Hi all,

I'm still not feeling great, so what I've done this month is just to
upload all the photos I sorted into 'for editing' and dump them on my
flickr account as they came out of the camera. Hence there are quite a
lot and a few need cropping for best effect. They're cut down to about
3MP - if you want full-res orginals just let me know.

You can find them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nialloswald/sets/72157602940685162/

(Which has handily ended up with the photos in reverse chronological
order I'm afraid).

I seem to be having problems getting the rest of the fireworks photos
up - hopefully to follow soon.

Thanks,

Niall

Niall Oswald (via Google) wrote:

> Hi all,
> 
> I'm still not feeling great, so what I've done this month is just to
> upload all the photos I sorted into 'for editing' and dump them on my
> flickr account as they came out of the camera. Hence there are quite a
> lot and a few need cropping for best effect. They're cut down to about
> 3MP - if you want full-res orginals just let me know.
> 
> You can find them at:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nialloswald/sets/72157602940685162/
> 
> (Which has handily ended up with the photos in reverse chronological
> order I'm afraid).
> 
> I seem to be having problems getting the rest of the fireworks photos
> up - hopefully to follow soon.

Any chance you could mail me any shots you have of my flight?  Cheers

Chris

DOF isn't really your problem with digital, I'd say. I usually find there's
too much. Just practice your manual focus pulling.
"Chris Eilbeck"  wrote in message
news:4730abfc$0$13937$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> Niall Oswald (via Google) wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm still not feeling great, so what I've done this month is just to
> > upload all the photos I sorted into 'for editing' and dump them on my
> > flickr account as they came out of the camera. Hence there are quite a
> > lot and a few need cropping for best effect. They're cut down to about
> > 3MP - if you want full-res orginals just let me know.
> >
> > You can find them at:
> > http://www.flickr.com/photos/nialloswald/sets/72157602940685162/
> >
> > (Which has handily ended up with the photos in reverse chronological
> > order I'm afraid).
> >
> > I seem to be having problems getting the rest of the fireworks photos
> > up - hopefully to follow soon.
>
> Any chance you could mail me any shots you have of my flight?  Cheers
>
> Chris
>

On Nov 7, 11:25 am, "Mark Dunn"  wrote:
> DOF isn't really your problem with digital, I'd say. I usually find there's
> too much. Just practice your manual focus pulling.

At 200mm and f/4, DOF *is* severely limited (to approx 12 feet).
Looking back through my previous photos, going down to f/7.1 increases
it usefully, though it always helps if the rocket arcs over towards
where I'm standing. At f/4 the rocket is out of focus very rapidly.
Keeping a fast-moving rocket in the viewfinder is challenge enough,
trying to focus at the same time (especially without a proper
focussing screen) even harder.

The problem is, to really freeze the motion of the rocket, you need a
shutter speed with 4 figures, 1/2000s is good. This is of course not
helped by stopping down to increase DOF. Thank goodness for ISO1600,
but it's nice to avoid the noise this brings. What I'd like is a
shooting mode where I can fix the shutter speed and aperture and have
the camera continously vary the sensitivity (ISO) but that may be a
bit much to hope for...

A compact digital camera *will* often give massive DOF, probably
because the hyperfocal distance is very short, but I'm shooting with a
dSLR with an APS-C sized sensor.

BTW, fireworks photos are now up at:http://www.flickr.com/photos/
nialloswald/sets/72157602942054562/

Hopefully I'll put everything up on my own site at some point, as
Flickr's compression is a bit heavy-handed and viewing the full-res
images isn't especially straightforward.

