Canon EOS 300D

"Chris Gilbert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders wrote

Quoted message said:

I had a look and a feel of this camera in Jessops today, and I must say that it's got a really
good solid feel to it, but at the same time is surprisingly light.

Finally got 'round to having a look yesterday in Dixons. Not impressed. Seems flimsy and
insubstantial to me. Also the manual focus was loose and pretty poor. It seemed to me to be a
quick shot at an entry level digital SLR. I shall probably get a 10D.

Mine isn't flimsy and the MF feels positive to me. Maybe you saw one that had been dropped ;-)

Carol Haynes

Paul Saunders said:

Quoted message said:

Are you in any camera clubs or anything like that?

No, they never appealed to me, being a bit of a loner that way (and dedicated specifically to
landscapes, which is not how camera clubs operate). I was also not impressed by the "camera club
mentality" of people I've met who were in them, but perhaps I just met the wrong people. I got the
impression that there's a lot of equipment envy in these clubs, and the guy with the Hasselblad
tends to win all the photo competitions. ;-)

You must be joking. I took second with my K1000 images and the winner used the most broken down and
disreputable looking Oly I've ever seen. That is till I saw yours of course...:-)

I've no doubt there is equipment envy in some but I've not seen it im my club. Only problem is that
I'm about thirty years younger than the next youngest members. Fungii feature highly in our club -
they don't run away you see....:-)

--
79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.

"Chris Street" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ste © said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| I had a look and a feel of this camera in Jessops today, and I must say that it's got a really
| good solid feel to it, but at the same time is surprisingly light. I didn't weight it, but it
| seemed to be no heavier (or bulkier) than my G3 with the wide angle converter (the converter
| does add a lot of weight).
|
| Also, the lens has real focusing which you can see through the real SLR viewfinder. I knew this
| anyway, but now I've seen it for myself and I can't wait to start doing real focusing again
| instead of this stupid G3 digital focusing (that's the worst thing about digital compacts IMO).
|
| Now I really can't wait to get one.
|
| Paul

Hi Paul,

I take it the film scanner and car can now wait? :o)

I half-wish that I'd just bought the EOS 10D instead of the G5. After

I've

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bought my camera, the lens adaptors, the teleconverters, the 50mm lens,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

filters etc, it's probably not that much short of £1250, and certainly

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that much short (if any!) of the 300D! :-s But at the time, it was just

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cost thing at the time, as I couldn't afford £1250 body only, and have to fork out for a lens
too. Ahh well, there's always the EOS 20D! :o)

I'm going along to my local photography society next week as they've got

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

open day. I've never looked through a SLR, so I'll see if I can pick one

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and have a look (without them thinking I'm about to run off with it!).

Are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you in any camera clubs or anything like that? Also, have you ever had

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

work published?

Hmmm. I'd be sorely tempted to tell you to go and play with a K1000 and a 50mm SMC lens for a few
weeks first if you've never used an SLR. Trouble is, finding a K1000 in this day and age is nigh
on impossible....

Quoted message said:

Regards,

Stephen

Hi Chris, I'd never buy a film camera myself (I wouldn't even take photos if it weren't for digital,
I don't think...), but it would be nice to have a proper look at a SLR, just so that I'm not so
ignorant! I'm always coming across Pentax K1000 cameras on eBay, for example:
cgi.ebay.comeBayISAPI.dllOpen ↗

I often go on eBay because I'm trying to get hold of a second hand Pentax 50mm 1.1.2 lens. These
lenses seem to be rare on eBay, and go for quite a lot of money when they are available (so I doubt
I'll get one). :-( Anyway, when searching for these lenses, these K1000's popping up in my search
results! ;o)

Regards,

Stephen

Chris Street said:

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 23:29:30 GMT, "ste ©" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm going along to my local photography society next week as they've got an open day. I've never
looked through a SLR, so I'll see if I can pick one up and have a look (without them thinking I'm
about to run off with it!). Are you in any camera clubs or anything like that? Also, have you ever
had any work published?

Hmmm. I'd be sorely tempted to tell you to go and play with a K1000 and a 50mm SMC lens for a few
weeks first if you've never used an SLR. Trouble is, finding a K1000 in this day and age is nigh on
impossible....

There seemed to be plenty about until recently. plenty of MEs about.

From Ffordes (mentioned elsewhere by one of our resident Pro Photogs)

Pentax

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Manual Cameras

A3[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £59.00 KM Chrome Body[Pentax] E+ £119.00 LX + FA1 + 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E+
£339.00 LX + FA1W Finder[Pentax] E+ £295.00 MEF Chrome Body[Pentax] E+ £69.00 ME-Super + 50mm +
Flash[Pentax] E+ £89.00 ME-Super + 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E+ £109.00 ME-Super + 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E+
£119.00 ME-Super + 50mm F2[Pentax] E+ £89.00 ME-Super + 50mm F2[Pentax] E++ £110.00 ME-Super
Body[Pentax] E+ £79.00 MX Chrome + 50mm F1.4[Pentax] E++ £140.00 MX Chrome + 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E+
£149.00 MX Chrome Body[Pentax] E+ £125.00 P30[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £55.00 P30[Pentax] - Body Only
E+ £59.00 P30N[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £59.00 P30N + 28-80mm[Pentax] E+ £109.00 P30N + 28-
80mm[Pentax] E++ £125.00 P30T[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £59.00 P30T[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £65.00 P30T
+ 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E+ £109.00 P30T + 50mm F2[Pentax] E++ £95.00 P50[Pentax] - Body Only E+ £85.00
Super A + 50mm F1.7[Pentax] E++ £125.00 Super A + 50mm F2[Pentax] E+ £109.00
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| >> Now I really can't wait to get one.
|
| > I take it the film scanner and car can now wait? :o)
|
| I don't know, I'm really tempted. The pro scanner is pretty vital for scanning my existing
| photographs but I should be able to take highly sellable photographs with the 300D too.
| Hard choice.

