Why not IS primes?

[joe mama]

even with IS there is a limit to the quality of images you will get
with such low lighting of course. contrast and color will tend to
suffer, particularly if you are in incandescent lighting.

I've certainly noticed this -- even with natural light.

are you
that opposed to using a flash? as much as i hate the "look" of
flash, if properly done it yields far better photos than dim
natural lighting.

I'm opposed to an external flash as they are too big (yep, I'm whining!) and make it difficult for the candid shots I take (i.e. I'd never have the thing on when I want). I bought the 300D over the 10D dues to it's size -- no other reason (except a hope that it wouldn't have the AF problems of the 10D). I bought the 70-200 f 4L over the f 2.8 IS for the same reason (as much as I wanted the latter!).

That said, I find that sometimes there is no substitute for flash, and that it can produce stellar results. In fact, while many pooh-pooh the onboard flash ability of the 300D, I find it to be so good as to be worth the ticket price alone!

you could use for a gentle fill effect at the
very least, bouncing off a reflector, and get much better pictures
in many respects. if you haven't tried a decent flash unit like the
550EX i'd highly recommend one... you might be surprised how
"un-flash like" it can look with a little experimentation.

I've seen comparisons, and, to my eye, there was little difference between the onboard and 550 flashes. Perhaps that's because the people who posted the comparisons did not know how to use it, but I've seen about four or five posts on it with the same results.

you raise a point about these new generation digital cameras
opening up new possibilities and creating a new class of
photographers. that's mostly good, but there's also some negatives.
please don't take this as a criticism of you personally

Oooooh -- you're gonna get it! Flame's are a'commin'! : )

• i am just

speaking in general terms - but i'm going to be honest: even as a
relative novice, i've found the work of many of the "new class" of
digital photographers on the 'net (here, photo.net, fredmiranda,
etc.) to pale in comparison to that of an experienced film person,
even at a relatively low amateur level.

Why -- how -- dare -- you -- even -- suggest -- that [huff] [huff] -- that -- experience accounts for anything! And to drag me into the category of "inexperienced" newbies, well, it goes withut saying that you have no idea of what you speak! : )

Seriously, I agree 100%! I've only used a DSLR since my 300D arrive in September, and it may be that I learn some real important lessons (but, be warned, you shouldn't try to teach pigs to sing...). In fact, I, myself, have bitched about the lame pics people post with the 300D when a compact digicam would not only have done as well, it would have done better (due to the fact many do not "use" shallow DOF, they just happen to get it inappropriately for shots that called for deep DOF). Do I do this? Oh, you bet! I just don't post those pics! : )

i'm constantly amazed at
how wonderful the very first photos of a new 300D owner can be with
just a kit lens and some years of shooting w/a film camera under
the belt; and at the same time how mediocre many of the results can
be from someone who's owned every digicam under the sun and has
myriad L lenses at their disposal.

Sure, sure. I returned the 24-70L myself since it did nothing in my hands that the 28-135 IS did. Not that I'm knocking that lens (although, there were other reasons for the return -- too big (you know me! -- but it blocked the onboard flash for those times I needed it, the focus ring was in a bad place (being at the near end of the lens, the onboard flash often made it difficult to zoom, even when the flash was off), and it had no IS).

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[joe mama]

obviously it's the photographer with a sound understanding of
technique - lighting, exposure, composure, etc., regardless of
medium - as well as a creative eye who takes the better pictures,
and at the risk of being lynched here i'd venture to say that the
old-school film boys still have a considerable edge here. it's just
experience really, so it's unfair to compare a 1-year digital
novice with a 20-year film veteran, but at the same time these film
"dinosaurs" have been able to take wonderful pictures for years
without ISO800, without IS, without the ability to check their
results til days after in the darkroom.

Sure. But, digital has another merit -- it lets me take hundreds -- no, thousands -- of pics and choose the good ones. Just like the difference between the M16 and the M8 (semi-automatic vs. bolt action).

I like to use the word "need" with quotation marks. I don't need a camera at all, and certainly not a DSLR -- it's a hobby. Of course, I realize you understand this, but I just want to make that point ultra clear since it supports the idea of a 50mm f 1.4 IS (with ring USM!): I don't need it, but it is convenient , just as digital is convenient . In the great old USA, we pay for "convenience" more than we pay for "need" (to sum it up nicely, I remarked to a friend how nice it is to live in a country where you're not worried about where your next meal is coming from, to which he replied, "Or who is going to bring it to you.").

i guess i am just a bit paranoid about the "gadget generation," of
which i readily admit to being a card-carrying member, spoiling the
craft as it becomes more and more accessible to the masses. it's
great that digital has given so many people like myself easier
access to the joys of the hobby - i would have never found it as
easy to get into the hobby with film - but at the same time are we
losing something here? was there something to be said for the
restrictiveness of film enforcing discipline upon us? is the ease
of digital actually reducing our standards of photography?
questions that have been bothering me a bit of late...

Perhaps, but I'm not worried, nor do I care. Not to sound rude, but that's just how it goes. We don't know how the Egyptians built those pyramids without our modern machines, but it's now a question for the history books, not an affect of our daily business.

but i digress from the original argument, apologies. i don't see
canon putting IS on a prime lens below 200mm anytime soon. not an
idea without merit, but i don't see a large target audience for it.

On the other hand, I see a large target audience for it. But, I do believe that Canon agrees with you -- in other words, I'll not hold my breath (well, under water I will)! : )

incidentally, why not just ask for a, oh i don't know, 35-135 f/4
or thereabouts zoom lens with IS that's as good optically as the 50
prime?

Did you read my signature line?! : )

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[joe mama]

Joe, do you have any samples of what you're talking about here.
Tasty is right on this one. Your light levels would have to be so
low that your room must be lit by a 40 watt bulb or maybe by the
televisioin.

...as if I'm not making all this up! : )

OK, what you described above is exactly right. Here are two images -- the top is resized only, the bottom is a 100% crop -- 1/80s, f 1.8, ISO 800:





Man, that would have been a lot better at ISO 200!

Just how bad is your lighting in there? And you'd really pay a
premium for a 50/1.4 with IS for this kind of shot???

Often bad when i'm snappin' away. And yeah, I'd pay the premium (please, please be $100 and not more that $200!).

I think the recurring question that some of bring up on this one is
this: At f/1.4, the 50 really doesn't focus that consistently to
begin with. But that's not a camera shake issue at all, and IS
wouldn't solve that.

I'll concede that. If everybody is screaming against IS, then please (please!) make the focus on target! : )

Let's take a hypothetical situation. Let's open the 50 all the way
up to f/1.4. Let's turn the ISO up to 800. We'll go with a shutter
speed of 1/30 on the assumption that this is our handheld limit on
a bad day with no coffee. You ought to be able to shoot in the
following situations: Candle lit close-ups, subjects under bright
street lamps. Certainly the average night home interiors with
average light ought to work.

Maybe it's a focus issue, then. But even so, f 1.4 is still pretty shallow -- if IS lets me stop down to f 2 -- that's a lot better.

Put a little Noise Ninja onto that image, and you'd have a great
image!

I have it, and use it, but it's not my favorite thing to do to an image.

But I would explore the 50/1.4 focus issue a bit more. It really
can be a hassle in low light.

OK -- get on it! When you got the perfect focus lens, I'll buy it, and then see if I am still in need for IS!

Another question. Are you really hateful of external bounced flash?
That's another nice alternative.

Don't like'em -- bulk, you know. I'm a snapshooter, not a pro. That's why I got the 300D over the 10D -- bulk.

All I can tell you is that you've had some of the greatest input on
this one from guys who have some of the most experience. Not that
this at all invalidates your request. But when you've gotten some
of the most consistent input on any one topic that I've seen in a
long time, I'd tend to evaluate it a bit more thoroughly.

Sure, sure -- I'm listening. But I'd still pay for the IS! : )

All the best to you, Joe. And I hope we get that lens you describe!

