Astronomy, Photography and Weather
July 19, 2019, 05:20:13 pm
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: IAA lecture programme continues alternate Wednesdays from September - an excellent programme of lectures- Queens University Belfast - Bell Lecture Theatre. Also keep an eye out for the Summer Events
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Two Wild Goats

Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: Two Wild Goats  (Read 713 times)
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« on: January 07, 2009, 12:12:39 am »

When I got to the  location for the sunset photo I saw two goats. They were given to a local rare breeds farm but are as near to wild as you'll get without being wild. They're   standing on the edge of the top of a quarry and the drop is steep and long. One day I hope to photograph them from the base when they are  on the slopes of the quarry- I've seen them there in the summer and they look like they are on the sldes on some  foreign mountains , like the ones I saw near Anchorage - I think they were mountain sheep though. With the first one I really would  have liked to have  activated the flash to get the eye  but it's malfunctioning, also I detect a slight movement too - light was poor as it was dusk. I'll try again in better light.





Report Spam   Logged

rjgjr
Guest
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2009, 02:40:38 am »

Great shots John, #2 is my pick!
Report Spam   Logged
jgs001
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1280


Horsham, Sussex, UK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2009, 08:12:57 am »

Good shots John, you did well to hold that at 1/5 at 310mm. You could have bumped the ISO up to get a faster shutter speed. #2 for me also. Be intriguing to see them on the cliff itself.
Report Spam   Logged

John
Canon 450d, EF-S 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, Raynox DCR250
HQE5 + C80ED & Vista 80s. NexStar Skymax 102 SLT.

*** My Astro Blog ***
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2009, 02:10:18 pm »

Not handheld, John. As ever, on a tripod with a cable release which allows me to keep the ISO to 100 and thus avoid any noise but  I wouldn't get noise up to 400. Does anyone think it would be better to up the ISO and get a faster speed even on the tripod ?     
Report Spam   Logged
jgs001
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1280


Horsham, Sussex, UK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2009, 02:14:16 pm »

Even on a tripod I reckon for something like the goat or a creature, you'd need a faster shutter to capture it... To much chance of it moving on you. It's bad enough at speeds of 1/60 to get a sharp shot of an animal...
Report Spam   Logged

John
Canon 450d, EF-S 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, Raynox DCR250
HQE5 + C80ED & Vista 80s. NexStar Skymax 102 SLT.

*** My Astro Blog ***
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2009, 02:45:18 pm »

Well, as I wrote  above I thought there was some movement with that first goat so  next time I have an animal I'll get the speed up but for still subjects I assume it doesn't matter.
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2009, 03:11:02 pm »

Quote
Does anyone think it would be better to up the ISO and get a faster speed even on the tripod ?
You obviously have your own way of working, and usually it's very effective. But, in poor light, I would bump up the ISO ... I'd sooner have more image noise than blurring caused by unwanted subject movement, if only because image noise can be processed, fairly effectively up to a point.
Report Spam   Logged
Roman White
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1479


Poltava, Ukraine


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2009, 03:43:13 pm »

Great shots, John  Smiley
The second goat looks fun to me  Grin ...and a very nice background
Report Spam   Logged

SkyWatcher 130/900mm EQ3, Bresser 76/700mm, 20x90 bino. and other, Olympus SP-550UZ
Eclipse & comet chaser, occultation & meteor observer
Poltava Astronomy Portal
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2009, 04:11:26 pm »

Quote
Does anyone think it would be better to up the ISO and get a faster speed even on the tripod ?
You obviously have your own way of working, and usually it's very effective. But, in poor light, I would bump up the ISO ... I'd sooner have more image noise than blurring caused by unwanted subject movement, if only because image noise can be processed, fairly effectively up to a point.


 I'll up the ISO then.  I  also have the option to select  A1 Focus mode  which will shoot in AF  One-Shot mode  but switch to A1 Servo (for moving subjects) the instant movement is detected . Here's a question I've been thinking about.

I'm dallying with the idea of a 70-200 f2.8 (canon) IS or no IS - I have to think about that. I'm wedded to my tripod as you know. I have a 100-400mm  f4.5 >5.6 and  from 300 > 400mm it's f5.6. At 200mm I can get f5. If I were to take  two photos ,one with the 70-200 f2.8 , ISO 200 and   1/200 sec. then next to it the  100-400 at 200mm and 200  ISO but I adjusted the speed to  two stops slower to compensate for the two stops of aperture  difference ie. f2.8 >f5.6 (or share the difference between the ISO and shutter speed) would I get exactly the same photo ?  I have a suspicion that the 70-200 f2.8 would give me a sharper if not better quality image because I think, I don't know for sure, that the glass in the 70-200 is of superior quality. They are both L series lenses. I would also like the 180mm f3.5  L series  macro lens which is very close to the max. of 200mm of the 70-200 and only one half  stop less so another poser is ,with this lens why would I need the 70-200 IS or no IS. What do you think ?  I hope I've got the figures right but is the principle correct ? The 180mm lens , however, has aperture blades  designed to give superb bokeh.
Report Spam   Logged
martinastro
Martin Mc Kenna
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5182


Maghera, N. Ireland


View Profile WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2009, 10:41:30 pm »

Fantastic John. You are really producing top quality images!!
Report Spam   Logged

brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2009, 12:44:17 am »

Quote
I'm dallying with the idea of a 70-200 f2.8 (canon) IS or no IS - I have to think about that. I'm wedded to my tripod as you know.
As you're aware, IS is no use on a tripod - you can switch it off, but if you leave it on then (a) there is a risk that gyro drift will actually cause "camera shake" in exposures lasting several seconds, (b) the camera's power consumption is slightly increased (Canon quote 20% in the manual that comes with the super tele family lenses) - which means there's more chance that you'll need a spare battery (and more chance that you'll discover that it's flat when you need it!)

If you're sure you'll always use it on a tripod then go for the version without IS - it's significantly cheaper, and it's one less thing to go wrong.

I have a 70-200 f/4L IS which I find fast enough - but I don't do "action photography" and I do hand-hold it for general photography. The 70-200 f/2.8 (with or without IS) is a sizeable, heavy lump which I think I'd probably want on a tripod anyway - the f/4 is significantly lighter & not too bad to cart around.

As for image quality, my 70-200 f/4L IS is the sharpest lens I have except for the 300/2.8. It really is very, very good indeed, for a zoom lens, even at full aperture (it's hardly necessary to stop it down at all, except to get more depth of field), and tolerates the 1.4x extender quite well. Most people who have tried the 2.8 say that it's at least as good! The f/2.8 version will also take the 2x extender without losing AF but the combination apparently lacks the edge in image quality, most people blame the extender & suggest that the mk II 2x extender is a lot better than the mk I. As for the 100-400 which you have, there are varied reports on the IQ at the tele end, suggesting not particularly effective quality control in manufacture rather than a basic problem in design ... but I think you'd find the 70-200 f/2.8 significantly sharper, when used without an extender.

If you're really into wildlife photography then do consider the 300/2.8 L IS. Yes, it is expensive, also bulky and heavy, but it's also a wonderful imaging system .... and the IS has a point, even when used on a tripod for fractional second exposures, it lets you get away with a tripod which is less rigid than a conventional 3Kg supertelephoto lens would require. The 300/4 is much, much more affordable, it's light enough to hand hold and the image quality is still good, though not even close to the incredible standard set by the 300/2.8.

Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2009, 02:23:25 pm »

Thanks,Brian. Btw. the 70-200 f2.8 IS can be  put on a tripod with the IS  still on. Is it sensitive to the stability and switches itself off or is it designed to overcome the problems that comes with leaving it on ?

The answer to my question then, is that the  70-200 f2.8 is sharper than when you allow two stops of light on the 10-400 to compensate for the two stops of aperture difference simply on the issue of glass quality. So that's sorted that out.  I would go for the f2.8 non IS . The f4 non IS - 414 and with IS..719. The f2.8 non  IS -  758  with IS 1178..( source..Pricebuster)

My neighbour also  has the excellent 70-200 f4 IS (every photographer should have one, lol) I've used it a couple of times but I'm not very good at handheld  (maybe I should practice more) and it only weighs 26.8 oz. (1.7 lbs.) I read many reviews on the 100-400 and was aware, as you've mentioned,  it is soft at f5.6  and it likes light - but I needed reach, I don't photograph sports but I do like to photograph birds in flight - the Red Kites for instance,I think I'v posted a couple on here when I first came on.I took my neighbour's 70-200 but quickly realised it didn't have enough reach so I wouldn't be getting the f2.8 for reach but quality. I also love aircraft, I go to Farnborough and the one near us at Fairford only 24 miles away.

 The 300mm f2.8 IS is 2874 (the f4 874 - what a difference for 1 stop of light,such a difference I had to  double check this) Here's a review of the 300 f2.8 and   before I got this review up I was about to write that we have to do what we can with what we've got here in the UK but if I lived in the US or Africa with it's diversified  wildlife and wonderful scenery, especially so in the US , I'd definitely be looking at a prime lens like this and then I saw that the  photos in this review were taken in Africa  but here I would have a job justifying it tbh for what I do.

The 300m f2.8..http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-300mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

Here's the review on the 300mm  IS f4 and it looks very good indeed. I really can't justify the 300mm f2.8  IS (I see there's no non-IS with either of them) at almost 3000 though. An awesome lens,indeed. I particularly like this reviewing site. http://photo.net/equipment/canon/300-4

Here's a couple of reviews on the 100-400 which you may find interesting.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-l-is-usm-lens-review.aspx

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/reviews/showproduct.php/product/297

I read several reviews when researching because reviewers  (I know a tester..rather than a reviewer  and  he told me.. lol) get 'goodies' from the companies - not bribes of course but maybe good offers SO.. I look around and take an average.

The problem with prime, as you'll appreciate , is that it's fixed. I've often wondered about this when you want to shoot  wildlife yet many bird photographers carry round the huge 600mm prime and now there's an 800mm prime f5.6 (7700) What if it's a wader for instance , I assume  it would have to be the right distance  away ? This has baffled me for a while. With the zoom you just pull back or extend  with the lens. I've never tried a prime so I can't answer this for myself (I do have the 28mm  f2.8 for the stars but I've yet to use it but this is different to a bird that can come closer or go further away)
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2009, 02:35:50 pm »

Fantastic John. You are really producing top quality images!!

Thanks, Martin much appreciated. The quality may be good with the brown goat but I'm not overley impressed with the housing estate behind and below it.. lol. I should have asked it to move over to the left a bit. lol  As you see ,Brian is imparting his knowledge and experience  re. lenses  this time so I hope  my photographs will improve  in particular circumstances when I get another lens. It's very heartening to get  such positive comments (from everyone on here ) but I'm pretty hard on myself and always look to improve and also  welcome any comments that would go to making a better job next time.

It's a pity all this is in a goatee thread which  some may pass over now and not realise that there is such a lot of info. here. I should have asked the question in a separate thread really.
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2009, 04:21:19 pm »

Quote
What if it's a wader for instance , I assume  it would have to be the right distance  away ? This has baffled me for a while. With the zoom you just pull back or extend  with the lens.
Fact of the matter is, you usually can't get close enough so you end up cropping to get the final composition. If the target gets too close then you simply have to switch to head shots, or change the lens!
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #14 on: January 08, 2009, 04:23:57 pm »

Quote
the 70-200 f2.8 IS can be  put on a tripod with the IS  still on. Is it sensitive to the stability and switches itself off or is it designed to overcome the problems that comes with leaving it on ?
Not having one I'm not sure .... but with the IS lenses I have, you can hear a "rumble" as the IS motors start up when the shutter release is half pressed, if you have the lens on a tripod with the IS enabled it still "rumbles" but doesn't if the IS is switched off.
Report Spam   Logged


Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy