Just for fun...
And for bonus points, what game is being played in the background
And for bonus points, what game is being played in the background
Name that camera gear! (Big pic enclosed)
- Thread starter ddrueding
- Start date
Pradeep
0
Firstly, anyone who uses .png to compress a full colour image must be f$$$$$$ crazy. My cellphone modem isn't that fast. 
Anyway, looks like a Canon of some type with a Canon lens, perhaps a 400mm 2.8? Is that your gaming center in the background by any chance? Some kind of FPS I guess. Wolfenstein or BF19**? Back to the beer now.
Anyway, looks like a Canon of some type with a Canon lens, perhaps a 400mm 2.8? Is that your gaming center in the background by any chance? Some kind of FPS I guess. Wolfenstein or BF19**? Back to the beer now.
It looks like a somewhat nasty, slow zoom, the 100-400 IS. Definitely it is not the lens of choice for most indoor work, so the scene is probably of a demonstration of some kind. I dunno about the body as so many Canons are similar. I does not look quite round enough for an EOS 1 series.
e_dawg
0
L-series lenses can never be truely nasty, can they? Although, you can never expect too much out of a zoom...
The lens is a 400mm, but the camera is digial...
And yes, that is my game center in the background. The game is COD.
The lens is definitely not the 400/5.6; it used the A tripod mount. The 100-400 IS would be at the wide end in that image, so maybe the answer should be ~100mm. What body is it?
e_dawg,
The L lenses range from exellent to only so-so, especially the zooms. The 100-400 is the worst Canon L lens I have owned, but is not the worst of the L lenses. The 35-350 is pretty bad at the long end for example. Some of the more mediocre lenses are acceptable on the lower resolution bodies with small sensors. For example, the 100-400 is fine for general use on a 1.6x body because the softer edges would not be in the frame. Even the center is not as sharp as a 400/2.8 II or 400/2.8 IS or even 300/2.8 IS + 1.4 TC.
e_dawg,
The L lenses range from exellent to only so-so, especially the zooms. The 100-400 is the worst Canon L lens I have owned, but is not the worst of the L lenses. The 35-350 is pretty bad at the long end for example. Some of the more mediocre lenses are acceptable on the lower resolution bodies with small sensors. For example, the 100-400 is fine for general use on a 1.6x body because the softer edges would not be in the frame. Even the center is not as sharp as a 400/2.8 II or 400/2.8 IS or even 300/2.8 IS + 1.4 TC.
e_dawg
0
35-350? Yikes. That sounds bad just looking at that 10:1 zoom ratio. I wouldn't expect something like that to be good throughout its range, and especially if not stopped down. I quite like zooms, myself, especially when you know what range they perform well in (I rarely need large apertures / shallow DOF). The worst, IMo, is a zoom that is mediocre throughout its range, which makes it unusable in any condition.
The body is a 10D with a 1Gb card, the lens is in fact a 100-400, and we were taking pictures of a motherbord in low light from ~5' away. I am not a camera guy (as you can tell from the pic above) but some of the results were quite impressive. I'll be trying to post more pics when I get the chance.
I've just got home for the first time in ~86 hours and am dying to get some sleep.
I've just got home for the first time in ~86 hours and am dying to get some sleep.