ok lets try this again

sineadw

I went back to the scene of the crime last night - the Button Factory, this time armed with PaulW's 50 i.4 (which he's not getting back, unless I win the lottery and get at 1.2 ). I also underexposed by 1 and a third stops which made a HUGE difference. I was able to shoot at 400! Mostly 800 I think though. Also on evaluative metering.. I tried the flash a few times but didn't have much joy. Steep learning curve methinks.

Seriously though - I can't believe the difference the 1.4 made (I even bought it a hood Paul, just as a little present for itself ). Its autofocus far outshone the nifty fifty, and the clarity of the images are incomparable. Instead of throwing well over half my shots out at first inspection I'm still going through the 200 odd keepers I got.

C&C would be most welcome. Hopefully they look a lot better than the last lot. I uesd a few different processing styles as I wasn't sure what the band wanted (mental note - don't have to rush off after a gig..) and the lighting was very different. Honest verdict though - better?

btw - Mongohorn are the dogs!

All are at http://pix.ie/sineadw/album/319591 with a few more to go (my eyes aren't working anymore..)

rymus

very interesting.. I've been considering kicking the 50 1.8 to the kerb in favor of getting the 1.4 but I heard that the difference wasn't really worth it.

Nice set of photos.. pity they don't come with sound though

Paulw

Firstly ... that's my lens and I want it back !!!:eek:

Not being a gig photography person, I can't really comment on the images, aside from the fact they look sharp and clear. The images look great.

Comparing the images to your previous set, these look much better. Less noise, much sharper and clearer.

At least now you feel justified in actually buying the 1.4. Glad I could help.

DaireQuinlan

They certainly look a lot better ! To be honest though, I'd ascribe it to you getting better with practice rather than the different lens. 1.4 is only marginally faster than 1.8 (1/2 a stop ?) so thats not going to make that much of a difference I'd reckon. If anything I'd keep the 50 1.8 and try and get an 85 1.4 (if canon has one or its equivalent) to get a little more flexibility with positioning/closeups and the like.

sineadw

Hey Daire, I get what you mean about positioning. If you knew the band though you'd know its kind of difficult to get a good spot, what with the band spitting on the audience and throwing shoes at them, and the audience throwing beer back (you didn't read that Paul... whistling..) so I had to kind of keep to the side of things. Usually I'd be right up at the stage. Forgot my bloody ear plugs too.

Yep, lots of practice needed though. I managed to acquire a press pass for a gig in an unmentionable place on Sunday, and another one lined up for next weekend and the weekend after, and whatever I can get in between. I really do think the 1.4 helped a LOT last night though. The autofocus alone was a lot sweeter..

thebaz

i didn't know you were a heavy metaller !!!

i'm not a fan of HM , but this one is my fav
http://pix.ie/sineadw/461823/in/album/319591

The b/w one doesn't work for me , and i agree with Daire a bit , maybe its not the F stop that is improving the quality , maybe the autofocus is better on the lens ,though .
Keep up the good work , and Led Zepp was as far as i got on HM

sineadw

Yeah I like that one too - he'd just blown the thing out, crazy b@stard..

They're punk really - Dead Kennedies, SLF, lots of original stuff too. Oh and they do the best version of Aretha's "you make me feel like a natural woman" ever! And Lionel Ritchie's "Hello". Has to be heard to be fully appreciated

I think the underexposing helped a whole heap too...

bovril

Nice set of shots Sinead, a definate improvement on the last set. You managed to capture some great action moments.

PaulieC

that's a great set Sinead (and not that your others weren't!). I had the same kind of epiphany the first time I used the 50 f1.4. I got rid of my nifty fifty almost immediately after using the 1.4. - in fact, I got rid of all my zoom lenses after using it with the exception of the siggy 10-20

Borderfox

Some great shots there

thebaz

sineadw wrote: »

They're punk really - Dead Kennedies, SLF, lots of original stuff too. Oh and they do the best version of Aretha's "you make me feel like a natural woman" ever! And Lionel Ritchie's "Hello". Has to be heard to be fully appreciated

...

now your talking , i didn't really have you down as a Metal head !

I find on my sigma 1.4 , it is really sensitive to light , so i have to underexpose more than the meter tells , i now follow Keiths advice of never actually going down to 1.4 , a stop above,

leohoju

thebaz wrote: »

so i have to underexpose more than the meter tells

Off-topic - apologies.

If memory serves, you're using a Nikon D50, right? I've read on various places on the interweb that the D50 overexposes and that you should underexpose by between 1/3 and 2/3 to get the correct exposure.

Here and here for example discuss the problem.

thebaz

leohoju wrote: »

Off-topic - apologies.

If memory serves, you're using a Nikon D50, right? I've read on various places on the interweb that the D50 overexposes and that you should underexpose by between 1/3 and 2/3 to get the correct exposure.

Here and here for example discuss the problem.

yep your correct i use a D 50 , i only notice the over exposing problem, with the sigma lens (30 mm) , when aperature is fully opened !