Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
betty boop

Camera & Photo Chat

Recommended Posts

Nice pics!

~

one thing am surpising me is wiht f4 and those shots were taken late afternoon when getting a bit dark. and the light captured by the camera with f4 and high iso is much much more than the human eye. really suprised ! also that IS is really not a necessity at this sort of wide angle lens as able to snap hand held quite easily without IS to fall back on :) but yeah on the 24-105L its definitely wihtout doubt especially if zooming IS is damn important :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this shot (enlarged) of Macropidia fuliginosa would have to be as good as you could find on the www.

Very rare I imagine in Sydney.

For me a pleasure and a joy to view it.

Awwww shucks..... Thanks Aqua. :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the 70-200mm range is it better to get the F4IS or the 2.8 nonIS?

If this is outdoors you don't really need 2.8... Even indoors you don't exactly need 2.8... I tried telling my sis that but she don't believe me.. :( IMO it's boring to freeze frame sports to 1/3200 or even higher...

If you can, look at this months' issue of Australia Photography Magazine (APG? Or something?), they have a brief article on what is needed for taking pictures..

I would mostly be taking outdoor kids sports shots (soccer, baseball). I have a 75-300mmIS (about 5 years old now) and whilst it works reasonably well, it still blurs on fast action shots, and hoping the faster glass will make me look better :ninja:

Do you know if the blur is from camera shake or longer exposure? One idea is to keep the subject focused, but it's surround blur (try burst shots?)..

one thing am surpising me is wiht f4 and those shots were taken late afternoon when getting a bit dark. and the light captured by the camera with f4 and high iso is much much more than the human eye. really suprised ! also that IS is really not a necessity at this sort of wide angle lens as able to snap hand held quite easily without IS to fall back on :) but yeah on the 24-105L its definitely wihtout doubt especially if zooming IS is damn important :)

If you look at MM's frog on a red brick wall shot, that's even more impressive.. IIRC there is little available light... FF still wins.. :P:wub: :wub:

Edited by treblid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this is outdoors you don't really need 2.8... Even indoors you don't exactly need 2.8... I tried telling my sis that but she don't believe me.. :( IMO it's boring to freeze frame sports to 1/3200 or even higher...

If you can, look at this months' issue of Australia Photography Magazine (APG? Or something?), they have a brief article on what is needed for taking pictures..

~

treb that reminds me of an article I read back in film days, think article was called "go slow". in this time where its all about fast apertures and shutters and higher and higher iso's maybe yet again is time to make an about turn and go slow. Was some great shots back in film days of what can achieve going slow. iso 50 films and slow appertures.. especially with sport where captured really the sense of speed and pace rather than shots frozen in time :)

~

If you look at MM's frog on a red brick wall shot, that's even more impressive.. IIRC there is little available light... FF still wins.. :P:wub: :wub:

dont get me wrong wasnt putting my shots up as some pinnacle of anything. just a couple of quick captures. but yeah genuinely suprised that at f4 with highish iso can capture more light in a shot than seen with naked eyes.

be no argument for me re better light catching abiltiy of larger sensor of a FF :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


treb that reminds me of an article I read back in film days, think article was called "go slow". in this time where its all about fast apertures and shutters and higher and higher iso's maybe yet again is time to make an about turn and go slow. Was some great shots back in film days of what can achieve going slow. iso 50 films and slow appertures.. especially with sport where captured really the sense of speed and pace rather than shots frozen in time :)

For film will probably require a lot of skill.. Digital will be cheaper :lol:;)

dont get me wrong wasnt putting my shots up as some pinnacle of anything. just a couple of quick captures. but yeah genuinely suprised that at f4 with highish iso can capture more light in a shot than seen with naked eyes.

be no argument for me re better light catching abiltiy of larger sensor of a FF :)

Just baiting you to temp fate (OLED I heard) :lol:..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm, the 75-300 is f/4-5.6. I don't think your problem is with the lens. Try a higher ISO setting which, of course, means a higher shutter speed. Try faster panning. Get a monopod - much cheaper than a new lens.

BTW: It is said that IS allows you around 2 - 3 f-stops due to increased stability. Personally, I'd go for the IS lens - which is the reason I went for the 24-105.

