john clark

<p>I don't really use any of the subscriber benefits, but felt that (after many years of on-off usage) I ought to give something back to the site which inspired me, taught me, made me laugh, cry, frustrated, angry, happy. In short, it's been in my favourites for so long I just wanted to do my bit to help keep it flourishing...</p>

<p>I wasn't using mine enough, and I had too much money tied up in it. I sort of regret selling it, though, but can't currently justify buying another. </p>

<p>Maybe a Mamiya 6 with a 75mm lens would be the right beastie for me now...</p>

<p>I have the 24" version and it's close to the perfect machine for someone who wants a compact, stylish and powerful machine with a decent size of screen. I am very happy with mine. I'd strongly recommend going to the 24" version over the 20" if you're doing any photo work, though.</p>

<p>I have a 10D and the 17-40/4L myself and no such problem, so it could be a setting on your 10D, or a technique thing, or perhaps just an AF hunting issue (which wouldn't surprise me, knowing the 10D in artificial, lower light conditions).</p>

<p>How does it compare to the old Ektar 25 print film which was discontinued in the mid nineties? That was a great film if I recall correctly and I miss it. Slow, but then the best things come to those who wait (and use a tripod)...</p>

<p>I faced a similar dilemma and went for the non-IS 70-200/4L. I'm happy with it - no complaints whatsoever, beyond the fact that I don't generally use this focal range a lot and so spending more money would have been difficult to justify. </p>

<p>Observations on the 70-200/4L is that it is pin sharp at all apertures, no visual defects that I can detect at all, and great colour rendition. Drawback is that it is quite a bit bigger than I am used to (my next biggest lens is the 100/2.8USM Macro) but that will be true of the 70-300 also. I think that in my case a 70-200/2.8 would be left at home more often than not in all truth.</p>

<p>Interesting to note, and a bit moot given that you have bought the parts, but it is often cheaper to buy a new machine than to upgrade an existing one. Prices are rock-bottom and you can get a lot for your money. Coupled with a warranty too...</p>

<p>These days, I'm all Mac so it's not really an option, but if I needed to buy a PC for some reason I wouldn't want the hassle of building my own. In the past, yes, but these days my time is too squeezed for it, and in any event I would only be buying a PC for some business purpose (and certainly not to do anything I might consider as 'home use') so I'd want support and guarantees and such.</p>

<p>I use a cheap-ish filter when out and about. I can see no optical consequence of using this over having no filter on the camera. I suspect the only difference would be a slight reduction in contrast in certain lighting conditions, but nothing you'd notice without an A:B comparison. YMMV.</p>

<p>I used to like Ektar 25, which was a stellar print film. I am hoping (maybe too much to hope for) that the new Ektar 100 approaches the old 25's detail, grain and overall IQ.......</p>

<p>Note to self: must order some...</p>

<p>50/1.8. Nothing else comes close in a value sense.</p>

<p>Best MS OS ever? Windows XP for Legacy PCs - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Fundamentals - everything that was good about XP (which wasn't a lot but it was at least a heck of a lot better put together than Vista) and trimmed right back so that it is faster and leaner.</p>

<p>Vista is a joke. I have to use it professionally and I hate every minute of it. Sure, it looks nice (in places) but it's a usability disaster. Don't expect W7 to be much better, frankly...</p>

<p>Back in the summer of 2008 I bought an iMac 24" which I am very happy with. I have, however, noticed that it has a slightly brighter left hand side than the centre or right hand side. This is most noticeable when the screen is turned on, and decreases to the point of 'not noticing it unless you look for it' once the screen is warmed up.</p>

<p>Has anyone else noticed this, or perhaps I have a defective panel? I have Applecare so they ought to be okay about it, though at this point I'm not even entirely sure it's problem enough to bother about (once warm, at least).</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>John</p>

<p>One of these days I will improve to the point where I feel I can put some photos on my profile page. I am in awe of the standards of most others here and humbled too... :(</p>

<p>Patrick, you're welcome. There are at least 20 bottles of fine whisky in my secret stash :-)</p>

