Page 4 of 140 FirstFirst 123456781454104 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 2091
  1. #46
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,927

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Here`s one more with the 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM at 1 to 1 1/2 feet.


  2. #47
    Fluff n Stuff's Avatar
    Fluff n Stuff is offline ♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♪♪
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    South Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    12,389

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by scruff35 View Post
    Hey ST. Here`s a 4 foot shot(non-edited) with the Rebel XTi and the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM lens.
    Well, yeah, at 70mm. How about a zoomie at 300mm? ;D



  3. #48
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,927

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluff n Stuff View Post
    Well, yeah, at 70mm. How about a zoomie at 300mm? ;D

    Opps. How`s this, quick shot.


  4. #49
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Yermo, CA, USA
    Age
    58
    Posts
    9,946

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by scruff35 View Post
    Opps. How`s this, quick shot.

    At 3"-4" during My families thankgiving party.


  5. #50
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,927

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Here`s one from 4` with the 75-300mm, with tripod and 430EX flash(second is with the flash at a different angle.




  6. #51
    Joined
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    74,684

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    What a great thread. Sheesh. We should set up a freakin sub forum for you guys to have around digital photography because I understand a relationship with all you guys with telescopes in your pockets.
    Its amazing to see what you guys do with cameras.

  7. #52
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Hey Scruff, your two pictures actually showed a neat trick with those lenses. Notice how the top of the can is basically the same size in both images. Yet the bottom of the can is way smaller in the second shot. Some of this effect probably is occurring due to a slight change in angle, but the majority of this is due to the size of the lenses you used.

    The shorter the lens you use, the closer to the subject you'll have to get. This means the percent difference in distance from the closest part of the subject to the farthest part of the subject will be much greater then when you took the shot with the long lens. This thus creates or exaggerates sense of perspective more.


    Long lens, taken from far away


    Short lens, taken from close up

    You can use this technique for some interesting shots. I've seen some pretty 'interesting' shots taken of cows when a wide angle lens (short lens) is used to take a picture of the cow's head. The nose appears huge, yet her body would be tiny.

    -------------

    I'll try to take a picture with my 70-200 for ya ST. I just got to charge up my batteries first. Oh, that reminds me. Canon suggests that you always drain you batteries before you put your camera away for storage (ie a month or more). This will help save the batteries from what's called 'crystalizing'. Crystalizing is a problem with all LiON batteries. This is way most laptop batteries tend to dye after a year if the owner tries to use it as a desktop by keeping it always plugged in.

    For me, I generally only keep one of my two batteries charged up at any given time. That is unless I am going to some event where I'll need both. It just so happens that the last time I used my camera I noticed my battery was getting low and I didn't charge it cause I doubt I was going to be using it again for a while.

  8. #53
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Oh, and one more thing, I noticed you had some shadow from probably the lens in the picture. If you use the external flash, this will be prevented. Or, you may have to take off any lens hoods, or watch your hand while focusing.

    I had a friend always complain that half of his SLR shots had some big shadow in them. I watched him the one day and it was his arm! He'd reach over top of the lens to focus it.

    These are only practice shots I know, but thought I'd point that out in case you weren't aware of it or why that happened.

  9. #54
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    5,927

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Thanks for all the tips SP. But sadly this is only the second chance that i`ve had to pick up the camera since getting it. Got tons of stuff going on, so i`m hoping to get out with the camera next weekend. jimz is right we should have a thread dedicated to just uploaded pics and advice on cameras/lenses. Would be informative and fun. What do you guys/gals think? We do have some experts here(not me).

  10. #55
    Fluff n Stuff's Avatar
    Fluff n Stuff is offline ♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♫♪♫♪♪♫♪♫♪♪
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    South Seattle, Wa
    Posts
    12,389

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by scruff35 View Post
    Thanks for all the tips SP. But sadly this is only the second chance that i`ve had to pick up the camera since getting it. Got tons of stuff going on, so i`m hoping to get out with the camera next weekend. jimz is right we should have a thread dedicated to just uploaded pics and advice on cameras/lenses. Would be informative and fun. What do you guys/gals think? We do have some experts here(not me).
    Well we don't WANT a sub-forum with only experts; it would be as annoying as all get out when they don't agree on something, (which will be often) and intimidate the newbies for whom the forum is made in the first place!

    But yeah, that would be fun!



  11. #56
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Ok, here's as close as you're going to get with my EF 70-200 1:4 L USM.


