D70 or 350D??

[dingo]

I might be get myself a DSLR in the near future but I have a few questions before I make the move.

Firstly which one would you recommend, basically I see it being either a Canon or Nikon.....keep in mind this is mainly for car photography, not sure if that has any affect.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of both? From what I've read on here it seems the standard lens on the D70 is better than on the 350D?

Would I get by with just the standard lens on either camera to start with, or is it a necessity to get out and buy a better lens?

I know quite a few of you have one of these cameras so I'd love to hear what the owners actually have to say about these cameras.

THANKS!!!! :D

[sikx5]

Went i bought my D70 it was up against the 300D, This was a along time ago, i haven’t had many chances to exploit the camera due to work and uni. But the main reasons why i picked it was the loading times, switching between modes. It was heaps quicker than the 300D, and its still the case against the 350D. As mine would be used for motorsport photography, i wanted it to load quick, save quick, switch modes quick. That was my deciding factor. And also a killer deal i got :mrgreen:

The quality of the images from both are astounding, you wont be dissapointed with either.

If you shop around, you can find many camera stores providing free lenses, most of them are Tamron and cheaper brands, but there still fairly nice lenses. I got the 18-70mm and its awesome, as you've seen in some of my pics..

cheers
shane

[dingo]

Thanks for the info mate. :D

The one thing I like about the 350D is its 8MP vs 6.1MP for the D70, those extra pixels really help when trying to crop an image.

[MartijnGizmo]

If I would start out now, I'd get a D50 body and buy a used D70-kitlens (18-70).

Btw, 8MP on the 350D = 3456 x 2304, the D70 has got 3008 x 2000, so the difference sounds bigger than it is. :)

If you really want the best, be prepared to shove out a lot of dinero. :)

[nthfinity]

^^^^^^
often, my crops are so slight that im still over 3000x2000 ;)

but still, i think the big difference in quality will be felt in the lens, not in corps... images that are clearer, sharper, and have less artifacts will always look better then images that are a bazillion x a little less pixles ;)

my 20D has a start time of .2 seconds, which i LOVE... if my camera is out, i dont miss a beat!

since the 30D is out, 20D's are falling in price... again, dont go with the a lens kit ;)

[sameerrao]

When I bought my SLR and lenses about 2 months back, I was faced with the same problem. Nikon or Canon? The other makes didn't even enter the fray because the phenomenal range of lenses on offer by the Big 2 as well as third party lenses for the same.

I went to store ready to buy the D50 or D70 or Canon Rebel XT (=350D). I found the Rebel Xt to be a bit too small to comfortably hold in the palm of my hand. My fingers couldnt easily hit the shutter button. On the D50, things were much better in this respect and it felt more natural to me. Also, there was a $200 price difference in favor of the D50 - useful money to put into a good lens. Hence I came away happy with my decision. I tested out the Nikon 12-24 lens with it and it worked like a charm.

But now that I have huge lens (Nikon 70-200 VR) which weighs 3 lbs I found that the smaller body of the D50 gives me calluses at the end of the day of shooting at a race track. I think big lenses warrant big camera bodies to bring greater comfort. I might eventually trade in my D50 for a D70 which is more comfortable to hold with a big lens attached.

So you need to think not about the kit lens that you buy now but any future lens tha you will need. Test out the camera body with a really high end lens to see if comfort is affected.

Why dont you list out all lenses you eventually need - walkaround + wide angle + fast lens for motorsports + etc. Price out the equivalent Canon and Nikon versions and see which is cheaper from an overall package standpoint.

The Nikon D50 and 18-70 lens is an excellent start IMO.

[c0wb0y007]

sameerrao,

Interesting points you made their. Lots of people don't like the weight of the lenses and the cameras but this weight is also responsible for stability. The grip on the camera is another important feature. The grip on those amateur bodies is for most people not ideal, too small. You are not aware of it from the beginning but once you can get your hands on a pro body it becomes very obvious. These are much more ergonomic. The combination of the weight and the superb grip is a killer combo 8)

So, when you are into Nikon and you have plans to buy professional lenses in the future then I suggest you go for the D200 (it has a pro-viewfinder as well).
When you prefer Canon, the D20 or D30 is probably the better choice.

When you don't have these expensive plans, I doesn't matter. Just pick the one that offers the best grip or the one you like the most. They both build great shooters.


Happy Drooling :P 8)
http://users.pandora.be/jokke1/Photography/nikon_d2xs_lens.jpg


Cheers

[TT]

I'd say Canon just because I am a Canon man by now.

As said, the kit lense that comes with the Nikon is better, but IMO even a 70mm lense will soon feel a bit "short" and you'll need a bigger zoom...

Basically the cameras are quite similar in performace, so it's up to you! I am extremely happy with my 350D and even if 20 or 30D are better, for what we need IMO they are not required.. a 350D with a good L lense will still do it ;)

[dingo]

Thanks for the info guys.

I'm a bit undecided on whether I should take the plunge, as I don't want to spend thousands and thousands of $$$ on a camera at the moment - especially since these days I have less and less time to take pics. If the entry level dSLR camera and lense is enough then I can justify spending ~$1K but don't want to then spend the same amount again on another lense..... :?

Also, this might sound like a dumb question but I'm used to talking about zoom as in 5x optical etc.......when you say 70mm or 300mm lense what is that equivalent too?

[saadie]

get a 350D body with a lense .....
ohhh and if you really want to compare the cameras
try http://www.dpreview.com 8)

[sameerrao]

5X, 7X zoom is a relative term. So 5x of one lense is not strictly comparable to another unless both lenses have the same focal lens range.

E.g. my 12-24mm wide angle lens has a 2X zoom (max focal length/min focal length) and my 70-200mm has a 2.9X zoom.

The 5X vs 4X terminology are more significant when talking about P&S cameras which sort of have similar focal length ranges to begin with.

With SLRs, we talk about the focal length range like 12-24mm, 70-200mm, etc.

The way I see it:
10-24mm constitutes wide angles suitable for landscape photography and interesting close-up with distortion
24-100mm constitutes wide-angle to normal zoom range - this is typically the range that most P&S work at. Good for your car photoshoots for instance.
100-250mm represent middle level zoom - good for race tracks and say jet skis out in the ocean
250-600mm represents high end zoom which gives extreme maginfication and is used by wildlife photogs as well as for racetrack photography.

To get a handle of these numbers why dont you pull up the manual of your current camera and see the focal range that comes standard. This will give you a good reference to compare other lenses with.

[dingo]

Thanks for that, appreciate it.

My current camera has a 12x optical zoom (love it), or 6.0-72.0mm.....

[sameerrao]

Thanks for that, appreciate it.

My current camera has a 12x optical zoom (love it), or 6.0-72.0mm.....

What camera do you have...

[dingo]

Canon Powershot S2 IS.....

If I decide on the 350D (which I am leaning towards at the moment, maybe because I'm familiar with Canons) is it better to just get the body and a good lense and forget about the kit lense (18-55mm)?

[sameerrao]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page15.asp

Actually your lens has 36mm-432mm focal range which is phenomenal. It has IS built in which is also great. The aperture range is F2.5-3.5 which is very good.

It would take very expensive lenses for an SLR to match this range and feature capability. If you merely intend to take car shoots which are mostly stationary anyway then your camera should be more than enough. I don't see you getting much better pictures from an SLR.

If you go for races or maybe more low light scenarios then perhaps the SLR will start to make sense.

I would save my money if I were you.

[dingo]

I am impressed with my current camera, but there are just a few things bugging me.

The photos generally seem a bit noisy as soon as light conditions aren't perfect, and once you go past ISO100 you need Neat Image (the DP review says ISO200 but I disagree).

Taking motion shots with it is also not the best, I prefer still photography but it would be nice to have something better in this regard.

Lastly the magazine I sold my photos too recently said ideally I should submit higher-res photos (mine is 5MP) so a 6.1 or 8MP camera would obviously help in this regard.

I've found a 350D package with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II standard zoom lens and an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 telephoto zoom lens for around $AU 1500 (~1100USD) which appeals to me......but as you point out I'm not sure I really need it. :?

[ae86_16v]

I agree with everyone that both are great cameras. But also I recommend looking into the "System". Down the line when you want to upgrade, where would you go? E.g. 30D or D200? Which system has the better lens to fit your needs? E.g. 18-200mm VR ;) ? By the way the Kit lens for the D70 (AF-S DX Nikkor 18-70 mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED) is an awesome lens.

Remember the 1.5x multiplier on a Nikon and 1.6x on a Canon. That will give you the effective equivalent range of a 35mm camera.

So the 18-55mm would be really 27-82mm on a 35mm for a Nikon. And 18-55mm would be 27-88mm on a 35mm for a Canon.


Rumors are floating around that the D70s will be replaced by Photokina in Sept.

[nthfinity]

I've found a 350D package with the EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 II standard zoom lens and an EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 telephoto zoom lens for around $AU 1500 (~1100USD) which appeals to me......but as you point out I'm not sure I really need it.

the camera is the strong point, both of those lenses are total crap IMO...

buy the body only, and spend a little extra ona wide angle, and at least a 70-300 IS if you go for the canon.

you would regret from day 10 with the stock 3x zoom lens.... sure, there are tricks to make it work better, but it isn't very sharp.

[dingo]

So would the 350D body and a 70-300 IS lense be enough for what I do (cars)?

