Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Shooting weddings with a Canon 300D

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:01:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hey,

Disclaimer - I don't intend to replace the pro at the wedding. I am
doing it for my own satisfaction. The B&G are in no way dependant on
the results of my shooting.

I recently shot two weddings with my Canon 300D and the kit lens. The
things that became painfully clear to me were:
- I need a good external flash
- I need lens with a bigger aperture than the kit lens (18-55mm
F3.5-5.6)

Let me give you a bit of background. Indian weddings are very different
than in the west. Weddings extend from day to night, the kind of
clothing people wear is very colourful (for eg. the bride wears bright
red) and the buildings where the wedding is held nowhere has high
ceilings like in a church. Also, you need to shoot as it happens - that
means getting people/bride-groom to pose again is next to impossible
for the important ceremonies.

Because I am new to the camera and didn't have much time to compose
before a shot, I ended up using the Green mode mostly. Needless to say,
I am far from satisfied with the results. I also realised that AF is
mostly useless in high contrast situations - it always picks up the
wrong AF point. Ofcourse, one can switch the AF point in "P" mode but
manual focussing seems faster than pressing the AF-selection button and
rotating the dial. MF isn't all that fun with the kit lens because you
have to rotate the front element to focus.

So what I am looking at is lens, flash and technique recommendations.
- Lens: MF is ok but should have a broad grip for focus and bigger
aperture. A large zoom range isn't important as the kit lens' zoom
range seemed pretty adequate.
- Flash: Preferably non-Canon and self-adjusting to take care of flash
compensation etc. I can't spend time setting the camera and the flash.
- Technique - whatever you think is essential to deal with low-light,
high-contrast and fast changing scenes (not action).
Thanks,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:56:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1102510901.700926.66430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hey,
>
> Disclaimer - I don't intend to replace the pro at the wedding. I am
> doing it for my own satisfaction. The B&G are in no way dependant on
> the results of my shooting.
>
> I recently shot two weddings with my Canon 300D and the kit lens. The
> things that became painfully clear to me were:
> - I need a good external flash
> - I need lens with a bigger aperture than the kit lens (18-55mm
> F3.5-5.6)
>
> Let me give you a bit of background. Indian weddings are very different
> than in the west. Weddings extend from day to night, the kind of
> clothing people wear is very colourful (for eg. the bride wears bright
> red) and the buildings where the wedding is held nowhere has high
> ceilings like in a church. Also, you need to shoot as it happens - that
> means getting people/bride-groom to pose again is next to impossible
> for the important ceremonies.
>
> Because I am new to the camera and didn't have much time to compose
> before a shot, I ended up using the Green mode mostly. Needless to say,
> I am far from satisfied with the results. I also realised that AF is
> mostly useless in high contrast situations - it always picks up the
> wrong AF point. Ofcourse, one can switch the AF point in "P" mode but
> manual focussing seems faster than pressing the AF-selection button and
> rotating the dial. MF isn't all that fun with the kit lens because you
> have to rotate the front element to focus.
>
> So what I am looking at is lens, flash and technique recommendations.
> - Lens: MF is ok but should have a broad grip for focus and bigger
> aperture. A large zoom range isn't important as the kit lens' zoom
> range seemed pretty adequate.
> - Flash: Preferably non-Canon and self-adjusting to take care of flash
> compensation etc. I can't spend time setting the camera and the flash.
> - Technique - whatever you think is essential to deal with low-light,
> high-contrast and fast changing scenes (not action).
> Thanks,
>
> Siddhartha
>
The best short zoom is the Canon 24-70 f2.8L at about $1200. Tamron, Tokina
and Sigma make equivalents, but they're not as good, sort of in that order,
from best to less so, in that order. But with a good external flash, the
speed of the kit lens should be adequate. I use the 28-135 IS f4-5.6 for
weddings with no problem, but I use a powerful external flash, the Quantum
T4D, about $1000 with battery pack, at a store near you...(We rent ours.)
Don't know why you'd want a non Canon flash, unless it's because of the
expense, the Canon 580EX is your best bet, others that work with the Canon
digitals are pretty much just as expensive, except for the Sigma 500 Super
(less than $300) and a Sunpak that I can't remember the model number for.
Technique? Never, ever use the "Green mode." Repeat this to yourself until
convinced. Use Program if you don't want to fiddle with settings, set the
center focus point. With the camera in P, you can set custom functions and
have more control over your metering. But without the "hack" I've heard
about, the 300D may be a little limited for the purpose. Someone else, with
a 300D, may be able to tell you about how to access the so-called "Wasia
hack." It fires up some of the functions that the 10D has but the 300D
lacks.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:14:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:
> >
> > I recently shot two weddings with my Canon 300D and the kit lens.
>
> (aka, digital rebel?)

Yes, the Canon Digital Rebel or the Digital Kiss in Japan.


>
> What for? If you get a flash, you won't need the larger apertures
that
> would allow a slower faster speed.

Ok, I'll feed that in. But I prefer not using flash as much as possible
so was wondering what lens could help towards that?

>
> Why do you specifically want a non-canon flash?
>

Because I can't afford a Canon flash :) 

Btw, the wedding season has almost come to an end here so no more
friends/relatives getting married. I guess my experimentation will have
to wait for about another 10 months now!! :( 


Thanks,

Siddhartha
Related resources
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:20:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> Don't know why you'd want a non Canon flash, unless it's because of
the
> expense, the Canon 580EX is your best bet, others that work with the
Canon
> digitals are pretty much just as expensive, except for the Sigma 500
Super
> (less than $300) and a Sunpak that I can't remember the model number
for.

Yep, can't afford the Canon 580EX. Looks like its going to be either
Sigma EF500 Super or the Sunpak PZ5000.


> Technique? Never, ever use the "Green mode." Repeat this to
yourself until
> convinced. Use Program if you don't want to fiddle with settings,
set the
> center focus point. With the camera in P, you can set custom
functions and
> have more control over your metering. But without the "hack" I've
heard
> about, the 300D may be a little limited for the purpose. Someone
else, with
> a 300D, may be able to tell you about how to access the so-called
"Wasia
> hack." It fires up some of the functions that the 10D has but the
300D
> lacks.

Already got the wasia hack loaded. What features of the hack are
especially useful in this condition. I can count one - FEC. Others?
Thanks,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:46:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
> Hey,
>
> Disclaimer - I don't intend to replace the pro at the wedding. I am
> doing it for my own satisfaction. The B&G are in no way dependant on
> the results of my shooting.
>
> I recently shot two weddings with my Canon 300D and the kit lens. The
> things that became painfully clear to me were:
> - I need a good external flash
> - I need lens with a bigger aperture than the kit lens (18-55mm
> F3.5-5.6)
>
> Because I am new to the camera and didn't have much time to compose
> before a shot, I ended up using the Green mode mostly. Needless to say,
> I am far from satisfied with the results.

Hi Siddhartha,

I've shot weddings with my digital rebel. A wedding gig for a friend
is in fact what I was able to use to justify its purchase. My rig
consists of the rebel, the kit lens and the 550EX flash.
Previously, I shot weddings with my EOS Elan setup with 430EZ flash
and a pair of sigma f/2.8 zooms and Fuji NPH 400 speed film.

First, yes, you absolutely need an external flash. Bigger guide
numbers, and the ability to use bounce flash techniques or shoot into
a Lumiquest pocket bouncer are must have features to avoid the harsh
shadows and blasted look of on camera flash just an inch above the
lens. I sometimes will use a stroboframe and an external flash
cord to get the flash unit higher above the camera (regardless of
vertical or horizontal composition) to push the shadows down in th
picture.

As for settings, the primary reason green mode blows for the use you
gave it is the ISO 100 that green mode I believe uses. That low ISO
setting leaves you needing an awful lot of light. P mode using the
lowest ISO that doesn't need the sun itself as your conspirator is the
best way to go. It also solves the focus point problem. I never use
green mode as I will change ISO's on teh rebel often on a shot to shot
basis if light conditions are varying (as they would in an all day
wedding).

I shot the wedding with the kit lens, and I agree that you can get
more mileage out of a larger apertured lens. My digital rebel wedding
photos (using the kit lens, and a 550EX flash unit) just didn't have
the same light quality about them as I'm used to use with my tried and
true EOS Elan setup with sigma f/2.8 lenses and the 430EZ flash.

Typically on the Elan, I overexpose the main exposure compensation in P
mode by 1 stop and underexpose the flash exposure compensation by 1
stop to give a richer available light balance. With the relatively
slow kit lens, this same technique was not as effective with the
digital rebel since the larger apertures simply weren't available for
the camera to select to bring in additional ambient light. At least
not at ISO 400 anyway.

Hope this helps for your next wedding shoot!

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 11:46:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Photographed a few weddings in my time, doesn't matter what camera you have,
how do you deal with the mother and mother-in-law?
Chill-pill please!
-tom
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:07:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> First, yes, you absolutely need an external flash. Bigger guide
> numbers, and the ability to use bounce flash techniques or shoot into
> a Lumiquest pocket bouncer are must have features to avoid the harsh
> shadows and blasted look of on camera flash just an inch above the
> lens. I sometimes will use a stroboframe and an external flash
> cord to get the flash unit higher above the camera (regardless of
> vertical or horizontal composition) to push the shadows down in th
> picture.

Thanks for those pointers.

>
> As for settings, the primary reason green mode blows for the use you
> gave it is the ISO 100 that green mode I believe uses. That low ISO
> setting leaves you needing an awful lot of light. P mode using the
> lowest ISO that doesn't need the sun itself as your conspirator is
the
> best way to go. It also solves the focus point problem. I never use
> green mode as I will change ISO's on teh rebel often on a shot to
shot
> basis if light conditions are varying (as they would in an all day
> wedding).

Surprise surprise!! I viewed the photos' EXIF info in an EXIF viewer
and most of my shots taken in the "Green" mode are at ISO400.

Another interesting thing I noted is that in the "Green" mode,
regardless of the focal length, the camera has used shutter speeds of
1/50 and 1/60 consistently and has varied the aperture between 4 and
5.6.

Anyways, thanks for the tips.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:19:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1102522815.978560.163800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> Don't know why you'd want a non Canon flash, unless it's because of
> the
>> expense, the Canon 580EX is your best bet, others that work with the
> Canon
>> digitals are pretty much just as expensive, except for the Sigma 500
> Super
>> (less than $300) and a Sunpak that I can't remember the model number
> for.
>
> Yep, can't afford the Canon 580EX. Looks like its going to be either
> Sigma EF500 Super or the Sunpak PZ5000.
>
>
>> Technique? Never, ever use the "Green mode." Repeat this to
> yourself until
>> convinced. Use Program if you don't want to fiddle with settings,
> set the
>> center focus point. With the camera in P, you can set custom
> functions and
>> have more control over your metering. But without the "hack" I've
> heard
>> about, the 300D may be a little limited for the purpose. Someone
> else, with
>> a 300D, may be able to tell you about how to access the so-called
> "Wasia
>> hack." It fires up some of the functions that the 10D has but the
> 300D
>> lacks.
>
> Already got the wasia hack loaded. What features of the hack are
> especially useful in this condition. I can count one - FEC. Others?
> Thanks,
>
> Siddhartha
>
FEC was the only one I knew absolutely of. Can you change your metering
independent of shooting mode, now? I.e. average instead of evaluative in
Program?
I use the 20D, I found the RebelD too limiting for what I do. As it is, I
miss the spot meter of my film cameras, but can't justify $4000 for the 1D
mkII for just that one feature.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 12:41:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Nakashima wrote:
> Photographed a few weddings in my time, doesn't matter what camera
you have,
> how do you deal with the mother and mother-in-law?
> Chill-pill please!

You don't ;-)
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 1:06:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> FEC was the only one I knew absolutely of. Can you change your
metering
> independent of shooting mode, now? I.e. average instead of
evaluative in
> Program?

Unfortunately, no. For all the wonders that the hack opens up, metering
control isn't one of them. I guess once I am comfortable with all the
controls I'll be able to quickly shoot in the "M" mode (centre weighted
metering).

Just a thought. Depending the scene's exposure, can different parts of
the CCD/CMOS be set to different ISO levels? That would give a nice
exposure. No?

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:24:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102510901.700926.66430@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Hey,
>
> Disclaimer - I don't intend to replace the pro at the wedding. I am
> doing it for my own satisfaction. The B&G are in no way dependant on
> the results of my shooting.
>
> I recently shot two weddings with my Canon 300D and the kit lens.

(aka, digital rebel?)

> The
> things that became painfully clear to me were:
> - I need a good external flash

Yes, absolutely.

> - I need lens with a bigger aperture than the kit lens (18-55mm
> F3.5-5.6)

What for? If you get a flash, you won't need the larger apertures that
would allow a slower faster speed.

> So what I am looking at is lens, flash and technique recommendations.
> - Lens: MF is ok but should have a broad grip for focus and bigger
> aperture. A large zoom range isn't important as the kit lens' zoom
> range seemed pretty adequate.
> - Flash: Preferably non-Canon and self-adjusting to take care of flash
> compensation etc. I can't spend time setting the camera and the flash.
> - Technique - whatever you think is essential to deal with low-light,
> high-contrast and fast changing scenes (not action).

Once you get a flash, I think you'll find that you do not actually need a
different lense. You ought to be able to use f/8-f/16 at 1/125, or even
1/200(for your camera).

Why do you specifically want a non-canon flash?

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:37:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Surprise surprise!! I viewed the photos' EXIF info in an EXIF
viewer
> > and most of my shots taken in the "Green" mode are at ISO400.
>
> Good datapoint--I think I pooched this based on my G2 experience
where
> everything in Green mode seems to be at ISO100. Honestly hadn't
tried
> it on the Rebel.
>
> Green mode then didn't cause you the problems then, I'm guessing a
> combo of a slow lens and (more importantly) a horribly inadequate
> flash. And of course if you weren't getting the focus point you
> wanted, certainly that's a problem.

Yes, other than the flash and a slow lens the green mode wasn't so bad.
Metering in high contrast but well-lit situations was handled well. For
eg., a fire altar right in the middle of the frame did not upset the
metering to underexpose the entire frame. Also, the background sky was
over-exposed to allow the subjects in the front to be properly exposed.
Even in flash lit frames, the flash did not over-illuminate the
subjects thus indicating that auto FEC worked well.

So the "Green" mode wasn't a total write off. Too bad I can't post some
of the pics since they don't really belong to me :( 

One more question I have is how do I handle an external flash with
non-Canon lens? Does the E-TTL2 capability or lack of it in the flash
affect the usage of non-Canon lens?

By non-Canon, I mean non-EOS lens. I recently acquired a Pentax Super
Takumar 50mm 1.4, getting a M42 mount 28mm f2.8, Jupiter 200mm 21m and
will later also order the zenitar 16mm. Since these lens won't tell the
body anything about aperture or distance to subject, how is the flash
to be used with these lenses?

Thanks,

Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 4:55:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:
> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:1102541859.542463.290920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > So the "Green" mode wasn't a total write off. Too bad I can't post
some
> > of the pics since they don't really belong to me :( 
> >
>
> No? Did you give them the impression that they would all be their
sole
> property? I remember you mentioned they weren't 'depending' on you
for
> their pictures (or something to that effect) so they probably don't
think
> they've got the only rights to them.

