- #71
turbo
Gold Member
- 3,165
- 56
Here's a lone buttercup catching a bit of sun.
Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.~christina~ said:I hear that a lot of SLR's are quite big. (I can carry mine on my neck all day without getting neck strain)
Very nice!turbo-1 said:I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.
http://i183.photobucket.com/albums/x318/turbo-1/NAneb.jpg
Astronuc said:Does one mean DSLRs? Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy. I used to use a Canon F1 which was quite heavy, especially when I used it with a 500 mm lens (which was about 18-20 inches long). There was a really nice Canon zoom lens I wanted to by and it came with a handle. I once saw a really nice reflector lens that was equivalent to something like 800 mm. It was Big.
I think Celestron (telescope maker) sold large aperture lenses for cameras. The were essentially reflecting telecsopes converted to camera lenses. When I was studying space physics, I had access to a couple of 14'' reflectors. They were great for observing Jupiter and Saturn, various galactic features like nebulae, and other galaxies.
turbo-1 said:Thanks, ~christina~, I like it better too. I've got a Canon 30D and a 100-400mm L-series zoom, and I tend to use it like a point-and-shoot camera at times. I really should pay attention to post-processing a bit more. As I revisited this thread, I noticed that the image didn't seem as punchy on my present monitor as it had before, so tweaked it a bit. I'm never sure if something looks good to me on this monitor will come across well with others using different video cards and monitors, especially some high-quality CRTs. A couple of years back, I was involved in the production of high-quality auction catalogs, and everybody in post-production, graphics, etc was using CRTs instead of LCDs.
turbo-1 said:I posted this link on the astrophotography thread, but it's appropriate here, too, especially after Astronuc's post. The image degrades a lot at smaller sizes, so I'll post a direct link. This is the North America nebula and surrounding region - shot with my Bronica ETRS piggybacked on my 5" JSO catadioptric telescope. The Bronica's Zenzanon lenses were very high-quality. I scanned the 5x7 print and since the print had faded and browned over the years, I Photoshopped the scan to bring the colors back into registration.
It is a bit on the pricey side, but the image quality is great over all of its focal length range, and I have noticed that a lot of nature photographers are using this lens instead of (or along with) primes. Critters tend to move around, and since they aren't posing for you (most of the time) you often need to be able to change focal length on the fly. The built-in image stabilization (with 2 modes available) and very fast auto-focus capabilities make this a very versatile lens in fast-changing situations. I've got another 30D that pretty much stays mounted to a 28-135mm zoom, so two cameras can cover a LOT of ground. When I was shooting film, I used to tote 3-4 Olympus bodies, all with prime lenses.~christina~ said:That's one expensive lens you have. The results of your pictures say a lot about the quality though. I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR ED AF-S lens for my Nikon D40X. I'm not quite satisfied with the zoom of the 55-200mm lens that I have.
Astronuc said:Certainly old mechanical SLR's can be heavy.
Perhaps the co-user can be content with that nice compact Panasonic? My wife is now the principle user of my (formerly) Olympus 3040 Zoom, and I get to keep the 30Ds and lenses to myself. I've got the 18-55 kit lens (if I need a wide field), the 28-135mm zoom and the 100-400mm, so two cameras can cover a LOT of territory, and they're really not too much to carry if you plan well beforehand and have an adequately-sized pack. Back in the bad old film days, I got used to carrying 3 OM-1s and an OM-4, all fitted with primes, because zoom lenses really stunk optically in the '80s.Andre said:Excellent point, Turbo, thanks for the advise. But I guess a co-user will have to say something about the total weight.
turbo-1 said:I went to a park along the Kennebec river looking for raptors one day last summer, but the only interesting character I found was this fellow.
I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.larkspur said:What are you all going to photograph for the still life contest? I bought some tulips today but may try some fruit, or a beer in a frosty mug...or mushrooms...or lots of M&Ms. I have not decided.
turbo-1 said:I don't know if I'll enter that one, larkspur. I'm more drawn to wildlife/nature shots and like to walk around until I find something that just says "take my picture". If I enter anything, it might be a bit quirky, just to make a point, and it will be unlikely to approach the beauty of your entry, if experience serves me well.
Do you work in advertising as an art-director, etc? You're much more creative than I am, and that probably makes a difference in your photography. Your shots seem well-planned and composed, while I'm more of the "get 'er done" school.larkspur said:Come on Turbo! Find something colorful or pretty or unusual, set it on a white sheet, get a desk lamp,put something over it to diffuse the light and snap away. Don't forget the tripod and shutter release cord or delayed shutter. How about a colorful bowl of your pepper relish? or a martini glass with your salsa in it? light some incense behind it so it looks like it is smokin'.
binzing said:Even though I've gone digital (I have an Olympus E-500) I saw an ad that I'd like some input on. There was a Minolta XD 11 (also known in EU as the XD 7 or the XD in Japan) with multiple lenses, for $300. What do you guys think.
binzing said:I already know how to make good photos and what I like, I'm trying to go pro. I was just asking if you thought it was a good deal. It comes with prolly like 5 or 6 lenses. For $300!
It's notabeaver. We have lots of notabeavers in our area. We used to have a family of them in our yard before I relocated them some miles away. They are notawelcome here.lisab said:
binzing said:OK, here's everything it comes with.
Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.
This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?
Cool picture, neutrino. I'd leave the shadows as they are. If you process the photo, just sharpen it.neutrino said:Sunday! I got to use my camera again after a week. I noticed a flower in front of our house that I usually miss. It was just after mid-day and the bright sun above created a nice photo-op. (although I was cramped for space.) And there was this insect (I'm just going to call it a bee) to boot!
I haven't processed this shot, and I'm looking for tips. The shadow at the bottom right has to go, right? Too bad the bee appears fuzzy . This was taken in Av mode. I later changed to manual, and made the shutter speed sufficiently fast to get a couple of other images with the bee clearly in focus.
neutrino said:
Sunday! I got to use my camera again after a week. I noticed a flower in front of our house that I usually miss. It was just after mid-day and the bright sun above created a nice photo-op. (although I was cramped for space.) And there was this insect (I'm just going to call it a bee) to boot!
I haven't processed this shot, and I'm looking for tips. The shadow at the bottom right has to go, right? Too bad the bee appears fuzzy . This was taken in Av mode. I later changed to manual, and made the shutter speed sufficiently fast to get a couple of other images with the bee clearly in focus.
A larger version can be found http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2391/2270482871_ce3cbc9133_b.jpg".
binzing said:OK, here's everything it comes with.
Albinar ADG 28 mm f 1:2.8, Sigma 35mm to 70mm f2.8-22, JC Penney 80mm to 200mm f4.5-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-22, Minolta 50mm f1.7-16, 2x teleconverter, set of 14, 21, and 28mm Minolta Extension Tubes, Minolta Auto Winder, Sunpak MX - 1D Hot Shoe Adapter, Sunpak MX - 2D Hot Shoe Adapter, 16" Elect, Cable Release and Misc.
This is word-for-word. All that for $300 what do you think?
Mech_Engineer said:
It may help to reduce the aperture on shots like this to get the depth of field a little larger so that more of the flower is in focus. This will increase the exposure time, so flying bees will be blurred. I like to catch them when they're working, so blur won't be as much of a problem.neutrino said:Thanks for the feedback, Astro and larkspur. I actually made an error in my earlier post. This was taken in manual mode, but 1/1000s wasn't fast enough.
larkspur, I had trouble focussing due to the glare from the sun. The flower was bright and the tightly-packed stamens didn't help much. :(
larkspur said:Thats a cool shot. What is being done to the diamond? I see the little flecks coming off in nice detail.