mphoto gallery
-
Posts
87 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by mphoto gallery
-
-
<p>I live in Alberta (Edmonton). I have used my camera 10D and 40D, outdoors at -30C taking sky shots out at Elk Island Park (no light pollution). The camera worked fine.<br>
As was pointed out, place your whole bag in a plastic bag before you take it to a warm place to avoice condensation. </p>
<p>The worse problem I ever had was taking my camera from the cool airconditioned cabin on a cruise ship and walkin on deck at 100% humidity. Instant condensation on every part of the camera. No ill effects but I did not do that again!</p>
-
<p>Well, I returned safe and sound. I flew with Jack Harter and had a Hughs 500, doors off. That was the coolest thing I've done!</p>
<p>For those who are interested (lots of exploding lava too): www.mphoto.ca</p>
<p>Thanks for the tips!</p><div>
</div> -
<p>I agree that PEI is not something special at least in my books. My favorite part of the Maritime trip I made four years ago was Digby. Best scallops and very nice & quaint. Good whale watching (we went in September too).</p>
<p>There will be hardly any tourists in PEI in September. Nothing about PEI stood out. We did Cavendish and Anne of Green Gables. It was not our thing so your mileage may vary.</p>
<p>I would suggest you also consider Cape Breton. I missed that and it is stunning from what I see in pictures. </p>
<p>We drove around PEI in a day (we stayed three and that was long). Charletown was OK but the rest was a let down for me. I live in Alberta and the first thing that struck me was PEI is just like much of Alberta. Flat farm land. No offence to Albertans nor PEI folks, it was just uninspiring compared to the coastline of Nova Scotia. </p>
<p>Photo tips? Lots of lighthouses. Peggy's Cove is worth the trip. We were there just before sundown and the crowds had already left. There are lots of cool little houses all painted fancy around the coast of NS. The seafood was great and the sunsets from the Digby shore were amazing. Prepare for sunset pictures. There are lots of small boats that make for good shots. </p>
-
<p>A bit of a bummer but as it was pointed out, he probably needed batteries. I have recently been to Europe, Hawaii, Florida and all over Canada. The most stringent searches were in Germany where they took the lens caps off each lens and looked through the lens. This happened twice in the same bloody airport.</p>
<p>I don't mind a thorough seach but I expect they have no clue how much it costs for these camera bits and pieces so I am worried about damage.<br>
I carry pounds of batteries (AA) and have not had anybody even look at those. It is always the lens. </p>
<p>I must fit a profile....</p>
-
<p>That will be a challenge. Unless you are prepared to spend a lot more, you need to decide how you will compromise. 300mm is not very long for wildlife. 400mm is marginally better. I have a 100 - 400 and most of the time, I cannot get physically close enough so I am using it at the long end.</p>
<p>A used 400mm 5.6 would be a good solution for wildlife. Yes, a faster lens would be good too but the price increases exponentially. My 100-400 is very good if I have very good light. I have to compromise as a 400 f4 would be a much better lens for what I do.</p>
<p>The 70 - 200 is a great lens but way too short for critters in my opinion. Maybe elephants at close range...</p>
<p>IS is imperative in my opinion. Long lenses need a good tripod and IS unless you are a rock and can handhold a 400 without IS in marginal conditions which tend to be more common than not.</p>
<p>I am sure that many will chime in with ideas but be prepared for compromise. A good wildlife lens may not work for portraits given that most portrait lenses are 200mm or less and often in the 70 - 85 mm range. You could get way with a 100mm - XXXmm lens and use the short end for portraits. Technically, you can use anything for portraits, some lenses are a perfect balance of compression and natural looking. Do a search on portrait lenses and you will find a lot of info and a lot of voodoo too. <br>
Again, compromise. You can certainly take animal shots with a 300mm lens, don't get me wrong. I personally found 300mm pretty darn short and always want a longer lens.</p>
<p>Save your pennies, buy a 400 F4 and a 1.4 TC (just kidding but that is a very good combo)</p>
-
<p>I had no trouble in France nor Switzerland. Flash was useless in most of the places anyway. I left my tripod behind as I was unable to take it in a few places so I just stopped taking it.</p>
<p>Notre Dame: <a href="http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-10">http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-10</a><br>
Notre Dame: <a href="http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-11">http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-11</a><br>
Palais de versaille: <a href="http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-24">http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-24</a><br>
Palais de versaille: <a href="http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-22">http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-22</a><br>
