The Societies' 2023 Photo Convention: Use Code EP10 To Save 10% On Seminar Tickets

Activity : All Comments

tonyguitar

Wink You...and ePhotozine have inspired and encouraged. Progress continues.

...Read More
Profile
  • Commented on 'Total Rip Off'

    Printer inks are over priced. I read in some photo magazine that we pay $400 on average per ounce of inkjet colour fuel.

    Using the Kodak ESP7 printer one pays $18 per 5 colour ink cartridge. The price seems reasonable but you never get the 420 prints promised on the box. In fact output is less than half of that.

    Kodak caution!! While the ESP7 delivers fast colour and crisp detail with their premium 8 1/2 X 11" paper. You are warned to avoid their Hero series printers.

    The Hero printers use a 3 colour cartridge inferior to the ESP7 - 5 colour ink cartridge.

    The Hero editing and printing software is slower than molasses.

    How do I know this? Staples stationers loaned me a Hero printer while the ESP7 printer was being serviced.

    Kodak seems to be stumbling badly these days. The 8 1/2 X 11" everyday paper no longer works in the ESP7 Printer. It now lacks the imbeded electro-code that sets ideal printing for the ESP7. You can see that the diagonal Kodak mark on the back of each sheet is missing. First time I have seen Kodak paper without their mark on the back.

    The more expensive premium paper is OK so far, but I suspect my Kodak ESP7 printer may become orphaned soon. TG
    • 28 May 2013 6:56PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    Update:: The 1.4 Tamron TC is reached for when small stuff [macro] is in front of me. For some reason, I seem not to use the TC for bird or loong shots as much as I thought I would. Need more time with it I guess. TG
    • 24 Aug 2012 4:55AM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    I think you are right. Seems there are no easy to detect difference in images with the 1.4X Tamron TC. Pixel peeping may show some however.

    The jump in macro size was noticed on the first catapillar. Differences on the long end..[ what I got it for ], I don't really notice yet. Odd thing. TG
    • 8 Jul 2012 7:31PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    OK...Tamron 1.4X TC...First Impressions after two weeks of daily use.

    [1] Macro. A clear jump in macro use....[ Its worth the $187 from B&H photo N.Y.]

    [2] Long end? Not so clear. There must be more reach, yet I do not see much more advantage. Shots through the Tamron 1.4X seem to hold quality ok.

    Guess I will continue to leave the TC in place with the EF 70-300mm f4 is L lens for now. There seems to be little or no penalty in AF and who knows, that bit of extra reach may save a photo or two yet. So far though, seems like nothing has changed much at the long end. Funny, I thought it would be more noticeable. TG
    • 8 Jul 2012 3:23PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    I'm chewing through that thread. Thanks! It's very good and enjoyable stuff. TG
    • 10 Jun 2012 8:29PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    AAAH, With an adapter you mean...I suppose. Not sure how well that works. Thanks for the slap up the side of the head...as they say. That could be a great idea ...I'll look into it. Great way to use good and well made lenses. I like that Minolta. If only it didn't have an expensive Kodak film habit. TG
    • 10 Jun 2012 3:08AM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    That's a very interesting and constructive addition to this thread. I will admit that I have thought about the Sony mirrorless A[somthing] camera as it would allow me to use my Minolta [film] lenses. I wondered if the Sony would be quicker and more quiet without the mirror flipping up and down.
    Olympus OM-D E-M5...eh? Worth looking into. TG
    • 9 Jun 2012 9:17PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    I am in the same stage as you are. Sent a us$187 money order to B&H for a Tamron 1.4X teleconverter. Should arrive this week. Looking forward to that extra reach, yet I am aware the AF will not be as reliable. We'll see how this works out. Looking to learn if this saves the purchase of a 500mm lens. TG
    • 9 Jun 2012 5:17AM
  • Commented on 'Guitars suggestion'

    Big Al, I also enjoyed your You Tube production ' Bit of a beat'. That was some piece of work. The fades and opens and the images....all good stuff! TG
    • 3 Jun 2012 1:12AM
  • Commented on 'Guitars suggestion'

    That Takamine key head is a classic. Nothing like gold on black velvet. And all those Robaxaset woodmen you hired for the audience scene with the bank of big screen TVs. There's some reaching to do before getting that together. Feature parts of the guitar. Much like classic car features images. Great stuff! TG
    • 3 Jun 2012 12:40AM
  • Commented on 'Guitars suggestion'

    Wow! No limits on imagination here. You just broadened my mind and no smoking required. Lots to run with... all the macro things to do and the combinations. Thanks for the paydirt Big Al. Now you got things loosened up. TG
    • 2 Jun 2012 10:35PM
  • Commented on 'Guitars suggestion'

    Excellent Stephen. That's an approach I admit not thinking of. Very effective. Adds a lot of theater and power to guitars and I imagine other subjects as well.

    My 3 Guitarz are here..
    http://tinyurl.com/6sco4lf

    May work with mine as well. They are quite bright though. TG
    • 2 Jun 2012 10:22PM
  • Commented on 'Guitars suggestion'

    Noticed a three guitar image by Bdanju here: http://tinyurl.com/6qcyugj

    I thought, easy to do. Wrong! Not easy. Guitars are difficult to make good images of.

    My efforts here:
    http://tinyurl.com/6sco4lf

    Guitars would be an interesting challenge, project or competition. As the key block and the sound hole are so far apart on the guitar, there is more of a challenge. I Hope to see more good guitar images. So far I'm in a bit of a rut for ideas. TG
    • 2 Jun 2012 4:51PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    I agree with Brian 1208. This is only to add that the Tamron or Kenko 1.4X TC gives you extra reach with AF still functional while images remain crisp. TG
    • 3 May 2012 4:50PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    Not too costly? Tamron 70 - 300mm. Recently I 'upgraded' to a Canon 70 - 300. Surprise!...The Tamron is only a little slower AF than the new L lens. Both are used here.. PhotoTonyG.blogspot.com. You will not notice much, [if any], difference. TG
    • 2 May 2012 4:36PM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    Love a debate... brrttPaul, You said you did not like the Tamron 300 zoom. The 75 - 300 Tamron is a lemon while the new 70 - 300mm Tamron [ I own one ], is a very good zoom. I know as I compared it to my new 70 - 300 Canon is f4...[faster focus, but not much.]

    Lens review on photozone.DE says something like a hidden 'L' lens. High praise..eh?

    StrayCat, I need your 1.4X TC... will it work for a Canon T2I, [550 d] ? See, some newer Tamron lenses are really very good.. StrayCat also like his 70-200 Tamron.

    Curious how the Canon 1.4X TC will not work well with the Canon 70-300 f4. Tamron or Kenko TC have been suggested os OK. I have seen many example photos and the TC seems to have little or no bad effects. Alas, your 1.4X TC is for Nikon not Canon. TG
    • 23 Apr 2012 8:28AM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    Phil1963 and Alych, I hope you both come back to this thread and let us know how you are doing with your new lenses.
    I sure like mine, although it didn't make an instant ace out of me. Maybe I should learn to use a tripod more often. TG
    • 21 Apr 2012 5:09AM
  • Commented on 'Lens for wildlife'

    You didn't say which 75-300 lens. For about a year I used a Tamron 70 - 300 and finally decided to upgrade to the Canon 70 - 300 L lens.

    The L lens is heavier and a bit quicker to auto-focus and weather sealed, however I learned more respect for the Tamron 70 - 300 because it was almost as good as the L lens.

    So Phil, you now own a 75 - 300 lens but you may be allowed to exchange it for the Tamron 70-300. Only do that if you learn your 75 - 300 is not what it should be.

    For everyone else in your position, I can vouch for the Tamron 70 - 300 as a very good value as I now know how it measures up to the Canon 70 - 300 f4 . 5.6 L lens. TG

    PS: You may not notice much difference between the two lenses on my photo blog..PhotoTonyG.blogspotDotcom.
    • 13 Apr 2012 5:03AM
  • Commented on 'Sigma v Tamron 70 - 300'

    Nice of you to take notice and comment on my blog. Here's a treat for you... One I keep going back to. This is the excellence I aim for. Just Google...VancouverIslandBirds. Enjoy... better than Nat. Geo. and no ads. TG
    Gheck the latest, most recent journals first.
    • 30 Mar 2012 1:10AM
  • Commented on 'Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 L IS USM Lens'

    Recently got the Canon 70 - 300mm and I agree with positive comments above. The Tamron converter for Canon works well and sells here for about $299 while the Canon 1.4 x se;;s for about $549... Save some money. Reviews say Tamron gives just as good resulta as Canon 1.4X anyway. Recent photos on my blog are the new Canon 70 - 300. PhotoTonyG.blogspot.com The earlier shots were Tamron 70 - 300 and it was better than I thought. Tamron deserves respect. TG
    • 28 Mar 2012 3:39AM
  • Commented on 'Sigma v Tamron 70 - 300'

    PS: Dave, Most shots on my blog are Tamron 70 - 300mm.: PhotoTonyG.blogspot.com
    TG
    • 28 Mar 2012 3:21AM
  • Commented on 'Sigma v Tamron 70 - 300'

    I suggest the Tamron is better from what I read in reviews. I have used a Tamron 70 - 300 for the last year almost daily. Recently bought a Canon 70-300 L lens. The build is probably better, yet in comparing them both I have learned new respect for the Tamron 70 - 300. The Tamron is almost as good as the Canon 70 - 300mm. I should have just bought a 1.4X teleconverter for the Tamron. Oh well, live and learn...eh? TG
    • 28 Mar 2012 3:12AM
  • Commented on 'which lens and when, canon 500mm f4 or canon 400mm f2.8'

    Hi Ian,

    Am in the market for a lens upgrade also and some of the older photogs here in Canada have suggested the Canon 400 4-5.6 usm as very razor sharp lens.

    My humble reasoning is that extra crisp glass allows closer cropping so the newer Canon 70 - 300 f4 will be my next lens. Surprisingly many have testified it is as sharp as the prime 400 Canon. Price here is about $1500 while the Canon 400 still holds out for about $1700 and that's without IS.

    My current birding lens is the Tamron 70 - 300 and the AF is often not quick enough to keep up. Examples at; PhotoTonyG.blogspot.com. You can see that I get close enough to birds and ducks, it's the hit and miss auto-focus that costs me many good shots. If the 100 - 300 were not available, then the Canon 400 f4-5.6 would be my next lens.

    Many will scold me for this, but I flick day-old [wholewheat] bread to the gulls and this attracts red breasted mergansers, ducks, gannets and grebes in. So far there is no need for more reach than 480mm...what 300 delivers on my T2i camera.
    Hope this is helpful. Ps: Gulls eat too much protine so a little bread provides diet variety.
    • 4 Mar 2012 4:30AM