Advice please

[Sniper]

I'm looking to update my old EOS 1000F for a new EOS 1000D going from film to digital, any suggestions as to best place to go, only really looking for the body as I'm hoping my existing lenses with be compatible. Also how much would you say is a reasonable cost. I've been away from the photography side of things for a while and just been using my compact, so time to get a little more serious I think.

 

[Wayland]

I buy most of my gear from Warehouse Express.

Reasonable prices and good service.

You can get cheaper but you've got some comeback with these guys.

 

[Squidders]

Warehouse express or microglobe for me

 

[Minotaur]

From recent success, figure Wayland is the person to get feedback from.

What set up do you use? Have you actual gone Digital for a start?

I ask this because if I go Digital I want to get professional (saleable would be nice) level photographs.

Not just camera, but what is your Digital Darkroom set up.

In ref to the thread the Canon forum is the place to have a nose, was the advice given to me by a Professional photographer. I would recommend a visit to Wiki, the model numbers are a nightmare. We use numbers, and the US have names, but both seem to be available here. If money is not an issue you can get the Pro bodies, but watch what they have been used for, because second hand, the big issue is the sensor.

 

[AJB]

Just a reminder, as ever, the lens is where you should be spending the cash!

 

[Wayland]

From recent success, figure Wayland is the person to get feedback from.

What set up do you use? Have you actual gone Digital for a start?

I ask this because if I go Digital I want to get professional (saleable would be nice) level photographs.

Not just camera, but what is your Digital Darkroom set up.

In ref to the thread the Canon forum is the place to have a nose, was the advice given to me by a Professional photographer. I would recommend a visit to Wiki, the model numbers are a nightmare. We use numbers, and the US have names, but both seem to be available here. If money is not an issue you can get the Pro bodies, but watch what they have been used for, because second hand, the big issue is the sensor.

I use a Canon 5D, now the Mk II has come out the old one should be around secondhand soon, and it's still a cracking camera.

I'm hanging on to mine for the foreseeable future because I don't think the Mk II offers me any real improvements for my workflow.

I use a couple of Canon bottles, a 17-40mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8, both L series. For long shots I have the 2x Extender too.

One of my most important bits of kit is a big heavy lump of a tripod. If you want good pictures you have to make the odd sacrifice.

My computer is a homebuilt PC with 3GB of memory, lots of hard drive space and twin 19" monitors running through a Matrox dual head card. Gives me plenty of screen real estate and they are both calibrated with a Colormunki.

I print off to an Epson 2100 with a continuous ink feed system.

The machine is slow by modern standards but it's still got enough memory for pixel crunching with CS3. I am wondering if it will run CS4 though.

 

[Squidders]

I would like to add that you don't need any software to take a great photograph.

It depends how much you like to fiddle or if (like some) you like to add features that weren't there at the time of the photo.

 

[Wayland]

I would like to add that you don't need any software to take a great photograph.

It depends how much you like to fiddle or if (like some) you like to add features that weren't there at the time of the photo.

You're right, I used to do it in the darkroom with with an enlarger and chemicals that definitely weren't environmentally friendly.

As it has always been, using the camera is only the start of the process, but it all depends how far you want to take control of your own pictures.

 

[Sniper]

I have the standard Canon 30 - 55 lens plus a 15 - 30 fisheye (hardly ever used) and a Sigma 100 - 300 lens, I also have a x 2 converter and a good sturdy tripod. A couple of flash units 1st one is a dedicated Cobra unit and the other is a Metz for when I need fast recycling. As for software I don't usually tinker much apart from a little touch up here and there so I have "Microsoft Picture It" for that. As I say I'm really only looking for either a new 1000d body or a second hand body if it is in good enough condition.
I did a few courses on the film photography some years ago like darkroom, printing & developing, toning, portraiture, face & figure, and wedding stuff and when I did the studio module I got myself a good set of lights and backdrops. Still have the backdrops but did away with the lights, too large and bulky but in time I'll most likely get a new set to take their place.

 

[scanker]

This site's good for looking up prices: http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/index.html

 

[Minotaur]

I use a Canon 5D, now the Mk II has come out the old one should be around secondhand soon, and it's still a cracking camera.

I'm hanging on to mine for the foreseeable future because I don't think the Mk II offers me any real improvements for my workflow.

Looks very nice. Gets good reviews, too.

What size cards do you find work best?

Do you use real cards, or adaptors? Just wonder if they work, or if it is better to have one good card?

Not an expert so this may make no sense, but do you take in 'RAW', and then do nothing till Photoshop?

I use a couple of Canon bottles, a 17-40mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8, both L series. For long shots I have the 2x Extender too.

Does the wide angle double up as a standard lens?

One of my most important bits of kit is a big heavy lump of a tripod. If you want good pictures you have to make the odd sacrifice.

Has always been the one bit of kit you look at, and think do I need it? Right up until you look for that bit of wall to rest the telephoto on.

My computer is a homebuilt PC with 3GB of memory, lots of hard drive space and twin 19" monitors running through a Matrox dual head card. Gives me plenty of screen real estate and they are both calibrated with a Colormunki.

Never thought about the PC, but should have know it would need certain things. Slight advatage to gaming, have to keep up, or have powerful systems.
Colormunki sounds really interesting, but I am slightly colour blind would I be able to use it? Bizarrely was used as the colour checker in a paint plant, after a big argument. Basically I pointed out that something was not the right colour, my boss went but your colour blind, and I went yes, but I can tell the difference so not same colour.

I print off to an Epson 2100 with a continuous ink feed system.

Looks interesting, forgot about the printer. Really like Canon perphirails at moment, but it does look like Epson, or Hp are the way to go for a dedicated photo printer.

The machine is slow by modern standards but it's still got enough memory for pixel crunching with CS3. I am wondering if it will run CS4 though.

Photoshop, got to love it. The most powerful machine I have even seen, is also the only one that did not have any issues running photoshop.

Would sit on hands for as long as possible, wait for them to get the new graphic cards sorted, and see what happens processor wise as well. Then you have that Vista has just over a year before the new one comes out, so it might be worth doing something now, to get you over the next two years.

 

[Wayland]

What size cards do you find work best?

Do you use real cards, or adaptors? Just wonder if they work, or if it is better to have one good card?

I use Generic 4GB cards, the camera has enough of a buffer that I don't have to worry about write speeds for my kind of work.

Not an expert so this may make no sense, but do you take in 'RAW', and then do nothing till Photoshop?

To open a Raw file you need Adobe Camera Raw or a similar program like the one probably supplied with the camera.

The Raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor without all the adjustments made by the camera. It also isn't compressed like a Jpg so it still contains all the pixel data.

When brought into the computer you can then process it with the greater computing power of your machine and also take decisions based upon the image instead of relying on some backroom boffin's guess about what you might be taking pictures of.

Raw files allow you to capture a greater dynamic range than an 8 bit Jpg for a start, adjust tricky issues like white balance post capture and maximize the available quality of your camera.

The only downsides are a little more work on the computer and a larger file size.

Does the wide angle double up as a standard lens?

More or less, I tend to work with wide angles most so it suits me but I may get a 50mm f1.4 at some stage to bridge the gap and provide a fast lens for low light work.

Colormunki sounds really interesting, but I am slightly colour blind would I be able to use it?

The whole point about calibration is to take human fallibility out of the system.

It makes sure that your monitor displays colours the same as your camera recorded them, and your printer renders them as your monitor displays them.

If it was just left up to the human eye we would have as much chance of getting the colour right as choosing the most accurate screen in a television shop.

Photoshop, got to love it. The most powerful machine I have even seen, is also the only one that did not have any issues running photoshop.

Would sit on hands for as long as possible, wait for them to get the new graphic cards sorted, and see what happens processor wise as well. Then you have that Vista has just over a year before the new one comes out, so it might be worth doing something now, to get you over the next two years

I'm still using XP as it suits my needs, the thing I'll miss most if I change motherboard is the Matrox card. It's far superior for photo work to the overblown gaming cards being produced now, but It's an AGP card and they're disapearing from motherboards fast now.

 

[Minotaur]

I use Generic 4GB cards, the camera has enough of a buffer that I don't have to worry about write speeds for my kind of work.

It is one of the things that surprised me the first time I put a card in my compact, I have how many pictures to play with. Going from 36 to 500 plus is strange.

To open a Raw file you need Adobe Camera Raw or a similar program like the one probably supplied with the camera.

The Raw file is a record of the data captured by the sensor without all the adjustments made by the camera. It also isn't compressed like a Jpg so it still contains all the pixel data.

When brought into the computer you can then process it with the greater computing power of your machine and also take decisions based upon the image instead of relying on some backroom boffin's guess about what you might be taking pictures of.

Raw files allow you to capture a greater dynamic range than an 8 bit Jpg for a start, adjust tricky issues like white balance post capture and maximize the available quality of your camera.

The only downsides are a little more work on the computer and a larger file size.

Cool, thought you would use it from the level of your images, but thanks for the info.

More or less, I tend to work with wide angles most so it suits me but I may get a 50mm f1.4 at some stage to bridge the gap and provide a fast lens for low light work.

Was always taught to have three lens, a good standard, a good wide angle, and a good tele. Had a play with Zooms, would be tempted, but found myself using the tele more. A lot of the not so good standards were 40 so wondered if it worked, or if you thought you still needed a standard.

The whole point about calibration is to take human fallibility out of the system.

It makes sure that your monitor displays colours the same as your camera recorded them, and your printer renders them as your monitor displays them.

If it was just left up to the human eye we would have as much chance of getting the colour right as choosing the most accurate screen in a television shop.

That is the point, sort of, I already know there is a human error problem, so a device that solves this is very interesting.

I'm still using XP as it suits my needs, the thing I'll miss most if I change motherboard is the Matrox card. It's far superior for photo work to the overblown gaming cards being produced now, but It's an AGP card and they're disapearing from motherboards fast now.

The big Graphics card problem, for this sort of thing, is they tend to be the very top end, and those prices scare everyone. It will be interesting to see if they ever get the two, three, or even four combining cards to work right, because it does seem to be a much better option. You could basically have two cards, and devote one to photoshop, and nothing else, but they do seem to work will. Which as you run two screens a dual card system might be worth a look, but all of the reviews say the systems have yet to catch up with the idea, plus you need Microsoft to catch up as well(Which can take anything from 6 months to never).

 

[Sniper]

Thank you all for your advise, I appreciate it guys and you have given me a few pointers as to where to go for it, thanks.