MBAR said:

---

flintdragon said:

---

Have any tips on taking indoor volleyball shots as far as settings go? I've read other blogs about it but my picture always seem not a sharp and also more grainy. Obviously lighting sucks indoors but the place I was at last weekend was ok lit.

Canon 60D - seems to be grainy at ISO 1600+
Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS

The settings I've been using on full manual: 1/1000 SS, 2.8, 1600-2000 ISO.

---

A couple of things here:

-Shooting the lens wide open is great for letting in light, but you're not going to maximize sharpness so you're going to get softer pictures. Try stopping down a bit here.

---

Let's do a test. I'm a firm believer in shooting wide open as the lens allows unless I don't want the bokeh, like landscape or when I want a bit more DOF. These pictures are taken with a Canon 1.6x body with 70-200mm f2.8 lens tripod mounted at 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm at f2.8 and f8. I know many believe that lenses are sharper between f8 to f11.. but from my anecdotal experience.. not always and even if they are, I don't know that it's that evident. Can you tell which pictures were taken at f2.8 vs. f8? I put this test up because for indoor sporting events, if you have a lens like 70-200mm f2.8, I say shoot it wide open as faster shutter speed is more crucial than the aperture. Just an opinion.

Test1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

Test 5

Test 6

dubi said:

---

Hi!

---

Hello! Merry Christmas!

Guitarsoup said:

---

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

Ehhh....I thought you'd be hanging around here.

I can't believe you left Kwanon to go to Nikkor. What don't you like about 14 fps of 1DX????

That being said.. I just picked up a 5DS-R. I want to see how much detail I can print with that bad boy 50.6 mp!

---

On my 1DX, I always shot it at 10fps rather than higher anyway. The D4 is a much better camera, imo. No regrets. 1DX2 just came out and I switched 3 years ago.


My FIL has the 5DSR and loves it. I've got the D800. Love the colors and depth. So much shadow detail, it is unreal.

---

Dude,

Were you at the LSU game?? If you were...I thought you were flashed on TV...

That was probably me.

I'm new to photography and looking to buy my first camera. I want to use it for when I travel so I'd prefer a light weight camera that I can bring with me. I also like shooting video.

I've been researching and debating with myself for the past few months whether I want to get the Sony A7 ii or the Sony a6500. I want to go mirrorless because of the lighter weight as compared to DSLRs. Image stabilization is also important to me because of the videos I plan to take. I'm leaning towards the a6500 because it can take 4K video as well as 120fps for slow motion. The only big difference I can see is that the A7 ii has a full frame sensor while the a6500 has a crop frame sensor.

A few questions:

1. Do you have any suggestions between the two cameras above?
2. Both cameras have the same resolution, but does a full frame sensor have better quality than a crop sensor?

I would always go with the full frame sensor if possible and it will have a noticeable quality difference, especially as you lose light.

AgMechEngr said:

---

A few questions:

1. Do you have any suggestions between the two cameras above?
2. Both cameras have the same resolution, but does a full frame sensor have better quality than a crop sensor?

---

1. Having used A7r (dreadfully slow focus, but I know it's improved) and current owner of a6300, look at the lens selection before you decide. A7ii will require FE lenses, limited in selection and expensive. a6500 has a wider selection including E-mount.

2. Same resolution yet larger sensor in A7ii will allow better low-light high ISO performance due to lower pixel density than a6500. Obviously you can expect a better IQ.

That being said, once you get into FE lenses and/or Metabones-Sigma adapters to use Canon lenses, your portability benefit starts to wane.

Unless you're focused on one genre of photography, I'm not sure your photography interest will be satisfied with 1 camera body.

I say buy A7RII and a few FE G-Master Lenses as your primary then a6500 as a backup and video work.

You'll be happier.

Quote:

---

Unless you're focused on one genre of photography, I'm not sure your photography interest will be satisfied with 1 camera body.

---

Some of us use 1 camera body......

Now we do have separate cameras that we use scuba diving, but I'll argue those don't count. No detachable lenses.

dubi said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless you're focused on one genre of photography, I'm not sure your photography interest will be satisfied with 1 camera body.

---

Some of us use 1 camera body......

Now we do have separate cameras that we use scuba diving, but I'll argue those don't count. No detachable lenses.

---

Well.....

You two are the exception to the rule... very often.

Are you doing astrophotography through a telescope or just off the camera lens?


I got that adapter btw, haven't had a night I could get out and try it. Hoping with a waxing moon towards NYE I'll get to at least try it. Seems to work very well, and keeps the sensor down in the correct focal plane as far as I can tell.

Beautiful!

Oops, reply was meant for MNF.

I tried to do a time lapse of milky shots over the Chisos back in June but clouds ruined the view. The one MKF got is awesome though. Well done.

Awesome time-lapse Milkyway MKF!!! I think I'll give it try come March and April. If I can get up to Lassen if the road is cleared.

This is my first MW in 2015. 12mm f2.8 on Micro 4/3 camera. Going to give it a try on my full frame next year.

One thing I learned is that the Moonlight pollutes Milky Way Photography. The week I was in Inyo National Forest wasn't ideal.

u43 again.

Buy neutral density Gel sheets. Tape them around your light source.

Also consider CTO or CTB to change the light color of your light source to match white balance of milky way shot.

One sheet of full CTO or CTB will cut light transmission by 2 stops

dubi said:

---

Quote:

---

Unless you're focused on one genre of photography, I'm not sure your photography interest will be satisfied with 1 camera body.

---

Some of us use 1 camera body......

Now we do have separate cameras that we use scuba diving, but I'll argue those don't count. No detachable lenses.

---

Dear Dubi

The following video has different components that I probably couldn't do effectively with 1 camera and 1 lens.

The stills in the beginning are taken with 1DIII with 300mm f2.8 by one of the parents (I had to coach) and the video was done on Panosonic GX7 with Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 lens (u43 system) at 1080p 60fps (I need to figure out how to minimize the panning blur), and the award ceremony was taken with Sony A7R (could have been done with a cellphone).

Could I do all this with 1 camera? Well... not at the same time.

So... I'm just trying to justify my GAS.

Quote:

---

So... I'm just trying to justify my GAS.

---

Well i understand the need for multiple. However, we have just one nice Canon 70D with 3 good lenses.

We also own a Gopro, Canon G12, Canon S110, Olympus TG-4. So we do shoot multiple platforms, just in a smaller and cheaper way. For the little stuff, I love to travel with a tiny camera in my purse.

Agreed it is a bit of an addiction.....

We have two camera body's between my wife and I. Last year, I never took both with me storm chasing, but this year I plan on having both. I never realized how many shots I'm giving away while switching lenses. This year I can have the nifty fifty on one and the 10-18 on another so I always have a super wide and something closer available without a bunch of flipping.

Otherwise, the majority of my shooting is landscape, so it doens't matter if I take some time to switch.

If you're a student like me, the library also lets you check out camera bodies and lenses. I think all they have is the canon T5i, but still not bad if you need something!

MonkeyKnifeFighter said:

---

Yup, it washes out the contrast in the sky and hides those dimmer stars. The moon can be really helpful though for illuminating your foreground.

I know people say to do landscape milky way shots only during the New Moon. But if you're not afraid of a composite image, you can do it during other lunar phases. My favorite is when the moon is about 1/4 full.

For example, shoot the Milky Way when the moon is still down, then shoot the same image and expose for the foreground right after the moon comes up. You get tons of extra illumination in your foreground, plus the benefit of getting it in the form of directional light. That's how you can add texture to your surfaces - it's directional moonlight rather than the bland overhead stuff. And I like 1/4 - 1/2 full moons because the light doesn't seem as harsh. Plus full moons mean the moon rises just after dark, and only set right before the sun rises.

The drawback is that this sort of shot only gives you as many shots in one session as you have cameras (or reliable tripods).

I'm brainstorming ways now to stick with the New Moon, and have portable light sources to dimly cast directional illumination where I'd like it in an image. It has to be dim enough though to not blow out the foreground with the extreme ISO and aperture settings that Milky Way exposures mandate.

---

My wife took some great shots at Arches NP a couple of months ago lit by the full moon. The one thing I hated about moving back to Texas was losing the access to all the parks and scenery we had out West. Now its practically a day to drive to anything worthwhile.

On that note, does anyone here have any scenic areas near BCS that make for good landscape photos?

Anyone have much experience with macro? I have done a little, mostly using tube extensions, but have been thinking of a dedicated macro lens. I know the Canon 100 is supposed to be excellent, but what about the offerings from Tamron and Sigma? The Tamron 90mm is generally well thought of, as is the Sigma 150mm. I like the idea of the 150mm, so I wouldn't have to get as close to the subject and risk spooking a skittish critter. Anyone have experience with those, or any others?

I have the Sigma 150mm 2.8 Macro for sale. Very sharp and good lens. Like most macros, it is not quick to focus, but quality is nice.

I also have a 1.4x and 2.0x extenders for it.

The Canon 100L Macro is one of the best lenses I have ever used.

A friend has the Nikon version of the Tamron 90 and likes it.

In general, I think it is hard to make a bad macro lens. Just most don't focus very quickly.

The 100 macro is also a quite nice portrait lens!

I would actually look at video lights with a high CRI rating.

The Lowel GL-1 hot light would be ideal, but expensive.

Anyone in here ever done a 365 or 52 week photography challenge? I"m planning to do both this year.

I'm generally too busy with client work to take the time to create something every day.

dave99ag has done a couple that were really great

Udemy has many of their photography courses for $10 until January 10th.

Just an update- that bayonet 2" eyepiece to m43 adapter I linked is a great solution for trying to image with a m43 ( or an slr with the appropriate mount) in a newtonian reflector.

dubi said:

---

Udemy has many of their photography courses for $10 until January 10th.

---

Thanks for the heads up on this dubi

Any other tilt shift folks out there? I've had a hard time taking the Canon 24mm TS II off my A7RII since I got it a few months ago. Picked up a used 17mm from a buddy but am about to send it off to Canon for servicing, nervous about how much that's going to cost.

Haha, MNF I never realized (or maybe I did and just forgot #oldarmy) you were disasterfilm on Insta, I love your feed!