This is Photography

[BlackbirdM3]

20180317-StarScape1 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr

Now I want some sort of wide angle Prime with a fast aperture. This actually turned out way better then I thought, I chose long exposure over higher ISO because my camera gets incredibly grainy and hard to process over 400 ISO. Especially since at 3.5-4.0 I'm not really getting all the stars I should be getting.

You aren't getting all your stars because you have WAY too much light pollution. Id bet it wouldn't matter what lens you run, you still wouldn't capture all the stars because there is too much other, stronger light dominating the sensor. Yes, I've found that running higher (above 400 ISO) causes very grainy pics. Even on my D600, and the D810 I used at Reno last fall. ISO is like ASA rating on film. The higher it goes, the more light can be captured, however the grainer the pic. Sometimes the grain can be reduced in lightroom, but not always.

I had the chance to go play with some long exposure daylight shots again the other day.



The clouds were far more active than the other day. Since I only have super dark filters for my 200-500, it was tough to get a real wide angle view. I think I could have shot some really cool stuff with the 24-85, but not with the ND filter I have (not nearly dark enough.) I was using a 10 stop Nd with a 1.4 stacked on top of it to get these. Even at ISO 50, F8, but even so, I could only go about a minute and a half before I ran into over exposure issues.

Will

[Wschnitz]

20180317-StarScape1 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr

Now I want some sort of wide angle Prime with a fast aperture. This actually turned out way better then I thought, I chose long exposure over higher ISO because my camera gets incredibly grainy and hard to process over 400 ISO. Especially since at 3.5-4.0 I'm not really getting all the stars I should be getting.

[Wschnitz]

Watch out for those sensors spots in the first long exposure photo in that big post!

Big fan of the crab pic lol

Yeah I didn't clean them up, just fixed the colors. Not my camera so wasn't going to try cleaning it off.

[Reichart12]

Watch out for those sensors spots in the first long exposure photo in that big post!

Big fan of the crab pic lol

[Wschnitz]

Unless you plan to be doing a lot of very low light and need the better low light higher power setting resolution in the sensors on the 6D's I would be putting my FF upgrade money on lightly used 5D III. The reason I have a 6D and not 5DIII is I got mine on a MASSIVE DISCOUNT buy due to a mistake on Target stores pricing flub, think like 65% off in 2013 flub.... LOL. That and I shoot the Auroras as often as I can and the better low light / High power handling of the 6D Sensor lends it self to that. That said the 5D III is a much better unit.... 5D III is going to give you much better A/F than even the 6DII and cost about the same or less.

Im hoping Canon discounts the 6DII since its overpriced with Sony's latest offerings being revealed. Ill look into the 5DIII but I would actually like the low light performance, the extra resolution/mp even if small would be nice for my landscapes too.

Definitely wont be happening till probably mid summer though.

Edit: Are you sure on the AF? The 6DII has the Dual Pixel AF which is supposed to be far superior to any of the previous contrast AF's that canon uses.
Also can see some of the features like tilty flippy screen, Wi-FI/NFC and timelapse photo modes being very useful to me in the future.

[mrsleeve]

Unless you plan to be doing a lot of very low light and need the better low light higher power setting resolution in the sensors on the 6D's I would be putting my FF upgrade money on lightly used 5D III. The reason I have a 6D and not 5DIII is I got mine on a MASSIVE DISCOUNT buy due to a mistake on Target stores pricing flub, think like 65% off in 2013 flub.... LOL. That and I shoot the Auroras as often as I can and the better low light / High power handling of the 6D Sensor lends it self to that. That said the 5D III is a much better unit.... 5D III is going to give you much better A/F than even the 6DII and cost about the same or less.

[Wschnitz]

Overall really not impressed with the color the Sony had at neutral settings ~5-6K Kelvin on AdobeRGB standard, but with a quick lightroom filter I was happy with how everything turned out. Definitely giving the 6D Mark 2 more serious thought now however, and will probably rent it and an 85mm for summer break when I go to Banff.

Also did some long exposures, but I need more ND filters, the one variable one is far from enough.

20140104-_DSC1087 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140101-_DSC0146 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140105-_DSC1214 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140104-_DSC0884 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140104-_DSC0755 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140104-_DSC0775 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140105-_DSC1184 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140105-_DSC1242 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140105-_DSC1229 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140105-_DSC1349 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140101-_DSC0041 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
20140103-_DSC0660 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr

The Nice glass was probably more of the impact to me then the body, but being able to crop without noticing loss in detail is pretty enjoyable.

[Wschnitz]

_DSC0248 by William Snitselaar, on Flickr
Have not finished going through all the pictures I took yet. But god damn I need a full frame now.

Its really down to if its worth swapping ecosystems for me, since I do technically already have a 50mm 1.4F EF lens that would work on a 6DMK2.

[Wschnitz]

I really like 2.8 but its just hard to nail its focus on the fly, I usually run 4.0 just for street photography.

Now I have to transfer 50gb of photos to my desktop from laptop to actually go through them.

[Reichart12]

SF is a great place to shoot, if you can get over the smell of urine from the homeless :) That last shot was nice. Was there a bit of post processing to bring it in so sharp?

haha yeah some places definitely smelled pretty rough. No extra sharpening in post. Just my normal work to get the lighting a bit better and to my liking. All my photos get a pass through Lightroom. And like MrSleeve said, its a 85mm shot at 3.2 so if you can hit focus right on it'll produce a good image.

[mrsleeve]

^

I doubt its anything in post, just a well executed shot with a Nikon 85 f1.4 where it really starts to shine for Sharpness starts at F2.8, and is really nice at 3.2



Here are a couple of mine form last weekend in AZ a touch under exposed perhaps.....

IMG_1630 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

IMG_1629 by mrsleeve, on Flickr

[george graves]

[/url]

SF is a great place to shoot, if you can get over the smell of urine from the homeless :) That last shot was nice. Was there a bit of post processing to bring it in so sharp?

[Reichart12]

A bunch photos from my one day venture into San Francisco the other week.

[BlackbirdM3]

I did a little long exposure daylight work this afternoon. These 3 were all between 1 and 2 min exposures.




This was not a long exposure, but still pretty cool. Its a Kite (the bird) that came cruising through.


Will

[Wschnitz]

Meh if you really want to meme about glass you cant ignore how decently metabones adapter works. I do agree though, its my only hesitation point cause canon has football fields worth of glass history.

But the Sigma Art lineup coming out is tipping me over the edge, ghetto fabbed canon conversions or not.

Plus I've rented the A7II and 35mm 1.4T Zeiss lens for break, and im kind of in love.