Destiny wrote:I tried to capture a water fall using a slow shutter speed..
Destiny wrote:Thats why I am suggesting I try Focus Stacking ...
mediavets wrote:rolly1 wrote: the people on this forum who know what they are doing are going to tell me where i am going wrong
I think many would recommend that you process your RAW image before stitching.
klausesser wrote:Destiny wrote:Thats why I am suggesting I try Focus Stacking ...
Focus-stacking makes it even worse: it multiplies the movement of the foliage.
But you should try "ghost subpression"!
klausesser wrote:Destiny wrote:I tried to capture a water fall using a slow shutter speed..
To be honest: the water doesn´t look at all like water - rather looks like plastic
That´s always a problem with slow shutter speed on running water.
An idea is to use a flash to freeze a *part* of the movement . . this way you have a
mix of blurred AND sharp water - which "feels" much more like water.
The problem is: you need to be somewhat close to ithe water for using the flash . .
(or you take a very bright flash featuring a narrow angle)
Destiny wrote:Some better examples here..
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=slow+ ... 32&bih=807
Destiny wrote:Your internet host is terrible.. Go with Westnet.. We never run out.. Also we pay $20 per month for our mobiles.. If we call each other just once, we get $1000 credits on our called each.. The only downside, no international called but hey hey, thats a big cone anyway... Just buy a cheap mobile with prepay when you go to a country.. pay their rates. In Asia its really cheap.. Australia is a rip off with mobiles and internet..
We have a trolly cart for all our gear, we bought from Bunings, but we love Bunings so might pop in.... Do the wondering and get lost thing...
Destiny wrote:... and I would be one of the first to support the Canon lens, its a beautiful thing.. However, some test were carried out with that cannon lens and others, and the results were that there was not much difference between image quality with the those lenses and the Sigma 50-500mm but for a fraction of the price.. The Canon came out in front just a tab.. Not enough to warrant the price of it.. You can buy two new cars in Oz for the same money.. Or a Mac Pro with heaps of change.. Lets see now... For the same $$$ A D800, + Sigma 50-500mm + Mac pro/Monitor + a little Car and a weeks holiday too..
Destiny wrote:I read a lot about the lens before buying it.. Bill Bailey had the older version and he said he captured some of the best DOF photos he has ever taken..
This Nikon is about $1000 more..
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/09/05/dxoma ... d-vr.aspx/
At the end of the day, I cannot really compare my 50-500mm with Canon since I cannot even use the Canon lenses and most Canon lenses cost soooo much more.. So no point in comparing. Generic lenses like the Sigma is good and Sigma have a good repartition as far as I know... I would have gone Nikon but as the title suggest.. "Affordable".. I actually spent a bit more than I wanted but I got it at a good price I think with a 2 year Aus warranty.. The only thing to be careful with the 50-500mm.. there are many variations of the same lens.. I have the most current version.. The finish of one release was horrible.. and it has issues. The cameras shop said they have not had any of my version returned for any issue at all.. Anyway.. I am really happy with it..
Destiny wrote:Well, if you do a search you will find the same.. I did not keep all the results I found.. And and since I am happy with the results at a great price.., without getting a mortgage to buy it.. The Sigma 50-500 would never match up to the more expensive lenses but the results in comparison were excellent.. I said at the time that I did not feel it was fair to do a comparison as they did with a much more expensive lens so it could never match up.. I will try to find a few of the results I found...
Destiny wrote:These are two of the first photos I captured using my Sigma 50-500mm, handheld!... At the price I feel its a great lens... The only consequence I can find, is the weight. Which I was fully aware of when I bought it.. The only alternative would be be spend another $1000+ on the Nikon but without the zoom.. Any other zoom lens that comes close to the 50-500mm for the zoom factor cost $$$ more so for me.. Its perfect... Love the lens...
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests