Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Is it me, the lens, the camera, or all three???
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
Feb 4, 2012 11:46:51   #
Bmac Loc: Long Island, NY
 
AVarley wrote:
Reading thru this thread that old saying comes to mind, "the more I know, the less I understand."

I'd give my best lens and a couple of compact flash cards to spend a day with MTShooter, BMAC or CaptainC or any of you guys to get real with exposure.

It seems like for every rule, there is an exception. I'm a rule follower by nature, which is most likely a big-time flaw for photographers.


Thanks for the offer, but I would be happy with a ham and Swiss with mayo and a cold imported beer! 8-)

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 13:01:44   #
Festina Lente Loc: Florida & Missouri
 
As usual, there is very good advice offered herein.

As to the ball head part of your question - for a telephoto you really need a gimbal head.

I have several ball heads and a gimbal head. Both have their purpose and advantages. A quality gimbal head when adjusted to your telephoto lens makes it feel weightless and allows it to stop and perfectly still hold in any position. Ball heads are not quite as fluid and most cannot take the leveraged weight of a long lens much less balance them. They achieve control of your camera and lens thru variable friction, not balance.

I have used several gimbal heads over the past year and here is a synopsis of my experience to date:

Wimberley WH-200 - $600, 3.2lbs. The Wimberley is a great gimbal head and very popular with professional wildlife photographers. I miss the lack of vertical adjustment, but that is strictly a personal preference.

Jobu Design BWG-HD3. $550. OK, but limited by no vertical adjustment. I returned my to local camera shop after 24 hours.

Manfrotto 393 - $180 and a heavy 3.5lbs. Not a true Gimbal (overhead mounted, which for me proved to be an annoying adjustment when changing on-lens settings on an "up-side-down" lens). It is not as smooth as the others I used, but it is much better than a similarly priced ball head for telephoto use. Probably the best bang for the buck for someone who has not used a gimbal head before.

I found that the following gimbal head to be equal and better than the Wimberley for a lower price. The vertical slide is very useful and works well. It is a quality gimbal head in every regard and should serve anyone with any SLR and a long lens very well. It is my personal favorite after playing the gimbal field for 3 years trying to find one I liked.

ENDURO Model GHB2, catalog # 485-002
Weight 3.2 lbs. $429 at my local camera shop.

Enduro also has a model GHB1 that is $90 less expensive than the GHB2. It is designed for smaller tri-pods and lighter equipment, and does not have my preferred vertical adjustment, but it is a fine gimbal, very comparable to the Wimberley WH-200 in my opinion (and at half the price) but with a lower recommended weight capacity.

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 14:26:21   #
jenny Loc: in hiding:)
 
When you set shutter priority, what shutter speed did
you select?????

Reply
 
 
Feb 4, 2012 15:14:22   #
Greg Loc: Maryland
 
MT Shooter wrote:
It almost looks to me like you had your white balance set to "cloudy", that would explain the overexposure pretty easily.

The best head for wildlife by far is a ball head. The Bogen 3055 and 3038 are excellent examples that do just what you need them for.


A gimbal head would seem the choice you would want. number 1 it will balance a long Tele lens so you can pan tilt quickly.

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 15:20:47   #
Fotografer Loc: Denmark WI
 
You also could use a ND variable filter or a CPL which will even the light and enhance the color

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 15:30:07   #
pebble70 Loc: Winchester, MA USA
 
you could try using a gimble head...lots of flexibility there

ken

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 19:49:11   #
marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL
 
MtnMan wrote:
I can support raising the ISO. Unfortunately there are many here who think using your camera's lowest ISO gives better pics. That isn't true for several reasons.

For one thing the signal to noise ratio of the sensors in cameras varies with ISOs. For most cameras it isn't best at your lowest ISO setting but something higher. It can really drop off at lower ISO. So you get wose pics, not better.

The second is the effect on camera blur. As noted below for sharpest pics you should try for 1/1,000 sec. I saw a wonderful illustration at our camera club last month of what one can do with that...even handheld.

Also just note that if you shoot in raw you can adjust the white balance later. But it may be your picture control setting rather than white balance. Check that.



Bmac wrote:
cybermomm wrote:
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f 5-6.3. Camera is a Nikon D300. Had the camera on shutter speed priority, because I was filming birds in the wildlife refuge, and as you know, they don't hold still. Conditions: bright sunlight, so ISO at 100. The camera should have chosen the appropriate aperture, but it doesn't seem like it did. These are overexposed and have a pinkish cast. Is the camera having trouble communicating with the lens, and has anyone else run into this problem? Also, I looked at the EXIF data, and EVERY ONE shows aperture at 6.3
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f... (show quote)


There are many folks in here who are expert at the type of wildlife photography you are speaking of, hopefully one or more will weigh in on this thread. It might be helpful if you gave the focal length you were shooting at, the shutter speed you had selected, and the exposure mode your camera was set for. Your aperture was wide open, which means you were shooting at the extreme range of your telephoto, perhaps racked out at 500mm. To handhold at that focal length your shutter should be at least 1/1000 sec. And that's if you are rock steady. A quick fix would be to raise the ISO considerably so you have both a fast shutter and a smaller aperture than 6.3, giving you some depth of field to play with. You should also try setting your exposure mode to a center or spot metering which may help. One other point, for birds in flight you might consider "panning," which would enable you to shoot successfully with a lower shutter. Do a search in the forum for panning and you will learn how. The suggestion of trying a monopod is a good one. Sports photographers routinely use them. Good luck and I hope some of this helps. 8-)
quote=cybermomm Tried out a new lens yesterday. S... (show quote)
I can support raising the ISO. Unfortunately there... (show quote)


I'd like to agree completely but I'm still testing this myself. I am shooting outdoors consistently with ISO 400 and shooting indoors at ISO 800 to see what happens. I went to a festival today and shot outside with ISO 400 but haven't looked at them yet. There was a Japanese drum group there and some Japanese dance groups so I'll see how that turned out later.

I shot a 10-piece class rock band two weeks ago in a night club with a diffused fill-flash, ISO 800, and used fully automatic. Every shot was exceptionally good, no blur on anything but the drummer's sticks that were really moving all the time, colors were perfect, no graininess or noise. The reddish hue on the singers is two red floods right above them. The higher ISO didn't hurt anything at all and allowed faster shutter speeds to freeze action very well. Next time I'll try ISO 1600 and see what happens.







Reply
 
 
Feb 4, 2012 22:07:52   #
ThomasS Loc: Colorado
 
cybermomm wrote:
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f 5-6.3. Camera is a Nikon D300. Had the camera on shutter speed priority, because I was filming birds in the wildlife refuge, and as you know, they don't hold still. Conditions: bright sunlight, so ISO at 100. The camera should have chosen the appropriate aperture, but it doesn't seem like it did. These are overexposed and have a pinkish cast. Is the camera having trouble communicating with the lens, and has anyone else run into this problem? Also, I looked at the EXIF data, and EVERY ONE shows aperture at 6.3.

Second question: When working with a long telephoto, conventional wisdom says it is best to put the camera on a tripod. How in the heck are you supposed to have a camera on a tripod when you are trying to get pictures of moving objects? Swivel heads won't do, either, because they go from side to side. It seems like long lenses are needed for wildlife photography; but because they are long and heavy and need to be moved quickly and easily to catch action (read hand-held), the shots don't come out very well. What do people on this forum do to get those good shots, especially of moving wildlife, when using a long telephoto without a tripod?
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f... (show quote)


If you haven't already purchased this lens, and like to shoot wildlife a lot, I would suggest one with Image Stabil ization. I don't know what camera you are using, but Sigma, Canon, and Nikon all make excellent "stabilized" telephoto zooms.

Reply
Feb 4, 2012 22:41:44   #
JoeV Loc: Wisconsin
 
Regarding the exposure. I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet. If you are not happy with your results, your camera probably has an exposure compensation feature. Set it to underexpose a bit..half a stop or a full stop...experiment til you get good results. Many photographers have their cameras routinely set to underexpose a bit, since it is better to underexpose than overexpose. It's not a bad idea to take a practice shot when you get to a location that you think might give your trouble, just to see whether you need to make some adjustments.

Reply
Feb 5, 2012 00:26:20   #
lhdiver Loc: Midwest
 
You didn't say if you are shooting RAW of jpg. If shooting RAW you will have much more latitude to adjust your white balance in post processing if you don't like the camera results. Also can tweak the exposure a lot more than with jpg.

Reply
Feb 7, 2012 09:36:54   #
digicamking Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
cybermomm wrote:
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f 5-6.3. Camera is a Nikon D300. Had the camera on shutter speed priority, because I was filming birds in the wildlife refuge, and as you know, they don't hold still. Conditions: bright sunlight, so ISO at 100. The camera should have chosen the appropriate aperture, but it doesn't seem like it did. These are overexposed and have a pinkish cast. Is the camera having trouble communicating with the lens, and has anyone else run into this problem? Also, I looked at the EXIF data, and EVERY ONE shows aperture at 6.3.
Most professionals shooting wild life use a Gimbal instead of a ballhead. You have the freedom of movement in all directions with a Gimbal
Second question: When working with a long telephoto, conventional wisdom says it is best to put the camera on a tripod. How in the heck are you supposed to have a camera on a tripod when you are trying to get pictures of moving objects? Swivel heads won't do, either, because they go from side to side. It seems like long lenses are needed for wildlife photography; but because they are long and heavy and need to be moved quickly and easily to catch action (read hand-held), the shots don't come out very well. What do people on this forum do to get those good shots, especially of moving wildlife, when using a long telephoto without a tripod?
Tried out a new lens yesterday. Sigma 150-500mm, f... (show quote)

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 3
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.