On 4 Dec 2003 at 16:23, Willem-Jan Markerink wrote:
> On 3 Dec 2003 at 19:49, Mat Hayashibara wrote:
>
> > At 03:24 PM 12/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> > >Btw, did anyone notice that the latest version of Minolta's digicam
> > >(DiMage 7hi) with fixed 28-200mm equivalent) now also comes with a
> > >
On 3 Dec 2003 at 19:49, Mat Hayashibara wrote:
> At 03:24 PM 12/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> >Btw, did anyone notice that the latest version of Minolta's digicam
> >(DiMage 7hi) with fixed 28-200mm equivalent) now also comes with a
> >mechanical IS-systemhowever not stabilizing a lens element, b
At 03:24 PM 12/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
> That's what $200 3MP point and shoot digitals are
> for!
For the video clips, maybe. But a P&S isn't a
substitute for a 10d / 1d when it comes to, say, macro
shooting. But a flip/swivel LCD with the ability to
preview the image would be a big plus in thos
At 03:24 PM 12/3/2003 +0100, you wrote:
Btw, did anyone notice that the latest version of Minolta's digicam
(DiMage 7hi) with fixed 28-200mm equivalent) now also comes with a
mechanical IS-systemhowever not stabilizing a lens element, but
the CCD itself?
The latest upper-line Dimage is the A1,
- Original Message -
From: "Chip Louie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: OT: Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> That's what $200 3MP point and shoot digitals are for!
&
--- Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Bob Meyer
> >
> > Canon has shutter
> technology
> > that will hold the shutter open and mirror up
> using no
> > battery power. While building the ca
Btw, did anyone notice that the latest version of Minolta's digicam
(DiMage 7hi) with fixed 28-200mm equivalent) now also comes with a
mechanical IS-systemhowever not stabilizing a lens element, but
the CCD itself?
This also adds fuel to an old EOS discussion about IS build into
teleconver
--- Conor Twomey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I use spot metering and I over expose 1/2 to 1 stop on the facial
> features.
> The shutter speeds are around 1/60 sec and the IS does come in handy
> as you
> are trying to get your camera-lens steady as quickly as possible to
> take the
>
--- Jim Davis Nature Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, the 550EX has performed very well with my 10D. Although I
> haven't used it extensively yet. Also, the little built in flash has
> performed wonders for me when called upon.
>
> And, consider how easy it is to dial it up or d
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Bob Meyer
> Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 6:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range
>
>
>
> --- David Heller <[EMAIL PROTECT
--- David Heller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As a side note, I was at my local camera store
> yesterday to drop off film
> for processing, and listened to some x-mas shopper
> conversations with sales
> people at the "digital" counter. Teen-ager and her
> father were looking at a
> Digital Re
In a message dated 11/30/2003 8:29:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> I sent my 10D back to Canon several months ago for them to fix the focus--it
> was focusing consistently behind the subject at all ranges. The said they
> fixed it, but it still does the same thing and it
Alex,
I use spot metering and I over expose 1/2 to 1 stop on the facial features.
The shutter speeds are around 1/60 sec and the IS does come in handy as you
are trying to get your camera-lens steady as quickly as possible to take the
shot before the artist moves again. I use AI-Servo to focus bec
Alex Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
>Of course, eventually I'll have tos witch over to digital, however do
>not feel it's going to happen in a foreseen future.
Well, the 550EX has performed very well with my 10D. Although I
haven't used it extensively yet. Also, the little built in fla
--- Dave Buyens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex,
> You of course have to do what is right for you. Only you can make
> the
> decision when to jump to digital. Having gone digital for two years
> now
> (sold my last film camera six months ago), I can say:
> 1. My photography has improved sinc
> > How about the 3D or D3 that's been rumoured for so long now?
> > > Leave the 12 mega pixels 1Ds for the real pros who can afford
> > > or justify it, and give the rest of us pro-sumer what the
> > > EOS-3 provided in the film body range.
> > >
> > > Off the soap box.
> >
> > As long as it'
Alex,
You of course have to do what is right for you. Only you can make the
decision when to jump to digital. Having gone digital for two years now
(sold my last film camera six months ago), I can say:
1. My photography has improved since making the change. I almost hate to
look at the old pho
On 29 Nov 2003 at 21:37, Pattie Anderson wrote:
> > > How about the 3D or D3 that's been rumoured for so long now?
> > > Leave the 12 mega pixels 1Ds for the real pros who can afford or
> > > justify it, and give the rest of us pro-sumer what the EOS-3
> > > provided in the film body range.
> > >
> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:05:51 -
> From: "Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range
>
> A 1Ds for the current price of a 10D: I'd buy one like a shot.
>
> Frankly, I'd even buy a 10D if it's sens
> Alex
>
> A 1Ds for the current price of a 10D: I'd buy one like a shot.
>
> Frankly, I'd even buy a 10D if it's sensor was full frame (or even
> slightly less than full frame as long as the vertical dimension was
> 24mm) with the same number of poxels just bigger.
>
> Film produces brilliant
> Well, I certainly wouldn't argue even though not having digital body
> yet. Just from obvious reasons: too pricey for a kind of body I
would
> be willing to part from my EOS-3 for (full frame, tough case SLR).
> Otherwise, something like 1Ds would certainly be my way to go... :-)
Alex
A 1Ds for
--- Jim Davis Nature Photography <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Al Ruscelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
> >Again, I just wanted to throw this info into the mix of this thread.
> >Just an eye-opening experience from the standpoint of comparing
> digital
> >to film in a given circumstan
--- Al Ruscelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just have to throw this into the mix (even though it's somewhat out
> of
> the range of the intent of the original post):
>
> I've been using a Canon 1D for a little over a year now for part of
> my
> photography work. I'm still mostly film based, but
> > How about the 3D or D3 that's been rumoured for so long now?
> > Leave the 12 mega pixels 1Ds for the real pros who can afford
> > or justify it, and give the rest of us pro-sumer what the
> > EOS-3 provided in the film body range.
> >
> > Off the soap box.
>
> As long as it's full-fram
"Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>It's amazing the quality of images produced over the years by pros
>using 100 film (pushed to 200) via big glass. IS does NOT fit the
>bill for anything other than static subjects btw.
IS is simply a bonus over non IS. It works for me all all s
"Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Of course Medium format is of higher quality than 35 mm when
>approriate. Your answer says that the reason never to use 35mm film
>which is superior to APS digital is because medium format is even
>better?
Oh well here goes. The reasons people
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Stefan Gerris
> Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 5:06 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Extreme ISo (was Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range)
>
>
> > > I am so impre
> > I am so impressed with each camera, I can't fathom what Canon will
> > come out with now that the 1D is discontinued!
>
> How about the 3D or D3 that's been rumoured for so long now?
> Leave the 12 mega pixels 1Ds for the real pros who can afford
> or justify it, and give the rest of us pr
>
> I am so impressed with each camera, I can't fathom what Canon
> will come out
> with now that the 1D is discontinued!
How about the 3D or D3 that's been rumoured for so long now? Leave the 12
mega pixels 1Ds for the real pros who can afford or justify it, and give the
rest of us pro-sumer wh
Bob Talbot wrote:
> There comes a point when capturing the image becomes - almost a waste
> of time - film or digital. ISO 1600 film pushed to 3200 produces crap
> results: so does a digital camera at 1600. The only time it would be
> worth taking would be as a nature record of some previously un
> You guys crack me up. Take your ISO 100 film out to the bird hide
> early some morning, and let me know how the quality stacks up
against
> my 10D. I doubt you'd even get a shot.
Jim
Actually Jim,
It's amazing the quality of images produced over the years by pros
using 100 film (pushed to 200)
> >Easy Jim, where you actually want quality, especially for subject
with
> >fine detail, and where the speed / convenience of digital is not a
> >problem.
> Medium format.
Jim
You always insist you like plain talking, so may I say that answer (to
two replies) is pathetic.
Of course Medium fo
"Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Oh, and for trips away where you might not want / have access to
>computers, chargers etc.
I'll take batteries, a charger, and an image tank. Better than
hundreds of rolls of film and cheaper too.
Jim Davis
- checkout the Motorcycle Headlight
"Shadowcatcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>And it isn't a matter of
>resolution, it's a matter of tonal quality.
You like tonal quality, medium format.
Seriously, if you really wanna get superior quality medium format is
the answer when digital ain't good enough.
You guys crack me up
"Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Easy Jim, where you actually want quality, especially for subject with
>fine detail, and where the speed / convenience of digital is not a
>problem.
Medium format.
Jim Davis
- checkout the Motorcycle Headlight Relay Kit at:
http://jimdavis.ob
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range
> "Al Ruscelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>
.
>
> It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where film is better.
> Especially i
> It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where film is better.
> Especially if we're talking 35mm film.
Easy Jim, where you actually want quality, especially for subject with
fine detail, and where the speed / convenience of digital is not a
problem.
Oh, and for trips away where you might no
"Al Ruscelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>Again, I just wanted to throw this info into the mix of this thread.
>Just an eye-opening experience from the standpoint of comparing digital
>to film in a given circumstance.
It's hard for me to imagine a circumstance where film is better.
Esp
Just have to throw this into the mix (even though it's somewhat out of
the range of the intent of the original post):
I've been using a Canon 1D for a little over a year now for part of my
photography work. I'm still mostly film based, but use digital when I
feel it is appropriate.
I recently had
--- Conor Twomey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex,
>
> I shot R.E.M. during the summer in Ireland and I used my 70-200 F2.8
> IS
> along with an EOS 5 and loaded the camera with Fuji Provia 400 F
> rated at
> 800. We were allowed in the pit for 3 songs and then marched out.
> Michael
> Stipe was
--- Chip Louie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> The problem you are going to have is that the band members are all
> bouncing
> around on stage, this limits your shutter speeds. Granted if YOU are
> being
> bounced around the IS may help get better images. I think that
> shooting
> slo
Alex,
I shot R.E.M. during the summer in Ireland and I used my 70-200 F2.8 IS
along with an EOS 5 and loaded the camera with Fuji Provia 400 F rated at
800. We were allowed in the pit for 3 songs and then marched out. Michael
Stipe was all over the place, you needed lightening reflexes. The band i
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Alex Z
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:31 AM
> To: EOS mailing list
> Subject: EOS 70-200 IS effective range
>
>
> I would be considering swapping my 70-200/2.8L for an I
I would be considering swapping my 70-200/2.8L for an IS version for
specific reason of getting hooked to shooting rock concerts.
I found most useful shutter speed range theer is 1/20-1/60 (and f/2.8)
due to horrible lighting nature (for photographic standpoint, of
course) inherent into such kind o
http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200109/200109.html
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
--- Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't believe that for the casual photography
> that I do of relatively
> slow moving subjects, it (IS) is of benefit.
>
I
> haven't blown up the pics,
> but they looked pretty tack sharp to me.
If you haven't blown up the photos then you d
G'day Don,
Oh drats, I meant to say camera shake, not shame. :)
I've got to say, the petal hood on the 70-200 2.8L just makes this lens so
big, and most people are not used to seeing these large lenses pointing at
them after a staple of handheld auto everything compacts.
Yesterday I was sho
From: "Lawrance Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: EOS 70-200 IS & 70-200 non IS
<...> the lens had no problems with blurriness due to camera shame.
Well, a lot of us have problems with the latter issue, and it makes us
keep buying ever more e
bly
important.
Or as someone else had pointed out, tired arms carrying around a heavy piece
of glass all day may need IS. :)
Lawrance
Melbourne, Australia
(no muscularly arms on this man)
Original Message Follows
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 18:23:31 -0400
From: "Gary Russell" <[E
--- Gary Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I offered the hypothetical question of "why the 70-200 IS" a while
> back too,
> as the regular 70-200 is neither a slow nor particularly long lens so
> would
> the IS feature be of substantial benefit? A lot of people thought it
> would
> apparently
once upon a time Gary Russell wrote:
> I offered the hypothetical question of "why the 70-200 IS" a while back too,
> as the regular 70-200 is neither a slow nor particularly long lens so would
> the IS feature be of substantial benefit? A lot of people thought it would
> apparently as plenty ar
-Original Message-
From: Lawrance Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Hi Gary,
>
>I recently bought a new 70-200mm 2.8L without the IS. I knew that the IS
>version was hitting the streets at the time I was about to purchase. I've
>been taking some pictures using handholding at bright light conditi
Hi Gary,
I recently bought a new 70-200mm 2.8L without the IS. I knew that the IS
version was hitting the streets at the time I was about to purchase. I've
been taking some pictures using handholding at bright light conditions and
IS seems to be a moot point for this particular lens.
Tonig
but not your checkbook!!
_
Thanks, Mehrdad
[-Original Message-
[From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bob Talbot
[Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2001 11:02 AM
[To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Subject: Re: EOS 70-200 IS
[
[
[> PAY?! A
> PAY?! ANDY?! I think he is too well known by Canon to pay, He
probably has
> it as a sample. He does not elaborate as I don't think he has used
it
> enough yet, we will see what he reports soon.
Andy has had a succession of lenses from Canon each one that really is
the business.
When he visite
>
>Thanks but I know few people who would say a lens is mediocre after paying
>near $2,00 for it.
Name one!
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including
At 14:38 30/08/01 , Peter K wrote:
>The following is a quote from UK professional Wildlife Photographer Andy
>Rouse that appeared on another list :
>
>'For anyone's interest I have the first 70-200 f2.8L IS in the country and
>it is wonderful! '
>
>-
>Bob Turner wrote:
>
>Folks,
>
>The following is a quote from UK professional Wildlife Photographer Andy
>Rouse that appeared on another list :
>
>'For anyone's interest I have the first 70-200 f2.8L IS in the country and
>it is wonderful! '
Does he elaborate on it's "wonderfulness"?
Gary Russe
Bob Turner wrote:
Folks,
The following is a quote from UK professional Wildlife Photographer Andy
Rouse that appeared on another list :
'For anyone's interest I have the first 70-200 f2.8L IS in the country and
it is wonderful! '
--
Folks,
The following is a quote from UK professional Wildlife Photographer Andy
Rouse that appeared on another list :
'For anyone's interest I have the first 70-200 f2.8L IS in the country and
it is wonderful! '
Bob
*
***
***
*
>From: "Ken Lin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > 1. I've been contemplating getting this lens (the original, I mean) and
>a
> > 2x extender for some time. I know the 100-400 L with a 2x extender
>loses
> > it's IS function on an A2(EOS 5). But is this because it's max.
>aperture
> > is only 5.6 or
--- Robert Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I just ordered a 100-400 IS, which is on its way.
> Do
> >I send it back and wait until Spring to have the
> >70-200 IS (with 2xTC), or do I keep the 100-400 so
> I
> >can use it this fall?
>
>
> Canon UK is quoting availability of the 70-200mm
>
> I'm a self-same amateur (if you mean amateur as in "beginner" -
> if you don't then don't read on :-)
Hi Mark-
(I'm an amateur in that I don't make my living taking pictures. But not a
beginner really, as I've been shooting for about 10 years. But that
doesn't mean I haven't a lot to learn.)
On 2 Aug 01 at 14:29, Robert Scott wrote:
> >I just ordered a 100-400 IS, which is on its way. Do
> >I send it back and wait until Spring to have the
> >70-200 IS (with 2xTC), or do I keep the 100-400 so I
> >can use it this fall?
>
>
> Canon UK is quoting availability of the 70-200mm f2.8L I
Decisions, decisions!
I just ordered a 100-400 IS, which is on its way. Do
I send it back and wait until Spring to have the
70-200 IS (with 2xTC), or do I keep the 100-400 so I
can use it this fall?
If I go for the 70-200 IS, I'd sell my current 70-200,
so net cost wouldn't be much different th
>I just ordered a 100-400 IS, which is on its way. Do
>I send it back and wait until Spring to have the
>70-200 IS (with 2xTC), or do I keep the 100-400 so I
>can use it this fall?
Canon UK is quoting availability of the 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM lens as 1
September 2001.
