Gear notes for gallery: Brittany

   CAMERAS USED FOR THIS GALLERY   

Canon EOS 30

Set in the middle of the Canon range, this camera takes the best of the professional and amateur ranges. By reading its features chart, one might think it is not much different from the "amateur" range cameras under it (the EOS 300 series), but in fact, it really feels different. It is heavier, has a metal mount, is partially built of metal, and it looks far more "professional", while still being lighter than the EOS 3. While the EOS 300 series cameras chooses many parameters automatically, the EOS 30 gives you the choice to do it manually, and is intuitive enough to be mastered easily. The EOS 30 is said to be one of the quietest Canon cameras since the EOS 100. It was true for our copy at the beginning, but it changed when I tried to clean the mirror manually. Not a very good idea. The light metering system is very reliable and has almost never failed me, a world of difference with the D60. Same thing for the AF system. With the EOS 30, I have followed rather small birds in flight, while the D60 failed pitifully on a great blue heron! Of course, nobody's perfect and the EOS 30 would benefit from a more sturdy backdoor, a true spot metering or exposure compensation by third of IL instead of half, but I really love it and still use it despite having made the big jump to digital.

Canon EOS 500N

This is the camera with which it all began. Back in 1998, Isabelle was looking for film camera with the best set of features for a reasonable price. As the EOS 500N was one of the "products of the year " according to the very reliable magazine "Chasseur d'Images", and she chose it against a similarly priced Pentax. Along with it, came a basic 28-80 and both were used for years until I (Olivier) took it and started to play with it on a summer afternoon. Browsing the manual, I tried almost every one of its features, discovering the possibilities of the first SLR camera I had ever used. This camera introduced us to the world of Canon SLRs and it proved to be a very good choice.

Canon EOS 10D Digital SLR

The Canon 10D is the successor of the D60. At first look, there are not many differences between them. They share the same sensor and many technical characteristics. But the 10D is in fact quite another camera. It definitely seems to ejoy a better conception and more sturdy construction. The images it produces are rather similar at 100 ISO, but show less noise at 400 ISO and above. Its white balance settings are totally different. It does not underexpose as much as the D60, which makes it a bit trickier to use. The new AF system is on par with the one of the EOS 30 / Elan 7E, except for the eye control. In my opinion, it is perfect, but was adapted to this camera in a hurry and not tested adequately. The result is the series of back or front focus problems some users had. I have to say I was one of these unfortunate users. My camera had to be serviced by Canon twice, for a total of more than 7 weeks. I am still not 100% sure it focuses well at all distances. This purchase and the problems I had afterwards nevertheless learned me something: NEVER buy a digital SLR (or a lens anyway) as soon as it is released! You will pay a lot for it, spend a long time finding it (as resellers will not have enough in stock) and will not be able to read user comments on problems.

   LENSES USED FOR THIS GALLERY   

Canon 75-300 f/4-5.6

This was the second lens we ever had for the EOS 500N. After using the 28-80 for a while, we wanted to have more reach and looked for a cheap way to get wildlife or tighter landscape shots. I have to say I purchased this lens without knowing that there were Sigma or Tamron alternatives to it. Had I known, I would probably have taken the Sigma APO Macro for its better close focusing capabilities and its overall good performance. Anyway, Isabelle likes this lightweight and easy to handle lens and uses it on all of our trips.

Canon 17-40 f/4 L

After using my faithful 20mm Sigma lens for some time, I found that it had several little problems that I could not address: - it was not wide enough anymore on a digital SLR - its 82mm filter thread made a polarizer very expensive - it was not a zoom. I love this lens especially because it is quite sharp and has low distorsion, but there are cases where you really cannot "zoom with your feet" and a zoom turns really handy. So when Canon announced the new 17-40 L zoom, I was quite interested. The most difficult step was then to get it. Canon has recurring problems delivering enough lenses of a new model to the market. After a few months of use, I am quite happy of my purchase. This lens is sharp (though less than the fixed 20), USM works like a charm, its construction is great, flare control is excellent. I have finally been able to start using a polarizing filter on an ultra wide and to my suprise it does not vignette with it. I have discovered the joy of having a real all round lens for my digital camera. When I tried it on my film camera, it was a shock. 17mm is really WIDE. The only things I do not like is the curved horizons I get at 17mm (even in digital) and the lack of the nice star effect on lights, probably a side-effect of the speciall glass used by Canon in this lens.

Check this lens out on

Canon 50 f/1.4

This lens was only recently added to my backpack where it generally replaces the 28-135 USM IS. I purchased it secondhand and had to wait a while until I could find one at a reasonable price. I got it mostly to make portraits with the D60. While other lenses we have could have done the job, I wanted to have a very shallow depth of field, and a good AF. After the first weekend of tests, I was very pleased by the results. This lens has a clean bokeh, focusses well, even on the D60 in low light and is sharp, even at F/2.

Check this lens out on

Canon 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS

I purchased this lens as a replacement for my 28-200 Tamron. I got it secondhand as I felt its "normal" price was a bit exaggerated (I still think it is). This lens is clearly superior to the Tamron, despite having less range. It focusses rather fast and quietly, thanks to USM. The image stabilization is very handy and enabled me to use 100 ISO film, which was sometimes a problem with the Tamron. It is also sharper and less prone to flare. Of course, there are a couple of things I regret. Despite being far cheaper, the Tamron was better built, with metal parts, while the 28-135 is all made of cheap plastic. It also seems to me that it showed less distorsion at 28mm (or I had never noticed it).

Check this lens out on

Sigma 20 f/1.8

I don't remember why I got interested in a 20mm lens. I was probably looking for something significantly wider than 28mm. I then narrowed my choices to a small series of lenses among which the Canon 20mm F/2.8 USM, the Sigma 17-35 F/2.8-4 and this lens. I chose it over both of these lenses because of the price and the closer focusing. I quickly came to love the wide field of view it brings, the clear and sharp images it produces. The close focusing enables striking effects as does the depth of field. What I really do not like on this Sigma is its slow and noisy focusing. I use MF all the time with it. It's a pity Sigma did not make an HSM version, though it is not that important for a wide angle.

Check this lens out on

Canon 70-200 f/4L

This lens is the best of two worlds. It is almost as good as the 70-200 F/2.8L used by pros, but it is half its price and weights 700g instead of 1400. I was greatly pleased by the sharpness of the first photos I made with this lens. It is sharper than my Sigma 4/300 tele, which is surprising as fix-focals are generally better than zooms. The only problem I have with it is its focusing distance. 1.2m is a bit too far for me sometimes. 70cm would have been perfect. The Canon white L lenses are really a different world. If only Canon could make them ALSO in black!

Check this lens on

Sigma 300 f/4 APO Macro

I chose this lens over a Sigma 135-400 and I was glad I made this choice at the time. The 135-400 is said to be very good at 300-400mm, unlike many telezooms, but it is also slower (F/5.6), not HSM and it cannot focus at less than 2 meters. Its characteristics made the Sigma 4/300 APO an obvious choice, but I had trouble finding one as it was already discontinued in Europe. I then found an HSM version for a reduced price. Although Sigma states that HSM lenses have no problem with the EOS 30, I could not use it at any aperture except F/4 at the beginning. I had to have it fixed by Sigma. The other nitpick I would have about this lens is that it loses AF with Sigma's x1.4 TC, which I purchased thinking it would be better and more adapted than the Kenko or Tamron! Anyway, this lens has great optics and its close focusing abilities make it interesting for making close views of small animals (frogs, lizards, grasshoppers)

Back to the gallery: Brittany