GKPE: General Ramblings thread

Wazza wrote in post #3055291
Hey Tony, I'm going against the group here.

I don't really like neither of the images. If no one had noticed, the quality in the first seems well overdone - I'm guessing during the 60 second exposure the camera moved a bit in the wind - hence there needs to be a form of compromise, working out all variables to achieve the best result - Hence why sometimes I will up the ISO to 200/400, which will still appear clean, and have a 15 second shutter speed. Last night I was shooting 15-30 seconds, ISO 100-400, F5.6 - F16.. Wider aperture, as it got darker.

Yes it was very gusty. I did find out how to work my stutter realse though
Also people need to be aware that the camera has trouble focusing in the dark
the shots the night before were better, and next time I do long ecposures I will make sure tripod is low, there is no wind and no one jumping around.

Anyone know the program ExposurePlot
http://www.cpr.demon.n​l/prog_plotf.html
It analyses all your photos & tells you which focal length, Iso, aperture and shutter speed you use the most.
Here are my results from 4980 photos taken this year.
From this you can see that
most of my photos where taken at 80 mm
F8
ISO 100
0.008 of a second

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Shame its for .jpg file only

IainB wrote in post #3055414
Time for another question.... Tell me about these ND grad filters.... I can research what affect they have, but what lens do you most commonly use one on? Or do you have several?

The idea behind a Graduated ND filter is to stop the sun (at the top of frame) blowing out the forground. They come in 4 or so flavors as far as stops and there is aslo hard and soft graduations as well.

It can be done in PP but thats 2 late. A CP filter is a must. I dont have UV filters on my lens.

On Full frame I have to watch that I dont catch the edge of my holders other wise its a small cost that gives great benifits

ND Grads are an absolute must for landscapes IMO. Cheap as chips for some Cokin ones too.

Got to say I'm quite impressed with how sharp that Sigma lens Wazza's using is. Handle these all day at work and actually never really liked how they felt, but you can't argue with the results.

Which one? The Sigma 10-20? I do find it a bit soft at times, so I prefer my 17-40. However on objects like this, sharpness can't easily be seen, as half the image is blurry water, and it's dark.

I was thinking of the longer one you used for those beach shots with the birds, the 130-500 is it?

manipula wrote in post #3058284
I was thinking of the longer one you used for those beach shots with the birds, the 130-500 is it?

120-300 F2.8.

He will add the sigmonster soon once the 300-500F2.8 is realesed

I will go for the 300-500 myself

Haven't you got enough lenses?

manipula wrote in post #3058342
Haven't you got enough lenses?

It's like a woman with shoes...or handbags...or !!! one can never have enough.

That 170-500 is crap quality. 50-500 is ok
120-300 is superb.

manipula wrote in post #3058342
Haven't you got enough lenses?

I know I havnt
Already got another 2 primes lined up
and 1D body

Wazza wrote in post #3058437
That 170-500 is crap quality. 50-500 is ok
120-300 is superb.

Agreed.

Any way Sigma is a good brand that often fills the canon focal length holes.
I have owned the 10-20, 24-70, 50-500 and they are all great esp on 1.6 crop

Agreed. Good lenses for buttons I find. They produce some utter shyte too like!

Wazza wrote in post #3058437
That 170-500 is crap quality.

That's why I went bigma. Everywhere I read said the 170-500 was rubbish. Still saving my beer tokens for 70-200 2.8.