aslavihervuori

<p>Quite a well, thank You for asking. Though just got it and have taken just under 100 photos...<br>

I try to upload example here. :)</p><div></div>

<p>Thank You for sharing, Patrick. a s l a</p>

<p>You "should" spend those few hundred quits to ef 50/1.4 if you only or mainly use that focal lenght. Othervise spend that money forexample for 28/1.8 or 85/1.8 and upgrade that 50mm later. That is best advise I can give to you. a s l a </p>

<p><a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072701ricohgr3.asp">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0907/09072701ricohgr3.asp</a><br>

a s l a</p>

 

<p>Thanks! You gave me just the info I needed! a s l a</p>

<p>Thinking to change my EOS system to E- system, mainly for reaching better macro capabilities. I know 1:1 is 1:1 in whatever framesize. But capturing subject sized 13 x 17mm is sometimes far better than being able to capture 15 x 22 mm (not to mention 24 x 36mm). I do not want to crop at PP.<br>

Question is if ZD 35mm/3,5 can give 1:1 macro without accessories (meaning EC-25 tube)? And if framesized subject can be captured, what is then roughly distance between front element and subject? Any experience? I did found instructions of ZD 35/3,5 but they actually confused me...<br>

Thank You for Your help, a s l a</p>

 

<p>"...an alternative for the Canon 50 f/1.4 taht isn't quite so expensive?"<br>

Only secondhand 50 f/1.4.<br>

a s l a</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I guess you're getting those numbers (72 pixesls/inch) from photoshop. You can change them in PS. Best quality image straight out from 7070 would be 3072 x 2304 pixels. With 300 pixels/inch, longer side of photo would be around 10 inches. If you want to stretch image (or print) size to 42,6 inches by longer side, that would be 72 pixels/ inch... I'd say: think those pixels/inch as a printing quality things.</p>

<p>Nice photos, Mitch. My favourite was mangusti in backlight. I've never shot with leica and I guess never will. But before mt digital age I had this wonderful mechanical mirage, Minolta AL. My favourite films were TMX and TMY (Since meter died in AL). Limiting film choices meaned that I had to guess exposure less. Hardly ever used three frames to bracketing... But then again, I'm by no means a pro. And of course there was no action photography for me (specially after distance meter went grazy in AL :D) So I understand different opinions; even metering can be relative issue... a s l a </p>

<p>Thank You for the link, John. Interesting article, fine photos. a s l a</p>

<p>I have own only A700 and A650 so have no experience of any cameras above. But<br>

<a href="../photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651">http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651</a> <br>

photos by Wilson Tsoi, taken with A620. So I believe iq is good with it. If I remember correct, fps speed dropped in newer generation cameras because of file size increasing...</p>

<p>What are you mainly shooting there?</p>

<p>Ha! a s l a :D</p>

<p>Cameras are just tools. Pick one that fits best to you and your works. a s l a</p>

<p>Gerry. New Oly M4/3 (if it is sized of that prorotype) looks ideal for me. Tool for my typical shots require small size, really small area captured and I really must be able to shoot handheld. Sometimes Ice, for example, is melting so fast that there is only seconds or minutes time to capture subject, before it disappears...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7088967">http://www.photo.net/photo/7088967</a> taken with Powershot a700</p>

 

<p>Guess we will have to only wait. If they only release couple of lenses We will have to wait more. I bet they are committed to m4/3 system and develope that. I also understand if they have not full range of m4/3 lenses, when they release that/those bodies... So yes, I am waiting... a s l a</p>

<p>Thank You, Patrick. I was thinking of 35/3.5 macro. My A650 can cover just 27mmx20mm area, so 1:1 in m4/3 would be huge leap to me. What I am just beginning to figure out is what can one do with OM- lenses and what are their other limits than loosing AF. ...and are there other real benefits than their price? a s l a<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8500592">http://www.photo.net/photo/8500592</a> ,taken with A650</p>

 

<p>One thing I am interested in Oly's new m4/3 system are two sizes. Size of system and frame size. I like to take photos of small subjects, usually ice forms. If I can capture smaller area with roughly same sized camera I use now (and get even better DR and other IQ) that would be great. I tend to use Canon A650 now for "macro"photography, and 350D for social events. I like to think that Oly's new m4/3 camera (O-1 or whatever) with few lenses could be more versatile, "better" tool than those two together. So for question my answer is if it's style and size are what I have seen and not dslr style I will turn to Oly. IQ can not be that much different. And yes, I am also waiting for fast primes... a s l a</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00RtD2&photo_id=8418541&photo_sel_index=0">http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00RtD2&photo_id=8418541&photo_sel_index=0</a></p>

<p>If I remember correct, 300 will remember used frames (or space) of film (because IR marking). So You should be able to use that film again without loosing frames you allready exposed, if you exposed... a s l a</p>

<p>I have one and use it with my 350D. Like it a lot. Somewhat soft corners at 1.4 and surprisingly shallow DOF. Silent and quite quick af with FTM. Good, solid build. Comes with hood (Canon does not). As I already had EF 50/1.4 (from my film age), only other option would have been EF 28/1.8. But 30/1.4? I do not regret, it is that good. ...Filter diameter is strange 62mm. a s l a</p>

<p>In Photozone, Canon lenses are tested with 8mp body, Nikons with 10mp body. Not big difference perhaps, but still clearly visible in number of lenses. Even 17-50 Tamron gives different results with Nik/Can bodies (Just like 18-55IS gives different readings between 8mp and 15mp bodies) a s l a</p>

<p>Corrupted card?</p>

<p>Yes, I like it. Bought it second (or third-)hand 2004. No problems with AF. Remember narrow dof in wide apertures. I guess next photo was taken at f2.0 eos 350D. Shutter was either 1/4 or 1/10 seconds. Hope link works...<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/4534804">http://www.photo.net/photo/4534804</a></p>

<p>I suggest you to invest on glass, fast glass. Or perhaps artificial lighting. Or, on holiday to get travel photos. On ergonomical side, get a vertical grip. a s l a</p>

Yes. I feel fine with size and weight of 30/1.4 and 50/1.4. They are quite light and small, quite cheap and I really need large apertures often, when shooting dslr. For most of my shooting A650 is a better tool, but my next lens is perhaps 20/2.8 (oh I wish they updated it to 20/2.0!) or 85/1.8. I can live without zoom...