beauh44

<p>Hi Denis, I'm not sure about their presence in Moscow but you might try http://www.onemodelplace.com<br>

I'm pretty sure it's a geographical thing but I've had better luck with them - where I live - than I have with modelmayhem.</p>

<p>Oh yeah... believe it or not, you might have some luck with Myspace. It can't hurt to ask! ;-) Good luck!</p>

 

<p>Hi Perry, I own the Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX, etc., etc. I'd put it this way: It's a "good" but not "great" lens. However, for the money, I'd call it a very good deal. Wide open, at f/1.8, as expected, it's a bit soft. But at least you can get the shots in very low light. It can focus very close to its subject (about 8 inches), it's reasonably well-built and comes with a very nice lens case - not just a pouch.</p>

<p>Some of the negatives, in my humble opinion, are: I'm not a big fan of Sigma's push-pull clutch mechanism to select autofocus, which is further confused by a second autofocus on/off switch. Once, not long after buying mine, the autofocus died with a horrible noise - which may have been my own fault by selecting the wrong combination between that push-pull clutch and the autofocus switch. However, I sent it to Sigma, they repaired it for free and returned it promptly and I've had no problems since. One other negative is the huge, screw-on filter size (82mm) and it does not have the Sigma equivalent of USM.</p>

<p>All that said, I've kept mine for 6 or 7 years now and for certain situations (primarily low-light) it does very well. If you stop it down around to f/3.5 to f/4 or so things sharpen up nicely but still, the wide-open shots are often quite useable and it has pleasing bokeh. The Canon 20mm f/2.8 is $424 at B&H while the Sigma is a bit cheaper at $399 - and while I've never compared their image quality side-by-side, I'd guess they're close and the Canon's not quite as fast - unless you make the jump to the EF 24mm f/1.4 L, which will be many times the cost. So, all things considered, I give my Sigma 20mm 2 thumbs up while realizing it's not perfect but a very good deal for the money. Hope that helps!</p>

<p> </p>

I'm not a big guy but I'm not terribly small either and I can't hand-hold the 500mm very long and expect sharp results -

especially with a 1Ds II. My .02 cent's worth would be to first try it with a decent monopod (something I've never done) to

see if that doesn't strike a good balance between portability and stability. The few times I've tried to hand-hold my 500mm I

lasted for maybe a minute or so before my arms couldn't hold it steady enough - even with IS. Having said that, the 500mm

is an amazing lens and might be the sharpest of all of the lenses that I own. I think you'll be impressed with the image

quality - even with a 1.4x teleconverter. Good luck!

Scott Kelby's gonna be a billionaire selling the books to re-learn Photoshop. Again.

<I>We expect to see actual "texture" in moss 2 miles away</i><P>

 

And when I print it, I want to <B>feel</b> that texture! ;-)<P>

 

<I>Theres no high speed sync option for the 5D/ 5DMKII ? That would be lame..... </i><P>

 

Canonites can set high speed sync on their flash and think 12 mp would be lame. ;-)

I get a kick out of folks who have so much time on their hands they stop by to comment on how much time everyone else

has on their hands. ;-)

Just think.. when shooting models they won't know if you're video "taping" them too! :-0

<I>Evidently I missed a memo somewhere along the way, when did Canon become a plural? Are Canon a borg?</i><P>

 

I've often wondered the same thing. Ford have a better idea.

As David points out there is such a thing as "copy variation". Having said that, I bought the Sigma 24-70 and would

characterize it this way: A good... but not great... lens. In my case, I don't typically have the need for it much, so it usually

sits around with little use. (I got it to shoot a wedding of an old friend and needed something fast for indoor shots)

 

*IF* the Canon lens was around the same price, it'd be a no-brainer. But it's not; it's a LOT more expensive. If you plan on

using this lens quite a bit, I personally think it's worth it to go for the Canon. If, on the other hand, it's not one you exactly

reach for first-thing, the Sigma is a very good deal. I don't like the large filters the Sigma requires and I'm not a fan of their

push-pull clutch mechanism, but the glass is pretty good. I have no complaints.

I left about $300 worth of slide film in an elevator in the S.F. airport on my way to Yosemite. Good thing I also brought a

digital camera! D'oh!

I suppose you could always stay in your office and <a href="http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_1200mm_f56L_USM/">get one of these!</a>

If the server is running Windows XP home, I'm not sure it can be done. I tried and tried to connect to my Windows XP

home box with my Macbook Pro trying everything I could think of to no avail. I finally called Apple tech support and was

told, basically "It's Windows fault". Supposedly it'll connect to an XP box running the "Business" edition just fine.

If you haven't tried it, you might give Epson's new Exhibition Fiber paper a spin. It's expensive as hell but it makes a great

B&W print (color too!) and works well with the 3800. I agree with Patrick and Colin... I don't think you need a RIP either.

The Epson 2200 is another story but the B&W drivers that ship with the 3800 are excellent.

Tommy, Yeah the in-camera color space is important doing it the way you are. I think Jeff's (and others) advice is good. Shoot jpegs for printing with your card in the printer. I'd try setting your camera to sRGB. As you progress you might try Photoshop Elements (about $100) which works a lot like its big brother, Photoshop CS3, but much easier if you need a bit of help. You might graduate to shooting RAW eventually but I'd stick with jpegs for now since you're not doing any post-processing.

 

And I know you paid good money for your printer so you can use it (obviously!) but you might also try using an online service like http://www.mpix.com to get some 4X6 proofs then decide which ones to print bigger, at home. It's easy to waste a lot of money fast printing at home. When you do it, it really behooves you to learn all you can first about the subject because you'll waste a ton of $$ otherwise - and get really frustrated. There are tons of books and magazine articles on color management, which is good to learn but it's a broad subject and can take a while. Good luck!

Just a few thoughts: Is your monitor calibrated? What color space are you using, in-camera? (sRGB or Adobe RGB) I suspect... but don't know... that the HP printer probably prefers sRGB. I'd also get into the habit of looking at your histogram to see if you have exposure problems. Understanding color management, paper and monitor profiles, etc., is a pre-requisite for getting good, home-made prints.

Hi Dennis,

 

I don't think EOS lenses do well when reversed because there's no way to change the aperture. The aperture with EOS

cameras is set with the camera body - there's no way to do it on the lens.

 

Well, there is one way apparently...

 

Click past the "we're closed for the weekend" signs at B&H. There's a description of how it works - The thing is, a macro

lens is much cheaper!

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=197010&is=REG

 

It would probably be easier and cheaper to buy an old Canon 50mm FD lens - which can be stopped down on the lens -

and probably mounted with step-up/down rings.

 

Another thought - you could add an extension tube which are pretty cheap and give you the ability to focus at very short distances. You

could use your EOS 50mm with that and retain autofocus and retain full control of aperture and shutter speed.

 

You can get a brand new 12mm extension tube from B&H for about $60. I'm sure you could find one much less than that on Ebay. Good

luck!

Chances are you'll never notice the difference among the processor speeds offered. You *will* notice the difference

between 2 and 4 gigs of RAM though. I was on a tight budget and opted for the 15" MBP but got 4 gigs of RAM. It's my

first Mac and I'm impressed so it won't be my last. By the way, while I'm sure the 17" display is beautiful you can always

connect your laptop to an external monitor which would probably perform better for critical color work anyway. Good luck!

Bob's answer. Hammer, meet nail.

On the "Worst auto focus shot" the coffe-pot is sharp. The cereal box, not so much. Looks like your autofocus point wasn't over where you thought and/or you focused/recomposed perhaps?

Yes, I've owned both. To me they're kind of apples and oranges so they're hard to compare. I'd say both are "good, not great" lenses. I'd probably give the edge to the Canon but even with its relatively old implementation of IS it's no match in some instances for a faster lens.

 

For a good, walk-around, mostly-outdoor lens, I'd probably choose the Canon. On the other hand, if I was doing a lot of wedding shots, I'd probably use the Sigma more. So you might give some thougt as to the most likely application.

 

I'm not a big fan of Sigma's push-pull clutch because you also have the AF/MF switch and it gets confusing. Just my .02 cents. Good luck!

For some reason it seems that there are only a few reviews, mostly for the <a href="http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Nikkor%20/%20Nikon%20Lens%20Tests/46-nikon--nikkor-aps-c/274-tokina-af-16-50mm-f28-at-x-pro-dx-nikon-lens-test-report--review">Nikkor-mount version.</a> But that should tell you something about the glass, at least.<P>

 

The Canon 10-22mm is supposedly excellent but I agree you should look at the Sigma if you don't mind 3rd party - it's supposed to be very good as well.

My Windows XP knows what Canon RAW files are (SP2). Windows XP and Vista both should allow you to view your

RAW files just fine - assuming a recently upgraded version of XP. Ditto for Apple's OS X.

 

One possibility - you didn't mention what camera. If it's a newer Rebel, 400D, etc. than your Windows software may need

updating to recognize their RAW files. Since jpegs are an open standard they don't require updates to the OSes and

RAW converters we use every time a new camera comes out. So if your camera's brand new, that may be something to

look into.

 

It would be helpful to know your version of Windows and the camera you're using if you still can't see them.

<I>Fragmentation occurs when you delete only some files thus creating empty/unused space which may or may not be

reused in one chunk. If all files are deleted there is no fragmentation.</i><P>

 

Agreed - I didn't word that well. Let me put it this way, if one rarely (or never) formats their card(s) and instead relies

solely on the "delete" method(s), i.e. occasionally marking some files to keep by flagging them read-only in-camera and

deleting the rest, then shooting more, deleting some again and so on 'til a card fills up, well... the files on a card over

time *can* become fragmented and FAT tables can get screwed up - just as they can on a disk. Periodically formatting

the card, in-camera, is just a good idea, imho. I'll sometimes do this to a PC's hard disk - just "splat" it by re-formatting it

and re-install the OS.<P>

 

And while I'm sure cards do have limited write/erase cycles (eh, who doesn't? ;-) I don't think anyone's in danger of

wearing out a "critical portion of the disk which is the heart" while using solid-state cards and that was my point.<P>

 

I still have CF cards I bought 6 or 7 years ago that work fine - I don't use them much because they're too small. But I

attribute it, in part, to my never doing an "erase all" - or marking some files un-eraseable and erasing the rest. Instead,

after copying my files off, I just put the card back in the camera and hit format. So far - knock on wood, big-time - I have

never had a card failure.<P>

 

BTW, I never worry about #2 and #3. If I know I've just shot a dud, I erase it, in-camera to free up the room. And I never

worry about taking the last shot. The last one (#4) is common sense; don't pull a card out while your camera - or

anything else - is writing to it.

http://www.alienbees.com/ -Not the most expensive or fancy but they'll have most everything except backdrops at good

prices and with good service if you need it.

<I>One of the problems with AB is that the controls are on the lights. This may seem fine until you have a light mounted

really high and realize you can't reach the controls without a chair.</i><P>

 

ABs sells a remote gizmo you can control your lights with without having to climb ladders. It uses an ordinary telephone

cable that connects from the light to a remote about the size of a TV remote that has sliders. (That's what that phone

jack on the back of your lights are for) I haven't used mine in a while - I think you can control up to 4 lights if memory

serves - maybe 6? Anyway... it's available and while it's not the most elegant looking thing, it always worked for me.<P>

 

I think you may have some overkill using a 1600w light "in a small work place" - especially if you have white walls and

want the option of shooting wide-open, which may come in handy in tight quarters if you'd like your background out of

focus. I'd consider two 800s myself - then you'd have a hair light. ;-)