April 18, 2014, 06:37:55 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 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21
Lenses / Re: Lens choices for airshow
« on: August 18, 2012, 04:26:00 AM »

Nice shots! Were the images cropped much or not at all? Also just out of interest, what exposure were you using for them? (I'm well aware I won't be seeing blue sky in Scotland in September  :( )


Lenses / Re: Lens choices for airshow
« on: August 17, 2012, 02:01:59 PM »
Many thanks for the comments. I think the 300 and 24-105 should cover all static and formation/solo flying. I guess the B-52 will call for a multi-shot panorama no matter what lens I take!

IIIHobbs - if you get to the airshow this weekend can you maybe post some 5D3 plus 300mm shots so that I can gauge what I might be able to achieve?


Lenses / Lens choices for airshow
« on: August 16, 2012, 01:53:08 PM »
Should be going to the Leuchars airshow on Sept 15th here in Scotland and, since it's the first airshow I'll have been to in over 20yrs, wondered about the best choice of lenses.

Main gear will be 5D3 plus 300mm 2.8 IS (and Kenko 1.4x TC) (without monopod as I think it would be too restrictive).

However now the problem starts - do I also take:

24-105mm for static stuff (B-52!!) and wider field of view flying shots (Red Arrows/Patrouille de France)


17-40mm for static aircraft and 70-200mm f4 IS for Red Arrows/Patrouille de France?

No doubt some will say take it all but I want to travel as light as possible but not miss shots by leaving stuff at home. Bearing in mind I'll also be carrying food and water for a long day.

Next part of the question is: to ensure razor sharp shots of the flying displays am I better shooting at, say, f8 and let the 5d3 take care of the rest or shoot close to wide open to maintain high shutter speed and rely on the focus tracking of the 5D3 to keep up with fast jets?

Any opinions and airshow example shots would be appreciated.


EOS Bodies / Re: 1Dx desire (A cautious approach)
« on: August 11, 2012, 06:23:25 AM »
Careful what you wish for. Show me the prettiest girl in the world and I'll show you a man who grew fed up with her.

I could've waited for a 1D X but went for a 5D3 instead. No regrets. For less money than a 1D X I got the 5D3, 24-105, 17-40, Sigma 85 1.4 and a 32gb Extreme Pro card. Go for the one you know will make you happy rather than the one you think and hope will make you happy.

Could be an expensive mistake if you get it wrong.

Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: August 11, 2012, 03:43:25 AM »
Briansquibb, Quasimodo, Distant Star,

Thanks for the comments - I only take shots for my own pleasure and to get me out the house so it's nice to hear I'm not wasting my time!

Take care,


EOS Bodies / Re: Cool Stuff - PimpYourCam.com
« on: August 11, 2012, 03:34:23 AM »
Only if I can make a Nikon look like a Canon.........

All you need to do is lower DR, higher banding, lower resolution, and higher pricing.

Ouch! Kick a man when he's down, why dontcha?

Black & White / Re: Black & White
« on: August 10, 2012, 01:21:58 PM »
Might as well throw some of mine in too...

EOS Bodies / Re: Cool Stuff - PimpYourCam.com
« on: August 10, 2012, 12:58:44 PM »
800 Euros to do a body, 600 for a small lens and 700 for a large lens?!?  :o

Pop quiz - who's been smoking the most crack? The PimpYouCam guys or their clients?

My guess - both in equal measure.

I've wasted some money in my time but not on crap like this.

EOS Bodies / Re: Big Megapixels Coming Soon? [CR1]
« on: August 05, 2012, 01:46:37 PM »
I smell Nikon fanboys  :o

That's got to be the kinkiest fetish I've ever heard. Your mother would be ashamed.

On a separate note, yesterday as I glanced up at the sky I was sure I could see a dead pixel. Should've taken a picture to prove it... :-\

EOS Bodies / Re: No DXO results on 1DX until at least September...?
« on: August 03, 2012, 02:11:49 PM »
Hey, what's wrong with pissed aussie rowers?
(although technically, I gave up rowing at the end of highschool, a few months before I started uni and started drinking instead, so I was never both at once...)

