Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 493
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Nice shots Sam.. Amusing, I got a 400D 2 weeks before I headed away on my trip - xmas day..

I got a 17-85mm Image Stabilising lens with it becuase I probably couldn't hold it still I think lol.. Might get a longer lens next.. this one is excellant though and would def recommend it if you were looking for an upgrade..

get the 17-40 f/4L.
I got the 17-85 because it's providing me with a bit more long distance ability..

Both are good lens's but most dont understand the difference inbetween the different series of lens's

Image stabilised lens's are really only benificial on the longer zoom units, it does not feature in many lens's under 70mm as at this range you can generally keep the camera still enough for enven a 1/2 second shot. Also in time you will have less use for the IS feature. My only IS lens is a 70-200 F2.8 LIS and its great for motorsport as it takes awsome panning shots...

So therefore if you were to have a 17-40mm there would be no need for IS and therefore the extra money gets spent of L series glass instread. In a perfect work we would all buy 5d's with 28-300mm LIS len's but not all of us have 9 grand...

So a 400D fitted with either a 17-85mm IS or a 17-40mm L series would both be great choices...

To be honest, we sell way more 17-40mm L series than the 17-85mm IS... Mainlly because the quality of the L series glass, also most people would but a 70-200 LIS as their second lens, as 40mm x 1.6 = 64mm in real terms which is plenty for portraits, landscapes & some minor macro work. I probablly use my 17-40 more than any other lens i own...

I got the 17-85 because it's providing me with a bit more long distance ability.. I think a 17-40 won't give me enough zoom.. oh well.. each to their own.. i've been extremely happy so far with it..

Cool. I ditched the 17-85 and got the 10-22 efs - 24-70L - 70-200L IS - 100 Macro 2.8 and next is the 100-400L IS :( I think that gives me pretty good coverage :laugh:

I'm no guru but here's what I'd say about these pics :(

davos3.jpg

Wrong time of day for this shot. With digital (particularly SLR's) you can take some of the best pics in conditions where you'd swear there wasn't nearly enough light. You said you have a tripod so don't be afraid of long exposures. Remote or cable shutter releases aren't dear and are very handy.

mona.jpg

This second shot is more a composition thing than anything. I like the idea, (same as a lot of band photos where the group has a clear front-man or leader) except in those shots, as with this one, everything should have a fairly similar exposure. Mona's 33 is good (but half in its own shadow) while the Supra is overcooked on the front and in shadow on the side.

JAMES3.jpg

This shot would be perfect if shot at the right time of day. I like the angle but the lighting is wrong. You can see the far left of the shot in bright sunlight. Again, don't be afraid of long exposures and late-in-the-day shooting.

james2.jpg

You know you're gonna crash into a wall, right? :mad: Make sure you don't show up in your own pics.

davos.jpg

Not a bad angle or shot. You need to be careful with higher ISO numbers that you don't get too underexposed or your shots will be too grainy or noisy as was suggested for this shot. Remember that clean body panels reflect objects very well and that number plates can be evil with flash or can just plain old over expose themselves from the avialable light. Love the Nismo's and Federal's!

james.jpg

Shadows ruined this pic but that's not the only problem. Always be aware of your surroundings and make sure that nothing is growing out of the roof, boot or bonnet. The number of photos I've seen taken at Wollongong's South Beach where the car has a boot or roof mounted lighthouse is incredible :laugh:

Hope this helps you.

Adrian

Hey Adrian, thanks heaps for the feedback mate :laugh: appreciate it

this was the first time I have taken photos of cars that were not just parked at a cruise, and it was kind of rushed, but i definatly learned alot about sun light and shadows from this day :(

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
×
×
  • Create New...