brad_n

A Black Crowned Night Heron, Forked River, New Jersey.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/316559122_7wabL-L.jpg" /> <br><br/>

 

Pentax k20D, DA*300, FGZ540 with Better Beamer. ISO 800, F5.6, 250/sec.

Melissa,

 

I feel your frustration. I've been struggling with this also except my applcation is birds which is complicated by moving objects, drastic background changes, super telephotos and a better beamer. Wow! somedays its a headache.

 

In addition to the advice that Tom and Scott gave. I suggest that you try Fong's Lightsphere. I don't do weddings, but I use it regularly both indoors and out and get very nice results.

Thanks for the advice. The manual said that HS mode was only available in TV mode. Guess I'll ignore that and do some experimentation.

I don't shoot insects, but this guy was just hanging there posing for me. K20D,

Sigma 50-500, flash with better beamer. I guess its some type of damsel fly.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/312481406_zc7eE-L.jpg" />

The HS mode gives you flash you to 1/750 of a second. At a minimum you would like 1/1000 second for a 500 lens.

Da... Operator error

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/307305674_fj3PG-L.jpg"/>

Here's one of my boring sea gull shots from last weekend. Actually, I'm pretty pleased. K20D, DA* 300, flash with better beamer.

I used the K10D for about a year and now the K20D for 2 months. I kept the K10D as my backup camera but will probably never use it. The K20D is a big step up from the K10D and it solved alot of my complaints about the K10D. In favor of the K20D:

 

1. 1600 is more than usable. I haven't tried faster ISOs.

2. The Pixel mapping feature has eliminated hot pixels which I found to be a big problem on my K10D, maybe it was just my unit.

3. The overall noise level is considerably less. This is attributable to using a CMOS device instead to a CCD. The K10D tended to give a lot of noise in shadows.

4. Although I don't use it much, the temperature customization controls are far easier to use. Being able to color tune the LCD display is a nice feature.

5. 14 M pixels means you can crop 1/3 of the frame and still get the same number of pixels as the K10D. I beleive you actually get a better picture.

 

Its not that many points, but it makes a huge difference in the quality of the photos.

I know this sounds like a silly question. Here's my situation. I am using a better

beamer on my flash for biird photography. The flash needs to be in HS mode

which is only available in Tv Mode. Naturally this drives the F-stop towards wide

open which results in too much loss of DOF. Typically I am using a Sigma 50-500

which isn't that fast.

 

Any suggestions?

Congrats on the puppy Roger. Things have started to improve already. Life is just too short to not have a dog!

 

Here's something fun that I've been meaning to try (can't remember where I saw it, maybe here). To get a really neat low angle, i.e. a dog's eye view, attach a skid plate or little wheels to a hot shoe adapter, flip the camera over and stick a monopod in it. Now go take some puppy picks.

When I shoot cars I use the 10-17 almost exclusively and always make a point of getting some fisheye photos. (If you need to you can accomplish the fisheye effect pp in PS. Its easy, works great and allows you to control the amount of effect.)

 

Bring long several slave flashes on small cheap pocket tripods to add some sparkle on low contrast days.

 

I've done a couple contract shoots of cars which give you more time and space to be creative.

 

1. Bring a step ladder and a telephoto zoom. Shot high and inline from in front of the car for a neat telephoto effect with infinite DOF. The 200/2.8 is better than a zoom if you can afford it.

 

2. Experiment with "painting" with your flash.

 

3. Get a couple cheap slave flashes for interior fills in the engine compartment and interior.

 

One problem I haven't solved contract shots is glare on the windows. Any ideas?

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/245703663_Lnhkr-L-3.jpg" /><br/><br/>

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/197328852_vJAo5-L-1.jpg" />

I know these aren't great photos, but I was amazed how well these severly

cropped photos came out. Only the most basic pp. The K20D is a tremendous

step up from the K10D in terms of both noise and resolving power.

 

Original <br/>

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304287542_V5HjS-

L.jpg" /><br/>

Cropped <br/>

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304278848_f6mjd-L-

1.jpg" /><br/>

Original <br/>

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304287652_bRbUs-

L.jpg" /><br/>

Cropped - Interesting effect<br/>

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304287608_Fbm7J-

L.jpg" /><br/>

I only got to walk around for an hour and didn't get any award winning shots. The

DA 300 isn't a great bird lens - just not enough reach. But when you can reach it,

this is a fine lens. Has anyone heard any specifics or a date on the SDM Rear

Converter? I've been looking for a Tamron 1.4 TC but there aren't any out there.

 

Anyway, here's my first ever sighting and photo of a green heron. I got exactly

one shot. Damn tree limb!

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304279058_fZT7B-L.jpg" />

 

This Great White is very heavily cropped but the detail is still good.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304278848_f6mjd-L.jpg" />

 

Swallow, from about 25 ft.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304278977_qTyie-L.jpg" />

 

Mallard from 50 ft.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/304278921_B4SDa-L.jpg" />

I don't think I've posted this here before. He was about 20ft back in a thicket so I just kneeled down and took the best shoot that I had, hence there's a bit of brush in the way. K10D, Sigma 50-500 at 420mm, manual focus. In PS I overlayed a copy and masked to darken the background.

