Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]During the MOOSE shots which I took another look it he's in the process of panning from left to right. So not only is thee moose chewing But he's being panned upon. With a tripod. Perhaps the IS is confused by the tripod and the panning. A wrong setting... I think as Leonard is saying that there are too many variables and not enough experience in such ultra long tele high tech shooting. I find it an odd choice to have shot it in crop mode and not full frame with the Canons and this is a full frame lens. The technology is changing very quickly how does CANON get a guy who has enough experience in what's being shown. Perhaps they did. Is this guy really experienced in shooting 1,280mm's? And with IS? Very probably not as the lens has just been invented and I'm not sure there are already stuff out there like it the point being that this is a whole new ballgame. I'd like to say that I doubt the optic is beyond reprorach. I'm sure that when this someone has had enough time with the lens for month or if lots of people say from on this list used it for a month they've cranking out amazing work with it. I have the highest respect for Canon. 12 grand? 10 pounds? I think they can come up with something more than respectable for 12 grand. Mouth watering no doubt even for a Leica lover. Also see this http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-800mm.shtml Did he use a totally as Reichmann says inadequate ball head or did he use a Gimball like a big boy? And as these shots indicate lets see it at 800mm and not this 1,280mm nonsense! Mark William Rabiner > From: Leonard Taupier <len-001@verizon.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:01:07 -0500 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Canon 800mm IS > > The problem may be because it is an IS lens. I assume the lens, at 10 > lbs, most likely is on a tripod. If so there are minute vibrations > between the lens and the tripod which cause the IS to try and > correct. This correction can also cause the autofocus to continuosly > focus, or bounce, causing the photo to be slightly out of focus. It > is shutter speed dependent of course. The best way to get a sharp > photo with this long of a lens is to have both IS and autofocus off > when mounted on a tripod. The grizzly photo was taken at 1/250 sec > which is slow enough to account for this kind of problem. The moose > photo was taken at 1/800 sec which should be fast enough to overcome > the problem so the photo appears sharp in the back focus area. I have > spent a long time on this issue trying to figure out why some of my > photos were not as sharp as they should be and not nearly as good as > my handheld shots. It is no coincidence that the sharpest photos with > long lenses belong to the photographer that shots with manual focus > equipment. Also some of the sharpest long autofocus lens shots used > sand bags and not a tripod. Of course these are only my opinions > based on my own experiences and observations. > > Len > > > On Dec 26, 2008, at 5:34 PM, Richard Man wrote: > >> Yea, but the Canon is an IS lens, so that should give 2 stops at >> least. Now >> compare them to our "Birdman of Sacramento." Doug uses a shoulder >> stock and >> a monopod and not a tripod, and does razor sharp wothe non-IS Leica >> lens of >> 400 and 560mm. >> >> It's the techniques and the skills of the photographer here that >> makes the >> difference. >> >> I have to agree that it's the lowering of standards. When things >> are "good >> enough," then the definition of "good enough" will just keep going >> down >> until it hits a bottom, and it's "good enough" until you compare >> them with >> masterpieces. >> >> On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Mark Rabiner >> <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote: >> >>> Lewis Kemper the photographer it says here in the text I glance >>> over claims >>> he uses a tripod for just about everything all the time. So you'd >>> think it >>> was not that.... >>> But at 1,280mm I hope he used the rule of thumb rule and also had a >>> carefully braced tripod AND A 1,280TH OF A SECOND - >>> And be there. >>> And didn't make any other mistakes. Like don't breath. >>> As such super telephoto photography is a whole different ballgame >>> than >>> you're normally dealing with. I'd always heard. >>> Sandbags on my tripod legs for an appetizer I'd order. >>> Who knows what else? >>> Might be as difficult as macro micro photography. >>> You might need to drug your ameba to slow them down first! >>> >> >> >> -- >> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com >> // b: http://rfman.wordpress.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information