It was written:
> I was using my new 1V and 100 - 400 IS/USM at the weekend at the
> RIAT. I thought all was fine and kept snapping away all day. Then a friend
> of mine came over, had a look at my new kit and commented that it looked
> very dark in the view finder. I know this camera has
Keith Green wrote:
> 300 f4 non IS
> Weighted MTF@f4.0 = 0.84@f8.0 = 0.84
> Average Weighted MTF = 0.84 Grade: 4.3
>
> 300 f4 IS
> Weighted MTF@f4.0 = 0.71@f8.0 = 0.80
> Average Weighted MTF of 0.76 Grade 3.4
>
> 100-400 IS
> Weighted MTF100 mm @f4.5 = 0.78@f8.0 = 0.80
>
Hans Korremans wrote:
> I am about to upgrade my camera system to a EOS-3 (or EOS-1V maybe). While
> having a closer touch & feel, I however noticed that the schutter noise of
> the EOS-3 is extreme as compared to EOS-100 (my current camera). Web reviews
> indicate this to be one of the biggest di
Dan wrote:
> A 24mm 2.8 that can produce a sharp image would be nice.
Huh? The Canon 24/2.8 has some drawbacks (clunky focussing, a surprising
amount of flare), but lack of sharpness is NOT one of them. The only reason
I parted with mine was because I needed a wider perspective. I wish (in vain)
Harrison McClary wrote:
> I have the 1n's...to me the stock screen was very bad. I replaced
> the screens in both of my 1n's with Beattie screens, the ones with
> grids.
>
> The screens in the 1's are a little darker because the AF sensors
> require more light to be able to focus so fast.
I
EOS wrote:
> > I expect so. I had 0-17 on my cameras before the upgrade.
> > Keep in mind
> > that cf-19 is only for big tele lenses.
>
> Does the 300/4L count as a big tele in your eyes? ;)
No. CF-19 only works with the newer super-teles. Specifically, the 300/2.8L
IS, 400/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS,
EOS wrote:
> My EOS 5 mode dial broke twice before I got fed up with it and changed
> camera. I always wondered if it was just my camera, but it seems other
> people have experienced this problems. How common is it?
VERY common. My old A2 is in the body and fender shop (a.k.a. Canon's
Irvine ser
Chuck Westfall wrote (as quoted by Jason Doss):
> Canon Inc. hasn't indicated an answer to that question yet, but the file
> format for our digital cameras supports the ability to record orientation
> data and the current versions of ZoomBrowser EX and ImageBrowser have the
> ability to read that
BlueSky wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> From many of my pictures, using AF, I observed that the Depth of Field
> zone is always some distance "in-front" of my focus target. Example:
> A.B..C
> Say C is the camera, A is the subject I autofocus on, the in-focus zone
> (whatever aperture) is a
Jim Davies wrote:
> DOF is no different on an EOS than any other camera. It's 1/3rd in front
> of subject, and 2/3rds in the back of subject.
Eegads, not this!
Grind through the equations a bit, and you'll quickly find that the
1/3 front, 2/3 back rule of thumb is uselessly inaccurate. For
EOS wrote:
> > Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 07:22:10 -
> > From: "Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: EOS 1.6x multiplier of D30
> >
> > > Those 8.9 MB are uncompressed. Tiffs will most assuredly
> > > be readable for a long time to come, but that is not
> > > so sure for any compressio
11 matches
Mail list logo
