Woo Yay! (As we say at IStockphoto) The 20D finally arrived after a month of waiting for Canon to be able to deliver the camera house by itself here in Norway. My first impression after one evening of playing with it is that its a good upgrade from the 10D. First, its almost identically built with some minor changes to the buttons and layouts - mostly for the better. Second, its amazingly fast and when shooting it seems to be finished writing before I start looking on the screen. It powers on instantly and feels extremely responsive. I use SanDisk Ultra cards since these are the fastest according to Rob Galbraiths tests. With the 20D I cant see me having to wait on the camera any more.
I have not yet made any image tests to see how good the pictures are but my first trials show that its less noisy at ISO 800 and 1600, which was as expected. It also seems to cope better with keeping highlights and avoiding the abruptness of over exposure that was so common on the 10D. It focuses very quickly and works brilliantly with my 70-200 f2.8L IS. The improved focusing on f2.8 lenses is probably kicking in, but it also feels more responsive on my 17-40mm f4 lens. However, it still doesnt focus right on the wide end which makes me think that my lens have a defect. I'll have to check this out some more.
The user interface in the menus are clear and understandable. In some ways better than the 10D. Its also far more responsive than the 10D, especially when browsing images. Its also nice that I dont have to wait for it to finish writing everything in the buffer before I can access the menu or playback functions.
Its lighter and a tiny bit smaller, but it feels just right for my hands. I guess the 10D was a bit more comfortable to hold for people with long fingers, but I dont have that problem. If I should pick on something it would be that the mode dial feels cheaper and more plastic than before, its also a bit loose. The same thing goes for the CF slot which is also a bit loose. The joystick feels a little strange at first but I guess I will get used to it. Its surely a better way to move about images than the button/wheel combo on the 10D. Its also a very good for adjusting the focus points quickly.
The 20D shoots away like no other camera I have used. It feels like a small machinegun when it fires away at 5 shots a second. I actually had to turn the mode to single shot now more often simply because I ended up firing two shots instead of one. On the 10D its a bit slower so you could have the mode on multiple shot always.
The only thing I miss from the camera is a faster way to switch on and off the mirror lockup function since I use this more often. I also assume mirror lockup will be even more useful in the 20D since the mirror slap feels a bit more heavier than the 10D (although I have no proof for this).
All in all a very nice camera! Looking forward to take some real pictures with it.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
IStockaholic
Up to half a year ago I mostly did photography as a hobby, going for long walks in the mountains always bringing my camera to shoot whatever I came over. Digital photography has enabled me to create photos at a higher rate than I would ever have imagined, filling up the harddisk in no time. But thats a different story all together.
My wife, family and friends kept saying that they loved my pictures and that I should start showing them to the world instead of having them lying around on my computer and some of the better ones hanging on the walls. I never really thought about it that way and wondered if I should try to show them in a gallery or something. After some months I started reading more about online stock photography sites and came to like the idea of uploading a picture, having it sold over and over again and making some money. Digital photography is becoming increasingly an expensive hobby, and I saw that my "wish-list" at B&H was growing faster than I would ever be able to afford as I ventured into different styles of photography.
I started looking around and tried an online stock agency where I could upload a small version of the picture and if there was any sale the buyer would contact me through the agency. I would get paid according to the use, so a sale could mean anything between $50 to $1000. I uploaded some pictures, nothing spectacular, about 10 pictures, and waited... Nothing happened, not a single sale still. I got impatient and thought I'll have to try more places. After some time I found another place www.shutterpoint.com where I could upload a full JPG version and set the price as I wished. It had a system where people could rate your pictures too, and it was quite fun to watch which pictures was considered good. Eventually I saw that the site seemed overly focused on the rating thing, and everybody gave 9 or 10's out of kindness - even really bad grainy out of focus pictures got good ratings from some just because they had rated kindly to others. I realised that there was just too many bad pictures there for buyers to even find the good stuff - hence less sales. In the 5 months I have been there I've sold two pictures at $25 each. Not much but at least some.
Well, then I found another place: www.istockphoto.com which I immediately fell in love with. It had its own pricing policy depending on the size of the download and each image had to be approved by an image inspector. And from the quality I saw there I knew they were very picky about the quality. I got sales almost immediately after my first uploads and I was quite hooked, regulartly uploading and checking sales. It was really addictive - and still is. Now the only gripe I have about this place is the royalty I get - only 20% of the sale! Thats not much, especially when you think of the prices where a high res picture is sold for $1.50 - veeery cheap in other words. I can imagine this place as a big blessing for designers and it opens up a marked untouched before. Thats why it is a successful business too with an amazing number of downloads every hour. I immediately noticed the popularity of this place when one of my pictures was chosen "Image Of The Week" (IOTW) with the picture placed on the front page after login. This picture is now closing 200 downlads in under a month and is set to go for the most popular page soon (it actually was there before as one of the higher rated pictures with pure 5/5 ratings until I got one 3/5 rating from one guy that dropped me off the list).
At IStockPhoto we have an expression - IStockaholic - and I must confess I am one, visiting the site several times a day to see whats selling and talk in the community which is an excellent one. If you are a designer you will love this place - you cant get better stock photography for such low prices anywhere. If you are a photographer you have to decide if you feel a 20% cut is fair. Still you will be competing with some very fine photographers, some having over 90.000 downlowads by now. In time those cents will make you a dollar... :)
My wife, family and friends kept saying that they loved my pictures and that I should start showing them to the world instead of having them lying around on my computer and some of the better ones hanging on the walls. I never really thought about it that way and wondered if I should try to show them in a gallery or something. After some months I started reading more about online stock photography sites and came to like the idea of uploading a picture, having it sold over and over again and making some money. Digital photography is becoming increasingly an expensive hobby, and I saw that my "wish-list" at B&H was growing faster than I would ever be able to afford as I ventured into different styles of photography.
I started looking around and tried an online stock agency where I could upload a small version of the picture and if there was any sale the buyer would contact me through the agency. I would get paid according to the use, so a sale could mean anything between $50 to $1000. I uploaded some pictures, nothing spectacular, about 10 pictures, and waited... Nothing happened, not a single sale still. I got impatient and thought I'll have to try more places. After some time I found another place www.shutterpoint.com where I could upload a full JPG version and set the price as I wished. It had a system where people could rate your pictures too, and it was quite fun to watch which pictures was considered good. Eventually I saw that the site seemed overly focused on the rating thing, and everybody gave 9 or 10's out of kindness - even really bad grainy out of focus pictures got good ratings from some just because they had rated kindly to others. I realised that there was just too many bad pictures there for buyers to even find the good stuff - hence less sales. In the 5 months I have been there I've sold two pictures at $25 each. Not much but at least some.
Well, then I found another place: www.istockphoto.com which I immediately fell in love with. It had its own pricing policy depending on the size of the download and each image had to be approved by an image inspector. And from the quality I saw there I knew they were very picky about the quality. I got sales almost immediately after my first uploads and I was quite hooked, regulartly uploading and checking sales. It was really addictive - and still is. Now the only gripe I have about this place is the royalty I get - only 20% of the sale! Thats not much, especially when you think of the prices where a high res picture is sold for $1.50 - veeery cheap in other words. I can imagine this place as a big blessing for designers and it opens up a marked untouched before. Thats why it is a successful business too with an amazing number of downloads every hour. I immediately noticed the popularity of this place when one of my pictures was chosen "Image Of The Week" (IOTW) with the picture placed on the front page after login. This picture is now closing 200 downlads in under a month and is set to go for the most popular page soon (it actually was there before as one of the higher rated pictures with pure 5/5 ratings until I got one 3/5 rating from one guy that dropped me off the list).
At IStockPhoto we have an expression - IStockaholic - and I must confess I am one, visiting the site several times a day to see whats selling and talk in the community which is an excellent one. If you are a designer you will love this place - you cant get better stock photography for such low prices anywhere. If you are a photographer you have to decide if you feel a 20% cut is fair. Still you will be competing with some very fine photographers, some having over 90.000 downlowads by now. In time those cents will make you a dollar... :)
Saturday, June 26, 2004
New website online!
Finally finished the new website with some new pictures, a bit bigger layout and imagesize with titles and frames. Hope it also works on more browsers, I removed all fancy stuff that only worked on IE. Take a look and tell me what you think:
http://photo.lonningdal.net
http://photo.lonningdal.net
Thursday, June 24, 2004
In focus?
If you have been photographying for a while you might have come back after a nice trip only to find that that brilliant landscape shot has been ruined because either the things in the foreground or the distant background is out of focus! And you wonder because everything looked alright on the LCD screen when you took it. Hehe. Well everything looks fine on the LCD, and generally you cant judge an image by looking at the LCD - except the histogram to see if you have overexposed or underexposed.
So what you need is to know how you get everything in focus - from the little flower in the foreground to the snow-topped mountain in the background. As most of you know, stopping down the lens to e.g. f/22 will do the trick, but you are still not guaranteed to have what you want in focus. Its because the focus point needs to be correctly placed to get optimum depth of field (DOF). Normally this means you need to manually focus. The focus point you are looking for is called the Hyperfocal Distance and will ensure you the longest distance in focus. Naturally this changes based on the focal length (mm) and the f-stop. Fortunately this is pure math and no magic involved, and some people have been so nice to make an online tool for calculating the hyperfocal distance. Try the link below and enter focal length and f/stop, then press the Calculate DOF button. The Hyperfocal distance will be shown. You can enter this in the Focus Distance and see that it will show you the closest Near Depth you get with Infinite Far Depth (thats where the snow-topped mountain is).
http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html
For my 17-40mm, while shooting at 17mm, if I focus at hyperfocal which is 0.525 meters, I get everything from 0.263 meters to infinite in focus! Now that should bring everything in focus. Of course you also need a tripod for shots at f/22 or your images will be all blurry from camera shake. No point in fuzzying with hyperfocal distance then.
Note however that many lenses have a sweet spot where they perform best, that means that image quality is generally best at this f stop. On most lenses this is around f/8 and f/11. So if my foreground starts at around 1 meter you dont need to shoot at f/22 to get everything sharp. Actually, if I shoot with my 17mm at f/11 at the focus distance of 1 meter I get everything from half a meter in front all the way to the back in focus.
I've ruined one too many shot by relying on autofocus so now I am keeping a table for reference so that I can quickly find the hyperfocal distance at each f-stop at the most used mm ranges (usually this is 17mm).
So what you need is to know how you get everything in focus - from the little flower in the foreground to the snow-topped mountain in the background. As most of you know, stopping down the lens to e.g. f/22 will do the trick, but you are still not guaranteed to have what you want in focus. Its because the focus point needs to be correctly placed to get optimum depth of field (DOF). Normally this means you need to manually focus. The focus point you are looking for is called the Hyperfocal Distance and will ensure you the longest distance in focus. Naturally this changes based on the focal length (mm) and the f-stop. Fortunately this is pure math and no magic involved, and some people have been so nice to make an online tool for calculating the hyperfocal distance. Try the link below and enter focal length and f/stop, then press the Calculate DOF button. The Hyperfocal distance will be shown. You can enter this in the Focus Distance and see that it will show you the closest Near Depth you get with Infinite Far Depth (thats where the snow-topped mountain is).
http://www.dudak.baka.com/dofcalc.html
For my 17-40mm, while shooting at 17mm, if I focus at hyperfocal which is 0.525 meters, I get everything from 0.263 meters to infinite in focus! Now that should bring everything in focus. Of course you also need a tripod for shots at f/22 or your images will be all blurry from camera shake. No point in fuzzying with hyperfocal distance then.
Note however that many lenses have a sweet spot where they perform best, that means that image quality is generally best at this f stop. On most lenses this is around f/8 and f/11. So if my foreground starts at around 1 meter you dont need to shoot at f/22 to get everything sharp. Actually, if I shoot with my 17mm at f/11 at the focus distance of 1 meter I get everything from half a meter in front all the way to the back in focus.
I've ruined one too many shot by relying on autofocus so now I am keeping a table for reference so that I can quickly find the hyperfocal distance at each f-stop at the most used mm ranges (usually this is 17mm).
Monday, June 14, 2004
The dangers of f2.8 L glass
Well, having been using the new 70-200mm for some time now I must say I am very satisfied with this lens. Sure its heavy and expensive but its worth every penny if you are serious about your photography.
However, if you are coming from the average f4.5-5.6 world of consumer lenses, going to f2.8 kind of glass can make you do some mistakes. Once you have such a light sensitive lens its tempting to keep shooting at f2.8 without thinking about the concequences. Although I have been used to this aperture with my 100mm macro lens, the macro was often used in more planned shoots, closeups and tripod shots. The 70-200mm has IS and it works brilliantly handheld. However, if you are not careful, shooting at f2.8 can ruin your pictures. You have to remember that the Depth Of Field (DOF) is very shallow, which also means your focus has to be spot on. Fortunately this lens is both quick and accurate when it comes to focusing. However, there are many times I have focused at an area that was deep into the object I wanted i focus, effectively rendering the front part of the object unfocused. Unfortunately you cant see this on the LCD since everything looks alright there. You just have to think about it and make sure you focus at the foremost part (or actually a little bit further than that might work too).
Just so that you were warned! It takes practice to shoot at f2.8 and get good results. You especially need to think quickly when shooting on the move.
However, if you are coming from the average f4.5-5.6 world of consumer lenses, going to f2.8 kind of glass can make you do some mistakes. Once you have such a light sensitive lens its tempting to keep shooting at f2.8 without thinking about the concequences. Although I have been used to this aperture with my 100mm macro lens, the macro was often used in more planned shoots, closeups and tripod shots. The 70-200mm has IS and it works brilliantly handheld. However, if you are not careful, shooting at f2.8 can ruin your pictures. You have to remember that the Depth Of Field (DOF) is very shallow, which also means your focus has to be spot on. Fortunately this lens is both quick and accurate when it comes to focusing. However, there are many times I have focused at an area that was deep into the object I wanted i focus, effectively rendering the front part of the object unfocused. Unfortunately you cant see this on the LCD since everything looks alright there. You just have to think about it and make sure you focus at the foremost part (or actually a little bit further than that might work too).
Just so that you were warned! It takes practice to shoot at f2.8 and get good results. You especially need to think quickly when shooting on the move.
Saturday, June 12, 2004
The Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS has arrived...
...and its awesome! It took only 3 days for it to reach my door from New York which is very fast indeed. Thanks UPS.
My first day of shooting and this lens immediately proves its worth. The kind of images I can take with this I could only dream of before. Its pin sharp even at 2.8 which enables a whole new kind of photography. My first impression out of the box the sheer weight of the thing. Its gonna take some muscles hand holding this for a long time. But on my first day out I must say its really not a problem. Just need a new strap for my camera, one that isnt so hard on the neck. The lens is at least built like a tank.
The zoom ring is a bit harder to turn in comparison to what I am used to, but that too is no real problem and I guess its good so that you dont accidentally turn it by holding the ring. However, I wished the same was true for the four buttons on the side. The IS, IS mode, AF/MF and AF range buttons are all very easy to switch accidentally. It mainly a problem when you pull it out of the bag and I have already turned off AF and IS by accident this way. Still no real problem once its up and you have checked the buttons.
The auto focus is amazingly quick on this lens too. It locks on fast and in AF servo mode it follows the target happily without a hitch. The IS is also very quick compared to what I was used to on the 75-300mm. Its also very silent. Just have to make sure I am full stocked with battery because it will empty the batteries faster (30% less time the manual states).
But the quality of the glass is amazing, combined with the IS I can handhold and shoot almost anything. Here are some pictures you can click on to see some from a first days shoot.
My first day of shooting and this lens immediately proves its worth. The kind of images I can take with this I could only dream of before. Its pin sharp even at 2.8 which enables a whole new kind of photography. My first impression out of the box the sheer weight of the thing. Its gonna take some muscles hand holding this for a long time. But on my first day out I must say its really not a problem. Just need a new strap for my camera, one that isnt so hard on the neck. The lens is at least built like a tank.
The zoom ring is a bit harder to turn in comparison to what I am used to, but that too is no real problem and I guess its good so that you dont accidentally turn it by holding the ring. However, I wished the same was true for the four buttons on the side. The IS, IS mode, AF/MF and AF range buttons are all very easy to switch accidentally. It mainly a problem when you pull it out of the bag and I have already turned off AF and IS by accident this way. Still no real problem once its up and you have checked the buttons.
The auto focus is amazingly quick on this lens too. It locks on fast and in AF servo mode it follows the target happily without a hitch. The IS is also very quick compared to what I was used to on the 75-300mm. Its also very silent. Just have to make sure I am full stocked with battery because it will empty the batteries faster (30% less time the manual states).
But the quality of the glass is amazing, combined with the IS I can handhold and shoot almost anything. Here are some pictures you can click on to see some from a first days shoot.
Tipa Awards
Well the 2004 Tipa awards have been given now, and I see that 300D got the breakthrough prize. Well although it was the 300D that "broke through" I still think The Nikon D70 is a better consumer camera, which of course is the price they got for that too. If you want to go Canon I would recommend the 10D instead.
Sandisk got the storage media price, which I think is correct also. The Sandisk Ultra II cards are really good.
Other than that I see that Epson got all the prices related to printing, which might be right. Well until they realise the thing breaks down after half a year and the usage cost is way higher than anticipated. Ok, maybe I have been burned once, and base my feelings on that. But thats me. :-)
Sigma got the best consumer lens award, which might also be right. I dont know much about this lens but it sounds like a good spec and I guess its true. My only experience with Sigma was a 24mm that would never work right on my EOS 50e/Elan2, and many friends who can hear parts falling apart inside the lens. While this was some years ago, I hope Sigma has improved their build quality. Well this is an EX lens so its the top of the line for Sigma, and if you are on a budget I guess its a good alternative to the Canon 16-35mm or the 17-40mm.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Three web sites...
... I regularly visit are:
http://www.dpreview.com/
A nice place to catch up on the latest hardware news and extensive reviews of gear.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com
Very good tutorials on how to take good pictures and post-process them as well as detailed reviews. Later they have added thorough analysis of image quality from different lenses using the DxO analyser (read about it there).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
Reviews of the best Canon lenses and gear as well as miscellaneous accessories.
http://www.dpreview.com/
A nice place to catch up on the latest hardware news and extensive reviews of gear.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com
Very good tutorials on how to take good pictures and post-process them as well as detailed reviews. Later they have added thorough analysis of image quality from different lenses using the DxO analyser (read about it there).
http://www.the-digital-picture.com
Reviews of the best Canon lenses and gear as well as miscellaneous accessories.
Canon 17-40mm L f4 focusing problem!
I have recently experienced and learned that the Canon 17-40mm L f4 lens has a focusing problem on its wide end. It seems that on a Canon 10D or similar sensor size, the lens will not focus correct if you use it around 17mm. If you try it out and look closely at the focus ring you will see that it moves slightly beyond the infinite mark (the 8 sign on its sign). This effectively mean that if you shoot at f4 nothing will be sharp in the picture. I dont know, but I regard this as a major bug in the 17-40mm (or a combination of the lens/camera).
Fortunately there is a workaround. The 17-40mm is parfocal, which means that its focus remains at the same spot even if you zoom after focusing. This means that you can zoom in (40mm), press the shutter half way to focus, and while holding the button down, zoom out to 17mm again and press the shutter to shoot. This has worked for me, and will show the true capabilities of this lens. So if you feel your images are soft at 17mm, its most probably a focusing problem. If you shoot at higher f stops than f4 it will be less visible though. The best thing is to adjust the focus manually if you are rigging up for a landscape shot. That way you have full control and can get everything from that little flower in the front to the mountain in the back in focus.
