Real Life Photography/Photo Editing II - NO IMAGES >100kb

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

[killagee 0]

Whoah! That was way to many pics to post... Sorry about that... I guess I just hope you like aeroplanes...

[Johannes 10]

Some Awesome photos you took there

got any high res pictures too?

[killagee 0]

yeah just email or PM me for what image you want...

[the_shadow 0]

Killagee, you really shouldnt be allowed to post here..

you make the rest of us look bad

naaah, just kidding.. superb shots as usual!

[killagee 0]

Thanks Shadow There a whole bunch of people who used to post airplane photos up here... I wonder where they have gone?

[BlackScorpion 0]

Whoah! That was way to many pics to post... Sorry about that... I guess I just hope you like aeroplanes...

Well... that isn't exactly a problem. Although I do have one comment - HOLY SHIT, why didn't I go there!  

Should give you some idea of how nice the pics are.  What kind of a lense did you use, gonna prolly look for something with sufficient lenght (>150 on a 400D) to fool around soon... hopefully a nice, sharp zoom with good f-number.

We got the Pilot's Midsummer here in about 1.5 weeks... applied for a photographers pass just few hours ago, hopefully I'll get one. Missed it last year, and since it's only 10 euros... Would be feckin' cool to get to shoot the performers at the plate. Might have to get a hold of a wide angle for the Il-76 etc. tho'...

[killagee 0]

Thanks Black Skorpion

I used a nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR + 1.7x Converter, but you ideally need something that is 400mm or more for airshows... One day I might invest in something... if i won lotto I would get this beast!:

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Yo....ED.html

muhahaha it will never happen

[the_shadow 0]

and i that was thinking about a Sigma 70-200 f2,8 and a x2 converter for my Nikon :P

well.. the 70-200 is first on the list anyway (have to go budget)

but then again, airshows iisnt really my primary area of photography so

[killagee 0]

I used to have the sigma 70-200 HSM + converter. Great lens mate the only bummer is that it doesnt have VR so you will need a monopod or tripod alot of the time, but the quality of the lens is great

[dm 9]

Killagee, theres only one word I have thats suitable:

"Bah"

SUPERB shots as always, am feeling quite green with envy here.

[Commando84 0]

nice pics killage! make me want to model aircrafts

[BlackScorpion 0]

I used to have the sigma 70-200 HSM + converter. Great lens mate the only bummer is that it doesnt have VR so you will need a monopod or tripod alot of the time, but the quality of the lens is great

Dunno... the 2.8 gives a nice flexibility on its own.

Took this shot around last Christmas, at around 19.30 - which in Finland means there's basically no ambient light left, apart from the possible moon. The shot was taken at the town's main plaza, so there of course were some lamps. Underexposed it (shot in RAW so easy to boost up) and shot it at ISO800, but got a nice, fairly sharp result at 125 mm (plus the camera crop factor of 1.6x; the image is uncropped) and 1/100 secs (I think)... handheld.

Possibly going to a music festival this weekend (forgot to buy tickets so nearly double the price), we'll see how that turns out. Next weekend it's an airshow with some Sukhois... haven't yet decided what to do lense wise, whether to go with the 150 mm or to get a Sigman 1.4x or 2.0x converter... or a new lense.

Gonna buy a new "kit" tho', as the old one lost its AF function thanks to few fast Mirages and some pavement. Prolly going for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 Macro (no HSM).

[the_shadow 0]

I used to have the sigma 70-200 HSM + converter. Great lens mate the only bummer is that it doesnt have VR so you will need a monopod or tripod alot of the time, but the quality of the lens is great

thats not really a problems since i mostly take photos of rally cars..

and when i dont do that, well.. i have a tripod and im thnking about buyng a monopod aswell

[killagee 0]

Yeah man. f2.8 is awesome for good lowlight and long lenses are the go for seperating your subject from the foreground. But usually you need to stop your lens down 3 stops to get maximum sharpness. the coolest lens for large aperture is 50mm f1.8, which is cheap as chips! the 50mm f1.4 is nice also but three times the price... I saw i guy who had a 300mm f2 lens... It was about as wide as a dinner plate!

[BlackScorpion 0]

Yeah, got the Canon 50/1.8, which only costs about 100 euros... usually a tad less to be exact.

Quite nice, when (/if) I get the Sigma lens my slowest lenses (that I'll use, since the kit is now broken) will both be 2.8...

[raedor 8]

If you're gonna buy a Canon 50mm f/1.8, I'd suppose to buy a used Mark I, it is around the same price but not that cheap plastic build Mark II has...

I bought a 50mm f/1.4 in 2006, I'm happy with it as you can take really really great pics in low light situations (I'm rather often in museums...) and also very nice portraits. A little disadvantage is that you have to come quite close for a portrait, even with a 1.6x crop.

/edit: Here two examples for low light & portrait at once... I took them in one of Vienna's Museums recently (the Kunsthistorisches Museum):

It's with @ f/1.4 1/25sec ISO200, handheld.

This one is @ f/2 1/80sec ISO200, handheld.

Thanks to Uni Vienna for the webspace!

[raedor 8]

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro

Full size (2.x MB)