Yes. It is nearly impossible to get a sharp focus in difficult
lighting when you are using a tele lens at larger apertures.
I just don't know how people used to manage years ago without AF in
these situations.
she's hardly racing around is she lol and you forgot
to mention how close you were.
You might have noticed that Amanda had one leg in a cast. Otherwise;
she is a lot more active than that, as any of her fans could tell you.
You told me to look at those shots and I did and gave you several
plausible setups, so now you're not shooting at 20mm anymore? Those
goalposts just keep moving.
I was close enough to get head-and-shoulders shots with my 135mm F1.8
ZA. That is about average for photographing a gig from the pit.
So the E-3's 100% viewfinder is not good enough for you?
LoL! Please tell me you are joking, right?
The E-3's viewfinder is pretty nice, I will give you that. However
if I were going to pick a dSLR for manual focusing in difficult
lighting I would pick a 35mm full-frame dSLR, because their
viewfinders are much bigger and brighter.
I've already explained liveview and 10x magnification - what about it
do you not understand?
Of course, how could I know anything about the dark art of low light
photography?
Apparently very little! But you are hilarious.
I'm in good company then.
Thirdly; whereas I agree that the Olympus E-3 could probably handle
ISO 1600, it does severely lack dynamic range at higher ISOs. The
event you referred to had very harsh lighting, such that the
highlights were clipping even with my A700. The E-3 gives a full
stop less dynamic range, so it would suffer horribly in the same
conditions.
Never heard of bracketing or blending or HDR?
And you just keep getting funnier!
Obviously you have no knowledge of HDR using a single RAW file. Not
HDR in the truest sense but will expand the DR of a photo if you know
what you are doing. Having said that you don't get true RAW files
anyway so you'd be at a disadavantge but its still doable on your
plastic toy.
Gigs are one of the most challenging environments to capture
photographs in, with moving subjects, extremely ropey schedules,
stunts and other surprises. Nobody stays still for 3/5ths of a
second and you only have one chance to capture the perfect image.
I'm glad you told me, I'd never have guessed it although you are
wrong yet again as there are plenty of pregnant pauses throughout a
lot of gigs, it just depends on the performers unless of course you
specialise in thrash metal gigs. 1/30 second will get you plenty of
decent shots in a lot of situations, of course faster is better but
when the action gets faster the lights usually go up anyway. I've
never seen performers jumping around with no light.
Why would you try to capture the whole dynamic range in that
situation?
Oh jeesh, this is getting silly.
Elaborate as ever.
even our eyes aren't capable of that! but don't tell me,
your A-700 is better than the human eye right?
Certainly not but the human eye is a lot more capable than your E-3
in the same circumstances ;o)
Haven't I already said that? You're blind as well as stupid.
Sorry but you went even more beyond silliness after that point.
Thanks for all of the fine humour!
Its me who should be thanking you. The point I'm making is not that
the E-3 is the best for low light shooting ( because it obviously
isn't although it can be good in the right hands with a decent lens.
) but it is significantly more versatile than your Sony A-700. It
blows it away on many counts which is why it is the price that it is.
We'd all love it to be cheaper but its not and compared to what it
offers it is good value as an all round package. I don't expect you
to understand that because clearly You're not capable.
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://twotruths.net/
--
667....Neighbour of the beast....Form is temporary, glass is permanent.