I hope Canon knows about this problem and maybe come up with a fix? It might even be solved by a software fix for the 10D maybe? Well who knows...
Fortunately there is a workaround. The 17-40mm is parfocal, which means that its focus remains at the same spot even if you zoom after focusing. This means that you can zoom in (40mm), press the shutter half way to focus, and while holding the button down, zoom out to 17mm again and press the shutter to shoot. This has worked for me, and will show the true capabilities of this lens. So if you feel your images are soft at 17mm, its most probably a focusing problem. If you shoot at higher f stops than f4 it will be less visible though. The best thing is to adjust the focus manually if you are rigging up for a landscape shot. That way you have full control and can get everything from that little flower in the front to the mountain in the back in focus.
I hope Canon knows about this problem and maybe come up with a fix? It might even be solved by a software fix for the 10D maybe? Well who knows...
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Ordering at B&H...
...sure takes a long time. I have recently ordered the Canon 70-200L f/2.8 IS lens from B&H and it seems they have a very strict credit card verification system there. After waiting a week I finally got a mail stating that I needed to send them a fax or email with images of my Mastercard. Well, it seems I didnt read their export pages right, in which case it states that I should do this when I order. I sent them the images.
Well, then I waited another week without hearing anything, my order still in "processing" state. Then a mail saying I need to call them. So I called them and they wanted the phone number to my bank to verify that my billing address was the same as where I wanted the lens to be sent. So I gave them the number and told them to call early because of the 6 hour time difference.
So I waited some more days, and got an email that I needed to call them and arrange a phone-meeting with the bank to do the verification. So thats what I am doing today.
Well, its nice to know that its secure and that my credit card cant be misused at B&H, but this is maybe a bit over the top. Hopefully this is only a problem the first time. I guess I will be ordering from B&H again, as it seems their prices are the best. Fortunately the US dollar is low today (compared to NOK) so I get a lot of dollars for my NOK today!
Oh joy! The lens has been shipped yesterday so now I just have to wait for the express package to reach Norway in 5 days and then for customs to clear it, which should take around 10 more days if I am not mistaken. :-)
Well, then I waited another week without hearing anything, my order still in "processing" state. Then a mail saying I need to call them. So I called them and they wanted the phone number to my bank to verify that my billing address was the same as where I wanted the lens to be sent. So I gave them the number and told them to call early because of the 6 hour time difference.
So I waited some more days, and got an email that I needed to call them and arrange a phone-meeting with the bank to do the verification. So thats what I am doing today.
Well, its nice to know that its secure and that my credit card cant be misused at B&H, but this is maybe a bit over the top. Hopefully this is only a problem the first time. I guess I will be ordering from B&H again, as it seems their prices are the best. Fortunately the US dollar is low today (compared to NOK) so I get a lot of dollars for my NOK today!
Oh joy! The lens has been shipped yesterday so now I just have to wait for the express package to reach Norway in 5 days and then for customs to clear it, which should take around 10 more days if I am not mistaken. :-)
The new Canon S60...
...sure looks like a nice compact camera!
I have previously owned the S40 and was very satisfied with it, effectively convincing me that I needed a digital SLR. Now that I have sold my S40 i keep finding myself in situations where I wished I had it around. An SLR can be tiresome lugging around at places where a compact would do just fine.
The new S60 seems to be improved in almost all areas, but the main improvement that caught my eyes was that the lens wide end is 28mm (equivalent in 35mm film). I often find that the 32-35mm at the wide end for most compacts to be a limiting factor in many cases. A full 28mm will enable you to take some nice landscapes or indoor shots that would otherwise be hard to do. But still its just a compact and you shouldnt expect too much of this. Its also nice to see that they didnt go higher than 5 Mpix, because these small sensors dont really benefit from more megapixels in my eyes.
Another nice improvement is the zoom buttons instead of that horrible lever-thing they had before. I think it will be much easier to use now.
If you want a nice compact, I dont think you can go wrong with the new S60.
I have previously owned the S40 and was very satisfied with it, effectively convincing me that I needed a digital SLR. Now that I have sold my S40 i keep finding myself in situations where I wished I had it around. An SLR can be tiresome lugging around at places where a compact would do just fine.
The new S60 seems to be improved in almost all areas, but the main improvement that caught my eyes was that the lens wide end is 28mm (equivalent in 35mm film). I often find that the 32-35mm at the wide end for most compacts to be a limiting factor in many cases. A full 28mm will enable you to take some nice landscapes or indoor shots that would otherwise be hard to do. But still its just a compact and you shouldnt expect too much of this. Its also nice to see that they didnt go higher than 5 Mpix, because these small sensors dont really benefit from more megapixels in my eyes.
Another nice improvement is the zoom buttons instead of that horrible lever-thing they had before. I think it will be much easier to use now.
If you want a nice compact, I dont think you can go wrong with the new S60.
A brand new inkjet...
...is installed at home now. The Canon i965. It was a gift from Canon for a photo-course I held for some people working there. With 6 different colors (including black) it sure can make some fine photo prints. What amazes me the most is the speed of this thing. It can print full quality A4 prints in just 1 minute. And the quality is simply stunning. Just what the doctor ordered.
I have previously been using an Epson Stylus Photo 895 with some mixed results. Sure it produced nice photos, but I have had so many problems with it I swore never to buy an Epson printer again. The Epson drinks ink like no other, and I had to put it through 2-3 cleaning cycles before it would print without banding, effectively emptying all of the colors. So far I have been very satisfied with the Canon ink usage which is way lower than the Epson. I have printed quite a few A4 pages now and the ink level has hardly sunk by one pixel or so.
It will be exciting to see how the Canon performs after a year of use. One thing I did like was that it is easy to change the print-heads, something most printers require you to deliver it for service to do. I hope however that the print-heads last longer than the Epson version.
By the way, the new Canon i990 is an even better and faster printer. It seems new models are being created every 6 months or so. So its much nicer to know that lenses you buy for your camera last for many many years before you feel like swapping them out. And you still get a good price when you sell them. Some of the Canon lenses have been unchanged for the last 7-8 years I have heard. I wish printers were the same.
I guess my next printer will be a big A3 printer though. :-)
I have previously been using an Epson Stylus Photo 895 with some mixed results. Sure it produced nice photos, but I have had so many problems with it I swore never to buy an Epson printer again. The Epson drinks ink like no other, and I had to put it through 2-3 cleaning cycles before it would print without banding, effectively emptying all of the colors. So far I have been very satisfied with the Canon ink usage which is way lower than the Epson. I have printed quite a few A4 pages now and the ink level has hardly sunk by one pixel or so.
It will be exciting to see how the Canon performs after a year of use. One thing I did like was that it is easy to change the print-heads, something most printers require you to deliver it for service to do. I hope however that the print-heads last longer than the Epson version.
By the way, the new Canon i990 is an even better and faster printer. It seems new models are being created every 6 months or so. So its much nicer to know that lenses you buy for your camera last for many many years before you feel like swapping them out. And you still get a good price when you sell them. Some of the Canon lenses have been unchanged for the last 7-8 years I have heard. I wish printers were the same.
I guess my next printer will be a big A3 printer though. :-)
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
So whats a good picture?
Its pretty hard to define what a good picture is, since it is often the sum of what you have learned to be a good picture. Its a lot like art, peoples tastes are so different that it is close to impossible to discuss that it is good or bad art. But still we like to discuss it, much like music. If you listen to older people they think that the music today is terrible, and this is probably true for the current generation when they grow up too and something new comes around. Well it seems to be a pattern of "you like what you have learned to like".
But with photography there seems to be some clearly defined things that make a good picture and what ruins it. I think that what we learn is a more abstract notion of what pleases the eye. I can mention some here to get you on the right track:
Repeating patterns. Our brains seems to love the idea of something repeated, wheter it be flowers in a landscape or round stones on a shore. These shots often show depth which permit us to understand the scene and its scale.
Smooth color gradients. Plain looking images with large areas of smooth color gradients often catch our eyes. This is why macros where the background is out of focus often works so nicely. Although most people seem to like the idea of a nice blue sky, it is becoming more appreciated to have some texture in the sky, with clouds. Still many abstracts often have these gradients which work well.
Lines and curves. There is a certain part of the brain that is excellent at finding lines and curves in what we see. That is why putting things on a line works nicely too. It leads the eye and please the part of us that recognize simple geometry. Often combined with repeating patterns it can be very effective.
Offset point of interest. While most amateur photographers often shoot what they see by putting it directly in the middle of the picture, most professionals know that composition where the center of interest is placed off-centre works better. This is because it convey some understanding of the space surrounding the object, hence more clues to the depth and scale of things. This helps us appreciate that the object is related to its surroundings and that is the image instead of just focusing on the tree itself. The rule of thirds is not a coincidence, but a result of how humans like to relate objects to its surroundings. Often the relation can be to the frame itself, so even abstract work benefit from this rule.
Symmetry. There seems to be evidence that people regard a symmetrical face to be more beautiful than a non-symmetrical. This is also related to how we like lines, curves, geometry and patterns. Finding symmetrical patterns in everyday things can produce some interesting images.
Of course there are tons of different things that make up a good picture, but try to take time to study the images you like, and write some words that pop into your mind about why you like it. Soon you will find the similarities and patterns, and as you experiment with your photography, your mind will remind yourself about these "clues" to make a good picture. Your eye will start seeking and the checklist in your brain will be accepting and rejecting more on auto-pilot than you would think. This is when you have a "trained eye". Happy shooting!
But with photography there seems to be some clearly defined things that make a good picture and what ruins it. I think that what we learn is a more abstract notion of what pleases the eye. I can mention some here to get you on the right track:
Repeating patterns. Our brains seems to love the idea of something repeated, wheter it be flowers in a landscape or round stones on a shore. These shots often show depth which permit us to understand the scene and its scale.
Smooth color gradients. Plain looking images with large areas of smooth color gradients often catch our eyes. This is why macros where the background is out of focus often works so nicely. Although most people seem to like the idea of a nice blue sky, it is becoming more appreciated to have some texture in the sky, with clouds. Still many abstracts often have these gradients which work well.
Lines and curves. There is a certain part of the brain that is excellent at finding lines and curves in what we see. That is why putting things on a line works nicely too. It leads the eye and please the part of us that recognize simple geometry. Often combined with repeating patterns it can be very effective.
Offset point of interest. While most amateur photographers often shoot what they see by putting it directly in the middle of the picture, most professionals know that composition where the center of interest is placed off-centre works better. This is because it convey some understanding of the space surrounding the object, hence more clues to the depth and scale of things. This helps us appreciate that the object is related to its surroundings and that is the image instead of just focusing on the tree itself. The rule of thirds is not a coincidence, but a result of how humans like to relate objects to its surroundings. Often the relation can be to the frame itself, so even abstract work benefit from this rule.
Symmetry. There seems to be evidence that people regard a symmetrical face to be more beautiful than a non-symmetrical. This is also related to how we like lines, curves, geometry and patterns. Finding symmetrical patterns in everyday things can produce some interesting images.
Of course there are tons of different things that make up a good picture, but try to take time to study the images you like, and write some words that pop into your mind about why you like it. Soon you will find the similarities and patterns, and as you experiment with your photography, your mind will remind yourself about these "clues" to make a good picture. Your eye will start seeking and the checklist in your brain will be accepting and rejecting more on auto-pilot than you would think. This is when you have a "trained eye". Happy shooting!
Tuesday, May 18, 2004
Hobby or work?
I guess all of us sometimes face the choices of making our hobbies into a professional full time job. I did that with computers. Starting with the Commodore 64 back in the old days I ate basic for breakfast, assembly for lunch and later all kinds of programming languages for dinner. Now I am a full time software developer, and have been for the last 6 years. Suddenly I realized that I had lost my hobby. Getting back home after a full day on the office, doing mental work, solving all kinds of software problems, the temptation to sit in front of my computer was diminishing. Although I am still interested in the technology I dont find as much energy for it like I did before, and eventually realized that it was a good thing. Not only did I get more time for photography, but I also got a break from the computer. Then I went digital, and suddenly the computer was a necessary tool for my hobby. While some people do 90% of the imaging work on the computer, I hope that I can balance this by using more time on making the photo correct the first time off. But sometimes the technology opens new creative doorways that "you just have to try", and so you are stuck in front of the computer again. Its rather dangerous, and it can drain the energy from you faster than you know - especially when you also work with computers full time.
But the challenges has now entered a new dimension, and that is, I love photography so much that I can see myself doing it fulltime. Hey, but wait, wont I loose my hobby again? Yeah, and thats what bothers me. I do see photographers working fulltime that love their work, and that they can enjoy walking in the mountains shooting picturesque landscapes and come home and said they had a busy day in the "mountains". It sounds like a dream, but I guess its hard to live off photography alone, unless you are Ansel Adams. In any case it can easily become motivated by different aspects than the pleasure of photographying as a hobby. Well, there are those that seem to be able to combine both, professionals that produce images that just sell and sell. But there are also those that do both. A bit of Winnie the Pooh mentality. Why choose?
