If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/8/2018 8:50 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, Bill W wrote (in ): On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I'd say that lens was a good investment. So far I am happy with it. I will probably buy the 1.4TC though the reach I get now is just fine. Next I will have to track down an airshow. ;-) For now here is another of the windsurfer shots: https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-cs5phDS/0/ce74ad5f/O/i-cs5phDS.jpg You have a lot of reach. To me the images look a bit soft, with some CA, and there could be more detail in the highlights. I suspect some exposure compensation would bring back the highlights. -- PeterN |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 8, 2018, Alfred Molon wrote (in . com): In , Eric Stevens says... On Sun, 08 Jul 2018 00:17:15 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On Jul 7, 2018, John McWilliams wrote (in article ): On 7/7/18 PDT 6:33 PM, Savageduck wrote: Today in the wind North of San Simeon. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4HpnjD4/0/9f7b73b9/O/i-4HpnjD4.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-DptDNMM/0/d66445c3/O/i-DptDNMM.jpg Oh, yes, indeed! Thanks. Here are two mo https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-KDb6FXK/0/e0a99e61/O/i-KDb6FXK.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VHS3kWL/0/e44ea180/O/i-VHS3kWL.jpg I don't want to seem difficult - but I guess I am. There was a time when, if I had submitted those images, as interesting as they were to me, you would have said harsh words to me about the fuzziness of the image. It wouldn't have been a personal attack but a strong criticism. I am particularly thinking of those first photographs of the Mosquito about which your comments were perfectly justified. What I would really like to know is a little more about the processing, particularly about the extent to which the images were cropped and what else if anything was done in their processing. I suspect from their general lack of sharpness and their apparent noise or graininess that they have been heavily cropped. I noted from the EXIF that you were using f/8 at 1/500 with a 200 ASA. Have you tried shots at a higher speed with a lesser f number? I was about to ask the same thing, because indeed not all images are tack sharp. I also shot windsurfers with the OLympus 75-300 at 300mm (same field of view as 400mm on APS-C). This is the budget tele lens of Olympus (inexpensive and relatively lightweight). Of the images I got many were blurred (perhaps motion blur), a few were quite sharp. In both cases (Fuji and Olympus) the lack of sharpness could be due to motion blur and/or imprecise AF (camera not being able to focus precisely fast enough) - just guessing. The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. -- PeterN |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote: The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens. Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 9, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com): On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote: The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens. Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/9/2018 3:00 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 9, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/8/2018 11:06 PM, Savageduck wrote: The only thing I can think of was the very strong wind factor, and the possibility that the OIS was just not able to keep up. Try my quick and dirty test to sharp. Shoot a brick wall. That will quickly tell you if you have a lens issue. I think that this was a case of what area of the photograph was examined (or pixel peeked). A very high percentage of the shots have the targeted windsurfer sail quite sharp, while the wind blown wavetops are admittedly a mess. If there were any issue they were probably due to shooting handheld in gusty strong wind, and my having to familiarize myself with a new lens. Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg I see what you mean. In the first image the surfer and sail look quite sharp to me. As you know, I am not a pixel peeper, but in some of the other images the subject did not appear sharp. I am not the least bit bothered when the surf is soft, that conveys a feeling of realism to me. -- PeterN |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote:
[] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom. Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about. -- Cheers, David Web: http://www.satsignal.eu |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote:
On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote: [] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom. Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about. I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not notice any CA on this image. -- PeterN |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ): On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote: On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote: [] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom. Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about. I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not notice any CA on this image. I didn’t think that I had any CA issue. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/10/2018 2:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote: On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote: [] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom. Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about. I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not notice any CA on this image. I didn’t think that I had any CA issue. I don't think so either. -- PeterN |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
The new 100-400mm seems to work.
On 7/10/2018 2:32 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Jul 10, 2018, PeterN wrote (in article ): On 7/10/2018 1:56 AM, David Taylor wrote: On 09/07/2018 20:04, Savageduck wrote: [] Check this shot and a 100% crop of the top of the sail. https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-f5k8TQh/0/9ebe2259/O/i-f5k8TQh.jpg https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xJ9w5gP/0/a2225efd/O/i-xJ9w5gP.jpg BTW: that was 270mm, ISO 400, 1/3500 @ f/5.0. Looking at the top edge of the black bar at the top, I have the impression of blue at the top of the bar, and yellow at the bottom. Possibly a little CA, but nothing to be concerned about. I checked on my large monitor, which is color corrected, and did not notice any CA on this image. I didn’t think that I had any CA issue. I should have added that on the images where I originally thought there might be some CA, the color fringing could be refraction from the wet environment. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
PSE6: Work-around when Help doesn't work under Windows | John Navas[_2_] | Digital Photography | 3 | January 14th 08 10:04 PM |
400mm IS | Eric Miller | Digital Photography | 7 | January 26th 06 12:14 AM |
400mm IS | Eric Miller | 35mm Photo Equipment | 7 | January 26th 06 12:14 AM |
400mm for 10D | b4 | Digital Photography | 8 | October 12th 04 01:01 AM |
400mm AF-S $6,200.00 | Pixuretakr | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | December 2nd 03 08:43 PM |