stein_andersen

<p>The Canon 70-200/2.8L IS costs $1800 while the non IS costs $1300. The old, unstabilized Sigma costs $800, and if the price difference is comparable to Canon's, the Sigma 70-200 OS could cost around $1100. If it does well in reviews, I might pay that for it.</p>

<p>Probably not. Sounds to me like a recipe for disaster. ;) But they say it'll work, and what do I know?</p>

<p>I'm really looking forward to seeing reviews of this new image stabilized 70-200mm zoom:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022016sigma70mm200mm.asp</p>

<p>And this 8-16mm UW looks fun:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022011sigma8mm16mm.asp</p>

<p>A couple of other promising lenses as well:</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022015sigma85mm.asp<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10022014sigma17mm50mm.asp</p>

<p>If that works, then I bet my way works too, and is way easier. I don't think there's any way of resetting the numbering in firm/software on a 400D/Rebel XTi, so you'll have to trick the counter by rolling over from 9999 to 0001.</p>

<p>Rename one of the files on your CF card to IMG_9999.JPG or IMG_9999.CR2. Put the card back in the camera, take a picture or three, rename a file on the card to the number below the one you want your next pic to be, and voila!<br>

...Well, it's a theory at least. I haven't tried it, but it might be worth a try.</p>

<p>Are you shooting in RAW? If so, a bit of sharpening in post production is always required. That's normal. If you're shooting jpegs, your camera does this for you.<br>

I have an XTi (Well, an EOS 400D) and a 17-55 as well, and I'm very happy with the results.</p>

<p>HSM is Sigma's version of USM (Ultrasonic focus motor). Sigma's IS is called "OS", and I don't know if their 17-50 has it yet. Tamron has a 17-50 with "VC", though. (Their image stabilization is called "vibration compensation".)</p>

<p>I've been looking at the Giottos MT-8361 tripod legs, and like what I see. I don't know much about them, though. Can anyone tell me if this is a quality product? How does it compare to tripods like for instance the Bogen/Manfrotto 055CXPro3?</p>

<p>Here's Rufus. Our Springer Spaniel</p><div></div>

<p>Tha AF on (long) macro lenses will be <em>slower</em> than on ordinary lenses, but the AF speed on the Sigma 150 isn't really that bad in any regard, and there are three focus limiter settings that speed things up if you want to use it as a normal tele and not shoot at high magnifications/close distance.<br>

The 150mm is optically wonderful (On my EPS-C sensor at least) and tack sharp.<br>

I guess the 180 is just as good, but it might be on the long side on a crop sensor. YMMV.</p>

<p>Matt Laur: They have been shipping it for a while now. I've had mine (Canon mount, bought from B&H) for a month now. The Photozone review of the Nikon mount one is on the way.</p>

<p>Here's a test shot from today. No cropping, handheld at F/11 1/160 f-10mm.</p><div></div>

<p>The f/3.5 is a newer design, but probably very much based on the "old" 4.5-5.6. I recently bought the 3.5 for my Canon, and I must admit that I've only used it with small apertures like F/8 to F/11 for getting large DOFs in wide angle shots. ...But I'm sure there are times when you need the bigger apertures even on a UWA lens.</p>

<p>I don't know anything about which of the two is sharpest.</p>

<p>I'd look at the Tokina 11-16 F/2.8 too, btw.</p>

<p>I bought one and am very happy with it so far. Build quality seems good and it's sharp (as far as I'm able to tell. My shots with it are no worse than the shots from my EF-S 17-55, to put it like that) ;-) 10mm UWA is really fun, btw.</p>

<p>I wonder if this is safe, and reversible. Hmmm.</p>

<p>Thanks. I'll send him an e-mail.</p>

<p>Here's a good quote:<br>

"<strong>Are smaller pixels somehow worse?</strong> Not necessarily. Just because the diffraction limit has been reached with large pixels does not mean the final photo will be any worse than if there were instead smaller pixels and the limit was surpassed; both scenarios still have the same total resolution (although one will produce a larger file). Even though the resolution is the same, the camera with the smaller pixels will render the photo with fewer artifacts (such as color moiré and aliasing). Smaller pixels also provide the flexibility of having better resolution with larger apertures, in situations where the depth of field can be more shallow. When other factors such as <a href="http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm">noise</a> and depth of field are considered, the answer as to which is better becomes more complicated."</p>

<p>...From: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm</p>

<p>http://www.lenscoat.com/tripods-c-4.html?osCsid=fd6777571dff8c8fbc432ea45b48ff71</p>

<p>Rob Galbraith has good info, and sample pictures up to ISO 12800:</p>

<p>http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-10042-10239</p>

<p>The press release is out, and: Yeah! ;)</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos7d/</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090105canoneos7d.asp</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dawn: Ever considered what happens to the rights to your pictures once you've uploaded them to Facebook?</p>

<p>From what I can google, the 5Dmk1 box said "ISO 3200", making 12800 the H2 mode. This one's advertised with "6400". Hmmm. promising, but I'm not sure I dare to believe in this just yet.</p>

<p>If these rumors are correct, the ISO6400 COULD be complemented by H1 and H2 modes, even though they're not mentioned on that poster.</p>

<p>It's not really necessary on a C-297 whic is a "flexpod" with a tilting center column, is it?</p>

<p>Oh, and does anybody have an opinio on if the Acratech Ultimate ballhead will fit between the tlegs when they are folded "up and around"?</p>