pwagner
25th of July 2003 (Fri), 00:55
OK, I think I've got the image hosting thing squared away, so this is my second try. My apologies for the original post last week with broken link.
I wanted a setup with a long telephoto range for birds as well something I could use around the house. Thus the 10D with the 28-135 IS USM and the 100-400 L IS USM. My previous camera was the Minolta Dimage 7i, which was just hopeless at the long telephoto shots.
Like many people who upgrade to the 10D from an already decent camera, I was worried that my initial, casual, around-the-house results weren't spectacularly better. Over the weekend, though, I took a little trip to the Stanford Foothills for a real life test.
As soon as I saw the results back on my computer, I realized that this setup is AMAZING. The camera body is amazing, the "L" is amazing, and the 28-135 is a pretty big improvement too. For my friends who just count pixels and zoom factor, it's hard to even describe just how much better VALUE the $3000 Canon setup is over the $800 Minolta. Did I mention that the focus speed, focus accuracy, and image stabilizer of the 100-400 "L" is AMAZING?
Did I mention zoom range? How about these two shots of the same scene?
http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/Palm45Small.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/Palm640CropSmall.jpg
Here's a link a page explaing the two above with more detail (and about 800k of data--sorry, modem users):
http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/
Comments and help are always welcome!
-- Peter Wagner
I wanted a setup with a long telephoto range for birds as well something I could use around the house. Thus the 10D with the 28-135 IS USM and the 100-400 L IS USM. My previous camera was the Minolta Dimage 7i, which was just hopeless at the long telephoto shots.
Like many people who upgrade to the 10D from an already decent camera, I was worried that my initial, casual, around-the-house results weren't spectacularly better. Over the weekend, though, I took a little trip to the Stanford Foothills for a real life test.
As soon as I saw the results back on my computer, I realized that this setup is AMAZING. The camera body is amazing, the "L" is amazing, and the 28-135 is a pretty big improvement too. For my friends who just count pixels and zoom factor, it's hard to even describe just how much better VALUE the $3000 Canon setup is over the $800 Minolta. Did I mention that the focus speed, focus accuracy, and image stabilizer of the 100-400 "L" is AMAZING?
Did I mention zoom range? How about these two shots of the same scene?
http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/Palm45Small.jpg http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/Palm640CropSmall.jpg
Here's a link a page explaing the two above with more detail (and about 800k of data--sorry, modem users):
http://homepage.mac.com/pwagner650/FirstWeekend/
Comments and help are always welcome!
-- Peter Wagner