Photoshop actions

  Reviews by: rossmehan  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rossmehan to your Buddy List
Canon EOS 40D

Review Date: Nov 23, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Price, image quality, substantial improvements from its predecessors
None for the money

I have a 20D and I waited to upgrade because I was disappointed the 30D didn't up the resolution to 10Mp. This camera is great--it's everything the 30D should have been. The jury is out on the sensor cleaner--time will tell if it really makes a difference, but all I really care about is image quality. I think the 14-bit does make a difference in the dynamic range--highlights seem to hold more detail and shadows are fuller. Subtle changes, but an improvement. All the picture styles are kind of confusing, but I'll get through it. Menus are clear and well laid out. Shutter is quieter than the 20D and it's supposed to have a better life. Enough said--great camera for the money!

Canon EOS 1Ds

Review Date: Aug 9, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: $7,000.00 | Rating: 8 

Pros: Bought mine in early 2004--Solid, Tank-like contruction, very rugged and good weather/dust sealing. Bullet-proof shutter. Full-frame is great. Decent battery life.
Way overpriced. Product is stuck in the "D30" era---Slow image processor and buffer. Having to scroll across enlarged image on review in a pain and always reminds me how old this model is. Menus are cumbersome and confusing. Having to hold the "select" button to scroll through images is a pain. Number one biggest compaint is NOISE--really unacceptable for a camera at this price. Even 400 ISO is pushing it. (And yes I do use Noise Ninja)

I bough this camera in early 2004 knowing that Canon was about to release a successor (they did, later that year). I needed the highest-res camera I could buy at the time and didn't want to buy the Kodak 14N. I have put well over 100,000 exposures on my camera with only one minor mechanical problem and NO electrical problems---a very solid, strong camera. I have never had a corrupt file being a fault of the camera. That being said--if I knew then what I know today, I would have bought 2-20D's and not the 1Ds. The camera is overpriced (so is the 1Ds MII, in my humble opinion). With the rapid changes in technology, cameras become obsolete in about 2 years--not a lot of time to recoup a $7,000 tool cost. Also the camera is noisey--really a problem over 400 ISO. The 5D and 20/30D are very good to shoot 400 ISO all the time, and produce silky-smooth noise even at 800/1600 ISO. I also feel the color is flat out of the 1Ds--just my opinion, again. I would not encourage someone to buy this camera--buy two 5D's instead. When the successor to the 5D comes out, hopefully in a couple of months, I will retire my faithful 1Ds----

Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro

Review Date: Apr 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $210.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Cheap, decent autofocus, excellent contrast, color, and sharpness at all focus distances
None for the money

I had to give my 2-cents on this lens--BUY IT! Really sharp and contrasty. Excellent lens for the money. I bought it to replace my 50 f1.8 as a normal lens (which is a decent lens in itself) because I wanted a little more sharpnness and was not expecting the high image quality I got. Canon sometimes shines with their non-"L" lenses, and this is definitely one of them. Macro works great too. Not the greatest build, but at this price it's disposable if damaged!

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM

Review Date: Jun 3, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $550.00 | Rating: 10 

Pros: Sharp, great focusing, good contrast, inexpensive, light, compact
None significant

Bought mine used, but no regrets--nice glass. I'd heard a lot of good things about it, but it exceeded my expectations. I use a lot of zoom lenses and going to a fixed focal shows the excellent quality of prime glass. Granted this lens is a little long for portraits, but for my event work fills a nice niche--

Hands down a great lens---

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Review Date: May 18, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $475.00 | Rating: 9 

Pros: Very sharp, good contrast and color saturation for a non-L lens
Feels like a non-L lens (duh) - Autofocus hunts a bit

I bought this lens on strenght of reviews only and it has not disappointed. Excellent sharpness and surprisingly good color fidelity and contrast considering it's a reasonably-priced non-L lens. IMHO this lens should be in every Canon shooter's bag. A great lens for macro and portraits---

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Review Date: Apr 9, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 7 

Pros: Fast focus, very smooth zoom, good image quality, contrast and color at 50-70mm
Softness at wide angles, heavy, bulky, Weird lenshade

I feel I'm the only one who's had a problem with this lens, but it has consistanly dissapointed me at wide angles. I bought it after all the glowing reviews I'd read about it, shot many events and weddings with it but started noticing the wide angle problem. I sent the lens to Canon to have it inspected, but it's come back in basically the same condition. Here's part of the letter I sent--

"This 24-70 mm f2.8 L lens is not sharp. Itís acceptable from about 50-70mm, but it becomes very soft at wide angles. Itís not an autofocus problem--I get the same results when I manually focus the lens. My $400 Canon IS 28-135 f.3.5 IS has better sharpness, wide and telephoto than this $1,400 lens."

I'm not one of those nitpickers that have nothing better to do all day than shoot lens test charts--this lens, for me, is just not sharp at wide angles in day to day shooting. The lens is a "L" lens and DOES have excellent color and contrast. It's just for the price I feel it should be "insanely great" at all focal lenghts--it isn't.