[John Bennett]

Dusty.
ACR or Adobe Camera Raw is Adobe’s raw converter and it comes with Lightroom, CS3, and Elements. With CS3 theres are a few features in ACR ( just as like PS)

[John Bennett]

yeah, some birds you just don’t want to PO.
The girl I go out with, her Red Tail named “appache” Id not want ripping half my face off.

and 222 lbs – and an ex-rugby player.   LOL

Well Im not 200 (yet anyways), and back when I was younger and fitter I might have pushed 150. Might explain why I was a hooker.

[John Bennett]

According to Canon they’ve done something called “gapless” photosites on the new 50D that has allowed them to not only increase MP from 10 to 15, they claim theyve improved high ISO performance by 1 to 1.5 stops.

A poster on another board recently put up some night softball shots he did with the Nikon D700. He showed shots at ISO 1600, 4000, 5000, 6400 and 12800.Un Fing real is all I can say. Its not until ISO 5000 that noise is really apparent. His ISO 4000 shot is clean as a whistle.

[John Bennett]

I love that Sony and others are coming out. While its going to be tough “stealing” customers due to the cost of switching systems and people who already own Nikon/Canon having too much invested in glass and accessories. Hopefully they can put some pressure on them to develop, maybe lower prices etc.

Competition is good for us.

[John Bennett]

Just once?
ok, here ya go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAsXtDKdU0Q

I could be wrongabout Norway…pretty sure they do it up that way though.

[John Bennett]

Welcome back 🙂

Sweet images Kendal. What I wouldn’t give to go Norway where they use Eagles to hunt Whitetails and Wolves. What a photo/fishing adventure that would be. Another month and change and I should be getting back out with the Falconeers up again.

J

[John Bennett]

MFD on the 85 f1.8 is about 2 feet. I think its 26 inches. With 12mm in tubes is about a maybe 16inces. Ive shown this before but its one of my favorie images.

As you can see, the effective DoF at MFD is razor thin and I love the “gag” Bokeh. Slap a Tube (maybe 26mm) on the 200 and you’d get some wicked dof/bokeh. Im not much of a flower shooter but what little experimentation Ive done its good and maybe better than my 180mm f3.5 for “larger” macro subjects..flowers, dragon flies, maybe frongs and the like where you want a bit more DoF anyways and where 1:1 would be too much. according to the lens its 1:1.8.

With 66mm in tubes it would be darn close to 1:1 at f1.8.
ouch 🙂

[John Bennett]

Absolutely love the earth tones in that last David. Hope thats on a wall.

I like the 85 f.18. Use it for family shots, indoor sports and have experimented a tiny bit with it for Flowers and using 12mm tube. Bet you could do some wicked razor thin dof , creamy backgound stuff with the 200 d2.0 and a tube.

J

[John Bennett]

Mentioned in the other thread and also here.
http://www.itinerantangler.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?num=1215913366/14#14

Is Think Tanks Belt/Harness system. Since then I’ve been looking really hard at the system. Brian, if you check Think Tanks accesories they actually offer a Camera holder that connects to their shoulder harness such that the body can be carried much as you have it.

I’ve pretty much decided to use both a heavy back pack (Lowepro Vertex) for capacity and then Think Tanks modular system customised to fit my needs.

Scroll down for belts, harness, accessories
http://www.thinktankphoto.com/ttp_products.html

[John Bennett]

Sweet David.
Grats on the new lens. Now I can live vicariously through you and a friend who picked up their new 800 f5.6..

The 85mm 1.8 is a great portrait lens on 1.3 bodies but it’s not going to get the same compression, although their DoF should be similiar when each is wide open. I’ve looked at the 85mm 1.2 L but couldn’t possibly justify it unless fashion or wedding photogrpahy were my source of living. Not when the f1.8 stands in well for the journeyman. Anyone I know who has or had the 135 f2.0 L has done nothing but rave about it. I think if I did more indoor sports like Volleyball, gymnastics where 200mm can be to much, that would be my lens of choice.

I’m with you on preferring fast primes over zooms. The 24-70 f2.8 is my workhorse now and while I’m still thinking hard about a 70-200 ( F2.8 or f4 IS or non IS), it and they will be my only zooms. Thinking I really want a 70-200 for the hunting stuff I’m about to embark on. Having said that, a second body with the older

[John Bennett]

I wonder what the insurance premiums are 🙂

Reminds me of the guy who set up 3 Canon MKIIIs, each with what I think were 500 f4s on while Barry Bonds was chasing the record. Then he’d synch them such that they’d fire in alternating sequence at their 10 fps, or more specifically recording 1 frame every 0.033/sec.

Assuming they were 500 f4s that represents about 40 to 45g worth of gear

Short vid here

Canon EOS 1D Mark III Reviews and Resources

[John Bennett]

Short answer:
I don’t think theres 1 solition. Atleast I haven’t found any 1 solution that meets my desires. The problem seems to stem at a crossroads of manufactorers. Photography manufactors don’t seem to have “fishing” enthusiest in mind and fishing manufactorers dont have “photography” in mind.

