ldavidson

<p>JDM, yes it does, and it is inexpensive.</p>

<p>Thanks Colin. I got the direstudio shuttercount that Puppy Face suggested and it works perfectly.</p>

<p>Thank you!</p>

<p>Hi there. I have a Canon 7D body that I want to sell but I can't find the number of actuations. Does anyone know how to do this?<br>

Thank you. <br>

Linda</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it.</p>

 

<p>Thank you everyone for taking the time to respond. I appreciate it.</p>

 

<p>I am making a short (5 min) audio/visual as a project with my photo club. I would like to add some quotes either as text or voice over. I want to use a quote by Rachel Carson, Alan Watts, and a few others. I see quotes on photos every day on Facebook and I wonder if these are copyrighted? I know that I can't just use a piece of copyright music without permission. Does anyone know what the rules are regarding quotes? <br>

Thanks, <br>

Linda Davidson</p>

<p>David, thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Mark, MP, Lester,</strong> I appreciate your comments. Thanks so much. </p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, thanks so much for the link, very helpful information. The photos are wonderful. I love the detail in the birds and squirrel. If I get anything half that good I will be thrilled.</p>

 

<p><strong>Steve</strong>, thanks for your input.</p>

<p><strong>Robin</strong>, I am planning to go up north to the Yukon next month. I would like to be able to get some good wildlife shots. My 100 - 400 only focused well up to 300, beyond that it was soft. I am going to do some research on the 400/5.6 before making a decision. Thanks for your thoughts. </p>

<p>Don, thanks for this helpful information. Your shot of the cormorant is wonderful, the focus is excellent. I am impressed.</p>

<p><strong>Nathan</strong>, thanks. I like the IS feature on the 300 which makes me lean towards it. When shooting birds, or other wildlife I don't always have time to set up my tripod so the IS will be helpful. I have looked at the 400 (online) and read reviews. </p>

<p><strong>Vladimir</strong>, thanks for the great photos.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Lester</strong>, I have a good macro so that won't be a problem, but you said that the 400 mm is sharper. I guess I will have to look at the 400 again. Thanks. </p>

<p><strong>Jim,</strong> I have missed the 100 - 400 a little, but we were never really meant for each other. So many shots were out of focus and I found the push pull mechanism annoying and clumsy. I have arthritis which didn't help. I love the 100 f/4 macro. I am covered with bug bites and scratches from crawling around in the bushes stalking insects. It is whole new world and I am having a great time exploring and experimenting. I am so glad that I bought it.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Laura,</strong> I wish I could rent lenses but unfortunately I live in a small town in the middle of British Columbia, Canada. There is no one here that does it. You are fortunate to be able to. Thanks for commenting.</p>

<p><strong>John,</strong> thanks so much for the info.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Brad</strong>, thank you.</p>

<p><strong>William</strong>, thanks for your input, I appreciate it.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, I hope you enjoy using your 100 - 400, I think most owners are happy with it. I found it difficult to use the push pull mechanism with arthritis. </p>

<p><strong>Eric</strong>, I didn't like the push pull mechanism, it was also heavy. I found it awkward and annoying. Arthritis made it even more difficult. To get good clear focus I had to use a tripod, which isn't always possible. I also found it was soft over 300. Thanks.</p>

<p><strong>Harry</strong>, thanks for your input.<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Dave,</strong> thanks. I haven't used the 70 - 200, I will have to check it out. You are right, I will have a gap. I have the 24 -70 L, it is the lens I have used the most.</p>

<p><strong>John</strong>, thanks so much.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks Peter.</p>

<p>I have a 7D body and two lenses, the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM and I recently purchased the EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro after receiving helpful advice here in this forum. I sold my EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM because I found it awkward and difficult to focus. I am now thinking of getting the EF 300mm f/4.0 L IS USM to replace it. If anyone here has any thoughts or advice on this lens I would be happy to hear from them. <br>

Thanks. <br /><br>

Linda</p>

<p>Well, I bought the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro and have been using it. I am so happy with it it was definitely the right choice for me. I am now busy discovering another world. Thanks so much everyone, your good advice is appreciated. </p><div></div>

<p><strong>Dan, S. Prior, WW, Larry, Mendel,</strong><br>

<br />Thanks to all of you for your thoughts. You have been very helpful.</p>

<p>David, I have the EF 24 -70mm f/2.8 L. I did have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS but sold it. I found it really soft. I am going to start researching a replacement.</p>

<p>David, I have the EF 24 -70mm f/2.8 L. I did have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS but sold it. I found it really soft. I am going to start researching a replacement.</p>

<p>Dan, thanks for the link to your article, you have given me something to think about and to experiment with. I also checked out your images on Flicker, wonderful work! <br>

WW, I live in an area that is surrounded by wilderness. Sometimes when out fishing with my husband I also crawl around in bushes with my 24 -70 mm. and have had tree gum, twigs etc. on my filter. <br>

Geoff, Richard, thanks for responding. <br>

I appreciate your thoughts so much. You have given me something to think about. I am going to try shooting with and without the filter. <br>

Linda</p>

 

<p>Thanks so much for all this information everyone, this has been very helpful. I really appreciate it. I am now leaning towards the 100 f/2.8 L.<br>

I forgot to ask what filter would you recommend for this lens? I have a B&W 77 010 UV Haze 1X MRC filter on my 24-70mm f/2.8 L, the lens I use most often. This is a wonderful lens, I love it. The color and definition I get with this filter is excellent, well I think it is, but I am not a pro. For the macro I want a filter for protection first, for glare, color etc. next. <br>

Thanks again.<br>

Linda</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Richard, thanks for your thoughts and for your image - very nice!</p>

<p>Thanks so much everyone.<br>

G Dan, I have a 7D. <br>

Linda</p>

<p>Hi there experienced Macro Photographers,<br>

<br />I live in a small town in south central, British Columbia, Canada. I want to buy a good L series Canon Macro lens. The Canon <strong>EF 100mm f/2.8 L IS USM Macro</strong> and the Canon<strong> EF 180mm f/3.5 L USM Macro</strong> Lens are the two that seem like they would be the best for me. I have done all my research on line but haven't actually seen or tried either one because there isn't a store that keeps either one in stock. Here, you have to order and prepay, with a no return policy, in order for them to bring one or the other in. Obviously I am a little nervous about spending $1500. - $1800. on a lens I have never seen or touched. I always get good advice here, so I am wondering if anyone out there has either of these lens and what you think? I am a senior with a bit of arthritis in my hands, I have a good tripod that I will use.<br>

Thanking you in advance.<br>

Best wishes, <br />Linda Davidson</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you all so much. I am going to try your suggestions, them I am off for my last day of vacation. It is a photographers paradise here. I'll let you know how it goes in a few days, when I am home. Aloha.</p>