August 21, 2014, 10:27:32 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Drizzt321

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 112
Landscape / Re: Total Lunar Eclipse - #1 of 4 - April 2014
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:23:25 PM »
Wow jrista! That's a really awesome triad shot! Well done sir.

What equipment do you shoot with? Especially which tripod head? I've got a decent enough Benro with ball-head, and it worked, sorta, but I kept wishing it was geared in some way or another to fine tune.

Thanks. :)

I used a Canon 7D, EF 600mm f/4 L II lens, but the equipment that really allowed me to get the kind of detail I did during totality was the Orion Atlas equatorial tracking mount. I did not have to jack my ISO way up to 3200 or 6400 to get images during totality...I kept it at ISO 100, tracked in lunar time, and simply increased my exposure times. At full moon, my shutter was 1/250th. At maximum totality, it was 8s to 15s. Since I was tracking the moon itself, I could expose for that long of a time without experiencing blur due to the moon transiting across the frame.

Ah yes, good old tracking mounts. Don't know if I'll ever get one, as I don't generally do much in the way of astrophotography (in which I include the Moon/ISS, etc). I suspect if I get into astro ever, I'll probably want to get a crop-sensor camera to get the higher density/narrower FoV.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Samyang 650-1300mm
« on: April 15, 2014, 03:03:42 PM »
Lots of hate towards this lens (rightly so perhaps) but not many suggestions other then buying another camera or just using a 300m and cropping.

Are there no other decent long lens/scope alternatives to consider?

Celestron C6.

Actually, that's a fairly modest price. Although add in a appropriate tripod, and for astrophotography a tracking system, it still seems like a fairly low investment of a $1-2K for a nice image quality.

Landscape / Re: Total Lunar Eclipse - #1 of 4 - April 2014
« on: April 15, 2014, 02:49:54 PM »
Wow jrista! That's a really awesome triad shot! Well done sir.

What equipment do you shoot with? Especially which tripod head? I've got a decent enough Benro with ball-head, and it worked, sorta, but I kept wishing it was geared in some way or another to fine tune.

Landscape / Re: Total Lunar Eclipse - #1 of 4 - April 2014
« on: April 15, 2014, 01:07:48 PM »
I think you did a great job, Drizzt! Especially considering you used an Opteka mirror lens, and at f/16!

BTW, the blue star is Spica, one of the key stars in the constellation Virgo. It's blue, rather than orange, simply because it isn't Mars. :P

The other star, I suspect, is 76 Virginis, assuming that your image is from the beginning of the eclipse rather than the end.

Thanks, but that one wasn't at f/16, that one was just the lens itself so f/8. I never appreciated how much 2-stops of light could mean in the viewfinder!

The image is from near maximum totality (10-20 min before). I thought I had seen somewhere that Mars was going to be leading slightly below the moon last night. Ah ha! There's the image from Discovery Blog. Reading it a bit more, looks like it was 10-degrees off from the moon, and 800mm gives a 3-degree field of view. So I couldn't have captured Mars :(  Oh darn.

Maybe for the next tetrad I'll have the Tamron 150-600 with a 1.4x or 2x TC. Got to be much higher quality than the Opteka. Frankly, it'd be hard not to be.

Landscape / Re: Total Lunar Eclipse - #1 of 4 - April 2014
« on: April 15, 2014, 04:47:03 AM »
*sigh* I wish I had a real lens. I took mine with one of the Opteka mirror lenses. 800mm f/8, and it came with a 2x TC, so the closeups (all when the moon was starting to eclipse, so brighter) are f/16. I'm actually too embarrassed to shot the closeup that I took, although I haven't sorted through them all. So, here's one with a few stars around. I _think_ that's Mars in the lower right, although for some reason it's blue.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Dissuade me to get a Rolleiflex
« on: April 14, 2014, 06:02:48 PM »
- I really love the "whole format", the "belly shooting".
Just pick up a nice Mamiya RB67 or RZ67.  A fraction of the cost, and you can even buy new / near new lenses and accessories.  Much more functional and practical.  You can even add a medium format digital back to them and have the best of both worlds.

While I have an RB67, and just got a 140mm Macro off of ebay, I wouldn't exactly say it's quite the same style. Not having used a Rollei, it still strikes me as, with a good shoulder strap, much easier to hold & shoot than an RB/RZ. And much lighter, and much quicker shutter response without the huge mirror having to fly up out of the way. Not that I'll get rid of my RB67 you understand...

Great shots, and love the signature even more! ;)  You're not qualified on all of those, are you?

F-4E | F-16D | B-52H | HC-130P | HH-60G | UH-1H | TH-1H | UH-72A | HH-3F | NH-500C | S208M | Mi-24V | A109 | SA316 | PC-7 | AS365 | SH-3D | AS532

Third Party Manufacturers / New55 Film kickstarter
« on: April 14, 2014, 04:55:06 PM »
New55 project, working to creates a 4x5 Polaroid replacement (for 545 holder) has it's kickstarter up ( If anyone feels nostalgic, or wants to try and help out the few people still shooting 4x5 please pledge.

Lenses / Re: 2014, the year of the lens...but for whom?
« on: April 11, 2014, 05:20:02 PM »
The usual suspects from Canon: 35 1.4L II, new 50 1.4 and/or 1.8IS or even 800 5.6 II.

If they don't do something soon about the 100-400L, I think we might have a small revolt going on.

Reviews / Re: Lomography's Petzval Lens - RLPhoto's First Impressions
« on: April 11, 2014, 05:19:08 PM »
Nice! Thanks for sharing. When I saw it, I thought seriously about backing it...but decided I should do something else with the money.

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 09, 2014, 07:29:56 PM »
Thanks for your feedbacks gent's.

Prior writing this topic, the only thing that make me think twice is non AF. This could be a huge issue for me. My current 16-35 II is fine when shooting at smaller apertures f11 or smaller. However, there are times I need to shoot indoor f4 to 5.6, the IQ is quite not same.

Another Q: is there any tilt-shift with AF?

Thanks surapon for sample photos. Those tall buildings look great with tilt-shift.

Not that I'm aware of. I think part of it is it's a specialized lens, and it's specialty will very much tend to be used on a tripod and longer exposures as necessary, so AF wasn't a thought. Might actually be real engineering issues since the entire barrel needs to shift & tilt, and even rotate. If they did, it'd probably add a good bit to the cost I'd imagine, and it's already expensive enough as is.

Is the issue that you need to shoot UWA indoors, but not on a tripod where you could do a longish exposure (e.g. moving subject(s))? I guess you gotta stick with the 16-35 v2, and step back a bit so that you can crop in somewhat to remove the corners. Or just live with what you have. Honestly, I don't think you generally can shoot at f/11 indoors, unless you have a ton of light coming in, which might be common for where you shoot (certainly not where I shoot!).

Photography Technique / Re: What if we were still shooting slide film?
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:27:43 PM »
I think with digital, it is easy to get in the habit of spray and pray.  I feel this is especially true for those photographers who never shot film.

Now that we are getting close to the point where we can buffer dump RAW files almost non-stop, there is nothing technically slowing down the photographer. 

There are, however, types of photographers who don't want to slow down.  Fencecheckers and sport photographers or anyone trying to photograph fleeting subjects want as many shots as they can.

But for some of us, photography is a slow process.   I am one of those types that uses a tripod and takes about 5 minutes for every shot.  :o

Different togs need different speeds.  But unless you truly need the speed, I feel that photographers would benefit from slowing down. Yeah, we used to think a lot more in the film days.  Not only from the expense viewpoint but also because we only had 24/36 exposures before we reload.  These days it is not unreasonable to be able to store 500 full frame RAW images on one SD card.

If a shot is worth taking, it is worth taking it slow.  LoL

Completely agree with this. A year ago I started shooting a bit of 120-film (Mamiya RB67, no way to move that around fast!), and I really slowed down and thought more. It carried over some to my digital shooting, and I think it's a positive thing for me. Plus, 6x7cm slides are OMGAWESOME. Too bad it's really hard to find an inexpensive used 6x7 slide projector. I suppose I could cobble one up somehow...

Lenses / Re: Canon TS-E 17mm f/4L Tilt-Shift Lens - your thoughts?
« on: April 09, 2014, 12:25:02 PM »
The 16-35 II is a convenient UWA zoom.  The TS-E 17mm is one of the best 2-3 ultrawide lenses in terms of optical quality, and when you add in the movements it's an amazing lens.

I don't really see any of the TS-E lenses (I've used the TS-E 24mm v2) as a general use lens. On the other hand, with UWA, it's got a pretty big DoF if the subjects are standing a bit away from you.

Like Neuro says, for general convenience, go for the 16-35 v2 (or if you know you're going to be stopped down a lot, and want to save money, the 17-40), but if you want top optical quality, the 17 TS-E is fantastic. Although for doing the tilt & shift you'll probably want a quality tripod to put it on.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: How to Annoy a Photography Snob
« on: April 02, 2014, 05:47:41 PM »
#12: Watching DigitalRev videos :P

For this, I'd rather actually have a list and maybe a few sentences around each one.

Although #5, P mode... I sorta agree if you have anything above a 70D or so. At least learn enough to use Av or Tv if you're going to spend that much money. Rebel or other entry-level SLR/ILC, sure, ok if you just want a more capable camera than a phone or bottom level P&S.

Lenses / Re: sorry i have to ask....
« on: March 26, 2014, 06:07:56 PM »
I'd be tempted to buy either of those lenses...except for the fact that they're a good chunk of the way to one of the L lenses. Not always half-way, I'll grant you, but if they'd have been ~$300ish, much more attractive. At $600, I can probably double that and be about a refurb from Canon.

The 28 f/2.8 IS is 352 + tax (in stock) at the Canon refurb store now, and the 24 f/2.8 IS is 384 + tax (currently out of stock).

Refurb, not retail. Although, not that I'm opposed to refurb, often some good equipment you can pick up for a discount there.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 112