And, the coolest stain glass ever from Bern: <a href="http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-59">http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery9-59</a></p>
-
<p>I'd leave the 105 at home. I try to be prepared and carry most of my gear most of the time. I carried it all through Europe and Hawaii and I used it all. I even carried it all on a cruise although a P&S would have been fine for that trip.....</p>
-
<p>I have the Canon 10-22. It is a fantasic lens. You can search this site and the web for reviews and you will find that it is rated very highly. That is not to say the Sigma is a bad lens, I own the Canon and I can say with experience that is is very useful. I am not aware of significant barreling with my 10-22. It depends on what you shoot. Seem my comment below about distortion off axis as it gets ugly but that is the nature of wide angle!</p>
<p>Landscape and wildlife are two different beasts so you have to decide what you take more of to pick the best lens.</p>
<p>The wide angle lens has proven to be a good choice for me. Interior shots of buildings, churches etc are great. Nice wide vistas of scenery are great. Just watch the distortion if you shoot either up or down from perpendicular.</p>
<p>I took all my photos, ran a utility that identified the focal lenght and exposure settings so I know exactly what I shoot. 30% wide angle, 60% 24-105 (or 28-135) and 10% telephoto. 300mm for wildlife is a challenge. You need to be pretty close. 400 is better but not by much.</p>
<p>For versatility, keep what you have, supplement it with a wide angle (10MM to Xmm) and you have a very good range.</p>
<p>Ultimately, you need to decide what you want to focus on.</p>
-
<p>The only time I use a filter is when I may be exposed to salt spray from the ocean. I used a filter once in five years...... I only used it as I was not able to wipe the salt off the lens element as I was in a hurry so the filter was a good choice for me.</p>
<p>You asked for an opinion, save your money for a nice supper in Europe. </p>
-
<p>Drive carefully to Tofina and leave lots of time. Lots of twisty turns and the locals drive like they have a death wish (or they really know the road).<br>
I will be in Victoria in August and will let you know if I have any ideas. The Tofino coast is very cool. Rugged and desolate. </p>
-
<p>As was suggested, use a bulb blower first and check. If that does not work, you can try one of the specifically designed sensor brushes. Be careful, use one designed for the purpose. I use Visible Dust Arctic Butterfly. The risk is that there may be oil or other gunk which may be smeared across the sensor with a brush.</p>
<p>If that does not work, see these two sites:<br>
<a href="http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/">http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/</a><br>
-
<p>As stated, you must take the train to the Jungfrau and spend time in Interlaken. Stunning, stunning stunning!</p>
-
<p>It is also worth reading here: http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/index.html</p>
<p>You can also live with a couple of dust bunnies.... More than five or six that I can spot regularly (blue sky, f16-20) and I am starting to get annoyed. Less than that, I PS away.</p>
-
<p>I find IS is worth the price as you will certainly find a need to hand hold it. You can get sharp shots at very low shutter speeds. It's kind of like cruise control... Once you use it, you will miss not having it.</p>
-
<p>In Seward, take a cruise on the Kenai Fjord. Amazing glaciers, birds, mamals and scenery.</p>
-
<p>I am 2/3 way through a vacation with both lenses. In real life situations, I have been unable to notice any distortion with the 105 (mainly landscape) and 2.8 is somewhat useful but if light is a problem, 2.8 is not enough. I can say that in real life field work, the IS is far more useful than the 2.8. Wind and other factors mean that a tripod is required for the 2.8. In an controlled environment, the IS may be less useful but in the field it is critical to me.<br>
On a laptop, I cannot tell what was 24-70 or 24-105 on outdoor images. The 24-105 has been on 80% vs the 24-70 at 20%. <br>
For those wanting one of these lenses, take them both for a test drive and come to your own conclusion. If I could say one was better than the other (outdoor shooting in mixed lighting) I would but in real life performance, they are identical to my eyes.</p>
-
<p>Please don't take this as a flame, we all want to offer accurate information to users. While it is perfectly OK to form an opinion based on other people's perceptions, to be honest with the readers one should always preface their responses with "while I don't own one and never used one, I am providing an opinion". That way, readers can come to their own conclusions about the response.</p>
<p>I own a 100-400 and have used it extensively for four years. Hogwash on the dust blowing issue. And, in my personal experience, the images can be stunning if you use it right. I can safely say that as I have lots of lousy images because of my technique. I managed to nail enough to know the lens is very good.</p>
<p>Look over at Fred Miranda, some positively stunning 100-400 images: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/755631</p>
<p>Now what was the OP saying? Only you can decide. For me, 400 is never enough. If you try to mate it to a teleconverter, you need to tape off some pins as it won't focus as you are up to f6.3 or higher. I sold my teleconverter as it was a pain to get a good focus. The image at 2X was pretty bad. Otherwise, the lens is as good as the shooter.</p>
-
<p>I used the 28-135 for a few years and like it more than others. It was my mainstay due to the focal lenght and in decent light, it yielded quality that I was comfortable with. I switched to a 24-70 and 24-105 and there is certainly a difference. Given the price, the 28-135 is a great deal in my mind. It depends on what you want for quality vs price vs your ability.</p>
<p>Here are a few samples of the 28-135:<br>
The resolving power is very good, this one, full size, shows all the cracks in the glacier and is probably my fac 28-135 image<br>
http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery1-2</p>
<p>http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery3-2<br>
http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery4-1<br>
http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery4-10<br>
http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery4-3<br>
http://mphoto.ca/image-viewer.htm?Fgallery2-6</p>
-
<p>As was pointed out, you have at least two spots.</p>
<p>My advice, after toiling over dust spots that I could not often see: try the blower and if that does not work, try the Visible Brush product (I use the Arctic Butterfly) and if that does not work, clone it out. When you get quite a few dust spots, and you will, then do after it with the wet method. I had to wet clean my 10D after three years and I've used my brush on my 40D once in 18 months. </p>
<p>Just be sure you are careful about removing the lens, hold the camera, lens down, make sure the lens you are installing is clean, mount lens. I turn my camera off before changing. Being careful with changing and keeping your lenses and body very clean will help reduce the amount of dust. NEVER USED CANNED AIR ON YOUR SENSOR. the propellant will stick to the sensor and it is very hard to remove. I shook the damn can while cleaning a lens and the white crap blew all over the glass. Took a half hour to get it all off. The glass on the lens is likely harder than the filter over the sensor.</p>
<p>The really big one must be a huge chunk that you could probably see. The sensor is upside down so if the dust is in the top left, look at the bottom right of the sensor.</p>
<p>Read up on dust here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Sensor-Cleaning.aspx and here</p>
<p>http://www.cleaningdigitalcameras.com/index.html</p>
<p>It's no big deal at all! Live with some dust on your sensor and in your lens. Most of the time, you won't notice it. If that bigger blob actually covers somebodies eye, let's say, then you will want to nuke it (carefully)</p>
<p>Enjoy your camera.</p>
-
<p>I use the butterfly with no issues.</p>
-
-
<p>Hello Sally. I can offer some thoughts in a month or so. I am leaving in April and staying in the Park at Volcano House.</p>
<p>Until then, here are a couple of sites for you to review:<br>
www.photovolcanica.com (there is a photography FAQ section)</p>
<p>www.volcanoman.com</p>
<p>I will post some information when I return</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I can weigh in on the whole weight issue. For me personally, I can either take snapshots or I can take photographs. I choose to take photographs which means I carry it all and accept the compromises associated. The 24-70 that many believe is heavy, is not to me. The 24-105 feels just about as heavy on my camera. </p>
<p>When deciding on what to carry and whether it is a bother, my suggestion is that you list the compromises you are willing to make. Then you can decide what suits you personally.</p>
<p>The 10-22 is a great lens for a 1.6 crop. The 24-70 or 24-105 are both very good lenses, each with it's own benefit and drawbacks. It depends on what you feel you need to shoot, do you need some degree of low-light capability (2.8 is not super fast so it may not be a big advantage over a slower lens). The 16-35 is a nice lens by all reports (I don't own this one). I'm 48 and in reasonable shape. I carry the 40D with the 24-70 or 100-400 all day, no strap. It is not a problem for me at all. Your mileage may vary. While I may not get a lot of "amazing" shots, my motto is that I want to at least be prepared to catch those shots I want. </p>
-
<p>Vistek in Edmonton had stock on the 24-70 a couple weeks ago if that helps.</p>
<p>I recently bought the 24-70 for my 40D and it is indeed a very nice lens. I replaced my trust 28-135.</p>
<p>My thought is that it the lens will give you the coverage you miss and while the 5D is capable of more, you are the only one who can answer the question "what am I shooting and what will I do with the images afterwards?" Like any other tool, it may help you but will it take images $3000 better? How can it, you are in control of the image not the camera.......</p>
Mount Etna Tours
in Travel
Posted