By the way, the humidity was very high. It drizzled for half of our trip but we caught our salmon limit and got to see bears feeding on salmon so it was great.

I have to agree that it is water vapor. If the propeller caused it, I would have expected the plane to show a blur as well. Thanks to all of you for your explanations.

Vapor trail makes sense. But I don't remember the vapor trail being visible to the eye. Is that possible?

Hi Folks,

I was fishing in Alaska two months ago and took this picture of one of the fly-in planes taking off. I am puzzled why the propeller shows a trail of about 15 feet while the plane does not. Does anyone know what caused this? The shot was taken at 1/250 of a second. I like the way it looks but want to understand what caused this effect.

Take-off

Love it. Great for a Saturday night laugh with friends. Thanks.

True story - Arenal, Costa Rica 2011 - I was carrying my 70-200 L 2.8 IS on my shoulder in its pouch. I leaned over to pull out a beer from the mini-fridge at the resort when the bag slipped off my shoulder. Although it only dropped two feet to the tile, I heard glass shatter. After taking a gulp of beer, I summoned the courage to open the pouch. All I have to say is that I'm sure glad I had a $30 UV Filter on my lens.

If it's not too far off your route, you may want to check out Screw Auger Falls in Grafton Notch State Park, Maine. Many good suggestions have already been posted so I hope you plan enough time to see all the beauty that the Northeast has to offer. Enjoy your trip!

I'm well aware of the difference between noise and motion. I agree that a sense of motion is nice in a twirling costume or in moving feet, but not if faces get blurred. My 5D Mk III rental just arrived so time to start playing with it. Hopefully, 5 extra stops should give me what I need.

You've got some nice color and sharpness in your pictures considering you were using ISO 1600 and greater. The Mark II appears to be a significant improvement over my older 5D.

Your subjects appear to be more stationary than the dance group I'll be shooting so the Mark III should help me out. Thank you.

Not an option, I don't have any control of the lighting at the venue.

Initially, I thought the rental price was going to be more than double the MK II but after looking it up and reading some reviews, the MK III appears to be the obvious choice. Now I just need to find someone locally that rents them. Thanks for your suggestion.

Hi Folks,

Once a year, I shoot a dance performance for a local dance group. It’s rather dark on the stage they perform on and while I get some good shots, most are blurred due to movement (after all, they are dancing). I shoot with a Canon 5D (on a tripod, with remote release, IS off) and a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens. I set the ISO between 400 and 640 and don’t like to go faster than that due to degrading quality at 800 and above. The aperture is usually at 2.8.

For those with experience using both the 5D and the 5D Mark II, is the low light performance that much better on the Mark II that it would be worth renting one for the weekend? By the way, I don’t charge for the pictures or my time so the cost would come out of my pocket. I’m willing to do so, but only if the Mark II would produce substantially better images at ISOs faster than 800, which would allow me to use a faster shutter speed.

Beautiful place and beautiful shots. I was fortunate to visit there in 1997. You captured it perfectly. :thumbup:

Well Done! Beautiful reds and composition. :thumbup:

This is spectacular underwater footage. Thanks for sharing this, Sarge.