Another shot

[W J Pearce]

Well, the car had turned into a garage queen. Besides, now I can concentrate on the other 5 (the 54 GMC is up first).

Digital Eos Reveiw

[Firecat]

Since you all are talking about camera options and mentioned it............ I recently stepped up and got the Canon 10D. So far I LOVE it! Am posting a take-off shot I took from inside a pit, up a couple of rungs on a ladder. Was trying it out for the action stuff so just put it in full auto, using 300 Sigma lens - not bad for first actions and all auto. But... that said have been wondering about what zoom would be best for the flying stuff as most of them did turn out slightly soft and a little far away. Wondering about the Cannon 400IS - not willing to carry or hold anything bigger.

Based on the threads above sounds like soft focus is a part of the Canon EOS system but I'm not ready/willing to cough up the BIG bucks yet, this was enough for now! Have to say that one reason I waited was for the digital to get better, hate waiting for lab processing, worrying about if they will mess them up and there's the cost and then the scanning to be able to use or print them. With digital you can at least tell if your settings are fairly on, if you need to re-shoot and you can dump the bad ones to free up space. This digital is the best thing since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned and better yet the 10D takes a 1GIG card!!! That's around 400 pix at full image setting! I'd take this over the Rebel (old or new ones) or any of the film cameras any day. Just my .02c worth.
Cheers,
Pat

[AAFO_WSagar]

Pat,

nice shot! I'm getting really envious of you guys and your new cams! My "old" trusty D1 has never been all that sharp at any distance and, well... currently it's teets down at Nikon for repair. I smell a new body in my future... *sigh*

As for the soft shot (not that this one is) My Tamron 30-300 is really soft at anything beyond maybe 150 or so... it's pretty nice down on the small end but really goes to poo out on the far end..

Similar with the Sigma 50-500.. were you using Soop's lens? If so, isn't it a Tamron??

I bought the Nikon 80-400VR down at Reno from another shooter.. verdict is still out as to how happy I am with it.. It certainly is a lot lighter than the Sigma! Which would be nice, once I get used to *not* having the weight and over correcting the lighter Nikon..

Wayne

[Firecat]

Hey Wayners,
Nope it is my new Sigma lens that got with the camera. Got a package deal that and a 28-80 plus bunch of other stuff including the 1 gig card (which I really love). I'll be messing around with it for awhile trying out different settings and maybe even try manual focus too with some coaching from Soop I hope. I don't think I can gracefully use the Nikon lens, think it's needs an adapter of some sort. Anyway will have to see but does everything else just great, sharp and sooo soo easy. Have some beautiful close up's of some flowers et al. Need to use it more that much I know - Nellis will be good practice.

Here's one more t/o from the pits. A couple of others am saving for you later.
Pat

[AAFO_WSagar]

Originally posted by Firecat
Have some beautiful close up's of some flowers et al.

Ahh.... .... watch out for that stuff around here Pat...

This is a pretty rough bunch.. they might not understand

Oh.. this is a REALLY funny post at a Nikon forum I frequent and is very relevant to this subject.... anyone need a camera??

CLICK HERE FOR CAMERA FOR SALE

LOL!!!!!!

Wayner

[Kilo Hotel]

Re: Digital Rebel

Originally posted by rpzo
Anybody had a chance to look at the specs on the Digital Rebel that Canon is coming out with soon? I've seen that some of the photo outlets have started to accept pre-orders. The price is low enough that you wouldn't need to sell the car or take out a loan on the house to purchase but is the performance there? I'm waiting to see some reviews on it before I ask Santa to put it in my stocking.

Rick

Here's a full review of a pre-production Digital Rebel on dpreview.com:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

My sense is that the 300D/Digital Rebel is a defeatured, plastic-body 10D. With a 'starter' lens (EF-S 18 - 55 mm) it will sell for under $1000. Say what you want about the feature set or the plastic body, this changes EVERYTHING. I bet Sony's kicking themselves around the block over the competition for their upcoming DSC-F828 prosumer digicam, which at $1200+ looked like a winner before Canon announced the 300D.

BTW, Nikon is about to release the D2H, designed from the ground up for action/sports/photojournalism. Only 4 megapixels, but with super fast autofocus and a burst mode of 8 fps for 5 seconds; now that's flying. Only $4K for the back ;-)

To address another post concerning success rates: on a recent trip that included 2 days at Reno I shot 5000 frames with a 5-megapixel Oly 5050Z, of which I judge about 150 worth printing at 11x14 or larger (I'm judging by aesthetics as well as raw image quality). Of course, many were air-to-ground shots in turbulence at 110mm zoom, aiming the camera blind out the vent window of the motorglider, but I'm still not displeased with the ratio of keepers::dreck. Here's a link to a few preliminary shots from that trip posted on Ofoto.com; there are more in the hopper if anyone's interested--just drop me a line to stevez-at-acm-dot-org and I'll add you to the notification list.

http://www.ofoto.com/I.jsp?c=3sj4s9r.1ngmj47b&x=1&y=v3sjf7

BTW, you have to register with Ofoto to see the album, but it's free and they don't bite.

[T. Adams]

400IS

Firecat I assume you are talking about the 100-400mm IS zoom. If you search photo.net, naturephotographers.net, and photographyreview.com you will find many who love it, and many who do not care for it at all. I too looked at this lense, but because of all the negative reviews I bought the 70-200 f/2.8L, with IS. This is one lense you will be hard pressed to find a negative comment about. I even tried to find one used to save money but could not, because nobody gets rid of them, at least the IS version. If you put this lense on a 10D with a 1.4X, and with the crop factor, you have a 448mm f/4 lense at the long end that will still auto focus with a 10D.

Remember a 100-400mm with a 1.4X WILL NOT autofocus on a 10D. Once you go higher than f/5.6 with the Canon's you lose autofocus, unless you have a 1D, or 1Ds.

Also the Digital Rebel is out and is shipping at $899 from most places, and yes it is basically a bare bones 10D.

[Firecat]

Oops, I forgot that this forum is all motor driven or the mega-dollar team sports how silly of me to have gotten artsey for a moment

As to the early question about just how many good shots should you expect to get out of certain number of rolls. Not too sure that there's a number but can say that many years ago when working with fashion photographers they would shoot many many rolls just to get one or two that we would consider for print. Even though they were moving it was pretty static compared to the a/c and speeds we're dealing with here so I'd have to say lots of rolls until maybe you've been doing it 30+ years maybe then the ratio would go down a little.

That aside thanks T. Adams for your input, I appreciate it as am still in the learning mode with all the hardware and operating options. I'll learn best by doing and at least with the digitals it doesn't cost time or money for those bad shots, just hit delete - very cool. Aside from a/c plan to also use the lens for other action things like dog trials, horses in various movement actions (jumping/working), Eagles in the wild etc and other nature critters which is why I'm accumulating feedback. Also thanks for the links to those 3 sites, there is so much on the web now one could spend a lifetime in a night just doing searches!

Thanks again and happy clicking to all.
Firecat

[T. Adams]

Just be forwarned

Just a warning, if you want to shoot critters, and birds you need serious (exspensive) big glass. It gets addictive, you'll be lusting after those BWL's (big white lenses)


One of the best I have ever seen at amateur bird photography said the ideal outfit is the 10D (due to the crop factor) and the 600mm f/4L. Yeah right, what he fails to mention is, that single lense is close to 7,000 freaking dollars!!

[AAFO_WSagar]

Originally posted by rpzo
I gave up playing the bass when I realized that I was never going to make enough money to live off of by playing Ramones cover tunes.

How True Rick,

LOL... yea, for me, it was Grateful Dead and the like but *sigh* it was a fun time in my life that I'll never forget! Some of the guys I played with actually made it over the top but I don't really think I envy the lifestyle!

I know we all have a lot of pictures that could have been perfect if only...but what do you consider an acceptable success rate? <...snip...>, but am tired of wasting it on subject matter where my success rate is around 10% or less.

Rick, that's really up to the individual.. Certainly, even the best shooters have a pretty high "Oh $hit" factor.. With film, that can get really spendy!

On the surface of it, the pro level or prosumer level digital SLR's seem very expensive... certainly, when I was one of the first to jump in with my D1 back in 2000 when they were going for five grand (OUCH!!!) it seemed like a lot of coin and it was!

I've never sat down and really done the math but somewhere in there, I think I broke even on film and processing costs. If you figure a rough ten bucks a roll for good slide film (including developement) you're going to shoot up a minimum of $100. a day at any given event. With digital, I can shoot that amount of digi shots for each race and it costs me nothing other than the effort to process all those shots (something to consider, certainly is the time involved!)

There is "excess" possible in this.. it does not really make any sense to me to take 20 shots of the same thing, for instance, having the camera on motor drive shooting a static airplane 20 times with the same angle, settings etc.. Now in action shooting, sometimes by just holding down the trigger and hanging on, you wind up with stuff you don't even know you have until you look at the images later.. that IS an advantage and at the speed of this sport, it's sometimes the only way you can successfully shoot the action.

Back to the bottom line of what percentage is acceptable.. for me, I take what I get. This year, I had camera problems and, I switched lenses to one I was totally unfamiliar with, during the event... NOT a good idea. I never achieved "zen" with the new lens and what I *did* manage to get that was good or really good was pure luck.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I'm shooting action, I rely on getting into a zone. If I try hard to get a shot of a particular airplane, I almost always knock myself out of that zone and have a hard time nailing it.. It'd be hard to explain in words what that "zone" is but I'm sure you all know what I mean.. It's when you just lose all thought and can totally focus on what you are doing.. Like driving a car fast... if you think about it too much, it's not usually that smooth, if you fall into the "zone" you "just do it" and it comes together..

Shooting a motorsport like air racing is something that you don't get a lot of tme to practice in real conditions, just like the racers, we're limited to the events that are available to us.. Airshow work helps a lot in getting into that zone.. adapting to your equipment and having a good feel for it helps a lot..

I'm certainly not the best shooter, not by a large margin! I don't have the best glass, nor the best body (anymore) nor am I blessed with the steady hands of youth. But I get good, or lucky or whatever, once in a while and if I get one really really good shot for the entire week at an event, I'm happy. If I get a lot more than that, then I'm really happy.. When I look at my crap, I try not to become discouraged, though, it's sometimes not that easy!

In the image I'm attaching, I'd have to claim some luck. When Tom arrived on Saturday, I was totally out of position in the Bear Cave. We heard him coming, I moved as fast as I could to get the camera ready and get out there to get the shot.. I was actually walking when I snapped this one.. actually, the distraction of being out of position, walking and all the rest, probably let me get into the "zone" where, if I'd have really been trying, I'd have missed it..

Wayne

Original date/time: 2003:09:06 15:01:00
Original date/time subsecs: 26
Exposure time: 1/320
F-stop: 12.0
Focal length: 320.0000
Exposure bias: -0.6667
Metering mode: Spot
Exposure program: Shutter priority
Digitized date/time: 2003:09:06 15:01:00
Digitized date/time subsecs: 26
Modified date/time: 2003:09:06 15:01:00
Modified date/time subsecs: 26
Image description:
Scene type: Photograph
User comment:
Nikon ISO speed: 0,200
Nikon color mode: COLOR
Nikon quality: FINE
Nikon white balance: SUNNY
Nikon sharpening: NONE
Nikon focus mode: AF-C

[rpzo]

it was Grateful Dead and the like but *sigh* it was a fun time in my life that I'll never forget!

Agreed, I wouldn't trade the memories for anything. One band I was in even did a cover of the Dead's Friend of the Devil, only with a punk beat.

but am tired of wasting it on subject matter where my success rate is around 10% or less.

I must have been really frustrated when I wrote that. I think it was because I was going through a bunch of slides that I took at the Santa Rosa airshow back in August. My 2x converter had started putting an extremely noticable blue tinge in the center of some of pictures and I was attempting to fix it with photoshop. More wasted film, but what frustrated me even more is the missed opportunity. I had flight line access for that airshow.

The hobby of photography, music, or whatever is about the pursuit of perfection, the perfect performance. The problem is that if your serious about the pursuit you will never achieve that perfection. You may come close but, speaking for myself, I have never been completely satisfied with a picture that I have taken, except for one. It's that pursuit that drives you to keep spending money on film, cameras, guitars, amps...to keep going out and shooting frame after frame when you know that only 1 in 10 is going to be worth showing to anybody else. Hi, my name is Rick and I am addicted to taking pictures of airplanes.

I don't know about everyone else, but when I'm shooting action, I rely on getting into a zone.

I know what you mean. I refer to it as the zen approach to photography. Knowing the scene, what's going to happen when, instictively making the adjustments to exposure, focus, and framing. Knowing what that picture is going to look like before you release the shutter. Just being part of it.

Rick