I read an interesting book . . .

[aparmley]

ISO 160| F2.8 | 1/125 | 50 1.4
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79481391-L.jpg

Ofcouse, I didn't read it all, cover to cover. . .

Heres a little "shout-out" Jamie:
ISO 250 | F5.0 | 1/125 | 28-105
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79482639-L.jpg

Happy photographer reflection:
ISO 1600 | F4.5 | 1/80 | 28-105
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/78636488-L.jpg

All my lenses appear to perform better, even the sigma:

ISO 640 | F9.0 | 1/125 | Sigma 70-300
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/78979945-L.jpg

High ISO Performance is a dream!

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79048212-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79048484-L.jpg

Ok - ya - I'm not mistaken that last image was taken at ISO 3200. I fear though that not all ISO 3200 images will look that clean - combination of background, exposure, and available light so I took a few more 3200 samples:
ISO 3200 | F5.6 | 1/15 | 28-105
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79554878-L.jpg

First of the following images is at IS0 1600 and the second is ISO 3200 - both are nearly 100% crops - the last image is the ISO 3200's original image size:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79555025-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79555568-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79554649-L.jpg

Like I said, Assuming variability among different lighting, ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 are going to be very usable.

Ok I know I've kept all of you waiting. I've been dropping a few hints left and right for the past few days. Toney picked up on the obvious hint [ All of the images in that thread are from the new camera]! I gots me a new 30D!

I wanted to give myself a week with it before I made any type of post. She came on Thursday. so whats that, 5 days. Damn, its been a long 5 days I can tell you that much.

Operationally speaking, the 30D is lightyears a head of the XT, IMHO. Changing settings is much more intuitive, not to mention more convenient and easy to do. I really dig the AF/WB + DRIVE/ISO + METER-MODE/FEC mode selection buttons in tandum with the main dial + quick control dial [Wheel]. It makes changing the most used camera settings very simple and fast. I have nearly memorized it so that I never have to move my eye from the shutter to make changes. Awesome.

Physically speaking, the 30D is a joy to hold and photograph with compared to the XT. It feels right to me. I will say this - After removing the battery grip from the XT I know its going to be fun running around with that little guy around my shoulder because its going to be like he's not even there! But, I must say it, the 30D feels like a tool.

More to come. . .

[aparmley]

She's beautiful!
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/78641944-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79563263-L.jpg

She makes that 85 1.8 look gooooooood! ;)

I'm pretty impressed thus far. But more scrutiny to come.

As I mentioned above I think my 28-105 is performing much better on this body so far than it did on my XT.

[jamison55]

Congratulations! Now you can be a real photographer LOL! Thanks for the Baw-stun love. That 28-105 looks like it's finally not making a liar of me. I agree that the control wheel was my favorite feature when I moved up from the DReb to the 20D.

Any love for that screen?

Hey, does this mean your GF got a significant piece of jewelry?

[Bluedog]

LOL _ I knew it when you posted the strap image. Everything about the 30D is way better than the XT. The XT is a very good camera but for the more advanced user the 30D fits the bill quite nicely.

Like you said the actual camera operations are much quicker to set with this camera.

Check this out handheld using the 24-105 f/4L at 1/3s f/4.0 iso640.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/62099253.jpg

[Vich]

Nice book! Looks like a story of true love.;)

Wierd seeing ISO 640 and 1000.

[cdifoto]

Jesus I'm being left in the dust here! I guess I'll have to save my pennies over the next hundred years to catch up....

Congrats Andrew. I'd put an exclamation point but I'm feeling impotent right now. :eek: :p

[aparmley]

Don, you and Peter both need to take a step up.

As Toney put, nothing against the XT - its a fine little camera - capable and all - its just a nice feeling have this bad boy in your hands.

Jamie - "sho'nuff" brutha - Ya - I think my XT is need of some TLC. That was one part of this experiment. I'll decide for sure here in a little bit to send it in - just making sure. As for the GF - her gear is forth coming. . . ;)

Vich - ya - after only two days of shooting with the 30D I all ready knew that I'm going to get a lot of use out of 640, 1000, 1250, and probably 3200 as well.

Thanks guys.

[Bluedog]

Jesus I'm being left in the dust here! I guess I'll have to save my pennies over the next hundred years to catch up....

Congrats Andrew. I'd put an exclamation point but I'm feeling impotent right now. :eek: :p

Pretty simple _ sell both them XT bodies and you can have one too ... ;)

[Bluedog]

Andy whenever I opened my 30D box it was > Damn! < this is what I've been waiting for.

[cdifoto]

Pretty simple _ sell both them XT bodies and you can have one too ... ;)

Yeah but then I'm back to only one body. :eek:

[aparmley]

Andy whenever I opened my 30D box it was > Damn! < this is what I've been waiting for.

Yea - I suppose handling it at best buy ruined what would have been a Dick Enberg moment, but it was still special knowing that baby is mine!

I have some interesting tests coming up here. . .

"2 and 2 right back atchya."

[aparmley]

85 1.8USM v 28-105 USM II

Canon 28-105 F5.6 @ approx 85mm
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601115-L.jpg

Canon 85[1.8] F5.6
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601367-L.jpg

50mm Shoot out

Canon 50[1.8] @ 1.8
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601193-L.jpg

Canon 50[1.4] @ 1.8
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601165-L.jpg

Canon 50[1.8] @ F4.0
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601240-L.jpg

Canon 50[1.4] @ 4.0
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79601271-L.jpg

High ISO comparisons XT v 30D

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79610709-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79611017-L.jpg

30D wins in my book re:high ISO

[aparmley]

OK - I've been taking photos of other things as well . . . took these Saturday.

Here's where I work:

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79555190-L.jpg

Side of the building

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79557040-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79558224-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79482639-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/79556695-L.jpg

Pete - all the color images have that "something-something" I was telling you about -

All images Shot RAW [I haven't even fired off a JPEG image with this thing yet. . . ] converted using RSP '06 - no added sharpning - every so slight 1pt increment boost to curves.

[aparmley]

Yes, Jamie, I'm sorry I forgot, the screen is nice. . . But the spot metering is real nice!

[jamison55]

Looks like all of your lenses are working better - even the 50 f1.8. Definitely points to somehting out of whack with the Ol' XT.

[cwphoto]

I new it Man! So happy for you Bro, way to go!

[ReF]

very nice. and even better, you seem totally excited about photographing more because of it. will look forward to seeing more of your results. hey, before you know it, there'll be a layer of dust collecting on your xt (happened to my old 300d). and you're right, it's time to move up - now i just gotta save up for 5d or it's replacement AFTER saving up for some other stuff... eh, give me a year :o

oh yeah, i read your sig and cleared some room in the message box. sorry bout that.

[24Peter]

Don, you and Peter both need to take a step up.
Well first off, congrats Andy! Of course I knew what was coming but I'm glad you finally did it. Getting a new camera has seemed to re-inspire you so that alone may we worth the price of the upgrade. I must admit, the shots you've posted are the best looking camera-wise I've seen from you (photographically your stuff has always been good but I can see a difference in the quality of the images.) Also, looks like the 28-105 has some new life too. Now you know why it's my most used lens and why I've been holding off forking over $1200 for the 24-105 L.

As for me, I think I'm still gonna hold out to see what's announced in Aug/Sept. And if there's nothing dramatic in my price range, I may opt for a 5D at that time. BTW - does this mean I'm now off the hook on that with you? ;) :eek: :rolleyes:

Congrats again. I know your talent will really shine through now. :)

[Vich]

That ISO 3200 is a blow away. Jimminy Cricket!

Why do I think the ISO 1600 comparison (asprine bottle) seems backwards? The one on the left looks cleaner. In fact, the one on the right (1600) looks nearly the same as the 30D 3200 version. If they were switched, that would make sense (30D 3200 nearly = XT 1600).

