What bemused you today?

[Hybridphotog]

What's bemused me?

Bluddy DSLR's.

After sadly ruling out getting an Epson R-1D (uncommon, and not very cheap secondhand either), I settled for a second hand Canon 5D. I'm now having second thoughts on this, after DMT mentioning stuff about shutter lifespans and actuations.

Time for another rethink. Canon 40D, p'raps... at least it'll give me an extra few £'s to play with.

Curse my affinity for *mechanical* (read "fix it yourself") cameras. 

[anglefire]

The 5D has a better shutter lifespan than your 350D.

There was an issue with bits dropping off - but that was mainly in high temperature/humidity regions.

Mines got about 30K clicks on it. Been out in all weathers and apart from a few scratches is good as new.

But they do attract the dust bunnies. More than the 350D.

[picsfor]

As Mark says - the 5D was known for collecting dust - but at least it is still of the mechanical sensor stuff where it is easy to clean.
Shutter actuations i was given to understand was about designed to be about 100k - the 5D MkII is rated at 140k.
In either case you've really got to be going something to use up that amount of pictures taken.

Laws of diminishing returns would indicate that if you were able to squeeze that many "tried for" pictures into a few years you would produce enough pictures to generate sufficient revenue to cover the cost of replacement.

40D i've had and loved - up until i got a 5D MkII. Smashing camera - sad to see it go but it was never gonna get used again once i'd played with the 5D MkII - but then we are talkng about a completely different price range and specs etc.

[Hinfrance]

Canons are getting a bit of rep for not lasting long. Probably largely undeserved, although yesterday evening at a party having pinched my host's 40D to take a few pictures I got as far as taking the first one before 'Error 05' popped up on the screen. Luckily after I turned it off and on again the error cleared, but I was panicking there for a minute . .

[Hybridphotog]

Canons are getting a bit of rep for not lasting long. Probably largely undeserved, although yesterday evening at a party having pinched my host's 40D to take a few pictures I got as far as taking the first one before 'Error 05' popped up on the screen. Luckily after I turned it off and on again the error cleared, but I was panicking there for a minute . .

My 350D has given me a couple of errors, but that's only with the horrible Canon 75-300 lens that had some dirt on the contacts once.

All in all, I've almost settled for a 50D.

[anglefire]

And miss out on full frame goodleness? :lol:

[Graham]

All in all, I've almost settled for a 50D.

   Dave mate.
                     You do know that with the M9, Leica appear to have built a digital camera worthy of the name!
                                     Just a thought.
                                                   Graham.

[picsfor]

Canons are getting a bit of rep for not lasting long. Probably largely undeserved, although yesterday evening at a party having pinched my host's 40D to take a few pictures I got as far as taking the first one before 'Error 05' popped up on the screen. Luckily after I turned it off and on again the error cleared, but I was panicking there for a minute . .

My 350D has given me a couple of errors, but that's only with the horrible Canon 75-300 lens that had some dirt on the contacts once.

All in all, I've almost settled for a 50D.

Shame you couldn't stretch to a 7D - amazing piece of kit for its money. You only have to speak to those who have one - almost no bad words to be said (except from Nikon owners  )

[Hybridphotog]

And miss out on full frame goodleness? :lol:

I've got a couple (*cough*) of film cameras for that, to be honest.

Dave mate.
You do know that with the M9, Leica appear to have built a digital camera worthy of the name!
Just a thought.
Graham.

Hmm.... the older M8.2's costing £4,000+ second hand... nah. It's only a name now, nothing else.

Shame you couldn't stretch to a 7D - amazing piece of kit for its money. You only have to speak to those who have one - almost no bad words to be said (except from Nikon owners  )

I've just had a look at the specs of a 7D, and there's nearly nothing that makes me want one. 100% viewfinder coverage... that's it.

But, as the 40D and 50D do 95%, I can cope.

See, I can afford the 5D, but I'd loose the "all in one" zoom (simply because of the lens mounts). And if I did get the 5D, there'd be the nagging thought of shutter lifespans.  The way I see it is it's a win-win situation, regardless of what options I go for. It's swings and roundabouts though... both options have drawbacks and benefits, and each one plays off against the other.

There again, I could go for just the lens, and blow the body money on a rather nice Leica M2 with a 5cm Summicron.

Dilemas... decisions... and... stuff.

[spinner]

Spent the better part of Sunday evening taking a bunch of flower shots, about 30 of them, and running them through Genuine Fractals to crop them and add Gallery Wrap borders. The light bulb went on this morning, I'd cropped them 12" x 12" and set the wrap for 2" making them 14"x14" print size, which doesn't conform to any canvas size and regardless won't work on my Printer that can only print a max of 13"x 19",  duh. 

[Cabbyjohn]

WHO NEEDS CAR BOOT SALES?
News > Entertainment > Fine Arts
Ka-Ching! Ansel Adams Photos Found At Garage Sale Worth $200 Million

By Kathy Ehrich Dowd | Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:17 PM ET

A $45 purchase uncovers sought-after photos from the artist's early career.

Attention all aspiring yard salesmen: be really careful what you put up for sale.

Why?

That dusty old box from the attic just might contain treasures worth millions. Just ask LA-based Rick Norsigian, who bought two boxes at a yard sale for a mere $45 10 years ago, only to eventually discover they contained prized glass negatives from Ansel Adams. Approximate value? $200 million.

Aside from the staggering monetary value of the find, the pics are practically priceless to art historians who study the famed nature photographer. According to David W. Streets, the appraiser and art dealer who will unveil the photographs at his Beverly Hills gallery on Tuesday, the photos were taken between 1919 and the early 1930s — well before Adams became a household name — and demonstrate how the artist honed his craft. The photos include shots of the Yosemite landscape and San Francisco landmarks.

"It truly is a missing link of Ansel Adams and history and his career," Streets told CNN.

So how exactly did Norsigian come upon such a windfall? As with many great finds, quite randomly. The yard sale buff happened upon a sale in southern California in 2000 and became intrigued by two boxes he was told came from a warehouse salvage in Los Angeles in the 1940s.

Upon closer examination, Norsigian became intrigued by the plates that were individually wrapped in newspaper inside crumbling manila envelopes. He spent the resulting years trying to prove the worth of his find, and several experts back him up.

"I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far less evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and burden of proof expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian to help authenticate the pics. "In my view, those photographs were done by Ansel Adams."

Experts believe Adams might have lost track of the photos while teaching a photography course in Pasadena in the 1940s. The envelopes protecting the photo slides appear to contain notations from Virginia Adams, Ansel's wife, say handwriting experts. And several of the photo slides are almost identical to more well-known Adams prints, which millions have admired for decades.

This whole unbelievable tale just goes to show that the old adage is true, with a twist: one man's trash can turn out to be everyone's treasure.

[anglefire]

The AF on the 7D is streets ahead of the 50D.

But if you don't need it for action etc, then probably not worth the etc.

[rksmith51]

If one ND4 reduces by 3 stops, why does adding another not make it 6 stops   

[Eileen]

If one ND4 reduces by 3 stops, why does adding another not make it 6 stops   

Because each stop is twice/half as much light as the one on either side? So if you add one more filter you double its effect, adding one stop. Two more would add another, and so on.

[Jonathan]

Just booked a wedding.  For, err, Sunday.  43 hours from now.  (That's a new record for me BTW)

It's a Sikh wedding with only about 300 people there.  There will be 2 teams of photographers plus probably 3 videographers all covering proceedings.  Plus, err, me.  I've been hired to give a "creative spin" on the day.  Haven't met anybody from either family and haven't spoken to either bride or groom.  I don't even know their names....

This could be interesting.