Canon EOS 60D

So, it's just been announced, and I've been reading forums where most people are unhappy with its lack of features formerly present in 50D (mostly AF Micro Adjust and Alloy body).
As a matter of fact, Canon has repositioned its XXD line to fit the gap between XXXD and XD, so, in spite of its name, it seems to me that 60D is not to be considered as the new, upgraded, 50D; it is a "lsser" model in theri line-up, between 7D and 550D.

In any case, I am considering to buy my first DSLR camera.

I've been using in the last month my gf's 550D (T2i in US), and I am leaning towards buying my own reflex.
Do you guys think this 60D is a good one, regardless of not being a real 50D upgrade? I am assuming street-price that local price in EU will be E 1000 circa.
To me, it looks a very promising camera, and I expecially like the tilt screen - I own a G11 and I love it.
I am essentially new in the DSLR world, but not completely. So, I believe 60D will have more features and power than I can actually use for a while. However, I wonder if there's any reason I should stay away from it in particular?

I guess I am just looking for your opinions, which is always better conceived, reasonable, and solid than that I find on any other forum

Ignore the people who are getting upset. If Canon had released it named to fit into the range above the other plastic bodied SLRs then those same people would be raving about what a great upgrade to the Rebel/550D it is.

It looks like it is going to be a great camera, not that there are any bad DSLRs nowadays.

DSLRs are frustratingly durable. I've got a Canon 10D that I bought in 2003. I'd love to replace it with a 7D and thought for a few seconds earlier this year that I had the perfect chance. I dropped my camera while running down a solid wood floor corridor.

It hit the floor hard and rolled for 30 feet. The cheap plastic 50mm lens on it broke, but the camera was completely unharmed.

Whether the plastic bodied ones are as robust I'm not sure, I've only ever owned this one.

Yes, it really seem to be an entirely naming issue...

Also, do you think Autofocus Micro Adjust is at all useful? I've been reading completely different opinions on that. Some people say it should be on every SLR camera as most lenses will need calibration to properly work on a body, others say it is an emergency measure just in case you are unlucky to end up with a non-calibratet lens and don't have time to have it serviced.

I don't know much about the 60D, in specific, but generally speaking I'd encourage you to get a new camera rather than an older one. Time marches on, and sensors just keep getting better.

Since you're starting from scratch, you should give some serious consideration to your alternatives, including the various Micro 4/3 cameras, the new Sony NEX cameras, etc. For standard D-SLRs, as always, it's between Nikon and Canon. Both are quite good.

Do not underestimate the importance of the user interface and general camera layout. Evaluate different cameras to see how they feel in your hand and to make sure they have the controls you want easily accessible.

I'd also wait until after Photokina to buy anything.

Thanks for all recommendations!

I own a G11 and while I understand that Micro 4/3 are indeed a step-up, I feel like going towards a DSLR directly instead.
I've been using one (550D) quite extensively in the last month, while improving my knowledge on aperture, exposure, focal length, and experimenting, and I really enjoyed it.

Finally, I really would not know what to chose between Canon and Nikon, as I understand all depends on your tastes and subjective likes and dislikes. Which, as a beginner in the DSLR, I don't have yet But, my gf has Canon body and lenses (which I'd be able to use), so I guess in my particular case Canon is the way to go. Also, I became somewhat familiar with the 550D user interface. I've always had Canon compact cameras, and I see a lot of the G11 user interface logic in the 550D, which makes it all easier.
I think I would not mind a slightly larger body than the 55D, and the 60D does have that. In terms of camera weight, I also tend to like plastic over metal. But, I wouldn't mind a resistent body that can survive longer. But, I guess, can't have all.

As a side note, all my friends owning a DSLR are using Canon. That per se is not affecting my choice (my gf having Canon is, in fact), but I am curious if Canon does have a larger mkt share in the XXXD XXD segments?

Bruno, when is Photokina?

Photokina is a photographic trade show/fair which is run every September in Cologne Germany. It's one of the traditional reasons you will see a lot of announcements from camera manufacturers at this time, leading up to the event. It's also traditionally an event at which many manufacturers make their announcements and signifies the end of the camera announcements for the year.

With the way the internet is now operating usually there will be rumors or leaks before the show, so there are fewer surprises, but you never know what else may be announced.

If your friends have lots of Canon gear, that's definitely a factor worth considering. Nikon, of course, also has a lot of market share and seems to be making serious inroads into Canon's entry-level market with low-priced camera kits. Also, the brand new Nikon D3100 (?) has 1080p video, which has been a checkbox feature that Canon has been touting. Really, you can't go wrong either way.

Personally, I find the Nikon UI to be faster to use, and I find Nikon cameras fit better in my hand. The low-end Canon D-SLRs seem designed for people with tiny hands. The more expensive Canon's fix this, but once you get into pricier camera bodies, then really it's a totally different discussion.

Interestingly, Canon 60D body size is in between the small XXXD and the full size XD (which is also same size as the 50D and previous ones):

http://a.img-dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS60D/images/compared-back.jpg

Bruno, ok, Photokina is in mid/end of September: definitely worth waiting to see what's being announced. I was not planning to buy tomorrow anyway. 60D looks interesting to me, and I doubt it will be available sooner than October, I think.

I just picked up my first DSLR a month ago. Being my first I was hesitant to spend too much, so I picked up a 550D (T2i). So far I've been loving it. I'm still a complete novice in controlling the camera, but I'm learning a lot. It has all the features and more than I need now. Perhaps in a few years there will be features that I'll really want on a new body, but I should be fine for a few years at least.

As for the size of it, to fit my average hands I added a battery grip. At the advice of a "prosumer", as Canon likes to call them, I bought a generic one from Amazon, with 4 generic batteries for $65 US. Definitely makes my hands fit better on the body.

Canon's quality control can be quite poor at times --> that's why the AF microadjust feature is so highly valued, because it provides a way to correct for Canon's crap. The alternative is shipping the body and lenses to Canon for recalibration, which may or may not be done well, and which can take months.

Cheers

Mark,

That is interesting. So, in this respect, it would be actually good to have AF microadjust.
I can find 7D body for 1200 Euros, shipping included. 550D body can be found at 700 Euros all included. I am guessing 60D will be available at 900-1000 Euros price range.

I wonded if it does not make sens to spend 200 extra euros and get a 7D.
I do like 60D flip lcd screen, though.

I wonder if it's more an indication of DSLR's pushing the envelope of what's possible optically than Canon's quality control. Dealing with such tiny sensors that are very sensitive tends to magnify the tiniest of optical errors. Optical design hasn't really kept up with Electronic design- it doesn't follow Moore's law.

Having said that I have a very hard time believing that you can adjust a zoom lens by changing the back focus distance by 5 mm or whatever. Lens focus tends to change a little when zooming and a little when stopping down the aperture. So a fixed number probably isn't always going to work.

