Could stand a bit more brightness but it's not underexposed — looks acceptable to me. The clutter is more of a problem (for me at least).Jump to post
I had very similar problems with the 80D — a lot of images turning out soft (some almost blurry) — I know a few people who got rid of their 80Ds due to this. I tried every variation of AF and some were better than others (using one-shot usually helped), yet I could never completely negate the proble...Jump to post
Ask yourself the following questions:
1) What focal lengths do I shoot at most frequently?
2) Do I want the absolute best quality or am I willing to compromise?
3) What lenses do I have already?
That Transavia has a very yellow cast and the KL E75 lacks contrast but lightpoles behind the subject shouldn't be an issue. Yes, it'd be better if they weren't there but sometimes they can't be helped. Same with foreground clutter that's not blocking the aircraft. We each have our own preferences b...Jump to post
Each individual is of course just that — individual — so what camera gear you need for a particular type of aircraft photography will vary depending on your preferences. Those who prefer their airshow photography will use similar gear but by no means the same. A good base is a fast APS-C (crop senso...Jump to post
Not badly overexposed but could probably do with toning down just a bit. More concerning for me are the strong blue halos around the engines and fuselage top — looks like an editing artefact where you've perhaps highlighted then isolated parts of the sky?Jump to post
In all honesty I doubt it'd overtake a Pan Am 707 from 1998...
Jehan, I take issue with your comment as I did type a note to the screeners (without acknowledgement). If you want my honest opinion this website really isn't worth my investing time to be spiteful as I have better things to do. Missing 'the odd' newsworthy image is fine but yet another missed today...Jump to post
By chance I have just seen an image of another new livery/type for an airline that failed to make the banner. By my count that's four truly newsworthy aircraft in as many weeks that have not been added to the news ticker — why should these photographers bother bringing the site the latest gems if it...Jump to post
If image quality is your primary concern and you want to settle for nothing less than the best, the Canon EF 100-400L II is the lens to buy. If in time you need more reach you can purchase either a crop body (such as a used 7D or 70D) or a 1.4x extender (don't bother with the 2x extender as the loss...Jump to post
One thing that is getting sloppy is the lack of promotion of new airlines or otherwise newsworthy subjects in the news banner. I've said this before but this pasat couple of weeks wo brand new airlines have been missed, yet a new (small) decal for a 757 somehow deserves a place? I'm aware that the t...Jump to post
Yes, I'm pretty sure AA's 'Astrojet' 757 was the first.Jump to post
It really depends on what you mean by 'best'. The lens that offers the best image quality is the Canon 100-400L, and for regular airport photography I'd say it's the best all-rounder. It's also a good airshow lens but perhaps better when used on a body such as the 7D or 90D due to the extra reach. T...Jump to post
On a full-frame body the 100-400 might be insufficient for airshow photography, however one solution would perhaps be to buy a relatively cheap APS-C camera to give you more reach. This will effectively give you the 600mm of the Sigmas without compromising image quality, and you'll have the flexibil...Jump to post
I can see compression/banding in the sky, top left/right of frame. I'm more surprised it didn't get the boot for overexposure as a few areas are blown out.Jump to post
If you definitely don't require more than 400mm the Canon is unrivalled. It is, however, pretty useless if most of your shooting is done between 500 and 600mm (unless you have sufficient resolution to crop). The Sigmas are great for the price and some will tell you their IQ is every bit as good as t...Jump to post
All, It occurred to me while shooting aircraft super-wide-angle last night that a tilt & shift lens could possibly eliminate some of the distortion we see when photographing large airlines from very close quarters. In theory it should reduce bowing and keep the subject in better proportion but I...Jump to post
[photoid][/photoid]I contacted Hoya and they have said they cannot absolutely guarantee compatibility with Canon's new RF lenses. They've told me to approach Canon, however Canon are simply going to recommend their own 77mm filter (which as per their website IS compatible with my lens). Oddly I can'...Jump to post
Steve, I'm aware that every filter will degrade image quality in some way but the more expensive ones (which I'm looking at) don't affect images to any noticeable degree. I too have never used filters but Canon RF glass is extortionate and I'm willing to lose a negligible fraction of the quality to ...Jump to post
Thanks Jehan. I imagine the best thing to do is email each manufacturer and ask the question? I'm just a little concerned as RF glass is new territory for the filter manufacturers and, certainly in the case of my lens, the front element is more curved that its EF equivalent.Jump to post
All, Looking for a quality filter for my RF 70-200 f/4 L IS but don't have much experience with filters. Seems there are some excellent budget options from Hoya, K&F Concepts and Urth (formerly Gobe) that don't appear to affect image quality, however my big concern is buying one and finding out ...Jump to post
I'm a Canon guy but I very much doubt a 24-120 f/4 could match a good 24-70 f/2.8. Physics dictates that a 5x zoom (24-120) won't be as good as a 3x zoom (24-70), because the lens elements of the 5x basically have much more work to do.Jump to post
Fair enough, but wouldn't another solution be to just tone down the sharpening and retain the 1900 pixels? The comment was a bit ambiguous and led me to believe the screener deemed the overall quality to be insufficient.Jump to post
All, Rejected for oversharp. Looking now I can see a few jaggies I didn't notice last night (flap fairings, red part of the tail, titles) but what puzzles me is the screener comment: "Try uploading at lower resolution". Lowering the resolution won't mitigate oversharpening (if anything it'...Jump to post
Yeah, just drop the sharpness setting in your camera — default is +3 with Canon and normally fine so you've either bumped the sharpness up or +3 on the R6 is too much (I'm inclined to think the former). On a somewhat related note I've found RF cameras produce quite dull images by default, so I bumpe...Jump to post
Panning shots aren't discouraged; in fact probably more encouraged. The problem with forums such as this is that you'll get a broad range of opinions — many of them not incorrect per se but rather too specific to be of any real use to a beginner. 'What settings should I use?' is a subjective questio...Jump to post
Indeed, but I was shooting 320s at 50-60mm and it just wasn't happening as the winglet would be moving relative to me much faster than the rest of the aircraft (or the tailplane would be blurry due to the vibration). Not a lot I could do, irrespective of whether my technique was any good or not. 200...Jump to post
Just to add that having IS/VR (or whatever you wanna call it) turned on for panning is better than having it turned off. But it is not the magical tool some think it is. It is subject to physics, like everything else. I used to relieve the boredom between movements at my local by doing panning shots...Jump to post
For example, if an aircraft is rotating on the runway, you will see two movements: one is the aircraft rolling on the runway, and the other one is the aircraft nose lifting off the pavement, so those different motion are very difficult to "copy" with the camera. Precisely. Too many photog...Jump to post
Looks blurry and the quality generally isn't there. Lacks 'punch' and contrast. There also seems to be something odd going on in the grass at the bottom of the frame.