[fsandys]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/

What about that as a 'smaller' step up if you're not sure about the shelling out just yet :?

[dingo]

Yeah I had a look at it, but I don't think it really solves any of the problems with the S2 I have......except a 1MP increase which isn't worth the price IMO.

[MartijnGizmo]

So would the 350D body and a 70-300 IS lense be enough for what I do (cars)?

Only a 70-300 will give you no wide-angle at all. The Sigma 17-70 is a good performer in comparison to the kitlens and is quite affordable. Sure, an EF-S 10-22 or a 17-40 L is excellent (I own both of em), but they cost a lot more.

Good lensreviews are done by Klaus: http://www.photozone.de

[ae86_16v]

So would the 350D body and a 70-300 IS lense be enough for what I do (cars)?

Only a 70-300 will give you no wide-angle at all. The Sigma 17-70 is a good performer in comparison to the kitlens and is quite affordable. Sure, an EF-S 10-22 or a 17-40 L is excellent (I own both of em), but they cost a lot more.

Good lensreviews are done by Klaus: http://www.photozone.de

Yup exactly. Now if you will ONLY be at the track it might work out. But if you are walking around and see a car in the parking lot, you'll have to run your ass all the way over to the other side of the parking lot to grab a picture of it.

Otherwise you'll only be shooting parts of the car.

[TT]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page15.asp

Actually your lens has 36mm-432mm focal range which is phenomenal. It has IS built in which is also great. The aperture range is F2.5-3.5 which is very good.

It would take very expensive lenses for an SLR to match this range and feature capability. If you merely intend to take car shoots which are mostly stationary anyway then your camera should be more than enough. I don't see you getting much better pictures from an SLR.

If you go for races or maybe more low light scenarios then perhaps the SLR will start to make sense.

I would save my money if I were you.

I am sorry, but yes, on paper the specs are impressive, but SLR quality will definitely improve his pics a lot! Not only having a bit more than F3.5 could always help, but also the picture quality in a general way will be MUCH better, no more noise or almost and his camera IMO has too much noise quite often... faster operation times and blah blah. IMO there are just a few bridges that could really make you doubt for a while, but if you have the money and want to go around with a bigger camera, definitely an SLR is always worth it

So would the 350D body and a 70-300 IS lense be enough for what I do (cars)?

It is for me, but in this case, keep also the stock lense just in case.. 70mm still need some meters between you and the car and sometimes you don't have it :bah:
Anyway every time I can, I use the 70-300, not only because of the superior quality, but because (like you I think), I prefer cars shoot from far away, and it's much easier to get a blurry background of course, which is always nice ;)

Believe me: I had the Pro 1 which was a pretty damn good camera and was wondering for quite a while if a SLR was a wise choice.. I closed my eyes, bought it and slapped me right away for beeing so silly not having bought it sooner :!: you won't regret it and 350D + 70-300IS isn't that expensive afterall ;) and will keep your boat floating for a while ;)

[dingo]

I think my mind was just made up about 15mins ago......I saw a 550 Maranello with an SL55 parked behind it. Since its already 5:30pm light was pretty low so I had to set the ISO to 200 to get a reasonable shutter speed (1/20 with IS is acceptable) but the pics are noisy as hell. :(

As has been mentioned with an SLR I can use higer ISO settings and still get acceptable results.....

[TT]

ISO 400 is still pretty damn fine without using progs like neat image to reduce noise. ISO 800 once noise-reduced, still good ;)

that said, with the 70-300 IS, at 70mm you can shoot slower than 1/60 if you are as shaky as me :P and you'll need to be quite far away to get both cars :P

Again, you won't regret it :!:

[dingo]

What are peoples thoughts on this kit?

http://www.camerastore.com.au/Nikon+D50+Twin+Lens+Kit+(Black)+18-55+%26+70-300-details.htm

I assume that 70-300mm lense is a cheap one if included in a kit like this....

I'm looking at about $2K for the 350D with 70-300 IS, so this would be a cheaper alternative - but what is the tradeoff?

[Darkel]

you won't regret it and 350D + 70-300IS isn't that expensive afterall ;) and will keep your boat floating for a while ;)
Indeed, but then you'll still have to buy the batt grip, some fast CF cards (if you didn't already had CF cards which was my case :/), a bigger and convenient backpack and maybe a 58mm polarizer (dunno the diameter of the one on the S2IS) ...
The extras also cost a lot, you have to keep this in mind, unfortunately.

[TT]

dingo, really, DO NOT buy a non-IS 300mm lense! I did and it was such a dumb mistake!