Good point, actually. In canonrumors and dpreview forums, people are saying that AF microadjust makes sense only at a specific focal length and subject distance. So, if I understand that correctly, you would need to microadjust continuously if your lens isn't properly built. Also, I read that, supposedly, Canon cameras can store one microadjustment per lens, so that at least you don't have to re-adjust every time you swap lenses. However, that kind of suggests that Canon is thinking that on microadjustment per lens is enough, which contradicts the F / subjecy distance adjustment thing.

A bit confusing.

The sensor in the camera, be it film or digital, does not move w.r.t. the lens when zooming. So zoom lenses have to be designed to focus the image at exactly the point (plane) where the sensor lies, regardless of zoom length.

So, yes, a tiny back-focus adjustment can and does work. That's how Canon themselves do it when shipping the lot back for service -- it's just an offset value that gets programmed into the lens and/or camera firmware.

The issue here is whether or not they continue to make this adjustment user-accessible or not.

Cheers

Mark,
I see, so it is true that microadjustment works "per lens".

So, would you recommend a camera with AF microadjust over one without? Meaning: obviously with is better than without, but how likely do you think it is that one ends up with a lens requiring camera AF microadjustment?

Honestly, I am not planning to change camera body soon. I'd rather get a good one and keep it for years, inviesting instead in lenses. So, probably a 7D is worth the extra 200 Euros over the 60D. I'd consider a 50D as well, but I don't mind the HD video capability of the 7D.

Zoom lenses are designed to not change back focus when zooming/stopping down- the question is do they? Some older lenses were notorious for having "focus shift" when the aperture was stopped down. It's possible the same thing can happen with modern lens if quality control is an issue. Of course stopping down your aperture can mask many focus ills so it may not be an issue- especially with slower or wide angle lenses that have a lot of depth of field to work with.

For what its worth, I've never felt the need to get any of my lenses serviced and my 10D doesn't have an adjustment feature.

When the fuss over back focussing first kicked off on the DP forums I did some measurements and did find that some of my lenses weren't spot on all the time with a razor sharp depth of field.

But I can't say I've ever noticed it being a problem in real life. If there is anything holding back the quality my photographic output then it is me and not my lenses or camera.

That said, my 10D only has 6 megapixels, I expect any back focusing gets that much easier to see with three times as many pixels to peek at

Just to be contrary here, I am asking a serious question. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but am really curious as to why...

Why a DSLR rather than a super-zoom camera? Am I missing something here?

I know that a DSLR has a considerable larger CCD chip, and thus with the same amount of megapixels is going to have a better quality image, i.e., less noisy. And I know that an SLR lens with restricted zoom range is going to have fewer optical/mechanical compromises and will in all likelihood produce a sharper image.

But... there is much more to photography than ultimate image quality. I am by no means a great photographer, but I know from experience that it isn't the camera that makes the picture, but the person pressing the shutter button.

I have a Panasonic DMC-FZ50 super-zoom camera. The newer super-zooms have more impressive specifications (double the zoom, 40% more pixels) but the FZ50 has features the others lack, such as a manual (not electric!) zoom control and a separate viewfinder. It is a very versatile camera, operating in any mode from point-and-shoot to full manual. There are 23 separate buttons, slides, wheels, and controls on the outside of the camera, and I use every single one of them.

I bought the camera knowing full well that I was compromising ultimate image quality in the name of versatility. To match the capabilities of my camera with a DSLR, you would need a wheelbarrow to carry around all the lenses (I have everything from 26mm to 1680mm (35mm equiv.) at my disposal) and even if someone with a DSLR happened to have the proper lens with him, in the time it took to dig the lens out of the wheelbarrow, remove the present lens, put the new one one, get set up, focused, composed and exposed, the picture opportunity might well be gone. I routinely take photos that would not be possible with a DSLR. So am I worse off by getting a picture with slightly degraded quality (not discernible in less than a 16x20 print!) than I would be with no picture at all?

Now, a lot of very smart people proselytize for DSLRs, people who know a lot more about photography than I do. So, there must be something to it.

What?

tanstaafl.

Speaking with regards to my older 1D MkIIn, I love pressing focus and knowing that it's in focus. A DSLR's focus system calculates the difference, and tells the lens "move as fast as you can to this focus distance". A P&S generally racks the lens (pushes it back and forth) and watches for the image to come into focus.

The DSLR has bigger pixels. Within a given generation, the DSLR's noise will be orders of magnitude lower than the mini-sensor P&S. This is often the difference between getting the shot and not getting the shot. I love cranking the ISO and doing available light with my cheap 50mm f1.8 lens. This produces images that are incomparable to images taken with an on camera flash.

The larger sensor and dedicated lenses will always be able to have a narrower depth of field. This means that if I'm somewhere where the background detracts from a shot, I'll blur the background. I can also show the viewer of the image what to pay attention to, as the rest of it can easily blur away without even being apparent.

The interface is also designed for taking pictures. On my camera I can shoot a 6 hour event and never navigate a menu. I also can zoom to the point I want to zoom to in a fraction of a second. I can focus and recompose in that same fraction of a second.

However, all of these are nice to have, not required to take photographs. Every technique I use with my DSLR I can take and use with an old P&S, a tripod and a lightbulb. The images aren't as good, but they're certainly good enough to make a non pixel peeping audience happy.

The reason I've been considering a dslr is speed only. My p&s camera takes pictures of the future, meaning I push the button and some time in the near future, it takes a picture. I've missed vast amount of shots because of this. On my Samsung camera phone, I've have the kids pose for every shot, and even then, they get bored and turn their backs half the time...

You need a better P&S camera then. My Canon compact digital in center AF mode can take photos as soon as you push the shutter so long as it doesn't need to charge the flash.

P&S cameras have made great strides in improving their contrast-based autofocus. One of the new Fuji cameras has even sorted out a clever way of doing phase-based autofocus, just like a D-SLR, through clever masking of individual pixels in the standard sensor.


For a given generation, this is very true. Across generations, it's quite interesting. My Panasonic LX3 (new in 2008) outperforms my old Nikon D70 (new in 2004), despite the latter having much larger pixels. Of course, the LX3 had fairly large pixels for a smallish sensor, while other P&S have significantly higher pixel densities. Likewise, the LX3 has a bright f/2.0 lens, versus standard kit zoom lenses on D-SLRs that often begin at f/3.5 or f/4.0. Two extra stops of light is nothing to sneeze at.


No argument. Large sensors require longer lenses for a given field of view. This is a feature if you like shallow depth of field. Otherwise, it's a whole lot of extra weight in larger lenses. Also, curiously, these P&S cameras do absolutely amazing macro photographs. I'm particularly intrigued by the Pentax W90's inclusion of LEDs for macro illumination.


UI quality varies significantly, but generally I agree that D-SLR cameras are engineered around the idea that you have some vague idea what you're doing. If you put the camera in one of the P/A/S/M modes, all the goofiness generally goes away. The higher-end P&S cameras have similar modes, in addition to the invariably stupid ones. ("Kids and Pets" mode? Uggh.)


I dearly loved my Panasonic LX3, prior to its being stolen. (A new LX5 should be arriving here in the next few weeks.) I also dearly love my Nikon D700. I see these serving very different purposes. The D700 is amazingly powerful, but it's also amazingly conspicuous and undeniably heavy. The LX3 is lightweight and versatile, perfect for tourism, and capable of remarkably sharp photographs.

