ViewFinder Photography Forum

General discussion - our photography living room. Talk about aesthetics, philosophy, share your photos - get inspired by your peers! Moderated by another view and walterick.
ViewFinder Forum Guidelines >>
Introduce Yourself! >>
PhotographREVIEW.com Gatherings and Photo Field Trips >>
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 31 of 31
  1. #26
    has-been... another view's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rockford, IL
    Posts
    7,649

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liz
    There was a leak with 2 Canon announcements - the G10 and a new SX1 (or something like that) seemingly replacing the S5 IS. It has a 28mm-560mm lens and if the body follows the S5 - it will be very light weight.
    560mm (equivalent)?? I'd give up 300mm on the long end if one of these cameras would go out to a 20mm equivalent. I'm sure it's a challenge for the camera designers because the actual focal lengths are so small due to sensor size, but it's still rare to find one that goes out to a 28mm equivalent. This is one reason I've kept my several-years-old Coolpix 5000. Nikon's newer replacement versions of this camera have been bigger and so have the accessory lenses so I'm happy with what I have. The 8400 went out to 24mm but the accessory lenses for it were huge (and heavy).

    I keep hearing about the Olympus 420 but haven't looked at it myself. Since you say the 520 has IS but is bigger, there may be a new one coming up at some point that is smaller and comes with IS. Worth keeping an eye out for it.

  2. #27
    Nature/Wildlife Forum Co-Moderator Loupey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    7,856

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Hi, Liz - from reading what you've stated so far, it sounds like you should invest in a couple EF-S zoom lenses. True they are not "L" in terms of build/image quality (I don't know for sure - never tried them), but they are reportedly light, fairly inexpensive, and optimized/dedicated for the smaller APS-C sized Canon SLR's.

    No need to carry extra weight with full-frame lenses since I doubt you would want to go to a full frame camera in the future (due to the weight/size issue).

    Consider:

    1) you already know your XTi - no need to learn anything new
    2) EF-S/XTi combo will produce far superior images over any P&S
    3) you can have a street-worthy combo with just one lens
    4) the cost will be less compared to some other options

    JMO
    Please do not edit or repost my images.

    See my website HERE.


    What's a Loupe for anyway?

  3. #28
    Liz
    Liz is offline
    Moderator Emeritus Liz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,983

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Loupey
    Hi, Liz - from reading what you've stated so far, it sounds like you should invest in a couple EF-S zoom lenses. True they are not "L" in terms of build/image quality (I don't know for sure - never tried them), but they are reportedly light, fairly inexpensive, and optimized/dedicated for the smaller APS-C sized Canon SLR's.

    No need to carry extra weight with full-frame lenses since I doubt you would want to go to a full frame camera in the future (due to the weight/size issue).

    Consider:

    1) you already know your XTi - no need to learn anything new
    2) EF-S/XTi combo will produce far superior images over any P&S
    3) you can have a street-worthy combo with just one lens
    4) the cost will be less compared to some other options

    JMO
    Yes, I agree - I'm thinking more and more along those lines. I'm going to start with the 18-55IS for now - only $170. You're right - I won't consider the FF for a long time - when they make them smaller and lighter too!

    Liz

  4. #29
    Senior Member freygr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Portland, OR, USA
    Posts
    2,523

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liz
    Thanks for the suggestions, Brian. At this point I'm sticking with digital as for me it is just easier since I can delete what I don't want on the spot and not wait for developing. I've seen awesome shots from the Rangefinder and used to look at it once in a while before I switched to digital. Actually I was one of the stubborn photographers who said I would probably not switch - just determined to keep using film. Obviously, I gave in, but must admit I'm glad I did because I do save money by being able to edit and delete on the spot.

    The Leica - it's in a class of it's own! And not in my budget unless I win the lottery!

    Liz
    Heck you can find used Leica WWII vintage clones most of the time cheap but there are film cameras. The Leotax with the Tokyo Optical 50mm F3.5 lens deferentially is a very sharp lens. When we got it we found a nice Leica leather case for it, but that was in 1965.
    GRF

    Panorama Madness:

    Nikon D800, 50mm F1.4D AF, 16-35mm, 28-200mm & 70-300mm

  5. #30
    Moderator Skyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
    Posts
    1,505

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liz
    Your comment about the Canon 135/f2.8 soft focus was interesting. I've always thought "soft" focus meant "soft" image. So, it's a sharp lens? So what in what context is it a "soft focus." Is it also light weight? I'll have to check it out.
    Liz
    I am guessing that the lens was built with portrait photographers in mind. it weighs a minuscule 390 grams, but whilst not being the most popular lens is no lite weight in other areas. f2.8 and great bokeh. It is super sharp. Has internal focus, with The lens itself has a little switch and a ring on it that has three different softness settings 0 (sharp) 1 and 2. Levels 1 and 2 produce an image similar to that of a soft focus filter, but it works a little differently. The level of softness will vary depending on what aperture you use. Canon recommends f4 but this is personal and does take a bit of getting used to (i find slight overexposure helps). My only gripe used to be that it has a 52mm filter thread not 58 like most of canons lenses, but since going digital i rarely use filters so it is no longer an issue. I actually happen to have my one with me at the moment so if i get a spare second today I will take a photo of something that will help to show the sharpness / softness

  6. #31
    Liz
    Liz is offline
    Moderator Emeritus Liz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    5,983

    Re: Photo equip: quality vs weight?

    Quote Originally Posted by Skyman
    I am guessing that the lens was built with portrait photographers in mind. it weighs a minuscule 390 grams, but whilst not being the most popular lens is no lite weight in other areas. f2.8 and great bokeh. It is super sharp. Has internal focus, with The lens itself has a little switch and a ring on it that has three different softness settings 0 (sharp) 1 and 2. Levels 1 and 2 produce an image similar to that of a soft focus filter, but it works a little differently. The level of softness will vary depending on what aperture you use. Canon recommends f4 but this is personal and does take a bit of getting used to (i find slight overexposure helps). My only gripe used to be that it has a 52mm filter thread not 58 like most of canons lenses, but since going digital i rarely use filters so it is no longer an issue. I actually happen to have my one with me at the moment so if i get a spare second today I will take a photo of something that will help to show the sharpness / softness
    Thank you for the information. I not only learned something, but this peaked my interest. Quite an interesting lens and not too expensive (just checked). I'd love to see the images.

    Liz

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •