freddy333

That & the tight dof, which I love. It was also fortuitous that I decided to take those shots because, as you can see above ROLEX, there was a bit of debris stuck under the hour hand that was slowly rubbing against the paint on the dial. It was only after I started viewing these pics that I saw it. Fortunately, after removing the grit below the hand & buffing the mark with a clean piece of Rodico, you cannot see it with the naked eye (though it is slightly visible through a loupe). Talking about dodging a bullet. Here is a new shot (taken with the Zeiss Planar lens held in front of the 400D) I am still not getting the full potential of the lens since the lens is not fixed to the camera body & I am unable to hold (& keep) everything together & aligned by hand. But I think it is clear, now, that once the new Canon lenses arrive, the camera should do just fine. Thanks Pug & All.

The power of the rose. For me, I decided against the Newman tonight & put out an SOS for this Have a good Saturday night everyone.

A couple of(hand-held) RAW shots with Zeiss Planar lens held in front of the 400D

Satur-day (I still think the rose Tudor is the most beautiful diver's watch in the world) Depending on what I end up doing, I may switch over to this for Satur-night

6239

Ditto that.

I do not know enough about how the GMT hand functions on the CHS version (which I also own, but never disassembled, per Ziggy's comments), but you might have the watch demagnetized. Generally, if a watch is running very fast (+hours/day), the coils of the hairspring are probably stuck together which greatly speeds-up its rotational movement, which, in turn, causes the watch to run very fast. Failing that, the only other thing I can recommend is to pull the stem out to the time-setting position & run it forward through a complete 24-hour cycle. Then, run the hour hand through a complete 24-hour cycle & see if the GMT hand then runs correctly.

Lovely car (I see alot of the current SLK design in the dash layout) except for the center console between the front seats. It looks like an amusement park water slide that was tacked on (with too many features) as an after-thought. 'Oh, we forgot to include this, so lets put it there. Oh & I see some empty space left there, so we should add a couple new gizmos to make it look more complicated.' Which is too bad, because the interior is well done otherwise.

Ford, possibly, but not a Jag. Whatever it is, it makes for a beautiful picture.

Ditto that.

Thanks for the tip, Ubi. I will give that a try when either of the 2 Canon lenses (100mm f2.8 macro & EF-S 55-250 f/4.5-6 IS zoom) arrives within the next week or 2 (since returning the 75-300 yesterday, I am photographically

Pug, even among your library of outstanding pics, these are stand-outs. Wow!!!!!! That engine pic is jaw-dropping (literally, my jaw dropped when I saw it) & exactly the quality I am after. Thanks.

Read the various posted tutorials/journals describing the construction of a DW (including mine), you will see that no 2 construction projects ever go the same. Because the parts are manufactured without any consistent quality standards, sizes & dimensions often vary from part to part. This means that each part may need to be modded to fit the rest of the parts, which is both labor intensive & time consuming (not to mention requiring alot of patience). Building a DW is a test of will & definitely separates the men from the boys.

Pug, your pics are inspiring. In fact, I was so inspired that I decided there just has to be a way to wrangle something better out of my 400D than what I have gotten so far. So I pulled the Planar f1.7/50 off this (this pic taken with the setup described below) & held it in the 400D's lens tunnel while I snapped a few pics around a parking lot. Between the ill-fitting Zeiss lens flopping around inside the Canon, not to mention the inevitable camera shake due to my having to aim & focus while holding everything together & snapping the shutter (all while remaining consciously aware of the need to keep the lens from banging into any of the 400D's delicate innards), I was hoping that 1 or 2 pics might at least equal the best shot I got from the Canon 75-300 zoom. But, WHOA!!!!!!!!!!!!!........when I downloaded the RAW shots onto my computer, I could not believe my eyes (except for downsizing & jpg-conversion, these uncropped/unprocessed images are exactly as they came from the very hand-held 400D) So, jeez........ If the kit lens from my 25 year old Contax, held in front of the 400D (in a not very elegant manner) & shooting pics by hand can produce images of this quality, while Canon's $300 zoom lens is unable to produce a single good image (anywhere in its range) out of 200-300 attempts (most shot with tripod & careful lighting/measurements), then there is something seriously wrong with Canon's picture (pun definitely intended). For the 1st time, finally, I am now starting to sense (1st-hand) some real potential with this camera & I can only imagine what I will be able to do with a proper (sharply focused) macro lens.