Or should I go get my eyes checked?

EDIT: After 5 more minutes of staring. On the 1600 shots, I think the light was better on the XT shot. The upper right is grainer on the 30D, but the bottom shadow line is choppier as is the shadow below it on the XT. You think?

On the 3200 shots, the 30D seems brighter.

Hey, like your eye for a good shot! I'm really finding that the hardest part to "learn".

Congrads on the new tool. You keeping the XT as a backup - don't forget what button takes the pictures! :D

[DonSchap]

I know this may sound a little late, but... "Way to go, And-roo! Woof Woof Woof Woof." LOL. :D

Your enthusiasm tells it all... and I had a feelin'... it was going to be the body, not the glass. So, if I may be so forward-looking, now... that you have the creature to hang it on... what will be your NEXT lens purchase?


TAmROn SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD
Canon EF 24~70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 35 f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 70~200 f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 100~400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM


Oh, the mind does whirl, does it not? :rolleyes:

[aparmley]

Looks like all of your lenses are working better - even the 50 f1.8. Definitely points to somehting out of whack with the Ol' XT.

The seem to be - However - If you notive my XT shots for high ISO comparison - they didn't perform bad there either. . . But thats par for my XT - sometimes great - sometimes stink!

I new it Man! So happy for you Bro, way to go!

Thanks Christian.

very nice. and even better, you seem totally excited about photographing more because of it. will look forward to seeing more of your results. hey, before you know it, there'll be a layer of dust collecting on your xt (happened to my old 300d). and you're right, it's time to move up - now i just gotta save up for 5d or it's replacement AFTER saving up for some other stuff... eh, give me a year

oh yeah, i read your sig and cleared some room in the message box. sorry bout that.

Thanks Ref - I hope its just not the "Honeymoon" phase - in a month I hope I'm still feeling this excited about photography.

Well first off, congrats Andy! Of course I knew what was coming but I'm glad you finally did it. Getting a new camera has seemed to re-inspire you so that alone may we worth the price of the upgrade. I must admit, the shots you've posted are the best looking camera-wise I've seen from you (photographically your stuff has always been good but I can see a difference in the quality of the images.) Also, looks like the 28-105 has some new life too. Now you know why it's my most used lens and why I've been holding off forking over $1200 for the 24-105 L.

As for me, I think I'm still gonna hold out to see what's announced in Aug/Sept. And if there's nothing dramatic in my price range, I may opt for a 5D at that time. BTW - does this mean I'm now off the hook on that with you?

Congrats again. I know your talent will really shine through now. :)

Thank you Peter. Are you just saying that about my images looking better or are you serious - I mean from a visual standpoint, not compositionally speaking. I mean, I see now what I saw in other peoples photographs that I never saw in mine - the images almost appear glossy in a way you know, crisp, like looking out a newly washed window, etc etc. I see it in my 30D images but that could just be me.

That ISO 3200 is a blow away. Jimminy Cricket!

Why do I think the ISO 1600 comparison (asprine bottle) seems backwards? The one on the left looks cleaner. In fact, the one on the right (1600) looks nearly the same as the 30D 3200 version. If they were switched, that would make sense (30D 3200 nearly = XT 1600).

Or should I go get my eyes checked?

EDIT: After 5 more minutes of staring. On the 1600 shots, I think the light was better on the XT shot. The upper right is grainer on the 30D, but the bottom shadow line is choppier as is the shadow below it on the XT. You think?

On the 3200 shots, the 30D seems brighter.

Hey, like your eye for a good shot! I'm really finding that the hardest part to "learn".

Congrads on the new tool. You keeping the XT as a backup - don't forget what button takes the pictures! :D

Well the images certainly weren't mixed up. I'll admit the ISO 1600 comparisons were pretty close but under study the 30D doesn't appear to be as grainy. I will note though that I've noticed some slight banding in the noise shooting with ISO 3200. Is this the banding that was detected by others with defective 30Ds ? ? I'm certainly not concerned as it is very slight and I'm sure a pass through Noiseware will handle it.

