kai_griffin

The majority of opinions I've read about this lens in various forums are from people who don't own or use the lens. That's not so surprising considering the price tag, which delivers only a little better image quality over the 70-300 non-DO at double the price. I <i>do</i> own the lens - I bought it for a very specific reason (portability) and can immediately dispel two ideas: (1) It is not an L lens. It does not approach L lens quality, neither in build nor performance (it is slow, lower in contrast, and somewhat softer). (2) It is substantially more portable than any other 300mm lens on the market, if your space constraint is constrained. This was my primary reason for buying it. Taking both these points into consideration -- and you really do have to in order to justify this lens -- I have never regretted purchasing it, and use it *a lot*. This is more than I can say for my 70-200 f/4 L, which I found myself rarely using, despite dearly loving its quality. It just isn't as convenient to carry as the 70-300 DO, and the compromise in optics is not so huge that I can't recover from it in post production. In short, if your *primary* need is portability (and long focal length), this is a superb lens. If your primary need is pixel-peeping, or you belong to the Cult of the Sharp, then this is definitely not the lens for you.<p>

I have a very primitive and subjective page - by no means a formal review - about my relatively brief experience with this lens (so far) at <a href="http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/equipment/canon70to300isdo.html">

<b>this page</b></a>, and that includes some sample images.

I've never had images this soft from my 70-200 f/4 wide open (been using it nearly 4 years now), so I'd definitely lean towards suggesting some kind of autofocus problem there. IMHO, Mark's post-sharpened version above looks atrociously over-sharpened and harsh... and in any case 70-200/4 images should simply not be this soft straight out of the camera, even wide open.

If I was in the powerful position to ammend the Act that guarantees Freedom of Speech, I'd be very frugal and go no further than making irritating signatures like: "Click! Love and hugs" a Federal offense.<p>But more seriously, your enthusiasm for this noble cause is commendable, Peter. You expect to get at least questioned after taking photographs of, say, a bridge in a tin pot dictatorship; you'd never have thought it could happen in the USA, although there has always been a hefty element of paranoia in the national psyche over there. "Duck and Cover" in the 1950's didn't help much, and I suppose knowing that even today's government can so easily analyse the telephoning behaviour of millions of its citizens just serves to magnify the feeling that "freedom" is only a relative thing amongst the population.

<i>" does a photojournalism shot about neo-nazism have to be posted with a short text of explanation or can it be posted alone, with just its 'power' of picture? "</i><p>

OK, I'll bite. Without a caption, this photograph could just as well be of a bunch of football fans. Or drunks. Or both. They could be angry French cheese makers protesting the European Union's new standard for Camembert. They could be illegal immigrants, some of them unwilling to be photographed. So the answer to your question above is: no, without a caption, this photograph could be any number of things, including a neo nazi rally. With a caption, it at least puts it in some kind of context. With <i>or</i> without a caption, it is an <i>uncontroversial</i> photograph... and I think that is the real reason why there has been none of the "hot debate" about it that you were hoping for.

The short answer is actually "yes"; you just need an M42 -> EOS adapter, which is glassless, and works perfectly (got one myself). I think the above poster might have misinterpreted the "F/D" designation as meaning it's for the old FD Canon mount. The "10 F/D" actually refers to the fact that it's a fixed F/10 aperture lens.

(quote)<i>"uninstall any Norton/Symantec software you may have"</i><p>

Yes, this really is well-considered advice. Even Norton/Symantec support recommend that their customers remove any Norton/Symantec software from their PC's shortly after purchasing and installing it. The only better advice you could receive would be to also consider removing all the other software from your computer, including the OS itself. Photo.net will certainly stop crashing on your PC after this.

Is it that your browser is crashing? What browser are you using? It is possible that a faulty Flash Player plugin installation in your browser is causing it to crash when one of the advertisements on the homepage is displayed. Try re-installing any such plug-ins. If you're not already using Firefox, consider making the switch as it's one of the most stable browsers available.

The current & cycles info & advice you've gotten is correct.

 

You can find 2 different socket types in Italy, both involving round pins. The two variations are not compatible; the pin distance is different. Additionally, if you have a 3-pin plug, you may not necessarily find a 3-pin socket in which to plug it... it depends.

 

Which type of socket you will find depends on the vintage of the place you're staying in, and in the case of houses built from about the 1980's onwards, you can often find both varieties of socket installed in the same place (this is the case at my mother's house). There are also sockets that will accommodate either plug type by closely arranging 5 holes (2 slightly overlapping holes either side of a center hole), which eliminates the problem altogether. These are common on power strips and double/triple adapters.

 

This has caused me no end of frustration, as I've inevitably had to buy yet-another-adaptor while on the road, with the end result that I have accumulated over a dozen old-socket to new-socket (or vice-versa) adapters in a box. As you can gather from this, it's easy to get an adapter once you are here if you find yourself staying in a place that has the "wrong" socket type.

The "Kaidan One VR" parabolic mirror looks to be a very easy way of doing panoramas (since you capture the entire 360 degrees with a single shot - no stitching required). I'd like one, but can't get past the price, given how often I'd end up using it [not very!].<p>

<a href="http://www.kaidan.com/Detail.bok?no=101">www.kaidan.com/Detail.bok?no=101</a>

Normally, you're pretty with-it, Pico. Witty, even. But today, it sounds like you've been dancing around the May-Pole a few too many times, or enjoyed one or two too many May Day grappas. Calling someone a "moron with no depth" on the basis of a single article, without even bothering to explain <i>why</i> probably says more about your state of mind <i>today</i> than in does in general. In this instance, you became the proverbial fish in the bucket and deserved a shot.<p>For the record, I'm with Robert X's line of thought on this one.

"Idiot", "drivel", "moron", etc, etc. Some of you have really deep analytical skills - lucky you don't try to do it for a living, or you'd have to do something else... like photography maybe :-)

It worked for Apple, though I'm not sure that my analogy holds well to a completely different industry.

Here's a list of people that your octagenarian friend should pursue with legal action. These are all photographers named Chas, which came up in Google upon entering "Chas Photographer" as the search string (in order of appearance). These are only from the <i>first page</i> of the result list. Many of these gentlemen are professional photographers, which ought to be worth more in a lawsuit. Maybe one of these names is that of your friend?<p>

Chas Eastwood<br>

Chas Maher<br>

Chas Campbell<br>

Chas Glatzer<br>

Chas Eisenmann<br>

Chas Conway<br>

Chas Della Silva<br>

Chas Bowie<br>

Chas Foxall<br>

Chas Ray Krider<br>

Chas (no surname)<br>

Chas Richardson<p>

There is a veritable gold mine in them thar names.

I've read this twice, and all I can think of is that it must be a full moon where John lives today. It's seems appropriate in this context that <i>Madness</i> band member Carl Smyth is better known as Chas.<br>

----<br>

In Memory of Chas Addams <i>(1912-1988)</i><br>

Erick, yes there's going to be a next one. It's not just a rumour - it really is going to happen. Even Canon won't deny it.

Living practically next door to Croatia here in north-eastern Italy, I have never seen EFKE for sale anywhere. Probably, I haven't looked hard enough. Can any of our Croatian or Slovenian members tell me if it's generally available in those countries - or does Fotokemika export the entire output to overseas markets? If they are available there, it would be interesting to know the local prices closer to source!

Sounds like you've unwittingly set yourself up a little laundrette business there, Damien. This isn't very much money so far; they're probably testing your reliability at this stage. Don't take silly risks in pissing anyone off - try to have the funds bounced straight back from whence they came, and of course get the authorities involved - they will know what to do and have the best advice of all. What you don't want is to get a midnight knock on the door from local thugs wondering why you haven't shifted the funds to the Russian destination(s) as instructed. You won't be the first person to have fallen for this (nor the last) - the most important thing now is to get proper advice from local authorities who deal in this kind of stuff daily.

How about a T-Shirt that says: <b>Who <i>Is</i> The "3/3 Guy"?</b>

Thanks for the kind words, Michael... but I'm completely outclassed by your portfolio... that's stunning B&W work!

<i>Don't spend $5000 in L class lenses and a used DSLR. It doesn't make any sense.</i><p>

On the contrary, that makes the <b>most</b> sense. Your investment in lenses is by far the more important, and longer lasting. Your lenses may outlive several camera bodies, and there is no great incentive to rush out and buy the latest and greatest camera body, not by any stretch of the imagination. Any body from 10D upwards will give you excellent results if you concentrate on buying excellent lenses; don't get caught up in the camera manufacturer's treadmill of endless upgrades, unless you've got endless cash to throw at your hobby - as Maxwell Smart used to say: <i>"that's just what they're expecting us to do, Chief..."</i>. The truth of the matter is that the differences between the 10D, 20D and 30D are pretty darned minimal when it comes to the majority of image production. I'd say negligible. You're paying a lot of extra dough for a couple of extra focus points and a few other gimmicks in the latest model. High-ISO performance has been getting better, but was already very good with the 20D.

To be honest, I really don't think you need any special advice - even if your itinerary were to only take you to one or two locations in each of those places you mention, the photo opportunities are going to simply leap out at you without much effort on your part! I have a few online galleries covering each of the Italian destinations you mention, if you're interested, <a href="http://www.griffinbyteworks.com/photography/galleryindex.html" target="_blank"><b> at this link.</b></a>

<i> Evidently these skins come from countries where such animals are used for food...</i> <br><i>...Below is a photo of my black enamel Minolta SRT101b that I covered with a red-ring lizard skin</i><p>

 

You're right! I've eaten one of those lizards myself. Very tasty it was, too. I wish I'd thought to ask the maitre'd aftewards for the skin in a doggie bag; I recovered my Yashica FX-3 with semi-boring green calfskin (also courtesy of cameraleather.com), and regret not going for something racier.

<i>If you don't trust them, ask for a money order/draft first and once it's in your account you have the money. Then you can ship. Simple as that.</i><p>

Not only is that advice wrong, the entire scam hinges upon people thinking that the above is how the banking system works. That's why it is a successful scam - people think that once the bank takes the bogus money order/draft and credits your account then they are fine. In fact, the scam relies precisely on this misconception. It's only much later when the "issuing bank" for the bogus money order/draft gets their hands on the cheque (check) and declares it fraudulent that the victim loses his/her money (as well as whatever piece of equipment they long ago sent to the scammer).

RFF is a great site and Jorge looks after it well - and professionally, for that matter. Every site has its major hiccups from time to time, including this one; we've [mostly] all seen them happen. No big deal.

Trevor wrote: <i>Being collapsible it probably gets longer after extended use. (ooer Matron!)</i><p>

Oh, great - I can already see a new flood of spam emails offering Ultra Ch.eap E|mar Pumpz to e><tend my f0kal L3ngth.