When in doubt, own both...

What's the model number? I'll check it out. I'm not wild about my Nikons. The 5900 takes execellent picts, but is slow. The L18 takes nasty-looking picts, and is slower...

Ehhh. It does everything I need but my requirements are fairly low. It is an Ixus 990IS. I'm sure you can find better cameras than it especially now.

That would be true if anything else was equal. But the extra size of the DSLR sensor behind that smaller aperture far outweighs the extra light gathering you get with your extra stops on the LX3.

Well, I am a novice here and I am open to see my own opinion change after direct, hands-on experience.

However, currently, the way I see this is that essentially DSLR offer opportunity. Given the same skills of the photographer, a DSLR will produce a bette result, and that is rewarding. Even more importantly, I think that a DSLR grows with you, as you learn and experiment. Which is even more rewarding. And fun.

This compensates the extra wiegth, the fact that I won't be able to carry a DSLR with me (which is why I am keeping my G11 as well of course), and that as you say it will be less practical in several occasions.

Just curious: are there super zooms out there that can do bulb-photography? That's something I could not do with my G11, which is really disappointing as I suppose a firmware upgrade would give that feature to the G11, and I had to resort to my gf's 550D. Which is one of the reasons why I started to use it and learn in the first place.

I would say that if you can't decide between a new point and shoot or a DSLR you should go for a really nice point and shoot.

I see so many people at weddings trying to take pictures with some crappy DSLR with the kit lens on that it drives me mad. They are all using the pop up flash and many ask me why my pictures look so different when they have the "same" camera. The point and shoots are so impressive these days I think they all would be much better off with them.

Photography is only 10% equipment in my opinion, the rest is down to you. You should pick kit not based on reviews but what feels good in your hand, it feels right to use straight out of the box and you know you want to take with you. Sure Camera A may have better noise performance that Camera B but as long as it captures that moment, who cares ???

Outside of professional reasons I never have a camera with me apart from my iPhone. I found that I spent ages messing around with my camera and had almost no time enjoying the moment, so now I let other people do that if they want. Isn't that what facebook is for

On the micro-adjust features, if you are a Pro then it is very useful. I've found most of my lenses needed some kind of adjustment, and focus is now a little better across my kit. Does it make a difference in landscapes? Nope! But if you are working in low light without flash at f1.2 of f1.4 the difference can be quite impressive.

Cheers

Cris

... and, I forgot to mention it, there's a geeky aspect to it. I found I just love the toy. After putting mind more accurately to what is the physics behind it, it is fun to experiment with light, focal length, dof, etc. From that respect, I feel a DSLR is a more intriguing device.
Admittedly, I would not spend € 2000 for "just a toy", but while a secondarily important factor, it still contributes to make me want my own DSLR.

i've never had a camera with that feature, but I really wish my current one (40D) had it. It's a valuable feature, but not a deal-breaker.

I would never get a 7D over a 40/50/60D camera: lack of built-in flash ("speedlight") is the issue. The danged thing is simply to useful to be without. Yes, I have a very good external speedlight, but it's not always with the camera.

Still.. full-frame is very tempting.

Cheers

For me, I went with the DSLR to be able to play and experiment. Using the tripod and remote I have some awesome sunset pictures. I have way too many filters that I pop on and off just to play with. I like the ability to go from a 15mm Fisheye lens to a 60mm Macro lens. I think what I'm trying to say is that it goes beyond just the zoom capability (which you have a lot more than I do) and into the types of lenses, the filters to add different effects, the ability to use remote controls and flashes, and the tripod.

1. speed: push the button, and the picture is already taken. Zero perceptible delay. Sure, the best P&S cameras are quicker than they used to be, but nowhere near as quick as a run of the mill DSLR.

2. depth-of-field: P&S always have loads of depth of field, which can be very useful for landscapes and architecture. And very hindering for people photos, or anything else where the subject needs to be more isolated from its background.

3. Ease of operation: just peer through the large viewfinder, and press the button. No trying to hold (and see!) a shaky screen at arms length in bright sunlight.

4. It works in the dark: or nearly so. Natural light photos are possible just about anywhere, under just about any conditions.

Cheers

I'm with Tanstaafl on this, for my needs anyway.

I have an FZ10 which I use for taking landscape photos and also zoom photos of birds / wildlife and I find it a pleasure to be able to do both without having to carry around and change another lens. Admittedly, most lighting conditions under which I am taking these photos are bright enough not to need the better low-light capability of a DSLR. I am also not turning my photos into poster sized prints, where the better picture quality of a DSLR would be required.

Also, given the mainly dry, dusty conditions here, it is a plus to me not having to worry about dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

I must say that I would like a faster autofocus though. The FZ50 (and any later models) would probably have this feature. Perhaps in the future I will upgrade to a newer super-zoom.

Re the viewfinder, the Panasonic super-zooms have one, albeit electronic.

Actually 7D comes with a built-in flash, and is not full-frame. In current Canon line-up, 7D is actually the successor of the 50D, while 60D has been repositioned below to fit between 7D and 550D.

But I see what you're saying. 7D looks very tempting now. I just wish it had a flip LCD screen.

I'm with everyone -- I use both.

I carry a small P&S for those times when I prefer to be unobtrusive, or don't want to carry a big SLR (such as when photography isn't the main purpose of going out). My P&S is waterproof, too, without the need to spend a thousand bucks or so on a housing. But the lens is crap, and there are few manual controls.

On the other hand, my SLR is more versatile in low light situations, has a greater degree of variability with regards to lens choices (I've rented lenses in the past), has manual controls, is faster, and takes better pictures in general. But it's bigger, more obvious, and not appropriate to carry everywhere.

Since I got my iPhone 4 I find myself taking more and more photos on the phone and less on my DSLR. I'm less inclined to take my full camera gear when I go away for a weekend nowadays.

I'm still amazed how well the iPhone camera performs in good to middling lighting.


All my photossnapshots in August were taken with my phone:

http://norman.cx/photos/201008

But of course I could never have taken this shot with my phone:


(Vimy Ridge Canadian memorial, very moving place)

I think I will briefly jump to the defense of my FZ50. At the time (it is no longer in production) it was the top of the Panasonic line, and has aimed at the "prosumer" user.

From a review published on Amazon.com: With its multi-task image processing capability, the Venus Engine III also boasts outstanding response time with an industry-leading level of shutter release time lag of as short as 0.009 seconds.

The camera is fully manually controllable: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, and I control depth of field by appropriate aperture selection.

The FZ50 has a large high-resolution dedicated viewfinder in addition to the viewing screen (I would never have a camera without) and if necessary it can be digitally adjusted for enhanced brightness in low-light situations.

You got me there. The low-light performance of the FZ50 is barely adequate, and certainly not comparable to the capabilities of a good DSLR. Trying to compensate by cranking the ISO up beyond 800 (400, really, if you are picky) just makes a low-contrast, noisy picture.

As I said before, there are tradeoffs in image quality, but the differences are hardly noticeable under normal circumstances and the versatility is more than enough compensation for me. YMMV.

Attached are two pictures extolling both the versatility and the limitations of the camera. These are full-frame pictures, unedited or modified in any way. What kind of DSLR kit would have been needed to take these two shots? My apologies for not re-sizing them, I wanted to show as much detail as I could, so they are each nearly 4 MB.

tanstaafl.

edit: The descriptions on the pictures didn't work right - the only description that made it is for the first picture. The second description should have said something about full zoom including digital, and lost contrast and sharpness.

Oh, well.. I'm way behind things!
Also, given that info, the 7D should be a simple no-brainer. Worth every penny over the 60D.

The flip out screen is only really useful for two things:

1. When using the camera as a camcorder. But really?

2. For macro (extreme close-up) photography.

Beyond that, it should not be a consideration. Remember, with a DSLR, the real optical viewfinder is generally way superior for framing photos.

Cheers

They're just quoting the unreal manufacturer's propaganda. See here for some measured real numbers, or measure your own.


Irrelevant. The camera itself, due to the geometry of the dinky sensor, is incapable of reduced depth-of-field. Even most DSLRs aren't as good at this as full 35mm format cameras, again because of the size of the sensor.


I prefer to see the subject, not a delayed digital copy of it. But that camera is apparently MUCH better than most P&S.



For me, it's not image quality -- my 3mp P&S has GREAT image quality. It's much more in the operational issues, and the total lack of control over depth of field.

EDIT: This thread isn't so much about P&S being inferior to DSLR, though, but rather the tradeoffs involved to get a camera that fits in a pocket.

Cheers

Along these lines, I'm quite disappointed in my Droid X. It's eight megapixels of mush, with washed out colors and fuzzy edges. I have to give Apple credit for managing to build a very reasonable camera into the iPhone line. My original iPhone 3G was a far better camera than my shiny new Droid X.

It certainly does show the flexibility, but it also shows the massive cost in image quality that you get with a flexible P&S. The image quality on that second shot is just plain lousy I'm afraid. Never mind your post sized prints is is blurry and lacking in detail even when zoomed right out on screen.

Here is a comparison from my DSLR, at a similar zoom level to that photo (equivalent to a 480mm on a 35mm camera). I've just picked a random shot from my photos that was taken with my 300mm lens:



I don't claim to be a great photographer, there is nothing that special about the photo. But just look at the comparison of detail and crispness (and non crispness where I wanted non crispness) to your shot.

P.S. that shot is shrunk down to 33% of the actual size, there is much more detail to see zoomed in

And remember, this is a 7 year old camera, with "only" 6 mega pixels.

That is why I use an DSLR and an iPhone, rather that a P&S.

Edit:

Hmmm, seems like the BBS is setting a small size on the image, see it here

The downside of course is that my camera, lenses and bag weigh 4 times what Doug's camera weighs

(or though often I just take my 17-40mm or 50mm and dump my battery grip, which more cuts the weight in half)

My camera and the tiny 50mm still weigh 50% more than Doug's FZ50.

Sheesh.. and just when I thought I'd finally cured the urge to go climbing, you go and post a photo like that! Where is that cliff? MUST .. GO .. THERE .. SOON!!!!!!

There isn't a P&S around that rivals an SLR for image quality. It's not even close.

Unless you're resizing images down for posting in web forums. Then even images from a 10 year old P&S can look amazing. The iPhone takes great images, but they certainly don't have anywhere near the detail of an image from an APS-C sized sensor on a typical SLR, never mind that of a FF SLR.

I'm with Mark though, there's a tremendous amount of significance to operational aspects, well beyond image quality. Any camera is better than no camera, but you can easily find yourself in a situation where the best P&S just won't get you the shot you want/need for whatever reason (slow lens, slow CPU, lack of manual overrides, etc.)

And to actually answer your question...

Looking at the EXIF data on your photos, the 35mm equivalent of those shots was 168mm and 508mm. So my DSLR and my 75-300mm lens would match that range (mine is 120mm to 480mm equivalent). So a total weight of 1.5kg, about twice what your camera weighs.

What about the Panasonic GH1 and other EVF cameras? There are a lot of Electronic Viewfinder cameras out now that don't have to deal with the clunky mirror box of a DSLR but have all the manual controls of a DSLR. These cameras are proving an optical viewfinder really isn't necessary anymore. What is necessary is good operations and sensor size. Too small of a sensor size equals bad quality and too much depth of field. Depth of field is good to have somethings but too much of it just makes all your shots look flat.

To quote from the DPReview in depth review:

"Electronic viewfinder difficult to use in low light (noisy image and greatly reduced refresh rate)"

I don't ever want to go back to an EVF again. Had one on my Nikon E570 and hated it.

When I look through the viewfinder I want to see a real and crystal clear image.

Now, if I could get an optical viewfinder with on-demand EVF (projection) that would be sublime. But only if it allowed cool stuff like manual signal boosting and perhaps was also equipped with an IR emitter and night-vision capabilities.

And even with that mirror in the way, SLRs are still significantly faster than P&S. That GH1 can only do 3fps JPG.

I own a Canon P&S, the SD960IS from last year, which both my wife and I use quite a bit. The Nikon D300 stays at home much of the time, but the Canon always comes with just in case. I'm a big fan of having a small and decently capable P&S device on top of an SLR. I've ben considering a G11 or similar for a long time as well.

Well, to be fair to Doug, that second shot is taken with digital zoom.

He added that after I replied. And to be honest the non digital zoom shot is also very much lacking in detail and sharpness as compared to any DSLR using just about any lens, as we expect.

Didn't finish my thought, there...

For digital zoom, that's not too bad. I've seen much worse, and I'd certainly consider it an acceptable quality for the trade-off of not having to carry a large camera and zoom lens on a potentially long hike. Is it a shot I'd blow up and hang as a poster on my wall? Of course not -- but it would hold up just fine as a 4x6, sitting on my desk at work.

To answer Doug's question of what kind of DSLR kit would it require? Well, if I were shooting for a magazine, I'd want something equivalent to Canon's 100-400mm zoom lens ($1600 USD from Newegg), on a 1D body ($5000 USD from Newegg). If it's just for myself, I don't need such a fancy body -- a prosumer, or even a consumer-level body would be just fine, with a 200mm zoom lens (and maybe an extender) for a package (probably) coming in under $2K.

Were really insane, I'd get a 800mm prime ($11K) with a 1D body mounted on a motion-control head (custom $$$), and shoot a series of shots (starting with the areas most likely to move, i.e. the people) and stitching them together after the fact.

Or I could get a medium-format Hasselblad DSLR (their H4D is $26K) and their 300mm lens ($4K), and blow the snot out of your puny 35mm DSLR quality.

Yosemite National Park, California.

For some undefinable reason, I myself have no desire whatsoever to try scaling vertical faces of rock. Obviously some basic character flaw...

tanstaafl.

Mmm.. it does look rather familiar for some reason. Perhaps I've already climbed it in my former life?

Cheers!

Andy, the DSLR picture you posted is superb, as far as I can tell. I am impressed.

