gregliang

<p ><a name="00XlQS"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5562983">Kayam Rajaram</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub2.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="../v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Nov 28, 2010; 06:40 p.m.</p>

<blockquote>If that's the 18-55 IS USM, isn't that supposed to be a pretty good lens?</blockquote>

<p> Hi Kayam,<br>

Cindi states she has a "basic 18-55mm". I tested a couple of those. This lens is truely as many reviewer put it: it does what it is paid for. It costs a small fraction of an average Canon zoom lens, and it just does that much. In terms of image quality, this lens will not break you away from decent point and shoot cameras.<br>

I have not tested the 18-55mm USM, so I can't say much. From the price (also cheap) and some online reviews, it is not for serious photographers either. However, it also depends on the photographer's expectation. For sharing some photos on facebook, the 18-55mm basic can do a decent job.<br>

From my expereice, the T1i camera can only do a good job with a good lens and in the hands of a photographer who knows what he or she is doing.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I have a couple of Rebel cameras and I shoot most of my photos with T1i. (www.longlastingphotos.com)<br>

It is a great camera. However, you need to practice a lot and know it before you can easily take good great photos.<br>

About your lenses, I would suggest you get rid of the 18-55mm and get a EF 17-40mm if you use wide angle very often, or get a 28-135mm if you use mid range zoom the most. Of course, if money is not much an issue, a EF 24-70mm, F2.8 is a superb lens. <br>

The reason is Cannon squeeze 15 mega pixel on a small sensor. Unless you use very good quality lenses, the image quality can't be good. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Greg, i agree with the previous comment that the repeated name is not my favorite style. you may want to resize and re-arrange a little.<br>

yes, a slideshow option will certainly make visitors' life easier.<br>

I want to add one more: the home page upload is a bit too long. it took over 10-12 seconds in both Google Chrome and IE browsers. 5 seconds is acceptable by most viewers.<br>

Good luck.<br>

if convenient, pls check my site for me. i'm having trouble with viewing in Internet explorer.<br>

Greg<br>

<a href="http://longlastingphotos.com">http://longlastingphotos.com</a> .</p><div>[ATTACH=full]514880[/ATTACH]</div>

<p>Thank you very much, Jim, Michael, and Charles! i have shut down the music. Hope it will get loading faster.<br>

I do appreciate the site's option to play music, but I really need to find out about licensing. Any guidance is welcome.<br>

I have made gallery slides clickable and requires clicking to play. Great idea, Charles.<br>

So far, it has been run in FF, IE on Mac and Vista. if anyone runs on different environment, pls kindly let me know the performance.</p>

<p>it is first time for me to launch a flash website. <a href="http://www.longlastingphotos.com">http://www.longlastingphotos.com</a><br>

at least one friend told me the flash display stops in the middle, which I did not experience.<br>

i do not like the fact that the image size is small where a large blank header space exists, but the hosting company refuses to do anything.<br>

pls take a look, any comments are highly appreciated.<br>

thanks,<br>

-Greg</p>

<p>The reason the second photo is darker than the first is you increased shutter speed from 1/8" to 1/100", which is 12.5 folds, and you increased ISO from 400 to 1600, only 4 folds. to get the same level of exposure, you need to use lower speed or higher ISO.<br>

however, shutter speed lower than 1/100" might be too slow for you to freeze the moving object, and higher ISO may get the photo too grainy.<br>

from here you may increase your lens aperture for higher exposure.<br>

hope it helps.<br>

-Greg</p>