peterq

<p>Effective or not, tools like that will kill creativity. No problem if the photog isn't creative at all.</p>

<p>BTW, if there were standard criteria for "the best", we'd have no more competitions and juries......</p>

<p>My EOS 500N (Rebel G) and EOS 33 (Elan 7) are still working (500N isn't used any more).<br>

The silent operation of the 33 is still a joy for wild animal photography, despite the problem to get the right films.</p>

<p>@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=937861">John Henneberger</a></p>

<p>John, that is the tool to help you to get the best result while trying to make the ultimate "less is better" pic.</p>

<p>Incredible.<br>

This way of "being concerned" leads to the next situation:<br>

Men with camera's are suspected because they might be seeking children and sneeky make pictures of them.<br>

Weird, just weird.</p>

<p>I don't understand the hostile and/or indignant reactions.<br>

If you don't like the question or the idea, just don't answer the question.<br>

If you think the question is unfair or illegal, just put that in your reply.<br>

Others can decide for themselves what to do, I think.<br>

I'm not interested and I have no opinion about this question after reading.<br>

Cheers.</p>

<p>Nigel,<br>

I second the answer of Buffdr @ 100%</p>

<p>Got my 7D last friday. Have a 5D and decided 7D for extra tele and backup.<br>

Did some tests with the 100-400 L IS on both 5D and 7D @ 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO.<br>

5D is less noisier @ ISO 800+, as expected, but 7D is surprisingly good.<br>

Made pics @ 400 mm, F8 of the same objects at same distance, on both 5D and 7D.<br>

Made crops of the 5D pics, showing the object at the same size as in the 7D frames, and printed them on 8" * 12" because I can't judge them "on screen". The 7D prints are more detailed (as expected) and quality is not visible different to me, even @ 800 ISO. So it delivers what I was looking for.<br>

Extra tele, AF speed and FPS is a joy when shooting BIF with 7D.<br>

So I'm happy, but there's a lot about the 7D I have to learn ........</p>

<p>I hope it will never exist,<br>

because I'm spending a fortune to keep pace with Canons developments ;-)</p>

<p>Dear Kevin B.<br>

I think you don't want anybody to talk you out of buying the 7D, but just want some guys and girls to support your choice.<br>

So here is my contribution: get it a.s.a.p. and enjoy it and don't forget to spend a lot of time to get the best out of it. Forget all the comparisons to FF, Nikon & whatever. BTW, I use a 5D, considering a 7D for backup/tele.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>What are all these "best" qualification discussions about?<br>

Who is so desperately waiting for the 256.000 ISO? combined with 40Mpix and 25 Fps? etc.<br>

If the camera is blocking your qualities as a photographer, then it could be an argument,<br>

but to be honest, looking at what we could produce in the film era (256.000 ISO?), amazing it is.<br>

However, for a lot of people this fantastic DSLR gear is allways to expensive if it isn't (nearly) for free.<br>

Please, look at your own qualities as a photographer, specify your actual needs and your budget, get real and select the gear that fits best. Keep on dreaming of the ultimate thing and don't forget to make pictures.</p>

<p>Cheers.</p>

<p>Dear Ganz,<br>

You need more than millimeters ............<br>

1. time, much time to wait for the wild getting close enough to your spot.<br>

2. An itinerary that doesn't push you.<br>

3. Patience, much patience.<br>

4. Luck, just luck.</p>

<p>About the millimeters, did you considder renting lenses?</p>

<p>Stephen,</p>

<p>Take as much reach as you can get. It enables you to picture spectacular close-ups.<br>

Don't forget to watch all of it with the naked eye too (without a lens ;-) ), it's great over there.</p>

<p>I second the answer of Francisco.<br>

When we used film, there was hardly any reflection from the surface of the medium.<br>

Now with shiny sensors, the projected image is reflected and returned into the glass.<br>

That is why some lenses and filters now have special coatings: to kill reflections in the system.</p>

<p>Suppose that 99.98% of all the images created is bad edited crap<br>

and 99.98% of the creators and viewers are happy with it<br>

then what's the problem?</p>

<p>Don't get upset by the result of other people's photography and/or C#$P,<br>

just ignore what you don't like and be happy with what you do like..... creating images.</p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br>

IMO you suffer from a generic photographers disease: limited by the budget.<br>

I wouldn't go for a zoom, but for a second hand (good quality) 400 mm F5.6 for the wildlife. No TC.<br>

It's much easier to keep a distance than getting close ;-)<br>

Portraits is a different matter and I would make a priority choice for portraits or wildlife.<br>

Don't compromise by trying to find the "one for all" glass that matches your budget now, because you will regret that sooner or later in terms of quality.</p>

<p>Wish you a lot of joy, whatever you decide.</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<p>Kenneth,</p>

<p>One of the difficulties in your attempts is to get as close as possible with the macro. (which is better than a zoom i.m.o.)<br /> Shooting wildlife (even the small ones) asks for knowing their behaviour.<br /> You may know that dragon flies tend to return to a specific place to "sit" for a while before the next hunt.<br /> If you found that place, put your gear on a tripod, focus on that spot (F11 or F16) and wait for the insect returning to the spot. Then just push the button and don't forget to take several shots.<br /> Enjoy it!</p>

<p>Me too likes to take as little as possible.<br>

It allways results in at least 10Kg / 22 Pounds or more of "glass".<br>

And I never regretted it ;-)</p>

<p>1. The posting is an example of first class no(n)sense.<br>

2. Any reply (even this one ;-) ) is useless.</p>

<p>Mauro,</p>

<p>How did you get a 14 stop wide DR scanned? I'm just curious.</p>

"

John O'Keefe-Odom [subscriber] [Frequent poster] , Nov 16, 2008; 02:51 a.m.

Respectfully, the optics and mechanics don't jibe in this review.

3. DSLR sensors are probably built with a structure that's a staggered matrix. Film grain distribution will be governed by randomness. This implies that the two different kinds of structures will respond differently to different kinds of lines and surfaces. Orientation and degree of curvature of the recorded surface will probably be illustrated by the two different kinds of matrices in two different ways, when examined closely.

"

Thank you John,

this is where it becomes apples to oranges in the comparison of the poster.

What is the comparison about ?

Grain / smallest detail that can be captured? Obviously not "quality" (whatever that is).

The poster doesn't put a question, but only some observations without a clear goal.

Conclusions are ours?

My conclusions are simple:

Film is fundamentally different from digital, so comparing them is only comparing them like apples and oranges,

even grain size compared to pixel size doesn't say that much;

A scanner is a bad tool to prove the details and quality of film, because it transforms one domain to the other;

If one wants to shoot film or digital, please do.

Chinmaya Sn,

I'm not sure why you put the question.

I own the 100-400 L USM IS and love it.

Nothing compaires with this one, except for combo's.

And I prefer 1 instead of combo's, 'cause changing lenses is always a risk (time, dirt, accidents), brings more weight and will cost more.

IMO adding 1.4 converters is not increasing quality and speed and even AF might become problematic.

However, Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 + 1.4 TC would be my alternative if I had to get an alternative.

"Nikon's comeback!"

Is this about photography or just a message for shareholders?

You know, you can't make pictures while reading this threat, sorry thread. ;-)

BTW I don't care about brands and I don't buy new equipment every year.

Colton,

Obviously I misinterpreted your question.

Theoretically, the beam of the flash reaches out into the universe. What the subject will get of it depends on the angle (divergence) of the beam, the intensity and how much of it is reflected by the subject. So, hard to say.

You could do some easy tests on trees, bushes, etc. with different surfaces to get an impression of the results.

Surfaces that are wet and shiny (eyeballs, noses, .....) will reflect best.