les

<p>Bueh - Ben may be spot on, but you are not...unless I misunderstood you post.<br>

Zooming (changing focal length on a zoom lens) changes the angle of view - but does zilch to the perspective and "spacial relations". If you shoot the same fixed subject from the same position - a 35mm lens will give you exactly the same perspective as 200mm lens. The FOV will be different, but the perspective remains the same...</p>

<p>Put the 1.4x TC on the camera. Then put some Kenko tubes on it. Then mount your 100mm macro.<br>

I don't exactly remember what magnification I got using this setup - but I think it was about 3x.<br>

At any case - a small fly looks like this (using 1.4x TC + about 60mm worth of Kenko tubes):<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5450385</p>

<p>Maybe the OP meant "focal length" - which actually changes at large magnifications ?</p>

<p>When the hell freezes over...</p>

<p>Kind of off-topic - but it always interested me why people pay so much attention to having excellent pictures of a wedding ?<br /> Sure, a good picture is a good picture - and without any doubt I prefer to look at a good pic rather than a bad one - if I have a choice.</p>

<p>But, considering how many marriages end soon after the initial celebrations - maybe it is not such a good idea to invest $$$ to document an event, which, statistically, has about even chance of ending badly.<br /> I do not have any pictures of my wedding - in fact there wasn't any wedding at all, since we could not afford it, let alone pay a photographer. Still - we are together after 35 years and intend to continue. I am not saying that paying $5K for wedding photography is a big NO-NO, but maybe it is not such a good idea to start one's marriage with a rather large financial burden ?<br>

<br /> So, maybe $500 wedding photography is not such a bad idea after all...</p>

<p>The really important stuff happens much later and lasts longer (if you are lucky).</p>

<p>If you have monies - get a pro. If you don't - there is nothing wrong with having some family members doing the shooting - provided that there is some time left for them to actually enjoy the event.</p>

<p>Michael - here is my take on what you wrote:</p>

<p>You have been shoting with a 18-55. It is reasonably easy to take a decent picture with a short focal lens. But 28-135 (which I owned) can make excellent images due to IS - particularly in good light.</p>

<p>Switching to 70-200 needs a bit of practise. The lens is excellent without any doubt - but shooting at 200mm may surprise you a bit. IS works fine - but it barely compensates for difference in focal length compared to 18-55. In other words - it took me some time to get good pics out of 70-200 - and it was entirely my fault. Many people do not realise how different these lenses are. Good shooting technique is absolutely required - and once this is out of the way, the 70-200 will perform brilliantly. At least this was my experience.</p>

<p>It is not enough to splash some cash (actually quite a lot of it) and expect instantaneous improvement. In fact - in my case I noticed deterioration - until I learnt how to use it properly. It is also worth to remember that IS needs a fraction of a second to kick in. In short - practice. Getting a golf club from Tiger Woods is not going to make you a good golfer.</p>

<p>Regarding contrast - it is all in the light. The 28-135 is OK - but contrast can be actually quite bad at times. The 70-200 appears to be much better).</p>

<p>Let's try again...</p><div></div>

<p>It doesn't seem to work...<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/10547792<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10547889</p>

<p>Here is mine 60 sec. retouch.<br /> As usual - the beauty is in the eye of the be(er)holder :)</p>

<p>You treat all of the above as a perfectly normal behavior, and wonder how people could live before photography was invented.</p>

<p>OK - so she breached the contract, or the letter of it, or whatever. She shouldn't - but...<br>

Personally - my opinion is that wedding photos are the property of the people who ordered them and they should be able to do with them whatever they want - including selling them if they wish to do so. Wedding photos are highly personal - and IMHO the photographer should not consider them as his property. His job (paid for) is to take the pics (of negligible value to any parties other than the party directly involved, and - be honest - usually of negligible artistic value - although there may be exceptions).</p>

<p>Customers who order wedding pics are not cows to milk for ever and ever. The situation might have been different in the past when the photographers created negatives and their income was derived from prints - in that situation, they owned the negatives, so it was logical that additional prints should be made from those negatives - with appropriate reward.</p>

<p>Today, a digital image is as much of a negative as a finished product. Let's get real (notwithstanding the fact that it may be hurting the pocket). This is similiar to cell phone contracts or you-can-only-fix-your-car-here-or-your-warranty-is-gone schemes.</p>

<p>Now - I am waiting for fireballs coming from left, right and center.</p>

<p>Agree with Stephen. Setting up a Pty Ltd business in Oz (not photography, though) took about couple of hours, all included. Also - keep your files in perfect order, receipts, correspondence, etc. - it makes life only unbeareble instead of pure hell :)</p>

<p>Not exactly on the subject - but close (insurance). I do not pay insurance on my photo gear (and it is worth a pretty penny by now). Statistically it is unlikely that I would ever need one - and if that happens...well, bad luck.<br>

I paid, however, salary insurance for the last 10 years - just in case. My salary was good, the insurance was only about $120/month, so I figured - why not ?<br>

Last February I got stricken by a nasty variety of pancreatitis (if there are any doctors reading it - the worst variety of it). I still haven't returned to work yet - almost 10 months now. The insurance pays 80% of my previous income, which is a lifesaver.<br>

So - no, I would not spend money to insure my hobby gear. But - yes, I would insure something which is really important.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Get the 50/1.8 lens. Firstly - it is a good piece of glass. Secondly - when you find out that this does not fulfill all your needs - you will know then what other lens to get. In the meantime you will be enjoying nice sharp pictures without breaking the bank.</p>

<p>I have the 70-200 IS version. Yes, you can shoot w/o IS, but it comes oh so handy at times. It is worth the additional cost IMHO.</p>

<p>Shoot from a tripod with cable release, static subject - then you will know if the lens is OK. If there is a sharpness problem - check for bac/front focusing. If there is none - the lens may be a dud. But most likely you will find out that you need to practise with this settings in order to get usable images. And this includes focusing/camera shake/subject moving etc.</p>

<p>It is not that bad if you use the flash frequently: I got to the point where I don't need to have look at the manual too much (although I am far from knowing what is possible with all the combinations of button pressing).</p>

<p>!00/2.8 macro is an excellent lens. The difference compared to 100/2 is MUCH slower AF, particularly when there is not too much light. I frequently use manual focus with this lens - but image quality is really excellent. Otherwise - what Yakim says. Regarding sharpness - the macro lens is better, maybe not by a huge margin - but noticeable.</p>

<p>What Yakim says: on 1.6x crop sensor the 18-55 (or 17-55/2.8) lens is about the most useful for the purpose you stated (OP)</p>

<p>When master is in M mode, playing with the ZOOM button, followed by the rotation of the control dial, followed by pressing the button in the centre of the dial - allows you to switch the master flash OFF. In fact - it is still producing some flash - but it is very weak: in Manual mode, when pressing the TEST button, the flash discharges with the power set on the flash. I tried with settings 1/1 and 1/128, both with the flash head switched to ON and OFF: with the flash head ON - the 1/1 setting produced heaps more light (checked with lightmeter) than 1/128 setting. With the flash head OFF, both 1/1 and 1/128 settings produced only very little light from the master.</p>

<p>Someone who knows all the quirks of the Canon flash system may give a better explanation - I just wrote my observations.</p>

<p>I know that most people would disagree - but my take on the issue of repairs/warranties is as follows: if you can't live with the cost of repairs - you shouldn't be buying the stuff in the first place.<br>

Modern products are not made to be repaired: at best the "repair" is a replacement of whole components, frequently built of many subcomponents - and most of them are OK, and do not need replacement. This is the cost of miniaturization and automated assembly.<br>

The only thing is - these products should not be so hideously expensive. I can put up with a throw-away lens or camera - but at a reasonable price. And several $K is not what I would call a "resonable price".<br>

Well, no one ever said that photography is a cheap hobby - which it is for most of us.</p>

<p>"Most of the people here would recommend Alien Bee lighting as it's good and fair priced, but they don't make anything in 220-240v 50hz."<br>

Just for the record - the voltage can be changed to 240V on Alien bees for couple of bucks. You just need to tell them before they ship :)</p>

<p>My experience with Canon flashes is that they are full of (sometimes useful) gimmics, which unnecessarily complicates the operation. I basically use my Canon flashes in two modes: one is full E-TTL, with 580EX or ST-E2 controlling the slaves. The second mode is full manual on all flashes, with ST-E2 to trigger them and a lightmeter to figure out the exposure.<br>

I am sure there are many clever things which can be done with combinations of master/slave/E-TTL/manual/flash on/flash off/etc. settings - but I could not be bothered to remember what this automated system does, depending on settings of each flash.<br>

My advice is to do the same: keep it simple - in other words either E-TTl with all its quirks, or full manual where you control everything.<br>

Photography is about photographing, not pushing X-number of buttons in a precise (and hard to remember) order to (hopefully) achieve what you want.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Too good to be true.</p>