August 30, 2014, 04:13:45 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 - Northstar

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96
1
I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.
same situation...except I'm looking at an Ostrich.  Which camera do I grab.

Doesn't matter, but you'd better be on the phone to the Guinness Book of World Records, the local news media, and the tabloids to report your flying ostrich!!!

lol...good one Neuro! ;D 

2
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: Today at 02:34:31 PM »
Shot some women's volleyball yesterday...tough sport to shoot because the net/players always seem to be in the way, and they tend to move quickly and unexpectedly.   But also a fun sport to watch.

1dx and 300 2.8IS
f2.8
1/800th
ISO5000


3
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan, my friend...I'm laughing now, didn't you see the part where I said "too technical for me". :D  ;D

It's a hypothetical situation.   Which body should I grab?

OK I'll leave out the technical stuff for you:  75 m is too far away for a 300mm for good photos of anything smaller than an ostrich so my answer is grab neither and just enjoy looking at the eagle. But, if all you want is to publish a thumbnail on the web, it won't make much difference whatever you choose.

same situation...except I'm looking at an Ostrich.  Which camera do I grab.

4
Photography Technique / Re: Back-button focus?
« on: Today at 08:48:28 AM »
Tried it for a few weeks...then quit and went back to shutter. I shoot sports, I just couldn't get comfortable with it.

6
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

A fully grown bald eagle is 1 m long. The size of the image on the sensor for a 300mm lens 75 m away is 4 mm. corresponding to 930 pixels on the 7D or 640 on the 5DIII. 300mm is too short for a decent image. I would use the 300 mm + 2xTC on either camera as 1860 px on the 7D or 1280 on the 5DIII would give an excellent image. You didn't have the 2xTC in your bag, I know but that is bad planning.

Alan, my friend...I'm laughing now, didn't you see the part where I said "too technical for me". :D  ;D

It's a hypothetical situation.   Which body should I grab?


7
Animal Kingdom / Re: Alaskan Bald Eagles
« on: Today at 07:10:10 AM »
A few bald eagle in flight shots from my Bald Eagles of Alaska photo tour.   Most were captured with my 300mm F2.8

I like these! 

8
This stuff just gets too technical for me, so let me ask a question.

I'm standing on the side of the road on a sunny day and I'm looking at a bald eagle that is 75 meters away sitting at the top of a tree.  In my camera bag is my 300mm 2.8 lens, a 7D and 5D3.

I'm shooting handheld.  I don't dare move closer for fear that I scare him off.

If I'm trying to produce a final/edited image that "fills the frame" with as much detail, sharpness, and overall IQ as possible, which body do I attach to the 300mm?

9
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:08:34 PM »
I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year.

May I ask what was your rationale? I would never have gone from the 400 f/2.8L mrk I to II myself.

I did this with the 300mm f/2.8 L and while its nice in many ways - weight, handling, faster IS etc - it was really a luxury upgrade as IQ differences are so negligible that I doubt anyone who has not owned both would be able to spot the difference.

I don't regret my upgrade as I can easily afford it and splash a little extra on my hobby. But for a working tool I would not even have considered it.

That's just it.  It's going to be a working tool for me, and I could not handle the excess weight running around at football games and track meets anymore.  The was my first consideration.  The second was that I don't need my 300 anymore.  I want to use the 400 and 70-200 combo.  I had to crop too many times with a 300 lens on FF.  Those two things coupled together made the price worth it to me.

As for Northstar's question, I absolutely considered the 200-400 lens.  However, many of my venues require f/2.8 to keep the ISO down low enough (some places just to get to 5000) so I didn't purchase that.  I do agree, however, for daytime/sufficient light, it could potentially eliminate even using a 2nd camera and shorter lens if you can get back away from the end zone and can shoot at 200.  That would be an excellent point.  But there are just too many night games/events for me right now.

Again, thanks everyone for the comments/contributions.  I will be able to produce photos the weekend of 9/6-9/7.


bdun...as you know...I totally understand the 2.8 need for sports photography!  i get it.  200-400 is an awesome range, but it's no good if it requires you to shoot at iso 12,800 or 16,000 ISO versus ISO 6400.

10
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 10:04:14 PM »
Did you notice faster/better AF on your 300 i to 300 ii upgrade?

No. I have read some claims of this - but none convincing. I shoot lots and lots of moving subjects with the 300mm and have exactly the same keeper rate as before. I take three and almost always at least one will be spot on.

If you look at the old reviews of the mrk.I lens they already considered the AF as being "lighting fast" etc. That's hyperbole, but it was - and is - impressively fast for all the glass that needs to move around.

If you use an extender it may however be different due to Canon's new extenders.

good to hear your opinion...thanks. 

11
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:06:48 PM »
Professional T20 cricket match between Surrey and Essex Eagles at the Kia Oval, London.  Essex's New Zealand international batsman Jesse Ryder is clean bowled.

the player/batter (whatever you call him  :D ) really "pops" in this picture...almost like 3D.

nice job!

12
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Can't get my 1dx to catch focus fast as 7d
« on: August 27, 2014, 08:09:17 PM »
Many people think having the most advanced AF system in modern DSLRs is enough to ensure sharp shots. It still takes a lot of user experience and dexterity. Ask sports photographers, or those who shoot dancers in low light at ISO 12800 at 1/400!


so true...I shot a HS football game last week where i HAD to go to ISO 12,800 and above(even at 2.8 and 1/500th)....the 1DX AF was still spot on and i had no trouble at all acquiring focus. (quick to AF and not one instance of hunting)

example...ISO 16,000 at 2.8 and 1/500th.   and this shot is very heavily cropped to boot.


13
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:47:21 AM »
Well, it's time to upgrade again.  I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year. 

Anyone using this lens currently?  I was really amazed how much lighter it felt vs. the version I and I'm also expecting slightly faster AF with the 1Dx.  It'll arrive about September 2, just in time for my first weekend of sports this fall, 9/6-9/7. 

Thanks for any input.

Congrats Bdun!  I'm curious, did you consider the 200-400 for about the same price? 


14
Lenses / Re: 400 f/2.8L II IS: Took the plunge...
« on: August 27, 2014, 09:37:57 AM »
I sold my 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS lenses (because I don't really need the 300 anymore) and bought a 400 f/2.8L II IS for sports all next year.

May I ask what was your rationale? I would never have gone from the 400 f/2.8L mrk I to II myself.

I did this with the 300mm f/2.8 L and while its nice in many ways - weight, handling, faster IS etc - it was really a luxury upgrade as IQ differences are so negligible that I doubt anyone who has not owned both would be able to spot the difference.

I don't regret my upgrade as I can easily afford it and splash a little extra on my hobby. But for a working tool I would not even have considered it.

Did you notice faster/better AF on your 300 i to 300 ii upgrade? 

15
Animal Kingdom / Re: Your best animal shots!
« on: August 25, 2014, 05:40:18 AM »
Hi,

my name is Stefan and I am from germany.

I'd like to show you, 3 of my all-time-fav pics:







Excellent Betz!

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 96