sidaths

<p>This CPN link has everything you need to know: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/files/news/cps_product_registration_system/cps_barcode_v2.pdf</p>

<p>Glad you like it Roger! The bookmarklet was suggested by another user and is a very good idea -- makes things a lot easier :)</p>

<p><strong>@Michael</strong> Just a short message to let you know that I've made the change. If you could let me know whether this solves your problem I'd be grateful :)</p>

<p>About the hard to read grey type, if you mouse over it it should become clearer. I did this so that it is easier to concentrate on the images rather than the text until you mouse over the text. If you don't mind, could you tell me what browser and OS you are using? I've heard that people with Safari 4 on Snow Leopard find it especially hard to read.</p>

<p>Not to worry though, I'll be making this feature optional and off by default very soon (i.e. probably by tonight).</p>

<p>Thanks for your feedback!</p>

<p >When I first became passionate about photography, I soon found myself with a Flickr account. I enjoyed the community and the amount of work posted by others that I could find inspiration in.</p>

<p > <br>

To a large extent, this is still true of Flickr, but I find focusing on the photos themselves to be a lot harder when there are distracting comment images and when you need to click through multiple times before you get to see the photo at a respectable size.</p>

<p>With this in mind, I decided to use the Flickr API to create a site that allowed me to both showcase my own photos as well as discover other's photos in a efficient and uncluttered manner. What I ended up with was Fluidr: <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.fluidr.com/" target="_blank" >http://www.fluidr.com /</a></p>

<p>I'm posting this in this Forum for people who want to showcase their photos on Flickr in an easier to use format. By linking directly to your own photostream, you could consider it to be an easy way of creating your own website.<br>

Fluidr is designed to help you:</p>

<ul>

<li >

<p >Get through photos fast with minimal page loads</p>

</li>

<li>

<p >Discover new Flickr artists.</p>

</li>

<li>

<p >View things sorted in various ways</p>

</li>

<li >

<p >Switch seamlessly to a slideshow and back again without page loads</p>

</li>

</ul>

<p>It sports a continuous pagination interface which simply means that as you scroll, more photos magically appear at the bottom of the page. This means that you'll never need to hit a 'next' link again. You can jump into a slideshow at any time by hitting the SPACEBAR key and then use keyboard shortcuts to move forwards and backwards. Clicking on an image brings up a larger version of the photo.</p>

<p>You can add faves and comment on photos on the same page without needing to load a new page. Comments and Favs are added in the background so you can continue to view photos and videos while the network stuff is done in the background. I find that this is a far easier way for me to maintain my list of favourites which I often flick through when looking for inspiration.</p>

<p>Try the 'Surprise Me!' feature to jump to a random view on Flickr, it's a good way to discover someone new on Flickr, and see a one of the many images on Flickr you might otherwise never see.</p>

<p>I created this site mainly for my personal use, but on receiving positive comments from others, thought that other too might find it useful. It's free and has no ads or anything so feel free to give it a try and share links and so on. If you have any feedback I would greatly appreciate it!</p>

<p>Well it's been nearly a year since I received my 24-105 and I've so far been impressed by the lens despite my

still not having gone full frame (hurry up Canon!).

 

<p>I've found that the build quality is far superior at the expense of bulk and weight, which doesn't balance as

well on the 350D (as well as 400D and 450D, I've used the 24-105 on all these bodies) as the 17-85 did. In spite

of this, I still prefer the overall feel of this lens over the 17-85.

 

<p>Sharpness is clearly better at apertures lower than f/8, and hard to distinguish at higher apertures. I've

found that f/4 has given good results when narrow DoF was required, with only marginal reduction in sharpness.

 

<p>The only disadvantage with this lens is that on APS-C bodies, 24mm is nowhere near as wide as 17mm. Luckily I

have a 10-22 so I'm covered, but it is a pain to have to switch at around 22-24mm. Once I finally get a full

frame body though, 24mm will be even wider than 17mm on an APS-C, so keep this in mind.

 

<p>Overall, despite being twice the price of the 17-85, I'd advise those who can afford it to go for the 24-105.

If you have any plans on going full frame at some point in the near future, then the decision should be even more

of a no brainer.

 

<p>Here are a few photos taken at f/4 and f/5.6 taken with the 24-105 (click on them to see them

larger).

 

<center>

<a align=href=" title="Murano by haelio, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2758285544_40e4210365.jpg" width="373" height="500" alt="Murano" /></a>

</center>

<center>

Venice, 2007 (minor sharpening has been applied to this photo)

</center>

<br>

 

<center>

<a href=" title="A handful by haelio, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/2692416149_31e694600d.jpg" width="435" height="500" alt="A handful" /></a>

</center>

<center>

Venice, 2007 (I've accentuated the blur in this one, the bokeh out of camera was nearly as good, very minor

localised sharpening)

</center>

<br>

 

<center>

<a href=" title="Canal Traffic by haelio, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3147/2732141636_f7190e3f8d.jpg" width="500" height="377" alt="Canal Traffic"

/></a>

</center>

<center>

Venice, 2007 (minor sharpening)

</center>

<br>

 

<center>

<a href=" title="Island in light by haelio, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2364568879_435bc928df.jpg" width="500" height="320" alt="Island in

light" /></a>

</center>

<center>

Norway, 2007 (white balance adjust)

</center>

 

<p>Thanks again for your comments above!

 

<p>Regards,<br>

Sid

I shoot a lot of landscapes and find that most of them are horizontal. I also use my camera mainly for travel photography and would hope that Canon continues to offer the 5D line without an integrated vertical grip.

 

I plan on getting a 5D2 (or whatever) when it is released and really hope that the vertical grip is left as optional -- it is one of the reasons why I'm not getting a Nikon D3.

70-200 f/4 L (non IS). Probably the best cost/performance ratio I've seen.

How about a reverse teleconverter for APSC cameras that can be applied to EF lenses? i.e. a 1/1.6x (0.625x) converter? This would remove one of the advantages of FF.

 

Unfortunately this will almost certainly require the addition of more glass unlike, for example, extension tubes.

Hi all,

 

Thanks a lot for all your responses. I've decided to go ahead and get the 24-105 for the following reasons:

 

1) Since I'm going to go full frame next year, this lens will need to be purchased at some point, and the price I'll pay next year probably won't be any less than it is now. By getting it now, I get all the shots that I take between now and then with the lens, which is priceless.

 

2) I'm travelling to 5 countries before years end, and it would be a shame to upgrade a lens after all these trips.

 

3) I'm lucky enough to afford then lens now.

 

So I ended up getting the lens, and it arrived today. I'll post a reply to this thread after having a go with the lens.

 

Thanks once again; photo.net never fails to help!

 

Sid

Hi all,

 

I have an under-1-year-old 70-200 f/4L lens that I want to sell, but have no

idea how to go about it. I'm living in the UK. The lens is in pristine condition

and I'd be happy to part with it for GBP 350. Is this a decent price offer?

 

So if any of you have sold a lens in the past, could you please share your

experiences and advice?

 

Thanks!

 

Sid

<p>Hi all,

 

<p>My current kit is as follows:

 

<ul>EOS 350D (Rebel XT)</ul>

<ul>EF-S 10-22</ul>

<ul>EF-S 17-85 IS</ul>

<ul>EF 100 f/2.8 Macro</ul>

<ul>EF 70-200 f/4</ul>

 

<p>I've recently been considering an upgrade for my Canon EF 17-85 IS since its

image quality is beginning to bother me. When compared to any of my other

lenses, images tend to be soft and contrast and saturation are low (especially

when compared to the 70-200). I was wondering whether the 24-105 would have

image quality comparable to the 70-200 (which is amazing), and whether it would

be sufficiently better to outweigh the fact that I'll have two lenses with

similar focal lengths.

 

<p>In addition, I plan on purchasing the 5D successor when it is released and so

am not interested in any EF-S lenses (the 18-55 f/2.8 in particular).

 

<p>If anyone has an opinion, or can suggest something different with some

reasoning (i.e. getting the 50 f/1.4 instead) I'd be grateful. Most of you on

photo.net have a lot more experience than me, and I'd appreciate your opinion.

 

<p>Regards,<br>

Sid

 

<p>If you have time, please take a look at <a

href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sidaths"/>my photos</a>.

Have you tried reapplying a firmware update?

Is it just me or does this camera look quite small? I only have a 350D and when I have my 17-85 mounted on it the ratio of camera width to lens length looks very similar to the top-down photo. This might be why the viewfinder and LCD look unusually large.

 

The camera still does have a top LCD paned though, so I might well be imagining things.

I have a 17-85 IS and this looks a lot like it.

Hi there,

 

When I export images from Lightroom to Photoshop for the final touches, I would

like to edit the image without the crop and straightening. This is particularly

useful for when I need to apply lens corrections with, for instance, PTLens

which requires an uncropped image.

 

I like having my images cropped in Lightroom since then I can see the photo as I

will eventually publish it.

 

Is this possible? Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Sid

Update to Lightroom 1.1. You'll be able to run it in Aero Glass and there are other enhancements and fixes too.

Is the 7MB file all you need for the Windows Beta? Or does the installer communicate with Adobe servers during the install?

 

Thanks,

Sid

"Don't believe any of the above postings. I know the future..."

 

Were you chuckling to yourself as you typed that? Were you rubbing your hands and thinking yourself to be extremely funny/witty/knowledgeable about lens metrics?

 

I hope not.

 

The question David asked was perfectly valid, and deserves constructive replies (and there were quite a few posted) not juvenile sarcasm. Remember -- for most people (myself included) a ~$2000 lens is a bit investment and may well make some people nervous.

 

To me photo.net is a great community of respectable mature people. I hope that it doesn't degrade like many forums/blogs etc. have of late.

 

David: I'd just buy the lens for the same reasons mentioned above. It was a bit much for me so I settled for the 70-200 f/4 and it's a brilliant lens!

 

Good luck with your purchases,

Sid

"For those shots, IS was on, but the shutter speed was around 30ish with ISO 400, 85mm, f/20."

 

At f/20 you'll run into diffraction problems which may or may not be exacerbated with increasing distances. I have the 17-85 too and don't see the problem you describe.

In response to Mark U, while there is distortion at the wide end of the 17-85, it is only truly noticeable when the shot has lots of straight lines. For most landscape work it's just fine.

 

If the distortion does bother you though, you can sort it out just fine with PTLens ($5 & free trial) or DxO. Photoshop also has a lens correction module that can do the same thing, but is a tad more fiddly.

 

And don't forget the IS and the extra 15mm on the long end...

Another vote for the 17-85 IS here. I have one and it is definitely good as a one lens solution. I do have a 70-200 and a 10-22 amongst others though, for more flexibility. Just make sure you get a hood.

Hi there,

 

I will be travelling to Ghana in Africa this August, and was wondering whether

there were any particular sights that I shouldn't miss. I'll be around Accra

for a while, but plan on making some trips out of the city as well.

 

If any of you have been to Ghana and assessed it with a photographer's eye, I'd

really appreciate hearing about where I should go.

 

I do most kinds of photography but tend to prefer landscape and nature

photography. The current gear I have is a 350D, 17-85IS, 70-200 f/4L, 10-22, 100

mm 2.8 macro (all Canon).

 

Thanks in advance,

Sid

I'll keep this short -- I use the 70-200 f/4 on a 350D and have never taken any shots that blurry at f/4 let alone at 1/1000s.

 

Replace it while you can!

So far almost all the responses have been collections of lenses that would be at home in a professional's collection. I would suggest that you don't burn so much money on lenses when you are still just investigating.

 

I live in the UK and suggest that you get the 17-85 IS and the 70-200 f4L* to start off with. I got both of them from eBay and they came to under ﾣ1000 with hoods and LowePro lens cases (the lens cases were not bought on eBay). These two lenses work very well, and unlike all the others that have been mentioned, they are a lot lighter and more useable than the f2.8 lenses. They both can be used quite easily handheld as well.

 

The advantage is that you can take these lenses quite easily with you on your bike (which is one of the most ideal vehicles for photography when you have a light lens load).

 

Since then I have augmented my collection with the 10-22 and the 100 macro (all Canon).

 

Once you have a better idea of the focal lengths that you find yourself shooting at you can then shell out the big cash on the bigger lenses. Once you do, these two initial suggestions will still be useful for travel and the 17-85 IS is an excellent lens for everyday use.

 

I hope this helps, mate :)

Sid

 

* The f4 will be fine for cricket, but might require you to up your ISO for rugby (which works fine for me btw).