TexasCHLforum.com

Got some OK pics of the airshow today. These are pre-shop but I'm pleased with the raw frame results. More importantly I got to take my oldest son, age 9, who has wanted to see the Blue Angels for quite some time now. Seeing the smile on my boys face and hearing him go on and on about how cool it was just makes it all worthwhile. Of course it helps that I love airshows and have been going to them since I was born. Still working on getting him to the range...

Camera, lens? I am a cruddy amateur photographer, and always interested in gear.....

Wow! Fantastic photography skills!! So glad you enjoyed it!

jbarn wrote:Camera, lens? I am a cruddy amateur photographer, and always interested in gear.....

Canon 350d with a Canon EF-L 100-400mm 4.5-5.4

...and alot of picking my battles since the body is useless past iso400 and the frame rate is also sub par. It's a 7 year old consumer grade body with great glass in front of it. Everything I've read and researched about photography has advocated spending money on good lenses first and a good body second. I've missed many a shot that a 5dMkII or III would have grabbed but on the reverse I've had many a shot ruined by my old garbage 75-300 kit lens.

Looking at a better walk around lens currently as my old 17-85 EF-S is starting to annoy me. A Canon EF-L 28-70 or 28-105 is still far less expensive than a new body, as much as I would love to enjoy ISO6400 for low light.

I am strictly hobby amateur which is liberating in many ways. Sound and live productions?...how I pine for the days when it wasn't my job...

olafpfj wrote:

jbarn wrote:Camera, lens? I am a cruddy amateur photographer, and always interested in gear.....

Canon 350d with a Canon EF-L 100-400mm 4.5-5.4

...and alot of picking my battles since the body is useless past iso400 and the frame rate is also sub par. It's a 7 year old consumer grade body with great glass in front of it. Everything I've read and researched about photography has advocated spending money on good lenses first and a good body second. I've missed many a shot that a 5dMkII or III would have grabbed but on the reverse I've had many a shot ruined by my old garbage 75-300 kit lens.

Looking at a better walk around lens currently as my old 17-85 EF-S is starting to annoy me. A Canon EF-L 28-70 or 28-105 is still far less expensive than a new body, as much as I would love to enjoy ISO6400 for low light.

I am strictly hobby amateur which is liberating in many ways. Sound and live productions?...how I pine for the days when it wasn't my job...

I agree...glass over body. That said, I just upgraded my Nikon D50 (an 8 year old body) with a D3200. My last air show pics here were with the D50. I have been playing with my 3200 and took it to a rodeo Friday, but they would not allow cameras. :(

jbarn wrote: I agree...glass over body. That said, I just upgraded my Nikon D50 (an 8 year old body) with a D3200. My last air show pics here were with the D50. I have been playing with my 3200 and took it to a rodeo Friday, but they would not allow cameras. :(

Just looked over your photos again. Superb!!!

I went with Canon because of the lenses but I have to say when I see peoples photos that I really admire they are all using Nikon. It really seems that while Canon has a lock on the high end pro bodies, Nikon is a real cut above in the amateur market. I only say that from completely anecdotal observation. I am locked into the Canon system of lenses so not going to switch now.

That being said here is one of my best that I took with an old 300d and my 17-85 EF-S lens. We were the last group that could take the shuttle to the base so it was around 5pm. Walked off the plane, turned and squeezed off one single frame.



FDR's VC-54C "Sacred Cow" on display in the USAF museum in Dayton.

olafpfj wrote:

jbarn wrote: I agree...glass over body. That said, I just upgraded my Nikon D50 (an 8 year old body) with a D3200. My last air show pics here were with the D50. I have been playing with my 3200 and took it to a rodeo Friday, but they would not allow cameras. :(

Just looked over your photos again. Superb!!!

I went with Canon because of the lenses but I have to say when I see peoples photos that I really admire they are all using Nikon. It really seems that while Canon has a lock on the high end pro bodies, Nikon is a real cut above in the amateur market. I only say that from completely anecdotal observation. I am locked into the Canon system of lenses so not going to switch now.

That being said here is one of my best that I took with an old 300d and my 17-85 EF-S lens. We were the last group that could take the shuttle to the base so it was around 5pm. Walked off the plane, turned and squeezed off one single frame.

[ Image ]

FDR's VC-54C "Sacred Cow" on display in the USAF museum in Dayton.

Absolutely gorgeous! I am still learning about shutter speeds, aperture, ISO, white balance and how they all interact. I am forcing myself to get the camera off of the auto settings and really explore manual. I had been editing using MS standard software, but my daughter gave me Lightroom for my birthday. I am trying to learn it.

I like to take the motorcycle out with the camera and just stop and take pics when something interests me.

I enjoyed the photographs but this was my favorite part.

olafpfj wrote:Seeing the smile on my boys face and hearing him go on and on about how cool it was just makes it all worthwhile.

olafpfj wrote:

jbarn wrote: I agree...glass over body. That said, I just upgraded my Nikon D50 (an 8 year old body) with a D3200. My last air show pics here were with the D50. I have been playing with my 3200 and took it to a rodeo Friday, but they would not allow cameras. :(

Just looked over your photos again. Superb!!!

I went with Canon because of the lenses but I have to say when I see peoples photos that I really admire they are all using Nikon. It really seems that while Canon has a lock on the high end pro bodies, Nikon is a real cut above in the amateur market. I only say that from completely anecdotal observation. I am locked into the Canon system of lenses so not going to switch now.

That being said here is one of my best that I took with an old 300d and my 17-85 EF-S lens. We were the last group that could take the shuttle to the base so it was around 5pm. Walked off the plane, turned and squeezed off one single frame.

[ Image ]

FDR's VC-54C "Sacred Cow" on display in the USAF museum in Dayton.

That is a stunning photo!

jbarn wrote: I am still learning about shutter speeds, aperture, ISO, white balance and how they all interact. I am forcing myself to get the camera off of the auto settings and really explore manual.

Shutter speeds, aperture, ISO are all interrelated, but not white balance. White balance has no relation to those. It used to be adjusted with film cameras by selecting the appropriate film (i.e. Daylight), and or/ the use of filters. But now you do it manually or automatically with your digital camera setting. Daylight/electronic flash will cast a bluish tint, household light bulbs (tungsten) will cast a yellow/orange tint, and florescent will cast a greenish tint. The digital camera on auto white balance will take it's best guess (which is pretty darn good) , or you can set it yourself for various lighting conditions, or shoot the image in RAW and adjust later.

Shutter speeds, aperture, ISO are all factored into a single number called Exposure Value (EV). Change one of the 3, and one of the others needs to be adjusted to give the same EV. (i.e. say you are shooting at F8, 1/125sec, ISO 100. That would be an EV of 13. If you changed the f-stop to F11, you would either have to change the shutter speed to 1/60 sec, or the ISO to 200 to have the same EV). But photography is constant trade off. When you increase shutter speed for example, you need to change either the f-stop to a lower one, causing less depth of field and possible loss of sharpness, or the ISO to a higher one which increases grain.

Many good books out there to explore and learn the basics. Without the basics, which is true in any endeavor, your chances of success are greatly reduced. The equipment can never replace the photographer's knowledge.

G26ster wrote:

jbarn wrote: I am still learning about shutter speeds, aperture, ISO, white balance and how they all interact. I am forcing myself to get the camera off of the auto settings and really explore manual.

Shutter speeds, aperture, ISO are all interrelated, but not white balance. White balance has no relation to those. It used to be adjusted with film cameras by selecting the appropriate film (i.e. Daylight), and or/ the use of filters. But now you do it manually or automatically with your digital camera setting. Daylight/electronic flash will cast a bluish tint, household light bulbs (tungsten) will cast a yellow/orange tint, and florescent will cast a greenish tint. The digital camera on auto white balance will take it's best guess (which is pretty darn good) , or you can set it yourself for various lighting conditions, or shoot the image in RAW and adjust later.

Shutter speeds, aperture, ISO are all factored into a single number called Exposure Value (EV). Change one of the 3, and one of the others needs to be adjusted to give the same EV. (i.e. say you are shooting at F8, 1/125sec, ISO 100. That would be an EV of 13. If you changed the f-stop to F11, you would either have to change the shutter speed to 1/60 sec, or the ISO to 200 to have the same EV).

Yes, I know. But thanks for the info.

But photography is constant trade off. When you increase shutter speed for example, you need to change either the f-stop to a lower one, causing less depth of field and possible loss of sharpness, or the ISO to a higher one which increases grain.

Actually, I don't. That is what's fun.