This thread delves into it a bit as well.
http://www.itinerantangler.com/cgi-bin/board/YaBB.pl?num=1215913366/14#14

Pure WP packs, bags etc all have their downsides.
Good Camera packs/cases likewise have their downsides.

Be carefull of going the zip lock route. One word…condensation if it gets wet/moist.

[John Bennett]

Capital markets.
Small firm so I wear alot of hats. Primarily I run a structured products(derivatives) “book” which entails managing the firms risk. In other words it’s my job in part to ensure nothing blows up and we don’t end up being yet another “hedge fund” that makes the news… Other things include money market, equity and yield arb trading.

J

[John Bennett]

I actually meant to do a small field test this evening with my 77mm and 62mm and post them. Don’t have any emperical data but I do recall reading all kinds of threads that dealt with similiar lenses but with some being brighter.

Classic example is the 100-400 L and 400mm. Both 77mm, both 5.6 @ 400. I read alot of stuff about the prime being sightly brighter. Not sure if it make a whole lot of difference in your exposure value (mabe its less than 1/3rd brighter).

Also with macros they are always f2.8 at 150mm or less and 3.5 at 180mm and 72mm at 150mm+. Again, its always said that they are “brighter” although that may pertain to whats seen through the viewfinder.

Again I don’t have first hand expereince but also from reading and talking to guys who do own 300 f2.8s and 500 F4s (82mm) they often comment on gaining about 1/3 stop in ISO performance. More light>less nosie.

Hows that for heresay
🙂

I’ll see if I can do a quick and dirty with a 58mm or 62mm vs a 77mm tomorrow. Must admit Im curious

[John Bennett]

Mostly being lazy 🙂
Had close to 1,000 frames to weed through and I wanted to get 100 online on my site and theirs by yesterday afternoon (less than 12hr turn around). Mostly so the organsiers and those particpating could see and enjoy them while the memory of the Classic was fresh.

Now that thats done I’ll do another weed and some more corrections on some of the better images.

Thanks though, now I’ll watch for it 🙂
J

[John Bennett]

Some really nice shots Lee.
Like David I really like #3 and also like David for future reference, Id suggest to keep an eye out for are blown highlights. Just a small thing here in a couple

J

[John Bennett]

MIke.
I for one am uncomfortable recomending anything. I can tell you what Id do but a) our situation are different and b) it your $ money, not mine and a switch like represents alot.

The 1 thing I will say is that in a number of ways the 40/50D is sort of 6 of one, half dozen of another. Yes there are some nice advancements in the 50D but nothing Id call earth shattering. Meaning if I had a 40D Id not run out and upgrade to the 50. Plus with the 50D coming out the price of the 40D can be expected to drop, wich ultimately mean its even more value for the buck than it already is. The 40D is alot of camera for its retail price.

As for lenses, you could look at.
Macro
The canon 100 f2.8, the 60mm ( EF-S) or the Sigma 105 f.28. The Sigmas a great macro for almost half the price of the Canon 100 f2.8.

Wide angle. Alot depends on budget. Nice WAs that dont cost an arm and a leg relatively speaking
17-40 F4 L
17-85 IS ( EF-S)
Tammy 18-50 f2.8 ( I tinhk it is)
There theres the 24-70 f2.8 L, 24-105 f4 L

Fast Primes without breaking the bank
50mm 1.4 and 85mm f1.8

Good Flash under 400.
430 ex??
Sigma super dg 500

Mid range
70-200 F4 L
70-200 F4 L IS
70-200 f2.8 L
70-200 f2.8 l IS
Each IS version cost about 800.00 more than the repective non IS.
Sigma also makes a nice 70-200 f2.8

As for your body, again its a tough one not sure what to tell you there. If you do swicth bands there are lots and lots of lens choices. Thats one advantage of going Canon/Nikon.

[John Bennett]

Nice John.

As for advice :), lol still trying to figure out how to cover it myself. Doing field trials in two weeks, and other than some pre concieved “images”, I suspect a fair bit will be by the seat of my pants.

For shooting birds the best advice I can give you is practise alot on seagulls. Bigger birds tend to be slower and easier to start with nor are they as erratic. Birds that zig, zag and jig alot will just lead to alot of deletions.

J

[John Bennett]

Doubt it but I guess it depends on just how much of a difference there is in the bare lenses. 2x TCs while providing doubling reach, do so at a heavy price.

You want to remember that TCs reduce the light thats getting through, typcially by 1 stop for 1.4 TCs and 2 stops for 2X TCs. Secondly your adding another layer of glass. No matter how good the lens and no matter how good the TC. The IQ takes a hit. Third. Your AF speed is going to be gutted. Lastly due to the complexity zoom lenses rarely take TCs well. So while a 200 f2.8 prime with a 2x TC might fare ok, I dont know about a 70-200mm f2.8.

If your retailer carries the Sig 70-200 f2.8 go and ask to take some test shots with it and a TC.

[John Bennett]

I like it as is.
If you wanted to see a slightly different look I might add a little light coming in from the right, maybe from above. Possibly moving the fly a bit closer so it fills a little more of the frame.

J

[Author]

Posts