All, Thought I'd share my thoughts on the above new lens for Canon's RF mount, since it's likely going to become a staple lens in many an aviation photographer's bag. I've had it for a few weeks now so feel I am in a position to offer my opinion for anyone wondering whether to splash the cash and ge...Jump to post
EF glass works seamlessly with RF bodies and the adapter at the moment is often included with an RF camera. But I think your current kit will serve you well for the next couple of years (bearing in mind you've only just splashed out on two lenses!). I'm not so sure about the R7; it has been rumoured...Jump to post
Mirrorless is not too popular with wildlife photographers for some reason, but I am considering the transition The thing with mirrorless is that it has advanced greatly only in the past 1-2 years, and many DSLRs owners still perceive it to be the same sluggish technology it was 4-5 years ago. It's ...Jump to post
First one looks slightly blurry to me.Jump to post
The camera will be letting you down more than the lens, however DSLR technology is now beginning to show its age when focussing on small, erratically-moving objects. The 7DII and 90D are better suited to action/wildlife photography. I'm glad you like your new lens anyway — what it lacks in range it ...Jump to post
Unequal space between aircraft and frame edges, poor lighting, too much dead space, and the wing is awkwardly clipped in the first image. Photography is mostly about light, and it's not doing you any favours here unfortunately.Jump to post
Take your camera body in and ask if you can give it a go — after all, you need to know that what you're buying performs satisfactorily! Just give it a quick whirl at 100mm, 250mm, and 400mm, and at various apertures (wide open, f/5.6 and f/8 should do). No more than 10 minutes of their (and your) ti...Jump to post
The original EF 100-400L is decent but unfortunately renowned for its copy variation — in other words, if you get a bad one it'll be pretty soft, likely for much of the zoom range. I went through 3 before settling on one that was pretty close to perfect... until the IS went in it after about 2 years...Jump to post
Fair enough. However had you asked the question here many could have told you that Tamron's G2 series is way superior to their older models.Jump to post
The EF 70-200 f/4 L would have been my first choice, without doubt. It can be bought new for around $680, so maybe around $400-$500 used. Has no IS but it's optically one of the finest lenses ever produced. Was recommended several times above so I'm not sure why you went with the Tamron...Jump to post
I must admit, I'm curious as to why it was removed if the screening team and the community at large deemed it a high quality image? I don't harbour any guilt as I think the blur was both obvious and excessive, but it does seem drastic to remove a photo based on a single opinion. I wasn't advocating ...Jump to post
I personally feel the site is needlessly shooting itself in the foot by not accepting such images as they pretty unique and therefore quite appealing.Jump to post
Paul, it's not about whether I think it's acceptable — it's about whether the site is happy with it. I'm not sure a reupload will fix the blurry nose but it is of course your call. I can, however, say with certainty that, if I were still regularly uploading, I would cite that image in the case of an...Jump to post
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Lufthan ... QxJg%3D%3D
An image of a LH 777F currently in the top 5 which is blurry, poorly lit and lacks contrast.
A solid camera is always a wiser option than a liquid one... ;-) Joking aside there are so many parameters to consider: how fussy are you about image quality? Do you want a camera you can grow with or just a beginner model? How much do you want to spend? And would you rather spend it on the camera o...Jump to post
A bit ambiguous since it's neither dark nor flat really. Lighting is awkward and it looks a bit yellow to me but the whites look pretty pure. A touch more contrast wouldn't do any harm but I think the main issue is a lack of saturation — the lack of colour punch seems to give the illusion that the i...Jump to post
Nope, just that the OP is likely going to have to spend more than he/she wants to if he/she wants better results than those offered by the 75-300.Jump to post
As stated above the standard (non-IS) EF 70-200 f/4 L should be only around $600 new (at least it is here in the UK and US prices are typically lower). Unfortunately if you want good image quality — without the softness, vignetting and CA — you're going to have to empty your wallet a bit more.
I think you kind of answer your own question really. I don't have experience with any of Sony's bridge cameras but I do own one of their MILCs. Quality is generally very good but I don't think it's quite up to Canon's standard, in that I've never been happy with how the Sony renders high contrast ed...Jump to post