 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Comparison: Rebel XT with Kit Zoom versus Olympus C8080
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_test 3 images each Equivalent focal lengths 100 ISO WB = auto on both JPEG output highest each provides Focusing done manually Both cameras tripod mounted Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer Controlled lighting environment Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings > http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_test > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Controlled lighting environment > Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings #1: Your focus is way off on at least two of the Rebel shots. #2: The shots highlight major differences in DOF, not lens quality. For example, 7.1mm at f/5.6 on the Oly is going to give a near infinite depth of field, with objects beyond 2.3 feet being in acceptable sharpness. Comparatively, 18mm at f/7.1 with the Digital Rebel is going to have a near sharpness of about 3.5 feet. This gets worse down the line. At 35mm and f/7.1, the depth of field will be 2.5 feet TOTAL for the Digital Rebel. At 55mm and f/7.1, you're less than a foot. The Oly's depth of field at equivalent fields of view will be 6 feet and 2 feet respectively. http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html #3: The Oly has certainly a stronger in camera sharpening regimen. If it has a "low sharpening" or "no sharpening" mode, please use it when you repeat the test. My suggestions to correct this test: #1: Depth of field variations will ALWAYS occur when you're comparing point and shoots with HUGE DOFs with dSLRs that have relatively narrow DOFs. I would set up a test shot that has the camera parallel to a subject, with most of the scene within about a foot of where you will be focusing. My suggestion: set a bunch of random stuff on a table, make sure it is well lit and more or less parallel with the focal plane of the camera. Don't let the total distance between the objects and the focal distance exceed more than six inches in either direction. #2: Make sure the Oly has it's sharpening set as low as possible, or turn up the Rebel's to the highest setting (+2). #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses are really soft wide open, but sharpen very nicely as you stop down. Additionally, this will make sure that we're not seeing manifestations of narrow depth of field.  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses > are really soft wide open, I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft. SignatureStacey > > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and > > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses > > are really soft wide open, > > I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft. It may be, but this test certainly doesn't help us determine that. So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and >> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is >appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. The lens was softer than the Olympus with less detail shown on every shot. Given the Rebel's potential with a good lens, I think it's safe to say the kit lens has a crippling effect on the camera. The kit lens has more problems, but they weren't apparent in that kind of a photo. Put it another way, how many people who buy the Canon who understand it and the Canon lens system stick with the kit lens for any length of time, if they have the money to do something about it? BTW; While I was in the store, a guy came in to buy a zoom to replace the kit lens he had on his Rebel. He wanted something better. Too bad the store didn't have what he wanted in stock. -Rich > >> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and > >> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > to replace the kit lens he had on his Rebel. He wanted something > better. Too bad the store didn't have what he wanted in stock. I just spent over a week with an Oly C-8080 WZ before sending it back. It makes little difference how sharp the Oly lens is if the damn camera refuses to focus in a normally lit room. Yes, the AF assist light was on too and it still would hunt for a few seconds or more if it focused at all. Our old Oly C-2020Z runs rings around it indoors when focusing. I've considered the Rebel XT, but the handgrip is too small, the kit lens is too cheap, and will probably buy a Nikon D50 or D70s with the 18-70mm AF-S DX lens instead... Mike > I just spent over a week with an Oly C-8080 WZ before sending it back. > It makes little difference how sharp the Oly lens is if the damn camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > lens is too cheap, and will probably buy a Nikon D50 or D70s with the > 18-70mm AF-S DX lens instead... Refreshing to see someone doing their own testing rather than -following the pack-.. SignatureStacey > >> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and > >> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > better. Too bad the store didn't have what he wanted in stock. > -Rich Did you not read Brian's remarks? Of course the Canon lens *looks* softer - that's because a) it's out of focus, and b) the depth of field is inadequate to encompass the oblique shots you set up as a 'test' - quite apart from the Oly's more aggressive in-camera sharpening. Questions arising: Why did you choose a subject for your tests that had a significant dof problem? To make the oly look better? Or because you didn't know any better? Since you say the camera was manually focused, tell us just what item in those shots you actually focused on? And did you reframe the camera after focusing? As I said in an earlier post, we ADMIT the 18-55 is not a top lens. It isn't meant to be. But it's better than acceptably sharp at all apertures *except* at the edges. A hell of a lot of lenses aren't as sharp at the edges as they are in the centre. But for most purposes they're ADEQUATE. But, due to the dof problems in that (rigged) test, not to mention incorrect manual focus, the centres of those shots are not sharp, which gives the game away. RichA's anti-Canon bias is showing here, unfortunately serving to fuel Stacey's vendetta. You want an illustration of RichA's bias? He remarked on some guy wanting a better lens for his Rebel. Did he say *why* the bloke wanted a better lens? Nnnooo, he didn't. Or what he found inadequate with the 18-55? Nnnooo, he didn't. RichA jumped to the conclusion that the bloke found the lens unsharp and poor quality. My take, from experience, would be the chap didn't find the lens that bad, he merely wanted more zoom range than the 18-55 could give him. Most photogs in the amateur field want more zoom range, even though quality might suffer. I have seen several of this type of shooter weighing up which lens to buy, and they always come down on the side of range. So much for RichA's and Stacey's biased, myopic viewpoint. Neither are worth a damn. Empty vessels and all that. One more point: You'll not fail to note that I have said *nothing* about the Oly performance. That's because, like most reasonable posters here, I don't bash cameras. Unlike Rich and Stacey. Colin D. > That's because, like most reasonable posters here, > I don't bash cameras. > Colin D. Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead Toa >> That's because, like most reasonable posters here, >> I don't bash cameras. >> Colin D. > > Good approach Colin, I hope a few more follow your lead Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) -Mike > Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) > > -Mike I think I speak for most of us when I say this: IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. The biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong. When Stacey showed up, I was more than willing to let him/her enjoy the E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with it. That went out the window fast. Some people... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > In article <42f175bd$0$36371$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>, >> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) > I think I speak for most of us when I say this: > > IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it. -Mike > > IF your camera makes you happy, it's the right camera for you. > > Well... It will make me happy when I get some decent glass for it. Ahh... the allure of good glass. I don't have any cash so I stopped dreaming a long time ago. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people > who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong. You actually think I'm going to change YOUR mind? I just hate seeing you and other preach "Buy a canon kit" and the people end up with this shitty performing lens in the bargain. SignatureStacey >> Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >biggest problem with RichA and Stacey is they insist on telling people >who are happy with their cameras that they are wrong. I've only mentioned (as I said before) the kit lens and the Rebel's build quality. Question; Do you own either and if not, how have I told YOU what that you are doing wrong? -Rich > > Yes. Then I wouldn't be afraid to mention what camera I have. :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > E300 on the merits of them liking the camera and being comfortable with > it. That went out the window fast. Some people... When I shoot, I use a Canon DSLR for the "action" shots, and any one of 3 ZLR type cameras (none of them Canon, I dont like the Pro-1). I dont think you can beat a DSLR for low light, and/or fast action shooting unless you dont mind missing a lot of shots. I have a Canon because its what happened to be the one I liked at the time I was buying a DSLR,, Now I have a Canon and a few Canon lenses, but that wouldnt stop me for a moment from buying a Nikon or Minolta, or even a Pentax, if they came out with a camera that I saw an advantage in without adding a drawback. Sometimes I find the "brand wars" in the group entertaining, and sometimes they are a bore, but they are always going on in one way or another.. My ZLR cameras are: Sony F 828, Olympus 8080, Fuji S7000. If my posed shots have no high contrast/backlighting problems the Sony wins hands down for me, otherwise the Olympus 8080 gets the job. For shots that I feel it is the "apropriate" camera the Fuji (in RAW mode) gets the job (where the subject matter contains more landscape than people, of no people at all). Im a brand whore..... I'll buy any brand that suites (or seems to suite) my needs. One other thing I'de like to contribute to the discussion is: If you buy a DSLR with a "kit" lens, dont expect much, because they dont charge much for it.. If you dont have High expectations, the camera lens combo will probably live up to its price point. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > One more point: You'll not fail to note that I have said *nothing* about > the Oly performance. That's because, like most reasonable posters here, > I don't bash cameras. Unlike Rich and Stacey. Same. I don't see anything wrong with the Oly's performance, other than its results versus the Rebel's results are flawed due to the massive depth of field differences and in-camera sharpening. And the poor focus on the part of the user... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > >So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is > >appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to replace the kit lens he had on his Rebel. He wanted something > better. Too bad the store didn't have what he wanted in stock. Your test was flawed. I MIGHT agree with you in the future, but not until you do the test right. Is that so f.cking hard to understand, Rich? Is it as hard as you understanding what a HUGE difference DOF makes in these kids of comparisons? Is it too hard to f.cking focus consistently for consistent results? I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the f.ck up. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Is that so f.cking hard to understand, Rich? Is it as hard as you > understanding what a HUGE difference DOF makes in these kids of > comparisons? Is it too hard to f.cking focus consistently for > consistent results? > > I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the f.ck up. Good grief, so who is the person who needs to chill out? You act like someone called your mother a whore. SignatureStacey > > I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the f.ck up. > > Good grief, so who is the person who needs to chill out? You act like > someone called your mother a whore. No, I'm sick of your misinformation, lack of critical thinking and most importantly your f.cking arrogance. Get real. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > No, I'm sick of your misinformation, lack of critical thinking and most > importantly your f.cking arrogance. Get real. RichA and Stacey are not going to get real. By now you all should have figured out they are trolling. Both of them are getting their rocks off reading the replies to their idiot troll bait. SignatureCharles > > No, I'm sick of your misinformation, lack of critical thinking and most > > importantly your f.cking arrogance. Get real. > > RichA and Stacey are not going to get real. By now you all should have > figured out they are trolling. Both of them are getting their rocks off > reading the replies to their idiot troll bait. I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources > of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not > post, or those who might THINK of posting stupid stuff, I think we have > a responsibility to call bullshit when we see it. I think that you're giving a lot less credit to the average reader, if there is such a thing, than they deserve. I doubt that if a single person ever took the "advice," or believed a single post, written by Steve Gionovella (aka George Preddy, Suzie Quinn, Don Gentile, etc.), Rich A, or Stacey. They are all pathalogical liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that reads this group. Yes, you are correct that those two individuals are major sources of incorrect, and bad information, but even a newbie can figure that out. >> I wish this was the case. But RichA and Stacey are both major sources >> of BAD INFORMATION on this board. For those who read, but might not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >liars, and they have made that fact abundantly clear to anyone that >reads this group. I lied about what? -Rich >> >So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is >> >appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >comparisons? Is it too hard to f.cking focus consistently for >consistent results? You confused. There are points of focus in all the shots, they are just so bad in the Canon kit lens and the transition from focus to in or outside of focus you have trouble seeing exactly where they are. It's said that a lens like the kit lens "mushes through focus" instead of "snapping in." That's a perfect description. >I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the f.ck up. Seems kind of a shame for you to snatch your ball and go home like this, so lets do this then. One shot each of a distant subject where the focus will essentially be at infinity. We'll let the Canon and Olympus autofocusing do the work. You pick the f-ratios and the focal length. Pick whatever you think the kit lens does best. White balance set on auto. Tripod mounted and on a sunny day so the shutter speeds are fast. Metering, the default of the cameras. RAW files, converted without modification, however you prefer for posting. Would those conditions satisfy you? > >Your test was flawed. I MIGHT agree with you in the future, but not > >until you do the test right. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You confused. There are points of focus in all the shots, they are Me confused? > just so bad in the Canon kit lens and the transition from focus to > in or outside of focus you have trouble seeing exactly where they are. > It's said that a lens like the kit lens "mushes through focus" instead > of "snapping in." That's a perfect description. Uh, no. You didn't focus worth a crap and the test was poorly conceived and executed. Did you even bother looking at the DOF figures? Because DOF is a function of the lens, and you were comparing apples and walruses. > >I've had it with you. Either do the test right or shut the f.ck up. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > posting. > Would those conditions satisfy you? I already described what you need to do to correct the test. If you don't understand WHY you're redoing it, then just shut up, go away and don't bother trying to do this sort of thing ever again. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >Your test was flawed. I MIGHT agree with you in the future, but not >> >until you do the test right. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >don't understand WHY you're redoing it, then just shut up, go away and >don't bother trying to do this sort of thing ever again. Why don't you just admit to being an obstinate crybaby instead? It seems that you are purposely avoiding reality and you look pathetic for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to pretend the kit lens isn't junk. -Rich > for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford > anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to > pretend the kit lens isn't junk. I've got a 300D, kit lens and the 75-300 mkII USM. I can't afford anything else, oh woe is me... boo hoo... sniffle... Following were shot with the "junk" lens plus a dirt cheap +10 close-up filter. http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_02.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_03.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg SignatureAndy > > for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford > > anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg > http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up filter. How do the 100% crops hold up? I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda guy. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up > filter. How do the 100% crops hold up? http://www.pxl8.co.uk/df_crop.jpg This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw into Photoshop. > I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too > much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would > be less if I lit the subjects better, but I'm an "available light" kinda > guy. These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens a go :-) SignatureAndy > > Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up > > filter. How do the 100% crops hold up? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is "unprocessed" apart from my normal settings for importing raw > into Photoshop. Not bad. The depth of field is paper thin, but you got a decent point of focus. > > I've given up on macro shots until I can get a decent lens. I get too > > much chromatic aberration with my lens/filter combo. It probably would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens > a go :-) I think I need brighter sun! ;) Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > Not bad. The depth of field is paper thin, but you got a decent point > of focus. It was shot at f8, 1/250 @ ISO400. I could have closed down another couple of stops but I've been sticking to f8 to help improve my focus technique. In that context I'm pleased with the results. >>These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens >>a go :-) > > I think I need brighter sun! ;) Don't we all! SignatureAndy >> Those are really good, especially considering the usage of the close-up >> filter. How do the 100% crops hold up? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >These were available light as well - maybe you should give the kit lens >a go :-) As a side issue, does anyone out there produce screw-on macro lenses that are achromats? Most appear to be singlets, which always add CA. -Rich >> for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford >> anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_04.jpg >http://www.pxl8.co.uk/common_darter_05.jpg They look pretty good, but then macro shots tend to be a bit more forgiving than normal shots. That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular shots can often produce outstanding macro shots. -Rich > That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular > shots can often produce outstanding macro shots. I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> That's why P&S cameras that produce mediocre regular >> shots can often produce outstanding macro shots. > >I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots. Really? How often do you get that annoying "burned out" folliage look with a macro shot? You know, where the tops of trees seem to be disintigrating because of excessive saturation of pixels in the sensor where the bright sky meets the leaf edges? It see that with most P&S cameras. -Rich > >I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > where the bright sky meets the leaf edges? It see that with most P&S > cameras. Are you going to ever make a valid statement? You can burn out highlights just as easily in a macro shot if your lighting isn't even. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >I find exactly the opposite to be true with my point and shoots. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >You can burn out highlights just as easily in a macro shot if your >lighting isn't even. Sure, but you don't encounter that very much in macro work, at least not like you do with landscapes therefore macro is more forgiving than other camera work, for the average shot. The only real issue is dof. -Rich > Why don't you just admit to being an obstinate crybaby instead? I won't because asking you to perform a legitimate test isn't "crying." It's demanding you put up or shut up. > It seems that you are purposely avoiding reality and you look pathetic > for it. If you are stuck with the kit lens because you can't afford > anything else, don't blame others for your plight and don't try to > pretend the kit lens isn't junk. I have, at this time, no negative or positive opinion of the kit lens vis a vis other kit lenses or point and shoots. If you're trying to convince me of your NEGATIVE opinion, you're going to have to perform a valid test. Sorry, that's just the way it is. Since you've shown yourself incapable and unwilling to do the test properly, you're on my f.cking sh.t list. Until you actually learn a little about why your test was flawed I don't believe you have the requisite knowledge of photography or objective testing to be of use. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > don't blame others for your plight and don't try to > pretend the kit lens isn't junk. > -Rich Everything is relative, even relatives. What you may consider to be junk others can (and obviously do) consider to be a perfectly acceptable lens. It all depends on what one expects. You expect something that isn't there, others expectations are met with what they have. I fail to see why you continue on this tack, it gets nowhere. It'ld be a bit like me calling your wife fat and ugly. It would serve no purpose other than to rile you. Also I would have no basis for my accusation as I've never met your right hand Toa > Also I would have no basis for my accusation as I've > never met your right hand Zing! Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> don't blame others for your plight and don't try to >> pretend the kit lens isn't junk. >> -Rich > >Everything is relative, even relatives. What you may consider to be junk >others can (and obviously do) consider to be a perfectly acceptable lens. I have one requirement for a lens; That it not compromise what the camera is capable of too much. IMO, Canon's kit lens does. I once had a Tamron 80-210 zoom. It sucked. I got rid of it. I also had a 400mm Tokina. It had no contrast. I dumped it. -Rich >> > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and >> > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is > appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. Rich posted a review that talks about how poor this lens performs wide open at your request and of couse one of the canon cheerleaders responded with: "You Canon bashers are full of BULLSHIT. Missed that word, did you? here it is again: BULLSHIT. Take Brian's advice and shut your f*****g yaps." Seems it doesn't matter what is said, if it isn't Canon cheerleading it's "bashing"? SignatureStacey > > So, until someone actually TESTS the lens in a manner that is > > appropriate, shut your f.cking yap. > > Rich posted a review that talks about how poor this lens performs wide open > at your request and of couse one of the canon cheerleaders responded with: He didn't post a review, he posted shots that highlighted that a good portion of the shot was out of the depth of field. I may or may not describe the Canon kit lens as a piece of sh.t. But I'm certainly not going to make any pronouncements based on Rich's flawed test. He couldn't even focus right! Sheesh. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > #3: Take a variety of shots with the Rebel at f/5.6, f/7.1, f/8.0 and > > f/9.5. This will test the performance of the lens. Many cheap lenses > > are really soft wide open, > > I think that's the point.. This cheap lens is soft. Blah BLAH BLAH BLAH blah. Blah blah blah BLAH BLAH. Greg RichA email me @ vince_j69el@hotmail.com Vince.... http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/canon_versus_olympus_test 3 images each Equivalent focal lengths 100 ISO WB = auto on both JPEG output highest each provides Focusing done manually Both cameras tripod mounted Shutters tripped by Olympus remote and Canon self-timer Controlled lighting environment Exposures manually set, according to camera matrix readings |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.