[kb100]

Is third party Canon equivalent Batteries available in India?

I have been reading up on Sterlingtek and DiamondBack Batteries (Canon BP 511 Equivalent)

Everyone seems very happy about th performance of these batteries and they seem to be a third (or less) of the OEM battery. (Rs400-500 each!)

Any contact details of retailers in India is most welcome!

[tsk1979]

At Photoimaging Asia Delhi, an associate bought a few for his canon G9.
He is happy with them.
However I don't remember the retailer name.
the best bet is to buy batteries from someone like sterlingtek, as they are reliable,.
Another brand I recommend is Diamondback Battery & Electronics
They are pretty respected on dpreview.

[kb100]

Exactly - Now to find someone who sells them in India.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Agree with Samurai here.
Its better to get the 100-400L lens from canon instead of teleconvertor.
2x will rob 2 stops of light and AF will not work unless the TC lies to the body about the aperture.

Not really... both are f/5.6 at the long end. The 100-400 is not a very sharp lens at the long end of the zoom, especially wide open. The 70-200 f/2.8 with a 2x tele is not really that bad a solution. You get super sharp 70mm-200mm and a very usable 200mm-400mm. AF and IS both work with the 2x teleconverter and the 70-200 f/2.8 without any workarounds.

[Hellcat]

"Not really... both are f/5.6 at the long end. The 100-400 is not a very sharp lens at the long end of the zoom"

I am sorry but you are wrong my friend, I have used this lens and for its price, it is worth every bit of it. I love this lens.

Canon 100-400mm performance at 400mm.

Canon 100-400mm performance at 400mm - Sample Pics? - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Because of its range the 100-400 IS works out less then the 70-200/2X Tc Combo. The 70-200mm f2.8L IS weighs in at 1470g. The 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS weighs in at 1,380g.

[kutlee]

Does anyone has any idea about Panasoinc TZ5/TZ3 etc? I found this in the highly recommended list in DPreview.
I did online search and found that TZ5 is available for online buy only on ebay. any pointers?

[kb100]

Chennai BHPians - Can you give me the the name and numbers of a couple of leading photographic equipment shops in Chennai? I need to pick up a couple of things.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by Hellcat

"Not really... both are f/5.6 at the long end. The 100-400 is not a very sharp lens at the long end of the zoom"

I am sorry but you are wrong my friend, I have used this lens and for its price, it is worth every bit of it. I love this lens.

Canon 100-400mm performance at 400mm.

Canon 100-400mm performance at 400mm - Sample Pics? - Canon Digital Photography Forums

Because of its range the 100-400 IS works out less then the 70-200/2X Tc Combo. The 70-200mm f2.8L IS weighs in at 1470g. The 100-400mm f4-5.6L IS weighs in at 1,380g.

I have used one as well. Actually belongs to my office and I use it once in a while. I found it to be soft beyond 350mm as compared to the rest of focal length range. The 70-200 is significantly sharper in itself and a tad bit better with a teleconverter. Actually there's not much to choose from. However given the fact that the 70-200 will do 2.8 and has newer gen IS, i'd choose it anyday. Plus the push pull zoom of the 100-400 ain't much fun to use.

[kb100]

Was researching which CF card to buy - and came across this ..

Rob Galbraith DPI: CF/SD Performance Database

Wonderful info!

[redrage]

I have been using the 55-250 IS extensively now and if you are buying it "here" its defintely more bang for buck than the 70-300 IS as the price difference as many pointed out is more than 17K!!!!. here are some shots taken on the 55-250

[given2fly]

@ Redrage. The three pictures above are very good. But the background of the picture could have been well muted if the lens would have been a 70-200 or a 70-300. Though VFM, these things make the difference from a keeper. I don't mean to demean your work at all, but if you can afford, migrate to a better glass. Your pictures will come out "Absolut Brilliant".

[redrage]

Originally Posted by given2fly

@ Redrage. The three pictures above are very good. But the background of the picture could have been well muted if the lens would have been a 70-200 or a 70-300. Though VFM, these things make the difference from a keeper. I don't mean to demean your work at all, but if you can afford, migrate to a better glass. Your pictures will come out "Absolut Brilliant".

Thanks for the tip. But i am more than happy with my glass. I have posted the same in various forums and what i understand is its not the glass but my skills to compensate exposures, white balance and most important of all "post processing" needs to be really improve by a large extent if i need to extract good pictures from this lens. Agreed 70-300 IS might be definetly a better lens, but some how the huge price difference was not justified for additional 50 mm for me when i bought the 55-250, i got it at 11k and 70-300 was 29k at that time. Any wild life lover would like to get the 100-400 L for safari's and improvised shots. So i would learn with the 55-250 and upgrade to 100-400 when i have enough dough and when i really improvise my skills. Dont you think that is a better option. Thanks for the advice none the less, and yes many shots dont come out well but i really want to extract a lot from this to up my learning curve.

[given2fly]

If you are happy with your pics, then you know it better than me. But the reason I said something is because I see a lot of flare & ghosting in the above pictures. I did praise your skills as a photographer, but then higher priced lenses have better optics to suppress the flares that you can see in the second and third picture you have posted. You may want to take 2 pictures with a borrowed lens and your lens and see the difference. Diffusing of background is what the glass elements & coating inside a lens do & higher grade lens come with such good quality stuff in just the right mix. Result is the ghosting and flares in your pictures gone. Therefore, more keeper pictures.

Something out of DPReview's review of 70-200 F4.

Canon EF 70-200 mm F4L IS USM lens: Digital Photography Review

A newly designed optical system limits lens size and improves image clarity over the total image area. 1 x Fluorite element and 2 x Ultra-Low Dispersion glass elements are used to eliminate the secondary chromatic aberrations that otherwise reduce sharpness and introduce colour fringing. By optimising Super Spectra lens coatings and lens element shaping, Canon’s engineers have been effective in suppressing flare and ghosting – more prone to occur with digital cameras due to reflection off the image sensor. By increasing light absorption, coatings reduce reflections off lens element surfaces to deliver crisp, undistorted images with natural colour balance.

I hope I am clearer now.

Originally Posted by redrage

Thanks for the tip. But i am more than happy with my glass. I have posted the same in various forums and what i understand is its not the glass but my skills to compensate exposures, white balance and most important of all "post processing" needs to be really improve by a large extent if i need to extract good pictures from this lens. Agreed 70-300 IS might be definitely a better lens, but some how the huge price difference was not justified for additional 50 mm for me when i bought the 55-250, i got it at 11k and 70-300 was 29k at that time. Any wild life lover would like to get the 100-400 L for safari's and improvised shots. So i would learn with the 55-250 and upgrade to 100-400 when i have enough dough and when i really improvise my skills. Don't you think that is a better option. Thanks for the advice none the less, and yes many shots don't come out well but i really want to extract a lot from this to up my learning curve.

[redrage]

@given2fly:- I have clearly said i was happy with the lens for the pricing and not the pics i have taken. I am aware of the quality or keeper pictures you cal of 70-200L series and 70-300's . From a beginner's persepective i picked up this glass for the reach and the pricing. Sorry if i have mis-communicated anything.

[tsk1979]

redrage, I hope you have not slapped a UV filter to the front of the telephoto?