40D GETS EXTREME !

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    your crappy P&S camera!

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original

    Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    was just the red hat.

    -Mr. Extreme
     
    Annika1980, Sep 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980 wrote:
    > I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    > what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    > this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    > your crappy P&S camera!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
    >
    > Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    > red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    > there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    > away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    > up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    > the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    > in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    > know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    > was just the red hat.
    >
    > -Mr. Extreme
    >


    Amazing shot, Thank you Mr. Extreme
     
    Harold Hughes - Activity Director, Sep 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 28, 11:08 am, Harold Hughes - Activity Director <>
    wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original

    >
    > Amazing shot, Thank you Mr. Extreme


    Thanks. I know Noons will love them as well.

    I forgot to mention the two flashes used for this shot.
    The 580EX was on camera with the Gary Fong Lightsphere. The 430EX was
    off camera two feet to the right of the bird (viewer's right). Both
    cameras were set on High-Speed sync, but I'm not sure how much light
    they actually contributed to the pic at 1/8000. You can see a small
    catchlight in the bird's eye from the Lightsphere, however.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 28, 2007
    #3
  4. Annika1980 wrote:
    > On Sep 28, 11:08 am, Harold Hughes - Activity Director <>
    > wrote:
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original

    >> Amazing shot, Thank you Mr. Extreme

    >
    > Thanks. I know Noons will love them as well.
    >
    > I forgot to mention the two flashes used for this shot.
    > The 580EX was on camera with the Gary Fong Lightsphere. The 430EX was
    > off camera two feet to the right of the bird (viewer's right). Both
    > cameras were set on High-Speed sync, but I'm not sure how much light
    > they actually contributed to the pic at 1/8000. You can see a small
    > catchlight in the bird's eye from the Lightsphere, however.
    >
    >


    No matter, it is still a great shot, This is also a picture tells a
    thousand words type of shot.
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/35543731@N00/1446528447/

    It is very dry here at the moment.
     
    Harold Hughes - Activity Director, Sep 28, 2007
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    > what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    > this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    > your crappy P&S camera!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
    >
    > Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    > red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    > there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    > away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    > up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    > the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    > in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    > know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    > was just the red hat.
    >
    > -Mr. Extreme
    >
    >


    It's a good shot to show those extremes and what your camera can do, but
    next time you give this a try, you may want to get both flashes off-camera
    (if you have the ST-E2 transmitter) and put them close to the bird to get
    better colors from the feathers. Your Gary Fong device is doing you no
    favors here as it is sending a considerable amount of your flash output in
    directions that won't help illuminate the bird. To diffuse flashes that are
    close to the bird, you may want to try a Westcott Micro Apollo or a similar
    diffuser.

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Sep 28, 2007
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Sep 28, 10:55 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    > what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    > this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    > your crappy P&S camera!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
    >
    > Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    > red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    > there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    > away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    > up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    > the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    > in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    > know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    > was just the red hat.
    >
    > -Mr. Extreme


    Phenomenal!
     
    , Sep 28, 2007
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 28, 11:49 am, "Eric Miller" <>
    wrote:
    >
    > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original


    > It's a good shot to show those extremes and what your camera can do, but
    > next time you give this a try, you may want to get both flashes off-camera
    > (if you have the ST-E2 transmitter) and put them close to the bird to get
    > better colors from the feathers.


    I doubt it would make much of a difference since the pic was taken
    in bright sunlight with the sun directly behind the camera. Now if
    I'd used a couple of big studio strobes at night, that would be
    different.
    So while the colors might not have the pop that the strobes provide,
    I think it presents a more natural look. YMMV.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 28, 2007
    #7
  8. Eric Miller wrote:

    > It's a good shot to show those extremes and what your camera can do,
    > but next time you give this a try, you may want to get both flashes
    > off-camera (if you have the ST-E2 transmitter) and put them close to
    > the bird to get better colors from the feathers. Your Gary Fong
    > device is doing you no favors here as it is sending a considerable
    > amount of your flash output in directions that won't help illuminate
    > the bird. To diffuse flashes that are close to the bird, you may want
    > to try a Westcott Micro Apollo or a similar diffuser.


    Pocket Wizards will vastly improve this image under these circumstances.

    <http://www.pocketwizard.com/>





    Rita
     
    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Sep 28, 2007
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    Draco Guest

    On Sep 28, 10:55 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    > what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    > this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    > your crappy P&S camera!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
    >
    > Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    > red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    > there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    > away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    > up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    > the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    > in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    > know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    > was just the red hat.
    >
    > -Mr. Extreme


    Dang! Great shot. A bit of noise. But a lot less than I thought it
    would be. Even with the sun behind the camera position the fill flash
    would make the color pop just a bit more. But I'm with you on using
    natural light in shooting these little guys.

    Still a great job of capture.


    Draco


    Enjoy today. Tomorrow is promised to no one.
     
    Draco, Sep 28, 2007
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Ali Guest

    Bit noisy isn't it? ;-)



    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    > what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    > this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    > your crappy P&S camera!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
    >
    > Didn't have to use the 400 f/5.6L for that one since I was wearing my
    > red shirt and sitting about 4 feet from the bird. Nothing like sitting
    > there quietly enjoying my Diet Coke and then feeling the air taken
    > away from my ear as the hummer hovers. If you've never heard a hummer
    > up close you don't hear them as much as feel them as their wings move
    > the air in a soothing hum. It's also fun to see them hover two feet
    > in front of your face. The little suckers have no fear since they
    > know they can evade anything with their flying prowess. Or maybe it
    > was just the red hat.
    >
    > -Mr. Extreme
    >
     
    Ali, Sep 28, 2007
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Eric Miller Guest

    > I doubt it would make much of a difference since the pic was taken
    > in bright sunlight with the sun directly behind the camera.


    Then likely neither would the use of flash make much of a difference at all.
    If you need the flash, you need all it's output on the bird and not just
    what small percentage that particular diffuser doesn't send back at the sun
    and other places.

    > Now if
    > I'd used a couple of big studio strobes at night, that would be
    > different.


    If you used them at night, you had better be good at finding sleeping
    hummingbirds (in torpor) in the dark. ;)

    > So while the colors might not have the pop that the strobes provide,
    > I think it presents a more natural look. YMMV.
    >


    Hummingbirds' refractive feathers act differently under different lighting
    conditions - showing the most color under a cloudy sky. So there isn't just
    one "natural look." In any event, it is possible to get a reasonably
    "natural" look with flash.

    http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2071344

    Eric Miller
    www.dyesscreek.com
     
    Eric Miller, Sep 28, 2007
    #11
  12. On 2007-09-28 12:08:42 -0700, "Eric Miller"
    <> said:

    >> I doubt it would make much of a difference since the pic was taken
    >> in bright sunlight with the sun directly behind the camera.

    >
    > Then likely neither would the use of flash make much of a difference at
    > all. If you need the flash, you need all it's output on the bird and
    > not just what small percentage that particular diffuser doesn't send
    > back at the sun and other places.
    >
    >> Now if
    >> I'd used a couple of big studio strobes at night, that would be
    >> different.

    >
    > If you used them at night, you had better be good at finding sleeping
    > hummingbirds (in torpor) in the dark. ;)
    >
    >> So while the colors might not have the pop that the strobes provide,
    >> I think it presents a more natural look. YMMV.
    >>

    >
    > Hummingbirds' refractive feathers act differently under different
    > lighting conditions - showing the most color under a cloudy sky. So
    > there isn't just one "natural look." In any event, it is possible to
    > get a reasonably "natural" look with flash.
    >
    > http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2071344
    >
    > Eric Miller
    > www.dyesscreek.com


    Verrrrrrrry nice! --- I particularly like the retracted landing gear.
    --
    Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
    yourselves instead to the safety of the republic
     
    sheepdog 2007, Sep 28, 2007
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    NatureGuy Guest

    On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:55:13 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:

    >I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    >what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    >this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    >your crappy P&S camera!
    >


    Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
    better than this one of yours. With less noise too. Your camera has as much
    noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. How much did those 2 stops more
    cost you with no improvement? If the lens you were using wasn't f/2.0 (as exists
    on one of my P&S cameras) but 2 stops smaller, then you really didn't gain a
    thing. Think about it.

    What a shame. All that money that you spent on camera, lenses, and flashes. Only
    to get an image that's just as noisy as a P&S camera at ISO800. Then you go and
    ruin the image too by using flash to flatten any realism into non-existence.

    Keep practicing, you'll figure it out one day. You might want to start by
    selling that dslr and its low quality lenses, you could probably buy 10 to 20
    P&S cameras that take photos every bit as good if not better for the same price.
    I'm sure one of them will be to your liking.

    What a shame, what a sad sad shame.....

    I just can't believe all the noise in your image. And you spent how much to get
    that???

    wow.... sad, just sad.....

    I'm not sure what's worse, the performance of that camera for that price, or
    your photography skills. Either/or, it's just sad all around.
     
    NatureGuy, Sep 28, 2007
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    D-Mac Guest

    "Ali" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bit noisy isn't it? ;-)
    >
    >
    >

    Shhhhh. You're not supposed to notice that or lack of detail in the light
    areas.

    Lack of detail is a common problem with all 1.6 crop Canon sensors at high
    ISO. Most other brand too. But you did the wrong thing talking about the
    technical quality of the image... It's the subject matter. That's what
    Bret's pics are about.

    Doug
     
    D-Mac, Sep 28, 2007
    #14
  15. NatureGuy wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:55:13 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    >> I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    >> what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    >> this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    >> your crappy P&S camera!
    >>

    >
    > Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
    > better than this one of yours. With less noise too. Your camera has as much
    > noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. How much did those 2 stops more
    > cost you with no improvement? If the lens you were using wasn't f/2.0 (as exists
    > on one of my P&S cameras) but 2 stops smaller, then you really didn't gain a
    > thing. Think about it.
    >
    > What a shame. All that money that you spent on camera, lenses, and flashes. Only
    > to get an image that's just as noisy as a P&S camera at ISO800. Then you go and
    > ruin the image too by using flash to flatten any realism into non-existence.
    >
    > Keep practicing, you'll figure it out one day. You might want to start by
    > selling that dslr and its low quality lenses, you could probably buy 10 to 20
    > P&S cameras that take photos every bit as good if not better for the same price.
    > I'm sure one of them will be to your liking.
    >
    > What a shame, what a sad sad shame.....
    >
    > I just can't believe all the noise in your image. And you spent how much to get
    > that???
    >
    > wow.... sad, just sad.....
    >
    > I'm not sure what's worse, the performance of that camera for that price, or
    > your photography skills. Either/or, it's just sad all around.


    Read the o.p. again. It's neither a good, much less a great, shot
    compositionally or technically, but it's /at the extreme edge of sanity/
    - capiche? IOW, it's a test, a demo, a whatever.

    Sheesh.

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Sep 28, 2007
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Allen Guest

    NatureGuy wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:55:13 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    >
    >> I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
    >> what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
    >> this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
    >> your crappy P&S camera!
    >>

    >
    > Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
    > better than this one of yours. With less noise too. Your camera has as much
    > noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. How much did those 2 stops more
    > cost you with no improvement? If the lens you were using wasn't f/2.0 (as exists
    > on one of my P&S cameras) but 2 stops smaller, then you really didn't gain a
    > thing. Think about it.
    >
    > What a shame. All that money that you spent on camera, lenses, and flashes. Only
    > to get an image that's just as noisy as a P&S camera at ISO800. Then you go and
    > ruin the image too by using flash to flatten any realism into non-existence.
    >
    > Keep practicing, you'll figure it out one day. You might want to start by
    > selling that dslr and its low quality lenses, you could probably buy 10 to 20
    > P&S cameras that take photos every bit as good if not better for the same price.
    > I'm sure one of them will be to your liking.
    >
    > What a shame, what a sad sad shame.....
    >
    > I just can't believe all the noise in your image. And you spent how much to get
    > that???
    >
    > wow.... sad, just sad.....
    >
    > I'm not sure what's worse, the performance of that camera for that price, or
    > your photography skills. Either/or, it's just sad all around.
    >

    Well, NatureGuy (nom du jour), how about posting some of your pictures,
    instead of spending so much time "thinking" up new names? Speaking of
    noise--have you read any of your own posts?
    Allen
     
    Allen, Sep 28, 2007
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:

    >
    > Phenomenal!


    nonononono, Helen.

    It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
    from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
    make light work of repetitive chores.

    Like this:
    "Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
    rule!!
    I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
    bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
    paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
    Helen "

    See?

    Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
    and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
    same old boring, mindless adulation.
     
    Noons, Sep 28, 2007
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Guest

    On Sep 28, 6:34 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    > On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Phenomenal!

    >
    > nonononono, Helen.
    >
    > It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
    > from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
    > make light work of repetitive chores.
    >
    > Like this:
    > "Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
    > rule!!
    > I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
    > bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
    > paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
    > Helen "
    >
    > See?
    >
    > Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
    > and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
    > same old boring, mindless adulation.


    You mean like you with your
    same old boring, mindless defamation?
    I could never be like you. A cynic, defamer, slanderer and assassin
    of all that is beautiful.
     
    , Sep 29, 2007
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Pete D Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sep 28, 6:34 pm, Noons <> wrote:
    >> On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> > Phenomenal!

    >>
    >> nonononono, Helen.
    >>
    >> It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
    >> from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
    >> make light work of repetitive chores.
    >>
    >> Like this:
    >> "Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
    >> rule!!
    >> I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
    >> bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
    >> paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
    >> Helen "
    >>
    >> See?
    >>
    >> Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
    >> and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
    >> same old boring, mindless adulation.

    >
    > You mean like you with your
    > same old boring, mindless defamation?
    > I could never be like you. A cynic, defamer, slanderer and assassin
    > of all that is beautiful.
    >


    You could probably refrain from the public sex though and still get your
    message across don't you think?
     
    Pete D, Sep 29, 2007
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 29, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Digital Photography Now

    SanDisk Extreme IV compact flash and Extreme Firewire card reader reviewed

    Digital Photography Now, Aug 5, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    939
    Digital Photography Now
    Aug 5, 2006
  2. Extreme III vs. Extreme IV CF cards

    , Apr 13, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    624
    ASAAR
    Apr 15, 2007
  3. Annika1980

    40D GETS TAUGHT A LESSON !

    Annika1980, Oct 20, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    455
    traveller ©
    Oct 24, 2007
  4. Annika1980

    THE 40D GETS SOME TONGUE!

    Annika1980, Feb 16, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    903
    Noons
    Feb 25, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    40D GETS A HUMMER!

    Annika1980, May 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    901
    John Turco
    May 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page