One of my uni mates is in the Quad Sculls in a few hours, hope they kick your UK butts...

Kick our butts? Ha! Just watched Oz get thrashed in the cycling  ;D Good efforts by Oz and the Kiwis too. We may have a bit of a financial crisis on our hands but we still have time to keep the colonials in their place!  ;)

(You know all the above is said in jest - we love the Aussies and their funny NZ friends)

Trying to position your head to ensure a focus point is covering your eye is an exercise in patience.

40D and Tamron 90mm f2.8.

Sports / Re: 2012 London Olympics
« on: July 27, 2012, 01:39:21 PM »
Narcolepsy:- Ah, of course, DO lenses! Never occurred to me. Well played sir.

Paul:- Sheesh, you're just one giant walking opinion, aren't you? Still, that's just my opinion  ;). You do realise that the wrong opinion on this site can have you drummed out of the regiment y'know. Mind you, I quite agree that the very action of taking pics can remove you from the event. Q: "How was it?" A: "No idea, I didn't see it but I got 586 shots!"

Shall we take bets on Boris making a pig's ear of the opening ceremony?

Anyway, as you were, carry on.

Sports / Re: 2012 London Olympics
« on: July 27, 2012, 07:41:25 AM »
Considering spectators aren't being allowed to use camera gear longer than 300mm and not everyone can be trackside, I think it'll be quite tricky to get top-notch shots.

CR guy should offer a prize to the first non-pro to post a series of 14fps images from a 1D X taken from the cheap seats!

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 26, 2012, 02:40:14 PM »
Well it's been interesting reading all the comments and today was judgement day. I finally got to try the f2.8 against the f4 and whilst it wasn't ideal conditions (indoors under fluorescent lighting with some daylight from the side) I could at least take "like for like" shots. I won't post images since there are plenty sites showing comparisons made under more scientific conditions.

My (admittedly limited) findings:

1. The f2.8 is much more substantial in size/weight than the f4. The f4 is quite dinky in comparison!  As I often use the 70-200mm as an "always in the hand rather than on a strap walk-about" lens I'm conscious of the fact the added weight would be an issue after a while. Hand cramp is a cruel mistress. (Cue comments about the best strap to use.)

2. Focusing with the f2.8 was maybe a bit quicker but not definitive. We're talking tiny fractions of a second here and my perception - you want to believe a newer, more expensive lens will focus quicker.

3. Sharpness (top requirement in my view) - yes I've pixel-peeped (not a crime, yet) and I'd say the f4 is a tiny bit sharper at like-for-like apertures. I think if you saw two images side by side you'd be hard pushed to say which lens took which shot. Yes both are a bit soft wide open but once you get to f5.6 and smaller they are both excellent. Sure you can use micro adjustment but I didn't have all day to play.

4. Colour - both allow you to take colour images  ;) No obvious fringing horrors. Both were good enough for me (I'm going through the obligatory convert-everything-to-black-and-white phase).

5. IS on the f2.8 is much quieter than the f4. Shhhh!

6. The f4 has more vignetting (duh!) but nothing that would ruin any shot. The miracles of modern software can cure many ailments.

So I reckon the f2.8 at twice the price and twice the weight is not necessarily twice the lens. However if I couldn't live without that wider aperture I wouldn't shed a tear as I parted with the money. The f2.8 is very good but not essential to me. Your mileage may vary. Contents may settle in transit. Offer void in Utah.

At least now I can put that money aside for the 42mp 1D XMF due in Feb 2013 (oops, did anyone see a cat getting out of a bag?).

If you feel strongly that I've missed a point or my opinions are complete poop, I reserve the right to ignore you!

Lenses / Re: Keep 70-200 f4 IS or go for f2.8 IS II?
« on: July 25, 2012, 05:11:40 AM »

Many thanks for the opinions. I should be able to briefly try the f2.8 II in a day or so. I won't be able to do much more than a rudimentary comparrison with the f4 but it's better than nothing.

K-amps: I might have had CJ and ARC gear but I didn't have to lug it around with me all day! Hmmm, 130 f2.8 primes in one? Now you're talking!

Stay tuned....


Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21