The Long and Short of it. 2 Photos from the same Place

Apr 15, 2011
1,356
174
21,163
San Juan, PR
I was always annoyed by the "zoom with your feet" statement. Sometimes you can't. I usually can't. At a recent baseball game I was allowed on the TV platform just past the outfield fence. It's marked 400 feet about 5 feet in front of me in the below 2 photos. I am standing on metal box about 10 feet wide 4 feet deep, and 7 feet high, no railing. The TV guy is next to me so I can't move much or shake the box.

Anyway, the long photo is a 7D with a 400mm f2.8 IS and 1.4X extender. The wide photo is a 5D and 8-15mm. Both photos have some cropping.


Untitled
by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


REX50013
by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Do you have any similar pairs of photos taken from the same place without taking a walk? Let's see.
 
TexPhoto said:
Do you have any similar pairs of photos taken from the same place without taking a walk? Let's see.


Apologies for them being a little underexposed, but IIRC this was getting pretty late in the day, and the sky was a lot brighter than the landscape.

16mm (16–35 L II)


35mm (16–35 L II)


70mm (70–300 L)


300mm (70–300 L)


1260mm (70–300 L at 300mm w/ stacked 1.4x and 3x teleconverters).
 
Upvote 0
But dgstwood, you could have zoomed with your feet in your example ! ;)

I suppose in reality all lenses are compromises of one sort or another. If we could get an f1.8 zoom that went from 24 to 400, weighted 8 oz and cost $400, had the same IQ and size of a 35/2 IS the we would all be using that lens.
 
Upvote 0
I do not think that the phrase 'zoom with your feet' was coined to suggest that you should only use one prime lens and attempt telephoto shots with a fisheye lens. ;)

Both zooms and primes have their pros and cons. Use the tools that are best for the job. :)
 
Upvote 0
dgatwood said:
Apologies for them being a little underexposed, but IIRC this was getting pretty late in the day, and the sky was a lot brighter than the landscape.


I think you need a little tweak there. Looks like the landscape is 100% in the shadow of clouds at that moment. I don't think there is anyway to get a good photo in that situation. But hey post processing challenge time! (Hope that's OK)


123
by RexPhoto91, on Flickr
 
Upvote 0
TexPhoto said:
dgatwood said:
Apologies for them being a little underexposed, but IIRC this was getting pretty late in the day, and the sky was a lot brighter than the landscape.


I think you need a little tweak there. Looks like the landscape is 100% in the shadow of clouds at that moment. I don't think there is anyway to get a good photo in that situation. But hey post processing challenge time! (Hope that's OK)


123
by RexPhoto91, on Flickr


Sure. Have fun. I have processed copies in LR; I was just too lazy to do the extra work of shoving rendered versions out to my website alongside the RAW files over a slow network connection. ;)
 
Upvote 0
TexPhoto said:
I think you need a little tweak there. Looks like the landscape is 100% in the shadow of clouds at that moment. I don't think there is anyway to get a good photo in that situation. But hey post processing challenge time! (Hope that's OK)


123
by RexPhoto91, on Flickr

Blimey, give me your e-mail address, I have about 2,000 photos for you to process ;D
 
Upvote 0
tex...i like your baseball shots! :)

here we have the awesome 24-70 2.8ii for basketball baseline action.

three different shots from the exact same spot within a 6 minute window.

all shots at ISO 6400 on a 1dx
 

Attachments

  • CH1T0787 (1).jpg
    CH1T0787 (1).jpg
    980.6 KB · Views: 148
  • CH1T0687 (1).jpg
    CH1T0687 (1).jpg
    816.8 KB · Views: 189
  • CH1T0706 - Version 2.jpg
    CH1T0706 - Version 2.jpg
    640.6 KB · Views: 190
Upvote 0