Hello!
This is something that isn't really clear and conserns many of us
- specially those with EOS D30 - and that's why I don't even think it's
off-topic anymore on this list so here goes:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Keith Green wrote:
> Jani Patanen wrote:
>
> > FYI. When you open file, save as
On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Bob Meyer wrote:
> But the evaluative metering in the Elan II has always
> disapointed me--doesn't work very well at all in
> backlit shots. (And before all or you Elan II owners
> start screaming, I own one to, and like it a lot. But
:-) We ain't gonna scream about this -
Hello!
On Sat, 28 Jul 2001, Martijn Stol wrote:
> Bob Turner wrote:
> > This got me to thinking 'What is the size of the chip in my Canon FS2710
> > film scanner?'. Without checking the specs, would this chip not be
> adaptable
> > tp an EOS body?
>
> Sorry Bob, but that won't work.
>
> The se
> What does the camera's meter say? If you point both at the same
> blank wall under the same light, and the camera picks the same
> exposure level for both, don't worry about it (try it with and
> without the filter if you like, but an SMC Haze shouldn't matter).
> Jim
The two lenses could ha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I noticed something odd in my lenses - my Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX-Pro seems to
> be darker at 2.8 than Tamron 90 2.8 Macro at 2.8. Same light, same body.
> Apperture doesn't seem to stick. Just when I look through Tokina, image in
> the viewfinder seems a bit d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I noticed something odd in my lenses - my Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX-Pro seems to
> be darker at 2.8 than Tamron 90 2.8 Macro at 2.8. Same light, same body.
> Any ideas?
What does the camera's meter say? If you point both at the same
blank wall under the same light, and the
Hi all,
I noticed something odd in my lenses - my Tokina 28-80/2.8 ATX-Pro seems to
be darker at 2.8 than Tamron 90 2.8 Macro at 2.8. Same light, same body.
Apperture doesn't seem to stick. Just when I look through Tokina, image in
the viewfinder seems a bit darker. It's almost not noticeable d
Ken wrote:
How far away were you? Could it be that the distance was a bit too far?
to my orginal:
I wanted the gorillas dark, but what I got was almost no detail in their
fur. I did
get catch lights in the eyes
My response.
I ranged between 10 yards at the closest to 40 yards at the furthest a
I wanted the
> gorillas dark, but what I got was almost no detail in their fur. I did
get
> catch lights in the eyes
How far away were you? Could it be that the distance was a bit too far?
Just a thought.
Regards,
Ken
*
***
**
My two cent here. I recently failed with several rolls in my estimation of
how much negative compensation to apply. I was shooting some gorillas at
the San Diego Wild Animal Park and used -1 overall compensation and set the
fill flash (which I was sure would already be applying about a -1.5) to
[sorry for the repeat of this message...the list problems of a few
weeks ago made me lose track of this message and the few replies I
got]
I am selling my Canon EF 20mm f2.8 lens. Before I put it on Ebay
(where they typically sell for $350 or so) I thought I'd offer it to
you folks.
It's in
The subject says it all. I find myself not using this beautiful
85/1.2L very often, and I would love to get a 70-200/2.8L.
My 85 is in perfect shape, with both caps and the original hood. It
shows a few signs of wear, but is quite beautiful. The glass is
crystal clear, too.
I'm near San Franc
Keith Green wrote:
> Assumption:
> It is how Canon have set up their database for Evaluative metering.
> After all, if it's much brighter than Sunny 16, then it's bright.
Ok; I can see how, in theory, the meter might take into account a meter reading
that gives an exposure that varies signific
"Jay D. Washington" wrote:
>
> I'm going to try my first infrared photography(Kodak High Speed Black and
> White), and would like some advice. I plan on shooting desert landscapes
> and will most likely use a Wratten #25 equivalent red filter. The kodak
> guide says to use a film speed of 50, b
F. Craig Callahan wrote:
> But, um, how do they *know* you're metering a very bright scene, i.e.,
> snow rather than a large lawn?
Craig,
Simple answer. I don't know.
Assumption:
It is how Canon have set up their database for Evaluative metering.
After all, if it's much brighter than Sunny 16,
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001 11:27:30 -0400, you wrote:
>Well, this may depend on how large your fingers are and how careful you can be.
>I can rotate the polarizer ring on all my EF lenses with the Canon hood
>attached, although it is easier with some than with others. The one problem I
>have is that Hoy
Keith Green wrote:
> I agree with what Craig has said
Thanks!
> EOS cameras effectively apply exposure compensation to very
> bright scenes in evaluative mode.
But, um, how do they *know* you're metering a very bright scene, i.e., snow
rather than a large lawn?
fcc
*
***
*
Ken Durling wrote:
> I've found that another thing to consider is that you have to remove
> the hood even to orient the polarizer!
Well, this may depend on how large your fingers are and how careful you can be.
I can rotate the polarizer ring on all my EF lenses with the Canon hood
attached,
I have found that the book " How to Photograph Insects and Spiders" by Larry
West with Julie Ridl ( ISBN 0-8117-2453-0 ) provides excellent information
on using flash for close - up photography, including flash exposure
compensation.
Alex Wilson
*
***
- Original Message -
From: "Marco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| Hey Bob
|
| -> I only use the Cokin system. Lee was one I considered but, not
| -> being a pro, cost was the deciding factor.
|
| how do you like the Cokins? I heard that they are very scratch prone and
| that their ND (and
20 matches
Mail list logo