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing which photos you could sell the
easiest - your old images (ie, do you have gems in there that would benefit from being rescanned?),
or would you rather start your business with new material with a new camera? (but would your
photography gain from having a 300D over your current set of cameras?) ...Or even buy none and save
your money until the cheques start coming through the post!

| Best option is to start selling lots of photos and buy them both! ;-)
|
| > I half-wish that I'd just bought the EOS 10D
|
| Really? I'm not sure why so many people still fancy the 10D over the 300D. Yes it's a better
| camera, but by the time you buy a lens to go with it the total cost is going to be practically
| double, and there's no way that it's twice as good as the 300D, I'd say perhaps only 10% better,
| and that's only in terms of extra features, there's no benefit in picture quality.

At the time, there was no 300D to choose from, so it was £550 versus £1250 + cost of lenses. That's
why the G5 came out on top, and this was only a few months ago! The 300D being lighter is definitely
a good thing, as when I was looking for a new camera, I thought that even the G5 was quite big!
(compared to my old Fuji FinePix F601!) The size of those SLR's was definitely a put-off for me, but
the G5 isn't that much smaller...

Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as even through the differences
might be minor, I always think that the extra features and customisable options could be used in the
future, should the need be there, and I think an extra 20% on the price would be worth it (if I
could manage a grand, then I'm sure I'd stump up another couple of hundred...). I take it you've
read the review of the 300D on www.dpreview.com?

| And from a walker's perspective, there's the all important weight issue. Yes the 10D is more
| solid, but do you really want to carry all that extra weight up a mountain? Having seen the 300d
| for myself I can assure you that even though it's plastic, it's not cheap plastic, and the light
| weight is a *major* benefit for walkers IMO. I probably forgot to mention also that the lens
| that's bundled with it is surprisingly small too, much smaller (and lighter) than an equivalent
| lens that you'd have to buy for the 10D.

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no complaints about that not being metal!
And I'm sure the 300D has at least as good a build as this, and most probably better. For me, bulk
and weight are definitely a bad thing for walking and taking photos - I've love to be able to slip
the G5 into my pocket...

| > Ahh well, there's always the EOS 20D! :o)
|
| Is that a joke or does it really exist?

It was a joke! ;o) But there's always something new around the corner, especially with digital. The
EOS 10D was announced in February this year I think, so I'm sure that there will be something else
in the pipeline in the new year. Plus, at 6 megapixels, it doesn't give files that are that much
bigger than what I've got now, even though the quality of the camera and images would obviously be
better (should it be in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing that is!).

| > Are you in any camera clubs or anything like that?
|
| No, they never appealed to me, being a bit of a loner that way (and dedicated specifically to
| landscapes, which is not how camera clubs operate). I was also not impressed by the "camera club
| mentality" of people I've met who were in them, but perhaps I just met the wrong people. I got the
| impression that there's a lot of equipment envy in these clubs, and the guy with the Hasselblad
| tends to win all the photo competitions. ;-)

I'm similar in that I prefer to do things by myself, rather than in teams; plus none of my friends
have an interest in walking or photography. But I'll go in and have a look around, and see what
they're up to. If nothing else, I might pick up some local knowledge of good places to shoot etc.

| > Also, have you ever had any work published?
|
| I had some shots of Devon and Cornwall published as postcards many years ago.

Very good, and I hope you get more soon. My only published piece of work was a photo of some staff
in our work for a company magazine! Hardly counts though! ;o)

| Paul

Ste

Dave Newton said:

The 300 is a fine camera - but I have this anxiety about anything described as a 'cut-down version
of....'.

With software I'd tend to agree, but in this case it's important to know exactly which features have
been left out. I've made a detailed comparison of all the features and most of the features which
have been left out are stuff that I don't need anyway, like zillions of different customisable auto
options. Since I only ever use manual, this stuff is irrelevant to me.

There are only three *real* advatantages to the 10D as far as I know, one is the metal body (which
is actually a disadvantage from a weight point of view), a slightly dimmer viewfinder (which I've
looked though and is not a problem - it doesn't look dim at all to me), and the lack of mirror lock
up. This last one is the only feature that I really would like, but no way could I justify the extra
cost. Having fired the shutter I can say that the mirror slap is not significant, nowhere near as
much as it would be with an MF camera with it's much larger mirror for example, so unless I use a
very long telephoto lens on a flimsy tripod, it's not likely to be a problem.

So provided I ensure adequate stability for long telephoto shots (and don't bash the camera against
rocks), there is no real advantage to the 10D as far as I'm concerned. In fact there are two serious
disadvantages - the price and the weight!

95% of the differences are crippled software features, and every one of those relates to
customisation of various "auto" parameters, none of which affect shooting on manual. So although
this may be a problem to the younger generation of "auto-everything" photographers, it would have no
impact on my photographic techniques whatsoever.

The bottom line is the quality, and that's determined by the sensor. Apparently they both use the
same sensor (or a very similar one) and so there's no difference in the quality of the end result.
So really it's like choosing between a cheap manual film camera and an expensive one with lots of
automatic bells and whistles, but which both use the same lens. Which one takes the better pictures?
They both take exactly the same quality pictures.

So the choice really depends on how much you rely on fancy auto modes. I don't use auto, so the 300D
is effectively the same camera from my point of view, but with less weight and without the mirror
lock up. I think the lower weight is probably more of an advantage than the mirror lock up to me,
and the slightly dimmer viewfinder is of no conseqence.

Quoted message said:

as you quite rightly say Paul, the weight of these cameras is a huge issue for walkers. There is
no way I could consider carrying a DSLR kit on the tops. I think they are for lay-by shooting!
I'll stick with my 5700 - for now.

But have you felt the weight of the 300D with lens? It's surprisingly light, lighter than my film
SLR's, and I've been carrying those up mountains since forever. In fact it's probably no heavier
than my G3 plus wide angle converter attached. The light weight really is an attractive feature,
don't discount it.

