According to what I derive- the D40 Body will list for $80 less than the D50 and the kit will list for $100 less than the D50kit.  And what exactly does wanting a Canon 5D have to do with this thread?

Does this ens look like it may be more for professional video rather than for EOS system DSLR's?

Are you taking the photo to show YOUR artistic ability or to showcase that graffiti artist's?

MR Ducks
MR Not
SAR CMEDBDI's?
LIB
MR Ducks!

Yes- The D200 is amazing. I recently had the opportunity to "test drive" one and was impressed at the quality and the speed. The camera is a hot commodity as we sell them as fast (or faster) as we receive them. But its also who is behind that camera that can make a difference- one has to know how to use it to maximize the potential of the camera- great shots!

(Decyphering....
"Them Are Ducks
Them Are Not
Yes They Are.... See Them Itty Bitty Eyes?
Well I Be
Them Are Ducks!")

There now are straight-out "Protection Filters" made for cameras. These are just a clear filter made for no reflection/refraction so the image stays as-is. Just be sure the filter is "Multicoated" so there will be no reflections on the backside of the filter from the front lens element. As for a difference between a UV & a skylight filter- A skylight filter is usually tinted yellowish or pinkinsh to not only filter the UV rays (which film is still sensitive to) but it will also warm the image more.

Thanx for the comments regarding my comment on the photographer vs. the camera issue.... Jim- You brought up a very good & valid point about the shutter lag. In many cases it's true. However one doesn't have to spend more than $1000 to avoid that. A Canon Rebel XT (with lens) is just instantaneous for that price ($1000)and it's an 8mpix. Also there are other Digital SLR's that provide good performance in that area for less.

As for the printing of something poster size & "needing mondo megapixels"... I see many 20x30 posters being done where I work & being done on 6mpix cameras. Yes, when you scrutinize up close they may not be as sharp, BUT when you are back far enough to enjoy the whole image- it looks sharp at that distance. Remember- the viewer is usually standing back at least a few feet and cannot see a slight loss of sharpness at that point. By the way- One of the better poster size images I have seen came from a Nikon Coolpix 7900!

Also- to address TwoPynt's question- the majority of what is selling are the compacts, especially the ones that have the large screens on them. People seem to like the ease of use & carrying of them. The 3x optical zooms are starting to be more expanded (5x & 10x on some) on some newer models which is a HUGE plus. However, the models like the Canon S2 are very strong sellers and I've even had a couple that took that route (because of the convenience) over an SLR.

I might also add that this is one of the better threads that I have seen in this forum!!

Yes... we are all "gadget junkies." Hell- Im even worse off- I'm surrounded by cameras all day! One thing that I have noticed though is that the customers coming in for the SLR's are few (I'm talking the OLY E-300, NIKON D70(s) & D50, and the CANON Rebel XT). Granted, I have been employed at the store for only a few months now, but I have seen only one customer come in & inquire about the 20D. That pretty much shows what the consumers & most photographers are looking at in reality. Most of what "serious" photographers are beginning to look at are the likes of the CANON S-2 or the SONY H-1. Both have 12x optical zoom (roughly 35-400mm)lenses with Image Stabilization and cost roughly $500- 1/8 of what the afforementioned camera costs (and thats before the lens). Yes- it may be "only" a 5mpix... but how large do we make our images? If I recall- a 5mpix would go to a good 13x19 image and stay somewhat sharp. For me- I'd rather work with what I have & Improve as well as challenge my imagination. However- It is nice to dream of a camera like that on occasion.

Message edited on: 08/23/2005 13:11

I just wonder..... How many of us on here can really afford $4K for this? Yes- it's a lot of hooplah... but how many people on here actually shoot with something of this caliber? It's a great announcement, but anyone shooting with such a high level of camera and using it to post on here is not using it to its potential. remember... It's the eye behind that viewfinder as opposed to the camera that makes the great images!

Message edited on: 08/23/2005 00:44

I try to keep mine around an 800x600 for those who still have 15" monitors and those who have 17 and have the resolution at that. Also one has to keep in mind about the "toolbars" from the browser- those tend to take up valuable viewing space.

Try finding a place to rest the camera on- and place the camera on a beanbag or something of the like- works for me. Otherwise like diomedes said- try tucking your elbows, or find a position that is steady for you. Also if you camera has a viewfinder- DO NOT use the screen to compose the image. Youll find it steadier to hold up to your eye.

Depends on how much she loves her husband- she can buy a Kodak CX7300 ($100) and pocket the rest.

But seriously- keep in mind that that the price would also need to include a couple peripherals such as a memory card & with some cameras rechargeable batteries & a charger (if required). Also, there are so many different cameras in that price range & it depends on what he would shoot. Would he need more of an optical zoom, would he be enlarging, would he want something real small & compact.

(Grasping Chest in Mock Shock!)
Cyn- you said that so well & I agree with you for the most part.... except for the part about needing better equipment.

I see shots coming from compact digitals that are exceptional & on the other hand ones from high-line professional models (like the seems like its ever so popular Canon 20D) that look like crap. remember- we've been thru this too on the forum.... it's not the camera- it's the eye & imagination of the photographer.

Message edited on: 07/26/2005 15:31

I know you do cyn..... its just frustrating when I see other artists (this is an ART community isnt it?) not getting the recognition that is deserved because of a group that just tends to give each other pats on the back.

I get many comments sent to me about what is written on my main page here where they are discouraged (and I admit that I get discouraged sometimes) because they think their work is good- but why isnt it getting viewed? Then they see the number of comments on that- where the comments are 100% positive (even on that nediocre image).

I will also give a prime example of this. Right this second as I am typing this there is an image ("Still Strolling Around That Lake") that has only 3 viewings (I was one of the 3) I think it is a great image- but above it a couple rows is a cat snapshot (no offense to the photographer) and it has 12 viewings & 3 comments (oops 14 now) and the comments really dont have anything to say about the actual photo. If this is an ART COMMUNITY- we should be artists and act like one.

As for who can take it & who can't... If they cannot take it either- don't post it out there or don't check the box allowing comments.

Wonderful Creation- I tip my antler to you in thanx for bringing up this comment. I totally agree with what you say and ask many members here that this is also my pet peeve about this so-called "gallery." I use the "so-called" there because it's starting to turn into more of a snapshot sharing service. I agreee- many photos are just mediocre but get that "wow" or even worse yet- a VOTE! The so-called critiques often comment on the subject matter rather than the photo (ie-"cute cat"). One thing that you will also notice on here that it's the same circle/clique of people doing this. And God Forbid if anything negative but constructive is said about an image (yes- I have received hate e-mails & IM's blasting me because I made a suggestion to improve the image). Maybe the moderators should work something up about the critiques here- oh wait- Ive seen that some actually paticipate in the reciprocity.