Thanks Alan, Jack, Paul, PJ, Bob, and Igor. The web link provided looks to be very helpful. I'll definitely be exploring it. Thanks everyone. Cheers, Christine
Sent from my iPad > On Nov 1, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote: > > > Christine, > > As a few people wrote already, - you may benefit from a monopod for > the steadiness, especially if you are going for anything longer than > 200-250 mm on Pentax APS body. > > As for what focal length you need, - it depends on what you want: > just a full-height figure, that with the kite, or just the face? > You can use e.g. the 1st calculator here to estimate the size of the image, > depending on the size of the object and the distance: > http://www.lensation.de/en/calculators.html > > Example: for a 2000 mm (2m) object (~6'6") at a distance of 100 m (~100 > yards) and choosing the last option for the image size of 12.8mm (APS-C > sensor is 14.8-mm-high, you get the desired focal length of 636 mm. > So, a vicinity of 500-600 mm would be just right for that. And that's what > Paul has suggested. > > HTH, > > Igor > > > Sat Nov 1 09:24:17 EDT 2014 > Paul Stenquist wrote: > > Best bet here would have been the 500 mm lens or the 300 and 1.4 converter. > The 60/250 plus 1.4 converter would be an okay substitute with cropping. > Tripod or monopod would be helpful but with ISO 1600 quite acceptable you > could get away with hand held, shooting wide open. > > Paul via phone > > [...] > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Christine Aguila" <christine at caguila.com> >> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 10:15:27 PM >> >> Hi Everyone: >> >> We had exceptional winds today, so I thought I.d head to the lake to catch >> some waves. The white caps were prominent to be sure, and there was a bit >> of splashing waves a tad north of where we were. Higher waves, which >> flooded bits of Lake Shore drive, could be found south of us - closer to >> downtown. We were up north by Wilson ave. >> >> Anywhooo, The spot we stopped at is the put-in spot for jet skis and >> windsurfers and such, and we got lucky since a handful of windsurfers were >> taking advantage of the high winds.and boy were the winds high. >> >> It was really hard to take pictures. I couldn.t keep the camera or myself >> steady. The wind was coming from the northeast, and if I tried to shoot >> into the wind, sand carried along by the wind stung my face so bad.for the >> first time, I was glad to be wearing glasses! By the end of the shoot, I >> had sand everywhere, hair, mouth, ears, and even in my camera bag. I had to >> do a big shake-out when I got home. >> >> Darrel was with me, and he tried to act as wind-break for me, but it didn't >> really help much. It was such an exhilarating shoot.lots of fun to try to >> deal with the elements while trying to shoot. I.d like to do more bad >> weather shooting.though I don't think I'd like to chase tornados and such. >> >> I really would have loved a longer lens. Most of the photos below are deep >> crops. I did the best I could with the DA* 50-135. >> >> So I have a question: Darrel thinks were were about 100 yards (a football >> field) from the surfers. Given this distance, which would have worked >> better, a 200mm or 300 mm prime to catch the surfer action? >> >> >> http://www.caguila.com/windyday/index.html >> >> Cheers, Christine >> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