Speaking of DOF, here are some tests I made last summer with my G11. None of the pics is taken using a tripod.
Click for full size image.

Ah! I see where you're coming from. The lag you're referring to comes from a shooting style that I never use, and is indeed unacceptable at nearly half a second. That style is looking through the viewfinder, saying "Oh, yeah, that's a nice picture", and pressing the shutter button, waiting for it to auto-focus, set the exposure, and finally take the picture. I always compose my picture using the half-press on the shutter button to do all the pre-exposure setup, and when I press the rest of the way the exposure is virtually instantaneous. But, your point is well taken, Mark, I suspect most people don't shoot the way I do, and a half-second pause before exposure would be unsettling. I had actually never noticed it until now, when I tested the camera to see the effect of non-preset lag.

Yeah, I'll give you that. Mostly. I do get some control over depth of field, but you're right, not like a full-frame 35mm camera, or even a DSLR. So far it has been manageable for me, but perhaps that's just a function of the type of pictures I normally take.

There's no delay, or at least not one that is perceivable by human eyes. And there are advantages to an electronic viewfinder. I can crank up the gain on my viewfinder and see things that would be difficult to see optically. Of course the quality of what I see will be pretty bad, but then so will the picture itself if I've had to raise the ISO to get the picture in the first place. The FZ50 is not a pocketable little point and shoot. It has the size and shape and the adjustability of a DSLR, but without the necessity of hauling around a wheelbarrow full of lenses and accessories. With the manual zoom control and no need to swap lenses it is operationally superior (IMHO) to most DSLRs. But as I (and many others on this thread) have agreed, the tradeoff is image quality. To me it's worth it, but YMMV.

tanstaafl.

You do know that a 300mm lens in medium format is equivalent to something like 180mm in 35mm (assuming 6 x 4.5 medium format). I could get out my 5 x 7 inch view camera with a 1000mm convertible lens (~250mm equivalent) and take a picture that could scan to over 100 megapixels- sometimes that's not practical though..

Taym, those are close focus shots and will appear with out of focus backgrounds on pretty much any small camera. It's the easiest way to isolate DOF on any camera. Likewise for macro-style close-focus.

With a big lens on a big sensor, you could obtain a relative sliver of focus when focusing much farther away.

Yes, which still leaves you a photo of such high resolution that you can crop to an equivalent framing without the need for crappy digital zoom.

But that's beside the point, which is that there are really multiple answers to Doug's question, and the "right" answer depends on who you are, what you want to do with your image, and what your budget is.


I wasn't going to bring up drum-scanning large- (or even medium-) format film, since he specifically asked about DSLR.

It seems to me, then, that you've traded quality for nothing, then. Much of my shooting is done with a single zoom lens (35-200mm, I think it is).
The only accessories I generally take are something to clean the lens, and sometimes a small tripod.

Yes, I realize they are bad example in the context of what we were discussing (DSLR and Compact). Just carried away with the DOF idea. They were actually taken using the macro setting on the G11.


Anyway, I am now seriously considering 7D + EF 24-70 F/2.8L USM.

I have no right to respond here, but I agree with this. Middle ground is seldom the right answer, for anything. You rarely get the benefits of both ends, but, rather, the drawbacks of both ends. In this case, I'd tend to agree that you get the lack of portability with the lack of high-quality imaging and the lack of flexibility.

I will point out that Doug's camera did likely cost far less than a DSLR would have.

Lack of portability? I'm not carrying around a bag full of lenses and accessories. It's all one unit, about 20% smaller than a typical DSLR and half the weight.

Lack of high-quality imaging? Yes, but for most purposes the deficiency is (to me, at least) acceptable.

Lack of flexibility? You gotta be kidding! I can shoot aperture preferred, shutter preferred, full manual, or programmed manual. I can choose manual focus (with 8x enlargement of the focusing area) or several different modes of auto-focus, including continuous (faster focus but more battery use) or auto-focus at exposure, or macro-focus. I can choose several exposure methods (spot, averaging, center-weighted, histogram, or manual), with the ability to bias the exposure in 1/3 f-stop increments or shoot in 3-exposure groups, one under-, one normal-, and one over-exposed and can choose the degree of over/under in 1/3 f-stop increments up to two full stops. I can adjust the degree of flash intensity in 1/3 f-stop increments. I can choose between two different methods of optical image stabilization, (although I've never been able to tell any difference between them) or I can turn stabilization off completely. I can focus and expose through the viewfinder or through the viewing screen (although why anyone would do the latter is beyond me), and I can choose among five different viewfinder information displays, plus adjust viewfinder brightness to fit the circumstances. I can change shutter speeds and/or aperture without taking my finger off the shutter release. All of this is without going into the context-sensitive menu system which consists of 13 screens, each with five menu choices. I can select from two to ten megapixels, and my choice of "normal", "fine", or "raw" output. From "power-on" to shutter click is less than two seconds. I can shoot continuous exposures until I run out of memory (4 GB) at the rate of two frames per second, and can shoot movies (with sound) in four different modes of frame rate and resolution. And... I actually do use every single one of the features I have listed. Oh, wait, except the histogram exposure method, I don't quite understand how that works.

Is there some useful bit of flexibility I am missing here?

tanstaafl.

Scrap that lens -- way too big and bulky. You'll curse it forever. The body with that lens mounted, won't fit into _any_ reasonable camera bag. Not even the bag I carried around Roma!

Yes, I have that lens. It takes excellent photos, and has fantastic depth-of-field control etc.. And it's a real pig to manage. I _never_ take it further than it can be carried by our automobile.

Get something smaller instead. I _highly_ recommend the 17-85 EF-S lens for this series of cameras. Sure, the optical quality is probably "only" double or triple that of your G11, nowhere near the 24-70 wide open, BUT.. it has image stabilization, is lightweight, covers the sweetest zoom range, and FITS in any camera bag.

When I travel the globe, I take the Canon body (D60, 20D, or now 40D), plus three lenses. Exactly which three varies from trip to trip, but I choose them from this pool:

10-22 EF-S (fantastic for indoor use)
16-35L (f2.8) (my all-time favourite lens; dark/indoor uses)

17-85 EF-S IS (best all-rounder)
24-104L IS (f4.0) (decent mid-range zoom, but not wide enough)

70-300 DO IS (excellent and compact tele-zoom)
70-200L IS (f2.8) (HUGE lens, unbelievable image quality)

(I do have other lenses too, but not for travel use).

Most of the time, it's the 16-35, 17-85, and 70-300.

Sometimes, I'll substitute the 24-105 for the 17-85, but it isn't quite wide enough for a lot of travel pics (esp. cities).

Still, to repeat, get the 17-85 EF-S IS lens. And _only_ that lens. Then, 6 months from now, perhaps consider something different. But get used to things with that one lens to begin with.

Or, if you're suffering "L" envy, perhaps get the 24-105L IS instead, but it's really not wide enough to be the only lens in the kit.

