March 05, 2015, 03:42:02 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 - GuyF

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22
I didn't get a 300mm f2.8 IS mk1 and 500mm f4 mk2 (amongst others) for shots to be "slightly off". If I feel tweaking the AMFA by +1 or -9 or whatever is necessary to get razor sharp results then I'm fine with that.

Other people can settle for less if they want.


That sir is not any old brick wall. That is a genuine Tudor base of a chimney of Trinity College Cambridge, the Home of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor of, among many other great things, gravity, the prism, the mirror lens telescope, and the founder of modern optics, without which we would not have "glass". Any more comments like that and I will challenge you to a duel of calculus at dawn.

Here is the full frame, showing the glorious base with the Victorian addition or restoration above.

What? I didn't know Newton invented gravity and the prism. I always thought gravity existed before he came along and the prism was a toy/curio which he bought at a county fair.

Before you challenge anyone to a battle of calculus (you failed to name Leibniz), do your homework.

Thanks for all the comments.

Got further info from my colleague today - sticks to ISO 400 unless it's really bad light. Keeps shutter speed at 1/800th or faster. Reason for using Av and f2.8 was to ensure max isolation of subject from background - he wants to separate the player(s) on the ball from the distracting background of others on the pitch.

I suggested that the improved sharpness is simply a case of him having used smaller apertures without consciously realising at the time. I also pointed out the changing sharpness depending on where in the zoom range he is (including the changing DOF for a given aperture and distance to subject).

I've had to AFMA all my gear but he claims his lens doesn't need it. Hmmm, it could happen....

Thanks again.

Yeah Neuro, kinda what I was thinking. Said I'd ask for a consensus. I feel more people will post similar things to yourself. Ah well......

Just a quick question on behalf of a work colleague. I should say I'm very sceptical, but anyway.....

He uses a 5D3 and 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 to shoot football matches. Normally he would keep things at f2.8 (thanks to the near-constant Scottish gloom) and let the camera do the rest. Whilst pretty happy with those results, for whatever reason decided to go fully manual and constantly juggle aperture and shutter speed to suit. Auto ISO is not used. He claims (RAW) exposures need next to no tweaking regarding over/under exposure. Now here's the thing, he says images appear sharper as a result of using manual exposure compared to Av priority.

I said I doubted things being sharper unless he's just using an "on average" faster shutter speed thus reducing any shake. He's been taking football pics for years and should know the minimum shutter speed he can get away with and seems quite convinced of the improvement.

So, sharper images when using manual exposure - is he just fooling himself? The obvious thing is for him to set up a test chart and do an Av priority shot compared to a manual exposure one. Personally, I ain't buying it.

Any thoughts?

5D MK III Sample Images / Re: 5D MK III Images
« on: March 04, 2014, 02:35:59 PM »

Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) by Robin SS Lee, on Flickr


Impressive shots on your Flickr site - whereabouts did you take the red deer shots? Was it the Highland Wildlife Park near Kingussie?



Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 08, 2014, 11:36:01 AM »
Was in Edinburgh this afternoon and on my way back to the train I passed Prof. Peter Higgs of Nobel Prize fame. He was right in front of me, waiting to cross the road. I'm a total science geek and would have loved to get his picture. Ahh, if only I'd taken my camera with me.

Kicking myself? Biggest fail of my photographic life.  :'(

Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 02:15:47 PM »
I heard of someone (not me) taking pics while wearing sunglasses and after reviewing the shots on the rear screen, dialled in +1 then +2 stops to compensate for the remarkably underexposured images. Wasn't me, nope, I'd never be so foolish, none of you can prove that was me......cough, cough.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Best Nikon DF Review! By Fstoppers.
« on: January 25, 2014, 09:38:39 AM »
Let's just see how long the retro-look lasts before quietly sliding off the current Nikon model inventory. Bonus points to the girl in the video at 11mins who wondered why he wasn't testing the Df by taking shots with it.

Anyone got a "Die hipster, die." t-shirt?

Disclaimer: That last comment is German for "The hipster, the". Cough cough, that should placate the lawyers...

I made my own with double-sided camo neoprene. I reckon I saved well over £100:

Lenses / Re: Should I go for the 85mm F1.2L II USM ?
« on: January 12, 2014, 10:16:44 AM »
Save yourself a lot of money and consider the Sigma 85mm f1.4 instead. I honestly doubt if someone viewed a Sigma shot in isolation they'd know it was the Sigma unless they were told.

I could've bought the Canon but went with the Sigma. No regrets.

Business of Photography/Videography / Re: Leaving
« on: December 25, 2013, 01:35:31 PM »
Hmmm, a spot of self-immolation from AdamJ. That'll help matters. No, wait, nothing has changed apart from a few bemused looks from passers-by.

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 5D Mark III & Third Party Batteries
« on: December 12, 2013, 02:16:34 PM »
From what I gather, the Hahnel Extreme Li-ion batteries out-perform the Canon ones.

Quite simple - only you will know if you really need the reach of the 600 and can afford the fairly large price difference over the 500.

I got the 500mm v2 and a mk3 1.4x as the cost/weight/reach ratio met my needs. I had thought about selling my 300mm 2.8 IS mk1 to help fund the 500mm but decided to keep it as it's such a terrific lens. Which ever way you slice it, the big whites provide superb image quality - end of story!

I've been aware of Terry Richardson for a few years. I first saw his book Terryworld in a book shop and none of the images had any artistic merit as far as I could see. Lots of images taken from what appeared to be "behind the camera" on the set of porn shoots etc. A few images too of him showing, um, how happy he was with himself (I'll let you work out what that might be a euphamisim for).

So if you like (mainly) crummy images that anyone could take with a mobile phone, then Terry's your man. Clearly we don't know the story behind each image but I did get the feeling he might have used the, 'do this for me and it'll advance your career' trick. I wonder how many other famous (infamous?) photographers have exploited women.

Ultimately, I doubt he cares what we think.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22