I usually start with ISO400 or 800, but I'll try a faster shutter speed. The baseball season is about to start again so I'll have some experimenting to do.

Recent trip to the US for 4 weeks I took a mass of shots and really played around with all sorts of creative settings. Some turned out good, others were horrid!

If this is outdoors you don't really need 2.8... Even indoors you don't exactly need 2.8... I tried telling my sis that but she don't believe me.. :( IMO it's boring to freeze frame sports to 1/3200 or even higher...

Thanks treb. I think you guys may have just saved me some dough $$$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks treb. I think you guys may have just saved me some dough $$$$

But my job is to make others spend money... :ninja:

That's just a school of thought btw.. Faster lens does give you more options.... But the point is more it's not everything and it all depends.. No simple answer (esp when it's photography).. Have a read at that issue of the magazine and see if you agree with that school of thought.

But really, with sports = action. And the best sports picture is to keep the subject sharp, and the background "in motion".. Cliche perhaps but it's a lot better than a "freezeframe" pic in general (and only IMO).. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with treb re freeze-frame. Better to "track" the subject and let the background blur.

As for IS, Canon say that IS cannot be used effectively when the subject is moving.

Suggest trying ISO 100 and AV setting to get sufficient Depth of Field and track the subject. Obviously a monopod would help - just look at the professional photographers at a footy match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


All good info.

Much appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All good info.

Much appreciated!

So we've failed again? :(

We're not here to give you good information...... We just want you to spend your money so you can join us in a state of poverty/the doghouse!! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may well be that the experimentations will not produce the desired result and an upgrade ends up in the pipeline anyways ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may well be that the experimentations will not produce the desired result and an upgrade ends up in the pipeline anyways ;)

hi diesel,

this might be a good review to read, as even though a 70-300L IS vs 70-200 f4L IS talks through some various other options around these lenses in the 2.8IS

http://dancarrphotography.com/blog/2010/11...70-200-f4-l-is/

and what these lenses good for and pit falls etc. found good read myself. ps I did have the non IS version of lens you have up until recently and replacement still something not quite worked out myself. and dont want to at present with no funding to back up anything thinking there :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Hi guys sorry if this is a hijack. I am a complete camera dunce. But want a dslr for my travels and for the kids sport

Is this a good camera for a basic user?

http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XG3060/can...r-twin-lens-kit

Also looked at the nikon d3100 kit duty free for $800

I would probaly prefer a single 18-200 lens but they don't seem to offer those kits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to be a traitor,vbut I bit the bullet and bought the Nikon D3100 twin lens kit. I can't post a link from the iPad. Paid $899 from Dick Smith after getting them to price match digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au. I also had a $25 gift voucher I won at Woolies which helped.

I haven't done much with it yet, it was almost dark by the time the battery was charged. First photos of the animals look pretty good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys sorry if this is a hijack. I am a complete camera dunce. But want a dslr for my travels and for the kids sport

Is this a good camera for a basic user?

http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XG3060/can...r-twin-lens-kit

Also looked at the nikon d3100 kit duty free for $800

I would probaly prefer a single 18-200 lens but they don't seem to offer those kits.

thats a great price for what you get. but its an odd twin lens kit, being 18-55 and a 75-300. its missing what is probably a important section in focal length 55-75mm

could get a 15-85 but thats very expensive but I'd reckon a better partner with the 75-300 :) otherwise could also get the 55-250 whcih is probably meant to be the match for the 18-55. dont know if theres a kit for that.

otherwise could also just buy the body lenses separately but might cost a bit more than the kit. but never know. you might be better off going past the camera stores as generally got a better range and bargaining friendly :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys sorry if this is a hijack. I am a complete camera dunce. But want a dslr for my travels and for the kids sport

Is this a good camera for a basic user?

http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XG3060/can...r-twin-lens-kit

Also looked at the nikon d3100 kit duty free for $800

I would probaly prefer a single 18-200 lens but they don't seem to offer those kits.

I did a lot of research and read heaps of reviews. The main reason I went for the Nikon was that most reviews said the built in guide made it the best choice as a first DSLR for beginners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


I did a lot of research and read heaps of reviews. The main reason I went for the Nikon was that most reviews said the built in guide made it the best choice as a first DSLR for beginners.