Many may not be aware that in addition to his guitar artistry & the guitars that carry his name, Les Paul is also the 1st guy to record 'sound-on-sound', which, today, is referred to as over-dubbing. This, probably more than any other technology in the pop music business, is responsible for the quality & complex layering heard on most pop music recordings (& live performances by acts like Millie Vanilli, Madonna & Michael Jackson) of the past 50 years. For instance, Sgt. Pepper could never have been made by the Beatles had Les Paul's technique of recording a 2nd instrument (or voice) over a previous 1 not been available to them. This technique has helped countless struggling musicians (like I once was) to self-produce their music to a quality that would have been all but impossible without it. Requiscat In Pace, Les.

Old subject & all I can say is

Probably a good idea, Ubi. I just returned the 75-300 & ordered 1. So I will end up with the same (zoom) setup as Pug, which I hope will improve my image.

Question - What is worse (far, far worse) than a Leopard Daytona? Answer - This.

Still Thursday here & wearing my 6536/1

My ode to Les (6542 among the knobs of my Les Paul 'The Paul')

I am not that clothes conscious, so I do not have many pics that highlight them. But here is a wristie that might fit (no pun intended) A pair of my shoes (Lobb) did get used as props in a couple of wristies And do not forget that no member of the gentile class would consider his ensemble complete unless it left his admirers' noses tingling with the merest hint of just the right scent as he sashays around the room But, for me, generally, when not working, my typical garb is likely to consist of a t-shirt, Levis, 'Bans, a steel Rolex & a pair of Purcells Tailor that.

As usual, beautiful pic. Since I have a macro on the way, I thought a zoom would be useful to fill in the gaps left by the SX10IS, so I can do shallow dof shots that may be difficult to do with the LX3's meager 2.5x zoom. Thanks Pug. Just what I needed to see.

James - I share your love for the Daytona Newman model, but I think there are more accurate reps of this watch available & (hopefully) for about the same or not much more than you spent on this 1. You should learn what the real thing looks like & how it functions. If you are interested, I would start by searching out pics of gen Rolex Daytona 6263s with Newman dials from google images or timezone. Then, check out the offerings from some of the collectors here (specifically Andrew & Joshua) & compare their reps to the real thing.

Yes, it was an impulse buy. I rarely purchase something like this without doing alot of research 1st. But I was without a functional camera, so I did what I always tell people not to do - rely on a salesman's advice. I just went through the fredmiranda zoom lens reviews & this 1 was almost universally panned by everyone, so back it goes today. I think I may try to exchange it for the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, which, in contrast, received almost universally rave reviews. Hopefully, it will provide a similar zoom (which does work well on this lens) but with Image Stabilization (which adds some hand-hold-ability to an otherwise tripod-only lens) & good image quality. And it is only about $50 more than the lens I have. I sure hope so. At this point, I have been seriously considering buying back the SX10IS & just dealing with its shortcomings. That p&s, with its 20x zoom & IS, allowed me to ignore most of the mechanics of picture-taking so I could concentrate on the creative process instead of struggling to find creative ways to get an acceptably decent image. But I will certainly wait to see what I get with the 400D & a lens that is capable of better-than-Polaroid quality images before I give up & return to the digital p&s world.

Thanks, Andei & yes, I have tried 3 stops down & virtually everything else. Ok, then what is the purpose of this EF 75-300 zoom lens, if all the images it produces -- both wide-angle & telephoto -- are soft with a slight halo around them? I mean, the primary purpose in stepping up to an SLR (from a p&s) is to get more precise images, no?