As Darkel said, the battery grip is mandatory, ence a second battery :)

But 2000 is pretty much what you'll end up spending probably.. not that much more

[dingo]

you won't regret it and 350D + 70-300IS isn't that expensive afterall ;) and will keep your boat floating for a while ;)
Indeed, but then you'll still have to buy the batt grip, some fast CF cards (if you didn't already had CF cards which was my case :/), a bigger and convenient backpack and maybe a 58mm polarizer (dunno the diameter of the one on the S2IS) ...
The extras also cost a lot, you have to keep this in mind, unfortunately.

I know....thats what I'm "scared" of. :P I already have the 58mm polarizer for the S2 so at least I can re-use that. :D

dingo, really, DO NOT buy a non-IS 300mm lense! I did and it was such a dumb mistake!

As Darkel said, the battery grip is mandatory, ence a second battery :)

But 2000 is pretty much what you'll end up spending probably.. not that much more

Alrighty then.....back to the 350D then. I'm going to the shop tomorrow morning and knowing myself I won't be able to resist once looking at something on the shelf.

[TT]

Good boy :D

Just try to resist long enough to check out a couple of stores: sometimes prices can different quite a lot

[c0wb0y007]

Dingo,

I hope you can get your hands on a good DSLR mate, good luck with it already. Like I have said before; A Canon or a Nikon it doesn't matter at all. It's all about what people are used to. Canon users will say go for Canon and Nikon users will prefer their brand. The most important thing here is that both brands make the best DSLR's availible on the market today so the camera which you will end up with is great anyway :P

The main rule in photography is, that it isn't the camera that shoots the picture but the person behind it, a great pic is a great pic ... that's it.

I would like to end with saying this; The advantage that the D350 has over the D70s or D50 is that you can buy a battery grip for it. These battery grips are as far I'm concerned not a waste of money. They add more stability and better grip as well + you are able to shoot constantly a whole day long :lol: 8)


Lots of luck with your purchase Dingo, you will end up with a great camera anyway!

Cheers

[ae86_16v]

What are peoples thoughts on this kit?

http://www.camerastore.com.au/Nikon+D50+Twin+Lens+Kit+(Black)+18-55+%26+70-300-details.htm

I assume that 70-300mm lense is a cheap one if included in a kit like this....

I'm looking at about $2K for the 350D with 70-300 IS, so this would be a cheaper alternative - but what is the tradeoff?

The 70-300mm is a lower quality lens. Not great, but not bad for the price. I think bought seperately it is only about $100 - $150 US. The same could be said about the 18-55 because it is a slower lens at the zoom end, but nevertheless the optics in that is on par with the 18-70mm. The 18-70mm is better from about 25mm-70mm though.

For an all in one Nikon solution, you might want to look at the 18-200mm w/ Vibration Reduction.

Overall, Nikon's kit lenses allows you to take quality pictures. I have not seen anybody knock Nikon's image quality in regards to its kit lenses; 18-55mm and 18-70mm.


http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/page15.asp

Actually your lens has 36mm-432mm focal range which is phenomenal. It has IS built in which is also great. The aperture range is F2.5-3.5 which is very good.

It would take very expensive lenses for an SLR to match this range and feature capability. If you merely intend to take car shoots which are mostly stationary anyway then your camera should be more than enough. I don't see you getting much better pictures from an SLR.

If you go for races or maybe more low light scenarios then perhaps the SLR will start to make sense.

I would save my money if I were you.

I am sorry, but yes, on paper the specs are impressive, but SLR quality will definitely improve his pics a lot! Not only having a bit more than F3.5 could always help, but also the picture quality in a general way will be MUCH better, no more noise or almost and his camera IMO has too much noise quite often... faster operation times and blah blah. IMO there are just a few bridges that could really make you doubt for a while, but if you have the money and want to go around with a bigger camera, definitely an SLR is always worth it


It's all about SENSOR SIZE! Well 90% of it anyways.

[dingo]

I DID IT.....as expected I couldn't resist. :oops:

I won't get the 70-300mm IS lense until tomorrow but the rest is home with me.....still reading the manual ATM.

[TT]

LMAO! battery grip? Back pack or bag?

Well done! Now be sure to practice a lot with your car or less important "sightings", with the 18-55 and especially with the 300. You really want to master it before going to an important event or before your first photoshoot with it ;)

[dingo]

No battery grip, I spent enough and will get that at a later stage. I already have a suitable backpack so no need for a new one. :D

I have a trackday on Friday and a couple of photoshoots on the weekend so I will be busy before then practising......if I can find time around work. :) I'll probably go to the carpark soon and try a few night shots just for the hell of it.....

[TT]

Oh :D you'll see how annoying night pics are without an LCD screen (even better if it's a rotating one) to use :D

As for the battery grip, if you don't have microscopic hands you'll soon want it because the 70-300 is quite heavy compared to the camera and the grip isn't as good without it :P

[dingo]

Yeah I'll miss my rotating LCD screen, not only for night shots but taking high or low angle pics during the day......not sure how I'll get around that. :?

