motor

mindgam3 · 11-09-2005, 06:45 PM

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

MercedeSC32/eSCalade · 11-09-2005, 06:50 PM

try to master your white balance settings in order to get amazing colors!!!

TT · 11-09-2005, 07:09 PM

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.

sameerrao · 11-10-2005, 01:39 AM

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?

TT · 11-10-2005, 04:22 AM

Nono, I didn't took a piss out in the wild, I wanted to wait the coziness of my home :roll:

stmoritzer · 11-10-2005, 04:39 AM

Thanks for the first impressions TT.

MartijnGizmo · 11-10-2005, 08:20 AM

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.

TT · 11-10-2005, 12:52 PM

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

)

mindgam3 · 11-10-2005, 01:47 PM

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?

TT · 11-10-2005, 02:28 PM

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

MartijnGizmo · 11-10-2005, 08:09 PM

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.

TT · 11-10-2005, 08:51 PM

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

MercedeSC32/eSCalade · 11-11-2005, 12:21 AM

or you should pick up a 35 1.4

TT · 11-11-2005, 05:11 AM

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

mindgam3 · 11-11-2005, 08:35 AM

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)