Just picked up this puppy for the weekend...

[cwphoto]

EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM!

I know how demanding you monkeys are, so I'm taking requests.

Whaddaya clowns want? wide-open? 1.4x or 2x teles, maybe stacked? Extension tubes? Let me have it!

[cdifoto]

Damn. Schweet tele!

[DonSchap]

I am dyin' to see telephoto candle shots with these f/2.8s. Some sweetie, lit by a single candle, and giving us all the "money shot" with them pearly whites... across the restraunt.

There has to be a use for this, right?

How about an open field frisbie-dog catch? The ultimate action shot? :eek:

Aircraft shots... take-offs, landings... near misses... at night... you know, that kind of thing. Anyone can do the day time stuff. :p

Newspaper shot... from across the table (well, 8.2 feet away - min focus dist.)... subdued light.... and where you can read the print.

I figure that's a good run... :cool:

[timmciglobal]

Have your boy go play around with something and see if you can catch one of those "ball right out of his hand" throw or something..

If not some pointless brick walls 100% crop bitching will do!

Tim

[aparmley]

I don't care about any of that crap - I just want see it on camera! ;)

[coldrain]

I don't care about any of that crap - I just want see it on camera! ;)
Hmm... I just want to see it on mine ;)

Well... not sure where in oz you actually live, but how about a real skippy? All happy skipping along and all.

[cwphoto]

I don't care about any of that crap - I just want see it on camera! ;)

OK, that's easy. Attached to EOS-1V HS (I only have one digital camera unlike some...:( ):

[cwphoto]

EF 135mm f/2 L USM is dwarfed:

[24Peter]

Good God man - can I get a camera to go along with my lens please. :eek:

[cwphoto]

No sharpness awards here. But I don't really think it was designed for this.

EOS-1D Mark II N equipped with EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS USM, Extender EF 2x II, and Extender EF 1.4x II (stacked). 1/200s @ f/11 (f/8 indicated), ISO 1600:

[cwphoto]

Not great - but it ain't a telescope I guess. A 600mm f/4 would eat this for breakfast:

[cwphoto]

IS seems to work OK (this was hand-held). Not really telling us anything about sharpness though. Lighting via 60W ceiling lamp.

The 85mm f/1.2 owns this territory, but tomorrow is Tom's soccer match (this is Ben by the way) - I'm expecting great things.

1/80s @ f/2.8, ISO 1600:

[Thai]

Can someone explain this lens a little more? ie... if it's a 300mm lens, then it's not zoomable? you only get that 300mm zoom distance but are able to focus on different focal points?

Also, how much?

And a request, considering how close you got to that moon, try getting a shot of a small plane, see if you can see the pilot! THAT'd be sweet. :D

[24Peter]

Can someone explain this lens a little more? ie... if it's a 300mm lens, then it's not zoomable? you only get that 300mm zoom distance but are able to focus on different focal points?

Also, how much?

And a request, considering how close you got to that moon, try getting a shot of a small plane, see if you can see the pilot! THAT'd be sweet. :D
Thai - price-wise at least, read it and weep :(
http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=4509

[ReF]

sharpness seems pretty established from MTF charts and reviews online...
and i ain't gonna ask you to head out before sunrise to shoot birds in low light or anything.

how about shooting some action of your kids playing right after the sun has gone down but there is still light in the sky? hmmm maybe that's too dark for action... i guess the daytime sports would be good enough

[cdifoto]

I want to see anything during the "magic hour". I don't care what it is. Kids, cars, sports, whatever.

[Thai]

Thai - price-wise at least, read it and weep :(
http://www.canogacamera.com/detail.aspx?ID=4509
OMG. Well that isn't going to happen for me anytime soon.... :eek:

[cdifoto]

OMG. Well that isn't going to happen for me anytime soon.... :eek:


I just sold my soul. I now have enough to rent one. :eek: :p

[aparmley]

I just sold my soul. I now have enough to rent one. :eek: :p

That speaks very little about your soul. . . its kinda sad. . . .LOL

Just kidding with ya Don. . . . ;)

[cdifoto]

That speaks very little about your soul. . . its kinda sad. . . .LOL

Just kidding with ya Don. . . . ;)

LOL that's part of my point.

[aparmley]

LOL that's part of my point.

I know - I laughed out loud. Just wanted to be sure you wouldn't mistake my words for something other than good ole golly giggle action. ;)

[cwphoto]

Can someone explain this lens a little more? ie... if it's a 300mm lens, then it's not zoomable? you only get that 300mm zoom distance but are able to focus on different focal points?

Also, how much?

And a request, considering how close you got to that moon, try getting a shot of a small plane, see if you can see the pilot! THAT'd be sweet. :D

Yeah it doesn't zoom - you're stuck at 300mm. And it's heavy, it's expensive (AUD9,900 RRP), and it doesn't focus very close.

Only the plus side it's supposed to be razor sharp, focus quickly, and works well when the light gets low (it opens up to f/2.8).

I have some soccer pics and portraits from today that I'll throw up soon.

Plane shot TBA.:eek:

[cwphoto]

I want to see anything during the "magic hour".

Is that like "happy hour"? (hic)...

[cwphoto]

This is better. More sane ISO and better light. IS still works OK. 1/60s (handheld) @ f/4, ISO 400:

[cwphoto]

...and it's the perfect focal length for little soccer (although a second body with a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be perfect:cool: ). 1/1,250s @ f/4, ISO 100:

[cdifoto]

...and it's the perfect focal length for little soccer (although a second body with a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be perfect:cool: ). 1/1,250s @ f/4, ISO 100:

That's awesome. I wish I had something faster than Bigma for that kinda work. f/6.3 doesn't isolate much. :(

[cwphoto]

Night and day compared to my 300mm f/4. 1/2,000s @ f/3.5, ISO 160:

[cwphoto]

1/1,000s @ f/4, ISO 100:

[cwphoto]

One of the neighbour's kids. 1/125s @ f/3.5, ISO 100:

[cwphoto]

1/320s @ f/2.8, ISO 100:

[cwphoto]

You can start to see where the bucks go when you get sharpness like this wide-open:

[cwphoto]

Seems criminal to stop this lens down. 1/125s @ f/5, ISO 200:

[aparmley]

Fair to say we're "having fun in the land down unda?"

Nice shots Christian. . . Hows that left arm feeling today?;)

[cwphoto]

Fair to say we're "having fun in the land down unda?"

Nice shots Christian. . . Hows that left arm feeling today?;)

The arms alright, but my knees ain't what they used to be! Too much running, kneeling, running, kneeling...:(

[ReF]

it's gonna be hard getting yourself to bother with that 300 f4 after using this, eh? :D

BTW is it really rain/splash resistant when mounted to a 1-series or is that just misleading literature from the manufacturer?

[24Peter]

I kinda hate to say it, but that lens actually looks like it's worth USD$4,000. Those are amazing shots. Were they all like that - or just a select few?

[cwphoto]

it's gonna be hard getting yourself to bother with that 300 f4 after using this, eh? :D

BTW is it really rain/splash resistant when mounted to a 1-series or is that just misleading literature from the manufacturer?

Put it this way: the f/4 is on ebay as we speak and the f/2.8 is in my shopping basket at B&H...:eek:

I haven't really tested the weather sealing too much to be honest. It appears to be well sealed but that's only an observation - not based on experience.

[cwphoto]

I kinda hate to say it, but that lens actually looks like it's worth USD$4,000. Those are amazing shots. Were they all like that - or just a select few?

Pretty much all of them. Some are better than others in terms of subject etc - but the way the lens performs is very consistent.

[Vich]

Wow! (caught for words) Wow!

[cdifoto]

Hmmm. Quite nice there Christian. Is it handholdable? If I remember correctly it's about the same mass as Bigma...I'd think with IS and the non-extending barrel (duh considering it's a prime!) it wouldn't be too bad. Not a lightweight of course...but do-able.

[jamison55]

Nice stuff! Glad I'm not a long shooter or I might be tempted to check it out...

[cwphoto]

Hmmm. Quite nice there Christian. Is it handholdable? If I remember correctly it's about the same mass as Bigma...I'd think with IS and the non-extending barrel (duh considering it's a prime!) it wouldn't be too bad. Not a lightweight of course...but do-able.

Yeah it's fine. But I'm one of those kinds that can't imagine what all the fuss is about carrying about a 70-200 f/2.8 all day - it's all I've ever known.:o

[cwphoto]

Nick in the swing. To test it out I waited until I saw him come into the viewfinder (my "both eyes open technique") with the lens steady and just hit the trigger in one-shot AF. No-prefocusing or AI servo.

I think it passed. 1/1,250s @ f/4, ISO 200:

[cwphoto]

f/4 was just too easy. Same test wide-open. Hmmmm - this tool just works...

[cwphoto]

1/80s @ f/3.5, ISO 400:

[cwphoto]

1/200s @ f/2.8, ISO 400:

[cwphoto]

1/320s @ f/2.8, ISO 200:

[24Peter]

Nick in the swing. To test it out I waited until I saw him come into the viewfinder (my "both eyes open technique") with the lens steady and just hit the trigger in one-shot AF. No-prefocusing or AI servo.

I think it passed. 1/1,250s @ f/4, ISO 200:
Christian - your kids are all gorgeous - don't know what else to say! But back to the technical side of things, the first shot of Nick in the swing (and actually most of the others shots you took in direct sunlight) all have blown highlights. Not a criticism at all - just a function of how the shot was metered and a limitation of digital photography as we currently know it, since his face is beautifully exposed. There was a blurb in either Shutterbug or Popular Photography couple of months back in a piece written by a couple of writers who met with the head guys over at Canon Japan engineering. The blurb said that next year (2007) will bring technological advancements from Canon in terms of greatly enhanced dynamic range from their digital sensors. Something I've been reading a lot lately is that in terms of resolution, digital cameras are more than able to compete with film. But in terms of dynamic range (i.e., the ability to capture/reproduce a wider range shadows/highlights in a given image), digital is lacking. Now not having a clue when it comes to the real capabilities of film, let me ask those who might know, do you think the image of Nick in the swing would look much different if shot on film?

[arigato]

Now that you have had a chance to shoot a few pics with the 300, do you think that its alot sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS? how about with a 1.4 extender attached to the 70-200? Im curious because my buddy is looking to buy a 300 and I was wondering if he could save a few bucks with an extender attached to his 70-200 assuming that the extra stop on the 300 isnt a priority.

[DonSchap]

I took the liberty of being creative...

11559

Hope it works for you...

[cwphoto]

Christian - your kids are all gorgeous - don't know what else to say! But back to the technical side of things, the first shot of Nick in the swing (and actually most of the others shots you took in direct sunlight) all have blown highlights. Not a criticism at all - just a function of how the shot was metered and a limitation of digital photography as we currently know it, since his face is beautifully exposed. There was a blurb in either Shutterbug or Popular Photography couple of months back in a piece written by a couple of writers who met with the head guys over at Canon Japan engineering. The blurb said that next year (2007) will bring technological advancements from Canon in terms of greatly enhanced dynamic range from their digital sensors. Something I've been reading a lot lately is that in terms of resolution, digital cameras are more than able to compete with film. But in terms of dynamic range (i.e., the ability to capture/reproduce a wider range shadows/highlights in a given image), digital is lacking. Now not having a clue when it comes to the real capabilities of film, let me ask those who might know, do you think the image of Nick in the swing would look much different if shot on film?

You're right about the blown highlights. The second one of Nick in the swing (his shirt) and the earlier shots of the boys on the bushwalk (their hair) are blown. I'm not sure what tests you've been reading but modern DSLRs (8 stops plus of DR) are at least as good as (if not better than) colour neg (6-7 stops) and shit all over colour reversal (5 stops max). So to answer your question I think film wouldn't have been able to capture the detail in those areas any better than my DSLR (assuming one doesn't include fancy zone system over-expose/under-develop B&W).

I was relatively late to the DSLR market (only got my first camera in September last year) because I felt that it was only when Canon released the Mark II versions of the EOS-1s that digital truly had a compelling case for me to switch - and perceived shortcomings in DR (and other general immaturities in digital capture technologies) prevented me from adopting it earlier.

I welcome any development in DR that Canon are trying to make - but how much DR does one really need? Photographic paper is like 5-stops to D-Max anyway - if you can't print it what's the use of having an extra 3 or 4 stops of DR?

There are many answers to this too: More DR means we can be more "flexible" (sloppy?:cool: ) with our exposure, and potentially we can compress the full 8 stops into a 5-stop range for output to paper/press - but the challenge here is to make these extremely contrasty images to still appear punchy on paper. When you compress 8 stops into 5, many images appear flat through the mid-tones.

So having all this DR is one thing - reproducing it in a pleasing form is another. If it helps to salvage some otherwise under or over exposed images that's fine - but I grew up in an era where exposure was critical so it's rare that I find myself in that situation.

I'd like to see what others think on this topic though - it's a valid point you raise. I guess if Canon are trying to squeeze DR then the next logical step may be 16-bit colour?

[cwphoto]

Now that you have had a chance to shoot a few pics with the 300, do you think that its alot sharper than the 70-200 2.8 IS? how about with a 1.4 extender attached to the 70-200? Im curious because my buddy is looking to buy a 300 and I was wondering if he could save a few bucks with an extender attached to his 70-200 assuming that the extra stop on the 300 isnt a priority.

You know I was just having that same discussion with Rick from CPS. Now that the dust has settled and I am in a more rational state (emotions get the better of me when I'm using such a lens and at the time I can find almost any excuse to buy it), I have been able to think about what I really need for these regular soccer shoots.

There's no question that the 300mm f/2.8 did a great job for the mid to long distance shots, but I struggled to get any shots when the action got close. When I thought about it more I realised that maybe I would need two bodies: one with the 300 and the other with a 70-200 zoom.:(

Rick suggested the 70-200 with the 1.4x Extender. Basically this setup is around a 100-300 f/4 which on paper looks absolutely perfect now that I think about it - and I don't need to buy a second body or this expensive lens.:) The 100-400 was also discussed, but I'm a bit wary of it's push/pull design for sports and it's a little slower too - mind you, I'm going to have to stop down to say f/5 minimum to get "acceptable" sharpness from the tele-equipped 70-200 I would imagine.

I have another "trial" game this weekend before I need to commit to a setup in which I'm confident, so I'll try the 70-200 with Extender this coming Saturday. Can your buddy wait a week? I'll have a full report on this setup next Monday, promise!

[cwphoto]

I took the liberty of being creative...

11559

Hope it works for you...

That's very striking Don. I'll show her tonight - I think she'll love it. Very creative.:)

[cdifoto]

Yeah it's fine. But I'm one of those kinds that can't imagine what all the fuss is about carrying about a 70-200 f/2.8 all day - it's all I've ever known.:o

That's how I feel. The 70-200 is actually quite small and light to me. I'm tempted to get a 1.4 tele for it and see how it stacks up against Bigma at the same FLs. Let me know how your tele experiment goes!

Excellent shots of your family as always Christian. Your daughter is as lovely as ever, if not moreso.

[DonSchap]

11563

The lens seems to provide excellent resolution...

[cwphoto]

11563

The lens seems to provide excellent resolution...

That's like a drawing, wow!

[aparmley]

Vich took the words out of my Mouth - Wow - gorgeous Daughter as always Christian, but the IQ is right up there too! ;)

Excellent images - I know you had fun this weekend!;)

[DonSchap]

a riot... on line! LOL :D

Let's try the soccer stuff...

11564

Not as powerful, but isolates well...

Color traces even better...

11565

[cwphoto]

a riot... on line! LOL :D

Let's try the soccer stuff...

11564

Not as powerful, but isolates well...

Color traces even better...

11565

Don you have WAY too much time on your hands...:D

[phatkid77]

pictures look gr8 christian....

i suppose its ultra difficult to do that don?

phats

[DonSchap]

It's just that a lad does have to have his... secrets... otherwise, all you dudes would be doin' it.

I'm just showin' off... :o

[DonSchap]

Original

11569

Line art version

11568

[phatkid77]

my wife and I thank you!:D

[phatkid77]

i imagine the way u bring back colour is better...

CW has a winner!

[cwphoto]

Vich took the words out of my Mouth - Wow - gorgeous Daughter as always Christian, but the IQ is right up there too! ;)

Excellent images - I know you had fun this weekend!;)

Sure did Mate - over 1,000 frames from memory!:eek:

You know I never thought I'd hear this, but my wife actually commented yesterday that just maybe I'm being a little ridiculous with all the pictures...:rolleyes:

I just blame you guys.:D

[cwphoto]

pictures look gr8 christian....

i suppose its ultra difficult to do that don?

phats

Thanks Phats.:)

[jamison55]

...
You know I never thought I'd hear this, but my wife actually commented yesterday that just maybe I'm being a little ridiculous with all the pictures...:rolleyes:...

Uh-Oh, time to buy her something, quick!

[cwphoto]

Uh-Oh, time to buy her something, quick!

A 300 f/2.8?:o

[24Peter]

A 300 f/2.8?:o
Well that right there kinda explains your problems, Christian... ;)

[DonSchap]

focused? :D

Anyway... here is the general procedure I use for the "Line Art" version (yes, try this at home)

Open Photograph with Photoshop
Filter, Blur, Smart Blur... Settings are: Radius 4.6, Threshold 14.2, Quality High
Filter, Stylize, Find Edges
Image, Adjustments, Desaturate
Image, Adjustments, Levels... Back off the input levels to about ~117, ~3.00, ~244 ... These number really do vary, but the intent is to harden up the outlines themselves. Try to minimize the number of lighter gray ones with adjusting the first two settings, after establishing the third setting..
Use your Eraser Tool to eliminate excessive lines, shadow outlines or background lines you don't want or need.

Here's where the real magic is that will really add the icing to your cake...

Use the "History Brush Tool"... settings... Brush: 150-200 (use soft edge brush, and radius may vary depending on size of item you are -tinting-), Mode: Normal, Opacity: 21%, Flow: 100%
Stroke over those areas you want to "tint" or completely bring back to life... the mechanics lesson is over, this is the creative part. ;) DO NOT be too excessive, here... or you will be starting over. The idea is to simply add back some color to the line art... when it gets too real, you tend to lose the effect.
Please Note: Once you close and save the created document (use another name for it!), I do not believe you may edit this new document in this way, again. You will lose the history and the original, if it is copied to itself!


Remember, knowledge is power. Good luck and make some money with this technique... you know, for lenses. :D

[DonSchap]

"Then, from out of the pack... he stormed forth..."

11621

[phatkid77]

very sweet......thanks again...

my first crack at your way....

[DonSchap]

Conceptually, due to the ice... you might want to stroke some surface color horizontally under the player's skate... just a thought.

Have fun with this... it's a dandy technique. :)