Posts for: clansman
Apr 10, 2024 08:39:05 #
clansman wrote:
Certainly agree with the monopod and the 70-100. Bear in mind that the 70-200 with the 2x Extender still gives 5.6 at the 400mm. The 100-400 only starts at 4.5. The 70-200 has always been the go-to sports lens. The RF version has been deemed by a number of pros as an unnecessary replacement, which shows how good the EF one is.
Apols, first mention should of course say 70-200.
Apr 10, 2024 08:38:04 #
wireloose wrote:
For outdoors a good monopod with the Wimberley mh100 head makes life much better, keeps the camera at eye level without killing your arms, the heavier lens and camera combo gains a lot of weight towards the end of any game. On the lens I’d agree with the 70-200 and 1.4 combo, shoot at a fixed shutter speed and aperture and auto ISO for best results. Have fun!
Certainly agree with the monopod and the 70-100. Bear in mind that the 70-200 with the 2x Extender still gives 5.6 at the 400mm. The 100-400 only starts at 4.5. The 70-200 has always been the go-to sports lens. The RF version has been deemed by a number of pros as an unnecessary replacement, which shows how good the EF one is.
Mar 13, 2024 10:43:08 #
Anthony padua wrote:
Magazine would not accept.Kate.Middletons photo.because it was edited she admitted she had done it herself where does this leave all you hoggers
We do know husband William used a Canon 5D Mk1V so there is credibility to the starting content.
Feb 26, 2024 10:33:34 #
cjc2 wrote:
Not sure why you can't look through the viewfinder with the 70-200. I've been using that lens for yers and have had no problem. I suggest you practice and I suspect you will become accustomed to it. Am I missing something? Best of luck.
Thanks for yours. The 70-200, an excellent lens, is too heavy along with the R5 (which replaced a heavier 1Dx Mk11), as I have a rather useless left shoulder and arm which allows only little weight carrying, hence using the swivel screen while sitting down indoors in gallery seats. I will be using a monopod with ball swivel once outdoors, and will then revert to the viewfinder along with 70-200 and 100-400. Apols if I was unclear.
Feb 26, 2024 04:21:29 #
Orphoto wrote:
And yet you got the same answer as the first time. You presented two images with differing degrees of detail. They wont compress the same.
Fair point, though all the info has helped me return to the 70-200 with lower ISO and to cope with waist-level screen instead of the viewfinder. As I explained , a weak left shoulder is a nuisance hence my use of the lightweight 70-300. All in all, the UHH forum has been most positive as ever. Thankyou again.
Feb 25, 2024 13:59:03 #
Longshadow wrote:
It has to do with how the pixel information is sto... (show quote)
That does make sense, so thankyou for setting it out so clearly. I had no idea of the composition, so thank you again.
Feb 25, 2024 13:24:44 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Gallery.... AGAIN!
Apologies, these were for explanation, not as a general gallery content, and I thought it best to continue in the same chapter for the sake of continuity as to results achieved. My mistake, apologies.
Feb 25, 2024 13:08:32 #
Just to follow on from a few days earlier. These are from today, again indoors. This time I used 1/1000th, 2.8 (70-200 instead of the previous 70-300 minimum 5.6)) and ISO of 2500. Both are approx 4 .5 MBs, while the one with the yellow wings, when showing the whole of those wings was 30MBs ! Quite an education.
The heavier 70-200 meant using the body screen instead of the viewfinder, (hence loss of part of helmet!) taking time to get used to such, so compromise eventually by taking a larger pic, and cropping.
So thank you all for all the info and explanations, which have been most useful.
The heavier 70-200 meant using the body screen instead of the viewfinder, (hence loss of part of helmet!) taking time to get used to such, so compromise eventually by taking a larger pic, and cropping.
So thank you all for all the info and explanations, which have been most useful.
Feb 24, 2024 08:02:31 #
SteveR wrote:
Linda, years ago I went to an equestrian event with my parents in Bloomfield Hills, Mi. My Mom loved horses. This was the beginning of the use of strobes and they were allowed. Because they flash so quickly they do not bother the horses. Flash bulbs, however, are/were a different story.
Agree on flash, but I have never heard of a strobe used in the UK. I doubt if it has been used and will ask around, though I think I know the answer.
Feb 24, 2024 07:59:13 #
photogeneralist wrote:
File size is not the only difference. The chestnut colored horse is noticeably less sharp overall. Perhaps it is a focus issue but I suspect that it's more likely a minuscule camera movement during the exposure.
Thankyou, and perhaps as I am trying to shoot using the screen rather than the viewfinder there is movement. I do not like using 1/800sec but it allows lower ISO than my usual 1/1000 or more outdoors. 5.6 is the max on the lens but I will try the 70-200 tomorrow as it is 2.8, but much heavier. We shall see.
Feb 23, 2024 10:03:29 #
Bubbee wrote:
I think it's a given...More colors and depth and complexity increase the size accordingly.
Many thanks and once I am back outdoors at horse trials there will be much more in the frame, so I'm sure there will be more in the frame as you say. It's just that moving up to 45MB in the R5 is quite an experience. Only had it for a month and it has rained mostly since!
Feb 23, 2024 04:34:49 #
joecichjr wrote:
Might be the lovely rider's ponytail in the second shot 
Sorry. But the two shots are sure beauties 🎈🎈🎈🎈
Sorry. But the two shots are sure beauties 🎈🎈🎈🎈
Thankyou: I will go again today and see if I can maintain and maybe improve, though still indoors!
Feb 22, 2024 14:28:56 #
jcboy3 wrote:
First, I think you mean MB (megabyte) and not Mb (megabit). And don’t pus an “s” after it or it will be confused with megabytes/second.
Second, the size difference is due to compression (yes, even raw files can be compressed). Similar colors compress more readily.
Finally, you can’t get much slower shutter speed without serious motion blur. The only option for improvement is to use a larger aperture (smaller f/ number). F/2.8-f/4 is preferred.
Second, the size difference is due to compression (yes, even raw files can be compressed). Similar colors compress more readily.
Finally, you can’t get much slower shutter speed without serious motion blur. The only option for improvement is to use a larger aperture (smaller f/ number). F/2.8-f/4 is preferred.
Thankyou for the info on MB and Mb.
Re the lens my 70-200 2.8 is available but is heavy as my left arm is not good, though once outdoors I have a monopod ready. Thanks again.
Feb 22, 2024 12:14:49 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
It’s not so much the coat colors being different as the subject being slightly smaller in the first so there is more background meaning larger areas of contiguous similar color and exposure.
Thankyou : I shall take more tomorrow so will understand better when going over them. Thanks again.
Feb 22, 2024 12:08:47 #
Earnest Botello wrote:
Great action set.
Thankyou : plenty of opportunity but cannot wait to be outdoors where natural light make high ISO irrelevant. Background walls are so bare but the coloured fences can help so much and I do try to keep the fence as an extra rather than show the whole. This so I can concentrate on horse and rider. Thanks again.