On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Giles wrote:
> What would I gain [or lose] by using a 90 or 100 macro instead of the 50.
> [I'd carry one or the other..]
A slightly different perspective. Stronger out of focus effects.
More room for reflectors and other forms of lighting (flash?).
In the case of the 90/2, more sharpness. Also 1.5 stops luminosity.
> what tripod would you carry, if light weight, low angle,
> and quick-release were all important. How about if you factor price in.
Benbo Trekker with a good ball head (for the lighest, the Velbon
Magnesium). Throw cost in, and it'd be a Bogen.
> What are the top three [or 5?] accessories you'd throw in your pockets or
> daypack.
For flowers ? A Nikon CU lens. Polarizer (maybe a bicolor Y-B?). 81C.
Small flash with remote cord, several small reflectors, a piece of
Bisqueen to create soft lighting. Okay, that was 7-10, and I'd also throw
in a Singh-Ray GND and a few small bungees to hold back things that get
in the way. Ok, that's 8...I'll stop there. A gel filter or two to put
over the flash, one simulating bluish shade light, the other a warm one
(so you can use the flash in a more natural way.
> What do you want to brag about that has petals.
I have this killer Cannondale MTB with XT components...oops,
you said PETALS...
*= Doris Fang =*
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|