Ohh!! No, nothing of the sort. They had a proper photographer and a
videographer cover the event. What I mean is for privacy reasons I
wouldn't post/distribute the photographs without their knowledge.
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 5:58:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Just a thought. Depending the scene's exposure, can different parts of
> the CCD/CMOS be set to different ISO levels? That would give a nice
> exposure. No?

No.

It wouldn't be practical to implement on a sensor either, I wouldn't
think. You'd need to design in the ability to hve independent
amplifier gains for the sensor columns, and it'd waste die space, add
cost, almost certainly add more visual artifact problems than it would
ever solve.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 6:05:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Surprise surprise!! I viewed the photos' EXIF info in an EXIF viewer
> and most of my shots taken in the "Green" mode are at ISO400.

Good datapoint--I think I pooched this based on my G2 experience where
everything in Green mode seems to be at ISO100. Honestly hadn't tried
it on the Rebel.

Green mode then didn't cause you the problems then, I'm guessing a
combo of a slow lens and (more importantly) a horribly inadequate
flash. And of course if you weren't getting the focus point you
wanted, certainly that's a problem.

> Another interesting thing I noted is that in the "Green" mode,
> regardless of the focal length, the camera has used shutter speeds of
> 1/50 and 1/60 consistently and has varied the aperture between 4 and
> 5.6.

That's not uncommon in flash photos for a couple reasons. One, the
max shutter the camera can flash sync at is limited by the camera.
I'm not sure what the REbel is, but perhaps it's just 1/125. But 1/50
and 1/60 are far more convention, and let more ambient light in.
Second, in a primarily flash exposure, camera shake is not a big worry
since the thousands of a second duration of a strobe flash is what
stops the action/shake, not the actual shutter duration. The more
you bias the exposure to fill versus flash though, camera shake will
become an issue. This can be used for artful effect though, in
concert with leading vs trailing curtain flash sync. For instance,
taking some dance floor shots on shutter priority at, oh 1/8 of a
second using leading curtain flash sync can give you some nice
blurred motion shots. Note that the default on many cameras is
trailing curtain sync, and your blurs might make folks look like
they've going backwards if you don't override that. I haven't tried
this yet with the rebel, though.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 8:09:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> One more question I have is how do I handle an external flash with
> non-Canon lens? Does the E-TTL2 capability or lack of it in the flash
> affect the usage of non-Canon lens?
>
> By non-Canon, I mean non-EOS lens. I recently acquired a Pentax Super
> Takumar 50mm 1.4, getting a M42 mount 28mm f2.8, Jupiter 200mm 21m and
> will later also order the zenitar 16mm. Since these lens won't tell the
> body anything about aperture or distance to subject, how is the flash
> to be used with these lenses?

Very very clumsily. You'll have to go full manual I think. That
may work for you if you're shooting everything in a studio, but if
we're talking candids, it'll be an utter pain in the ass.

If you've spent the money to get a very automated SLR digital camera
with all the benefits of advanced TTL flash metering in a body like
the 300D, it'd be extremely penny wise and pound foolish to to bring
yourself back to the manual SLR by not spending at least $180 to get
to Canon's bounceable 420EX flash (540 and 580 are beefier of course),
and not spending $80 on a 50mm f/1.8 Canon EOS lens.

It's your money and aggravation, but I think it's a tad insane to plan
to by non-EOS lenses with an EOS camera in the same breath as
mentioning flash photography.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1102529173.035785.215200@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Just a thought. Depending the scene's exposure, can different parts of
> the CCD/CMOS be set to different ISO levels? That would give a nice
> exposure. No?
>

In a round about way - that's what Fuji are doing with their SuperCD SR
sensors - each photosite has two active sensing element; one for bright
parts of the image and one for the darker parts. See here
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/fuji/finepix_s20_pro-...

Does it make any significant difference I here you ask.....?

....basically....

No. At least not as much as Fuji would have you believe.

....
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:37:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"S." <noemail770@noemail.com> wrote in
news:tlKtd.5176$0r.2916@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> If you showed up at my wedding with an amateur camera I would kick you
> out.

*sigh*
what a helpful reply.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102541859.542463.290920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> So the "Green" mode wasn't a total write off. Too bad I can't post some
> of the pics since they don't really belong to me :( 
>

No? Did you give them the impression that they would all be their sole
property? I remember you mentioned they weren't 'depending' on you for
their pictures (or something to that effect) so they probably don't think
they've got the only rights to them.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:43:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102541859.542463.290920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> One more question I have is how do I handle an external flash with
> non-Canon lens? Does the E-TTL2 capability or lack of it in the flash
> affect the usage of non-Canon lens?
>
> By non-Canon, I mean non-EOS lens. I recently acquired a Pentax Super
> Takumar 50mm 1.4, getting a M42 mount 28mm f2.8, Jupiter 200mm 21m and
> will later also order the zenitar 16mm. Since these lens won't tell the
> body anything about aperture or distance to subject, how is the flash
> to be used with these lenses?

My guess would be "manually." The camera won't know what aperture is being
used by the lense, so it won't be able to 'program' the flash.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 2:25:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102542905.059959.48350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Jon Pike wrote:
>> "Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:1102541859.542463.290920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > So the "Green" mode wasn't a total write off. Too bad I can't post
> some
>> > of the pics since they don't really belong to me :( 
>> >
>>
>> No? Did you give them the impression that they would all be their
> sole
>> property? I remember you mentioned they weren't 'depending' on you
> for
>> their pictures (or something to that effect) so they probably don't
> think
>> they've got the only rights to them.
>
> Ohh!! No, nothing of the sort. They had a proper photographer and a
> videographer cover the event. What I mean is for privacy reasons I
> wouldn't post/distribute the photographs without their knowledge.

*nods* I can diggit. So go ask 'em :D 

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 3:05:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> Very very clumsily. You'll have to go full manual I think. That
> may work for you if you're shooting everything in a studio, but if
> we're talking candids, it'll be an utter pain in the ass.
>
> If you've spent the money to get a very automated SLR digital camera
> with all the benefits of advanced TTL flash metering in a body like
> the 300D, it'd be extremely penny wise and pound foolish to to bring
> yourself back to the manual SLR by not spending at least $180 to get
> to Canon's bounceable 420EX flash (540 and 580 are beefier of
course),
> and not spending $80 on a 50mm f/1.8 Canon EOS lens.
>
> It's your money and aggravation, but I think it's a tad insane to
plan
> to by non-EOS lenses with an EOS camera in the same breath as
> mentioning flash photography.

I don't wish to start one of the holy AF vs MF wars here but AF has
limitations as I've experienced. The problems are:
- Camera chooses the wrong AF point
- Hunts in low light

In both cases it is faster to manually focus with the hand that's
cupping the lens provided the lens has a nice broad focus ring (the
18-55mm doesn't). And that means if you are continuously shooting in
high-contrast/low-light situations then you end up using the lens in
manual mode mostly - so why not a manual lens. And once you are in
manual, does FD or M42 matter?

At 50mm, check the difference in aperture between 1.4 and 1.8. The 1.4
lets in about 67% more light than the 1.8. In low-light, I am sure
every photon counts :) 

Ok, the Canon 50mm being $70 the case for Pentax 50mm is still not that
strong. But check the price difference for shorter focal lenghts -
28mm, 16mm, 20mm. I am sure you'll be tempted too ;-)

I guess all depends on what you use photography for. To me its a hobby
that I'd like to pursue without spending zillions of dollars in fast
and optically superior "L" series lenses. But if I were a pro, I
wouldn't hesitate a moment to invest in the "L" series and all the OEM
equipment.