You want to hear something totally bizarre. I used evaluative metering on both the XT and 30D and under this pretty consistent light [1 shop light for the low light test] the 30D and XT came back with different exposures. so I either had to shoot with their respective meterings or use the metering from the first camera to keep it consistent. I used what each camera metered.

The well lit series of Tylenol had two shop lights and in a distance my desk light, which is fluorescent - probably why I couldn't get WB to match up exactly - B/C of the cycling from that light :rolleyes: - Ahwell. Not everything can be perfect.

I will say this the 50 1.4 hunted on the XT before finally locking focus - on the 30D it locked right on the bottle first time each time. Focus was set on the E on both bodies.


I know this may sound a little late, but... "Way to go, And-roo! Woof Woof Woof Woof." LOL. :D

Your enthusiasm tells it all... and I had a feelin'... it was going to be the body, not the glass. So, if I may be so forward-looking, now... that you have the creature to hang it on... what will be [U]your NEXT lens purchase?


TAmROn SP AF17~50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD
Canon EF 24~70mm f/2.8L USM
Canon EF 35 f/1.4L USM
Canon EF 70~200 f/2.8L IS USM
Canon EF 100~400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM


Oh, the mind does whirl, does it not? :rolleyes:

Thanks Don - No comments on my lens path. I might really shake things up here in the coming months. could I end up with a zoom in the 17-XX range and one from the 70-XXX range and have only 1 prime? Could be possible. . . Will I never buy another zoom? That could be possible too. . .

Funny - "Shit Happens." Thats right. Everytime I've made a photographic purchase - some other monetary priority developes, every time, with out fail. . . I had brake problems, our cat had some health issues, my GF had some engine problems. Now, sure as shit, after I've spent the money on the 30D - Cooper may have an intestinal blockage. Hes not been himself the last few days and he won't eat - Right now we are up to $455 and counting. . . X-rays show some type of unknown object in his upper intestinal track and they are currently doing a barium test, where the patient swallows metal balls and a series of X-rays are taken to see if they pass through the "Possible Blockage" area. We'll know more tomorrow morning if indeed it is a blockage and how much it will cost to have removal surgery. [ I expect another grand untop of the $455]

I might be selling a lot of my stuff. the 30D, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 are untouchable though - they aren't going anywhere. but everything can and will go if it is necessary. :mad: :( This is only photo gear - but Cooper is one in a million for us - I'll sell it all if I have to!

Wish Cooper luck! ;)

[Vich]

- Cooper may have an intestinal blockage. Hes not been himself the last few days and he won't eat - Right now we are up to $455 and counting. . . X-rays show some type of unknown object in his upper intestinal track and they are currently doing a barium test, where the patient swallows metal balls and a series of X-rays are taken to see if they pass through the "Possible Blockage" area. We'll know more tomorrow morning
.
.
Wish Cooper luck! ;)
Luck Cooper. Get well soon!

[aparmley]

Luck Cooper. Get well soon!

Cooper and I thank you Vich. . .

[jamison55]

What'd we tell you about leaving yor lenses around where Cooper could get at them? Seriously, all the best with Cooper. Let's hope that his ailment soon "passes"!

[aparmley]

What'd we tell you about leaving yor lenses around where Cooper could get at them? Seriously, all the best with Cooper. Let's hope that his ailment soon "passes"!

Thanks Jamie - And no, its not the 50 1.4 either, its sitting on my desk. Lets hope the balls pass and no more lens money has to be foregone. :eek:

[24Peter]

Hey - I hope Cooper is OK. :(
And yes your shoots are "crisper" if that's the word we're using. ("Crispier" even? :o )

[aparmley]

Hey - I hope Cooper is OK. :(
And yes your shoots are "crisper" if that's the word we're using. ("Crispier" even? :o )

We appreciate it Peter.


BTW - yes that means your off the hook for the 5D. ;)

[Bluedog]

Do keep us to date on Cooper for sure. Lucky for me my sons girlfriend dad is a vet who thinks I'm a good photographer ... :rolleyes:

[ReF]

you're probably tired of hearing this, but as a person who's seen more than his share of issues associated with health problems from many pets, i really hope things turn out well with cooper.

[aparmley]

Cooper has apparently had a temporary obstruction. This was causing him discomfort, probably pain, a fever, and the reason for his loss of appetite and possible why he was vommitting. He had become dehydrated do to the lack of appetite. This in turn cause the temporary obstruction to become that much harder to pass - imagine your intestines and colon being dry trying to pass waste. . . they need moisture to help move things along.

The barium test was successful, the metal balls passed. The explaination for this is that after the vet over hyrdated Cooper that helped to grease the wheels so to speak down below. This is not exactly common but she said she has seen this before - it presents just as a pet with an obstruction. We have no real good explanation what caused the large mass that served as a temporary obstruction. . .

Cooper's personality is back - he is happy and playful again. He hasn't been since last friday.

The vet said we did the right thing [ofcourse we did, they have my money!]. If this was infact a real obstruction and we had waited another day or two, Coopers condition could have been a lot worse.

Out of the woods I guess. . . :cool:

[rawpaw18]

Glad to hear Cooper is on the mend, hope you are also doing well, it takes its toll on the owners as well.

Lets see some shots of him with that new camera, before he gnaws on it.

[DonSchap]

Hey... ani-mules are people, too. Great to hear recovery is in works... and money can be redirected... to the great sport of... photography.

You have the tool... now...

GET THE SHOT! :D

Make T-shirts featuring tourists and the Great Arch...

or wedding parties at the wedding arch. Same thing, I guess.

Good luck, buddy! :cool:

[24Peter]

very happy to hear the coop-miester is doing OK. As they say, "this too shall pass..." :D Now go take some pics! ;)

[aparmley]

very happy to hear the coop-miester is doing OK. As they say, "this too shall pass..." :D Now go take some pics! ;)

LOL, what? right now? right this second? :D

[rawpaw18]

LOL, what? right now? right this second? :D

You might have to break out the BIG shovel if it has been a week.

[aparmley]

Rich & Don - Thanks for your comments RE: Cooper :)

[aparmley]

You might have to break out the BIG shovel if it has been a week.

LOL the big one came Wednesday night. He threw up most everything he had eaten between Friday and Tuesday - Didn't poop much at all until Wednesday night. Hence the theory of that large mass being problematic. sorry if anyone was snacking will reading this. . . :D

We lost a Cat a few years back that was only 2 years old so it was kind of a important that We [I] give Cooper [going on 2 in september] whatever he needed to get through whatever his issue was this week.

We are relieved that he appears to be back to normal. As I stated his appetite is back and hes happy and playful. Money well spent, even if it was just for some I.V. fluids, peace of mind, and shaved paw. But, now that I think about it $500 saved me probably 1500 from what surgery probably would have cost. . . I'm not the type of Dog owner to deny procedures that could be life saving, especially on a young dog, and especially if I have the available funds and or credit.

[Sigh]

hope you are also doing well, it takes its toll on the owners as well.


Thanks Rich - very true - we were pretty stressed out about it all. He's like our little boy right now - read: very loved and equally spoiled!

[DonSchap]

to see you going after an EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM (22.2 oz) {minimum 5 ft focus} ($559- $25 rebate = $534) lens.

13443

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 70-300mm f/4-5.6

Lens Construction: 15 elements in 10 groups

Diagonal Angle of View: 84° - 23° 20' (with full-frame camera)

Focus Adjustment: Front-focusing method with helicoid ring drive

Closest Focusing Distance: 4.9 ft./1.5m

Zoom System: 6-group helical zoom (rotational angle: 84°)

Filter Size: 58mm

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.0 in. x 5.6 in., 22.2 oz. / 76.5mm x 142.8mm, 630g (lens only)

I believed this to be more of a sport shooting lens, than a wedding lens. The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (25 oz) {minimum 3.9 ft focus} ($584 - $40 rebate = $544) always appeared to be a better choice.

Hmmm, any particular reason you'd care to... share?

After reading the Photozone review... you may just have it right. This could be the best f/4 class lens for the price, since they've resolved that "vertical issue". Also, it is NOT that conspicuous "white"-color... so it looks low-profile.

Good job, Andrew! :D The "hidden" L. Good luck with this one.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

[aparmley]

to see you going after an EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM (22.2 oz) {minimum 5 ft focus} ($559- $25 rebate = $534) lens.

13443

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Focal Length & Maximum Aperture: 70-300mm f/4-5.6

Lens Construction: 15 elements in 10 groups

Diagonal Angle of View: 84° - 23° 20' (with full-frame camera)

Focus Adjustment: Front-focusing method with helicoid ring drive

Closest Focusing Distance: 4.9 ft./1.5m

Zoom System: 6-group helical zoom (rotational angle: 84°)

Filter Size: 58mm

Max. Diameter x Length, Weight: 3.0 in. x 5.6 in., 22.2 oz. / 76.5mm x 142.8mm, 630g (lens only)

I believed this to be more of a sport shooting lens, than a wedding lens. The EF 70-200mm f/4L USM (25 oz) {minimum 3.9 ft focus} ($584 - $40 rebate = $544) always appeared to be a better choice.

Hmmm, any particular reason you'd care to... share?

After reading the Photozone review... you may just have it right. This could be the best f/4 class lens for the price, since they've resolved that "vertical issue". Also, it is NOT that conspicuous "white"-color... so it looks low-profile.

Good job, Andrew! :D The "hidden" L. Good luck with this one.

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70300_456is/index.htm

Don - again - details details details LOL .

Why I'm after this lens:

1. orginally the image quality was a big surprise. I look at peoples results with this thing and thought its pretty top notch for the price. But, I must admit, I forgot about this lens after reading about the portrait issue.

2. Peter and Jamie both make pretty good points regarding this lens' versatility. Remove the IS and this lens looses a lot of its versatility. But with IS - this lens can more than make up the lost stop at the longer end in versatility in direct comparison to the 70-200 F4 L. They both really made me realize why this lens can be a smart choice. In addition I know all too well how slow shooting at F4-5.6 can be outdoors forget about indoors for the moment. With IS and some flash - this lens can be used pretty nicely indoors as a candid getter. The IS also has a panning setting - I can find a good use for this as well.

3. I'm in the market for a tele but a restricted budget. I'd drop the moola for the 70-200 2.8 IS if I had it in a heart beat. I just don't have it and can't afford to save long enough to get it. To me thats a pro lens - I'll get it if my photograhy pays for it. I've realized lately that a lot of my idleness was do to the lack of consistancy out of my XT and the monotony of shooting with primes. I've got that XT issue resolved. Now I'm after two solid zooms. They don't need to be Ls - USM is really my only requirement. So, naturally I came to look at both the 70-200 and the 70-300 IS. But again, that darn portrait issue bothered me. . . Now that they have that ironed out. . . I think I can live with and use the 70-300 IS to create some neat images. . . That in a large nut shell is why I'm going after this lens. The IQ on this thing is pretty close to the L in my eye now consider the added usefullness IS adds - I think this lens is a better fit for me.

Now if I could just make my mind up about something wide. . . the 17-40 L has my eye right now - but in honestly its just because of price. I want that 17-55 2.8 IS - real bad. Add the 10-22 and a dedicated macro and I'm set for a while. . .

[ReF's temporary account]

LOL the big one came Wednesday night. He threw up most everything he had eaten between Friday and Tuesday - Didn't poop much at all until Wednesday night. Hence the theory of that large mass being problematic. sorry if anyone was snacking will reading this. . . :D

We lost a Cat a few years back that was only 2 years old so it was kind of a important that We [I] give Cooper [going on 2 in september] whatever he needed to get through whatever his issue was this week.

