Taken the Cynops orientalis plunge

[TJ]

I took the plunge the other day and decided to get into Cynops orientalis

(relatively rare in shops here in Japan despite being so common elsewhere in the world)

My interest in Hynobiids waning by the day

(sorry Henk!), I gave away my H.nigrescens to make way for five C.o -- what seems to be two males and three females. One male (shown above) was chosen because the red extends especially high on its tail.

I am keen to learn more about C,orientalis. Is it the case that there are regional variations or even suspected subspecies (I seem to recall some talk along those lines), or are they all pretty much the same?

I currently have a number of juvies that I raised from eggs that were sent to me, but other than that I'm new to this truly charming species

(Message edited by jennewt on January 12, 2004)

 

[pin-pin]

i would say great pictures, but that just doesn't describe how great they really are. you are quite the

Tim.

 

[john]

I'm sick of telling him how awesome his photos are .

 

[TJ]

Blushing again

Simple equation: nice camera, nice photos...well, almost! It'll be another 10 years before people start calling me the next Dick Bartlett

As you can see, some pics were slightly out of focus. Anyway, John, I usually try to get at least the eye in focus. Otherwise, to me the photo is, well, a dud

Oh, by the way, the belly color is more orange than red, isn't it?

Pin-pin, cute P.waltl you posted a pic of recently

And to think I had pegged you as a die-hard Taricha lover....

 

[john]

Well guess what, you've convinced me to sell my film camera (and as a result, my film scanner) before the new range comes out so I can get the most money for it. I hope you're happy! I'm going to keep my Nikon lenses though because I know the ins and outs of the Nikon system and I like the build quality, so I'll hang on for the corresponding budget digital SLR like your Canon Rebel/Kiss/EOS 300D. *Green with envy*

You've got the right portrait technique actually - I generally discard photos without the eyes in focus. If you look at the photos of famous wildlife photographers (and even people photographers) you'll notice that they always have the subject's eyes in focus but the rest of the subject is often out of focus. People don't generally consciously notice that though.

 

[fabian]

Hi Tim,
the more Photos I see from your EOS 300D the more I want to have it for myself (still saving money). What lens do you use? Is it the standard lens they sell with this camera or something special?
Fabian

 

[john]

Hi Fabian,

Here are the details of Tim's lens: http://www.caudata.org/forum/cgi-bin/show.cgi?tpc=7&post=16992#POST16992

It's a very good macro lens (also rather expensive but in the SLR lens game you usually get what you pay for). If you're considering the purchase of lenses I advise you to do a lot of research. Quality varies from lens model to lens model within a manufacturer's range. Believe it or not, even Canon and Nikon make several of what can best be described as "mediocre" lenses so get a review of the lens you are thinking about. A good place for lens info is the forum at http://www.photo.net and if you're interested in the Nikon system have a look at http://www.nikonians.com (of which I'm a proud paying member). I don't have a corresponding link for Canon because I don't own a Canon SLR (I own a Canon digicam though, the G3, and I'm rather Canon friendly) but photo.net is mainly populated by Canon enthusiasts anyway. It's stupid but most "sensible" owners of Canon and Nikon systems exhibit a mild hatred for the other system (glad to say I'm not one of those).

For what it's worth, I've read about the 18-55 mm lens that Canon bundle with the EOS 300D (aka the Kiss and Rebel 300D depending on the part of the world in which you live) and for a bundled lens it's rather good (i.e. you pay relatively little extra for the bundle but get good value for money).

There's a lot of debate about this camera actually because many people suspect that Canon can't be making much profit on it due to the low price. This is because the sensor (the 6.3 megapixel CCD/Charge Coupled Device) costs a lot of money and it's surprisingly good.

To anyone thinking of a digital SLR I'll tell you what I would do - if I had the money and I didn't own any Nikon lenses I would already own the Canon . I'm going to hang on for Nikon's new equivalent camera though, the D70, which is expected within the next 3-4 months and has very similar specifications.

Of course I should say that the quality of your photos is more dependent on your technique than your equipment (though nice equipment is wonderful to have), so don't expect to take photos any where near as good as Tim's when you start out. With practice, some talent and research (with perhaps a small portion of luck) I would like to think we can all aspire to approach Tim's level (at least that's what I keep telling myself ).

An important note about Digital SLRs: In case you're not aware of it, most mid and all lower end digital SLRs, such as the Canon 300D, have a focal multiplier of 1.5x. What this means is that essentially you are actually closer to your subject when you take a photo. This is because the image sensor is actually smaller than the equivalent area of film for which SLR lenses are designed. So in effect a significant area (a wide border) that you would see on film is removed in the case of digital, effectively making the photo look like you are closer to your subject. In practical terms this means that a 35 mm lens is actually a ~52 mm lens. This is nice if you like to take telephoto photos (like bird photographers do) or macro photos (like Tim and most of us here on Caudata.org) because it means the photo appears to be more magnified. However, if you like wide angle photography (such as those people who take landscape photos) you are in a difficult situation because you'll lose a lot of your wide view. The lens bundled with the Canon is rated at something like 18-55 mm, but when used with the 300D it is actually 27-~83mm. I hope that makes sense.

 

[jesper]

I'm saving up too, but it will take time....

 

[fabian]

Hi John,
Thank's for that lot of information! I go on saving, (I bought a HP850 Photosmart 1.5 years ago it takes good pictures but as i was used to SLR photography before I want to get back to it).
One question: Isn't the lens bundled with the 300D a special "digital" lens with no focal multiplier so it's real 18-55mm? I thought I read that Canon built this lens specially for digital use.
Fabian

 

[john]

Hi Fabian,

It is indeed a special lens for digital cameras (indicated by the S at the end of EF-S). However, it's special because due to the cropping effect (called "focal multiplier" by myself and other sometimes, though this isn't really true) the lens elements (the glass "discs" in the lens barrel in case you don't know what I mean) don't need to be as wide in diameter as those of an ordinary SLR lens. This is because the image sensor covers a significantly smaller area than that covered by 35 mm film. That enables Canon to save money and make smaller lens elements which are also lighter and consequently should be cheaper to you and I (which certainly seems to be the case with the 18-55 mm, though it's the first EF-S lens to become available). Unfortunately this does not change the "focal length multiplier"/cropping effect. I was checking the specifications and I discovered that the multiplier is actually 1.6x for the Kiss/Rebel/EOS 300D and not 1.5x as I stated previously.

There's a great review at dpreview.com actually. Go to:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

Actually the word "review" doesn't do it justice.