mark_pierlot

<blockquote> <p>I can't stand Cindy Sherman.</p> </blockquote> <p>She's unquestionably the most overrated living photographer. Perhaps, as the adage goes, her work is so bad it's good.</p>

<p>Awesome portraits, Tim - of both the woman and the F-1 w/ 85/1.2 L!</p>

<p>I'm sure the 7DII is a great body, with significant improvements over the 7D, but the only thing that would induce me to upgrade my 7D is if the newer body has substantially better low ISO dynamic range. If it has a newly developed sensor (rather than just a variation on the 70D's sensor), this might well be the case.</p> <p>Are there any specs yet on the 7DII's DR?</p>

<p>I photograph my daughter's late afternoon/early evening piano recitals twice annually in a poorly lit church, and typically find myself at 1600 ISO and f/2.8-1.2 (I use a very fast prime lens). There is a green cast to most of my images, which is caused by a green-tinged west facing side window that provides most of the illumination, but because I (always) shoot in RAW, it's easy to correct the white balance/colour. So I'd recommend that henceforth you , too, shoot in RAW.</p> <p>As for the noise you're experiencing, it might be the result of your camera's sensor, or of how well you're exposing your images. I use an Canon 5DII, which is very clean at higher ISOs, but it's still necessary to nail the exposure.</p> <p>Good luck, Dianna!</p>

<p>I, too, sold my 200/2.8 prime and kept my beloved 80-200/4 L zoom. The prime is only a single stop faster, has inferior IQ, and is much less versatile. So unless you <em>really</em> need a 200mm prime that you'll always shoot wide open, I wouldn't bother getting one. It would likely languish on the shelf as you're using your L zoom.</p>

<p>The A7 is full frame (<a href="http://store.sony.com/a7-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-zid27-ILCE7/B/cat-27-catid-All-Alpha-a7-Cameras?_t=pfm%3Dcategory">link</a>), so no worries about crop factor, Rick. As for it being as flimsy (and ugly) as the T50, I'm sorry that I can't help you there.</p>

<p>This is far and away the best forum on photo.net. Although I never contribute to it, I find the contributions of others here endlessly fascinating and informative.</p> <p>Keep up the wonderful work, guys!</p>

<p>Thanks for the Pentax education, guys.</p> <p>I'm going to be giving the kit to a friend of mine who is engaged in various art projects, such as silk screening, in which he uses his own film images. He could really benefit from a decent film SLR instead of the point and shoot camera he's been using. And of course he'll be able to upgrade to any K-mount lens he fancies.</p>

<p>Mark, here's another useful resource that gives detailed specifications of all Canon FD lenses: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/dennis/www/canon/fd-lens-info.html">link</a>.</p>

<p>As Philip has said, the 70-300 doesn't have a constant f/4 aperture, but is rather f/4-5.6.</p> <p>And I'll second his recommendation of the 70-200/4 L IS. The 70-200/2.8's are nice, but too heavy and expensive (for me, anyway).</p>

<p>Reading this short e-book on making sharp images would be a good start: <a href="http://animoto.com/blog/assets/sharpbybourne.pdf">link</a>.</p>

<p>I recently "inherited" a Pentax MZ-7 w/ 28-200 superzoom from my uncle, and would like some info as regards the quality and sellability of this camera and lens.</p> <p>I'm a Canon FD/EOS user and know virtually nothing about Pentax gear. Would anybody use such a body nowadays? (For what it's worth, I have the operating manual.) And is the lens decent optically? I have never used a superzoom, but this lens seems to garner pretty good reviews online. I do realize that the lens is made by Tamron, but it seems to have good build quality and has a metal mount.</p> <p>I don't really want to "waste" a roll of film testing out the camera (the shutter and meter of which seem to be working fine); I'd rather use that precious Ektar 100 in my EOS-1V or in one of my F-1's. :-)</p>

<p>Mark, a few years back the film advance mechanism in one of my F-1n's (not F-1N's) would jam after a few frames. I took it to my local camera technician and informed him of the symptoms, and he managed to correct the problem.</p> <p>So, yes, send your F-1N to Steve along with a thorough description of the symptoms of the rewind problem.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I love the composition of the dual Downy Woodpecker shot, Bill.</p> <p>By the way, I'm curious as to why all your shots are taken at f/4 (wide open).</p>

<p>I've been selling off a good part of my once very extensive FD collection for several years now, but have decided to keep some choice bodies and lenses. On the basis of your your outstanding work, Bill, I'm glad that the FD 300/4 L is among the lenses I'm keeping.</p>

<p>I'm afraid you're comparing apples to oranges; namely, a full frame body to one with a much smaller sensor. You don't tell us what kind of subjects you'll be shooting, but with respect to image quality, there's no doubt that the 5DII is the much superior body.</p> <p>Furthermore, you're not just buying a camera body but also are buying into a camera/lens system. And, although I'm not a professional photographer, I would think that the EOS system is more useful for the professional than the Lumix system.</p>

<p>I agree with the implication of Damon's quotation from <em>Macbeth. </em>Von Wong's photography is technically stunning, but completely devoid of meaning for me.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I have a few of comments. First, Wouter is completely right that that eBay seller is operating fully within the conventional practice of eBay sales: to wit, if a buyer is not satisfied with an item purchased, he/she can return it to the seller for a refund. In all my many years dealing with eBay vendors, I've yet to encounter one who will assume repair costs for defective items.</p> <p>Second, many eBay photography gear sellers only do cosmetic visual inspections of gear they're selling, and don't bother with mechanical testing. And that's why they have return policies, so that the odd piece of defective gear that slips through will be returnable and refundable. Given the seller's history, this was almost surely the case here. There was no intention to deceive. But it does say a lot about your character that you would make such an accusation on the basis of so little evidence.</p> <p>Third, if you think your new lens is a "high dollar item", think again. Most photographers on this forum and elsewhere have paid <em>thousands </em>of dollars for single lenses. Photography is an expensive hobby, in case you haven't noticed...</p>

<p>I got a 50D to augment my full frame 5DII, and found it to be very capable. The 7D I have replaced it with is a little better with respect to resolution, AF capability, metering, and low light performance, but I would have been perfectly happy keeping the 50D.</p>

<p>If you're going to be a little removed from your subjects (whether during events or while outdoors), I'd recommend the EF 70-200/4 L IS. It's only one stop slower than its f/2.8 sibling, but costs half a much. And it delivers stunning image quality.</p> <p>I use my 70-200/4 L IS on my 7D outdoors to photograph my children, nature, and landscapes more than any other lens by far.</p>

<blockquote> <p>[Z]ooms wear out! As a college kid I ruined mine over 2 to 4 years. lensrentals.com blog theirs survive less than 2 years till they need a repair.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> I've had my EF 70-200/4 L IS zoom for five years, shoot thousands of frames per year with it, and it isn't even close to wearing out. In fact, the images it produces now are every bit as good as those it produced when it was new.<br> <br> If you need to zoom beyond the range of your 18-55, Aleina, I couldn't think of a better lens than the 70-200/4 L IS.</p>

<p>Rick, your shot is amazing, an intriguing work of abstraction.</p>

<blockquote> <p>In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings,<br> <br> Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.<br> </p> </blockquote> <p>Sorry, I couldn't resist. :-)</p>

<p>Some lens have IS panning mode, but I'm not sure about the 28-135. If it does, it would obviously be good to use while panning.</p>

<p>I think the Canon New F-1 is the most beautiful SLR ever made.</p>