"Chris Taylor Jr" wrote in news:1067401435.319673
My F3/MD15 combination does 5fps, but that means a 36 exposure roll of film
is good for maybe 3 or 4 liftoffs, if I'm *real* careful with my trigger
finger. That's the real advantage of digital -- you can discard the
useless frames in real time.
The Canon Digital Rebel looks like a very nice camera. Currently untouched
in the digital SLR world for that price point.
I HIGHLY recommend the Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS lens for
rocketry photography. This is the lens I use most of the time for
my rocketry shots. B&H has it for about $1350 right now.
It's a bit on the slow side (f4.5-f5.6), but it's amazing piece of
glass. I've even used this lens with the 1.4x teleconverter, although
you would lose autofocus with this combo on anything but the
1D, 1Ds, and higher end Canon film cameras (EOS 3/EOS 1v).
The Canon 300mm f2.8, 400mm f2.8, and 600mm f4 primes are what most
"real" pros use for sports, but these lenses are VERY expensive and
VERY heavy. I've thought about picking up the 300mm f2.8 but
haven't been able to justify it just yet. I would probably use
it more for sports than rocketry and then only with a monopod.
The 70-200mm f2.8 is another really nice lens I have and use
quite a bit. If you can get close to the launch pad, this would
be an excellent choice.
For high quality lenses that don't break the bank (in the Canon lineup),
the 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8 are very nice. The 135mm f2 is
awesome but it's close to $900.
If you're getting serious about photography and want to take
the digital SLR plunge on a limited budget, I'd recommend getting
the Digital Rebel and then focus on building your lens collection
depending on what you want to shoot.
Unlike the camera body, these lenses won't be obsolete in a year or two
and when the time comes to upgrade the body, you'll be able
to bring your lenses along for the ride.
OK the 14n woud produce images so far improved over what I have now its
insane. in that aspect its AMAZING
but Kodak has always had this problem. GROSE over compression.
read steves-digicam review of this camera. the eos 1ds produces better
images even though it is only 11mp
all kodak has to do is back off the damned nasty compression. (THEY MAY have
done this since I read that review some time ago I am not sure)
the camera was fine. it was kodaks WAY overzealous compression levels for
jpg images etc.
Very true points but on some levels if you do not have "enough" megapixels
an excellent body can only make up for that so much.
I mean take 110 film. you can only make so good an image from such a small
negative no matter how nice the camera is.
same with digital. if I ever manage to get one of those olympos 100rs units
it will be a strictly "long range" and Rocketry Lift off camera. it would
not be very useful for anything else to me and the only reason it is good
for those purposes is its amazing speed and 10x (280mm 35mm eqv zoom)
for vacations shots for example it would not be so useless. the better
optics simply can not make up for the 3.5mp less resolution.
NOW once mp gets to the point where it is no longer an issue then yes the
"camera" will be the defining factor.
Exactly !! film is just VERY expensive (to me at least) and hence why I so
badly want to go all digital.
the nikon "almost" does that if I ever get my drool covered fingers on that
canon I will not have to use film again.
once you recouped the cost of the purchase digital is FREE. the memory cards
are reusable and the batteries are rechargeable. I can take 10 or 10 million
pictures and it would cost me the same. 0
printing is another issue but even PC printing is far chearper than lab
printing ESPECIALLY when you go above 4x6
PS by the way I meant 15fps. 5fps is not really sufficient for me in rocket
lift offs. unless I can get upwards of 10fps or better I would still prefer
to depend on my finger than the motor drive.
Now if your doing an L3 project and you want the best. OK rent a nice high
speed 35mm slr and pay up for the film. but its a one shot deal. not
something you have to pay every launch.
OUCH !!! that lens is so far outside my budget its amazing !!! $1350 for a
lens !! I had NO IDEA they cost that much !!!
The only way I can even consider the digital rebel is by selling my coolpix
and that will only work if I get a real good price for it !! wow ! (I have
loads of goodies for it so I am hoping to get $900 for it)
Wow. is their a more affordable 400mm lens available ? (under $300)
will the lens that fit the digital rebel fit the eos 1ds (the camera I
eventually plan to own in a year or 2)
Kinda medium-high on the price front.
As if your personal preferences and choices matter at all to the many
other people who read rmr and actually have a budget for a lens of that
price - or more.
Nope. You might find some junk mirror lenses, but I'd stay far
away from those.
I guess it all depends on perspective. I see the 100-400 for $1350
as reasonably priced. It's the 400 f2.8 that's expensive in my book.
$6500 and it weighs 11.7 lbs!
Of course, for the pro making a living shooting for Sports Illustrated,
that lens is a bargain.
Yes. That is the beauty of the system. You can feel fairly comfortable
investing in high quality lenses that you will get use from for 20+ years.
The pro lenses also retain their value better than any digital equipment
if you need to sell or upgrade them down the line.
Whats interesting is that you think I care about what you think of me.
Very Interesting. Last I checked this was a public forum. if you do not like
what I am saying you are MORE than welcome to ignore me or better yet leave.