rogernoel

This is the second year I have attempted to cancel my premium account. I have notified my credit card company that I will no t pay the amount as I have been paying it for several years now. This is fraud and if necessary I will pursue a legal action. Thank you.

I have been trying to do this several times. I think my last posts were almost 4 years ago. It looks like you have a great ting going here but I have not taken any photos for a long time.

<p>JDM von Weinberg, I have to compliment you on the photos taken in India. The colors from that country are phenomenal. As a youngster in the mid 30s, I remember a chap named Richard Halliburton who wrote a book "The Royal Road to Romance" circa 1925. India was one of the countries he visited as a young man. As I got older I wanted to go to India, but never made it, and now I am too old, but I still always view photos from India as some of the most colorful on the planet. Good Job. </p>

<p>Craig,</p>

<p >You have made some excellent points relative to my ability to be able to take a picture via the remote when I am in my cabin. This will be our 8^th cruise and I have had some great shots on entering and departing a harbor, but it has generally been with the Canon 17-55 mm lens.. I have not used the 70-200, 70-300 or the older vesion of the Canon 100-400. I have decided not to take the latter, my bird lens.. It is just too heavy. This all started with a friend , who uses remotes frequently suggesting that I consider using my cameras on a remote with a tripod on our balcony on the ship.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Your comments have caused me to reconsider completely what I will take on this trip. I am considering going with just one DSLR 7D and a small Canon Powershot P and S. I will take the Canon 17-55mm and a Sigma 10-20 mm. Doing a little research since I read your comments, I find that most of my cruise photos have been taken with the Canon 17-55mm. This cruise is no different than one to the Baltics or Black Sea.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Thank you for your comments.</p>

 

<p>Joseph, I thought about the vibrations, but thought with the IS and a high shutter speed, that might not be significant. Obviously I will take a look at my first shots to see what success I have. </p>

<p>Craig, I actually don't think the Ship is going to be that close to the shore that I will get a narrow FOV. This is an ocean liner, Oceania Regatta, and my neighbor said he had done this. It is no big thing, but I think it is worth a try. I can also use the 70-200 Canon lens and even the 17-55 Canon lens. This is a 12 day cruise and I will have plenty of time to experiment. if nothing comes of it, it was worth a try. I have good success taking photos from a ship. I am not sure, but I think that I even have some on this forum. I will look.<br>

Appreciate the suggestions and comments. </p>

<p>Jeff, thanks for the information. I will explore that. I use B & H most of the time, unless Amazon can beat their price. </p>

<p> Late next month we are taking a 12 day cruise to Alaska.. I plan to have Canon 7D with the 100-400 mm lens mounted on a tripod sitting outside of our cabin. I want to be able to press a button and get a picture of the shore or a passing vessel. In my research to find such a device, I find that they all require you to be in front of the lens. I do not walk on water, although I thought I could some times, but surely there is such a device available. Help. <br /> <br /> <br /> </p>

<p>Another try. </p>

<p>Here is a barn owl in a palm tree about 25 feet up. I used a Canon 7D with 70-200mm 4L IS USM. 1/500 at f7.1 ISO 800 taken about a month ago. </p><div></div>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17994006-sm.jpg" alt="" width="200" height="133" /></p>

<p>It has been a long time since I posted any photos here, but here is a recent shot of a barn owl in a palm tree here in the neighborhood.<br>

Well I obviously forgot how to post, so I will go back and try again. Moreover, I know I am a day late. Roger</p>

<p>Those are all good responses on light weight lenses, however I want my cake and want to eat it too, so to speak. For me I am only interested in zoom lenses. I do have the Canon 50 mm lens, but it sets on the shelf unless I want a portrait. As for the Voigtlaender lens, again no zoom, I think James Elwing's suggestion is not a bad idea, go for a lighter weight camera. BTW, years ago, I had a Voightlaender Prominent camera. It was a great 35mm. </p>

<p>I fully understand the problem of weight. I have a Canon 7D and my anytime lens is the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. Together they are heavy, but I use it virtually all the time. I have seven other lenses. My most recent purchase was the 100-400 Canon, that has just been replaced with a newer version. I can barely carry it , let alone use it. It has been on my shelf for over a year. I am at a point where I am thinking of abandoning the whole system and going to some light weight Powershot or other brand. It seems that the more sophisticated cameras become, the heavier they are. </p>

<p>I wish you luck in you quest for lighter lenses. One of my older cameras is a Leica IIIg with four lenses. I think altogether they are lighter than that 100-400mm. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have tried twice to upload a photo to this Thursday photo session, without success. Perhaps it is there and I have lost it. Anyway, I have read the instructions but when I finish, there is no photo in my portfolio.</p>

<p>Here is my info on what I thought I was presenting.<br /> I can't remember when I have submitted a photo, but I took this one in Belize last week, and thought it was interesting. This beast was along the roadside and a canal. Also right in front of a house. The tour guide said it was the watchdog for the occupants. I would guess about 3 1/2 feet long.</p>

<p>Well third time is the charm. I still never got this into my portfolio. aagh</p><div></div>

<p><img src="/photo/17866485" alt="" />Canon 7D 17-55mm</p>

<p>This is a photo of one of my cacti in my backyard. I tried to submit another picture but was unable. Now I remember why I don't post here. Not a very simple operation compared to other sites. </p><div></div>

<p>I am afraid this was taken a long time ago, but it is a shot of the Slide Rock area just north of Sedona, where we have a huge wild fire going on right now.<br>

Canon EOS 30 D, f 11 at 1/60 ISO 100.</p><div></div>

<p>This is just an update from my previous posts. I returned the Tamron lens and debated buying the Tamron 150-600 suggested by Bob Atkins. It was still much less than the Canon 100-400, but the experience with the other Tamron lens moved me to the Canon. I have just received it and I am very pleased with it. I recognize that I may have to boost my ISO sometimes, but shooting with my 7D and a 1.5 telextender will probably fill most of my needs. Moreover, I have heard rumors that this year Photokina may show the new upgrade of this lens. I know it has been around a long time. Doesn't matter I will be content with this one and thank you two for your responses. </p>

<p>I have not posted here in years, albeit I generally look at the weekly presentation. These are always well done. So here is mine. I took this last Thursday, at the Nevada State park, about 45 miles north of Las Vegas. Canon EOS 7D, Lens EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM, f8 at 1/800</p><div></div>

<p>Alan, it will not move, turn at all. In the AF, the small red light blinks but there is not movement on the in the viewfinder as one sees in any other AF effort. One only sees a blurred picture. I am reluctant to try to turn the focusing ring with any strength. <br>

Bob, I have enjoyed your reviews and posts for many years, and I will discuss your recommendation when I talk to B & H. Fabulous moon shots. In any event I will close the loop and inform you what I did. </p>

<p>I haven't been here for some time, and of course now I am here because I have a problem. Today I received a Tamorn 200-500mm lens from B & H. I bought this after reading the review of many years ago that Bob did. Sounded like a good deal, albeit I was considering the Cano 100-400 lens as well, but this looked like a bargain, and my Canon 70-200 f4 L lens, even with the telextender does not quite give me the shot I want. So now I have this lens, and it will not focus. It will not focus in manual or AF. Any suggestions? My alternative will be to ship it back to B & H and spend another $500 for the Canon 10--400. Help Help. </p>

<p>I think the question as posted is more related to a price than quality. I have this same problem. I use a 7 D. I bought the latter when it first came on the market and it has been a success to me. I have been limited in bird photography with either a Canon 70-300 mm 4.5-5.6 IS USM etc and a teleconverter 1.5 . Or a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS USM with the same teleconverter. Neither one is enough. Higher pixel number and crop is not the answer in my opinion. Except for Sigma 10-20 Wide Angle lens, I have never owned any other Sigma lens but I will look into the recommendation's given. As of right now I have the money to buy the Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6 L IS lens which Amazon is asking about $1500. Any opinions? I hesitate to go to anything but a zoom lens, as I would use this lens for taking pictures from ship to shore etc. </p>

<p>I can't imagine anyone being concerned with PC Mag's report on cameras. I subscribe to Shutterbug, Outdoor Photography and Pop Photography. I am resonably confident in most ot their tests and reports. I believe they have a higher credibility in rating cameras than the PC Magazine. Hope no one lost any sleep over that article in the PC Mag. </p>

<p>Sorry, forgot the details on my Jerome shot. Canon 7D 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM, Promaster Polarizing Filter.</p>

<p>Was up to Jerome last week, and as usual I took some pictures in this old mining town. Here is a shot from the hills of the town looking north. This was the 5th largest city in Arizona when the copper, gold and silver was being mined. circa 1890</p><div></div>

<p>It has been a long time since I have used this lens with my 30D or 7D camera. I was giong to take some night shots of some of our neighbor's Christmas lighting. I have a Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM lens, but I wanted more of the wide angle effect. So I attached the Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6 lens and found I could not use the f4 setting no matter what I did. Manual , Aperture, etc. The best it would do was allow me to use f5 . I know there is a very simple answer, but I cannot come up with it. I know with my Canon 70-200 L f4 lens, I can shoot at f4. It has something to do with the type of lens, but what is it. Sorry, I have only been taking pictures since 1946 . Geez.</p>

<p>Never commented before, but will try and speak to a few of the shots. <br>

Nathan, You missed the NO SWIMMING sign; Phillip, fantastic clouds; Spencer, Beautiful animal and superior lighting. Don, Nostalgic, but no meniton of the rustlers and Indians they avoided. Andre, Lovely lady and super shot; David K, Excellent B & W presentation, and what happened next? Randy C, Interesting. It looks like a ship board shot; Juan H, lovely child and all of those pumpkins. Outstanding colors; James G, Nice job and Oh to be a kid again: Lee D, after looking at your shot, I started scratching . Good photo and a most interesting plant; William K, Cades Cove was about the same 50 years ago when I visited it from Gatlingburg. Super mill shot. It really does look old.<br>

And last but not the least I think this is a winner for sure, Martin S, if you hadn't told us what it was, we would still be guessing. Most unusal and you might call it Surf for the Eskimos. aaagh<br>

Having said all of the above, here is my shot taken last month in Linz on the Danube, Austria Night cruise. Canon 7D f2.8 1/8 sec ISO 5000 with tripod and Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM lens. </p><div></div>

<p>All those great food shots stimulate my appetite, however I have been feeding on torte and schnitzel in Bavaria for five weeks, so I decided to post a shot of a beautiful city on the Danube, Passau. I remember it many years ago as a sleepy village. Now the cruise boats are everywhere here and it is loaded with tourists.<br>

Canon 7D with Canon 17-55mm 2.8 IS USM 1/100 f11 ISO 160</p><div></div>