|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 18, 2004 0:19:33 GMT -5
Sorry to double post, but I promised to add a photo of my new 8926, so I'm bumping this thread up. I love this watch. It's going to be my daily wear. Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Dec 18, 2004 11:05:53 GMT -5
Looks nice. I'm still waiting for my 9937 with original Bezel. Sam told me he expected to have more this coming Monday.
Nice photo BTW, I have not mastered the art of watch photography. I need to spend more time with that digital camera of mine. I need something with a decent macro lense.....
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Dec 18, 2004 11:31:16 GMT -5
Sorry to double post, but I promised to add a photo of my new 8926, so I'm bumping this thread up. I love this watch. It's going to be my daily wear. Dave. Nice photo of a great watch! That's definitely one of the older 8926's...I'd say it's at least 2 years old by the size of the crown and the color of the bezel dot. But it looks brand new! John
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 18, 2004 13:21:34 GMT -5
Pete: I use a Canon EOS 10D (digital) and that photo was taken last night with a Tamron 90mm SP Di 1:1 Macro lens.
John: The watch was new in the box, unused and never worn. Mint condition!
Dave
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Dec 18, 2004 14:34:50 GMT -5
I have an EOS 620, an A1, and some medium format stuff. Never got to involved with digital. The digital camera I have is a Sony DSC-S85, I bought it shortly after it came out. It works fine as a general purpose camera, but is not really suited to photographing watch dials.
Can you tell me if my EOS lenses will attach to any of the Canon digital bodies?
Thanks.
BTW I have a 9939, a new (old bezel) 9937 on order, and I am thinking of a speedway, perhaps the new one. I checked here locally at the Omega dealer and all they could tell me about the SMP was that it was a 'neat watch'. I guess they should stick to diamonds. So I am saving for a speedway at the moment.
-Pete
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 18, 2004 22:14:47 GMT -5
The Canon EOS lenses will work on Canon's digital line, but make sure before you buy because I use the EF lens series.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Dec 18, 2004 22:17:41 GMT -5
Pete: I use a Canon EOS 10D (digital) and that photo was taken last night with a Tamron 90mm SP Di 1:1 Macro lens. John: The watch was new in the box, unused and never worn. Mint condition! Dave Nice gear! I'm using a Canon 20D with the Canon 100mm Macro (for most shots). When I shoot outside action shots, I break out my L series glass - Canon 70-200 telephoto. John
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Dec 18, 2004 22:22:26 GMT -5
The Canon EOS lenses will work on Canon's digital line, but make sure before you buy because I use the EF lens series. Dave Which EF lenses to you have Dave? I've been using the new EF-S 17-85 with image stabilization. Pretty happy with it so far....I've even used it for some watch shots - very versitile lens. John
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 18, 2004 23:00:50 GMT -5
I own 2 Canon lenses:
28-135mm EF IS (Image Stabilizer). This is my workhorse lens
50mm f 1.8. This is the one I use for low light situations.
I also own 2 non-Canon lenses:
I just got the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro, but it can be used as a fixed 90 for portrait photography.
I also own a Sigma 120-300mm and a Sigma 2x teleconverter (making it a 240-600mm). This is an awesome lens.
I'm very happy with the 10d. Even with the 1.6x magnification/cropping factor (which you have on your 20d as well) it's an awesome camera.
Dave.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Dec 19, 2004 7:00:12 GMT -5
Wow, I can see I have been away from the photography business for a while. ... David, Have you checked your 8926 for accuracy at all? I am curious how it does compaired to my Seiko 5. My 5 is within about 5 sec a day out of the box, and I dare not try to improve on that because they are pretty tough to adjust. I don't have anything here with the Miyota movement, but I hear it is pretty competent. For some reason I have a fasination with mechanical watch accuracy. -Pete
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Dec 19, 2004 9:40:24 GMT -5
I own 2 Canon lenses: 28-135mm EF IS (Image Stabilizer). This is my workhorse lens 50mm f 1.8. This is the one I use for low light situations. I also own 2 non-Canon lenses: I just got the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro, but it can be used as a fixed 90 for portrait photography. I also own a Sigma 120-300mm and a Sigma 2x teleconverter (making it a 240-600mm). This is an awesome lens. I'm very happy with the 10d. Even with the 1.6x magnification/cropping factor (which you have on your 20d as well) it's an awesome camera. Dave. David, You obviously are serious about your photography! You have a pair of classic lenses for your Canon 10D! The 50mm prime - I want to get one of these at some point in 05. I'm thinking I'll get the 1.4. People with these SWEAR by them. I've read many a testimonial from those stating they feel they can get sharper pics with their 50mm primes than they can with their L series telephotos... That 28-135 may be Canon's most popular lens ever. I almost got it instead of the EF-S 17-85 that I got instead. Indeed, a great lens. I'd REALLY like to compare the results of my 100mm Macro with your Tameron 90mm. I too use my 100mm for portraits with wonderful results. It's also produced some amazing watch photos for me. I'd also LOVE to see what kind of results you get with that Sigma combo you have. 120-300? Wow! With the 1.6 multiplier, you're getting an INCREDIBLE amount of zoom even without the converter!!! What exactly are you shooting that you need that sort of magnification? You can never have too much zoom, but at the same time, I've taken shots from the stands in the Cleveland Browns stadium that are near portrait quality. I can't imaging having that much more. Wow...I think I need to add a photography forum. ;D It's great to have someone else here on the site with similar equipment. We'll have to swap watch photography tips. John
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 19, 2004 10:25:07 GMT -5
Pete: I've had the watch for a few days now, and I don't notice a problem with the time. I would say it's fast by about 5 seconds per day based on the 15-second difference I see this morning vs. the day I received it. John: A photography forum would be awesome. I use that 50mm 1.8 more than I use my other lenses when I do low light photography (or don't want to use a flash). I've used it for the indoor photos at weddings. I looked at the f/1.4 but I couldn't justify the price difference. My 50mm cost me $50 from an Internet retailer, while the f/1.4 was about $300 MORE than that. I have not missed the difference and suggest that you might go to a local store and compare the 2 before you spend the extra money. I got the 120-300 because it overlapped the range on my 28-135 and was f/2.8 across the board. I can use it for low-light wedding photography or for astronomy: www.iearnit.com/yule2002/Moon_IMG_4281 web.jpg[/img] I took that photo at 600mm hand held, 1/500 second exposure at f/8. I really like the Sigma. Also, I will use it for animal photography at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park. I took these with the 28-135: The mushroom photo is a composite. I took the photo of "Laura" and then a photo of a mushroom. I combined them in Photoshop and then painted them in Corel Painter 8. I took this one with the 50mm: ...and I took this one with the Tamron: I used to use a Canon PowerShot G2 for all of my work, and I made enough money to pay for all of my current equipment (including a portable professional lighting setup). Dave.
|
|
|
Post by JBHII on Dec 19, 2004 11:40:15 GMT -5
Pete: I've had the watch for a few days now, and I don't notice a problem with the time. I would say it's fast by about 5 seconds per day based on the 15-second difference I see this morning vs. the day I received it. John: A photography forum would be awesome. I use that 50mm 1.8 more than I use my other lenses when I do low light photography (or don't want to use a flash). I've used it for the indoor photos at weddings. I looked at the f/1.4 but I couldn't justify the price difference. My 50mm cost me $50 from an Internet retailer, while the f/1.4 was about $300 MORE than that. I have not missed the difference and suggest that you might go to a local store and compare the 2 before you spend the extra money. I got the 120-300 because it overlapped the range on my 28-135 and was f/2.8 across the board. I can use it for low-light wedding photography or for astronomy: www.iearnit.com/yule2002/Moon_IMG_4281 web.jpg [/img] I took that photo at 600mm hand held, 1/500 second exposure at f/8. I really like the Sigma. Also, I will use it for animal photography at the San Diego Zoo and Wild Animal Park. I took these with the 28-135: The mushroom photo is a composite. I took the photo of "Laura" and then a photo of a mushroom. I combined them in Photoshop and then painted them in Corel Painter 8. I took this one with the 50mm: ...and I took this one with the Tamron: I used to use a Canon PowerShot G2 for all of my work, and I made enough money to pay for all of my current equipment (including a portable professional lighting setup). Dave.[/quote] Amazing photos Dave. Great stuff....thanks for sharing! I think you're right about that 50mm prime....For $50.00, it seems like a no-brainer. One of the advantages of the new 20D is the usable range of the ISOs have increased. I've been shooting a lot of my watch photos now at ISO 400, and I can't tell a difference in noise/picture quality from 200. But it really opens up some options from a lighting perspective. I hear the 20D is usable up to ISO 3200 but I've not tested that. I started out doing "serious" digital photography using a Canon G3, and still have it. I use it often for theme parks, or times I just don't want to lug around a DSLR and lenses. I have a belt clip camera case for it, and can walk around with it all day and not know it's there. Great camera. I suspect a watch photography forum will be the next forum we add to this site...perhaps 1st quarter of next year. Of course, I'll need someone to function as admin on the forum...<hint, hint...>. Until then, we can use the General Forum to talk about watch photography stuff. John
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 19, 2004 18:47:36 GMT -5
I would enjoy accepting that hint...
The 20d has some new tech in it that allows you to use the higher ISO speeds with almost no degradation. My understanding is that the ISO 1600 is about as good as the 10d's ISO 400, which is amazing.
On the 10d I've used ISO 1600, but it gets grainy. ISO 800 is as high as I'll go if I want to do work for weddings and such.
Dave
|
|
|
Post by DavidHernandez on Dec 20, 2004 9:31:38 GMT -5
|
|