B
briansquibb
Guest
Full size - 47mb, 15301 x 4614, 6 images stitched
1D4, 400 f/2.8
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/rochester.JPG
1D4, 400 f/2.8
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/rochester.JPG
JR said:Very Nice! I downloaded the full 47M image and it is so big I felt I was there! I assume you used a tripod for the 6 shot?
briansquibb said:JR said:Very Nice! I downloaded the full 47M image and it is so big I felt I was there! I assume you used a tripod for the 6 shot?
Yes - it was a 1D4 with a 400 f/2.8 IS on a Manfrotto 055XPROB and Manfrotto Gimbal
I am experimenting with using the 400 for landscapes - of course it is a bit long so I that I have to stitch several together to get the width
JR said:What was your main motivation for trying the 400 for landscape? DOF? IQ? Just curious...I dont have long focal lenght like this but recently I noticed my 85mm did great at landscape (better then my 50 or 24). I am tempted to try my 70-200 at 200mm for landscape now... Anyway curious to know your thought process...
Thanks
JR said:Makes perfect sense about the perspective distortion avoided. If I take this kind of shot with my 24mm even with lens correction in Lightroom I would have some level of distortion ... thanks Brian.
Very nice. Beyond the qualities of the photography, this north american loves the architecture.briansquibb said:Full size - 47mb, 15301 x 4614, 6 images stitched
1D4, 400 f/2.8
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/rochester.JPG
Kernuak said:Long teles are also good at picking out details in what are sometimes bland landscapes otherwise. When you have strong lines, particularly in low contrast scenes, such as mist, teles can be ideal. Like you, it's something I want to do more of. I have a habit of travelling a bit lighter when I am out for landscapes, so often leave my 300 f/2.8 behind, but I have taken a few with the 300+1.4x and got a drop in polariser for the purpose.
briansquibb said:A bit like this you mean? (just an experimental image) - about 6mb
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g9474.JPG
JR said:briansquibb said:A bit like this you mean? (just an experimental image) - about 6mb
http://www.squibb.org.uk/pictures/b09g9474.JPG
Is this still with the 300mm lens?
Kernuak said:I was thinking more from hills looking out over or vice versa, but that sort of image also works. The foreshortening of the perspective can really change the look.