DSLR 101 2.0

[ebiggs1]

Maybe you will like these better.  I try to please! 

All with my best of class, 1.3 body the EOS 1D Mk IV.  Birders favorite camera!  I love this camera. 

[ebiggs1]

"Biggs, I'm not knocking Canon (not like you're taking it)"

Yes you are!  There is no other possible conclusion.  And you do not know of what you speak.  Canon does not charge whatever they want to because they can.  They charge what it costs to produce the product at the level it needs to be.  That is not cheap.

The only real competior to Canon is Nikon.  Do you think their pro stuff is cheap?  If you do, you are wrong again.  It is not. Some similar lenses costing even more. Example;

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens is $2396.95

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM Lens is $2099.00

I could go on but I hope you get the idea.

So, I guess Nikon is shafting its customers, too!  Even more than Canon.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"So 1 mm is a little less than a yard, ok.  Thanks."

I guess it is because I never ever heard anyone say, "So 1 mm is a little less than a yard,"  You don't  think somebody would conclude you meant meter?  Because there would be 914 mm in a yard!

Now I ain't no mathematician but even I would not cal that a little less.  Do you?  I guess you do.

---

Sorry Biggs, but I did'nt even think of how I said, I just spoke  the way the words came to me.  Is there a more proper way to phase that particular question about MM????    To be honest, I don't even understand why were having this conversation.  Biggs math was my worst subject.  But this sounds carzy to me.  If 1 yd = 914 mm, how can a range of 300 mm with my lens be less than 1/3 yd.  That's how I'm reading this, I know I have to have it wrong..  I asked the question because I cannot judge distance in mm, I only think in yd.  But this here you're saying is no help.  Not your fault, you're Ok, I just don't understand.   I have always wondered what in ft. or yd. any particular range in mm I was shooting with my lens.  I do notice some lens have a ft. gauge, both my L's do, but I have not yet learned how to use it.  In many area's Obiwan, I'm most certainly a rookie, and you have to see me that way.   Don't even take for granted that I know the most simplest of things.  I may know some things...but I also may not.

BTW....I don't even know what a "meter" is????   Never heard that measurement.

[ebiggs1]

I have no idea nor do I understand what you are talking about????????????????????????

"how can a range of 300 mm with my lens be less than 1/3 yd.

Because a mm is tiny!

It is time to let this thread go.  It is a little long in the tooth.  Start a new one when you have a specific question and ask it as clearly and succinct as possibile.

I am beginning to think you don't read my entire posts.  Either that or you do not comprehend what I am saying.  Maybe some others can throw some better info on the subject.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"Biggs, I'm not knocking Canon (not like you're taking it)"

Yes you are!  There is no other possible conclusion.  

---

Ok Obiwan I'm going to try this again.  I guess techically, I have to say you're right, but that's not how you should look at it., as a knock on their products.    My issue is not about the gear, or the quality of the gear.   it's about customer service and customer satisfaction.  Canon is not the only Co who do stuff that tick me off, and it's usually tthe ones who are on top and make the best products that do stuff like this.   This is about what I think about how customers are treated sometimes.   I'm like you now, I don't know anything else to say to explain myself here.   I paid appox $160.00 just for a lens ring mount, and they were'nt considerate enough to send instructions.  The ring mount was the only thing in the box.   Canon has never done that before with anyother products I've bought......NONE...Na Da.   There's always instructions, warranty card, and other literature.  That really miffed me off.  I could have gotton another brand ring mount for appox $40.00.  But as Bob said, and what you're saying now....I went with Canon cause I believe it was a better quality product, so i decided to eat the cost.  Now what does that tell you about what I think of Canon products???     In my thinking, if another brand can product that ring at 1/4 the cost......why the heck Canon cannot give instructions and warranty card, etc. in the box.  Had they done that, we probably would'nt be having this conversation, or yesterdays conversation.  I had to turn to Bob and you to explain how to use it.   This is not a class act my friend, in anyone's book.  If you still don't understand, fine...let's move on.

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I have no idea nor do I understand what you are talking about????????????????????????

"how can a range of 300 mm with my lens be less than 1/3 yd.

I am beginning to think you don't read my entire posts.  Either that or you do not comprehend what I am saying.  Maybe some others can throw some better info on the subject.

---

I read your posts, sometimes 2 or 3 times.  I don't always understand what you're telling me, like with this "mm" stuff.   I think part or most of the problem is this process we're using on this site.   Nothing like being in a classroom in person.  Nothing like having direct contact with pupli and teacher.  You have to account for that.   It's hard to sometimes convey exactly what you mean, and how you mean it here, or other forms of "email." in a teaching learning situation.   Not even as good as the phone, or skype, or any number of other avenues of conversation.   So we both have to make the ajustment if we are to continue this.

[ebiggs1]

"In my thinking, if another brand can product that ring at 1/4 the cost......why the heck Canon cannot give instructions and warranty card, etc. in the box."

Maybe it is because the other brand is worth 1/4 of the quality.  I have seen them break and drop an expensive lens on the ground because soembody else erroneously thought like you.  You still can't seem to make the distinction between pro level and consummer level gear.  Apples to oranges.

On the fact there was no paperwork, a tripod ring mount is not rocket science.  Again the people it is aimed at does not require instructions on how to use it.  There is no warranty.

I really believe you would be far happier with the prosummer line of gear.  Maybe you should start shopping there.  Chances are it will satisfy all your requirements.  Plus make you much more happy.

Again,

"It is time to let this thread go.  It is a little long in the tooth.  Start a new one when you have a specific question and ask it as clearly and succinct as possibile."

[jazzman1]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I really believe you would be far happier with the prosummer line of gear.  Maybe you should start shopping there.  Chances are it will satisfy all your requirements.  Plus make you much more happy.

Again,

"It is time to let this thread go.  It is a little long in the tooth.  Start a new one when you have a specific question and ask it as clearly and succinct as possibile."

---

Far as the gear I should buy, I can see where you're coming from and you could be right.  The problem is after owning 2 L lens, I may not be satisfied with the IQ of cheaper lens.  When I got my 24-105 I was elated at the improvement in the quality of my pics.  It's always hard to accept, or be Ok, when stepping down  in quality of any product you use for your favorite enjoyment.  I've experienced that with many other products, audio gear, Pc's, etc..  Canon L lens sets a new stardard in lens for me.   I think it would be hard to settle for a lens with less IQ and quality.  But hey, I don't even know why you're going here, my issue is not about the products.

I'll try and make a new topic post.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

I have no idea nor do I understand what you are talking about????????????????????????

"how can a range of 300 mm with my lens be less than 1/3 yd.

I am beginning to think you don't read my entire posts.  Either that or you do not comprehend what I am saying.  Maybe some others can throw some better info on the subject.

---

I read your posts, sometimes 2 or 3 times.  I don't always understand what you're telling me, like with this "mm" stuff.   I think part or most of the problem is this process we're using on this site.   Nothing like being in a classroom in person.  Nothing like having direct contact with pupli and teacher.  You have to account for that.   It's hard to sometimes convey exactly what you mean, and how you mean it here, or other forms of "email." in a teaching learning situation.   Not even as good as the phone, or skype, or any number of other avenues of conversation.   So we both have to make the ajustment if we are to continue this.

---

"This 'mm' stuff" is something that a student in any U.S. public school system should have covered by the seventh or eighth grade. (Sooner, actually, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this discussion.) If you didn't, you have some serious catching up to do; and this is not an effective place to do it. By and large, the denizens of this forum have neither the time, the patience, nor the teaching skills to turn it into a classroom. (They know it, BTW; you must have noticed that only you, Ernie, and I ever contribute to this thread.) You need to start doing a lot of reading on your own and/or find some adult education classes you can take to fill the gaps. If you don't do that, but still have designs on becoming a serious photographer, you're sure to be disappointed.

There's a trap in the way photography is presented to the public in today's society. Low-end cameras have become so good, and so automatic, that many newbies conclude that photography is easy and that if they keep upgrading to better and better equipment, they'll continue to become better and better photographers. Unfortunately, it isn't true. Though mediocre photography is easy, good photography is hard; and it requires a knowledge base and skill level that are far deeper than most people imagine. You either acquire the requisite knowledge and skills or you don't. With only rare and statistically unimportant exceptions, good photographers came from the ranks of those who do.

[ebiggs1]

Amen!

[jazzman1]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

---

---

---

"This 'mm' stuff" is something that a student in any U.S. public school system should have covered by the seventh or eighth grade. (Sooner, actually, but that's an issue beyond the scope of this discussion.) If you didn't, you have some serious catching up to do; and this is not an effective place to do it. By and large, the denizens of this forum have neither the time, the patience, nor the teaching skills to turn it into a classroom. (They know it, BTW; you must have noticed that only you, Ernie, and I ever contribute to this thread.) You need to start doing a lot of reading on your own and/or find some adult education classes you can take to fill the gaps. If you don't do that, but still have designs on becoming a serious photographer, you're sure to be disappointed.

There's a trap in the way photography is presented to the public in today's society. Low-end cameras have become so good, and so automatic, that many newbies conclude that photography is easy and that if they keep upgrading to better and better equipment, they'll continue to become better and better photographers. Unfortunately, it isn't true. Though mediocre photography is easy, good photography is hard; and it requires a knowledge base and skill level that are far deeper than most people imagine. You either acquire the requisite knowledge and skills or you don't. With only rare and statistically unimportant exceptions, good photographers came from the ranks of those who do.

---

Well Bob you've said a mouthful here.  Don't know where to start.   Ok "MM"...math was my worst subject in school, but still I don't remember much taught about mm.  Before now I mainly only heard it mentioned by trade guys...carpenters, electricians, machanics, etc.  I never had a need to use it...till now.  Maybe I do have some serious catching up to do.

On newbies thinking buying pro gear will make them great pro's, you're wrong if you think that includes me.  And I've heard different hints at this a time or two.   I buy the gear I do because I like quality gear, no matter what.   I always buy quality tools, over the cheap stuff.  I've had cheap screw drivers break and bend on me.  I'm bought a bargain audio reciever only to take it back to get the quality gear I should have bought, instead of trying to save money.  I bought one of the top level of the line HD Plasma TV, for the same reason.  I would'nt be happy with the cheaper sets cause they don't have the features I deem most important.  In TV/Audio gear, more better features and quality I like, usually only come on the premium gear.  It's no different in photgraphy.   I don't buy stuff for bragging rights, not even my car....least not anymore.   I'm not gonna spend hard earned money just to impress others.   Now I don't usually buy good quality products to become an expert in it.   I buy it for my pleasure in using it.  Now that I've experienced good quality camera's and lens, I would buy no less even if I only intend to take pics of the birds outside my window once in awhile.  I would never...I mean "NEVER"...think buying Pro Gear would make anyone a Pro.  And at this point I'm not trying to be one.....in fact I told you guys that more a few times.  I only want to learn how to use my gear, learn photography, and have fun.  In fact, the more I hear about the issues guys have in pro work, being a pro is not so entertaining anymore.  Probably just wishful thinking on my part anyway, when I said it.  But I'm going to buy the best quality gear I can afford and try best as I can to enjoy my photography.  To me that's what it's all about, doing something I love.    can live with less than L lens as long as the IQ satisfied me.  I'm sure some mid level lens can do that.  I don't just have to have L's.  I do want quality lens no matter the class of lens.  I am looking at your Mark lll for the long term when I decide on FF.  Not to be a pro, but cause of it's abilty in low light.  I'm investing mostly in f/4 lens and now know I will need a camera excellent in low light.  But by the time I make that move, there may be a new body out that would be better, even cheaper, and I will choose that one.

Yes, I've noticed none others replyed here.  Did'nt give it much thought why.  I did kinda think they thought this was Biggs thing, and out of respect, stayed out his way.  I also know some may have "PM" you or biggs, or you and biggs may have "PM" eachother.   But I understand the difficulty trying to teach this way.  I can't think of a worst way.  I've considered that in all the responses from you and biggs.  So I took care in not getting bent outta shape over something said, or knocked off my squire when I don't understand something.  I know it's very easy to misjudge someones intent, or their meaning.  And many can not get accross with good understanding here, what they mean, or trying to say.  That's the nature of this process and I understand that..

Thanks for this response my friend, I wondered why you had not answered to a few of my reply's.  But that's Ok , I have to accept it as a judgement call, and you have to do what you think best.  I still respect your knowledge.