dillan k

<p>Their naming convention doesn't seem any worse than that used by car manufacturers these days. I followed a G37xS today. My, the marketing department created something special there!</p>

<p>In my opinion, Canon's naming system could be worse: just look at Sony's! </p>

<p>I'm sure both cameras are good enough to get the job done. For me, the 5D Mk III is especially interesting due to the new auto focus system. If I could afford it, I think I'd pick this one up. This really is the camera that I wanted. The D800 is not terribly appealing to me. I'd rather have a D700. I don't need the megapixels. <br>

The great thing is: Canon cannot undo what it has done. All further versions of the 5D should have a great auto focus system. </p>

<p>My son, in nice afternoon window light:</p>

<p><a href=" title="Ansel window light by Dillan K, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7050/6860608377_e872f2fd99_z.jpg" width="427" height="640" alt="Ansel window light"></a></p>

<p>It's been a while (and I'm late!). I had no computer for a while, but I'm back now. Here is a shot I took last weekend with my 5D, EF 24mm f/2.8 lens and a polarizer while driving through the Alberta prairie:</p>

<p><a title="Little shack on the prairie (colour) by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6089/6157315221_3ebd9fceb8_z.jpg" alt="Little shack on the prairie (colour)" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>

<p>I am personally very happy that Canon makes a very inexpensive 50mm f/1.8. It's a high quality lens for what you pay. My copy is very, very sharp. I have had it for many years now, and I've managed to avoid dropping it. The build quality isn't a problem. In fact, I find it very useful in part because it's light as a feather and very compact. If it's not on my camera, it's in my pocket. I cannot say that about every lens that I own.</p>

<p>You know, EXIF data helped me to understand the basics of photography. I started when there really wasn't EXIF data, but I found people who would share.</p>

<p>I don't know about daily inspirational photos, but I look at a lot of photo sites for inspiration, including this one. </p>

<p>I'd say no, it's not absolutely necessary. I own one IS lens, the 300mm f/4L IS, and I can tell you that it is a nice thing to have, but I don't use it all the time. IS, at least my lens' old version, slows down the AF. It does help when hand-holding long lenses, and it does help in low light, but I would still buy non-IS lenses without hesitation.</p>

<p>As is so often the case, I like Puppy Face's answer. For kicks, I once went into a camera store to give a 1D series camera a look. They're huge. I <em>could </em>carry one around, but unless I really need one, I'm not interested in buying one. Call me lazy. Call me a wimp. My 300mm f/4L IS is enough for me to lug around.<br>

The 5D Mk II is a great camera. I own the original 5D and the Mk II is all that and a box of Smarties in comparison. From all the reviews and countless forum postings that I've read, I believe that it handles high ISO rather well. I'd look at it closely if I were you. </p>

<p>Cool photo, Mr. Gorilla!</p>

<p>I'd say get the lens. A full frame camera would only shorten your reach. If you really want to shoot birds, that is the best way to go. A lens is usually a better investment anyway.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your comments this week and last! I am glad we do this every week. This thread is a lot of fun!</p>

<p>Let's try this again! Here is my 8 day old son, captured with my 5D using my trusty 50mm f/1.8 II @ f/1.8 and ISO 800, with flash from my 420EX:</p>

<p><a title="It's all dark Ansel! by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2396/5789132414_82927e31aa_z.jpg" alt="It's all dark Ansel!" width="640" height="415" /></a></p>

<p>Only you would think of doing that, Bob. I mean that in a good way.</p>

<p>I've never tried for this sort of photo before, but Dan's advice makes sense. The key to a clean photo is proper exposure. Once you've done that, you can develop the photo as you like.</p>

<p>Oh man! I missed Thursday! Here is one of the most important photos that I've taken in a while (to me, anyway!). This is my son. He's about 2 hours old in this photo, taken Monday:</p>

<p><a title="Ansel by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2542/5755880224_8f32b0ce6e_z.jpg" alt="Ansel" width="640" height="516" /></a><br>

EF 50mm f/1.8 II @ f/1.8</p>

<p>Spring finally arrived here! We have flowers all of a sudden!</p>

<p><a title="Bumble bee by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2520/5725062406_6d7f8d6642_z.jpg" alt="Bumble bee" width="640" height="584" /></a><br>

EF 300mm f/4L IS on a 5D @ f/5.6. This is severely cropped.</p>

<p>Happy Thursday, everyone! Happy Victoria Day in a few days, fellow Canadians!</p>

<p>I think Photozone's reviews are rather good. The lenses are thoroughly tested, and I like the fact that he includes a "Field Quality" score to give you an indication of how the sum of the parts add up. There is more to lens quality than the measure of the lens' resolution and distortion, and I like the fact that Photozone tries to show it. </p>

<p>Having said that I like the site, I'll also look at many other sites too before I take the plunge and buy a particular lens. "Field Quality," how the lens performs in its intended job, really is a tough thing to nail down with numbers alone. The best idea is to get opinions from multiple sources: testers, and especially, real life users of your intended purchase.</p>

<p>Keep in mind too that even a mediocre lens, in the hands of a skilled user, can produce magical images. I've seen a lot of really great work from some supposedly terrible lenses. We should all strive to find the best tools for the job, but I think the person behind the camera often has a lot more to do with the quality of the images produced than any of the equipment used.</p>

<p><a title="The noble Robin by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2674/5711948152_3c04bd200b_z.jpg" alt="The noble Robin" width="640" height="426" /></a><br>

5D, EF 300mm f/4L IS @ f/5.6</p>

<p>I mirror a few of the comments here when I say that the 5D was the camera which allowed me to switch from film to digital seamlessly. It behaves much as my old Elan 7 did. I'll use it until it dies. I feel no need to upgrade, except when I'm shooting wildlife. Then I want a 7D. Everything else, the 5D does wonderfully!</p>

<p><a title="Whitetail late April near sunset by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5109/5656461032_3a6c919623_z.jpg" alt="Whitetail late April near sunset" width="640" height="356" /></a></p>

<p>EF 300mm f/4L IS USM @ F/4 on a 5D</p>

<p>Spring is coming! Flowing water! It's not much, but at least it's above zero here some of the time:<br>

<a title="flowing water! by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5298/5524091287_3a21ac0663_z.jpg" alt="flowing water!" width="640" height="429" /></a><br>

EF 300mm f/4L IS USM @ f/25 (for the longish exposure)</p>

<p><a title="Winter by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5100/5403221491_b68b6ab65a_z.jpg" alt="Winter " width="411" height="640" /></a><br /> On the grounds of my condo. We've had winter here out west too . . . .<br /> 5D, 24mm f/2.8 (Calgary)</p>

<div></div>

<p><a title="Me vs. the dog by Dillan K, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5245/5361864658_3779da7ce0_z.jpg" alt="Me vs. the dog" width="640" height="264" /></a><br>

24mm f/2.8 @ f/8 on a 5D</p>

<p>I've gone on a couple of trips to Indonesia (western and central Java, Bali and Lombok) with an SLR/DSLR and a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.8 and a 100mm Macro (non-L). I think a small kit is a good idea. The more you take, the more you have to lug around and keep tabs on. I selected one lens to cover the wide end, one for normal and one for telephoto. I agree with the 10-22mm and the 17-55mm, which would cover wide to normal and beyond. I too think the 55-250 IS would be a good choice because of its weight and inconspicuous appearance.</p>

<p>I really think the 60mm f/2.8 would come in handy for you. It's a great lens, and it would give you the opportunity to indulge in the close-up shots without messing around with extension tubes as well as being a great portrait lens. If you are taking the 55-250mm, taking the 60mm f/2.8 would weigh a whole 10g more than replacing the 55-250mm with the 70-200 f/4L. It's something to think about.</p>

<p>I hope that helps. You've helped me enough over the years. Have a great trip Yakim, you deserve it!</p>