Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/07/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Doing conferences and conventions, I tend to use 1200-1600 quite often. If I can get 1600-3200 that can have the same clarity as 800 out of the 40D, I'll be happy. To me it's worth the extra few dollars. S. On Jul 22, 2008, at 7:00 PM, Ken Carney wrote: > Thanks much, I don't keep up with all the changes so I will wait > and see. > Low light is a priority. > > Ken > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug- >> bounces+kcarney1=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of slobodan >> dimitrov >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:39 PM >> To: Leica Users Group >> Subject: Re: [Leica] About Easing into LeiCanon Photography / Tokina >> examples >> >> I would hold off getting another 40D, if you need low light >> capabilities. >> It seems that it is yet another all new ball game out there with the >> coming Canon bodies. >> I suspect that my 40D will be relegated to being my 10-17mm fisheye >> platform after this September's offerings. >> S.d. >> >> >> On Jul 22, 2008, at 6:31 PM, Ken Carney wrote: >> >>> George, >>> >>> I also am a fan of the 10-22. In my bag (thanks be to Lugger Bob >>> Baron for >>> steering me to the right bag - I am bag challenged) I keep a 40D >>> with the >>> 24-70L attached, and a 20D with the 10-22 attached. Then there are >>> some >>> other Canon primes for really low light. The Leica lenses are >>> probably >>> better, but I just want to get the image quickly without a lot of >>> fuss. I >>> will probably get another 40D body - it is marginally better than >>> the 20D >>> IMHO. Fortunately, I don't print large, 10x15 on 13x19 paper, so >>> the 40D is >>> fine for that. >>> >>> Ken >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information