RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses  
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Tower Hobbies
Enter up to 4 keywords or Tower stock numbers
Logged in as Guest



Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
       



All Forums >> Radios, Batteries, Clubhouse and more >> Digital Camera & Photo Editing >> RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/19/2007 1:05:41 AM   
MMallory


 

Posts: 1111
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: South Plainfield, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Nice shot!

(in reply to Tigger N. Bennie)
       Post #: 26

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/19/2007 3:22:32 AM   
xrunner123


 

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/27/2006
From: , USA
Status: offline 		Actually all of that blur is motion blur not depth of field since he is probably moving the camera to match the speed of the plane.

_____________________________

Spool up!

(in reply to someonesaid)
       Post #: 27

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/20/2007 3:43:26 AM   
Tigger N. Bennie



Posts: 8367
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: Track, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MMallory
Nice shot!

Thanks. Today, I took a photo of a different sort of bird and tried something a little different. After all, one needs the software as well as the lens.


Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


< Message edited by Tigger N. Bennie -- 2/20/2007 4:08:33 AM >

_____________________________

Lots of RCs, two cats, and two Nikon cameras.

(in reply to MMallory)
       Post #: 28

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/20/2007 12:57:38 PM   
MMallory


 

Posts: 1111
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: South Plainfield, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Interesting. I've seen a lot of people attempt to reach this result. Most just don't work for me. I like this one, I wonder how the shot would look if the rear goose was a bit brighter.

Also, which lens, settings?

(in reply to Tigger N. Bennie)
       Post #: 29

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/20/2007 5:10:29 PM   
jkkfam89


 

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: hartland, MI, USA
Status: offline 		I use the canon 10d and will be getting the 20d. I use both Sigma lenses and canon lenses for car spy shots. The canon lenses are better.

(in reply to Black Arrow)
       Post #: 30

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 1:33:22 AM   
Tigger N. Bennie



Posts: 8367
Joined: 9/28/2003
From: Track, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MMallory
Interesting. I've seen a lot of people attempt to reach this result. Most just don't work for me. I like this one, I wonder how the shot would look if the rear goose was a bit brighter.

Also, which lens, settings?

If the rear goose was brighter, one's attention may be drawn more to the rear of the photo--good or bad? I also thought about leaving the rear goose in black and white, but since my eye tended to follow the rail to the rear goose, I colorized the rear goose and just let his eyes bring my eyes forward again. I also thought about colorizing the rail but opted against it.

Nikon D200
Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 VR
1/400s
F/13
ISO 400

_____________________________

Lots of RCs, two cats, and two Nikon cameras.

(in reply to MMallory)
       Post #: 31

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 2:10:20 AM   
tom czenthe



Posts: 283
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Cocoa, FL, USA
Status: offline 		New to this photography thing.......Just got Canon 30 d 70-300 IS lens........why are my airplane shots not as focused as the car going near 200mph..... shots taken with SPORT setting

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

[b]Tom [/b]

(in reply to Tigger N. Bennie)
       Post #: 32

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 2:15:45 AM   
tom czenthe



Posts: 283
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Cocoa, FL, USA
Status: offline 		OOOOPS here are the plane shots

Attachments
Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize 		Click to see fullsize image.
Click for fullsize


_____________________________

[b]Tom [/b]

(in reply to tom czenthe)
       Post #: 33

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 2:56:14 AM   
someonesaid


 

Posts: 14
Joined: 2/16/2007
From: El Paso, TX, USA
Status: offline 		I'm sure someone with more technical expertise will chime in soon, but just as a thought, the car fills much more of the frame then the airplane, so makes it easier to focus?

(in reply to tom czenthe)
       Post #: 34

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 3:58:42 AM   
Panzlflyer



Posts: 1937
Joined: 2/28/2002
From: Goldsboro, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Focus point are usually the culprit.
Try using a Program mode where you can select a different focus point (center) and try different Focus modes like AI Servo.
The plane is much smaller for the camera to spot focus on.
The Auto stuff doesnt work very well for me with that type of shot.

(in reply to someonesaid)
       Post #: 35

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 12:44:14 PM   
MMallory


 

Posts: 1111
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: South Plainfield, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Also try adjusting your stance. I bet your camera was more held firmer when shooting the car since it is only moving in one direction. Please post the shutter speeds, focal lengths and F stops for these prints, there may be clues there. Are these full frame shots or crops?

(in reply to Panzlflyer)
       Post #: 36

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 12:52:34 PM   
jkkfam89


 

Posts: 48
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: hartland, MI, USA
Status: offline 		Shutter speed is a factor. If the shutter is open long enough, with any kind of motion, the picture gets distorted.

(in reply to MMallory)
       Post #: 37

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 5:33:42 PM   
tom czenthe



Posts: 283
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Cocoa, FL, USA
Status: offline 		both the car and the planes were taken with the full auto sport setting...........my computer program {zoom browser) tells me that the plane with the checkers was shot at 1/1250 7.4 ISO 400 200mm and the car at 1/1000 8.0 ISO 400 70mm


Thanks for all the help !!!!!

_____________________________

[b]Tom [/b]

(in reply to jkkfam89)
       Post #: 38

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 5:56:07 PM   
MMallory


 

Posts: 1111
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: South Plainfield, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Tom,

This says a lot. Camera shake is more obvious the longer the lens. The plane was shot at 200mm and the car at 70. You are already at a high shutter speed so technique is the next step (Image stability lenses may also help). Work on exhaling before pressing the shutter. Try to push smoothly and not jab the button. If possible keep both elbows planted on your body or another stable object. Obviously a tripod or monopod will help. Use burst mode if you think you have a good focus lock. I find myself using manual focus on many model planes. depending on the pilot it is hard to follow the plane and the auto focus will get lost and hunt.

Mark

(in reply to tom czenthe)
       Post #: 39

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 7:43:02 PM   
tom czenthe



Posts: 283
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Cocoa, FL, USA
Status: offline 		Thank you Mark ! I guess the Canon 30 D isn't idiot proof........

_____________________________

[b]Tom [/b]

(in reply to MMallory)
       Post #: 40

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/21/2007 7:57:03 PM   
MMallory


 

Posts: 1111
Joined: 12/11/2001
From: South Plainfield, NJ, USA
Status: offline 		Tom,

There are no idiots, just good marketing on the part of the camera makers. They still put the green square to make you think you have a built in Point &Shoot. The photog forums are full of people returning their cameras due to faulty focus only to find out it is technique. I think this is a conbination of lighter materials and the cropped sensors. I like heavy glass. It feels to me I am more steady with the extra weight.

A good example is a pocket camera I got for my wife. I took it to work and took 50 or so pictures. Most were out of focus and this camera has IS. What I didn't consider was the very small flash. The Auto iso settings were thrown off by the lack of light. Now I manually set the iso and all is good. It would have been nice to have that listed in the "start-up" papers. Add to that this camera weighs nothing, I can't take a breath while shooting in low light with this thing.

(in reply to tom czenthe)
       Post #: 41

RE: Sigma Lenses vs Canon lenses - 2/22/2007 12:01:25 AM