"Something That Flies" picture thread
- Thread starter Misled
- Start date
flyguyscott
New member
Jesse, I was on the same page as you.
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/140228579@N03/27218487981/in/dateposted-public/" title="Fly"><img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7308/27218487981_5d7baecaab_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="Fly"></a>
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/140228579@N03/27218487981/in/dateposted-public/" title="Fly"><img src="https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7308/27218487981_5d7baecaab_c.jpg" width="800" height="534" alt="Fly"></a>
Grab shot last night. Was looking for Swallow's and this guy flew by. It looks over sharpened but it's the way the back-lighting hit him.
I have been working on shots like this with a couple of hawks that frequent my yard, but I have to crop them quite a bit to get anywhere near this close, as my max is 250mm.
Was this shot with the 500mm? It is a great shot.
IPT
Active member
Thanks John. Yeah, it was with the 500mm on crop body (7d MarkII).
Dkuhlmann
New member
I got tied up for the weekend and couldn't get this one in. I must have taken 100 pictures of this swan but this is my favorite one. I didn't do any editing on this and it was taken hand held with my Canon 55-250 with a 2.2x lens on the front, lens does not have IS, I sure wish it did. It's amazing how far out I can get a picture. This one was at about 35-45 yards. I'm loving my new camera but now need to learn how to use Lightroom when I get some time to play around with it and watch some of the videos how to use it.
View attachment 351478
View attachment 351478
Dkuhlmann
New member
I'd like to find a zoom lens 250+ that has IS that won't break the bank. My shutter speed was 1/180. Do you have any lens to suggest?
I switched lenses to my Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM and here are a few pictures of some wild honeysuckle flowers. This was also hand held. Big difference with having the IS. I was shocked at the comparison between the two lenses.
I switched lenses to my Canon EF-S 17-85mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM and here are a few pictures of some wild honeysuckle flowers. This was also hand held. Big difference with having the IS. I was shocked at the comparison between the two lenses.
IPT
Active member
you would have to define "break the bank" . That's different for everyone. That said, my first "long" lens was the 300mm F4 IS. I loved that lens. Sharp as heck and could take a 1.4 tele converter and get me up to relatively 450mm at F5.6. It also wasn't a monstrosity. I know other on here were very fond of the 100-400 F4.5-5.6. I just wan't big on the push pull zoom nor being forced to be at f5.6 or a minimum F stop of 4.5 unless I choose to be. At the end of the day good tele-photo gear is going to cost you some money.
FWIW looking at the swan image again it almost appears two things are going. It may have back focused some because the water behind the swan looks sharper then the water by the subject. Second, 1/180th probably wasn't enough for the fast motion of the swan. For action like that ideally you're at 1/500th or faster to "freeze" the motion independent of focal length.
. That's different for everyone. That said, my first "long" lens was the 300mm F4 IS. I loved that lens. Sharp as heck and could take a 1.4 tele converter and get me up to relatively 450mm at F5.6. It also wasn't a monstrosity. I know other on here were very fond of the 100-400 F4.5-5.6. I just wan't big on the push pull zoom nor being forced to be at f5.6 or a minimum F stop of 4.5 unless I choose to be. At the end of the day good tele-photo gear is going to cost you some money. FWIW looking at the swan image again it almost appears two things are going. It may have back focused some because the water behind the swan looks sharper then the water by the subject. Second, 1/180th probably wasn't enough for the fast motion of the swan. For action like that ideally you're at 1/500th or faster to "freeze" the motion independent of focal length.
Dkuhlmann
New member
What would it hurt to set the shutter speed higher? Is there any negative to leaving it at 1000 if I'm taking pictures of my fish or any wildlife that might be moving. Does it hurt if it's a still shot?
So it seems the moral of the story is to use my tripod when taking pictures at distance for the extra stability. In most of my swan pictures it seemed to be focusing past the swan. Here are a few more. What is the deal with the blurred grass with the two shots on land? Could that have been from using the 2.2x attachment lens? Also did you see anything wrong with the flower pictures or were they fine?
So it seems the moral of the story is to use my tripod when taking pictures at distance for the extra stability. In most of my swan pictures it seemed to be focusing past the swan. Here are a few more. What is the deal with the blurred grass with the two shots on land? Could that have been from using the 2.2x attachment lens? Also did you see anything wrong with the flower pictures or were they fine?
IPT
Active member
yeah you got some weird stuff going on there. They do look back focused and some of them nothing is sharp. I would take some images with just the lens, no attachments, on a tripod and see what you get.
I had some issues once and I staggered some bottles with numbers on them. Then from a tripod took some images using the timer to make sure there was no camera shake. As you can see my camera was back focusing. You need to remove all the variables and work back from there. There almost appears to be a blurry a vignette in you images and I have no idea what would cause that (besides the lens not being clean except in the center). Sometimes that effect comes from actively zooming while taking the shot as well.
As for the higher ISO, depending on you camera it shouldn't matter. Most folks dont bat an eye at shooting at ISO 800-1000 or even as much as 3200. Some cameras are better then others but noise reduction software has come a long way. Better to have a sharp image with a little noise than a silky smooth noise free image with a blurry subject because of a slow shutter speed.
I had some issues once and I staggered some bottles with numbers on them. Then from a tripod took some images using the timer to make sure there was no camera shake. As you can see my camera was back focusing. You need to remove all the variables and work back from there. There almost appears to be a blurry a vignette in you images and I have no idea what would cause that (besides the lens not being clean except in the center). Sometimes that effect comes from actively zooming while taking the shot as well.
As for the higher ISO, depending on you camera it shouldn't matter. Most folks dont bat an eye at shooting at ISO 800-1000 or even as much as 3200. Some cameras are better then others but noise reduction software has come a long way. Better to have a sharp image with a little noise than a silky smooth noise free image with a blurry subject because of a slow shutter speed
.Similar threads
