Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I wouldnt worry about that. Some mates were trying to convince me I didnt need a 70-200 2.8 IS, so leant me a non IS. Brilliant bit of glass. My next purchase for sure.

Seen those, look nice. Although considering how small and light it is Id ditch the lenses and get a nice flexible zoom lens.

Youre a sick man Craig... Go talk to your wife then!

fkn lol ryan you havnt been around long enough me thinks hahahahah

I wouldnt worry about that. Some mates were trying to convince me I didnt need a 70-200 2.8 IS, so leant me a non IS. Brilliant bit of glass. My next purchase for sure.

Yeah, I'm getting by without the IS - the only shaky shots I've shot so far were indoors at a Uni graduation where I didn't think it would be curteous to use a flash and I was a long way away at the back of the hall, and there were too many people around to set up a tripod.

nick you should get the 70-200 F4, its lighter, and smaller too.

Nah, I'm liking this lens more and more as I use it, and I like the extra stop of light, as well as the DoF. Can't afford another lens for a while, anyway. I'm just going to put up with the weight.

Seen those, look nice. Although considering how small and light it is Id ditch the lenses and get a nice flexible zoom lens.

whats that LOL and how does it differ ?

you wouldnt be using it at such a large aperture anyway?

i run mine around F7.1 anyway. so wouldnt matter anyway.

Yeah, but sometimes I like to shoot wide open. And it's about options - it's always good to have options, right?

Yeah, I'm getting by without the IS - the only shaky shots I've shot so far were indoors at a Uni graduation where I didn't think it would be curteous to use a flash and I was a long way away at the back of the hall, and there were too many people around to set up a tripod.

To be fair, chances are your flash wouldnt have been able to throw sufficient light to assist you here any how :P

Maxed out your usable ISO range already? Very much a rock and a hard place situation if you had :(

To be fair, chances are your flash wouldnt have been able to throw sufficient light to assist you here any how :P

Maxed out your usable ISO range already? Very much a rock and a hard place situation if you had :(

Yeah, no doubt.

Yep, ISO was maxed out, I should see how much I can recover it - it was mega-grainy.

just use a noise reduction program. sometimes they work well. i guess it comes down to how noisy your camera is at whatever ISO youre using.

get a 580ex speedlite, its got 200mm zoom (i think)

Ive seen Noise Ninja do some fairly amazing things. Smart software.

If Nick has a crop body & his lens was at 200mm then even the 580 wouldnt help - as he'd technically be at 320mm. Ive never shot with a monopod, but under those sort of circumstances it might work well..?

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

    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
    • I do this, I also don't get the joke  
    • Return flow cooler will be killing you I reckon. You can certainly push more through a low mount setup but they're good numbers for a stock looking engine bay.  Mine made 345rwkw (hub) at 22psi on 98 with a "highflow" on a stock manifold but it's a long way from a normal high flow or standard engine. I used one of those Turbosmart IWG-75's and it was great with the Motec running closed loop boost with pressure being applied to both sides of the diaphragm. 
    • Hey man do you have pic of adaptor plate by any chance I need to match up the bolt holes as my gearbox adaptor plate ones are way off the only bolts of starter motor are matching thanks 
×
×
  • Create New...