TR Forums

I have been quite pleased with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. I would not describe it as "dark as hell" at all. I do use the Speedlite 580EX II, but a macro ring lite might work best.

You have to see the LCD of the Nikon D300 (or the new Sony Alphas) to appreciate how amazing the new 3" LCDs are.

I will say that honestly that is the first time I've heard that.

Heh, just my personal experience with SD cards. Probably bad handling on my part.

etilena wrote:

Heh, just my personal experience with SD cards. Probably bad handling on my part.

I had SD with the first digital camera I got, an HP 3MP in 2004. My Canon a520 used SD too, as did my a620. My Rebel XTi is my first foray into CF, and honestly I'd be happy to go back. Carrying around a reader for my laptop is annoying, and if it were SD, I've got a built-in reader. Anyone want to buy an 18-month old XTi for the MSRP of the XSi?

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

etilena wrote:

Heh, just my personal experience with SD cards. Probably bad handling on my part.

I had SD with the first digital camera I got, an HP 3MP in 2004. My Canon a520 used SD too, as did my a620. My Rebel XTi is my first foray into CF, and honestly I'd be happy to go back. Carrying around a reader for my laptop is annoying, and if it were SD, I've got a built-in reader. Anyone want to buy an 18-month old XTi for the MSRP of the XSi?

If your laptop has a PC Card (PCMCIA) slot you can turn it into a CF reader with an adapter for less than $20. (If it has an ExpressCard slot there are adapters as well but they're not as neat or cheap).

UberGerbil wrote:

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

etilena wrote:

Heh, just my personal experience with SD cards. Probably bad handling on my part.

I had SD with the first digital camera I got, an HP 3MP in 2004. My Canon a520 used SD too, as did my a620. My Rebel XTi is my first foray into CF, and honestly I'd be happy to go back. Carrying around a reader for my laptop is annoying, and if it were SD, I've got a built-in reader. Anyone want to buy an 18-month old XTi for the MSRP of the XSi?

If your laptop has a PC Card (PCMCIA) slot you can turn it into a CF reader with an adapter for less than $20. (If it has an ExpressCard slot there are adapters as well but they're not as neat or cheap).

Expresscard, and from when I was looking, there weren't any flush-mounted one's which means I have something sticking out the side of my computer which is not a permanent solution.

mattsteg wrote:

Madman wrote:

Well, all I know is that I spent two years or so shooting with 350D and LCD is never telling you anything. You can zoom how close you want, you will never see if the scene is out of focus or not.

Well gee, maybe that's why danny's interested in a better one? What a novel concept! Address a shortcoming with an improvement! Inconceivable!

Madman wrote:

Remember and follow few simple rules, like exposure = 1/(focal length*crop factor) and you know that most of the shots will be good.

That doesn't give you anything more than a starting point. If your technique sucks, it's optimistic. If it rocks, it's pessimistic. It also has nothing to do with focus.

Madman wrote:

You cannot keep your LCD and camera steady while shooting macros anyway.

Dude, get your head screwed on right! I thought you already claimed we needed a tripod. If your tripod can't keep your camera steady, you need a new one.

Madman wrote:

Or you need very good lighting conditions with dark as hell canon lenses and focal length of 160mm (transferred to 35mm equivalent).

You could always use that extremely rare item - the speedlight. I know this may seem revolutionary and exotic to you...

You still haven't said what a tripod does to negate LCD usefulness, by the way.

By the time you have checked you're LCD you have wasted 3 nice shots. Sometimes even burst mode is not quick enough, but you want to zoom in, look at thumbnail zoom out... Geez you don't allays shoot naked models you know... Wildlife, sports, macros of different bees and insects, all these scenarios are pretty hard as they are already. If I have preset exposure corrections and I shoot via optical viewfinder I at least have a chance to get a good shot.

And 1/focal length is not optimistic, it's pretty pessimistic, with heavy camera and good holder and burst shooting you can have exposures twice as long without any ill effects.

Yes, for macro you want tripod most of the time, or something like this http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... delid=8127 and not a regular speedlite.

