And typically the day I don't bring my camera I've got an exhausted bee taking sugar water from a fake flower 
In reply to Post #2430
Getting there with the diffusion. Found a great styrene film bag, that a monitor came wrapped in, for the end of the snoot and now have a bit of plastic milk carton elastic-ed over the end of the lens.
Gone back to the 5D as well, the weight of the 1D was just too much, half a kilo difference!
The AF is faster and more accurate. Sod the frame rate.
Sedge
Long-jawed spider & brunch.
Getting there with the diffusion. Found a great styrene film bag, that a monitor came wrapped in, for the end of the snoot and now have a bit of plastic milk carton elastic-ed over the end of the lens.
Gone back to the 5D as well, the weight of the 1D was just too much, half a kilo difference!
The AF is faster and more accurate. Sod the frame rate.
Sedge
Long-jawed spider & brunch.
In reply to Post #2431
That rig looks more manageable
I'm gonna have a tweak of the softbox, because of the closer worker distance I have I'm getting nice diffused light but at quite a high angle. So I'm gonna either try and make a notch for the lens to sit in or extend the front to serve the same purpose, and maybe make a gap in the diffusion to let a bit through more directly, it seems a bit too flat now.
My daughter has permission from the boss to put some blue dye in her hair, so I'll be doing some portraits. Now, given my aversion to editing, can I make the blue really pop by using gels and tweaking the white balance? I'll probably use a warming gel on her face given her pale skin, and I don't think lifting the blue channel in light room will do her any favours there
That rig looks more manageable
I'm gonna have a tweak of the softbox, because of the closer worker distance I have I'm getting nice diffused light but at quite a high angle. So I'm gonna either try and make a notch for the lens to sit in or extend the front to serve the same purpose, and maybe make a gap in the diffusion to let a bit through more directly, it seems a bit too flat now.
My daughter has permission from the boss to put some blue dye in her hair, so I'll be doing some portraits. Now, given my aversion to editing, can I make the blue really pop by using gels and tweaking the white balance? I'll probably use a warming gel on her face given her pale skin, and I don't think lifting the blue channel in light room will do her any favours there
Held the box off to one side to try and add interest, still not that happy with it but highlights are under control
Excuse the poor quality (soft lens, 600mm equivalent handheld + very heavy crop), looking for an ID confirmation on this raptor
I had the camera trained on it for over an hour hoping it would take off towards me, typically it decided to move the moment I'd lowered the camera to get some blood back in my arms
Excuse the poor quality (soft lens, 600mm equivalent handheld + very heavy crop), looking for an ID confirmation on this raptor
I had the camera trained on it for over an hour hoping it would take off towards me, typically it decided to move the moment I'd lowered the camera to get some blood back in my arms
In reply to Post #2433
Is that a Peregrine Dave??
Is that a Peregrine Dave??
In reply to Post #2434
I think so but I'm not great on identifying birds. The speed of thing once it took off I had no chance of finding it with the long lens.
The last couple of years they've been a regular sight when I have my morning coffee through May and June, never bothered to shoot them before as they stay out of range for a decent shot. Last year there were regularly 4 birds up the pylon, the year before 3, I think it must be a favourite spot of a breeding pair to teach the fledglings
I think so but I'm not great on identifying birds. The speed of thing once it took off I had no chance of finding it with the long lens.
The last couple of years they've been a regular sight when I have my morning coffee through May and June, never bothered to shoot them before as they stay out of range for a decent shot. Last year there were regularly 4 birds up the pylon, the year before 3, I think it must be a favourite spot of a breeding pair to teach the fledglings
In reply to Post #2435
It certainly looks like one to me mate. We had a bird keeper in the village where I grew up and me and my brother used to help her as kids. She had several peregrines.
It certainly looks like one to me mate. We had a bird keeper in the village where I grew up and me and my brother used to help her as kids. She had several peregrines.
In reply to Post #2436
A question for those with some experience with super tele lenses, how long can you go before atmospherics destroy image quality?
I'm thinking of getting a used 150-600 in Canon mount as I have an adaptor and a speedbooster, but since the pylon the peregrines use is around 100m to the lower tier from my garden, I'm not sure it's gonna be possible to get anything decent at 1000-1200mm equivalent.
Even without the lock down there isn't really a better vantage point, I can get higher but further away, or closer, but beneath them. Short of feeding the pigeons and setting up a hide to try and tempt them I can see a lot of fruitless hours trying to get a shot
I'm thinking of getting a used 150-600 in Canon mount as I have an adaptor and a speedbooster, but since the pylon the peregrines use is around 100m to the lower tier from my garden, I'm not sure it's gonna be possible to get anything decent at 1000-1200mm equivalent.
Even without the lock down there isn't really a better vantage point, I can get higher but further away, or closer, but beneath them. Short of feeding the pigeons and setting up a hide to try and tempt them I can see a lot of fruitless hours trying to get a shot
In reply to Post #2438
It depends. There's heat haze, mist and pollution to think about. Early morning to avoid the heat and you may get mist, early afternoon gives you the opposite. How much you are willing to put up with is another thing. We all have a line that we don't want to cross (like with ISO). I've got away with a 1.4x converter on a 150-600mm whilst using a crop body and have been reasonably happy with the result. On a bright, clear day I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at the equivalent of 800mm if that helps.
If your subject is 100m away, 1000mm is still going to require a lot of cropping for a bird. Magnification from a 1000mm will give you full height of a person at 100m (ish).
It is usually movement that ruins long lens photographs, use a monopod. I'd use a gimbal with that sort of focal length as well, if you can get hold of one.
It depends. There's heat haze, mist and pollution to think about. Early morning to avoid the heat and you may get mist, early afternoon gives you the opposite. How much you are willing to put up with is another thing. We all have a line that we don't want to cross (like with ISO). I've got away with a 1.4x converter on a 150-600mm whilst using a crop body and have been reasonably happy with the result. On a bright, clear day I wouldn't hesitate to shoot at the equivalent of 800mm if that helps.
If your subject is 100m away, 1000mm is still going to require a lot of cropping for a bird. Magnification from a 1000mm will give you full height of a person at 100m (ish).
It is usually movement that ruins long lens photographs, use a monopod. I'd use a gimbal with that sort of focal length as well, if you can get hold of one.
In reply to Post #2439
That sounds promising
The dof calculator app on my phone says the diagonal field of view will be 4.5 m with 1000mm at 105m. Will be a bit closer at 1200, might be OK for a shot of the family group but I'll still be hoping for them to fly in my direction. Even in a fairly steep dive they will quickly be at 75-80m
I'll be hoping for a chance with the speedbooster which will get me to just under 900mm but gaining a stop of light, and a fair bit sharper judging by other lenses I've used with it.
I'd probably start off with a ball head on a tripod, I've already got a cupboard full of heads and mounts I've bought for macro stuff I never use, I don't want to add another
That sounds promising
The dof calculator app on my phone says the diagonal field of view will be 4.5 m with 1000mm at 105m. Will be a bit closer at 1200, might be OK for a shot of the family group but I'll still be hoping for them to fly in my direction. Even in a fairly steep dive they will quickly be at 75-80m
I'll be hoping for a chance with the speedbooster which will get me to just under 900mm but gaining a stop of light, and a fair bit sharper judging by other lenses I've used with it.
I'd probably start off with a ball head on a tripod, I've already got a cupboard full of heads and mounts I've bought for macro stuff I never use, I don't want to add another
In reply to Post #2440
I use a 150mm - 600mm on my Nikon D810 full frame and had a X2 converter, to be honest as soon as I used it at anything over 400mm I wished I had a 1.4 converter. Image quality was not good enough for my liking.
Sold the X2 but not yet replaced it with a 1.4 but will one day probably later in the year now.
I use a 150mm - 600mm on my Nikon D810 full frame and had a X2 converter, to be honest as soon as I used it at anything over 400mm I wished I had a 1.4 converter. Image quality was not good enough for my liking.
Sold the X2 but not yet replaced it with a 1.4 but will one day probably later in the year now.
In reply to Post #2441
Which lens is that Ken? I have been looking at the 2 sigma options and the tamron, I think the sigma s looks to be the one to get, I don't plan on keeping it long so the extra cost isn't such an issue.
How were you evaluating the sharpness? At that sort of range and losing two stops of light I expect it to amplify any flaws in technique, but then mounting one on my mft body is much like using a 2x on your camera. If it is a bit soft I still have the speedbooster to fall back on and still have a lot more reach than I've got now
When I got my 75-300 I thought it was dog sit at the long end, but when I tried it with a tripod and lit only by flash I found it was only a bit sit
Which lens is that Ken? I have been looking at the 2 sigma options and the tamron, I think the sigma s looks to be the one to get, I don't plan on keeping it long so the extra cost isn't such an issue.
How were you evaluating the sharpness? At that sort of range and losing two stops of light I expect it to amplify any flaws in technique, but then mounting one on my mft body is much like using a 2x on your camera. If it is a bit soft I still have the speedbooster to fall back on and still have a lot more reach than I've got now
When I got my 75-300 I thought it was dog sit at the long end, but when I tried it with a tripod and lit only by flash I found it was only a bit sit
In reply to Post #2442
I use the sigma 150mm 600mm contemporary lens.
With the X2 Tele converter Image degregation is quite noticeable with the X2 converter the best f stop you can get is f13, you loose a couple of stops of light and I would recommend manual focus as auto is very slow with the X2 on.
When I photograph birds I use AF-C and the X2 is not good enough for that
The lens without any converter seems at its best around 500mm
Have a friend with the sport version and really the only difference I could see was the weight of the sport was much more, the price and maybe a fraction faster in focusing.
I would think the 1.4 converter would be better with the 600mm and would be better with a crop sensor
Also I only used the converter with a heavy tripod as hand held at full stretch there was too much hand shake for me.
I must say the Sigma 150mm to 600mm is a fantastic investment, I wouldn't pay the extra for the sports version though.
Although my mate loves his.
I use the sigma 150mm 600mm contemporary lens.
With the X2 Tele converter Image degregation is quite noticeable with the X2 converter the best f stop you can get is f13, you loose a couple of stops of light and I would recommend manual focus as auto is very slow with the X2 on.
When I photograph birds I use AF-C and the X2 is not good enough for that
The lens without any converter seems at its best around 500mm
Have a friend with the sport version and really the only difference I could see was the weight of the sport was much more, the price and maybe a fraction faster in focusing.
I would think the 1.4 converter would be better with the 600mm and would be better with a crop sensor
Also I only used the converter with a heavy tripod as hand held at full stretch there was too much hand shake for me.
I must say the Sigma 150mm to 600mm is a fantastic investment, I wouldn't pay the extra for the sports version though.
Although my mate loves his.
In reply to Post #2443
I can see the 2x would be a last resort, f13 when you want shutterspeeds in the thousands must be a problem. That's why I hope it plays nicely with the speed booster, 900mm ish equivalent at f4. 5ish sounds pretty good to me.
Google started giving me ads and reviews for the 60-600, that looks a serious lens!
I can see the 2x would be a last resort, f13 when you want shutterspeeds in the thousands must be a problem. That's why I hope it plays nicely with the speed booster, 900mm ish equivalent at f4. 5ish sounds pretty good to me.
Google started giving me ads and reviews for the 60-600, that looks a serious lens!