Michael_McrWhy dont you call your cat “Cooking Fat” ? 🙂
Try and get it right when he trips you up !!!
Michael_McrWhy dont you call your cat “Cooking Fat” ? 🙂
Try and get it right when he trips you up !!!
Michael_McrGenerally 1/500th is still a bit too fast for propeller aircraft. As a general rule I try to stick to a maximum of…
1/400th for two-bladed props
1/320th for multi-bladed props
1/250th for helicopters
The speed relates to the rotation speed of the prop/rotor and going higher than these speeds will make your props/rotors look rather motionless and takes the action out of the image.
all true and i was aware of this.
I was really referring to using the lens at maximum zoom 300mm (450 equivalent) and getting softness, which under scrutiny, revealed itself as slight movement blur. I was having to use higher speeds 1/800+ to eliminate this.
Regards
Michael
Michael_McrI know this is drifting off the origonal subject a bit, but…
Further to my earlier post about 300D and 75-300 USM II combo wobbling – i can now report that i have been using the above combo + a Canon BG-E1 battery grip for a few weeks and my photos are noticably sharper, i am not getting half as much wobble as the new battery grip adds bulk and weight so you can get a proper 2 handed grip of camera and lens.
Before i was having to go 1/800 to 1/1000 sec to avoid slight movement blur, now i am confidently going down to 1/500.
Since i bought my 300D when they first came out, i have suspected that the body is just **too** light and compact, Fine with small lenses, but un-weildy with anything that sticks out more than 2 or 3 inches.
Regards
Michael
Michael_McrWhat no virtual rain????
Paul
hahahah – indeed – And…
Wot – no kids screaming and crying at every low pass ?
Wot – no car alarms going off ?
Wot – no indecypherable, echoing PA system ?
Wot – no commentary saying “…has gone technical, therefore…” every half hour
Wot – no “expert” stood next to you, stating the bloody obvious every 5 mins” … like … “its fast isnt it?” or “he’s flying low isnt he?”
Regards
Michael
Michael_McrIn reply to someone comment earlier that its “rough” example – it was a prototype and is thus equipped with only a few seats and a lot of test equipment….
…Which is what i said – QUOTE – “agreed – plus, having been inside it, i can confirm the one at MAN is a very rough, unfinished, hack development model that is a complete mess inside”
I know a development aircraft when i see it, as opposed to a “rough example”
And the RJX is a rough,hack, development model – Which is what i said.
And it aint worth preserving…..
Michael_McrThere are several more still flying, so the loss of one won’t matter that much will it ? And in any case it’s only an aero bus with four hair driers strapped to the wings, so hardly counts as hysteric 🙂
agreed – plus, having been inside it, i can confirm the one at MAN is a very rough, unfinished, hack development model that is a complete mess inside.
Bin it i say and fill the space with something interesting…. like a Manchester bomber rebuild / replica – bring one of those home.
Michael_Mcri heard a suggestion that the AVP was to be altered / moved to allow expansion of the existing taxiways to accomodate the new “super-jumbo” sized planes that are in development. The suggestion was that the AVP was to be moved to runway 2 side early next year, tho i dont see it being very popular there.
Just a roumor tho.
EDIT oops, hit return by mistake!!
Was also going to add that the A380 for instance, is, as i understand it, approx 50 foot wider than a jumbo – so 25 foot extra clearance needed.
Would have thought that little could be comfortably hacked off the viewing park without too much issue – just move the light aircraft park around a bit and the AVP viewing mounds and car parking back a bit
Also, moving the AVP south is a no-no because of vehicle access and the small problem of moving the Concorde which is presumably intended to be the magnet that brings in AVP revenue for the next 10 years or so.
Michael_McrHere ya go -I just taken this pic to help you all recognise me 🙂
Hey DazDaMan, I recognise you – i seen that costume at a Bondage / Fetish party i went to last week 😀 🙂 hahahahaha
Regards
Michael
Michael_McrHere ya go -I just taken this pic to help you all recognise me 🙂
Hey DazDaMan, I recognise you – i seen that costume at a Bondage / Fetish party i went to last week 😀 🙂 hahahahaha
Regards
Michael
Michael_McrI still have (but no longer use) a 75-300 USM. In combination with the 300D at airshows I was getting a high number of out of focus shots. (Probably caused by pilot induced oscillation).
It took season to get to grips with the lens and new cameras but I am very happy with the 20D and 100-400 IS combination.
I have used the 300D & 75-300 USM combo for some time and noticed that it is far more prone to wobble than with my old film EOS.
I suspected that the balance was all wrong – a very light-weight body with a long lens and tried experimenting.
I have lying around a canon table tripod which folds completely flat to the bottom of the camera and ends up looking like a battery grip (if you see what i mean). Being made of metal it adds weight and bulk to the set-up and important depth to allow a proper grip. i now find i get much, much less shake when using the lens at the 300 range ( effectively 450 with the 300D).
I have just ordered a bg-e1 battery grip as i have read reports that this adds stability to the 300D, so i will report on how it works when it arrives.
Michael_McrI think one of the “issues” here, is the same one that crops up in many professions and hobbies – some people think that you cannot possibly be getting good results unless you are wearing a hair shirt, whipping yourself, breaking into a sweat and doing it the “old-fashioned hard way”.
There is , with Digital, a temptation to snap away merrily as there are no film costs as such. However, it is my suggestion that just as many people buy film cameras, blast off six rolls of film and then throw it in a cupboard and give up because the results are no good.
Personally, buying my Canon DSLR has for me been the proverbial “breath of fresh air” – i still take time and care over my shots – i still avoid “wasting” shots – BUT….. i absolutely love the immediate results and more importantly, i firmly believe that the canons digital doo-dah cmos sensor gives extremely vivid, detailed life-like results.
I also believe it can capture fine, delecate, low-light situations better than any filmstock can. You have to plan for areas of strong contrast, but no more than you would with transparency stock (i used to take multiple meter readings in tricky situations and average it down to +/- 1/2 stop – still have to with digital !!!! 🙂
I spend as much time with the results in Photoshop as i ever did in the darkroom.
Its just different thats all!! – no worse than film and certainly not “amateur”
Mike
Michael_McrI bought an Epson stylus R300 photo about 6 months ago and it is a fantastic all-rounder. Photo quality is excellent.
Personally tho i take most of my stuff for printing to a local mini-lab that can handle digital and the results are far better AND cheaper than the Epson. I process the shots in Photoshop on my PC and then drag n drop copies of the ones i want printing onto a spare memory card and just take it to the lab.
They read the card, copy the images and the prints are ready next day – fully colour balanced and beutifully sharp.
Michael_McrMy 2 penneth worth:
Background: worked in professional colour laboratories for over 10 years in all forms of process from E-6 / C-41 thru to wall sized poster production. I attended many Kodak technical courses and have been a keen photographer since i was about 7 or 8.
I used Nikon and latterley Canon kit and bought a Canon 300D when they first came out ( around Oct 2004 as i recall ) as i had a stock of existing Canon lenses and accesories. I agree entirely that you should get the best glass possible (and use prime lenses if at all poss).
I disagree completely with any sentiment that film is better “quality” than digital.
Having taken and enlarge printed many pics from my 300D via home printer and pro digital lab i would not consider using film for anything, the grain and physical surface abberations that you get when enlarging negatives is far worse than any pixel artifacts or noise at 100 & 200 iso. 400iso has a little noticable noise, bettered slightly by some premium films.
In terms of enlargements, film will only better 6mp digital at enlargements above 16 x 12″…. and before anyone leaps in, make sure you are actually qualified to comment i.e you ACTUALLY HAVE made enlargements from both sources and studied them with a decent lupe – i have and i back digital everytime
So for what i do, which is mainly 12×8 prints or similar sized crops, digital wins everytime for me (and belive me, i am VERY picky)
Other than that i believe that modern DSLR’s , like my Canon, have image sensors which give superior contrast and colour rendition than many, many reversal or slide films (the honerable execption is good ol Kodachrome, which i understand is now virtually dead).
Mike
Michael_McrRight, after you take a shot with your 8m megapixel camera what’s your next step in Photoshop 7, just in case I’m doing it wrong (and I must be sometimes because some of the shots I take are just no good)
If some of you guys could post each step you all take after uploading your shots to the PC I’ll see if it’s something I’m just not doing right although I’ve got a feeling it’s to do with JPEG commpression? 🙁
A few general tips about digital photography. I personally use Photoshop (was brought up on it!), but I find that Paintshop Pro is just as good for many things and easier to understand and you can try it free). Use your camera to take some test shots and try the following
1) Always shoot the highest quality setting the camera will allow – it can be downsized later, but not upsized.
2) RAW mode does give higher quality, but the resulting image is up to 10 times bigger in storage size than Jpeg and the only real advantage is slightly better handling of very fine levels of brightness, contrast and colours – i think it is fair to say that many dedicated photographers have tried RAW and then gone back to high-quality JPEG as there is precious little difference. ( RAW is good for portraits and still-life subjects )
3) turn OFF any in-camera sharpening function if you intend to later use an image editing program – iphotoshop / will do a lot more precise job of sharpening the pic, Try the SHARPEN tool and the UNSHARP mask to see the difference they make
4) you can use the LEVELS function to correct brightness/ contrast in pics. Save a test pic somewhere on your PC that you don’t mind trashing and then play with the AUTO LEVELS function and MANUAL LEVELS function to see the difference they make.
5) when you save a Jpeg pic after altering, you may be asked how much compression to apply. 10 to 1 is the usual ratio as a good balance between quality and space. More than 10 to 1 will give a smaller file size, but reduced quality.
One trick worth trying is you want to reduce a file size (for web or e-mail) is to check the file properties for the number of unique colours and then reduce the colour count. You waste a lot of file space if you save an image as 64,000 or even 32,000 colours when the image doesn’t need this. It is often possible to reduce the file size by 50% or more without any noticeble difference, because you have removed non-visible fine shades from the image.
Last, but not least – make it a good pic in the first place. Library have many good books on photography techniques and topics on composition, lighting, exposure, depth-of-field etc as just as relevent to digital as film.
Happy snapping 🙂
Sign In
