August 21, 2014, 01:09:40 AM

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Lens to body pairing
« Last post by Valvebounce on August 20, 2014, 08:51:27 PM »
Hi Folks.

I was at the Weston Super Mare show and go to the Swansea show as well. These are similar coastal events. I use a full frame camera with a Canon 300mm F2.8 L IS for the larger aircraft and add a 2 x Mk3 extender for the small aircraft (or a 1.4 if I am near the center of the flight line). Your 70-200 will give you excellent results but bring along the Sigma for when it's too short. You will have plenty of time to change lenses so I would suggest just taking the 7D.

Thanks for the info.
The last time I did an event like thus was the flying boat seaplane event at Southampton Water, I was shooting film and video alternately, neither of which turned out well due to loss of focus on the event.
I am very wary of deciding in advance to change lenses on the beach in case the wind should get up, salt and sand are bad enough on the outside, on the inside it would be terrible!
Plus I have had a couple of camera failures, one the 40D shutter failed and I had to resort to my 300D, the other was Magic Lantern, the 7D and my brain not playing well together, I wasn't ready to go live with ML and between us I had my 7D doing strange things and had to uninstall ML right at the crucial point in a ceremony to get a normal functioning camera back, fortunately I was carrying the 40D so used that whilst the 7D recovered!

I went to Farnborough with a 7D, 70-200II and 2xIII, I kept the TC on for 60% of the day I think. Didn't need it with the Vulcan. Whilst I did occasionally want more reach, it was only the smallest of planes (WW1 battle recreation) and when the Harrier was hovering (I was just too far down one end of the runway). With things like the Red Arrows, some of the wider shots I took were at 70mm to get more of the overall formation in, I don't know if you shoot that type of shot, but its worth considering.

I'd have thought you could crop from 400 on the 7D to get the equivalent of the 40D + Sigma combo without too much loss of quality? Would save on carrying an extra lens/camera!

Wish I could go to this but I'm working sadly. Going to Clacton on Sea on thursday though, looking forward to the Vulcan again (who doesn't  :P )  but I wish they could have got the P51, that put on a great performance last year!

Thank you for your thoughts.
When I was at the Southampton event the Harrier hovered right in front of me, I had to cover the camera for most of the performance and turn my back during the bow due to the grit and salt spray thrown up! I love the Vulcan, such a beautiful aircraft, and the noise well..... 
I do take shots of the overall display for things like the Red Arrows, also I might get some general wide angles of the crowd. I was not sure I would need the 2x III but from what you say I guess I will most of the time, I will be adding/removing it as little as possible, see reason above!

I would recommend the Sigma 150-500, with a caveat that I don't actually have it, but that I have tried your other alternative and it doesn't really do it for me in that situation.

At the focal lengths where it really matters, I feel confident that you would get better plane pictures both optically from the 150-500 lens and physically from being able to handle / pan / zoom, especially at the 500mm end which is really what you need for taking really good plane photos. Even a "wide angle" plane photo with several planes is going to call for a very long focal length, unless the planes are extremely close (roaring in your ear drums kind of close).

I doubt that the 70-200mm with the 2x extender (resulting in 400mm) is going to compare to the quality of the image you'll get with the 150-500 lens at 500mm with no extenders.

UPDATE: I think I'm wrong. I had heard that the 150-500 was really a pretty great lens overall, but I have just Googled some image comparisons and some of them seem to show that the 70-200 II is sharper, even with the disadvantage of a 2x teleconverter attached, and even comparing Canon details at 400mm equivalent focal length vs. Sigma details at a true focal length of 500mm.

(And if those comparisons I read are true, then really 150-500 lens is NOT a great lens at all like a lot of people have been saying, but a terrible lens.)

All that I can say based on my personal experience is that I am NOT satisfied with the quality of the 70-200mm II in this kind of situation with teleconverters. But the 150-500mm might be even worse.

Thanks for your input.
I will say that the 150-500 responds well to AFMA, the images I got in the past were not great, but since FoCal entered my arsenal and tested the 150-500 the images are sharper, though not on the same level as the 70-200 with 2x.
I was thinking of ditching the 150-500 but it is with me for the foreseeable future now, the quality is not that bad if you can't afford Canon glass of a similar focal length!  ;D
As for how close the planes are, I think from what I have heard that they are pretty darn close to the crowd, statements like they flew over the pier place them pretty close, but then one persons view of them flying past the end of the pier is another persons view of them flying over the pier!  ::)

So no one would pair the cameras and lenses the other way round then?

