All Forum Comments
Automatic gainsay etc.
Comment by Oggy posted on New Topic Heading for the Forum at 20/09/2009 - 21:24
K10D wrote:
They have proved it can be done. So the only how, is how?
Regards
Good point. It's relative velocity not absolute that causes most of the difficulty.Oggy wrote:
I do not think the aperture would make a lot of difference Mike. The ISO might make a tiny difference. As to the speed - it's a law of diminishing returns. If you half the speed I doubt you will get twice as sharp an image.
Now to the bit that really defeats me.
The top aircraft photographers are using exposures in the order of 1/100 seconds to get real prop blur, and still producing crystal clear images of airframes.
Bit like sports photographers getting sharp motorcycle shots with blurred wheels? One difference is head on, fortunately most prop powered planes are not fst enough, head on to spoil depth, yet a slow shutter will still provide blur and "freeze" the fuselage.I do not think the aperture would make a lot of difference Mike. The ISO might make a tiny difference. As to the speed - it's a law of diminishing returns. If you half the speed I doubt you will get twice as sharp an image.
Now to the bit that really defeats me.
The top aircraft photographers are using exposures in the order of 1/100 seconds to get real prop blur, and still producing crystal clear images of airframes.
They have proved it can be done. So the only how, is how?
Regards
Thus far I had been relying on high shutter speeds to get a sharp picture. It seems a better technique might be to rely more on accurate panning.
Comment by Oggy posted on Flying Legends Practice Day 10/07/09 at 20/09/2009 - 21:23
The consensus on Pentax Forums is that the 600 F4 is completely discontinued.
I'd cheerfully settle for a DA*400 f5.6 or maybe a DA* 100ish - 400.
I'd cheerfully settle for a DA*400 f5.6 or maybe a DA* 100ish - 400.
Comment by Oggy posted on Pentax Has No Long Lens at 20/09/2009 - 21:04
I think Mike has posted his second gull before. Each time I see it I think OI!!
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Gull1.jpg[/IMG]
Then I remember I got the gull on his way back home.
I also got a youngster trying out his camouflage.
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Gull2.jpg[/IMG]
Being around Worthing there are no shortage of them and they remind me of wonderful beaches* in Cornwall of my youth.
* unlike Worthing
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Gull1.jpg[/IMG]
Then I remember I got the gull on his way back home.
I also got a youngster trying out his camouflage.
[IMG]http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc222/Oggy3323/Gull2.jpg[/IMG]
Being around Worthing there are no shortage of them and they remind me of wonderful beaches* in Cornwall of my youth.
* unlike Worthing
Comment by Oggy posted on Seagulls, who has a photo? at 20/09/2009 - 20:51
My own feelings are that TCs are no substitute for mms.
It might help a bit if there was a good one generally available.
It might help a bit if there was a good one generally available.
Mike-P wrote:
There is quite a bit of rumour that a DA* 400mm f5.6 may be coming.
Put my name down for one please, but you'll excuse me if I don't hold my breath.There is quite a bit of rumour that a DA* 400mm f5.6 may be coming.
Comment by Oggy posted on Pentax Has No Long Lens at 20/09/2009 - 17:25
To reinforce what George says, I have the DA*300, the Sigma 150-500, and an average(Tamron) 1.4TC.
950 times out of 1000, the best image will be cropped from the 300. 49 times it will be from the 150-500, and 1 will be with the 300 on the TC. A good TC may do better but they are expensive and hard to find.
The Sigma 150-500 is capable of producing a reasonable image, but given it's price, it has limitations. I have posted some of my better ones here.
One of the members has the 50-500 (Bigma) for sale here.
950 times out of 1000, the best image will be cropped from the 300. 49 times it will be from the 150-500, and 1 will be with the 300 on the TC. A good TC may do better but they are expensive and hard to find.
The Sigma 150-500 is capable of producing a reasonable image, but given it's price, it has limitations. I have posted some of my better ones here.
One of the members has the 50-500 (Bigma) for sale here.
Comment by Oggy posted on zoom/telephoto beyond 300mm and wide angle? at 20/09/2009 - 00:25
Another of my hobbies which relies on rechargeable batteries is radio controlled aircraft. In this application, correct function of batteries is much more critical - failure would start at loss of an airframe (about £250 upwards, some in the thousands) and could involve much more serious issues (endangering people around you).We use Sanyos (eneloops) almost exclusively, although some people have been getting reasonable results with Vapextechs, but the jury is still out.
In real terms over the life of a set of batteries you are saving your self a very small amount of money---
Another more general point, the way photographers use their batteries is very different from modellers. People round here talk about low self discharge - there is no way this should be relied on. If you are going to use a set of batteries, charge them before use.
In real terms over the life of a set of batteries you are saving your self a very small amount of money---
Another more general point, the way photographers use their batteries is very different from modellers. People round here talk about low self discharge - there is no way this should be relied on. If you are going to use a set of batteries, charge them before use.
Comment by Oggy posted on Cheap NiMH batteries at 19/09/2009 - 23:57
Our friends at SRS are offering four options. They must either be intending to stock them or relying on Pentax for a fairly short lead time.
One way or another someone is going to have a fair cupboardful, even with modern computer aided manufacturing.
One way or another someone is going to have a fair cupboardful, even with modern computer aided manufacturing.
Comment by Oggy posted on Pentax K-x at 19/09/2009 - 23:35
