Shopsmith Forums

reible wrote:This canon camera is a 35X optical. In addition I was using the 2X digital tele-converter. The 35X is about 150mm, in 35mm film wise that equals 840mm (2X converter makes it 1680 35mm film wise).

I also cropped this image so you get to see more moon less black sky, then that was sized to fit the forum size, and then compressed to a level of 70 all with irfanview (which also reads EXIF).

I removed the UV filter so there was no possibility of effect caused by another layer of glass. I can't afford $300 filter, nor $150 filter, not even $75 filters, and once you get in to the price range I can afford the coating can allow light to bounce around making ghosts and light reflections.

I have a selection of photos here:

http://s589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/reible1/canon%20sx40hs/

plus there are 3 sub-albums...

In case you want to see some more samples of photos from this camera.

Ed

The SX40 is a NICE all-around camera. I've got 2 of its predecessors (S3 and SX1). Got to use a SX40 this last weekend. It's head and shoulders above my Sx1 as far as picture quality goes.

BTW....I did enjoy the moon shot :-)

reible wrote: I have a selection of photos here:

http://s589.photobucket.com/albums/ss335/reible1/canon%20sx40hs/

plus there are 3 sub-albums...

In case you want to see some more samples of photos from this camera.

Ed

Thanks for posting the photobucket. It was well worth the trip, very nice pictures, it would be hard to pick my favorite one because they are all good. Thanks again.

Absolutely beautiful pic.

Mr. Ed, I must confess you are an excellent photographer. Great hobby to have but more expensive, in my humble opinion, than most of my woodworking.

JPG40504 wrote:Interesting! Those settings are obtainable with my camera(f8 'max' and much slower shutter(60 sec).

I have got to conclude your lens be greater than mine(optical 12x max)!

Tripod used, 10 sec delay used, uv filter on.

IIRC I could not get focus to inf(or close enough).

What effect does the uv filter have for this situation(why removed?)


I know I have asked you this before, but Nikon or Cannon? I am 'in the mood' for a new camera and that be the only two on the horizon. IIRC the answer was Nikon. Full Frame or smaller?

Your pix have always looked outstanding even when reduced to 800x600!!!

Without question if you can afford a full frame 35 mm. DSLR then don't hesitate getting one. Either Nikon or Canon you can't go wrong. I have a Canon 450D which is not a bad camera but it limits me due to the APS-C sensor size. Takes beautiful pics but I really wish I had Canon 5D Mark II that would be an awesome camera to have and there are many pro's using that camera for everyday shooting. I have a pretty nice Macro 60 mm. that can be used as a walk around but because of the APS-C sensor it is not seen by the camera as a 60 mm. it is 1.6x the 60 mm. size. Not a big deal if you are doing macro work but to use it for wide angle walk around shots it falls short. I really like it because the pics are super crisp tack sharp. My other lenses are not nearly as nice. I have an 18-55 IS and a 75-300 that came with the camera as a kit and although the 18-55 IS is not a bad lens it doesn't come close to the 60 mm. macro in pic quality. The 75-300 is just a horrible lens and you can find them all over Fleabay for next to nothing. I got the camera as a christmas gift from the wife a couple of years ago. She did a decent job on her own getting it for me being she doesn't know anything but I would have preferred the 5D Mark II and not gotten any lenses with it and just saved up for some glass. Oh well someday I will have a nice full frame body.


Here is a pic from the hurricane back last fall. This was taken with my 450D using my 75-300 at f10 140 mm. ISO 200 1/500 sec. it came out pretty good for a hand held shot but this lens is very hard to hand hold and still get crisp shots I think due to the speed of the lens 3.5-5.6 and the cameras horrible ISO performance.

wannabewoodworker wrote: . . . I really wish I had Canon 5D Mark II . . .

That makes two of us!:D Makes the glass pricey also!:eek:

What is your opinion of 'IS'? Other than the obvious. Any down sides?

In the hurricane pic you posted, I see many trees. Just curious if they are water oaks or some other kind of oak. That's what they look like. Thanks.

I'm happy with APS-C and have no desire for a full frame camera. I'd expect that a full frame camera plus a couple of quality lenses would far exceed what I'm spending on woodworking. Besides, the brand I'm using -- Pentax -- doesn't make a full frame model.

In any event, I went with a Pentax K-x for two reasons manly. Like Shopsmith, Pentax DSLR cameras have backward compatibility with virtually all Pentax lenses made since the 1970s, plus those by other manufacturers that used M42 screw mount or the Pentax K mount. You give up auto focus with the older ones, but you needed to manual focus not too many years ago so it's no big deal. Many of those old lenses are quite good and are dirt cheap. In addition, image stabilization is built into the camera body, not the lenses like Nikon and Canon, so when choosing a lens I don't have to consider paying extra for a lens with image stabilization. Anything mounted to the body is stabilized, which gives you a stop or two advantage when hand holding.

Pentax doesn't have gobs of lenses like Canon and Nikon to choose from, but they have some good ones and then there is always Sigma or Tamron if something else is needed. I guess if I wanted another camera, it would be a Pentax K-5 that has good high ISO capabilities, dynamic range and weather resistance. But if I had a weather sealed body, then I'd have to splurge on weather resistant lenses. Like woodworking, photography never ends.