gave $200 and some change or almost 3 maybe. I can't remeber. It doesnt have much for oreintation indication, would like to upgrade to something to help keep me from guessing so much.

 

Great, Photog95 is back to his old "nikon is better since they never update their bodies" tantrums

Anyway, real world differences from a canon user:

First off, sounds like you were hanging out at photo.net. I pop by there every once in a while just for laughs. You've summed up those folks to a T.

Anyways, the original dRebel was AKA 300D. The 300D was a 10D chip and firmware packaged into a compact rebel body. Some features of the 10D were disabled in the 300D, although you could download a hacked version of the firmware and have a camera that would do almost everything a 10D could at a fraction of the price by simply unlocking the disabled features in the firmware. You still had to deal with some limitations in buffer memory (burst shooting) and shutter speed.

When the 20d came out to replace the 10d, the dRebel was also changed to the dRebel XT (AKA 350d). Comparing the 350D to the 20D is the exact same comparison as the 300D was to the 10D. I don't know for sure, but I would imagine there is a firmware hack out for the 350D that essentially makes it a 20D.

Basically, you have the same camera, but the 350D is a smaller, less stoutly built consumer version of the prosumer 20D. Chipwise, etc, they are the same camera. Aside from some features turned off in the firmware, there are only very slight differences between the guts. The major difference is in the body design itself. Women, for example with their smaller hands generally prefer the lighter, smaller 350d. I myself couldn't comfortably use one if I wanted to (I guess mom was right about my hands getting large). I'd suggest going out and actually physically handling the two bodies side by side; that should make the decision rather simple. I would also reccomend doing this with the optional vert grips installed.

If your budget situation means sacrificing lens quality for the added cost of the 20d, then I'd say get the 350D; you will be much happier with a better lens on the cheaper body than vice versa since the bodies are so similar to begin with.

 

Everyone,

Thanks for all the inputs. I had been leaning towards the 20d due to the Magnesium construction and the size: with big paws, it does fit better, but the 350 is easier to take on vacation. Just wanted the input from the crew here at to “real world” use and issues. As far as the Nikon, the D200 looks sweet, but since I go have the okay to get one now, I had better strike while the iron is hot or before the wife thinks that the money would look better in the house. And due to a problem with Nikon’s in the past [the distant past….Nikon FE & FM’s], I had gone to Cannon’s at that time and just feel comfortable with them.

Inbred, your right on when talking about the lenses. That is what I liked with the original Cannon that I had [F1] was the quality of the lenses. I am going to bypass the standard 18-55 lens and go with the 17-85 IS lens. More $ upfront, but in the long run, it should be worth it. Does anyone use any of the IS lenses and if so, how do you like them? Drawbacks besides size and weight?

As an aside, I rarely get rid of my old gear and the few times that I did, I still regret it. I still have an old Minolta XD series 35mm [love that camera], an original Konica Autoreflex T and some of the Mamaiya medium format along with their one and only 35mm SLR. I regret getting rid of the Cannon F1 when I went to a medium format……love to have it back now.

Thanks again for the inputs, and now I need to go back to work, or at least make it look like I am.

Woof

Bowser

 

Grab your guys your gonna need it for this post.


I never said anywhere in this thread that Nikon was better than Canon because they don't update. In fact I gave a perfectly good choice in the 20D. It is by far a better camera. As far as the 10D and 300D being the same? I don't think so. They use the same chip and that is about all I can see. You may be able to hack it and get some of the stuff but you still have no chance in making a 10D out of a 300D. This is the same for the 20D vs. the 350D. Not going to happen. On top of that, how many 1st time SLR buyers are going to have a clue how to hack the firmware and even have the desire to do so.

I don't have a problem with Canon products. They make some of the finest cameras in the world. The 20D happens to be one of them. I have a problem with the Rebel body itself. It has been kicked around since 1990 and recycled so many times that Canon is just beating it to death. I'm sure with the millions that they spend on these systems they could at least come up with a new name. Every photographer I know with the exception of my sister-in-law laugh when someone mentions buying a Rebel. Yes this list includes Canon users. Here is a list for you.

1. Oct. 1990 Rebel & Rebel S
2. Mar. 1992 Rebel SII, Rebel II & Rebel II QD
3. Sep. 1993 Rebel XS
4. Nov. 1993 Rebel X
5. Sep. 1996 Rebel G
6. Apr. 1999 Rebel 2000
7. Feb. 2002 Rebel XSn
8. Sep. 2002 Rebel Ti
9. Sep. 2003 Rebel K2
10. Sep. 2003 D Rebel (300D)
11. Sep. 2004 Rebel T2
12. ???????? Rebel GII
13. Mar. 2005 D Rebel XT (350D)

If the Rebel line-up were good cameras I would be willing to call it "keeping a good thing going" ,but they are not. The 350D is the best one in the whole bunch and it is even marginal at best as far as performance and ergonomics are concerned. Like I said before, comparing a Rebel XT to the 20D is like comparing apples to oranges.

If I were a first time buyer and was choosing between Nikon or Canon, I wouls still take the Nikon. If you take the D200 out of the mix since it has not been shipped to the public I would still take the Nikon. My choice in order would go like this.
1. D70s
2. 20D
3. D100
4 D50 Still don't like the SD cards at all
5. 350D
6. 10D
7. 5D
8. 300D

Why is the 5D so low on the list? Simple, it is a lack luster performer with a full frame chip and an outrageous price.

Why is the D70s at the top even though it isn't as fast as the 20D? Simple, better metering, fill flash metering and 1/500 snyc speed. Those are the only things that would keep me from buying the 20D over the D70s The biggest downfall of the D70s is the wireless remote. The ML-L3 remote is useless at best. I have used mine only a couple of times if I want to be in the shot. If you are standing behind the camera it almost never works right. This alone almost let the 20D win

 

[QUOTE= I am going to bypass the standard 18-55 lens and go with the 17-85 IS lens. More $ upfront, but in the long run, it should be worth it. Does anyone use any of the IS lenses and if so, how do you like them? Drawbacks besides size and weight?[/QUOTE]

Good choice on the camera and lens. IS, VR, OS, what ever they want to call it, is a great idea.I don't see the point on short lenses under 200mm though. The only problem with them up until now with a very select few lenses, is that they are mostly slow lenses. and cost just as much. I have used the Nikon 80-400 VR and the vibration reduction works excellent but it is a slow lens and it is slow to focus even on the professional F5. That one just isn't worth the money. Now I know that Nikon and Canon both have a 70-200 version of this gizmo that have a fast aperture. This is where it should be. I would rather just buy fast glass and forget the IS, VR thing. That is why I bought a good tripod. If I were a photojournalist or sports photographer it would be worth the extra change.

 

Photog,
Your right as to the IS Vs a faster lens: I would rather have the faster lens than to use an IS/OS/whatever system, but since there is a budget involved, I look at the IS as the poor mans “Faster Glass”. Plus the nice thing is with Ebay, I can get rid of those IS and upgrade as the budget allows. The wife was not over enthused about the $2k bill for the camera and lenses that I did end up with, so I knew that a $1k plus lens was not going to work [I had to promise lots and lots of pics of everything the kids do for the next 10 years ]. Add to that the fact that I no longer do any pro stuff, just pics of the kids and stuff for our company’s website, and I would rather spend the extra money on the Truck. In fact, the Magnaflow SISO is getting installed today.

Woof
Bowser

PS: Cannon 20d and 70-300 IS lens is on the way...now I am acting just like a kid waiting for Santa. Once that is here, then I'll get some pics of the truck up!

 

I don't think I would really call the IS system a poor mans faster glass. Those babies aren't much cheaper than fast lenses, and you really arent getting the advantage of fast glass. Sure you will get faster shutter speeds in low light but the main reason I like fast lenses is greater control over DOF. On longer lenses there ids a pretty big difference between f/4 and f/2.8. There is also the AF hunting in low light situations on slower lenses.

Hope you enjoy that 20D. I know I sure would. There is no doubt it is a good camera that will last you long after the next 10 models come out.

BTW, does the 20D have MLU? That may push it ahead of the D70s on my list if it does.

 

As far as price difference: the 70-300 4.5-5.6 IS lens was 500.00 [with rebates] and the closest "fast" lens was over $1000.00 [70-200mm, 2.8] although it is a "L" Series lens. For me, that is a chunk that might look better on the truck

As far as the MLU [Mirror Lock Up], the 20d does have it. While I have not done a lot of panaroma shots, I am looking forward to trying it. Oh...does that make it jump in front of the D70???

What I figured out is that all of the majors have good points as well as some drawbacks. When it comes down to it, it is really up to the goof [That's me!] behind the camera. Back in the old days of my film time, I saw people with basic equipment turn out fantastic pictures and guys with $$$$ of equipment who should have been using a Kodak 110 pocket camera for the quality they turned out. That is what I love about digital: a couple thousand pics is not a big deal: a couple thousand film pics would keep me in the dark room all winter! I can pratice and pratice and try and try....and continue to goof things up

Woof
Bowser

 

HEY!!!!
Some of my best early work was with my old 110!

That was actually what I took my very first picture ever with, got it for christmas when I was like 6. Still have 2 110 cameras (mine and my wifes) I looked here while back and bought some 110 film off e-bay just for fun! Now I have about a gross. Got it stored in a box in the closet with a big silica bag from the boat factory that they put in the boats to absorb the moisture out of them.

I do love digital too! Doing scenic, landscapes, still life, and product photography. I can take 1000 pics and 5 of those might be good.
I show those 5 and every one thinks I'm awesome!

I do a few portraits occasionally for family, friends, etc. That's when the pressure is really on! One maybe two snaps per pose.