Elk in Yellowstone

ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
edited July 22, 2004 in Wildlife
I saw bison, but did not get a shot. The next biggest thing I saw was elk.
I have more, but not quite ready for prime time yet.

6412977-L.jpg
If not now, when?

Comments

  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited July 21, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    I saw bison, but did not get a shot. The next biggest thing I saw was elk.
    I have more, but not quite ready for prime time yet.

    6412977-S.jpg
    Super!!

    Nice shot. You were using the the 100-400L with the 1.4x extender.
    The resulting optical quality is pretty good. You choose the 6mp
    instead of the 8.2mp setting and I was wondering why. Were you
    running out of storage space? Also either AF was turned off on the
    lens, or perhaps was not working with the f8.0 max of the extended
    zoom (f5.6) combined with the 1.4x extender. I am curious about
    that as I might consider that combo myself.
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited July 22, 2004
    cmr164 wrote:
    Super!!

    Nice shot. You were using the the 100-400L with the 1.4x extender.
    The resulting optical quality is pretty good. You choose the 6mp
    instead of the 8.2mp setting and I was wondering why. Were you
    running out of storage space? Also either AF was turned off on the
    lens, or perhaps was not working with the f8.0 max of the extended
    zoom (f5.6) combined with the 1.4x extender. I am curious about
    that as I might consider that combo myself.
    1. Yes this is the 100-400L + 1.4x extender. How did you know?
    2. This is actually a raw conversion, but a slight crop, so that's where the resolution went.
    3. Again, what software is telling you that AF is turned off? Anyway, that's not quite true. With the extender, AF works only with a single center AF point. When you mount the lens+extender, the camera automatically enters this mode and always displays the center AF point. It's a little crippled compared to the great EOS AF system, but it's still very functional, especially for extreme tele. After you mount a different lens, you have to reset to whatever AF points you prefer.
    All in all, the 1.4x extender is a great tool. I don't think the shots with it are any less sharp than without it. In this particular case, I wasn't really taking best advantage of it. I could have zoomed in more and not needed to crop. But the window of opportunity was pretty short as it turned out.
    If not now, when?
  • damonffdamonff Registered Users Posts: 1,894 Major grins
    edited July 22, 2004
    Rutt, that's really nice.
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited July 22, 2004
    rutt wrote:

    1. Yes this is the 100-400L + 1.4x extender. How did you know?
    2. This is actually a raw conversion, but a slight crop, so that's where the resolution went.
    3. Again, what software is telling you that AF is turned off? Anyway, that's not quite true. With the extender, AF works only with a single center AF point. When you mount the lens+extender, the camera automatically enters this mode and always displays the center AF point. It's a little crippled compared to the great EOS AF system, but it's still very functional, especially for extreme tele. After you mount a different lens, you have to reset to whatever AF points you prefer.
    All in all, the 1.4x extender is a great tool. I don't think the shots with it are any less sharp than without it. In this particular case, I wasn't really taking best advantage of it. I could have zoomed in more and not needed to crop. But the window of opportunity was pretty short as it turned out.
    The exif data told me that the lens was a 140-560mm zoom and that had to be the 100-400 with the 1.4x. It also showed "AF - " which is why I thought it was off. I did note that the zoom was at 330mm and that there was a lot of zoom left so that and the fact that your ORIGINAL size image was coincidentally 6mp made me think you were shooting at a reduced resolution.


    You have really been getting some outstanding shots on this trip.
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
  • ruttrutt Registered Users Posts: 6,511 Major grins
    edited July 22, 2004
    cmr164 wrote:
    The exif data told me that the lens was a 140-560mm zoom and that had to be the 100-400 with the 1.4x. It also showed "AF - " which is why I thought it was off. I did note that the zoom was at 330mm and that there was a lot of zoom left so that and the fact that your ORIGINAL size image was coincidentally 6mp made me think you were shooting at a reduced resolution.


    You have really been getting some outstanding shots on this trip.
    What program are you using to read the exif data. I've been using jhead and it doesn't show this.
    If not now, when?
  • cmr164cmr164 Registered Users Posts: 1,542 Major grins
    edited July 22, 2004
    rutt wrote:
    What program are you using to read the exif data. I've been using jhead and it doesn't show this.
    DPP shows for both cr2 and jpegs and EOS Viewer shows for cr2 files.

    In DPP right click in either a selected thumbnail or an expanded image and choose "info" or select either and select "info" from the "File" menu on the bar.
    Charles Richmond IT & Security Consultant
    Operating System Design, Drivers, Software
    Villa Del Rio II, Talamban, Pit-os, Cebu, Ph
Sign In or Register to comment.