Have fun! It's really not that bad, 90% of the time the filter won't affect the IQ..just remember to take it off if there's any bright lights in the frame
here's a question... I've been perusing the dslr market for a while, and while new is nice and fancy, I really can't see myself spending that much for something I'd use seldomly and experiment with mainly to gather reference from a distance.
I have a standard 4mp PaS canon elph, what I'd like is something that I can burst shoot lots with, cars 'n stuff in action, so most likely a telephoto lens as well, also to get long shots of stuff for reference if I can't get close to things. Problem is, I can't seem to find a decent camera that has a fast/long burst.
Any one have a suggested nikon or canon that's been on the market I'd say up to 5 years? something that can use SD or SDHC, though I do have a CF card reader, but getting new cards can be difficult... especially in the larger sizes.
going older can net me more features that I'd like to play with, going newer could possibly get me better sensor or body. I'd like to compile a list to keep an eye on the used market and see if anything worth my while surfaces.
You need a dslr at least, and then you probably have to go with something newish to get over 3-5 fps.
Even so, you know that photographers managed to photograph practically ever subject matter for decades without super fast prolonged bursts? It takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, you get the exact moment you want instead of just spraying and praying. It's the difference between a sniper rifle and an uzi.
As for it being difficult to find CF cards, that's not true at all since plenty of photographers still use old cameras. There are plenty of CF cards sold in photo stores.
I bought a Sandisk 8GB one, but I advise you don't because it really has 7.43 GB, or at least mine does. That's a ripoff. I don't know about other companies though, maybe it's even less there.
1 GB to any memory/hard disk company = 1000 KB, not 1024 as it is properly in your OS. You get the same thing with hard drives etc, its not a sandisk thing just a retarded practice in PC hardware industry.
You can find plenty of CF cards on newegg, ranging from 1-8 gigs or so, hardly difficult to find. Tho i would have preferred SD myself too, luckily the camera i bought came with a 2 and 4GB CF card.
I've got a couple SD cards laying around here, it would have meant that i just wouldn't have needed to buy a new card, that is all. I'm not too sure about speed differences.
1 GB to any memory/hard disk company = 1000 KB, not 1024 as it is properly in your OS. You get the same thing with hard drives etc, its not a sandisk thing just a retarded practice in PC hardware industry.
You can find plenty of CF cards on newegg, ranging from 1-8 gigs or so, hardly difficult to find. Tho i would have preferred SD myself too, luckily the camera i bought came with a 2 and 4GB CF card.
I just checked. I knew all that before but I didn't do the math. It is actually 8 000 000 000 KB which is 7.43 GB.
You need a dslr at least, and then you probably have to go with something newish to get over 3-5 fps.
Even so, you know that photographers managed to photograph practically ever subject matter for decades without super fast prolonged bursts? It takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, you get the exact moment you want instead of just spraying and praying. It's the difference between a sniper rifle and an uzi.
this is true, but I like a penis extension every now and then. :poly142:
my compact (canon sd1100) can do "unlimited" burst, i'm not sure what the frame rate is but i'm surprised to see expensive dSLRs showing only a 23 frame burst or whatever. I guess that is 23 at max FPS, and that my compact can only do a few a max FPS and then it slows down, and both are "unlimited".
It's because of the increased frame rate. If your camera was taking 3+ images a second, yours would stall out too. Plus many of these can do like 7 in a row of RAW files, which is 10+ mb a pop. Impressive shit actually. They will keep doing it after, it will just have to wait for the buffer to unload, just like your P&S.
I don't ever use the burst rate, but what I do like, is that the camera is ALWAYS ready to take the next photo. time between shutter button depression to photo capture is milliseconds. mirror blackout is milliseconds, and it's ready to take another photo sooner than you are if you let your finger off the button. That was never the case with my Panasonic Lumix.
