|
|
|
|
To all fans of the technical side of photography.
To prevent threads cropping up left right and center across many boards, please use this thread to ask techie questions, get techie answers and show off your techie skills.
|
|
|
|
|
<img src=YOUR LINK HERE width=500>
|
|
|
|
|
Would a Nikon d40 be any good for self takes
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a good lens I can pair with a Canon 70d for catch shots?
|
|
|
|
Thought i would put a link to my YT channel showing my learning curve with the Nikon P950 over the last 6 months
untill i bought this camera i only really used action type cameras GO PRO Drones etc and everything was strictly Auto everything ...so having to learn something new has been very frustrating but rewarding ...who said you cant teach an old dog new tricks 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHiInBcN9nU
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks to AB all i know is that PINAC....
Thanks AB.
|
|
|
|
I'm looking at getting one of cheap alternatives to the Rhino light that are all over Amazon\Ebay, will a very basic one be fine
Amazon link
Or should I go for one with the variable colour temp, dimmable brightness etc
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2592
That actually looks decent 
Some olympus cameras use the same jack canon use, I think all models since they switched to usbc instead of proprietary cables
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2589
Get yourself a Rhino release foot pedal for canon, so much easier than having to push a hand held remote,just tap your foot on the pedal and away you go.
https://rhino-tech.co.uk/shop/ols/products/rhino-release
Cable type S1 600d is in the specified camera list
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2590
Ok thanks, will do
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2589
Possibly a lack of light or too short an interval, but your probably better off bringing up a related thread in tackle or general, not many bother looking in this thread.
I know a few dslrs have weird quirks in live view mode, hopefully a user will have an answer for you.
The 50 will give better pics but can be impractical as you've found
|
|
|
|
Right folks, recently got my hands on a 600d and a plug in intervalometer and now have a couple of questions, mainly about the focus. Go easy as I haven't used a DSLR before 
Anyway, been experimenting using the intervalometer with the Live View screen and I find that if it's set to 'Live' focus mode it sometimes doesn't actually take a shot, sounds like its focusing etc but then no actual shot taken. If I switch it to 'Quick' focus mode it seems to take a shot every other time, like it uses one shot to focus then actually takes it on the next one, is that right or have I got some settings badly wrong?
I should point out I was experimenting in my hall (it was pissing down) with a bright multi-coloured cushion and not outdoors with a fish 
Also as it's on loan it comes with a 50mm and an 18mm -135mm lenses,. I've tried both, using the zoom at the 35mm setting, the only issue is with the 50mm you have to get miles away from the camera, would you suggest using the zoom is maybe a better option or not?
|
|
| | | mal | | Posts: 8986 |  | |
|
Got some cameras for sale. Not sure if I am allowed to list on here but if anyone is interested drop me a pm.
Canon, olympus and miranda
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2586
Thanks for that, I have been looking at gaming laptops but didn't see many 2in1 versions, and I like being able to use the digital pen in photoshop. I can use the lightroom mobile app to use a tablet in the same way but I don't think I do that with photoshop. Will have to wait till later in the year now tbh
Will check out the video later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2584
I upgraded my PC around 6 months ago as my previous one was struggling with the latest version of Photoshop, Lightroom and Luminar AI.
I found this Youtube video useful in giving me an idea of which PC to look for based on GPU, CPU and RAM requirements:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96EEfOeNHDU
I ended up buying a gaming spec PC, and it works really well.
|
|
|
|
when doing self takes of fish. I set my camera to take 100s of shots about 3 seconds apart. i often forget to turn it off....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2583
Another related question, what do you guys see as minimum requirements for an editing laptop?
I bought my daughter a 2 in 1 jobbie, I put photoshop on it as she's using it a lot for coursework, so much faster than my laptop and the touchscreen with a digital pen is brilliant! So much better than my wacom tablet.
But what spec would I need, I'm not a big photoshop user, but I have been playing with focus stacks, and 8 images is about the max currently for this, also the same using deepskystacker but I do want something that would cope with a lot more images without taking a week. I think 32 images + calibration frames would be about the sweet spot.
Is it unrealistic to think I can do this with a laptop?
|
|
|
|
Anyone got any experience with astro tracking mounts?
I've been trying to get some shots of various deep sky objects with my 75mm 1.8 but with 3.5 sec exposures it's a lot of work stacking loads of exposures and results are still pretty meh, a stack of 8 images of andromeda is the best I've got so far but it's still grainy, I reckon I'd need 32 exposures to get anything decent
Ideally I'd like something small and fairly cheap so I can take it fishing for some wide field milky way shots, but I would like one up to tracking for 30 sec exposures with the 150mm equivalent lens
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2580
Annoying isn't it 
I was watching a carp you tube vid the other day, reminded me of picking up the phone when someone was on the Internet in the early nineties with the focus motor jitters and clicky aperture stepping 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2579
Thanks duggs, I've got a shotgun mic that fits into the flash housing but yes as you say you can hear the motor!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2578
I can't really help with canon lenses but when video is involved you have to look out for noisey motors. Some of my lenses I can only use for video if I can use a lav mic, or a shotgun mic on an extension lead away from the camera. You'll do well to search for video specific reviews of any lens you consider
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi, I am looking for some advice based on experience and knowledge of what Lens to upgrade too.
I have a Canon 80D and have been using a EFS 18-135mm USM lens, but wanted to get a better zoom, possibly up to 300mm.
Can anyone recommend a high quality lens (for photography and video too)?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2564
This is so true.
I take pics in high q jpeg and raw with a 36mp camera. Each file is 40 times the size of an old 3.5 floppy disk. And yet I don't delete anything.
|
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to compare the size of cameras, this site gives actual sizes so you can see for yourself before you buy.
https://camerasize.com/compact/
And Camera price buster, fantastic site.
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/
And the used lens site i put here a while ago.
https://usedlens.co.uk/
|
|
|
|
Bought the big camera fishing hoping to get some shots of the hobby/s I saw snatching dragonflies last week, haven seen a glimpse of them this week but I did test the stabilisation last night.
8 seconds handheld was easy, 15 seconds was possible leant against a tree at 12mm (24mm equivalent) 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2573
here I think
I've never tried it myself
You can get a lot of camera for £500
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2572
Dont suppose you have links please. Its an old
Camera so not too fussed if it bricks
Cheers 👍👍
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2571
It doesn't look like it has ports for an intervalometer, your only option would be a software hack, chdk or magic lantern would be 2 places to start if your happy with the camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2570
Chaps after some advice.
Running an old canon s5is. The built in intervalometer dont give me many options so looking for an external one. For the life of me i cant find a compatible one. Possibly camera too old.
If anyone can help with one id appreciate it.
Failing that a new camera with a flip screen and will allow the use of an external intervalometer.
Im in no way an experienced photographer and camera will literally sit in my rucksack for fishing only.
Must have flip screen and hotshoe attachment for my rhinobeam and allow an external intervalometer.
Not looking to spend over 500 notes
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2569
lol duggs. it was shot at 4ish on saturday. i was killing time untill a zoom drink up with a buddy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2568
At 3 o'clock on a monday
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2566
That looks interesting, there's a few programs I'll get when a new pc, I just don't think mine has the power to deal with that number of images.
I did see an article on speeding up light room by changing some default settings, I think I'll give the computer a tune up and see if I can speed it up a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2565
Have a look at Photo Mechanic, I’ve only ever heard good things about it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2564
Until I got this camera I wasn't too bad, since caf was useless on the em5 I was nearly always in single shot mode.
But this thing, I use mostly in burst mode, or the high speed Pro capture firing 60 frames a second, and it'll save 3seconds worth once I fully press the shutter, so 180 frames at a time and maybe a dozen if I'm lucky will make it to import.
My computer is struggling under the load, I don't think I'd ever tried to deal with more than 500 images at once before.
I've got around 3000 images from last year that didn't get wiped immediately, there's probably triple that since lock down and I've been more critical what I import
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2563
If you sort those 6000 pics out i have a couple of 1tb external drives that need sorting.
Why do we keep so many pictures we may never look at again.
Anyone else have trouble hitting the delete button.
|
|
|
|
Jeeeeeeeeeeesus
Playing with the pro capture mode to get some take off shots of damselflies, hover flies and bees
Filled a 64gb card in 20 minutes
Any volunteers to filter through 6000 images for maybe 20 worth keeping
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2561
What a great idea, thanks.
Keebs I love the detail in the Spider pic.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2560
Some nice shots guys, I've only really done some portrait stuff over the last couple of weeks, trying to say goodbye to my 75 1.8 but I keep having ideas for it 
Ken, those kingfisher shots would be good to revive the view from the swim thread, it'll get a bigger audience in that section
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2556
That's a great shot. What lens are you using for macro.
I use the Sigma 105mm but haven't used it for a month now but will be hopefully getting to do something with it soon.
This Blue Green Dragonfly was with a 150 to 600 Sigma lens taken on the same session as the Kingfisher, lucky shot really
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2553
I have never got a shot of any Kingfishers on my rods before but managed up to a hundred of this one over a four day period. I think this one is a juvenile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This Kingfisher perched on my rods a few times
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2549
Really like the fly in the picture.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2547
I'm in sw London so I've got heavy light pollution in all directions. I read on the lonely speck site about red intensifier filters cutting light pollution but it's not working out for me. Some weird things happen with the star colours so trails look crap and I can't stack multiple frames to clean them up as the star might be a different colour in each frame.
Maybe with a camera that gives single files clean enough it might work well
|
|
|
|
Took the big lens fishing the other night, found a Spotted Flycatcher 2 swims down.
Click for bigger
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't even know where to look 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2546
500th or 640th, I think I should go a bit higher. Shot it in video and grabbed a few stills, there was no way I could do anything else with any hope of success. Handheld at 3000mm, subject about 250 miles away going 5 miles a second. There’s some great shots that someone got with a properly mounted telescope where you can even see someone on a spacewalk.
Just over half an hour until tonight’s first pass and it’s cloudy so no playing tonight.
I did want to try for the comet but laziness and lack of a decent northerly view that doesn’t contain east London’s light pollution means I’m looking at other people’s pics and saying “I could have done that.”
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2545
That moves bloody quick, what shutterspeeds do you manage with that?
Did you get any shots of the comet, I've been too busy to risk going to work sleep deprived to try for a shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2544
That's not hard, this is the International Space Station handheld last night with a Nikon P1000. I'll try for something better tonight, clouds permitting.
|
|
|
|
A rather unique challenge 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-53422345
None more black
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2542
There's a chance I might get my dad's old one, which was actually his dads, apparently it should be in my uncles loft.
I'd be over the moon with that
Just watched the add with James hunt
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2541
I remember the Olympus Trip adverts with David Bailey.
Very funny.
Great camera in its day.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2540
I don't think I'd use a larger format, just the size and cost per shot would mean I'd have to plan days around using it, which would likely see it stay in a cupboard once the novelty had worn off.
My dad had an Olympus trip years back, might be nice to get one of them
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2539
I’ve never developed at home and don’t even have the kit to do it anymore. I always had the facility at work and could make use of their recovery systems even if I was using my own developer. If you are talking tiny amounts then it probably makes more sense to send it off for dev and scan rather then buying tanks and chemistry. You could try the instant coffee method but you will still be flushing silver down the drain.
There are plenty of places to send film for processing, if you go for Ilford XP2 it can be done in an hour at Snappy Snaps as it is a B+W film that is processed in C41 chemistry. It is not the nicest film by a long way so bear that in mind.
I only run the odd bit of film for tests these day so use XP2 for that. With the 35RC I expect I’ll use FP4 or TriX and send it off somewhere. Medium format is worth a look if you’re going for film, a TLR from Rollei or Minolta can be had fairly cheaply and are an absolute joy to shoot with. Bag a cheap one then sell it on eBay once you’re done and you could even make a profit to help cover your film costs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2538
I do love the idea of getting an old film camera, an om1 or similar, but I really wouldn't have a clue what to do with the film. Small bits I've read on developing look like an ecological disaster zone with the chemicals involved.
That site does look useful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2537
I like the idea of removing the hotshot, self timer and engravings. I might have to practice on a spare top plate first. I really loved the look of the Leica Monochrome Stealth Edition so I would like to emulate that with matte black paint.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2536
What direction are you taking - carpy camo or maybe a nice bit of 70's Formica?
|
|
|
|
Used Lens
This place, that Ken posted on the thread in General a few days ago, is great. I've already bought an Olympus 35RC that I've been promising myself for years. My father had one and it was the first camera I ever used other than point and shoots.
Now to customise it a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2534
I like that beetle shot, I find something similar occasionally but with a iridescent blue green colour but it's difficult to get an angle to bring out the colours, usually just looking black 
Had a play with a 70-200 f4 the other day, focus worked really well so I'm back to looking for a 150-600, too late for the peregrines now as the chicks have moved on but hey ho
Might even make a few quid in trading a couple of lenses by the look of it.
Olympus announced that a longer macro lens is under development yesterday, I don't know what to think of that, I'd be all over a 100mm macro but I suspect it won't happen
Should get my kit back from Dorset this week, I'll have the flash power to set up the cross polarised rig then
|
|
|
|
David Carradine
Click for bigger
Violet Ground Beetle
|
|
|
|
|
Popped into wex earlier, bet its a brilliant shop normally but it's more like a trip to argos with the covid precautions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2531
I found quite a difference for flight when you get into it, particularly with busy backgrounds.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2530
I can't get on with back button focus, it just seems like a waste of a button. I can't see the advantage over just half pressing
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2529
Focus limit is on the lens(es) for me not the camera, so that's one I have to remember, and often forget!
I've a few things common to all.
Back button focus is the main one, although I'm considering taking that off the macro settings, it's not necessary for that at all just habit now, but it makes contorting for macro angles a lot more painful!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2528
It'll probably change but so far I've got
C1 for birds
C2 for macro
C3 for fishing catch shots (this will probably change as I think the em5 with the 17mm 1.8 will be my fishing camera most of the time)
Most general settings are really quick to change, but I've assigned buttons to different functions in each mode, so the dof preview button will do focus limiter for birds, focus peaking for macro and intervalometer for catch shots as an example.
I could do this on the em5 but it was much more complicated as you replaced things like the scene modes on the dial, and even then I was never quite sure what mode I was in
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2527
Focus limiter makes a big difference to "lock-on" speed
Custom modes are super-useful.
I missed it going from 7D to the 1D4(older camera), but with the 5D3 it's back again.
The settings I've settled on are...
C1 for flight - usually 300 + 1.4x
ISO 800, S/S 2500, f6.3, AF expand, High Speed burst, Slow tracking response
C2 for general birding usually 300 + 2x
ISO 1600, S/S 1250, f6.3, AF single point, High Speed burst, Medium tracking response
C3 for macro - always the 180 & Speedlight
ISO 200, F16, S/S 200, Flash pin-spot AF point, fast tracking response, single shot
All are in Manual mode and really good start points for each lens combination.
On the day of course it's all fiddled with on the fly as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
I've been playing with the focus limiter, what a useful feature!
Managed to set up a custom mode for birds and assigned the limiter to the dof preview button and can toggle between three settings that way. Setting 1 at 25-120m setting 2 at 30-70m and setting 3 at 15-40m. Doing this I can track a bird left to right from my garden and toggle through the settings and eliminate the problem spots where the focus jumps if my tracking isn't perfect
I can see this being useful when using tubes for macro stuff, I'll often use a tube just to bring the reliable af range closer, but then the focus limiter on the lens will be to close and the full range is too slow. I haven't actually tried this method on the em1 yet, it might not need the limiter
Also turned the stabiliser off for the first time since I bought an olympus and using much higher shutter speeds, I've always thought 1000th to 1600th would be enough but that video suggests much higher speeds are better. My lens isn't weather sealed so I can only play during breaks in the rain
|
|
|
|
Has anyone been to photograph The Isle of Skye before.
Landscape's
I will be going there in late September early October time. And visiting the usual places.
Neist Point, The Old Man of Storr, The Fairy Pools
Eilean Donan Castle etc.
Obviously all these places have been well photographed in the past and I do like to look for something a bit different than the usual.
I have a couple of ideas thanks to Google earth but wondered if anyone knows of anything off the beaten track.
A long shot I know.
|
|
|
|
The more I read about the olympus sell off the less likely it seems they'll exist in a couple of years.
I'm in two minds whether to move on some lenses or get some in the fire sale to come.
I could still use them on a panasonic body but they seem to be concentrating on the l mount range, with the top end mft bodies being past due replacing. It seems unlikely my next camera will be m43 mount
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2523
I've bought his books and they are well worth the money. The amount of 'free' content he has is very good so I don't mind supporting that by getting the odd product from him since I can't use any affiliate links or anything.
I haven't found much issue with VR interfering with the view but I don't do much in the way of high speed subject matter. I have been switching it off when I'm >1/1000 as I'm not sure that it helps anyway. It does nothing for the subject's movement and my movement should be dealt with by the shutter speed anyway. You also avoid the system fighting against you as you pan and tilt. Some can switch to a 'panning' mode to ignore horizontal movement but I normally just switch it off. It has improved but I remember having a Nikon 80-400mm f4.5-5.6 which was an early VR lens and the system being so poor I had to switch it off permanently. Even without VR the lens was pretty awful, with it on it was better suited to being a paperweight. The version 2 is supposedly a lot better but I haven't trialled one.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2519
That is a great tutorial
Took me months of Art Morris blogs to glean all that!
Mind you he does sell pdf guides too, so giving it away won't be in his remit - he's a real mercenary bugger.
The only bit I'll argue with is the turning off IS/VR at high shutter speeds.
Seems to be one of those hotly contested areas of the hobby.
The main problem is IS/VR for flight can make your viewfinder "jerky" making your tracking difficult.
But results will vary from kit to kit.
For example.
The Canon 300 2.8 in IS Mode 3 does not stabilise the image until you release the shutter, so you can see your own tracking properly in the viewfinder, right up to the point of the shot.
It still makes a positive difference to the resulting image regardless of the Shutter speed.
I've played around with it a lot!
Biggest problem at the moment is heat haze anyway, first hour or so of light is your best chance, rest of the day forget it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2521
I think a lot of us are guilty of buying stuff hoping it'll give us a bit more motivation.
I really reigned in my collection when the 6dii with 50mm art lens sat in a bag while I went walkabout with the em5ii and a dirt cheap toy lens, you know those poxy adapted cctv jobbies
I think if a day comes where Im scrapping more images because of my mft cameras capabilities rather than my own poor skills/timing/decisions I might give full frame another go and appreciate it a bit more. That said if olympus dropped a full frame omd with the same feature set I'd struggle to resist
Edit, just read that olympus have sold the imaging business, doh!
Found the first vid helpful, will check out the second shortly.
I did have the camera set up for back button focus but have now assigned that button for the focus target, that button is the only one my thumb can hit without little jitters that send the viewfinder all over the place at that focal length
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2520
Yeah, just the focus part, stacking needs to be done in post.
It won't be the first feature I've got excited about then never bothered to use again. I've got plenty of gear (photo and fishing) that falls into the same category.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2519
Is that focus bracketing or something for birds/action?
I was quite excited when olympus added that to my em5 via firmware update then never used it
Was around 6 months after I'd bought it, then about 18months later they added the in camera stacking bit. that only works with a few select lenses where the bracketing works with any af lens. Do any other manufacturers offer the equivalent to the olympus live bulb and live composite modes? These seem really gimmicky but I find them really useful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2518
This might help, it's the same guy I linked to recently.
I just found out that the Z 6 has an automated focus shift feature. It does the focusing, not the software side. I might have to have a play with that later.
|
|
|
|
So frustrating this wildlife photography, sat there last night with four of them up the pylon, three did fly off giving me a good opportunity, and with a bigger target I got a few decent frames
And then with one left, sitting right at the top of the pylon the light took on a beautiful gold hue, and from the low sun the undersides of the pylon structure glowing, I was praying for the last one to fly towards me, picturing the epic shot it would give.
F****r didn't move till after sunset
This is the range I'm coping with, even with a few more megapickles the crops are too deep.this is where the 150-600 would come in to play, even with a. 71x speedbooster I'd be much closer. Left it too late now but maybe get one later in the year if the new olympus 100-400 doesn't excite me
Lazy bloody pidgeons
I could crop this a touch more but its just not close enough really
Breakfast of champions
One of the better flight shots, again needs too much cropping to be any good
|
|
|
|
I don't often see them in the evening but there are three falcons sitting atop the pylon mocking me with there stillness
Mummy Bird isn't there for sure as she's much bigger, I can't tell if it's three youngsters or two with daddy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2515
Funny enough I'm used to 2 eyeing it with anything moving, because of the lag. I find it easier to predict the moment I need to press the shutter like that.
I can't say I noticed a big size difference with the viewfinders on the em5ii vs 6dii I had for a bit, I just remember how gloomy it was with manual lenses stopped down or slow zooms at the long end. The em1ii viewfinder looks pretty crap compared to the one in the lumix g9 but seems to have less lag.
Will watch the video later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2514
I like the guy, he's done some good books and some of his explanations have been quite useful when I find mine aren't hitting home.
I haven't got on with 2-eyeing it (and I'm nicking that phrase!) unless it is on a full-frame DSLR or a rangefinder. The smaller viewfinder on M43 or APS just made it less easy to get used to. The other reason is the viewfinder lag on mirrorless (which they may well say doesn't really exist but I can see it) which affects me when I use the Z-series.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2512
Good video
One of the first things I realised with long focal lengths was keeping both eyes open (I called it 2-eying it!) made finding the subject quicker and easier.
Another mistake that I still make if I see something unusual is trying to take shots of subjects way too small in the frame!
It's easy to get carried away with a big tele thinking you can reach anything, then you look at the size of crop you need on the computer!
With Canon at single-point focus if the subject isn't twice the size of the little focus square it's not worth shooting!
I've shot stuff smaller than the AF square and wondered why the results weren't great. 
Of course the more you try to fill the frame, the harder it is to keep the subject IN the frame.
A loaf of stale bread down the local park will give plenty to practise on.
Head-on incoming ducks are good fun.
Or, as Art Morris says, "Point a camera at a gull and within 5 minutes it will do something interesting"
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2510
Yeah the tripod wasn't working out for me, might have been better if I had a collar on the lens but rigging something up with a ball head, lbracket and macro rail worked OK for panning, but was crap for vertical adjustment.
I need to figure out how to change target size with one button press, I need the small box to get them at range but then when they take off I really struggle to keep that small target on them, not tried using the tracking yet.
I've seen a focus limiter in the camera menu, I'll try and figure that out
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
This guy describes a few techniques but as Keebs said, it's all about practice.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2510
Another thing to look at is if you have a focus range limiter on your lens. Reducing the focussing range speeds up the acquisition considerably.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
To be honest I find tripod/gimbal too restrictive for flight shots.
Pre-focussing on something at the expected subject distance helps a lot.
Setting your AF to wider than single point ie Zone or Expansion or whatever yours calls it helps a lot with initial acquisition. This falls down with busy backgrounds though, as your camera will try to refocus if you lose tracking on the subject. You may have an in camera setting for how soon your camera tries to refocus after losing it. Go as slow as possible if so.
Practice a lot getting your AF point on the subject, I try to grab every gull and pigeon passing without firing the shutter, just exercising that hand to eye coordination.
It gets easier with time.
Focus acquisition is only half the story.
The bottom line is you are at the mercy of your cameras AF tracking speed and accuracy and that's why the likes of the 1D level costs money.
A lot of cameras just cannot effectively do flight/sports/fast action.
Good flight shots are not easy at all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2508
In a situation where I can see them nesting I have a tripod with a gimbal head set up and focus the camera on the nest.
It's easier having everything set and ready. Yet even then it can be a pain but less so.
I visit a lot of airshows and if possible use tripod and gimbal there too as all day with a long lens it can get heavy at times.
I will add a couple of pics later of raptors in flight using this method.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips and tricks for finding your target with long lenses? Where the em5 couldn't focus on moving targets it's not something I've much practice with, and I'm missing a lot of opportunities.
Specifically with the peregrines, once they take off from the pylon I have around 3-5seconds before I lose them behind the tree line, and they seem to have a sixth sense to take off when the camera is down
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2506
Nice one pal
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2505
If you click on em you'll go to the site and yes it's free.
Easier to share from than photof*cket too
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2501
Nice pics mate
What site are you using, is it free?
I used to use photobucket until they came along with the subscriptions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2503
There's quite a few bug hotels around RSPB Rye Meads.
When I go there it's usually in the hope of a Kingfisher or two, but the bug hotels are usually very good for macro stuff this time of the year but they are still closed I believe.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2502
I'm gonna have to try and get some slow mo video of them, the robotic movements are pretty hypnotic.
I saw the moment it caught it but didn't get the camera up in time. They seem to be about the only resident bugs of interest in my garden but I've made some rosemary and thyme and bought some parsley and chives so hopefully next year will be better. I might make a bug hotel too
Did you notice the laowa probe lens on springwatch? I didn't realise it was that big but I can really see a use for it, being able to stick it through the foliage rather than doing camera yoga and getting your head covered in webs/sap/other bugs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2501
That first one's a belter
@ken - even the most common insects feel like you've never seen them before.
It's like an alien world.
|
|
|
|
Dinner time
Flesh fly
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2499
I couldn't get too close as I just didn't have the light but I like this one
|
|
|
|
This shot was today in the garden.
I love the hooks on the feet.
The macro world is an amazing place when you get that small.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2497
Bloody hell, I didn't realise it was right there. I'll be a bit further along commercial street, opposite the coffee shop(Starbucks I think) at the end of the shops.
Might try and book my em5 in for a sensor clean
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2496
Spitafields market to WEX will take less than five minutes walking.
Leave the market on Commercial Street, turn right and go to Whitechapel High Street, turn left then first right and WEX is two hundred yards on your left
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2495
Used them a few times and been very happy with them, I did hope they'd keep the little calumet store off Oxford Street as the new one is a bit of a trek. One tube ride to Tottenham Court and I've got park, cameraworld, jess ops and a few small dodgy looking shops
Ive always had great service in park, they've even sent me to the London lighting store when they could have sold me something similar at a higher price. Little things can make a huge difference.
Shame I'm not working over there any time soon, and I'm not riding the tube for a memory card!
I may swap my p35-100 for the olympus 40-150 since some of the features are only available with olympus lenses, bit out of order that 
Saying that, I'll be over spittle fields soon, how far is wex from there?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2494
Keep an eye on WEX website for Current Wex promo codes.
They don't keep them up for long but often have half decent ones.
I am only two tubes from their East London shop, I could spend an hour at a time in there just looking around.
Usually end up buying from the used lens Section as they do some good prices on used lenses plus you get a guarantee.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2492
Yeah I've had it a little while but only really used it with the peregrines which have been frustratingly out of range.
Just been following a jumper around my lemon tree, bit of a revelation using caf for macro, was a shame I got it taking off and landing but with the modes I'm locked out of I would have got a few frames in mid air.
I might just get the card I want at wex, 40 quid difference isn't too bad for the peace of mind
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2491
I use CF in both my 1D4 & 5D3.
All my cards I bought from reputable stores for exactly that reason so I can't really help you there.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2491
That's a good camera you have, so you need decent memory cards.
https://photographylife-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/photographylife.com/fake-memory-cards/amp?amp_js_v=a3&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQFKAGwASA%3D#aoh=15926598795247&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fphotographylife.com%2Ffake-memory-cards
It's a long link but helps in identifying genuine SD cards.
There are a lot of useless copies out there.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2490
I went with the olympus em1ii, didn't fancy dropping another £500 for USB charging, that's about the only difference to me between the ii and iii.
Just need to get used to button placement, my thumbs are searching for buttons that aren't there at the moment
Is it safe buying cards on amazon these days? They're a lot cheaper but I've heard there are lots of fakes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2489
What is the new camera?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2488
F****** hives
Was a bit worried this morning but not a squeek today thankfully.
Gave me a chance to play with the new camera between showers, will take some time to get used to it but the "pro capture" mode could be brilliant for macro, available light only but one of those folding diffuser/reflector jobbies should help.
Some extra megapickles and cleaner high iso won't hurt either.
Focusing wasn't great with a sigma 1.8 zoom so I don't think I'll get a 150-600.
Didn't realise Id need a mega fast card to use some functions(60fps raw excluded)
Even at a lowly 18fps I ended up with over a thousand crap photos to delete
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2487
"Kept waking up with coughing fits last night so I'll be at home today
Edit; could be a nomad bee?"
If you're coughing up Nomad Bees you should probably see a doctor (do you have hives too?)
In all seriousness hope you're OK mate. Take it easy and bombard it with 4 Berroccas a day.
It's all new to me aside from the usual suspects so I sometimes spend hours searching for ID's, that's half the fun of it for me.
A lot of the time you find out you can only narrow it down to a Genus, Family, or even Order unless you start examining dead ones under a microscope!
I've quite a few "insect" pictures
It does look like Nomad Bee from a quick look at online images though.
This is a good one for spiders
https://www.naturespot.org.uk/taxonomy/term/19515?page=0
|
|
|
|
Here you go, I'm saying wasp looking at wings and head, and I suspect it's a juvenile version of the bigger wasps I've been trying to shoot on my lawn. From memory it was about 15-20mm
The other ones are around 35mm and the thorax is proportionally bigger, and the yellow bands are thinner.
I suspect Paul will know
Kept waking up with coughing fits last night so I'll be at home today
Edit; could be a nomad bee?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2485
The thorax is under the wings, I'll see if I can find a different angle of it in the morning, but it was black and yellow hoops. I'm no entomologist, anything like it gets called a wasp, bee or hover fly depending on hair, size or sting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2484
That last one is so strange looking, its head seems large compared to the body.
Any idea what it is?
|
|
|
|
Getting a new camera seems a bit like getting a new landing net, I keep grabbing the old one so I don't get it dirty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2482
Some cracking shots again there Ken, love the jungle one too
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2481
The cricket is quite sharp.
These are aphids being farmed by ants, would hate to be an aphid knowing what the ants do to them.
I took about 30 shots for this one and it isn't great due to windy conditions at the time.
Focus stacked dragonfly
But my local park Trent Park at 6.45 am seems okay. F22 to get the starburst of the sun
I was out from 4.30 am until 11.30 and these are as good as it got, but hey ho not to worry.
Its a bit like fishing to me, not all about the catching. Being out there doing it is what its all about.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
Literally anything from 1 shot perfect to 100+ and still no keeper!
With wild creatures in situ, you don't tend to have a lot of control over the situation most of the time.
That aphid(?) is well taken
|
|
|
|
Bush Cricket
Click for bigger
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
I seem to take tons of shots for the odd keeper, I get loads like this
Just missed focus but enough to reject it
For any like this
I'd say I reject half my shots before they get to the computer, sometimes half of those that make it that far are rejected before import, and then maybe 10-20%of what's left actually get edited and exported.
My gardens pretty young so bug wise it's a bit sparse, plus I've had to rethink it a bit this year, it'll probably be a couple of years before I get a decent level of bug life which makes my macro stuff a bit challenging
It's been really frustrating lately, every morning my lawn is crawling with some large black and yellow wasps, they look like parasitic ones but they're so fast, unpredictable and skittish I just can't get a shot of them. If I was using film I think I would go bankrupt before I got one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
Nice Ken
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2476
I thought the second shot was a frog at first glance.
Nice work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2475
Your spider images have inspired me to get out for the day with the macro lens.
How many shots do you take to get a good one, I seem to take loads.
The flower was a stacked image of 15 shots and I set the camera up so it picked up no light in the room then shined two rhino beams to light the flower so I had just the flower with a black background, I think it works quite well.
The second image the insect was less than 3mm wide, it was sitting on my backpack.
|
|
|
|
Long Jawed Orb Weaver
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2473
Done
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2472
I haven't actually tried the ikeas in my flashes, they are usually in my laser level that eats batteries in no time. They don't seem to last quite as long as the maplin ones but at half the price of enerloops I'd buy 2 lots of ikea ones
The Panasonic charger the enerloops came with is miles better than the energizer ones I've had. I haven't tried an ikea charger
Edit, having looked at the ikea website at the charger, it looks like my Panasonic one with different stickers!
|
|
|
|
Thanks both
I read that the Amazon Basics are likely to be Enerloop too.
With the price difference got to be worth a punt on the Ikea ones.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2469
link
Petapixel article on Ikea’s batteries being very similar to the eneloop ones. I’ve not used either, like you I get plenty of free ones.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2469
I've got loads of rechargeables I use, I bought all the aa size I could find when maplin were shutting, I think it was a fiver for 8 high power batteries
Also got some eneloops which are similar performance, and some ikea ones that are much cheaper and not that far behind.
I do have a godox v860 with a lithium battery, and it does last longer and recycle faster, but it is a bit heavy for on camera use and being lithium, it'll work at full power until it doesn't. You don't get that warning of things slowing down. A spare is expensive and you can't guarantee you'd get a replacement in the future. I did intend to replace my aa versions but decided against it. The tt685 heads I've got are the same bar the battery. My ad200s are lithium too but those heads are different gravy!
|
|
|
|
Any tips for flash battery power?
I’m getting a little frustrated with battery life in my Speedlight 430 EX II
It’s great with new batteries but obviously recharge times slow down as the batteries fade, taking longer and longer.
Normally I have AA’s coming out of my ears (work leftovers) but having been a little too generous with them lately, and no work to restock, I’m rapidly running out of my free ones and the the thought of actually buying them at a rate of 4-8 per shooting day is a bit much!
Are any of the rechargeables viable for this application?
Is there a better replacement for the Speedlight itself?
Eneloop Pro looking like the favourite...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Superb shot that mate, look at its face, unreal!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Very nice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2465
Really clear picture with plenty of detail. That egg-sac looks uncomfortable to me.
|
|
|
|
Happy with this one
Click for bigger
Wolf Spider with egg-sac
|
|
|
|
I have been doing a lot of macro and attempting creative photography this year mainly due to the lockdown and I am enjoying it, but I much prefer landscape and seascape. I have some time off soon but not sure where to go.
Here's a couple from last year that I quite like.
Pinmill and Eastbourne Peer.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2462
Glad to know there's a reason even if I don't fully understand it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2461
It’s down to magnification. At these high magnifications things happen in the lens which effectively mean the aperture is smaller than marked. So you need a lot more light than at lower ratios.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2459
I was thinking the 4ft brolly for a portrait vs my pringles tube would be similar size/subject, but thinking about it, I doubt I was using the full surface of it. It just seems to take loads of power for macro.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2459
Thanks, I think I have worked out the sizing now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2458
Very nice stuff Ken
Duggs - all I can think of is relative surface area of the lights to the subject, something you pointed out to me further down and what led to the lumping great purple gaffa monstrosity on my camera
|
|
|
|
This is a doll house toy in front of quite a small waterfall, no photoshop just straight from the camera
Bug
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2456
Thanks.
I will upload a couple of others in a bit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2455
You can just add width=500 before the final > and it'll fit the page
I find it easier to do a linked image from imgbb but the quality is pretty poor
Cool shot
@keebs, light looking great now .
I want to get some black card to round off the corners on my box, I just find the square speculars unnatural.
I'm struggling to get my head round one thing with my macro lighting, done some portraits of my daughter and some other shots. using 2 speedlights, one bounced off a big brolly and one in a 2ft octobox type thing, both set very close to keep the background black, both at minimum power(1/128), and I had to stop down to f8 at base iso to avoid clipping highlights.
So why am I needing 1/8th at least to get f8 for a macro shot
|
|
|
|
I have never been able to load images here before, actually I never had the urge to but recently I have seen some good photography on here so thought I would give it a go.
If this works its a Bald Eagle I saw on my travels last year, if it doesn't work its just a load of gibberish.
So here goes.
It was originally in a field with trees around it but I thought there was too much clutter so edited out everything but the head.
What size is best for on here?
|
|
|
|
Harvestman - like a spider but not.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2451
Great shot and I do like a homemade speedlight diffuser, plus jumping spiders do look good on a photo.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2451
Wow 
Amazing that spider picture, you can see all the eyes
|
|
|
|
Mk4 Snoot - best yet - lovely wide dispersion.
Crinkled foil lined and double layer of Polystyrene foam sheet on the front.
Downy Jumper - on the bathroom window sill, narrowly escaped the hoover!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2449
I've seen those mushroom images before, they do look great, I might have a go with light painting flowers this week
I don't really do photo forums, there's a few sites I visit for inspiration but photographers seem a pretty argumentative bunch
I have been trying a few things this week on a sort of dramatic, emotive level, a kind of cathartic release, but I can't quite get them right and they're probably a bit 'dark' to share on here.
I might check out that forum for some constructive criticism if I can get them closer to the original vision
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2448
A couple of good people to watch on YouTube
Stewart Wood for macro
Jordi Koalitic has some fantastic creative ideas
And take a look at some mushroom light photography, amazing stuff.
Also not sure if you are a member but Talk photography is a fantastic forum, lots of stuff their to discuss.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2445
That nikon has been the lens that keeps cropping up in my research, but I don't have an adaptor for nikon glass and focus and V.R are pretty sketchy with the available adaptors by most accounts.
Lots of rumours that some of my favourite olympus lenses are made by sigma, plus being relatively new to photography compared to yourself, I've only really known sigma to make excellent, affordable but huge lenses.
I've ordered a new body so I'll have a play with it, see how it copes with c-af with the Canon glass I have, and if its use able I'll see what's cheapest if there isn't much between them.
Ken, macro is great for finding something interesting while confined, there's only so many times I could walk round the same garden though. I'm playing with flash a lot this week, studio portrait type stuff, water splashes etc, it'll give my flowers a chance to bloom and look very different in a fortnight
Keebs mentioned some of the projects in magazines being good, I picked up a copy of digital camera, seems to be mostly photoshop projects and adverts I think if I wasn't still working I might use this time to get my head around photoshop, but I just don't enjoy the bit between pressing the shutter and the finished image
Thanks for the help guys
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2446
Likewise, I didn't go off-brand until recently. The tsunamis, and what they did to production over there, meant that some firms are rumoured to have outsourced some production to Sigma and Tamron. Whether that is what has improved the quality of their own products I don't know but certainly the lenses those two are banging out now are great quality as well as great value.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2444
F4.5 at 900mm, if you get some good shots at that it would be good to see.
I don't have any Tamron lenses but going back a few years there was a noticeable difference in lens quality between the two but I think now they are both on par with each other. My favourite Sigma lens is the 105mm macro but that's probably due to the lockdown and when that ends I will be out photographing birds and landscapes so the macro will be consigned to my bag again.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2444
That 60-600mm is a bit daft. I borrowed one a while back and while I can see the appeal of having the shorter end when shooting sports and stuff, I wasn't that impressed. I tested the Sigmas, Tamron and the Nikon 200-500mm.
TLDR version, the Tamron with the 1.4x is lighter so rated that highest. Real world sharpness is fine for all of them. I have to admit I really like the Nikon, I did a head to head with an old 500mm f4 and it did great but against the others I'd buy the Tamron on a value for money basis.
|
|
|
|
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!
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2436
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2433
Is that a Peregrine Dave??
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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 #2428
I think I saw the original on Instagram, either a photography page or some # that popped up, really simple to do but I thought it looked great and worked out how to do it straight away you could easily do it with a phone camera and a lamp if you can set the white balance manually, although I've used a camera and a flash with an orange gel
Might have a go a bit wider and throw some blue into the 'sky'
Was trying to do something similar but with star trails in the garden, using a granite worktop and buckets and bottles to make the horizon and hide the ugly views I've got to the north, but even in the small hours there's to many lights from the neighbours 
Thinking about it, I might be able to use my tempest brolly as a light shield
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2425
Very nice indeed - magazine inspired?
I buy the occasional one for long journeys and they are full cool ideas like this.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2426
It is but with a large dose of plagiarism
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2425
Is that one of your own mate?
I was going to say cracking shot that but I guess it’s more like a piece of art work, brilliant
|
|
|
|
I miss sunsets over water
|
|
|
|
How great would this have been a billionth of a second later
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2422
I've got plenty of them 
With the general lower cost of glass in mft land its too easy to say "I'd only get £100 for that I might as well keep it"
My cull took a bit of a twist with the failed body upgrade. Whereas the em5 line fit in a pocket with a small prime, the em1 line don't, sooooo I'll be keeping the 5ii when I get the em1.
Which means I need to have a cull elsewhere, I think I can part with my 45 1.8 and I've never liked my 75-300. I do need to get rid of a selection of nissin and yongnuo flashes but I'm not sure flashes have much resale value.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2421
1 in - 2 out
Gotta be ruthless or you end up with cupboardfulls of redundant toys
Decided to sell my 400 5.6.
It owes me nothing at this stage and I just don't use it.
That may well pay for the Raynox AND a tube of Pringles
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2420
I can but its a balance, getting enough of the subject sharp and clearing the background, and the transitions tend to look a bit scruffy to me, whereas with a longer focal length it's cleaner. Sort of sharp-bit soft-wtf is that vs sharp-bit soft-fuzzy-I think that's a flower If everything stayed still for a stack @2.8 it'd be nice
I think I'd be tempted by a macro at around 120mm, but I don't know of a native one and tbh my bank balance can't keep up with my wants
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2418
Can you not lower the aperture to throw the B/G out?
If it's out of focus you can get away with blowing it a bit more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2418
Double post
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2417
The difference in the bottom two can be seen in the highlights in the droplets, having the two light sources doubles the amount of specular highlights. I'm thinking blocking the sun is the way to go if you can do it without spooking the subject, as that's the smallest light source, I'll see if I can find something hairy either dead or very patient.
I had two flashes on the bag I picked up today, so I was using one to lift the background, looked nice despite me not getting anything worth sharing. One of the downsides to the shorter focal length is the cluttered backgrounds in certain situations, if I lift them till they're just clipping it might be better. I'm sure I'll have a play with that in future.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2416
Apart from a slightly different focal point I can't see a difference in the bottom 2 at all.
Next thing I'm going to try is a more flared diffuser, as you say, to widen the source
It's a trade-off between function and portability/subject-scaring. Obviously the wider you make it, the worse it is for getting in. under leaves etc.
@ Yonny - thanks
|
|
|
|
No prizes for guessing, but one shot is direct Sun, one Sun with fill from a low angle in the same direction as the sun and one lit by softbox blocking the sun
Straight from camera jpegs
|
|
|
|
Some incredible shots here lads 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2413
My big rig
I even put the hood on to give it a phallic extension the flash will be a similar size to yours for scale. I have a thin layer of diffusion at the joint and a slice of bog roll behind the lid. It's easy to see why I have the grip on, it's really unbalanced with that flash, olympus not making one for the mkiii was probably the biggest reason I backed it
Today I'll have a go like this, the flippy screen helps when you can't get in position with the viewfinder, it's a bit too bright out for it to show in the pic but the screen is set so when I turn the focus knob it magnifies the view x3 and turns on focus peaking, basically the are in focus will glow
I reckon I'll need 1/4 to half power to get f8 with this box, I'd love to try it with my ad200s but that'll have to wait. I could use a smaller 4 inch box but with this I can actually block the sun to lose those harsh specular highlights
I could actually go a bit smaller using my nissin i40 controlled with the clip on flash that's the size of a matchbox, but it hasn't got the guts for that box and can be a bit hit and miss as it needs line of sight
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2412
Nope - it's really hard on the elbow and wrist 
Just a few grams shy of 3Kg.
A quick grab shot is fine but holding and waiting for optimum pose gets painful quick.
I'll get a lighter set-up when the world goes back to being a big shopping mall again but I think the lens will stay.
My bird rig is well over 4Kg.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2411
You must have some guns throwing that around💪
I'll do some pics tomorrow of my macro rig, and my streamlined alternative
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2410
Nice one - I'll have a good read of that
This is the current best...
Tube is foil-lined, doubled up freezer bag on the front
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2409
brilliant source of info for all things flash
I read through 101 102 and 103 over a few days and revisited bits quite regularly. Not much specifically for macro but all the principals and techniques can be scaled down.
I think I'm going back to my juggling technique, separating the camera and flash makes it a bit more controllable and also let's me use a bigger diffuser. I've gotta try and get my kit back from Dorset, my big flashes might cope with cross polarising, 10inch softbox and still give me rapid recycling.
Because of the shapes and textures angles don't really help us, so polarising aside all we can really do is make the relative size of the light source bigger, so we either make it bigger, put it closer or both. Pringles tubes are popular for macro because they achieve both. With my rig and a pringles tube diffuser, at mfd it's roughly equivalent to using a 4ft brolly for a headshot, but that still isn't enough for a lot of bugs, and it wants an extra bit of diffusion or you get the dodgy donut effect you see on my bee pic below, a couple of sheets of bog roll works well but costs light again
|
|
|
|
4 layers of clear freezer bag seems to work well.
(Click for full)
|
|
|
|
I was playing around with flash underneath the camera, using the built-in grip and turning another 90 degrees. Awkward to hold but a definite winner, makes sense when the main ambient light is from above.
Then started playing around with diffuser materials as I’m still getting quite harsh light from the flash, spotted some nice opaque plastic on the top of an old camera bird-box and began dismantling…
…then got thoroughly distracted by the contents!
The absolute mother of all False Widows!
Of course at this point there was no diffuser at all in the flash cone and I just had to grab the chance before she scuttled off. She sat for a few minutes, enough to shoot a few stacks worth, but unfortunately, for such a fearsome beast she was quite shy and kept her head either in the web or well tucked under her. I wasn’t about to go poking her around so grabbed what I could with the angles she presented.
So much reflective material on insects, even the hairs, really need to sort that flash out.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2406
It'll be spray and pay....
... Someone else to filter the keepers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2405
With that much spray you wouldn't even need to pray!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2404
That bulk can help with stability though, I'm using a battery grip to try an balance the flash, with the bonus of the buttons on the portrait grip making it easier to shoot something on the underside of a leaf for instance.
Realised yesterday my newer godox flashes will keep up with contuous shooting for 8 shots @ 1/32 which is the magic number for in camera stacking and high res.
I think I'll get a used em1ii, 60fps with your stacking technique should work well
Mind you new one comes with a 30mm macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2403
I wouldn't recommend a 1D for macro - it's a heavy chunk for doing yoga with!
It's just the better of the 2 bodies I have
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2402
I couldn't see me buying a 1D tbh, I'd probably be better off with an original a7r, bit of a dog to use but with a lot of scope to crop or work with the files. This sort of stuff, base iso, controlled lighting, my mft kit can't really compete on quality. Trouble is I've been down this road before and baulk at the huge increase in cost and size, and for a lot of what I shoot the differences get cancelled out.
I did buy an em5mkiii a few weeks back but sent it back due to a few downgrades over the mkii, and have been deciding whether to get the em1ii or iii but I'm tempted to dip my toe again with a macro and an ultra wide for astro
There are a few of those jumpers in my garden but they're that small they run away from ants
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2401
Mine are 1.3 Crop - Canon 1D Mk 4 - APSH sensor.
Sort of wishing I'd kept my 7D, it was great in good light but struggled otherwise. That would have been great for macro, physically smaller, fast frame rate if stacking and 1.6 crop for extra reach.
I'm looking seriously at a Raynox now.
The only one to fit my lens (72mm thread) is the 5 in 1 which is £300+
Gonna have to wait right.
Funny you should post that - I found one of those in the garden yesterday too!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2400
Your making me want to try full frame again
I'm looking on mpb like.....
|
|
|
|
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
Buzzinga
I never knew bees have five eyes
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2397
Check out some of this dude's work
https://beingmark.com
Something to aspire to
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2396
I'm trying to set up some wide angle macro but my wide lenses don't work with either the raynox or extensions
The 17 will have to do for now until I can get my 7.5mm prime back from Dorset.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2395
We must conclude that they flap faster than 250 times per second
Side on innit, you can sort of see the blur of the near one
EDIT:
For bees apparently they flap between 200 - 300 times per second, I'd say you probably want to try about double that and experiment from there. 1/640 ???
Just looked at the S/S for the Bee Fly in post 2348 - that one was 1600.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2394
Brilliant
Who stole the beeflys wings
What shutter speeds are recommended for bees in flight? I was messing about yesterday lunchtime using available light only, shots didn't look right with sharp wings but I just couldn't find the balance between blurred wings and sharp fur
|
|
|
|
Made a flash diffuser/beamer from card, tinfoil and gaffa.
Another big difference!
Now as long as I'm well off sun angle, shots are so much better lit and there's more detail as a consequence.
Discovered my lens was back-focussing.
Had a suspicion it was but just put it down to hand-holding.
Only -6 but it's made a huge difference at that level.
Also realised that the exposure tricks I use for long lens are pretty much the opposite down this end!
I'm used compromising to high ISO's to maintain a 1000+ shutter speed, exposing well to the right to reduce noise, and taking highlights down afterwards.
In macro I'm finding that I have bags of shutter speed at 250 (the flash does the freezing) and it's better to expose dark and not to blow any highlights at all, and with the ISO at 100 it's much more forgiving when you pull shadows. You can't pull shadows at higher ISO's due to the noise.
This looks up a gear to me
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
Another little "light-bulb-moment" this morning. ('scuse pun!)
Was thinking about multiple light sources to eliminate shadows when I suddenly realised - using a flash I already have 2, just need to position them correctly.
Normally if the sun is out it is natural to shoot to take advantage of it with the sun at my back.
Using flash on top of the camera just increases that contrast of light/shadow as it's the same direction intensified.
This is obvious in processing when the dynamic range needs some serious reigning in in RAW conversion and in PS afterwards.
I had the thought that shooting INTO the sun with flash would be a better option and tried it.
It is!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2391
I'm learning, and re-learning a lot this week.
My 17mm 1.8 makes a very interesting macro lens with extention tubes
But gives no working distance whatsoever, this fellas leg was on the lens
I've also re learned not to delete from the camera, this would have gone for sure
Red velvet mite
I also now know I need some plants that wake up earlier, there's no colour at the moment
I've also learned that South facing star trails are ugly, red intensifier filters don't cut light pollution now its all from leds and add some really weird colours, and even with the current clean air, astro shots in London don't work
Live composite, about 40 mins worth of 25sec exposures @400 iso! Pulled back in post too
Quite frustrating with meteor showers over the next week
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2390
You get days where loads just seems to fall into place then months of learning bugger all!
Found a dead one to practice on this morning so I think this is the limit of the gear I have.
180 lens, 1.4 converter, 100 ISO, f9 (which I keep coming back to as the sweet spot)
Lit by flash on full and a high CRI torch.
Focus incrementally stepped and shutter fired via EOS Utility on the laptop.
Of course I'd never get anywhere near that kind of thing in the field but interesting to see.
Length of body & head = about 5mm
(Click for full size)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2389
Just had a quick took, over 80 "what lens" or "what camera" type threads since 2017, over a thousand posts, this thread has had a hundred posts in that time and most of them are us two over the last week
It's funny seeing some of my questions from a few years back, i remember some of the things I was trying to shoot and struggles I had with some technical details that seem so simple and trivial now. There really is no substitute for experience!
The house I'm working in this week, the garden is almost deafening with the amount of bugs buzzing about, I might warn the neighbours there'll be a nutter doing yoga with a camera tomorrow
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2388
Used to be quite a popular thread.
Carp angling seems to attract less "countrymen" and more "screenies" these days.
The gadget threads seem to get plenty of traffic!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2387
I had to check the name
I actually read this whole thread yesterday, it's a shame so many pics are missing but there are some amazing macro shots going back a bit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2386
Good find - he actually has exactly the same lens and body choices as me!
Officially the gain in magnification is about 20% with a 25mm tube
Interestingly it looks like my failed TC experiment may be back on again though, apparently AF is available at f8 and below, I think I left it at 9 or 10 yesterday when trying it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2385
Interesting article
I'd say the difference in magnification probably follows the same pattern. I didn't notice any mention of sharpness or diffraction in that Q&A,how times have changed
I'm still not sure how much difference 25mm tube will make, the impact on my tele lenses is marginal
I avoid this site but the first few comments seem relevant
link
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2358
Regarding light loss with extension tubes I found this.
"On the other hand, light loss caused by extension tubes is inversely proportional to the focal length of the original lens. For example, a 25mm tube results in a 1 stop loss on a 50mm lens, but only a half stop loss on a 100mm lens, or a quarter stop loss on a 200mm lens."
From here http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/closeup2.htm
So maybe less of an issue at 180 with a 25mm tube.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2383
Let it cool, i had two taped together in a metal beauty dish with no airflow, they didn't like it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2381
That could be a little game-changer
Just had a play and at 1/32 I can get 7 shots at either burst rate
Better still is 1/16 - 5 shots quite a light difference too!
At 1/8 I can only get 3.
Thanks for that tip - that wouldn't have occurred to me at all
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2381
Always manual with macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2380
Sorry, yes I was thinking manual, I don't think ttl would work for a burst
If the flash is charged for a full power burst, you should get a few shots on lower power before it has to recharge
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2379
1/32 what sorry?
Flash power?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2378
I haven't used it for macro but for some fast karate sequences I was using 4 flashes in two groups firing alternately, it halved recycle times but is still wasn't quick enough, a little hack that worked for short bursts was to set the flash on full, let it charge then drop to say 1/32, you won't get 32 shots out of it but you should get at least half a dozen shots at low sequential speed.
Give it plenty of time to cool between bursts!
Continuous lights have a problem of their own in the pulse frequency, if you want consistent exposures you have to drop the shutter speed too low. Low energy lights indoors I'll be at around 1/20th. I have some video lights that are OK to around 1/80th but I will get a slight variation
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2377
Salted!
I think flash is just not the thing for me. The time it takes to recharge is too long between shots to expect most subjects to remain motionless. At 10 frames per second without flash I've a much better chance of some stackable images.
Adding flash might allow a touch more DOF but nowhere near enough to warrant the expense of the frame rate.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2376
I've found the humble pringles tube to be as good as anything, even comes with its own diffuser and the snacks to keep you going
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2375
No - me neither. The nearest I came to an idea was those soft silver foil/white reflectors on a wire frame that you can bend about.
If you could somehow mount that and bounce a top-mounted flash off it. Not much weight but still just too bulky.
What about a high CRI torch mounted?
That at least gets around the problem of the flash not keeping up with the burst rate!
I'm never going to get the sort of quality that you see with an MPE65, Cross polarisation and a dead or frozen subject though, so It's more about getting the most out of natural light and accepting the limitations of that.
I'm happy with what I'm getting at the moment anyway.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2373
I’ve not come across a way of avoiding the specular reflections from a ring light. The benefit of them is the even spread of the light because of the proximity of the source to the lens. For a more diffuse source the light has to be larger and would be blocked by the camera, lens and photographer. A longer focal length helps with lighting as you get more space. Maybe one of those little soft boxes you can get rigged up on a bracket close to the lens might work as a more natural looking reflection. I can’t think of a way that isn’t going to add bulk though.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2372
Try it on trial first and see how it does YEMV as they say. full version free for 30 days.
The only editing I've been doing before stacking is the RAW conversion to TIFF which just maximises the exposure and a small bit of NR and capture sharpening.
Some of the more "random" framings have needed aligning and cropping in PS before stacking in Helicon, the alignment algorithm in PS seems to catch what Helicon sometimes can't.
Having said that I really should dust spot the layers first to avoid dust trails in the merge!
Spent all day yesterday exploring it.
The retouching is brilliant too, you get a circular brush which appears on both the selected layer view on the left and the stacked merge on the right in the same position, so you literally just find and select the layer with the sharp bit you want and paint it into the merge on the right.
Easier done than said!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2370
I do love the slo-mo stuff but if I got into that I'd be bulk-buying hard-drives! I have enough Gb of back-up as it is just from RAWS
Liquid drops are the thing I'd go straight for if I did, they always look really cool.
Re: Ring flash, all the shots I've seen of wildlife seem to have this awful highlight circle in the eye which looks very unnatural to me, that's one of the reasons I've not invested.
The other being more bulk to carry around as mentioned.
Just out of curiosity is it possible to get the benefit of a ring flash without that hard ring of reflected light? Can you effectively diffuse a ring flash I guess is the question?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2371
I'm glad you said that before I tried it
Got some work this week but got a couple of ideas for some shots later in the week. One will need cross polarising but I can't find the filter or my stepping rings
When you do the focus stacks are you doing any editing before stacking?
I'm looking forward to trying it out but the comments on focus breathing may explain why it's been hit and miss in the past, I know my 60mm is quite bad for that, the in camera function only works with certain lenses so I suppose it uses a correction profile
|
|
|
|
Worth bearing in mind is how much disc space Helicon Focus uses.
I did a big back-up to clear what I thought was plenty of space - about 42GB free.
While manipulating a stack of about 20 I got a disc warning - 2Gb left
I did have PS open at the same time with layers as well but it turned out Helicon was using something like 25Gb +
Possibly when you have multiple renders to compare, it makes lots of copies of the TIFF layers too.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2369
I had to dust off the cobwebs a while ago on the macro stuff. Wife wanted some iris shots of the family for some reason, probably a biometric scam or a picture for the loo maybe. Anyway, I used to do a lot of macro stuff in college and as a medical photographer. I really missed having a 200mm or a 120mm medical but got some reasonable pics with a Sigma 105mm on the D500 with a Metz ring flash. I had a Z 6 and a Nikon 60mm Micro on hand as well but the specular highlights were contained in the pupil and easy to edit out when using the D500 and the 105.
On lockdown I’ve been doing some poor-mans Slo-mo Guys stuff with the RX100 iv, some moon shots with a Nikon P1000 and turning one of the bedrooms into a camera obscura, it has kept the kids occupied anyway. Pinhole camera next.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2368
Same here - you may remember donkeys years ago I think it was the Daily Mirror used to do a "what is it" competition. An oblique, usually close up photo of some everyday object that you had to guess.
Always fascinated me.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2367
I've always been interested in macro, just the way everyday objects become surreal or insects becoming the stuff of nightmares. When I started getting into using flash, macro was one of the most demanding and critical uses I could think of. If you can get the light you want for macro, portrait lighting is a piece of cake. Shiny insects throw another spanner in the works with all those reflections throwing specular highlights where you don't want them. Cross polarisation is my macro equivalent of slapping inch thick makeup on a model to get a nice specular highlight in the eyes but not on the skin
Cinema 3d glasses work well as Flash filters, and my family go mad for pringles, so I had the diy materials to hand as soon as I'd been given the idea
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2365
Loading in files is the same as PS and appears as a stack of layers on the right.
No masks though.
Split screen view with highlighted layer and rendered composite either side by side or top/bottom.
There is a choice of 3 Methods A, B & C all have a smoothing slider, and 2 have radius as well.
So you load in your files, choose a Method and hit render.
An output file is created in the split screen and a thumbnail for it at the bottom.
You can create a bunch of different renders to compare via the thumbnails, taking layers in and out of the mix as you like.
Easy to to add and remove images to the stack and also just to temporarily remove (untick) them from the render.
In PS this was a nightmare as you had to reload the images and start again every change!
There’s editing (retouching) for each layer in another tab that I haven’t explored yet, it seems brush based.
So far just messing with the 3 preset methods with their adjustments already produces much nicer results than PS.
Pretty powerful stuff.
Cross polarisation! bugger that for a game of soldier ants, I'm already experimenting way beyond my normal shooting.
I'll always be a field shooter so things like tripods and flashes and junk just weighs me down too much.
I just want to wander - see - get the best I can on the spot.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2365
Sure - I can only compare it to PS at the moment though. I think I'll probably pay for it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2364
Would you mind doing a quick write up on helicon focus when you get used to it , I'm interested in that program and deep sky stacker but I think I'll need a more powerful computer, I need one with a better screen anyway
Your getting towards the cross polarised light stage now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2363
Hiya Nine
Well my accidental and unscientific method for live insects in the field was basically that, the slight(!) movements as I try to hold still causes variations in focus. Framing can be an issue and after aligning all the frames I have to step through and remove any obvious stragglers before blending..
For tripod static, and the seemingly "correct" way of doing it which is what I've been playing with this morning, the focus breathing is a more obvious issue.
I am using quite a large subject (dead bee fly) and getting it as close to the lens as possible, using 20-30 shots depending on f-stop.
Probably the worst case scenario but it's good to test the boundaries of what I have.
Basically it tells me when not to bother if I have to go past any particular setting in the field.
I'm unlikely to use a tripod with any regularity so a rail would be even less likely.
Just downloaded Helicon for trial as well and straight away the results far exceed Photoshop.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2362
Have you tried moving the camera for focussing? Either hand held or using a rail if you move the camera to acquire focus it avoids any issues with focus breathing which I would imagine would screw with focus stacking.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2361
What I normally do is manually rack the focus either to mfd for really small stuff, or as framed for things like butterflies and damsels etc, then as I'm taking the shot(s) use my thumb on back-button-focus to fine tune via AF.
In that scenario it's quite fast and very usable, but from scratch it hunts like hell.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
I'm not sure there's such a thing as a fast focusing macro, I use mine in manual usually but I have the tricks that come with mirrorless cameras like focus peaking and magnified view either on the screen or through the viewfinder.
I've never used a tc but I'd think it might work better with that lens. When I've tried tubes on telephoto lenses they don't seem to have much affect, I don't know whether you'd use the actual or equivalent focal lengths to compare or how to calculate these things but on my zoom at 100mm(200mm equiv) the difference is negligible with 25mm tubes. If I put them on my wide zoom at infinity focus it won't quite focus on something sitting on the front element
I'd wanted the laowa 7.5mm f2 for ages, when I finally got round to ordering it it took a lot of will power not to add the 25
The probe lens looks interesting too but above my price ceiling for a toy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2359
Just tried a 1.4 - no AF at all, not even trying
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2358
Shheeeeeet what have you done!
That 25mm looks tasty!
Shame I need all my (non-existent) money for food.
One thing I didn't consider with my existing rig, and I don't know why, is a TC.
It's free experiment anyway, but I expect AF will suffer terribly.
The only real downside of that 180 is the AF speed.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2357
I don't know how lens dependant it is, but after putting tubes on I have to move the tripod back by around the same distance as the tubes, the raynox does cut the working distance at full magnification. Using both I have a working distance of about 25mm but my lens is wider than yours at 120mm 35mm equivalent.
The bigger problem is the loss of light coupled with the shallower dof, by the time you adjust the aperture you've probably lost 4 stops so flash or stacking become critical.
If I had this time on my hands without the financial uncertainty I'd take a punt on a laowa 25mm macro lens, they look very interesting! 5-1macro on a 2x crop sensor
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2356
I'm mostly at 3200 ISO, and use Neat Image for de-noising, also a small bit of de-noising at the RAW stage.
That last little spider is a frustratingly large crop but getting closer by adding tubes, I've just realised, is going to bring a whole new problem, them staying put while the lens gets even closer!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2355
It looks a serious lens mate, I wouldn't want to put anything on it that would impair the quality either.
I wouldn't make any judgments on sharpness from those pics for a few reasons,a big one being I could gobo the flashes with the tubes but couldn't completely with the adaptor. I feel from looking at a lot of images that the adaptor isn't any worse than tubes but without losing all that light.your kit should give more useable iso range too, for stuff like this I'd be worried using 800 and expecting to have to use a decent noise reducer. I might try them both on my 75mm f1. 8 which is up there with the sharpest lenses for mft and find something worth doing hi res with.
In fairness a crop from a high res file will often be as good or better than a standard image with an adaptor. Some of the tech in these things astounds me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2354
Didn't get long in the garden myself, clouded over quick and then rain.
That adaptor's quite impressive but I think to be honest the macro lens with tube has better quality, although you said you're losing light that way.
I'm going to a try a tube first anyway as it's cheaper, and my 180 prime is a bit of a belter.
Last night's refrigerated Zebra Jumper got his own back this morning - little bathtub was all over the place straight away - not a single usable frame!
Caught a couple more with slightly better results, but the best was the only Fleecy Jumper I found.
Half the length of an ant!
Sat nicely for 3 stacks worth - composite image below
All went back on the brickwork unharmed afterwards 
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2353
Having to give the garden a wide berth today, kid next door coughing something chronic!
So I had a play with some flash gels. Won't be any good to compare sharpness but it does show a difference in magnification and exposure
Today's subject
Here it is with my macro lens at mfd, 1:1 magnification. This will already be closer than you get just through the smaller sensor
But we can get closer still, using 26mm of extension tubes.
Note all images are at f8, flash power and distance doesn't change either
Another option are the excellent raynox adaptors, not to be compared to those cheap diopter, this is using the raynox 250, there are more or less powerful models
We can also use both
... 
That first circle is less than a mm
I think I'm gonna order the raynox 150, I think stacking both will give me better results than using tubes. They don't seem to have the same light penalty, and will turn any of my lenses into macros, where the tubes only really work with standard to wide primes
I've got dozens of DIY modifiers for macro light diffusion, I'm going to have to knock up some mini snoots, I wanted more contrast than this
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2352
That would be great Paul, I did do a few but got really fed up with ps when trying to stack some astro images, I don't think I've used it in a year, light room does most of what I want.
I haven't noticed it before but my tubes seem to be robbing me of a lot of contrast and some sharpness, not sure if it's a light leak or some internal reflections but it hasn't always done that.
Tubes are a great cheap way to get closer, I'm finding the raynox adaptor previously mentioned costs a lot less in terms of light, contrast and sharpness, I think they're about £60
I've set the camera up for star trails now but I'll do a comparison tomorrw
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2351
Photoshop is what I'm using, happy to do a quick guide via PM if it helps?
Going to have to get an extension tube to get closer.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2350
Seeing the outline of my head in the eye highlight I want to try it with a flash fired on my face
My camera does it well but it only takes a tiny movement and it will fail, its been like a yoga workout today getting into positions where I can hold it steady. I have a few worth editing from today, I might see whether the photos hop focus stack is easier than last time I tried.
Also had a go with the high res mode, a few frames were slightly missing focus but the frames may stack, would be great if they do, I'm always amazed at the detail when high res works
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2349
Found one! Couldn't catch it, it was deep in the Rosemary so shot it in situ.
After a little think I'd decided to go back to the 1D4 because I wasn't seeing any noticeable improvement in quality with the 5D3 and it only shoots 6fps.
1D4 does 10 fps and of course a little more reach which is always welcome.
Just took this - a 22 shot, and hand-held, focus stack.
Shocked at how well it's come out with such an unscientific way of shooting.
Same as yours really, for an in-camera algorithm that's pretty stonking.
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2348
I'm glad to finally know what the bee fly is called, I get loads in my garden and never knew whether they sting
I wasn't looking for one but this managed to meet a sticky end under my drink! (click)
Stacked in camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2347
Can't find one now!
Today's bests...
(Click for bigger)
Wolf Spider - stack of 5
Bee Fly
Sand Wasp (I think) covered in pollen
Shield Bug (stack of 9)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2346
Jumpers look so cute up close
The stacking can do better than I've shown here, I had it set a bit too narrow by the look of them. It's also jpeg only but with the single raw frames if you want to go to the next level.
I did mean to do some composite star trails last night but a couple of ciders in the sunshine went right to my head
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2345
Thanks for the tip 
I have the same thing with wanting to fill the frame at the expense of focus! Of course backing off a little also increases your DOF so win-win. There's always a fair degree of luck involved with anything live.
That's pretty impressive in-camera stacking mate.
Going to try to catch a Zebra Jumping Spider today and chill it a little in the fridge...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2344
Squashed slugs seem to get their attention
I can't seem to resist getting closer and closer, that ant and greenfly shot is the full frame and the long end is about 6mm, using an olympus 60mm macro, extension tubes and a raynox dcr-250 adaptor. The tubes seem to cost 2to3 stops of light and at that magnification any aperture below f11 will need stacking. Because of the speed the ants go at, using flash it takes an awful lot of luck to get one in focus. I could do with a couple of 100w bulbs
It's a lot easier when you back off a bit
This is a straight out of camera stack (click)
Would be better with a bit of work but just wanted to show what the camera will give you when you can't be arsed to edit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2343
I tried little piles of sugar around the patio as bait but they're not interested!
Saw that Septimus had one "on the mat" so grabbed the tripod - this one is a stack of 5 shots.
First time I've done more than 3, pretty pleased how it came out.
(Used full frame body today, yesterdays were 1.3 crop)
(Click for bigger)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2342
I struggle with anything live but olympus cameras do focus stacking in camera. It works well with flowers as you can use the sharpest aperture and the camera stacks 10 shots. It will also focus bracket up to 99 shots but that's too much processing for me
I couldn't be chasing around trying to focus, I found the most popular path set the focus and spray and pray when one was in the area
I'll have to set up some better lighting, even in late afternoon sunlight with a reflector and a rhino beam I didn't have enough light for proper close macro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2341
Imagine if they were the same size as us! Terrifying.
You did better than me - they move too fast for me to get anywhere near a focus - gave up in the end.
I'm using a 180mm 3.5 which has a MFD of 0.48 metres.
Mostly at f8 or f10, hand held and no flash.
If I go any higher on the f-stop I start losing quality.
The Shield Bug is actually focus stacked from 2 shots.
I didn't think I could get into focus stacking by shooting hand held, but I've found if you "machine-gun" once you obtain focus there are usually enough variations in focus to pick one or two or even 3 shots to stack.
On a tripod you would deliberately alter the focus very slightly as you shoot to get the range, but hand-held, forget it!
Obviously you need a static target as well, which rules out ants.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2338
Very nice
I planted some lavender hoping to get some pics of the beetles but after both kids got stung by bees I had to get rid
I stuck a macro adaptor on my long zoom, 300mm on a 2x crop body, ants are bloody scary lookin up close
Not nearly good enough to share but interesting to see how close you can get with these adaptors, not very practical with about a microns depth of field at f14
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2339
Thanks Ken - (just the Shield Bug...)
(Click for bigger)
Crab Spider on glass coffee table.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2338
Fabulous pix, Paul. I've saved the Shield Beetle in my desktops folder.
|
|
|
|
Some back-garden mini-beasts.
(Click for bigger)
Shield Bug
Rosemary Beetle
Cross Orb Weaver
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2336
Thanks mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2335
Mpb are pretty good for trade ins, I have used park cameras and cameraworld but went to the stores after an estimate online.
I've found places like cash converters and cex often pay more than camera shops when selling but you tend to get better value with trade ins
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1333
Hi I’m looking to trade some camera gear in as I’m looking to upgrade,can anyone recommend someone online where I’d get a half decent deal ?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2333
Thanks Duggs, your thoughts resemble what I have recently concluded having used a filter for as long as I can remember. Bare back it is going forward
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2332
Depends how you use your gear really, if your often wiping fingerprints off the lens then yes you should use them.
I only really use one for insect macro or days out with the family when I might pass it too one of the kids.
I do usually use a hood tho, both to stop flares and for a bit of protection
bit geeky but interesting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
What are the current thoughts regards using UV filters to protect the lens ? You buy the best glass you can afford, then put a cheap (in-comparison) piece of cheap glass in front of it for protection, or dismiss the filter and risk getting water /debris on the lens ?
|
|
|
|
|
My friend is a photographer and I envy him. It's that rare case when your hobby is your job. And I took a look at wedding photographers in cornwall and like really, you can get a job in some company organazing events and voila, you're all set!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2329
Yep, they're not shy are they
Top one is a fledgling, second one is him or one of his 2 siblings being fed.
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #2328
Is that not a kookaburra?
Lovely birds, have fed the greedy *******s with prime cuts of steak in the wild
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2327
I wish!
25 hours of flying, in an hour's time
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
In reply to Post #2324
Great shots
Australian Christmas?
|
|
|
|
Couple more - click for full
Black-fronted Dotterel
Spoonbill
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2324
Love the bottom shot
|
|
|
|
Always nice to have some new subjects
Click for full
Kookaburra fledgeling
Kookaburras
Purple Swamphen
Rainbow Lorikeet
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2321
my heads spinning tbh, why cant cameras have voice activation like smart phones,
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2320
You could look for a camera with a built in interval timer or buy one that connects to your camera for about 12 quid on eBay. I use a Nikon D7200 that has a built in one and never had any issues with photographing fish this way.
|
|
|
|
guys
im giving myself a headache looking at cameras, im looking for a camera with a flip round screen..a.budget of £300.
i want to be able to set it on a tripod,pick the fish up and then take the pucture,on my previous g5 i had a remote. do cameras have wink/smile recognition to take the picture. i dont want to have to press the button,scramble to pick the fish up for the 10 second timer...
what camera gives me the options to do this please.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
F4 will keep you and the fish sharp but throw the background out nicely aslong as there is a good separation from the background
Use a depth of field calculator if you are unsure, plenty online or apps to download.
edit: just replied to a year old post - apologies!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Well, maybe this will change soon. I got into fishing photography thanks to this: http://noon-day.com/ and I've become quite good at it. That company is also worth checking out, by the way.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone had any luck capturing the blood moon?
I got up at 4 and have only had the odd glimpse through clouds. Here's hoping it clears a bit before I head to work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2314
I don't think there's anything to worry about really, with all the advantages of mirror less and the fact all the lenses will work with an adaptor, the only real issue is that some people just won't get on with an evf.
I'd think the Eos m mount will die before the ef mount, I expect to see crop sensor Eos r cameras in the near future
I'm a little disappointed Olympus didn't join Leica sigma and Panasonic in the l mount group, I'd definitely be interested in a full frame omd.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2314
Guess not
|
|
|
|
|
So guys, with the recent release of the Nikon Z6/Z7 and Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless bodies, Sony's established mirrorless line, and Canons established EF-M APS-C line selling well, is anyone getting worried that DSLR will be phased out over the coming years?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
right guys...I own a canon 700d and am looking for recommendations for a good scenic/wildlife lens to give me more options than my 18-55 and 50mm. Can anyone recommend me anything - don't want to spend the earth (under £200 used)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Stunning birds they are.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
Got the same lens. I find f5.6 the best all round aperture but f11 gives more depth of field. I use it wide open only for landscapes (scenics) when the focus is at infinity. Otherwise the dof is too shallow and it is all to easy to get blurred trophy shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Only just realised this thread existed.
The Non Carp section often gets over looked. I did suggest they include it when you do a 'Read Next' but it never happened.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Lovely shots
Bloody foreigners
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2307
Risky. It will be sharpest a few stops above wide open. 2.5-3.2 I normally favour. Trial and error though mate, every day is different.
|
|
|
|
|
Just bought a Nikon 35mm 1.8 lens. What aperture would be best for trophy shots? Is 1.8 too low?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2305
Plenty to learn still but relatively happy
see if this guy can help
MIKE BROWNE LINK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2304
Only just realised this thread existed. Had a scroll through and there’s some serious images on here!!
I got a bit of cash for my 30th so treated myself to a new lense which has really upped the interest. Here’s a few recent ones. Plenty to learn still but relatively happy.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2303
It actually seems fine now, I might send it for a service anyway.
It's an olympus 12-40 2.8 so not exactly cheap!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2302
Ouch
At least the eye will heal for free! Lenses can be expensive!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2301
I thought some slow shutter + 2nd curtain flash shots of the kids throwing snowballs would be good....
About 3 shots in I got a football sized one right at the camera, got a bit of a black eye from the viewfinder and a jittering sound when the lens focuses
Longer lens and take cover next time
|
|
|
|
Anyone been out in the snow?
All that white background great for high-key stuff.
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2299
Ive made a few diffusers for macro stuff to give different effects, but they were all for a little nissin i40 and we're too small for my new flashes. The new ones are a bit too big tbh, I'll keep the nissin for now, I might get a godox tt350 and sell the nissin
I came across a website called strobist a few weeks back while I was trying to get to grips with a new multi flash setup, and it's helped me a lot.
lighting 101
A lot of the concepts can be scaled down for macro if that's what your struggling with
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2298
I don't know if this will help but....at our local flower nursery they sell ali tube about 15mm dia plus plastic fittings, I made a frame for a light box, when finished take apart and store, at Wilko's in the food storage section there are stainless steel bowls about 300mm dia, I drilled and fitted a bulb holder in 2 of them and used what ever bulb I wanted, cheap as chips
BTW I too am having problems getting the light I want.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2297
I got a pair of godox flash guns and controller for Christmas, and couldn't resist when I saw an olympus 75mm 1.8 for £400, so my house has been like a portrait studio for the past week. The family were getting fed up do I thought id try them out for macro, but hit a snag when I realised none of my small diffusers would fit
60mm macro with 26mm extention tubes at mfd
I could have done with a grid and a hood but I thought this would look interesting backlit
Can anyone recommend a book on portrait/studio lighting, I'm finding it difficult to get the look I want
|
|
|
|
Since all my pics are gone from the forum i thought id stick a few here.
I seem to be looking up a lot lately
Taken handheld and heavily cropped, with another big moon at the end of the month I'll be hoping for something better
I've never been happy with my astro shots, but i usually take them in the south east with all the light pollution that goes with it. An overnight stay in dorset fo work a couple of weeks back during the new moon got me the 1st shots I've been happy with,now I need to figure out how to stack multiple images to clean them up a bit. I'm also looking into getting a laowa 7.5mm f2 which should let me use a longer shutter speed,potentially letting me drop the iso by 2 stops
But there's always time for some arty stuff
I really enjoy macro, but I've struggled a bit focusing on live insects, so I thought I'd practice by chasing the fish I'm my tank. I got a similar shot by mistake that was miles out of focus, so I spent a while trying to replicate it. In the end I swapped the 60mm macro for a 75mm with extention tubes to use the faster af
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2295
I still can't consider the canon mirrorless tbh, when you look at the dslr lens lineup for crop sensors there are some big gaps there, and with lots of reports of canon and nikon dropping full frame mirrorless cameras next year, the new lens lineups will probably be the same. Fuji and mft have better lens options for me unless I decided to step up to full frame.
Where can I get a 22mm f1.2 so cheap, the olympus one is £1200
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2294
Agree, you can buy an M5 mirrorless with kit lens PLUS a fixed f2 pancake for the same as the MKIII.
I was really looking forward to the MKIII release but tbh it's just confirmed that my next camera will be mirrorless.
Edit: You can get an M100 which has the same sensor as the MKIII, plus kit lens, plus 22 mm f1.2, for several hundred quid less than the MKIII!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2293
It has gone up a sensor size though, a 15-45 constant 2.8 would be huge on that camera.
The price is more off putting, you can get a decent body and very good lens for that money
|
|
|
|
|
So I see Canon has announced their G1X MKIII with a really slow lens. Very disappointing. The MKII is like the ultimate fishing camera IMO, looks like I'll be sticking with it....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2291
If it's canon mount then yes, it'll say ef or ef-s in the name.
|
|
|
|
|
Can I use a Tamron Telephoto lens for my Canon 60D?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2289
I probably should have updated those posts, I've gone through loads of options over the months since that post.
I think it's because I'm often using extention tubes with a macro lens, I haven't checked but it's probably giving me around 3:1 without throwing crop factor into the mix, so lighting is critical
Led ringflash, was adjustable but still pretty flat, colour was poor
Olympus twin macro flash, my favourite but pricey, also had the opposing effect to a ring, being a bit too harsh and directional for a lot of shots
Also tried a few leds on flexible arms without finding anything versatile enough to cover most bases.
Then I found 1001 articles about diy diffusers and now have a few options that cost next to nothing that I prefer to all the above options.
I may have to get an olympus flashgun soon to fully utilise the focus stacking features in my camera, and i may get a raynox filter to fit a zoom that doesn't work well with extenders, but other than that I'm quite happy with my kit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2284
If you are a Canon user then the Yongnuo Macro Ring Lite YN14EX is worth looking at. This model meshes in with all the auto flash settings on the EOS models and is very easy to use.
This new breed of ring lite features two separate tubes that sit each side of the lens as opposed to the old style which was an unbroken ring around the lens and yes did give boring lighting but all that has changed with the new breed of guns.
I have been using one for over a year with a range of macro lenses magnifying from basic 1:1 life-size and 3x life-size and can't fault it apart from a slightly flimsy battery cover catch which I corrected with a small screw
From memory the cost was around £70UK from a well known shopping channel which is a fraction of the cost of the Canon model which this one seems to be a direct copy of.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2286
D P
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2286
the one I have is adjustable, can have light on one side or the other or both, also the amount of light.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2285
You can do an awful lot with ps, but editing is a chore for me. I'd rather get 99% right in camera and do minor tweaks where needed.
With macro stuff I like to see the textures my eyes can't, and the ringflash does a good job of hiding this. I'll add a couple of pics later to show what I mean
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2284
when I'm doing macro I use a ring light but shoot in RAW, when post editing in PS or PS Elements there are lots of tools for light/exposure adjustment, amazing software can do things you never thought possible.
|
|
|
|
|
What type of macro flashes are best? I used a ring light type and didn't like the flat dull look. I don't want to spend much but want something easier than juggling off camera flash guns
|
|
|
|
The clouds were not very friendly tonight, lets hope tomorrow evening will be better.
|
|
|
|
On the theme of surprise visitors I stumbled across a load of these in a clearing by my local river
Anyone know what they are? The Mrs wants some
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2280
this guide popped up in my news feed
I don't have a lens long enough for the idea I had and I doubt I'll get one today.
|
|
|
|
|
this Monday 14th Nov @4.30 pm there will be a "Super Moon" the closest its been to Earth in 70 years, SO, what's my best way to capture the occasion, shoot in RAW and adjust everything in L R/PS or fully auto and hope for the best?
|
|
|
|
Highly unusual visitor to my garden this morning. We love pheasant but I could never bring myself to shoot such a beautiful creature.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys.
Mrs just bought a cannon eos 80d.
Looking at buying her a memory card for this.
What would the best options be here?
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2276
No it was the filter, my camera is mirrorless so light leaks aren't an issue.
I tried a few options and the cheap srb photographic one had the best colours, I'm now looking at the square filters from srb and cokin
Not sure whether to start with hard or soft grads, also whether auto focus works properly with linear polarisers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2248
I know it may be a bit late, but have you tried covering the eyepiece on long exposures? light hits the sensor through that as well.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2272
I use the 1.4 on my 750, lovely lens, 1.8 is ideal, don't want to be much under 2.8 for trophy shots as the DoF is too small.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2273
I already have a Sigma 24-105mm art lens but its a little bulky and heavy (and expensive) to use for trophy shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2272
It deserves better
I nearly bought the same camera with the sigma 50mm art lens, which is an awesome combo, too good for me, and too big for me to lug around like I do with my m43 kit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi fellas
Anyone recommend a decent lens for self takes in all conditions
I've just purchased a Nikon d750 and was thinking of a Nikon f/1.8g 50mm prime lens
Anyone use one of these?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2269
A flash will help a lot to fill the shadows, for ease of use you want one canon ttl compatable, and with a decent output
Something like a yongnuo 500 would fit the bill, but they're huge on small cameras
This flash is the same size, the camera probably twice the size of yours and half the size of a basic dslr.
I have a nissin i40 which is a better match with smaller cameras but given the cost you'd be better off getting a cheaper flash and better camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2269
I think it depends on........in 30 years time do you want a good photo of what you caught today, I would get a good second hand DSLR and a half decent flash, but till then experiment with what you have now, I would be tempted to use the flash even on a sunny day (as infill) make notes and keep records of what you do, before digital I would put a NUMBER in the shot and on a note pad put what I did in that photo with that number, settings/distance/clouds/sun etc, can pick up a used camera for about £100-£130 and a flash for about £40 or £50, good luck and be patient
BTW how are you replying to a post 4 years ago that doesn't exist?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
After some advice i own a cannon g6 but only ever use it on auto.A place i fish has very tight swim and is half boards half greenery the last 2 times i have caught decent fish my photos have been awful as half the light in half the shot has been dull the other half bright due to low early morning sun.Resulting pictures were awful 1 was a blur with over exposure i was told the other 1 end of fish dark .Obviously i am a noob do i need a external flash or would a better camera be a better option for someone who only uses auto also night shots are not great either
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2267
...generally the money is better spent on upgrading lenses rather than the cameras.
Good advice A camera is only as good as the glass on the front of it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2265
The 600/650/700d are all very capable cameras, touch screens in my opinion are not worth the extra, its definitely worth paying out for the best glass you can, people often say they need to upgrade cameras to get a better picture, and yes this is right in some cases, but generally the money is better spent on upgrading lenses rather than the cameras.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2265
I've recently been looking for the same and by the sounds of it I have a similar level of understanding of cameras. I've decided on a used 650D and a STM kit for now. I'll see how the kit images come out first and then decide if I want a prime or not. The 650D is almost identical to the 700D (although 700D has slightly better low light performance) but around the lower price of the 600D. 600D has an older processor, no touch LCD and a few other differences. I've had a play with a 50mm prime a bloke has at work and it seems you have to have the camera a mile away from you for a self take. Not great in tight swims. I was finding used 650D bodies with low-ish shutter counts (around 1500) for around £260. Used 18-55 STM kits for around £65.
If you want new though, the 700D is the only one available from those three. I'm sure there might be some new grey market or american 650s (T4i) around if that doesn't bother you.
I've learnt a shed load from watching reviews of these three cameras and some of the equivalent Nikons on Youtube. Their worth a look.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2264
Thanks for the input mate. Excuse my ignorance as I am really hoping to learn a lot about the technical side of photography. So the camera you recommend on paper seems less camera than the other 2. Am I right in assuming as long as the camera body has a decent pixel count it's the lens that makes the difference to the image quality/end result? The pancake lens looks a good option..soo many choices!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2261
Canon 600d, and 35mm f2 would be within your budget or a 40mm pancake 2.8, id stay away from a 50mm on a crop sensor as it can be a bit tight in smaller swims, and to get that shallow depth of field you need a bit of distance between you and the camera or you won't even have the fish fully in focus.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2262
that might be a good option for me will take a look and look at some shots taken by this camera.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2261
I've got a canon 700d. Less megapixals than the nikon but great camera.. flip round screen too and 399 at currys at the moment with the 18-55mm kit lens which means you could get the ef 50mm 1.8 lens too and still be in budget for the out of focus backgrounds.. great lens for the money. Not ideal if your capture shots are in very tight swims as you need the camera back a bit with the focal length on a crop sensor. You don't need to be a mile away and you get great shots. Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Hi guys, I am looking for someone to point me in the right direction as am looking to get my first DSLR in the next few months.
I have a top budget of £500 and just wondered for me what would be the best option. What I want from it is crisp images 80% of my photography will be of captures with a few scenic shots and wildlife snaps. I like the shallow depth of field shots so needs good capabilities re this. Finally good self take capabilities so rotating screen is needed with good night-time results . I am currently looking at the Nikon d5500 this is obviously at the top end of my budget with standard kit lens. Are there better (cheaper which will give me the results I want) options out there to consider.
Any advice would be appreciated.
Dan
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2259
Yes
|
|
|
|
|
Evening guys. Do polarising filters have the same effect as polarised sun glasses do in reducing surface glare? So as to use with a telephoto zoom lens to locate and identify fish from distance.
|
|
|
|
This chap was in the garden for about an hour calling for mum, I'm a lazy amateur so used a Nikon D5300 with a 70-300 zoom, no tripod (didn't think I would get as many photos as I did)
EDIT
After posting this photo he came back and it rained......where's my mum 
2nd EDIT
He was still in the garden at 8pm so out came the spare landing net and he was caught, he was a guest at the cardboard box B&B for the night (he wouldn't have a prayer with the local cats), took him out this morning gave some breakfast before showing him the door, a bit later one of the parents came down and fed him, came back home couldn't see him.....job done, no it wasn't there he was on the bloody front gate post, I came out slammed the door and he flew down the road, from now on I'm letting nature take it' course
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2255
They're great models....one quite often sits on my boot waiting for food, a few weeks ago one landed on my boot then hopped up to my knee, I just froze with a big smile on my face
PS great photo
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Im a wedding photographer throughout the year but snapped this little guy when on a short session
Canon 6D 70-200 F2.8 L
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2253
Ok thanks, I'll have a look at some this week, I'm just not sure whether it'll be too bulky that I don't bother taking it out unless I'm actually planning to use it rather than just having it in the bag. Plus my primes are tiny and I'm not sure I'd have room for my fingers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2252
If you are ever thinking of using ND grads then you really need square/rectangular. Buy the holder then get the attachment rings you need or use step up/downs. Or keep it light and just carry a blob of blu tac.
If you are on a budget get the bigger set, you'll be better off in the long run. One polarising filter and holder will cancel out any savings made buy buying small.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2251
What are the advantages of the square filters? I've stuck with the circular type up to now, and although I have polarizers to suit most lenses I just got the nd a size up for my biggest lens and got stepping rings. Would I need a holder to suit different lenses or are they adaptable?
Welding glass sounds interesting I'll check that out
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2250
I use the Lee Big Stopper. You could just use some welding glass, there's plenty of info online and the colour shift is not impossible to correct.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2249
Thanks, i had a look andThey look good, a bit pricey and difficult to get hold of tho.
I'm working near Tottenham Court Road this week, a 2 minute walk from park cameras, so I'll take the camera and check a couple out.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2248
Singh-Ray are supposed to be very good.
|
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a decent 10 stopper nd filter?
I bought a tiffen pro nd 3.0 and the colour shift is extreme! No matter what I do to the white balance greens are reddish brown and I doubt I'll get the results I want with the computer
A quick test shot before I got my feet wet(luckily)
Edit
Apparently it's due to the filter blocking the visible spectrum but not infra red, the newer tiffen filters block this out.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2246
Any ideas on best way to capture/extract a still jpeg image from video footage on Canon D70?
|
|
|
|
Anybody know any decent trusted firmware for Nikon cameras?
My mates got magic lantern on his Canon and it's absoloutey amazing!
Just annoying it isn't compatible with Nikon.
The intervalometer feature is probably the most useful one and I know I could just buy an external one but there were so many other cool features on there all together they really make a difference. Just wondering if anything similar is about for Nikon ?
Had a quick look about but a lot of it looks a bit dodgy to me... don't want to muck up my camera!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2244
I'll Google that thanks dave, camera had been out for hours, it was a clear night but pretty damp out.
Edit @19.30 not keen on putting that on an expensive lens, found a few articles and keeping the lens warm is the general conclusion. Got some hand warmers and neoprene strips so will try that next time I get the chance.
Ordered a bottle for my specs tho and if the heat doesn't help I'll put it on a uv filter
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2242
The post below will work but if you want to try something else there is a product called "Mista Brite" when used on spectacles you can hold them over steam without any steaming up, I must point out that I haven't used this on a camera lens but it does work on my bins and the inside of my crash helmet.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2242
I find if leave your camera out of its case it will solve this. Let the lens glass be at the same temperature as outside.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone got any tips to stop the lens misting up during long exposures? Using the hood and letting the camera aclimatize first doesn't seem to help
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2240
thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2239
http://www.manualslib.com/manual/24806/Canon-Powershot-Sx30-Is.html?page=96
Lower the F number the shallower the depth of field, i.e. In your case F2.7 more background blur. Try and keep your background as far away as possible, there is another way in wich involves zooming in, but not so great for self takes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Guys is it possible to achieve the blurred background on trophy shorts with out a SLR. Ive just got a Canon SX30 bridge camera and i was hoping i could do it. Im a newbe to camera and keen to learn.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
just a heads up for you canon eos users .ive just bought a Yongnuo YN35mm EF 35mm F/2 Wide-angle Fixed AF lens from ebay for £67,the canon equivalent is around £350 ,great lens for self portrait fishing photos
youtube review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_sEM5wE3Ko
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2236
Thanks for the reply. I try to find a balance between getting a full picture but not what you decribe. the pics look rediculous with extended arms and a tiny head.
There a local lad to me Craig Mortimer (with Gardner), check his pictures out on his Facebook page if you get some spare time. I loathe the bloke but he takes a cracking self take, I'm trying to achieve something similar to those.
I'm out Monday night fishing, So I'll have another play If I'm lucky enough to catch. I'll definately be playing with the ISO and other bits that have been advised. Sorry I am a novice at this, can I play with exposure compensation on my camera?
I'm working on the editing software, I have a copy of lightroom but need to change this laptop before I can start playing with it.
Do you know if you can get a remote for the Canon G11?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2228
Ben, the photo isn't bad but there are a lot of shadows. This can be rectified simply post editing using most editing software packages. These days most photos you see are edited. Shoot with JPEG for two reasons. One you can get more on your sd card and two the camera edits it slightly for you.
For bright days I agree use an ISO of around 200 but play with exposure compensation too. I shot both canon and Nikon and find this is more affective on Nikon but this will take away the brightness a little giving you more detail. Also try and get slightly closer to the camera - not to make a double figure carp look like a thirty but to fill the frame! Get a cheap shutter remote off eBay and practise with it too. Self timer is great but the shutter remote will make your life much easier!! Hope this helps!
I've just started using a remote shutter. It does make me laugh at my syndicate when people are putting the carp as close as possible then lieing about the weight!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2234
Gotta get out fishing first 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2233
I'm glad it helped, just 1 word of warning..........DON'T post better photo's than me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2232
Thanks David, it's helped a lot already. Very easy to follow even for a noddy like me. Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2230
I'm getting back into photography after a very long time out (25 years plus) I found Mike Browne easy to follow on YouTube, CLICK HERE for the link, I downloaded as much as I could with a YouTube downloader then refer to it when needed, hope this helps you, it did me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2228
A bit of fill-flash would improve things there.
When the sun is high in the sky, or when it's impractical to get it directly onto your face then a bit of fill-flash will get rid of those shadows.
Your flash isn't just for when it's dark out
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2229
Thanks for the reply. I'll definately start playing with the iso. The aperture only reaches f8 on the G11. From what I've read the G11 isn't the best of camera for the 'blurred background' look, I'm asuming because of the lower aperture available? I'm happy with the little blur on my pic though. I can't find anything in the manual on continuous focusing. I'm a beginner at most with photography, so I'm trying to learn when I can.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #2228
ben its not too bad, but try setting your iso your self and maybe step out of auto mode and into manual
sunny days iso 100- 200 and set aperture to say f11 this should give you a fairly good D O F so a sharper shot
on overcast days try upping iso to 400
will the g 11 do continuous focus? if so maybe try setting that
just try it out practice makes perfect
|
|
|
|
Guys, need a little camera advice or suggestions for improvements. I hope it's OK to post this here and not in general discussion.
This is a self take from today
Now for you guys I'm sure this is pretty shocking, but for me I'm relatively happy with it but much can be proved upon I'm sure.
What adjustments could I make to the camera (G11) to improve on this for future self takes? The picture was taken on aperture priority, auto ISO and white balance and on built in timer. The light levels were very high when taking.
I'm guessing the slight grain or lack of 'crispness' could be a slight focusing issue on the timer (15 second delay, 5 shot burst)? This was the better of the bunch.
And yes a smile wouldn't go a miss
Thanks for any help
Ben
|
|
|
|
cheers mate.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #2225
loving these sundance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2222
That's a cracker ev
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #2221
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2220
Yes mate. I didn't answer ur query as I didn't understand it in the other thread.
Pics taken in the garden with the lumix g6 and the 100-300 telephoto. Both shot wide open.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2219
Nice photos Paul, via Flickr?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not particularly good photography, just wanted to capture the moment last night.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #2216
thanks tufty
love a bit of nature myself but very unpredictable !! lol
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2215
I think they are very very good!!!, love a bit of black and white, the match is rather good, might try something like that my self! well done
I do more nature stuff my self
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2214
im sure 1 is fine. but that sort of pic is never to my taste. i much prefer natural shots.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #2213
thanks Sundance, not really happy with number one crappy weather and a bit of a rush will have to redo that one, i am no pro just enjoy it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2211
allright EV
photos 2 3 and 4 are very good. im no Tog myself. i only dabble but I know a few good uns and those
photos draw me in.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2211
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2209
PM your way
|
|
|
|
Evening guys. I'm looking at gettin hold of some photo editing software. A friend of mine has shown me lightroom and I'm pretty impressed. Anyone know where I can get it at a reduced rate or even free  ? I won't mind paying full price but would rather have a play and see if I get on with it first. Thanks, Ben
|
|
|
|
Got my new camera as well, these pictures were shot in RAW just in case I want to adjust the white balance in PS, they've had nothing done to them, straight from the camera.
all hand held no tripod
|
|
|
|
So yea, i did it. Finally took the plunge and got myself a great deal the other day.
Canon EOS 1200D DSLR Camera, Canon18-55 mm & 75-300 mm Telephoto Zoom Lenses, Canon 100EG Deluxe Gadget DSLR Camera Bag & 16 gig memory card.
Always had a camera knocking about (compact or bridge) for fishing but wanted a camera for something much much more. And oh my days am I over the moon?! These are out of this world.
Here are some pictures I've taken, they are not the best but id like to share anyway. Im limited to where i can go at the moment as i can't drive for a month or two so just been taking photos in the house/ garden. Although my girlfriend said she will take me to Otmore nature reserve on Sunday .
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2205
Wot colour do you use, not grans old khaki draws
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2204
yes mate you dont need to put a black cloth over your head nowadays
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2199
What was the Camera, lenses, filters etc. I'm getting back into photography after a very long time , there have been a lot of improvements in the last 25 years.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2202
As said in my last post, it turned out to be a faulty card reader, only a couple of weeks old, when you plug it into the PC/laptop/Mac it could be rotated , at the time of purchase I thought it was a cool idea plus the young lady assistant had a lovely smile, it was a Kodak and Argos sell them but because of the movement I would not recommend it.
My old Sandisk will not work on a Mac that's why I bought the Kodak, Mmmm sometimes you get what you pay for (£9.99), I glad it wasn't the Nikon's.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2201
Are both cameras doing that?
Looks expensive
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2200
Well impressed
Have you come across this problem?
I have 2 dslr's and have tried different combination's of card and camera, I don't know what is causing this effect, can anyone help please?
EDIT
I have been experimenting with the on board flash and a dedicated hot shoe flash, I have aimed the flash directly and also bounced it, I have turned the flash off and aimed at a picture with glass in the frame, It looks as though I am getting these line when I aim straight at a reflective subject, I am now thinking........would a UV or any other kind of filter reduce or even stop the line appearing.
SOLVED
It was a faulty card reader
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2199
A few i managed. Not the best conditions on the day.
|
|
|
|
Anyone gonna shoot the solar eclipse in the morning?
It's been so long since I did it I've forgot what to do, thank god for Google
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2190
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2195
Also take a peep at the view from the swim threads (tap view from the swim into the search box and toggle the general carp box)
Does anyone know if or how I can sync two yongnuo flashes to fire simultaneously in multi mode?
I have to press the test button to use this function and I doubt one would keep up with the other in slave mode
|
|
|
|
|
starting to get into photography when I'm on the bank fishing and After having a look at this page there's a great deal to learn about some of these photos are beuties,got a wee place I fish and the wildlife is superb Hawks,owls,deer,badgers etc hope to get some nice photos this year and as I said nice to see some crackers on here.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2190
Calumet & London Camera Exchange (branches elsewhere also) do S/H kit
Another for HDEW from me too - very well respected and reliable supplier of greys.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2191
Yeah I bought a 7D from Hdew Surrey, 18 months past, and yes think they are grey imports as the warranty is offered by them, or their repair centre at Glasgow, as opposed to canon themselves.
Sent me the wrong memory card, but a quick phone call soon resovled this.
Camera has been faultless and a very good price.
From my dealings Hdew 100%
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2190
Have you tried CLICK HERE for Cex not always that cheap but you do get 12 months guarantee and you can buy online if you want.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2190
I bought a lens from hdew cameras recently, some of the prices are cheaper than second hand. All grey imports though if that would bother you. (all from stock in UK though)
Cameraworld, wex photographic and park cameras do second hand stuff, bargains are pretty scarce though. Argos and currys throw up some bargains when their clearing stock
|
|
|
|
|
Just wondering if anybody can point me in the right direction of a decent webiste that sells used/ second hand/ discounted digital SLRs please?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2188
Thanks Ken
That's a good place to start, next time I'm out I will do as you suggest, BTW can we see some of your non prime shots
EDIT
If my pictures were as good as them I'd be happy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2187
Program it by trial and error. You will soon find out if you have left a decent enough gap at the start. FWIW I see the initial delay at 20 seconds, the set it to take 12 exposures at 5 second intervals. After four, maybe five exposures I put the fish back on the mat and turn it round to do the other side. This gives a bit of leeway if she wants to flap or kick off while being turned. The 'turn around' shots are deleted after wards or are kept if there is any humour value to them!
|
|
|
|
I bought an intervalometer I've not been on the bank with it yet, I have set it up at home with the first delay of 10 second's then about 7 in between after that, taking 10 shots doe's that sound too short a time? I suppose it depends on how lively the fish is.
Any advise most welcome.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2185
More for video I expect, cheaper than a gimble but would need some seriously flat ground
|
|
|
|
|
My missus saw a tripod with wheels on, would that be for studio or what?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2179
I think it was av 4.5 and shutter/ISO were automatic. The camera wasn't that close, id guess 2m away. None of the picture was sharp, it had a slight 'blur' effect.
Using a canon rebel 2ti and standard lense which comes with it.
When I put the setting on full auto the pics came out much better
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2181
thanks Jim, I don't think it comes on a disk, just a card with a code on that you download.
I'm not particularly computer savvy so I would like to know if there's an idiot proof way to do it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2180
if yo had it on disc use that, Acronis True Image is a software that can copy hard drives, that's one way to do it, if you know how to download via torrent sites that's another, if you need more info on the above site's PM me.
CLICK HERE for more info ON ACRONIS.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone tell me if Lightroom can be uninstalled from one pc and installed on another? I'd like some software to tweak a few shots but I'll be replacing my computer in April and I don't want to waste the money
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2178
A prime lens may not be the answer? When you were in av what was the shutter speed, iso etc? and if you were @3.5 and the camera was quite close to you, its going to give you a shallow D.O.F of you and the fish, was there any part of the picture that was sharp?
(what camera and lens?)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2177
Yea. That was on a tripod. I think way forward Is a prime lense. Cheers for the help
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2176
What Are the pics like of stationary objects with the camera on a tripod? Tiny movements will make the image look soft at slow shutter speeds. Also all lenses are sharpest stopped down a bit.
All of my primes are sharper than my kit lens (sometimes too sharp for what I want) as well as having better colour/contrast but I don't have Canon.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2174
Thanks for the replies. I tried using it on AV setting 3.5 to blur the background but the pics were no way near good, I then changed it to auto mode and the pics were better, The fish and I are in focus, just not really sharp. I think it's the lens as it's just the standard one you get with the camera
The lense refocused each time, which is what I wanted to happen (when looking to buy something) as I want to be able to turn the fish and still focus as opposed to being on manual and then when I move it not being able to refocus
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2173
Best bet is to use autofocus to fix on a bankstick etc where you will hold the fish, then put the camera into manual focus if you can so it stays fixed on that spot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2173
That's not the fault of the intervalometer, Vinnie, but the fault of the camera. Check your autofocus settings. Could be the camera has reset itself (it happens!) and is trying to focus on the background rather than on the subject. Setting the camera lense to f8 or f11 will increase the depth of field too.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2172
I know! Will these lens give a better/sharper pic? I used my intervalometer at the weekend. And although they are good, there not sharp when u zoom in
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2171
If it's mainly for catch shots you might be better off with the 35mm unless all your venues have roomy swims. Stick your kit lens at 50mm and see how much space you need.
Edit: just seen the price for Canon 35mm
no wonder people stick with the 50
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2169
Youl then have to catch a fish then
I have a canon rebel t2i, the pics are ok but nothing special, there no way near as sharp as a lot of people's trophy shots. Am I right in thinking if I get a better lense this will help? I'm using the standard supplied lense. Will the 'nifty fifty' give me that much clearer pics?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2169
That's a bit of a steal pimp The quality of the pictures you can take with a dslr are on another level with the right lens. They are harder to get used to but once you master them you won't look back
|
|
| | | Pimp | | Posts: 10283 |  | | MODERATOR | |
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi all, i am looking to get a better camera and am currently using a canon sx10is which is a compact with some good features.
I have been offered a Nikon d90 with standard lens and another zoom lens and all the bits for 300.
Im wondering if this is a good deal and any thoughts on the D90
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2166
I checked a few comparisons, the transcend is probably better for me, and half the price with twice the capacity
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2165
Eyefi transcend, probably not a million miles apart.
Just load the app to a device or two, switch camera on, then open app then it will automatically load pics.
You just have to pair devices the once.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2164
Thanks that's great, I wouldn't want raw files on my phone, that'd fill the memory quick not to mention the data usage.
I didn't realize there were compatability issues I'd better check that
Is there much difference between the eye fi and transcend versions?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2163
Yes mate I used the Eyefi mobi card for my old camera, not compatible with new camera.
And worked well.
Saves connecting leads, also whilst bankside I could upload photos from camera to phone/tablet
Enabling me to send pics, if desired. But placed camera away from harms reach etc.
Think it was a class 10 card, so no major lag,
I don't think it can transfer Raw images, but I shoot in both Raw and JPEG and then if I want to edit from Raw I could, via leads/card and pc.
Check your camera is compatible!!
They do another card where I think you can transfer Raw files, mine was the mobile version.
Very good
|
|
|
|
Anyone using wi fi sd cards?
do they work well and are they slow compared to a decent sdhc card
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2159
Liking the shot of Virginia waters waterfall I love walking that place, especially seeing the carp sunning themselves in the afternoon summer sun by the polo club end of the lake
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2158
Cheers Paul
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2159
Some great shots there
|
|
|
|
Been into photography for quite a few years, started really when i stopped fishing. Now im back into fishing no doubt the camera will be coming with me
Heres a few shots, all taken with canon 500d, with various lenses
These are my other hobbies besides fishing, Urban Exploring and Banger racing
Inside a cooling tower from a power plant
A ward from a derelict mental asylum
One of my favourite cars, Ford Cortina mk3 in banger racing spec
And of course the standard waterfall shots....
Check out my flickr if your interested
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jwstokes/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2156
hi jay.
I used the panasonic 100-300 telephoto lens on a panasonic lumix g6 camera
the pic was then cropped considerably.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
after a new camera not that clued up atm, am I right in saying dslr cameras are not exactly great for night shots?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2155
Sundance can I ask what lens was used for your pic please
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not posted any pics for while, there some cracking photos love the king fisher one. heres a few recent ones
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's good to be The King"
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2147
Good read keebs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2146
Same thing.
Black Chested Buzzard Eagle
WIKI
They are called different things in different countries.
I was lucky enough to see one in the wild in Santiago a couple of years ago.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2145
this i think is a grey buzzard eagle?? thanks, Chris Nea, based in shropshire hills
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2144
Then no - "Levi" is in the Biggleswade area - he's also a Chilean Blue Eagle.
Nice shots of this majestic creature though
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2143
can't remember….. was from hawkeyefalconry, 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2142
Very nice
Is that "Levi" ? If it is I've met him - magnificent bird.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2139
Having seen Pete Castles' excellent slide show presentation on photography last weekend, and chatting to him and Shaun Harrison afterwards, I was surprised by their camera of choice. The good old Canon Powershot G5. The pics were brilliant, with great features for us anglers ( flip round screen/ ir remote). AND they are cheap. I bough one the following day on eBay , mint for £38!! Bargain! Spend what you save on a tripod and accessories
|
|
|
|
Hi Im looking to buy a bridge camera for around £150-£200! can anyone recomend a decent one for that price range?
Cheers
Paul
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2136
Where do u live mate?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2135
I've also got young kids and getting quality pictures of them was a big factor in getting a decent camera, I'm also looking at better performance in low light so the zoom isn't really in my thinking, there is a f2.8 zoom but out of my budget unfortunately.
I might get the sigma 30 for now then see how I get on with it. But the small size of the Panasonic 20 does appeal to me....
Eenie meeny miney mo.......
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2132
hi Duggs. Ive been using the lumix G series for about 3 years. I started with the g3 and the 14-42 kit zoom. mine was also a dissapointment. Apparently the 14-45 older kit lens was much better. I also had the 45-200 but I was given that.
I joined the Lumix forum and loved the look of the photos taken with the primes. As I have a young child I wanted good indoor photos. And liked the idea of a compact setup, So I bought the 20mm pancake for £220. As I was on a limited budget this was all i had for the first year or so.
I used it for indoor and outdoor even as a walk around on holiday. its true you do just move around more. but the photos blew the kit lens away. Yes the lenses cost a lot but I could now sell my 20mm second hand for nearly the same as I paid for it. as the price has risen. as opposed to my G3 body and kit lens that I just sold for £100.00.
So they are more of an investment than the bodies. the new 14-140 that panny recently launched is a great lens and images are near on as sharp as the 20mm and the olympus 45mm ( which i now also own). Just not as fast.
I got a deal at christmas with amazon and panasonic cashback where i paid 379.00 for G6 with 14-140. the lens sells for 400+ on its own. I mention this as you may may find them cheaper as people split the package and keep the part they want.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2133
Might be the same as mine
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2131
It is a Panasonic 14-42mm f3.5-5.6. I think both lenses are now on version 2.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2131
Which zoom did you get?
I was going to wait a while for a prime but I bought a 45-150 Panasonic and the image quality seems miles better than the kit lens I've got.
I doubt I'd be carting two primes about tbh, I'm just not sure the Panasonic is worth double the price of the sigma....
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2130
I've got the 20mm f1.7 and i think it is very good for the money. I bought a zoom as well but thought it was cack so the 20mm hasn't been off the camera since. If you think you will use both the Sigmas then it might be worth going for it but maybe try the shorter one first and see if you need another. I always prefer travelling light with the minimum of kit and sticking to one focal length can really help you get better at composition, you actively move and seek out better viewpoints instead of just zooming or changing lenses all the time. I'm probably going to be replacing my MFT stuff with a Fuji X100s soon though as it is closer to what I want from a pocket camera.
Take your camera body to a shop and fire off some tests, see what feels best. If the shop is funny about it then go elsewhere but do try them all out.
|
|
|
|
Hi guys
Right then, I bought a new camera a while back, I'm now looking at getting a decent prime but in MFT format they're rather pricey.
There's a 20mm 1.7 or a 45mm 1.8 (double them for 35mm equiv) both well over 200 quid, and a Leica 25mm @over 400
The 45 is too long, the 25 too expensive
Sigma also do a 19mm 2.8 and a 30mm 2.8, I can get both for the price of the Panasonic 20.
I can't decide whether to get the more expensive 20 or the 2 sigmas??
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2128
sparrow hawk. lovely. You will get it eventually
its all about lucky timing really.
The one thing I do to help myself out is i have the camera with the long zoom attached
loosely sitting in its bag by the kitchen back door. as thats where im most likey to look out
and see something.
of course, it sometimes has to be quickly run up the stairs to a bedroom window for a shot. then usually left up there
for the next time, when it has to be quickly retrieved. all thw time with me swearing and cursing , maybe fumbling to change a lens. only to find the chosen bird has long gone.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2127
Nice Paul i'v got a sparrow hawk visit my apple tree about half an hour before dusk, can I get a snap can I heck.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2126
Cheers Dave. Tho it was shot in raw. Pp in Lightroom and I used a long tele lens. So some might say
I cheated lol.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2125
Nice Shot Paul
I would love to get a shot of one
|
|
|
|
Got ya!
well happy. even if it was through my sons bedroom window. luckily the glass was clean. he flew off when i opened
it as gently as I could. So i think i made the right decision to take a shot first. ive seen him a few times and allways on the ground.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Anyone else having trouble viewing exif data with flickr, Is this something to do with the recent yahoo hack.
I've checked and double checked too no avail.
Sorted it, found uploading pics through my ipad was problem.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
hi just got myself a cannon g3 with a remote and tripod from fleabay at a bargain price i couldnt refuse the punt.......ive constructed a small box with a spring ect to work the remote with my knee...hate seeing remotes in pics.
qustion for the camera techs on here......how can i get the sexy blurred background ...fish in focus shots with this set up?
read somewhere about no being too close to the tress behind but being quite close to the camera, plus changing settiings in portrait?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2117
thanks for the link all sorted now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
itsm different that it autmaticall focuses each shot ?
Come again?
Each shot focuses with the intervalometer, you can also do exra long exposure shots or just use it as a shutter release, great bit of kit.
I went to get the g3, but they only had the display model and wouldn't do a deal. In a different shop I got the g5 for 30 quid more with 2 class10 cards and a basic cleaning kit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2119
ah i see. with my g3 i always used a cheapo wireless remote which i could focus and then trigger 10 shots using the self timer. ive only just discovered this time lapse. itsm different that it autmaticall focuses each shot ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2118
No it doesn't, just the self timer that locks focus when you push the shutter button, not much use for self takes
I got an intervalometer on Amazon for 20 quid, works very well
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2116
duggs. in the record menu. look for timelapse. you might have it.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2115
Oldfletch click here Not sure if it's any use.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2114
It's a shame they didn't put one in the g5 too!
oldfletch Have you tried fuji's website?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2114
hi all help needed,i have a fuji s20 pro.but i have lost the software would any body know where i can download it free of charge.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2070
intervalometer or intervelometer
however its spelt. after reading our Ken mention it a few times. I googled the term.
Then i checked to see if there is one that work with My panasonic lumix G6. Suprise. it has a built in one
up to 9999 shots over 24 hours from half a sec to 10 minutes apparently.
Should be enough for 3 fish a year LOL
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
If i wanted to take shots of star trails with a building or tree in foreground, how do i achieve this if my camera is pointing towards the stars? do i take a picture of the building / tree first? then adjust camera to the stars? Does anyone know the best settings for camera, i have a canon eos 600d, and any nice dark places out in the sticks near crystal palace to achieve these kind of pictures.
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2111
Nice pic Paul, pin sharp!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2104
could it be the autofocus area is set for multi point and not centre point?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2107
lovely you have certainly brought the colour out
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2104
Just wondered were you using live view
I have found the focusing in live view on my D5100 is very poor in low light.
I have tried using 3 sets of led torches and found this is not enough.
Though not in live view focusing through the lens should be ok with a torch
|
|
|
|
One for Pete P.
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2104
Most SLR's struggle to focus in the dark but if you had a decent head torch pointed at you it should have found focus.
Has the lens been switched to MF (Manual focus) rather than AF (Auto focus)?
Could condensation be a problem? We've has some pretty cold nights lately!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2104
See post 2087' may be the same for 600d
|
|
|
|
Right guys I have a bit of a problem that's come up with my canon 600d needed to take a night shot of my carp the other night. Got a mate to do the honours so set it on auto but when it came to take the shot it would not focus even when another mate shone his head torch on me so it could get a fix it still sturggled to auto focus.
Any tips on how to do night shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2102
Happy new year all
Liking the frog picture Jon
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2099
Thanks Sheridan
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2098
Nice photo again Dave
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2096
lovely shots keebs keep at it
|
|
|
|
Tits for Christmas
Blue
Click for full version
Great
Click for full version
Coal
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2091
Got this fella this afternoon. shot with my xmas pressie panasonic 100-300 lens. 35mm equivalent is 200-600
hand held out of the kitchen window.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2093
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2090
Thanks Sundance they're not just a gimmick then.
That camera is well within my budget, I'll try and have a play with a few.
I'm now looking at the g3, the Nikon 1 s1 and the canon eos m.
Its a first decent camera for me so any advice on what to look for is gratefully received
Edit: doesn't seem to be many dedicated lenses available for the canon, the Panasonic is looking like the kiddie with the best options so far
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2089
Hi Duggs
I use a CSC a panasonic Lumix G3 with some fast primes mostly.
Panasonic and Olympus launched a system called micro four thirds. which describes the size of the mount. They are mirrorless , unlike a DSLR so can be made smaller. more importantly so can the lenses. There is a vast array of lenses now available from both companies . and as they share the same mount they are interchangeable.
Might be worth considering.
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/1041
|
|
|
|
What do you guys think of compact system cameras?
I'm looking to replace my Nikon bridge camera for something faster and more compact.
I'm looking at entry level Canon and Nikon models
All advice appreciated
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2087
Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2086
Canon 650d, nightime self portraits using the LCD , live view.
Go into live view mode, press menu then press AF then select AF Quick.
This will stop the camera struggling in auto focus in low light, by way of a pre flash.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2085
Does the lens hunt in night time conditions or does it find a focus ok. Bloody good picture that.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2084
I don't sorry, only this with the nifty fifty,
These lenses have a very wide appeture, ie opening allowing a lot of light to enter through to the sensor, at a lower f stop no, ie 1.8 wide open. But I can't say I have taken any nightime self takes with this lens, normally for me around 17-20mm small swims.
Please feel free
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2083
Did yours work well in the dark? Any pics you could share ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2082
Be fine, if you already have a kit lense may be worth setting to 50mm and try some test pics.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2081
Was this good at night? As I know you have to stand a fair way back. I do have an external flash a yongnuo 565 do you think this will give me enough power?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2080
I had this lense with the 650d, and for fishing self takes, if you have the space it really is a steal,
F,1.8- 2.2 Blurry background shots F,3-5 pretty sharp
|
|
|
|
|
Hi guys I am after some camera lens advice. I am looking to purchase a canon 50mm 1.8. The camera I am using is 650d. I know it won't be true 50mm as it's a crop body sensor it will be 80mm. Any one used this or give me advice on what lens is best. Thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
I went for the eye fi mobi card, just so that I can look at pics from the slr on my phone or, pad when at home, or whilst on the bank etc, and be able to put the camera away out of harms reach. And perhaps send a pic or two of my most recent captures.
Photos transfer seamlessly, but although classed as a 10 sd card it is slow, and defiantly will affect burst mode.
Another negative is that it doesn't support my canon,s video format of pal or nrtl.
So I won't be getting shot of my ipad card reader just yet.
@ Jon I normally just select medium,
|
|
| | | noj | | Posts: 11459 | | | Social photographer... | |
|
Quick dabble with the new toy...
What size do you chaps select on Flickr to retain full clarity on here?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Quite like the idea of the eye fi sd card, anyone used recommend eye fi mobi or the fx 2?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2075
Yes, 9-O Capture is the kiddie Nikon have suggested. Many thanks!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2073
Just had a quick Google and still none the wiser. Is it still the D70? Are you Mac or Windows?
Check the USB settings and whether your software fully supports the D70, if not I'm sure Aperture does, Nikon Capture will definitely work and there are probably loads of Windows programs about for a few quid. Try the Nikon service people , they are excellent.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2072
Cheers Roman. lucky with Good light. Shot with a Panasonic lumix g3 and a 45mm 1.8 Olympus prime lens. Shot raw processed with Lightroom 4. 45mm on my system is 90mm on 35 film or full frame dslr.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2071
How are you sending it at the moment?
By camera-to-laptop cable.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2069
How sharp is that image
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2070
How are you sending it at the moment?
Not something I use but you could shoot tethered to Lightroom or use a wifi enabled SD card such as the Toshiba FlashAir or Eye-Fi Mobi. Both methods should give you the full res pics on your laptop.
|
|
|
|
Bit of help needed, please.
I use an intervalometer on my Nikon for self takes and normally fire off 10 shots at a time five of each side. Just to be sure, before I return the carp, I check the camera for framing, exposure and focus. While these are generally OK, I would ideally like to send the pix to my laptop so I can check each pic as it is taken.
At present I can send the pix directly to the laptop and to the DCIM>100 folder but only as a thumbnail.
Is there a way that I can get the pic to open as a full file screen image on the laptop as soon as the shot is taken? In this way I can check everything without putting the fish down or going back to the camera to check everything is OK.
I know there is an app for modern phones, ipads etc, but I am still stuck in the dark ages; the laptop is as modern as I get!
|
|
|
|
we are dog sitting again....
|
|
|
|
17 months and finally got somehting half decent of the jay.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2060
My apologies lol. trouble with my iMac. sorted now. i did manage to paste in all the posts the same picture
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2060
Acorns work as well as boilies
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2059
thanks a lot for the kind words guys. these next two were easier. i took advantage of some lovely golden light this afternoon just before the sun went down,
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2058
Green Woodies are real bugger to get close to. Any photo is a result - superb garden visitor.
Never had one here so bit jealous really and it's not like we're short of ants!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2057
Is it? I'm sorry I can't see the red on the nape of the neck on my screen so I thought it was a male. I get them feeding on my peanut feeder in my garden too and if I'm really lucky I get to see a Green Woodpecker in the garden digging for ants. I will have to find my best pics and post one up here. Hopefully it will match the quality of all the other posts
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2056
Male Woody - it has red on the back of the neck.
Very nice Paul
Got a female visiting my back garden lately for the peanuts.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2054
Lovely shot of a female woodie there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2054
nice shot of a great spotted woodpecker well done nice photo
|
|
|
|
after a year of the odd sighting. finally got a pic of this chap in the garden:
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2052
Thanks John
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2051
Considering its early days I would be dead chuffed with these results. Looks like you made the right choice and wish you luck with it in the future
|
|
|
|
Hi lads, ended up buying the tamron 90mm. So far I am very pleased with it and managed to get a few good shots that i feel are worthy on here looking at them on here is not quite the same as full screen, but its good enough
  width=500>
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2048
Hi Andy
I am a fan of Tamron lenses which are a tad underrated. My 75-300 half life size is a good one. On the question of who do you buy a macro lens from that’s a difficult one. There are a lot of on-line traders who deal in grey imports and they are usually priced way below the UK price.
There is a risk and I guess it depends if you feel it is one worth taking. That’s about all I can say about this as I am undecided.
As to choice of macro for me a shortlist would contain a Canon 100mm, (the bog standard one) I would look long and hard at the Tamron, as I fancy in the lower price bracket it is a good one. In the upper price bracket it would be the Canon MP65. My choice of macro is swayed because I own macro lenses so ease of use would be a consideration, my main macro lens is a manual.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2048
Looks the same Andy to me, Cross checked the model no and it seems to be same model, good price
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2046
Hi guys, I have been doing some more research seeing as you reccomend the tamron.
I found this lens on jessops, which seems to be the standard uk price at £369
But I have also found the same lens from digitalrev (grey import company) which is priced at £220
Without sounding like a doughnut, can you guys help me confirm that this is the same lens as its a heck of a lot cheaper! Also have any of you used this company before, it's got hundreds of good reviews but it's always nice to hear it from someone you know.
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/products/tamron/90mm-f2-8-sp-di-macro-1-1-canon-af--29447/show.html
http://www.digitalrev.com/product/tamron-sp-af-90mm-f/Mzcz
Sorry not sure how to do links
Thanks for your help over the last few days btw
|
|
|
|
Any of you like an incident light meter attachment for your iPhone 4/4S?
Luxi
I ordered one of these, promptly forgot about it and upgraded my phone. It is still in the blister pack.
Incident light readings are very useful as they measure the light falling on your subject, not the reflected light which can sometimes cause errors in exposure. This was going to save a bit of space in my camera bag.
£20 posted.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2043
Thanks for the link ev
I used an old Pringles tube for mine, these are ideal as they are foil lined ;-)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2044
Thanks Jeffery, I'll add you now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2042
The Canon 100mm USM is a good choice as is the Tamron. My flickr page is a mixture of flower macro's and insects, mainly taken with vintage lenses details are johnt2012 if you fancy a look.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2041
Thnaks for posting dave I was looking at the canon ef 100mm usm so much cheaper than the one with is, I haven't found a bad word about it so I reckon I will go for that as I do use the 18-55mm for general use. I'm glad you dont need a ring flash for every shot, but will be something I shall buy in the future hopefully. If you didnt realise I added you on Flickr last night, you have a very impressive portfolio
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2033
Thanks Andy, Yes i shoot all my Macros hand held using my Nikkor 105mm f.2.8 vr micro. The Canon 100mm is a brilliant though expensive lens, For cheaper the tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 is great or could always go down the reverse lens route and john can help you out with some good advice
No you don't have to have a ring flash i only used a simple diffuser on a secondhand SB400 unit untill recently went i went mad and bought a very expensive Nikon R1C1 system.
People tend to use and rely on to much flash with macro sometimes. Though you do need extra light in most 1to1 shots i like to up the iso and use as much natural light as possible.
You can even make a fairly good diffuser to take enough light from your built in flash to the subject for usable depth. I made something very similar to this
http://blog.crispian.org/2012/03/home-made-macro-flash-diffusers.html
Never could figure out how to link web pages on here lol. Pictures are easy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2038
Many thanks for posting, certainly a improvement. Will definitely give this a try when I'm feeling brave enough!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2037
  width=500>
Shot 1 shows lens reversed. Shot 2 shows the much magnified image Shot 3 shows the largest image you can get with the lens used the normal way
Take your 18-55mm lens off the camera and turn it around so that the front of the lens is now facing the camera body. Set the zoom at 55mm. carefully place the lens against the body and have a look through the viewfinder.
Chose an object with some detail and move the body and lens backwards and forwards until it comes into sharp focus.
This is called reverse lens and to attach the lens to the body you need a `reversing ring` which has a male screw thread on one side and a Canon EOS mount on the other. One side screws into the filter mount on the lens and then mounts onto the camera.
As you are using an electric lens there is no way you can set an aperture on it. The aperture is set on the body and the contacts in lens and body talk to each other which sets the aperture on the lens.
As you have broken that contact, that can’t happen but you can trick the lens into setting and keeping an aperture set and retained when the lens is taken off the camera’
Put the camera into AV mode and set an aperture f8 is a good choice
 width=500>
On the camera body there is a small button called `Depth of Field Preview Button` ( the button manually stops the lens down to the aperture set)
Keeping the button pressed in, dismount the lens from the camera.
You now have a lens set at the aperture you have selected and it will retain that setting until you mount the lens again.
When the lens is mounted either in reversed lens mode or using manual extension tubes or a set of bellows the camera will match a speed which allows for an appropriate exposure.
The slight downside is that the image seen in the viewfinder will be darker because you are looking through a smaller aperture than if the lens was in full auto mode at maximum aperture. A middle of the road aperture does overcome this situation to a great extent.
Cost of a reversing ring around £5UK, Cost of manual extension tubes around £15 UK.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2036
I use a canon 600d, so hopefully I have the right one as £5 is a bit cheaper than £400!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2035
Your welcome Andrew. What camera do you use? as there is a tweak with Canon models that gets you approaching 1/1 lifesize with the 18-55mm lens for around £5
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2034
That's great! Many thanks Jeff just shows you dont have to spend a fortune, hopefully i will be uploading some pics here soon.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2033
Hi Andrew
If you are looking at insect macro’s then they are taken hand held. A tripod is useful for stationary objects such as flowers. You can get some much needed stability from using a mono pod but generally it’s hand held.
You do not need to buy a ring flash for macro photography. They are expensive although you can get an LED version off the bay for less than £20. A ring flash gives shadow less lighting and delivers the light directly onto the subject but the lighting is very flat and tends to give less contrast.
I own a ring flash but seldom use it preferring to use a Canon 430 ex with a diffuser attached which is a standard outfit amongst macro people.
 width=500>
The lens in the picture is a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 Macro in FD mount adapted to Canon EOS mount. It's 30 years old and I paid £80 for it off the bay and it does this
 width=500>
It also works quite nicely with flowers
 width=500
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2025
Some great macro shots Dave! also I have a few questions if you wouldn't mind answering them, or anyone else who does macro photography:
Is most of your shots done handheld, or done using a tripod? Also do you find a ring flash is essential for macro shots as I'm looking at purchasing my first dedicated macro lens which aren't exactly cheap and I'm hoping I don't have to splash out a large amount of cash for a ring flash also, I plan on shooting insects/flowers predominantly outside if that helps.
Thanks in advance, Andrew.
|
|
|
|
One from today
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2030
loving this gizmo on my camera. 'blue is the colour'
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2029
quite like this one, if i say so myself
|
|
|
|
did know i could set my camera to only pick up certain colours
|
|
|
|
Have a look at BBC iplayer guys.
'Wild Camera men at work'
It is a good watch.
Presented by David Attenborough.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2026
Thanks Pete
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2025
All I can say is brilliant photo Dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2024
Many Thanks Shed
I have been taking some nice shots recently.
Heres another
|
|
|
|
|
Some nice pictures there David.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2022
Top tip mate. On my Sony the aperture mode is on the M setting. Will have a play. Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2021
Dodge. Can u shot in aperture priority mode, often A on the camera? If so use that and set the aperture number a bit higher than it is so if its at 2 or 3 and the third reel is blurring up it to 5 or 6 and try it. You will be lowering the aperture by making the numbers higher (confusing I know).
This will give a a larger depth of field less light will be let in tho so the camera wil take care if that by lowering the shutter speed or raising the iso or a bit of both.
|
|
|
|
This will sound stupid or thick, maybe both anyway.....
Best way to put this.........When I take a photo of my reels together the one furthest away is out of focus compared to the nearest! Is there anyway this can be sorted so all 3 are in focus? Its a sony hx20v
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Many Thanks
Managed another in-flight today, this time over a Buddleia
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
so is there no longer a photography comp on here or what?! haha
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2016
Very impressive Dave - I've tried for those a good few times and they are very frustrating indeed!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2015
Love it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
In-filght
Hoverfly
|
|
|
|
Not posted for a while but here a couple of recent shots
Light painting with laser pen
Damsel fly
|
|
|
|
|
Mite be old news for some, but I was in currys yesterday's and was told Sony have stopped make cameras now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2012
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2011
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2010
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi,
Does anyone know what kit I need to to do self takes, ie; hold the little remote in my hand whilst holding the fish...
Ive seen people in magazines do this and it looks handy for when you are fishing alone.
Ive got a Fuji finepix HS20 if that means anything!
Any help appreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Nut Weevil
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Been visiting my garden last few days, pidgeon...?
|
|
|
|
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2004
Very nice Tufty - caught the eye well too.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2003
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2002
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2000
yep so I've been told. I was down the docks today at work, well had to be there to keep the welder company as it were.
took a few gull shots as well.
.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1998
Well well well, it never rains , you are lucky you get them in your garden!, nice shot will have to get out there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1999
Very nice - Turnstone?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1998
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1997
Here's a Warbler (Blackcap) for you Ev - just happened to be in the back garden with the camera at the right time when he popped in. His Mrs was in 5 minutes later but I'd gone in for a cuppa by then.
Click for full version
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1996
Like the wagtails. Keebs,
60srules , I have the full suit of topaz, use this along with aperture, but finding topaz just seams to get a bit noisey?. Guess I will keep plugging away, aim to get. The warblers on a local lake any tips pm if you like
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1995
Topaz Denoise is a brilliant bit of software, all my shots get run through it to some degree.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1993
Hi Jason
I see you mentioned using Topaz software. Are you using their `In Focus` and or `Detail 3`?, both are good but due to the amount of control you have it takes a while to balance all the adjustments and get the result you were looking for.
Their noise reduction programme Topaz `DeNoise` can take the edge off image sharpness but detail can be brought back with intelligent use of the sliders
A very quick fix which boosts sharpness in a simple step is the `Smart Sharpen` feature in Photoshop
|
|
|
|
Some nice work there lads.
Ev - TC's always lose a bit of image quality but they are pretty sharp mate, I think you can probably get rid of more of that noise with some practice.
Got this pair of Wagtails by the garden pond every day now, they are nesting nearby.
Click for full versions
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1992
Cheers Dave
Little soft trying to get the hang of topaz but not sure if its down to lens and 1.4x converter and d300
Like the wide shots
So what's the lens??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Lovely Tit shots ev
Been getting the hang of my new ultra wide
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1990
Thanks,
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1989
That's just how photobucket deals with the image, better to get a flicker account you will not suffer image softening
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1988
Just a question
When I upload to photobucket, pics seem to loose some sharpness, is there a way around this?
Nice ev
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Not the best shot, its taken from my garden. Had to zoom rite in and try hold it steady.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
My quick release plate attached to a storm pole worked fine, and was left in situ throuought the session.
Appreciate you could with a tripod, felt a bit overdressed.
Had a couple of smaller commons, one of which was very lively and whilst holding the lively fish plus camera remote with thumb and forefinger, can be a bit of a job presenting the fish upright and square too the camera.
So a Yongnuo MC-36/C1 intervalometer is on route.
This will work with yours daffy.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1983
Great photo keebs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
need some help looking for a new camera for self takes with remote and fkip lcd screen any help would be great looking for second hand
|
|
|
|
Bit quiet here lately...
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1980
Daffy,
I use the giga t pro remote release (http://www.hahnel.ie/index.cfm?page=dslrremotecontrols&pId=60) which works really well. Can set it either to use as a remote (same as pressing the shutter release) or to take a number of shots at any frequency you like (so one every 2 seconds for 50 shots). The latter is very useful as you can just set it going then go back to the fish and pick it up, turn it round etc. Not the cheapest option but very powerful. You can also use it for time lapse photos, star trails ad load of other photography uses.
Re fill flash there are loads of portrait photography blogs and examples out there. I use a phottix 5 in 1 reflector to help balance out harsh shadows (rather than a flash) which is also worth playing with. I find the flash can reflect too much of the fish (assuming the flash is on the camera) and being outdoors it's often pretty hard to bounce the flash.
Most of all keep snapping!
Matt
https://www.facebook.com/Anglingimagesuk
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1980
Canon 650D
Manual mode pop up the flash, and the flash dictates the exposure
In your quick menu, flash exposure + or - to adjust.
You may be able to save you flash settings in programme mode, not sure.
All well and good behind the camera, but hurried self takes I use automatic settings, then adjust at home.
Canon RC6 remote with rubber band attached to finger?
Search fill in flash then cameralabs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1979
Just treated myself to a entire new camera kit, and wanted to pick the brains of you camera experts! This is for self take catch pictures.
I used to use the canon S5is, I would set up self timer, flip the screen round and then fire off 10 shots to get my pics.
I now have a Canon 60D with a 430 EXii flash, using a 50mm lens.
So my questions are these.
What would people recommend as a self take setup? I have seen the YONGNUO Wireless Remote Control mentioned on here. Would like to know what model to use and how best to use it?
I did try and use a infra red remote once before with my Canon G5 but really struggled to use it along with a handful of carp!
The second question is regarding fill in flash. Can anyone again tell me how to setup a fill in flash to use during the day with my setup?
Im guessing a lot of the DSLR Canons have similar features, so hopefully someone can help.
cheers.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1976
Lovely perch and really crisp image.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1977
Keep looking around mate If you have access to London take your cash and wave it in front of the Tottenham Court Rd shops.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Anyone used wex photography. After a canon 18-135 STM lens. Good bad service?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1975
Some cracking shots on here lads.
Here's a few of my recent efforts.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
A shot of the M25 , with a nice red sky .
would have been nicer if there was more brake lights to add a red streak , but there was a break in traffic !
Camera - Nikon D5100
|
|
|
|
Just trying something out  panoramic shot! A steady hand is needed I guess!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1970
Thanks for that heads up mate. Nice one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1971
Try Pixlr.com, most of what you need and it's free or PicMonkey mostly free. For something a tad more pro try GIMP, not that user friendly but does work
|
|
|
|
|
Any users of Picasa on here? Just need a tool for simple editing and correction. Would consider other recommendations and not adverse to spending a few quid if it will benefit me.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1969
Dodge have a look on you tube, under your camera model tutorials reviews
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1968
Bad weather so far has halted the close ups, rain last weekend and now its snowed on and off last two days
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1965
You should be able to get well exposed and sharp images with this camera, Half the battle is in the composition which makes a huge difference. Wish you luck and look forward to seeing the results.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1966
Nice one Ken. Adapters are available in Nikon mounts. Worth a search on the web. Be careful as some specify certain models and most suppliers are overseas.
|
|
|
|
|
Just come by three Yashica/Contax film SLRs and six lenses. Not worth a candle by all accounts but anybody know if there are any modern digi bodies that might accept the lenses? Got a very nice Contax 24mm f2 which is crying out for a good body to sit on (if you get my drift).
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1964
Thank you. If i get chance over the weekend ill try it out and get them up
My camara mite not be the best for taking the said shots tho I'll give it a try tho.
Sony hx20
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1963
The shots you describe are usually taken in a typical fishing situation with a background which is the swim.
For something different try taking the shots from a number of angles to give a bit of interest. Using a larger aperture will give an out of focus background which concentrates the eve on the object you are photographing.
It is important to decide what type of shot you are looking for. A shot of a reel leans more towards the product side of things where a general shot of the equipment in use is something different.
One thing to watch out for is that you look at what is featuring in the shot as well as what it is you are photographing. I have seen one shot of a set up spoilt by the porn mag left hanging around on a bedchair.
|
|
|
|
Help/tips with close up tackle shots please
When taking pics of things like alarms/reels/hangers etc, is there a good background to have in the shot? I know it wont be see as such, but it will be in the shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1961
Yeh I read a few of the reviews a while back, I think il try borrowing a card first like you say.
Shame really that the only thing I don't like about it, or that and the fact nikkon bring out a new version of it every 6 months.
More research next time I think
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1960
Just read a few online reviews of it and you're not the only one to complain about it's speed by a long way!
Looks like it's just a very slow camera I'm afraid. If you can borrow a faster card from someone just to see if it makes a difference then it's worth a try.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1959
Thanks for the reply
It's a nikon l110 bridge camera 12mp and I usually just grab cheap sd cards when I need them from supermarkets etc
So I should choose one with a high write speed, does the storage size make any difference to speed?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1958
Quite possibly will make a difference, the write speed of the card and the size of the file you are trying to write to it will determine how soon your camera is ready for the next shot.
What camera are you using? What type of card do you have?
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, I'm hoping you can help me
I find my camera really slow in the higher quality settings, 6-8 seconds per shot, before i splash out on an expensive memory card, will it actually make much difference?
|
|
|
|
Got lucky after a lot of trying with these shots
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1955
Join the club mate we all are. This shot would benifit from some post production to sort out some small issues but as it stands it is OK for me. They get better the more you take
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
I'm still learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1952
Thanks for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1948
Hi paul, any chance you could post up the settings on those last 3 pics please?
Im really getting the bug to increase my knowledge of photography, so any insights into the sorts
of pictures that I would like to take would be great.
Hopefully will be upgrading to a canon 60D from my other canon, so with time hope to get shots like those!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1948
Super shots Keebs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1948
 ,
|
|
|
|
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1944
Super quality keebs 7ds looking great
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1944
good photo keebs
|
|
|
|
Upgraded to a 7D - very very happy indeed
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1942
Thanks Jeff,
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1941
Compacts have a lot to recommend them but for me a DSLR offers much more scope in terms of features and quality.
There has been quite a lot of discussion on this subject in past posts. On the size front DSLR have got a lot smaller in recent years. The current crop are around the size of the old praktica and in some cases are smaller. The modern lens fitted to these bodies is usually an 18-55mm zoom which is bigger than the normal manual 50mm which usually came with the 35mm cameras.
Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Anyone had any experience with a sony NEX 5r camera, am i throwing away money, would i be better off with a slr, just seem so big nowadays compared to my old praktica?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1939
I have, hell their fast lol
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1938
"Yes got lucky with this shot as my Sigma actually locked on just before he flew off lol"
You should try Goldcrests!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1937
Thanks Keebs
Yes got lucky with this shot as my Sigma actually locked on just before he flew off lol, They are fantastic to watch as they work their way round the lakes, Also my favourite small bird
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1936
Excellent shot Dave - those little sods won't sit still for a second!
My favourite british bird
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Received an e mail today from Amazon.
They have Adobe photoshop elements 11 for £32.97.
Offer ends 11.59pm 10th December 2012.
Looks like a bargain!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1933
snowball dog
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1932
Thanks the d5100 does look good! I'll take your advice. Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1929
Also mate , if your not too sure about whether or not to buy a dslr , the D5100 has a built in feature where yo can press a question mark button , which explains in understandable terms what ever you are about to do or a certain option you may be hovering over . great dslr , for first time dlsr users
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Second that the D5100 is a Great self take camera and following the D5200 release its also a great bargain now, With standerd 18-55 lens its only £370 including cash back at Wex photographic
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1929
the d5100 from Nikon has a rotating screen , so you can see and position your self when you have a fish to get the best shot , ad you can get a standard IR remote to control it remotely .i have one and highly reccomend it
nikon d5100
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1915
Hi, looking to buy a decent camera maybe an slr, mainly fish by myself, so mainly want it to take self shots, so would need decent self timer or remote and flip around screen would be useful, don't want it to break the bank, and reccomendations?
|
|
|
|
Techy question but please PM rather than ramble away.
I've been looking at a Canon 650d although now seen the 600d at a knock down price on Amazon. I'm looking at taking stills as well as playing around with hd video. Is the extra price tag for the 650d really worth it? The immediate difference I can see is the touch screen.
Be interesting to here from some users on here who have either.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1926
|
|
|
|
Hi all. What does 'Cyber-shot' mean?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1922
ok thanks 60 rules
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1923
Catchlight from the sun Ken, the lens was probably about 25 - 30 yards away - but she's looking at me alright, I reckon I disturbed the end of her meal when crossing the river and entering the field.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1920
That froggy's courting days are over, that's for sure.
Love the way the bird's eye seems to be looking at the camera. Possibly a glint off the lens?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1921
Good question Paul. Most of the internet dealers stick to the price you see in their online shops. They often don’t have anywhere where you can meet them face to face, only having a distribution network.
As a rule of thumb the high street multiple dealers don’t have authority to alter price, so a deal is doubtful.
Some of the chains advertise an `on-line price` special. If you go into the branch you get quoted their normal book price which is higher so it pays to point out the difference. I did this recently and the salesman used the shop computer to log on as me and placed the order for me to pay and collect at the branch.
There are still a number of small independents who although they don’t have the purchasing power of the larger chains the will do deals if they think you are not wasting their time. If they can’t match the price they will sometimes do very good deals on accessories which you would have brought anyway, usually at full price. Think big picture.
There are some on-line dealers who are based overseas and post some huge savings. Often the price is low because there is no VAT or import duty quoted. The item is sometimes not covered by the UK dealer/supplier guarantee network. Make sure you know the final delivered to your door price.
There are a few overseas dealers who supply from UK sources. They say their quoted price is the price you pay. They also say that any problems/repairs are handled in the UK. They don’t say if the products are `Grey Imports`
If you are in a hurry you will probably cost yourself money. Take your time and shop around. I am fortunate that I live close to the capital and can shop in Tottenham Court Road, which is full of independents who will do a deal. Cash works, wave it under their nose and make it clear that you will do a deal today if they can come up with a price or near what you have in mind. Also don’t forget the accessories such as a memory card. Big margins on this type of accessory so they can do a big discount.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1920
nice
what shops/ websites do people buy their gear from??? and are they up for a bit of haggling???
cheers in advance, mainly use wex myself but feel they dont like to look after their customers
|
|
|
|
Madame Kestrelle
I assume she's French with a meal of frog's legs
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1918
Thanks tufty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1917
stunning, so sharp, love the background
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1914
Thanks Ken, you have my reply in PM form
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1913
John: I have deleted that thread...and you have PM
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1911
Hi Russ I have posted a reply on Camera Tips,Tricks & Image Enhancement which is in the `Non Carp Section`
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1911
Such is life, was thinking of starting a thread in the non carp section for topics like; camera tips and tricks, image processing and the like as a lot of people are asking questions in all kind of threads. Information is key and that's what a forum is about. As long as it is in the right place and does not offend the powers that be.
Not sure about the Nikon I will get back to you
|
|
|
|
Nice one Ken killed that What Camera thread stone dead locking it. could have just told them to keep the thread on track
So to carry on with chaps can anyone tell me which other camera is on par with the nikon 5100 it looks a great bit of kit but no remote control with it like the canons have
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1909
I didn't see it that way but I do now
This was taken on my mobile....not bad for a HTC
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1908
The jet trail and the rising sun looks like a missile strike. Nice job though
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Taken a few mins ago by the Millenium Bridge before I start work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1903
Loving the chaos in your photo mate, can really get a sense of the moment!
|
|
|
|
Surprised there's not a few firework shots on here yet! Here's a couple that I bagged last night, not great as they were out of my loft skylight!
The last picture was the result of me giving up on the fireworks, and aiming for a decent shot of Jupiter, just with a standard 250mm zoom lens. Came out ok considering, but can anyone verify that it's Saturn at the bottom of the picture? It sure looks like it! I didn't even know it was there until I uploaded my photo's to the PC. No editing at all, apart from cropping.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1903
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1903
Clear as day
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1898
Fingers crossed you're now seeing the pic
Thanks for the advice.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1901
Thanks mate, that's very helpful
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1899
Just a quick one all, what settings do you use for taking pics of fireworks?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1898
Checked my inbox, 2 messages of help. Cheers guys, will try again later using instructions and if that fails I'll call
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1897
Check your pm inbox!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1894
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1893
Photobucket murders your images. Use Flickr for better sharper images
|
|
|
|
Hi all. Apart from photobucket, is there another good simple to use site?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1891
Nice pictures Storming.
Lovely Dragon Shots all on black
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1887
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1888
Mite be an idea for me to try it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1882
Hi all. When taking a video on a camara, can you 'still frame'(on play back) it and take a pic of that frame'
it can be done but i have found the image quality of te single frame poor.
might just be my camcorder though and might be better on the newer higher resolution camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1885
Very cool pics them
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1885
yes it was you I was looking for, many thanks pm sent
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1884
it may have been me is it these
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1883
Hello guys, at the beginning of the year someone had posted some pics of delkims, big pit reels and rods in silouette against a sunset sky, I cannot find them on the thread anymore and would like to talk to the photographer, can you pm me if you know who it was or if it was you, many thanks steve
|
|
|
|
Not posted any pics for a while so here's a couple from yesterday.
 >
|
|
|
|
Hi all. When taking a video on a camara, can you 'still frame'(on play back) it and take a pic of that frame'
cheers d
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1880
Certainly beats the old clothes peg with a cat-bell on it
Well done Norman.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1879
if it was, that avian accessory would be hard to beat.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1876
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1875
20 years trying and when it finally happens one of your reel handles is out of alignment!
Nice one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1875
Nice Shot Storming
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1871
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1867
nice one keebs wandered where you had got to
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1869
two amazing photos from the space station , a long exposure of the earth spinnig round , apparently the orange lines are cities of the world rotating , my favourite photos easy !!! more info on photos
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1867
Well spotted, nice shot Keebs
|
|
|
|
Not put any up for a while so here's one from today. The local Red Kites seem to have bred successfully this year, this one's a young 'un.
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1864
Very much alive mate, since they band imports bird prices have gone through the roof.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1863
Having fun is what it is all about. I guess the camera has some effects on board. As it’s early days you would not probably have thought about image enhancing software, that is best left until you are producing great capturers in their own rite
But when you open your J Pegs in Windows Photo Gallery if that’s your default setting have a look at the FIX setting which is on the top bar. It is a basic programme which allows quite a lot of adjustments to be made to an image.
Try running the new cat image through it and reduce the brightness and add a bit of contrast think you will see a very different image
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1862
#1862 17 Sept 2012 at 9.26am Reply to this post
In reply to Post #1861
Stick a net over them they are worth a few bob
Dead OR alive?
|
|
|
|
Just had a play with my camara and put the 'illustation effect' on this pic 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1861
Stick a net over them they are worth a few bob
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1860
unwelcome visitors
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1849
cheers paul and jeff. the new house backs onto ancient woodland so we are getting all manner of
birds in. Im waiting to get a pic of a jay, but he swoops in and then is gone in 2 seconds.
and the nuthatch will face most other birds off. here he is giving a robin the evils:
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1858
Difficult to say Dodge because I am not familiar with the menus of this model. Some controls will increase the brightness of the screen.
You are looking for a control that retains the auto exposure feature but allows you to tweak the setting. Try a test shot and play with the feature you should see the image getting darker or lighter
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1857
This AV setting!!!!!! I have a button thats says 'custom', when pressed it comes up on the screen........................................'EV' adjust image brightness (+) and darkness (-). Is this what you on about jeffery?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1856
Of the three the last one is the best of the bunch. Try being a bit boulder in your range of adjustments
The camera should have an AV setting, You only take one shot this time but you can override the exposure by decreasing it or increasing it.
Try setting a couple of clicks to the left side,the – side and see the difference on an auto setting. In strong sunlight the exposure should be a bit darker and more detail will show up.
|
|
|
|
What do you think jeffrey? I'd go for the 3rd pic (bottom one).
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1854
I've just taken a pic using BRK (3 shots) I'll get it up later on mate. Mite be best if i make them smaller, about 300! Should be able to see the difference better
|
|
|
|
This is one use of using bracketed exposures. In this instance the 3 images are loaded into a HDR programme (Photomatix Pro) and using a process called `Tone Mapping` this type of image can be produced.
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1852
That’s right mate the flash is a no no on this one. The trick is to set the amount of under and overexposure small to start with
One thing to watch is that when the camera is turned off it normally reverts to a single exposure.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1850
Yer i found it, its called the BRK setting. cant use the flash tho when its on BRK
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1848
Nice shot Paul. I saw a nice tip the other day where a twig is attached to the feeder. When the bird lands on it you do your bit and the feeder is not in shot and looks more natural. Going to give that a try.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1847
7.15, nothing wrong with being keen, nice overall exposure and good detail. The shrub shot can be difficult because you have a lot of depth and different lighting conditions and a range of colours. The eye can get confused and you end up not sure what you are looking at.
Not sure about your camera but there may be a feature that allows you to take 3 shots automatically with the first shot an overall exposure, the second shot is underexposed and the third is overexposed. You can then decide which one looks better.
A tripod is good news on the longer exposures but can be a bit slow in setting up a shot. A monopod, especially when using a bigger zoom will steady things up and allow you more freedom of movement.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1848
Lovely Nutty pose Paul Great bird to get in your garden, great little characters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now this one was taken again this morning & on auto but from 23feet away useing the 20x optical zoom. Im quite happy with the quality of the zoom Im sure putting it on the tripod would have helped more.
|
|
|
|
Took this at 7.15am this morning. Sorry the pic is abit  Just trying things out.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1844
Cheers for that pal. I'll check that out in the morning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1843
Great start mate. On the auto setting most cameras seem to overexpose in bright light and when taking close up shots of say flowers. The end result is that they burn off some detail. If this shot was a bit darker the detail would show up.
I normally correct this in post production with Photoshop or the like. A quick fix is to set the camera to underexpose usually an AV setting button.
I know the camera is new and it has a huge instruction book but make this the first thing you look up and find out how to do as it will effect most shots you take on the auto setting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1842
Cheers pal. Its only a small camara but boy it can do a fair bit. Just need to spend time with it and find out what's what. Got a pretty zoom on it IMO. Try get more up soon.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1841
Nice colours dodge
|
|
|
|
just trying my new sony dsc hx20v, 18.2mega pix,20x optical zoom out (if all that means anything).
Took pic on standard auto setting.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1839
10-4 I'm on it thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1838
Nice one, looking forward to seeing the results. A word of caution it has a very large tele lens on it which at the top end needs a lot of support otherwise you will get the dreaded camera shake
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1837
Thank you for your reply mate. To cut along story short, I've got this camara without really looking into it the rite way . Its coming 2moro so I hope to get some pics up soon and have a play with it. Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1834
Hi Dodge, in many respects the answer to your question is possibly. Sony are fairly new to the camera market in respect of the brand leaders who have been producing high end cameras for over 40 years.
I would recommend both Canon and Nikon without hesitation as both brands have a reputation for producing exceptional cameras, even at the entry level.
As ever try a Sony out, explain what you want to achieve with the camera, both now and in the future and hopefully an informed sales person will give you the answers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1835
I use apples Aperture on my iMac it doesn't do everything you can do with photoshop though it isn't bad for enhancing and touching up. For further editing such as layers copying and pasting etc i use Gimp which is a free download.
I also still have the view NX 2 installed, Yes it is a bit basic but good software and all i used before getting my IMac. With most shots you only need to crop tweak the sharpness contrast saturation and shadowing and you can do this easily with view nx
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1833
ok mate good shots , ,do you use any editing software ??? ive been using the nx2 that came with the camera but it is quite basic ...??
|
|
|
|
Thought this question would be best in here
Only a quick one lads....Is the SONY HX200 a fairly good camara?
Thanks guys
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1832
Yes with D5100 using my Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 vr micro settings were iso100 f/25 1/160 manual with fillin flash using simple homemade diffuser attached to my standard SB400 flash on the top two close-ups
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1831
thanks mate , yeah it is a good camera i got mine at trade price luckily , with the standard 18-55mm lens .
were the photos of the fly on the line with the d5100 ??? what lens do you use with it ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1830
Thanks matt
nice shots ollie, nice focus on the purple flower
D5100 great camera traded in my D5000 for one in May, The price has come down so much since i have been thinking about getting a second body.
Only £384 at Wex photographic
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1829
few snaps with my new camera- nikon d5100
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1828
quality pics
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1827
Thanks pete
A couple of common darters took a liking to our washing line yesterday, had to take a few shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1824
nice one dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1824
nice one dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1824
nice one dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1823
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1820
lovely clear underwater capture
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1820
wow , nice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1816
Beautiful colours on that mate, they complement one another good work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1817
Thanks Jason
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1816
that 105 is looking good dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1815
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1814
cheers jeff
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1813
Hi Ev
Nice set of capturers mate
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1812
cheers just put some more images up on flickr, click on photo to redirect
cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1811
Nice HDR mate
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1810
heres one from the last time i was out fishing
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Hi guys
I've been doing a lot of night fishing lately and have had a few problems with red haze on the photos with he fish.if I take a photo without the fish in a pitch black it comes up fine.is this the reflection of the flash on a wet fish or is there another answer?
Even though I'm taking the pictures on a I phone I think it should be good enough to cope?
Thanks simon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1808
nice photos
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1806
Thanks dave, I was very pleased with they way it turned out, wasn't the idealist lens for the job but I am pleased with the result
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1805
Nice shots Andy, good detail
|
|
|
|
Had this big bugger flying around my head all day!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woke one morning to a few drops on the bivvy so snapped a photo of it. Looked quite nice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1801
Lol thanks john, phoned camera shop sounds like i might be without my camera for a couple of weeks bugger. Will have to blow the mothballs off my old G6
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1799
Sounds like good news. Most young teenage cameras get spots Dave, part of growing up mate. Mine has hairs under its arms as well
On a serious note your camera does spend some time on the bank which is not the most gunge free environment when you think about it. Get the spots analysed bet they are `cell`
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Just found out nikon and canon do one free sensor clean under warenty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1798
Thanks matt and john, yes i will see about getting ot cleaned next time im in camera shop. Only had it couple of months cant belive ive got spots already
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1796
Hi Dave, I have considered cleaning the sensor as part of routine maintenance, not sure if it needs it. I think that Matt’s advice is worth taking on board. A good kit seems to cost around the same price of getting it done professionally.
I would hate to write off a camera for the sake of DIY when the fix could be a lot less than 10% of the camera cost.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1796
I really wouldn't try doing it yourself. The sensor is easily knackered and if you damage it you will be buying a new camera. I get mine cleaned when it needs it for about £50 (I think). This way I am covered if it is wrecked. I know of large photographic departments that considered training someone to clean sensors but soon realised that one mistake would wipe out all the savings. The job requires practice and a lightness of touch and is really best left to someone that has had plenty of experience.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1795
Thanks John, I seem to have a couple of spots of dirt appeared on my D5100 sensor, tried blowing it off without success, thinking about buying a swab kit, wonder if you've had to clean any of yours in the past
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1792
The detail on that head is very good, don’t think it could be better. Nice one Dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1793
Thanks Pete.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1792
Great photography dave
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1790
Green, green grass of home.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1789
wales in the rain
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1788
Thanks Andrew I like this one as well
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1786
Cheers mate.
And I think that bluebottle or what ever it is? Is your best macro shot yet Jeffrey
|
|
|
|
Taken with a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 Macro in Canon FD mount, adapted to Canon EOS
 width=500>
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1784
sigma 120 - 400, nikon d7000, thanks
|
|
|
|
Blimey, you can almost see apollo 11's tyre tracks !!!
Awesome pic !!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1783
What lens did you use to take that shot? Cracking picture btw
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1782
last night moon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1780
Hi Dodge
First of many I hope. Photobucket tends to muller your images, upload them to flickr and the results are loads sharper
If you are not up to speed on getting images on the forum drop me a PM and i will take you through it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1780
|
|
|
|
http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd381/dodge411/002-3.jpg
First post for me on this thread. No special camara used, just a 5 year old fujifilm A820 8.3 mega pixel
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1778
So you should mate. Nice capturers best so far IMO
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1776
No worries Pete
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1775
Excellent, Thanks Alex.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1774
Got the 35mm AF-S on my D40 and it certainly does auto focus. Perfect trophy shot lens on a cropped sensor camera such as the D40 as the FOV will pretty much equal that of a 50mm lens on a full frame camera.
Takes a lovely picture as well, nice blurry backgrounds and pin sharp focus. You wont look back
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1771
Thanks for that Dave, I dont take a lot of self takes atm, so thats not something I'd thought about, so will look at the 35mm.
Think I read somewhere tho I need the AS-F-G model as the AS-F wont auto focus on my D40??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1772
Whats live view do you mean on the screen ?? If so yes of course it's a self take so spinning the screen around to face me then using remote.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1759
Excellent picture
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1770
Yes the afs 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens wouldn't mind one myself.
I only have the afs 35mm f/1.8 its a great quality alround lens and perfect for catches plus its about the right angle for self taking, I think you would find 50mm a bit narrow for self taking as the camera would finish up further away. They are both great lenses though for me the 35 which is near enough 50mm, on old film jobs used to be the standard has more uses
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1768
Are you using live view?
Live view focus works by contrast detection and requires more light
you do need a reasonable amount of light for the auto focus and exposure to set.
I have found one torch isn't enough and a bit of back lighting helps
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1767
Something aint right as they are blurring, this was the same as my G6 until i got them settings but for the life of me can't remeber what they were.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1766
I doubt your problem is about getting to close as the kit lens, if that is what you are using focus down to around 12 inches.
As said your problem is exposure related. Set the camera on full auto, up pops the flash, camera auto focuses and away you go
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1765
Think i may have been getting to close when i tried auto my brain is doing all the normal stuff that i did from my G6. I had a set distance to be from camera and i think maybe it's to close for the D5000.
So night mode is a definate no no then ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1764
Would it not do it on auto with the flash switched on i have never had any probems using it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1763
Hi Drew
the night setting is for special effects not intended for normal shots. The reason the shots are blured is that the camera is setting a long time exposure, which it would do to make the most of the light that's avaiable.
For night shots you need to use flash any other method will not give the best results.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Can anybody help me out with my D5000 night self takes
Many of them are blurry and i obviously need some settings set up. My previous camere G6 someone gave me some settings which i stored and they were great night shots.
D5000 far more sensitive beast needs setting up right, taking them on auto and night mode but there not quite right.
Seem to remember f stop 5.6 whatever that is, any help appreciated as i'm a photography numpty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1759
Just incredible
Awesome!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1759
A very beautiful photo well done
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1759
wow
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1757
Nice choice of diffuser, the rare pringle model, that explains how you take such excellent macro shots. I think we may have lost some readers here
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1756
Thanks Sam using my nikkor 105mm f2.8 micro, settings were iso200 f/25 1/200sec using my sb400 plus pringles diffuser for flash fill in
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1755
looks like its gotta broken leg
Stunning pic though dave! what size lens did you have on to pic up that much detail?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1754
|
|
|
|
2 From the trip to Flores last year.
And a couple from RAF fairford last year
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1752
3rd one down is a cracker mate. my personal taste is the DOF is too shallow
in the first two.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1751
Hi all, just to report back that I ended up getting the canon 50mm 1.8 for a irresistible price! I did have my heart set 35mm but playing with the fifty im glad i saved the money as i found it to be a spectacular lens for the price heres just a few shots yesterday playing around with my new lens:
My old boy who is still loopy as ever at 12 years old
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1750
Still learning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1749
Still learning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1748
Still learning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1745
still trying
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1746
Nice one Pete! Liking the middle picture, well done
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1745
Dont laught i am learning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
learning
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1741
I use a 35mm f1.8 on my nikon, as john said it is ideal for trophy shots or self taking 50mm is a bit to narrow.
Took a few more bug shots yesterday
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1740
Your welcome Andy. Most Canon cameras when brought with a lens attached it is usually their EFS 18-55mm zoom lens.
It’s a 3.5-5.6 which is not that fast but it has image stabilization and focus down to a nice close distance.
The 18mm end is a lot wider than the 35mm lens and 55mm makes a good semi portrait lens. People call it a kit lens but it is a lot better than that
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1739
Thanks for the quick reply and sound advice
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1738
The 35mm wide angle would be IMO a better bet as on occasions you can be stuck for space and you don’t want to mess about moving backwards with a fish to get everything in. It also gives you a crop option should you need it.
On the portrait front the most recommended lens is a 70mm or 90mm which gives you the option of moving back from the object.
A short zoom lens would be needed to hit all these applications from wide angle to telephoto
A fast lens is also better in low light, which would cost more but probably worth it in the long run.
On the landscape front a medium wide angle lens such as the 35mm is what you most often see recommended.
On the cash front you could get a good second party lens for less than a Canon. Do some searches on the web and have a look at some independent reviews.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1737
Hi all, what do you guys use for your trophy shots? I have been looking at canon 50mm 1.8 or the 35mm, im inclined on the 50mm due to the price but dont want it breaking after a few mobths use. I would also like to use it for potraits and scenic shots, I have a canon 600D if that makes any difference.
Thanks in advance, Andrew
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1736
Edited john
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1735
Think it's jumping spider Dave, approperate when you consider what it is sitting on
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1734
Jumping Spider on my Bed
|
|
|
|
i know nothing about camera specs and my daughter wants a better camera than her compact, ive got £150 but would go to £200 to spend if i had to.
i have seen a Fuji S4500 Digital Bridge camera for £135, and i would appreciate someones opinion or maybe recommendation.
thanks
jim
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1732
sun setting over breydon water
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1728
That 105 works for you big time Dave, good luck with the new camera
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1729
I don’t think that the camera is `not up to it` as the capture below was taken on a 450D which is older than the model you own.
The lens and accessories cost around £30 and is the outfit I was advising a previous poster about ie a reversed Canon FD lens, 50mm f1.8 with extension tubes.
I know we have had a number of PM’s in respect of the problem you outlined and it could be worthwhile getting the camera checked out
 width=500>
Another example
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1729
Thanks all on black, using nikon d5000+ nikkor 105 f/2.8 also used sb400 flash with diffuser.
I have also done a little enhancing with Aperture though only a little sharpness and noise reduction.
camera setting were iso 400 f/20 1/160sec manual with comp flash .
Should be upgrading my d5000 for a d5100 next week and looking forward to better handling of high iso plus more pixs should help the crop factor
|
|
|
|
Unbelievable detail dave, really impressed. What camera are you using?
Can't work out why, no matter how well focused my shots are, with whatever setting, I still end up with slightly soft looking pictures.
Maybe the camera isn't good enough? Running a Canon Eos 500d..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Heres a couple of shots I've taken this week with my nikkor 105 f/2.8 micro
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1726
good info, enough to let me get the right gear, just need to get my pics sorted then. i normally do landscape stuff, will post a few on here soon. i was going to say i also do trophy shots, but they are mostly for others
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1725
There is a simple test to see if the lens will stop- down manually when reversed mounted.
Set a small aperture f16 and see if any of the accessible linkage bits will stop the lens down. You can see by looking through the lens if this happens.
In most cases the auto stop down system is triggered by the linkage built into the camera body.
The lens adapter has this linkage system which allows you to set an aperture on the lens. You then focus at full aperture and turn a ring on the adapter which stops the lens down to the aperture you have set.
On the extension tube front if you go with a reversed lens then a manual set in metal would be the one to go for with a reversing ring to attach the lens to the end of the tubes.
On the auto front you can put a set of auto extension tubes onto your electric lens that came with the camera and use that lens with most if not all of the functions of the camera. When the lens is reversed you will be back to a manual system
On the adapter front make sure that you do not get the type which has a lens in it to correct infinity focusing as it will not work and you will not be able to focus. The correct adapter is known as a macro adapter.
I am not that clued up on Olympus systems so there may be some options that I am not aware off. It would be a good idea to have a talk with a Olympus dealer to see what they reccomend
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1724
cheers for that. the 50mm 1.8 is an older zuiko lens for the OM system, and has aperture setting on it rather than the camera so should be ok. i think i'll just dive in and get the bits to try. any thoughts on extension tubes?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1723
The 50mm 1.8 would be a good lens to reverse and you should get some great results from it. The big problem with some of the older/newer lenses is that they were made for Auto 35mm cameras and the mechanical linkage in the camera stopped the aperture down. You have to make sure that you can manually stop the aperture down when the lens is reversed.
The best way of doing this would be to get an adapter which has the Olympus fit and another system, it would not matter what that fit was as you are only interested in the Olympus fit part.
The aperture is stopped down by turning a ring on the adapter. For exposure you may be able to set the camera on auto speed and when the aperture is set on the lens the camera may set a speed to suite.
When using flash if you have a auto f/gun you can reduce the output of the gun to say ¼ and select in the case of the Canon the `P` setting. I normally play around with the `F` setting until I get the results I am looking for.
On reverse lens methods there is no focusing from the lens, the whole camera and lens is moved backward and forward to achieve focus. It’s a bugger to get right at first but it gets easier with practise.
Try a search on Thomas Shahan Some of the best reversed lens capturers you will see. Looking forward to seeing your results. I have more macro capturers on JohnT2012 on the FlickR site
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1722
nice one. i am using an olympus e410. looks like i will have to source an auto set of tubes to get the aperture working correctly then. i have an old zuiko 1.8 l50mm i was going to reverse to try out as the reversing ring is cheap. ebay here i come.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1721
Hi Mike, this capture was taken with a Canon 50mm f1.8 lens in FD mount reversed onto the camera and 2 extension tubes fitted. The aperture is controlled by a FD-EOS converter.
Not sure which camera you have but if it has an electronic focusing lens fitted to it then you would need to get a set of extension tubes which work with the electronics of the camera.
If you attach a non auto set of tubes to the camera then the lens can only be used at full aperture as there is no way to stop the lens down.
The same is true of trying to reverse an electronic lens onto the camera. On the cost front I have seen auto tubes advertised for around £60 new on EBay. In the case of Canon I think they are around the £200+ mark.
The lens that took this capture was a successful bid on EBay and I got it for £20. The reversing ring was £5 and a set of tubes were around the £8 mark. You would also need an adaptor to manually stop down and open the aperture which is a FD-EOS converter they cost around £5 for the macro version. Basically they are rubbish but ideal for this job.
I have dedicated Macro lenses but this outfit can produce some very good results.
 width=500>
My last capture 1720 was taken with a 30year old lens converted to EOS mount. This was another successful bid on EBay and I got it for £80. Old glass in sort after makes is becoming scarce because in many cases they are as good if not better than the modern equivalents for the fraction of the cost.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1720
has anyone used extension tubes for macro work? i want to try them out as they are a lot cheaper than a lens, but dont want to waste money. also considering a reversing adaptor. any thoughts?
mike d
|
|
|
|
Captured with a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 macro lens in Canon FD mount adapted to EOS system
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1706
yes dave that was the one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1717
Cheers thanxs Dave.
An amateur compared to you guys but playing with a new Cannon S100 still need to learn all it's functions, then the pics might be better.
Also reloaded the pics to Flicr I see you guy's say it's sharper then.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1716
Nice pictures DUKE NUKEM. Canadians look good in B&W
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1715
My first Bird shot's..
But it's a start.
|
|
|
|
Hmm.. can't find the 'save location' mentioned but here's a tester..
Aha! It worked so here's the rest..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1712
I have a Nikon D40 too, the 35mm 1.8 AFS is a fantastic lens for trophy shots. You can keep the fish nice and focussed and throw the background into blur with a shallow DOF. As said, due to the crop sensor the 35mm will basically act as a 50mm. Well worth the money
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1712
Compatibility chart
AF-S will give you autofocus. I think you may have been a bit confused by what you had read (post 1704), the focus won't change, it is the effective field of view that changes because of the sensor size difference between your camera and a full frame (or 35mm film) camera. Google 'crop factor', there are plenty of good articles on this subject.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1706
A little bit pricey unfortunately. I wouldn't use it anything like enough to warrant spending that on one. Perhaps I'll look into selling my camera and getting a replacement that will do what I want it to.
Seems silly to do that just so I can use a different lens, but some of the shots I've seem with nifty50's are just incredible.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1710
click on ur pic untill u get it where u can choose the size. then choose the largest medium option.
right click the pic and copy location. then post in here with the usual < img src = stuff.
|
|
|
|
A few from the weekend.. lots of bugs out to play!
EDIT.. turns out I don't know how to link shots from flickr. Help please!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1708
Thanks for doing that Paul! that looks a lot better
The kit I was using was a canon eos 600d paired with a sigma 70-300mm ago, (have to say this lens is excellent value for money if anyone is looking at getting a budget action lens i highly reccomend it) to be honest im not sure what settings i was using as im on the ipad atm so not sure how to get the exif details, off the top of my head the iso was 1600 as lots of trees surrouding you makes it surprsingly dark, shutter speed was about 125/1 and a aperature of f8.0
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1707
i dont think the quality is bad mate. i bet photobucket is ruining them tho.
waht kit did u use and settings. personally i wouldnt expect to use a flash in that environment at all.
in fact ive taken the liberty of grabbing that file and running it thru lightroom.
youve got a nice shallow DOF and good clear focus. and thats just from the photobucket file thats already
lost resolution.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1706
I was very lucky today to see some wild boar in the forest of dean, fortunatley i had my camera on me albeit the quality is very poor due to not using the flash as I did not want to spook them as they were pretty scary especially with pigletts lol and using photobucket does not help  hope you enjoy seeing them as it was a first for me
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1705
The new 50mm f/1.4 AFS should auto focus on the D40 as it has on board motor, is this the lens you've got Tufty, Cracking lens wouldn't mind adding it to my collection lol
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1704
not sure on the auto focus bit, but your camera is a crop sensor, which means any lens you get you actually get 1.5 times the focal length, i.e. a 35 mm =35 +half again= 17, so 35+17=50 or as near as dam it, 50 would be a 75mm and 200mm would be a 300,
i got the 35mm 1.8 dx nikon after looking at the shots dangerous dave took and a bit of advice from him
have also got the 50mm 1.4 and got some cracking shots from my cousins wedding at the weekend
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1703
Got a question for you lads.. I've currently got a Nikon D40. I've found it excellent, and as my knowledge of photography is pretty limited there's no point in me paying out for anything better.
Here's the dilemma though.. I desperately want a nifty 50 (fixed 50mm lens) but my camera will not auto-focus with one. Is there a way around this or does it mean upgrading?
I thought I'd read somewhere that if I was to get a fixed 35mm, after my camera had auto-focused the shot, the result would be the same as that of a fixed 50mm...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1702
Didn't half rain yesterday and last night, Good job this Robin kept dropping in for food
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
A few weeks ago I bought £39 Groupon deal for a whole day of studio tuition.Here are a few of the results......
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1699
Thats cool
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
taken using panasonic g3 and 45/200 zoom. at 51mm F4 1/1000 shutter priority iso 1600
it was quite dark in a little courtyard. waht sun there was happened to be at the other side of the house. Robin is wild
but takes food from the hand.T
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1697
 width=500>
Taken with a EOS 450D, fitted with a Canon 50mm f1.8 FD lens (old type) a Lens Doctor FD/EOS adapter and 2 extension tubes.
Hi Neil
I understand your predicament. I have a number of shots taken with a standard lens (the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 teamed up with a couple of extension tubes) on FlickR. Have a look, my address is JohnT2012.
If you are looking to add tubes to a Canon electric lens then you will need a set of auto extension tubes because you can’t manually stop down the aperture on a auto focus lens.
The price of a Canon set is expensive, the cheapest non Canon set I have seen on the bay were around £50 which is very cheap for this type of thing.
Using non auto focus lenses with manual tubes on a EOS camera is a bit more difficult than the auto focus verity but you can do it at a fraction of the cost. Excluding the cost of the adapter, which is shared amongst other lenses, the lens and tubes cost me around £30 in total. You do have the benefit of `old glass` which is as good as if not better than the modern equivalents in many cases
If I was looking for something quick to use and did not want to spend £700 on a Canon then the Sigma and Tamron lenses are very good.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really wanting to have a go at a bit of macro photography, but can't really afford a new lens at the moment after buying a Canon EF-S 18-105. (I know it's not a massively expensive or brilliant lens,but it's quite a lot for my standard of photography!) I know that you can buy extender tubes to increase the distance between the lens and the sensor but how effective would that be with my lens? I don't want to waste money only to find out that I should have bought a macro lens! So, cheap macro lens or extender tubes??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1695
Nice shot tufty
Great to be on the bank witnessing nature at its best
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1694
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1693
Thanks again Pete
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1692
Once again dave some real good shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1691
Thanks Pete Been Taking a few Close-ups with my 105 today
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1684
Neal i love the starlight shot although there all good but that really appeals to my self
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1689
Lovely shots dave especaly the moon very clear
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1688
Nice shots tufty.
Use Flickr for better quality Neil
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1687
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1686
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1685
Best so far mate. Try uploading them to Flickr and then download onto the site. Loads sharper this way
|
|
|
|
|
Blimey.. they are WAY less sharp than the originals!
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1681
when red eye reduction won't work 
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1680
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1679
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1678
in the last few weeks have added a few bits, nikon d7000, nikon 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200mm 2.8 vr11 , now just need to get out and use them
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1677
Nice capturers mate
|
|
|
|
Some underwater pics I took
Brook trout
Reflection
Brown trout
Steelhead
Cover shot
|
|
|
|
A couple of Easter capturers
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1674
Photobucket automatically resize (compress) your photos if they think you're using too much server space, so they might be fine one day and then you upload a few more and suddenly they all look rubbish!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1673
Nice owl shots Sundance.
Don't no why pictures pasted from photobucket lose quality but i have noticed this in the past and have recently deleted my photobucket account.
Only ever used it for odd shots i didn't want on my flickr anyway
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1669
Cheers paul. yes there were a number of diff birds. I got some static shots of owls.
blimey. look at the difference in sharpness between the photbucket versions and the flickr.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1671
Dave some people have all the luck
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1669
One of a Harris hawk I manage whilst at newent bird of pray centre a few weeks ago
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1668
Can't see the first one Paul - Harris Hawks are they?
To be honest mate even on a bright sunny day at 1/1000 I'd be on ISO 800 anyway - they look fine to me
|
|
|
|
how NOT to do birds in flight:
Well. i was at Butlins this weekend and they had a bird of prey display. Finally found a use for my 45-200 mm micro
four thirds lens.
Shot using shutter mode at 1000. nice and sunny day. outdoors all lovely. Shot in RAW in case i cocked it up. hardly any cropping etc. camera froze the action brilliantly. BUT one problem. USER ERROR. I left it on iso 1600 from the night befores pics of bumper cars. so they are all a bit grainy. AND my Topaz de-noise trial ran out.
First one is shot at 45mm (90mm on film) no cropping. it was right infront of my face and landed on a pole at arms length behind me.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1666
Buzzards are actually the commonest bird of prey nowadays, at this time of year they may be more visible due to territory squabbles and breeding displays.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1660
Love that, seems to be a lot more buzzards my way, are their numbers on the up, or am i paying more attention, normally hear them first.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1660
Paul just had a look threw this thread and your bird shots is absolutely amazing mate.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1660
Keebs your bird shots are wonderfull of late i have been watching a pair of red kites lovely bird
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1660
I think I would be happy with the ones you bin, stunning shot Paul. Thanks Andy getting to grips with the lens and hopefully it is showing in the capturs. Bug hunting from now on, they are out there. What a good idea with the daff
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1660
I like that shot
|
|
|
|
Some great shots there guys
I've been getting up at 5am and walking over 2 miles to a spot I know to try to get a decent Red Kite shot. The problem with these birds is the huge wing span, once the sun gets up they are in their own shadow and the light is wrong. There is only a short window of opportunity when the sunlight gets above the tree-tops, but still with enough up-light on the bird.
Today I finally got one worth the wait, albeit about a 50% crop - I'm still going to keep at it for a full-framer though . (I actually got 6 full frame shots earlier on but the sunlight hadn't risen enough for them to be usable )
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
Some capturers taken in next doors garden this afternoon
 width=500>
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Kestrel
Funny looking bird called the king vulture
|
|
|
|
Happy accident exposure wise
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1653
Thanks Paul, I value the comment. This group of flowers was tucked away at the back of a garden in a Manor House just down the road from me. Made a bit of a schoolboy error and left a high ISO set on the camera.
I normally shoot at around 100 with assisted flash. Not a clue how they were turning out but went with the histogram for basic exposure.
Topaz is well worth having. A good tip
|
|
|
|
Been watching the Red Kites and Buzzards war over territory the last few days.
Plagued with cloudy days and farm-plough dust so not great light but caught this particular skirmish rather nicely.
The Kites are nesting and defending their area ferociously against repeated attacks by up to 8 Buzzards at a time!
A second pair of Kites got called in today as reinforcements, 4 Kites and 8 Buzzards all circling at once right over my head, and too much zoom on my (prime) lens to pan out and capture it!
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1652
That Topaz seems to be working fine for you.
The Hellebores in our garden don't look anywhere near as good as that!
Good work
|
|
|
|
Managed to get out with the camera this morning for a few hours
 wiodth=500>
 width=500>
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
Think I have sussed out artificial lighting for soft yellow flowers. Now for snowdrops.
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
Before Topaz
 width=500>
After Topaz
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topaz are offering a 30% discount for the weekend. Around £43 at present, got to be worth it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1645
I think you are on the right track
|
|
|
|
Something I'm learning more and more is that if you get the exposure right, high ISO noise is not much of an issue. It seems that the biggest problem is the sensor heating up to try to record information that isn't bright enough. It is better to go to a much higher ISO and over-expose a little. The resulting ISO noise in brighter areas can be dealt with much easier than desperately underexposed dark areas.
This was taken this morning hand-held at 600mm (400 + 1.5TC) and ISO 3200! Pretty much worse case scenario for my gear and yet it looks fine to me after a bit of Topaz & PSE.
Interesting and useful to some maybe? I'm certainly not afraid of 4 figure ISO's any more.
|
|
|
|
NOT WORTH THE PAPER IT'S SITTING ON width=500>
ISO 100 at f16 with 430 f/gun at 1/16 power fitted with diffuser which fired at the start of a longish timed exposure
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1642
Very unusual keebs, Nice shot
|
|
|
|
Common Buzzard but with extraordinarily white plumage
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1640
Sounds like a fun day for just £39
|
|
|
|
|
I've just bought a day long studio tuition from Groupon. £39 and it covers 1/2 a day shooting things such as popping balloons and advertising photography, then 1/2 a day shooting a model
|
|
|
|
ISO1600,f16 using natural daylight. Topaz cleaned up the noise very well for a first attempt. Worth a longer look.
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1637
Two tutorials here - essential viewing to get the best from it. Fiddling with the presets is a reasonable start but no substitute for doing it this way...
Detailed Overview 1&2
Click Here
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1636
Thanks Paul,trying some test shots this morning
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1635
I bought it (download) straight from their site. Did the same as you - 30 day trial and then bought a license code.
The price is in Dollars but it doesn't matter. It looks like $79.99 at the moment which is only about £50.
Worth every penny.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1634
Just started using Topaz, thanks for the tip. I can see it would be useful in a number of applications. Using the trial version (30days) at present, any idea of the uk cost and is there a uk supplier that you know of, thanks in advance.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1633
Topaz Denoise Dave - get the hang of that and it will open a whole new world of very usable high ISO's
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1632
Thanks keebs yes sigmas OS is quite good, normally though below 1/250 is very chancy, guess i got lucky.
My D5000 just gets to grainy above 800iso so i just took a few quick shots, didn't expect them to be any good
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1631
500mm and 1/80th? You must have IS on that lens surely Dave? Hand-held I can't get below 1/320 with any meaningful sharpness at 400mm!!!
Some very nice macro work here guys
Sundance - very good use of Topaz mate - definitely got the hang of that now Great Kingy grab as well - very difficult bird to get.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
Feels like forever since I've posted any pictures but here's a couple from this morning that, out of 30 shots, im fairly happy with..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1628
My Kingfisher woke me up as I was napping in the chair. A single bleep did it and as I was trying to work out what I was looking at I had a fair amount of time to enjoy his company.
We also had a resident Robin in one swim who loved bits of your grub. I think he turned up the following year looking way past it. Somebody told me that they had a life expectancy of two years. Could be true as that was the last time he dined with us.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1627
Cheers dave.
Jeff, your right, its hard to have it to hand. I had a result with this one, as I had spoted him a few mins previously
and had got the camera out and sitting in the top of its open bag next to me.
All in all a really weird day, as can be seen, lovely sunshine. hard to believe it was jan and the lake was frozen.
The below pic was taken 4 hours ealier.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1625
It’s a side of spending so much time out of doors that a lot of people some of them anglers don’t relate to
I never took a decent camera fishing and the compact I did take spent most of its time in the bottom of the rucksack
As a consequence of this I have missed some interesting and memorable capturers. To be fair I would have had to have the camera within touching distance or hanging around my neck.
I had a kingfisher sit on the end of my rod once and it was a great experience. I am full of admiration for those people who get top class capturers under these conditions. Most of us do the best we can with what we have at the time.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1625
Still its a lovely shot sundance
Great to capture the moment
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1624
This was taken with a canon s5is bridge camera. So its
not mega sharp however. A Kingfisher on the rods:
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1623
I think in future Dave I will give photobucket a miss
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1620
Yes the Flickr copy is much better 60s rules .
I have a photo bucket account which i have used for pasting from when i don't want that copy on my flickr, I have noticed the photo bucket copies always lose a very noticeable amount of definition when pasting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1619
Lenses for hire
Plenty of companies about if nobody can help.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1619
And a very large `drink` as well
|
|
|
|
This is from Flickr it is sharper
 width=500>
|
|
|
|
Now this might be a long shot but has anyone got a 300mm+ Canon-fit lens that they would lend me for a South Africa trip in April?
I'll supply insurance details, of course.
|
|
|
|
It may not always be necessary to use artificial lighting when capturing images of objects in doors. These two shots were lit with natural light from a window.
The camera setting was f22 which produced a long time exposure at ISO 100. The camera was mounted on a tripod with the mirror locked up and an electronic shutter release was used to minimise vibration. During the exposure the viewfinder was blocked out to stop extraneous light from affecting the exposure.
Canon EOS 450. Vivitar 90mm f2.8 Macro, manual focus and stopped down aperture metering
EDIT have a look at these shots on my Flickr account JohnT2012 loads sharper
|
|
|
|
|
Sundance, that's also my lake! Ha, as annoying as the noise from that plant is, it provides some handy light for spotting fish at night!
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1615
i agree will be getting a fliker acount !!!!! seam to loose so much in the detail
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1614
I have Noticed in the past images pasted from photo bucket seem to lose quality
Never had this with Flickr.
Thanks everyone for the advice on ring flashes, Think i will have to look into it a bit more before i splash out
|
|
|
|
|
Is it my imagination or are images uploaded to Flickr sharper than those uploaded to Photobucket when viewed on the forum
|
|
|
|
Following on from some of the comments made in respect of the performance of budget `Ring Flashes` the following picture has emerged, no pun intended.
The average flash output is around a guide of 15 at an ISO of 100. This figure is true of a model costing £30- £300+. You do not need a massive flash output when taking macro shots at extreme close distance.
Most of the features in respect of variable flash output and other useful features found in the top of the range models can be got in a model costing £30.
There is a difference between the budget and top of the range models. At the top end they will match up with the cameras electronics’ in respect of auto exposure.
With a budget model you would select manual (M) and set a speed of 125 or less and an aperture of say f11. Take a few test shots and make adjustments. Not that difficult.
Build quality and reliability are a consideration. The budget models use super bright LED’s as opposed to tubes and are made from plastic as opposed to stronger materials seen in the more expensive versions.
It is a horses for courses situation. If I was going to earn my living by taking close up macro shots I would probably invest in a top of the range model. As I don’t then the budget version fills the need I have at present.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1608
another for orbis or ray flash, if you have some time make your own !!!
|
|
|
|
I fished here last night. taken handheld with a muFT Lumix G3 and 20mm 1.7 lens
massive iso on the 2nd one. cleaned up with Topaz Denoise. (thanks keebs)
The idea was to show exactly waht I could see. Or in the 2nd shot, exactly what I couldnt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1606
I think things have moved on a bit. I don’t normally buy basic entry anything but in this case I was interested to see what you got for a silly amount of money
Basically you get a ring flash which comes with loads of different size adaptors which fit all the lenses I have.
You can have a conventional flash, with 7 power levels or continues light and should you chose left or right illumination only.
On the downside it syncros at 100th which is a bit slow for me but works at 160-200th.
Hand held with a high ISO the effective working aperture is around 5.6-f8. Not tried it as yet with a low ISO on a tripod but as the study posted was the second shot I had taken with it I am not that disappointed with the result
The model is a Meike FC100 and came with a bonus cleaning kit, pen brush, blower, lens cleaner and a cloth This is the cheapest bit of camera kit I have ever brought £27.00 but if it does the job, for now that’s fine by me. I will of course end up with something decent with the resulting hefty price tag, as you do
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1606
The Sigma one didn't seem too bad when I had a look at it a while ago. Have a look at the Orbis attachment if it isn't going to be in regular use. I haven't played with one for ages, although I was using a Medical-Nikkor 120mm nearly 20 years ago.
I'm going to Focus tomorrow and if I remember I'll have a look at what's available.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1606
Thanks Allonblack, thinking about the cheaper sigma or even cheaper the nissin jobs might be ok
|
|
|
|
Dave,
I went with a bargain ring flash off of ebay, not worth the money.. and it was only about £20!
Rather than a flash, it's just a constant light, and a very dull one at that.
I'd be happier to go with a quality one from a known manufacturer and know that i'm getting a good piece of kit rather than a cheap flimsy version.
Hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1602
Nice shot 60sRules, thinking about getting a ring flash.
Nikon jobs are a bit pricey.
what ring flash are you using
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Thanks dangerousdave i need to get out more and take some pictures but im either at work or at home with the kids
Fishing trip 23rd, 24th & 25th of March to Orchard Place in Kent so camera will coming with me for that
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1601
hi dave i love that moon fantastic shot and the sun setting
|
|
|
|
First study taken using a `Ring Flash` Decision time do I stick with the bargain basement model ?or is it worth getting the real deal.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Have changed the photo storage and seems to better now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1596
Totally original and unedited mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Does not seem to be coming out as clear as the original one?
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1594
hi bungle, that swan shot of the lake is lovely. was there much PP to ge the gold look? or au naturel?
|
|
|
|
This lens is a good example of acquiring good glass for not a lot of money and could be of interest to those of us who can’t justify the high cost of a quality Macro lens.The lens is a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 Macro which achieves 1/1 without tubes, in Canon FD fitting
It was manufactured in 1980 and made by Komine. Not sure where this lens has been for the last 30 years but it seems as if it has just come out of a box. Some very impressive reviews on the web.
An adaptor is required to fit it to the new EOS mount. The Lens Doctor brand adaptor is not cheap as it has true infinity focusing and the electronics to give `focus achieved` notification in the viewfinder, but is the best by a mile.
The cost of this lens was my successful bid on E Bay for £80. Even allowing for the added cost of the adaptor this lens is still bargain basement.
This is an early study taken with this lens
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1591
Any f 1.4 lens is going to be expensive when compared to the others in the range. Unless you have a need for a fast lens then the less expensive 1.8 would cover most requirements. The advantage is that the f1.4 would be better in low light conditions.
A 35mm lens is known as a wide angle lens and is useful for landscape and shots indoors where you are photographing groups of people or in limited spaces.
The 50mm lens is known as a standard lens, a hangover from the 35mm film camera days. It is a good work horse and is used for general photography.
You can get a zoom lens which covers 18mm (wide angle) and all the inbetween sizes up to 50mm which on digital cameras is a small telephoto as the image is larger than it would be if used on a 35mm camera.
Cannon sell the above lens as part of their kit price with a range of bodies. It is not a bad lens but not as good as a dedicated prime lens but good enough for most general photography.
Have a look on ebay as there are some good deals on used and new models. Pick one of the trusted dealers and you can’t go wrong as you are covered by a returns policy. Pay by Paypal and you should be covered.
Check out lens reviews on the web for the model you are interested in. My best advice if you are certain of the lens you want then don’t settle for second best you will end up buying twice and that will be expensive
|
|
|
|
|
I'm also new to DSLR's, although not entirely new to photography. This thread is providing me with plenty of inspiration! Cheers guys!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1590
As a beginner to all this dslr photography I dont want to re-mortgage the house until I know if i'm going to advance beyond auto mode.
Just wondering about the quality of these cheaper options.
Otherwise considering a 50mm f1.8 canon version at £80, or 50mm f1.4 at £250 is it worth the extra money for the 35mm f1.4
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1589
All I can say really, without even looking at the item you refer to, is that you get what you pay for. The canon one is £1200 for a reason!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Lens question
Has anyone used any lenses by a company called samyang. They do a 35mm f1.4 wide angle prime lens to fit canon for about £350 with a 3 year warranty, that I was considering buying. Just wondering what the quality is like. I know Tamron and sigma make accepted cheaper alternatives are these samyang lenses on par with those??
Think the canon version is about £1200 so cant afford one of those.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1583
Awesome photos there mate!
|
|
|
|
A few early flowers starting to come into bloom
|
|
|
|
This image was produced using a flat bed scanner set at 600 dpi with a high pass filter introduced in Photoshop.
Needs some work but worth having a look at with other subjects
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1583
Brillant stuff mate!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1583
The reason I asked about the Habronattus jumping spider is because they are a North American species and not found in this country, as far as I know. Was interested to learn if the shot was taken over the pond or you know of a source in this country.
Thomas Shahan made his name photographing this species and I believe pioneered the stacking layer approach, which gives a sharp image across the whole subject. I was thinking of having a go at this approach but was put off by the difficulty factor. Some thoughts on that would be useful. Great shots by the way.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1580
Thanks all. Jumping spiders are one of my favourite subjects and it all comes down to a matter of patience eventually they will stop long enough to get a couple of shots off. The frustrating thing is when they jump onto the camera
The vast majority of macro photographers dont chill the insects down prefering to shoot them in their natural enviroment as it adds to the challange. With the lens i use i need to be within 4 inches of the subject so their is alot of failed attempts but it is much more rewarding when you do finally get the shot you were after.
Heres a couple more.
Hoverfly sipping some sugar water i sprayed on a leaf
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1580
i have heard that some people do chill down some insects to keep them still long enough to get a pic, but like most things ethics comes into play here is it right?? is it wrong??
fantastic shots pro quality work there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1579
Some superb Macro work there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1579
Nice macro mate. How did you manage to track down the jumping spider, real difficult to photograph as they don’t settle for long
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1578
Heres a few more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1577
It may be something to do with the share settings on flickr, just trying to sort it now. Thanks for your help.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1576
tried to help u post that pic aliec from the info. but even adding the missing .jpg letters didnt help.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Finally
All are alive and in their natural enviroment. 350D and Canons MPe-65 macro lens taken around x3 magnification handheld with flash (Canons MT24ex Twin Flash with homemade diffusers). Keeps me occupied when the fishings slow.
Damsel Fly Portrait
Wasp Beetle
Sleeping Nomada Bee Portrait
|
|
|
|
This is a shot of my daughter and her son, who came over from Spain for the wife’s birthday. Impromptu shot taken in the kitchen while I was on my way to the booze tent
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1572
Marie is one of those women who just comes alive in front of a camera. Very easy job to get a decent photograph of her. They both live in Oz and have been visiting for a couple of weeks. She is a professional dancer and does sometimes get into the studio for promotional work.
I was toying with the idea of organising a shoot but she is on holiday, so had to make do with holiday type photos.
|
|
|
|
|
has anyone on here made any decent time lapse videos? i got an intervalometer the other day and going to have a play around town and the docks tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1571
thats cheatin jeffrey. you couldnt make her look bad with any kit...
|
|
|
|
Impromptu shot of my Son and his new bride. Put it up to show that some members of the family are having some luck
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1569
Thanks Paul, lush is the right word. I got the exposure wrong as you do but decided to keep this shot as it was the more interesting of the series.
The other shot is the bottom part of a can of `Air Duster`. The bit in shot measures around 30mm x 20mm and was a off the cuff shot to check that I had put the adaptor lenses’ back correctly in the mount adaptor.
I sometimes feel that you need a camera around your neck 24/7 as some of the out of the blue shots can be the best you will ever take.
I had a Peregrine make a pass at a sparrow that was feeding in the garden. The bird jumped off the fence and turned sideways talons out as the bird flew across the garden. All this took place 5 feet from the window I was looking out of. Such is the ones that got away. Bit like big carp when you think about it.
|
|
|
|
Sundance - Very moody mate - lovely B&W
60sRules - That last one looks lush. The one before is odd to judge without a reference but is probably very impressive!
Came back from shopping earlier and looked out the back window to see a dark shape down the end of the garden.
She had obviously just made her kill, a Blackbird, and was "mantling" her prey. By the time I'd grabbed the camera she had taken it to the darkest corner by the back gate and was setting about dismantling it, feathers everywhere!
She stayed there plucking and eating it for over 40 minutes.
The only view was through the bathroom window upstairs which I gingerly prised open without disturbing her.
I could barely get 1/400 @ ISO 1600 at the start and it got darker quickly, but a few (of the 200+ fired!!) shots should come out ok with a bit of PS torture!
Tried a few @ ISO 3200 but even Topaz couldn't rescue the noise sufficiently.
link click for full version
|
|
|
|
Sometimes a softer image works better
|
|
|
|
To the naked eye this is solid colour. Method used, lens set to 1/1 macro and then on a solid base the camera is moved towards the object for focusing. Cuts out tripod and manual focusing problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks guys Much better out there though.
Took this of the back garden at 4am this morning, the ambient lighting from the street out front, I thought, made a really nice sepia glow to the scene.
Glad I was up half the night coughing my lungs up with a cold or I'd have missed it!
500D/EFS 18-55
Manual Mode.
30' @ F22 ISO 200 manual focus.
Only sharpened a little in PS nothing else.
click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1563
Totally agree with Dave on this. If you want to have a look at a truly naff web site check out David Bailey’s. As one of the worlds greatest living photographer you would have thought he could have done better
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1562
Thanks keebs.Nice kestral shot.
Had a quick look at your gallery, very proffesional, All quality excellent captures
|
|
|
|
Very nice moon shot Dave - never been able to get a decent one myself.
Here's a Kessie I took in Dahab last week. Great to have some proper light for a week
Click for full version
My new online gallery
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1560
Thanks tufty 100iso f/8 aperture prioity set expo bias -4 which resulted in 1/160.
Optical stabiliser turned off.
Tripod mounted remote activted shutter plus i used liveveiw, as this locks mirror and reduces vibration plus helps with location.
Also added a little software enhancment
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1559
stunning mate, what settings did you use for it?? cheers
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1557
They also have them at Amazon at good prices, dont no if they do finance.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=node%3D560834&field-keywords=sigma+150-500&x=22&y=14
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1556
look on simply electronics, there about £100 cheaper than warehouse express, not sure if they do finance though??
|
|
|
|
Still really hoping to get the Sigma 150-500mm lens, but think I will have to get it on finance if I ever do.
Can anyone recommend anywhere that does this lens with finance? I know Jessops do but they are stupidly expensive and never have what I want in stock..
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1554
Don't think you will regret it robcourt the optical stabiliser is a big help with handholding such a heavy lens
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1550
Cheers, they're both pretty sharp for handheld shots. As i will be using it handheld pretty exclusively i was erring more towards the 120-400 but will look closely at the longer one now!
|
|
|
|
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
Rain stopped play
|
|
|
|
Managed a couple of close up shots in the garden this morning
Used flash for a change at 1/16 power with defuser
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1549
Sorry didn't answer your question yes they were both taken handheld with optical stabiliser on
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1547
thank you!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1547
you should be able to check my exifs on my flickr
click on the pictures then actions
http://www.flickr.com/photos/32791195@N08/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1546
Both taken at f/8, yes the second shot is a bit grainier as i had the camera on 800iso while trying to get a decent shot of a otter.
The first shot i had then adjusted my iso to 200 as there was plenty of light on the swan.
Both were taken at 500mm, the sigma 150-500 is a brilliant lens for the money
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1545
nice pics of the swan, the first is very sharp. Were they taken handheld and what FL were they? Reason i ask is that i'm thinking of getting the 120-400 or the 150-500 soon!
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1543
Nice shot mate. I have made a new year’s res never to photograph anything white ever again, includes flowers always screw up the exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1540
Stunner mate, how sharp is that photo
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1540
Lovely photo keebs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1539
"Bit small mate"
Poke it with your clicker - it's a thumbnail link
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1538
Bit small mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1537
Better?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1536
Lovely pic, Paul, but a bit large. I am sure I don't need to tell you how to resize a picture on here..
|
|
|
|
Click for full version
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1534
Thank you, I'm, getting the feeling the music isnt to everyone's tastes
Might just have no music at all.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1525
Some nice photos on the site mate, but i dont like the music Then again I dont really like music on any site as i have my own.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1532
If anyone's interested I have 2 Nikon lenses for sale.
1) Nikon ED 70-300mm 1:4-5.6 £200
2) Nikon 80-400mm 1:4.5-5.6 with vibration reduction. £350
Normal forum buying rules apply.
No =no sale.
Pm if interested
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1531
The focus confirmed adaptor shows on this FD adaptor a F stop of 1.4 on camera. You set apature on lens and the EOS system sets a speed to match or set a speed and the camera will show when the correct matching apature is set
The infinity correction lenses are removed for macro work giving a uncorected lens.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1530
just a bit of a play in the post processing
was this a reversed lens ??? as the exif shows 50mm lens and f1.4
is it the fd lens mounted on an adaptor?
|
|
|
|
This shot was taken indoors using available light. The problem I have is that for some reason the lens produces extremely bright images in low light conditions. Post 1511 & 1500I toned this shot down (post production) in order to bring out some extra detail which had been burnt out.
I have been experimenting with flash using my canon 430 f/gun set at 1/32 power fitted with a dome diffuser which produces good exposed shots down to 1/1. The histogram looks spot on.
The lens is a Vivitar 90mm f 2.8 Macro fitted to a Canon EOS 450 on manual focus with ISO 100-200 setting, F numbers around f8 and lower.
The main problem at the moment is the available light shots and not burning out detail.
Music ok by the way.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1527
Was this outside? The lighting looks a little poor.
What lens were you using?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1526
Thanks, what about now?
|
|
|
|
Thinking this is looking a tad soft, not sure if it is focusing or exposure issues, Any thoughts??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1525
Nice shots mate but that music is annoying try something a bit calmer to set the mood
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1519
Yes i always put my remote in a small plastic bag and after taking shots i still take it out to check its dry
£10 sounds a bit lean
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1522
Use at their discretion and no need for release forms. Sounds like a £10 reward that could end up costing you a lot more!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1521
£10
Kiss my big fat round one...cheeky sods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1519
As far as I know the electronic remotes are not waterproof so inside a plastic bag would be a good move. Your hands would be whet from holding the fish.
The big worry is the camera which unless you have the top of the range model and even then there is only so much abuse they will take water will be a big problem, even a damp atmosphere could ruin your day in theory.
If it is raining I would recommend setting the camera up inside the shelter with you and the fish braving the weather.
You can buy a waterproof cover for your camera and lens but this is a bit OTT for self takes and more suited for specialist applications such as wild life photography where the camera is out in all weathers.
|
|
|
|
|
Just a question for those of you that use a remote for self takes, do you encase the remote in something waterproof?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1516
As a rookie moderator Ken you can’t afford to have anybody else pushing your buttons, well done on the appointment ,right bloke for the job
Anybody seen my post 1515 or have I been buttoned
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1516
nice one ken
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1514
Tremble at the mighty power of my buttons, 60s!
|
|
|
|
Just thought I'd post a pic of Phil in his previous incarnation, just to show he did that bloody well too!
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1511
WAITING FOR THE SUMMER
|
|
|
|
Table top shot of a baking tray with some rocks,water and a flower. For some reason this lens likes working in low light conditions
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1509
I think he is purely digi now. Nikon D700 plus a bag full of very fast lenses.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1503
nice work there ken , he likes his patterns in the landscape shots, given me a few ideas to go at
has he gone digital or still using velvia??
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1503
nice to see you in the gallery Ken !!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1505
lol some good ideas there jeff, think the old bin might hum a bit though, thats if i can get it in my car
Bean bag sounds good
|
|
|
|
Nice link Ken. I think I crossed swords with this bloke in the letter pages of Carpworld over the back cover shots of nubile scantily young girls holding Carp to advertise a French water. I think I labelled them tacky and tied in with some very old style advertising.
From memory I think he thought that I was not a real man because I was not drooling over his shots. My reply was not printed , which was a shame but properly a good call by Editor Tim.
A very good photographer, some stunning shots
David I have heard that a bean bag is a usefully accessory for field shots when getting down to the critters level.
One advantage of using a Wheele Bin is that you have something to put your gear in when you are on your way to a shoot. Could also double up as a hide
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1502
Interesting technique Jeff, I find it very tricky trying to hold the sharp focus area exactly were you want it with shallow dof, even when using my tripod the wind makes it tricky.
Found my wheelie bin a useful sigma prop sat afternoon taking this shot
Just had a look Ken
Excellent photographer, he's taking some awesome shots
|
|
|
|
Once upon a time there was a carp angler. He took some of the most amazing scenics, trophy and wildlife shots, mostly associated with carp fishing. He was without doubt the most respected carp angler in France and in the top three in Europe.
About five years ago he packed it all in to become a professional photographer. Have a browse through his site and BE AMAZED...
He's a Nikon man to his bootstraps by the way.
Philippe Lagabbe - Photographer
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1501
I normally use a tripod but still get problems setting up the shot due to focusing movement when the lens is focused at its minimum distance. This shot went through my laptop on remote shooting. The camera was solid and focusing using a 17inch screen made a difference. It was just a quick shot but a good learning curve
In the morning I will set the shot up properly using todays lessons and see what happens. I have taken a few using shadowless lighting methods which works very well as I don’t want to start shopping everything
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1500
Nice Macro Jeff, Yes good exposure, interesting use of the scanner
|
|
|
|
I took this shot this morning of a 5mm stamen of an artificial flower, using normal room lighting. The camera was propped up on my desktop scanner. Some focusing issues but a reasonable exposure. Sometimes natural light can pay off
|
|
|
|
first ever manual shot. indoors. low light. no flash.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1497
Seen 1 fly in 2 weeks a trip to the florist is on the cards
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
A walk in the woods today at 3ish. The light was going.
Taken using :
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3
Panasonic H-fs045200e Lumix G Vario 45-200mm F4-5.6
last week in Norfolk:
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3
14-42mm Lumix G VARIO f/3.5-5.6
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1494
thanks for the help lads,i will have a look in a camera shop over here this week and see how i get on,but i know they wont be cheap(nothing is in france)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1489
Most lenses below f2 tend not to be a cheap item, although in Nikon fitting they do seem to be below those of the Canon brand.
If AF could be taken out of the equation then one of the older Nikkor lenses could represent great value for money. Older Nikkor lenses do tend to hold their price because unlike Canon you do not need a special adaptor to fit them onto modern cameras. Mifsuds do have a range of Nikon lenses in their used section. Noticed a 50mm f1.8 AFD lens for £99 or the50mm F1.8 AF for£79.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1492
The h9 has a good lens 31- 465 mm equivilant f 2 to 4.5 but it has 15 x optical zoom which is stabilised
Bad news is its not removable but you should get close with 465 but can't vouch for the image quality ??
May find putting it on a tripod or mono pod helps and see how you go
8 mega pixels bridge camera
|
|
|
|
hi
i have got a sony h9 and only use it to take fish pics,i was wondering if anybody knows if it is possible to fit a telephoto lens to it so that i can take a few more wildlife pics (close ups),we have got so many different animals and birds here but cant get close enough with the standard lens,as you can see i am no expert so any help greatfully received
alan
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1489
got a 35mm 1.8 from wex for £164, think john lewis do it for the same price?? any good to ya fella??
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1489
what focal length ? if its tele forget cheap!!!!
af 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 think you will struggle to go below f2 other than these two or may be a 30 mm ???
|
|
|
|
|
except ebay is there anywhere that seels cheap nikkor AF lenses? im after a one with a low f value (below 2) to fit my d80
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1487
Interesting site Jason.Remote shooting via a laptop does make life less difficult.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1451
if you want to give serious close up a try on the cheap get a set of small camera bellows on a rack and a 6 element cheap enlarging lens bobs your uncle super sharp shots
it takes a bit of time to get the focus spot on but with digital you can tether to a laptop to help or use live view to help a bit
the vivitar lens is a a sweet one have alook at the 55mm vivitar fd thats cool too
GREAT SITE
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1484
Seriously - you'd be surprised.
I think you have just about summed up the difference between serious armature gear and pro equipment. If you have to get the shot you can’t depend on everything working in your favour.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1469
great shots keebs
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1483
Seriously - you'd be surprised.
I use a bird forum as well and some of the shots posted there take your breath away - especially in-flight shots and low-light ones.
Mine is fine with plenty of light, but on a dull day.... not so much.
High ISO's are needed to keep up the shutter speed, which introduces more noise.
The lower f-stop lenses (wider diameter glass) let in more light which allows a lower ISO and so less noise.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1482
would the images really be "that"much better though??, your shots are really sharp, clean, wouldn't of thought you would get much better???
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1480
"That is a chunk of money but bargain basement when you compare it with the 2.8 & f4 IS models. Are they that much better to warrant a £6479.00 & £5298.00 price tag?"
Yes in terms of image quality - they are streets ahead of mine but the problem is physical size.
I did quite a bit of research before buying and the one I have is pretty much the only one to use for carrying around and for in-flight shots. (That or the 100-400 zoom - both have their advantages and disadvantages)
Once you get to f4 and particularly f2.8 you're looking at tripod shots, you've no chance of swinging one of those around!
I like to walk around and take whatever opportunities present themselves rather than sitting in a hide for hours on end.
Bit like my fishing really
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1480
If it helps you do your job then yes, every penny.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1479
as in most things in life, you get what you pay for!
That is a chunk of money but bargain basement when you compare it with the 2.8 & f4 IS models. Are they that much better to warrant a £6479.00 & £5298.00 price tag?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1478
just looked it up about a grands worth!! but as in most things in life, you get what you pay for!
|
|
|
|
|
Keebs what lens did you use for the pictures of them birds. I love them and looking for a decent zoom lens to go with my first dlsr. I guess yours would be a bit out of my price range though
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1472
It's not a macro shot - same lens on all shots.
EF400 f5.6 L
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1475
Also on Amazon. They must be making them cheaper in China
http://www.amazon.com/Opteka-650-1300mm-Definition-Telephoto-Canon/dp/B00064YZAQ
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1474
Lol, I know them things are pants but I thought they were super expensive? Must be a con of some kind, from China or something??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1473
I think I would rather set the self timer and then catapult my camera towards the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1469
Used up all my spare time in Centennial Park
Stunning mate, how did you get the bird to hold the bug for a macro shot. Could do with that accessory
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1469
Nice seal shots tuftytowers, looks like your getting the hang of the 105.
like the shallow DOF on Yoda
Great quality seal shots.
Thanks 60srules, i took the great tit shot with my Sigma at 500mm while walking into bramble and tearing
my Shimano overtrousers 
Like your excellent bird shots Keebs, top quality
|
|
|
|
Just spent a few days in Sydney for work.
Used up all my spare time in Centennial Park.
Great to be pointing the camera at totally new (for me) brids and such a help to have good light
Welcome Swallow
Fairy Martin
New Holland Honeyeater
Superb Fairy Wren
Willie Wagtail
Rainbow Lorikeet
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1462
This shot was taken from the stands using the 75-300mm lens. This is a non IS lens, which does complicate things a bit. The image has been Photoshopped to give a different look to the finished shot.
This was at 300mm with the camera mounted on a tripod in the garden and shot using the remote feature linked to my laptop.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1460
I bought the Canon 75-300mm lens for my 550D. Its an excellent piece of kit and the Image Stabiliser works wonders. I've used it a lot for shots of the boy playing rugby and the pics are excellent and crisp.
I wouldn't get a telephoto without the IS.
Only issue is cost, I think mine retails about £400 though I got a bit off as part of a deal. I bought a UV filter for £15 (Canon) and stuck it on to protect it.
One thing I had to remember is that with an 18MP camera you can afford to zoom and crop in later on the PC. I was trying to get too far in and missing moving targets.
No matter what lens you get, prepare yourself for the inevitable hankering after another and then another
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1456
I think I have said this before David but that is one heck of a nice bit of glass you have there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1458
I have the 18-55 lens which is standard with these models and it is not a bad lens as such. Most of the shots I have put up were taken with this lens apart from the most recent which were taken with the Vivitar 90mm f2.8 macro, which is work in progress
On the telephoto front if you want to stick with Canon then the 75-300 usm is good value, although a tad more expensive the model with image stabilisation is worth the extra money. I have the feeling that at the 75mm mark this lens is sharper than the kit lens at 55
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1457
PM sent with instructions re posting
|
|
|
|
Hi people I'm going to purchase a CANON EOS 600D with an 18-55mm IS Lens at the weekend and I'm just wondering if anyone can recommend me with another lens. I'm mainly going to use my camera for Trophy shots for fishing, some close-ups of wildlife and finally to be able to zoom in in things like birds in trees from a distance and still get a good clear image. So what would you guys suggest as my other lens.
P.S I don't really want to spend to much on my other lens, thanks for your replies.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1455
thanks jeffery for the lengthy reply,
what you said is probably why i didn't get any where in wex then, went in there the other day asked if they could do a deal on the 3 items, and was a no go!!!! would of thought buying 3 expensive items in this climate they would of jumped at it!!!!
brought a 105 macro lens, 35mm prime, carbon tripod, bag and a few other bits before christmas with them, so would of thought they would look after customers who spend a few quid???
dangerous dave told us about wex thanks bud, would put up some pics of the seals i took at winterton over the last few days if i knew how to
tried following the how to thread but to no avail, managed to set up photo bucket account, then it all goes wrong 
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1453
Hi Paul
Good question on the equipment front. I tend not to buy on the High street, because a lot of camera shops are part of big chains and have very little leeway in terms of price. Unfortunately a lot of people who work in them do not have any kind of in depth knowledge about the products they sell. There are exceptions but most of the knowledge they have is aimed at selling you their top ten products. Nothing wrong with sales people, I spent a large part of my working life in this industry.
Independent dealers are out there and are normally run by the owner, who mostly knows what he/she is talking about. The problem comes down to price. In many respects they can’t match the price of the chains who bulk buy. In some cases that knowledge and back up is worth money, it depends how much you value it.
My approach to buying camera gear runs along these lines:
Knowledge and independent advice is key. I read just about everything I can get my hands on in respect of the item I am thinking of buying. The web is a great source of independent reviews. Just Google the item and add reviews/reports. You often can read reports posted by people who own the equipment. You should get a cross section of opinion.
Once you have made up your mind, then it is time to shop around for the best deal on the items on your short list. Where possible try and get hands on. Do an internet search on the big companies, they often do promotions and sometimes their prices are competitive but as said usually no room for negotiation. You would also want to be sure that their after sales service is aimed at the customer.
If you lived in London the a trip down Tottenham Court road with your haggle hat on can save you a lot of money. I always make it clear that I intend to buy and what can the dealer do to help me spend my money with him.
You may decide to buy on-line, again make sure that the company has a good reputation and if possible speak to a person and ask questions, if they can’t be bothered, remember they should be interested in making a sale, so think about their likely attitude if you call them with a problem.
You can buy from an auction site, such as Ebay. Some items are new with a price attached. Some items are used and you need to bid for them. Ebay publish a guide to sellers so you should be able to form an opinion on them from the independent reviews that are published about them and their selling activity.
A lot of products have a good description as to their condition. If a product does not match their description or perhaps is misleading then you can return the goods for a refund. With the larger sellers they protect their reputation and will offer advice and usually refund without a problem.
There are no hard rules about buying on Ebay, they do publish a guide but I have fund that researching past sales gives a good idea of the going price. Some items are slow but when it comes to the last hour or so the bidding gets serious. I normally look at the top bid and then post my maximum bid. If my maximum bid is say £100 and the current bid is £80 then anybody offering £90 will not be top bidder and will be asked to bid again. If the bids go above £100 then that person will be the one to beat. I have successfully bid for items by increasing my max bid with minutes to go. A word of warning don’t get carried away, bid what the item is worth to you and let somebody else pay over the odds.
If you want to send me a PM in respect of the wants you have listed I can talk you through some of those items.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1452
dp whoops
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1452
stunning shots, was wondering where do you guys buy your equipment from???
jessops?
warehouse express?
any others??
do you try and support local business or just buy of the net?
reason for asking is am in the market for a new camera d300s/ d7000, macro flash kit and a tele lens, 120-400 or 150-500, wondering how you go about getting the best deals
cheers in advance
|
|
|
|
This is harder than I thought
|
|
|
|
This is an updated update, if that makes sense. The project was to get a foothold in Macro photography without breaking the bank. Against a backdrop of spending some £700 on the Canon 100mm f4 macro or some £380 or there about on either a Sigma or Tamron lens a cunning plan took shape.
The least cost option was to buy a 28mm or 50mm manual lens, preferably old German glass and reverse it using a reversing ring. This approach was abandoned for another day as a suitable lens was not forthcoming. Check out www.thomasshahan.com for some mind blowing work using this method.
The availability of Canon FD lenses looked attractive so I went down that route but it turned into a blind alley. There are a number of Canon FD lenses which have the word Macro in the model description; this is also true of other makes. If you take the meaning of Macro to describe a lens which produces 1-1 images and has upgraded optics then none of these lenses fit the bill. They mean close focusing which is not the same by a long way. Canon list three true Macro lenses in the FD range.
The Canon FD fitting lenses require an adaptor to fit onto the autofocus EOS cameras. The web is awash with them, they mostly have one thing in common and that is that they are rubbish. Plastic lenses, poor build quality and mainly do not focus on infinity. Fortunately I managed to get a bespoke adaptor from the Lens Doctor company, which has hand ground Hoya lenses in it, these can be removed for true Macro work. The adaptor has a chip inside which allows the focus confirmed feature to operate on the EOS camera. Frankly the only adaptor worth considering.
On the lens front I successfully bid on a Vivitar 90mm f2.8 Macro lens in Canon FD fit which does 1-1 and was in amazing condition. If i did not know how old it was I would have thought it had come out of a box yesterday.
I am still getting to know the lens but early results are looking good. Apart from focusing and depth of field issues which are the tricky part of Macro photography and getting the subject to stay still and in one place how the subject is illuminated plays a big part in getting the image you are looking for.
I started off with an object in a light tent lit with 2 mini photofloods but the images lacked bite so I resorted to electronic flash and results improved. The best results came from using the Canon 430x flashgun fitted with an inverted dome diffuser. The flashgun was set to deliver 1/16 full power with an aperture of f16. The high shutter speed allowed hand held shots at distances approaching 1-1.
This is a shot taken last year with the standard lens
This shot was taken from a comfortable distance some way short of 1-1 using the flash set up.
This shows the potential but does suffer with some focusing issues and lighting problems. Hand held 1-1 is not easy.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
I think these are Welcome Swallow fledglings being fed. Taken in a park in Sydney.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1447
Such obliging bugs in your neck of the woods, love it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1446
Messing about with my 105, Caught this Lacewing sneaking a peek through my double glazing
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1445
Thanks pal. I like your thinking, I'll look in to those
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1444
This is hard but:
1 Reflections
3 Energy
5 Rebirth
6 Question
7 Tranquility
10 Slower pace.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1443
Evening all.
I have a photography C&G college submission due in February and Ive got the 10 images required but need names for them, Ive come with a few but would love some ideas from you guys.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
All feedback gratefully received, positive and constructive negatives!
Thanks in advance
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1442
All you need to know and then some. Very lucky to have found that site. Looks as if a reverse lens on the EOS is not a proposition. With the lens on you can select an aperture Take the lens off and reverse it the aperture setting is applied but you can’t alter it. You are able to change shutter speed which in theory should get a result but I have yet to test this out in a real situation.
Should have the FD/EOS adaptor in the morning so for now it looks like the big cost saving on the FD lens adapted to EF. According to the technician you have to focus manually, which I do on close up, so not a problem. Due to the chip in the adaptor the camera thinks you have an EF lens attached switched to manual focusing so the rest should work OK, fingers crossed.
When I was looking at this guys site Lens Doctor I came across a 50mm f1.4 lens which was an option on a camera sold by Dixons who were daft enough to employ me as a branch manager back in the day.
He had refurbished it and converted it to a Canon fit, and gave it top marks as a brilliant standard lens which was reflected in the very high cost and I am talking large. The thing is I am sure that I sold a relative of mine a camera with this lens attached. I know that it is in a draw gathering dust so perhaps a deal can be done.
UPDATE
Just noticed that a Vivitar 90mm F2.8 Macro (1/1) went for £99 this evening on the bay Canon FD fit, just looked at an independant review which says that it is better than the Canon 100mm F4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some very useful information on this site check it out
http://macrophotographyforbeginners.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1439
Reversed lens update
Canon strike again. It appears that the FD range of lenses are required to be attached to the Camera before manual aperture settings can be set.
The very old lenses have a fixing which allows this, the hunt is on. The lens does not have to be Canon as the adaptor has to be a canon fit but the other end is a screw fit so as long as the lens does not need to be attached directly to the camera in conventional mode to be able to manually adjust the aperture and the filter size is available you should be in business.
On the good side I have found a brilliant lens adaptor for FD to EOS. When fitted it fools the system into thinking it has a EF lens attached and you have selected manual focusing. On the exposure front you can still use some of the auto functions and of course manual.
The lens is Hoya optical glass for infinity correction and can be removed for true macro work thus using a uncorrected lens.
Made by an ex Canon technician at £60+ it is streets ahead of the Plastic/rubbish glass lenses found in overseas offerings and does not fall to bits.
Will give a report when it arrives
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1438
Thanks Neil for the link.
I think I must give this approach a go. Reversing rings are only around £13 but the down side is that you need to be able to manually set the aperture on the lens so you need to get a non electric lens which is not a problem with Canon FD lenses.
SEE UPDATE ON 1440
The working distances are very short from subject to lens coupled with very, very limited depth of field. Lighting the subject could also pose a problem but the good thing is that this approach is not driven by buying ultra expensive gear.
It can’t be as easy as it sounds otherwise everybody would be doing it. The photos illustrated are of live subjects taken in the field which poses its own set of problems.
I did notice a number of Carl Zeiss std lenses for sale, which are superb optics, expensive but perhaps something to work up to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1436
Thanks 60s rules, I have the same problem mate, can't get the hang of posting links on here.
Amazing shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1435
Thanks David
I think I did read something about the blurring problem on a forum linked to my research on adaptors. Appeared to be how the adaptor was fitted to the camera. If I can find the link I will let you know about it.
On a different topic check out this web page. www.thomasshahan.com, sorry can’t do links.
This guy produces world class shots using the reversed lens technique on equipment that most people would consign to the bin.
He shoots a number of shots of live subjects in the field and slightly alters the focusing point for each shot and them layer stacks them.
There is an article in the November issue of Digital SLR photography which outlines his approach.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1434
Still got all my old FD lenses , i did get a converter to use them on my Nikon D5000.
My 28mm f/2.8 and 70-210 works ok though had to go Manual without any metering.
Pity the main lens i wanted to use my 50mm f/1.8 produces blurred shots, think this is something to do with the distance between compositing lens and the sensor.
You should get much better results though converting to your EOS
|
|
|
|
Finally decided to go down the Macro route. On its way is a Canon FD 35-70 Macro Zoom. Not wanting to spend shedloads of money I have opted for the later FD version with a top quality convertor to attach to my EOS.
I can live with manual focusing and using in aperture priority mode as this is how I take close ups anyway
Will be interesting to see if it was £90 well spent
|
|
|
|
A couple from this morning..
|
|
|
|
Raw file Photoshoped
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1425
yep along with uv filter, gorilla pod and remote
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1429
Stunning shots !!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1428
Thanks
Yes Amazing lens, Nearly straight off the camera just a little tweaking
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1426
There's something quite amazing about those droplets of water Dave, immense!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1426
will be trying out some shots this week
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1424
warehouse express £612. 99
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1421
had a look around where you got yours from mate, and would you believe the same lens fell into my basket as it were
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1421
Worth every penny mate
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1418
"nice bird shots keeb, tripod and gimbal head?"
All hand held - don't even own a tripod
500D & EF400 f5.6L
|
|
|
|
A iffy garden photo can be turned into something worth putting in a frame
A few minutes using Photoshop can produce results like this. A section of the above image received some Photoshop magic.
Checkout the Photoshop charity thread for some stunning options.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1417
heres a recent trophy shot on a d70 with the d40s 18 - 55 mk2 lens and sb 900, i know its a plastic mount but guys its quite a good sharp lens and ideal for fishing trophy shots
on my d700 i have a 50mm manual f1.8 and its fantasticly sharp lens and i can set it up via the menu to use all coupling ie metering for about 50-60 quid result just need to walk about more
london nat histroy, through a glass cab with the 50mm , 1/30th ( i know i pushed it a bit ) f 2.8 , iso 1250 no flash obv
nice bird shots keeb, tripod and gimbal head?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1401
Keebs and bungle, they are some brilliant photos. Well done and keep putting them up! I do like the landscape shots but a lot people dont realise how hard a bird in flight shot like those are to get. Having an slr and fandango lens is only a fraction of the battle!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1414
On later editions of Windows there is a viewer called Windows Photo Gallery. It is my default setting for opening J Pegs.
At the top of the viewer it has a drop down called fix with it you can do the following. Resize the image, alter the colour, fix red eye and lighten or darken an image. Two seconds with a slider and the image looks like this.
Not a bad result when you compare the two images, could be a very cheap option as you probably have it already.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1414
I shoot at 800 & 1600 regularly for bird pics (you need similarly high shutter speeds for sports too)
Removing digital noise from high ISO's makes a huge difference to the end result.
If you have Photoshop this plug-in is well worth the money. Far better than the denoise algorithm in PS.
TOPAZ
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your help, I was struggling that day because it was such low light. The ISO was already at 1600 for most of the shots and I wasn't going to go any higher, so getting a fast enough shutter speed that the subject was crisp but light enough at the same time was tough. I did use flash on a few but with that I then had the problem of a dark background and light subject!
Need an off camera flash setup really to get over the problem.
I will try using GIMP, as doing the manual over-write in word would take forever with over 300 photos in the set.
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Took the liberty of altering the exposure as an illustration of a basic Photoshop application that is used to enhance shots. This one is a bit OTT and could be toned down a tad.
Post editing software is very useful on a lot of levels. You do not have to use Photoshop as far cheaper options exist although not offering the scope of photoshop. Have a look at GIMP, free editing software off the web it is not an easy programme but you may find it does everything you need. Next best thing to Photoshop and it is free.
|
|
|
|
You can import the image into word and use a textbox to put in the necessary information. Or there are a number of low cost programmes that allow you to place words over an image.
Microsoft publisher part of office pro edition if you have it will do this as well
Don’t think that you loose any image quality but could be wrong about that.
Hope that helps I know Ken does mark his work but I think he may have photoshop
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1410
Nice shots mate, difficult subject. If you are not doing so already try setting your camera on the sports setting and with a high shutter speed panning with the subject as it goes past. This setting takes a burst of shots just keep the shutter release down
I think word has a copyright logo in the advanced section and you should be able to copy and paste onto the image, will check that out and get back.
|
|
|
|
So i've started to do some event photography, mostly mountain bike races.
I'm just posting them on flickr then having to direct people to the sets on various forums.
I'm also getting good comments for my work, so would like to know about what I can do in terms of easier ways of hosting the pictures for people to find them, as flickr doesn't show the sets in google results.
Also, do I have to own photoshop in order to put copyright details on them, so people can't just save them?
Here's a few samples from the race too
Many thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1408
Spot on mate, just the right amount. I have applied this effect to a couple of studies but yet to learn the lesson that less is more
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1407
Just had a go in Gimp.
Think this looks about right, more opacity don't look natural to me how about you?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1406
Thanks pete
Nice idea 60s rules.
might have a go at that
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1404
Had you thought about creating a partial reflection in the water, post production? Nice shot by the way
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1404
beautiful photo dave
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1400
Osprey
In Bedfordshire on Wednesday, must be a stop-off on a migration route.
First time I've seen one in the UK.
Made my year
beautiful photo keebs we used to see the osprey most years when migrating throught shropshire
|
|
|
|
|
If we are talking about rare bird sightings driving back from Turvey one afternoon I spotted a Macaw sitting up in a tree as calm as you like. Somebody had lost a very expensive pet.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1400
Well spotted Keebs, excellent Osprey Shot.
I have seen them twice in Norfolk about this time of the year, they do tend to stop for a feed up while migrating over the Norfolk Broads.
Would love to get a good shot like yours
|
|
|
|
Osprey
In Bedfordshire on Wednesday, must be a stop-off on a migration route.
First time I've seen one in the UK.
Made my year
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1397
Cheers, all!
They really are the tiniest ants I have ever seen. When you consider that wasp is, say 1.5cm long, just look how many of these tiny creatures are scuttling all over its carcase in this slightly more revealing pic (better d of f). So if the wasp is 1.5cm how big does that make the ants!
Same outfit as before but with flash. f8 at 250th.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1396
paul a great photo of that kestrel absolutely beautiful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1393
nice photo ken
|
|
|
|
Kestrel
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1393
Couple of shots from a recent visit to France taken on a D70 with Sigma f2.8 105mm macro.
Is that a new outfit Ken?. Nice shot by the way I would not want too get to close to that. 105 is the way
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1393
Nice Quality pictures Ken
Been thinking about getting the Nikon 105 f2.8 Ken, Not sure on the differences between the sigma and the nikon versions, I am sure they are both great lenses though the current sigma 105 f/2.8 is a bit more money.
|
|
|
|
Couple of shots from a recent visit to France taken on a D70 with Sigma f2.8 105mm macro.
Asian hornet looking menacing! (f11 @ 500th)
Dead wasp being eaten by very tiny ant-like creatures. (f3.5 @ 200th)
|
|
|
|
|
nice photos dave
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
Nice photo mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1388
Nice crisp Buzzard shot Keebs.
Really like the Swan shot Bungle, brilliant
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1387
Cheers guys
|
|
|
|
|
Keebs and bungle, they are all incredible shots!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1385
lovely photo keebs
|
|
|
|
Buzzard from Great Barr Estate near Walsall.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1383
Nice work mate
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1381
Yes got fed up with my old windows vista and bought a iMac 27in few months ago upped the RAM to 12gb,
Awesome for editing lot of money but well worth it
Totally agree Gimp isn't very user freindly took me a while to figure out just some of the things you can do with it, Might get photoshop in the future
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1380
I played around with GIMP for a while but having used SC4 I could not get on with it. Good software but not as user friendly as Photoshop, if you can call CS4 user friendly. I take it you are a mac user.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1379
http://www.apple.com/uk/aperture/?cid=mc-uk-g-mac-m-ape-brand&sissr=1
Thanks 60s rules Aperture 3 is photo enhancing software from Apple, its a fairly good organiser and enhancing program though there are quite a few things you can't do that you can in photoshop or Gimp.
I still use my Gimp for further editing at times
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1378
Thanks David, That’s impressive, ISO 100, I would have put the house on you using a higher setting. Just goes to show what you can produce with a DSLR. Looking forward to having a look at some more of your work using the site addresses.
You mentioned using some aperture enhancing software, what programme would that be.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1377
sorry
using AFS-35mm lens with D5000 in vivid mode f/13 1/125sec iso100 added a little enhancing in aperture software otherwise nearly as taken.
never could get the hang of putting links on here but you can check the exif on all my shots in my flickrhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/32791195@N08/
or google dangerousdavecarper
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1376
The shot I was asking about is the shot with the rods, is that the one you are referring to or the moon shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1375
Only used aperture priority on f/8 1/160sec -4/3EV iso200. it is surpising how much light you get off the moon
the sigma is sharper at f/8 than max aperture of f/6.3.
I added some sharpness contrast in aperture software
Taken handheld with a steady hand, the stabiliser did the rest
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1371
Out of interest what were you working with here. Looking at this image again it struck me how sharp the image is across the board. Given that I would have expected the lens to be opened up because of the lack of light, you seem to have nailed the exposure.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1372
thanks, yes did see the weed didn't want two pick it off might disturb the fish lol.
Thanks mickey i did take several exposures using my sigma 500 handheld, super lens
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1371
David ; that is a cracking picture of the moon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1371
Like the piece of weed hanging off the second rod, nice pics by the way
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1369
Nice shot of the side street with the sun setting
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1367
same here, can't get 105 quality with my 18-55.
will be splashing out soon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1364
Hi David, can’t take credit for the photo as I did not take it. I thought it was a funny shot, even funnier as I know the guy. He is a very talented occasion photographer and works a lot in the far East.
Have to agree with Peter, stunning shots. I must get a 100mm macro lens. Spent the afternoon in the garden and came away with some rubbish insect shots.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1365
Thanks petethecrip
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1364
absolutely wonderful photography
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
This is a good friend of mine being out lensed.You can imagine some of the comments
|
|
|
|
I am a Canon user and like the system but if I was on a tight budget and needed a range of different lens types I would have a hard look at Nikon. The reason being that most of the older Nikon lenses will fit the new DSLR bodies.
With Canon thanks to the auto focusing system the older much cheaper lenses will not fit the new DSLR mount. It is true that you can buy a converter mount which is expensive and in some people’s eyes are unreliable.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1359
Cheers nick, thanks for the advice, i have found some cracking prices from a website called slr hut, they are selling the 550d for £480 with the 18-55mm lens, i have never heard of them before?? So i am a bit skeptical of buying from them
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1359
hi fellas im after a new digital camera budget upto about 150 quid. just to take general pics nothing fancy. been looking cannon ixus 22 hs as it has decent reviews and i think the button is on the top so i can still use my shutter release? anyone any opinions/suggestions.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1356
Andy, i'd think you could pick up a 550D for that money. There's a little more resolution and it has full HD unlike the 500.
I would suggest if you're going to photograph sport that you spend the extra and make the 75-300 lens an IS model. The image stability really helps with moving targets, I use mine for the boys rugby and the IS really helps. My stepdad has a normal lens and the difference is quite marked.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1357
Cheers mate your help is much appreciated
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1356
I'd avoid Jessops mate, they are the most expensive place you can get cameras and equipment from!
Take a look at
Warehouse Express
And if you don't mind your stuff coming from Hong Kong (which, to be honest, it all does in the first place anyway) then take a look at Panamoz. I've bought my camera and a lens from this company and had no problems with them, and you won't find a better price than theirs.
75-300mm would be great for the racing, and should get you in pretty close. The 18-55 is a really good lens considering it comes free with the camera, it has Image Stabilisation and USM (ultra sonic motor) for fast focusing.
You're not being a pain mate, wouldn't be answering if I didn't mind!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1355
I was just looking at jessops and they are selling the canon eos 500d with the 18-55mm plus 75-300mm for £580, does this seem a reasonable price?
I suppose the 75-300mm would cover the motor racing? And the 18-55mm is a good alrounder?
Sorry if i am being a pain
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1354
Thanks for the reply mate ill let you no how i get on
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1353
Hello mate,
In terms of the camera you would like, it depends what you want from it really and what you want to do with your photos.
For lenses, if you get a camera with a kit lens, such as the Canon EOS 500d that I have, then that will cover scenic shots and trophy shots.
You may then want to get yourself a zoom lens for motor racing, plenty available but i'd try and get one with some kind of optical stabilisation to compensate for shaking as you will probably be holding the camera in your hands rather than on a tripod.
Wildlife, bugs and flowers can be photographed with the kit lens, but for closer shots you'll want a macro lens if you want any detail in the finer shots.
So basically the camera with a kit lens, and one or two extra lenses, which you could easily get for under £800 I reckon, just depends what ones you choose!
|
|
|
|
Hi guys, i am currently looking at getting a dslr, i have my heart set on the nikon d5100, i need some advice on what lenses to get, i dont want to spend a fortune on them, budget about £200 maybe a bit more per lens. These are the situations that i wish to cover:
. Motor racing
. Trophy shots
. Scenic shots
. Wildlife, bugs and flowers.
Cheers, andrew
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1351
Impressive mate
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
For those people who are interested in `Adobe Photoshop`, the October edition of Digital SLR photography is featuring how to use the `Liquify` filter. As well as other gems the section on creating mirror images and reflections could be useful in giving those lake views and I guess trophy shots an extra dimension.
For those people thinking about branching out into close up photography there is a great section on all the options available.
|
|
|
|
Impromptu shot of a Kitten who likes to hunt from our plant pot, 300mm Canon hand held
|
|
|
|
Very Nice shots dave!!
Did anyone get a shot of the moon last night around 9.30pm? I was walking home from my girlfriends and could see it just above the horizon, looking huge and VERY red! By the time I got home it was up in the sky and normal colour :(
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1345
Not a wasted trip mate, nice work
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1345
Nice work dave
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1342
It appears that unlike Nikon and their older range of optics,the Canon old style lens will not fit onto the current Canon DSLR range. You can buy an adaptor for around £60 but there have been a few cases where it has been difficult to remove from the mount.
According to the camera guy Nikon on their better models have a programme built into the camera that will mesh with just about all the old Nikon range.
As it happens the Canon rep was in the shop at the time.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1342
Nice shots ben, excellent quality
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1341
cheers mate , ive been blown away by this lens carnt rate it highly enough these shots were just messing around whilst out with the dog today. Carnt wait to find some weird looking spiders and dragon flys to shoot .
just added one more pic to my post of a fly
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1340
Ben, quality shots
|
|
|
|
Heres a few from today , taken with the 105mm ais nikon lens.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1333
Sigma get some very good reviews and £400 does seem a lot for that type of lens. That’s interesting information on the earlier lens range. Not a problem IMO in respect of manual use as a lot of shots I take these days are in the manual mode.
I am currently using Canon so it could be worth me having a look at a earlier Canon macro lens
Nice shots by the way Ben. Still think that the right shot in B&W can take some beating.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1337
I've only got the d3000 at the minute and it works manually on that so should be no probs on the d5000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1336
Thanks ben, will check on ebay could save me a lot of money.
What camera are you using.
would i get shutter control on my D5000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1335
Thanks dave
my 105 is f2.8 ais micro lens about 15 + years old so have to use fully manually the only thing the camera controls is White balance and shutter speed . It's early days with it yet but stunning portraits of the kids with it , not done any insect work with it yet need to find some spare time , when I get some time I will put some on my flikr page and upload them on here .
If you do a search on google there's some great reveiws on the 105 ais micro lens it's optically the same as the £650 vr model give or take and some sample images I've seen r breath taking they can be had for as little as £125 on eBay .
Ben
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1334
some super captures there Brindle.
Yes my 35 is my favourite, great al round sharp lens.
How do you rate your 105 macro is it the nikon 105 f 2.8, would you buy it again, was it worth the money
|
|
|
|
some cracking shots there lads .
its good to see the photo thread up and running again .
ive got the 18-55 vr kit lens the 105 macro and 70-300 vr and the 35mm f1.8 and ive found the 35mm to cover most situations us carpers find our selves in , Out of all my lens the 35mm is used without doubt the most its great in low light bulb stuff if that s your thing, sharp as hell on trophy shots with great for a shallow dof , heres a few recent carp related stuff (last 12 months) ive took .
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1332
Thanks 60sRules the snow cloud scene was one of the first shots i took with my D5000.
I was taken in vivid mode only added a bit of sharpness and a little contrast.
i have been offered a secondhand sigma apo150, the earlier version without the stabiliser though i think its a bit expensive at £400
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1331
i would like both lenses though I must get a good macro and prime wide-angle first
A macro lens is at the top of my list as the 18-55 does not do it for me. The shots look ok until you see what a macro can deliver. In fairness to the 18-55 it was not designed to complete in this field.
I am quite happy to use the 18-55 for most work and I have also found that the lens works better at the wide angle end
That’s a stunning cold weather shot. One of the few shots that actually make me feel cold looking at it. Any post production work done on this?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1327
You can always experiment with your kit lens, put it on a tripod and set the kit lens on about 50 then take a few shots on timer of your self at different distances.
then repeat at the same distances with the lens on 35 i would like both lenses though I must get a good macro and prime wide-angle first
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1328
Just been having the same thoughts myself over rethinking the 50mm due to the fact it will actually be like shooting at 72mm on my DX body.
Think I'll go for the 35mm, controversial Ken Rockwell seems to rave about it on the D40 too. Would the 35mm be Ok as a walk around, candid lens as well?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1327
The kit lens is OK for landscape at the wide angle setting. I would have a rethink on getting the 50mm as posted the 35mm would be more use for trophy shots. You can always crop in post production. It would also be great for lancsape shots, keeping the kit as a general lens.
You do notice a drop in quality when using the kit lens over a prime normally when taking close ups. My 75-300 does produce a crisper image when used at the minimum focus distance.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1326
Beautiful Picture Dave
Fully can't decide between the 35mm or 50mm, really like the shallow depth of field with both lenses and it seems some prefer one and others prefer the other.
I'm leaning towards the 50mm 1.8 though at the moment, not fishing too tight swims atm so can frame the shot without too much hassle. Also thinking of sticking to the kit lens at wide angles for the landscape shots for the time being. Any thoughts on this?
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1323
After a bit of advice please guys, Just purchased a Nikon D40 on ebay which is coming with the Kit lens, I'm after a fast prime lens for my catch shots. Due to the cropped sensor should I get the 35mm AFS 1.8 DX lens or the 50mm AFS 1.8 (which is not a DX lens meaning an equiv. 75mm FOV)
The 50mm can be had for about £190 or the 35mm for £165ish
Also looking for a landscape lens, would the kit lens 18-55mm used at 18mm be ok for this? aperture would be around 3.5
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Using a new monitor and images are looking a lot crisper. Flower heads `shopped` to bring out texture and colour
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1318
Hi Neil
Carrying on from our PM’s. Bin shots 3 and 6, you are a much better photographer than these shots suggest.
Shot 5 is good stuff, that’s the standard apply it to every shot. If it doesn’t match up bin it. Great photographs are the ones that you don’t bin. They will always be a small percentage of your work. I guess it all comes down to wanting to be known for producing great shots not OK ones.
I spent all day yesterday developing a shot that I had in mind. I tried natural lighting, a full electronic flash studio set up and loads of other stuff. The end result was 80 shots which were rubbish and ended up being deleted off the system. A couple did have something going for them but I have produced better images so why go backwards when forward is the way.
Great Swallow shot. A real Walkers. Crisp, just made that up.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1320
yes 500mm f/9 1/500sec OS on iso 400
Great lens though is a bit heavy
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1319
Thanks mate, really like the quality of picture you get from that lens.. may have to try and get hold of one. Is the swallow shot zoomed all the way in?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1318
nice shots all-on-black
Swallow shot is only about 20% cropped, managed to get fairly close with my sigma 150-500
|
|
|
|
Awesome shots!!
Are they cropped or straight off?
Just a few shots from fishing over the weekend..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1316
cracking swallow shot Keebs
heres one i took of a swallow singing early morning in june.
|
|
|
|
Just a quick plug for the set of PKA Auto Extension Tubes I am selling in the classifieds, if anyone is interested.
'ere 'tis!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1313
yes i heard a couple of hours ago.
Just found out the pilot died shocking news
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1312
Did you hear about the crash of one of them Red Arrows on their way back to base Dave?
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
I know that not everybody is a fan of Photoshoped images but it does allow your imagination to roam a bit and give some interesting textures
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1309
I bought the July issue and was very impressed with its mix of articlesfor new and experienced photographers
|
|
|
|
If anybody is looking for a decent monthly photographic magazine, check out Digital SLR Photography.
Usually has a number good projects and is very strong in explaining and giving examples of using Photoshop.
Not a lot of advertising content. No matter what level you are at usually something new to consider
|
|
|
|
Hand held 70-300mm at min focusing distance at around 75mm
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
Some shots taken using artificial lighting with the std lens.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
Having a quick brew in the garden this morning and this little blighter turned up around the pond. Took a few shots as he won’t be around much longer as he and his mates have decided to move into the house. Edit Just noticed the basic Photoshop mistake with the bamboo. ho hum
|
|
|
|
I think this shot has been on the forum before. It is worth mentioning that on occasions an impromptu shot can surprise you. The lighting is natural the shading comes from natural sunlight filtering through a venetian blind and striking the flower. Would have been difficult to achieve this effect artificially.
The shot was grabbed using a hand held camera before the light went. In post production the background was blacked out to enhance the colour and a poster edge filter applied to bring out the texture of the flower.
Does go to show that having a camera to hand can pay dividends.
|
|
|
|
Just a few more photo's i've taken in the last couple of weeks..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1300
 Looking back towards snowdon
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1273
 The welsh valley
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1298
Some Of My Discus
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1296
lovely photos
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1296
It’s all a learning curve and the more you do the better you get. Focus points are more critical with this type of lens due to a restricted depth of field. Hand held shots with the subject moving about also has its own problems.
Try viewing the image from the screen rather than through the eye piece. This only works well when you use a tripod but it is easier to focus when you are looking at a larger image.
If you have the software with the camera, mine is a Canon and came with a remote shooting programme which transfers the image and camera functions with full control onto my lap top.
When possible move the subject in doors and shoot in an environment you control. You can build a set basically a few bits of greenery and leaves as basic or as complicated as you like.
|
|
|
|
So I got my new lens today, and have been playing in the garden with it between the rain. Here are a few shots i've managed
Any pointers judging from those would be great. I've found it pretty tough going getting the focus point right. It's been really windy here today so nothing has stayed still which made it even harder!
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1294
Thanks Mick for clearing that up for me. It is always a pleasure to read something by somebody who knows what they are talking about, even if I got lost halfway through, although enough stuck for me to see the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1292
Stacking is a very useful application to have on board. I use Photoshop CS4 extended and although I haven’t had occasion to use it in relation to the above I seem to remember playing around with the application. Think there is also some other software available which does this as well. Most of the work I do a layer system works ok. Am I right in thinking that with stacking you have more control over the final tonal quality of the shot?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1291
well after a long while experimenting I found that single long exposure was no good as it let far too much light in so this one is around 80 x 20 second exposures then stacked using software
Here is a couple of lightning shots I took back in early June about 1 in the morning,they have been slightly photoshopped just to get rid of the street lighting.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1290
Really like both them shots mate. How long was the shutter open for on the star shot?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1285
I also like to combine fishing with astronomy
Notilucent clouds taken in July last year & some Star trailing
also my 10" Dobo which I built myself a number of years ago
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1288
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1286
Nice...
|
|
|
|
One day Ken
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1284
Have you seen my bivvy?
|
|
|
|
Looks like Ken is back on the water
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1281
Terrific site and pix....
Dave Chilton is a fanatical astronomer if you are looking for a like minded carper...Mind you, he talks so bloody long that you really want to wait for him to phone you rather than the other way around!
I have had a keen amateur interest ever since I started doing nights some (cough) years ago. Paddy Moore was then and still is an inspiration to me and I have got the last 15 Sky at Night Yearbooks. Also love the S@N magazine website which can be found HERE...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1281
Stunning shot mate. Have you tried it in a letterbox format
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1280
If you blow it up you will see the faint meteor or comet trail in the upper middle right quadrant, above and just to the right of the two tall buildings..
I know that Ken .... it was the pick of about a dozen images. Shame I didn't manage to get the fireball that went over at about 00:45 west to east right over me - probably a lump of metal from someones space program.
I normally image deep space objects (http://www.lakestudio.co.uk/garden_obs/index.htm - just click on Deep Space as its all in a state of flux) so these are much closer to home. I have Irridescent clouds, Notilucent clouds and Aurorae under my belt now. There isn't much left in or just outside of our own atmosphere.
Thanks for sorting the link out. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1279
Your stunning pic, Mick
If you blow it up you will see the faint meteor or comet trail in the upper middle right quadrant, above and just to the right of the two tall buildings..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1278
An image I took last night whilst out on the tidal Trent
These are Notilucent clouds
http://www.lakestudio.co.uk/display/komet_notilucent2.jpg
Canon 1000D 18-55 lens at 18mm
30 seconds
ISO200
(Can't get the link thingy to work)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1277
Thanks, that's handy to know. I'll have to do what I can. We've got a couple of lanterns that I normally put nearby out of shot so I can frame the image. I think the 550D has a flash which in total darkness will bounce around to set the range before taking the photo.
Fingers crossed
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1276
You will probably get a blurred image if a long exposure is used due to movement. You are right not to use the night setting as this is for special effects photos. If you use the portrait setting the default uses a large aperture so that the depth of field is reduced giving an out of focus effect behind the subject.
You are going to have to use flash which when the camera is in auto mode it should come on automatically. Try and get a solid background behind you but be careful as you may wash out some detail on the fish, commons are prone to this being light in colour.
You could also suffer with red eye but not a problem as the camera has a red eye reduction setting or you could get rid of that once the picture is on your PC. You can also avoid red eye by not looking directly at the camera, slightly right or left and of course looking slightly down at the fish works as well
Once you get the hang of it you should get some reasonable results. Having access to something like Adobe Photoshop does give you a lot of options post production. Some of the guys on here will tidy a photo up for you.
|
|
|
|
Night Shot Query
Can anyone give me some pointers for taking night shots with a Canon 550D?
I'm looking to take shots of carp captures in near total darkness.
The DSLR tips I can find are all aimed at portrait or scenic shots at night where you can use long exposures to raise the light captured.
They suggest achieving this by putting it in M mode and selrcting the lowest f number the lens allows. I think this will result in long exposures still.
Any ideas? How about I use the normal portrait setting or just put it in auto?
I plan to use a tripod.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1274
Looks a bit like some kind of Orchid, is that possible
could be i found some seeds and put them in last November lovely looking flower only lasts a day then its gone i have had about 7 flowers up to now all different in colour really beautiful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1273
Looks a bit like some kind of Orchid, is that possiable
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1272
 i dont know what they are can any one tell me i know most flowers but these no did think they maybe lilies but they only flower for a day
 another sorry a bit blurred
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1271
what are these flowers i grew them in the green house
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1270
Nice shot I am getting to old to get down to these shots
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1269
A little grassy I made friends with in France
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1268
Take it that PS (Photoshop) is what we are referring to does offer a lot more opportunities to save in different formats, It also handles just about all known formats which some other operating systems can’t cope with, or find a programme to open it with. I would be surprised if when the Canon software is loaded and the files downloaded directly to the PC that the problem would continue.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1264
This happened to a friend of mine from the camera club. He was using a Canon compact (not sure which one). One of the members suggested he load from a card reader and open in PS, before saving to the desktop (or where preferred). Worked, apparently.
|
|
|
|
Using flash for outdoor shots can add a sparkle and fill in shadows on a dull day
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1246
Sorry for the long delay replying Ken .
Thanks for the comments
Yes you can use most of the sigma lenses on Nikon though you must check they are nikon fit.
If you need auto focusing on the D5000 D40 D60 D3010 or D5010 you do need HSM which is sigmas self focusing range.
I bought my 150-500 last december and so far i have been very pleased with the results, the focus is spot on though as ken rockwell says in his review it can be a little slow.
The Optical stabiliser is very good and you can get good shots on much lower shutter speeds with it on and i now take most of my shots with it handheld even tough it weighs nearly 2Kilos .
Some earlier versions did have a few focusing issues, I think sigma have now sorted this out, i would recommend this lens to anyone .
Nice swan shot pete.
I have also owned a G6 for several years and take most of my shots in raw, if you want to upload raw i think you do need to install the canon software on vista or you did when i was on vista.
this is also probably the case with the G5.
Thanks again Ken, i must check this thread more often
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1263
Thanks for the replies guys, its all a bit complicated but i will have a go at loading the canon software, im sure I tried it with the usb lead and it did the same thing. I do have a kodak camera software loaded on which may be interfeering with it in some way so i will take that off first then load up the canon stuff and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1262
The G5 shoots RAW so it is possible that Manual is shooting in RAW.
So .... select M on the top dial. Press the Func button and see if RAW is displayed in the bottom left of the screen. If it is then change it to L. If it was then you will need to convert the images on the card (.CR2?) to JPG - Put convert RAW to jpg into Google and you should find something free if you haven't got the Canon tools
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1261
Got me scratching my head as well, does not make sense unless the camera has a raw image facility and this has been accessed accidently in which case the PC would not have a programme to open it as the Canon software has not been installed. Not familiar with this model, clutching at straws.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1260
On Windows the G5 is recognised in Explorer and it can be accessed like any drive. The fact that a shot taken in Manual is treated differently to one shot in Auto mode is plainly daft as they both end up as a .JPG.
I would be interested to know that if when the camera is connected via USB only all the image files are seen by the PC. There is no reason they shouldn't be.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1258
Try using the Canon software that came with the camera. Once loaded plug the camera directly into a USB port with the lead supplied
Select the download option which transfers the files to your PC. In preferences you can select for this to happen each time you plug the camera in. Normally stores in the photo section or if you have an extra hard drive attached you can specify this location.
Not a good idea to keep taking the memory card out of the camera. If you don’t have enough space on your PC get a small auxiliary memory drive or desk top model to store your images. Once stored delete the photos off the memory card.
Spend some time deleting the shots you don’t want and put into folders for easy access the ones you do. Back up the contents of the auxiliary drive to CD and store in a different place.
Aux hard drives come in all shapes and sizes and prices. I have a mains 1000 gig model which cost around £80 and a passport model which has 300 gig capacity and is portable, costing around £40. If you don’t have enough USB ports you can get a USB hub which allows you to plug in extra devices as it acts as an extension.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1258
What happens when you lust plug the camera in via the USB port?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1257
Memory card goes in the slot on the front of the pc then the camera wizard comes up and follow instructions. it is not a specific canon software though so that might be a problem.
It loads up everything on the memory card except photo's taken in M setting. There are over 500 photo's on this card too, I really dont know why it keeps doing this..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1254
I have a canon G5 and when uploading photo's I cant upload anything taken in M setting. They appear on the camera but I cant get them to transfer to the computer with the photos taken in Auto. Is there something else i need to be doing??
This is daft. The M (Manual) setting only uses a potentially different aperture and speed to Auto .... the file size will be the same.
How do you connect the Canon .... through software or through Explorer?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1255
Hi Pete. Glad you’re winning, I find light colours often get blown out and loose definition. Having problems at the moment with some still life shots. Have had to resort to Photoshop to make the adjustments.
Should know the answer to this but for some reason I am a bit at sea
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1253
Can anyone help?? I have a canon G5 and when uploading photo's I cant upload anything taken in M setting. They appear on the camera but I cant get them to transfer to the computer with the photos taken in Auto. Is there something else i need to be doing??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1245
Very beautiful!
Thanks for the sharing.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1251
Useful information Mick,thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I was advised to post this here .... relevance to Canon users
Hello all ....
I am usually a lone angler. Have been for years and so have always had to take pictures of myself by myself. This has involved making attachments for the camera and using bulb releases and in recent years using a G5 with that filp around screen and remote.
However ....
A little while ago the remote stopped working with my G5 so I was forced into using a Canon EOS 1000D. I have a couple of these - one with the iR filter removed for astroimaging use (I am also an astroimager) and the other for general use which is unmodded.
Under "general use" I do time lapse photography. Normally I use a netbook to run the sequences for this but a while ago I purchased an intervalometer so I could do time lapse runs without the lappy. (I can run the camera off of a 12v battery and the memory card will hold 3000+ images so the whole thing will run for days if needed without running out of memory or power).
So my G5 died and I pressganged the 1000D into the mould of angling camera. Setting it up wasn't as easy as the G5 because it doesn't have a flip round screen but with the kit 18-55mm lens I could set the camera up about 5 feet from my cradle and it was wide angled enough to easily get everything in. It takes a few seconds longer and as I use a Velbon Mini tripod I am able to peg down the tripod base and the camera can be removed and replaced any number of times and still be exactly lined up. With film cameras it was the thing to fill the frame with your subject. With modern digitals - especuially if you have a 10mp image it is easy to get wider angle or get the camera further away and just crop. You don't lose any details at all.
As my 1000D didn't have any form of remote I had to use a wireless release (I photograph birds also - its useful for this) but to set the camera in timed mode, pick the fish up, control it and compose yourself in 10 seconds is a bit rich. The Canon has a Continuous shooting function and the ability to take up to 10 shots in a timed burst. Neither of these options are particularly useful - especially at night with the flash involved.
Enter the intervalometer. Now an intervalometer allows you to set ... a/ an initial delay before the first exposure. b/ the length of the exposure (only any use in astronomical imaging). c/the delay between each subsequent exposure and d/ the number of exposures.
All of a sudden, taking pictures of myself is very, very easy.
I have my 1000D in Tv mode and set the exposure length to 1/100 of a second for daylight shots. You can just leave it in Auto if you wish - good at night of course. The intervalometer is set to a 15second initial delay. The exposure length only matters if you are using Bulb on the camera and you won't be for fishing. I have the delay between images at 4 seconds and the number of exposures to take at 25. All of these numbers are adjustable. Now once set the intervalometer keeps those settings so you only have to dig it out at the start of a session and (as long as you haven't altered anything in the meantime) just plug it into the camera. Turn the camera on and press Start on the intervalometer. It is all auto from here. I can pick the fish up, get myself and the fish sorted whilst the camera is doing its own thing taking pictures every 4 seconds. It is so easy and stress free which also has to be better for the fish - no more putting down and picking up.
Intervalometers work on most Canons that can use a wired remote through a 3.5mm socket. Consult your camera manual or speak to a supplier They are not expensive (about £15 - put intervalometer into the search function on Amazon) and work very, very well indeed. I am using a JYC model but they are all pretty much the same.
I thought someone might find this useful
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1248
Many thanks for that link, Matt. The Sagan quote is so true yet it is poignant and self-castigating (of Man). The photo itself is just amazing, and like the earth rise photo further down the thread, it really does put our world in perspective.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1247
i have the sigma 100 - 300 f4 fantastic lens crisp sharp and cant fault the af at all just cant use a convertor higher than 1.4 x as it is non af past that point still usable though
the sigma 150 - 500
by ken rockwell
AF speed is leisurely. This lets it focus precisely at 500mm and not hang-up, but it's not what you want for sports.
If you are shooting action, get the lens in the general vicinity of your subject with the manual focus ring first, and it ought to do pretty well tracking small variations in distance.
AF Accuracy
AF always was right-on up through about 300mm.
At 500mm, my sample focused a little behind the subject.
This will vary with your on sample of lens and camera, and if it's a problem, most cameras now have manual fine-tuning adjustments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1245
Dave,
How do you find the performance of that Sigma 150-500 lens?
Was looking at getting one a while ago but heard there was a couple of problems with soft focus and slow OS, what's your opinion?
Certainly looks like it takes a nice picture!
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1245
Lovely crisp pix, Dave...
So the D5000 will take non-Nikon lenses then??? Was told that it would not wear Sigma, etc, lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1243
very nice photos
|
|
|
|
A few of the garden resident!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1241
Having a look through some of the used camera sites I was surprised at for how little money you can pick up a classic top of the range SLR in conventional film format.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1237
if it was one of yours with old d70 or new d7000?? nice shot
Neither...It was taken on a film camera, a Nikon F4 bought for peanuts. Film used was Provia 100F and the transparency was scanned to digital using a Nikon 5000ED scanner.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1236
nice one ken
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1238
nice photos jeff
|
|
|
|
I have used this shot on a number of occasions as a background
Plastic Christmas decoration Had a few attempts to get the effect I wanted
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1236
craffty that ken!!!
if it was one of yours with old d70 or new d7000?? nice shot
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1235
one of mine...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1229
It’s all done by mirrors with a lot of help with Adobe Bridge If you have Photoshop and open an image in Bridge you can get a lot of information which is imbedded in the photograph. For instance the sausage shot was taken at 1/640@5.6
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1233
no mate its all in the picture !!! EXIF data tells a million stories
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1232
indeed.. something tells me i've mentioned my gear at some point
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1231
ahhh thats magic!!! 500d i think?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1230
Cheers mate, yeh that's right, how did you know what lens that was with??
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1229
nice shots neil
250 mm canon zoom?? like the flame licked bangers !!
|
|
|
|
Got a handful from todays' bbq with the family..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1227
Hi Mate
Bluebells too low to the ground for me. They are difficult to photograph, try getting your focus point on the nearest flower and use a small aperture to get the maximum depth of field which will help to get the others sharper or focus on the nearest one and use a large aperture(bigger opening) so that the ones behind are totally out. You have prompted me to have a go, we have some white ones, can you get white bluebells.
Apparently you can Hyacinthoides hispanica white, syn. Scilla campanulata
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1225
|
|
|
|
|
I have GOT to get myself a decent macro lens!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1223
no ev mushrooms in my garden
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1223
Puff balls Peter?
Is the image upside-down ??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1208
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1221
Well I have not been in my darkroom for years now, just sold my 6x6 gear and film processor
And totally agree with workflow back then, one of my heroes is still using kodak ir film even though it's not made anymore he has loads in his freezer !!!
The amount of dodging and burning that goes into his work is mind blowing and if you have any time in a darkroom you will understand why
I rarely use Photoshop to change any aspect of the image all my work is done through aperture and I find it gives me the results I like with less hassle
Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop too but I feel it has it's place slot of peole can overdo what's needed and the image seen at point of pressing the shutter is not what you get at the end of the process
Each to their own I find , as for taking the same shots of the same objects and monuments
All it takes is a little thought to be different and digital is great for this as you can see what you get and make a change accordingly till you get the result you want
I have a few ideas myself on a few places but still in the planning stages
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1218
A 10x8 is in a whole league of its own. I have used, for studio work a Linhoff mono rail in 5x4 format and on site the `Baby Linhoff` which was in 3 ½ x 21/2. In the darkroom we used DeVere enlargers in 5x4 format. My business partner at the time would not look at sub miniature cameras and thought they suited the `fashion` guys down to the ground. Take lots of shots and you are bound to get a good one eventually. At the time the studio worked in the field of industrial photography, which was either very small bits of kit or huge lumps of machinery. All this happened many years ago and it is not until recent times that I have taken an interest in photography again
|
|
|
|
City Centre
impromptude shot
loads of post production on this shot, I especialy liked the texture and colour of the flower on the right
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1215
In the last couple of years I have changed the way that I approach taking photographs and the amount of post production work that I do. Coming from an `old school` background where you took the shot and apart from some work in the darkroom, that was just about it. The skill was in using your knowledge of exposure and composition to get the shot you wanted. Your shot of the bee on the flower shows the benefits of using a macro lens to capture stunning detail and how their limited depth of field can be exploited to give an interesting shot.
It occurred to me a while back that a lot of photographs you see are very similar, flowers are a good example. Some are better quality than others due to the equipment used and the skill of the person taking the shot. Architecture is another field where you see a lot of similarities, especially the well known monuments. People taking these photos to a large extent are standing in countless other peoples shoes and producing the same results. It is very difficult to produce something different that stands out in the crowd.
To add interest I have been playing around with some Photoshop applications, mainly the Poster Edge effect on a number of shots, some are in the next post.
The city centre shot was developed to bring out the texture of the wood and the cool greens of the foliage coupled with the linear lines of the building.
The flower shot came about by accident. The natural light just hit the flower arrangement in the lounge and it was a case of grabbing a camera to record it before the light went.
The football shot was my one and only attempt to photograph a game from the stands, applying an effect post production I felt lifted this shot up a couple of notches.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1217
The colour blindness is a difficult one but could be overcome with a few changes in the cameras setup
Dependent on the degree of the colour blindness sure you could do the same in post processing in Photoshop or gimp if you used a control image and ask someone to tell you when the image looks more punchy colour wise and contrast etc then use the same values to adjust other pics
Won't work on every pic but may give better results
Could even use or make an action for Photoshop to do it auto when you ask it to
I agree tripod is a must but not always in good light it's possible to handhold the shots I put up are all without a tripod
O agree about the large format just missed getting a job using one a 8x10 everyday
I reckon it may be possible to get close using the 51point focus points and selecting an of centre point and selective f number but it's hard when doing selftakes !!!
Still one day may try it out??
|
|
|
|
|
Ev.. those pictures were just quick shots as the light was fading, and Yeh i did use flash for one. I'm actually colour blind so colours will always be off and i usually try not to worry about them too much, tending to focus on the subject and what the moment is. also, using a tripod wasn't possible as there was a slight breeze. thanks for your input though guys!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1215
A big fan of that macro lens of yours. For close up work it just wins hands down every time. I think I need to have some thoughts in that direction if I seriously want to produce top quality close up shots. In fairness to the camera its use was never about taking close up shots as it was used mainly for coverage of events and that kind of application.
EDIT
Have a close look at some of those shots you mentioned. The camera angles are sometimes a bit strange and the focus point is very selective. The classic tip of nose pin sharp with the ears slightly soft. Very dramatic lighting as well. Large format cameras do give you a better view of the finished product, once you get used to everything being upside down
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1212
have to agree
i have an old book on how to light hollywood stars of the 40s 50s its old but brilliant
here is a moody selfport trying to get some of the old era with modern gear
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1209
what camera and lens set up you using and any flash?? colours seam a bit muddy?
have to agree blue bells are hard to get right due to funny angles and depth of field
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1210
Some very dramatic shots there Ev. Still think that B&W can produce a much more dramatic effect than colour. Some of the old B&W portraits taken in the Hollywood era of the studio heartthrobs are stunning compared with a lot of the stuff taken today.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1209
Nice shots mate I have bluebells in the garden but a bit close to the floor for me and tricky little devils to get right. Just a thought if you have one try using a tripod with a remote for your still life’s. I have compared my hand held’s with those taken on the tripod and there is a big difference. Depending on light you can use a small aperture with a slower shutter speed which gives a sharper image The example attached was in a pot which I shot in doors, because the light was a bit iffy outside. The image was Photoshoped to give an interesting background.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
A handful from the garden this evening..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1207
very goog jeff
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1201
Colour Shot taken by a friend, Photoshoped into B/W with textured effect
Original Colour shot Photoshoped into B/W
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1204
Nice Lake Mate
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1204
lovely photo mike
|
|
|
|
Lake in Belgium:
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1202
 Another of the beautiful gorse a mile from my house
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1200
 Same place as the black and white but looking back towards the village where i live
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1200
Nice shot mate. B&W still takes some beating. I have got a shot that a friend took in colour which i played around with in B&W and it looks loads better I will put it up for you to have a look at
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1190
 MY FIRST TRY AT BLACK AND WHITE
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1198
Thanks Jason
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1195
check out the kood filters they will be fine, ensure you use a circular polarizing filter
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1196
Impressive snake shot, the night sky shots are real difficult to do justice to. Tried loads of time but never managed one that looked as good as the real thing. I am a huge fan of the atmospheric dusk shot but never seem to get them spot on. I usually cheat and Photoshop a day shot
|
|
|
|
A few of my most recent shots from France and the UK..
Thoughts very welcome!
|
|
|
|
I have a Fuji film S9600 and I'm after a good polarized lens. Any recommendations appreciated
Not bothered on the cost.
Thanks in advance.
Mike
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1193
Useful advice mate, could not ad anything to it
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1192
well it depends
has she had a camera before? is she thinking of going further with it??
if she is keen i would plump for a prosumer slr to start with even second hand, one that has a auto setting but one that will allow manual or program over ride
stick with nikon or canon and she will be able to grow the system and move up to a better camera if she takes to it
a nikon d40x, d80 , d40, or newer with a medium compact zoom kit lens or a canon 350, 400 with again a kit lens
have a look at used specialists like ffordes photographic or mifsuds they have a good range of used or new
with a good reputation
thats my opinion, i had a slr from the age of 10 so i think with all the help and info on the web these days she will get more out of a good used dslr and will see better results with one imho
good luck
|
|
|
|
looking for some advice please guys!...my youngest daughter has taken a biot of an interest in photography and i am looking to get a camera for her.have had a quick look on ebay but not really that sure what i'm looking at!.she's just turned 15 so dont want to spend a fortune (you know how clumsy they are).which would anyone recommend between a fuji finepix s5500 and the fuji finepix s1000fd?
thanks all!.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1178
 another one of my favorite places
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1188
No worries Ken , thanks for the comments , d700 is a stunning camera if you don't need the crop factor full frame for me , looking at longer glass for my wildlife stuff v new crop body will wait till later half of he year see what nikon will lunch
Still not sure about the feel of the d7000 , not bad with the grip mind
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1187
Many thanks, Jason. Top pix
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1186
cheers
just some quick test shots i did last year, with the lens and new d700, set at iso 1250 !!!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1185
Nice work, Mate
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
Bit of a long shot here...
Ref the D7000 and D700...I use a Nikon-fit Sigma f2.8 105mm macro lens, but it seems that apparently the Sigma will not match up with either the D7000 or the D700...Anybody found this to be the case?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1182
Giving the photo edge a soft look tends to focus the interest in the subject, nice one
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1180
Looks ok from this end Peter. Trees are interesting
yes jeff had a play about with the origanal i thought they look quite pretty
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1176
i understand what you mean with the hd movie mode, but i feel that all dslr will be using this soon, there is a big push to make the pro sector hd movie people look at dslrs
even simon king is using the canon d7 coms sensor ( dx) and full frame d5 mkii to make movies, taking advantage of the crop factor and long lens, and some other bits
i am in the market for a second body and have a d40x, 2 d70s and a d700, love the d700 its just so amazing, but would love a dx sensor pro body d300s but then came the d7000 good specs but just dont like the feel, love my d70s like you ken and just like the d700 a joy to hold, the finder on the d700 is graet nice and bright,some of the results from the d7000 look good but think i will wait for a d400?? just to see which direction nikon are taking the new sensor?? bet it has hd movie!! 1080 or the new d4?? best get saving
Dave i have an old 50mm AI-S f1.8 manual focus on my d700 and it is stunning, sharp the good thing about the fx range is the ability to use older lenses
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1179
Looks ok from this end Peter. Trees are interesting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1178
Help jeff where are you tryed to make this picture smaller but have failed but its seems ok now
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1177
 WOODS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1175
I'm with you on this on 60s. I have no intention of shooting movies and like you would by a proper tool for the job were I interested!
Thanks to one an all for their links and reviews.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1174
Something that puzzles me and a few others judging by the correspondence in camera mags is that once you get into a certain price bracket you also get a HD movie option as standard. As I am not interested in HD movies, if I were I would buy a dedicated unit, I am effectively paying for a facility I don’t want and would not use. One of the reasons why I gave this price bracket a miss
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1171
More here for you.
One thing I don't like about the new prosumer Nikons is the position of the DoF preview button. Why it isn't in the normal, mechanically sensible place and is replaced by a function button is weird and confusing.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1171
The lady from Delmonte says yes then. I will send you a PM with a comparison feature chart which should be of help
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1170
Thanks for the suggestion, Bud. Ken Rockwell seems to rather like it doesn't he!
Mind you, he still raves about the old D70 (my current body). Looks like the D7000 deserves serious consideration, as DP Review also wax lyrical...
|
|
| | | bud | | Posts: 1022 |  | |
|
In reply to Post #1169
Ken Rockwell website has some good info on the D7000,Ken.
|
|
|
|
|
User reports on Nikon D7000 anybody?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1166
 width=800 The woods on a spring day
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1165
We have all done it Peter. The difference is I have Photoshop to cover up my mistakes. We call it post production,
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1165
 A herd of Paco's in hill country
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1164
Hi Jeff not at all glad you spotted it i love photography my step father was a professional i spent a bit of time in the dark room with him when i was younger but i think digital is a lot easier thanks
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1163
Hi Peter
Nice scene it looks as if you have left your lens hood on when using wide angle. I have taken it out for ou. Hope you dont mind
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1162
 THE SHROPSHIRE HILLS
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1161
Sorry i took so long replying..
Yes i was using my Nikon D5000 plus nikkor 35mm f1.8 G AF-S DX prime lens.
I would also like to add this is the best lens Ive used on my DSLR and well worth its money.
produces sharper pictures than any zoom and a good all round lens i use it for self-takes landscapes etc and fast enough for indoor shots without flash.
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1158
dave is that taken with the 35 mm lens? and a prime af what was the exact model??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1159
just clicked reply on previous post which is 1000?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1158
How did you get that post number?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #194
You’re welcome. It did cross my mind that you may have intentionally taken the shot that way. When you try creative stuff, which is great, sometimes subtle stuff does not always work.For example foreground in pin sharp focus with the mid and background totally out seems to be appreciated. Foreground out of focus seems not to work as well. If you have access to Photoshop or similar (GIMP) the free package from the web you can `unsharpen` selected parts of the image which can make the shot more interesting. If you don’t like the result you can revert back to the original shot. All the close up stuff that I take is with the Canon 18-55 lens. For best results a macro lens gives you a lot of extra detail and is worth the money if you intend doing a lot of this type of stuff. The shot attached was taken on a hand held camera, with a standard lens. If you look closely at the wings, the tips are very slightly soft. This was caused by using a small aperture, for max depth of field which resulted in a longer exposure which did not quite freeze the small amount of movement of the wings.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
 a rainy day in the shropshire hills
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #193
Advice taken on board, and appreciated, however on this occasion I purposely shot those pictures in that way, for contrast and to attract attention to the parts in focus.
Cheers for your advice though!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #191
Can I make a suggestion, when taking still life shots especially close ups it’s very important that you get the entire image in very sharp focus. What normally happens is that there is not always sufficient lighting to allow the camera to function on a small aperture ie f16 and below which gives you a good depth of field. You focus on a part of the object, which results in that part being in focus but other parts will be out of focus; this is one of the problems of close up photography.
A couple of ways around this. You can use additional lighting. Digital cameras are very tolerant of the types of lighting that can be used without causing a color cast over the image. Depending on the lights used you can get a blue to gold cast. Digital does not suffer as badly. You could use flash but at close up distances it tends to wash out the image. The easiest way is to use the smallest aperture you can get away with which will give you a longer exposure. This can be a problem because exposure will reach a point where camera shake will give a blurry image. A tripod and a remote control will allow you to use a longer time exposure with a small aperture which will give you a crisp image across all of the subject.
Not wishing to tell people how to suck eggs but I hope this helped.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
 a winters day
|
|
|
|
Few more from playing around the other day..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #186
Can be a pain mate,this works. Using Photobucket click on the image to get a 60% enlargement. Right click on the photo, drop down menue select properties. Highlite the url Right click to copy.
On the site put in this
Important that you leave a space after img and at the end of the code you pasted
Hope that helped.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #186
Can be a pain mate,this works. Using Photobucket click on the image to get a 60% enlargement. Right click on the photo, drop down menue select properties. Highlite the url Right click to copy.
On the site put in this
Important that you leave a space after img and at the end of the code you pasted
Hope that helped.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #186
Can be a pain mate,this works. Using Photobucket click on the image to get a 60% enlargement. Right click on the photo, drop down menue select properties. Highlite the url Right click to copy.
On the site put in this
Important that you leave a space after img and at the end of the code you pasted
Hope that helped.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #185
I give up. Why cant this forum just accept direct IMG links.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #184
Sorry still getting the hang of this
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
A few from my (rather long in the tooth) 450D
IMG]http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd173/robfosters/IMG_1618-1.jpg[/IMG]
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #182
It's f4.5-5.6 mate. Also got a HSM and is OS. Apparently the OS is really good on that model.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #181
Sigma have come on leaps and bounds in recent years and offer some great alternatives to `house brands` 120-400 that’s a combo I have not come across before. What’s the F no on that
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #180
They were all taken on the manual setting. Planning on getting a Sigma 120-400mm lens in the next few weeks.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #179
The 18-55mm lens is a very good lens. Very sharp on close up and just as good at the other end. Did you use the night shooting mode for some of these or was it a long exposure.
|
|
|
|
Well I bought a Canon EOS 500d in the end, got it at a real good price with the 18-55mm kit lens. Below is a handful of test shots from the last couple of days.
Opinions very welcome!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #177
That’s a useful accessory. I use one for anything on a tripod and for all the still life stuff. For the close up stuff I lock the mirror up and view the image through the lap top. Reason being that you get less vibration when the mirror moves up out of the way when shooting. We have been feeding birds in the garden for years, costs a fortune. I have set the camera up in the garden and using the 300mm got some reasonable shots. I normally run the remote release which is a Henel model into the house and view the image on the wall mounted LCD TV. Might as well have some comfort
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #176
I've just bought a remote for it. Won't use it for the sport shots but planning to try it on the tripod for birds in the garden and night shots fishing in France
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #175
The image stabiliser model is worth the extra money. At the time I was pushing the work budget so settled for the cheaper model. The football shot was hand held at around 250 using a post that happened to be there. Most of the time I am using it at around 100 mark for events and the times I use it at the other end a tripod gets used.
All images are put through Photoshop so you can get away with some things. I used to sell professional camera gear and I am surprised at the cost of digital equipment in comparison. Haven’t been in a studio for years but it must be a lot easier than I remember it. Have you tried attaching the camera to your PC/Laptop and used the direct link, great for remote shooting
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #172
I'd echo the comments about the 75-300mm lens. I've got one for my 550D and the results are excellent, especially action shots. I paid a bit more and got one with the Image Stabiliser. Makes a big difference and I find I can use it handheld at full telephoto yet still get non-blurry photos. My step-dad has one without it and he could see the difference immediately.
I'm pretty new to all this as well and have already realised that you will never find a lens that does everything and could spend thousands trying to
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #167
Daughter in law and champaign Photoshop post production. Nothing to do with Carp angling but
Town Centre sceen
Local Team
Garden visitor
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #93
Photoshop for me, expensive but worth it if you are doing a lot of photo post production work. You could try GIMP which is free on the web and has a lot of Photoshop type applications. It is a pig to use as the help section is poor, not user friendly
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #165
Great choice mate, I have a 450d and well chuffed with it. A lens which has 2 numbers ie 18-55 is a wide angle 18 (gets more in the picture) wider angle. The 55 on a DSLR is seen as a telephoto lens, ie makes the picture bigger ( like looking through a telescope) The higher the number the more the lens magnifies the image. I have a 75-300 zoom lens which at the 300 setting is quite good. It also magnifies through the range so it’s a 135, 200, 250, magnifying more as you go up the range. On the price front the 75-300 is around the £230 mark which is not a lot of dosh for a lens of this quality. On the other hand you can add a 2 in front of the above figure if you buy the top of the range model in the equivalent zoom range. Have a look on the Canon site as they feature a picture guide showing the various magnifications. One tip shop around and haggle, if you are in London, have a walk around Tottenham Court road dealers and you can save loads of money
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #130
Somebody may have answered this but it is difficult to say, you could be lucky. Remove batteries, carefully wipe away any obvious moisture and allow as much air to circulate as possible. A warm room is good. Do not apply any direct heat. From experience repairers will not touch anything that has been water damaged. The repair bill could be more than the cost of buying a new model
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #169
any one know were i can buy a spare filter case from? i got some filters but one dosnt have a case and i cant find any were that sells the empty hard plastic cases?
cheers in advance
steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Can anyone help I would like to photograph stars but have no idea what settings the camera shoul be on it's a 400d if anyones got some tips
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #166
I'm pretty confident in my photographic knowledge. But having never owned a DSLR I don't really know about the lens business.
Been looking around on the net, and have found some good pictures for examples.
Now I just need to get the pennies together!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #165
You might like to try Wikipedia or similar for photographic examples of different focal lengths. If you are considering spending that sort of money on a camera it is probably worth having a good look at some photographic websites to get a better clue about the subject in general. You'll never get the best out of it if you don't understand the basics.
|
|
|
|
Hey guys,
I'm quite interested in my photography and am looking to get my first Digital SLR.
Going on reviews and my budget, I think i'm gunna choose the Canon EOS 500D.
However, that chosen, I would also like to get a zoom lens for some wildlife shots etc, but can't understand all this EF 55-80mm blah de blah malarky.
So, can someone please explain a little, in simple terms, the differences in the zoom distances etc, so that I can choose one with a capable zoom on it?
Hope that's possible and that what i'm asking makes a little sense!
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Some excellent pics on here
I am new to photography and have just purchased a canon eos dslr, with a efs 18-55mm lens the query I have is that my dad has an old canon slr with quite a few exspensive lenses that he no longer uses so if I were to purchase an fd to ef mount for my camera( i know they are hard to come by but have found one!) is the picture quality noticably reduced by using fd lenses rather than ef ones, I am only looking to use the camera for capture shots and family hols etc although I would like to get more into the scenic shots etc. I would love to be able to justify buying a decent macro lens but im sure the wife would not be too impressed and dont want to rock the boat as Ive only just got the pass for a once a year trip to France ( happy days).
Thanks in advance for your knowledge
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #155
Wow! There's a few great shots here. I tried to quote my favorite but it did not work. Thanks for the shares.
Cheers.
call tracking
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
What Camera?
I want to get a camera just for fishing. about 100-150. Needs to be able to go on a tripod for them shots when no body is around
thanks
Jordan
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
One from last Night.
slightly enhanced with photoshop but not much.
Taken with my Canon 40D 50 second exposure at ISO 1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #158
I understand mate but im finding the shorter lens a bit limiting when he is further away and the larger lens to much when he is up close i guess im looking for a lens between the 2.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #157
In short, no. I don't believe that with the best lenses money could buy if you aren't capable of taking a decent photo (I'm not saying you aren't, I hope you understand ) then I don't think any lens is going to make it look like you can take a photo...
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Im new to this photography lark lads i have a cannon eos 500d with the 18-55 lens and the 50-255 lens im mainly going to be using it for fishing and pictures of the nipper and of course holidays. Any lenses i can get specificly that would improve the pictures ? Although i have got some good shots with the 2 lenses above already. Im playing around with the manual setttings but most of the pictures are being taken on the pre set options.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
A Few More Taken With My Canon 40D
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Took this while fishing this week with my Canon 40D Using my new Sigma 24-70 F2.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #151
look good mate
|
|
|
|
Hi guys. So over the last few months photography has really been something I have been getting into and involved with. Thought I would post some of my favorite images from the last few months for some C&C if it's going
These are a select few, if you want to see the rest http://www.flickr.com/photos/mitchcarter/click here
Thanks for looking!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #149
edit your post, and after your link code leave a space, add width=500 then finish with the > immediately after the 500, like this; link width=500>
best to test your pics in the test thread, found in FAQ's and help section; http://www.carpforum.co.uk/Shared/Messages.asp?TopicID=204069
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
 hope this works
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #143
laurie you could try the cannon website to see if they have a update for the software to help with the compatibilty
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #143
My Canon EOS 300D will not upload photos to my new pc as it says it is not compatable with windows Vista?
The camera may not be compatible but I am betting that the storage is. Plenty of cheap USB-driven card readers about.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #140
Liking the 3 Mictches! Have you thought about using a flash rather than a torch. Ideally should be pitch black or very low light conditions. Put the camera on B and then move around the picture area firing off the flash at your face...or whatever!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #143
You may need to authorise your PC to accept the data from your camera being as it an 'older' model.
|
|
|
|
Never been on this thread before, could anyone help with a problem i've got?
My Canon EOS 300D will not upload photos to my new pc as it says it is not compatable with windows Vista? Can anyone help or suggest where to go for the right info......
Cheers
|
|
|
|
One from last night from me
Pencils
|
|
|
|
|
ayup chaps, ive got a lense for my eos dslr its a sigma 20-40mm aspherical if , im looking at selling it, does anyone know what it is worth?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone have a user guide for the Umax Astrapix 530 that they wouldn`t mind copying for me ? I`ve tried googling the usual sites but there are only foreign language versions available
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
In reply to Post #1000
ooopppsssss!!!!
its there now!!!!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #136
Where?
|
|
| | | ev | | Posts: 1041 | | |
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #134
cheers mate, much apreciated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #132
I get all my stuff repaired by Fixation who are very good indeed. I can't see it being cheap if it needs a repair but give them a ring if drying it out doesn't help.
http://www.fixationuk.com/Fixation/Repairs.html
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #131
cheers matt, if it doesnt work do you recon it will be expensive to fix, and do you know what the turn around at cannon is like, am i likely to be without my camera for a while
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #130
It may work again. Remove the batteries, memory card and lens (extend the lens as far as it will go) and leave all the doors and flaps open for 24hrs in a warmish, dust-free place.
Get some silica gel bags and let your camera acclimatise if going between fairly extremes of temperature in the future.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #129
think ive bolloxed my cannon 400d, just taken it out the bag and it was pretty wet with condensation, turned it on and its not working has anyone had this experience? and does anyone know if it should work again once dryed out?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #128
some nice pics there bud, get on dontstayin.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #124
Just read this thread for the first time, some excellent advice!
The mornings now are amzing with clear blue skies and mist; I've started taking a camera with me on my drive to work to try and capture some of it.
What's the best settings to use for a picture of the sun shining through the mist? I drive past a couple of rivers and lakes so have great opportunities to get this!
I have a Nikon D60....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have a few here I have been collecting over the last few months, been getting a bit more arty too....
Thanks & enjoy...
The stalk on this went funny on the uploading
|
|
|
|
Just the one from a trip to Brighton a couple of weeks back, and the second from a day at Port Lympne Zoo.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #119
That's a decent shot mate, especially from a mobile. It's all about capturing the moment.
|
|
|
|
just out with the dog and we got caught in a storm,held up in a barn til it passed and came out to this..not the best pics cos was on my phone but pretty cool all the same..
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #117
hi guys useing a canon 350d can i purchase polarising filters and a quality zoom lens? what should i expect to pay? thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #115
both top end cameras, but would have thought the flip screen on the sx1 would make it a better option for fishing.
|
|
|
|
i thought i would post in here instead of creating anothe thread.
i got my self finally a camera short list.
both canon ones a g10 and the other is a sx1 is. not being that use to digital i can't tear them apart. some really good things on each of them i like. im more swade towards the g10, but then the sx1 has some fetures that sound useful but feel they are so close that it comes down to the overal look thats going to make my mind up. ive read all the reviews but none of them really compare the 2 together. just wanted to know if anyone has any of these cameras and if they compaired it with the other and why you chose the one you got. and how easy they are to use as it will be used by the wife as well as me, and the wife isn't use to cameras as me. but did did use my eos 5 slr in point and shoot mode with no prob. the other thing is how fast dose it take befor the shutter works after pushing the release. i ask the because i have a digi pentax at mo and i find it a pain, as there is i big pause between me pushing the relise and the pic being taken.
|
|
|
|
was testing link!
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
some beautiful shots here
|
|
|
|
Link
I thought this was really well done.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #107
id say get yourself a canon with a flip screen. 620/630, or g2/g3. you can then get an air bulb release and mounting bracket, and all for under a ton.
that way you'll never need to pass your camera over to any dog walker or passer by!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
How we doing lads - never been too bothered by photography but after my camera letting me down on the trophy shots of my new p.b. i feel the time has finally come to invest in a decent camera.
Ideally don't want to spend more than £100, if i can get away with spending less its a bonus, if i need to spend abit more to get the right camera then so be it!!
The camera will mainly be used for fish photos and possibly a few wildlife shots but doesn't have to be amazing just something that will give me some nice clear, focused shots of my catches - also needs to be relatively easy to use for when you get a noddy or dog walker on the other side of the camera!!
Always travel light so it needs to be small and compact - don't want one with a big lense you have to screw on or anything?
Any suggestions?
Cheers
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #105
I used to have this camera (the ixus40) and never had any problems with the battery life.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #104
well ones the original and the others were bought sometime after. it funny coz my mates got a canon camera (not an ixus) and seems to have a similar problem. might go to jessops on monday and c if i can get a new battery.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #103
sounds like it may be worth changing the batteries, how old is the camera? are the batteries the ones that came with it?
|
|
|
|
|
hi all, i have a CANON IXUS 40 which i take fishing with me for its compact size. takes a spot on picture etc but my problem lies in the batteries. even after charging over night i only seem to be able to get a few photos out of it before the battery icon starts flashing . this happens with all 3 batteries i have. does anyone else have this problem and or know of a solution/reason??
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #101
i think so
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #100
thats what you look like lol
|
|
|
|
here is a couple of edits i did of the same fish, took me about 10 mins, i wanted you guys to see?
or ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #98
then you might get a bit of sharpening but not much....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #96
the lens usually bings out the detail, all you can so is sharpen (unsharp mask in photoshop) on a piece of software and you can over do it easily too...
what format was the original picture in mate? if its shot in RAW format we might be able to bring out more detail, if its JPEG you probably cant...
|
|
|
|
a weld macro, with a crack at the weld toe. I am a welding inspector
I edited that using windows picture manager. I wandered if I'd get more detail use a profesional photo editor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #93
I got a copy of Photoshop CS3 and Paintshop pro (downloaded versions....)
to be honest they are good but if you are just into editing the odd picture then you dont need to spend the money on them, best getting the free versions (or cheap ones for about £50) and they should cover most things. Look into either Photoshop or Paint Shop and see which one does a cheap version, I cant remember which one does...
|
|
|
|
whats the best softwear for photo editing
painshop / photo shop or any other softwear
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #91
Yes, but how do I know? That's the thing about photography - either it tells a story or it records an event, or it is art. Everything else is just a snapshot. If you stop in a car-park and take a picture of a visually unmemorable mountain, it falls into the latter category.
|
|
|
|
Mont Blanc, from the Italian side.
|
|
|
|
widefield shot of Lac Les Pins using Photostitch
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #88
do you mean photoshop or paint shop pro...?
|
|
|
|
|
is photo shop pro worth the money
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #86
Hinneymac's pictures
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #85
send them to me i will do them gladly, i will pm you my email address
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
Could any one help me I have some photo's to show you but don't know how to put them on the forum can anyone help
Thanks
Mac
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #83
anyone got the Magnum 60th Anniversary album? I managed to find the original hard back copy and its just incredible, can sit there for hours looking at the photos
particulary love this one from Cartier Bresson
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #82
BUMP,
i had to bump this thread, anyone else got any scenery shots?
i like photo's
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #80
i like them mate, i have another one here
Samsung NV100HD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #78
i will give it a go and post the result tonight, thanks
oh right, yeah i have only just learnt about F stop's aperture etc. so this was my first proper go at it. thanks for the advice will bear that in mind when i get the chance for some more.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #77
like the scenic one CarpAddict, again, maybe a little crop of the sky and some of the mountains would look nice..
for the ice one, your right the light was against you there, maybe an F stop as wide as possible (like F4 or something) and over expose slightly might help.... I see what your trying to do but perhaps the background is a bit congested and distracts you from the ice crystals on the branch. what you might have done was more of a close up of the branch and taken from a slightly different angle where the background was clearer.... good effort though
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #74
this was originally my picture taken with a Canon IXUS 40, when i knew NOTHING about photography.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #73
nice pic mate where was that taken ? also what camera ?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #72
magnetic lasso tool in photoshop.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #57
How do you get rid of all the colour, except for certain areas like that?
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
went out today and got myself a Canon EOS 450D + 18-55mm Lens with remote tri pod and bag 4g card lovey bit of kit
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #45
Incredible photo's there Some are really moving!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #67
cheers mark will do
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #66
if your going to get a DSLR then I would suggest you go to a camera shop and ask to see 2 or 3 options, and mix up the manufactures...
the reason I say that is because you want something that fits your hands, and something that you feel comfortable with.... quality wize Nikon and Canon are a very safe bet for a first camera, thee are many supporters for either camera and you wont find a difinitive answer when asking "which one"
go and have a look at them, as the person in the shop to put batteries in and see what its like to access the controls and functions........find out which one suits you more
|
|
|
|
has anyone used a nikon D40 OR D40X ?
if so how did you rate them or it?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #64
Cheers mark im going to have to make the change to an dslr soon as theres so many good deals on them at the moment.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #62
I would think so Ian, the Panasonic seems to have a 5.75mm x 4.71mm sensor and something like a canon 400d has a 22mm x 15mm sensor size, its not difficult to imagine that since both have a similar amount of pixels (8 or 10meg) then you would expect a little more noise from the panasonic. However these compact SLR like cameras are very good these days and you may find it difficult to notice the difference all the time, but I would expect low light photography to be much better on the SLR one and since SLR's have independant lenses you can always improve sharpness with adding a different lens on a SLR if you wish......
|
|
|
|
would the step up in image quality from a panasonic lumix fz-8 to a digital slr be much greater?
cheers
|
|
|
|
|
like them mate, like the US flag just in colour very much.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #59
one or two more of mine:
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #58
yep they are mine....
I got a 400d a little while back when we went to Kenya, a little in at the deep end but I was quite pleased with some of the shots.
got a lon way to go though and would love to go on a proper course and develop more but they are so expensive
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #55
thats an excellent picture mitch
mark did you take those pictures yourself if so they are brilliant! if not then they are still good
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
thanks for those links nine0.... love that sort of thing
Ive been getting into Photography slowly for the last year or so now, really struggling to find some proper time but heres a few shots:
yep, I do like to post process but some like the bike and parrot are straight off the sensor.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #52
Superb is my 1st impression
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #45
Some superb photography there 9.
After seeing photo 32 in the first set of pics. I will never complain about overcrowding on the bank again.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #51
Im just took delivery of a canon eos 450D
first impressions?
|
|
|
|
|
Im just took delivery of a canon eos 450D
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #43
recently bought a d60 mate, excellent piece of kit, amazing differnce in the quality of the pictures from a compact with same megapixels. read some good reports of the d40 too which can be bought relatively cheap now.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #45
those pictures are amazing
|
|
|
|
i have a website with some amazing scenery shots on if you would all like to see?
www.interfacelift.com
some of them are breath-taking
|
|
|
|
|
them pictures are completely out of this world
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #45
Wow,i can honestly say ive never seen such awesome photography in my life, those shots are nothing short of miraculous.
I guess its plain to see from these snaps.....that its all about the timing,being at the right place at the right time with the right equiptment.
Thanks for linking us up with them 9
|
|
|
|
Some of you may appreciate this collection of some of the best photojournalism of the past year.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #43
I've had a look at the review on dpreview and all seems ideal for the beginner to the SLR world. There are a few little things that I would miss but it is an entry-level camera so they can be excused.
If you are going to at all get serious about photography then remember that the camera you buy now could/should be the first part of what is going to be a system. More lenses, a flash and an upgraded body or two over the years and you'll find you really don't want to be changing makes as it gets very expensive to change the lot each time. Nikon (or Canon I suppose) offer the largest range and I would stick with them if you are looking for a starter camera.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a digital slr for someone buying one for the first time been looking at the nikon d60
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #41
Don't take this the wrong way Gazzer but I think you don't really need that masterclass book just yet.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #40
Sound advice lads, thanks Dave,i think i mananged to take it all in,lol.
I think i just need more practice and keep reffering to the info in this thread as its all gradually gonna sink in,i think i get the whole exp thing now,and understand a little more about iso thanx to you guys, the efix data i posted here is for the dog shot tho.
I also have a digital photography book by tom ang, very good beginners book,its not the masterclass book tho so maybe i need a copy as i find his way of explaining things quite easy to absorb
|
|
|
|
i had a good book bought for me for my birthday recently. Its called digital photography masterclass (written by Tom Ang)
seems pretty good so far so could be worth a look
excellent thread so far chaps and im learning alot just reading it. I did a photography module at college a fair few years ago but it was mainly using non digital cameras and processing films in the dark room.
Keep it going
|
|
|
|
I'm by no means any sort of authority on photography, far from it and my camera isn't half as powerful as yours, but a few things I'd do with the dog shot are - lower the ISO, not sure if that EXIF is for the dog shot or the bridge shot, but with that amount of daylight I would certainly be dropping the ISO from 400. The lower the ISO, the better the quality of the shot and crispness of detail. Outside in the daylight i'd go straight to ISO 80 (which is as low as my camera goes), and as the light fades step this up as necessary.
Also, try increasing shutter speed a bit, it's a still image so should only make things better. The faster the exposure, the less chance you have of getting blurred edges as the shot will pick up less movement.
The aperture needs to be balanced with the exposure, there is a trade off between the amount of light entering the lens and the depth of field (the crispness of things infront and behind the subject). Narrowing the aperture (increasing the f-number) will help to crisp up the the whole of the photo, but a narrow aperture and fast shutter = less light and this may make the picture too dark.
A narrow aperture will have a greater the field of depth, meaning that things infront and behind the subject (whatever the the camera is focusing on) will also be in focus. Usefull for scenic shots of bridges, across lakes, etc where you're not actually focusing on a particular thing.
However because the aperture is narrow and not letting in very much light, you either have to have good natural light, increase the exposure to grab more of the available light - introducing blur with camera shake, or raise the ISO - loosing quality
A wide aperture will have much less field of depth, meaning that the subject item will be in focus but the further things are away from the subject, the more blurred they will be. In its extreme, this can be used to good effect when taking photos of close up subjects making them appear very vivid. The increased aperture size means you can use fast shutter speeds because less light is needed, reducing blur from camera shake.
Exposure is the amount of time the shutter is open for. The longer it is open the more light can enter the lens, however, the side effect of this is that it captures more movement. If you are using the camera hand-held then it is virtually impossible to use an exposure of anything slower than 1/60th of a second and not introduce blur through camera shake. Although if you use a tripod you can keep the camera still and therefore use a narrow aperture to get a greater field of depth with less light. Shots with a long exposure can produce some mad effects. If you've ever seen those shots of a motorway or road at night, where you get the massive streaks of light from the car headlights... thats usually done with a 30 second exposure.
Have a play and see what works best. Take each shot with varying settings and then compare them close up on the PC, which is the acid test really especially for ISO. Two shots can look identical of a 3 inch LCD screen but when you blow them up to full size on the monitor you can see the differences.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #37
not where i was thinking, i thought it was a bridge in bishops hull, somerset i used to fish off it many years ago, just looks the same
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #36
its the foot bridge over the frome in my village m8, (rode,somerset)
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Gazzer where is that pic from i'm sure i've seen that bridge before but can't put my finger on it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #34
EXIF — this group of metadata is encoded in 12,790 bytes (12.5k)
Aperture Value 4.5
Color Space sRGB
Components Configuration YCbCr
Compressed Bits Per Pixel 3
Compression JPEG (old-style)
Create Date 2008:12:06 16:54:53
9 days, 21 hours, 7 minutes, 10 seconds ago
Custom Rendered Normal
Date/Time Original 2008:12:06 16:54:53
9 days, 21 hours, 7 minutes, 10 seconds ago
Exif Image Size 3,072 × 2,048
Exif Version 0221
Exposure Compensation 0
Exposure Mode Auto
Exposure Time 1/60
F Number 4.5
File Source Digital Camera
Flash Auto, Fired, Red-eye reduction
Flashpix Version 0100
Focal Length 33.0 mm
Focal Plane X Resolution 3,443.946188 pixels/inch
Focal Plane Y Resolution 3,442.016807 pixels/inch
ISO 400
Interoperability Index R98 - DCF basic file (sRGB)
Interoperability Version 0100
Make Canon
Max Aperture Value 4.5
Metering Mode Multi-segment
Camera Model Name Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL
Modify Date 2008:12:06 16:54:53
9 days, 21 hours, 7 minutes, 10 seconds ago
Orientation Horizontal (normal)
Related Image Height 2,048
Related Image Width 3,072
Resolution 180 pixels/inch
Scene Capture Type Standard
Sensing Method One-chip color area
Shutter Speed Value 1/60
Thumbnail Length 10,240
User Comment
White Balance Auto
Y Cb Cr Positioning Centered
MakerNotes — this group of metadata is encoded in 1,440 bytes (1.4k)
hows this lot????
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #33
i loaded the same pic into the link u provided, does this give u all the info u need now???
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
edit
oh poo.....no it dont
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #32
Cheers 9er, your a star, book hunting tomorow,and your right about the dog slightly out of focus,but its the best i did so far,i took it coz the sunset seemed to bring the dogs colour out,almost had it.,the table is more in focus,ill soon av it right
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #31
It's okay, there's a lot to take in and it can seem pretty daunting. Stick with it and try and find a good book to explain the terms and more importantly show examples that you can try and emulate. Once you start to choose how to set the camera instead of allowing the camera to choose for you it is important to know why you are doing it. It is the step between merely taking a snapshot and creating an image.
The dog is slightly out of focus and I would have been very close to the dog's face as the light on his/her coat looks lovely.
I've found an online EXIF reader. This will help a lot!
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #30
I also half depress the button while it twitches the focus then click when its clear,but on some pics i have recently discovered that sometimes i twist the lense myself to bring the pic into focus,.....i bet your wetting yourself here m8 , i aint got a scooby doo what im doing.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #29
Sorry Nine,this must be real frustrating for you,ill try explain a bit more and ill put an example up,as explained earlier, the pic of the footbridge i took was in full auto mode on my canon eos,so i wasnt aware of what iso was, or ap etc,i just pointed and shot, and always hold the cam steady as poss to my face with my elbows into my chest,i havent the steadiest of hands but always struggle with taking consistently clear, and fully focused pics,now i know a pro has an "eye" for the perfect shot, and i certainly dont have that luxury/skill,so its normally a few pics of the scene or whatever and i keep the best one.i have pretty near perfect eyesight and dont wear specs,i can see when i have obviously just not held the cam steady and the shot is out of focus, but please look at this pic and you will see its full of colour, and reasonably in focus and clear/crisp,i merely wish to have all, well, much more of my pics this little bit clearer with more depth of colour.
Anyway,please feel free to criticize this pic, i trust your judgement fully,and its very much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #28
I'm sure someone will know how to get the EXIF data on a PC. Hopefully they will post this information soon.
If it is a bit flat and you were set at 100ISO then all that could have helped really is better kit and better weather.
If they are a little out of focus lets try to solve that. It could be camera shake or the focus. Do you wear glasses and can the viewfinder be adjusted to compensate? How are you holding the camera (at arms length or well supported against your face)? Are you using a shutter speed that is too low (a well supported grip on the camera with a shortish lens and I'd go no lower than 1/60th of a second)? Do you squeeze the shutter or snap at it with a heavy finger? Do you set the focus manually or use the autofocus?
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #27
By "crisp", i mean flat or lfieless, and yes i guess a little out of focus sometimes,i know a tripod would help to some degree but i just dont get clear pics,well not all the time anyway.
And i would happily supply you the full efix data.........if i knew what it was and how to do it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #26
What do you mean by not crisp? Do you mean they are a bit out of focus or blurred, or are they a bit flat and lifeless?
If you could post a pic with the EXIF data (I'll keep banging on about this until I get it) I will have a better clue as to what is going on.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #25
Thanks Nine and Dave, now we're cooking.
For most of my pics i wish to take will be outdoors,scenic shots,along the river bank and out in the fields, with family and dogs etc,obviously light will vary, from sunny days to cloudy days,so will it be better for me to concentrate on exposure and ap for these situations??
Is it safe for me to leave the iso set at one particular level or will this need constant adjusting?
i thinkthe reason im more interested on learning more about manual shooting is that i never seem to get crisp photo's when just left in auto modes.
U know what guys, im seriously considering a college course on photography in the new year.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #20
I'll add my rather basic 2p's worth.... (which may not be completely right)
p
tv
av
m
Without owning one of these camera i'm just guessing here, but:
P stands for Programme which is where you control ISO and metering but the aperture and exposure are auto calculated for you
TV stands for Time Value which is one of the two semi-auto modes. It means that you manually set the time value of the shutter aka shutter speed aka exposure, and the camera matches the ISO and aperture to what it considers best.
AV I think probably stands for Aperture Value, for what's called Aperture Priority. This is where you manually set the aperture width and the camera automatically sets values for exposure and ISO.
M stands for Manual, where you set everything manually.
Basically you want to get your head around Exposure aka Shutter Speed and Aperture (size/width) to start with.
Exposure (EXP) is the amount of the time the shutter stays open for, which directly effects the amount of light which enters the camera. This is most commonly adjusted for capturing motion, and there is probably a libraries worth of info on this subject alone.
Aperture (AP) is basically the size of the hole which opens in the camera for the picture to be taken. It is adjusted to affect field of depth, i.e. how sharp the stuff around the target is, again a much deeper subject than these two lines of explanation.
The two of these need to balance according to how close/far you are from your target, how much light there is, the depth of field you want, and whether your target is moving or still.
As for ISO, this wants to be as low as possible for better quality shots. High ISO allows you take photos in darker conditions at lower qualities and isn't of much use to the carp angler. Lower ISO requires more light, and therefore ties into AP and EXP.
Metering is how the camera calculates light levels. Multi mode metering, which is generally used will take an average of the light levels and expose the picture accordingly. This is ok if you have a balanced amount of light in the shot. Spot metering will use the light levels of a small area on/around the target. If you are taking a shot of something light against a dark background (the moon for example) or a dark subject on a light background (person with the light behind them) then spot metering will help. There are a few other different types of metering you can read up on also.
Thats a very basic lowdown but shoudl give you the building blocks for research without baffling you...
Research these terms on wikipedia for a better grasp on them.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #23
30" is thirty seconds. Not enough light for your camera on the settings you have dialled in (for a hand held shot of the dog anyway).
The 5.6 is the aperture. The 2...1... ...1...2 is the exposure meter showing you how far over- or under-exposed the shot will be.
The manual should show all this and it will be much easier to go through it with the camera to hand seeing what all the major functions do. Leave everything else on auto for the moment.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #22
Right, have just managed to find out how to adjust the iso,its set at 400 in the manual mode.but on the lcd screen it says 30" in the left top corner, also awb (auto whit balance i believe,in the middle top it says 5.6??? and middle there 2...1...... .......1......:2.... now this last one i see in the eyepeice display and its arrow pointing on +2 to the right hand side. also has the number 4 beside the green "shot ready" dot.
Make sense????
edit, i just took a pic of the dog to test, and the cam clicked as it took shot, then went dark and i couldnt see thru the eyepeice for about 20seconds until it clicked again....now im gettin scared
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #21
Thanx jon, i do have the manual but find it tough following the meanings exactly, i have already got the files set to large, so thats a start i guess.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #20
Gazzer, you need this link if you don't have a manual for your camera: 300d Manual Link, it can be a bit slow so stick with it.
Settings for shooting start at page 47.
It is essential that your camera is configured to use all it's potential. Section 1 on page 48 explains how to reconfigure the cameras settings. Set it to Large, 6.3mpix.
Sorry to keep banging on about this but it is vital you do this otherwise, with all the help and tinkering around in the world, your camera will only be looking at life through partly closed eyes.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #12
Right ,thanks lads,looks like this thread is gonna be a winner
I have just looked at my camera and i think i used it in the basic setting on autofocus ,which i beleive sets the iso at 100.now i presume this was not adequate enough for the given light conditions which were poor, or quite dull.i have never used the creative modes yet so i guess this is where i reset the iso to the conditions on the day....i have these options
p
tv
av
m
or a-dep hope that helps a little more Nine
|
|
|
|
for anyone that wants to see some really nice photography (imo) he have a look at my brothers flickr account, he has only been doing it a year or so but i think he is getting pretty good at it
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wwarby/
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #10
what a cracking photo. spot on bit of camera work there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #10
what a cracking photo. spot on bit of camera work there
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #15
The stag was at Domaine de Boux, by the end of the week we were feeding him by hand, if you shook a box of cereal he would come charging up to the fence
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #10
nice shot neil.
did you have your ghillie suit on to get so close. lol.
chances like that dont come often.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #13
Adding a bit more information would help to point out little changes that could have been made to improve the shot. No idea how to get the EXIF data on a Windows thing but if someone could pop it in the thread we could start getting the information with the pics.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #12
Just a standard Fuji s9000 buddy
|
|
|
|
If this is to be a critique thread it would really help if the photo was accompanied by a little more information. Camera, lens, ISO, aperture and shutter speed or full EXIF data if you can.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1000
thanks for the help, maybe I am not that dumb after all!!, both taken in France with a Fuji finepix s9000, only an amatuer playing around
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
|
|
|
|
|
Message Suppressed by Forum Moderator.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #6
Photography is basically 'painting with light'.
Well put Stace.
If you look at any great image it's generally great because of the light be it too much, loads of shadows or even hardly any light at all. The colour of the light is also very important.
The light at this time of the year is usually always cold (blue) even though it might not appear blue to the eye.
There isn't much light in and around the bridge area so you'll always struggle to get good strong depth in that area. Compare that to the light sky in the background and the camera is working pretty hard to maintain an overall good exposure.
|
|
|
|
Photography is basically 'painting with light'.
A subject may appear to be interesting but the light at that time might not enable you to capture in it's full glory.
The grass in the foreground is a good starting point - photos without foreground are boring.
I'd retake the picture but at different times of the day. Early morning and early evening make the best times for landscape photography as the shadows lengthen and you have more of a glow effect. Stick with the same composition, just practise with the light.
I've took the same photo over 20 times before to get the right colours, I'm sure others have done many more. Landscape photography requires unrivalled patience.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #3
Great idea Gary!!
I will sticky the thread as i have the same camera as you and want to get the most out of it not only for fishing
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I'm no expert but if you increase the iso to say 400 or higher ( I think this is done using the little roller wheel on the 300d ) this will give more detail as the capture becomes more light sensitive. Also, tightening the aperture will give a much deeper depth of field and hence a more fuller focus. I think that's correct maybe one of the resident experts can advise.
Probably the big mistake you may be making is by not having your 300d configured to use all it's potential. I made the mistake with my 300d of not having the image quality set to Large. This is set in "Quality" on the cameras menu.
Large takes images at 6.3mpix, Medium takes at 2.8mpix and Small at 1.6mpix so make sure your camera is using it's full potential.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2
I have an awesome wildlife shot here, could someone post it up for me if I e-mail it to them, worth while, stunning picture
|
|
|
|
the contrast is not right, the sky is bright at the back maybe. it need the colour increasing maybe.
and some though when you take it. It’s boring
|
|
|
|
Ok folks.I hope i speak for the majority of us,we all like to capture a quality picture of our trophy fish....but also, i am and always have been a wannabe photographer,whilst on the bank, i like to pass the time snapping wildlife,sunset/rise,misty mornings and general scenic pictures.....i consider myself quite crap,but am very willing to learn more, i have a basic book on tips for digital photography but i think its always best to gain advice people in the know, or those who are just naturally better.
So.....a bit of a liberty i know, but im hoping this thread will benefit all forum members wishing to improve thier skills....what i wish of this thread,is that by posting a photo you have taken,and not just fishing pics please, we can say what we ( the person who took the snap) think is wrong with it, and how we would have liked it to look.
Then...the guys in the know could perhaps point out the faults, and ways in which a better shot could have been acheived.
I know theres a couple of proffessional photographers on here and i dont wish to burden them with too much as i should imagine this thread could go on for some time,and maybe even hopefully made a sticky,but there are also plenty of guys on here who take amazing snaps, and have a natural ability....the likes of mr Townley for example.
So,i hope this thread can go the distance....my intention is not for us all to bombard the forum with crappy pics of us holding carp, but any pics at all that we enjoy taking but cant get right.....hopefully this will turn out to be a very educational thread,one we can all benefit from and get involved in.
If i may get the ball rolling with a recent pic i took of the old footbridge crossing my local river.
camera used is canon eos 300d with standard 18-55 lense.in the auto focus setting.(no tripod).
Fault....to me, this picture lacks depth and clarity
Your views and tips greatly appreciated
|
|
