Canberra, Australia

Ocyphaps lophotes of the genus Ocyphaps apparently.

The Crested Pigeon

Some shots using EFs camera with FF lens and varied the settings that might be of interest to you.

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-525057-1.html

Thanks. I do experiment a bit, and I'm not unhappy with the f5.6 results although they vary a bit. Good light really important of course and I haven't printed anything large yet. I'm actually in the process of a comparison with the EF 100-400 II and the x2 TC III. Not just that extra bit of reach but also the extra AF points. My EF 300 is the first version.

Phil

Hi graybeard - I've done a Helios M44-4 58mm f2 to Canon EOS. I just got an adapter from China, M42 to Canon EF, and took the back off the Helios and replaced it with the Chinese adapter. It was like a dollar or two. And worked OK out of the box. And I think for a dollar or two more you can now get them with a bit of electronics?? Fully manual but it has infinity focus. When I did it I didn't have a camera with any lens compensation adjustment so never bothered. Its sharp enough, a weird bokeh, and tidy enough for portraits.

Cannot remember who I bought from but there are quite a few suppliers of M39 to EOS out there as well.

Phil

OK - You've sort of lost me with that one, just cannot see the logic when nothing changes but a bit of tape restricting your view through the lens and you need to deal with more camera shake?? Bit too circular (pun??) for me.

The pixel density comment has a bit of merit to me though (theoretically)!! And practically, the magnification of the print seems a good point, even it assumes all shots have some camera shake, which on reflection makes some sense.

Thanks. I guess my curiosity is that even though I've heard of the 'rule', its just never occurred to me to apply it. Phil

OK - so what if you tape over the front element to make a rectangle to let the light in, of the same FF with a telephoto, to give you the framing of a crop sensor. Would that make a theoretical difference??

Been thinking about this. Not losing sleep over it but still hard to get my head around. So all theoretical of course, but if all things were equal, and its the angle of view that matters, then if you turn the camera, say a FF with a given telephoto lens, to take a portrait orientated shot, would you have to allow for a higher shutter speed for the extra camera shake because of the narrower angle of view than the same subject taken as a landscape orientated shot??

Phil

Thanks - Its a pair of crested pigeons (Ocyphaps lophotes) of the genus Ocyphaps.

Shot hand held with a Canon 80D and an EF 300 f2.8 with the x2 TC MkIII

Shot at 600mm, ISO200, f5.6 and Tv1/1600 with a clear autumn morning sky


Shot at 600mm, ISO200, f6.3 and Tv1/400 in good morning light


Shot at 600mm, ISO400, f7.1 and Tv1/1000 in good light before lunch


Shot at 600mm, ISO400, f5.6 and Tv1/250 in good light

My peripheral vision is never quite in focus - I thought everyone else's was OOF too. Back to that damn optometrist for me!!

Right - Thanks - I'll have to get my head around the Angle of View thing, not intuitive for me at all. And weird, I'm sure, but I'm more successful with slower shutter speeds (according to the 'rule') with tele lengths than wide angle lenses!!

Hi Bob

11mm on a FF camera sounds very wide and very heavy. And if its Canon's EF 11-24, it might possibly attract the wrong sort of attention with its distinctive and expensive bulbous front element. And filters for it are just a bitch anyway.

Personally, I think I'd just take the 24-105, unless there is some wildlife involved, and in anycase I'd take the 100-400 over the 70-200.

Colour, a particular colour, or a particular colour on an object in the frame, can be a distraction to the story you are telling with your image.

When considering composition, light and dark, and placement in post, I'll sometimes go B&W, then blur the image to get rid of the distraction of both colour and detail. Sometimes helps with cropping. Then returning to detail and colour of course.