August 23, 2014, 09:45:55 AM

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 - GuyF

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 22
From what I gather photography is a bit like fishing; no sooner have you picked a quiet spot to practise your hobby than someone appears from nowhere to enquire what you're doing or if the fish are biting. I'm convinced many fishermen don't have a hook on their line, they just want the peace and quiet of sitting on their own for a couple of hours. Maybe with a beer and a sandwich. Perhaps there's a nice bit of Parma ham on the sandwich....sorry, I'm getting off track....

I often go to my local park and whilst lining up a shot a few years ago (40D and 17-50mm lens, so nothing "fancy") an old woman once asked, "oh, what are you taking a picture of?" I looked at her blankly hoping her tiny brain would allow her head to turn in the direction I was facing and make some half-baked guess as to the subject (it's a public park for ****'s sake!). However the evil voices in my head made me say I was an architect and the park had been bought over and was to be redeveloped for housing - I was taking pics to show a before and after "vision" for a large piece in the local paper. The park contains a large stately home dating back about 600 years and the notion of it being bulldozed would certainly set tongues wagging among the blue-rinse brigade. Job done. (Note to non-Brits: for some reason old women here insist on dying their hair blue or pink. Must be some 1977 punk throwback thing.)

However the thing that always demands public scrutiny is carrying a big white lens (anything less than 300mm need not apply). People are quite insistant that you're a professional. They cannot conceive that a person may have a job, save for years then buy things that make them happy. I got so fed up of people queing up to interrogate me that I cut the sleeve off a black sweatshirt and use that as a lens-coat. Not once has anyone spoken to me when I'm in "stealth mode"!

Watched a programme last night that showed an airliner trying to land in an extreme crosswind. Wheels touch down on left side and as the co-pilot (pilot had said, "give this one a go") tries to correct thing, the left wing-tip touches the runway. Full gas and they go around.

Immediately fingers are pointed at the captain for allowing the co-pilot to try the landing. It turns out that when the wheels touch down, the flight stick reduces full left or right input to a max of 50% - afterall, if the wheels are on the runway, what do you need 100% bank for?

The simulator couldn't replicate the strength of crosswind recorded on the day! Next step was to revise the manual explaining the 50% reduction of aileron reponse if any of the wheels are contacting the runway.

Kinda puts Canon's "phenomenons" into perspective!

Ah, sorry Haydn. A colleague just mailed it to me and I hadn't seen it before - I assumed it was very recent.

Lenses / Any comments on the 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 and 2x mk3 TC?
« on: June 18, 2013, 02:05:57 PM »
Have any of you tried the above combo?

I currently have the Kenko 2x Pro 300 DG (red dot) which is okay for the money (cost about £110) but images aren't quite as crisp as I'd like so I don't use it that often. Can any of you comment on the sharpness of the 300mm with the mk3 converter or post images? Also, is the AF speed still acceptable to you? I'd be using the combo for airshows or birds in flight etc.

Whilst I'd rather have the 500mm f4, I'm thinking of the cheaper option first! If I got the mk3 TC I'd probably also buy a Wimberly Gimbal head too.

Any suggestions are appreciated.

Body is a 5D3.

Yeah, I vaguely recall seeing footage of an Airbus at an airshow where they were doing a slow, wheels-down fly-by. The onboard computer decided they were to land in some nearby trees while the pilot tried to give it full power and save the aircraft.

Amazing what a few lines of bad coding can do.

Technical Support / Completely off topic but you gotta see this....
« on: June 18, 2013, 01:21:00 PM »
Firstly apologies for posting this here as it doesn't talk of dynamic range and taking shots of the inside of lens caps. Mind you, technical support is required - read on:

A brand spanking new Airbus 340-600, the longest passenger airplane ever built, sits just outside its hangar in Toulouse, France without a single hour of airtime.

Enter the Arab flight crew of Abu Dhabi Aircraft Technologies (ADAT) to conduct pre-delivery tests on the ground, such as engine run-ups prior to delivery to Etihad Airways in Abu Dhabi.

The ADAT crew taxied the A340-600 to the run-up area. Then they took all four engines to takeoff power with a virtually empty aircraft. Not having read the run-up manuals, they had no clue just how light an empty A340-600 really is.

The takeoff warning horn was blaring away in the cockpit because they had all 4 engines at full power. The aircraft computers thought they were trying to take off, but it had not been configured properly (flaps/slats, etc..).

