Fishermang

<p>I couldn't find a topic related to this by searching. The vertical landscape format photos are being reduced to 640 (or so) on the long dimension, if the original is larger. It has been like that for past 6 years, and it is unpractical, because the images reduced that way lose their impact, and alot of detail. I really don't understand why they are still being reduced, when majority, if not all, monitors being used today can deal with anything below 1000 in "horizontal" resolution dimension. Is there something I am missing? <br>

I think it would be a very good idea to increase the reduction size to i.e. 900 or so.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, I just found it! Sorry for the post. Maybe it would be a good idea to include a link in the announcement in "my workspace" :)</p>

<p>Thanks! And good luck with reprogramming, I know that sort of thing is never easy.</p>

<p>Does it only apply to those who buy a new subscription NOW? Because I bought one just some days ago, and I can't find any way of getting onto that site without going through another payment..</p>

<p>I am so far considering 17-40 AND a longer lens. So I am covered for most Norwegian landscape situations hehe. This thread has been of great help to me, many thanks again!</p>

<p>No, Hannu, I don't troll photography forums :p<br>

It only was the first time I really discovered the distortion with wide angle, as it was a really huge contrast. Only wanted to express my frustration and show an example for what I was looking for<br>

(and it's Ramunas, not Ramuna - the latter is a girl's name)</p>

<p>Ok, thanks very much for the replies, I have a much better clue of how it works now!</p>

<p>Blue B,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Ramunas, spend some time reading about the basics of photography, visual perception and optics. Perspective is no error and a wide angle lens will ALWAYS render perspective different than you or experience it. The only way to get a "realistic" pespective is by using a normal lens, which has a much smaller angle-of-view than a ultra-wide zoom. No post-processing will change the law of optics. The only way to get "realistic" perspective in an wide-angle image is by cropping it to the angle-of-view of a normal lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am fully aware that wide angles will always render perspective. Somehow it seems people keep misunderstanding what I am asking for here, hehe. I am wondering about this:</p>

<p>How does i.e. 17-40 or 16-35 on full frame camera compare to my EFs 10-22 on EOS 350D, when it comes to "lens perception" (to put it that way) or is there no difference at all?</p>

<p>Look at this photo of mine, a beach photo. With EFs 10-22 those waves look really small, while in reality they were around 1 meter or more. That's when I really got disappointed, especially considering that those waves were 3-4 meters away from me. I was thus wondering if full-frame censor could have more possibilities to give a more realistic perspective on them, with wide angle lens.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7207049-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="750" /></p>

<p>Also, what is the difference between 17-40 and 16-35? Except for those numbers that is, if any? I am seeing most suggestions towards the first alternative, and I prefet continuing shooting with more wide angles, so I am currently thinking about getting one of these two, but also checking out the other alternatives mention in this thread. Many thanks for help!</p>

<p>Daniel, I haven't bought 5DII yet. I am figuring out all options before spending that much money, but I am sure I will get 5DII, only trying to find the best lens for me.<br>

Also, I didnt mean to say that I want to avoid the perspective distortion I always get with EFs 10-22. Was just wondering if the wide angle lenses such as 16-35 or 17-40 behave in a somewhat different way (which at least 17-40 does as Ken pointed out, thanks!)</p>

 

<p>5d ii is my first full-frame camera, and I am wonderng which lens I should get for it. I am primarily interested in landscape photography, so wide angle is natural choice I guess. Having no experience with full frame cameras, and seeing all those lenses I thought I would ask for suggestions here.</p>

<p>I have been using Canon EFs 10-22 lens so far, but my problem with it was that "objects" that were farther away from me, got much smaller than they were, even with zoom. How does that work out with full frame cameras and wide angle lenses?</p>

Just wanted to pop in and say I agree with Kah Kit Yoong. Many seem to forget that there is more to photography than the camera and its associated tools. What counts equally as much is the eye for example. I use 24 year old model, brown layout, and it is pretty bad at zooming stuff in and focusing at anything farther away than two meters. So I mount it with three year old glasses, which have been broken and now are taped together with one year old tape bought in IKEA.

 

 

Get 40D and wait for that imaginary 5D upgrade that might come someday, I say. As I see it 40D has several more practical parts, such as self-cleaning, and correct me if I am mistaken - the live LCD screen for difficult shooting positions. And it doesn't cost that much?

I see there has been some discussions around this already, thus my farther question would be: how does one calibrate a monitor?

I have always been stuck with the problem that many of those who view my photos

see them differently than I do, because of their monitors. In example I have

recently viewed my latest photography through four different monitors. On two of

them they looked OK. On the third they looked way too bright and lacking detail

in overblown areas. On the fourth they looked too dark. All four monitors are

new, flat screen stuff, that everyone uses nowadays.

 

The same problem reflects in critique I get. There is always someone who says a

photo is too dark, or has too much contrast, while it looks perfectly fine on my

monitor.

 

How do you get around this problem?

Thank you all for the replies! I ordered the lens and finally received it in mail a few days ago. Now only awaiting better weather conditions to go out and try it on landscapes. I have been shooting inside the house for fun, and I am so far very impressed!

 

 

Thanks again, and happy holidays to everyone!

I am using Canon EOS 350D, so far only with the usual EF-S 18-55 lens

that comes with the camera model. I mainly photograph landscapes, and

often experience a need for a wider view through the lens. As I am a

little new to this, is there something I should know? Just looking for

encouragement here to go with that lens, hehe.

 

I have read some reviews of it, the only criticism that cought my eye

was that image quality is a little worse at the edges when going down

closer to 10mm. How serious/bad is this?

 

Any other criticisms that I should know about, apart from its price

and that it can only be used with three Canon cameras? Are their

better or cheaper options?

Because of the investment in graduated NDs and Cokin filter holder, I

also have to upgrade to a polarizer to be used in the same filter

holder. My question directed towards the filter "Cokin Sprocket Ring"

from Singh Ray is whether I need to purchase something in addition to

use it (such as some sort of ring), or is a Cokin filter holder all I

need?

 

Thanks, Ramunas.

I am going to purchase some Singh-ray graduated ND filters, but as

there are many of them and each costs very much, I have to settle on

only a few. Which ones do you suggest? What do you use most? Most

frequently used by some landscape photographers are the ones I list below:

 

Galen Rowell two f-stop hard and soft + three f-stop hard and soft;

and hence I am leaning towards those so far.