Jump to content

john_engle1

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    15

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by john_engle1

    70-200 2.8L or 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS for Alaska

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    Well, I didn't shoot on a digital body, but I was more than pleased with the results I got with my 100-400L in Alaska. The IS feature is invaluable, especially when shooting at low ISO. Most of my content was shot on Fuji Velvia (ISO 50 for you digital guys). Yeah, it's not as sharp as the 70-200L, but, unless you are doing HUGE enlargements (like 20x30), it's not an issue. And since you're shooting on a 20D, the edge softness, really isn't an issue, and you won't get to the edge of the lense with that sensor anyway. I have exceptional 12x18 prints from this lense.

     

    Skip the tripod, and take monopod. It will add flexibility in your shooting and keep you from being weighted down. And the IS will eliminate any movement the Monopod might introduce. (see the content in Juneau - shot on Velvia, 100-400L, monopod, on a boat!)

     

    Most of my content is shot with this lense (100-400L).

    http://www.qsl.net/kb8arh/Alaska/ourtrip.htm

    Canon EOS 3 and Chrome(Positives)

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    I shoot chromes almost exclusively (on an EOS-3). Be aware, as an earlier poster noted, that you have MUCH LESS exposure latitude than you do with print film. I shoot Fuji film exclusively. Velvia is fine at ISO 50, many rate it at ISO 40 (as mentioned by others). Shoot a roll at each and see what you like. Provia is fabulous as well. I find Astia to be extraordinary for Portraits - mostly this is what I shoot.

    When I first started shooting chromes, I shot many, many rolls and bracketed heavily, kept notes and learned how much exposure latitude I had to work with. A 1/2 stop is quite noticeable on Velvia. A 1/3 stop is noticeable and probably represents about the limits of exposure latitude (at least for me) that chromes offer.

     

    The downside of chromes is the lack of exposure latitude. The upside is that the photo dweeb at the lab doesn't get to dictate what your results look like. If the image is poorly exposed, it's YOUR fault - unless, of course, they screw up the developing (they push/pull it by mistake). So, I found that shooting chromes really helped my photography, because I could see the "REAL" results of what I did. There wasn't someone making adjustments at the mini-lab to make my prints look acceptable. If the image was too dark, then I didn't expose the frame properly. The same goes for too washed out. This is where the bracketing comes in. And shooting a few rolls will help you understand what's going on.

     

    Your EOS-3 has one of the better built-in metering systems available today, so get familiar with what it can do, if you haven't already. The spot meter in mine is right on with what my Sekonic L-508 meters. The multi-segment metering modes are useful in a vareity of situations, so keep those in mind too. Of course, when shooting under studio strobes, I meter by hand, but it's no less important, especially when shooting chromes.

     

    BTW, Velvia now comes in ISO 100 as well. And the new "F" fujichromes have even finer grain than their predecessors (e.g. Provia 400F).

     

    Beware - you'll find that nothing compares to looking at a chrome on the light table under a loupe! You may find that you never want to go back to dull, flat, lifeless print film....

     

    Happy shooting!

    The successor to the EOS-1Ds

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    How about Bluetooth or 802.11g built in or as an option in place of/in addition to the existing firewire connection. That way you can shoot away, while your "XDs" automatically downloads to your image server..... Consider the convience of this while shooting in the studio. You could actually be taking pictures while an image editing assist retrieves the images and does prelimiary editing/croppings, etc. Great workflow improvement.

     

    How about making the LCD display flip out ala the G3? How about a bigger/better LCD display.

     

    Rumors persist about an "EOS-3D", based upon the existing EOS-3, so possibly add ECF to the "XDs"?

     

    Do we really need 45 autofocus points? One of the first things that is taught to students of photography is the rule of thirds. How about 5 autofocus points, 4 set up for rule of thirds, the 5th in the center (just like the Contax DSLR) and make them ALL horizontally AND vertically sensitive, just like the current center sensor in EOS bodies.

