Canon EOS 450D Club -TCSS Lim Kopi Session: Season 2

[RyanG]

Canon EOS 1D Mark II!!!

anyway, pic kind small...;p

Wah liew! How big you want? It's scary enough. LOL!

 

[jlkk76]

Wah liew! How big you want? It's scary enough. LOL!

maybe i used to see horror movie liao.

see dis type of stuff no feel...somemore small...

I nn the original size... :cry:

 

[RyanG]

maybe i used to see horror movie liao.

see dis type of stuff no feel...somemore small...

I nn the original size... :cry:

Ask Scud to let you see original size then.. Haha!

 

[scud]

Wah liew! How big you want? It's scary enough. LOL!

big or small is not important. one feel scared because of the surrounding.

 

[jlkk76]

big or small is not important. one feel scared because of the surrounding.

gee...guess me not the kena scared type bah?

only thing dat scares me it no $$$$ to BBB

 

[scud]

gee...guess me not the kena scared type bah?

only thing dat scares me it no $$$$ to BBB

life is short.. live life to the max! why scared? :thumbsup:

 

[Ninja23XX]

You guys bought the 5D Mark II thumbdrives?


GMAN

 

[Joshua0718]

You guys bought the 5D Mark II thumbdrives?


GMAN

Quite many bought it

 

[velasco]

hmm i compared the results and ease of shooting macro with the Raynox DCR250 lens using a DSLR (450D) and a prosumer (Powershot S5 IS) and the latter gave greater results. You just have to place the camera near the object and zoom. The 450D on the other hand is hard to focus. Is this normal or what?

anyone tried using the raynox lens? Whats yiour take?

 

[RyanG]

hmm i compared the results and ease of shooting macro with the Raynox DCR250 lens using a DSLR (450D) and a prosumer (Powershot S5 IS) and the latter gave greater results. You just have to place the camera near the object and zoom. The 450D on the other hand is hard to focus. Is this normal or what?

anyone tried using the raynox lens? Whats yiour take?

On a DSLR, you need to take into consideration the min focus distance of the lens you are using other than the Raynox 250.

For example, I used a Close-Up +4 filter on my 50mm prime. It shortens my focus distance therefore, I have to move nearer to my subject to focus.

 

[RyanG]

Hey guys.

I had been doing a research on Canon's 24-70 f2.8L vs Sigma's 24-70 f2.8 and to me, IMO, less the image quality. The Sigma is actually good to a certain extent. Price is half of it's Canon counterpart.

Anyone tried the Sigma before?

 

[Yoh]

Hey guys.

I had been doing a research on Canon's 24-70 f2.8L vs Sigma's 24-70 f2.8 and to me, IMO, less the image quality. The Sigma is actually good to a certain extent. Price is half of it's Canon counterpart.

Anyone tried the Sigma before?

Considered Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

 

[velasco]

On a DSLR, you need to take into consideration the min focus distance of the lens you are using other than the Raynox 250.

For example, I used a Close-Up +4 filter on my 50mm prime. It shortens my focus distance therefore, I have to move nearer to my subject to focus.

oohh. so in a straighton comparison between an S5 IS which has 0mm of supermacro distance vs a 450D with kit lens (both coupled with Raynox) the former wins?
:think:

 

[3in1c]

Hey guys.

I had been doing a research on Canon's 24-70 f2.8L vs Sigma's 24-70 f2.8 and to me, IMO, less the image quality. The Sigma is actually good to a certain extent. Price is half of it's Canon counterpart.

Anyone tried the Sigma before?

If you talking about 450 body, it needs to be taken raw for max result. Have you try on xxD or xD bodies? What extent are you implying?

 

[RyanG]

oohh. so in a straighton comparison between an S5 IS which has 0mm of supermacro distance vs a 450D with kit lens (both coupled with Raynox) the former wins?
:think:

You might be correct on that. I'm not a very macro person. Gotten the Close-Up filter to test a few shots only. But seems like I'm getting the Raynox 250 soon.

If you talking about 450 body, it needs to be taken raw for max result. Have you try on xxD or xD bodies? What extent are you implying?

I have not try the lens physically but that was the reviews researches that I collectively gathered from the internet about the both. Of course, Canon win but I dun have the means for that. I would rather spend lesser for I still want my 70-200mm f2.8L IS ultimately.

 

[RyanG]

Considered Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.

How's its performance?

Just read the reviews. Seems good for those who cannot afford the 24-70L... hehe!

No pricing seh? Advice anyone?

 

[RyanG]

How's its performance?

Just read the reviews. Seems good for those who cannot afford the 24-70L... hehe!

No pricing seh? Advice anyone?

Ok. No need further questions. Tammy is better than Sigma. Less the AF which is nothing new but some said that their copies have fast AF.

Crap. Now I got another lens in mind. ;p

 

[Yoh]

How's its performance?

Just read the reviews. Seems good for those who cannot afford the 24-70L... hehe!

No pricing seh? Advice anyone?

Its pretty good. There was one piece going at $420 in B&S.

 

[Ninja23XX]

Tamron is not a bad brand, it's just that you need a little more effort to find the best copy.


GMAN

 

[Yoh]

Tamron is not a bad brand, it's just that you need a little more effort to find the best copy.


GMAN

Must make sure to get the "Made in Japan" copy instead of "Assembled in China". :bsmilie: