A 300D and 70-200 F/4L isn't exactly "cheap" equipment, but your examples just go to show you it's the photographer not the equipment. Nice shots! You proved to me that this lens can handle the type of low light situations that I would throw at it, time to order...
mjmetts wrote:
Beautiful shot Wenyao. Utah is gorgeous. I went there last summer but we did the whole Arches and Canyonlands thing. I hope to go to Zion someday.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment! Zion is beautiful indeed, and a even nicer place to go trekking. While my friends and I were there a couple of weeks ago, the water in the narrows were too high and flowing at too fast a speed for safe hiking, so we weren't able to do any hiking there (in the narrows). Hopefully the water will have subsided by summer.
Here's another pic from my same trip, but this was taken in Death Valley:
You bet. I can't find the original to get the exif data right now but I think it was 1/60 at F6.somehting ISO200.
Here's a larger version to do it more justice. Full Crop.
http://img225.exs.cx/img225/8159/moontrees1ct.jpg
Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk by questioning you on this. It's just that a 200mm lens can't do what's in that photo. When you say "full crop" are you implying that it's the full frame? i.e., not cropped at all? Or are you saying that's a 100% crop, meaning the frame was much larger and that most of the blackness in the outer parts of the frame have been trimmed away?
I've taken many, many photos of the moon -- including some with the 70-200/4L, both with and without a 1.4x teleconverter. There's just no way you could fill that much of the frame with that lens unless it's a severe crop. And even if it is a severe crop, the treeline silhouetted against the moon doesn't look to scale. I'd have guessed your shot was a composite.
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk here. I'm just wondering what went into that photo.
. 