Quoted message said:

As for camera clubs, I've been a member of ADAPS ( adaps.org.ukadaps.org.ukOpen ↗ ) for 18 months now
and it's excellent company! There is no one-upmanship whatsoever

Glad to hear it. I didn't mean to suggest that all camera clubs were the same, just that I haven't
been impressed by some of the things I've heard and certain people I've met. I'm not really a club
type of person anyway, I've always been a bit of a loner in many respects and I prefer it that way.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Chris Street said:

Quoted message said:

and the guy with the Hasselblad tends to win all the photo competitions. ;-)

You must be joking.

Actually no. I have a friend who used to be in one and he used to get [censored] at the fact that
the members with the most expensive cameras tended to win most of the competitions. "It was taken
with a Hasselblad so it must be good".

Quoted message said:

I took second with my K1000 images and the winner used the most broken down and disreputable
looking Oly I've ever seen. That is till I saw yours of course...:-)

If you mean my OM3 then I'd agree. That is a sad case. Brilliant camera but I've just worn it out
over about 15 years use. Last time I looked they were charging £1600 for a new one.

Quoted message said:

I've no doubt there is equipment envy in some but I've not seen it im my club. Only problem is
that I'm about thirty years younger than the next youngest members. Fungii feature highly in our
club - they don't run away you see....:-)

Ah, fungi, now that's a suitable assignment for a photo competition at this time of year!

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

ste © said:

Hi Chris, I'd never buy a film camera myself (I wouldn't even take photos if it weren't for
digital, I don't think...), but it would be nice to have a proper look at a SLR, just so that I'm
not so ignorant!

Never say never! You never know!

But I agree that you're not going to buy one now, and I don't blame you. I wouldn't if I were you.
It may be nice to learn traditional techniques but it's not really necessary IMO, you just have to
master digital techniques, which are slightly different. It's like the GPS and compass thing, some
traditionalists will never accept not learning how to do things "the old way".

If you've started off using digital then certain film disciplines would be alien to you, and you
really wouldn't like them. For a start, you can't see what the photo you just took looks like, until
a week or two later when you get it developed. If you're used to seeing instant results on your LCD
then this would seem very strange. I've even started to occasionally look at the back of my 35mm SLR
after taking a photo expecting to see a picture there and being annoyed that there isn't one! And
there's no histogram either!

Not only do you have to wait days or weeks to see your photographs, you even have to *PAY* for them!
And then you have to scan the damn things to get them into your computer! Hassles you can well do
without I can assure you. If you've grown up doing things this way it seems perfectly natural, but
if you haven't, just consider yourself lucky. You may not have all the advantages that film users do
yet, but once you get good enough digital equipment that will no longer be an argument.

I've always used film because that was the only option. Now that digital has just about caught up
with film I've started to use it, and once I get a digital that's as good or better than film I'll
use that in preference to film, *BUT* I'll still continue to use film for some specialist
applications, because at the moment digital can't completely replace film, and it's not a problem
for me since I'm used to it anyway.

For example;

1. Ultra wide angle shots. Most digitals can't do ultra wide angle because of the smaller sensors,
so it's still worth having a film camera for that. The solution is digital full frame, like the
1Ds, but they aren't affordable yet.

2. Panoramic shots. That is true panoramics as in a swing lens camera. No-one has yet attempted to
design such a camera for digital yet. It should be quite possible, it could work like a rotating
scanner, it just hasn't been done yet. Although stitching multiple shots is very popular these
days, it only works with certain types of stationary photos and often isn't perfect. Even
stationary landscapes can be ruined by swaying foliage or parallax problems, and action shots
are out of the question. No such problems with a true panoramic camera.

One area where film is still an advantage is operating in bad weather conditions. Did I mention that
no less than 7 of my 8 film cameras are completely manual with mechanical shutters? The only one
with an electronic shutter broke down some time ago, with a knackered shutter! I had two others with
electronic shutters, one I took back to the shop after it screwed up shortly after I bought it and
the other I sold because it let me down in the snow and the rain. Ever get the feeling that I don't
trust electronic cameras?

I've had no problems with my G3 in adverse weather yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The
great thing about manual mechanical cameras is that they keep working in any conditions, even if the
batteries are dead due to cold or moisture. This means that I lose my metering and have to guess the
exposures, but that's better than not being able to take photos at all.

The only other reason to use film when digital takes over is to exploit the characteristics of film,
i.e. grain, colour balance, saturation etc. You might want a grainy effect for arty shots (real
grain is more realistic than Photoshop simulated grain) or you might want the unique colour
qualities of Velvia. These features would probably appeal more to traditional photographers,
although you never know, there may be a "retro" movement in photography at some point in the future,
in much the same way as modern musicians reverted to using analogue synths in preference to the more
modern digital ones.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

david hill said:

Though I do confess the 70-200 is not much good for landscapes in the main.

Depends how you use it. I've always tended to favour wide angles in the past, but I tend to do more
telephoto stuff now, it's far more selective and compositionally very challenging. I think that
telephotos have great potential for landscapes, but as with everything, it's all a question of
finding suitable subject matter.

I think the mistake I made in the past was the simple assumption that telephotos were mostly useful
for photographing distant mountains. They certainly can be used for this purpose, but most of the
time these photos are ruined by haze, hence the assumption that they aren't usually very useful.

What I've since realised though, is that telephoto lenses work much better on nearer subject matter
where haze is not a problem, even surprisingly close subject matter. This doesn't mean shooting
wildlife or anything like that, you can take real landscapes over relatively short distances, the
problem is simply recognising the opportunities.

I always found that when I went out with a "wide-angle" mindset I'd rarely see any telephoto
opportunities, but one day I went out specifically looking for them and I found loads, whilst at the
same time I didn't notice many wide-angle opportunities that day. So I think it really depends on
what you're looking for.

If you start thinking with a telephoto mindset and look specifically for those kind of shots, you
might be surprised at how many you'll find.

You can get pretty small, light 70-200 lenses these days mind, mine only weighs one pound.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

W. D. Grey said:

Quoted message said:

And from a walker's perspective, there's the all important weight issue. Yes the 10D is more
solid, but do you really want to carry all that extra weight up a mountain?

Get you're priorities right Paul !

They are right, see my other reply to Dave about the actual differences between the 10D and the
300D. The bottom line is that they have the same (or virtually identical) sensors and take the same
high quality pictures, so there is no compromise in picture quality.

Quoted message said:

1) Are you a hillwalker who takes photos, in which case is it the walk that's more important, or

2) Are you a photographer who wants to sell photos, in which case the picture taking should be
more important that the walk.

Actually I'm both. In the first case I like to travel light, in the second I'm prepared to carry
more. The potential problem is that if the serious gear is so heavy that I don't take it with me in
situation number 1, then any photo opportunities that I see will suffer, whereas if it's light
enough I can carry it at all times.

Quoted message said:

For some "classic" photos, you might well find yourself "stuck" in one place waiting for that
elusive bit of sunshine in order to capture the "perfect" picture. This is where the photography
takes over from the walking.

True, and I often find that a wild camping trip is ideal for shots that require a lot of
waiting around.

The sad fact is that carrying a lot of heavy pro quality gear can actually be detrimental to
landscape photography sometimes.

For example I once set off on a wild camping trip carrying a ton of photo gear. The weight was so
exhausting to carry that I failed to make it to my first wild camp scenic viewpoint and ended up
camping in a photographic no-man's land, thus missing the next day's sunrise. On the second day I
camped at what should have been the first day's camp site, and got some great shots the next day,
but I never made it to the second planned camp site. Who knows what other photos I might have taken
if I'd actually got there?

It was this instance that caused me to start thinking lightweight. I ditched the MF camera, replaced
my tripod with a monopod and bought a small light telephoto lens to replace my big heavy one.
Result? Far easier to carry, able to walk further, more photo opportunities as a result.

My 60-300 zoom is an excellent lens which gives terrific results, but I rarely use it because it's
so much hassle to carry. My 70-210 is not such good quality and hasn't got as good a range, but it
gets a lot more use because it's small enough and light enough to take everywhere. Quality is very
important for landscapes, but you can't avoid the practical limitations of carrying a lot of weight.

My Mamiya Press takes excellent quality 6x9 pictures, but it's heavier than a lead brick and needs a
big heavy tripod too. I'm sure it would produce excellent photographs from the top of a mountain,
but would I ever reach the top? A shot taken on 35mm is better than the same shot *not* taken on
medium format because I never managed to reach the viewpoint.

In a perfect world I'd hire sherpas to carry all my gear for me... ;-)

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

ste © said:

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing which photos you could sell
the easiest - your old images (ie, do you have gems in there that would benefit from being
rescanned?),

Absolutely! In fact there's no competition really. Much as I'd like a new digital camera, the pro
scanner is far more important, I've got a huge photo collection stretching back 19 years, I estimate
something in the region of 35,000 photographs now.

Quoted message said:

or would you rather start your business with new material with a new camera?

The problem there is that it would take a lot of time, money and effort to build up a new collection
of saleable photos. Far more efficient to use what I already have. I've already spent the time,
money and effort to take them in the past, so that was an investment in my future.

Quoted message said:

(but would your photography gain from having a 300D over your current set of cameras?) ...

Yes, for certain types of photos, but I'd still be restricted by lack of lenses. I'd really need a
new set of lenses to go with it. It would work out a lot more expensive than simply buying the
scanner. A good investment in the long run, but the scanner would give more immediate benefits (and
the camera will be cheaper later, or even superceded by something better).

Quoted message said:

Or even buy none and save your money until the cheques start coming through the post!

I've never been much of a saver, and the scanner will help me to make money.

Quoted message said:

Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as even through the differences
might be minor, I always think that the extra features and customisable options could be used in
the future, should the need be there,

But those extra features are all auto stuff. If you learn to take photos *properly*, i.e. using
manual settings over which you have total control, all those extra features are redundant anyway.
Doing manual exposures is really not difficult, and you instantly get to see if you got it wrong or
not. All those automatic modes are just for amateurs who can't be bothered to learn how to do it
properly. And I can't stress this enough, *MANUAL EXPOSURES ARE NOT DIFFICULT*. I really don't
understand why so many people rely on auto, it's just sheer laziness IMO, and most of the time auto
gets it wrong anyway!

Quoted message said:

and I think an extra 20% on the price would be worth it (if I could manage a grand, then I'm sure
I'd stump up another couple of hundred...).

But it's not an extra 20%. You're not allowing for the lens. A 10D with an equivalent lens would
cost nearly twice as much! If they didn't cripple the software features no-one would buy the 10D,
but they only affect "auto-photographers" anyway, so you'd just be paying double the price for the
luxury of not having to learn how to work out your own exposures (and did I mention, *IT'S NOT
DIFFICULT*).

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in here. Various auto features can be very useful and even
important for certain types of photography, such as action/sport/journalism etc. But we're talking
about *landscape photography* here, and it's generally accepted that with landscapes you have the
luxury of being able to carefully set exposures and focusing. With digital landscapes you have the
further luxury of being able to check the results immediately, make appropriate adjustments, then
take the photo again. So there's really *no* reason to use fancy auto modes at all.

Tell me, have you tried using manual exposures yet?

Quoted message said:

I take it you've read the review of the 300D on www.dpreview.com?

Yep.

"Excellent resolution, matches EOS 10D"

Quoted message said:

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no complaints about that not being
metal! And I'm sure the 300D has at least as good a build as this, and most probably better.

Yes, better.

Quoted message said:

For me, bulk and weight are definitely a bad thing for walking and taking photos - I've love to be
able to slip the G5 into my pocket...

Well you couldn't do that with the 300D, but still, a medium sized pouch on your belt
would be ideal.

Quoted message said:

Plus, at 6 megapixels, it doesn't give files that are that much bigger than what I've got now,

Ah, but size isn't everything...

Quoted message said:

even though the quality of the camera and images would obviously be better

Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger. Although much is said about
digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm film, they are much bigger than the tiny little sensors
that we get in digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

"Noise free 'silky smooth' images at ISO 100, 200 and 400" "Very low noise levels even at ISO 1600,
virtually unnoticeable below this"

I can't comment on the noise levels of the G5, but on my G3 I rarely ever use anything other than
ISO 50 because faster film speeds do have noticeable noise. Even though noise is rarely noticeable
at ISO 50, it is there, and sometimes becomes obvious through post processing.

Ultra low noise is a huge advantage, especially with the post processing that I tend to do. To have
ultra low noise at faster fim speeds would be a fantastic advantage for me. So it's not just the 6MP
resolution that appeals to me, it's the low noise too.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

W. D. Grey said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Didn't seem that way to me. Maybe the quality control is variable?

Canon with dodgy Quality Control ??????? Didn't used to be the case.

Made to a price. Not made in Japan. Something has to give. Fine tollerances that give good quality
cost money so the looser tollerances will result in more variation over a given batch, hence more
chance of a Friday afternoon horror.
:-(
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ste © said:

Hi Chris, I'd never buy a film camera myself (I wouldn't even take photos if it weren't for
digital, I don't think...), but it would be nice to have a proper look at a SLR, just so that
I'm not so ignorant!

Never say never! You never know!

But I agree that you're not going to buy one now, and I don't blame you. I wouldn't if I were you.
It may be nice to learn traditional techniques but it's not really necessary IMO, you just have to
master digital techniques, which are slightly different. It's like the GPS and compass thing, some
traditionalists will never accept not learning how to do things "the old way".

You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same time, I think it's good to be aware
of different techniques and practices, especially as these methods can always be adapted for digital
anyway. Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)

I also have a GPS, but no compass... :o)

Quoted message said:

If you've started off using digital then certain film disciplines would be alien to you, and you
really wouldn't like them. For a start, you can't see what the photo you just took looks like,
until a week or two later when you get it developed. If you're used to seeing instant results on
your LCD then this would seem very strange. I've even started to occasionally look at the back of
my 35mm SLR after taking a photo expecting to see a picture there and being annoyed that there
isn't one! And there's no histogram either!

The LCD display is a godsend, there's no way I could do without that! And I've *started* to use the
histogram for all my proper shots, so would miss that too.

Quoted message said:

Not only do you have to wait days or weeks to see your photographs, you even have to *PAY* for
them! And then you have to scan the damn things to get them into your computer! Hassles you can
well do without I can assure you. If you've grown up doing things this way it seems perfectly
natural, but if you haven't, just consider yourself lucky. You may not have all the advantages
that film users do yet, but once you get good enough digital equipment that will no longer be an
argument.

I could (grudgingly) live without the LCD and Histogram, but there's no way I could live with
sending the films away to be developed, and paying for it too! Nothing beats downloading the images
onto your computer after a shoot, and viewing them straight away. For me, digital has become a
necessity by convention.

Quoted message said:

I've always used film because that was the only option. Now that digital has just about caught up
with film I've started to use it, and once I get a digital that's as good or better than film I'll
use that in preference to film, *BUT* I'll still continue to use film for some specialist
applications, because at the moment digital can't completely replace film, and it's not a problem
for me since I'm used to it anyway.

That's it, as it's what you've grown up with, it's what you're used to and it's all second nature.
With me, I only got into photography (or should I call that 'shapshotting!'😉 about 18 months ago
when I bought my digital camera, so this *is* what I've grown up with and got used to. If I bought a
film camera, it would be as alien to me as a digital camera would be for an older film user. (sorry
for the stereotype assumption, but just using it as an example).

Quoted message said:

For example;

1. Ultra wide angle shots. Most digitals can't do ultra wide angle because of the smaller
sensors, so it's still worth having a film camera for that. The solution is digital full
frame, like the 1Ds, but they aren't affordable yet.

It's certainly not affordable, you can say that again! But what about the wide angle lenses or
adaptors? Also, what about the fisheye adaptors? (did you read the link I posted to you about the
fisheye for the G3?)

Quoted message said:

2. Panoramic shots. That is true panoramics as in a swing lens camera. No-one has yet attempted
to design such a camera for digital yet. It should be quite possible, it could work like a
rotating scanner, it just hasn't been done yet. Although stitching multiple shots is very
popular these days, it only works with certain types of stationary photos and often isn't
perfect. Even stationary landscapes can be ruined by swaying foliage or parallax problems, and
action shots are out of the question. No such problems with a true panoramic camera.

Yes, you can stitch shots together if they're still objects, but if it's moving, then there are
limitations. You gave a good example about the tide on coastal shots. I do love the shots you can
get from panorama film cameras, and they seem to be everywhere! There was a beautiful panorama in
Scotland in this months Practical Photography, by David Noton with a Fuji GX617.

Quoted message said:

One area where film is still an advantage is operating in bad weather conditions. Did I mention
that no less than 7 of my 8 film cameras are completely manual with mechanical shutters? The only
one with an electronic shutter broke down some time ago, with a knackered shutter! I had two
others with electronic shutters, one I took back to the shop after it screwed up shortly after I
bought it and the other I sold because it let me down in the snow and the rain. Ever get the
feeling that I don't trust electronic cameras?

That's some hard luck stories you've had with electronics! My Fuji digital camera completely died
when I went to Egypt last year, I was gutted! But luckily, I managed to buy a disposable camera, so
I've still got some tourist shots of me standing by the Pyramids! Phew, thank god for a £10 film
camera... :o)

Quoted message said:

I've had no problems with my G3 in adverse weather yet, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The
great thing about manual mechanical cameras is that they keep working in any conditions, even if
the batteries are dead due to cold or moisture. This means that I lose my metering and have to
guess the exposures, but that's better than not being able to take photos at all.

That's true, better to have something than nothing.

Quoted message said:

The only other reason to use film when digital takes over is to exploit the characteristics of
film, i.e. grain, colour balance, saturation etc. You might want a grainy effect for arty shots
(real grain is more realistic than Photoshop simulated grain) or you might want the unique colour
qualities of Velvia. These features would probably appeal more to traditional photographers,
although you never know, there may be a "retro" movement in photography at some point in the
future, in much the same way as modern musicians reverted to using analogue synths in preference
to the more modern digital ones.

As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway. The only effect I'd anticipate
emulating is a grain effect in a moody black and white shot, but of course, I wouldn't be able to
tell you that Photoshop wasn't realistic, as I don't know any better! :-s

Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never uploaded day 14! :o) ...I
suppose you're still sleeping now? I know I would be! :o)

Quoted message said:

Paul

Stephen

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

ste © said:

Decisions decisions... For now, I guess it's a question of choosing which photos you could sell
the easiest - your old images (ie, do you have gems in there that would benefit from being
rescanned?),

Absolutely! In fact there's no competition really. Much as I'd like a new digital camera, the pro
scanner is far more important, I've got a huge photo collection stretching back 19 years, I
estimate something in the region of 35,000 photographs now.

That's a lot of photos! :-o

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or would you rather start your business with new material with a new camera?

The problem there is that it would take a lot of time, money and effort to build up a new
collection of saleable photos. Far more efficient to use what I already have. I've already spent
the time, money and effort to take them in the past, so that was an investment in my future.

That's true, and as a business, you must be as efficient as possible with your time and money. Save
the fancy stuff until you've got a montly column in a magazine! ;o)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(but would your photography gain from having a 300D over your current set of cameras?) ...

Yes, for certain types of photos, but I'd still be restricted by lack of lenses. I'd really need a
new set of lenses to go with it. It would work out a lot more expensive than simply buying the
scanner. A good investment in the long run, but the scanner would give more immediate benefits
(and the camera will be cheaper later, or even superceded by something better).

Yes, the scanner is definitely your priority then. How much is it, about a grand? In work, we have a
HP ScanJet 5470C flatbed scanner, and it's fine for scanning photos. It came with a transparency
adaptor, and even at 2400dpi, the output is [censored]! We just don't scan enough slides (only about 10 a
year) to justify the extra cost, so we just send them to our designers, who then email us a good
quality scan from their film scanner.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or even buy none and save your money until the cheques start coming through the post!

I've never been much of a saver, and the scanner will help me to make money.

Yes, it's an investment for your business, of course. The saving bit was me thinking about what I
need to do (I can't live with the parents forever!)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Saying that though, I would still only buy the EOS 10D or nothing, as even through the
differences might be minor, I always think that the extra features and customisable options
could be used in the future, should the need be there,

But those extra features are all auto stuff. If you learn to take photos *properly*, i.e. using
manual settings over which you have total control, all those extra features are redundant anyway.
Doing manual exposures is really not difficult, and you instantly get to see if you got it wrong
or not. All those automatic modes are just for amateurs who can't be bothered to learn how to do
it properly. And I can't stress this enough, *MANUAL EXPOSURES ARE NOT DIFFICULT*. I really don't
understand why so many people rely on auto, it's just sheer laziness IMO, and most of the time
auto gets it wrong anyway!

I mostly use Aperture Priority now (does that count?) Though I was taking a shot at the weekend, and
it was coming out too bright. So I changed it into Manual and manually changed the aperture to f8
and the shutter speed to a slightly shorter speed. See, I'm learning! ;o)

I *never* use the full Auto mode, or the P Mode (what's the point in the P mode?), but I do
sometimes use the Portrait and Landscape scene modes. I know these aren't manual, but after seeing
the results, I can tell you that they are more or less an aperture priorty mode (with Portrait being
f2, and landscape being f8), depending on the light.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and I think an extra 20% on the price would be worth it (if I could manage a grand, then I'm
sure I'd stump up another couple of hundred...).

But it's not an extra 20%. You're not allowing for the lens. A 10D with an equivalent lens would
cost nearly twice as much! If they didn't cripple the software features no-one would buy the 10D,
but they only affect "auto-photographers" anyway, so you'd just be paying double the price for the
luxury of not having to learn how to work out your own exposures (and did I mention, *IT'S NOT
DIFFICULT*).

I know, but after the £1250, I could have bought a cheap second hand lens and then saved for the
other lens on a rolling basis. But to be honest, it would have worked out expensive, I know. ...but
after the initial purchases, I'm sure I wouldn't notice the extras, just the same way that I haven't
noticed the extras I've bought for the G5...

Quoted message said:

Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in here. Various auto features can be very useful and even
important for certain types of photography, such as action/sport/journalism etc. But we're talking
about *landscape photography* here, and it's generally accepted that with landscapes you have the
luxury of being able to carefully set exposures and focusing. With digital landscapes you have the
further luxury of being able to check the results immediately, make appropriate adjustments, then
take the photo again. So there's really *no* reason to use fancy auto modes at all.

There's always the reason of convenience on certain occasions.

Quoted message said:

Tell me, have you tried using manual exposures yet?

Yes, see above. But not full manual very much, only when the Aperture priority hasn't been what I
was looking for. Also, I sometimes use manual modes for my macro shots of insects - where I use f8
and 1/250 second with my 420ex flash.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I take it you've read the review of the 300D on www.dpreview.com?

Yep.

"Excellent resolution, matches EOS 10D"

That's the one...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, I've got a plastic camera now in the G5, and I've got no complaints about that not being
metal! And I'm sure the 300D has at least as good a build as this, and most probably better.

Yes, better.

Excellent, although nobody plans to drop a camera, it's nice to know that if accidents do happen
(like tripping on a rock), then it might not fall into a thousand pieces, if you see what I mean.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

For me, bulk and weight are definitely a bad thing for walking and taking photos - I've love to
be able to slip the G5 into my pocket...

Well you couldn't do that with the 300D, but still, a medium sized pouch on your belt would
be ideal.

I've seen it in the window of Dixons, I'm sure it would fit nicely in my LowePro Nova 2.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Plus, at 6 megapixels, it doesn't give files that are that much bigger than what I've got now,

Ah, but size isn't everything...

That's what I keep telling my girlfriend... ...just kidding! ;o) (that was terrible I know!)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

even though the quality of the camera and images would obviously be better

Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger. Although much is said
about digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm film, they are much bigger than the tiny little
sensors that we get in digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

"Noise free 'silky smooth' images at ISO 100, 200 and 400" "Very low noise levels even at ISO
1600, virtually unnoticeable below this"

I can't comment on the noise levels of the G5, but on my G3 I rarely ever use anything other than
ISO 50 because faster film speeds do have noticeable noise. Even though noise is rarely noticeable
at ISO 50, it is there, and sometimes becomes obvious through post processing.

I have no problems with noise on my G5, and I have also started using ISO 50 (on your advice from a
previous post in this group). If you read the dpreview.com review for the G5, it says that altough
it has slightly more noise than the Nikon 5400 and Sony V1 (the competitors in the class) these are
from ISO 100 onwards (even though I've not had complaints myself). I know that extra noise at ISO
100 isn't very good, but the review also says: "Overall the G5 has the sharpest image with the most
detail, it also has the least amount of sharpening artifacts (such as halos around dark detail)." So
surely, it's a balance of personal preference between noise and detail? I'm happy with it anyway,
which is what counts for me.

Plus, perhaps I should start turning the sharpening and saturation etc down to their lowest settings
like you do? To make it even better, and more pure for post-processing?

Quoted message said:

Ultra low noise is a huge advantage, especially with the post processing that I tend to do. To
have ultra low noise at faster fim speeds would be a fantastic advantage for me. So it's not just
the 6MP resolution that appeals to me, it's the low noise too.

So noise-free plus extra detail? That's the perfect compromise then isn't it? ;o)

Quoted message said:

Paul

Ste

In [email hidden]
Phil Cook mused:

Quoted message said:

W. D. Grey said:

Canon with dodgy Quality Control ??????? Didn't used to be the case.

Made to a price.

I'll attest to that. Daughter borrowed my camera and zoom to go on holiday. It was stolen. Insurance
company had no problem with coughing up, but it wasn't until after I'd accepted the offer that I
took a good look at the proferred replacement. Body was OK (although I doubt whether it would have
survived the scapes the previous body had been through), but the 'consumer' market lens was pretty
abysmal. Not only that, but looking at the comparable Nikon and Pentax lenses led me to believe that
the lens design/construction of the consumer-range lenses was pretty identical over all product
ranges. Going back to historical test data for the stolen lens and comparing to recent test data for
the newer consumer lenses confirmed my worse fears that the build quality and optical quality was
substantially inferior.

So daughter got a second-hand manual + secondhand lenses. I bought a digital as a 'replacement'.

If I need to use an SLR, I'll borrow hers.

--
The Gods are cruel. They take attractive, pleasant girls and change them into wives. [David P,
uk.business.agriculture 27-09-03]

Quoted message said:

Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger. Although much is said
about digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm film, they are much bigger than the tiny little
sensors that we get in digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

The 300D sensor is actually larger than a 35mm frame.

Carol Haynes

ste © said:

You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same time, I think it's good to be
aware of different techniques and practices, especially as these methods can always be adapted for
digital anyway. Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)

It's good to know something about film photography because digital is based on it. For example, you
can set "film speeds" on a digital camera. How on earth can a digital camera have a film speed?

If digital cameras were invented first, it would never have been called that, they'd probably be
called "gain settings" or something, because that's what they really area. It's like turning up the
input level on a tape recorder, which makes it louder but results in more hiss.

Shutter speeds? Digital cameras don't actually have shutters, do they? And do you know what f1
means? And why you've probably never seen an f1 lens?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. Ultra wide angle shots.

Quoted message said:

But what about the wide angle lenses or adaptors?

They don't go ultra wide. 15mm on film is equal to about 24mm on digital, so that's about as wide as
you can go without serious distortion. 15mm is amazingly wide though. Mike Reid has a 17mm lens, I'm
sure he has some photos taken with it on his site.

I did mention creating the effect of such a lens with a small panorama of vertical shots, but what
such a lens is really good for is having an incredibly close (and thus large) object in the
foreground (say a flower) and a huge expanse of landscape in the backround. Try that with multiple
shots and you probably won't be able to stitch them together because of parallax problems.

Quoted message said:

Also, what about the fisheye adaptors?

They don't count, because there's no distortion correction. The ultra wides I'm talking about are
corrected to have straight lines. Look how much distortion there is with the G3 adapter!

Quoted message said:

(did you read the link I posted to you about the fisheye for the G3?)

No, I must have missed that.

Quoted message said:

There was a beautiful panorama in Scotland in this months Practical Photography, by David Noton
with a Fuji GX617.

That's not a true panorama though, strictly speaking that's a "panoramic format", because it's
really a narrow strip through a single wide lens. It just looks panoramic because of the shape, you
can do the same with any photo. (Some of the lenses for the Fuji aren't even wide angles, but the
results still "look" panoramic because of the shape.) Great camera though, I'm not slagging it off,
but only a swing lens or rotating camera with curved film is truly panoramic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This means that I lose my metering and have to guess the exposures, but that's better than not
being able to take photos at all.

That's true, better to have something than nothing.

Especially if you're used to taking photos manually and are familiar with typical exposures in
various weather conditions. Could you guess the exposure if you had to?

Quoted message said:

As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway.

I don't blame you.

Quoted message said:

The only effect I'd anticipate emulating is a grain effect in a moody black and white shot, but of
course, I wouldn't be able to tell you that Photoshop wasn't realistic, as I don't know any
better! :-s

Photoshop grain is too regular.

Quoted message said:

Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never uploaded day 14! :o)

I wasn't up late, I was up early! ;-) But I was busy with other important things and didn't get
around to it. I'm supposed to be working on my business you know, not chatting on newsgroups all
day! This October project has generated far too much discussion... (Not that I'm complaining, but it
isn't really the best time.)

Quoted message said:

...I suppose you're still sleeping now? I know I would be! :o)

I suppose I should be going out walking now, there's actually some sun out there for a
change. Yippee!!

Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it out, but I have other things
to do first.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukoctober.htmlOpen ↗
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

"Carol Haynes" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, and the reason they're better is because the sensor is much bigger. Although much is said
about digital SLR sensors being smaller than 35mm film, they are much bigger than the tiny
little sensors that we get in digital compacts. A big advantage of this is reduced noise.

