September 30, 2014, 05:02:09 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 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 98
676
1D X Sample Images / Re: Any Thing shot with a 1Dx
« on: November 05, 2013, 06:22:34 PM »


you blow me away with these shots lemmy!!  keep it up!

677
Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: November 04, 2013, 10:31:39 PM »
One of my favorites so far for 2013:



Very nice shot Mack!

678
5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: November 03, 2013, 09:43:12 AM »
I was wondering how my camera would cope with moving children as a subject. It succeeded :-) Could you help me to entitle the first one snap?
Nice one! How about:
  • Thank you but no thank you
  • Thank you but I am non vegetarian
:)


"let me know when you have a bone"

nice shots!

679
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: November 01, 2013, 05:21:24 AM »

680
Sports / Re: Mma photos
« on: November 01, 2013, 03:39:35 AM »
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.

Erik,

Good luck on the next fight.

Regarding the DOF...my point is that you can get more in focus (larger dof) by using a shorter focal length, the shorter focal length has a larger impact on dof than increasing the aperture to f4.   At 70mm and 2.8 on a 6d from 10 feet, the dof is 1 foot.  by using 50mm at 2.8 and 10 feet, the dof doubles to 2 feet....at 70mm, raising the aperture from f2.8 to f4 only increases the dof to 1.5 feet.

With 20mp's, you should have enough pixels to shoot wider and crop it more....especially if the images are just going to be used for online or small / med print use.   The other benefit to a shorter focal length besides the larger dof, is you have much more flexibility with cropping and straightening.  Two of the images above would have benefited a bunch from  shooting wider....image 1 and 6.... take image 6, shooting wider would've kept you from cutting off the top of the top fighter's head AND he probably would've been in focus. (Within the larger dof).

I'm probably telling you stuff you know...but it's an important point so I thought I would "over communicate" as my wife says I like to do. ::)

Looking forward to your next set of pics!   I'm jealous, I've never shot mma, it looks like fun.

681
Sports / Re: Mma photos
« on: October 31, 2013, 08:40:03 PM »
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

more light is more important than dept of field...if you have the tamron/sigma 2.8...i would shoot at 2.8 if the tamron is sharp at 2.8, if not...3.5 at the most.

1/250th is a bare minimum for sports if you want sharpness...IMO.

it sounds like you're still learning about depth of field....if so, you will find this link helpful.   note how the dof increases and decreases with distance to subject, aperture, and focal length.  if you're worried about dof, shooting at 24 or 35 will help to increase it as you desire. (sorry if you know this already) 

  http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html


682
Lenses / Re: Which setup would you have?
« on: October 30, 2013, 10:28:47 AM »
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

Jd....I think I understand what you're saying....

I have shot at poor light sporting events where the action is stopped, and I continue to shoot manual at 1/1000 and ISO 3200, even though the subjects are moving slow or not moving much....they are exposed correctly, but the image quality would be better if I quickly switched to 1/500 and ISO 1600....or maybe 1/250 and ISO 800

 I probably should use my custom settings more to do this.

683
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Sports Line Updates Next? [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2013, 10:08:14 AM »
I agree with all of the sentiments so far.

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.

sek
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 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 both make good sense to me....totally agree.

Mack...I'm also impressed with my "excellent 420mm"...almost no change in IQ and af speed.

684
These are good stories, we'll bad actually, but good in the sense that I and I'm sure others will learn from your experiences.   Thanks for sharing, I will be more careful and mindful of this in the future.

I would be horrified to watch and listen to my 300 2.8 fall to the ground, :-*

685
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Sigma Sports Line Updates Next? [CR1]
« on: October 30, 2013, 08:08:19 AM »
I think these are a tough sell for Sigma...if I'm going to plunk down $5000 or more on a lens, I would want to know that it will always work on my Canon body....can Sigma guarantee that?

Also resale....at least a canon 300 2.8ii  purchased for $6500 today will still probably be worth $5500 on the used market 5 or 10 years from now.

686
Canon General / Re: Lose or Loose?
« on: October 30, 2013, 08:02:32 AM »
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.

 I think most people that speak English as their first language are very tolerant and understanding of those that speak English as their second or third language....I know I am.

My annoyance(and maybe others) comes from people that were born, raised, and educated in a country like the US, where English is the primary language, but yet somehow they have never learned to write properly. 

With Google, the internet, free libraries, and free k-12 public schools, there is no excuse for not understanding basics like your and you're....to and too...their, they're, and there.   If you didn't learn it in school, then learn it as an adult.   These words are used all the time when writing....all the time. 

 Why keep making the same mistake over and over again for the rest of your life?  It's more disappointing than annoying that someone is ok with that.




687
Sports / Re: Mma photos
« on: October 30, 2013, 06:10:12 AM »
What are your settings?   I'm guessing u need to be close to 1/500, ISO 3200 to 4000, and 2.8 ? 

I shoot all kinds of sports, so I understand bad lighting and fast action....it's tough, sometimes it's just too dark and there's not much you can do but accept that the image quality won't be great.

The key is to get the right exposure, one trick I use (and I know a lot of low light shooters use, is to "shoot to the right" in manual, which basically means you've overexposed the shot by 1/4 or 1/3.  It's much better to have a shot slightly overexposed compared to underexposed when shooting in low light conditions. 

Another thing you can do is improve your editing workflow. (Master Lightroom or Aperture)  For me, with every image I feel is worth editing, I take it through this workflow:

1. Straighten the image
2. Crop image to make it more interesting
3. Work on white balance and exposure
4. Check the colors
5. Sharpen and then reduce noise if necessary.

examples (I edited these with a free App on my iPad, you could get better results with Lightroom)...original and then the edit,  the second one is a great shot by the way...nice reaction and you see the downed fighter's hand indicating he is out...nice job.

So two pieces of advice, shoot to the right and work on your editing...good luck.


688
Canon EF Prime Lenses / Re: Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
« on: October 29, 2013, 11:33:29 AM »
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

Nice.

689
Lenses / Re: Which setup would you have?
« on: October 29, 2013, 07:39:10 AM »
Straightening, cropping, contrast and light changes.

Edited and then the original.

690
Lenses / Re: Which setup would you have?
« on: October 29, 2013, 07:31:19 AM »
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.  :-[

Thgmuffin....check this link out for a comparison of the tamron 70-300 at 300 vs canon 70-200 with a 1.4x at 280mm

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=757&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=1&LensComp=103&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=3

The canon will focus faster and it's clearly sharper.

Also, the tamron lens will be almost worthless in 10 years, but the canon will still be worth $750 ballpark....so what's the better choice financially when you consider that the canon also will give you much better pictures?

This is my suggestion:
1. Used 70-200 2.8 ....you need 2.8 for indoor sports. NEED. 
2. Buy a 1.4x extender.  Now you have a 98-280 f4 for field sports....and if the lighting is poor at a night football game you can still get great shots with just a 70-200 at 2.8.  (You'll just get less of them, but trust me, I've shot plenty of football and the 70-200 works just fine.

3. Work on your editing.  99% of sport shots require some editing.   Cropping, sharpening, and the light.

With the three shots you posted I took the liberty of doing a 2 minute edit on a couple of them.
Workflow...
1. Straighten
2. Crop
3. Light changes and contrast
4. Sharpen and detail

Jdramirez and Paul walnuts both offered some solid advice....and I agree....don't buy a tamron 70-300 for sports

With the first pic I would normally crop tighter, but didn't have enough pixels to do it, which sometimes happens.  That's when I try to crop less and tell more of a story with the shot....with this one I wanted to leave the goalpost in the picture to show that it's a possible touchdown catch.

Edited and then the original.   (done with free software on an iPad)

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 [46] 47 48 ... 98