All Forum Comments
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on 16-50 Purple Fringing at 10/03/2008 - 10:34
I took some test shots with the 16-50 at SRS on saturday, and wasn't that impressed with the focal length extremes at wide apertures, edges of the frame didn't look too good, with CA being particularly bad a wide angles.
Don't think this really helps you, but at least it might indicate yours isn't a one off.
Laptop's about to run out of power so can't post an example.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on 16-50 Purple Fringing at 09/03/2008 - 22:14
And he was paid for his services, at a not inconsiderable hourly rate.
But I will ensure that I check before I do it again.
Cheers,
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 23:14
Though it's quite sharply cut off - is there a lot of built-up area out-of-shot to the right?
I did have a good time, and I hope to repeat it, and get some better shots. Most of the ones I took were blurred, and I think that was when I had the camera too far into the slipstream.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 16:26
To be honest, it does just look like the dirty haziness you get around this area. The visitor centre where I work overlooks the East End/Dagenham/Romford area (sounds enticing, doesn't it? ), and you often get this brownish haze hanging over it. Just reminds me of this.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 15:55
Model might be slightly different, had a 2 blade prop.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 15:38
Looking again at the original, the top right corner definitely suffers a lack of definition, which the top left doesn't. I wonder if this was due to decentring of the lens due to the slipstream. At 18mm the barrel of the lens is extended, and this lens has a tendency to wobble a full extension. With a fair wind blowing against one side I guess it's feasible it moved the lens barrel enough to effect the focus plane. : I've not noticed a problem with it before in this respect.
Dan
P.S. I'm leaving the horizon as it is, sorry Chris, just shut your eyes.
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 15:04
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 14:29
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 13:51

K10D, 16-45mm @ 18mm, f/5.6, 1/180s, ISO200, polariser
Sorry about the intrusive watermark, but I do NOT want/need this to appear anywhere else! Not implying anyone here would, but someone might come across it and think it was just what they needed for something.
Thanks for all the advice, most appreciated and useful. It was taken from a microlight, doors off, leaning out enough to mostly avoid the wing struts (small area cloned out top right), but not too much so that I didn't get too buffeted by the wind (doing about 60 knots).
Had fun doing it, but it was COLD! Hopefully the client will like it, haven't heard back yet.
Dan
Comment by Daniel Bridge posted on Aerial Photography at 11/04/2008 - 13:43


Hi Dan,
The quality of your testing was obviously much better than mine
I was impressed by your duck pictures with the 300 - I guess the Pentax people let you walk around outside the shop with it?
R
Although a deposit on the 300mm was sorely tempting.
Yes, I tried it outside the shop. I was with the other lady there, (Chris's wife? should really have ckecked ), a very nice lady who didn't mind me taking it for a quick walk. Would have liked to have given it a longer try, but that would've been unfair on all the nothers who wanted to see it.
Should have seen how it was at minimum focus too.
Dan