Hmm. I didn't miss mine when I traded it for a really good 210mm zoom.
It was the out of focus rings that got me. Just looked 'odd' Plus filter difficulties.
Did good shots of a moon eclipse on it though.
I've used that trick in the past.
Some of the manufacturers are now including a mode where the built in flash becomes purely a commander for off-camera units - for example Nikon's Creative Lighting System provides for the built in flash to be trigger only or trigger and contribute.
I've been looking at those, but wonder whether they achieve much since the lighting is still effectively direct.
This is very true.
I've been playing around with the 70-200 and a 2x teleconverter which in effect takes me to 600mm. Notwithstanding the focus not being optically as good as a lens without TC, the results in terms of shutter shake are OK as long as either use a very stout tripod (I have a Gitzo carbon one for that) and a solid head such as a Wimberley, or I use a bean bag, then I am OK provided that I use a fully remote shutter release and mirror up mode.
Otherwise, as you say, getting closer is the way.
With the Kingfisher I was jammy because it was no more than about 20m away.
A friend of mine does almost solely macro photography and uses a ring-flash to good effect.
Is this a kind of auto-ISO capability? i.e. let the ISO go up to a certain limit if the other parameters are becomng unacceptable?
You mean the 70-210 Sigma?
Hmm have to see if I can borrow one
Oh yes - lots and lots of places. Yards from home is one wood in which we have recorded/photographed many, many varieties. We are members of the BUCKINGHAMSHIRE FUNGUS GROUP. (Unfortunately forays are not currently possible.)
The latest Field Mycology has a photo taken a very few miles away at Bradenham.
This place is good for birch-liking fungi:
As for light, it is difficult due to the extreme contrast (e.g. almost pure white fungus against nearly black leaf litter), and the desire to have accurate colour in the photograph. Very often it is difficult to avoid some direct daylight so the light must at least look OK with that. So - a couple of ultra-miniature portable spotlights - with perfect daylight bulbs, low energy usage, and suitable battery power supply.
I have tried QH lamps - colour is well off but quite pleasant. Flash tends to be too blue (whatever I try to do). LED is way off.
And, as I am taking photos on a pleasant walk rather than for professional reasons, I don't want to cartry round anything that is too heavy.
The saving grace is that if I am only lighting a small area, the power can be quite modest.
Could even have been a bird of prey. We've (well, my son) has seen a couple of birds attacked outside his window in the last couple of years.
Is it the time of year? I haven't seen many birds here, the odd pigeon, and one male blackbird this morning sunning itself on the lawn. A couple of weeks ago it was full of blackbirds, crows, yellowhammers, magpies, collared doves, seagulls etc. The last few days virtually zilch.
The smaller birds usually disappear when the crows are around, but after the attacks by bigger birds I didn't see any reduction of other birds.
We're (well SWMBO) is trying to chase a cat tht creeps in Cr*** on the lawn and creeps out again. She has (I think -- she's purchased them for the purpose) put cloves out to deter it. Is that deterring the birds as well?
Following up to The Natural Philosopher
I did a test to see how much difference megapixel count made. My first try was casually hand held (normal lens) and shake and inexact focus seemed to show up far more than noise or megapixels. In fact I was surprised how little megapixels mattered for *routine* uses (6, 10 and 15 megapixels in similar cameras and same lens).
Following up to Andy Hall
no, its a full ISO mode, not a programme with some ISO change in it. You set shutter and f number manually, the ISO varies to get correct exposure according to the metering method set. You need to watch for going out of range of course. (you can also set the upper limit the ISO will go to if you want IIRC).
Following up to The Natural Philosopher
i live in fear of the rumoured full frame Samsung/Pentax body, I will
*have* to have one, although where the money will come from I dont know.
When using extension tubes the lens to subject distance can be very short - so the ring flash is actually quite a way off axis. Being all round the subject eliminates the shadows as well.
Yes, that's my experience too, unless you are trying to crop and enlarge to the point where the pixels are showing up. However, usually the mechanical and optical issues show up first.
Following up to Andy Hall
yes, my three test huge enlargements of an intentionally ordinary shot (beyond anything you would do) were unusable for general quality reasons before any really significant "grain" showed from the sensors. I would advise anyone to choose on lens quality and features instead.
Shame. Why's that?
Many years ago when I was at school I used to regularly to go with a group in Reading in which Dr Hora from Reading University regularly participated. By all accounts and from published papers he is (possibly was by now) a fairly eminent mycologist. He was everybody's idea of the slightly eccentric professor - wore odd socks and had a vaguely eastern European accent. At any rate, he knew a great deal more than I did but was wlling tirelessly to explain things in language that could be understood.
Does your camera shoot in raw mode or can it? As long as you can deal with the shadows at time of shooting, perhaps you could correct the white balance in Photoshop etc. afterwards? A sheet of white card taken to the site and used as a reference may help with that.
Ah OK. Mine has this one, although presented slightly differently. You can also set min and max values and max ISO values to what you want and fix shutter and aperture. At the ISO limit, you are warned to move shutter speed or aperture to accomodate this (or you can raise the ISO limit.
There's always a way.....
I agree.
I decided as a policy to go for the best quality lens that I could get in each category, although I haven't yet covered all needs.
Nonetheless, so far it has worked well.
The only other thing that comes to mind is weight. Good quality glass is large and it's heavy, so the other side of the coin is that it may be more attractive from the carrying perspective to go for lenses that will be taken out rather than staying at home.
Not even with redcurrant jelly and bread sauce?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.