[John Bennett]

I have two daughters Seafood. They are aged 13 and 10 now. We just got back from a weekend where they spent most of their free time fishing. They’ve been fishing as far back as I can remember, probably coming out in the boat with me spin fishing since they were about 3yrs old each.

Both enjoy the outdoors, but my oldest is more closely following in my footsteps. She loves camping, the two of us get away atleast twice a year. She loves bugs can spend hours upon hours just catching bugs, crayfish, frogs, snakes you name it. Shes also developed a keen interest in “birding” which is great because we go for long hikes “birding” now to with out cameras.
Anyways, you get the idea.

Not *all* girls grow out of it 🙂
In fact she puts all boys of the same age I know to shame. Shes taken “naturalist” camps and can name fauna (edible or not) that I dont even know 🙂

As for fly-fishing
Thats a littlle harder. Ive taken her a few times, she enjoys it but not as much as spin fishing. In fact she more apt to put the rod down and try to catch nymphs and insects as she is Browns. Thats neither here nor there though.

I hired a guide the first couple times for 1 on 1 “learn to’s” from a professional. That includined casting instruction, entomology and hands on in stream. Best $$ Ive ever spent. It takes “daddy” out of the “teachers” role, eliminating any “stress” that might arise from that and its just an  out and out fun day for all.

[John Bennett]

Well Im not David or Zach but assuming you don’t mind I’ll chime in with some random thoughts on the topic.

I’m a firm beleiver that your lenses are as important if not more important than your choice of body.
Simple anology. Using entry level glass and a pro body will result in mediocre results. Using high end glass on entry level bodies will result in some eye poping results. Ultimately you need both but all else being equal I’m a beleiver that your lenses do more for you, than your body.

My main pursuit is wildlife photography, followed by fly fishing related photography. I use Canons 400 f5.6 L and if I could justify the coin Id get their  500 f4 L. There are alot of alternatives in terms of long lenses available to amateurs or people starting out and looking to save some money. None of them  hold up. There just no way a 70-300 can compare to a 300 f4 or come close to 400 f5.6 etc. Back to the anonlogy. Again putting a entry level 300mm on a 1DmkIIn will yield moderate results. Putting a 400mm, or 300 f4 L on a Rebel XTI will yeild some stellar results. Other considerations beyond contrast, colour, sharpness (IQ) are things like build quality and focu speed. I do alot of bird photography and focus speed is critical.

by way of example.

Your just not going to get that kind of result with less than good glass.

Different types of photography have different concerns. With WAs alot of people look at CA and vignetting, sharpness, IQ, focu speed, etc. Again, the more money you spend on the lens the more differences you’ll notice. Im not a landscape photographer though so as yet, I haven’t my WA.

I borrowed a friends Canon 17-40mm f4 L for a recent trip to Nova Scotia. It was glued to my body for alot of the trip although I would switch in my 17-55mm kit lens periodically. There was a  noticeable difference in colour, contrast etc.
Peggys Cove

Im not a huge landscape shooter though so for now my kit lens will be the lens and when Im ready to spend coin on a good WA I’ll certainly get the 17-40 f4 though.

When it comes to lenses there are litterally dozens of pros and cons. They can start with weight and run the gamut right upto and including price. Canons “nifty 50” is a “cheap” 50mm lens. Ultimatelywhen deciding on lenses its about trade-offs. What I would suggest is spend your money on a lens that is designed for the area thats of the most interest to you. For *me* intitially it was wildlife photography so I didnt mind dropping the coin on a 400 f5.6 L. Next up was my Macro lens and so on.

As for “fishing” lenses. I think theres a few ways to approach that. A good WA will cover alot and allow for good landscape/waterscape while your out. However it wont do as good a job when it comes time to shooting people imo, which is when youd want a nice portrait lens so a mid range zoom like a 24-70 f2.8 etc.

Fast glass is another consideration. Controlling depth of field and having the option to use some selective focusing with great back ground (bokeh) blur is another fine chocie. I have an 85mm f1.8 that I like to use and thus far its yielded some great shots.

As good as the 17-40mm f4 L is, it Cant get this kind of effect.

Lastly.
Good glass if you take care if it can last a lifetime and travel with you from body to body if/when you upgrade bodies. In short glass last, bodies dont.

Get the best you can (within reason) and if I were to get a good all purpose lens for “fishing” Id look for something like Canons 24-70mm f2.8 L.

[John Bennett]

Are you sure of the specs Zach, I havent seen anything yet. Couple of the forums I haunt have today (8/23) as the release date. I’m not Nikon so I cant comment on what Id like to see, but from talking to a number of Nikon to Canon converts one area thats almost always cited is NR. I would hope Nikon makes some big steps there. By way of example Canon MkIII, the images at iso 3200 are sick.

couple notes
A friend of mine has the new Canon Mark III and loves live preview for macro shooting. It one reason why Im likely stepping up to the 40D. If you do any amount of fine manual focusing, live view is (imo) a great feature.

[John Bennett]

I love my 30D but the enhancements have me very tempted. In large part as I can still get half back of the original purchase on a trade in. So give or take a few bucks I may be able to get a new 40D for 800.00 or so. The big thing for me is the improved IQ and AF, which is already impressive in the 30D. Short of the *pro* bodies the 30D is about as good as it gets and they are only making it better.

Eye catching highlights
10.1 MP
6.5 fps
Redesigned AF
3 inch LCD with live view
improved weather sealing

Worth reading twice

Quote:
Improved Image Quality
Although it is based on the image sensor used in the EOS Digital Rebel XTi, the EOS 40D Digital SLR’s 10.1-megapixel CMOS APS-C size image sensor has been significantly improved thanks to the use of larger microlenses over each pixel to reduce noise and expand sensitivity up to ISO 3200.

[John Bennett]

Right now you have coverage from 17mm to 300mm, which is all anyone really needs untill you start getting into specialisations. There isnt a photographic requirement out there you can do with that range.
Let that develop over the next 6 to 12 months and by then you’ll know where you photograhpic interest primarily lie. Then go out and by a lens for that task.

If you find landscapes are your thing. Go get a good WA. If you find portraits and people are your thing get a good 50mm or 85mm 1.4 or 1.8. Ditto Macro and/or long lenses (400mm+). Good specialised lenses even prosumer ) are expensive so you want to know what your interest lie.

[John Bennett]

Birds are tough Seafood. Even with my 400mm Im often cropping alot of the time, you can never have enough reach. Few things will differentiate long lenses faster than heavy crops. Its where you really see the difference between the best lenses and prosumer lenses. Even my Canon 100-400L was very noticeably softer than my 400 5.6 when I cropped heavily. With no crops you couldnt see any difference in images (usually).

I think in this case its not so much that the lens is bad, its just the images ( a result of resolving ) not going to stand up to heavy crops. If you work within the lenses limts it should be fine but with birds if you want tack sharp shots you probably will need to get alot closer. Thats not easy with birds though.

Try a couple exercises.
1) Take some frame filling shots of a dollar bill, news print, or brick work.Then review them and see how the print stands up.

2) Try some dogs runnning in a park etc. That can proxy as some moving wildlife and you can get close enough that you wont be feeling the need to crop alot.

3) Practise on Gulls. They make good practise for birds in flight, will let you get close

[John Bennett]

A sample or two with the exif would help shed some light Seafood.

With regards to noise. Thats a function of a few things but the main culprit is ISO and underexposure, either of which can result in unacceptable noise. Noise from high ISO depends mostly on your bodies NR (noise reduction) capabilities. In a nut shell the more expensive, higher end bodies tend to handle it better. I use a 30D and am often at ISOs between 400 and

[John Bennett]

I’m sort of on the fense about IS/VR etc.

On one hand I think its a marketing ploy to those unfamiliar with how it works, and its something of a money grab. To those who do understand the mechanics its a nice “whistle” but not neccessary.

My expereince with IS is limited to Canons 100-400 L IS. I found IS to be virtually useless and as such largely a waste of money with it. The lenses I’m familiar with all seem to be close to double the price of the non is version. Examples being the 70-200 f2.8 or f2.8 IS and again the 70-200 f4 IS and non IS.

Long story short. On the telephoto lenses “typically” you arent shooting static shots in low light “handheld”. Your on a tripod/monopod or “other” and at other times the shutter speeds being used to “freeze” motion are such that IS is a non factor. Examples here are sports shooters and wildlife shooter, say Birds in Flight etc. Worded another way if Im “tracking a moving subject” my shutter speed in all likely hood would need to be high enough to stop the motion ( 1/1000th or higher). If I was in low light with a long lens Id be on a tripod, IS or no IS.

[John Bennett]

Hers a few to add, lets see if the thread gets some steam. I’m just starting down the macro road myself this spring.

Canon 30D, Tamron 180mm f3.5 ( and sometimes a Tamron 1.4 TC added)

[John Bennett]

Im sure someone with more knowledge willl add to ( or correct any mistakes) but heres my basic understanding.

First; HDR incase your wondering is High Dynamic Range.
Often the sensors in digital cameras can’t capture the entire rang, from the darkest shadows to the birghtest highlights presented before it. An easy example ( I think) is when refering to your historgram and noticing that your clipping both the highlights and shadows.

One way to “artifcilally” increase the dynamic range of your sensor is to use the auto exposure bracket features. So you end up with 3 images of the same scene. One rendered as a proper exposure at 18% nuetral gray and two bookends typically at +/- 1 ev. The underexposed image records the details and extends the range on the highlights (whites) without otherwise blowing them as in your “proper exposure”. Likewise, the over exposed image extends the range of blacks and captures more shadow detail.

Using layers and layers mask the 3 images are then altered and worked back into one taking the best from each. The mid tones from the “proper” exposure and the highs/shadows from the -/+ exposed images that were otherwise unrecordable by todays digital cameras.

End result is an image with far more dynamic range present.

[John Bennett]

My pond ( Canon g7). Visotors range from snakes, frogs and insects to Herons and raccons

From my deck I have a clear view  across a small field to the treeline of the forest and conservation area. A couple of the typical visitors.

From the stream ( Duffins Creek ) located in those trees a 5 minute walk away

Steelhead in November and December

Steelhead in April

Chinooks in Sept and Oct

Resident Brookies and Browns June through Sept

Blessed?
You bet.

[John Bennett]

I don’t know if theres an easy answer to a question like this 🙂

Each maker, to one degree or another has pros and cons. read enough forums and you start to get a feel for some. for example only. Canon seems to have an edge in noise reduction (broad statement) and seems to enjoy a sizeable advantage for sports and wildlife shooters who favor Canons lenses/systems. Goto any of the major wildlife forums etc and the overwhelming majority are canon shooters. Check the side lines of any sporting event and 95% of the shooters are using Canon L lenses.
From what I gather its a combination of numerous things from noise reduction to better (faster more accurate) AF systems ( AI servo). Conversely the techies seems to feel Nikon has more reliable and better AF in one shot modes ( Landscape, portrait) etc. Theres also lots of debate as to which system renders colours better 🙂

Does either make one or the other “better”?

Who knows 🙂 I dont think so.
I went Canon initially because thats what Im comfortable with.

While I can maybe give some idea or thoughts on what I think of Canons entry level DSLRs ( the XT and XTI) that doesnt in any way mean I can fairly comment on Nikons, Pentax or Sonys. What i would suggest is that regardless of which maker you decide and which of their bodies include room in your budget for glass both immediately and down the road. Bodies are only tempoary and like cars depreciate quickly. Glass if taken care of can last decades.

Im using Canons 30D and Ive got some very good glass including some L. Im going to drive the 30D into the ground and hopefully (wife willing) buy a 1DIIn in a year or so.

Glass last, bodies dont.

[John Bennett]

Mike:

The teleconverter is actual lens magnification through more pieces of glass. The FOV crop is simply a crop of the angle of view of the lens. So you are getting 450mm cropped 1.5x.

Totally agree.  I was just hypothesising whether or not a teleconverter added to a DSLR with an existing FOV crop of 1.5x might compound that to a 3.0x crop.  I assume image acuity would be some-what crappy.  Sort-of a “Poor Man’s” super zoom…

Dont know if I can answer all your questions but I can tell you a 1.4 will work. You may (probably) have trouble with AF and Im guesing you’ll definately notice some loss of IQ but they can work. I use a Tamron 1.4x non reporting TC on both my 180 f3.5 macro and on my 400mm f5.6 with a Canon 30D( 1.6 crop).

IQ is fine imo. 400 L  f5.6 + tamron 1.4 on 1.6 crop

When used with a high quality zoom ( Canons 100-400L to be exact) though I didnt like the loss of IQ at all and consider it un-useable. With my primes though IQ is ok, what troubles me is AF, its spotty. Anways the resulting IQ will imo, be almost entirely dependant on the quality of the lens its being used with, not the body.

[John Bennett]

I don’t know if theres a “better”. Like so many things photography related it tends to boil down to trade offs. I have a leight weight tripod that easy to pack and lug around. What I dont like about it is having to set it up, take it down, stow it,

[John Bennett]

Hi Zach.

With regards to host.  I’m currently using Zenfolio ( former pbase user) and while its pay its dirt cheap. For 20 something a year (under 40 CAD) I get 1 gig of storage. I currently have over 200 photos uploaded and am only using 120mb. Reason being I upload at 1024 x 682. Most images take about 300KB at that size which for the net and web viewing is more than plenty. Aside from nice layouts and stuff one of the features I really like is the ability to link various sizes from the one file ranging from small thumbnails at 60×42 through to the full size image were I to upload 8mg files. Typically the size I most often link is 800 x 560. Other popular hosts I know of are smugmug and photobucket

[John Bennett]

All this talk of layer mask, dodging and burning, adjusting colours in layers, etc, etc reinforces just how little I know and how far I have to go 🙂 The most sophisticated adjustment I make is a sharpening action I learned from someone that envloves sharpening

[John Bennett]

Thats pretty crazy when you see the change graphically illustrated like that. It’s no suprise, its just not often that you see the before and after with celebrities.

My PS capabilities aren’t even remotely close. I’m still strugling to understand and use layer mask 🙂

[John Bennett]

Thanks for the feedback Eric, very helpful and something to keep in mind next time I’m out with company.

Re the macro work.
Funny, the harsh light never factored into my mind. You can tell by the shodows the shots were mid day. A time of day when shooting any other subjects

[John Bennett]

The 85 f1.8 has become my favorite lens to have with me and mounted when wading streams fishing. You cant get the narrow DoF wth a PnS or other slower lens and when need be I can open it up in low light when shutter speeds are dicey. It saves me from having to bump my iso if my SS is my driving concern.

I think I mentioend it elsewhere but my typical loadout is my body (with grip and 2 Batts) , my WA, the 85 f1.8 and my 180 macro. That 11pds and small change. If/when I add 400 f5.6 for wildlife shooting that goes to 15pds. I used to lug my self standing monopod ( it a ghetto tripod/wading stick) but at 2pds…..It all adds up

For the type of hike your considering Id shave any glass and spare batteries I could. Just go with the bare minimum. Your going to bring the PnSs regardless, so let them handle WA and the long end if needed.  That leaves you the D70 and 50 f1.4 to experiment with tight DoFs/portrait type shots  that you can use for fish/people and flora.

J

[John Bennett]

What that Eh?
Yes I read it all the time, its one of the few printed mags I enjoy

[Author]

Posts