ROBERT SCOTT
EOS magazi
In a message dated 8/2/01 5:51:11 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< If I go for the 70-200 IS, I'd sell my current 70-200,
so net cost wouldn't be much different than the
100-400. And I do prefer the 2 rings of the 70-200 to
the single ring design of the 100-400. But I'
>> 1. I've been contemplating getting this lens (the original, I mean) and
a
>> 2x extender for some time. I know the 100-400 L with a 2x extender loses
>> it's IS function on an A2(EOS 5). But is this because it's max. aperture
>> is only 5.6 or because the A2 is now considered an "older" EOS
> 1. I've been contemplating getting this lens (the original, I mean) and a
> 2x extender for some time. I know the 100-400 L with a 2x extender loses
> it's IS function on an A2(EOS 5). But is this because it's max. aperture
> is only 5.6 or because the A2 is now considered an "older" EOS body
> GreenScreen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> 2. I've started saving already, because I don't really see
> too many other options. (not because I HAVE to have an L
> lens) The 100-300 USM seems to consistently get reviewed
> as junk at 300mm wide open - even by armatures like me,
I'm a sel
A two part post, if you don't mind...
1. I've been contemplating getting this lens (the original, I mean) and a
2x extender for some time. I know the 100-400 L with a 2x extender loses
it's IS function on an A2(EOS 5). But is this because it's max. aperture
is only 5.6 or because the A2 is now
> Jim Davis said:
> > That's right, I want to say here for the record,
> that my Kenko 2X MC7
> > converter is excellent.
>
> Just curious Jim - what lens(es) are you using this
> teleconverter on?
I'm using it on my EF 75-300. It's unwieldy, it's long, it's slow, it
doesn't report correct apertu
Jim Davis said:
> That's right, I want to say here for the record,
that my Kenko 2X MC7
> converter is excellent.
Just curious Jim - what lens(es) are you using this
teleconverter on?
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Mill
Tim Munro wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Pop a 1.4x on the 300 and you have a
> > max aperture of 6.3, which means my A2 won't AF. ..
> > Skip
>
> I don't follow here Skip. 1.4x is one stop loss - so should give you f5.6,
> not 6.3. I disagree wi
Hi Skip,
Skip wrote:
> That was kind of my point.
I didn't feel that I was disagreeing with you.
That said . . .
> And a 200 2.8L or 300 4L are nearly the same cost as
> the 100-400 4.5-5.6,
The 200/2.8L is less than half the price of the 100-400/4.5~5.6L, and still
significantly less even
- Original Message -
From: Skip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Pop a 1.4x on the 300 and you have a
> max aperture of 6.3, which means my A2 won't AF. ..
> Skip
I don't follow here Skip. 1.4x is one stop loss - so should give you f5.6,
not 6.3. I disagree with the comments regarding image deg
"F. Craig Callahan" wrote:
>
> Skip wrote:
>
> > The biggest advantage of a 70-200 IS f2.8 would be it's
> > ability to be used with a 2x teleconverter,
>
> I assume you mean "used with the 2x extender *hand-held*," since there's
> currently nothing keeping anyone from attaching a 2x converter
Skip wrote:
> The biggest advantage of a 70-200 IS f2.8 would be it's
> ability to be used with a 2x teleconverter,
I assume you mean "used with the 2x extender *hand-held*," since there's
currently nothing keeping anyone from attaching a 2x converter to this lens.
Regardless, I'm not clear on
Jess Lee wrote: 28-135 is usable but slow
> and lacking great optical qualities.
>
> Jess Lee
>
> http://www.jessleephotos.com
>
Have you used the 28-135 IS? It seems pretty darned sharp to me, less
distortion than the 28-105, which I have also used. If the long tele
consumer version would be
Subject: Re: EOS Plans for IS on 70-200 f/2.8
>
> > As far as I, or anybody, has been able to ascertain, there are no
> > current plans to produce such a lens. to me, it wouldn't make much
> > sense to buy this lens, since it has such a great degree of overlap
> with
. IMHO they can make that s
80 matches
Mail list logo