<p>On the subject of Ansel Adams, I did manage to see the career retrospective at the Edinburgh City Art Centre last year - and very good it was, too. I took my 18 month old (at the time) son along, and he wasn't quite so keen - no patience, bless...</p>

<p>Anyway, back to cameras, and it looks like nobody's going to surprise me with a 5D mk2 this year so I might have to mortgage my cat to get one...</p>

<p>Perhaps the posting on the web is converting to a more lossy jpg setting (say) or perhaps the downsizing process is producing artefacts... it does happen, y'know...</p>

<p>Just wondered who got surprised by the appearance of a really nice shiny new SLR or somesuch...</p>

<p>No luck here. Though I did get a harmonica, a game for my Wii and a bottle of cask-strength Talisker... mmmm!</p>

<p>I would never buy another Sigma lens as 3 of the 4 examples I have owned failed - I can't justify saving a few pounds for a lens I cannot rely upon... sorry, but that's the way it is.</p>

<p>Hector, I must admit that it looks quite good in that picture, but on the front of a Canon SLR it looked... odd. Apparently a razor sharp optic, though. My wife does a lot of architectural photography which is why she uses it. </p>

<p>With the new year a short week or so away, I'm keen to add some structure to my shooting, and work toward actually having some sort of a portfolio, so I'm mulling over a few ideas for themed projects for 2009.</p>

<p>I was wondering whether other people consciously do likewise, setting a theme for a week/month/year and then aiming to bring some cohesion to their photography?</p>

<p>I'd be delighted to hear about your projects and perhaps I can take a little inspiration. Also, I'd be honoured if you have a '2008 project' in a similar vein that you can let me see - it might give me ideas which I can incorporate (with credit, naturellement...)</p>

<p>Ta!</p>

<p>Oh, loads... but the best advice I was given was to keep my eyes open, so that I see what's going on around me. Too many times it is easy to be pre-occupied and miss things. </p>

<p>I like my 50/1.4 and though I'll agree that results wide-open can look soft, a lot of the time this is due to the sorts of circumstances where one would want to shoot wide-open. In other words, low light. At which point I am probably hand-holding, and there will be tiny movements no matter how hard I try, which will result in a slight softening. In my experience, it's fore-and-aft movement which throws the 1.4 out wide-open - you just have to move fractionally fore or aft and you're out of the focal zone, and it looks soft.<br>

All this said and done, neither my 50/1.4, or the two 50/1.8s I've owned (mkII and then briefly a mkI) come anywhere close to the 45/2 Zeiss G that I use on my Contax G2, which is significantly sharper than any other lens I've owned... wish it would work on my 10D :-)</p>

<p>I'd just settle for the 50/1.4USM. Sure, not perfect but a whole lot cheaper and I bet that for all but the most pixel-peeper shots there'll be little difference on the print at the end of the day...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"why can't Canon and Nikon make their DSLRs in different colors, imagine a Red D3 or a Blue 1Ds Mark III"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Careful what you wish for - before you know it, they'd probably go all like-a-Leica and offer you snakeskin-covered grips and chrome bling for punitatively expensive amounts... ;-)<br>

My vote for the ugliest lens? My wife brought home a Schneider perspective control lens for her work 1Ds mkII which was a heck of an ugly thing, though apparently very good at what it does...</p>

<p><img src="http://img.thefind.com/images/TAC7LP-mYBrDNAbPpQwMqTmpySVF-XmZycUMGSUlBVb6-uXl5XpJGQUZ-SX5ZZkpqfl6yfm5-pm5iempxfqZJam5xfomZsYmBnpZBekMDAA*?m=1&g=1" alt="" width="150" height="150" /><br>

...actually, seeing it there makes me realise it looks better on the screen than it did in person. Or maybe that's a different model, I dunno...</p>

<p>As a spectacle wearer I've never been able to make reliable use of ECF, despite having it on my EOS 3. So, no, I don't miss it and would take in-camera IS over ECF any day. Or a MLU button :-)</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts - very interesting!</p>