11-09-2005, 06:45 PM
|
#31
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,279
|
indeed, i usually whack up my saturation and sharpness by default on my 350D.
A tripod is a must to make use of the 350D's long exposure settings in dim light. Getting used to the different focusing modes will also improve composition hugely.
As with all things, practice makes perfect, good luck mate
Happy snapping
|
|
|
11-09-2005, 06:50 PM
|
#32
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38
|
try to master your white balance settings in order to get amazing colors!!!
|
|
|
11-09-2005, 07:09 PM
|
#33
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
Originally Posted by MartijnGizmo
Don't forget that dSLR-pictures need more postprocessing on the pc at home. Compact-pictures are more saturated and sharped as the average consumer doesn't want to fiddle with them afterwards.
|
Well, I think I am able to edit a picture this was just a simple test with no white balance fiddling and so on.
__________________
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 01:39 AM
|
#34
|
Regular User
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 3,850
|
Originally Posted by TT
Ok, did some nighttime testing and I am back with some impressions.
Sadly it wasn't a very wise idea LOL. I was tired, had to piss and it's cold..
blah... blah ... blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...blah... blah ...
|
Most of what you posted went over my head ....
However, I seemed to find the one small detail that everyone seems to have missed. You took a piss and it was cold. So what happened then ... something froze?
__________________
"Tazio Nuvolari - The greatest driver of the past, the present and the future" - Ferdinand Porsche
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 04:22 AM
|
#35
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
Nono, I didn't took a piss out in the wild, I wanted to wait the coziness of my home :roll:
__________________
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 04:39 AM
|
#36
|
Regular User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 4,692
|
Thanks for the first impressions TT.
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 08:20 AM
|
#37
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Groningen - Netherlands
Posts: 1,324
|
Oh, and forgot to add: the kitlens is quite soft when used wide open, for best results stop it down to F/8..... I just don't use mine.
__________________
EOS 5D|EOS 600|15-30|24 1.4 L|135 2 L|2x 580EX|2x CP-E3|ST-E2|2x Pocket Wizzard Plus II|IXUS 850IS|Crumpler|Manfrotto|
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 12:52 PM
|
#38
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
Today I did some more testing:
With the 90-300 at 90mm
And 200mm
More like 100mm
200mm, car driving along at 100mm, pretty nice shot for a non-stabilized lense
And 300mm, but pretty quick shutter, so it ended up still ok
Now, Pro 1:
And 350D
ISO200
55mm, no filter
filter
90mm
300mm, pure nightmare.. impossible to have a sharp pic, and I tried alot. Had to raise to ISO 800 so I was able to have a shutter speed of 1/500 and ended up with an almost acceptable result. Bu needed to use Neat Image to reduce grain :bah:
So, basically this lense is ok up to 200mm.. then it becomes pretty tricky to have good pics.
As for the aperture thing, I admit I always am confused because the terms seem to say the opposite as I would think. you mean not to go higher or lower than F8? I guess not higher I just never understand how to call it when the value is higher or lower so I just talk abou the value, (and of course I know what an high value does vs a low one )
__________________
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 01:47 PM
|
#39
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,279
|
Nice bit of testing there, glad to see ur experimenting Although the shots of the car (with the 350D) seem a little overexposed in the background?
Not sure if i understand your last paragraph though, why wouldn't you not want to go higher or lower than F8?
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 02:28 PM
|
#40
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
I think the problem is contrast, set a bit too high.
As for the last paragraph, it was in response to the previous post. For sure anyway, higher than F8 becomes hard to handle with no tripod anyway
__________________
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 08:09 PM
|
#41
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Groningen - Netherlands
Posts: 1,324
|
In the F/x number the F stands for Focal Lenght. Let's take the kitlens at 18mm for example:
- at F/3.5 the diaphragm is 18/3.5 = 5.14mm
- at F/8 the diaphragm is 18/8 = 2.25mm
So the larger the F-number, the smaller the diaphragm is.
See for yourself why you should stop it down a little for better results:
Oh, and I'd like to add: you might consider picking up a EF 50 1.8. It's only €80 or so, tacksharp from F/2.8 on and great to play with a small DOF @ F/1.8 to let those details stand out on cars for example.
__________________
EOS 5D|EOS 600|15-30|24 1.4 L|135 2 L|2x 580EX|2x CP-E3|ST-E2|2x Pocket Wizzard Plus II|IXUS 850IS|Crumpler|Manfrotto|
|
|
|
11-10-2005, 08:51 PM
|
#42
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
Yes yes, as said, I know what the aperture does, but always thought there is something weird in the way the terms work. Having a "low" aperture means a big number, "wide open" means small number.. just mental confusion
I was tempted to buy also a simple lense for details shots, but to be honest, I don't like to take details pics, so why should I bother I will end up never using it.
For now the two ones I got will do and next one will be a stabilized one.. probably not an L though
__________________
|
|
|
11-11-2005, 12:21 AM
|
#43
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38
|
or you should pick up a 35 1.4
|
|
|
11-11-2005, 05:11 AM
|
#44
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
Posts: 23,178
|
I am about to complete my testing, then this topic can die and I will go back at shooting cars..
or maybe birds?
185mm the first, 235 the second. Both pretty sharp (both 1/640 anyway, so difficult to mess up ). For sure the constant focusing option is damn good for such task (first pic obviously).
Only car, this plain 993 C4, shot at 170mm, 1/250, F5, obviously no filter.
As expected, you can't use a not stabilized telelense in difficult light conditions with a filter
Anyway, I am getting the feel of it finally.. today I could go hunting some more
__________________
|
|
|
11-11-2005, 08:35 AM
|
#45
|
Regular User
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 2,279
|
Originally Posted by TT
For now the two ones I got will do and next one will be a stabilized one.. probably not an L though
|
If you can afford it, go for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM.
Its light, smaller than both the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM and any L lense although it does proide L quality picture. Very versatile lense that you won't need a big bag for. IS on this lense is immense. Bare in mind the IS on the regula 70-300 is the very first generation IS and is a bit behind, although IMO, still better than most other brand IS.
Here's a pic i quite like that i took from the stands at a recent F1 test after he spun. At 300mm, and on a very dull, overcast day (I'll probably be posting the rest of them later)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|