Astronomy, Photography and Weather
August 24, 2019, 06:59:53 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  

Stormy Portrush (Terrible Images!)

Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Stormy Portrush (Terrible Images!)  (Read 1170 times)
martinastro
Martin Mc Kenna
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5182


Maghera, N. Ireland


View Profile WWW
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2009, 04:08:12 pm »

Excellent information. I have saved those links John and read through the details. That looks like exactly the kind of thing I need!. The tripod looks good to and very strong. If it hurts my arms to lift it then I will be getting a good workout because I would walk for miles with tripod in hand.

One question, is it possible to get a sturdy tripod that allows you to look through the camera's viewfinder at head height?. I'm honestly sick bending over to look through things or kneeling down  Smiley
Report Spam   Logged

brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: January 14, 2009, 04:57:04 pm »

Quote
is it possible to get a sturdy tripod that allows you to look through the camera's viewfinder at head height?
Not the lightest, or the cheapest, but last May I had my Manfrotto 028B at full height with the centre column racked right up to get a view of the conjunction of the Moon & Mercury .... with a very heavy 400mm f/2.8 lens on top. Still steady enough. I needed a stelpadder to get my eye to the viewfinder, which was over 8 feet above the ground!

2134 UT 6th May 2008, Canon 5D, 400mm, 1sec f/4, ISO 400
Report Spam   Logged
jgs001
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1280


Horsham, Sussex, UK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2009, 05:02:50 pm »

I've just checked my redsnapper Martin, it's not as tall as Brian's, but with the legs fully extended and the centre column at full height, the viewfinder is about 6' off the floor.
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 ***
martinastro
Martin Mc Kenna
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5182


Maghera, N. Ireland


View Profile WWW
« Reply #18 on: January 14, 2009, 05:15:05 pm »

My goodness that's tall Brian!...but it must be a greater joy to use compared with the smaller ones. Very nice image by the way!

John, thanks for checking that out, that sounds perfect. I'm going to have to take an image of my tripod so you guys can see what poor gear I'm using.

Here's a link to the bridge camera I'm using. Any comments are welcome...

http://www.fujifilm.co.uk/digital/cameras/s6500/

Review...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06071302fujifilms6500fd.asp
Report Spam   Logged

JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: January 14, 2009, 07:31:45 pm »

Absolutely. I forgot to mention it.. I also wanted an eye level tripod, that was an important issue for me  too  and yes, you can get eye level tripods and this is an eye level tripod. I'm 5'.10" and have no problem,infact I don't often use it at eye level to get better perspectives. I was just about to click 'post' but I'll measure that tripod- it's here . I had  the carbon fibre Mannfrotto and twice the extension leg came out. I left it with Morris Phot. yesterday  so they could get it fixed (still under guarantee). They don't make that model anymore  but it's unusual to have this happen with a Manfrotto.   I  and got a phone call today from one of the staff and they said they'd had a chat about it and were annoyed with Manfrotto and have spoken to the rep. about it and  would I like a Gitzo !! Would I like a Gitzo  ? -  you bet. It's the BMW, the Rolls Royce and  they bought Manfrotto out so it's the same company now.  They are mailing it to me and I'll have it in the morning. I had to ring them back to remind them that the spikes were on the Manfrotto and they said they'd sort that out and the assistant I spoke to said the Gitzo was a very good model, same weight etc. and a better tripod so they've done me proud. They were too expensive for me to justify buying one..so, the reason  I'm telling you this is that you now know  why I said they were good people to do business with,this  hadn't happened when I posted  that yesterday.

Ok .. this tripod,the one we're talking about in the link (£105) . I've borrowed it from my neighbour whilst mine was away.  I've extended it fully and legs splayed and the viewfinder for my camera which is 3.5 inches in height, is eye level but I have it  on a ball head and that's another 7 inches (19cm) so I have to reduce the 2nd .(there are two extensions) leg making it more stable. They are thick legs too  and it weighs 5.3 lbs. (2.4 kgs. add  add 3lbs for the ball head too) Something for you to think about., every bit helps.
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: January 14, 2009, 07:35:02 pm »

It's not a joy to carry .... most of the time it wears a 393 "monopod" gimbal head & gets used as an altaz stand for my 80mm refractor & bins. I use a Manfrotto 190 (the magnesium one) as a normal portable photo tripod, steady enough for most work, about half the weight and considerably less bulky than the 028, but not solid enough for a 400mm f/2.8 lens.

Incidentally the Manfrotto site lists the max height of the various models they make (the head of course adds a few inches extra).
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2009, 11:05:57 am »

Just got back here and read the above posts. I'm sure they weren't there when I posted mine or I would have commented .Never mind,the vagaries of technology.

 Poor Martin lol. advice from everywhere  . Good though.  Here's a bit more. Don't get a tripod with 4 extension legs, I did by mistake and changed it for IMO the more stable 3 leg extension model. If you are interested in the one I've mentioned,Martin, I see it's  down to around £105-£108 in other retailers  too so maybe you have one where you live and you can check it out.  I wonder if they are going to phase it out ?  but that doesn't matter .  I'm impressed with your tripod, Brian when I read that you extended the centre column fully ,that usually   causes some destabilisation. The good thing about eye level ,apart from the ease on the back bending down, is that with a ball head  you can drop the height, the less of the thinner last leg on the ground the better.   Which 190 Brian ?  I've looked and there are quite a few 190 series .

We're all waiting to see what you get now,Martin. lol-         
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2009, 11:45:15 am »

Forgot to respond re. the camera question.  I've looked  at the review and it's a good camera for it's purpose and this is it's purpose. It's regarded as a 'fun tool ' and one step on  from the compact. The reviewer states:

'Fujifilm expects the FinePix S6500fd to be a popular camera for hobbyist photographers. It will be a powerful, fun tool for people looking to move on from their compact digital camera, but who donít want the restrictions or level of manual input that can be required by a Digital SLR.

 In relation to DSLR's he uses the words, 'restrictions or level of manual input that can be required with a DSLR'  he's not using the important word 'versatility' which DSLR gives you in other words 'total control'  The camera is all about the  'Face Detection Technology ' feature (the police could do with that lol)  and says that research shows that as most people photos are taken in low light then the 100-3200ISO feature will take care of that but he fails to mention noise. My 40D has the same range,'high' is ISO 3200 and I would do my best to avoid anything over 800 despite what the reviewers are saying. One reviewer took a photo at 3200 and his verdict was that considering it was 3200 it was good. 'Considering' ? well as I say, the lower the ISO the better. I think Brian mentioned up to 400 is fine and that's about as high as I would want to go but to get a photo I wanted if going higher was the only way then that takes priority over quality but even then the lowest I could get away with to give me a decent shot.
He states that because the lens is fixed it avoids the problem of dust collection because you aren't changing lenses BUT the other side of the coin is that you are stuck with it and you really need a range of lenses. I go from 100-400 (3 lenses) You can't hope that a fixed lens will cope with the varying conditions and subjects that you want to photograph.
I see it's 6.3 mp.  These days mobile phones are at that level hence the surprising quality of photos. I appreciate that mp relate to printing but it also affects quality and I think that you need at least 8mp preferably 10/12.

My verdict, Martin. ? Time to move on. You've looked at the Canon 400D I think. and the 450D. Good DSLR's.
 
Report Spam   Logged
jgs001
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1280


Horsham, Sussex, UK


View Profile WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2009, 12:01:29 pm »

Might be worth a look at the 1000d as well Martin, it appears to be a halfway house between the 400d and the 450d. As a very happy 450d user, I have to say it's a superb camera. The other one that appears to be producing some truly wonderful results is the Panasonc FZ28, although cost wise I don't think it's much cheaper than an SLR.
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 ***
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2009, 01:32:07 pm »

Quote
I think Brian mentioned up to 400 is fine and that's about as high as I would want to go but to get a photo I wanted if going higher was the only way then that takes priority over quality but even then the lowest I could get away with to give me a decent shot.
Exactly.

Quote
He states that because the lens is fixed it avoids the problem of dust collection because you aren't changing lenses BUT the other side of the coin is that you are stuck with it and you really need a range of lenses. I go from 100-400 (3 lenses) You can't hope that a fixed lens will cope with the varying conditions and subjects that you want to photograph.
And "superzooms" are always a compromise .... BTW dust with a fixed lens is not unknown, especially with zooms which can have a tendency to suck fine particles in - and very fine particles are enough to cause problems with a bridge/compact camera as the sensor is so small.

Quote
I see it's 6.3 mp.  These days mobile phones are at that level hence the surprising quality of photos. I appreciate that mp relate to printing but it also affects quality and I think that you need at least 8mp preferably 10/12.
Depends how big you want to print. Up to postcard size, it's impossible to tell the difference between a good 2MP image and a 20MP image! The quality of the pixels is more important - a lower pixel count means bigger pixels, hence more photons & lower noise.

For web publishing, even 1MP is far more than is necessary!
Report Spam   Logged
brianb
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1228



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2009, 01:38:33 pm »

Quote
Which 190 Brian ?  I've looked and there are quite a few 190 series .
The one I have is the 190CXPRO3

BTW the Canon 1000D sits below the 450D in the model lineup - less pixels (but still enough for A3 prints from the whole frame), no spot meter function but otherwise fairly similar. A very capable camera, and good value if bought at the right price - like most Canon cameras, the RRP is ridiculous.
Report Spam   Logged
JohnC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1631

Gloucester : UK


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2009, 04:23:46 pm »

..and yet more for you, Martin.

 I see I put my lens  range at 100-400 (3 lenses)  That should have read 10mm - 400mm. Canon are always top penny. Out of interest I'll see what the equivalents are with Nikon it's main rival.

re. dust etc.  ,I read that the worst is from cigarette smoke  because the particles are very fine - I don't smoke.

Ah well,Brian, I defer to your  greater knowledge on these pixels. I've had discussions about them before and one suggestion was that to up the pixel count  is more  a marketing ploy, the new Canon 5D 11 is 21.1 mp. I think the quality argument is best kept to sensor size really and the full frame cameras win there ( I believe lol-  what say you, Brian ?)
I think if Martin ends up with the 400, 100 or 450 he'll be happy. I think he's leaning towards the 450D
Report Spam   Logged
martinastro
Martin Mc Kenna
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5182


Maghera, N. Ireland


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2009, 11:51:29 pm »

Great information guys. These kinds of discussions are more than helpful. I've been reading over it all and trying to digest everything. Certainly sounds like it's time to move on and time to smash open the piggy bank lol.

John, I do have my eye on the Canon 450d simply because of the live view screen which is something I have grown used to with my current camera. I still have your emails saved because they are valuable sources of info. Thanks very much.

Don't know if I will end up at the coast this weekend or not unless a friend wants to go. Top winds are during night time but the coastal areas on Sunday would be great for convection. The W and NW might have t-storms so the Donegal area would be a great location. Don't think I will be there though lol...we will see. I would hate to miss out on a waterspout!


Thanks again.
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