PDA

View Full Version : Kananaskis Rally Photos



Melinda
11-10-2003, 01:28 PM
Enjoy!

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4288626467

Dirty_SOHC
11-10-2003, 01:46 PM
:clap: :clap:

Ekliptix
11-10-2003, 01:51 PM
what lens do you have?

Melinda
11-10-2003, 01:57 PM
For those? Umm I think I was only using my 50 mm lens on my camera. We had a bit of a hike to where we were watching from so too much equipment would suck to haul up the hills...I went with the lighter stuff :)

Lorabbit
11-10-2003, 01:58 PM
hey great pics!!

Ekliptix
11-10-2003, 02:03 PM
What do you have that's over 100mm? I'm considering a Sigma 70-300mm macro/tela.

Melinda
11-10-2003, 02:05 PM
Over 100? Umm just my telephoto lens...f/2.8 70-300 mm ultrasonic...works really great but super heavy...needs its own freakin monopod

tulit
11-10-2003, 02:48 PM
What do you have that's over 100mm? I'm considering a Sigma 70-300mm macro/tela.

Are you using Canon? The BEST value for your dollar has to be the 70-200 f4L. More expensive then the cheaper tele zooms, but sooooo worth the extra $$$.

Ive used the sigma 70-300 and canon 100-300 (non is) and both get a big thumbs down from me.

MrX
11-10-2003, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by Ekliptix
What do you have that's over 100mm? I'm considering a Sigma 70-300mm macro/tela.

What is the make of your camera. Maybe i can suggest something from there for ya.

Akagi Redsuns
11-10-2003, 04:32 PM
Not to steal the thread away from Melinda, but thought I would share my pics of the Kananaskis rally as well. Enjoy!

http://members.shaw.ca/Akagi_Redsuns/

4wheeldrift
11-10-2003, 07:40 PM
Awesome pics both of you :) Too bad I didn't bring my camera, riding behind recovery I got to see all the really ugly crashes on powderface.

Ekliptix
11-10-2003, 07:58 PM
sorry to hijack the thread. I love some of the Zoo Pics Mel.


I'm close to buying a Canon 300D. aka Digital Rebel.

I want a long range lense, but the tele/macro appeal is great also. IS doesn't seem to be a financial option now.

I need some clarification on Apature options. A lower F value (2.4) allows for faster shutter speeds in light condition 'A', but higher F values do not let as much light in?

thanks


edit: found info on apature -

"Aperture refers to the lens opening that admits light to the camera. The aperture is marked with numbers, called f/stops, that usually read like this: f/2.4 f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16 f/22. The lower the number (f/2.4) admits more light while f/22 admits less light. Additionally, a smaller aperture like f/22 gives you more "depth of field" or overall sharpeness from near focus to infinity. The important thing to know is that f/stops and shutter speeds are designed to send exactly twice as much light to the film with each increment. In other words, a shutter speed of 1/250 of a second will send twice as much light to the film as a shutter speed of 1/500 of a second. Conversely, a lens opening of f/4 will send twice as much light to the film as a lens opening of f/5.6. This means that as you change shutter speed from 1/250 to 1/500 you must also open your lens aperture one f/stop to maintain the same exposure value.

Lets say you're going to take a picture of a car and the car is parked. Your camera's meter gives you a reading and it sets the shutter speed to 1/60 of a sec. at f/16. You are using a telephoto lens and the camera is on a tripod. You take a photo and being digital, you look at the photo instantly. You don't like the fact that the background behind the car is too sharp. On the next photo, you open the lens to f/4 so as to reduce the depth of field. In order to maintain the same relative exposure value (correct exposure) you must use a faster shutter speed since you're letting more light hit the film (or chip in your case). Since you opened your lens four stops (f/4 f/5.6 f/8 f/11 f/16) from your original setting you must set your shutter speed to 1/1000 of a second (1/60 1/125 1/250/ 1/500 1/1000) to decrease the time that light hits the film. This combination of 1/1000 @ f/4 will give you the same exposure as 1/60 @ f/16. The only difference is now you have less depth of field, or overall sharpness. Additionally, if the car was in motion racing down a track, you could use the faster shutter speed of 1/1000 to "freeze" the action and obtain a sharp picture while the car was moving."

benyl
11-10-2003, 09:10 PM
I just bought a digital Rebel... man is it a sweet Camera... but I don't know if I can justify the $1700.

If you go to Blacks, you have until Jan 11, 2004 to return it... that gives you a lot of time to think about it.

I am thinking of picking up a traditional film camera as well and returning the one I don't want to keep after trying them out a bit.

/////AMG
11-10-2003, 09:27 PM
awesome pics

hjr
11-10-2003, 10:14 PM
good shots

SinisterProbeGt
11-10-2003, 10:56 PM
nice pics

C4S
11-11-2003, 12:56 AM
:D nice !

So, any PHOTOGRAPHY forum in beyond ? or any suggestion ? ( Alberta or Canada) :)

sputnik
11-11-2003, 09:49 AM
the 300-D sucks

i would really just save more money and get the Canon 10-D... SERIOUSLY... its REALLY worth it... for the best price on either go to Dons Photo on 17th ave SW and 11th st SW

tulit
11-11-2003, 11:10 AM
the 300-D sucks


How so?????

Melinda
11-11-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Ekliptix
sorry to hijack the thread. I love some of the Zoo Pics Mel.


Thanks! I took all those with my telephoto lens :) It works very well for me...haha it better!!


Originally posted by benyl
I just bought a digital Rebel... man is it a sweet Camera... but I don't know if I can justify the $1700.


There are only a few differences between that camera and my camera and I paid well over $1700 for it when i got it new 2 years ago...Haha now I'm thinking about getting a digi rebel as my play camera when I dont wanna take my D60 around with me :rofl: Ah well, lessons learned :D

benyl
11-11-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by tulit


How so?????

I asked him that in a PM.

Here is the reply.



all plastic... cheaply built
comes with a crappy lens
doesnt do 3200 iso
inflexible colour curve modifications
CCD is closer to the lens to you dont get the proper aspect ratio


I agree with the plastic part... it is kinda cheap and looks like it will scratch easily.

tulit
11-11-2003, 03:51 PM
all plastic... cheaply built
Up until the 10D, all of Canons non professional cameras were plastic. I agree though. The magnesium panels on the 10D are nice.


comes with a crappy lens
The kit lens is optional, you can buy it without. Isnt the point of the interchanagle lens system so that you can swap it with better ones anyways?


doesnt do 3200 iso
So? Even though 3200 is avail on the 10D, its so noisy its hardly what I call usuable . Its the exact same image chip in both cameras.


inflexible colour curve modifications
I dont understand this either. There might be some difference internally in the camera when your saving to JPEGS. If its raw however, this stuff should be taken care of with whatever color profiles you on the computer, as well as the raw decoder.


CCD is closer to the lens to you dont get the proper aspect ratio
I dont understand this? This would imply the camera no longer had the same focal point. Maybe you mean the fact that on some of the lenses the backplane is closer to the chip. The only way they get away with this is that the mirror is smaller in the 300D than the other EOS cameras. The distance between the focal point and sensor is still the same

Ben
11-11-2003, 04:26 PM
sure are grainy pictures for a $5000 cam

great shot subjects though, nice captures and such, lots of fun :)

benyl
11-11-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by tulit

I dont understand this? This would imply the camera no longer had the same focal point. Maybe you mean the fact that on some of the lenses the backplane is closer to the chip. The only way they get away with this is that the mirror is smaller in the 300D than the other EOS cameras. The distance between the focal point and sensor is still the same

from what I have read on the net and in the manual, because the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm, the lens effective acts like a 1.6x teleconverter. That is why it comes with a 18mm-55mm lens that is effectively the same as a 28mm-80mm lens that comes standard in most SLR camera kits.

Hey, for my use (being that I am taking introductory phot 200 at SAIT right now), it is more camera than I can use!

We are so way off topic! hahhaa:rofl:

Melinda
11-11-2003, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by benyl


from what I have read on the net and in the manual, because the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm, the lens effective acts like a 1.6x teleconverter. That is why it comes with a 18mm-55mm lens that is effectively the same as a 28mm-80mm lens that comes standard in most SLR camera kits.

Hey, for my use (being that I am taking introductory phot 200 at SAIT right now), it is more camera than I can use!

We are so way off topic! hahhaa:rofl:
Yes, it does have the 1.6x teleconverter. Mine does the same thing. Thats why in order to get a 50mm lens for everyday purposes I had to go with a 35mm lens to get as close as I could with my D60.

And as for your SAIT photo class, I took that class back in the day. That camera will give you WAY more of an advantage over your classmates...who's your teacher?

And yes, we are off topic :)

tulit
11-11-2003, 04:43 PM
from what I have read on the net and in the manual, because the CMOS sensor is smaller than a 35mm, the lens effective acts like a 1.6x teleconverter. That is why it comes with a 18mm-55mm lens that is effectively the same as a 28mm-80mm lens that comes standard in most SLR camera kits.



The 10D has this too. Infact, the only Canon digital SLR that doesn't have a multiplicaiton factor is the 1Ds and thats a $12,000 camera. The reason is that the sensor itself is physically smaller in size than a standard film 35mm frame. Its not really acting as a teleconverter (theres no optics involved), but it effectively CROPS the image to create a FIELD OF VIEW equivalent to a lens with 1.6x the focal length on a full size 35mm frame. Its confusing , yes. :) Sorry for going off topic. I will stop now.

benyl
11-11-2003, 06:06 PM
George Webber. seems like a pretty cool guy. We have only done the 2nd class so far. I still haven't decided what I want to do for my project... and who I am going to convince to let me take a portrait! haha

Melinda
11-11-2003, 06:26 PM
Ah we're doing our portit project now actually :) (i'm a full time student at SAIT)