26-May-2004 (Wed) Wherein I ramble about my new camera.

Photos are up of tonight's King's X / Doppler Inc show. I took them this time, and they came out quite a bit better than my photos usually do, because today I finally broke down and got a new digital camera. I replaced the Nikon Coolpix 990 that I'd been using for almost four years with a Canon EOS 10D (the same camera that Angela uses) and a Canon EF 24mm f1.4L USM lens. It is so choice. If you have the means, I highly recommend picking one up. It's almost like my previous camera wasn't even a camera: the 10D blows it away on so many levels. Focus is fast, it can take 3 shots a second for a total of 9 before stalling on the card, and I can shoot in normal club lighting at 1/60 or faster with no flash! I'm very impressed. Its only drawback is that it's a real camera with a real lens, which means it's big and heavy and doesn't fit in my pocket. But, that's still the only choice if you want "not junk."

15 Responses:

  1. technotronic says:

    I'm suprised you can get 1/60 even with a nice 1.4f lens. The pictures look very good, great color.

  2. lars_larsen says:

    Those fast lenses are great. Its a lot cheaper than buying more club lights :)

    I should sell my car and buy a 10D, oh wait, I wouldnt get enough for my car for a 10D.

  3. bitwise says:

    I like things like using a fast shutter speed without a flash, and shooting a bunch of images before stalling on the card, but would rather find something in the $800 range. Anybody think this is possible? I'm not clear on what I can look up in camera specs to find out how fast it'll shoot in low light.

    • cetan says:

      Well, for under $899 you can get the Canon 300D (Digital Rebel) body.

      Otherwise you're out of luck.

      Yeah, my point-and-shoot A80 can burst quite a few images, but the small sensor means high-noise at ISO 400.

      You really need a DSLR and for that you need at the least a 300D.

      "How fast it'll shoot in low light" is completely up to you. Letting the camera think for you is never the correct solution.

      • jwz says:

        The Rebel looks pretty good; it's almost the same camera as the 10D. The main differences seem to be that a few features are turned off in the firmware, and that it's slower (2.5 fps x 4 instead of 3 fps x 9.)

      • strangehours says:

        But the Nikon D70 is a much better camera than the EOS 300D. The 300D feels positively flimsy in comparison, lacks spot metering and a number of other features, and is only a fraction cheaper than the D70. Noise-wise they're about the same, and both do up to ISO1600 and have similar ranges of available lenses, so I'd guess they're roughly equivalent in terms of gig photography.

        As far as I'm concerned, the difference between *any* DSLR and a P&S digital is huge enough, even simply at the level of ergonomics, to warrant the extra price.

  4. kfringe says:

    Have you considered getting a bigger pocket?

    • jwz says:

      I wear BDUs, pockets don't get any bigger than that.

    • fzou says:

      Well, I think it's pretty obvious he already has deep pockets. A 24mm f/1.4L lens just to shoot a few band and crowd shots? Gee, I'm a bit surprised the 1DsII didn't get a look-in...

      • jwz says:

        If it was possible to get decent pictures of "just" bands with a cheaper camera, I would have, but it's not. You may have noticed that fast-moving things in dim, changing lighting conditions are not exactly what camera-phones are good for.

        • fzou says:

          I'm not talking about the camera - I've got one, taken some half-decent club shots, etc - I'm talking about the lens you got, being worth more than the camera. And wide. The 50mm f/1.4, which iirc rzr_grl has, is probably just as fast, and a lot lighter / smaller, except it's not as wide.

          I don't know how much manual work you do there, but I find that Canon vertical grip + leather handstrap is a fairly convenient way to carry the camera, and still lets you use your thumb and index finger for stuff.

          But uh, camera geekery is never a good look amongst computer geeks. Is it?

          • aprilized says:

            i went to photography school about a lifetime ago...i remember a little something...
            the 24mm is the perfect 'paparazzi' lens..good and wide from up close..good for shows and used extensively in newspapers...the 75mm portrait lens also works well for , well, faces at shows...The 1.4 f/stop is the same as the 50mm you were mentioning so both would allow for the same aperture. I think that's what you meant by speed...but I'm not sure...
            It's been so long I had to google to see if it's still called a paprazzi lens...

            • fzou says:

              Yeah, I agree with that - I shoot with the 17-40mm f/4L for crowd
              portraits (example href="http://edlang.org/portfolio/nightlife/tn/nightlife-03.jpg.html">one,
              because I can't afford anything faster that's as wide, taking into
              account the 1.6x crop factor of the 10D; and the 50mm f/1.4 becomes a
              handy 80mm lens which is great for DJs and performers (example href="http://edlang.org/portfolio/nightlife/tn/nightlife-02.jpg.html">four, five). Still, I'd love to be able not to use the flash for the wider stuff that frames the stage and the audience, etc.

              Heh, a lifetime ago for you, hopefully a lifetime ahead for me!

  5. ronbar says:

    But is your new camera as choice as a red Ferrari convertible in downtown Chicago?

Comments are closed because this post is 18 years old.