oops, in photo studio

 

Do you own a photo studio?

I want a freakin photo studio!

 

When you say that the 17-40 is 'slow' are you referring to the autofocus or the aperture speed? f/4.0 isn't bad but it of course f/2.8 is better (1 full stop). Personally, I would never buy a wide angle zoom lens with f/4.0. You don't realize how much difference 1 full stop makes until you start shooting indoors under poor lighting. The 17-40 f/4.0L is a great lens but for what I look for in a lens, I went with the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 since it was a faster lens. Plus, at $330 after MIR, it's a hell of a bargain. If you plan on shooting indoors or under less - than - sunny lighting, you might want to think about spending the extra on the 24-70 f/2.8L or getting the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8..... or waiting fo the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 that is due to hit the shelves on the US market any day now.

http://www.tamron.co.jp/en/news/rele...s0215_a16.html

I'll probably sell my 28-75 for the 17-50 once it's released.

 

Once you hold and use a 10D/20D/30D or the 1D series, you'll probably end up selling your 350D. I picked up a 10D as a back up body to put on the Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS so that I wouldn't have to switch lenses all the time but the 10D became my primary body and I use the 350D with the telephoto lens. The body is way too small to hold comfortably, even with a battery grip. Here's a shot my friend took this last weekend that shows the 350D being miniature in size when used in conjunction with a telephoto lens.



I'm the little Asian guy.

 

Well, for me I want something fairly versitile. I will be using it both indoors & outdoors as well as low light & bright light. I will most likely be using it more for outdoors though both during the bright light & low light settings (sunset, parking lot, etc...).

 

I meant AP... I would have to shoot with a better lens f-stop in order to realize what I'm missing (the difference in how I'm taking shots versus how a better stop would look with the same shots)... but my indoor shots could stand do better (plus an aftermarket flash is also on my shopping list). I still take average pictures at this point in my experience...

 

If you go to Best Buy or any electronics store to play with both of them, you'll prefer the D50. It feels better, the controls and menus are better (ergonomics), and price wise it's a little less. Image quality is up in the air but depending on the lens, the 350D has the slight edge, especially in higher ISOs. Canon sensors at higher ISOs have the edge, especially on the higher end models.

Depending on what you shoot might make a difference in what you want to buy. If you plan on doing wildlife, action/sports, or any photography where you 'll want the extra reach, the Canon telephoto lenses have a big advantage over the Nikon. But, if you do landscape or something that requires super wide angles, the Nikon selection is better.

I went with a Canon body due to the Canon lenses. It's hard to beat the autofocus speed, sharpness, and color of an L lens. If you ever get a 1D series body, the weather sealing is a huge advantage if you in dusty conditions or in the rain.

 

Whoa, the 70-200mm lens makes the 350D look so unbalanced when mounted...

 

Yeah, tell me about it. I can only imagine the amount of stress the area has between the camera body & the lens.

 

If you don't want to mess with an external flash and/or a tripod, the f/2.8 (or faster lens) would be an advantage. Regardless, you'll eventually want to get a flash - even a low end Canon 420EX ($130-150) will make a huge difference indoors or outdoors. This past weekend in Carlisle, I used it on half my shots due to the bright sunny conditions.

I'm probably an oddball but when I go to car shows or other events, I rarely travel lightly. I bring everything since I'm willing to carry 18 lbs of gear to make sure I get good pics. My back hates me by the end of the day but it's worth it when the pictures come out worthwhile.

 

I always suggest buy the best you can afford, even if it means sacrificing something for a month or two. The benefit you'll get from the 2.8, even outdoors, is a better-blurred background/bokeh. You won't get the same from a 4.0. For amateurs, this won't mean too much but once you start getting into photography and it evolves to a more serious hobby, you'll nitpick your own photos and think to yourself "I wish I got the faster lens!"

Several times I week I see people on fredmiranda.com selling the 300mm f/4.0 and upgrading to a 300mm f/2.8 just because they don't like the background blur from the 4.0.

 

Hmm? Well I think this bit of info is more up my alley of what I'm looking for.

 

Shots I took with my camera. Sony Cyber shot 12x zoom 5.1 mega pixel. Normal lens that came on the camera.

BEN

 

Seems like this has become a place to ask questions about digital SLR's, and NOT a gallery as the title states. Let's see some more pics!!!!

If you want to ask questions...start another thread.

 

Umm...not just a gallery. I'm the one who started this thread & if you read my very first post, it's a resource/gallery for us guys with DSLR's.

I can easily change the title if needs be

But I agree though...we need more pics!

 

Anyways, here's a few from a photoshoot I took of GQ350Z:










More here on pages 4 & 5.
https://my350z.com/forum/media-share/189384-updated-gq-spring-collection-2006-he-s-back-ya-ll.html

 

One other thing I forgot to mention - most lenses will be sharper when stopped down 1-2 stops, so a f/2.8 lens will be sharper at 4.0 than a f/4.0 lens will be at f/4.0. If you're forced to shoot at that aperture, the 2.8 lens will produce a better image than the 4.0 lens.

To keep rx7twinturboboy happy, here's a pic

 

The lens mount area is solid so there's no strain at all. The 70-200 f/2.8L is only 3.5 lbs.

Side shot to show how small the 350D is

 

Awesome shots James. Keep up the good work.

 

You can go 17-40 f/4L and 50 f/1.4. 50 is a little long for indoor shots, but doable. You can always wait for the canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS. And then there's the Canon 24-105 f/4 IS. If you're shooting low-light without a tripod, the faster lens would be better or IS. Like gr? said, the faster lens is sharper stopped down than the other lens wide open.

I've got the 50 f/1.8 if you wanna try it out. I don't have much time for photography the next few weeks.