Ripley

Same here, tailwag. When I first got my first DSLR 2 years ago I had no idea how to use it and even less idea about taking a photo, and so left it on Auto mode. Only over the past year or so I read mags and discovered what all those letters on the dial did. As I gained more knowledge, I sold the 350D and its twin kit lenses (my husband was not amused at first as he bought it!) and purchased a 30D (from the US when the dollar was higher this year). I now have a Canon f/4 L 70-200mm, a Sigma 17-70mm as my general 'walkabout' landscape lens and the fixed 50mm 1.8. Accessory wise I have a polariser, 2 stop ND filter and a 0.6 ND Grad filter with holder. That's my kit and I'm set for what I want it for. Down the track I will buy a longer telephoto (have my eye on a Sigma 150-400 with IS in it) but not until mid next year I'd say. Just buy what you think you will use and not what some sales guy tries to flog you in a shop. After thinking long and hard about it, I can't justify the expense of the Sigma 150-400 as I won't get the use out of it. I can wait. :rolleyes:

Not at all. I'd get the one chezzyr mentions (the Canon 70-300 IS). I've recommended this lens to monelite too. Ruthless has it and so do a few other DOLers. Unless I wanted to shoot professionally, I wouldn't spend $2.5k on one lens. Can't justify it personally. If you want to take nice dog images, that Canon lens above should do just fine. I do have the 70-200mm L f/4 without the IS facility on it, but I got my boss to get it for me when he went to the US earlier this year and when the dollar was up around the 90 cent mark (ah, remember those times?) so I only paid AUD$650 for it, plus $AUD50 for a 3 year int'l warranty. Good grief, that was a bargain. ETA: Here is a photo taken of a wild lorikeet with the lens above, hand holding (wish I did have a lens with IS with it, but I don't so have to try and make do). This shot needs a good crop when I get around to it. I noticed ruthless posted up some lovely bird shots taken with the 70-300mm the other day you might like to check out too.

I'm amazed at how just changing the white balance on a raw shot, alters the 'mood' completely. BTW, I was looking at out agapanthas out the front today, wondered if I should get out the camera to capture them in the early evening light and then thought I couldn't be bothered. Your shot has inspired me to make an effort and capture them. Subtle variations just by chancing the white balance and a tweak of exposure or curves (can't remember) AUTO white balance Cloudy white balance

I'm sticking with my 30D and just buying good lenses when I can afford to. I'd rather spend the money on a lens and find the 30D is a perfect camera for my needs.

I use mine on a Canon 30D. I have here (in a magazine I'm reading) of the f/4 non IS 70-200 lens. It says, "If you can live without the wider aperture and image stabiliser that its 2.8 and 2.8 IS siblings provide, the 70-200mm L is a great chocie that comes with the added advantages of being lighter and delivering much the same image quality as its big brothers for a lot less cash." I also have a Canon 1.4 L teleconverter that makes my lens a 280mm when affixed. I haven't used it yet as when affixed to the 70-200 it makes the lens quite heavy and I need to put it on a monopod, so I need the tripod collar ring which doesn't come with the lens.

There is a tiny bit of bread I can see on her beak. Must clone it out now I see it. edited to correct "he" to a "she" as I'm sure she was a little girl - had a female personality.

Found one more on my 'puter taken with this lens. I have had it out recently - took this 3 weeks ago when we went to check out camping spots.

I wish the lens wasn't white! I have the above L lens too. Like you, I couldn't afford the one with IS (I couldn't justify the expense as I only use my lens for travel and weekends if we are going somewhere scenic). I haven't picked it up and used it for 2 months. Some shots - this was taken in drizzle, hand holding the lens. I've put up these before in a thread but they are the photos taken with it which I have access to atm. Shutter speed 1/200 @ f/4, focal length 200mm. This bird is wild - he is a male chaffinch Barn owl - taken at a bird of prey hospital. Hand held, bleak day. I remember I was struggling to keep totally still as I didn't have a tripod and it was quite windy. There is a review of this lens in a photo mag I have and they can't fault it. They do note that it is expensive though, so it loses points for that.

,

Yes because the Canon 50D is the latest model Canon and they are flogging it like mad for Christmas. I am getting to dislike camera sales guys, I get treated like the little woman when I go into a shop and when I question what they are telling me re lenses I get the same well rehearsed crap from them. No wonder people buy on line. I'm sure you can get a good price on a 400D body now and then you can spend the money on some good quality lenses. The 400D is an excellent entry level camera IMO.

I missed a shot of a squirrel in London because even my L lens couldn't focus in the low early evening light as it's only an f/4. So I had to switch to manual and increase the ISO which is always a bit dodge for me due to my eyesight!

Hi Sezy - I had the same kit lens too when I had the 350D (I sold it with my 350D to buy a 30D). After research and chatting to another DOLer who has the lens I was considering, and finding out it was within the price range, I bought the Sigma 17-70mm as my general purpose lens. It's faster than the kit lens and good for general travelling about. For a travel lens, I'd highly recommend it. I took all my landscape shots overseas with that lens recently. It's a sturdier build too, you will notice the difference in quality. With Christmas approaching, you could do what I did last year perhaps and ask your OH to buy it for you for Christmas? I think OH paid around $450 for it. Here are some shots taken with the Sigma 17-70mm recently (all on the Isle of Mull, Scotland, as it's the only photo group I've sorted through so far) of different things so you can see how wide it goes. I found the colour far richer than the kit lens and the sharpness so much better too. (Hand holding all shots) For building shots @ f/13 @ 17mm For animals shots This is as wide as it goes - at 17mm. I'd love a wider lens but this will do. ETA: I did have a polariser affixed to the lens for the first 2 shots above to intensify the sky but the bottom 2 shots, no polariser attached.

Yes, but your Rex will look at me. He would have made a great model. ETA: He's not really looking AT me though, he was distracted by someone

I use a bellow thing for cleaning my sensor (just a poof of air usually does it) and special lens cleaning cloths (bought in a small packet) to clean my lenses. You can get the Arctic butterfly professional camera cleaning appliance (it looks like something a woman might own for an um, different personal use) to properly clean your sensor. Has a spinning head on it. ETA: for cleaning not the lenses but inside your camera, Arctic butterfly

I've got a 'Hitech' ND grad filter. It's better than a Cokin as it doesn't give you a purple colour cast. Bought it from B&H when the AUD was stronger but was still under $100. It's supposed to be a pretty good brand too. Cokin are crap (I also have a Cokin which I now never use). I thought Lee are the best - but they are also the most expensive.

All this dropping of lenses, when I was photographing a waterfall on a hike last month, after setting up the tripod I managed to drop the UV filter while replacing it with the ND filter and then it was still too bright to get a slow enough shutter speed to blur the water so I then tried to screw in the polariser and managed to drop that too. Fortunately on soft grass. Thank goodness I bought some lens cleaning cloths from Jessops (UK chain of camera stores) whilst on hols or I'd be in strife. I'm quite clumsy with my long fingers and all.

Read the review of it on FredandMiranda on that linky. Lots of people are waxing poetically about it.

Here is a review of your 70-300 IS lens (linky below). I was considering the lens you have as my Canon 70-200 doesn't have IS and I also need a bit more reach, but I'm probably going to buy a Sigma 150-400mm with IS instead. Just so I can photograph the wittle birdies I see on hikes. 200mm is not close enough to photograph a shy gang gang (saw one last weekend on a walk). http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showpro...t=27&page=3 It gets very good reviews for its price. Maybe we can meet up when we aren't busy and I can loan you my "f_ off" lens (as OH calls it) and you can practise with that as it doesn't have IS.

Everyone is different, this is what I do so just some suggestions: Check your histogram on the back of your camera after you take a shot - this will give you a good indication of how your exposure is. Lighting plays a huge part in how a photograph will look. I (almost!) always use a filter to protect my lens. Especially if I was on a beach where sand can scratch the front of an expensive lens if the wind was to whip up a few grains. I have a good quality UV protection filter (I think it's good quality, was almost $100?). The only time my filter comes off is if I'm adding a polariser or ND filter. I took shots with my 70-200 with UV filter and without and I honestly couldn't tell the difference but OH calls my 70-200 lens my "f_ off" lens as he said that is what it looks like - men! I haven't noticed any softness at the 200mm end of my lens but I'd be peeved if I did, considering what it is. I tend to shoot dogs running in TV mode and then check the exposure. If I'm not happy, then I start fiddling with apertures and adjusting ISO, but I hardly ever go above ISO 400. I shoot in RAW as it's easier (and a RAW file you can slightly adjust the exposure if you stuff it up) and I never have to then bother to go into PS. I hate image editing. edited to clarify something and Polarisers are fantastic for saturating colour and cutting through glare but they will slow down your shutter speed as you lose 2 stops of light. I only use polarisers for some landscape photos or waterfall shots

Nice pics everyone. Love the wheel shot, chezzyr. I used my cheap 50mm 1.8 for my shots as we were in a hurry. Light wasn't great, being after 6pm on a cloudy day and all but it's a fast enough lens. Was a challenge getting the angles with no zoom.

Out the front of our house this weekend Just wish she was our's instead of just for the weekend!

This couple who share an office suite with my husband (it's one of those shared office suites) own a car hire business along with another separate business. They own a Ferrari, an Aston Martin and a brand new BWM roadster sportscar that we have on loan from them all weekend! I'm too scared to drive it. OH has it out this morning while I slept in, meeting his sister and her husband for brekkie so he can show off. Then we are using it all weekeend - very nice of them to let us have it for free this weekend. The wife wants me to take some photos of the cars and I didn't want myself to show up in the chrome. The BMW is white, the Ferrari is red and the Aston is silver.

found my answer

Sure, when I get home, at work on an early lunchbreak atm!

I've blended 2 raw shots on a landscape image before (it's not hard) when I've had a washed out sky. Then you just erase part of it to expose the underlying image. However, now I just use a 2 stop ND grad filter on my camera so I don't have to bother fiddling around in PS as I hate it and don't have the time. I prefer to get it right in camera. Saves time later and I like the effect a real filter produces more than exposing for 2 separate raw images and erasing back the sky.