terry_lee10

Canon’s mythical 200-400 f4 IS seems like an ideal replacement of the ageing 100-400 L zoom. If Canon’s brings one out, it will no doubt be similar to Nikon’s lens specifications which weighs 3.27kg, 36cm long and cost approx AUD$9,500. Compared this with Canon’s 1.36kg, 19cm long and cost only AUD $2,000.

 

I am sure it will be better lens at 400mm but depending on what you do with the your photos, is it $7,500 better? Whist the 100-400 is not the perfect lens, one can't deny that it is real good value.

I do enjoy pulling out an old camera and run some film. The RT with it’s unique pellicle mirror is one of them, it’s no slouch either where it can do 5fps and this is a 16 year old camera. Just think how much the 20D will cost in 16 years time, will it work and can it be fixed? I agree with Fred, give the RT a new lease of life.

Surf Sequence - Wipeout<div></div>

For sports you need to get as close as possible for real impact images. If your lens is too short for field sports, place yourself in the best position and patiently wait for the players to get close. In film days, one tends to more patient, waiting for that moment.

 

Whilst AF makes life easier, FD with MF gave me many pleasurable moments where the pace is not so frantic. With digital, everyone wants it NOW, and they want to see your images that same night. I even sold my EOS 3 before I sold my FD 300 f2.8 and T90 but I kept the EOS 30 as I still shoot slides for personal images.

 

Photography shoot be fun and stress free, it is the quality of the image that counts, not quantity. Good luck and have fun.<div></div>

I am using Elements 6 for post processing and my Samsung 275T monitor is already calibrated with Eye-One D2. I

am reasonably happy with the printing at my local Fuji Frontier photo lab with my JPEG sRGB images up to 10 x 15.

 

But with that same sRGB image after resizing for web (eg. 400 x 600) than finally using �Save for Web�, why is that

the web mage is so much more saturated than the original image. I can clearly see it in the Elements preview

screen. I than have to tone down the colour saturation of this image, as it looks grossly over saturated especially for

skin tones.

 

Does anyone else have this same issue or is it my monitor or is it Elements ?

Another example<div></div>

Unlike traditional air shows where you get much bigger fighters planes, formation flying and bomber planes etc, the red bull air race planes are a solo race and they are like the size of a Cessna plane.

 

Even a 400mm lens on 1.6x body is too short if you want to get details of the pilots face but with some cropping you get very decent images. Good luck.<div></div>

Need to explore the other recommended methods but in the meantime, it appears the simplest way is either pasting it onto a new file or saving as Save for Web. Thanks everyone as it is much appreciated.

After processing an original JPEG image in PSE 4 and then saving it as a copy,

I notice that the EXIF information are still retained on the copy.

 

I am aware that saving the image as Save as Web (for web site such as 300 x

400) will strip the exif which is fine as it is only for their web sites.

 

However, when I sent this image via e-mail (higher resolution for printing),

the recipient can see the origianl exif information.

 

Is there a way to remove or hide the exif data, so the client cannot see?

Looks like the 550EX in manual mode is the simplest method. Thanks for the great tips everyone, especially Julien?s link.

Let me point out that studio photography is totally new to me. I have been

invited to attend a studio photo shoot and the studio uses Bowens Gemini

flashes and they do not have a spare flash trigger for me to use.

 

My question is, can the 420EX fire or trigger their studio flash ? Naturally, I

will be pointing the flash head upwards (very high dark ceiling) so it should

not throw any light onto the subject.

 

I do not need want to purchase a Bowens Pulsar Flash trigger just for this

forthcoming event. Can other EX flashes like 550, 580 trigger it ? Thanks.

If you are already getting 1/160 shutter speed with ISO 400, you can get 640 using IOS 1600 but with the H2, noise is a real issue.

 

Using flash is a no no thus you need to use a DSLR for cleaner images and less shutter lag etc, fast SLR lens & high ISO in order to freeze motion while shooting in a typical sports indoor lighting.

 

Remember, the closer you are to the subject such as boxing, the higher shutter speed is required. I'm always at ISO 1600 or 3200 for the action shots and 400 or 800 for non action shots like presentation or at their corner.

When shooting outdoors, unless you get the sun's early morning sunrays through the clouds or spot lights, there isn't much you can do apart from applying more contrast to the image during post processing. Play with Levels.

 

Indoors such as concerts where they use fog machines are not too bad as it adds a unique colourful atmosphere due to the spot lights.

It is CF II-2. If you have set "High ISO Speed Noise Reduction" to ON, it will reduced the maximum burst speed as it involves the camera's in-house extra step of processing of the Noise Reduction. See Page 163 of the Manual. 14 FPS should be fast enough otherise turn the CF II-2 off.

All shots have identical settings. I used Standard picture style, one shot center AF on the green keyboard with 24-70 f2.8 lens so the 40D should not misfocus as it is supposedly to be 30% better than the 30D with high precision cross type sensor etc.

 

Those shots were intended to test the colours and how it behaves at high ISO.

 

Surprisingly, the 40D viewfinder is quite bright.

Here is the same shot with 1DM3 @ 6400<div></div>

Here is the 1DM3 image.<div></div>

For those of you who are curious, attached are 100% crops of 2 identical shots

taken with 1DM3 and 40D, Jpeg highest, mirror lock up, @ 3200 with high ISO

reduction turned on. By all means it is no scientific test but the 40D is not

too bad. The 40D image is bigger due to the 1.6x sensor.<div></div>

Taken over the weekend - Up Up and Away<div></div>

Taken last weekend - No Pain, No Gain<div></div>

I forgot to mentioned that if your lens is one of those big white ones such as the 300 f2.8, the front element of the lens is actually the lens protection. Same treatment applies.

Peter, for extended periods of shooting surfing, I can see the fine sea spray on the filter. I add a few drops of lens cleaner and gently wipe it with a lens cloth. If sand is presence, use a blower first and then wipe ensuring not to grind any fine sand into the filter. I also carry a spare 77mm filter where the smudge is impossible to clean on field or no time to clean.

 

During breaks, I splash some clean water onto a lens cloth and give both the lens and camera a quick wipe due to sweat from palms etc.

 

I also use this method in car rallies and motocross where fine dust is unavoidable.

Here?s what a Power Diaphragm (1.5? diameter) looks like from my old 16-35mm

f2.8L, which has broken down several times and each time costing several

hundred dollars to repair. It?s now not worth fixing and time to retire this

lens. I believe the newer Mark II version takes 82mm filters.<div></div>

At that price, you might as well keep it and show it to your grandkids, non-photographers or only digi photographers by display it in your lounge room. It will start up a conversation with your guests, back in the film days .....etc.

You can even use it as a weapon for self-defence as these manual lenses are solid and heavy.

OK Keith, my words are a bit loose and I see what you mean but it wasn?t meant be a thorough guide to correct exposures.

 

Roger has said it himself ?Plenty of lessons learned here, some of which you have responded with. Probably the biggest is to not be in a hurry as I was today?.

 

If Roger had ISO 1000 and wanted to shoot the kids playing for his mother-in-law, he would be aiming for a larger aperture say f2.8 thus he would have noticed the unusual higher shutter speed. Going by the rough sunny 16 rule with harsh shadows at ISO 1000, f16 @ 1/1000, so shooting at f2.8, you can see where I got the faster shutter speed.

 

Even shooting landscapes, he would have noticed the unusual higher shutter speed.

 

My intention was simply to remind people in the forum including myself that we should be alert or recognise of unusual exposures before we push the button as we have all sorts of photography levels in this forum, from the humble beginner to the pros like Keith.

 

I also provided a direct link for Roger to try out.

My apologies to those who was offended.