     

    It would be nice to make the "XDs" such that one could swap out the CMOS or CCD with a more advanced (more megapixel and/or lower noise) sensor in the future. How about the ability to swap out the slower CMOS sensor for a speedy CCD sensor. That way you could put on the faster sensor and go shoot sports, then swap out for the high image quality CMOS sensor and shoot portraits for instance.

     

    It would also be nice if the interface were such that software could be downloaded in order to improve funcationality, instead of having to wait for the next body to arrive in order to overcome some design "flaw" or limit. (Consider that you can upgrade Photoshop without necessarily having to upgrade your PC). So maybe a more generic image "engine" that lenses, sensors and software can be attached / downloaded to. Effectively, a Canon "Image PC". This sort of treads into the medium format style of cameras, where various components can be swapped in an out, but the basic "camera" remains the same.

     

    How about the ability to take images in TIFF format, as opposed to getting them in RAW using Canon's software and then converting them to TIFF. JPEG's are nice, but one has to be wary of the compression loss issues.

     

    How about the ability to see how many times the shutter has been cycled (kinda like an odometer for your camera). Would make buying used cameras a little less mysterious....

     

    I'm sure that there are scads of other ideas out there that could be implemented on the next generation flagship model. Hopefully, Canon will not deprive those of us with smaller wallets, and migrate the current flagship down in price once the new model arrives.

    Canon adaptor for telescopes

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    "... BTW, any body know the quality of such shots taken through telescopes. I have been thinking of doing some astro photography myself."

     

    Generally speaking telescope lenses are not on par with camerea lenses. In particular telescope lenses are optimized for clarity in the center and sacrifice clarity towards the edges, whereas camera lenses are designed with edge-to-edge clarity in mind. This is especially true on inexpensive telescopes. You'll need to step into some seriously expensive telescopes to start mimicking camera lense performance. Chromatic abberations or common on all but the most expensive telescopes. Other camera lense technologys like APO, various coatings, fluorite elements, UD elements are rare in telescopes that are "affordable". Additionally "lens speed" is _REALLY_ expensive in Refractor style telescopes, and Refractors tend to have better images that Reflector telescopes. Refractors tend to be more expensive than an equivalent Reflector. Catadioptrics muddy the waters, but decent catadioptrics can be just as expensive as a good Refractor. The real key to telescopes is not magnification, but apereture. If you are looking for the razor sharp optics found in high end camera lenses, then telescopes, at least those that we could either afford, or gain access to, will not be on par with camera lenses. Especially if you compare camera lenses to similarly priced telescopes. The bulk of telescope technology is tied up in light gathering capabilities and robust sturdy tracking mounts.

     

    Something else to note, is that manual camera bodies tend to be preferred for astrophotography (the Olympus OM series is the body of choice for some reason), due to the _LONG_ exposure times involved (hours). Since most modern SLR's draw power to hold the shutter open, using a modern SLR can present a problem, as the batteries can be be drained during a long exposure. Additionally, with modern SLR's, many do not offer a mechanism by which you can have an exposure of longer than 30 seconds. Look for a remote shutter release that has either a timer or a "locking" feature. Be aware that long exposures at night can present lower temperatures and this can hamper battery performance. Manual bodies employ a lockable shutter release cable.

     

    Orion Telescopes has some good basic information on telescope models, and astrophotography. They also sell adapters that go between camera bodies and telescopes (t-mounts). I've been pleased with their service. http://www.telescope.com/

     

    You'll also need a tracking mount for your telescope in order to take pictures of celesial objects, otherwise you'll get star trails( see: http://www.photo.net/astro/star-streak).

     

    The best place to start photographing celestial objects is photographing the moon. It doesn't require a telescope, but you'll probably want to start with a 400mm lens (or longer). Since it's always a sunny day on the Moon, use the sunny 16 rule and bracket around that.

     

    Check out http://www.photo.net/astro/intro for the basics of astrophotography.

     

    Check out: http://www.scopereviews.com if you want some decent opinions on (moderate to expensive) telescopes.

     

    Good luck!

×
×
  • Create New...