Recently the photography club that I am part of (Bergen Kameraklubb) had an exceptionally talented underwater photographer showing what he does. His name is Espen Rekdal and has documented new species as well as some classic shots with excellent composition lighting and colors. Well, it seems he is a teacher and photography is a hobby-parttime-work-business-thing. In any case the balance seems to work well and I guess having enough time for photography so that it truly becomes professional is the key to getting somewhere, and having a fulltime job that isnt quite as full. Maybe 3 days of work and 2 days of photography that can be combined with long weekends. Now that sounds like a compromise I like.
Well, enjoy some of Espen Rekdals images here:
http://www.espenrekdal.com
But the challenges has now entered a new dimension, and that is, I love photography so much that I can see myself doing it fulltime. Hey, but wait, wont I loose my hobby again? Yeah, and thats what bothers me. I do see photographers working fulltime that love their work, and that they can enjoy walking in the mountains shooting picturesque landscapes and come home and said they had a busy day in the "mountains". It sounds like a dream, but I guess its hard to live off photography alone, unless you are Ansel Adams. In any case it can easily become motivated by different aspects than the pleasure of photographying as a hobby. Well, there are those that seem to be able to combine both, professionals that produce images that just sell and sell. But there are also those that do both. A bit of Winnie the Pooh mentality. Why choose?
Recently the photography club that I am part of (Bergen Kameraklubb) had an exceptionally talented underwater photographer showing what he does. His name is Espen Rekdal and has documented new species as well as some classic shots with excellent composition lighting and colors. Well, it seems he is a teacher and photography is a hobby-parttime-work-business-thing. In any case the balance seems to work well and I guess having enough time for photography so that it truly becomes professional is the key to getting somewhere, and having a fulltime job that isnt quite as full. Maybe 3 days of work and 2 days of photography that can be combined with long weekends. Now that sounds like a compromise I like.
Well, enjoy some of Espen Rekdals images here:
http://www.espenrekdal.com
Monday, May 17, 2004
No I dont work for Canon
I am sorry if my articles seems to be ads for Canon equipment, but its just that I have settled down on only getting Canon gear. Why? Well because I feel more at ease that I get what I pay for. My experience so far is that it is worth the extra cost. I have seen too many Sigma lenses fail, Tamron glass that is terrible and one more plastic than the other. Do not get me wrong, Canon has some turkeys too, and the other brands also have some very good lenses. The Sigma EX series is pretty good from what I hear, the new Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro is very good.
So why Canon you might ask? Its because thats what I chose the first time on, and thats what I feel comfortable with. If you like Nikon you should stick to that. Mind you, the new D70 is a very nice starter SLR if you dont have one. I think its better than the Canon 300D in almost all aspects, but not quite the 10D. One thing I did love about the D70 was the short startup time. The 10D feels like an old hog compared to that. I am quite sure Canon will change that in future products. Also, the chances are that I will upgrade to other Canon SLRs, so the lenses will still be working fine on the new equipment. I really dont like the trend of "Digital lenses" which even Canon has made for the 300D. Digital lens for me means: "we dont have to make good glass in the edges anymore since the sensors are only using the center". That and the fact that the moment you upgrade your camera, your chances are that you have to get rid of your old lenses too, either they vignette a lot or they are useless in the borders, or they simply dont fit the new SLR. Also, the megapixels of today are better off getting a bigger chip than pushing more into the small sensors. Why? Because image quality suffers. Just look at todays 8 Mpix prosumer cameras and compare them with a 6 Mpix SLR. The 10D has an APS-C sized chip. The 1D Mark II a bit bigger, and if you look at the image quality of the Canon 1Ds pictures you will see what a full size 35mm sensor is able to produce. So do yourself a favour, stick to glass meant for the full 35mm and your gear will live longer (unless you start dropping it the concrete like I do).
A friend of mine has a Pentax ist, which is also a very nice digital SLR. Its small and lightweight if you dont like the typical lumpy SLR builds of Canon. I kind of prefer the weight and size of the 10D, I guess it grows on you. A heavy SLR is most likely to cause less camerashake if you still havent gotten that coffee yet. But my friend also mentioned something good about the Pentax, and that is that it is a pretty unknown brand, which again makes it less visible for thieves in the busy streets of some big city. Contrast this with Canon 10D which has a big strap saying "CANON DIGITAL", it might as well have said "HEY STEAL ME, I AM WORTH A BUNDLE". Well, you get what you like. I kinda like Canon, so thats what I stick with, and I guess if I talk gear here, it will be Canon gear unless I am awed by something another brand has made.
So why Canon you might ask? Its because thats what I chose the first time on, and thats what I feel comfortable with. If you like Nikon you should stick to that. Mind you, the new D70 is a very nice starter SLR if you dont have one. I think its better than the Canon 300D in almost all aspects, but not quite the 10D. One thing I did love about the D70 was the short startup time. The 10D feels like an old hog compared to that. I am quite sure Canon will change that in future products. Also, the chances are that I will upgrade to other Canon SLRs, so the lenses will still be working fine on the new equipment. I really dont like the trend of "Digital lenses" which even Canon has made for the 300D. Digital lens for me means: "we dont have to make good glass in the edges anymore since the sensors are only using the center". That and the fact that the moment you upgrade your camera, your chances are that you have to get rid of your old lenses too, either they vignette a lot or they are useless in the borders, or they simply dont fit the new SLR. Also, the megapixels of today are better off getting a bigger chip than pushing more into the small sensors. Why? Because image quality suffers. Just look at todays 8 Mpix prosumer cameras and compare them with a 6 Mpix SLR. The 10D has an APS-C sized chip. The 1D Mark II a bit bigger, and if you look at the image quality of the Canon 1Ds pictures you will see what a full size 35mm sensor is able to produce. So do yourself a favour, stick to glass meant for the full 35mm and your gear will live longer (unless you start dropping it the concrete like I do).
A friend of mine has a Pentax ist, which is also a very nice digital SLR. Its small and lightweight if you dont like the typical lumpy SLR builds of Canon. I kind of prefer the weight and size of the 10D, I guess it grows on you. A heavy SLR is most likely to cause less camerashake if you still havent gotten that coffee yet. But my friend also mentioned something good about the Pentax, and that is that it is a pretty unknown brand, which again makes it less visible for thieves in the busy streets of some big city. Contrast this with Canon 10D which has a big strap saying "CANON DIGITAL", it might as well have said "HEY STEAL ME, I AM WORTH A BUNDLE". Well, you get what you like. I kinda like Canon, so thats what I stick with, and I guess if I talk gear here, it will be Canon gear unless I am awed by something another brand has made.
Are your images stabilized?
Well, its 17th of may, Norways national day. Hurrah! Today there is going to be tons of people in the city today, but the weather seems a bit bleak for photography. Although I do like photographying in overcast days too, thats when closeups and macros are really nice. But for casual shooting nothing beats having an Image Stabilized lens around, or IS lens for short. Canon has a range of IS lenses now and it almost seems to be standard on the zooms and long primes now. I never thought I would be able to take photos hand held at 300mm or that is actually 480mm in 10D terms (due to the 1.6 crop factor). As you might know the golden rule is that you need a shutter speed of 1/mm so if your zoom is at 300 you need 1/300 or higher to avoid camera shake ruining your picture. Well, with IS lenses you can drop that by 2 stops, on some canon lenses they claim up to 3 stops. Actually if you shoot a series like 3-4 pictures your chances are that you will get sharp shots 4 stops below that "rule of thumb". So it is almost possible to shoot at 1/30 and still get sharp pictures. But remember that you are often shooting at the widest aperture of the lens, and unless you really need that small depth of field (DOF) you are wise to stop down to f8 or f11 which is often where the lenses perform the best. The Canon 75-300mm IS is very soft wide open at 300mm so I usually get better results by stopping down 2 stops to f8 and make sure that I am above 3 stops below the 1/mm golden rule. Although the IS is often said to be unecessary for zooms like the Canon 28-135mm IS, I think it gives the images that little extra edge, and that zoom is a great lens if you want to upgrade your zoom in the similar range. Canons 24-70mm L f2.8 does not have IS yet but maybe the next version will, so I am waiting some more to get that one. The 70-200mm L f2.8 IS is what I want now to replace my 75-300mm, and after using IS in that range I couldnt go for the non IS version of the 70-200mm.
Finally if you are shooting and want to avoid camera shake, nothing beats a tripod. In some cases, when you are faced with an incredible vista in front of you, you need to stop down to f22 to get everything sharp. From the little pebble in front of your camera to the snowdrift on top of that mountain in the background. I often shoot closer to the ground when I take wide angle shots to get that feeling of depth. You need a tripod in these cases, and although its a pain lugging that big piece of metal around, it will greatly increase the quality of your images. At least for sharpness, it wont do anything about your composition skills. :-)
Finally if you are shooting and want to avoid camera shake, nothing beats a tripod. In some cases, when you are faced with an incredible vista in front of you, you need to stop down to f22 to get everything sharp. From the little pebble in front of your camera to the snowdrift on top of that mountain in the background. I often shoot closer to the ground when I take wide angle shots to get that feeling of depth. You need a tripod in these cases, and although its a pain lugging that big piece of metal around, it will greatly increase the quality of your images. At least for sharpness, it wont do anything about your composition skills. :-)
Sunday, May 16, 2004
A good magazine
If you are looking for a good magazine on photography I would recommend Practical Photography, a UK magazine. It has a very varied collection of articles and good an funny writers. Try it.
The day I went digital...
...was a relief indeed. I have been shooting slide film for many years, preferrably Fuji Velvia on my EOS 50E. Being a system developer in my full time work and having computers as a hobby for more years than I have been photographing I saw the potential of digital imaging. And I dont only mean image manipulation, but more about tweaking colors and cropping to get that extra finish. Well, I realized I needed a slide scanner, and soon realized a good one would cost me $800 or so. I borrowed one from a friend and immediately felt that working on my pictures in a computer produced very satisfactory results. I just had to have a slide scanner. Well, some time earlier I had bought a small pocket digital camera, the Canon S40, which I used mostly for "holiday shots". Although it had all the manual operations available, it wasnt exactly an SLR. But I realized one thing, I could shoot for free! And I could shoot until I got it right. Moreover this little camera enabled me to experiment with my photos, especially long exposures where I could paint with light. So I got hooked, and thought, I need a digital SLR. Amazingly, Canon released the 10D and 300D just around then, and having Canon EOS lenses in my backpack I dropped the idea of the slide scanner and chose the Canon 10D SLR. Although quite expensive, the sum of pictures I have shot since then would have set me back at least the equal amount in slide film. And it has definitely got me some shots that I would never have gotten with the slide film. In tough light conditions when I dont have a tripod available, I often shoot a series of 3-4 pictures. The chance of one of them being sharp is greatly increased. I also experiment more, since its free, and I get the results instantly on my computer screen. The processing time from image shoot and working with them in the computer is also incredible low compared to all the fuzz with development and slide scanning. So, you might ask if I am satisfied with image quality, and I just have to say a definite yes to that. I am more likely to get better results in total from my Canon 10D than my film camera. The resolution is just enough to produce 300dpi A4 pictures, which will satisfy magazines or similar publications. Do I want higher resolution? Yes definitely. If I could have afforded it, the Canon 1D Mark II would have been in my backpack instead. I will say more later about the pros and cons of the Canon 10D. Until then, happy shooting and dont be afraid of going digital!
Filtering filters
The first thing budding amateur photographers did a while back, as did I, was to buy lots of filters that were used only once. Yes, there are so many special effect filters out there that are cool once, and then the coolness wears off. As most photographers will realize, there is only a handful of filters that are needed. This is further amplified by the digial era in which most special effect filters can easily be done in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro.
The only filters you do need are the following, a polarizer, some ND graduated filters and some pure ND filters. The polarizer is especially good for getting clear colors and a blue sky with well defined clouds. The greens in the foilage will jump at you if the sun is at 90 degrees angle to what you are shooting. Towards the sun or away from it, it wont do anything exept loose you a couple of stops. Yes, the polarizer blocks out a little over 2 stops so you might say it works like a 0.6 ND filter too. Except you might have to be carful so that you dont remove reflections you want in the picture. Overdoing the polarizer effect can also ruin some pictures.
The ND grads are very useful for balancing the exposure range of your image. As you might know the film, or digital sensor, can only record a certain range of light intensity. Thats why you curse and swear once you develop those pictures you took that looked awesome only to realize that the sky has been burned out or half the picture has turned black. Most amateurs seem to have a hard time getting past this, but when you do, your images will improve dramatically. How? Well, you start using graduated grey filters, or ND grads as they are called. Of course, shooting in a light range that the camera can record is also a good place to start. But sometimes you are faced with the most spectacular landscape with a low sun and details in the wet stones in front of you. Thats when you need a ND grad to make that bright sky and sun a couple of stops darker, 0.3 - 1 stop, 0.6 - 2 stops, 0.9 - 3 stops. Your images will improve drastically. Just look at the average Joe Cornish photo and you will see what I mean. Of course you still cant be sloppy about composition. Although, ND grads are nice, you can also easily do this effect digitally by combining two exposures that record each end of the light. This also requires you to have a tripod to frame exactly the same images, and in some cases you do not have this luxary, so ND grads should be in your backpack at all times.
Finally, a clean ND filter like the 0.9 can be very nice to have when you need to extend time in your exposures. This gray filter covers the whole image and a 0.9 filter will reduce the light with 3 stops, e.g. lowering your shutterspeed from 1/125 to 1/15. This is enough to make that water look foamy and nice, or lengthen that night shot even further.
So there it is, only 3 types of filters. Some of you might disagree. What about warmup filters, and filters for black and white? Well, I shoot digital so I can do all that in post processing later, and get exactly the results I want.
The only filters you do need are the following, a polarizer, some ND graduated filters and some pure ND filters. The polarizer is especially good for getting clear colors and a blue sky with well defined clouds. The greens in the foilage will jump at you if the sun is at 90 degrees angle to what you are shooting. Towards the sun or away from it, it wont do anything exept loose you a couple of stops. Yes, the polarizer blocks out a little over 2 stops so you might say it works like a 0.6 ND filter too. Except you might have to be carful so that you dont remove reflections you want in the picture. Overdoing the polarizer effect can also ruin some pictures.
The ND grads are very useful for balancing the exposure range of your image. As you might know the film, or digital sensor, can only record a certain range of light intensity. Thats why you curse and swear once you develop those pictures you took that looked awesome only to realize that the sky has been burned out or half the picture has turned black. Most amateurs seem to have a hard time getting past this, but when you do, your images will improve dramatically. How? Well, you start using graduated grey filters, or ND grads as they are called. Of course, shooting in a light range that the camera can record is also a good place to start. But sometimes you are faced with the most spectacular landscape with a low sun and details in the wet stones in front of you. Thats when you need a ND grad to make that bright sky and sun a couple of stops darker, 0.3 - 1 stop, 0.6 - 2 stops, 0.9 - 3 stops. Your images will improve drastically. Just look at the average Joe Cornish photo and you will see what I mean. Of course you still cant be sloppy about composition. Although, ND grads are nice, you can also easily do this effect digitally by combining two exposures that record each end of the light. This also requires you to have a tripod to frame exactly the same images, and in some cases you do not have this luxary, so ND grads should be in your backpack at all times.
Finally, a clean ND filter like the 0.9 can be very nice to have when you need to extend time in your exposures. This gray filter covers the whole image and a 0.9 filter will reduce the light with 3 stops, e.g. lowering your shutterspeed from 1/125 to 1/15. This is enough to make that water look foamy and nice, or lengthen that night shot even further.
So there it is, only 3 types of filters. Some of you might disagree. What about warmup filters, and filters for black and white? Well, I shoot digital so I can do all that in post processing later, and get exactly the results I want.
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Do not try this at home...
I recently had a little accident when I came home and picked up my bag in the backseat of my car. A little absent-minded I had forgotten to close my Lowepro Minitrekker bag properly and as I lifted it over my shoulder, my camera fell out into the backseat (puh!) but my Canon 28-135mm IS lens took a backflip and a triple half-twist before going PLONK in the concrete floor in the garage. It all felt like a long slow motion John Woo shot, it only missed the white pidgeons flying in. Well, as I picked it up, I saw the casing had gotten som scratches, but the glass was undamaged. What luck I though, until I heard some pieces inside make expensive noises. The barrel would not extend all the way and I knew it was going to cost. Fortunately my equipment is insured so I hope that I can get the repair cost back. Is it possible to install airbags into photoequipment? I dont think its going to get any cheaper as I change gear.
Stuff for sale
Well I am trying to sell some things now, a Canon 70-300mm IS lens, my ipaq, a Navman gps sleeve for it, and some other stuff. For my Norwegian readers you can find it at:
http://www.gibud.no
http://www.gibud.no
My next piece of gear
Well, who said photography was cheap? Although I never have to buy another roll of film and never fiddle with mounted slides again, the digital equipment itself cost quite a deal. And the moment you get picky about the quality of your images, thats when it becomes really expensive! Thats when you start drooling over Canon L lenses. After buying the Canon 17-40mm L f4 I started realizing what L glass is about. I recently decided to ditch most of my non L glass and start saving for better ones. Although prime lenses are the best, I wanted the flexibility of a zoom, so this is what I am saving for now:
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
This must be Canons best lens around if you believe what photographers are saying about it. They say its pretty sharp even wide open at both ends of the zoom. I guess I wont know until I have it in my hands. But at a price of $1600 its going to cost. And from what I hear its pretty heavy too, so maybe I need an extra arm installed. Now where did Zaphoid get that extra pair of hands installed? :-)
I usually find that I crave for those extra stops, something I know when I am using my Canon 100mm macro (which is being repaired now). The macro is also said to have L class quality glass. Being able to operate at f2.8 in the 70-200 range will be great! In 10D terms that means 112-320mm. And from what I hear its pretty good with the 2x extender, giving me an effective 640mm lens at f5.6. I guess that will do well until I win the lottery and can afford a 500mm prime from Canon.
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
This must be Canons best lens around if you believe what photographers are saying about it. They say its pretty sharp even wide open at both ends of the zoom. I guess I wont know until I have it in my hands. But at a price of $1600 its going to cost. And from what I hear its pretty heavy too, so maybe I need an extra arm installed. Now where did Zaphoid get that extra pair of hands installed? :-)
I usually find that I crave for those extra stops, something I know when I am using my Canon 100mm macro (which is being repaired now). The macro is also said to have L class quality glass. Being able to operate at f2.8 in the 70-200 range will be great! In 10D terms that means 112-320mm. And from what I hear its pretty good with the 2x extender, giving me an effective 640mm lens at f5.6. I guess that will do well until I win the lottery and can afford a 500mm prime from Canon.
My photography website
Please visit my photography website and tell me what you think about my pictures.
http://photo.lonningdal.net/
I am for the moment updating these webpages with a slightly different look and of course more pictures! Hope to have them operational over the weekend sometime.
http://photo.lonningdal.net/
I am for the moment updating these webpages with a slightly different look and of course more pictures! Hope to have them operational over the weekend sometime.
My brothers blog
My brother likes to dabble with all things technology. Read his blog at:
http://teckpuzzle.blogspot.com/
http://teckpuzzle.blogspot.com/
And so it began...
Hi, I am a guy from Norway who happens to like Photography. Been at it for almost 10 years now, from the day I borrowed my fathers old SLR with light meter and manual operation. Today I am using a Canon 10D for my photography and find it a very nice piece of equipment. Well, this is my blog and I will post ideas, rants, questions (for you and myself) and other news I find interesting. Happy reading!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
