« on: September 03, 2012, 03:57:02 PM »
ok..i'll look for silica gel packs....i'll ship off to repair after i "dry" it out for a couple days
thanks to you both.
thanks to you both.
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.
100mm 2.8 @ f/9.0 1/250 iso 100
shot with two einstein 640 flashes
Yes...the 28-300 is a good travel/vacation lens if you want to keep things simple and don't mind a little step back in IQ.
Step back from what? IMO, it's pretty much identical to the 24-105mm across the ranges. Granted, I have sharper lenses like the 70-200L II, but the 28-300 is no slouch.....too bad canon's version costs more than twice nikon's 28-300.
It doesn't just cost twice as much...it's worth twice as much.
Really? Nikon doenst have good FX lenses? I thought it was pretty similar to Canon..minus a "few" special ones…
But there's 1 lens i wished Canon had..it's not the best lens but i think it makes a great travel lens for FF…the 28-300…that's something i wish Canon had..something similar at least but none..
Canon DOES have this lens:
CHP Golf-2 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
I went back and found another shot, this time at f4 with the 70-200 2.8 II.
Is this more pleasing? I originally thought this looked a little "busy", whereas at f 1.6, I thought it was more "dreamy".
At my event in Oct, I will be able to sell my images (donating the proceeds back to the charity though), so which "LOOK" do you think would generate more interest?? I will only get each foursome (player) hitting off of one tee so I need to get it right the first and only time. Which is preferable ??
crapking...i also enjoy playing and shooting golf. I like both your shots, especially the first one. Do you think the second one would be better if you shot it with a smaller aperture so we could see the ball and the hole the golfer is playing. just my IMO.
I did stop down to 1.6 trying to strike a background blur and depth of field balance, but not quite enough obviously. Was a playing partner that day, and not shooting the event commercially (plus it was a busy day on the course), so did not really have the time to experiment as much as I'd like. I do have an opportunity the first week of Oct to shoot a charity/celebrity outing so will be able to perfect the photographic shot then - still trying to perfect the GOLF shot after 30+ yrs w/o luck
Took at day at the racetrack shooting super bikes to test different autofocus settings - super fast and small objects - ended up a very happy camper
I have a wedding coming up in 1 month and I have been going round and round in my head about 5d3 and 5d2. I dont have either camera yet but I sure want one of the two. I see a lot of you have been saying not to be fearless with ISO on 5d3 but what about 5d2? Is the 5d3 a ISO beast compared to 5d2? Basically can you be a bit fearless with 5d2 still?
CHP Golf-13 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 1/2500 sec
Focal Length 85 mm (85/1.2 II L)
ISO Speed 100
This may be difficult...this may be easy :-)
This was in March, and the water is actually that blue.
I think you'll have to give us a pretty good clue on this one...there's not enough info in the pic. But the water sure is blue, could be many places in canada, alaska, great lakes, and/or northern europe.
Lake Tahoe and las Vegas?
Agreed, This one should help out, and here is another one that is a little bit easier and fun(big hint, that bay is called emerald bay) :-)