Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: BigBear
Page: <<prev 1 ... 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 next>>
Jan 21, 2012 09:58:53   #
It seems to me when Nikon people talk their words don't match anything that's in my Canon mind. So mostly I don't have a clue as to what they are saying. hehehehe
Go to
Jan 21, 2012 09:40:53   #
I have an Airport with a 2TB drive to back up to and a tower with raided drives just for my pics.
Go to
Jan 21, 2012 09:36:17   #
Wanda Krack wrote:
It occurs to me that we spend LOTS of $$ on our camera purchases, and why isn't there a company out there that will create a camera to order, like the car companies do. For instance, we each have little things about cameras that we like, such as a tilt/swivel screen, and a self-cleaning sensor, and buttons in easy to use spots, or a large review screen, etc. It just seems that all the possible changeable items about a camera should be available for folks who would like them on their camera, regardless of the brand. Anyone else have this thought? Is this even a reasonable thing to consider?
It occurs to me that we spend LOTS of $$ on our ca... (show quote)



You just described a Canon 60D. :thumbup:
Go to
Jan 21, 2012 09:25:37   #
The only cons I have with the 100-400 is the slide zoom is awkward and putting an extender on it loses AF. Other than that it's a super lens and my wife adores it.

Sometimes I can't get it back ...... :P


Bear
Go to
Jan 20, 2012 21:24:24   #
Nikonian72 wrote:
And I thought this was going to be about 4-wheelin' in the nude!

What a gyp!


I'm with you ..... What a let down! :lol:

I always shoot RAW when I want quality.
Go to
Jan 20, 2012 19:13:49   #
Canon's native ISO is 200. I keep it there as long as I can get the right exposure. If necessary I will go up no higher than 800 because the noise can be really bad.
Go to
Jan 20, 2012 18:47:49   #
I recommend a Canon 50D because Canon is all I know and will do anything you would ever want, except make coffee. :thumbup:
Go to
Jan 20, 2012 18:36:57   #
BuckeyeBilly wrote:
Roger,
Thank you so much for taking the time to show others how flawed your own thinking is---because YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED! This question was not an historical one, as you're trying to make it out to be. The BIG 4 that I listed, Sony, Pentax, Nikon, and Canon are how we know the companies TODAY. And based upon that, I was asking for who had the better name BASED SOLELY UPON the definition of the name they have now (I even asked people to NOT vote because of brand loyalty--remember that?). I gave the definitions for each of these companies based upon a simple search for the names. The first three company names are a combination of two or more names or thoughts. Canon is the only name of the 4 that has a multi-century historical definition in the dictionary. Canon is usually ascribed for the process of determining the authority and originality of the books of the Bible. And "canon" most definitely is a Greek word. If you had bothered to read the entire history of the Canon company, you would have discovered that even they eventually adopted the Romanized spelling (which included the entire Mediterranean area, including Greece) and changed it to Kannon, then Canon. But, again, this was not a history assignment. It was merely an attempt to show exactly what is in a name, as the title of this post clearly indicated. I applaud you for letting us know the beginnings of the company we know today as Canon but you went down a road that we shouldn't have had to go on.
Roger, br Thank you so much for taking the time to... (show quote)


Why are people in this forum quick snap to attack mode when someone makes a comment that doesn't quite fit their criteria of topic??
Go to
Jan 20, 2012 18:15:39   #
I had my canon 300 2.8 years before I got my 70-200 2.8 and did well with it. So I would have to stick with the 300 if that's all I could keep. At family picnics I can get a lot of great shots without being detected. hehehehe
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 20:21:39   #
When I'm out in the field doing serious shooting I carry 2 rigs. One with a 300 2.8 and the other with 70-200 2.8. I find sometimes my subjects are just too close for the 300 and switch quickly to the other.

Bear
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 19:13:48   #
I own the lens and know exactly what it will and won't do and stated so. You can choose what you want to believe.
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 19:03:39   #
heltonjkv96 wrote:
RMM wrote:
heltonjkv96 wrote:
I don't think you know what you are talking about...! I shoot on f/11 all the time..!

You may be right, but in that case, what does it mean when it says "f/4.5-5.6" in the description of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens? I looked at the manual for the lens, and I didn't see any adjustment ring for the aperture.


I'm not sure what you mean adjustment ring for aperture.
That lens at 100mm max aperture is f/4.5 minimum aperture is f/32,,at 400mm max ap. is 5.6 and min. ap. is f/40...If you shoot on 400mm and shoot a minimum aperture of f/11 or up to f/40 you will have more in focus..
quote=RMM quote=heltonjkv96 I don't think you kn... (show quote)


If your lens is a 2.8 you can do that. However, her lens is not and won't go above 4.5 or below 5.6.
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 19:01:00   #
The DOF for this lens is very shallow. Unless your subjects are very close together you won't get them equally sharp.
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 18:56:59   #
At 100mm the max aperture is 4.0. At 400mm the min aperture is 5.6.

You can try putting an extender on it for another stop or 2 but you lose AF.
Go to
Jan 19, 2012 18:43:58   #
I have a 100-400 f4-5.6. I don't like it as well as my other 2.8 lenses because the min aperture is 5.6 at 400mm and will never go smaller than that.
The two subjects in the picture are just too far apart for this lens to handle both at once.

Bear
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.