Want to Borrow: EF 14mm f/2.8L and/or EOS-1Ds
- Thread starter sehsuan
- Start date
- Status
tokrot said:
Yeah, especially someone. But well, he'd just say he's not posting in the capacity of a moderator yeah
dkw said:
thanks jonathan for your reply. you have made an excellent guess - yes, that's basically what i'm delegated to do so very willingly - right now i'm looking at the 17mm end, and i'm still unable to cover the whole field left to right. i believe a 14mm will be able to cover 113.85 degrees of view, while a 17mm can only cover 103.32 degrees. don't ask me whether it's diagonal or horizontal angle - i grabbed this off a file that oeyvind sent me a long long time ago. ( http://sehsuan.clubsnap.org/download/fov.xls ) i believe this extra 10 degrees will make the difference in presenting the BIG view of the field, the gallery AND the fireworks in the entirety.
as for the 1Ds, i'm contemplating it because of its ability to show a histogram, AND take a full frame picture. i was using my 10D with my 24-85 lens, and it was giving me only 59.19 degrees of view, and that's severely less than what i would need to capture. i'm very thankful to a fellow Clubsnapper who has already lent me on a long term basis, her 17-40 and an EOS500 - for no charge, no obligations whatsoever. one more reason for a digital body, other than the fast turnover time needed (read: right after the shoot), is that i'm the "manual mode" shooter who needs to chimp the first frame using the histogram first before confirming my settings. :embrass: embarassing, but at least i'm willing to confess... i just looked at the iso800 negative scans today, my heart sank when i saw the "dots" that represent a single human head. it was.. polygonal, to say the best.
Jed, i'm not too well fluent in language, but your message seems to portray sarcasm instead of helping. i hope it's more of the latter than the former, from the person-oriented personality you projected in our january chat. maybe you might want to rephrase your sentences before you post them, to prevent misunderstandings. cheers
sehsuan said:
Hullo, my name not jonathan lah ;( ....
Nvm, I forget nicks too
. Maybe you could get one of the Super Pumas to take you up on a ride? :bsmilie: Seriously, good luck on your search. Too bad I don't have a wide angle or I WOULD have lent it to you.
junyang said:Yeah, especially someone. But well, he'd just say he's not posting in the capacity of a moderator yeah
Ah then clearly you lot misunderstand me. I hope someone lends him the blasted gear, and I hope someone gives me a blasted car too. Believe me, no one else will be happier.
I'm certainly not picking on him. Maybe I really do want a new car. And I do. So maybe you're picking on me then?
OMG!!! dkw, paiseh leh! got you confused with nemotohp.... you did come for the Prime Gym shoot with me in late march before , right? 70-200 sigma.... :embrass:
Jed said:
Well, i am certainly not picking on you. Sorry if i have mis-understood you then.
Like sehsuan said, i could only sense sacarsm from what you said in the previous few posts. If i've mis-judged you, then im sorry. Period.
Right, glad we got that cleared up.
Let's make my message clear:
[1] I hope someone lends him their kit.
I'd dearly love for someone to give me a car too but I might have to start another thread for that then. No sarcasm. Give him the lens/camera already.
Let's make my message clear:
[1] I hope someone lends him their kit.
I'd dearly love for someone to give me a car too but I might have to start another thread for that then. No sarcasm. Give him the lens/camera already.
Would suggest using a 15mm fisheye instead of the 14mm rectilinear. It will look more "natural" and not so distorted, especially at the edges. This may seem counterintuitive, but it's true. Fisheye distortion is not necessarily bad, especially for what you are trying to do.
In any case, you can always scan in the negative and de-fish the image using Panotools.
The other reason, of course, is that 15mm fisheyes are much easier to come by than 14mm rectilinears.
In any case, you can always scan in the negative and de-fish the image using Panotools.
The other reason, of course, is that 15mm fisheyes are much easier to come by than 14mm rectilinears.
StreetShooter, i'm noticing a light curvature at the bottom of the 14mm full frame images - i can understand how the barrel-like distortion comes in, but a fisheye can overcome that?
any particular sites to refer this to? i've read general photography matters, but haven't come across fisheye articles...
any particular sites to refer this to? i've read general photography matters, but haven't come across fisheye articles...
I was about to suggest a fisheye lens but streetshooter has already done that.
A fisheye will give a curved view of the stadium but you will notice in this sort of image its not entirely bad. In fact, it would offer a nicer view of the whole stadium imho. But its subjective of course. Likelihood of borrowing a fisheye is definitely better. Then again its good to ask. Good luck!
A fisheye will give a curved view of the stadium but you will notice in this sort of image its not entirely bad. In fact, it would offer a nicer view of the whole stadium imho. But its subjective of course. Likelihood of borrowing a fisheye is definitely better. Then again its good to ask. Good luck!
You want a 1Ds because it's FF and has a histogram? EF 14mm L? Why not Sigma 14mm or even a fisheye?
You already have a 10D and have access to a film camera... if you are scare of making mistake on film/slide, you can always use your 10D as a polaroid back to check.
Honestly, how many pix are you really gonna use the 14mm for? Please don't tell us all or most...
Anyway, good luck in your quest.
You already have a 10D and have access to a film camera... if you are scare of making mistake on film/slide, you can always use your 10D as a polaroid back to check.
Honestly, how many pix are you really gonna use the 14mm for? Please don't tell us all or most...
Anyway, good luck in your quest.
While we are at this, how about more contribution to the Pushing for Prismatic Fund? I've got $7649.00 more to go...
I'm sure that there are professional photojournalists from Straits Times, New Paper etc that will be at the Stadium taking a similar shot.
Isn't simpler to purchase the rights for one of these shots from Straits Times?
Like that sure guaranteed good exposure. No need to look at histogram. 1Ds histogram sometimes inaccurate you know, don't show red channel clipping.
Isn't simpler to purchase the rights for one of these shots from Straits Times?
Like that sure guaranteed good exposure. No need to look at histogram. 1Ds histogram sometimes inaccurate you know, don't show red channel clipping.
oeyvind said:Honestly, how many pix are you really gonna use the 14mm for? Please don't tell us all or most...
why canon? well, i'm a stickler for canon :embrass:
yes, the word is "most". but includes 200mm closeups (not really closeups per se in the conventional sense, given the distance) for tight crops with details.
i could use the 10D for exposure checking, but i only have two hands, and not too fluent switching bodies on the fly. at least i haven't yet shot from a position where a drop of something lightweight could injure any human being before.
Prismatic, you could start a new thread on your fundraising. Adios.
Erwinx, that's what i believe so too, the ST/local media will be there. AFAIK, over 10 ST photogs will be deployed just for the event!
i've approached one of the ST photogs, he told me too, that most likely all the 14/2.8s they have will be taken out for the event anyway, so it's pretty futile to try... but i'm from the school of fail-after-trying rather than fail-without-trying. thanks for your clarification about the red channel clipping issue, didn't know of it earlier. thanks once more! clive said:
it's NDP.
i'm posting this on a personal basis, and do not represent my office for whom i'm shooting for
that's why i cannot afford to pay $$$... clive said:
You mean you can't tell what event that is? :what:
By the way, volunteering a job when you don't have the necessary equipments is completely ...
aiyo..i thought what :bsmilie: ..ok lah...seriously, if u cant lay your hands on the ultrawide..then no choice just step back abit durign the shoot lor which means u will risk being out-elbowed by the other photogs lor...but er..i dont think they will be that ungentlemanly ah..keke
which means u will risk being out-elbowed by the other photogs lor...but er..i dont think they will be that ungentlemanly ah..keke- Status
Similar threads
