First shots with L glass

[MediaMagic]

I received my new L lenses today. The difference is remarkable. I didn't get the chance to mess with them until after dark, but I had to take some shots. Some pics of my worthless cat and the moon.

The second full cat photo is very interesting in that I used a technique that works very well with film. It almost worked with digital, which is, front focus an animal's face and underexpose using a flash/softbox combination. This gives the illusion of motion as if the face is exploding out of the picture. Not quite there yet, but the illusion can be seen albeit not perfectly.

I'm really impressed with the glass, now as soon as the idiot behind the camera figures out what he's doing, life will be sweet.

http://mediamagicnw.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=50769

[scooter]

Nice shot of the cats EYES
You never know who is watching Enjoy your new toy as I am

[hurry]

Oh god ... I don't need (expensive) L lenses .. look some examples with "cheap" Sigmas/Tamron/Tokina

http://www.pbase.com/cool_hot
http://www.pbase.com/dagobert
http://www.pbase.com/donalduc

moon (http://www.pbase.com/image/21171601)

[MediaMagic]

hurry wrote:
Oh god ... I don't need (expensive) L lenses .. look some examples with "cheap" Sigmas/Tamron/Tokina

http://www.pbase.com/cool_hot
http://www.pbase.com/dagobert
http://www.pbase.com/donalduc

moon (http://www.pbase.com/image/21171601)



Hey! it's not the fault of the glass at this point, it's the fault of the shooter! I'm nowhere near doing credit to the capability of any lens as of yet. But the learning process is a blast.

Nice moon shot btw!

[igas]

MediaMagic wrote:
I received my new L lenses today. The difference is remarkable. I didn't get the chance to mess with them until after dark, but I had to take some shots. Some pics of my worthless cat and the moon.

Hi there Media,

Your excitement comes through strong man!

I am waiting (going crazy) for a 10D, 17-40L and 70-200L f/4 which should be in my hands in about two weeks. At least I hope so - 'coz the 17-40 seems to be chronically out-of-stock everywhere.

Reading posts like yours makes me sooooo jealous. Grrrrrr

It's my first DSLR (used Nikon FSLRs previously) and I figured I'd go the whole hog and get a couple of decent guns to get me going. Don't do a lot of super telephoto work so the 70-200 will probably do me fine for now. Maybe a 1.4x converter in the near future? Who knows?
Also a BG-ED3 and extra battery.....but I can already hear my credit cards complaining.

But what the heck.....you only live once.


Looking forward to seeing more of your pics.

Enjoy.

Best regards,
Ian
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

[MediaMagic]

Igas wrote:
MediaMagic wrote:
I received my new L lenses today. The difference is remarkable. I didn't get the chance to mess with them until after dark, but I had to take some shots. Some pics of my worthless cat and the moon.

Hi there Media,

Your excitement comes through strong man!

I am waiting (going crazy) for a 10D, 17-40L and 70-200L f/4 which should be in my hands in about two weeks. At least I hope so - 'coz the 17-40 seems to be chronically out-of-stock everywhere.

Reading posts like yours makes me sooooo jealous. Grrrrrr

It's my first DSLR (used Nikon FSLRs previously) and I figured I'd go the whole hog and get a couple of decent guns to get me going. Don't do a lot of super telephoto work so the 70-200 will probably do me fine for now. Maybe a 1.4x converter in the near future? Who knows?
Also a BG-ED3 and extra battery.....but I can already hear my credit cards complaining.

But what the heck.....you only live once.


Looking forward to seeing more of your pics.

Enjoy.

Best regards,
Ian
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


Hi Ian, yeah I'm enthusiastic as hell at this point. I still very new to the whole digital photography world, SLR photography too. I was an avid photographer about 20 years ago with manual Canons. I sold numerous prints, but even so, it was a labor of love rather than a profession.

With digital, it's the same but different. When I shoot in manual mode, the results I expect to get for the settings I select and what actually comes through are usually different. Sometimes way off, sometimes close, but never quite right. Practice, practice, practice. The 10D is my first DSLR as well. The only other SLR I have is an elan 2e. ANd even with that, I still would get better results with the manual canon. I just haven't gotten the hang of SLR's in general yet. So, I'm looking at this endeavor as a new beginning and a new learning process. I know i have the eye for superior photography, just not the technical skill with the new equiptment.

I still haven't begun shooting in raw mode. I figure I need to get the jpeg images straight from the camera up to the quality I'm looking for before I start the digital darkroom route.

I wish you the best of luck with the new 10D, 17-40 and 70-200. YOUR enthusiam comes through like a bullet! Ain't it great to be pumped up about something?

Here are some other shots with a more familiar lens to me. The results are almost there, but not quite. Some little league, plants, and ducks...

http://mediamagicnw.fotopic.net

[lightandlife]

Cool moon shots!

I did not know if 100-400mm L could take moon shots!

[MediaMagic]

lightandlife wrote:
Cool moon shots!

I did not know if 100-400mm L could take moon shots!

Well, thanks, but I shouldn't have used that cheap Tamron 2x teleconverter on the canon.

Here is one from the 10D w/ 100-400. Actually 2 shots, one taken at ISO 100, Tv 250, and the other taken at Tv 350. Both are Daylight WB which gives an interesting tone I think. Both are 100% crops. Improving, slowly but surely.

http://mediamagicnw.fotopic.net/show_collection.php?id=51399

[cowman345]

Your recent 9/12 moon shots are blurry, but it's not the fault of the lens. The yellow/orange hue hints at a low position in the horizon... you're shooting through a ton of atmosphere and you can see the heat waves on the edges... that's what's causing your blurriness. Try again when moon is well above horizon.

-dave-

[lightandlife]

MediaMagic wrote:
Both are 100% crops. Improving, slowly but surely.


Those are amazing shots!
Last Sunday night, I took a picture of the rising moon with 85mm in Helsinki, and the moon was blurred. It was bright all right, but I could not see any details like you did with your 100-400mm. But a Russian binocular could see some details of the moon!

[MediaMagic]

cowman345 wrote:
Your recent 9/12 moon shots are blurry, but it's not the fault of the lens. The yellow/orange hue hints at a low position in the horizon... you're shooting through a ton of atmosphere and you can see the heat waves on the edges... that's what's causing your blurriness. Try again when moon is well above horizon.

-dave-


Yes, you are correct, the moon was very low on the horizon. We are expecting a clear night tonight so I'll try again when it's towards the zenith. Thanks for the tip!

David

[bwb s30]

ok .. dumb question ... how do you get the captions under each thumbnail pic on the fotopic site ??

[MediaMagic]

bwb s30 wrote:
ok .. dumb question ... how do you get the captions under each thumbnail pic on the fotopic site ??

Not a dumb questions at all. Everything has a learning curve, even a gallery host. After you sign in and then you are at your main menu, at the top, in the "Gallery OPerations" box you have a drop down menu to select a collection to edit. select a collection, and then when the new screen loads, you'll have three options near the top - Properties, Images, Tools. Click on Images. Then you'd see the thumbnails of the images in the collection. Under each thumbnail there is a text box marked "Desc". Type your captions in those boxes and then click the "Save Changes" button.

That should do it!

David

[danphoto1]

Looks to me like you have some pretty nice shots some are tack sharp and some are little soft. try a Canon 24-70 f2.8 it's incredible and so sharp you are liable to cut yourself. Sigma makes some very good lenses but L lenses zooms in particular work better. I had a great Sigma 28-70 but it can't hold a can't match the Canon 24-70. I have a 1.8 20mm Sigma great lens very sharp same for the 14mm 2.8 I have used th Canon 17-35 2.8 which I own and also have uses 17-35 Canon. It just works better my Canon cameras. The Canon works better. For some reason in bright light it washes out but I know haw to work around that with manual settings. I think that it is a matter of how well you know your equiptment and it's limitations. The skill of the photogrpher and sometimes and I hate to admit it just plain luck.


Dan