last photographying post (for now, i promise)

[focalintent]

Of course, no discussion of what lenses i'm looking at would be complete without the "If money were no object" lens:



The Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. Canon L quality glass (and there is a noticeable difference there!), Image stabalization, and look at that range - 100-400mm! (Alas, i'm not using an aps-c camera anymore, or I'd get 160-640mm effective range out of it).

Of course, that would leave me hanging in the 70-100mm range.

This is a horrible, horrible addiction....

Comments

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

I swear, I don't speak Camera, so I see these posts and think of this one.  :)

[sol3.livejournal.com]

For what he's measuring in that article, he's completely right : )

Even doubly so because when it comes to photographic quality you can get around most camera body limitations but if the lens is bad/distorts/doesn't focus well/etc... you're screwed : )

Mostly - i'm thinking out loud to find a good balance between price, focal length (so that I can take pictures of, say, surfers, and not have them look like lego-men), and quality (so that i don't end up with pictures of very large, distorted lego men : ).

I'm also starting to cross the threshold between random guy with a nice camera to semi-professional photographer (with an eye towards getting rid of that 'semi' up there : ) - so these things start to matter more to me.

It is funny to see the things people go ga ga over. Focusing on things like how many megapixels a camera has (and ignoring the fact that often times, a lower megapixel count camera will take -higher-quality- images than a higher megapixel count camera with the same sensor size : ) or random crap like that is ... just silly. (Though, even then - stock photography sites are setting fairly high minimum megapixel counts for submitted images, so that's one place where having more becomes something of a need).

Anyway - it's far too easy to get me rambling on this stuff, i should stop now : )

[the-xtina.livejournal.com]

That's why I prefaced with "I don't speak Camera", because gah!  It's all digits to me.  :)

very large, distorted lego men

*chokes on coffee*

As for rambling, no worries.  You should hear me with yarn!  "I found this one sweater that had perfect seams, but it was an acrylic/nylon/wool blend, and that's just booty because who wants that, plus the WPI would be way too small to waste my time on..."  Lordy!

[tk7602.livejournal.com]

when i got my rebel, i had an offer to get one of those for $1000. unfortunately that was about $700 more than my lens budget at the time, so i had to decline :(

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

With the cost of good long glass being what it is, it almost makes more sense to get an aps-c body with good "less long" glass. As a bonus you get a backup body, for not much more money.

[sol3.livejournal.com]

In that case I may as well just crop - since that's effectively what's happening anyway.

Hmmm - i'm actually curious what effective megapixel the 5d's 13MP image cropped down to aps-c size gives me.

I do need to consider a backup body soon - i've got a d30 at the moment - but when i'm out shooting with the 5d in situations where i'd need/want a backup body the punt from 13mp back down to 3 is a bit harsh (plus, the folks that I do some of my shooting for don't want anything less than 6-8).

[sensesurfer.livejournal.com]

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/dslrsensors/dslrsensors.htm