Congrats on the purchase. Doesn't really matter what you get TBH as long as you're comfortable with it... What do you mean built in guide ? Guide as in guide no, or guide book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Congrats on the purchase. Doesn't really matter what you get TBH as long as you're comfortable with it... What do you mean built in guide ? Guide as in guide no, or guide book?

It has a built in guide mode. When you switch it on, it takes you through an on screen process depending on the type of photo you want to take. If you say a close up for example, it adjusts the settings for you. It then gives you an example photo on screen and as you adjust the aperture, the image changes accordingly and shows you the setting. When you're happy with the result, you switch to shooting mode and press the button.

Very simple to use and you learn as you go. Great for complete novices like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys sorry if this is a hijack. I am a complete camera dunce. But want a dslr for my travels and for the kids sport

Is this a good camera for a basic user?

http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XG3060/can...r-twin-lens-kit

Also looked at the nikon d3100 kit duty free for $800

I would probaly prefer a single 18-200 lens but they don't seem to offer those kits.

That is a good price Jimmy.

The 1000D has been superseded for some time now by the 1100D. The 1100D adds a slightly higher rez sensor (~12MP), video recording capabilities and a few other improvements to the 1000D. There are kits with an 18-135mm and 18-200mm for the 550D, or you could look at any one of several online stores to get a 1000D body and 18-200mm lens separately. Just to be clear the Dick Smith kit includes non-IS lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is a good price Jimmy.

The 1000D has been superseded for some time now by the 1100D. The 1100D adds a slightly higher rez sensor (~12MP), video recording capabilities and a few other improvements to the 1000D. There are kits with an 18-135mm and 18-200mm for the 550D, or you could look at any one of several online stores to get a 1000D body and 18-200mm lens separately. Just to be clear the Dick Smith kit includes non-IS lens.

Is that image stabilizing ? That's obviously bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that image stabilizing ? That's obviously bad?

image stabilising is handy in a lens for taking hand held shots in low light and less than ideal conditions. though IS lenses could add a fair bit to cost, the 18-55 is an IS lens its just the 75-300 that isnt. look you could get the 55-250 which is an IS lens as well instead.

http://www.t-dimension.com/revamp/dslr-can...gb-gifts-p-2273

note above is grey market no local warranty(personally I dont like buying bodies overseas as they can play up, lenses do have international warranty). will cost a lot more locally. the body itself is $500 or so so with lenses probably going to cost mroe than either the deal you had or this grey one.

and yeah just matter of tossing up whether want the extra length of the 75-300 or IS on the 55-200. as mentioned with the 75-300 you will have a gap focal length.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT: I'm a great fan of IS. :wub:

As Al said, IS is a big help when the shooting conditions are less than ideal.

But, and this is pretty important, as the focal length gets higher IS is almost essential for clear, sharp shots when hand-holding - which will be most / all of the time. Unless you brace yourself up against, say, a tree when using 200mm+ you'll most probably get slight to unacceptable blurring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took some pics of the animals last night on my new Nikon and was going to upload them but they're about 4Mb each. What should I reduce them to in order to make them 'forum-friendly'? They were taken in Auto mode, but they look pretty good to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I took some pics of the animals last night on my new Nikon and was going to upload them but they're about 4Mb each. What should I reduce them to in order to make them 'forum-friendly'? They were taken in Auto mode, but they look pretty good to me.

You can use free apps like Picasa to resize (or gimp for more full featured).. Or if you have kids, get Photoshop, etc...

In general, shoot in RAW, then export to lower res JPEGs to preserve the quality (and you only loose data once)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what free Windows apps are available (other than Gimp), but what I do is to resize the image to a width of 1024 px (let the height default so that the aspect ratio is preserved) and save as a JPG at 50% quality. This does compromise the image quality but does give a file that is a lot smaller. Try 70%, 80% and see what you like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Classifieds Statistics


    Currently Active Ads

    Total Sales (Since 2018)

    Total Sales Value (Last 14 Days)

    Total Ads Value (Since March 2020)
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...