Now I am eagerly awaiting my M42 lenses and look forward to posting
some test results. And anwyays, with the wedding season over I'll move
on to some different kind of photography now. With the migratory season
beginning, lots of birds from colder countries will start descending at
the nearby sanctuary.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:21:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

> Todd H. wrote:
> > Very very clumsily. You'll have to go full manual I think. That
> > may work for you if you're shooting everything in a studio, but if
> > we're talking candids, it'll be an utter pain in the ass.
> >
> > If you've spent the money to get a very automated SLR digital camera
> > with all the benefits of advanced TTL flash metering in a body like
> > the 300D, it'd be extremely penny wise and pound foolish to to bring
> > yourself back to the manual SLR by not spending at least $180 to get
> > to Canon's bounceable 420EX flash (540 and 580 are beefier of
> course),
> > and not spending $80 on a 50mm f/1.8 Canon EOS lens.
> >
> > It's your money and aggravation, but I think it's a tad insane to
> plan
> > to by non-EOS lenses with an EOS camera in the same breath as
> > mentioning flash photography.
>
> I don't wish to start one of the holy AF vs MF wars here but AF has
> limitations as I've experienced. The problems are:
> - Camera chooses the wrong AF point
> - Hunts in low light

My knock against using non-EOS lenses on a Rebel has nothing to do
with autofocus. Manual focus certainly has its benefits.

My knock against this tack is entirely about how much of a pain in the
butt it makes flash photography in contrast to the blissful ease of
dealing with an E-TTL flash system.

> I guess all depends on what you use photography for. To me its a
> hobby.

And myself as well. But, for my money, I'd much rather spend some
incremental bucks on an EOS system flash and at least one EOS lens
rather than have to dial myself back to 1950 when making a flash
exposure.

If you don't do much flash photography, or enjoy the mental exercise
of doing flash exposures full manual, estimating distances, adn all
that, far be it from me or anyone else here to stop you.

But to intentionally avoid a dedicated flash and lenses that can tell
the camera f-stop and distance-to-subject really does come at a hefty
convenience price for flash photography. That's my simple point.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:31:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:
> I have difficulty focusing manually when looking at so small a
viewing
> area, and not using a split-ring system. To me it seems like it's
> basically an eye test at that point, and, well, I wear glasses for a
> reason :/ 

Whats a split-ring system?

>
> > At 50mm, check the difference in aperture between 1.4 and 1.8. The
1.4
> > lets in about 67% more light than the 1.8. In low-light, I am sure
> > every photon counts :) 
>
> It also usually costs a whole heck of a lot more :p 

Nope, it doesn't. The Pentax Super Takumar 50mm/1.4 cost me $50. Add
another $13 for the EOS adapter.

And I bought a Sirius brand M42 mount 28mm/2.8 for GBP 2.99 :)  At that
price, I don't mind if turns out to be window pane glass - but if it
doesn't then I got myself a damn good deal.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 12:42:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Todd H. wrote:
> My knock against using non-EOS lenses on a Rebel has nothing to do
> with autofocus. Manual focus certainly has its benefits.
>
> My knock against this tack is entirely about how much of a pain in
the
> butt it makes flash photography in contrast to the blissful ease of
> dealing with an E-TTL flash system.
>
> > I guess all depends on what you use photography for. To me its a
> > hobby.
>
> And myself as well. But, for my money, I'd much rather spend some
> incremental bucks on an EOS system flash and at least one EOS lens
> rather than have to dial myself back to 1950 when making a flash
> exposure.
>
> If you don't do much flash photography, or enjoy the mental exercise
> of doing flash exposures full manual, estimating distances, adn all
> that, far be it from me or anyone else here to stop you.
>
> But to intentionally avoid a dedicated flash and lenses that can tell
> the camera f-stop and distance-to-subject really does come at a hefty
> convenience price for flash photography. That's my simple point.

I agree. The M42 mount lens are more for leisure photography -
occasions when I have enough time to fiddle around with all sorts of
settings and take a pic - landscapes, architecture, portraits, macro.

For the flash when I said non-Canon, I meant flashes like the Sigma
EF500 super that understand E-TTL2 but cost significantly less. Or the
Sunpak PZ5000.

Towards replacing the kit lens for weddings and other similar
occasions, the next cheapest seems to be Tokina 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 or
the Sigma 18-125mm. Still looking at more options.

- Siddhartha
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:21:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102579522.448684.162450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:

> Todd H. wrote:
>> Very very clumsily. You'll have to go full manual I think. That
>> may work for you if you're shooting everything in a studio, but if
>> we're talking candids, it'll be an utter pain in the ass.
>>
>> If you've spent the money to get a very automated SLR digital camera
>> with all the benefits of advanced TTL flash metering in a body like
>> the 300D, it'd be extremely penny wise and pound foolish to to bring
>> yourself back to the manual SLR by not spending at least $180 to get
>> to Canon's bounceable 420EX flash (540 and 580 are beefier of
> course),
>> and not spending $80 on a 50mm f/1.8 Canon EOS lens.
>>
>> It's your money and aggravation, but I think it's a tad insane to
> plan
>> to by non-EOS lenses with an EOS camera in the same breath as
>> mentioning flash photography.
>
> I don't wish to start one of the holy AF vs MF wars here but AF has
> limitations as I've experienced. The problems are:
> - Camera chooses the wrong AF point
> - Hunts in low light

Yep, I've had those problems too.

> In both cases it is faster to manually focus with the hand that's
> cupping the lens provided the lens has a nice broad focus ring (the
> 18-55mm doesn't). And that means if you are continuously shooting in
> high-contrast/low-light situations then you end up using the lens in
> manual mode mostly - so why not a manual lens. And once you are in
> manual, does FD or M42 matter?

I have difficulty focusing manually when looking at so small a viewing
area, and not using a split-ring system. To me it seems like it's
basically an eye test at that point, and, well, I wear glasses for a
reason :/ 

> At 50mm, check the difference in aperture between 1.4 and 1.8. The 1.4
> lets in about 67% more light than the 1.8. In low-light, I am sure
> every photon counts :) 

It also usually costs a whole heck of a lot more :p 



--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 5:36:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Am Wed, 8 Dec 2004 09:19:10 -0800 schrieb Skip M:

>> Already got the wasia hack loaded. What features of the hack are
>> especially useful in this condition. I can count one - FEC. Others?
>> Thanks,
> FEC was the only one I knew absolutely of. Can you change your metering
> independent of shooting mode, now? I.e. average instead of evaluative in
> Program?

Unfortunately you can't change the metering directly. The only thing I
found was that when using Aperture memory, the centered metering is used;
when taking the picture directly, the complete image is measured for
aperture. From my view that's a little bit silly, but if you keep it in
mind, it can be helpful as well.
Beside FEC, I find the option to define the AF mode very helpful in the
Wasia hack. Furthermore I do like the setting for limiting exposure time to
1/200 in Av mode, and changing quality modes via the SET button quickly.

Regards,

Christian
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 9:45:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Siddhartha Jain" <losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1102613489.361944.73410@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Jon Pike wrote:
>> I have difficulty focusing manually when looking at so small a
> viewing
>> area, and not using a split-ring system. To me it seems like it's
>> basically an eye test at that point, and, well, I wear glasses for a
>> reason :/ 
>
> Whats a split-ring system?

It's the most spectacular focusing mechanism ever devised.
I'm greatly saddened that they don't put it on newer models.
Basically, you have a circle with a horozontal line through it. The circle
sits in the middle of your view finder. It's perfectly transparent
(usually). When your subject is in perfect focus, the top half of the
circle lines up with the bottom half exactly. When it's not, you can see a
bit of horozontal shift. So that way, even if your eyes aren't great, like
mine, you can still get shots in amazing clarity.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet
Anonymous
December 9, 2004 10:52:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jon Pike wrote:
[]
>> Whats a split-ring system?
>
> It's the most spectacular focusing mechanism ever devised.
> I'm greatly saddened that they don't put it on newer models.

So why not vote with your feet and refuse to buy these inferior models of
DLSR?

I suspect the reduction in lens aperture also had something to do with its
demise.

David
!