- Original Message -
From: "Schlake (William Colburn)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: EOS Digital Camera Reliability
> I bought myself a 300D in October, and I'm on image number 239_3972.
> That is 13,972 pictures taken if I
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 8:08 AM
Subject: EOS Re: Digital Camera Reliability
> At 12:25 PM 7/9/2004 +0200, EOS-Digest wrote:
> >In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
> >makes the statement that Digital SLRs are less reliable than Fil
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have bought a EOS30 body from a friend at work who, whilst moving house
> has mislaid the manual. I have found the one for the EOS30V/33V on EosDocs
> but they only have the EOS30 in German. Am I going to go far wrong with
> using the one for the 30V? I, so
>> http://eosdoc.com/
> You might want to add http://www.cameradocs.com/ to the site's "vendors"
> section.
Thanks Henry,
Done. I also added http://camerabooks.com/
Cheers
Julian Loke
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 Harman Bajwa wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Isn't this the case for E-TTL II,
>> not for the > original E-TTL?
>> The new version uses the distance
>> information provided with some
>> lenses (mostly ring USM) and reverts
>> to standard E-TTL with other lenses.
>
> Although I am no
At 03:28 PM 7/9/2004, you wrote:
Canon's new 28-300mm sounds like the ticket. Or if that
is too pricey their older 28-200mm is a pretty decent
lens.
But "pretty decent" isn't on par with an L lens, which is I think what Bob
was wishing for. There are lots of "pretty decent" lenses covering this
Bob Meyer wrote (edited):
> After two weeks in Japan and Beijing shooting with my
> ?10d, I've come to the realization that the lens I
> most need doesn't exist.
>
> I shot mostly with my 17-35 L...
> The 24-70 (or 28-70, which I own) is a great lens,
> but bulkier ...
> The 17mm end of the wi
It's funny you mentioning this "gap". I had already though of it, since I'll
be moving to digital by the end of the year. Unfortunately, your experience
proved that my worries are founded.
Nikon produces an 18-70/3.5-4.5 for digital cameras only. Maybe Canon will
follow some day.
*
***
*
I second this request. When shooting film, I found a 28-135 is a great one
lens on the camera when going light was required. Otherwise, I would take a
28-70 and 100-400 is. With the 10D, nothing provides this general use coverage. I
would love a digital only 28-105(135) coverage, at a constant F
Well, this is just an observation (own Canon and Olympus), but if that is
your big need, pick up an Olympus E-1 and the 14-54mm lens. It is easily
midrange L quality(prefer it to 28-70L and 17-40L, but prefer 24-70L over
it) and covers the 28-108mm F2.8-3.5 range with the crop. It is tough as
nai
On 9 Jul 2004 at 12:33, Bob Meyer wrote:
> The problem is the range in between. The 24-70 (or
> 28-70, which I own) is a great lens, but bulkier and
> heavier than I really want to carry while traveling,
> especially when it's in ADDITION to the other lenses.
> I did miles and miles of walking,
After two weeks in Japan and Beijing shooting with my
?10d, I've come to the realization that the lens I
most need doesn't exist.
I shot mostly with my 17-35 L, and it worked well for
probably 50% of my shots. For the long end I used the
new 70-300 DO. (Initial impressions are positive, but
I ne
I bought myself a 300D in October, and I'm on image number 239_3972.
That is 13,972 pictures taken if I interpret the scheme correctly. I've
had my camera lock up with the mysterious Error 99 once (with a Canon
lens attached), and only had one image that was corrupted and unusable.
On Fri, Jul 09
On 9/7/04, EOS-Digest, discombobulated, offered:
>In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
>makes the statement that Digital SLRs are less reliable than Film.
>
>Have any of the heavier shooters on this list found this?
>
>You might like to go to http://www.nikondig
At 11:25 AM 7/9/2004 +0100, Malcolm Stewart wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Keith Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hello All,
> In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
> makes the statement that Digital SLRs are less reliable than Film.
> Have any of the heavie
> Hi Fred,
>
> Isn't this the case for E-TTL II, not for the
> original E-TTL?
> The new version uses the distance information
> provided
> with some lenses (mostly ring USM) and reverts to
> standard
> E-TTL with other lenses.
Although I am no expert in E-TTL II, but from what I
have read so fa
James B.Davis wrote:
> You can tell in the 45 degree shots, that the StoFen is putting more
> light directly at the subject. The shadow is darker, and there's more
> highlights on the face. I think likely too, that less light is wasted.
> And this is the idea of the Omnibounce. You get the refelect
At 12:25 PM 7/9/2004 +0200, EOS-Digest wrote:
In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
makes the statement that Digital SLRs are less reliable than Film.
Have any of the heavier shooters on this list found this?
I don't shoot digital personally, but at least once a w
- Original Message -
From: Keith Green <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: EOS Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 10:45 AM
Subject: EOS Digital Camera Reliability
> Hello All,
> In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
> makes the statement th
Hello All,
In his latest mailing, David Cardinal, the editor of DigitalPro Shooter,
makes the statement that Digital SLRs are less reliable than Film.
Have any of the heavier shooters on this list found this?
You might like to go to http://www.nikondigital.org/, read DPS 2-24 and take
part in th
20 matches
Mail list logo