Alright so i got my 350D and am very happy with it, having full control over all this stuff is really cool, i'm sure the 20D would have had a few things that were a bit better but for a noob like me i can't really see that i need anything more here. The biggest problem i've noticed so far is poor autofocus in low light, but i think the 20d suffers from the same problem due to the lack of dedicated AF assist lamp.
The increased dynamic range and full control over RAW is great stuff, makes post really easy.
The camera came with the stock 18-55 kit lens, and tho i didnt want it at the time, i'm glad i got it for everyday messing about, as the 50m prime is quite cropped. I'm definately gonna save up and get a 28mm prime as the f3.5-5.6 is a bit of a pain, and 28mm seems like it would be a really good companion to the 50mm, to get that wider range that i only have on the kit lense.
The 50mm is fantastic-awesome, i love the great depth of field and the flexibility you get with a 1.8 aperture. Both of these lenses are cheap-as-hell construction, but it doesnt really get in the way of taking shots. And the weight on these light lenses is actually quite nice.
The "feel" of everything from the main dial, manual focusing, to the click of the shutter is so cool and just makes me happy, its a world of difference compared to my ultra-compact P&S.
Oh one more thing. Anyone know how to get the software that is supposed to come with the camera? I want to mess around with Canon DPP but it seems you can only download "updates" for this stuff and not the actual software.
Well it should come with a few CDs. My used 20D came with 3 discs, SanDisk ImageMate, the Digital Photo Professional ver 1.6 (from like 2004 I guess) and EOS Digital Solution disk. The latter installs stuff like CR2 support, the EOS Photo viewer (you should compare pictures through that and through the Window's image viewer. They are a world apart in sharpness).
I still haven't installed DPP though.
Oh and I think there should be another disk with some other stuff but I am not sure.
EDIT: if you don't end up finding it I think you could contact Canon and tell them what happened and they might have a hidden download location or maybe they can send you the disk, but I don't know.
Yeah i got it used off of ebay without the software. I sent cannon support an email so i guess i'll wait and see what happens. I've found some registry hacks to get the stuff working from updates but their a couple years old and dont seem to work with the latest version on canon's site.
Its rather silly that they dont provide this software for free, like there is a gang of pirates out there who do not have canon cameras but really want to use the canon software... I dont really get it.
If you can't get DPP, there are plenty of other raw converters (Lightroom, CaptureOne, even Photoshop) My personal favourite would be Lightroom, mainly because it's so fast and organizes everything properly. If you want killer detail from your raw files then CaptureOne does a pretty good job.
Adobe's offering a free beta version of Lightroom 3.0, go check it out
Ben: Yeah i've been googling trying to find something like that but with no luck, any idea on a better phrase to google for to find it?
Entity: Cool, i'll try that out. I've actually just been using CS3 here for raw stuff, but was reading some stuff about DPP that seemed pretty cool, and would just like to try the app that is custom tailored to my camera.
The 50mm is fantastic-awesome, i love the great depth of field and the flexibility you get with a 1.8 aperture. Both of these lenses are cheap-as-hell construction, but it doesnt really get in the way of taking shots. And the weight on these light lenses is actually quite nice.
Hey, just wanted to say that the 50mm f/1.8, is known for being a very sharp lens (as in image quality), even sharper than some L lenses. I also use this lens not only for pictures, but video as well. Of course the lens has some other optic problems like all cheap lenses have, but very sharp, very useable. Note: At it's sharpest not full open of course, but not bad.
is a Canon Rebel XT/350D a good camera to start with? someone I know is selling his, 6 months old with balance of warranty and the kit lens (18-55mm EFS) seems to retail new still for about 600$ish on the web, he's selling for 350.
I've found some reviews on it and they say the display is a little hard to read in bright light, but other than that it's a decent.
I do notice though that the camera hit the market 5ish years ago, so I'm curious if it's actually a good deal or not, given the model's age.
I bought a used Canon EOS 450D used with a 18-125mm sigma DC glass. I'm not sure about it's lenses abillity to do sharp images, but for the price I paid for the cam, it was still a steal. I'm saving up now for the Canon 50mm prime, since everyone recommends it
is a Canon Rebel XT/350D a good camera to start with? someone I know is selling his, 6 months old with balance of warranty and the kit lens (18-55mm EFS) seems to retail new still for about 600 on the web, he's selling for 350.
I've found some reviews on it and they say the display is a little hard to read in bright light, but other than that it's a decent.
I do notice though that the camera hit the market 5ish years ago, so I'm curious if it's actually a good deal or not, given the model's age.
Wasn't this the camera the thread-starter ended up getting?
I began my DSLR journey with this camera as well, and not having done that much SLR photography, this ended up being a good choice for me, it served its purpose as a introduction to the world of (D)SLR photography and photography in general. Although that was 4-5 years ago.
But, depending on how much money you would have to spend, and how serious you were about photography, even as a hobby, I'd might look into something more advanced, and of course then slightly more expensive...
Semi-pro/pro-sumer alternatives, new, very good cameras, are 5D Mark II (full format, uncropped), 7D (cropped), but cheaper than the 5D MkII, and just as good, if not better in many areas, newer image processor, faster picture rate, and a lot of other stuff. I still prefer the 5d Mk II because of the uncropped factor. Both has 1080p video. These are cameras in a whole other price range of course.
If you're coming from a background of SLR photography, going to a cropped camera can be annoying... disappointing really, a downgrade. If you don't have a photography background at all, you won't care about that.
yeah, I was told to offer the guy 200$ or move on, for the amount of cash he's asking for and given that there are 3-4 models between his and new now, I'm sure I could find something newer.
If you're coming from a background of SLR photography, going to a cropped camera can be annoying... disappointing really, a downgrade. If you don't have a photography background at all, you won't care about that.
Know that the 350 kit lens is not good.
Thats the worry I have being as I have used full frame cameras my whole photography life i am apprehensive about the cropping factor i read the 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 is this true?
Thats the worry I have being as I have used full frame cameras my whole photography life i am apprehensive about the cropping factor i read the 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 is this true?
Any DSLR aside from the very expensive full frame bodys have a 1.5-1.6 crop, you've gotta pay out the ass for a full frame to get a true 1:1. $1000+ just for an older used body, thousands for new.
I got the 350D for $308 shipped with some extras, kit lens, battery, 2+4 gig memory card and a remote shutter. To me this was a really good deal. 350 seems a bit high as you can probably find one around 260-280 with the body and kit lens on ebay, 200-220 for just the body.
I find its a pretty great camera for the money, you can read a few posts above to see my thoughts on it overall(last page?). I dont notice the crop factor, because i've never really used a film SLR. In general you just need to step a couple feet back and you'll still get the same shot, i think its something you would get used to, it is a bit of a pro if you're into telezoom lenses, as all of your lenses are 1.5X. But a standard 50mm lens has the crop factor of a 75mm lense, so you may need to get some wider angle lenses to do the same sort of stuff you're used to with your film slr.
The screen(poor view angles, no live view), LED status thing(not sure if its my camera, but it seems sort of dodgy at certain angles), and lack of a dedicated AF lamp are the biggest negatives to me with the camera. Other than that, it has pretty fantastic image quality, if image quality is your #1 concern, i think its a good choice. You can pay quite a bit more for some cooler features, but image quality from the XXXD to XXD line, and with the newer models in each, seems to be pretty similar. Seems like the big advantages here are with extra features and such, and of course the 1:1 crop on something like the 5D(but for billions lolol).
Yeah, full frame is good, but it's honestly not needed unless you've really determined it to be.
Here is how my progress went.
Bought a 40D, 17-40mm f/4, and 70-200mm f/4.
Found out that the 17-40mm was too slow for a lot of images I wanted to take, so I bought a 35mm 1.4. Loved this lens.
Found out that 17mm on a crop wasn't wide enough for my landscape shots, so I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens. Loved this, sold the 17-40mm because I either used my sigma wide angle, or the 35mm 1.4.
Found I never used the 70-200mm f/4, sold that. Bought the 85mm 1.8, loved that lens.