Cheers

Mark,

Thanks a lot for the info! As a matter of fact, Raffaella already owns a 15-85 IS, which is supposedly a newer version of the one you mentioned. Here: http://www.canon.it/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Zoom_Lenses/EF-S_1585mm_f3556_IS_USM/

So, I was thinking I may get something different (better, in this case) that we both could use. .

I also think it should fit in this bag:

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310224087242&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

which I already happen to have.

In any case, that lens is less than 13cm (5 inch) long. Not too bad, it seems to me?

Oh, if you or anyone else here still really wants a 24-70L (f2.8), then make me an offer (email) for mine. This specific unit is excellent, with no issues or flaws I can find (other than size). And I imagine this could be way cheaper than retail.

Cheers

Yeah, I'm not quite sure what Mark is on about with the length, my 75-300 is much longer than that and it fits into my camera bag.

Actually, I expect girth is more the problem, it does look to be very fat

You have an email

But see... you don't have to do that with an SLR, either. Do you take every pair of shoes you own with you, plus extra shoelaces and a shoe polishing kit, every time you go for a walk?

By "lack of portability", I think Bitt means "shove it in a pocket." You're still carrying around a bulky camera, even if it is 20% smaller than a typical DSLR.


And that's all that really matters. If you're happy with the camera, the image quality is good enough for you, and it has the features you need (and it does have a pretty impressive feature list for a non-SLR), then you have the right camera for you.


Maybe not useful to you, but useful to others is the ability to change the lens. Like I said in another post, I do most of my shooting with a single zoom lens, so I rarely change the lens. However, in the last couple of years, I've started shooting publicity and dress rehearsal photos for my wife's theatre -- a use that wasn't anticipated when we bought the camera. The lens I have is too slow (in the light gathering sense, though the autofocus is a bit slow, too). Since I can't use flash without altering the stage lighting (a big no-no), I'm forced, to get the shutter speeds I need, to shoot up in the 800-1600ISO range, leading to noisier photos that don't print well at poster sizes. If I had your camera, I'd have to buy an entirely new camera. Instead, I can just buy a new lens.

But remember, just because I have more than one lens, doesn't mean I have to cart them all around with me.


The histogram gives you a sense of whether your picture is under- or over-exposed, by whether or not the graph is crowded to one side. In general, you want your histogram to cover a range in the middle of the graph. Just looking at the picture on the LCD can't always give you a sense of whether or not your exposure is correct, particularly if you're fighting glare from the sun. See http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_histogram.html for more.

3.3 inch diameter (~84mm). That's bigger around than my 400mm 5.6 that has a 72mm filter thread. That is kind of excessive for a 24-70 zoom.

Ah, but that's just it -- with a zoom range from 35-420mm (35mm equiv.) or even to 1680mm if I want to use digital zoom (ugh!), I don't need to change lenses. You make a good point, though, about changing lenses not for a different focal length but for more light-gathering. Like all small-sensor high-zoom-ratio cameras, my low-light capabilities are marginal. Unless I can set up with a tripod and a lloonngg exposure (my moonlight on the lake photo was 40 seconds!) I either put up with a lot of noise, or I do without the picture. This works for me because I rarely have to deal with low-light situations. YMMV.

tanstaafl.

It's actually about 4.25" (117mm) in diameter with the lens hood. There's just about NO camera bag that will accomodate it mounted to a body with the hood in "shooting" position (7.5" or 187mm long, plus the camera body), and very few bags that will accept it with the hood in any position.

Sure, the lens by itself, with hood reversed and caps on both ends, will fit in all of my camera bags. But that's of no use for pulling out and taking a shot.

Cheers

Ahh, that changes things then.

Since you've already got a great all-rounder, the next lens really could be anything you think would be useful, then.

Cheers!

Have you considered this Kata DT Series, and 213 in particular?
http://www.kata-bags.com/productFRM2HS.asp?p_Id=475&Version=Photo
As I was saying, we have one already, and I find it very convenient. It is a torso/back pack. 20-70 will definitely fit, mounted, hood in shooting position, in it.
I believe it will fit in the smaller DT211 with hood dismounted or mounted "backwards".

Now that looks like a really cute camera bag. It's the first one I've seen that looks as good (for my style) as the one I normally carry abroad.

And you're right: with the camera inserted diagonally, there should be lots of length to handle a big lens. So long as the opening is broad (wide) enough for the hood.

Looks comfortable, too.

Cheers!

Kata bags aree the best i've seen so far. Torso packs like DT-211 and similar are very very versatile: being able to push them to your back and pull them to your front to extract your camera is just priceless, i think.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, here, and I promise I'll go away and shut up after this post.

The point I am trying to make that I just haven't been clear about, is that unless someone carries around a bag full of lenses, he cannot take some of the pictures I can. Yes, no question about it, if he does have the bag full of lenses, he will get better quality pictures than I will, but without those extra lenses he won't get the picture. Sometimes a lesser-quality picture is better than no picture at all.

The rock climber pictures were snapshots. Attached are a set of pictures shot with more care, hopefully of better quality.

The first picture is no zoom at all, 35mm (35mm equiv.) focal length. If you look carefully, you will see the church tower in the middle of the picture.

The second picture is the maximum I can reasonably zoom my camera before getting ugly defects. It is about a 750mm focal length (35mm equiv.)

The third picture is the "desperation shot" that is (maybe?) better than no picture at all. Yes, it's ugly and noisy, but you can make out a good bit of detail. You would need a 3000mm lens on a DSLR to take that shot. Well, no, not really -- I imagine DSLRs have digital zoom also, don't they? So you'd need either a 750 or 1500mm lens (assuming 4x or 2x digital zoom) to duplicate that shot. But not too many people carry around a 35-750 zoom lens.

Keep in mind that my camera is old. FWIW, the lens is made by Leica. There are newer cameras with more than twice my zoom range, but they lack some of the features my camera has that I consider to be essential.

Anyway, all this dead horse beating is to say that DSLRs, while providing better image quality, lack the convenience, versatility, and [some] features of my camera.

So there!

tanstaafl.

I attached the pictures, and they're not there. ?? I'll add them to another post, I guess.

db

Maybe this time they'll show up...

BTW - the attached pictures are not the full-resolution originals, I resized them to keep the file sizes down.

Also BTW - that church tower is .37 mile (600 meters) from my house where the pictures were taken.

tanstaafl.

I don't know amy DSLR with digital zoom, it isn't needed. Just cropping the picture is the same thing as digital zoom, which means every camera effectively has digital zoom.

Some DSLRs have a manual crop feature.

This means that with just my 17-40 and 75-300, with some cropping I can match or exceed the zoom range (when also comparing the image quality) of any compact I've come across.

Now admittedly that combination is heavier than a big zoom compact, but I think it also falls short of the bag of lenses you are imagining is needed.

And yes, the image quality of your unzoomed church was much is much better than the rock climbers

Andy, I bet you're right. Please believe me that I am not being snarky here, but I am really curious to see... Would you be able to find a nice recognizable landmark 600 meters away from you (use Google Earth to get the distance) and create three pictures similar to the ones I posted? I would enjoy very much seeing how much better image quality you get. I know it would be better, but how much better is what I want to see.

And is that 17-40 zoom in 35mm equivalency? You really have a 17mm wide angle? That's incredible! That alone might almost make me a DSLR convert. I can simulate 17mm by taking two pictures and stitching them together (I do that regularly with the Microsoft ICE program) but in doing that I risk weird distortions where I failed to hold the camera at exactly the same angle(s) for the two shots. Usually it works, but other times, well...

If you do take the three pictures, keep in mind that the longest shot (the ugly one) is zoomed 87x the widest one.

tanstaafl.

The 17-40L is a 17-40mm lens. So on a 60D, it's more like 27mm at the wide end. But Canon sell a 10-22mm lens for this purpose (I have one here), which gives the equivalent of 16-35mm on a 10/20/30/40/50/60D camera body.

The photo below, has about a 10' wide field of view, at one metre from the front of the bookshelves.

Now that is impressive.

Either you deliberately built a lot of curvature into your shelves so that they would photograph in a straight line with a super-wide lens, or else that lens has virtually no barrel distortion.

tanstaafl.

Any barrel distortion you may see in that snap, would be due to me not having the camera perfectly level.

But yeah, it's a phenomenally great lens. Very lightweight, too.

For full-frame (35mm sensor) cameras, Canon has the equivalent 16-35L lens (which I also have here). It is quite a bit heavier, though -- metal body, and (constant) f2.8 wide open.

Cheers

You couldn't have moved in a bit and taken a shot a yard away -- or one with a three-metre field of view?

Peter

Just helping to maintain the international flavour here, that's all.

I'll see if there is some decent light tomorrow.

In fact, that true on all Canon reflex cameras except 5D and above. I see on Canon's website current lineup is:

1000D
450D
500D
550D
60D
7D
5D Mark II - Full Frame
1D Mark IV - Full Frame
1Ds Mark III - Full Frame

Too bad full frames are so expensive still.

Well.. with the cropped frame cameras, we get a much smaller optical viewfinder. That's the major downside for most of us.

On the up side, we get excellent light-weight lenses from the EF-S series, and our cameras use only the centre "sweet spot" on regular lenses. Plus, we get a built-in speedlight ("flash").

Good trade-off, on the whole.

I thought DSLRs didn't need 'decent light'.

Yes, the lack of a built-in flash is annoying for me as well. I usually do not use it much, but there are cases when it is indeed nice to have.

I wouldn't really mind a FF sensor, though. In the future, should FF sensors become available to cameras of the 7D/50D/40D... segment, I'd consider it. While I have no direct experience of it, FF are supposed to also produce much less noise, all other factors held constant, for "obvious" physical reasons.

Aren't there problems with FF sensors with current lens mounts, where large aperture settings (f4 and wider) give poor results at the edges of the sensor, and long focal length lenses only use about 70% of the sensor's pixels?

If I understand it correctly, until the manufacturers produce a body with a larger diameter lens mount, the FF sensors are not being used to anything like their full advantage.

Or maybe I misunderstand it entirely...

tanstaafl.

Yes.

FF cameras began decades ago, with the introduction of 35mm film for still shots. The vast majority of film cameras out there use 35mm "sensors" (film).

With digital, we just replace the film with a digital sensor of the same dimensions, at the same point in the camera body.

Issues with light fall-off in the corners can be a concern if the maker doesn't take it into account in the microlenses (on the sensor), but Nikon and Canon both handle this just fine.

Cheers

Ok,one of the things I was planning to do is bulb-photography. I tried with mixed fortune last summer, including pictures at night sky, and now I'm also considering some remote shutter control for a 7D (yes, I decided to go with the 7D ).

I've been looking around but I was not successful in forming a clear opinion. What I want to do is simple:
1. Click on the remote so that the shutter opens while camera is perfectly still;
2. Possibly, leave the shutter open without having to keep my finger on the remote button;
3. Push the remote button to eventually close the shutter when I want.

What would you recommend? Wired or wireless? Canon originals (RS-80N3 seems to do all I want and it is wired, for example, but I have no particular preference over it) or other recommended brands and models? Would it make sense to look for some more features other than the ones above that may result useful?

Remotes I found range from 3 Euros wireless "empeg-style" to 180 Euros by Canon. I suppose my needs are quite basic, but I don't mind spending more and avoid that the remote breaks in my hands or the first time it drops on the floor.

DealExtreme is your friend. Eg., this basic unit, or this fancy one.

Cheers

Thank you Mark. They look like what I need. Also, it is nice that wired ones don't need batteries.

I think the fancier one, with the LCD screen, does use a small battery.

Agreed. Stuff you get from DealExtreme will definitely not break in your hands or if it falls on the floor.

Because it will in all likelihood break before it ever arrives at your door.

In the unlikely event that it gets delivered in working condition, do not look directly at the item, as the pressure of your gaze will almost certainly cause it to break.

You might also want to go ahead and order a dozen of them, to increase the probability of you getting more than three shots off with them.

The remotes marked linked to are generally fine. I have one (a YongNuo for Nikon) I purchased from DE and it's quite solid. The same remotes are being sold on eBay, and at least that manufacturer has a constant presence in this market.

I have purchased a fair number of items from DealExtreme, and have never had the slightest bit of trouble with any of them.

I understand that when I buy a multi-meter for $13.66, I am not getting a tool with Fluke robustness and quality, but I am also not paying $430 for it! I set my expectations appropriate to the price, and have never been disappointed. I am quite pleased with my DealExtreme multi-meter, which actually has more features than the Fluke meter linked above.

tanstaafl.

Unfortunately most of what I have bought from DX wasn't just disappointing, it just didn't work.

I'm glad you're pleased with it, but it hardly has more features:

DE: Resistance, AC Volts, DC Volts, AC Current, DC Current, Capacitance, Transistor current gain

Fluke: Resistance, AC Volts, DC Volts, AC Current, DC Current, Capacitance, Frequency, Temperature, Continuity/Diode test

To be fair, the continuity/diode test is trivial, but it is nice to have the beep, which the DE one may or may not have. On the other side of the coin, no one uses the transistor tester on a multimeter. It must be super-trivial to implement, because it's there on every cheapo multimeter.

So the Fluke has two more features (Frequency and Temperature) than the DE one, and has a number of usability features, the most important of which is that it's autoranging. The DE one is not, which is what makes it appear to have more features at first glance, since there are more positions on the selector.

Then the one you linked to is waterproof, ruggedized, etc. A more basic Fluke is around $225. Still a hell of a lot more than $13.66, given.

I wonder whether a wireless remote makes sense for different and creative usage of the camera, where you are standing away from it. I can't think exactly what creative uses, though . I am thinking out loud.
Another advantage of the wireless remotes is that they are smaller, it seems to me, on average, than wired ones.
Still, from the specs of RC-1 and RC-5 by Canon, I can't understand if you can lock the shutter open, or even just keep it open by keeping the button pressed.

Both of the wired remotes I linked above (DX) can lock the shutter open.

I have the Canon equivalent of the simpler one (no DX back then), and use it a lot for tripod shots.

But I also have a wireless remote, from DX. So far, I use it only for group photos that I am also a part of -- so I can get into the picture too.

The only other possible use I see for it here, might be to get animal / bird shots. Set up the camera/tripod where the beasts roam, and sit with the wireless remote a small distance away.

The wireless remotes are NOT smaller: they require two pieces: one at the camera, one in your hand. And both pieces need batteries.

Cheers

More useful than a wireless remote, is a wireless flash release. This lets you place an external speedlight pretty much anywhere (at any angle to the subject), and trigger it without having to also trigger the harsher onboard flash.

I have two kits for that from DX, and they get used reasonably often.

Cheers

Mark, will the wireless remote you have lock the shutter open? Just curious.

I've found that a piece of translucent scotch tape works great for taking the edge off. In a pinch, I've also used a kleenex draped over the flash. My current camera (Nikon D80) allows me to control the brightness of the onboard flash. I usually have it set a couple of stops below full power, which takes the edge off very nicely.

According to the instruction sheet that came with it, there's a push-and-hold function (3 secs) that locks the shutter open (camera in Bulb mode). It then stays open until the remote button is pressed again.

Cheers

I was thinking more of just the full-frontal direction of the light. Side lighting is usually much nicer.

Cheers

Oh, yes... I almost added that I'm still stuck with the flash being stuck on top of the camera instead of being off to the side.

Very interesting! Thank you for checking. I am now considering a wireless one. I mean, these things are quite inexpensive, I may very well get thet type (wired/wireless) that looks interesting and, if worse comes to worst, get the other type as well.

I got myself this tripod. I hope it turns out to be good: http://joby.com/gorillapod/slrzoom/

Okay, I just found a battery for it (the type-23A 12V minicell was dead), and tried it out on bulb. Seems to work as advertised.

Hey, your office is haunted, though! You'd better address THAT problem, instead of playing with your camera!

Thank you again for trying this, and the picture is cool . I am now leaning towards the wireless. I don't like the battery but it seems to me it gives a bit more flexibility.

I have two of those kicking around the house, but have not had good luck with them, they are not sturdy enough to be useful. They seem to come in various sizes/strengths, so hopefully the one you ordered will be adequate to the task.

tanstaafl.

I got the SLR+zoom, supposedly holding 3 Kg max. I should be below that, and I haven't tried it yet. But it does feel a bit too soft in my hands.

Sure. The specific wireless one I have is this one. There may be better ones on DX now, but that's what was available when I went hunting a few years ago.

It uses a type 23A (12V) battery in the remote (same as inside my Subaru key fob), and a CR2 (3V) lithium battery in the receiver.

DX has both kinds of batteries cheap(!) in packs of five (and I've just now ordered replacements).

The wireless flash relays I have from DX also use the CR2 batteries.

Cheers

Oh! It's RF! I was for some reason expecting an IR, like for example the Canon RC-1.

And I seem to understand from the pic that you can actually change frequency, can't you? Very nice...

There are other, similar models on DX now. Eg. this one, which sounds better than the one I have.

Ok, I am reconsidering wired ones. They seem to have some nice timer-related features.

This one here

http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=330403658644&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

looks identica to the original Canon TC-80N3 and allows:

1. Intermittent shutter releasing (e.g. one picture per 12 secs)
2. Time exposure (e.g. 4mins 32secs)
3. Timer - delayed shutter release (up to 99h 59mins 59s)
4. Number of shutter releases for continuous shooting: 1-399 or indefinite

Costs 1/5 of the original, also.

Say, here's a really cheap DX deal for a Canon 24-105L!

If it wasn't that I may end up pooring milk into the real one, I'd buy it!

Ok, I can confirm. I tried a Joby Gorillapod SLR+ZOOM and it proved a bit too soft with a 550D+24-70 L. The 55D is a low weight body, but the 24-70L is a heavier L series lens. The Gorillapod SLR-ZOOM, then, would definitely be too soft with a 7D body or above. It holds ok instead with 550D+15-85 Canon lens, a lighter lens from Canon.
I am going to return it for the stornger Gorillapod Focus.

It is indeed very versatile.

DX also has clones of those tripods, but one never knows the quality until it arrives from them.

There's a mall close by, here, which has the entire range of Gorillapods. I did have the chance to get the Focus, but I decided to stick with the recommended one for my setup, only to find out that specs were optimistic.
it seems to me that if your intended usage is to wrap the tripod around some bar, pole, or other objects that offer opportunity to grip, it will work great. But, in those occasions where you want to use it as a regular tripod, on a flat surfaces, the legs may start to slowly bend when you use a average/heavy lens on a typical "full" size body (50D, 7D, 5D, etc., for example).

Ok, so I got the Gorillapod Focus, and it is strong and good also with average/long lenses. I am sure it would sustain a 70-200 as well.

So, I decided to buy this wired remote: http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280531705707&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT .
It is no the cheapest in the market, but by using various cables, it is compatible with virtually every camera available. Cables must be purchased separately at € 5, but this particular vendor is offering to include one extra for free, so that I can use it for both 7D and G11 / my gf's EOS 550D .
The remote includes all the timer/aperture/sequence features I mentioned above. Also, it is farly compact and fits my bag.
Phottix sells it as well: http://www.phottix.com/wired-remotes/phottixr-nikos-digital-timer-remote.html
And here are two small reviews
http://martybugs.net/blog/blog.cgi/gear/PhottixNikosDigitalTimerRemote.html
http://mattharrisphotography.co.uk/blog/my-blog/review-phottixnikos

This is also a nice one, I think: http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220663617691&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
but I think I am going with the "Nikos".

Mmmm.. that does look rather nice. And it's great you can use it with all three of your Canon cameras.

Cheers

So, also thanks to your recommendations - precious as usual - I finally bought my first reflex: a Canon EOS 7D + 24-70 F/2.8L.

I am having a lot of fun experimenting.
So, here's a DOF basic experiment with my chessboard:
A
B

It may be quite obvious to the more experts here, but I am just happy that I can finally narrow DOF so much and start making some more interesting picture than before.
And, I am just amazed by the level of detail I could get. Just look at the full size versions, and you'll see dust grains on the black pieces. I guess this is due to an amazing lens!

OK... I'll see your chessboard and raise you one USB mini-plug!

tanstaafl.

Also given your hands-on comment on it, I am considering this as my next lens. The 10-22 is also very attractive in so many ways (including its cost being half than the 16-35L), but I like the constant f/2.8 feature.

When we visited you in 2008, the 10-22mm was in the bag -- extremely useful for indoor snaps in Basilicas and the like.

My absolute favourite lens is the 16-35L -- that was my standard walkabout lens until the 17-85mm came on the scene -- now the 17-85 gets about 75% of the use for walkabout, and the 16-35L gets the other 25%. But we didn't carry the 16-35 to Italy last time. I missed it.

Cheers

I think you mean, "here's a DoS basic experiment"... your inlined 18 megapixel images killed Firefox so stone dead on my laptop that I thought I'd got a virus...

Peter

Ops. Sorry about that. I meant to embed a shrinked version, but forgot to. A link will be enough. Edited.

Katy Couric would never allow a camera like that in the same room.