nandbytes: Remember the good old days when you could fit 35 shots on a roll of film. Déjà vu anyone?
mostly 37, sometimes even 38
This would definitely be my dream travel lens.
two domesticated human males :)
That one is much much better.
Stacey_K: I would think it was pretty obvious this was targeted at women? Notice the word "purse"? And just FYI, not every item made in the world is designed for men to use :)
FYI: In Slovene, the word "ona" means "she". :)
BBViet: With a lens that big you can probably get 10 shots off before the AF motor sucks all the juice out of the battery.
Have you ever heard of a rear focusing system?
mpgxsvcd: Minimum focus distance? 20 miles?
migus: Pro: Less solar / IR heat absorption => Cooler operation, better for sensor and battery life.
Con: Visibly striking from distance; hence no war zone or safari operations. Arguably gimmicky, though trendy for some :-)
Seems that Canon's innovation has moved to cosmetics :-(
Pro: it will look amazingly great with EF 300/2.8L IS II and other white Canon telephoto lenses. :)
fuxicek: why is white plastic $150 more expensive than the black one?
Because the meaning of the color white is purity, innocence, wholeness and completeness. :)
munro harrap: Well, let's see now. It's the wrong lens and the ice and mountain are way too far apart, BECAUSE the decision was made to use the wrong lens-hence story about risks and water, etc, quite unnecessarty (a new word?)
I would be lower down and further back with another lens, allowing the light catching the ice to have greater contrast and texture than from too far above, as here. This would close the gap between the mountain and the ice itself, also giving me more time (not going into the water) and the option to shoot horizontal AND vertical, and wait for the light to change, shooting at intervals.
I check out the best lens once I had EXACTLY the viewpoint I wanted.
I dont manipulate in PP except to raise contrast maybe and reduce noise (not a "creative photographer" Reality is Sacred!)
And I might use APS-C to get that depth of field, but filters, no, they ruin so many documentaries on TV already, j'en ai horreur de ca.
But then, it's not my picture
@Greg VdB, search Google for: ad hominem, genetic fallacy
pbailey4: Technology over creativity - a deal of effort over a picture that means nothing.
I agree, a cliche photo.
pedroboe100: I don't get it. It's bulky and expensive. Why would someone choose this over a Pentax K5, Olympus EM1, Pana GH3, with a Tamron superzoom lens?
It's an almost perfect weather-sealed all-in-one travel camera.
Does it fit? What do you think of it?
I'm speechless, what a spellbinding and very moving image!
Are you familiar with the paintings of sailing ships of German Romantic painter Caspar David Friedrich? If not, you should check him out.http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Periods-of-Life-Posters_i387900_.htm/
Nope, the above image is a self portrait triggered by radio remote control in my pocket. Facing the Jof di Montasio and Jof Fuart Group (Italy)http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/1664/img9766j.jpg;http://www.summitpost.org/area/range/153357/vis-and-montaz-group.html
The last one is also the drummer
Mt. Krn, 2245 m above sea level, 2000+ m relative height (prominence)
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate your comments. :)
Location: 45.7181, 14.4185