We are relieved that he appears to be back to normal. As I stated his appetite is back and hes happy and playful. Money well spent, even if it was just for some I.V. fluids, peace of mind, and shaved paw. But, now that I think about it $500 saved me probably 1500 from what surgery probably would have cost. . . I'm not the type of Dog owner to deny procedures that could be life saving, especially on a young dog, and especially if I have the available funds and or credit.

[Sigh]

Thanks Rich - very true - we were pretty stressed out about it all. He's like our little boy right now - read: very loved and equally spoiled!

sorry about the cat. seeing how animals/pets are usually bigtime grubbers, if one of em doesn't eat for a day something's really wrong and ya gots ta bring it in for a check up as soon as you can. one of ours just had a problem about 2 months ago. even though it was a weekend we found a place that was open, and the vet said another day later and he would've been a gonner! :eek: nine years with us and he would've been done-in in two days by a urinal blockage (man they got all sorts of problems).

[DonSchap]

Personally, in the past, I had never been really hot on this range. The EF 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 III (16.8 oz) ($179) was a disappointment... and even Canon engineers had a devil of a time going through several revisions to get it right. I, II, III, III USM, IS USM... and even, until recently, with the "portrait problem"... this lens range has been apparently plagued with issues. Fact is, w/o IS... you really do need to be 'rock steady' to shoot 200-300mm... or you wind up with junk. It is quite unforgiving... and almost always requires a tripod.

But, after reviewing what has been done by Canon to improve this lens, the current release of the EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM (22.2 oz) ($559) finally seems like a great upgrade. They may have solved it. So much for dogged determination.

13448

The best part, of course, is the IQ of the new 70-300mm... with the inclusion of the SD glass. Many have remarked on the improved and startling image quality coupled with the IS (or as I have begun to call it - "TE" (tripod elimination)). Karin ("kvdnberg") pointed out, several months ago... this was the lens she really wanted, despite the portrait issue. We can only hope she had that corrected, as she did mention that her copy had the issue.

Good luck with this one, Andy... it should indeed fit the bill until you get your photography to cough up the change for the biggun'! :D

[24Peter]

I think the 70-300 IS USM 4-5.6 is a great choice - assuming they've fixed the verticle orientation issue. I'm almost tempted to pick up another one myself.

Andy - just make sure you get one with the right serial # from a place you can return it if you're not happy. Then test it thoroughly when you get it. But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. :)

[Vich]

I'm gathering that this portriat issue isn't on all copies.

It just seems so odd that turning the lens on it's side would cause such a thing. Is it a fault in IS?

[aparmley]

I'm gathering that this portriat issue isn't on all copies.

It just seems so odd that turning the lens on it's side would cause such a thing. Is it a fault in IS?

I'm not exactly sure Vich, I think it was an element would shift when turned on its side in portrait.

I'm going to be waiting a little while before I pick one up - just to let the older versions that may still be in inventories to flush out. . . and for my bank account to rebound from Coopers trip to the Vet.

[aparmley]

I think the 70-300 IS USM 4-5.6 is a great choice - assuming they've fixed the verticle orientation issue. I'm almost tempted to pick up another one myself.

Andy - just make sure you get one with the right serial # from a place you can return it if you're not happy. Then test it thoroughly when you get it. But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. :)

Thanks for your comments Pete. Thanks for reminding me about this lens too BTW. It stands to be a very versatile lens. . . if image quality is a notch or two above my Sigma, add to that USM for fast silent reliable AF, now toss in IS - It just sounds like something I would enjoy using and it sounds like something that can is very useful. Thats what we are after right? Its true I'd take the 70-200 IS + 1.4 TC as well but you know I've said it enough already - one day she'll be in my bag - baby steps! I think my first step is to replace the sigma with the 70-300 IS. I can't see me replacing the 70-300 IS either - if it performs up to par.