Then one of the ADAT crew decided to pull the circuit breaker on the Ground Proximity Sensor to silence the alarm. This fools the aircraft into thinking it is in the air.

The computers automatically released all the brakes and set the aircraft rocketing forward. The ADAT crew had no idea that this is a safety feature so that pilots can't land with the brakes on.

Not one member of the seven-man crew was smart enough to throttle back the engines from their max power setting, so the $200 million brand-new Aircraft crashed into a blast barrier, totaling it.

The extent of injuries to the crew is unknown due to the news blackout in the major media in France and elsewhere.

Finally, the photos are starting to leak out.

A French Airbus: $200 million dollars
Untrained Flight Crew: $300,000 Yearly Salary
Unread Operating Manual: $300

Aircraft meets retaining wall, and the wall wins.

EOS Bodies / Re: Is This the EOS 3D?
« on: June 17, 2013, 01:22:21 PM »
Looks like a 3 to me...but if they were trying to keep it secret then why would they make a strap for it instead of just a standard canon one?

Exactly. I once had a strap with Mickey Mouse on it, didn't mean my camera was made by Disney.

Lenses / Re: 200-400mm1.4x - let the unboxing videos begin...
« on: June 09, 2013, 08:46:53 AM »

Congratulations on your new acquisition  :)

Alas that isn't me in the video - I just found it. Mind you, I could buy one if I really wanted to. I just have to justify it to myself!

Lenses / 200-400mm1.4x - let the unboxing videos begin...
« on: June 09, 2013, 06:40:59 AM »

Lighting / Re: Can a (DSLR) flash cause permanent eye damage?
« on: June 08, 2013, 05:26:27 AM »
Like I said, Richard Feynman viewed a nuclear test through just a car windshield and didn't report damage to his eyes. Is there any flashgun available that is brighter than a nuke?

Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:58:35 PM »
Serendipidy - don't know if you've seen this site It gives some good advice that has helped me - go buy that 5D3!


Animal Kingdom / Re: Show your Bird Portraits
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:49:55 PM »
Since this thread started off as bird portraits, here's a family portrait.

Duck shots added too for the heck of it.

5D3 and 300mm 2.8 IS
I love this image Guy!  Exquisite!

Krob - very kind of you to say that but as you know with photography often it's just the luck of being in the right place at the right time. I'm visiting an island bird colony at the end of the month so will hopefully have some good shots to show from that.

Lighting / Re: Can a (DSLR) flash cause permanent eye damage?
« on: June 07, 2013, 01:38:37 PM »
I recently saw a programme about Nobel prize winning physicist Richard Feynman who worked on the Manhattan project to build the first nuclear bomb. He said, "They gave out dark glasses that you could watch it with. Dark glasses! Twenty miles away, you couldn’t see a damn thing through dark glasses. So I figured the only thing that could really hurt your eyes (bright light can never hurt your eyes) is ultraviolet light. I got behind a truck windshield, because the ultraviolet can’t go through glass, so that would be safe, and so I could see the damn thing.

Time comes, and this tremendous flash out there is so bright that I duck, and I see this purple splotch on the floor of the truck. I said, “That’s not it. That’s an after-image.” So I look back up, and I see this white light changing into yellow and then into orange. Clouds form and disappear again – from the compression and expansion of the shock wave.

Finally, a big ball of orange, the center that was so bright, becomes a ball of orange that starts to rise and billow a little bit and get a little black around the edges, and then you see it’s a big ball of smoke with flashes on the inside, with the heat of the fire going outwards.

All this took about one minute. It was a series from bright to dark, and I had seen it. I am about the only guy who actually looked at the damn thing – the first Trinity test. Everybody else had dark glasses, and the people at six miles couldn’t see it because they were all told to lie on the floor. I’m probably the only guy who saw it with the human eye."

So there you go, as long as there's a sheet of glass between you and the light, you might be fine 8)

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: June 04, 2013, 01:35:43 PM »
Oscar - that first shot is just screaming out to be converted to black and white! Great images.

Canon General / Re: Seabird colony - change lens or not?
« on: June 03, 2013, 02:39:44 PM »
I was filming with the Scottish Seabird Centre last week, in North Dunbar though, not Isle of May.  I went with the Isle of May ferry, a rib would be much more fun!

Oh you name dropper! First it was filming Rod Stewart now it's the Seabird Centre. Will I have seen any of your stuff on telly?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 22