 

<img src="http://www.smile-123.com/photos/273903092_aYNEn-XL.jpg" />

I don't have any of my own, but I caught these at a Moms and Daughters fishing tournament last year.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/176275875_dqCsd-M.jpg" />

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/176278643_MrzxE-L.jpg" />

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/176285323_P5BbA-L.jpg" />

Count me out. As soon as the new 300/f4 shows up I'm buying it. I'm hoping the new 1.4TC will come out at the same time. Don't be too hard on me though, I just got started and I am entitled to a couple decent lenses.

I don't have any cute pics, just swimming pics. Franklin is a Portuguese Water Dog.

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/280019960_zzawy-L.jpg" />

Even though these were manually focused, I did the AF test and my camera passed fine. I still have suspicions about the Sigma 50-500 because of the five lenses that I own, it gives me the most problem focusing. That can partially be explained by low light conditions when it tends to hunt for a focus. But, I have other issues with it like manually focusing these above pictures.

 

Perhaps it needs to go in for a CLA.

Your comments struck a note with me. I have experienced big CA problems with

the Sigma, though they are most noticeable shooting up into the sky. #2 I've

been using Silky Pics for my Raw conversion and I cannot get the Fringe

adjustments to work #3 I typically use Neat Image for noise removal and

although I keep using a lighter touch I have become suspicious that it does

more harm than good.

 

So I redid the photos from before using PS RAW and not using Neat Image.

 

The Warbler is the same pic as before with the reprocessed version.

 

First upon review of the Red Bellied Woodpecker, I agree that its backfocused,

too far to repair, so I did another photo from the series.

 

I'd appreciate your comments. Any improvement?

 

<img src="http://www.smile-123.com/photos/273902882_XzmcD-L.jpg" /> Original

Warbler

 

<img src="http://www.smile-123.com/photos/274277152_XLzJY-L.jpg" /> Reprocessed

Warbler

 

<img src="http://www.smile-123.com/photos/273820462_DVQzC-L.jpg" /> Original

Woodpecker

 

<img src="http://www.smile-123.com/photos/274277277_Wyypj-L.jpg" />

New/Reprocessed Woodpecker

All three were manually focused.

 

How do you take CA out with PS?

Last week I guess I left the impression that I had too many negative thoughts

about the Sigma Bigma. Not so! I just didn't believe that it was a good

choice for the second of a lens set.

 

I was out capturing birds this weekend and here's a couple examples. All taken

with the Sigma 50-500 at f8.

 

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/273902882_XzmcD-L.jpg" />

ISO 400, 500mm

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/273820462_DVQzC-L.jpg" />

ISO 400, 500mm

 

<img src="http://smile-123.smugmug.com/photos/273903092_aYNEn-L.jpg" />

ISO 560, 420mm

I asked my local camera shop about this because they had plenty of used 645 and 67 lenses and they were fairly inexpensive. THe salesperson, who is also an experienced photographer of many years, told me that if I don't already have them then its not really a way to go. He said they have lower quality glass, too much glass, and are quite heavy. His analogy was that a medium format lens would have to be much more expensive to equal quality of a 35 or DSLR lens because of the size of the glass. Makes sense to me.

I've seen similar star photos taken from suborbital planes with $$$$$ cameras in them. To me that doesn't look like CA, it looks either atmospheric or motion based. Did you turn off anti-shake and did you lock-up the mirror? Besides, you usually see CA against a bright backdrop like a clear daylight sky (Right?) I wouldn't base my decision on this. I'd run a bright daylight test against a clear sky.

Always expose for the face and always focus on the eyes. You can fix everything else without any great level of skill.

 

You didn't say what light set-up you used. One suggestion, although you probably don't have enough time to get it mail order, get Gary Fong's Illumisphere. Its wonderful for event photography like the one you are doing.

 

I'd take #1 and fix the blown out white sleeves. In photoshop there is an undocumented feature called an 'illumination copy'. Click on channels then control-alt-click on the top RGB thumb. That only copies high-illumination pixels. Paste into a new layer and set the blend mode to multiply. Stack more copies of the multiply layer if required.

 

Here's a quick sample. I edited the mask to bring her face back to prevent it from effecting her face. I could do a lot better with a higher-res non-jpg photo.<div></div>

I own the Sigma 50-500 and I wouldn't use it for a general purpose lens. Its a brightlight lens: by 5:00 its starting to get too dark for any reasonable range of flexibility. Its heavy. It is physically slow to swing around. It has some CA that's bothersome. Its slow to focus both manually and auto and is easily fooled in lower light conditions.

 

One other point. Sigma lenses and Tamron lenses are not built to the same quality standards as Pentax.

 

Personally, I would wait for the Pentax DA 60-250 which will be an SDM lens. How often do you need 500MM?