+1 to everything stated in this thread. More time = Less quality. From what I've read, stretching to about 4 hours puts you in the range of VHS quality, so you should be able to convert at least that much without noticing a difference.
ianhargraves1066 wrote:
Those stupid little cartridges all wear out very quickly and never give the print quantaties that the specs call for.
Ian
This is a very good point. If you decide to print yourself, try to remember that when looking at the # of pages per cartridge, that is based on 5% coverage. When printing photographs, the coverage will be significantly higher.
silver wrote:
A ferrari will not get you from point A to point B any faster then a Gremlin.
But it will get you laid. :-D
A Leica, however, probably won't. :-(
Leica is a good camera. So is Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Pentax, Sony, etc..
Jayna wrote:
Yes, actually it included expedited shipping for free. And yes, it's USA warrantied.
Sounds like you got a good deal. The camera is an excellent starter camera. Welcome to the lovely and expensive hobby of photography.
The best camera?
Lt Commander Data from Star Trek. Yeah, that's right, I said it.
Why not? There's already 4 pages of responses to yet another Canon vs Nikon thread.
Edit: 5 pages now
Ginger wrote:
I'm so sorry...I should have been more specific...
I am looking for a good 'Bridge' Camera. I am now using a Sony 5.1 megapixel and wanted to upgrade.
I was told that a good bridge camera would be the Canon. So I am leaning towards the Rebel Model...any comments???
Willing to spend up to $1,000.00.
At that price range, I would go with ether a Canon T3i body or a Nikon d5100 body and then go with a Tamron 18-200 aftermarket lens.
leatherhelmets wrote:
I would love to go out and drop about $50k to get everything I want as a photographer. Unfortunately, I have bills to pay. I'm always curious as to what folks use to shoot their pics and why they chose them.
In my bag is:
Canon 50D Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L
Circular Polorizers on all of them
I've always been a Canon guy, just feels more natural to me.
Nice setup. I've been looking at the 28-135mm on eBay. Is it a good lens for about $80?
BTW, My bag:
Canon 400D XTi
18-55mm kit lens
75-300mm non IS ( the one that was offered in the big kit)
1- Rubber expandable lens hood
1- UV filter (used occasionally)
1- Circ. Pol. filter (Used occasionally on whatever lens I'm using)
1- Set of Macro filters (these things suck by the way. saving up for AF tubes)
1- griper tripod (can't remember the name. The one with the flexible legs)
Extra battery, AC/DC charger, CF cards and camera manual
My wish list for add-ons is much larger than my budget ever will be (barring lotto winning)
simply smiles wrote:
So are you telling me that I can use a nikon or minolta lens on my Canon EOS sx ?
Yes, if you get the adapter. From what I read, they're about $25 on eBay. Keep in mind What Larry said too though. You would be taking the lens a little further away from the sensor and therefor could lose infinity focus. That may be why the Canon FD to EF adapter has the glass in it. But as was stated, for close up photography, they're supposed to be really good.
Well I have that same lens and it has a 58mm diameter so you shouldn't need the adapter at all for that filter. If it won't screw on, it may be that the threads on your lens have gotten messed up somehow. I agree with Chris. I would take the whole thing in and have them take a look at it.
Thank you. I've seen some moon shots that are just astounding. I'm just glad mine are at least getting better.
bobmielke wrote:
drsurf wrote:
Am enjoying the recently purchased Nikon D7000 but can not get it to force flash. Would love to fill flash on sunny overhead days or at sunset time.
put your hand in front of the lens if you're in automatic. If in Aperture priority press the flash symbol on the body left of the lens. POP
Nice. I had never thought of that in auto. Does it still fire in auto if the camera decides after that it isn't needed?
Tip #1: Never shoot portrait. I've heard stories. :)
liv2paddle wrote:
thats a big spread from d3100 to a canon 7d..about $1000 difference..how about a nice D7000 ..smallish. ..quick..nice choice of kit lenses at reasonable prices. I have one and love it.
+1. I agree that's a pretty big price spread. Why such a low end Nikon vs a high end Canon? But in you're list, the 7D hands down.
LarryD wrote:
simply smiles wrote:
Does anyone know if this lens will work on a digital SLR Canon EOS XS
No, it won't.. The FD mount is earlier than the EOS EF mount..
There are adapters but they move the lens elements too far away from the sensor plane and you will not have focus to infinity.. Some people use early FD lenses for Macro work where infinity focus is seldom needed..
There was actually another thread that if I remember correctly was talking about these lenses. I would link to it but I can't seem to find it now. Weren't we supposed to get a search function? Anyway, it talked about using these lenses with adapters and that they actually worked really well. One thing I remember though was that the FD to EF adapter has glass that can cause distortion and it was recommended to get a Nikon or Minolta mount one and a cheap adapter. You'll be full manual anyway, so it doesn't mater if it's Canon or not..
When we lost the charger for my camera I ended up buying off brand and it came with a battery. I don't remember the brand off the top of my head and I'm just too lazy to go downstairs and look, but they both work great. I don't use a battery grip so I'm only using one battery at a time, but I've never had a problem with the off brander. The charger also works both in the wall and in the car, so it's a better charger than my original. The whole thing cost less than just the charger if I'd bought a Canon replacement. I've had it for about 2 years now and no complaints.
Oh. And I bought it on eBay. It is possible to get stuff there without being ripped off. You just have to be careful and read feedback.