need a key for 7.0

Oh, I don’t know Rene…
If the Nigerians can get $60,000 from a scam mail, surely you can pull a small thing like a Canon lens from the group? Send me your EMail address and I’ll E-Mail you one (of a picture of it!)
Douglas

"Ren

"chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

Will a house key do??

Colyn Goodson

http://home.swbell.net/colyng
http://www.colyngoodson.com
http://www.colyngoodson.com/manuals.html

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:27:08 GMT, "chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

And I need a Canon 1Ds. Tell you what, I’ll swap you…

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

maybe the kind folks at Adobe will send you one… if you ask nice

"chris&karen" wrote in message

need a key for photoshop 7.0

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:27:08 GMT, "chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

And I need a Canon 1Ds. Tell you what, I’ll swap you…

I dunno – the 10D v. II is looking pretty damned good. Not the raw resolution, but mighty fast shooting…

chris&karen wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

amazon.com will be happy to exchange a key with you for about 145 beer coupons.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/softwar e/B000063EMG/103-5358726-7988666

JP

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:44:30 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:27:08 GMT, "chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

And I need a Canon 1Ds. Tell you what, I’ll swap you…

I dunno – the 10D v. II is looking pretty damned good. Not the raw resolution, but mighty fast shooting…

Yes, I agree but, generally, I don’t need speed. Landscapes don’t move around 😉 And for shots of birds etc you want as quiet as possible and need to take your time, so again, not really a problem. It’s great for sports and news photographers though. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:44:30 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:27:08 GMT, "chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

And I need a Canon 1Ds. Tell you what, I’ll swap you…

I dunno – the 10D v. II is looking pretty damned good. Not the raw resolution, but mighty fast shooting…

Yes, I agree but, generally, I don’t need speed. Landscapes don’t move around 😉 And for shots of birds etc you want as quiet as possible and need to take your time, so again, not really a problem. It’s great for sports and news photographers though. 🙂

Hey, I just ranted about the right tools for the job, so I’m hardly going to argue. Both are killer cameras, I just happen to do a variety of stuff (read: "Whatever someone has money for") and am damned tired of slow- shooting digicams.

Hmmm. You’re a Birder? I just finished a magazine with a feature on it here in the Houston area. The shot I used for the cover was such a photo-geeks wet dream I was prepared to throw a fit to keep it.

How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Hecate wrote in
news::

.snip<
How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

What is bizarre about it?
That is what a long and fast tele will produce

Gotta tell you Eric…
10D EOS, 800 maybe 1600 ISO, 120~300 f2.8 Sigma lens. Effective reach = 450mm. Add 2x f5.6 extender and as quick as lightning you have effectively a 900mm lens with some awesome resolving power. Add servo focus and continuous shooting, all you need do is hold the camera steady as you track the buggers! Raw images of magnificent quality.

That little birdie on your mag isn’t anywhere near as quick as an Australian Rosella parrot. Particularly when it’s sitting still! I’ve got some close up’s of these 80 kph rockets with wings that are every bit as sharp as that pic. No slow shooter, these 10Ds. But then they aren’t digicams really.

Douglas
——————————
"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Hey, I just ranted about the right tools for the job, so I’m hardly going to argue. Both are killer cameras, I just happen to do a variety of stuff (read: "Whatever someone has money for") and am damned tired of slow- shooting digicams.

Hmmm. You’re a Birder? I just finished a magazine with a feature on it

here

in the Houston area. The shot I used for the cover was such a photo-geeks wet dream I was prepared to throw a fit to keep it.

How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

"Stephan" wrote in
news:j7D0c.1815$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Hecate wrote in
news::

.snip<
How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

What is bizarre about it?

Nothing bizarre about it – just some damned fine shooting.

That is what a long and fast tele will produce

Heh. In the hands of someone with a very good idea what they are doing, sure.

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in
news:OCD0c.83054$:

Gotta tell you Eric…
10D EOS, 800 maybe 1600 ISO, 120~300 f2.8 Sigma lens.

Hello! That’s a pretty sweet lens, Douglas. Thanks for bringing it to may attention.

Effective reach
= 450mm. Add 2x f5.6 extender and as quick as lightning you have effectively a 900mm lens with some awesome resolving power. Add servo focus and continuous shooting, all you need do is hold the camera steady as you track the buggers! Raw images of magnificent quality.
That little birdie on your mag isn’t anywhere near as quick as an Australian Rosella parrot. Particularly when it’s sitting still! I’ve got some close up’s of these 80 kph rockets with wings that are every bit as sharp as that pic. No slow shooter, these 10Ds. But then they aren’t digicams really.

