Changing horses in mid-stream

So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
work with a Rebel Xti.

This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

JJ

In article ,
wrote:

So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
work with a Rebel Xti.

This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
orientation.

Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
[sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.

Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.

--
You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a
reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating
the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for
independence.
-- Charles A. Beard

Ken Lucke wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
work with a Rebel Xti.

This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.


As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
orientation.

Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
[sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.

Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.

I'll second all that. I got the XTi's predecessor, the original Digital Rebel
(300D), about the time its price dropped to "below $1000"... paid a total of I
think around $1400 including a 1GB CF card, one extra battery, and the battery
grip (and taxes of course). I already had an EX420 flash and EF 75-300mm zoom
from my 35mm Rebel and they work great with the DRebel.

It's really a nice camera and a good starting point. I don't shoot nearly as
much as the OP and it took me a little over a year to hit what I estimated to be
the "break-even" point in film costs (film AND processing/printing/CDs) vs. the
cost of the camera. Should take jj a lot less time than that to make up the
difference, especially if it's only the body costing about $550 - if you figure
$15/roll, all costs included, for a roll of 36, that's about 42c/shot... should
take barely 1300 shots to reach that "break-even" point. Factor in the time you
DON'T have to spend taking the film to the lab... then going back to pick it
up... plus the extra control you get over your editing when you start shooting
RAW...

? "Matt Ion" ?????? ??? ??????
news:BODOh.85058$zU1.27534@pd7urf1no...
Ken Lucke wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
work with a Rebel Xti.

This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.


As you already have lenses, spens some extra money and get a battery
grip for it (the third party ones off of eBay work just fine) - you get
twice the battery life, a larger gripping surface (as well as more mass
to help the lightweight camera), and a set of shutter release/control
buttons to match the camera's normal ones while you are in portrait
orientation.

Oh, and at least 3 extra batteries (to make 2 sets of 2 to go in the
BG). The eBay third-party batteries are fine, as long as you don't
expect them to live up to their wild claims about mAh ratings
[sometimes claiming twice the rating of the Canon batteries] - they
don't, but they DO match (at least) the Canon batteries at 1/5 (or
less) of the cost. Get one that comes with a charger, so you can be
charging two at a time, and a charger that works on 12v is a bonus.

Get several 2 GB CF cards so you have lots of room for storage of raw
files - you'll find that you take more pictures with digital than you
did with film, even if you aren't doing things like bracketing "just
becaue you can" - the abiltiy to take pictures with only burned
electrons instead of $$$ funneling out of your wallet for processing
will up your shooting rate, guaranteed.

I'll second all that. I got the XTi's predecessor, the original Digital
Rebel
(300D), about the time its price dropped to "below $1000"... paid a total
of I
think around $1400 including a 1GB CF card, one extra battery, and the
battery
grip (and taxes of course). I already had an EX420 flash and EF 75-300mm
zoom
from my 35mm Rebel and they work great with the DRebel.

It's really a nice camera and a good starting point. I don't shoot nearly
as
much as the OP and it took me a little over a year to hit what I estimated
to be
the "break-even" point in film costs (film AND processing/printing/CDs)
vs. the
cost of the camera. Should take jj a lot less time than that to make up
the
difference, especially if it's only the body costing about $550 - if you
figure
$15/roll, all costs included, for a roll of 36, that's about 42c/shot...
should
take barely 1300 shots to reach that "break-even" point. Factor in the
time you
DON'T have to spend taking the film to the lab... then going back to pick
it
up... plus the extra control you get over your editing when you start
shooting
RAW...


And another thing, Canon makes an excellent photo-pritner, which is first in
sales in Europe, the Pixma iP 4300.I bought one, and I think it's every
penny worth.(It cost 130 euros).So, you can print at home your 4X6"
snapshots and even on A4 (~8X10").It can also print on printable dvds and
cds, has a permanent paper tray (like a laser printer)can print on both
sides of a sheet of paper automatically...Is very economic with inks.And
last but not least, the ink tanks are cheap, and last long,The print head is
disposable.It's made in japan, printer, inks and paper (if you use canon
paper),the ink tanks are the usual cyan, magenta, yellow and black for
photos and bulk black for documents.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr

On Mar 28, 3:53 pm, wrote:
So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

What I'm thinking of doing is picking up a Rebel Xti body for about
$550. It's kind of like a digital version of the A2 -- not the top of
the line, but a basic piece of gear that will get the job done for
now. I can compensate for the 1.6x effect on the wide side with my
17-35mm f2.8. I've also got the 28-70mm f2.8 and the 70-200mm f2.8.
Sounds like a lot of lens-changing for one body, but I'll probably be
using the 1n for some stuff, too. I have a 550EX that I think will
work with a Rebel Xti.

This is the easiest, least expensive way I can think of to get my
digital feet wet and still nail down some decent images. Are there any
particular disadvantages to the Rebel Xti I should know about? Any
suggestions and/or comments much appreciated. Thanks.

JJ

My wife was also a confirmed film shooter (for considerably longer
than 30 years). Two years ago she went on a trip to china and bought
a Nikon N75. Last year she got a chance to go again, but did not want
to worry about having several dozen rolls of film go through security
inspection (previous trip they opened every cannister to assure there
WERE rolls of film in there). Last year she decided a digital would
be handy, and we bought a D-50, which was then the cheapest DSLR that
Nikon made. We have been delighted with it, and neither of us has
shot a roll of film since.

My wife took several large cards with her. Originally I thought
digital would NOT be a cost savings, but my wife now shoots far more
pictures than she used to (and that was a lot). She prints only a
small fraction, a smaller fraction than in days of film, so we may
indeed ultimately save money.

If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
Rebel digital would be fine.

If you pass on the 30D, you might regret it. A 30D makes more sense for a
person with your experience. Yes, your flash will work.

wrote:
So here's the deal. I've been a confirmed film shooter for over 30
years, but it's getting to be ridiculous. The digital mindset is
pervasive ("What do you mean I can't have it NOW?"), so for the past
year or two I've considered alternatives. Currently, when I turn in my
film I have a digital CD made, too. That gives me 4MB jpegs, 35mm negs
and a set of proofs. Processing & film cost: $15/roll of 36x.

Faced with an upcoming three week shoot of music festivals and related
events, that sounds like a lot of film and processing cost. I'm deep
into Canon gear, so I'm not about to change that. There's also no way
I'm dropping the better part of three grand on 5D, and the 30D is
still overpriced for what it is.

So how many rolls would you shoot over those three weeks? 100? So
you've got $1500 to play with without increasing your outgo a penny?

But seriously, your idea of buying at the low end to "get your feet wet"
is quite reasonable. I always figure there's a much higher than usual
chance of my buying "the wrong thing" when I jump into a new area (I've
been lucky three times in digital photography, though).

On 29 Mar 2007 07:11:30 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:
: My wife was also a confirmed film shooter (for considerably longer
: than 30 years). Two years ago she went on a trip to china and bought
: a Nikon N75. Last year she got a chance to go again, but did not want
: to worry about having several dozen rolls of film go through security
: inspection (previous trip they opened every cannister to assure there
: WERE rolls of film in there). Last year she decided a digital would
: be handy, and we bought a D-50, which was then the cheapest DSLR that
: Nikon made. We have been delighted with it, and neither of us has
: shot a roll of film since.
:
: My wife took several large cards with her. Originally I thought
: digital would NOT be a cost savings, but my wife now shoots far more
: pictures than she used to (and that was a lot). She prints only a
: small fraction, a smaller fraction than in days of film, so we may
: indeed ultimately save money.
:
: If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
: years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
: expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
: has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
: Rebel digital would be fine.

It's hard to overstate the importance of the different shooting style that
going digital affords to an amateur photographer. Professionals always shot
many rolls of film to cull out a few good pictures. To them it was just a cost
of doing business, but an amateur, especially one without a color darkroom and
the time and skill to use it, couldn't afford to shoot that way. Digital
changed all that by removing the cost, except in editing time, of taking
dozens (or hundreds) of extra shots.