Only people who don't have what they want need hope! : )

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[joe mama]

It's not a point I brought up in this thread, but I concur whole-heartedly! I really don't see a downside to IS as little as many seem to think it will help in low-light.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[tasty donuts]

I've seen comparisons, and, to my eye, there was little difference
between the onboard and 550 flashes. Perhaps that's because the
people who posted the comparisons did not know how to use it, but
I've seen about four or five posts on it with the same results.

yes, i would say it's safe to say they have no idea how to use the 550EX properly.

properly used in an appropriate setting, a 550EX (or 420EX) picture will look NOTHING like an onboard flash one. i never use direct flash, ever, except in the case of outdoor shooting where i have no reflective boundaries available. fortunately i have never had to deal with that though. i would never use the onboard flash of my 10D even if it were as powerful as the 550EX, simply because i cannot physically control it in any way. the 300D's onboard flash is a little better, but still can't come close to a good external. in addition to the swivel head on the better Speedlites, there are any number of accessories that allow you to control the directivity, diffusion, and effective radiating area of the light. you simply can't do this with an onboard flash.

if size is a problem i would get a 420EX, it's still bulky but a little more manageable than the 550EX. i am all against bulk and weight (one of the reasons i shoot with primes) but you simply cannot get around the need for adequate lighting in certain circumstances.

here's a goofy example of 550EX with ceiling bounce. you would never have been able to get the same quality of lighting with a direct flash (e.g. built-in):



here's the 420EX, also with ceiling bounce. not as good at the 550EX but still worlds apart from the built-in:



even with a cheapo (well under $100 i think) generic-brand manual flash with a bounce head, my friend was able to get this shot with a 300D and 50/1.8.. again, impossible with direct flash:



i also think it's safe to say these pictures came out much better than they would have even with a mythical 50/1.4 IS! if you haven't tried a 550EX yet, you really owe it to yourself to... i was a flash-hater myself until i did.

 

[joe mama]

OK,

I may have to break down and get an external flash. Those shots were awfully impressive! But I want something really really small! What's the difference in abilities (and size) of the three different flashes you showed (550, 420, and $100)?

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[Ulysses]

I'm opposed to an external flash as they are too big (yep, I'm
whining!) and make it difficult for the candid shots)

Well, you have a point there. But as your audience becomes more accustomed to the larger size of your gear, they'll ignore you.

I'm definitely opposed to direct flash in most instances.

many pooh-pooh the onboard flash ability of the 300D, I find it to be so
good as to be worth the ticket price alone!

Wow!! Really?? Heheh... I like external flash, but usually can't tolerate onboard flash. In fact, if it were me, I'd sneak into everyone's house and/or photo studio and use a small file to slice off the onboard flashes from their SLRs and digicams. They're EVIL, I tell you!

Oooooh -- you're gonna get it! Flame's are a'commin'! : )

Heheh... I tried to tell him! ;-)

What I enjoy about you, joe, is your PITCHAS, first of all. I didn't mention it earlier, but I genuinely enjoyed the shots of the children. Lovely subjects and truly special moments. You really DO like to capture those moments in low light, much lower than is typical, I would say! But I also enjoy your sense of humor. We've known one another for a while here on the forums, and this is really the first I've had to have more extended interchanges with you. It's been good to share viewpoints, finding ones where we're similar in thought and others where we differ. That's what forums are all about, at their best.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

yes, i would say it's safe to say they have no idea how to use the
550EX properly.

You know... I was going to say the same thing in my last post, but I couldn't figure out a way to word it without it sounding funny. Fortunately, you said it here --- and it sounds just as FUNNY as if I'd said it. Heheh... But it's true.

properly used in an appropriate setting, a 550EX (or 420EX) picture
will look NOTHING like an onboard flash one.

I'm wondering if the previous comparisons were all done with direct flash from an external unit. In that case, Joe is right. They can look VERY similar due to E-TTL at work in both systems. The key is using bounce flash and good exposure settings. Plus, as you point out, there are so many more options available for external flash configuration and control.

i also think it's safe to say these pictures came out much better
than they would have even with a mythical 50/1.4 IS! if you
haven't tried a 550EX yet, you really owe it to yourself to... i
was a flash-hater myself until i did.

I enjoyed the 550EX so much that I got several of them.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

OK,

And now, you are breaking down and seeing the light. The 550EX light!

I may have to break down and get an external flash. Those shots
were awfully impressive! But I want something really really small!

Then start with the 420EX unit, if you feel that size is a huge priority.

What's the difference in abilities (and size) of the three
different flashes you showed (550, 420, and $100)?

The 550 has it over the 420 in terms of control. You can adjust things like flash exposure compensation, use it Manual mode instead of E-TTL mode. It also has an LCD screen on the back so that you can read what's going on. The 550EX also has more POWER, if you need that.

But the 420 is very nice, and in the situations you demonstrated with your pics, it really may be all you need. You're already mastering the E-TTL flash with the onboard system, so you may not have the problems that others have had (they often don't really get to know the system). But the 550EX will also allow things like 1st curtain and 2nd curtain flash, stroboscopic flash, and it can serve as a master for other units if you wish. Lots of options. I really like it a lot. Good for studio work, too.



--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

Only people who don't have what they want need hope! : )

Hah!! In this crazy Zoom Generation we live in, hope is all we've got that Canon will come to their senses and produce more great primes!

I definitely HOPE that Canon releases a 50/1.2 with ring USM. That would solve (HOPEFULLY) the only real issues I have with the 50.

Make a 50/1.2, and probably even you woulnd't need the IS feature.

--

Ulysses

 

[joe mama]

Give a monkey a DSLR with a 1 Gb microdrive and a few 120 GB harddrives, and it'll produce a few pieces of art! : )
--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[joe mama]

What I enjoy about you, joe, is your PITCHAS, first of all. I
didn't mention it earlier, but I genuinely enjoyed the shots of the
children. Lovely subjects and truly special moments.

Aw, shucks! : )

You really DO
like to capture those moments in low light, much lower than is
typical, I would say!

Well, one in a hundred is better than none! : )

But I also enjoy your sense of humor.

It eases the urge to track down people who disagree with me and disembowel them!

We've
known one another for a while here on the forums, and this is
really the first I've had to have more extended interchanges with
you. It's been good to share viewpoints, finding ones where we're
similar in thought and others where we differ. That's what forums
are all about, at their best.

It is good to share opinions (as opposed to ram them down others' throats) and learn a little something. But, at the same time, it's hard to do. Other people have knowledge and skills I don't, and just typing text back and forth makes it difficult to see another point of view. Posting pics helps a lot, but in this digital age, even this is suspect. I have hard drives full of images and not that many are that good. But, from the ones I post, one would conclude that I have some degree of talent. It's hard to say -- the images I post are not representative of what I take, but instead represent what I strive to achieve. So, when someone else discusses a technique and posts an image saying "that's how it's done", there's always this nagging that maybe they're not as good as they say -- they got lucky that once and think they have it figured out. I know that's the case for me! : )

Anyway, when enough people tell me the same thing, I start to listen. That's what got me into DSLRs in the first place. But, it's a slow process -- it takes time to absorb what others are saying and even more time to put their advice into practice. Remember, I'm a hobbyist, not a pro. So, convenience, more than necessity, often dictates my equipment and style.

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[joe mama]

Then start with the 420EX unit, if you feel that size is a huge
priority.

I shoot in low light, not darkness, thus power is not a big issue (or is it?). What's the smallest flash unit that lets me accomplish my goal?

http://ulysses.smugmug.com/photos/2018848-M.jpg

That pic is awesome!

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[Eric Haglund]

--
Eric, Snapshooter
DSixty, GTwo, Four20EX, Fuji 38Hundred
http://www.pbase.com/haglunde

 

[Jay Kim #129170]

I've got a 50 1.4 and a 10D and the combination of a very bright prime lens and a good ISO performance of the 10D makes the combi a very good indoor non-flash photography setup.

but, such a shallow DOF of the 1.4 sometimes ruins the photo and so have to stop down to 2.8 or so to get decent results. but then, i've just stopped down 2 full stops..! which means, i may only get 1/40 or so shutter speed at ISO 1600 which might be enough to "stop" the motion of my wife slightly moving, but certainly will not stop my hand shake most of the time.. and the high ISO noise doesn't helt too much either..

