Off to the camera shop tomorrow to sort out my self takes. Was going to maybe trest myself to a new lens as i only have the one it came with.
I have a Canon 70D - what lens should i be looking for just for trophy shots? Also what flash/light should i get?
I have a Canon 70D - what lens should i be looking for just for trophy shots? Also what flash/light should i get?
In reply to Post #1
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM
In reply to Post #1
Canon 40mm f2.8
Flash wise, get a couple of ‘rhino' style lights and use the onboard camera flash, it's not as if you are trying to get flash to light a massive area, or great distance from the camera
Canon 40mm f2.8
Flash wise, get a couple of ‘rhino' style lights and use the onboard camera flash, it's not as if you are trying to get flash to light a massive area, or great distance from the camera
In reply to Post #1
What do you want to spend mate?
What do you want to spend mate?
In reply to Post #1
For fish shots you need a wide lens , the canon 20 mm f2.8 is a good one , on your APSC senzor will be a 32mm that is perfect for trophy shots
For fish shots you need a wide lens , the canon 20 mm f2.8 is a good one , on your APSC senzor will be a 32mm that is perfect for trophy shots
In reply to Post #5
Most carp anglers in the UK go for the 35 - 50 mm range for crop sensors (rightly or wrongly).
The Canon 20 mm f2.8 is no longer available new as far as I'm aware. Plenty of used ones about though.
All about what you want to spend for me. I think Bleeps 35 mm f2 recommendation is a good one but you'd get as good results from the EF 50 mm f1.8 which is much cheaper. If you want to spend more the Sigma f1.4 ART primes are next level and more than that you have the Canon L lenses.
Most carp anglers in the UK go for the 35 - 50 mm range for crop sensors (rightly or wrongly).
The Canon 20 mm f2.8 is no longer available new as far as I'm aware. Plenty of used ones about though.
All about what you want to spend for me. I think Bleeps 35 mm f2 recommendation is a good one but you'd get as good results from the EF 50 mm f1.8 which is much cheaper. If you want to spend more the Sigma f1.4 ART primes are next level and more than that you have the Canon L lenses.
In reply to Post #1
Glass is a personal thing. So many great lenses out there with character and charm. I love my Zeiss 35mm and my 55mm. But even though I take my Sony A1 with me with a 400mm for wildlife, I find I take my trophy shots (when I can be bothered) with my phone. Just a cheap Bluetooth remote for a fiver and job done.
Lighting, again what are you looking for? Are you looking for anything that gets the job done, so not bothered about specular highlights and blown-out detail, or do you want something controlled and more studio quality? LED gets the job done, flash off camera can give better results but needs to be thought through and ideally controlled with a softbox or diffuser of some description.
This problem nowadays is that you can pretty much get great trophy shots done with a mobile phone and snapseed nowadays if you're just banging them on social media in 2048.
Glass is a personal thing. So many great lenses out there with character and charm. I love my Zeiss 35mm and my 55mm. But even though I take my Sony A1 with me with a 400mm for wildlife, I find I take my trophy shots (when I can be bothered) with my phone. Just a cheap Bluetooth remote for a fiver and job done.
Lighting, again what are you looking for? Are you looking for anything that gets the job done, so not bothered about specular highlights and blown-out detail, or do you want something controlled and more studio quality? LED gets the job done, flash off camera can give better results but needs to be thought through and ideally controlled with a softbox or diffuser of some description.
This problem nowadays is that you can pretty much get great trophy shots done with a mobile phone and snapseed nowadays if you're just banging them on social media in 2048.
In reply to Post #1
Canon 24mm f2.8 efs pancake lens, will have a field of view roughly 38mm on a 70d. For a small lens it produces good images.
Canon 24mm f2.8 efs pancake lens, will have a field of view roughly 38mm on a 70d. For a small lens it produces good images.
In reply to Post #1
Depends how big you want the fish to look. A normal portrait type lens was always considered to be about 50mil. Include a fish in the portrait as well, and people seem to want to drift further and further into fisheye lens territory.
Depends how big you want the fish to look. A normal portrait type lens was always considered to be about 50mil. Include a fish in the portrait as well, and people seem to want to drift further and further into fisheye lens territory.