The 300D sensor is actually larger than a 35mm frame.

Carol Haynes

Oh no it isn't :-)

--
Regards

Craig Cooke
www.storm-imaging.co.uk
'Exciting Fun, Creative & Informal Wedding & Portrait Photography'

Mea culpa - fair enough, further comment not required (blush)

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > You're right, I never plan to buy a film camera, but at the same time, I think it's good to be
| > aware of different techniques and practices, especially as these methods can always be adapted
| > for digital anyway. Ignorance is not always bliss! ;o)
|
| It's good to know something about film photography because digital is based on it. For
| example, you can set "film speeds" on a digital camera. How on earth can a digital camera have
| a film speed?

Yes, instead, it's just the sensitivity isn't it?

| If digital cameras were invented first, it would never have been called that, they'd probably be
| called "gain settings" or something, because that's what they really area. It's like turning up
| the input level on a tape recorder, which makes it louder but results in more hiss.
|
| Shutter speeds? Digital cameras don't actually have shutters, do they? And do you know what f1
| means? And why you've probably never seen an f1 lens?

Sorry, this is where my lack of technical knowledge shows. Digital cameras don't have shutters? Then
what do they have instead? I can see something closing behind the aperture when I take a photo, and
I have a shutter speed! :o)

Also, why not a f1.0 lens? I've seen a f1.2 lens, but I'm not sure what the numbers mean, except
that they are small holes with high depths of field! Is f1.0 so small that it's closed or something?
Or does the scale start at
f1.?

| >> 1. Ultra wide angle shots.
|
| > But what about the wide angle lenses or adaptors?
|
| They don't go ultra wide. 15mm on film is equal to about 24mm on digital, so that's about as wide
| as you can go without serious distortion. 15mm is amazingly wide though. Mike Reid has a 17mm
| lens, I'm sure he has some photos taken with it on his site.

I've just looked on his website, but I wasn't sure which ones were taken with the 17mm lens.

| I did mention creating the effect of such a lens with a small panorama of vertical shots, but what
| such a lens is really good for is having an incredibly close (and thus large) object in the
| foreground (say a flower) and a huge expanse of landscape in the backround. Try that with multiple
| shots and you probably won't be able to stitch them together because of parallax problems.

I need to take some more flower shots some time - I try to take a bit of everything whilst I'm
learning. I'll try and find a flower in a suitable spot to try the wide angle method - something
tells me the flower will be in a flower pot, and placed on a beach somewhere with the pot out of
view... :o)

| > Also, what about the fisheye adaptors?
|
| They don't count, because there's no distortion correction. The ultra wides I'm talking about are
| corrected to have straight lines. Look how much distortion there is with the G3 adapter!

Yes, I've noticed that. Even normal shots, and especially portrait format shots, have curved
horizons. Remember that Worms Head shot you put photosig? That's typical from what I've seen (with
my shots and other shots too). Best to avoid straight horizons I think! :o) (nahh, not a chance!)

| > (did you read the link I posted to you about the fisheye for the G3?)
|
| No, I must have missed that.

forums.dpreview.comread.aspOpen ↗

But no photos were posted I'm afraid, just a gadget report.

| > There was a beautiful panorama in Scotland in this months Practical Photography, by David Noton
| > with a Fuji GX617.
|
| That's not a true panorama though, strictly speaking that's a "panoramic format", because it's
| really a narrow strip through a single wide lens. It just looks panoramic because of the shape,
| you can do the same with any photo. (Some of the lenses for the Fuji aren't even wide angles, but
| the results still "look" panoramic because of the shape.) Great camera though, I'm not slagging it
| off, but only a swing lens or rotating camera with curved film is truly panoramic.

So is it basically the same effect as you get from cropping the top and bottom off?

I seen photos taken with an XPan 2 and they were great. I'm guessing that this is a true
panorama camera?

| >> This means that I lose my metering and have to guess the exposures, but that's better than not
| >> being able to take photos at all.
| >
| > That's true, better to have something than nothing.
|
| Especially if you're used to taking photos manually and are familiar with typical exposures in
| various weather conditions. Could you guess the exposure if you had to?

I could have a go, that's for sure! But I'd have to wait a few weeks to see if the results were any
good... :o)

| > As I've never used film, I wouldn't want any of those effects anyway.
|
| I don't blame you.
|
| > The only effect I'd anticipate emulating is a grain effect in a moody black and white shot, but
| > of course, I wouldn't be able to tell you that Photoshop wasn't realistic, as I don't know any
| > better! :-s
|
| Photoshop grain is too regular.
|
| > Hey, I can't believe you were up so late last night and still never uploaded day 14! :o)
|
| I wasn't up late, I was up early! ;-) But I was busy with other important things and didn't get
| around to it. I'm supposed to be working on my business you know, not chatting on newsgroups all
| day! This October project has generated far too much discussion... (Not that I'm complaining, but
| it isn't really the best time.)

Early?! Seriously? Ouch! I have been getting up at 6:05am this week, and it's horriffic! Mainly
because I've been going to bed at 2am... :-o zzzzzZZZZZ How come you woke up so early then?

I know what you mean about chatting on newsgroups all day! That's why I'm slow at replying to that
Jpegs post below! It takes so long to reply to (as it's such a long post), that I keep putting it
off. I'll reply to your email (with the improved images) at the same time I reply to that post, I
haven't forgotten...

| > ...I suppose you're still sleeping now? I know I would be! :o)
|
| I suppose I should be going out walking now, there's actually some sun out there for a change.
| Yippee!!

Hope you had a good one! We all wait for the TR! :o) (and photos!)

| Good news too, I just bought the scanner! :-) Can't wait to try it out, but I have other things to
| do first.

Excellent, how is it? Is the quality as you hoped, and is it adding a new lease of life to your old
images? By the way, do your old images deteriorate over time, or are they as good as if they were
taken yesterday?

| Paul

Ste