mbird

Is that a Great Crested Grebe's ****, or a Little Grebe's **** then?

It certainly exists in my tank Andy . The problem with river boats rather than lorries etc is the relatively small turnover of fuel (i.e. the tank isn't constantly being run down then refilled like a vehicle would), and so any contamination tends to build over a period of time. Add to that the naturally high humidity environment and a partially empty tank can create quite a lot of condensation. As David mentioned, it is within the water fuel interface that the microbes grow. Keeping the tank topped up will obviously reduce the surface area for condensation to form, which is why I tend to have my tanks filled every couple of trips. I was a little sceptical like yourself, until I did the fuel filter changes a couple of weeks ago. I was very surprised by what I found in the first filter, as I mentioned in my earlier post, which looked like big lumps of algae - slimey and jellified. It was no where near bad enough to block the filter, and the second one was as clean as a whistle, but I can imagine filters that haven't been regularly maintained causing problems. As to your point of fuel being a detergent, I am not so sure it is? Diesel is an oil (and therefore organic). When spilled in water, a slick forms on the water surface, which is dispersed by detergents (eg Fairy Liquid). If the fuel itself was a detergent would it not disperse on it's own? Having said that though, a detergent isn't anti-bacterial in it own right and so the microbes would still grow even if it was. Me, I'm convinced, so I'll carry on adding the enzyme ...... just incase!

Hi Jill I echo all the foregoing, and would also confirm that your battery will be a Lithium Ion type. These do not suffer from the "memory" as David says and so you can charge them at any state. You also do not have to wait for them to be fully charged before you take them off the charger, although that will obviously reduce the amount of shots you can take.

Lovely I wouldn't want to be a little fishy, looking at that beak!

Good tale Suzanne, can't wait to see the pics! I can't seem to get the link to work though?

Lovely shots Col. The Mill (both of them) and the Goldfinch are beautiful.

I tried, Col, but SWMBO beat me with a paddle as she thought I was just being lazy

Thank you Clive. What with gazing at landscape never seen before and concentrating on paddling, I did't get as many shots as I had intended. There are some lovely highland cattle with huge horns along that stretch that would have looked great if the light had been a bit better.

No Martin, that was my lunch bag In all seriousness though, it was a calculated risk that I considered worth taking to have the camera along. The rucksack I have is rain proof, not submersible, so was fine with any stray splashes from paddles etc. Those canadian canoes are really pretty stable at over 3 feet wide and flat bottomed, so you'd have to be doing something really stupid to capsize one. Anyway, thats what insurance is for!

A camera is for using I reckon!! It stayed in my waterproof rucksack until needed, the strap then went around my neck, and after taking a few frames, it went back in the rucksack straight away!!!! I had no intention of getting wet, so the camera was relatively safe (I hoped!)..... Unfortunatley there wasn't a dri-sack big enough for the camera bag, but needless to say I will be purchasing one when we get our own canoes!

Hi All We are interested in buying a Canadian style canoe and a couple of kayaks, so thought it would be a good idea to hire some to "test-drive" them. We were bitten by the bug by hiring a couple of canoes from Salhouse Broad the weekend before last for an hour, and then attending the "try-it" open weekend at Whitlingham Broad on Sunday. We decided to hire a Canadian canoe for myself and Sharon, and a couple of kayaks for Jack and Harry, so went to Bank's Dayboats at Wayford Bridge yesterday morning. We had the boats for three hours, and took a paddle up the Dilham canal to see part of the broads we have never visited before. As no powered craft can get up the canal, it was incredibly peaceful and even the overcast weather and cool breeze couldn't spoil the magical tranquility. Canoeing certainly is a wonderful way of exploring these backwaters. The pictures aren't particularly good, due to me perching on the rear seat, and the heavy contrast of the sky against the trees. They still manage to convey a feeling of blissful peace though....

That is disgraceful. A strong letter of complaint should be sent I reckon.

Those gardens look beautiful Simon. The colour of that Rhody is wonderful

I love that one Simon

SImon, yes that is the lens, but the cash I paid for the one I got from ebay was sub £400 (though not as low as Perry's findings). It was sold as brand new, but you could well be right and it is a slightly iffy quality version, but I'll have to try Bruce's test before I come to any conclusions. The reviews I was referring to were those on photozone.de and a couple of others. They seem to all think the lens is okay, but not outstanding, but I can't afford a better one just yet . Mind you the 17-55 f2.8 does look pretty good....... Bruce, What can I say , that must have taken a while to type, and I appreciate your efforts and help. Reading through what you have said, I will spend some time this weekend taking some methodical series of shots with both lenses. I naively thought a small aperture would make a better image for things like landscapes simply because of the pin-hole camera theory, but this is plainly not the case, even from my quick experiment earlier today. I also take in everything you have said regarding tripod technique, and have to hold my hands up that mine is obviously poor. IS was turned on I did manually press the shutter button . I didn't use manual focus . I am therefore rapidly coming to the conclusion that operator error is probably the largest part of my problem. I have had both lenses checked this afternoon by Norfolk Camera in Dereham, who tested them on their "columator" (dunno what the hell that is) and have stated they are what they would expect. The guy I spoke to did seem a little anti the 17-85 for the body I now have, but then he was a salesman afterall . I think this may well turn out to be a classic case of poor workman blaming his tools, so I'll run the methodical shots and see what happens.

I think the main issue is that now I have the 50D, my expectations are much higher. WIth the 350D, the image blurred at a about the same magnification as the pixels appeared, but as the 50D is much higher resolution, it is more noticable. Also, the fact you have to reduce all pics to 1600 pixels for the forum does mean they look sharper at that size as you simply cant zoom in enough to see the problems. I think certain types of photo (like the "business" of all the bluebell stems) show the problem up, together with the shots with a smaller aperture exacerbating the problem. Now I've read the reviews on the lens, it does seem to suffer from some image sharpness issues, and it's interesting to note that none of the test shots in the reviews are ever done with an aperture smaller than about f10.

Paul Thanks for the kind offer. Maybe next time I bump into you I could just try a couple of test shots with one of your lenses? Perry, Thanks for that info. I think SImon may have put his finger on it, but I'll shoot a few more pics I think before I contact WE. I don't mind looking a wally on here, but if I take the camera into them and it turns out to be fine I'll look a plonker .

Simon, you are a bloody genius! I tried the same two shots in my back garden with ISO set to auto, focus on auto, Av mode, focal length 72mm. The first was shot as f32, the second at f10. You can see from the screenshot what a major difference this makes to the clarity of the image...... I think my issues may be resolved, as I tend to shoot a lot with the aperture closed right down when I want a lot of dof. Maybe I need to restrain my fingers and stick to about f18 max.

Thanks for your input guys. The problem is that I'm not sure if it is just me being over critical. The images look fine at normal forum resolution of 1600 wide, but when viewed in LR2 at 1:1 they are horribly soft and so would be no good for big enlargements and it also limits the amount of cropping I can do. The lens is the same one I had on my 350D, Simon, but the same sort of problem is exhibited by my 70-300. I think I will contact WE and speak to them to see if there is some way the body/lens conficuration can be tested. This morning I've tried some test shots with IS disabled and all the noise reduction gizmos turned off, but the images still aren't crystal clear...... I've already tried the microfocus adjustments with a test print I found on t'internet, and the best focus is achieved with zero adjustment. I will have a go with larger apertures though, as that is something I didn't think of!

They were in the wooded area to the left up the hill as you face the broad. There are thousands of them at the moment, but as Brian says they do have a short life, so get down there quick if you want to see them

This evening Brian. It was a nice afternoon so I popped down their with my boys for an hour before tea.

Hi All Now I may be getting paranoid here, but I think I may have a focus problem. Since getting my 50D, I have been somewhat disappointed with the sharpness of the images. I had similar problems with my old 350D, but assumed that was simply because it was a lower resolution sensor etc. I always shoot in RAW, and leave the lens in AF mode (the same lens as I used on the 350D). The screen capture below illustrates what I mean (hopefully) as the focus point used was bang in the middle of the frame at ISO 100, F18, 1/6th sec, lens set at 50mm. You can clearly see that the enlgarged view seems "fuzzy", even though the camera was on a tripod and so camera shake shouldn't be an issue. The lens is a Canon 17-85 IS EFS, which I bought new (albeit from Ebay). The problem seems worse in lower light conditions, although even in bright sunshine the images are not what I would call pin sharp. Any ideas guys?

Just a couple of snaps of the bluebells that are in full bloom at Salhouse Broad

Right, now I've got panorama issues I took this sequence of 7 shots at Salhouse, with the camera in portrait orientation, AF set to manual, exposure set to manual etc, all in RAW mode. However, when I've used Canon's photostitcher programme, the banding between joints is awful, almost like the righthand side is being exposed differently to the left. I did have a grad filter on, which I am sure was level. Any ideas on what the problem is??

Ok, I concede, I think I have found some of the benefit of the LiveView mode I now have available to me. I went to Salhouse Broad this evening to try to get some shots of the bluebells, and also to try some panoramas (haven't downloaded the photos yet though). With the bluebells, I had my tripod very low, with me sitting on the floor (yet again). I put the camera into LiveView and it did make seeing the scene a little easier than craning my neck. The biggest advantage though, was something I picked up on from one of Bruce's posts, about using the exposure simulation mode. I was using a variety of ND grad filters, and by sliding them down varying amounts, the LiveView tries to alters the exposure of the picture on the LCD to show the exposure you will get on the photo. Instead of just getting darker as you put the filter in (as through the view finder), it alters the image on the screen so the area covered by the filter is correct in relationship to the unfiltered area. Finally I tried a couple of panoramas from the top of the hill overlooking the broad. In LiveView, it is much easier to see how far you have rotated the camera between each shot, and means you can leave the tripod undisturbed by not constantly knocking the camera with your nose. Hoorah for LiveView