i'll rather 1/10sec with IS which can still "stop" motions on many people photos(especially for family photos where they pose for you when you tell them, you are gonna take a photo) and at the sametime not have to worry about handshake whichc an easily occur even on 1/50 sec shots if not careful.. (especially for snap shots where you don't have 10seconds to hand hold it properly while leaning against a pole/wall to take a photo of that "moment"...)

anywayz.. IS will not hurt pretty much any lenses (coz you can turn it OFF), and will certainly help MANY MANY users,including myself and dare i say it also, many entry-level 300D/10D DSLR users who don't take the art of photography as seriously as some and just use it to take photos of treasurable moments in their family/social life.. =)

I would love a 50 1.4 IS with Ring USM also.. hehe. why not, if it was out for $999, i'm sure it would sell very very well..

but, i'll rather a 70-200L F4 IS........... i'm sure many do....

 

[Ulysses]

Hi there, Joe.

I would like to have found some images that could give you an idea of the size differences, but I didn't have the time to dig it up as thoroughly as I'd normally do.

That said, you have a few choices, if you want to stick with Canon flashes.

I shoot in low light, not darkness, thus power is not a big issue
(or is it?). What's the smallest flash unit that lets me
accomplish my goal?

There is the Canon 220EX, which works just fine with the Canon system. It's the smallest but the simplest. No swivel or anything. It's like a more powerful onboard flash minus some red-eye due to its height. $100



Then there is the 420EX which gives a little more power, as well as swiveling head capability (both up and down as well as side to side). It's not so big and unwieldy, but you'd need to make the adjustment in balancing the camera. $165



Finally you have the 550EX, the big boy. It has all the manual features and various flash modes and FEC, etc., etc., etc. It's a little large, but it's my personal flash of choice. $305

http://ulysses.smugmug.com/photos/2018848-M.jpg

That pic is awesome!

Thanks! He's a character.

--

Ulysses

 

[Ulysses]

It eases the urge to track down people who disagree with me and
disembowel them!

Hahahahah... I suspect many of us carry a little bit of the dark jedi within us. We must control it, and use our powers for good.

there's always this nagging that maybe they're not as good
as they say -- they got lucky that once and think they have it
figured out. I know that's the case for me! : )

Interesting! I'd never thought of it that way. I understand what you mean.

Remember, I'm a hobbyist, not a pro. So, convenience, more than
necessity, often dictates my equipment and style.

It's a delicate balance, whether good hobbyist or pro. And NO ONE knows it all.

--

Ulysses

 

[joe mama]

I would love a 50 1.4 IS with Ring USM also.. hehe. why not, if it
was out for $999, i'm sure it would sell very very well..

...I mean, I'd pay it (eventually), but I don't want Canon thinking I would. Tell them I'll go up to $500 (US)! : )

but, i'll rather a 70-200L F4 IS........... i'm sure many do....

I just got one of 'em. It is one beautiful lens. Too big for me (both physically -- although not too heacy -- and in terms of zoom), and I'm not sure how often I'll use it, but the pics I got from it were so consistently excellent that I feel I must keep it just for those few times I may need it.

Here's the pic that my wife took of my kid and I that pushed me over the edge into keeping it:



--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[Jay Kim #129170]

...I mean, I'd pay it (eventually), but I don't want Canon thinking
I would. Tell them I'll go up to $500 (US)! : )

Oops.. i meant for Australian dollars.. so around $700 US.. =)
But i'll be really happy if it was US$500...

but, i'll rather a 70-200L F4 IS........... i'm sure many do....

I just got one of 'em. It is one beautiful lens. Too big for me
(both physically -- although not too heacy -- and in terms of
zoom), and I'm not sure how often I'll use it, but the pics I got
from it were so consistently excellent that I feel I must keep it
just for those few times I may need it.

?? If you read carefully, it's a 70-200L F4.0 IS... (notice the IS...) =P

 

[joe mama]

We're thinking along the same lines anyway!

--
--joe

300D -- awesome. Please petition Canon make me a 20-100 f 4L IS -- and while they're at it, throw in a 50mm f 1.4 IS that focuses at three inches as well!

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )