https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1isbrzb/hiked_2_hours_to_reach_the_lava_flow_asked/
/h/outdoors
DragOnMyBallZ
knee/grow
3d ago
(reddit.com)
171 thread views
#343581
earned 72 coins from votes
3d ago
(reddit.com)
171 thread views
#343581
earned 72 coins from votes
Reported by:
-
Grue
:
He hiked TWO WHOLE HOURS and is NOT HAPPY with the kind stranger's work 
- 9
- 20
Top Poster of the Day:
JimieWhales
Current Registered Users: 31,087
We encourage you to have a look around the catalog first to see what we're all about before posting your first thread. Topics typically posted here include:
Most topics related to the outdoors are fine. Write properly, behave politely, encourage a respectful community, and most importantly, GO OUTSIDE!!
/h/outdoors SETTINGS /h/outdoors MODS /h/outdoors LOG /h/outdoors EXILEES /h/outdoors FOLLOWERS /h/outdoors BLOCKERS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
/u/DayDfoto you r-slurred BIPOC dont you know to check the picture first?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
or
or
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't want to give Redditors too much credit, but he probably did have the picture re-taken and then posted this shit anyway for the beloved updoots. Actually, I'll go even further. I could easily see this being a totally normal picture, since modern phone cameras don't suck this badly, with a blurry affect applied to it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Virgin pixel peeper gets mogged by chad bokehmaxxer
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Hey maybe you could help me with a conundrum.
So I was going to sell my new 16-35 and use my 17-40 instead. I thought mistakenly that with an EF lens, the RF mount bodies would only use the lens image stabilization and not combine it with the body IS. It turns out it does do it together, but it's just not as good as with an RF lens.
The other issue is rhe zoom on the 16-35 is really stiff so if you try to zoom while filming video it will shake/twist the camera. The 17-40 doesn't have that issue.
Meanwhile the 16-35 has much better image quality than the 17-40, which wouldnt be too much of an issue for stills, but with video you can't easily correct for chromatic aberration and shit.
I'd keep both but I already spent the money on that 400mm prime.
Does any of this make sense?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ya no it does. Ive heard good things ab the IBIS working in tandem with the lens IS (shame to hear its not as good with EF but maybe its just better for big zooms/primes). You should be able to just deactivate it in the menu settings since its not something you want to run in every scenario (like on a tripod). Could also try turning off lens IS and running just the IBIS to see if that yields better results? (Lens IS+IBIS off vs Lens IS off+IBIS)
Ultimately I think it's going to come down to whether stills or video are more of a priority for you since the ideal solution would most likely be a 3rd lens that solves all these issues. (Like a 15-35 L)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://old.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1isbrzb/hiked_2_hours_to_reach_the_lava_flow_asked/:
undelete.pullpush.io
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context