BimmerFest BMW Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
I'm a Mac
Joined
·
17,699 Posts
I'm actually not trying for sharpness. That's too easy... :)
Jon, that's a *great* line. I'll be sure to remember to use it the next time my wife complains that all my pix of our boys are blurry.

:thumbup:

I'm convinced that it's my D40's fault and not mine. So much so that I'm determined to replace it with either an XSi or Alpha (a300?) this summer.
 

·
Bimmerfied
Joined
·
594 Posts
goodkarma,

you should read this review then... found from another thread.

http://gizmodo.com/379634/entry+lev...sony-alpha-a350-vs-nikon-d60-vs-olympus-e+420

Jon,

I was referring to the subject. I realize you're wanting to make the water blurred, and the surfer not to give the impression of him going fast. Maybe a 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed instead of that 1/40 you used in the first image. Looks like you were using ISO800 too... a little noisy. I try not to use anything greater than ISO 400 to keep noise manageable. But as I said before, it's still a really cool shot.
 

·
Bimmerfest Founder
Joined
·
15,590 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Jon,

I was referring to the subject. I realize you're wanting to make the water blurred, and the surfer not to give the impression of him going fast. Maybe a 1/50 or 1/60 shutter speed instead of that 1/40 you used in the first image. Looks like you were using ISO800 too... a little noisy. I try not to use anything greater than ISO 400 to keep noise manageable. But as I said before, it's still a really cool shot.
Actually, the surf photographers that I am attempting to emmulate shoot at 1/25 for this type of effect.

My camera works great at ISO 1600 without noise and can go all the way to 3200.

The noise had to do with the fact that it was quite dark and raining.

Thanks for the feedback.
 

·
.
Joined
·
17,965 Posts
Actually, the surf photographers that I am attempting to emmulate shoot at 1/25 for this type of effect.

My camera works great at ISO 1600 without noise and can go all the way to 3200.

The noise had to do with the fact that it was quite dark and raining.

Thanks for the feedback.
At 700+ mm? :yikes:
That's not hand held, is it?
 

·
Bimmerfest Founder
Joined
·
15,590 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Really? You may want to look into a gimbal attachment like the Wimberly Sidekick, assuming you're using Arca-style clamps and plates with your tripod.
The ball head that I have is probably not compatible (Manfrotto), so it'd make more sense for me to just by the actual Wimberly head, right?
 

·
TMS
Joined
·
9,288 Posts
It would probably make more sense to upgrade to a head that uses the Arca-style clamp system. This clamping method is the standard. An excellent ballhead like the RRS BH-55 in combination with a sidekick would only be a bit more than the Wimberly head. You would not be limited to only having a gimbal head, and you wouldn't have to swap lens and camera plates to switch between the two clamping systems. (edit: as noted in Thom Hogan's article, the Sidekick is sufficiently robust to support your largest lens, the 300 f2.8 - since he's using his to support a 200-400 f4, a heavier lens)

FWIW, I use an Arca-Swiss ballhead (on a Gitzo tripod), a Really Right Stuff L-plate for my camera body, and replacement lens collars from Kirk Photo for the 80-200 f2.8 af-s and 300 f4 af-s. I've been tempted by the Sidekick, but have so far resisted.

Here are a few links on the subject of camera support:
http://www.bythom.com/support.htm
http://reallyrightstuff.com/home.html
http://www.kirkphoto.com/
 

·
.
Joined
·
17,965 Posts
Nope.

I generally use a tripod with a ball head.

These were all shot w/o image stabilization.
Is Canon IS like Nikon VR, where they recommend that you not use it on tripod?
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top