Cheers, Graham.
Lenses / Re: Advice: extension tubes Macro
« Last post by neuroanatomist on August 20, 2014, 08:11:31 PM »
Is the air in the Canon tubes better than the air in the Kenko tubes?  For most applications, the Kenko tubes are just fine (the only reason I went with Canon tubes is that my main use is to reduce the MFD of a supertele, and I wanted to be sure of the mount strength - not an issue of concern for macro lenses).
For starters math is not my strong point.  Just curious as to how much the MFD is reduced on a 600mm lens when using extension tubes.  I currently have two setups.
1. 300/2.8 w/ 2x TC, MFD ~ 10ft.
2. 600/4(non-IS), MFD ~ 20ft.
Will an extension tube(s) get my 600 MFD to ~10 ft?
My slight understanding of the math says no.
Thanks for any enlightenment you may provide.

An EF 25 tube will get your 600/4 to an MFD of ~15 feet.
Portrait / Re: People at work
« Last post by Logan on August 20, 2014, 08:07:38 PM »
Serious question:  Have you had any bad experiences taking pictures of people working?  I imagine that some workers might object.

A presumption of "bad experience"? That speaks volumes. My easy answer is that if you're afraid of people or don't get along easily, don't take pictures of people. Get a good macro and live among the flowers.

With all the snappers around, this world is growing more photo resistant by the day. I'm going to do a separate post about that with a photo from last weekend. Anyway, working people, at least in this country in my experience are so badly treated and regarded, they generally fear what pictures will probably mean. They presume it can't be good. Is it someone who's going to call their company and complain? Has the boss sent someone out to document what they're doing, or not doing? Is it union related -- for or against? Is it OSHA or some other meddling government agency threatening their job? Is it a reporter putting their picture in the paper or on the Internet? Did a lawyer send them out related to some court case? They've got enough to worry about already and mostly just want to do their work and go home and have a beer. So, naturally, they're going to be curious. It's only going to be trouble if you as a photographer make trouble.

I always start shooting unannounced. Eventually someone in the work group will approach me, and I'm glad to talk. I want to alleviate any fear and put them at ease. That's why I always carry my "Who the hell are you?" card -- what people in the commercial world call a "business card." Like arjay, I offer to send them pictures, and my photo site is listed on the card so they can go look at the pictures if they like. That keeps things calm, and they can work and I can take pictures. In some instances you get to meet really interesting people.

There was a guy working on high-voltage power lines nearby. His home was several states from here, and he was working 12-hour days, six days a week. He was living here in an RV, and he owned a plane he used to take himself home on his day off. A railroad runs past my home, and I always go out to take pictures of the train going by. My main interest is the boxcar graffiti. After a year or so, the guys running the train stopped one day, got out of the train and asked why I was always taking pictures. They were really nice guys, just curious. When I told them it was for the graffiti, they said, "Oh, we'll have to find you some better boxes."

Here's a bus driver. He asked me to take his picture as I was getting on the bus. One of my first with the Sigma 35 Art [f/2.8, 1/125 @ ISO 100 on 5D3] in April 2012.


business cards sound like a good idea. saves some time and makes you look more legit, and its alot easier than scibbling down their email on a piece of paper which then gets lost in your camera bag (my technique lol). I work on some proprietary stuff that I would not let people take pictures of, and do some sketchy stuff that i also don't want pictures of. obviously if its out in public and passerby can see, then theres not much reason to get worked up about it. have had to chase off several photographers trying to take pictures of a customers equipment while it was in our possesion, due to some kind of bank trouble.

here's one, the forester is showing the heli crew where the trees she wants cut are. big day, testing a brand new invention.
Reviews / Re: What Happened to DxO?
« Last post by Mt Spokane Photography on August 20, 2014, 07:57:53 PM »
Its pretty typical for a entire company in Europe to close for a vacation.  There may be a few that have to remain for emergencies.

As I recall DXO does this every year.
Lenses / Re: Advice: extension tubes Macro
« Last post by tolusina on August 20, 2014, 07:57:38 PM »
....Middle East excavation site in progress.......


"An extension tube increases lens magnification by an amount equal to the extension distance divided by the lens focal length. For example, adding a 25 mm extension tube to a 50 mm lens will give a magnification gain of 0.5X. Therefore, if the lens's original magnification was 0.15X, then the new magnification will be 0.15X+0.5X=0.65X. The closest focusing distance will also decrease to ~210 mm."

"Note how extension tubes provide minimal magnification when used with telephoto lenses — which is unfortunately their main weakness."
"Closest Focusing Distance
0.99 ft./0.3m (maximum close-up magnification: 1x)
So, a full set of Kenko tubes adding up to 68mm will increase the magnification of your 100L macro only from 1.0 to 1.68.
You'll have a very shallow depth of field which focus stacking can overcome.
To focus stack you'll need a sturdy tripod and either a macro rail or tethered focusing control, or manual focus steps as you determine by eye, preferably in live view.
If you're shooting artifacts in situ rather than on a work bench or table, your tripod will have to be configured to mount the camera very low to the ground such as is possible with an inverted post. Manual focusing with the ground level mounted camera will be awkward and uncomfortable at best, a total failure at the worst.
I suggest tethered control.

If dust can or will be a factor, that may compromise effectiveness and longevity of a focusing rail will all its exposed components, same for a bellows.
I like Helicon Focus for processing the stacked frames.
The Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 1-5x Macro Photo lens magnifies between 1X and 5X but must be focused manually which rules it out of tethered focus control is desired. Might be just what you seek if you'll manually focus (and stack) while live viewing tethered.

There's a thread here, "first attempts at macro stacking, let's see some stuff. (beginners only please)"
PowerShot / Re: Canon Announces the PowerShot SX520 HS & SX400 HS
« Last post by Orangutan on August 20, 2014, 07:55:58 PM »
They could have a new high MP unit in the channels NOW. They could have an innovative mirrorless body in the channels NOW.

Why do you think they don't?  Bear in mind that Canon has the best-selling and most-profitable DSLRs right now.  In light of that, what specific reasons might Canon have for their lack of high-MP body?  Have Canon shooters been flocking to Nikon D8xx bodies?  Or to Sony?

You may be happy with these new announcements, and that is your right.
Why do you assume that?  Perhaps we're just realistic.  Nikon has demonstrated that a high-MP body is not as profitable as what Canon is selling now.  Sony has demonstrated the same for mirrorless.  Canon does not want to sell your perfect DSLR just to people like you, they want to sell a popular and profitable body.

It might do you some good to pick up an introductory business textbook.
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by streestandtheatres on August 20, 2014, 07:53:32 PM »
Buzzard with catch.
Animal Kingdom / Re: BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY -- share your BIF photos here
« Last post by Click on August 20, 2014, 07:49:53 PM »
First Post - long time viewer.
Love this category - inspires me ....
Love photographing Snowies outside of Calgary
More "on post "photos than BIF

Great shot.

Welcome to CR  :)
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« Last post by neuroanatomist on August 20, 2014, 07:45:35 PM »
Here is a great test;

They did some thorough testing, but I'll repost some caveats about interpreting their results in the context of use on a dSLR:

Just be aware of how LensTip's scoring is derived.  One factor (25% of the scoring) is how effective the filter is at blocking UV light, and that is irrelevant for dSLR users.  In fact, in one sense better UV blocking is worse, because some of the deep blue light is also lost.

Hoya, Zeiss, and B+W all publish their transmission curves. No filter has a perfectly vertical cutoff on a transmission curve - most good commercial multicoated filters that 'block' wavelengths ramp from ~0% transmission to their max of >99% over a 25-125 nm range (although some of the longpass and bandpass filters I use in microscopy are close to vertical, with a slope covering <5 nm - and they come with a price tag commensurate with that performance). 

The Zeiss has the steepest slope of the three, ramping up over the 410-435 nm range (it's cutting out some blue light, which is considered to start at 400 nm). The Hoya has the least steep slope, running from 350-460 nm or so, meaning its passing some UV in the 350-399 nm range, and blocking a bit of blue light as well.  The B+W is intermediate, ramping up from 360-430 nm, but at 400nm (the start of the visible range) the B+W UV transmission is >90%, and the sensitivity of the CFA blue channel on the sensor is very low below 420nm anyway.

Of course, while that might be good to know if you're shooting film, none of that matters if you've got a dSLR.  The dSLR's sensor is insensitive to UV light, so there's no difference between a UV filter (be it the 410 nm Zeiss or the 360 nm B+W) and a clear filter that fully passes the long end of the UV spectrum.  I have empirically tested my 7D and 5DII for UV sensitivity with calibrated UV/Vis light sources and some of those precise bandpass filters mentioned above (running a lab that has such equipment comes in handy sometimes) - there's no need for a UV filter.  I do use UV filters for protection (B+W MRC or Nano), instead of clear - but that's only because every time I've needed to buy one, the UV version was cheaper than the clear one (although that's not the case with all brands or in all geographies).

For the Lenstip tests, I recommend looking at the test results, not the summary table.  For example, compare the top scoring Hoya with the 3rd place B+W - the Hoya scored 90% (36/40), the B+W scored 83% (33/40).  But, when you look at the subscores which they provide that sum to a possible 40 pts, you see that B+W loses 1 pt for visible transmission, 1 pt for flare, and 5 pts for UV transmission.  The Hoya loses 2 pts for visible transmission, 2 pts for flare, and gets 10/10 for UV transmission.  But for a dSLR user, UV transmission is irrelevant...meaning that for a dSLR user, the B+W is the better filter according to Lenstip's testing, since it's better on both visible light transmission and flare.
Lenses / Re: Image quality with or without filters
« Last post by TexPhoto on August 20, 2014, 07:35:51 PM »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10