it is I, me and myself3 are a crowd
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
i'll trade my soul for it.The problem with this is what are you going to do when ... 3DMkII is introduced
In that case she must have really wondered why the battery has charged in no time at allWow! It's now official! Enjoy with your camera. Did she find out about the charged battery? I guess not
It is awesome, especially paired with my 70-200 IS II... Nope, she had no idea, but i think she charged it too, as it was not put in the box as i had put it! all is good!
We know it is a typo... But it was one of those funny ones... And I still dunno what the 2L is : oh an f2...got itHey! You edited too
YES!We know it is a typo... But it was one of those funny ones... And I still dunno what the 2L is :What 2L ?
Being able to edit comments to fix mistakes is great...in't it?
We know it is a typo... But it was one of those funny ones... And I still dunno what the 2L is :What 2L ?
I'd get at least a TS-E lens (17 or 24) a 35 1.4L and 13mm 2L.
Now there's a lens I'd sell a kidney for!
I dunno what it is....but I want one
"2L ...the final frontier... Where no L has gone before".OK OK I meant 135mm f/2 L But you knew that ...
A macro rail would work, or a nodal slide from RRS:Thanks.
Personally, I use the MPR-CL II.
Thanks! Even if I will have to test it for the 24mm setting this was really useful information...So I was wondering: let's say Canon announces a 17-40 f/4 L IS instead of the 14-24 f/2.8
How many of you will be happier (not just happy for Canon or happy in general for humankind- I mean will seriously plan to buy it)?
Nikon did it- can't be out of the question, and will probably cost similar to the 16-35 II
Would you prefer a 17-40 f/4 IS or a 14-24 f/2.8?
IS is welcome, but what I would really like is a 17-40L ii that is tack sharp on the corners with little distortion. Currently, if I take group shots and have people at the ends, the lens makes a 170lb man look like 340lb... I am still looking for the person that appreciates those kinds of "embellishments".
You are not talking about lens distortion, you are talking about anamorphic projection distortion. That is easily corrected in post if you need to.
In PhotoShop you need to open an 8bit file as the distort filter doesn't work in 16bits up to at least the end of CS5 (not sure about CS6).
Open your file,
1. go - filter > distort > spherize, set to 25%, make sure the option box is set to horizontal only, click OK
2. then - select > all
3. then edit > free transform, set W (width) to 91% and apply changes.
These figures work well for my 16-35 at 16, but you will need to mess about a little to find figures that work for your lenses. But follow this recipe and you 340lb guy will revert to close 170lb.
While I am pretty sure we’ll see such a camera eventually, I’m not sure when it will materialize.</p>Taken from: