Wow 4mb file size

[nzmacro]

Hi Danny, I was happy to see you here. Yeah, I am impressed with the Canon. I've been using it on the S5II. Not lightning quick focus but fast enough, it does struggle in low light to a point where it just won't lock on but given the light its awesome. When it nails focus its just as sharp as my PL200 f2.8 on a G9 and that ain't peanuts.

Randy (Ranlee on DPR)

Yes a lot of it comes down to cost and there is no way I afford the AF versions of what I use. I could afford the lenses, but I couldn't afford the divorce settlement that would follow So we do what we can and as you show there, there's nothing wrong with the IQ, simple fact. It always has been an excellent birding lens as well. The newer version even without OIS is still excellent and even newer Canon lenses of that focal length are excellent.

Ahhh, Ranlee now it makes sense and yes, nice to see you on here as well. Quite a few on here we both know, so not bad at all.

As I always say ........ All the best your way.

Danny.

 

[tbcass]

Guess I'll try this image thing. Picked up a Canon EF400 f5.6L (a 32 year old design) and used with adapter on L-Mount. Stuck with a backyard rabbit until spring arrives. A fairly heavy crop but looks ok to me. This is 1.8 MB. The lens is very sharp when you have the light.

View attachment 518

Yes, the lens looks good. It appears high ISO noise is more of a problem in this photo.

 

[Rane]

Yes, the lens looks good. It appears high ISO noise is more of a problem in this photo.

Yep, noisy and that's on me. I could have shot wide open at f5.6 instead of f8 and I also could have given it a stop more exposure and then darkened a bit in post. I don't always remember to check these things like I should. In fact I rarely remember.

 

[AlbertM43user]

We all have to make compromises in life. I think that is an easy one

Agreed if just posting a picture for appreciation. Basically there will be nothing to look at except the beauty of the scene, the composition, the brightness control or even the editing skill.

The issue would be on technical question, which I suppose could be the most useful place for a gear related forum to exist.

Whenever a question would be asked, e.g. why my shot is soft, why my output is dark, too wash, too noisy, burry... On DPR, the first recommendation would be "Please post a sample with full EXIF". From the sample image, we might guess where the problem would be and offer appropriate suggestion... Very often people might leave with happy result. As I was one of those happy beginners, I stayed there since then to learn and to help. If we would be limited to a small image, a lot of the original imperfectness would be hidden up. It would be hard to make meaningful judgement. Therefore whenever I would be on my phone, I would give a like to a beautiful looking image, but shall never offer any opinion on its technical aspect.

I wonder if this forum would be just a place for people who have interest in this hobby to hang around, to share their works, to explain why their owned gear great... it might eventually developed into a small community instead of attracting new comers, who normally look for answer of their questions and by a chance find and stop by this loving forum. If they can get nothing they won't stay long.

Could a similar approach of DPR be considered? When posting an image the embedded image would be compressed to a small size as it is now. But a link would be provided which allows interesting members to download the image in its original uploading size (of course, a limitation like not exceed 20Mb per image etc). This might not affect the brand width of normal forum activity but can allow members to download the full size image to examine the image when needed. My point is without a chance to examine the detail, it could cripple the good purpose of a gear related forum.

I noticed that this might be classified pixel peeking by some. But if we want to examine the technical aspect of a sample image it is the only way we can do.

My 2 cents.