In reply to Post #9
I use the 24mm F2.8 also on my 700d . Lovely photos and you can get in nice and close for self takes with a flip round screen 👍
I use the 24mm F2.8 also on my 700d . Lovely photos and you can get in nice and close for self takes with a flip round screen 👍
Well i went into a camera shop, i didnt go crazy, he was tuting and huffing from me walking in! (Why do camera shop people hate it when someone asks for advice!) I went for a 50mm canon lens and a cheapish tripod. When i talked about lighting he wzs tryingto sell me a light as big as a lampost, couldnt get hos head arround the fact i didnt have mains, dint want to light up the moon and nearly spat his dummy out. He was trying to sell me a tripod that would of gone to about 6ft3, when i said i dont need it that big he just went well it goes lower. When i pointed to the smaller cheaper ones again he tutted and said they were no good, he didnt like it when i asked "so why do you sell them" and "surly a tripod is a tripod!
I managed to find a app thst lets me controll my camera and take multiple self takes so im happier now although i still need a light.
I managed to find a app thst lets me controll my camera and take multiple self takes so im happier now although i still need a light.
In reply to Post #11
Tbh those cheapo mini tripods are well unstable with a camera on them, I prefer a bankstick with a ball head.
Lighter, smaller and more stable
Most of the camera shops I've been in have been great for advice/service tbh
Tbh those cheapo mini tripods are well unstable with a camera on them, I prefer a bankstick with a ball head.
Lighter, smaller and more stable
Most of the camera shops I've been in have been great for advice/service tbh
In reply to Post #11
If you own a ridgemonkey bivvy light they double up great as camera lighting.
If you own a ridgemonkey bivvy light they double up great as camera lighting.
In reply to Post #12
I agree, in a swim, with all your gear etc. A small bankstick with a ball head is a much beter idea
Self takes for fish you want the camera low anyway.
You can set the stick up in a good but out of the way spot. Inner section removed but with camera already fitted if you like. Get a fish, drop the inner in, hit the button with the intervelometer or time lapse alresdy set
And its shooting.
Tripods can't wait to go over LOL
I agree, in a swim, with all your gear etc. A small bankstick with a ball head is a much beter idea
Self takes for fish you want the camera low anyway.
You can set the stick up in a good but out of the way spot. Inner section removed but with camera already fitted if you like. Get a fish, drop the inner in, hit the button with the intervelometer or time lapse alresdy set
And its shooting.
Tripods can't wait to go over LOL
In reply to Post #11
The 50 can't really be beaten for the money. You'll get great results if you use it properly mate.
What app are you using? Is it Cascable?
The 50 can't really be beaten for the money. You'll get great results if you use it properly mate.
What app are you using? Is it Cascable?
In reply to Post #14
I leave the stick and head in place and just clip the camera on and off as needed, I'm less likely to trip on it that way
I do have a small 3leggedthing tripod for when I need it, with decent legs you can splay right out. Can't be compared to that 7dayshop piece of sh1t everyone seemed to rave about on here
I leave the stick and head in place and just clip the camera on and off as needed, I'm less likely to trip on it that way
I do have a small 3leggedthing tripod for when I need it, with decent legs you can splay right out. Can't be compared to that 7dayshop piece of sh1t everyone seemed to rave about on here
In reply to Post #16
Once again the Canon 24mm pancake lens. I have been using mine for a few years now. Lovely flat frame, excellent images and you can have the camera only 5 or 6 feet away so it is very compact.
Once again the Canon 24mm pancake lens. I have been using mine for a few years now. Lovely flat frame, excellent images and you can have the camera only 5 or 6 feet away so it is very compact.
In reply to Post #12
I use a small Velbon tripod for my DSLR (donkeys years old now but still going strong). The ball head is a good idea - I have two small video cameras running all the time in daylight both mounted on banksticks and use one of these on each.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/SMALLRIG-Panoramic-Ballhead-Arca-Swiss-Compatible/dp/B0833XVLK8/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2RP2IV3AFODSP&keywords=smallrig+ball+head&qid=1662022037&sprefix=smallrig+ball%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-3
They allow the camera to be removed and replaced without moving the line up. They will hold a DSLR but with the weight it is best to ensure the stick is really in the ground. For a heavier camera a tripod is much safer.
I use a small Velbon tripod for my DSLR (donkeys years old now but still going strong). The ball head is a good idea - I have two small video cameras running all the time in daylight both mounted on banksticks and use one of these on each.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/SMALLRIG-Panoramic-Ballhead-Arca-Swiss-Compatible/dp/B0833XVLK8/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2RP2IV3AFODSP&keywords=smallrig+ball+head&qid=1662022037&sprefix=smallrig+ball%2Caps%2C93&sr=8-3
They allow the camera to be removed and replaced without moving the line up. They will hold a DSLR but with the weight it is best to ensure the stick is really in the ground. For a heavier camera a tripod is much safer.
