October 20, 2014, 08:48:21 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 - AlanF

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 73
136
Photography Technique / Re: Tour de France crops
« on: July 09, 2014, 07:13:28 AM »
Yesterday afternoon a stage of the Tour de France started from Cambridge

Someone please explain why the "Tour de France" started in England?


It would appear that France invaded England; undoubtedly much to their surprise, they apparently won.

We'll know for certain when they move the Eiffel Tower to London.

I'd vote for photo 3 - I think the view of the side of the cathedral like building is necessary to make the image look 'correct'.

Thanks everyone for your comments. Number 3 is, by luck, exactly 4x5 in dimension and I will get a 40cmx50cm print made of that one.

ps the British GDP is just about to overtake the French.

137
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: A Summary of Sigma Lens Rumors
« on: July 08, 2014, 05:23:59 PM »
Surely 300-600/5.6 ie same front lens size as their 120-300.

With very moderate 600/300 ratio it should in theory mean consistent performance across the zoom range.

Best of luck to Sigma if they pull it off and actually make this one.

Unfortunately, the 120-300 weighs 3.39 kg, just over a kilo more than the Canon 300mm f/2.8 II. That is too heavy for me without a tripod or monopod.

138
Photography Technique / Re: Tour de France crops
« on: July 08, 2014, 04:39:54 PM »
If you like the uncropped versions, then this one may better as the procession is strung out more and goes diagonally across the frame.

139
Photography Technique / Tour de France crops
« on: July 08, 2014, 10:11:24 AM »
Yesterday afternoon a stage of the Tour de France started from Cambridge, and I wanted a record of the parade coming out in front of my college, the tall Gothic building with the spire. So, I hung out of a 2nd floor window, with my right leg wedged between the wall and an armchair, on which my wife was instructed to sit and not get up. I used the 5DIII with a 70-200mm f/4 L IS at f/8 to increase the DoF and iso640 for a decent shutter speed. All images are reduced to fit.

I would like advice on the composition. Top is the uncropped image. Below a narrow crop to remove the spectators just below me and the wall of the building, and reduce the foreground. However, the Gothic building is rather to the right. Next is a squarer crop, which has some wall and faces, but the Gothic building is exactly 1/3rd way in. I like this version, despite the faces on the right. Bottom, is just to show the yellow and green jersyes as they went past (the 70-200mm is just so sharp).

Advice please on the best crop or left alone, bearing in mind the Gothic building is important?


140
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 07:20:35 AM »
Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

You want a LOT more focal length than 400mm to image the moon. I used an 840mm lens (EF 600mm f/4 L II w/ 1.4x TC) to produce this image:

Look Jon, stop playing these amateur games and get real. This is what you need.

Haha! Now THAT...is a MOON LENS! :D And apparently, one hell of a giant EOS as well...  :o

Jon
You explained once that to get really good moon shots you need to pp. So I upped the vibrance, microcontrast and saturation to 100% in DxO PRIME, and then gave 1.9p at 100% in PS to a the SX50 and 300mm+2xTC on 5DIII. It brought out the detail on the latter in particular.

141
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 06, 2014, 04:59:45 AM »
Hey guys I was wondering which would be better for achieving ~ 400mm focal length with the M. I would like to take some occasional pics of the moon. I've done it before and found 400mm to be long enough with a bit of cropping.

You want a LOT more focal length than 400mm to image the moon. I used an 840mm lens (EF 600mm f/4 L II w/ 1.4x TC) to produce this image:

Look Jon, stop playing these amateur games and get real. This is what you need.

142
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: London Walkaround
« on: July 03, 2014, 04:48:41 AM »
Take the fast train to Cambridge - only 46-51 minutes from Kings Cross, leaving at 15 minutes to or 15 minutes after the hour throughout the day. You don't need a car here. Your camera gear is just right.

143
Photography Technique / Re: Shoot from the rearend of the subjects.
« on: July 03, 2014, 03:21:18 AM »
I wondered what I could do with this horrible photo, until this thread appeared in the featured list.  The anatomical details of this sunbathing rook weren't apparent until I saw it on the screen. No worse looking than some of the stuff here.


144
Pricewatch Deals / Re: Is that Legit? Canon 24-105 Lens for 681$.
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:50:58 PM »
There is so much bashing of the 24-105. Yesterday, because of all the reports about the sharpness of the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 I tried one out against my 24-105, with every intention of buying. The 24-105 was sharper than the Tamron. Maybe I have an exceptionally sharp 24-105 or the Tamron was a bad copy.

145
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 06:51:27 AM »
The best cheap way of getting 400mm is the Sigma 400mm f/5.6 apo tele macro. Some work only at f/5.6, others work stopped down. I had a good one which worked at all apertures cost me about £130 on eBay, but I recently sold it for about £375 on eBay, and someone got a really good lens. They are sharper than the 400. You can compare this shot with my previous - it's beaten only by my 600mm combo.

146
EOS-M / Re: Cheap 400mm advice
« on: July 02, 2014, 05:45:47 AM »
Why do you want to take photos of the moon, especially low resolution ones? If all you want is the moon,
here are some images from when I was comparing lenses on the 5DIII and the SX50. You would do much better with the SX50 than a moderate 400mm on the 5DIII. The 600 (300mm/2.8 II + 2xTC) was the best for me. From top to bottom 100-400mm, SX50 at nominal 1200mm, 600mm, and Tamron 150-600 at 600mm. (The Tamron was taken, obviously, at a different time, and under more hazy conditions and at a poorer phase for seeing detail).

147
It is so easy to cycle with the lens at the ready. I use the Canon supplied strap through the lugs of the lens, sling the shoulder section round the right hand side of my neck with the camera and lens dangling at the left hand side of my waist. The camera and lens don't waggle around too much while I am cycling and I can quickly stop and swing the camera up for a shot. The twin lugs hold the lens much better than does a Black Rapid, which is fine for walking but not for cycling. I have a nice cycle ride to the lab and take the 300+TC with me regularly in the hope of seeing something worthwhile.

148
Lenses / Re: Stacked TCs - 1.4x III + 12mm Extension Tube + 2x III
« on: June 30, 2014, 12:27:02 PM »
What does sharpness being reduced 50% mean? Does that mean with 2x+1.4x relative to bare lens? Since adding a 2xTC can increase resolution by a maximum of x2 and a 1.4xTC by a maximum of x1.4, it doesn't look as if you are gaining anything by stacking them.

You've got a point. But remember the 2x extender increases the pixels on target by 4x. 2x in two dimensions, if that makes sense (so, say the bare lens gave you a subject 1000x1000 pixels, that would be 1MP; doubling the focal length gives you 2000x2000, which is 4MP).

It has a couple of advantages I would say. First, it makes the subject bigger in the viewfinder, which can help if you're focusing manually. Second, if you were to crop to the same size the noise patterns would be different. again it's hard to put into words. But shrinking down an image taken with a longer focal length would reduce the appearance of noise, whereas simply cropping to give the same field of view at a shorter focal length makes the noise more apparent.

In my subjective view, 2x + 1.4x does give extra resolution. Beyond that, you're not gaining any extra details, but the above points hold (the big exception being stacked astrophotography, where you regain all that resolution by combining multiple images, so any extra focal length is good).

In terms of number of pixels, sure doubling f means you get 4x more on target. However, if you halve the the resolution in 1 dimension you lose 2x2 = 4x in two dimensions. So, you have got nowhere. Now mackguyver has just found that adding the 1.4 to the 2x lowers the sharpness from 80 to 50%, ie by a factor of 1.6, for an increase in f of 1.4x. So you have actually moved back in resolution for a loss of autofocus and aperture.

149
I get my share of very sharp close ups, seeing the barbs on the feathers, the rings around the eyes etc. But, it is just as much fun catching a scene at low resolution. On Saturday I went for a walk with my son and grandson and saw for the first time fledgeling barn owls, which I have been trying to see for the past 5 years, but always missed them. Here they were and I was able to swing the 5DIII and 300mm/2.8 + 2 xTC into action hand held (iso640, 1/320, f/5.6). You can't get closer than about 50-60 metres, and you could barely make them out by eye. But, here is a nice memory, and my son immediately took it as a screen saver. Went back yesterday with my new monopod for assistance, but the birds were gone again.

Their faces occupy only 90x90 pixels. Without the 2xTC you would hardly resolve their eyes.

150
This shot taken with 300 ii +2xiii not cropped ,love how sharp compared to my 100-400 but did get some nice shot with that lens too

Not cropped! How did you get so close?

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 73