FLYING HIGH WITH THE 20D !!!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Oct 30, 2005.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Oct 30, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On 29 Oct 2005 18:52:41 -0700, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow


    Very nice. I offer my humble efforts at something similar, taken at the
    Chicago Air&Water show in August:

    http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/heart.jpg
    http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/missing_man.jpg
    http://home.uchicago.edu/~dmsilev/Eagle.jpg

    Panasonic FZ5. Sadly, the Thunderbirds had to cancel their planned
    appearance. On their first show (on Saturday), two of the planes got a
    bit too close together, and a missile rail got knocked off one and fell
    into the lake. Ergo, no Thunderbirds on Sunday. Plenty of other stuff,
    though.

    -dms
    Daniel Silevitch, Oct 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Jer Guest

    Annika1980 wrote:
    > A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >



    Good shots Bret... BTW, what's with the odd 'ringed' appearance of the
    exhaust plume of the Starfighter in #51468616 (first image)? Anybody know?

    --
    jer
    email reply - I am not a 'ten'
    Jer, Oct 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 06:59:25 -0600, Jer <> wrote:

    >Annika1980 wrote:
    >> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >>

    >
    >
    >Good shots Bret... BTW, what's with the odd 'ringed' appearance of the
    >exhaust plume of the Starfighter in #51468616 (first image)? Anybody know?


    Shock waves in the afterburner plume. Very normal.
    http://www.pratt-whitney.com/presskit/images/f135_3_low.jpg
    http://www.tomcattersassociation.org/F3/images/f3-inflight-afterburner.jpg

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Annika1980 wrote:

    > A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >
    > http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow


    Nice, but I noticed something here:

    Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif

    How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    been used here?

    --
    Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    http://www.dahl-stamnes.net/dahls/
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=F8rn?= Dahl-Stamnes, Oct 30, 2005
    #5
  6. Jørn Dahl-Stamnes <> writes:

    > Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow

    >
    > Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >
    > Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    > 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >
    > How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    > been used here?


    More likely a 1.4x converter.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Oct 30, 2005
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:14:11 +0100, Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    <> wrote:

    >Annika1980 wrote:
    >
    >> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>
    >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow

    >
    >Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >
    > Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    > 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >
    >How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >been used here?
    >

    It is probably a calculated focal length.
    the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 30, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Funk wrote:

    > It is probably a calculated focal length.
    > the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    > length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.


    I'm not sure that's it. My Nikon 70-200 will read 140-400mm with the 2x
    converter installed. The only difference is that it will read f/5.6 instead
    of f/2.8.






    Rita
    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Oct 30, 2005
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    George Kerby Guest

    On 10/30/05 4:07 PM, in article , "Rita Ä
    Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

    > Bill Funk wrote:
    >
    >> It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >> the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >> length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.

    >
    > I'm not sure that's it. My Nikon 70-200 will read 140-400mm with the 2x
    > converter installed. The only difference is that it will read f/5.6 instead
    > of f/2.8.
    >
    >
    >

    2X = 2 stops


    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
    <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
    George Kerby, Oct 30, 2005
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Funk <> wrote:
    > Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    >>Annika1980 wrote:


    >>> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>>
    >>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow

    >>
    >>Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >>
    >> Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    >> 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >>
    >>How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >>been used here?
    >>

    >It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.


    Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    teleconverter that was used with the lens. Besides, I've got
    the Digital Rebel with the same crop factor and it doesn't do
    any such calculation when reporting the focal length.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Oct 31, 2005
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    >Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    >teleconverter that was used with the lens.


    Obviously not obvious enough for the more mathematically-challenged
    among us.

    Yes, the Super 70-200 f/2.8L was used with the Canon 1.4xII on some of
    the shots.

    Yesterday, I got to use the 1.4x with the Forgotten 400 f/5.6L on my
    Fabulous EOS-1V, which retains auto-focus up to f/8. It'll be
    interesting to see how those shots of the Blue Angels came out. Look
    for tonight's report.
    Annika1980, Oct 31, 2005
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:50:02 GMT, (Ray
    Fischer) wrote:

    >Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    >>>Annika1980 wrote:

    >
    >>>> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >>>
    >>>Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >>>
    >>> Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    >>> 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >>>
    >>>How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >>>been used here?
    >>>

    >>It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >>the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >>length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.

    >
    >Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    >teleconverter that was used with the lens. Besides, I've got
    >the Digital Rebel with the same crop factor and it doesn't do
    >any such calculation when reporting the focal length.


    While 200x1.6 is 320, 175x1.6 is 280.
    There is nothing to say the lens was at maximum FL for the pic.
    Calculated by the OP, perhaps?

    We don't know. I offer an answer. It may not be the right one.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2005
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Bill Funk Guest

    On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 06:31:04 -0700, Bill Funk
    <> wrote:

    >On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 05:50:02 GMT, (Ray
    >Fischer) wrote:
    >
    >>Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >>> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    >>>>Annika1980 wrote:

    >>
    >>>>> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >>>>
    >>>>Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >>>>
    >>>> Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    >>>> 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >>>>
    >>>>How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >>>>been used here?
    >>>>
    >>>It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >>>the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >>>length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.

    >>
    >>Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    >>teleconverter that was used with the lens. Besides, I've got
    >>the Digital Rebel with the same crop factor and it doesn't do
    >>any such calculation when reporting the focal length.

    >
    >While 200x1.6 is 320, 175x1.6 is 280.
    >There is nothing to say the lens was at maximum FL for the pic.
    >Calculated by the OP, perhaps?
    >
    >We don't know. I offer an answer. It may not be the right one.


    Well now we know. It was a 1.4x teleconverter.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Replace "g" with "a"
    funktionality.blogspot.com
    Bill Funk, Oct 31, 2005
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >>> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    >>>>Annika1980 wrote:


    >>>>> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >>>>
    >>>>Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >>>>
    >>>> Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    >>>> 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >>>>
    >>>>How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >>>>been used here?
    >>>>
    >>>It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >>>the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >>>length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.

    >>
    >>Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    >>teleconverter that was used with the lens. Besides, I've got
    >>the Digital Rebel with the same crop factor and it doesn't do
    >>any such calculation when reporting the focal length.

    >
    >While 200x1.6 is 320, 175x1.6 is 280.
    >There is nothing to say the lens was at maximum FL for the pic.
    >Calculated by the OP, perhaps?


    Perhaps, but I've used a Canon dSLR for a while and it makes no
    attempt to do such calculations. As an engineer I also know that such
    calculations would not be welcome and would not make sense. I also
    consider it wildly improbable that most photos would have been done
    at the same arbitrary FL of 175 as opposed to the 200mm stop.

    >We don't know. I offer an answer. It may not be the right one.


    Even I have been mistaken once. Maybe even twice.

    --
    Ray Fischer
    Ray Fischer, Nov 1, 2005
    #14
  15. Hi,
    Some photo editing programs calculate the 35mm equivalent depending on
    the sensor size. Picasa is one

    On my 1D one of the exif fields is the dimensions of the long side of
    the sensor. Not all editing programs show all the exif fields.

    Cheers,
    Allan
    ..



    On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 17:29:19 GMT, (Ray
    Fischer) wrote:

    >Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >>sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
    >>>Bill Funk <> wrote:
    >>>> Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
    >>>>>Annika1980 wrote:

    >
    >>>>>> A cloudless October day .... perfect for an air show!
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/airshow
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Nice, but I noticed something here:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Canon EOS 20D ,Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM
    >>>>> 1/640s f/5.0 at 280.0mm iso400 full exif
    >>>>>
    >>>>>How can you get the focal length to 280 mm on a 70-200mm. Has a 2x convert
    >>>>>been used here?
    >>>>>
    >>>>It is probably a calculated focal length.
    >>>>the 20D has a 1.6X factor sensor (APS size), so the reported focal
    >>>>length would be multiplied by 1.6 to get the 280mm.
    >>>
    >>>Except that 200 times 1.6 is 320. It's obviously the 1.4x
    >>>teleconverter that was used with the lens. Besides, I've got
    >>>the Digital Rebel with the same crop factor and it doesn't do
    >>>any such calculation when reporting the focal length.

    >>
    >>While 200x1.6 is 320, 175x1.6 is 280.
    >>There is nothing to say the lens was at maximum FL for the pic.
    >>Calculated by the OP, perhaps?

    >
    >Perhaps, but I've used a Canon dSLR for a while and it makes no
    >attempt to do such calculations. As an engineer I also know that such
    >calculations would not be welcome and would not make sense. I also
    >consider it wildly improbable that most photos would have been done
    >at the same arbitrary FL of 175 as opposed to the 200mm stop.
    >
    >>We don't know. I offer an answer. It may not be the right one.

    >
    >Even I have been mistaken once. Maybe even twice.
    Allan & Glennis Sheppard, Nov 1, 2005
    #15
  16. Allan & Glennis Sheppard <> writes:

    > Hi,
    > Some photo editing programs calculate the 35mm equivalent depending on
    > the sensor size. Picasa is one
    >
    > On my 1D one of the exif fields is the dimensions of the long side of
    > the sensor. Not all editing programs show all the exif fields.


    And some programs show totally bogus values for the sensor size.

    --
    Måns Rullgård
    =?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=, Nov 1, 2005
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    Ed Bigelow Guest

    Ed Bigelow, Nov 1, 2005
    #17
    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. ICee

    Flying Cow Game

    ICee, May 2, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    7,081
  2. Ace Hung

    Drive C icon: "flying windows type"

    Ace Hung, Apr 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,062
    trout
    Apr 1, 2005
  3. John A. Stovall

    Flying with digital camera?

    John A. Stovall, Sep 7, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    2,315
    Paul Cordes
    Sep 8, 2003
  4. Steve Young

    Welcoming FAQ Flying High

    Steve Young, Sep 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    446
    Steve Young
    Oct 18, 2003
  5. Annika1980

    FLYING HIGH IN 2005 WITH THE 20D !!!

    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    272
    Roland Karlsson
    Jan 2, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page