I'll see how I go without the battery grip for now, but again I'll probably end up buying one sooner rather than later.

[TT]

Oh yes, low on the ground pics are almost to be forgotten. Or you just have to be inventive and use the location at your advantage (steps, walls...)..

Some time ago I had to take this pic:
http://Serv1.imagehigh.com/imgs/ih000001/18288_ferrari35511936an.jpg (http://Serv1.imagehigh.com)

And I had to take like 10 pics before having an acceptable framing (and anyway I had to heavily reframe in PS)

Good luck :P

[MartijnGizmo]

Hah, just lay flat on the ground or get an anglefinder..... :)

[dingo]

Lying on the ground might be an option for photoshoots in quiet areas, but I won't be doing it on a busy main road. :lol:

[dingo]

I just went down to my apartment buildings carpark for a few trial shots, my neighbours 1-series probably turned out the best.

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/5959/350dnightshots0059jf.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=350dnightshots0059jf.jpg)

Already a noticeable decrease in the level of noise in the photo compared to the S2, thats without really playing around with settings too much.

[MartijnGizmo]

My dad has a PowerShot S2 IS and I used to have a 350D, so I'm well aware of the differences. You'll love yours..... :)

I would however keep the S2 for movies.

[nthfinity]

Hah, just lay flat on the ground or get an anglefinder..... :)

something i do periodically... people look at me funny :spaz:

an angle finder would help nicely for those situations :wink:


also, Dingo, you hvae the stock 18-55?

one recomendation that will help a lot... never open up to 18mm... go to at least 20 mm, and distortion will be much less noticable ;)

[dingo]

Yep I have the 18-55, with the 70-300 on the way tomorrow.....thanks for the tip. ;)

[sameerrao]

Congrats on the purchase ... look forward to more great pics ...

[TT]

Laying flat on the ground is fucking messy :D

I never tried an anglefinder. is it really worth ?

[MartijnGizmo]

I don't now, never used one, but I think it's more intended for macro-shots.

I can't really squat since I broke my kneecap, that is kinda annoying when photographing.

[dingo]

Got my 70-300 today and I'm in love already, only had about 30mins to play around with it after work but the results were good enough to make me feel better about spending so much on it. :D

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/7859/350d0238pg.th.jpg (http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=350d0238pg.jpg)

Very easy to achieve that blurred background.

TT, do you use this lense for close-up detail shots (rev counter, gear shifter etc) or the 18-55?

Another thing, do any of you guys use a UV (in addition to a polarizer) filter?

I can't get my damn polarizer to fit either (right size though - 58mm), no idea how its meant to screw on - it fits but doesn't want to secure to the lense. :?

[nthfinity]

Got my 70-300 today and I'm in love already, only had about 30mins to play around with it after work but the results were good enough to make me feel better about spending so much on it. :D

http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/7859/350d0238pg.th.jpg (http://img124.imageshack.us/my.php?image=350d0238pg.jpg)

Very easy to achieve that blurred background.

TT, do you use this lense for close-up detail shots (rev counter, gear shifter etc) or the 18-55?

Another thing, do any of you guys use a UV (in addition to a polarizer) filter?

I can't get my damn polarizer to fit either (right size though - 58mm), no idea how its meant to screw on - it fits but doesn't want to secure to the lense. :?
your image quality is instatnly WAYYY better Dingo!

on my telephoto, i leave the UV on at all times, its easier not to take it off.... about the CPL, ive never had an issue with it not going on... hopefully you can figure that out soon.
-on that note, i never put the UV filter on the 18-55, as that + the CPL make for some tunneling on the photos at those wider angles.

also, do you have a lens hood for the 70-300? it reduces ligh-born reflections quite a bit.

[MartijnGizmo]

I use an UV-filter on all of my lenses for physical protection, cheaper to replace than the frontelement itself. I do take it of when using a polarizer. You should never stack them, you wouldn't be the first that can't seperate 2 filters.

[nthfinity]

You should never stack them

because of light distortion?

[sameerrao]

Yeah, I was also wondering why you shouldn't stack them. I've done that on my P&S and once on my D50. Though it is a bit of a pain to remove the CPL - need to remember which way to rotate it to get the CPL out and make sure the UV stays on.

[MartijnGizmo]

Because it's hard to seperate them, they easily get stuck on eachother.

[TT]

Never use UV filters myself, the polarizer is already enough/too much to deal with :D

As for the suggestion about the lense hood, I got one and actually I am not happy at all:

first, it's utter crap to use the polarizer filter with it on, and usually you have to change its angle for every pic, especially since in that lense the filter rotate when focusing.. would be a bit better on an L lense, but still..

And also, I noticed the extra weight added to the rotating part kinda affect the lense performance, so I dumped it.

As for the test shot, quality is much better than your other camera ;) depth of field must have been a tad deeper, or focusing point moved a bit toward the front 3/4 of the car to also have the back of the car sharp (always hard to guess in the small LCD anyway...)

[sameerrao]

I think a lens hood makes itself a lot more useful on a racetrack. With a hood you dont need to use the lens cap at all as the lens is securely protected behind the hood. The hood prevents a lot of dust getting into the lens anyway - this is a big issue in Laguna Seca where wind can kick the dust up into the air. Also a CPL is pretty much useless anyway as the cars are moving fast and with changing light and sun intensities you wont have time to fiddle with the lens anyway.

I think on the more expensive lenses, the front part wont rotate so the hood weight wont matter.

On a still shooting assignment, a CPL is definitely useful and then the lens hood can be foregone in lieu of a lens cap.

About your comments about Dingo's shot ... Where exactly would you aim the focus so as to get the whole car clear? - Front windscreen or is too far behind or perhaps right wheel. I always wanted to know that. I read somewhere the object is in focus for about 1/3 the distance ahead and 2/3 the distance behind the focal point. I used to aim at the front bumper and I think this made the rear of the car blurry if I used a big aperture.

[MartijnGizmo]

first, it's utter crap to use the polarizer filter with it on, and usually you have to change its angle for every pic, especially since in that lense the filter rotate when focusing.. would be a bit better on an L lense, but still..

It's just as crap on an L lens. :) I saw somebody who fabricated a lenshood from a PVC-pipe that went on the CPL, so that you could rotate the lenshood to rotate the filter. I just leave the hood off when using a CPL.

Other than that, I always use a lenshood, as 'false light' can really effect contrast.

And also, I noticed the extra weight added to the rotating part kinda affect the lense performance, so I dumped it.

I havn't got lenses that move/rotate. :)

About your comments about Dingo's shot ... Where exactly would you aim the focus so as to get the whole car clear? - Front windscreen or is too far behind or perhaps right wheel. I always wanted to know that. I read somewhere the object is in focus for about 1/3 the distance ahead and 2/3 the distance behind the focal point. I used to aim at the front bumper and I think this made the rear of the car blurry if I used a big aperture.

On www.dofmaster.com you can find some nice tools to calculate focus-distances etc. Quite technical, but very usefull.....

[TT]

Too bad it is a bit painful to keep removing the hood.. you always end up with the damn thing in your hands and no idea where to fucking put it :D anyway when the sun is really in the wrong place, it's for sure useful, but again, that weird thing I noticed about the rotating thing made me wonder. Quite often with the hood on, focusing wasn't good, and seemed even slower for panning shots

...

I havn't got lenses that move/rotate. :)
...

Bastard :D


As for the focusing, actually I must admit I go the easy way when I notice and when I have time: I add depth of field and that's it.

idea IMO would be to focus, for a 3/4 like this, behind the front wheel, but well, I am usually too lazy to change the focusing mode (putting it on a single point instead of all seven of them) and when you use a single one, sometimes it goes crazy because of reflections.. so most of the time I rely on the whole lot of focusing points and just use a slightly deeper field :bah:

[sameerrao]

I think I use the single point also too much - I should try the matrix metering mode as well. Good to know.

[MartijnGizmo]

I put my hood on the lens reversed, or just put it in my bag.

I never use all focus points, I want the be in control of where the damn thing focusses! :twisted:

If you really want to be sure that everything is in focus you could use the "A-DEP" program. Basically it selects an aperture that keeps all focus points sharp. So you point at a car and make sure that all 7 points are on the car. Kinda hard to explain, and the manual isn't that clear on it either.

[TT]

I put my hood on the lens reversed, or just put it in my bag.

Like this it basically covers also the zooming ring :arrow: offpissing :P

I never use all focus points, I want the be in control of where the damn thing focusses! :twisted:

If you really want to be sure that everything is in focus you could use the "A-DEP" program. Basically it selects an aperture that keeps all focus points sharp. So you point at a car and make sure that all 7 points are on the car. Kinda hard to explain, and the manual isn't that clear on it either.

Well, just too diffcult in most cases.. I don't like the car to totally fill the frame, so at least one or two points are on the ground or background.
Anyway the points the camera is using always flash in the viewfinder, so if I am not happy I just press again untill the ones used seem pretty much what I'd like.
A couple of times I had troubles using single point due as said to reflections for instance (I think), so I use it VERY rarely

[dingo]

Thanks for the info guys, interesting reading......I realised the rear of the car was a bit out of focus, will try and practice again this arvo. :D

[dingo]

Just another quick question (probably for TT), do you put the IS in Mode 1 or Mode 2 for panning shots?

[nthfinity]

Just another quick question (probably for TT), do you put the IS in Mode 1 or Mode 2 for panning shots?
mode 2 ;)

[MartijnGizmo]

- mode (1) for static scenes where the IS corrects shake both vertically as well as horizontally
- mode (2) for action photography (object tracking) where only vertical shake is corrected

[dutchmasterflex]

Thanks for the info guys, interesting reading......I realised the rear of the car was a bit out of focus, will try and practice again this arvo. :D

I'm sure you're loving your new DSLR.. It's much different from having a digital point and shoot with all the settings right in your face. Once you physically get used to it you'll be getting photos published everywhere!


The reason the rear of the car is out of focus is because of your apeture setting (Depth of Field).. the higher the number the more sharp the photo will be.. the lower the number the more blurry everything will be that youre not focused on..

[TT]

Actually I always use Mode 1 for panning shots because I end up with way better % of good shots.. no idea why :D but for my kind of hands/arms, mode 1 does it for panning shots and never use the damn 2 anymore :D

Also, I'll repeat myself, but for cars traveling 80 kmh or more, the 70-300 IS F4.5/5.6 is a bit on the slow side and 80% of the time you'll have the focus on the rear of the car (for a 3/4 panning shot like the following one) instead of front... I think it's better to focus on a given point and block the focusing instead of using the continuos setting :bah:
that's why I wouln't mind pretty quickly an L tele...

http://img126.imagevenue.com/loc72/th_71806_f355_01.jpg (http://img126.imagevenue.com/img.php?loc=loc72&image=71806_f355_01.jpg)

[dingo]

Thanks guys, I have a long (7-8hrs) trackday tomorrow so I'll give both modes a workout and see what works for me. :D

[TT]

I hope it will be mode 1 because I am worried there is something wrong in me :D

Actually I don't even know why I tried mode 1 instead of improving my fucking steadiness, but since mode 1 worked so well, the hell my shaking body if the camera can fix it for me :D

[nthfinity]

I think it's better to focus on a given point and block the focusing instead of using the continuos setting

does the 350 d have costom settings as well? since i separated the use of focusing from metering, things seem to be much easier... I choose the focus spot, then the car goes by, and if i dont shake much (no IS) then it starts looking great...

that feature comes in real handy. I havent had an IS lens long enough to properly try out which mode works better

[MartijnGizmo]

Yes, the 350D also has Custom Functions, incl. the one to set focus on the AEL-button.

[TT]

Sadly though, when you shoot on an highway, you can't be sure you'll have a free line of sigt at the given point :bah: so I ended up using continuous focusing een for my second photo mission today :)

[MartijnGizmo]

I almost always use continuous focus with my 70-200.....

[TT]

Yeh, with L lenses there is no problem, I tested it with a friend's material, but for the poor hunter like us with simple ones, focusing speed is an issue :D

[MartijnGizmo]

But single shot is almost guaranteed to mis a fast moving subject, unless you prefocus.....

[dingo]

I'm off to the track in about 20mins, probably more excited about using the camera than seeing the cars (and one of them is pretty special). :D

[No.1]

I'm off to the track in about 20mins, probably more excited about using the camera than seeing the cars (and one of them is pretty special). :D

Good luck!

And i look forward to seeing the "special" car - you bloody tease!

[MartijnGizmo]

I'm off to the track in about 20mins, probably more excited about using the camera than seeing the cars (and one of them is pretty special). :D

Good luck! And remember, even if you make mistakes, you're gonna learn from them. 8)

[dingo]

I'm already back home - had an awesome day and even got some passenger laps in the "special" (to me anyway) car. :D

I was pretty happy with the results (photos) for my first "outing" - going through them now so hopefully I'll get them up tonight, if not tomorrow sometime. ;)

[TT]

Tell us at least what is the special car you bitch :D

But single shot is almost guaranteed to mis a fast moving subject, unless you prefocus.....

Well, I usually do a single shot :bah: call me amateur. Max two of them, but anyway in the 350D you can't take 1000 shots per second anyway ;) I have the camera always set on "rifle" mode ;) but usually just go for short pression and single pic ;) most of the time it's ok ;)

[Darkel]

Maybe he was talking about the "One shot" mode ?

BTW, congrats on your purchase, Dingo :)

[TT]

Yeh, probably, but the way I use the multi shot setting anyway, I could as well keep it in one shot mode :P

my problem, and that's just me, beside the 350D shooting speed which doesn't allow 10 pics per second, is that, after the first shot, I usually loose track of the car or be anyway less precise, ending up with the first shot sharp and the next 5 blurry :D

[dingo]

Tell us at least what is the special car you bitch :D



Sorry honey, I'm gonna keep it a suprise until I start the topic and have the video/pics ready......about halfway through editing the pics at the moment, and my eyes are hurting.

[MartijnGizmo]

Tell us at least what is the special car you bitch :D

But single shot is almost guaranteed to mis a fast moving subject, unless you prefocus.....

Well, I usually do a single shot :bah: call me amateur. Max two of them, but anyway in the 350D you can't take 1000 shots per second anyway ;) I have the camera always set on "rifle" mode ;) but usually just go for short pression and single pic ;) most of the time it's ok ;)

Woops, I meant 'one shot' AF. I never use continuous drive, I prefer to have 1 sharp shot instead of 5 almost sharp. :)

[dingo]

BTW, mode 1 worked best for me too TT - so there is nothing wrong with you. ;)

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8743/junetrackday3675eu.th.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=junetrackday3675eu.jpg)

[5vz-fe]

BTW, mode 1 worked best for me too TT - so there is nothing wrong with you. ;)

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/8743/junetrackday3675eu.th.jpg (http://img256.imageshack.us/my.php?image=junetrackday3675eu.jpg)

Oh, that is just stunning :shock: Dingo......I guess we'll all benifit huge from ur camera upgrade

[sameerrao]

Nice pic Dingo!!!

[MartijnGizmo]

Nice dingo, that's the way we like it. :)

[5vz-fe]

uh huh uh huh :lol:

[TT]

Well done dingo, and YAY for mode 1 :D

[dingo]

Following on from the discussion in the WYST trackday thread since I don't want to go too far off-topic there.

What replacement lense do you guys recommend for the 18-55?

[MartijnGizmo]

EF 17-40 f/4 L or the new EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.


Well, the kitlens isn't that bad as everyone shouts. If you avoid the outer ends (use it as say a 20-50) and stop it down to f/8 it's quite decent and very cheap for a wide-angle.

[dingo]

Ouch, a quick check of their prices online makes me think I'll stick with the 18-55 for now (and use your tips).

[Darkel]

(sorry for the off topic in the WYST section)

Indeed, it's not that bad but you always have to be careful, it can be tricky especially at ~18mm, try not to use it at f3.5 and so on.

Anyway I'm still thinking about a replacement for mine and it's between the 17-85 and 17-40 L which both have advantages and drawbacks IMO, depends on what you need ... I guess I won't really sleep at night until I make a decision but I like the 17-40 more and more ... :)

A 17-55 wouldn't be bad either, but as Dingo probably noticed, it's too expensive :/

Edit : thanks for correcting, Martjin, wanted to say wide angle, not wide open :wink: Sometimes hard to get sharp shots at 18mm

[MartijnGizmo]

Well, autofocus always happens wide-open on modern camera's/lenses. ;) The sweetspot of the kitlens is around 35mm where it performs best from f/8 on. At 18mm you should stop it down to f/11 if there's enough light.

The lens isn't really that bad as everyone suggest if you know how to use it.


I'm thinking about trading my 17-40 for the new 17-55 IS, but not before prices have come down to at least €750-800. In the meanwhile I think I might pick up a 24-70 2.8 L or a used 28-70 2.8 L, but that's a different storie.

If you don't need a lot of wide-angle, the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a good option. It costs <€300 and the example I had was really sharp, even wide open. In fact, at 70mm it might've been sharper than my 70-200 2.8 L. But 45mm (28x1.6) is almost a standard-lens, so it depends on your shooting-behaviour if the lens is usefull.


I think it's best to just use it for a while and see where your priorities are. Tamron has also just come out with a 17-50 f/2.8 and Tokina is about to release a 16-50 f/2.8, it's gonna be interesting to see how those will perform.

[dingo]

I'm getting up early tomorrow for a little drive into the countryside, I'm gonna find a nice spot and try out the 18-55 with the tips given above and see how I go.

Thanks!

[TT]

LOL, for sure at F8 or more it isn't terrible, but honestly, to use it with a polarizer at F11 you'll need at least a couple of suns :D or just a tripod obviously :P

With some photoshopping you can still end up with "ok" results at 18mm and F5.6 or such... not perfect, but considering it is basically a free lense, it does it for emergency situations...

[MartijnGizmo]

Too bad that I sold mine, or I would try to get some good pics out of it just for kicks. :)

I remember using a polarizer on mine, that's really crappy with a rotating/whobbly front element.

[pterps]

What kind of polarizer do you guys use?

[MartijnGizmo]

I use a 77mm Hoya polarizer. I always get hem from eBay out of Hong Kong. With shipping they are still cheaper than half of what I would pay for them over here.

URGalaxy is a recommended seller.

[TT]

... URGalaxy is a recommended seller.

Thanks :good:

the 58mm ones are still acceptable, but 77 starts to be quite expensive around here ...

[MartijnGizmo]

I paid €34,22 for my polarizer. That's also where I get my UV-filters (all Hoya S-HMC).