peter_e

<p>Years back when my eyesight was 20/20, I only had a 4 megapixel camera. Now that I have a 20+ megapixel camera, my viewing resolution is limited by my eyesight. I don't feel that much has changed.</p>

<p>A fair number of previous posts on this topic. The 2x is generally not recommended. You should consider either the 100-400 or the 400/5.6 which is best suited for birds in flight because its low weight (it can be used hand held) and fast AF. Downside is that, without zoom, it can be a bit tricky to locate your target in the finder but that can be managed with some practice. The lack of IS is not really an issue with the applications you mentioned.</p>

<p>The bigger the impact of your work, the bigger the risk that some aspects of it will be used against you or misappropriated. Which means that you can avoid all risk if you stop communicating your work. It also means you have to assume certain risks to have an impact. As an artist or, in my case, as a scientist we have to communicate, thus taking on this risk is part of our profession. There are obviously strategies to manage this risk, but just like a bold watermark covering your image, they may come with some trade-offs. The key is to manage the risks but not to avoid them.</p>

<p>I believe your camera has live view, so if the image is skewed in live view but straight in the finder, you have a camera issue. I don't see how the lens can do this, it would probably be an issue with the finder.<br>

Sometimes I inadvertently skew the camera a bit when hand holding. You are probably less "challenged" than I am in this regard, but it can't hurt to put the camera on a tripod and check if the problem persists.</p>

<p>After selling ripped jeans for years, they are now selling pants with paint splatter for $ 160?!</p>

<p>The best part: It comes with a free bunch of turnips -- you bought the turnips for the rubber band, right? :)</p>

<p>There is no reasonable expectation of privacy behind an open window or a window without curtains or shades. </p>

<p>Sebastian: You are probably over-thinking this. The maximum aperture on your lens is 3.5 at 16 mm and 5.6 at 85 mm. You need a different lens (probably more expensive) to give you a wider aperture and thus less depth of focus at 85 mm. <br>

As others have said, not much of a point to compare this to full-frame. All this being said, you may have heard that, taking the same image with an 85 mm lens with your crop sensor camera and with an 127 mm objective on a full-frame camera, using the same f-stop, you will get more depth of focus with the 85 mm lens. That is simply because the 85 mm lens has a shorter focal length compared to the 127 mm. So you are right that, using the same f-stop, the depth of focus for the same field of view from the same distance to the object, shot with a full frame and a crop frame camera, will be somewhat different. To get shots with a minimum amount of depth of focus, you want to get a fast lens and a full-frame camera.</p>

<p>I save RAW and a small size jpg. The jpg allows a quick preview in Explorer or on an ipad. I only "process" the RAW files in Lightroom that are worth processing, in each case using settings specific to the image. I bring enough cards so that I don't have to copy them to a hard drive until I get back home.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A German artillery officer named Schiempflug.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Scheimpflug, not Schiempflug, and Austrian, not German. </p>

<p>Frank: If you mean lighter when you say smaller, check the specs:<br>

Zeiss 2/35 mm: 530 g<br>

Canon 2/35 IS 335 g<br>

Zeiss 2/100 MP: 660 g<br>

Canon 2.8/100 IS 625 g</p>

<p>Great idea, though, a focusing rectangle that locks onto and tracks a moving object! Should be doable in live view. A feature that we definitely need for the EOS 5D mk iv!</p>

<p>Alexandrite is birefringent but this has an effect on color only if you have a polarizer on your lens, or the camera polarizes light (which it should not). Alexandrite is also pleochroic, but the effect is only seen when your light source is polarized. My best guess is that Alexandrite has a strong spectrum in the UV range that you can't see with your naked eye, but that is visible to your camera and interpreted as blue. You could perhaps test for this hypothesis by using a UV filter.</p>

<p>The UK magazine <strong>Outdoor Photography</strong> is, from what I have seen, the best--large format, crisp printing, informative features, and a professional level of photography. Unfortunately, for those of us not residing in the UK, most tips for shooting locations are a bit out of reach for the weekend trip. Still worth a subscription for the US based photographer. <strong>Outdoor Photographer</strong> in the US is so so. Unlike Outdoor Photography which describes specific locations, Outdoor Photographer provides rather generic tips "how to take better pictures". Maybe this would be the best choice for you but at some point this gets repetitive. Print quality is just ok, magazine is full of advertisement. <strong>Nature Photographer</strong> has location specific information, good print quality, and nice photography contributed by readers. The text could frequently benefit from better editing but I guess the text is secondary in a photography magazine. The focus of <strong>National Geographic</strong> is clearly not the landscape but the people inhabiting it. I find that there are actually rather few landscape feature articles in it but clearly it shines for its variety of topics and professional quality. I remember the German magazine <strong>GEO</strong> with stunning travel photography but I have not had an issue in my hands for many years.</p>

<p>The devaluation of used digital cameras over the past 5-10 years is not a predictor for the next 5-10 years. Technology advances come in spurts, and DSLRs may not advance as fast in the next 10 years as they have in the past 10 years. The most recent Canon DSLR announcements provide a good example that big leaps in technology may not be ahead of us. I think the technology for DSLRs has matured now. If the future EOS 5D mk v is only incrementally better than the current 5D mk iii, the used older cameras will hold their value better. I did not feel that the EOS 20D met my needs when it came out (I kept shooting 35 mm slides) so I don't think it is grossly undervalued now either. The EOS 5Dii and 5Diii are great cameras now and most likely will be in 5 years from now.</p>

<p>I don't see this with my 14 mm. Either your lens or your technique.</p>

<p>Did you remember to change the Focus Screen settings Custom Function IV-5? See p. 162 of manual.</p>

<p>Since the laser pointer is not rigidly connected to the camera, these tests don't give a useful indication of what the camera experiences. The camera certainly dampens the vibrations better than the springboard the holds the laser pointer. It would have been more useful to tape the laser pointer to the lens as tightly as possible.</p>

<p>Even with the 3-knob heads, you typically leave the friction knob alone. Tighten the pan knob, and your 3-knob head becomes a 1-knob head.</p>

<p>For fine control of tilt you probably want a geared head.<br>

If you shoot in the portrait position, I recommend an L plate for a more stable configuration, especially considering that your tripod is on the light side for a 300 mm lens. <br>

Overall, your leg and ballhead selection needs to factor in the longest lens you are using, not just the weight.<br>

No issue with the Gitzo rubber feet in many years of use, but Gitzo offers metal spikes, as well as replacement rubber feet. Just don't use the tripod as a walking stick, not only because of wear of the feet but because it is easy to kink a carbon fiber leg.</p>

<p>I have not wet cleaned a sensor since I replaced the 5D MkI with the MkII and now the MkIII. The first step should always be the blower, the 2nd the Arctic Butterfly, the 3rd wet cleaning. Use the static charge of the Butterfly to lift off the dust, not necessarily to wipe. When that did not solve the issue, I used the Visible Dust swabs and Sensor Clean solution or, if that did not work, Smear Away. With a bit of practice and a sensor loupe, you get professional results. Just read and follow the instructions that come with these products. If you have some residue from the cleaning solution, do another round with Sensor Clean and a new swab until the sensor is clean. Nothing to be nervous about, just use a steady hand on a firm and clean table at comfortable height with good light. Close the shutter as soon as the cleaning fluid has evaporated, and take a test picture off a white surface. As long as the tools are clean, nothing can happen. Don't use the Butterfly for any other cleaning besides the sensor, and don't touch the bristles. Don't use excessive amounts of cleaning fluid. Don't reuse the swabs, only do a single swipe with a rolling motion of the tip so that the sensor is in contact with always a fresh part of the swab while you swipe across.</p>

<p>Layperson's response: Could you convince a judge in a small claims court that the jpg files, as opposed to the promised raw files, limit your ability to create images that are demonstrably better than the images you received from the photographer? I assume the images you received are professional in quality. Unless the judge has some personal experience with this, I think this would be very difficult. The judge may still rule in your favor but not attach any damages that are worth your time and expense, on the grounds that your case amounts to a technicality that did not affect the value of the delivered product, and thus the contract was fulfilled. I would ask the photographer if you can arrange for a photo shoot at no extra cost with your bride for which you get the raw files.</p>

<p>It should not be "very hard" to turn. If so, probably a reason for exchange. It should also have a uniform resistance 360 degrees. That said, I tighten my B&W polarizers to the lens only lightly, so they all tend to unscrew if I turn the polarizer in the unscrew direction. Instead, I turn them consistently in the tightening direction, and they stay on.</p>

<p>8 mm home movies were never particularly sharp, even when taken with a top of the line Beaulieu 4008 camera with Schneider objective. But it sure was an elegant camera. I sold it for a Mamiya 645.</p>

<p>Your lens selection does not change the perspective. Your distance to the object does. What your lens does is project a larger or smaller view on your film or digital sensor. Differently sized cutouts would simulate this effect just like the old wire frame sports finders.</p>