Last week I covered an event honoring prominent women in the city for which I
work. As the crowd milled about afterwards, one of the organizers, a friend
from another department, asked me to photograph her with three of the women
being honored. I clicked off five quick shots, and my friend laughed at me for
bothering to take so many so close together. The next day I showed her that in
only one of the five shots did all four women have good facial expressions;
she was amazed that the five pictures could look so different. In film days, I
might have posed the subjects more carefully, but I would have taken only one
or two shots on my old Nikon F-2, and the result might not have been nearly as
good.

The freedom to take extra shots won't make a lousy photographer good, but any
photographer on the right side of mediocrity, who takes the time to get used
to the digital mindset, should see a significant improvement in his or her
work.

Just my 2¢ worth …

Bob

"Robert Coe" wrote in message
...
On 29 Mar 2007 07:11:30 -0700, "Don Stauffer in Minnesota"
wrote:

: If you are an old film shooter- I mean being in photography for many
: years, you may not miss the bells and whistles that the newer
: expensive cameras have. We are delighted with the features the D-50
: has, but still do not use most. I would guess for an old timer the
: Rebel digital would be fine.

You sure nailed that...I don't mind the bells and whistles, but truth to
tell, outside of flash work, all I need (and use) in terms of options are
aperture priority, full manual, raw, auto focus with manual override, manual
white balance, and a way to set the iso and exposure compensation
quickly.and a viewfinder (real or evf).

(With all the above quickly accessed, of course)

In fact, I just bought a D40 for EDC, and while I can't speak to the image
quality compared to more feature laden cameras, it has all the things
necessary to first rate photography is a very well thought out package.

I just wish the makers would come out with more basic high quality shootin
machines at a more affordable price (for me) than the one or two out there
now.

DP

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:42:40 -0400, in rec.photo.digital:

If you pass on the 30D, you might regret it. A 30D makes more sense for a
person with your experience. Yes, your flash will work.

Well, dammit, my decision just got more complicated. A client handed
me $3000 yesterday for some work I did. Now I'm starting to get
Pre-Buyer's Remorse! Suddenly, affording the 5D isn't so much an
issue, and now I can also throw the 30D or a used 20D into the mix. Of
course, the back side of this is the whole overpriced digital
treadmill thing. Not to mention the learning curve with three weeks to
go til the big shoot.

So let's review: Is the Rebel XTi still the right box for the app? Or
for that matter, will the price of a 30D or a 5D over a Rebel justify
the difference in camera performance and/or image quality?

John wrote:

I don't mind the bells and whistles, but truth to
tell, outside of flash work, all I need (and use) in terms of options are
aperture priority, full manual, raw, auto focus with manual override, manual
white balance, and a way to set the iso and exposure compensation
quickly.and a viewfinder (real or evf). (With all the above quickly accessed, of course)

That's pretty much me, too. I run my 1n in Manual mode almost all the
time. I use flash or fill flash about 80% of the time, since a lot of
my work is in music clubs (where there's never enough light) or on
outdoor stages (where performers faces are frequently shadowed). I
don't need a whole lot of geegaws.

Another issue that's getting big for me is the weight of all the gear.
I've been able to shoot most everything the past 30 years with only
two lenses, but I'll have to add the 17-35 f2.8 wide if I use anything
besides a 5D. That's not a light lens, and the 5D body with batteries
and grip is certainly no lighter than my current 1n, which I intend to
keep as a back-up. The 5D is, however, substantially heavier than my
current A2 back-up. So, if I pick up the 5D, grip, etc, I'm probably
adding several pounds to the mix at a time when I'm trying to cut the
weight back. Hauling this stuff for eight hours a day X six days X a
minimum of two stages a day at a big festival sounds like a good deal
for my chiropractor. For me, not so much. Sure wish I could do this
all with a cheesy point and shoot!

Maybe I should just buy a Powershot, take the three grand and go live
in Mexico for six months. Buys a lot of tacos at my favorite
restaurant.

JJ