danield

<p>This is the main wheel located on the grip just next to the shutter button?<br> This might sound obvious, but check that you're not pressing the shutter button at the same time.<br> Otherwise I had a similar failure with an older EOS camera, it wasn't the same - just that the wheel would not work reliably and needed more turns to "register" a change. It's possible there are some broken contacts, maybe in your case a short that is tripping over the shutter circuit... Tough to fix that one. May be time for a new camera.</p>

<p>Second what Bob and JDM said. In terms of both build quality and sharpness the Tamron is better - but it's an oversized lens for APS-C. What the 55-250 would have for it would be a lower price and being smaller and lighter, thus easier to carry.</p> <p>Both the 55-250 or 70-300 are classed as telephoto lenses. Thus for "walk-around" - which means covering a wide range of situations - the standard recommendation is to pair one of these with a 17-55 (which you already have) for the wide to normal angle part. This combination still requires one to change lenses occasionally but one can get very easily accustomed with that.</p> <p>My suggestion is go for the 55-250 and try to consolidate the number of lenses you carry -e.g. by getting rid of the 24-105. That unless you plan to buy a full-frame camera soon - which brings up a whole other list of concerns (increased weight, incompatibility with APS-C lenses, etc).</p>

<p>On Mull don't miss going to Staffa and Lunga islands for the birds colonies that should provide ample photography opportunities...</p>

<p>Second what Lewis said. Rather than spending the money, find out first what the flash can be used for. The <a href="http://strobist.blogspot.ch/2006/03/lighting-101.html">Lighting 101</a> tutorial at Strobist makes a very good reading on the subject.<br> Otherwise a Canon 430EXII could be a good flash to start with.</p>

<p>As a side comment, the camera in the hands of the lady looks suspiciously Photoshopped ... I suspect they did so to make the camera even smaller than it actually is, looking at other pictures on the net it doesn't quite seem to be that small.<br> <br />Quite dishonest from their end if you ask me. But sadly rather the norm in advertising these days.</p>

<p>Yes, the film name indicates it is a ISO 400 film thus you should set the camera to ISO 400 as well.<br> In fact I think the camera should be able to read the DX code off the film canister automatically, but you should check this of course.<br> This film is well suited for shooting outside in daylight, as well as in moderate light (e.g. daytime indoors with good window light). Taking care to hold the camera steady you may be able to get away at shooting at sunsets when the light levels start to drop. Just keep an eye on the shutter speed.</p>

<blockquote> <p>Concerning the suggestion to use a high end DSLR to take photos of the negs I am yet to see anyone do this that produces results that are comparable to a dedicated high end film scanner.</p> </blockquote> <p>Here are a few people that tried<br> http://petapixel.com/2012/12/24/how-to-scan-your-film-using-a-digital-camera-and-macro-lens/<br> and<br> http://www.trippingthroughthedark.com/scanning/scanning-35mm-black-and-white-negatives-with-the-d800e/<br> And remember this is 35mm film.<br> From my point of view the results can match dedicated consumer scanners (aka Minoltas, Coolscans, etc), but flatbeds like V700 are left behind. And sure, a Hasseblad Flextight will probably be better but not many can afford that.</p>

<p>Well, the cheapest solution nowadays for film scanning is to use a digital camera (sounds like you have one)? You can give that a try - provided the camera produces A3+ quality output. And even if not, you can experiment with high magnification macro and photo stitching...<br> <br />Or alternatively, outsource the scanning to a professional shop and avoid investing into hardware.</p>

<blockquote> <p><em>"There are no longer any "professional" level film scanners being made"</em><a href="http://hasselblad.com/products/scanners.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">is not correct</a>. They do cost a lot.</p> </blockquote> <p>Agreed - I should have qualified that a price point.</p>

<p>Hi Hannah<br> You will probably get many answers pointing to specific scanners, but let me ask you the question another way: are you sure you want a film scanner? Are you clear of the reasons for which your bf wants or needs a scanner for his film?</p> <p>There are several reasons I am asking this. First you say he is a professional - what is he doing now, is he printing his photos in a lab, is he scanning them somewhere else? The size of film he is using also matters greatly, you may have some options for 35mm film but for larger films good quality scanners will be above your budget.</p> <p>The other reason is that film scanners are a dying breed. There are no longer any "professional" level film scanners being made. The few scanners still being made are not that great, and the second hand ones are very expensive, hard to find, and likely to be out of serviceable life soon. A professional would not invest into that to be frank, as it will not pay off, unless he is doing some very specialized work.</p> <p>The last reason that is worth mentioning is that film scanning is SLOW and difficult. Even with the best scanners it takes well over several minutes _for each frame_ to scan. You also need to think about investment in learning scanning technique, as it's not really a simple push-button kind of thing, particularly if a high level of quality is requested.</p> <p>If it were me I would spend the £700 quid on digital equipment and for scanning film I would use something like this http://www.scantips.com/es-1.html . That link is well worth a read.</p>

<p>What Will said. I don't think there is a MkII of the f/4 version - may be confused with the f/3.5-4.5 version.<br> Both can be seen here: <br> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EF-lenses/EF80200mmf28L/index1.htm<br> It should be obvious how to tell them apart.</p>

<p>Well, I think the root of the problem is that grain noise in the Noritsu scans (which machine BTW?) is generally pretty bad for what it should be. I don't know why but grain seems to be significantly amplified, particularly on the chroma side.<br> So that someone found that noise reduction needed to be added is not surprising. However, as with any post-capture algorithm, it can't do wonders.<br> I don't think it bothers many people as this is not a route many people take. Those that tried in the past found the quality pretty poor compared with alternatives - with or without noise reduction...</p>

<p>I won't sell you on Geneva. You're better either in Lausanne or Montreux, or if not on the French side in Chamonix or Annency. While Geneva may be OK, it's just not as interesting as other places. Interlaken would be good too.</p>

<p>Well, a bit of a too broad question I think - Turkey is quite a big country with a lot of historical and nature sites. There's hundreds of miles of beautiful Mediterranean coast, hundreds of historical sites, huge cities, etc. A standard tourist guide should give you plenty of suggestions of locations to explore. Istanbul is probably on the top of the list - you can easily spend weeks there and not get bored....<br> Are you going towards any specific area of the country?</p>

<p>Second the other's oppinion about posterization - and two easy fixes:<br> - shoot raw<br> - use a lens correction tool in the raw the processing software to correct the lens vignietting before converting to JPEG</p>