Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Wildlife Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 23, 2004, 9:03 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

Normcar wrote:
Quote:
alady, you don't need any spares if you can get this with what you have. And I don't have that many lenses...

YET

ps - I sold my 70-200 IS to get the Mark II (and I'll never regret that purchase), and I won't have enough lenses until I get this one back, as well as perhaps a 400/5.6, or a 400/4 IS if I keep up my exercises, and perhaps a...

:G

MMMM, I find myself salivating over Canon lens sites on-line:-)I think I have a serious problem. I do intend getting some better lenses in the future but there are some that I know I just won't be able to afford (unless I win the lottery in which case I will get the latest and best camera I can find, a canon of course:-))

What I want to to know is, do USM lenses really take a better photo????


aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23, 2004, 11:18 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,748
Default

Quote:
do USM lenses really take a better photo????
I like the way you posed that question because it causes the answer to be simple...No, lenses don't take the photos, we do. Gotcha on that one.

My guess on that question would be that USM lenses are faster so they will focus on subject quicker, which, if used properly, will translate into a better photo. However, people have taken superb photos using manual lenses so how fast something focuses surely isn't a prerequisite to good photos. USM or EXusually indicates that a bit more attention has been put into the construction of the lens and, like anything else, more attention usually begets a better product in any area. I know one thing, if I had a choice between the same range USM lens and non-USM lens I'd choose USM. However, if I had a choice between a 75-300/4-5.6 USM and a manual focus 300/2.8 I'd probably choose the latter since quality of glass, speed,and construction is most important to me and to what my subject area is. There are more ways than one to focus successfully.

I'm sure I'll get some disagreement on this but that's okay, just my personal viewpoint is all :-)
Normcar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2004, 8:25 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

does anyone else have an opinion on the two kinds of lenses?????
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 26, 2004, 2:40 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Normcar is right. We take the picture, the camera and lens is a tool.

It's a question of what type of picture you want to take and if the tools you have are good enough for the job. Clearly they often are as you have taken some really nice pictures.

Birds are generally considered the hardest wildlife to photograph. Take that into consideration. I went insane trying to shoot a bird called a kinglet onces. The bird book refers to them as "hyperactive" and they certainly are. My 10D couldn't focus fast enough... and I almost went out and got a 1D MkII, until I concluded that it probably couldn't either. They are just really fast birds. (I have since gotten some stunning pictures of them... some times you get lucky and they sit there for 30 seconds.)

I generally agree with what Norm said. I would add that with his 1D MarkII, he has a better view finder than we do with our consumer grade cameras (sigh) so manual focus is easier for him. I find manual focus for anything but the largest fstop lenses is very hard.

There are ways you can help things out. Prefocus is the best. The story goes that some of the best street photographers who used rangefinder cameras would focus while they brought the camera to their eye. This saved time and allow them to do fine adjustments and take the picture. You could learn to do something similar. It won't be easy, but it is possible.

Another thing to consider is that you could sell your camera for the 20D. It might have a greater improvement on AF speed than a USM lens (but I'm not sure it would be cheaper... depends on the lens.)

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2004, 9:04 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

If I wanted to upgrade now, Hubby would need heart surgery again:lol:I am still paying off the rebel and the bigger lens and I am quite happy with it for now. I do want to get more lenses and the plan is to get a good few and maybe later upgrade to another canon camera that takes EF lenses (but that is a way off unless I win lottery).

Im happy to have got the few shots of the little birds that I have got, I never got near them with a G3. I just want to get them more clear and have more time to focus on the little blighter's:-)


aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 27, 2004, 9:11 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
aladyforty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,964
Default

digcamfan wrote:
Quote:
Wonderful capture, aladyforty

Especially nice is detail of ruffled feathers.

Your new avatar is especially intriguing! Is it a younger version of you? :-)

P.S. You have more motivation than me...my avatar remains boringly the same.

Kudos to you for keeping yours fresh!

digicam, I think the avatar you were talking about was this



and yes it is me aged five, was a black and white shot I restored and colored. As for my avatars, I get bored very quickly so thats why I change them so much:-)
aladyforty is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 4:51 PM.