In reply to Post #18
I think because I use a weighty f2. 8 zoom mostly, those cheap tripods with narrow leg angles are always trying to topple, while I'll regularly use a screw in bankstick with a cheap star tracking mount and 2 ball heads without issues.
What I have found is that the available camera/bankstick adaptors are a bit small for a completely stable fit with a ball head, so I made an adaptor with a bigger base like you find on proper tripods. It's only an issue with long exposures in a bit of wind but I take a lot more of those pics than I do catch shots
I think because I use a weighty f2. 8 zoom mostly, those cheap tripods with narrow leg angles are always trying to topple, while I'll regularly use a screw in bankstick with a cheap star tracking mount and 2 ball heads without issues.
What I have found is that the available camera/bankstick adaptors are a bit small for a completely stable fit with a ball head, so I made an adaptor with a bigger base like you find on proper tripods. It's only an issue with long exposures in a bit of wind but I take a lot more of those pics than I do catch shots
In reply to Post #19
I'll regularly use a screw in bankstick with a cheap star tracking mount
I am b*ggered if I am taking my star tracking mount fishing .......
I'll regularly use a screw in bankstick with a cheap star tracking mount
I am b*ggered if I am taking my star tracking mount fishing .......
In reply to Post #20
Mine is the size of a fag packet
(moveshootmove)
Mine is the size of a fag packet
(moveshootmove)
In reply to Post #21
Hi Duggs,
What sort of results are you getting with the moveshootmove tracker? I was going to get a Sky-Watcher one but it looked a bit if a faff to set up and it put me off. I don't suppose it will track the ISS of which I am determined to get a decent shot that doesn't look like a radioactive Tie fighter.
Hi Duggs,
What sort of results are you getting with the moveshootmove tracker? I was going to get a Sky-Watcher one but it looked a bit if a faff to set up and it put me off. I don't suppose it will track the ISS of which I am determined to get a decent shot that doesn't look like a radioactive Tie fighter.
In reply to Post #22
I've only really used it for wide angle milky way shots, exposures of up to 2 minutes and its been fine for that. I had a few blurry shots of andromeda when I got it last winter but I think that was down to lazy alignment rather than the unit. I'll be trying to get better this winter
The iss moves so fast I don't think a tracker is gonna help there, plus it doesn't move with the stars so I wouldn't know where to start trying to align it for that.
I see it as a cheap, portable entry to astro that saves stacking loads of high iso frames for half decent shots, it's not gonna cut it if you want to mount a telescope and take a thousand frames of a dso
I've only really used it for wide angle milky way shots, exposures of up to 2 minutes and its been fine for that. I had a few blurry shots of andromeda when I got it last winter but I think that was down to lazy alignment rather than the unit. I'll be trying to get better this winter
The iss moves so fast I don't think a tracker is gonna help there, plus it doesn't move with the stars so I wouldn't know where to start trying to align it for that.
I see it as a cheap, portable entry to astro that saves stacking loads of high iso frames for half decent shots, it's not gonna cut it if you want to mount a telescope and take a thousand frames of a dso
In reply to Post #23
I should have asked if it can be used without the motor. I think that's how the chap must have been using the Sky-Watcher, I can't find a video showing it. I think a Z plate and a fluid head would allow me to follow the path of the ISS just as easily.
I will need to be perfectly aligned if I pop a P1000 on it. Did you go for the laser version?
I should have asked if it can be used without the motor. I think that's how the chap must have been using the Sky-Watcher, I can't find a video showing it. I think a Z plate and a fluid head would allow me to follow the path of the ISS just as easily.
I will need to be perfectly aligned if I pop a P1000 on it. Did you go for the laser version?
In reply to Post #24
When I got it they had a deal on, it was about 20 quid extra to get a lens warmer, the polar scope and the z mount on top of the basic rotator+laser set. I'm glad I got that as while the laser is accurate enough for milky way shots there's too much plane traffic in the south east to be pointing lasers at polaris. Its also more accurate with the scope as polaris is usually off centre in the reticle for perfect alignment and this position is always changing, if I want to use a longer lens or try really long exposures I'll check on the day where I need to be aiming
The first time I took it fishing I was a couple of miles south of Heathrow and I didn't have the polar scope so I bottled it
Procrastinating on this puzzle a bit this morning, I think it'd need 2 rotators, on to cancel earth's rotation and one to track the iss orbit.
I haven't got any lens long enough to contemplate trying but wouldn't you get a decent shutter speed if you catch it in a dark sky with the iss still lit by the sun?
When I got it they had a deal on, it was about 20 quid extra to get a lens warmer, the polar scope and the z mount on top of the basic rotator+laser set. I'm glad I got that as while the laser is accurate enough for milky way shots there's too much plane traffic in the south east to be pointing lasers at polaris. Its also more accurate with the scope as polaris is usually off centre in the reticle for perfect alignment and this position is always changing, if I want to use a longer lens or try really long exposures I'll check on the day where I need to be aiming
The first time I took it fishing I was a couple of miles south of Heathrow and I didn't have the polar scope so I bottled it
Procrastinating on this puzzle a bit this morning, I think it'd need 2 rotators, on to cancel earth's rotation and one to track the iss orbit.
I haven't got any lens long enough to contemplate trying but wouldn't you get a decent shutter speed if you catch it in a dark sky with the iss still lit by the sun?
In reply to Post #25
wouldn't you get a decent shutter speed if you catch it in a dark sky with the iss still lit by the sun?
Yes as you can only see the ISS if it is illuminated by the sun or as a silhouette against the moon. When illuminated by the sun it is very bright so is an easy handheld target on any camera albeit just a point of light. To try and get any detail you need, as you say, a (much) longer lens and a reduction in the light so a fast shutter speed and a small aperture. Bloody difficult handheld though.
Easier through a scope tracking the moon. The exposures will be fast because of the brightness of the moon (1/1000s through filters on my CCD) and the ISS will show up well. If you can track the moon with a long lens to fill the frame on a DSLR then you will get it without a problem.
Here it is fading into the earth's shadow (heading towards M44) - no detail, just an idle shot whilst out imaging. (A tripod shot)
.jpg)
wouldn't you get a decent shutter speed if you catch it in a dark sky with the iss still lit by the sun?
Yes as you can only see the ISS if it is illuminated by the sun or as a silhouette against the moon. When illuminated by the sun it is very bright so is an easy handheld target on any camera albeit just a point of light. To try and get any detail you need, as you say, a (much) longer lens and a reduction in the light so a fast shutter speed and a small aperture. Bloody difficult handheld though.
Easier through a scope tracking the moon. The exposures will be fast because of the brightness of the moon (1/1000s through filters on my CCD) and the ISS will show up well. If you can track the moon with a long lens to fill the frame on a DSLR then you will get it without a problem.
Here it is fading into the earth's shadow (heading towards M44) - no detail, just an idle shot whilst out imaging. (A tripod shot)
In reply to Post #26
The trouble seems to be keeping it in the frame at 3000mm while on a tripod.
I struggle tracking a bird at 600mm on a tripod if the elevation changes too much so I can't help there. The red dot sights are helpful at 600mm but I doubt it's help at that magnification on a moving target
The trouble seems to be keeping it in the frame at 3000mm while on a tripod.
I struggle tracking a bird at 600mm on a tripod if the elevation changes too much so I can't help there. The red dot sights are helpful at 600mm but I doubt it's help at that magnification on a moving target
In reply to Post #7
@alpha-male, or anyone else that has suggestions. How do you set up your lighting for night/very low light shots. Just the camera flash or Rhino beam seem to make the shot too flashy and all of the light is on the fish. I have the standard kit lense and a nifty 50, which is best in this situation? I was thinking 2 x Rhino beams, one each side of the camera on half power and then place the camera further back using the flash to avoid the intense flash on the body of the fish. I've battled with this for 30 years so really need to get is nailed
@alpha-male, or anyone else that has suggestions. How do you set up your lighting for night/very low light shots. Just the camera flash or Rhino beam seem to make the shot too flashy and all of the light is on the fish. I have the standard kit lense and a nifty 50, which is best in this situation? I was thinking 2 x Rhino beams, one each side of the camera on half power and then place the camera further back using the flash to avoid the intense flash on the body of the fish. I've battled with this for 30 years so really need to get is nailed
In reply to Post #28
If your kit lens has a shorter focal length than 50mm I would use that - otherwise use the 50mm. I don't know what camera you are using. Do you use a built in flash or an external - the external is preferable but not essential. If your camera allows you to adjust the flash output (usually only on external speedlites and then not all of them) then crank it down to 1/2 and take a test shot - adjust if neccessary. If external then use a diffuser - a bit of white cloth is good.
The key is not to use a single spot of a brilliant, bright flash but a good spread of decent light. The single spot creates the big bright white spots on the flanks of a fish (which is why you shopuld try not to have to 90 degrees to the flash - angle it up, down, sideways so as not to direct the flash back to the camera). Using even two Rhinos does not give really decent light and you will probably find that your shutter speed will have to be reduced which can lead to blur. If you use the shutter setting on the camera and set that to the fastest sync speed allowable (usually 1/125s up to 1/250s depending on the camera) then you can adjust the aperture to reduce the glare of the flash plus for the depth of field - f8 is a good starting point as it will give you a decent depth of field for you and the fish (be in focus) but will blur nicely beyond that.
Experiment is the key and if you have a Canon then I can really recommend the 24mm Pancake lens which will return fabulous flat frame images plus you can set it up only 5 of 6 feet away from you (the 50mm is further away than that). Good for tighter spots. if you are after an external flash then a Mieke MK320 (for your make of camera) is an excellent, adjustable device. Rather small too. They are getting a bit rare now but if you see one, consider it.
Once you get a result you like then write the settings down and set it up the same every time.
If your kit lens has a shorter focal length than 50mm I would use that - otherwise use the 50mm. I don't know what camera you are using. Do you use a built in flash or an external - the external is preferable but not essential. If your camera allows you to adjust the flash output (usually only on external speedlites and then not all of them) then crank it down to 1/2 and take a test shot - adjust if neccessary. If external then use a diffuser - a bit of white cloth is good.
The key is not to use a single spot of a brilliant, bright flash but a good spread of decent light. The single spot creates the big bright white spots on the flanks of a fish (which is why you shopuld try not to have to 90 degrees to the flash - angle it up, down, sideways so as not to direct the flash back to the camera). Using even two Rhinos does not give really decent light and you will probably find that your shutter speed will have to be reduced which can lead to blur. If you use the shutter setting on the camera and set that to the fastest sync speed allowable (usually 1/125s up to 1/250s depending on the camera) then you can adjust the aperture to reduce the glare of the flash plus for the depth of field - f8 is a good starting point as it will give you a decent depth of field for you and the fish (be in focus) but will blur nicely beyond that.
Experiment is the key and if you have a Canon then I can really recommend the 24mm Pancake lens which will return fabulous flat frame images plus you can set it up only 5 of 6 feet away from you (the 50mm is further away than that). Good for tighter spots. if you are after an external flash then a Mieke MK320 (for your make of camera) is an excellent, adjustable device. Rather small too. They are getting a bit rare now but if you see one, consider it.
Once you get a result you like then write the settings down and set it up the same every time.
In reply to Post #27
The trouble seems to be keeping it in the frame at 3000mm while on a tripod.
What camera and lens are you using? A gimbal head on a tripod can be set to only move on the one plane so (as long as you have set it up correctly) you only have to keep up with the target - which does sound dead easy but isn't of course.
The trouble seems to be keeping it in the frame at 3000mm while on a tripod.
What camera and lens are you using? A gimbal head on a tripod can be set to only move on the one plane so (as long as you have set it up correctly) you only have to keep up with the target - which does sound dead easy but isn't of course.
In reply to Post #29
Thanks for your detailed reply. For reference i have a Canon 200D
Thanks for your detailed reply. For reference i have a Canon 200D
In reply to Post #28
Off camera flash is the way to go, move it back, up and to the side and make it bigger via a diffuser.
Off camera flash is the way to go, move it back, up and to the side and make it bigger via a diffuser.
In reply to Post #9
My pet hate; fish that look 80lb when they are 20..! These wide angle lenses and phone cameras make the proportions look silly, like you say 50mm is where it starts, I tend to use between 55 and 90-105 depending on space, using a longer lens gets an infinitely nicer & truer image IMO..
My pet hate; fish that look 80lb when they are 20..! These wide angle lenses and phone cameras make the proportions look silly, like you say 50mm is where it starts, I tend to use between 55 and 90-105 depending on space, using a longer lens gets an infinitely nicer & truer image IMO..
In reply to Post #28
Sounds like you got it worked out mate; that's what I'd do..
Sounds like you got it worked out mate; that's what I'd do..
In reply to Post #28
For night shot you can up the iso to 400 or even 640, f4 and a shutter time of 1/60 or 1/80.
Position the lights as you mentioned.
Depending on the angle between fish and camera you've will have 'glare' free pictures.
For night shot you can up the iso to 400 or even 640, f4 and a shutter time of 1/60 or 1/80.
Position the lights as you mentioned.
Depending on the angle between fish and camera you've will have 'glare' free pictures.
Reading ALL pages