TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Best slim camera in the WORLD?
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by kamil afaik, using a converter actually softens your photos a bit and you lose a couple f/stops.

Yeah, I'm aware of that. Just edited my post to include the point that it's got Image Stabilization, which will help things out with the tele-comverter.

quote:

Originally posted by Zewad does not sound very pocket friendly... i dont approve

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Yeah, I'm aware of that. Just edited my post to include the point that it's got Image Stabilization, which will help things out with the tele-comverter.

Wont improve image quality with a teleconverter. Might keep you from shaking a bit. You'd need like 1/500 to get an effective hand held picture. IS will give you about 3 stops "relief".

A 1.4x isn't going to give you that bad image quality, but a 2x will do some significance.

Also, better have a good body otherwise it's going to feel like crap. And get a grip for the body unless you have a 1D.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Time for a brief hijack. I think I'm going to buy a f/4 Canon L 300mm prime lens, and use it with a Canon L 1.4X tele-converter. This will effectively give me a 420mm prime lens (apparently, with no loss of image quality due to the tele-converter as well). I was looking at the Canon L 100-400mm, but I know that it gets a bit soft at full focal length, which is how I would be using it 90% of the time. Thoughts? Comments?

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...#ModelDetailAct

quote:

Originally posted by Zewad does not sound very pocket friendly... i dont approve

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Wont improve image quality with a teleconverter. Might keep you from shaking a bit. You'd need like 1/500 to get an effective hand held picture. IS will give you about 3 stops "relief". A 1.4x isn't going to give you that bad image quality, but a 2x will do some significance. Also, better have a good body otherwise it's going to feel like crap. And get a grip for the body unless you have a 1D.

I know the tele won't improve the quality, but I need the focal length - I'll mostly be doing bird photography. Definitely need at least 1/500 too, as those little bastards move damn fast.

Apparently, the 1.4x works exceptionally well with this lens, and I only lose 1 f-stop.

And I'm using a Canon 20D body.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...#ModelDetailAct

Can't afford it

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Can't afford it

perhaps an easyshare would be more to your liking, then, sir.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous perhaps an easyshare would be more to your liking, then, sir.

Nevar!

Unless you wanna give me a loan?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Nevar! Unless you wanna give me a loan?

for an easyshare?

I suppose I could spare a ha'penny or two.

quote:

Originally posted by inconspicuous for an easyshare? I suppose I could spare a ha'penny or two.

And for the 400mm prime?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk I know the tele won't improve the quality, but I need the focal length - I'll mostly be doing bird photography. Definitely need at least 1/500 too, as those little bastards move damn fast. Apparently, the 1.4x works exceptionally well with this lens, and I only lose 1 f-stop. And I'm using a Canon 20D body.

Good...20D is on par with the 1D Mark IIn for noise control. The 420mm with the 300 F4 (Going to be F5.6...I think?)

Get yourself a grip for the body if you don't have one. Should be good for bird photography.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk And for the 400mm prime?

I suppose I could spare a ha'penny or two.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Good...20D is on par with the 1D Mark IIn for noise control. The 420mm with the 300 F4 (Going to be F5.6...I think?) Get yourself a grip for the body if you don't have one. Should be good for bird photography.

Define grip?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Define grip?

BGE2 is the model name. Adds some nice balance and comfort to the camera.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes BGE2 is the model name. Adds some nice balance and comfort to the camera.

Oh yeah, cool. Well, my gf and I bought a second 20D last week (we need 2 cams, obviously, and we got rid of our 400D a couple of weeks ago) and this one has that exact grip/battery pack. The other lenses we have aren't heavy enough to require that kind of 'balance' so all is good.

Well, I bought it.



Canon f/4 300mm L Prime Lens

Should get it in about a week

I had a Nikon 300 F4 before I moved to Canon. Was the sharpest lens I'd ever used besides a 400 F2.8L IS

quote:

Originally posted by shapes I had a Nikon 300 F4 before I moved to Canon. Was the sharpest lens I'd ever used besides a 400 F2.8L IS

Haha, I'd love to get the f/2.8 of this, but damn, I just don't have $5,000 to spend.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Haha, I'd love to get the f/2.8 of this, but damn, I just don't have $5,000 to spend.

Used lens

My buddy has a 200 F1.8L and a 400 F2.8L IS and the entire range of L lenses downward :P. A lot of duplicates also.

quote:

Originally posted by shapes Used lens

Yeah, I bought this one used, from the US. Still expensive!

quote:

Originally posted by shapes My buddy has a 200 F1.8L and a 400 F2.8L IS and the entire range of L lenses downward :P. A lot of duplicates also.

So...What's his address?

Hmm since you guys are all into this kinda thing. is a Nikon D40 decent? I was erring towards the Pentax...something 100(K100?) but heard slightly better things about the D40. Even though it has less features (like no image stabilisation).

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Hmm since you guys are all into this kinda thing. is a Nikon D40 decent? I was erring towards the Pentax...something 100(K100?) but heard slightly better things about the D40. Even though it has less features (like no image stabilisation).

Not too sure, I've never had a Nikon before. What's your budget?

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk Not too sure, I've never had a Nikon before. What's your budget?

Well this is 22|22 hindsight I bought it. I got it for �270 or $540 (us) , $580 (Oz Money).

Actually why do you use $ in Oz? Surely it should be Oz �?

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish Well this is 22|22 hindsight I bought it. I got it for �270 or $540 (us) , $580 (Oz Money). Actually why do you use $ in Oz? Surely it should be Oz �?

Ah, I see. Well, I'm sure it's not a shit camera. I think that lenses make more difference personally (along with photographic ability/composition lol). What it comes down to is whether it will do the stuff you want it to.

And we ditched the pound a long time ago The queen'll be next!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.