jakobl

<p>The link provided at the beginning might not be the best example, because the photographer surely has some nice equipment as well: http://www.photo.net/photo/6049481<br>

:)<br>

Jakob</p>

<p>I prefer the Canon N lens. They are at least two letters better.</p>

<p>Found the link on the review page:<br>

http://www.fovegraphy.com/70_300DO_TipsE.php<br>

and another interesting article, read the bottom line<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml</p>

<p>Jakob</p>

<p>I own the lens and as mentioned it is not as sharp as others. It has real problems with shooting into the sun or when the sun is near the framed area. There was a post concerning this lens some time ago (1-2 years) where someone posted a link to an article on another site that descripted how to produce sharp pictures with this lens. I don't recall the link but maybe you'll find it. There were 7-9 tipps that really help.</p>

<p>Jakob</p>

<p>Completely normal, nothing to worry about.</p>

<p>Jakob</p>

<p>Correct me if I'm wrong but I think if it is a 580EX (without the II) it is not possible to use the camera menu and you have to set it on the flash itself.</p>

<p>Jakob</p>

<p>Hi Eric,</p>

<p>the 1D mk3 currently costs $3,724.95 at b&h, the 5D mk2 $2,699.95 that is a difference of $1025.<br>

Of course the 1Ds mkX are much pricier but thats due to the big sensor and maybe other stuff.<br>

The analoge cameras had no sensors but film, so it was possible to keep the difference smaller.<br>

But the 1D is a pro series model... so the price difference stayed more or less the same.</p>

<p>Jakob<br /> </p>

<p>thanks for the response, as long as it is no problem I can live with it. Most of the time I use the center point anyway that's why I noticed it so late.</p>

<p>thx Jakob</p>

<p>Hello I recently bought a 5D Mk2 and I noticed that when the upper focus point is active,<br /> there is a strange reflection above the focus point. The focus point is working properly but I was wandering if this could lead to problems.<br /> Anyone notices the same thing?</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

Of course the slides would yield better results... But you can't always have them.

 

Money is not the point. I read good things about the Lumix LX3 but I think it's not out yet.

I just wanted to know if there is a brand that's superior in terms of low light performance.

Hello, I need a point and shoot for photographing mainly powerpoint slides at presentations. Therefor I need a

p&s that will perform well at high iso levels. I have a Olympus µ770sw which perfomes poorly. I also own a G9

which is a little too big.

 

Any suggestions?

Jakob

strange coincidence... some time ago I was thinking that after the 24-105 4.0 IS and the 17-55 2.8 IS it would be logical to launch the new 5D togehter with a 24-70 2.8 IS....

 

hope its true

Go for the 17-55. You have more reach, it's faster, lighter, porperly sharper and if you happen to go FF sell it and buy a 24-70L. Only downside is the missing lenshood.

 

Jakob

They did introduce the EF14mm f/2.8L II USM last year....

 

And maybe some of us will be suprised with new lenses this year as well.

 

Jakob

There is a ".htm" missing at the end of the link

 

Jakob

Thank you all for the answers.<br>

First I forgot to say I'm shooting with a 20D, 100-400L, AEB, AV and M.<br>

Many of you told me to shoot raw, usally I do so but the 20D buffer for raw files is very limited (maybe I should get a faster CF card :)<br>

I think after about 5 or 6 shots I have to wait for some time and I could miss some of the action in meantime.<br>

I allready considered most of the suggested, so I think I have to live with some overexposed pictures (about 10%) and fix them in PS.<br>

<p>

thanks again<br>

Jakob</p>

Hi,<br/>

I have recently shot some football games. <br/>

At one game the one side had white shirts and the others had black shirts. <br/>

This is of course sometimes troubeling the metering of the camera.<br/>

I tried it with m mode, read from a correctly exposted picture but

when the light's changing on the field that's also not working.<br/>

<br/><br/>

How do you deal with this problem?<br/>

<i>Jakob</i>

Another vote for the 10-22 + 24-105 L Combo. Perfect range for travelling. As allready mentioned, a prime would be a nice little extra. Depending on your favourite subjects you could add a 20mm, 50mm or 85 mm prime.

In contrast to most of the previews posters I'd prefer the 24-105. I own all three lenses but the 24-105 is the most usefull range for travel and walk around. But it really depends on what you shoot the most. It's not wide enough for some landscape shots but you have covered the most important range.

 

My problem with the 70-200 is the size. For the 70-200 I can pack 2-3 other (small) lenses and I have never missed the range while travelling.

 

Consindering IQ I also prefer the 24-105 to the 17-40. I don't want to start the same discussion over again but I was a little disappointed with the 17-40 performance.

 

Jakob

... and it sells for around 257?

In Europe it is available for quite some time now, I've seen it lying around at my local dealer.

And why is it pictures look very different when I preview them with the internal windows viewer and open them in PS?

 

Is this also due to some configuration of PS?

 

thanks Jakob

Some years ago I saw the 1200mm f5,6 at the european canon page. As far as I remember it was 105.000 euros :) but I think you could get it around 80.000.

I have the EF DO 4,5-5,6/70-300 IS for allmost two years now and recently bought the 70-200 L f4 IS.<br>

<p>With the DO you can make good pictures as long as the sun is shining and you put it to f7.1. Really many of my pictures taken with this lens are simply not sharp. On the other hand the 70-200 L f4 IS is excellent in sharpness, contrast and colours. The only point for the DO is the size. If you need a lense that fits into a small bag the DO is a good tele zoom otherwise the 70-200 L f4 IS is superior in allmost every aspect (of course its shorter).</p>

<p>By the way I agree that its no general purpose zoom.<br>

For that I would recommend the 24-105 L IS F4.</p>Greetings Jakob

<p>I think I don't get the whole story here. </p>

 

Just to be sure: <br>

- You don't get a lense mount for the 70-200 1:4 (both IS & non IS?)<br>

- Dave, you want to use a tripod but you want to mount it on the camera or is it possible that damage occurrence when you use a lense without a tripod (I use 70-200 1:2 IS and 100-400 often without tripod)

 

<p>thanks Jakob</p>