Nope – that’s what I’m shooting with, currently. But I’m seldom more than 30 feet or so from the subject, and your advice on bringing the wide world in closer is appreciated.

I think I implied that both the 10D and the 1Ds are slow shooters – they aren’t, really, though the 1Ds is slower than the 10D. However, the 10D v. II is apparently designed for really, really (really) fast shooting, plus a raft of other improvements, such as 8.5 megapixels.

You’ve gotta shoot the slow ones:

http://www.pbase.com/image/26531762/original

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 04:44:30 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:27:08 GMT, "chris&karen" wrote:

need a key for photoshop 7.0

And I need a Canon 1Ds. Tell you what, I’ll swap you…

I dunno – the 10D v. II is looking pretty damned good. Not the raw resolution, but mighty fast shooting…

Yes, I agree but, generally, I don’t need speed. Landscapes don’t move around 😉 And for shots of birds etc you want as quiet as possible and need to take your time, so again, not really a problem. It’s great for sports and news photographers though. 🙂

Hey, I just ranted about the right tools for the job, so I’m hardly going to argue. Both are killer cameras, I just happen to do a variety of stuff (read: "Whatever someone has money for") and am damned tired of slow- shooting digicams.

Hmmm. You’re a Birder? I just finished a magazine with a feature on it

here

in the Houston area. The shot I used for the cover was such a photo-geeks wet dream I was prepared to throw a fit to keep it.

How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Stephan" wrote in
news:j7D0c.1815$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Hecate wrote in
news::

.snip<
How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

What is bizarre about it?

Nothing bizarre about it – just some damned fine shooting.

That is what a long and fast tele will produce

Heh. In the hands of someone with a very good idea what they are doing, sure.

Agreed.

Stephan

I still haven’t amortised the cost of the 10D yet and out comes a new body I’m frothing at the mouth to get! Oh well, up the Visa another few grand! Douglas

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in
news:OCD0c.83054$:

I think I implied that both the 10D and the 1Ds are slow shooters – they aren’t, really, though the 1Ds is slower than the 10D. However, the 10D v. II is apparently designed for really, really (really) fast shooting, plus

a

raft of other improvements, such as 8.5 megapixels.

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 06:14:11 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Yes, I agree but, generally, I don’t need speed. Landscapes don’t move around 😉 And for shots of birds etc you want as quiet as possible and need to take your time, so again, not really a problem. It’s great for sports and news photographers though. 🙂

Hey, I just ranted about the right tools for the job, so I’m hardly going to argue. Both are killer cameras, I just happen to do a variety of stuff (read: "Whatever someone has money for") and am damned tired of slow- shooting digicams.

Me too 😉

Hmmm. You’re a Birder? I just finished a magazine with a feature on it here in the Houston area. The shot I used for the cover was such a photo-geeks wet dream I was prepared to throw a fit to keep it.

I’m an "if it moves and has fur, feathers or a wet suit (ala fish <g>) take a picture of it, and if there’s nothing moving get the landscape instead" photographer 😉

How the hell did he get a closeup of one of those hyper colorful little suckers from any distance with a lens that obviously has a depth of field of roughly a centimeter?

http://www.intownmag.com/

Nice pic.

Well, you could have used:

1. A very long lens.
2. A slightly shorter lens with a teleconverter
3. A macro lens with a stuffed bird and added the catchlight afterwards….

😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Mon, 01 Mar 2004 14:46:36 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

"Douglas MacDonald" wrote in
news:OCD0c.83054$:

Gotta tell you Eric…
10D EOS, 800 maybe 1600 ISO, 120~300 f2.8 Sigma lens.

Hello! That’s a pretty sweet lens, Douglas. Thanks for bringing it to may attention.

There is a cheaper way – Sigma have just brought out an 80-400 f4-5.6 lens. Nothing special you’d think, but it’s their first image stabilization type. That gives you 2 stops for starters. Then you add this to a 10D and you immediately have an f4-5.6 128-640mm. Now, at 640mm, f5.6 isn’t slow any more <g>. Marry that with one of Sigma’s matched teleconverters (a 1.4 because you’ll only lose a stop – that means with the image stabilization you’re still a stop ahead) and you have, at the long end an f8 (effective) 896mm lens which, if you’re a big strong lad you can use handheld at 1/750. <g>

Incidentally, I used to buy Canon lens all the time. Now I buy Sigma EX lenses. They’re absolutely superb and if you like macro as well, their 105mm is incredibly sharp.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, reliqui