andy_depaulo

I often use a stroboframe pro-t coupled with a 550ex and an ste-2. No cords to tangle, and the assist beam on the ste-2 works perfectly. Downside is, with the 550 in slave mode, it blinks that assist beam as the ready light constantly. two small pieces of electrical tape cover it fine and keep it from annoying everyone.

take dry warm clothes, no matter how hot it is on the shore...better to take them off than to not have them.

another vote for canon 10x30 IS. IS more than makes up for the small exit pupil in low light. Have to be tried to be believed. IS is the difference between seeing a sign and reading it.

 

Find a pair and take a peak through them, you'll never buy another non-IS pair of bino's

 

Also, I've looked through tons of Leupold scopes over the years, and everyone has left me disappointed in their optics.

are you using a grip? if so, check for tightness and/or clean contacts. Has done this to me on occasion; loose grip is the culprit.

Subject: banding with 20d or am i going crazy

 

I think you're going crazy.

 

If you find something that objectionable in an underexposed shadow that looks as to be expected to me, I don't know what to tell you.

you forgot the obvious fact that hunters and anglers are very unintelligent lower class citizens. They don't have the brain capacity to tell what is a good image and what is not. Give them a used napkin, tell them it's a picture of a zebra mussel, and I'm sure they'll be happy.

Instead of complaining about security measures and how they inconvenience everyone, perhaps we should be complaining about the people that want to convert you or kill you.

 

Seems to me the people who gripe about being overcautious are usually the same ones who wonder why we weren't prepared when some kook blows something up.

 

If these good ol' boys weren't blowing innocent people up, would security issues be such an inconvenience?

 

Flame on...

the pilot light will be red when the flash is charged and ready to fire. It will only turn green briefly after it fires and has exposed correctly.

 

If it won't fire with the test button, something's wrong.

 

hopefully you'll get your money back.

"Otherwise why would telescopes be made bigger and bigger if lens diameter did not contribute significantly to not only resolving power but light capture. "

 

 

Resolving power is totally dependent on lens diameter. "Light capture" depends on what is being imaged/viewed throught the scope. Point sources of light (i.e. stars) are rare beasts. No matter how much magnification (focal length) is applied to a point source, it will still be an infinately small point. So, by magnifying more, you are not spreading its light out over a larger area. For this reason, point sources are dependent only on physical aperture.

 

Diffuse objects, such as galaxies and nebulae, do have their light spread out over a larger area as focal length increases. For these objects, f/ratio comes into play. Take two 8" telescopes, one an f/4 and one an f/8. Stars will be the same brightness (and expose photographically the same) in both scopes. Diffuse objects however, the f/4 will yield a brighter image than the the f/8 will. The f/8 will show the object larger, but will be 4x dimmer.

 

comparing camera lenses to telescopes is not a good thing, as telescopes change their f/ratio by changing the focal length. Camera lenses change their f/ratio by changing the aperture leaving the focal length constant.

 

So on a camera lens, changing f/ratios will affect both diffuse objects AND point sources, where a telescope f/ratio shift will only affect diffuse objects.

and by the way, shooting anything at night for longer than several seconds when the moon is up (especially right around full) will give a picture that looks just like one taken on a clear, sunny day.

"I've heard from numerous sources, that it's the overall area of the lens front element that determines performance for stars. It makes sense in an intuitive way, but I've never tested it."

 

Depends. Resolving stars is totally dependent on the physical aperture, NOT the f/ratio. Thing you need to remember is that telescopes and camera lenses change their f/ratios in different ways. Telescopes change there f/ratios by changing the focal length. Camera lenses change the ratio by modifying the aperture.

 

Take two 4" telescopes (100mm aperture). One is an f/10, one is an f/4. The f/10 scope will have a FL of 1000mm, the f/4 will have a FL of 400mm. The f/10 will have a lot more magnification, but since it has the same physical aperture (100mm) as the f/4 scope, they will resolve and expose stars identically.

 

When you adjust a camera lens's f/ratio, you are changing the physical aperture of the lens and not changing the focal length. So when exposing stars with a camera lens, f/ratio plays a huge part in exposing/resolving stars.

Dim light= manual mode, ettlII does the rest. When possible and not to distracting; FEL on a skintone is best bet. Otherwise, ettl works pretty well once you get the hang of it; just try to avoid situations such as white tablecloths, especially close to the camera.

 

Decent daylight= Av on partial spot metering and Exposure lock with ettl fill flash.

 

the big thing is practice, practice, and more practice...

" You can do this by lowering the opacity of the upper layer and then moving it until the alignment is right."

 

setting the blending mode of the top layer to 'difference' makes manually aligning a breeze; the slightest variation in position between the two will show dramatically.

Looks to me like some nasty JPG and sharpening artifacts, with a little blooming mixed in here and there, but mostly the former.

 

Can you host a raw for us to play with?

I have owned both lenses. I had a 15mm 2.8 diagonal fisheye and a Sigma 15-30mm rectilinear both at the same time. The sigma 15-30 was one of the flariest lenses I've ever owned; it was almost unusable a lot of times because of it. I put them both up for sale after the first few reviews of the 10-22mm EFS came out and had my new lens as soon as the cash for the other two came in. The 10-22 is an outstanding lens, if you are comfortable being locked into a 1.6 crop camera with it. All lenses were/are used on 10d and 20d bodies.

 

The 10-22 will be much more useable than the fisheye ever will. Sometimes I miss the barrel distortion of the fishey and the 15-30; but then I smile because the 10-22 is just such a wonderful piece of glass. Going from the 15 Diag. Fishey and 15-30 was one of the best things equipmentwise I've ever done...

looks like a hair...

Smoky Mountains NP; what the fog does up their in rainy weather is unbelievable. While you're there, some interesting things may be found on the Cherokee Reservation...

I definately agree with the other folks; I do football games usually at f/2.8 and ISO 1600 to get 1/500 - 1/1000 exposures.

same thing happened to me out on a job no less, Switched to my backup for a few shots until I had a break then fiddled around with the camera. My BG-ed3 was 'slightly' loose. Could be coincidence though...

thing that struck me was definately the lighting on this and many of your other shots. A little more planning on your position prior to the runners showing up would do wonders. Depending on the local terrain, if possible some trees between your back and the sun would soften up the light and shadows as well.

 

Personally on such a shot, I would like to see a slightly slower shutter to give a tiny touch of motion blur to the feet in order to isolate the moving runners from the stationary crowd. That is however personal preference and that's all.

stars are point sources of light. Being point sources, they are not affected by f/ratio, but are solely tied to the aperture of the optical system. On a camera lens, your f/ratio is adjusted by decreasing the aperture, so as Frank said, using a slower f/ratio on a camera lens will result in dimmer stars. But, here's the kicker, if you adjust your f/ratio by changing the focal length (and not the aperture), stars will be exposed exactly the same. For example, take two camera lenses, both with a 100mm diameter of the front element. One has a 400mm FL yielding f/4; the other has a 1000mm FL yielding f/10. Both these lenses will resolve a star the same way (brightness wise). Diffuse objects such as galaxies, nebulas, etc. are dependent on f/ratio; aperture will only affect sharpness.

 

15 degree angle of sweep is correct, but do not forget is relative to polar rotation, not to the camera. Stars on the cellestial equator will cover a lot of ground compared to those closer to the pole. Polaris will hardly move during a several hour exposure.

 

High ISO films will pick up more stars, but they will also pick up more sky glow and light pollution. Also, reciprococity failure will have no effect on star trail photos; recipricocity failure occurs in the spots where light is hitting the film. Since the stars are moving across the film plane, they are constantly exposing new, unexposed film.

 

Now stationary objects will be subject to recipricocity failure; if you track the stars with your camera to keep them stationary, recipricocity failure will begin immediately. In this case, most high iso films have much higher failure rates than low iso films do. For example, an 800 speed film may be higher speed initially, but it will usually degrade to say ISO 50 in a matter of a minute. A 200 ISO film may be slower intially, but it will keep its speed much longer; perhaps still being ISO 100 after 10 minutes. This is solely dependent on the individual film emulsion, and nothing else. Also, depending on what your are photographing, most of the fascinating objects are narrowband light emitters, many films are totally blind to the specific colors they emit.

"Leaving you some well saved cash for the upcoming full frame 12 Megapixel EOS 30-DF ? "

 

which undoubtedly someone will test, then announce that the 20d takes better pictures...

:)

I thought it was the "brownie cameras" forum?

 

Sad thing is, I've actually stopped in there as I found an old twin reflex out in the garage I was thinking about restoring and messing around with...

 

the responses to this post go to show the forum isn't unread, just not posted to. Perhaps we're all comfortable enough with what we're doing to not need help? well, that's the explanation that makes me feel better anyway...

I have both a 10d and 20d in my bag right now, and have since the 20d first came out.

 

Anybody who's interested, I'll gladly trade my 10d for your 20d.

a picture is worth a thousand words. Can you post one?