Niall

I was really comparing with 35mm. and not thinking about long lenses.  The
big sensor is still smaller than half-frame, though.
For a given format, the DOF is down to the focal length, more or less.
(Hyperfocal distance is the focus point at which everything is in sharp from
half that distance to infinity).
Thanks for the tip on the 350, though. It's off my shortlist if it hasn't
got a decent focussing screen.
"Niall Oswald (via Google)"  wrote in message
news:1194453437.384970.290360@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 11:25 am, "Mark Dunn"  wrote:
> > DOF isn't really your problem with digital, I'd say. I usually find
there's
> > too much. Just practice your manual focus pulling.
>
> At 200mm and f/4, DOF *is* severely limited (to approx 12 feet).
> Looking back through my previous photos, going down to f/7.1 increases
> it usefully, though it always helps if the rocket arcs over towards
> where I'm standing. At f/4 the rocket is out of focus very rapidly.
> Keeping a fast-moving rocket in the viewfinder is challenge enough,
> trying to focus at the same time (especially without a proper
> focussing screen) even harder.
>
> The problem is, to really freeze the motion of the rocket, you need a
> shutter speed with 4 figures, 1/2000s is good. This is of course not
> helped by stopping down to increase DOF. Thank goodness for ISO1600,
> but it's nice to avoid the noise this brings. What I'd like is a
> shooting mode where I can fix the shutter speed and aperture and have
> the camera continously vary the sensitivity (ISO) but that may be a
> bit much to hope for...
>
> A compact digital camera *will* often give massive DOF, probably
> because the hyperfocal distance is very short, but I'm shooting with a
> dSLR with an APS-C sized sensor.
>
> BTW, fireworks photos are now up at:http://www.flickr.com/photos/
> nialloswald/sets/72157602942054562/
>
> Hopefully I'll put everything up on my own site at some point, as
> Flickr's compression is a bit heavy-handed and viewing the full-res
> images isn't especially straightforward.
>
> Niall
>
>

On Nov 7, 7:20 pm, "Mark Dunn"  wrote:
> Thanks for the tip on the 350, though. It's off my shortlist if it hasn't
> got a decent focussing screen.

None of the Canon dSLRs come with a 'proper' focussing screen, though
there are (warranty-voiding) aftermarket ones available. However, the
new 40D has interchangeable focussing screens as do the high-end 1D
series. You have to buy the screens separately of course...

Having seen Pete's 40D on Sunday, it looks like a very nice bit of
kit. 6.5fps and a really good 3" screen. The 1.8" screen on the 350D
isn't great.

Niall

HI all,

my photos from the meeting are now up

http://www.photoboxgallery.com/hartrockets/6939000

Happy launching

Pete

On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:34:33 -0800, "Niall Oswald (via Google)"
 wrote:

>On Nov 7, 7:20 pm, "Mark Dunn"  wrote:
>> Thanks for the tip on the 350, though. It's off my shortlist if it hasn't
>> got a decent focussing screen.
>
>None of the Canon dSLRs come with a 'proper' focussing screen, though
>there are (warranty-voiding) aftermarket ones available. However, the
>new 40D has interchangeable focussing screens as do the high-end 1D
>series. You have to buy the screens separately of course...

A point worth noting, from my DSLR researches (looking at a Pentax
K10D* among others), is that a number of cameras have the option to
fit focussing screens (Pentax, Canon and Nikon all have models which
you can do this with). However it would seem that all DSLRs auto
exposure metering is done via the pentaprism. This means that fitting
a focusing screen, which goes in front of the pentaprism, has a
significant effect on the auto metering. This can throw out auto
exposurse significantly and force you back in to manual modes to
compensate. Or have to apply compensations in the auto modes if the
camera allows it.
Cheers Mike 8-{>

--
UKRA #1208 L2 RSO             EARS # 1118
TRA  #3207 L1
-=*=- Gravity is a harsh Mistress -=*=-
-=*=-          The Tick           -=*=-
Remove .co.uk from Reply To: address.

On Nov 7, 8:57 pm, Mike Roberts 
wrote:

> A point worth noting, from my DSLR researches (looking at a Pentax
> K10D* among others), is that a number of cameras have the option to
> fit focussing screens (Pentax, Canon and Nikon all have models which
> you can do this with). However it would seem that all DSLRs auto
> exposure metering is done via the pentaprism. This means that fitting
> a focusing screen, which goes in front of the pentaprism, has a
> significant effect on the auto metering.

Indeed. You also lose the AF confirm lights on the 350D with the
screens I've seen.

Being the budget camera in the range the 350D (now 400D) gets a
pentamirror rather than a pentaprism :-(

Niall