    That shot was taken in manual mode, the settings were:
    • f14 (Using a setting this high should make most of the label stay in focus as this will extend my depth of field)
    • 1/125 sec shutter (a good speed I like to use for flashes, also since this shot was hand held with a 200mm lens, I wouldn't want to go slower as hand shake will become an issue)
    • ISO 200 (again, it just felt like a good setting for flash shots. Low ISO settings keeps the graininess nicely under control)
    • External Flash (580EX) set to bounce off of the ceiling c/w the CatchLight panel extended (the catchlight panel should have gave a nice flash spot on the bottle but I guess I didn't have enough of the glass in view to get this affect)
    • White Balance = Custom (I took a shot of a piece of white paper to calibrate the white balance since I was using a bounce flash technique)

    As you can see, it does appear to be fairly close to the subject. But the subject still has to be quite large. Taking a shot of a coin or an insect wouldn't be worth it as the subject would still be relatively tiny compared to the overall shot. That is unless you are willing to lose some resolution as you crop the image smaller with software on your computer.

    However, I did get to play with a neat Sigma lens a friend brought into work to have me try out. He wanted my opinion prior to buying it. I don't recall the specs on this lens, but I think it would zoom to 200mm as well but it has full macro capabilities. This shot was a little over exposed, but you should still get a good feel for what this lens could do:

    This shot was taken at 190mm focal length setting. I think I could have gotten a bit closer but I was just trying to get the entire dial in view. The picture is of a Dial Height Gauge we use at work. The dial is about 1-1/2" diameter.

    This Sigma lens does not have anything fancy like image stabilization, or ultrasonic mechanisms to focus with. The main lens is relatively small (compared to my 70-200), but it works well for it's price. The two biggest downside I found with this lens was 1. it's focusing motor is noisy and had a 'gear clicking' feel when adjusting it manually (if I remember right switching to manual mode does not disengage the motor hence causing that feeling). 2. switching to macro mode can be a bit cumbersome. I think you had to have the zoom set to one of the extremes prior to switching it into macro.

    Would I purchase this lens? Well, for the macro mode, maybe. If I didn't already have my 70-200, I probably would have bought it. I took about a dozen shots or more with this lens, and I couldn't find any optical flaws. Mind you none of my tests were really scientific. But I didn't see any distortion, or abrasion.

  12. #57
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluff n Stuff View Post
    Well we don't WANT a sub-forum with only experts; it would be as annoying as all get out when they don't agree on something, (which will be often) and intimidate the newbies for whom the forum is made in the first place!

    But yeah, that would be fun!
    I just like posting this cause I find it fun. By no means would I call my self an expert. I just managed to take a lot of pictures in the past few years (approaching 15,000 ). So with that in mind, I'm bound to get one or two good ones.

    The other thing that's great about photography is it's an art. And with any art form there's no right or wrong way of doing things. For example, Fluff likes to edit his pics on his computer. I personally think that's a taboo. It's just the way we are. The same thing will occur with hardware as well. Canon vers Nikon, Canon lenses vers Sigma lenses, etc.

    But I'm willing to keep this thread up as long as people find it usefull.

  13. #58
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Quote Originally Posted by scruff35 View Post
    Opps. How`s this, quick shot.

    This shot was probably a bit too close for that particular lens, hence why the camera was not able focus on the can.

    Quote Originally Posted by JokerCPoC View Post
    At 3"-4" during My families thankgiving party.

    I take it this shot was probably an accident. But your camera may be able to focus on objects that close if you switch your camera to macro mode. Macro mode is usially indicated by a small icon of a flower like this:

    Have a look to see if you've got that function on your camera. If so, try turning it on and taking some close up shots.

    I know the Canon Powershot A710 will focus to 3/8 of an inch from it's lens if you are using the macro mode!

  14. #59
    Joined
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    7,744

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    Thanks guys!
    I think she really doesn't need the macro lens (yet), or a wide angle as those pics look clear enough and the subject actually takes up the right amount of the frame. She's usually dealing with sunlight too, flash techniques not really an issue for most of her shots. Four feet with a 70 - 200 or 300 lens is close.
    Tyan S5397 2x X5450 16GB - SuperMicro H8DCI 2x 275 8GB - Iwill DK8X 2x Opteron 250 2GB


    Take a Kid FISHING!

  15. #60
    Joined
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Age
    44
    Posts
    13,194

    Re: To our resident camera buffs...

    I was talking with the guy who had the Sigma lens. He said the lens also tends to eat the battery in a hurry. He said he only got about 60 shots on a charge the one time he was using it. Yet when he switches to the Canon lenses his battery life is huge. I guess it's just another thing to think about when choosing a lens.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •