here's a few more
Great shots Chuck!
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.
here's a few more
thanks for the reply again. I do know about depth of field I just thought I should raise the aperture to have more in focus. I have been using 2.8-4.0 usually. About the images, I get the idea and I thank you. I have a fight coming up November 15th so I will post a few from those when I am done with them.
Thanks for the reply and advice. I unfortunately have only been able to achieve about 1/125 at the most due to the settings but I am going to experiment by upping the ISO next time. I have always judged based on the histogram rather than light meter and it is something I have been using a lot more (meter that is). I'll be sure to try over exposing. Thanks for the editing tips as well. Quick question that I am unsure of. I've been using an aperture of 4.0-5.6. Do you think I should raise or lower it? I figured it would be best to have it higher to have more in focus. Thanks again
I think the problem with a high iso capable camera is that people use the high iso in lieu of lighting correcting.... exposing correctly. I'm occasionally guilty of this myself
I agree with all of the sentiments so far.I agree with the comments as well and weather sealing is a big deal for a lens that doesn't just disappear into a camera bag. Sure, you can use a trash bag and such, but if Canon does it, Sigma should, too.
I am about half way saved up for a Cano 300 2.8 L. I would be interested in a Sigma IF and only If the IQ matches Canon. Of course as everyone else stated, build quality, af performance must also be comparable. I can't see skimping on a few thousand dollars to have a lens that I will be unhappy with for years to come. I know that lens will just sit on a shelf, and I will regret the mistake.
I looked long and hard at the 120-300 before buying the 300 f/2.8 IS II and my decision to buy the Canon was based on the following - I already have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, weather sealing, Canon name/build quality, USM, and most of all extender performance. I would rather have an amazing 300mm, excellent 420mm, and very good 600mm lens vs. Sigma's lesser performance.
Also, if you're spending several thousand dollars, why not get the best?
You can't teach all foreigners correct english by yourself because you posted this...
Get over it.
If anything it will bother you even more after you posted this.
Maybe you should teach us english through Skype or something.
Ok, I went back this morning and the little guy was still there. I tried a few other aperture settings. This one was my favorite, at f/9. As an added bonus, there were dew drops on his eyes. You can also see his entire face now. My daughter said, "Look, he's happy!"
Bee eyes w/ dew by yorgasor, on Flickr
Right now I am going to buy the 70-300 VC, I then will buy a prime(s) down the line...
I'll update the thread on how the performance is this Friday!
I think all of us said that f/2.8 is a minimum. F/2 is better. Do you really think more reach and less light is the right decision?
Well, at what I can afford right now....yes.
Lynx in a cold breeze and low autumn sun. There are only about 350 animals in around 60 family groups left of this beautiful animal here in Norway. One feels privileged to have seen it.
1DX, 200-400 f4L 1.4x at 560mm f5.6 1/2000s, ISO400
Michigan State soccer at Akron:
Thanks Northstar. I haven't gotten to say it, but your sports shots are great.
I actually didn't do too well at this game. It was so incredibly cold and windy, and we had just had 65 degree weather, then suddenly down to 38 and windy. My hands hurt and I guess I just wasn't "into it." I only had about 37 keepers.
Oh well, next time right?
I posted about this subject recently and I've yet to pull the trigger....torn between 13 and 15 inch mrpro.QuoteMy experience for what it's worth on this subject.