Found I used the 35mm 1.4 for almost everything, and that I wanted a wide angle low light lens, since 35mm on a crop body like the 40D. Purchased a sigma 20mm 1.8, which would give me a 33mm equivalent. This lens sucks balls, so freaking soft and smeary, unusable till f/2.8 or so, which kills it's usability as a low light lens.
At this point I knew I wanted the awesomeness of the 35mm 1.4 to work as intended, as a 35mm wide angle lens. The only solution was to get either the 24mm 1.4 (super expensive) or the 5D original body used (slightly less expensive). I sold the 40d body, plus the sigma 10-20mm because it's a crop only lens, and had exactly enough for a 5D used body.
It's only because I shot a lot and figured out what I was missing and what I wanted to shoot that my gear "holes" became evident. Don't try to anticipate, just get something, anything, even the kit lens, till you shoot a ton and say, Hey I'm always photographing animals at the zoo, I need a telephoto, or I'm always shooting architecture, I need a tilt/shift lens, etc.
i'm tempted to move back to canon, just for that 35L Sucks that nikon hasn't updated their 1.4 version with AF..I love my zeiss but mf does get tiring.
Honestly the 35L is just such an amazing lens. I think the Voigtlander Nokton 35mm 1.2 might come close (but is rangefinder only), and I'm going to be checking out the new Samyang 35mm 1.2 for canon when it finally drops, but I can't imagine any of them being as nice. The only downside is how heavy it is. It's absolutely huge compared to the 35mm f/2 or the sigma 30mm 1.4
The full frame thing is a preference... really, as a lot of things are.
poopinmymouth, you seem pretty keen on fast lenses though, 1.2, 1.4 and such, I don't know if you need lenses that fast for low-light shooting or depth of field. But you know that with a full frame you get much better depth of field and much better low-light shooting? This is something the 5D Mark II really excels at. It has been celebrated by professionals how good its video images are, the look it has, much because of the full frame, when compared to the 7D.
But like I said previously, for people just starting out, neither full frame or really fast lenses are a requirement, like poopinmymouth said, just start shooting and figure out what you need as you're learning.
Oh, a small disadvantage with a full frame is the need for better optics, as more of it is used, out towards the edges, where lenses have the poorest quality.
For those wanting more specific information, check out this article.
The full frame thing is a preference... really, as a lot of things are.
poopinmymouth, you seem pretty keen on fast lenses though, 1.2, 1.4 and such, I don't know if you need lenses that fast for low-light shooting or depth of field. But you know that with a full frame you get much better depth of field and much better low-light shooting? This is something the 5D Mark II really excels at. It has been celebrated by professionals how good its video images are, the look it has, much because of the full frame, when compared to the 7D.
But like I said previously, for people just starting out, neither full frame or really fast lenses are a requirement, like poopinmymouth said, just start shooting and figure out what you need as you're learning.
Oh, a small disadvantage with a full frame is the need for better optics, as more of it is used, out towards the edges, where lenses have the poorest quality.
For those wanting more specific information, check out this article.
If you're into Canon photography, The Digital Picture is all you need really when it comes to reviews of cameras and lenses, very good.
I have a 5D original. The 5D II has nicer high ISO, but only by about 2 stops, and that's not enough for me to shell out the cash for. Right now I spend my money on lighting. ISO 1600 is fine for me right now.
What is it about full frame that = better low light performance?
It's more that big photo receptors = better low light performance, and full frame has room for larger photo receptors because it's a physically larger sensor. (35x24mm vs 24x14mm). Technology can play a small roll, for instance a 40D which is a crop camera, has better iso performance than the original 1Ds, but it's 5+ years newer. Another example is the 5D II. It's double the megapixels of the original 5D, but able to go two full stops higher with the same noise characteristics. It's also 5 years newer.
10 mp seems to be the sweet spot for crop cameras, and 14 or so for full frame, but customers are more easily swayed by higher megapixel numbers, so the camera manufacturers keep cramming in more. The new 7D is an example, it's 18 mp in a crop sensor, and it's not as good at high ISOs as the original 5D at 12mp, and about the same as the 40D which is a crop camera 10mp sensor.
If they made a brand new 6mp full frame sensor, it could go up to ISO 25,600 with almost zero noise and crazy dynamic range, but everyone is convinced they need 20mp+ when it only takes about 6mp to equal the resolution of 35mm film.
Ah yeah cool so you're talking noise performance at higher ISOs, which i already sort of knew, just wanted to make sure there wasn't some other crazy science there that i didnt understand. I'm still blown away by the noise performance on my 350d, iso 100-800 is pretty fantastic, and iso 1600 is comparable to like iso 400 on my compact, this gives me huge boners. Basically even on this 350d, the entire iso range(100-1600, i think you can hack it to get 3200 or something) is useable. With my compact its like anything over 200 ISO gets pretty sketchy.
Excellent information here. I'm just seriously getting into photography and there's a wealth of good advice here. Lately I've been shooting casually with my wife's P&S (PoS?) for some texture sourcing and anything that looks interesting. My father-in-law was a professional photographer (mainly film, moved to digital late). He passed away a few years ago and my mother-in-law mentioned the other day that all his stuff is just sitting in storage if I wanted to use any of it. Needless to say, I jumped at the chance.
What I've got on my hands is a Fuji S2 Pro and a Nikon D70 (as well as 20+ lenses, a full darkroom setup, TONS of lights and studio equipment, etc :poly115:). He was a Nikon guy forever and so all the lenses fit both cameras. I haven't even pulled most of them out of storage yet, so I'll have to see what's lurking there later. What I'm wondering is what the appreciable differences between the two bodies are. I'm really new to all this, but I understand the S2 is quite a bit older (4 years or so?) but seems to have a few higher-end features that the D70 doesn't have. The caveat here is that the D70 lives at my mom-in-law's house (just down the street) but she said I can use it whenever as long as it's available when she wants it. I'm wondering if there's anything I should be aware of between the two bodies and which (if either) would be better to learn the basics of photography with. I'm mainly interested in shooting landscape and exterior architecture (things like industrial areas, houses, etc...not towering buildings that I need a tilt lens for), if that has any bearing on the choice.
I'm certainly going to shoot with both of them just to get a feel for the process, but it's hard to find a heads up comparison with them being different generations and not knowing much about cameras in general. I did pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure and am slowly making my way through it, so hopefully between that and some hands on experience I won't be an idiot for long.
It's been a short while but it already looks like I fucked something up. It seems I got dust in the camera. I just shot this, two shots are with 28mm at f/22 once with UV filter once without, two shots with 50mm at f/22 once with UV filter once without.
It's quite noticeable on pictures, but I was always hoping it was the UV filter but it looks like it's dust inside the camera most likely on the sensor (or on it's cover).
What is the best way to clean the camera in such a situation? I'd give this to a local photostore but I believe the price for cleaning would be pretty high.
read your manual and see if you can take a dust mask image of some sort... it'll take a blank image of just the dust and use that to fix images you take from then on. Not perfect but it can help.
Do NOT use compressed air. It'll fuck up the mirror even more. That's a lot of crap you have on the mirror already - look online for the mirror cleaning kits. They're made to not screw up the mirror coating.
Figured I would post here rather than start a new thread but.....
I just got the Sony Alpha A230 last night and I didn't see anyone mention it in this thread. Any reason behind that? Looks like the lenses are freakin' expensive as hell, but all I want is a wide angle and a decent telephoto lens. It came with the 18-55mm. It was only $450 and the Rebel XS was $550 so I had to be a cheap bastard
Replies
I have a standard 4mp PaS canon elph, what I'd like is something that I can burst shoot lots with, cars 'n stuff in action, so most likely a telephoto lens as well, also to get long shots of stuff for reference if I can't get close to things. Problem is, I can't seem to find a decent camera that has a fast/long burst.
Any one have a suggested nikon or canon that's been on the market I'd say up to 5 years? something that can use SD or SDHC, though I do have a CF card reader, but getting new cards can be difficult... especially in the larger sizes.
going older can net me more features that I'd like to play with, going newer could possibly get me better sensor or body. I'd like to compile a list to keep an eye on the used market and see if anything worth my while surfaces.
You need a dslr at least, and then you probably have to go with something newish to get over 3-5 fps.
Even so, you know that photographers managed to photograph practically ever subject matter for decades without super fast prolonged bursts? It takes practice, but once you get the hang of it, you get the exact moment you want instead of just spraying and praying. It's the difference between a sniper rifle and an uzi.
I bought a Sandisk 8GB one, but I advise you don't because it really has 7.43 GB, or at least mine does. That's a ripoff. I don't know about other companies though, maybe it's even less there.
You can find plenty of CF cards on newegg, ranging from 1-8 gigs or so, hardly difficult to find. Tho i would have preferred SD myself too, luckily the camera i bought came with a 2 and 4GB CF card.
I just checked. I knew all that before but I didn't do the math. It is actually 8 000 000 000 KB which is 7.43 GB.
So then nvm.
Some cameras only accept sd cards, while others cf. Newer ones even accept both
But yeah cf cards can be faster than sd cards, but the newer sdhc ones are getting faster.
this is true, but I like a penis extension every now and then. :poly142:
I like burst for doing panoramas
I don't ever use the burst rate, but what I do like, is that the camera is ALWAYS ready to take the next photo. time between shutter button depression to photo capture is milliseconds. mirror blackout is milliseconds, and it's ready to take another photo sooner than you are if you let your finger off the button. That was never the case with my Panasonic Lumix.
The increased dynamic range and full control over RAW is great stuff, makes post really easy.
The camera came with the stock 18-55 kit lens, and tho i didnt want it at the time, i'm glad i got it for everyday messing about, as the 50m prime is quite cropped. I'm definately gonna save up and get a 28mm prime as the f3.5-5.6 is a bit of a pain, and 28mm seems like it would be a really good companion to the 50mm, to get that wider range that i only have on the kit lense.
The 50mm is fantastic-awesome, i love the great depth of field and the flexibility you get with a 1.8 aperture. Both of these lenses are cheap-as-hell construction, but it doesnt really get in the way of taking shots. And the weight on these light lenses is actually quite nice.
The "feel" of everything from the main dial, manual focusing, to the click of the shutter is so cool and just makes me happy, its a world of difference compared to my ultra-compact P&S.
I still haven't installed DPP though.
Oh and I think there should be another disk with some other stuff but I am not sure.
EDIT: if you don't end up finding it I think you could contact Canon and tell them what happened and they might have a hidden download location or maybe they can send you the disk, but I don't know.
Its rather silly that they dont provide this software for free, like there is a gang of pirates out there who do not have canon cameras but really want to use the canon software... I dont really get it.
I'd post the link but I lost it.
Adobe's offering a free beta version of Lightroom 3.0, go check it out
http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/
EDIT: If you do get lightroom, be sure to check this setting on the right panel.
Basically it tells LR how to interpret the raw colors (usually matched to your camera's own "color" settings, eg standard, vivid, neutral etc)
Entity: Cool, i'll try that out. I've actually just been using CS3 here for raw stuff, but was reading some stuff about DPP that seemed pretty cool, and would just like to try the app that is custom tailored to my camera.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/597859
Registry edits though.
Hey, just wanted to say that the 50mm f/1.8, is known for being a very sharp lens (as in image quality), even sharper than some L lenses. I also use this lens not only for pictures, but video as well. Of course the lens has some other optic problems like all cheap lenses have, but very sharp, very useable. Note: At it's sharpest not full open of course, but not bad.
I've found some reviews on it and they say the display is a little hard to read in bright light, but other than that it's a decent.
I do notice though that the camera hit the market 5ish years ago, so I'm curious if it's actually a good deal or not, given the model's age.
Wasn't this the camera the thread-starter ended up getting?
I began my DSLR journey with this camera as well, and not having done that much SLR photography, this ended up being a good choice for me, it served its purpose as a introduction to the world of (D)SLR photography and photography in general. Although that was 4-5 years ago.
But, depending on how much money you would have to spend, and how serious you were about photography, even as a hobby, I'd might look into something more advanced, and of course then slightly more expensive...
Semi-pro/pro-sumer alternatives, new, very good cameras, are 5D Mark II (full format, uncropped), 7D (cropped), but cheaper than the 5D MkII, and just as good, if not better in many areas, newer image processor, faster picture rate, and a lot of other stuff. I still prefer the 5d Mk II because of the uncropped factor. Both has 1080p video. These are cameras in a whole other price range of course.
If you're coming from a background of SLR photography, going to a cropped camera can be annoying... disappointing really, a downgrade. If you don't have a photography background at all, you won't care about that.
Know that the 350 kit lens is not good.
Thats the worry I have being as I have used full frame cameras my whole photography life i am apprehensive about the cropping factor i read the 20d has a crop factor of 1.6 is this true?
Yeah the XXD line is all cropped.
A good overview of crop factors here.
I got the 350D for $308 shipped with some extras, kit lens, battery, 2+4 gig memory card and a remote shutter. To me this was a really good deal. 350 seems a bit high as you can probably find one around 260-280 with the body and kit lens on ebay, 200-220 for just the body.
I find its a pretty great camera for the money, you can read a few posts above to see my thoughts on it overall(last page?). I dont notice the crop factor, because i've never really used a film SLR. In general you just need to step a couple feet back and you'll still get the same shot, i think its something you would get used to, it is a bit of a pro if you're into telezoom lenses, as all of your lenses are 1.5X. But a standard 50mm lens has the crop factor of a 75mm lense, so you may need to get some wider angle lenses to do the same sort of stuff you're used to with your film slr.
The screen(poor view angles, no live view), LED status thing(not sure if its my camera, but it seems sort of dodgy at certain angles), and lack of a dedicated AF lamp are the biggest negatives to me with the camera. Other than that, it has pretty fantastic image quality, if image quality is your #1 concern, i think its a good choice. You can pay quite a bit more for some cooler features, but image quality from the XXXD to XXD line, and with the newer models in each, seems to be pretty similar. Seems like the big advantages here are with extra features and such, and of course the 1:1 crop on something like the 5D(but for billions lolol).
Here is how my progress went.
Bought a 40D, 17-40mm f/4, and 70-200mm f/4.
Found out that the 17-40mm was too slow for a lot of images I wanted to take, so I bought a 35mm 1.4. Loved this lens.
Found out that 17mm on a crop wasn't wide enough for my landscape shots, so I bought a sigma 10-20mm lens. Loved this, sold the 17-40mm because I either used my sigma wide angle, or the 35mm 1.4.
Found I never used the 70-200mm f/4, sold that. Bought the 85mm 1.8, loved that lens.
Found I used the 35mm 1.4 for almost everything, and that I wanted a wide angle low light lens, since 35mm on a crop body like the 40D. Purchased a sigma 20mm 1.8, which would give me a 33mm equivalent. This lens sucks balls, so freaking soft and smeary, unusable till f/2.8 or so, which kills it's usability as a low light lens.
At this point I knew I wanted the awesomeness of the 35mm 1.4 to work as intended, as a 35mm wide angle lens. The only solution was to get either the 24mm 1.4 (super expensive) or the 5D original body used (slightly less expensive). I sold the 40d body, plus the sigma 10-20mm because it's a crop only lens, and had exactly enough for a 5D used body.
It's only because I shot a lot and figured out what I was missing and what I wanted to shoot that my gear "holes" became evident. Don't try to anticipate, just get something, anything, even the kit lens, till you shoot a ton and say, Hey I'm always photographing animals at the zoo, I need a telephoto, or I'm always shooting architecture, I need a tilt/shift lens, etc.
poopinmymouth, you seem pretty keen on fast lenses though, 1.2, 1.4 and such, I don't know if you need lenses that fast for low-light shooting or depth of field. But you know that with a full frame you get much better depth of field and much better low-light shooting? This is something the 5D Mark II really excels at. It has been celebrated by professionals how good its video images are, the look it has, much because of the full frame, when compared to the 7D.
But like I said previously, for people just starting out, neither full frame or really fast lenses are a requirement, like poopinmymouth said, just start shooting and figure out what you need as you're learning.
Oh, a small disadvantage with a full frame is the need for better optics, as more of it is used, out towards the edges, where lenses have the poorest quality.
For those wanting more specific information, check out this article.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Field-of-View-Crop-Factor.aspx
If you're into Canon photography, The Digital Picture is all you need really when it comes to reviews of cameras and lenses, very good.
I have a 5D original. The 5D II has nicer high ISO, but only by about 2 stops, and that's not enough for me to shell out the cash for. Right now I spend my money on lighting. ISO 1600 is fine for me right now.
It's more that big photo receptors = better low light performance, and full frame has room for larger photo receptors because it's a physically larger sensor. (35x24mm vs 24x14mm). Technology can play a small roll, for instance a 40D which is a crop camera, has better iso performance than the original 1Ds, but it's 5+ years newer. Another example is the 5D II. It's double the megapixels of the original 5D, but able to go two full stops higher with the same noise characteristics. It's also 5 years newer.
10 mp seems to be the sweet spot for crop cameras, and 14 or so for full frame, but customers are more easily swayed by higher megapixel numbers, so the camera manufacturers keep cramming in more. The new 7D is an example, it's 18 mp in a crop sensor, and it's not as good at high ISOs as the original 5D at 12mp, and about the same as the 40D which is a crop camera 10mp sensor.
If they made a brand new 6mp full frame sensor, it could go up to ISO 25,600 with almost zero noise and crazy dynamic range, but everyone is convinced they need 20mp+ when it only takes about 6mp to equal the resolution of 35mm film.
What I've got on my hands is a Fuji S2 Pro and a Nikon D70 (as well as 20+ lenses, a full darkroom setup, TONS of lights and studio equipment, etc :poly115:). He was a Nikon guy forever and so all the lenses fit both cameras. I haven't even pulled most of them out of storage yet, so I'll have to see what's lurking there later. What I'm wondering is what the appreciable differences between the two bodies are. I'm really new to all this, but I understand the S2 is quite a bit older (4 years or so?) but seems to have a few higher-end features that the D70 doesn't have. The caveat here is that the D70 lives at my mom-in-law's house (just down the street) but she said I can use it whenever as long as it's available when she wants it. I'm wondering if there's anything I should be aware of between the two bodies and which (if either) would be better to learn the basics of photography with. I'm mainly interested in shooting landscape and exterior architecture (things like industrial areas, houses, etc...not towering buildings that I need a tilt lens for), if that has any bearing on the choice.
I'm certainly going to shoot with both of them just to get a feel for the process, but it's hard to find a heads up comparison with them being different generations and not knowing much about cameras in general. I did pick up a copy of Understanding Exposure and am slowly making my way through it, so hopefully between that and some hands on experience I won't be an idiot for long.
Links to reviews/features of both:
S2 Pro
Nikon D70
It's quite noticeable on pictures, but I was always hoping it was the UV filter but it looks like it's dust inside the camera most likely on the sensor (or on it's cover).
What is the best way to clean the camera in such a situation? I'd give this to a local photostore but I believe the price for cleaning would be pretty high.
I just got the Sony Alpha A230 last night and I didn't see anyone mention it in this thread. Any reason behind that? Looks like the lenses are freakin' expensive as hell, but all I want is a wide angle and a decent telephoto lens. It came with the 18-55mm. It was only $450 and the Rebel XS was $550 so I had to be a cheap bastard