Twisted tree, hmmm sounds like a rock band...:ivar
Thought I'd try the new and delicious emoticons;~)
OK all you 70-200 lovers, I am thinking of selling mine. I don't use it much as it's too heavy for me to carry around all day. I am thinking of selling it and getting the new 70-200 f4IS.:cry Do you think I am nuts???!!!???
Twisted tree, hmmm sounds like a rock band...:ivar
Thought I'd try the new and delicious emoticons;~)
OK all you 70-200 lovers, I am thinking of selling mine. I don't use it much as it's too heavy for me to carry around all day. I am thinking of selling it and getting the new 70-200 f4IS.:cry Do you think I am nuts???!!!???
Well... I think nuts means that you are crazy.
I think so, yes you are crazy/nuts.
Change a supperb lens by another one less powerfull and spending money !?
Don't sell it. Hold it, with both hands.:D
I am going - on the end of the month - to Marocco. I am taking it of course.
I'll post here a few pictures with the beast.
Meanwhile, a friend brought me yesterday the 1,4 II multiplier from Macau.
I just got home and I am going to shoots some pics.
Thank you for the comment Scott.
I think the tree is very nice indeed.
Do you believe that I have only seen it yesterday ? And I pass there once a year ?
Twisted tree, hmmm sounds like a rock band...:ivar
Thought I'd try the new and delicious emoticons;~)
OK all you 70-200 lovers, I am thinking of selling mine. I don't use it much as it's too heavy for me to carry around all day. I am thinking of selling it and getting the new 70-200 f4IS.:cry Do you think I am nuts???!!!???
Here is my solution for my 70-200 2.8 Apo....got rid of the neckstrap, went to Sportsmans Warehouse and purchased a Crooked Horn Bino strap....puts all the weight on both shoulders and none on the neck....now I can carry my 70-200 all day and no neck pain
Here is my solution for my 70-200 2.8 Apo....got rid of the neckstrap, went to Sportsmans Warehouse and purchased a Crooked Horn Bino strap....puts all the weight on both shoulders and none on the neck....now I can carry my 70-200 all day and no neck pain
Reading the news paper in the park
70-200 IS Date Taken: 2006-09-17 12:51:02 Date Digitized: 2006-09-17 12:51:02 Date Modified: 2006-09-20 18:39:21 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3779x2598 Bytes: 3860492 Aperture: f/32.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 115mm (guess: 112mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.04s (1/25) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Manual Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 1 White Balance: auto ColorSpace: sRGB
The wind took my tooth away, see ??
-
Today I'm going - if the weather allows - to shoot a football match.
I hope to be able to do it nicely with the Magnificent.
Keep the pics coming! I'm counting down the days left until I receive my year-end bonus from work and can order one of these lenses for myself.
DY.
Good afternoon.
The lens is very expensive, very good and very heavy.
I was walking in the street for 1 hour or so and, for best comfort, I was keeping it with my both hands.
The shots were taken with aperture priority.
All the best.
DY.
Good afternoon.
The lens is very expensive, very good and very heavy.
I was walking in the street for 1 hour or so and, for best comfort, I was keeping it with my both hands.
The shots were taken with aperture priority.
All the best.
I can't wait to have one of my own. I've had the pleasure of playing with one twice now and hope to rent one the first weekend of December to shoot some pictures of my daughter in a Christmas parade. Unfortunately it will be at least the middle or latter part of December before I can purchase one of my own.
My case of "lens envy" has gotten much worse looking at your recent pictures.
I can't wait to have one of my own. I've had the pleasure of playing with one twice now and hope to rent one the first weekend of December to shoot some pictures of my daughter in a Christmas parade. Unfortunately it will be at least the middle or latter part of December before I can purchase one of my own.
My case of "lens envy" has gotten much worse looking at your recent pictures.
What I sometimes don't understand - and I have never put this question here in GGrin - is why sometimes the lens gives extra quality and sometimes doesn't.
Well, that must be me neither the lens nor the camera but ME.
Look for example this one
it is not so sharp as today's pictures of the cat.
But this doesn't only happen with the 70-200 IS f/2.8.
It also happens with the other lens I have, the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8.
My experience - small - tells me that this has to do with the conditions of the light.
But even thought I don't understand. I have a shot made with the 16-35 and it is sharp as hell and the light was poor. Or I thought it was poor. The lens said: I like it and I'm going to offer you a nice photo.
I have been trying to understand this problem lately but I did not come to conclusions so far.
If you are going to shoot your daughter in a parade and you are going to shoot for the 1.st time with the lens, spend a little more money and rent it one or two days before the real thing.
Read this same thread because of the movement and the point of focus etc.
