<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for jrsforums</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/jrsforums/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/jrsforums/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:22:17 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Tech Tips - The Digital Journalist</title><link>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html#comment-5091624</link><description>&lt;p&gt;A lot of people are maligning the low light AF capability of the 5D2, particularly relative to the 1Ds3.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I do not fine AF on the 5D2 to be a problem in low light, static objects.  In fact, properly used...or at least use the way I do...I find that it will AF in light lower than I can expect resonable IQ (very high ISO) exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know the 1Ds3 has a lot of AF functionality, particularly with moving objects and off-center points.  However, I believe I remember (pls correct if I am wrong) a past discussion of yours where the wider 5D (or xxD) AF point(s) were better at low light than the narrower 1D/1Ds points.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could you comment on how each of these (5D2, 1Ds3) will do in low light using center point only and/or exterior points.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks...John Schwaller&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jrsforums</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 13 Jan 2009 09:22:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Tech Tips - The Digital Journalist</title><link>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html#comment-4854068</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Ooops...sorry...missed that....&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jrsforums</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:18:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Tech Tips - The Digital Journalist</title><link>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html#comment-4676652</link><description>&lt;p&gt;A lot of people are maligning the low light AF capability of the 5D2, particularly relative to the 1Ds3.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I do not fine AF on the 5D2 to be a problem in low light, static objects.  In fact, properly used...or at least use the way I do...I find that it will AF in light lower than I can expect resonable IQ (very high ISO) exposures.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I know the 1Ds3 has a lot of AF functionality, particularly with moving objects and off-center points.  However, I believe I remember (pls correct if I am wrong) a past discussion of yours where the wider 5D (or xxD) AF point(s) were better at low light than the narrower 1D/1Ds points.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Could you comment on how each of these (5D2, 1Ds3) will do in low light using center point only and/or exterior points.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks...John Schwaller&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jrsforums</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 11:04:04 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Tech Tips - The Digital Journalist</title><link>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html#comment-4557320</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Good method.  I think you would have even more control if masking was used on the layers rather than the eraser tool.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;John&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jrsforums</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:49:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Tech Tips - The Digital Journalist</title><link>http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0812/tech-tips.html#comment-4557287</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi, Chuck...&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Can you explain the reason behind the precaution  "...Camera-to-subject distance should be no less than 50 times the focal length of the lens..."&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Thanks....John Schwaller&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jrsforums</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:45:29 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>