mcgarity

"His view is worth precisely the same as anyone else's."

 

The man in question is free to think that Adams was a poor photographer if he wants. And I am free to believe that anyone with that opinion is clueless when it comes to photography. Everyone has a right to their own opinion but that doesn't mean I have to give any weight to it.

 

As for the word idiot, I assure you that its quite an accurate description.

Giampi I don't follow your logic. If Canon manual says it can't be done but it can, then the Canon manual is the one that is wrong. I'll grant you that Canon didn't intend for you to change the screen. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the ability to actually do so.

"This site isn't really about rates, it's about sharing and learning;"

 

From the number of posts in the feedback forum about ratings, I have trouble believing that. I'm convinced ratings are the biggest draw for the site. I think its also true that most members come to the conclusion that the rating system is meaningless. An opinion rendered by an anonymous source means nothing.

 

For example a while back when I showed some Ansel Adams prints to a kid I worked with. He told me they were lousy photos because they were in black and white. If they weren't in color they were garbage in his mind. This idiot thought the work of one of the greatest photographers who ever lived was bad. Now I ask you, would you give a tinkers damn what this clown thought of your photos? I wouldn't. For all any of us know he or someone just like him is the one giving you your 3/3. If you know your work is good, what others think is irrelevant.

 

All that said, I don't like low ratings any more than anyone else does. But its been debated to death and I know for sure that I don't have any answers.

You are right Chris, it is Haoda I was thinking of. His price is nice but he unfortunately he doesn't offer a screen with gridlines.

 

Bruce, you are forgiven. :)

"I think you may be out of luck with the focus screen for the 300D and 350D. The focus screens are not interchangeable on these models."

 

Thats wrong. Katz Eye sells one for the 300D for $105. I believe they have several screens to choose from in fact.

 

There is another site that sells screens for the 300D for around $75 but my aging memory can't recall the name.

My experience is that in moving and vibrating aircraft is that you need all the shutter speed you can get. Even with an IS lens the faster the better. I wouldn't even think about shooting anything less than 1/500 of a second and I believe thats too slow.

 

I would avoid f22. Thats going to slow you down way too much. And with a digital rebel you are diffraction limited at about f16 anyway.

 

You have more depth of field with a 1.6 crop digital sensor than you do with full frame. I seem to recall the depth of field with the crop is the same as the it would be stopped down an additional 1 1/3 stops on full frame. In any event I would shoot at f11 if at all possible.

Unless they are very very small buildings from a distance of 300 feet away I think a 300mm lens is going to be too long much too long. Thats especially true if you factor in the 1.6 crop factor of you digital rebel. If you have never tried to take photos from a moving arircraft, be prepared for a lot of movement. I think a 300mm would be hard to hand hold and use under those conditions. I have some experience shooting from the back of a C-130 aircraft and I will assure you, its not easy with all the bouncing around.

 

I think you really need a zoom. Personally I think I would go for with a 28-135mm IS. I believe its goes for about $350 or so. I may be off a little but not much.

 

If you want longer you might consider an EF 70-200mm f4L. That about $570 and is first rate optically. It is very very good. Its also small and light enough to be manageable. It will give you the perspective of a 112 to 320mm on your camera which depending on the building may still be too much focal length.

Denis

 

If you look at what I wrote that is exactly what I said. But for the record I'll say it again. Photoshop is NOT a substitute for a polarizing filter. Never has been, never will be.

"Well, I don't even need a pol filter. Can be done in PS very easily and with perfect results."

 

I don't think so. Try taking a few photos of clouds with and without and then tell me you can duplicate the polarizer image in photoshop. If you are happy with blocked out crappy looking whites tones, then you don't need a polarizer. If you want a better looking picture you do.

 

Or do the same thing with a white bird in bright light. The feathers will look a few thousand percent better if you use a polarizer. Photoshop has a great set of tools, but none of them are ever going to be a substitute for a good polarizing filter.

"by the way - most OM-1 meter do NOT work. that's a benefit - since the student is going to learn exposure by studying it and thinking about it, instead of responding to what a meter tells him."

 

You can think all you want, but in the end you have to have a meter of some kind. Otherwise you are going to have a bunch of wasted film. Especially if you are shooting slides. I have never met a photographer yet who could look at a scene and tell precisely what exposure to use without using a meter. They might make an educated guess, but that is a far cry from knowing the right exposure. What you really need to do is be able to recognize situations where the meter is going to give you inaccurate results and what to do to compensate.

 

I also disagree that the best way to learn is with film. Digital equipment may be more expensive, but the costs of actually using it are a lot less. Even if you are doing your own processing and printing, film gets to be expensive over time.

 

Shooting digital allows you to experiment and learn from mistakes without worrying about the cost everytime you click the shutter. The quick feedback digital gives is invaluable. You can learn more in a short time with a digital camera than you ever will with film.

I live in Colorado but I was hoping the Broncos and the Steelers would both lose. I haven't watched more than two quarters of football in 15 years but back in the 70s I lived in Northern California for a time. There were no two teams on earth a Raiders fan hated more than the Steelers and the Broncos. Old habits and ancient loathings do die hard.

 

Besides the fact that most superbowls are boring as hell, you have to admit that puppies rule and football players drool. I am sure RJ will agree. :)

Thank you. Seems to have worked.

"ie. if you can handhold a 70mm lens steady (no crop factor) at 1/60th, then you should be able to hit 1/15th on your 17mm lens."

 

Without image stabilization not many people can successfully hand hold a lens of any focal length at 1/15 sec and get sharp images. If you really know how to hold a camera and are well practiced, you might get something acceptable for small prints. But the odds aren't high you will get images that will print to 20 X 30.

This morning I posted a comment in one of the threads in the EOS

forum. For whatever reason I am now getting emailed everytime

someone comments in that thread. I never requested email

notification of comments, at least not knowingly. And to be honest

its becoming an annoyance. Anyway to turn this off?

"I don't know if a 17-40 (which, being shorter, should allow more light in anyway), which could be used down to 1/20 of sec."

 

I don't think this is the way it works. A scene is not going to be brighter with a 17mm at f4 than it is with a 70mm at f4. You might be able to handhold the camera at lower shutter speed, but thats not because you have more light.

If the officiating was that bad, it makes me glad I skipped the football and watched the second annual Puppy Bowl on Animal Planet instead. I don't know who thought that one, up but they deserve a medal.

Approximately 70% of the photography I do is with the EF 300mm f4L IS and EF 1.4 TC. You get your moneys worth with this pair. As per your request here are links to a few wildlife and bird images taken with it.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3662313

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3659127

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3943111

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3931529

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3825442

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3716669

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3695426

Personally I have found that even shots taken with image stabilization benefit from faster shutter speeds. But if thats not possible do everything you can to help IS out and stabilize yourself and the camera. By bracing against a very solid object you can get sharp handheld shots at 1/20 of a second with an image stabilized 400mm lens. But even with IS you can get fuzzy ones at 1/400 of a second by just waving the camera around.

"One more observation: where are all the male nudes?"

 

Hopefully some place well out of sight.

Yes but are they good nudes?

Without a tripod you would be much better off with a lens that has IS. And even with image stabilization, sharp handheld images at 1/4 second seems overly optimistic. Its entirely possible if you are solidly braced against something, but you would be pushing the envelope.

I think Bob Atkins has a write up about teleconverters somewhere on Photo.net. You could probably find it in the archives. Its been a while since I read it, but I seem to recall that teleconverters work best with longer focal lengths.

 

If you insist on trying to use one, I don't think the Canon teleconverters will physically mate with your zoom. I have a 24-70mm and a 1.4 TC. They are totally incompatible. I would be amazed if the 17-40 is any different. There are some off brands that will mount to it though.

Some old flashes do have a 6 volt trigger. You might try measuring the voltage on your flash before giving up on entirely. Unless you have installed the Russian hack to get FEC, you will get better results with an older flash than you will with many of the Canons.

 

I have five Vivitar 285s that date from 1980 to 1982. All of them are safe to use with the 300D. But some of the earlier Vivitar 283 and 285 had higher voltages and they would not be safe. At least thats what I am told. If you can find one with the lower voltage its an excellent choice.

 

I have seen a lot of recommendations for Sunpak flashes for but have no first hand experience with them.

One day last year photo.net did link up names with ratings. At the time the ratings were given the name of was not linked. But one morning admin decided for a brief period to reveal all. The revenge attacks started immediately. One swedish gentleman objected to a couple of ratings I had given him and dogged me for six months using at least three different identities. He didn't even make a serious effort to try and hide the fact. His comments indicated he intended to pay back every low rating he received with 26 even lower ones in return. He surely made the effort. And I wasn't the only recipient of his wrath. (I mean the guy was an awful photographer) At least one other member that I know of was on his hit list too.

 

The bottom line is, you may think that ratings linked to names in all situations is a good idea. But it is an extremely lousy idea in actually practice.

"Oh, and unless you are going to work entirely from a tripod on static subjects, do NOT buy a lens like the Nikkor and use it with an adaptor. The loss of AF is not the problem, but the loss of automatic diaphragm, which is a killer."

 

I haven't found the loss of automatic diaphragm to be a killer at all. A Nikkor with an adapter works beautifully on an EOS body in either full manual or aperture priority. If you expect the camera to do everything for you, this is not the path to take. Personally I don't but to each their own. If you have ever used a full manual camera this is dead easy.