Wow, I thought this site was about taking pictures!
I too am a relatively new member and I agree there is way too much sometimes nasty remarks made. Especially by some, not all, Nikon owners toward us Canon owners.
This seems like it has become a social media site instead of good information exchange. There are some that are too quick to criticizes or make fun of others.
Not that I think anybody will care, I too will be leaving if the nastiness continues.
Take a look at any professional sporting event and tell me what cameras do you see? The big gray Canon lens and cameras.
Enough said!
Boy, am I glad this is such a friendly place. Although I am glad one of you knows the difference between the two. Give me the correct information every time.
Can't go wrong with Carbonite. It will take a while initially to back up but then it works in the backyard. You can even subscribe to have them send the backup to you on an external hard drive.
Yes, they can download Presenter then you can email them the show.
Presenter is a separate program so you need to send it and the slideshow.
When they open Presenter it will install itself. Then when they click on the show Presenter will open and run the show.
You (they) can download Proshow Presenter which will allow them to view the slideshows. This is a no charge, small download. It gives all the high defination you lose with U-Tube.
Does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the variable ND filter?
It seems to me this would be a great benifit by being able to dial in the exact amont needed and elimenate the need to stack multiple filters.
On the other hand, with fixed filters you know exactly how much light the reduction factor is.
Primes do have there place but try to shoot fast moving sports or wildlife on the run and see which works best.
I do not consider myself a "lazy" photographer because I use zooms.
Anyway, in the end it is what works for each of us so "to each his own" as the saying goes.
I have said my piece, I am done.
Surley you have to agree a zoom is more versital than a prime. Don't get me wrong, primes are worth the money if you need what they offer, but money is an issue for most of us and for my money the zoom is a better value all the way around. Unless there is a specific need for a specific characteristic of a prime, ie very low apature value, fish-eye, macro, shallow DOF or such, I would rather haul around one zoom instead of 2-3 primes.
Using friend's primes and my zooms, I have taken a lot of comparison shots of the same subject then printed at 24x36. I cannot see a difference and I would be willing to bet money most people would not be able to either.
Unless you blow-up to great detail or look with a magnifier, there is no difference in the quality of the print between a prime or zoom.
For most of us the advantage you get by having the flexability of a zoom far outweighs any benifit you may get with a possible increase in sharpness with a prime. True, you can't get a 1.4 zoom but a 2.8 will get what you want most of the time. I am not saying primes are bad or not worth the money, but with the cost of the L-series lens you get more bang-for-the buck with a L-zoom than a L-prime.
Anyone have any thoughts on the benifits of either the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM or the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM? I am new to macro and it seems that the extra working distance of the 180 would be a benefit.
I have a Canon EOS 50D. Most of my experience is with sports and wildlife along with family pictures. I shoot a lot of birds and other wildlife with the 100-400L zoom and professional hockey with the 70-200 2.8L zoom. My favorite is the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM.
Now I want to get into closeups of flowers and bugs. Anyone have any thoughts of pros and cons of each lens? The cost difference is not an issue.