|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Aug 5, 2006 10:35:16 GMT 12
To xr6turbo1. I have used a Canon 28-200 f3.5-f5 for the last 5 years or so. I call it my utility lens but it does a good job so long as I am not looking for nice bokeh (depth of field blur). It rattles around a bit and isn't as quick to focus as the "Ls". To agabraith. Welcome along to the digital world. Get in close, then closer and closer again. Try some slower shutter speeds 1/250th-1/125th to blur props. Learn to pan at lower shuter speeds to obtain some background blur. Try a Canon 100-300 EF lens if you can get your hands on one. I look forward to seeing your results. At the risk of pushing my own barrow have a look at my personal photographic site: www.planeimages.smugmug.com .This and Pbase are XLNT ways of displaying your images on the net for very little outlay. The 28-300 L IS is very impressive, havent used it much but its build and quality is very good. Mainly bought it for air to airs when not exposed to the elements and it is useful to have a lens that has a good reach especially when photograping aeroplanes where the pilot may not have a lot of formation experience.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 1, 2006 19:41:09 GMT 12
Having spent $600,000 on a new building yesterday, I decided to wrap up the week by getting a Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens for my Canon 20D today. Cost $2699.00 at the Parallel Imported Company. Will try it out over the weekend and see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by planeimages on Sept 1, 2006 21:12:47 GMT 12
Wow, that should draw them in. Remember that the IS only works in a certain range... probably below 1/250th sec. Don't take to long to shoot once focus lock is achieved.
You may also have to switch modes from panning to still. Some of these lenses need to have the IS turned off when using a tripod. I think that is incorrect as the tripod could still move or vibrate.
You have no excuse now. Remember to get in close, then move in closer and then closer. Fill the frame. Try to shoot with a creative angle. A wingspan in flight looks best with the wing angled from lower left to upper right. Don't ask me why but photographic judges seem to think this is right.
Keep horizons level unless there is a creative excuse for not doing so. If you do then make it bold and look like you meant to rather than just ineptitude!
Watch depth of field with long objects running away from the camera, like a fuselage.
I think you know all this. Just thinking of things to say which might help.
I look forward to seeing your efforts.
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Sept 1, 2006 21:39:30 GMT 12
Having spent $600,000 on a new building yesterday, I decided to wrap up the week by getting a Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens for my Canon 20D today. Cost $2699.00 at the Parallel Imported Company. Will try it out over the weekend and see how it goes. You will see a difference straight away. I used to use a Sigma EX 50-500. Nice images but tough to hold steady. Once I put the 100-400 on things imporved a lot. Then as mentioned, work on full frame. The IS is good but you still have to work pretty hard.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 2, 2006 17:52:35 GMT 12
Its probably appropriate that my first images with this new lens be of a beautiful woman . . . Nose art on NZ7624 at Whenuapai today.
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Sept 3, 2006 8:36:47 GMT 12
Have you got a shot of the whole aircraft?
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Sept 3, 2006 19:11:55 GMT 12
That Andover noseart is fantastic. I guess it never served with the nose-art and it was added after becoming an intructional airframe?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 7, 2006 23:10:32 GMT 12
As ordered - pride of the WASC Gliding Section . . .
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Sept 8, 2006 7:19:59 GMT 12
Thanks for the photo, didnt realise the aircraft didnt have wings etc
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 8, 2006 12:00:30 GMT 12
They've killed her; the bastards! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Sept 8, 2006 16:03:55 GMT 12
Getting back to what sort of gear everyone has I seem to be the odd one out with the old black magic stuff that they call Nikon! No doubt their will be others join up and join me soon enough. Nikon D70 with the kit lens 18-70mm f3.5-4.5G ED AF-S, AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF lens, 2x TC-20EII converter(for the 70-200 only), Nikkor AF ED VR 80-400mm lens and SB800 flash. On the wish list is the Nikon D200 body when the price is right. Rumour has it that when the Canon 400D is released the D200 will take a tumble in price like most of these things do after a suitable space of time. A nice to have would be the 18-200mm f3.5-4.5G ED AF-S VR lens and at around $1350 that one is quite a while away(maybe just before Wanaka next time?) 10.5mm would be handy but I don't get in many cockpits so not a priority.
The D200 has a bit more grunt I am told to drive the 80-400 lens as it is not AF-S and still has the aperture ring coupling which the D200 has but the D70 doesn't. Anyway the glass is good on both teles so that is the main thing.
|
|
|
Post by planeimages on Sept 8, 2006 18:39:54 GMT 12
Nikon fanatics say the the D70s is the gun ship. A lot depends on whether you need/want a full frame sensor or not.
|
|
|
Post by xr6turbo1 on Sept 8, 2006 22:15:14 GMT 12
Cant say I have had much to do with Nikon cameras and lenses but they do provide fine images. I have been doing a few photoshoots lately and will post some pictures in a week or so and the 28-300 3.5-5.6L lens really is a cracker, a bit heavy but I have some good images from the first few times I have used it I have used it when I have been doing air to air shoots where the camera doesnt have to be out in the breeze and its very versatile.
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Sept 10, 2006 22:39:43 GMT 12
Got out over the weekend and had a play with the new lens. The following shot of OKA was taken hand-held with the IS on, RAW format. The original certainly appears quite sharp with good detail all over. The 100 - 400 lens was at 210mm for this shot. The image has not been cropped at all, so there is still quite a bit of extension to go.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 12, 2006 20:10:12 GMT 12
Peter, I love that shot of the B777. I used to look at the Triple-7 and think "it's just a big 767", but now I ready have grown to like them. I think Air NZ colours look great on them too. Anyway, a slightly off-topic, question: have any of you found going from 35mm film to digital media a steep learning curve? My problem is I'm a bit of a techno-phobe - and I only read the bits of the manual I need to! I did a lot of B & W photography at school in the early-mid 1980s, but I find that a lot of the stuff you guys are discussing is way over my head. I really am hopeless at sitting down and digesting all this information in books or online about getting the most out of your digital camera; jeez, I've even had trouble understanding the manual that came with my camera! I only own a Canon S2IS, so it's nothing too fancy, but one day I'll move up to the big stuff!
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Sept 12, 2006 21:18:21 GMT 12
and I only read the bits of the manual I need to!You are not alone I have had my camera for over two years and there are still bits of the manual I have to refer back too. For jets I use aperture priority and select f8 and the camera selects the shutter speed. This also reduces the effect of dust spots on the sensor so not so much work to do in Photoshop. For props I select shutter priority and set it from 1/60 - 1/250 and turn the Vibration Reduction on for hand held shots. Post processiing I use the equalize to get all the dust spots and clone out if necessary. An exception is this one at 1/25 th sec after sunset VR on: www.airliners.net/open.file/1094306/L/One good thing with digital is you can check the result immediately after taking it and adjust and try again. Makes life easier to some degree.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 13, 2006 9:35:42 GMT 12
Colin, that photo of the LAN Chile Airbus is fantastic! The great thing about digital is at least you can see what sort of results you are getting straight away, and not have to be as disappointed as I sometimes was when I got my 35mm film processed in the "bad ole days" of analog. I think I need a session or two on the lake with the ducks. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kereru on Sept 13, 2006 15:07:24 GMT 12
Thanks Corsair67 it does take some practice. When shooting continous my camera is limited to about 3 raw shots and then it takes time to write them to the card. It is a bit of a juggle while paning to get the ones I want and that one turned out great. Good luck with the 'Duck shooting".
|
|
|
Post by amitch on Sept 13, 2006 18:39:23 GMT 12
I think I need a session or two on the lake with the ducks. ;D Not as silly as it sounds. Birds and even cars on a busy road will give you lots of practice and if you can get birds you can get aircraft!
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 14, 2006 14:41:30 GMT 12
Wedgetail Eagles sound like a better option for me: they slowly circle around and around at great height looking for small animals to eat.
|
|