Concerning speedlite for all other cases, it really depends. If all you have is speedlite then most of the shots will be with overexposed foreground and dark backgrounds. Or you need bunch of reflectors and bunch of speedlites... I personally prefer shooting without flash 99% of the time. Getting it right with it is tough task and without extra care just ruins the picture.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I have been quite pleased with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. I would not describe it as "dark as hell" at all. I do use the Speedlite 580EX II, but a macro ring lite might work best.

Well, those lenses are step above 450D anyway... they cost more than 450D All regular lenses people buy for 450D most of the time are dark as hell...

Madman wrote:

By the time you have checked you're LCD you have wasted 3 nice shots. Sometimes even burst mode is not quick enough, but you want to zoom in, look at thumbnail zoom out... Geez you don't allays shoot naked models you know... Wildlife, sports, macros of different bees and insects, all these scenarios are pretty hard as they are already. If I have preset exposure corrections and I shoot via optical viewfinder I at least have a chance to get a good shot.

hmm i think you've missed the entire point of what the LCD is for. no one, save perhaps you, reviews their shots during the shoot.

if a normal person is on a weekend jaunt up to the UP, for example, and does not have a laptop along and only has a limited number of cards.. it is wise to review the shots and determine which ones should be kept and which ones should be deleted so as not to run out of space when you may need it. Especially if you're doing as you said and taking shots in "burst mode". Do you save every single one of those "burst" shots?

Madman wrote:

Well, those lenses are step above 450D anyway... they cost more than 450D All regular lenses people buy for 450D most of the time are dark as hell...

what?
lenses that are a "step above" a camera? what? seriously.. what?
--------------------
also, even my $80 lens.. the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is nice.. and I really have no problem with it being too "dark". I'm actually quite happy with all my lenses.. and none of them are "dark". I guess they must not be normal.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

etilena wrote:

Prefer CF cards because they are physically bigger. I prefer to take them out of the camera and plug them into a card reader. SD cards feel flimsy to the touch and I'm afraid if I use too much force, I might break them.

I will say that honestly that is the first time I've heard that.

i havent ever had a SD card.. but they look about the size of the old "smartmedia" cards. i couldnt stand those. the wimpy feeling made me want to snap them in half with my fingers just to hear the crunch.

danny e. wrote:

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

etilena wrote:

Prefer CF cards because they are physically bigger. I prefer to take them out of the camera and plug them into a card reader. SD cards feel flimsy to the touch and I'm afraid if I use too much force, I might break them.

I will say that honestly that is the first time I've heard that.

i havent ever had a SD card.. but they look about the size of the old "smartmedia" cards. i couldnt stand those. the wimpy feeling made me want to snap them in half with my fingers just to hear the crunch.

If smartmedia is what I remember, they're about twice as thick.
EDIT: 2.1mm as opposed to 0.7 of SmartMedia

Madman wrote:

You cannot keep your LCD and camera steady while shooting macros anyway. Or you need very good lighting conditions with dark as hell canon lenses and focal length of 160mm (transferred to 35mm equivalent).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I have been quite pleased with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. I would not describe it as "dark as hell" at all. I do use the Speedlite 580EX II, but a macro ring lite might work best.

Madman wrote:

Well, those lenses are step above 450D anyway... they cost more than 450D All regular lenses people buy for 450D most of the time are dark as hell...

That is the only Canon 100mm macro lens (160mm equivalent field of view on 1.6x FOVCF cameras like the EOS 450D). What other Canon macro lens could you possibly be referring to?

danny e. wrote:

Madman wrote:

By the time you have checked you're LCD you have wasted 3 nice shots. Sometimes even burst mode is not quick enough, but you want to zoom in, look at thumbnail zoom out... Geez you don't allays shoot naked models you know... Wildlife, sports, macros of different bees and insects, all these scenarios are pretty hard as they are already. If I have preset exposure corrections and I shoot via optical viewfinder I at least have a chance to get a good shot.

hmm i think you've missed the entire point of what the LCD is for. no one, save perhaps you, reviews their shots during the shoot.

if a normal person is on a weekend jaunt up to the UP, for example, and does not have a laptop along and only has a limited number of cards.. it is wise to review the shots and determine which ones should be kept and which ones should be deleted so as not to run out of space when you may need it. Especially if you're doing as you said and taking shots in "burst mode". Do you save every single one of those "burst" shots?

In that case cheaper camera with regular LCD gives you chance to move that additional base premium of LCD towards 2GB of CF space which is a whole lot more useful.

I of course would agree with you that LCD might be handy to delete stuff, but then again I usually don't have enough time to sort pictures while on trip, I have just enough for shooting. Yes sometimes you take two shots in burst when there is a quick action and LCD helps you to delete one in which composition is not alright. But even crappy 350D LCD is good enough for that. If you need to review focus or details then you should better invest that time in some theory studies.

danny e. wrote:

Madman wrote:

Well, those lenses are step above 450D anyway... they cost more than 450D All regular lenses people buy for 450D most of the time are dark as hell...

what?
lenses that are a "step above" a camera? what? seriously.. what?
--------------------
also, even my $80 lens.. the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is nice.. and I really have no problem with it being too "dark". I'm actually quite happy with all my lenses.. and none of them are "dark". I guess they must not be normal.

[/quote]
450D is cheapo entry level SLR, which is pretty good I must admit, those lenses are not entry level, all entry ones are 3.5-5.6 dark.

Madman wrote:

In that case cheaper camera with regular LCD gives you chance to move that additional base premium of LCD towards 2GB of CF space which is a whole lot more useful.

i have 5.5 GB of memory cards now... and I still dont think that'd be enough even for a weekend jaunt if i shot RAW

EDIT: DOH! I forgot i just bought another 4GB card.. so i actually have 9.5GB worth of CF mem.

Madman wrote:

450D is cheapo entry level SLR, which is pretty good I must admit, those lenses are not entry level, all entry ones are 3.5-5.6 dark.

450D is quite a bit nicer than my 350D.
and $80 for a lens isnt entry level? hmm if $80 is high-end, I wonder what my $1,000 bigma is.. is it "super-entry-level" since its f4-6.3?

Madman wrote:

You cannot keep your LCD and camera steady while shooting macros anyway. Or you need very good lighting conditions with dark as hell canon lenses and focal length of 160mm (transferred to 35mm equivalent).

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I have been quite pleased with the EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. I would not describe it as "dark as hell" at all. I do use the Speedlite 580EX II, but a macro ring lite might work best.

Madman wrote:

Well, those lenses are step above 450D anyway... they cost more than 450D All regular lenses people buy for 450D most of the time are dark as hell...

JustAnEngineer wrote:

That is the only Canon 100mm macro lens (160mm equivalent field of view on 1.6x FOVCF cameras like the EOS 450D). What other Canon macro lens could you possibly be referring to?

danny e. wrote:

what? lenses that are a "step above" a camera? what? seriously.. what? also, even my $80 lens.. the Canon 50mm f1.8 II is nice.. and I really have no problem with it being too "dark". I'm actually quite happy with all my lenses.. and none of them are "dark". I guess they must not be normal.

Madman wrote:

450D is cheapo entry level SLR, which is pretty good I must admit, those lenses are not entry level, all entry ones are 3.5-5.6 dark.

I provided you a link to the only Canon 100mm macro lens. At f/2.8, it is not "dark as hell."" At $435, it is a significant cost to add to the basic EOS 450D kit, but it does not cost more than the camera does. The $230 EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro or $354 EF-S 60mm f/2.8 USM Macro lenses are cheaper, but they are still much faster than your claimed f/3.5-5.6 range. The $90 "Nifty Fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens than danny e. mentioned is one of the least expensive lenses available for the EOS mount, and it's not slow, either.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

The $90 "Nifty Fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens than danny e. mentioned is one of the least expensive lenses available for the EOS mount, and it's not slow, either.

and its $80 if you go to the right spot

danny e. wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

The $90 "Nifty Fifty" EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens than danny e. mentioned is one of the least expensive lenses available for the EOS mount, and it's not slow, either.

and its $80 if you go to the right spot

I was just getting there...
http://www.adorama.com/CA5018AF.html

danny e. wrote:

Madman wrote:

In that case cheaper camera with regular LCD gives you chance to move that additional base premium of LCD towards 2GB of CF space which is a whole lot more useful.

i have 5.5 GB of memory cards now... and I still dont think that'd be enough even for a weekend jaunt if i shot RAW

EDIT: DOH! I forgot i just bought another 4GB card.. so i actually have 9.5GB worth of CF mem.

I haven't run out of memory since I bought my 8gb card. I shoot in RAW+JPG. Raw for archiving, and JPG for putting on my website (although I haven't uploaded pictures in a long time).

I have just the one 16GB CF card for my EOS 40D. That's enough for over 1000 photos in RAW + small JPEG format (at about 14.5 MB per shot). You could, of course, get a 32GB card.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I have just the one 16GB CF card for my EOS 40D:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820208337

*sadness* That's half the price I paid for a card with half the capacity. Sheesh memory has gotten cheap.

Madman wrote:

By the time you have checked you're LCD you have wasted 3 nice shots. Sometimes even burst mode is not quick enough, but you want to zoom in, look at thumbnail zoom out... Geez you don't allays shoot naked models you know...

That all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you're shooting for extreme-shallow DoF you could well have all the time in the world, but a very narrow window of acceptability.

Madman wrote:

Wildlife, sports, macros of different bees and insects, all these scenarios are pretty hard as they are already.

Sure, and for the most part they're not really the sort of subjects where a nice screen can be really useful. They're most certainly not every situation though.

Madman wrote:

If I have preset exposure corrections and I shoot via optical viewfinder I at least have a chance to get a good shot.

Good for you!

Madman wrote:

And 1/focal length is not optimistic, it's pretty pessimistic, with heavy camera and good holder and burst shooting you can have exposures twice as long without any ill effects.

Sure, you can, assuming the proper conditions and technique. Conditions change a bit for the better or worse and the real limit moves a bit too. Sometimes there's time to make quick checks and adjustments, sometimes there isn't. All of that only applies if you have a good LCD.

Madman wrote:

Yes, for macro you want tripod most of the time, or something like this http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/contr ... delid=8127 and not a regular speedlite.

YET AGAIN I have to ask - what in the world does this have to do with the usefulness of an LCD? You keep spouting this out again and again but refuse to connect to why you presumably brought it up in the first place!

Madman wrote:

Concerning speedlite for all other cases, it really depends. If all you have is speedlite then most of the shots will be with overexposed foreground and dark backgrounds. Or you need bunch of reflectors and bunch of speedlites... I personally prefer shooting without flash 99% of the time. Getting it right with it is tough task and without extra care just ruins the picture.

It's not nearly as difficult as you make it out to be, but then apparently you can't figure out that tripods don't disable LCDs so I guess I'm not shocked.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

UberGerbil wrote:

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

I had SD with the first digital camera I got, an HP 3MP in 2004. My Canon a520 used SD too, as did my a620. My Rebel XTi is my first foray into CF, and honestly I'd be happy to go back. Carrying around a reader for my laptop is annoying, and if it were SD, I've got a built-in reader. Anyone want to buy an 18-month old XTi for the MSRP of the XSi?

If your laptop has a PC Card (PCMCIA) slot you can turn it into a CF reader with an adapter for less than $20. (If it has an ExpressCard slot there are adapters as well but they're not as neat or cheap).

Expresscard, and from when I was looking, there weren't any flush-mounted one's which means I have something sticking out the side of my computer which is not a permanent solution.

Flush ExpressCard options exist for both SD/SDHC and CF. My APIOTEK ExpressCard/34 reader fits flush in my MBP.

I love the SDHC format. Both my LX2 and my D80 use the SDHC format. The small form factor is a plus as far as I am concerned. While SD was a limited technology, SDHC has a 2TB theoretical size limit and speeds are improving every year (currently available in cards up to 20MB read/write (Sandisk Extreme III)).

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I have just the one 16GB CF card for my EOS 40D:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6820208337

*sadness* That's half the price I paid for a card with half the capacity. Sheesh memory has gotten cheap.

wow. that's cheap. are they reliable?