dSLR thread

[ddrueding]

This is why I've practically given up on zooms; every step is considerably more money:

First the quality is poor, then the speed, then the weight. I still haven't gotten the 100-400 because it is so darn heavy.

 

[LunarMist]

Quality of which are poor? The 100-400 has significant limitations, but the 70-200/2.8 II is an exemplary zoom for example. The 70-200/4 IS is excellent as well, and none of the 70-200 L lenses are anything like poor.

 

[ddrueding]

I meant that you have to pay a massive amount to overcome those hurdles.

 

[LunarMist]

Or buy one 100MB/sec. CF card. Maybe not.

 

[ddrueding]

My cards are already 90MB/s. I think I'm good.

 

[LunarMist]

It would really be nice to use two of those 128GB cards in backup mode. One could shoot all day or even a few days without changing cards or worrying about data loss.

 

[ddrueding]

Which of your cameras allow dual CF cards in backup mode? I know of a few with CF/SD backup support.

 

[mubs]

I hardly use my my Nikkor 20-200 f2.8; maybe 5 shots total in > 1 year. 200 mm is nothing

The 17-24 f2.8 is a lot more useful. Used only the 30mm f2.0 on the recent trip.

 

[LunarMist]

Which of your cameras allow dual CF cards in backup mode? I know of a few with CF/SD backup support.

D3X, but they are rented or borrowed, not owned.

 

[LunarMist]

I hardly use my my Nikkor 20-200 f2.8; maybe 5 shots total in > 1 year. 200 mm is nothing

The 17-24 f2.8 is a lot more useful. Used only the 30mm f2.0 on the recent trip.

Do you need a longer lens or do you mean that 200 mm is too long for your needs?

 

[mubs]

First, a correction: I must have been higgledy-piggledy when I posted; it's the 24-70 f2.8 I have, not the 17-24.

I meant to say that 200mm hardly seems to bring the subject closer. I really haven't found a use for it. The 24-70 is more useful to me. So yes, a longer lens would be more useful. But unattractive for the cost, size and weight.

 

[Will Rickards]

I love my nikkor 70-300mm lens for its zoom. I almost want more but it worked great at the kid's soccer and baseball games which is what I bought it for. It works indoors with the flash too. I've also used it to take moon pictures.

 

[LunarMist]

I meant to say that 200mm hardly seems to bring the subject closer. I really haven't found a use for it. The 24-70 is more useful to me. So yes, a longer lens would be more useful. But unattractive for the cost, size and weight.

How close are you to the subject, 10m, 30m, 50m?

 

[ddrueding]

Shot the same night football all-star game I did last year. Venue was a Jr. College, so the lighting sucks. I intended to use the 100/2, but got to borrow a 300/2.8 for a quarter. Shot the rest of it with the 180/3.5 macro, probably the best choice to be honest.

 

[LunarMist]

180/2.8 is the cheap way for decent speed and AF. f/3.5 is 2/3 stop slower and AF is - well you know how that lens is. 70-200/2.8 would be fine for most purposes and is more versatile.

 

[ddrueding]

Quite so. The 300 is too long for an American football game Surprisingly the 180 Macro actually focused quickly enough; even during tracking shots.

 

[LunarMist]

Have a look at renting the Sigma 120-300/2.8 next time.

 

[ddrueding]

That sounds like an excellent range for this kind of thing. Would that be "the lens" to have? I might be able to get someone else to pay the rental bill...

 

[LunarMist]

It is not "the lens," but a compromise that might help. Are you mainly trying to show the plays or the players?

 

[mubs]

How close are you to the subject, 10m, 30m, 50m?

Say, 15 - 25m. Maybe I should get one of those teleconverter 1.7x multiplier extension tubes.

 

[ddrueding]

It is not "the lens," but a compromise that might help. Are you mainly trying to show the plays or the players?

A bit of both, but the players (mid-tackle, mid-fumble) are typically more exciting.

 

[ddrueding]

Today my 17-40/4 arrived. It isn't an exciting lens (super long, super wide, fast, macro), but it is a good lens in a useful range. I suspect I'll be using it quite a bit.

 

[LunarMist]

Today my 17-40/4 arrived. It isn't an exciting lens (super long, super wide, fast, macro), but it is a good lens in a useful range. I suspect I'll be using it quite a bit.

For what body? It is not a good choice for the APS-C sensors.

 

[ddrueding]

7D. I thought it would be a good choice, because that moves the 35mm equivalent to 27-64, and avoids the vignetting issues on the wide end.

 

[LunarMist]

The Canon 200-400/4 IS + 1.4x looks nice. :mrgrn: I can't decide whether to wait for that one or upgrade the 500/4 IS to the 500/4 IS II.

 

[ddrueding]

Wow, that certainly is a unique lens. Any guess at a price?

 

[LunarMist]

Canon does not announce price until a product is released, but estimates are $8K give or take.

 

[ddrueding]

A steal compared to the 500/4 II @ $9500

 

[LunarMist]

I need to start playing the lottery. :cyclop:

 

[Mercutio]

Here's some dude who added a bellows and manual focus to a Canon dSLR.

 

[ddrueding]

Interesting. I've seen people use a bellows rig to create a tilt-shift effect of some kind, but this guy made his own lenses and left the bellows on the rail. Probably a PITA to work with, but I'm interested in the results.

 

[LunarMist]

Some people have a lot of time on their hands. Get a 135 SF on extensions or a lensbaby or try one of several other ways.

 

[ddrueding]

Composition question.

Here is a downsized chunk of a larger pano (warning, it's still 9999x2042 - the biggest Flickr seems to handle)

I'm looking for cropping/composition suggestions. Examples would be great. This is certainly my weakest (of many) point, and I'd love some feedback.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not sure what the purpose of that image is, so it is difficult to make anything from it. Technically it appears that the light is coming from behind and there are major blending issues in the sky. Did you overlap the frames enough? I wish I could help, but what is your intention? Normally I would call that one a binner.

 

[ddrueding]

That is the problem, I like that view for sentimental reasons. It is one of the places I took my wife often when we started dating. I like the view from that location, but don't know what I can do with it.

 

[LunarMist]

Try the early morning or late afternoon. Find a day with interesting clouds, sun/moon in sky, etc. Move around to find a foreground object. It looks like a barren zone, so maybe you want to emphasize that with a long lens on the electrical towers.

 

[LunarMist]

I got another 300. That makes 3 prime 300 Ls not to mention the two 100-400s. I am diseased.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm among the 300s are a /2.8 and a pair of /4s?

I'd love to take one of those 100-400s off your hands.

 

[ddrueding]

Considering swapping my 17-40/4 for a 16-35/2.8. Losing the long end would suck, but the extra speed would be great.

 

[LunarMist]

I told you the 17-40 was not such a good choice for EF-S. :frusty: Buy the 17-55/2.8 IS. It is the proper lens. In fact there are people that keep an EF-S body just for utility of the 17-55 IS.