It's very useful. (thank you Jeff and Jim )
The reason that you didn't get the "quality" image in the picture below is because there is a noticeable magenta cast. Either your camera failed to guess the correct white balance or that's how you post-processed the picture. Either way, when the white balance is off and there's a color shift, you're not going to get that nice contrasty "pop" that you're looking for.
If you're going to be shooting lots of indoor portraits, you might want to consider a white balance card or perform a custom white balance with your camera prior to taking the picture. This will help you achieve more consistent results.
What I sometimes don't understand - and I have never put this question here in GGrin - is why sometimes the lens gives extra quality and sometimes doesn't.
Well, that must be me neither the lens nor the camera but ME.
Look for example this one
it is not so sharp as today's pictures of the cat.
But this doesn't only happen with the 70-200 IS f/2.8.
It also happens with the other lens I have, the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8.
My experience - small - tells me that this has to do with the conditions of the light.
But even thought I don't understand. I have a shot made with the 16-35 and it is sharp as hell and the light was poor. Or I thought it was poor. The lens said: I like it and I'm going to offer you a nice photo.
I have been trying to understand this problem lately but I did not come to conclusions so far.
If you are going to shoot your daughter in a parade and you are going to shoot for the 1.st time with the lens, spend a little more money and rent it one or two days before the real thing.
Read this same thread because of the movement and the point of focus etc.
It's very useful. (thank you Jeff and Jim )
Thank you Nikon.
Now that is said it I can see it. I looked and I didn't see it.
I made some tries to correct the magenta cast.
As I shoot in RAW it is easiest (?)
I'll have to go over and over again on this. I think the last one is the best, thought I still have some problems with sharpness. Haven't I ?
Thank you Nikon.
Now that is said it I can see it. I looked and I didn't see it.
I made some tries to correct the magenta cast.
As I shoot in RAW it is easiest (?)
I'll have to go over and over again on this.
I think the last one is the best, thought I still have some problems with sharpness. Haven't I ?
I can't tell the sharpness from these renderings, or maybe I'm still half dazed with sleep, but you want to be careful about shooting with too wide an aperture since the depth of field can be so narrow that only part of your subject is in focus.
Regarding color cast: You can do a lot worse than Dan Margulis' _Professional Photoshop_ when it comes to learning how to find and correct color casts. He has a technique he calls "color by numbers" where you compare skin tones to what they "ought" to be so you can get real close even if you don't have good color sense. A good book, recommended.
I can't tell the sharpness from these renderings, or maybe I'm still half dazed with sleep, but you want to be careful about shooting with too wide an aperture since the depth of field can be so narrow that only part of your subject is in focus.
Regarding color cast: You can do a lot worse than Dan Margulis' _Professional Photoshop when it comes to learning how to find and correct color casts. He has a technique he calls "color by numbers" where you compare skin tones to what they "ought" to be so you can get real close even if you don't have good color sense. A good book, recommended.
Hi Jim.
Are you not asleep anymore ?
You are right again about the shallow depth of field and I am aware of it. But I have to be MORE aware of it when I use the f/2.8. I'll be careful next Saturday, I mean tomorrow, as I am going on a photography walk and sail (on boat) with other photographers.
Regarding the cast:
I do have some difficulties with English of course.
This sometimes causes me small problems of understanding. Moreover, you speak/write american which is a little different from the english I learned some 35 tears ago.
I do have (!) Margulis book.
I don't read it (shame on me) but I can promise I will because this cast business can really spoil my pictures, which I care so much.
Nice of you to answer me.
I'll post more pictures hoping to have a look at that parade in middle December.
Comments
My Photos
Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
Equipment List - Check my profile
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Thought I'd try the new and delicious emoticons;~)
OK all you 70-200 lovers, I am thinking of selling mine. I don't use it much as it's too heavy for me to carry around all day. I am thinking of selling it and getting the new 70-200 f4IS.:cry Do you think I am nuts???!!!???
Well... I think nuts means that you are crazy.
I think so, yes you are crazy/nuts.
Change a supperb lens by another one less powerfull and spending money !?
Don't sell it. Hold it, with both hands.:D
I am going - on the end of the month - to Marocco. I am taking it of course.
I'll post here a few pictures with the beast.
Meanwhile, a friend brought me yesterday the 1,4 II multiplier from Macau.
I just got home and I am going to shoots some pics.
Regards.
I think the tree is very nice indeed.
Do you believe that I have only seen it yesterday ? And I pass there once a year ?
Heath to you
Link to CROOKED HORN OUTFITTERS
Shot minutes ago.
70-200 IS + 1.4 II
This looks like a good solution indeed.
70-200 IS
Date Taken: 2006-09-17 12:51:02 Date Digitized: 2006-09-17 12:51:02 Date Modified: 2006-09-20 18:39:21 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3779x2598 Bytes: 3860492 Aperture: f/32.0 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 115mm (guess: 112mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.04s (1/25) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Manual Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 1 White Balance: auto ColorSpace: sRGB
It can handle the weight OK?
It seems to be made for lightweight binocs.
Price is right and neck straps are......well..............a pain in the neck
Gene
My first IS test, sitting in a chair, elbows not braced.
Both pictures full width crops
1/13
f2.8
iso 1600
200mm
IS off
IS on
Here I post two shots - which I took 3/4 days ago - with the magnificent.
-
Today I'm going - if the weather allows - to shoot a football match.
I hope to be able to do it nicely with the Magnificent.
Don't smoke !!! It's hazardous for your Heath !!!
Date Taken: 2006-11-09 10:55:03 Date Digitized: 2006-11-09 10:55:03 Date Modified: 2006-11-08 18:31:02 Make: Canon Model: Canon EOS 20D Size: 3661x2480 Bytes: 2618149 Aperture: f/3.2 ISO: 200 Focal Length: 70mm (guess: 71mm in 35mm) Exposure Time: 0.0166s (1/60) Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode Exposure Program: Aperture priority Exposure Bias: 0 ExposureMode: 0 White Balance: auto ColorSpace: unknown
Stan
That joke is better understood by americans than portuguese ...
All the best and thank you for the comment.
This morning. The weather is very nice for November.
Climate changes are a reality. We can feel them.
DY.
Good afternoon.
The lens is very expensive, very good and very heavy.
I was walking in the street for 1 hour or so and, for best comfort, I was keeping it with my both hands.
The shots were taken with aperture priority.
All the best.
I can't wait to have one of my own. I've had the pleasure of playing with one twice now and hope to rent one the first weekend of December to shoot some pictures of my daughter in a Christmas parade. Unfortunately it will be at least the middle or latter part of December before I can purchase one of my own.
My case of "lens envy" has gotten much worse looking at your recent pictures.
Well, that must be me neither the lens nor the camera but ME.
Look for example this one
it is not so sharp as today's pictures of the cat.
But this doesn't only happen with the 70-200 IS f/2.8.
It also happens with the other lens I have, the 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-70 f/2.8.
My experience - small - tells me that this has to do with the conditions of the light.
But even thought I don't understand. I have a shot made with the 16-35 and it is sharp as hell and the light was poor. Or I thought it was poor. The lens said: I like it and I'm going to offer you a nice photo.
I have been trying to understand this problem lately but I did not come to conclusions so far.
If you are going to shoot your daughter in a parade and you are going to shoot for the 1.st time with the lens, spend a little more money and rent it one or two days before the real thing.
Read this same thread because of the movement and the point of focus etc.
It's very useful. (thank you Jeff
The reason that you didn't get the "quality" image in the picture below is because there is a noticeable magenta cast. Either your camera failed to guess the correct white balance or that's how you post-processed the picture. Either way, when the white balance is off and there's a color shift, you're not going to get that nice contrasty "pop" that you're looking for.
If you're going to be shooting lots of indoor portraits, you might want to consider a white balance card or perform a custom white balance with your camera prior to taking the picture. This will help you achieve more consistent results.
HTH,
Nikos
Now that is said it I can see it. I looked and I didn't see it.
I made some tries to correct the magenta cast.
As I shoot in RAW it is easiest (?)
I'll have to go over and over again on this.
I can't tell the sharpness from these renderings, or maybe I'm still half dazed with sleep, but you want to be careful about shooting with too wide an aperture since the depth of field can be so narrow that only part of your subject is in focus.
Regarding color cast: You can do a lot worse than Dan Margulis' _Professional Photoshop_ when it comes to learning how to find and correct color casts. He has a technique he calls "color by numbers" where you compare skin tones to what they "ought" to be so you can get real close even if you don't have good color sense. A good book, recommended.
jimf@frostbytes.com
Are you not asleep anymore ?
You are right again about the shallow depth of field and I am aware of it. But I have to be MORE aware of it when I use the f/2.8. I'll be careful next Saturday, I mean tomorrow, as I am going on a photography walk and sail (on boat) with other photographers.
Regarding the cast:
I do have some difficulties with English of course.
This sometimes causes me small problems of understanding. Moreover, you speak/write american which is a little different from the english I learned some 35 tears ago.
I do have (!) Margulis book.
I don't read it (shame on me) but I can promise I will because this cast business can really spoil my pictures, which I care so much.
Nice of you to answer me.
I'll post more pictures hoping to have a look at that parade in middle December.
All the best.