vandit

Bjoern, if you like, please email me at vkalia00 <at> yahoo <dot> com. May have something you'd be interested in.

Cheers,

Vandit

If you do macro, then you're going to have a whale of a time trying that with a Leica or any other non-TTL camera.

Macro pretty much means an SLR. Mirror lock-up and DoF preview are other essentials you need for macro. So get a body with these features.

Brands, etc have been discussed to death. Read the archives.

Vandit

Take a few shots with the superzoom and see what you think of it.

If you're learning, it may be fine after all. No ,it isnt as sharp as a prime, but I reckon sharpness will be the least of your problems right now.

Composition is the hardest part of photography, and by the time you learn that, you will be ready to upgrade.

Thanks all for the help. This sort of practical advice was really useful (and Bob, that´s a great shot!) and so far, it doesnt appear as though there are any fatal flaws.

I will, of course, have to learn to clean the damn sensor. Being all thumbs, that is not something I'm going to have fun learning to do. Oh well, the price to pay.

Vandit

For starters, there is no clear-cut "better". If there was, you'd only see one lens being offered, instead of two.

What are you going to shoot? The the habitat and target species that you will be photographing will affect your decision. Can you take a tripod/beanbag or will you be hand-holding?

Telephoto primes are sharper than zooms, true. But my 100-400 has given me enough 10x12 and larger blow-ups as well.

Given the choices that you have, I'd take the 300/2.8 and a 1.4X TC and a DSLR body - that would give me all the focal length and flexibility that *I* need. *You* may need different.

The only truism that can be imparted is that another 28-200 is not the answer. You are better off breaking it down into 2 zooms.

As for which 2 zooms - it boils down to how much better you really want - and "better" is a very subjective term.

And what body do you have, and how much do you want to spend? I suggest you to B&H or Adorama's website, look at the selection of zooms in your price range, do a search here on Google News, and then come back with a more specific question.

Ugh - I didnt realize what a sloppy job of editing I did on my earlier post. What I meant to say in my second paragraph was that there is nothing on the archive that is specifically on the subject of 10D usage for wildlife photography in tropical locations, hence the question.

Hans - I do realize that the ultimate choice depends on one's needs, which is why I am not asking for recommendations on whether to buy or not buy, but am tryin to get information about the camera's capabilities in the field.

Rather than specs/feature comparisons, I am hoping to get specific user experiences, and the wisdom that comes with long-term experience of the body. IOW, stuff like:

- the dust can/cannot cause a problem with the sensor, more so than with XX

- the AF is/sint fast enough to keep playing cats in focus, or flying birds in focus

- extra batteries are needed (thanks Petr)

and so on.

For additional reference - I've been using an EOS 30 and 100-400 so far, and have been quite happy with the combo for wildlife photography.

The 10D, 300/4 & 100-400 gives me 480/4 IS and a 160-740 IS... massive droolage at that :)

Regards,

Vandit

I am getting ready to pick up a 10D, along with a 300/4 IS this

weekend, to be used primarily for wildlife photography, primarily in

tropical locations (Asia and Africa).

I have read through the specs, etc. and it seems to be a good fit for

me and my existing EOS system. Have also gone through the archives

and there doesnt seem to be anything specifically on this subject.

However, before I buy, I would like to check with people who are

actually using this camera for wildlife photography - especially in

dusty climates - about their experiences in the field. Any red flags

that I should be aware of - dust in the sensor, problems with

humidity, AF with moving objects, burst-mode shooting speed, etc?

TIA.

Well, I've owned that lens for 3 years now and have been very happy with its performance. I always have a UV or a CPL on it, and havent noticed any vignetting at the wide-end. Even the light fall-off (which all wide-angle zooms have) is quite low.

As for sharpness: stop it down to f/8, put it on a tripod and you'll get 12x18s that can be framed. I have one hanging on my wall. And as I also own a 50/1.8, a 100-400L and a 100/2.8 USM, I do have a reasonably good frame of reference on what is "sharp."

I will say, though, that I dont take a 12x loupe and scan my slides looking for flaws.

Vandit

IMO, if you want fine grain, Reala is excellent - although I've never thought of it as a "saturated" film: for that, Agfa 100UC may be a better idea. Superia 400 and 800 are great emulsions for low-grain, high-speed film. The zebra close-up, in my wildlife folder on this site, was shot on Superia 400.

A thought: you can buy Reala, Superia 400, Press 800 and Porta in the major metros of India quite readily. Palika Bazaar, in Connaught Place, New Delhi, has a whole lot of camera shops selling film (incl refrigerated, if you want). There are also some excellent pro labs that will drip-process your film, scan it, etc. for a very reasonable price.

So you may not want to pre-purchase/lug a lot of rolls around with you.

www.iopc.info

Thanks all, for your answers.

I have decided to order the Better Beamer FX-1,which, as per Art Morris, will fit the 380EX with the included shims. The main reason for this was the fact that it flattens out and is easy to carry. I may yet also order Project A as well...

Regards,

Vandit

Can anyone recommend a good flash extender to use for wildlife

photography? Better Beamer, Lepp Project A or something else? Pros

and cons of each?

Am having the blessed thing shipped to India (read: takes time to

get), so would like to get it right the first time.

Will be using it with a Canon 100-400L and 380EX speedlight. Plan to

get a 500/4 & 300/4 within next year or so, in case it makes a

difference.

Thx and regards.

I am not sure about where this talk of the 100-400 being "mush" at 400 comes from, either.

At 400mm focal length, it isnt as sharp as, say, my 100/2.8 macro lens - that is true. However, it aint exactly a slouch either. I have gotten very sharp 8x12s (slides, printed off a Fuji Frontier).

This is one of those images that I've enlarged to 8x12:

http://www.photo.net/photo/1192881

(This image is an el-cheapo flatbed scan of the print)

My 2 cents,

Vandit

Are you married to the idea of getting a ballhead? If not, look into a decent pan'n'tilt. Yeah, it is clunkier to use compared to a ballhead, but you can get a inexpensive yet solid pan'n'tilt head (unlike an inexpensive yet solid ballhead, which remains in the realm of fantasy).

I have a Bogen 3021Pro tripod and the 100-400L lens, along with a basic Manfrottoa $30 pan'n'tilt head and an equally basic $30 Manfrotto ballhead.

The pan'n'tilt head is rock steady with the 3021Pro. A lot less convenient to use, but for things like landscapes, that isnt a huge problem.

The ballhead sucks even with a 100/2.8 macro lens. Not only is it not very rigid, it loses alignment while being tightened, making exact framing a lot more tedious. As a result, I only use it with my monopod.

HTH.

Hi Richard - That was a very informative and eye-opening article! Thanks for the info.

Regards,

Vandit

I've gone through the photo.net archives as well as the EOS Flash

FAQ, and while some of my questions have been answered, I still have

additional queries. I also have John Shaw's "Closeups", but it

doesnt answer my question either.

I want to do macro bug photography, using the Canon 100/2.8 macro

lens and 380EX flash (auto, provides E-TTL with both my IIe and

7e). The main goal is to be able to shoot at a high shutter speed,

while handholding.

I reckon that I'll be doing this during the daytime for the most part.

Now, this is where the problem arises. As per NK Guy's FAQ, in

daylight, the shutter/aperture are based on ambient light, with the

flash output/duration being modified to provide fill-in light only.

So this means that in the Program/aperture/shutter priority modes, my

shutter & aperture are going to be unaffected by the presence of a

flash - ie, no ability to get a high-shutter-speed.

Can I get around this by shooting in manual mode in daytime? As per

the FAQ, shooting in manual mode *at night* causes the flash to

expose the subject properly, and the background is exposed as per

whatever Av/Tv value the user has set. The FAQ is unclear as to how

the flash behaves if used in manual mode in the daytime.

Let's my meter readings were f/11 and 1/60, and everything is roughly

of the same tone. In manual mode, I select a shutter speed that is 2

stops faster (f/11 and 1/250 - of course, I'd have to set the flash

to FP mode for this). Would the flash output try to expose the

subject properly (night behavior) or would it still try to provide a

little bit of fill-in flash and be underexposed by 2 stops?

Thanks to all for help. Any other suggestions on how to freeze

motion of macro subjects with this flash would be greatly appreciated

as well.

Regards,

Vandit

Peter, what size prints have you made and what are you comparing the "lack of sharpness" to? Also, what level of experience do you have as a photographer?

I find it ironic that when someone complains about lack of sharpness with a 28-80 consumer zoom, people recommend the 28-105 or 50/1.8. Yet, when people complain about the lack of sharpness with a 28-105 or 50/1.8, suddenly this glass isnt good enough and only L glass or other, more expensive primes will do.

The 28-105 is NOT as sharp as the 85/1.8, 28-70/2.8L and other top-notch lenses - that's a fact and I am not denying it. But suggesting a more expensive lens as a solution to "sharp pictures" is taking the easy path out and does not solve the problem.

Suggesting a more expensive lens as a solution implies that the current lens is incapable of taking sharp images. As someone who owns L glass, primes as well as the 28-105, I'll say this: unless you are using a high-powered loupe to inspect the images, unless you are doing side-by-side comparisions with prints taken with a prime or unless you are making big prints (beyond 8x10), you will/should not find sharpness to be a problem with this lens.

Some other likely sources of error:

1) Poor print job by your lab. Quick labs are notorious for spotty quality. Try shooting some slides and see whether the resulting slides are sharp or no.

2) Too low a shutter speed - you should be using 1/125 or faster shutter speeds at the long end with this lens

3) Improper focusing accuracy/defective focusing on the lens

4) If you are used to shooting with a P&S, the lack of sharpness may be due to the lower DoF caused by the bigger aperture of this lens (compared to, say the f/8 of f/11 of a cheap P&S).

To answer your other question, an 85/1.8 or 100/2 will indeed give you sharper images. You will be able to enlarge them to much larger sizes.

However, I doubt if you would be able to distinguish the results from the two on a 4x6 print taken from a generic 1 hour quicklab.

I own a 28-105, and a 50mm prime (along with a 100-400L, a 100/2.8 macro and a Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5) and my own experiences tend to support Bob's findings.

Stopped down, there is very little difference between the 50mm prime and the 28-105mm. Even wide open, if you just look at images taken with the two lenses, one doesnt jump out as being obviously sharper. I base this on slides on a lightbox with a loupe, not on scans - howver, I freely admit that I dont obsess over details, trying to see if the gnat's ass is razor sharp.

I also get large prints (10x14s) and even there, I have not noticed a significant sharpness difference between the 50 and the 28-105 (although most enlargements are of images taken while stopped down to f/8-f/11).

This surprised me, as I too had heard all those stories about how much better the prime was to the zoom.

Actually, of all my lenses (excluding the 100 macro, which is new and hasnt been used enough for me to form an opinion), I seem to get the sharpest images from the Tokina 19-35. I do a lot of scenics/nature, so the pincushion/barrel distortion is not very obvious on this lens - but the slides are sharp as hell.

Go figure.

I did the same research on the same question last year, and the overall google consensus is that the Tokina is the best of the bunch.

I ended up buying it and have been very pleased with it so far. It is prone to a little light fall off at the edges at the wide angle (more so with a C/PL obviously) but it is quite sharp and with landscapes, barrel distortion (or is it pincushion? Can never remember which is which) is not noticeable.

That being said, as I am gradually increasing my wide-angle shooting, I think I will buy a 24/2.8 after all.

HTH,

Vandit

To me, the biggest reason for using the EOS 30 over the 300v is that it gives you a choice of which metering option to use in any given situation - whereas, asp er my understanding, a 300v leaves you stuck with evaluative all the time (unless you use exposure lock, in which case you get the partial).

If you are shooting slides in tricky light, that can make a big difference.

Vandit

If you are in Pamplona (isnt the Festival de San Fermin in early July?), rent a car and roam the Basque countryside. It is about as gorgeously beautiful as it gets!

Vandit

Aveek -

Also saw your post on iopc on this.

Anyhoo, for birds, you should be looking at an effective focal length of around 600mm (35mm equivalent). I have a 100-400 and find it hopelessly inadeqaute for most bird photography.

A 300/4 IS + 1.4TC will be perfect for your needs, as someone else also pointed out. At those long focal lengths, IS helps even with a tripod.

Of your specific options listed above, the 70-200/2.8L or the 200/2.8L would be best for your needs, b/c you can then slap on a 2x TC and get 600mm or so focal lengths with the 10D.

Regards,

Vandit

I use the same combo and it works fine - ie, no vignetting. And there isnt much of a perceivable difference in quality, either.

Vandit

EF lenses will not work on any non-EOS body.

One option is to get a light, entry-level body like the Rebel series.

A better option is to get another body in the Elan series, so that the user interface is similar. A IIe or another 7/7E would be the idea backups.

Vandit

Your focal length gets multiplied by 1.1 when you use an American lens on a European body. This is due to the exchange rate.

Tongue firmly in cheek,

Vandit