4g61t.org

Love that B&W shot of the S14 smoking its tires. Nice work!

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

Thanks man
That shot was actually super washed out cause I was basically shooting into the sun. Managed to salvage it through some faux HDR but couldn't get the colors looking right, hence why it's B&W haha.

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

Good call. I do that on B&W conversions all the time. It's a good action shot though, glad you were able to salvage it.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

I shot this earlier this week. Was heading back from work at 6am (nightshift worker), and the sky was absolutely amazing. Bright orange shining through the clouds with streaks of red pink and purple. Thought to myself "shit i've gotta get home asap so I can grab the camera". Unfortunately by the time I got home the colors were fading from the sky, but I grabbed the camera and tripod and headed up the road anyway. Probably my favorite shot i've taken. Car and background were exposed separately so I guess you'd call it HDR...

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

You did a good job with the sky in that one, but it's a bit extreme for my tastes. I'd play with the composition in that one and maybe crop out some of the un-necessary stuff like the road under the car and the space to the right of the car.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

Haha, yeah it is a bit extreme. I've never done extreme before, and with the sky as epic as it was, thought i'd give it a shot.

When I went out to take the photo the idea was to head out to that reserve behind the car and just take a photo of the sky and seaview (which obviously isn't visible in this picture). Not quite sure why I ended up taking a photo of the car instead

I did play with the composition a bit and originally had it cropped so it was more of a close up of the car, then decided to keep the majority of the background because the shot was more about the whole scene rather than the car itself. I quite like the road in it, sure it's empty space, but it kinda gives it some depth?

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

You could cut like an inch off the bottom and still have plenty of depth, but I see what you're getting at.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

Like this thread, i always wanted to get into photography but dont know whats a decent camera to start out on... all i use for now is a canon digi cam :/

Pics look great!

I've been keeping pretty busy with my photos. I just took this one last weekend, in an area known as "Big Sur" on the central coast of California. I used my trusty Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 UWA, combined with a circular polarizer and a 10-stop neutral density filter to produce this effect. The 10-stop filter is pretty neat, it allows you to take long exposures in broad daylight. In the case of this photo, it was a 30-second exposure @ f/5.6, ISO 200. The sun had just set below the horizon, so it exaggerated the colors that much more.



All the pics from that trip can be found here:
http://birdphotographic.com/gallery/index.php/Big-Sur

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

That's cool man, i've never heard of a 10-stop filter before. Sounds rather nifty, I did wonder how people shoot long exposures during daytime.


Here's a quick shot of my buddies Evo. I've posted this up before, but since then he's resprayed it (in VR-4 gunmetal), removed the tacky fake Evo 3 kit (fibreglass) and replaced with Evo 1 stuff, blown the motor, bought an Evo 3 parts car (wrecked body, perfect mechanical-wise) and transferred EVERYTHING, complete drivetrain, suspension, motor etc etc. It's now 100% stock engine wise, right down to the stock exhaust (apart from the cannon)... slow as shit haha, but he wanted to start over. So here it is...

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

That's nice! He should put a wing on it, haha. I can't stand wingless EVO's, of any generation.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

I agree. Wingless Evo's was a big thing here in NZ for the past 5 years or so, but they seem to be slowly coming back. I see quite a few Evo 1 and 2's rocking standard wings now. This guy won't put one on though, he hates them

Anyway, I was after a little advice. I'm looking to upgrade from my 55-250. I use it a lot these days for motorsport events, mainly drifting - panning shots. There's just something about the photos it produces that I don't like, although I can't put my finger on what exactly it is. I usually end up spending alot of time in Lightroom getting them to look how I want them to. Whereas alot of my photos from my 17-50, I don't change at all, just resize/crop angle/whatever and i'm done. I also find the 55-250 a bit soft, possibly because i'm comparing it to my 17-50, which I also use at drift events but it's useless unless i'm right next to the action. The 55-250 would be considered a budget lens I guess? You can pick one up here for the $150 mark. I'm after a mid range lens or a cheapish L series. A 70-200 f/4L would be ideal, can get them 2nd hand for around $900 these days, BUT.. I often shoot in the 200-250mm range, I just don't think the 70-200 has the reach i'm after. The 70-300L is too expensive, and i've heard the non-L is not a whole lot better than the 55-250 (yet costs $400 more). I kind of feel like i'm just stuck with the 55-250 for now. Do you have any suggestions for me?

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

The 70-300 non-L is a solid lens, you can't go wrong there. True, it would be better to have something faster. f/5.6 is pretty damn slow on the long end, but the IS helps. It would definitely be a huge step up from the 55-250 (just about anything would be)

SOMETIMES, if you cruise ebay or other places that sell used camera gear, you can find a relic, the 80-200 f/2.8L (aka "magic drainpipe). This is an old-school lens, that was around back in the day when people still shot film. It's a very nice piece of glass, and takes some very sharp photos. The lack of IS will be noticeable, and it will be hard to deal with. You'll have to bump the ISO way way up to get good shots in low light when you're at full-zoom.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CANON-ZOOM-EF-8 ... 3a6d88f31d

The 70-200 f/4L IS is a fantastic lens as well. You could combine with a 1.4x teleconverter to get the extra reach you want. I would not buy the non-IS version of this lens, it's simply not fast enough and it will be way too hard for you to get useable shots in low light.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus

Awesome, thanks for that! I don't need a super fast lens. Majority of my panning shots are taken at shutter speeds of 1/100 - 1/160 and I only really shoot on fine days, which means i'm usually shooting around f/8 - f/13 anyway depending on how sunny it is. I use the 55-250 almost exclusively for panning, for everything else I use my 17-50 and my 50 f/1.8.

I've taken some good shots with the 55-250, but I guess what i'm after is something that will provide better color reproduction and better all-round sharpness. I'm not overly convinced on the 55-250mm's IS either, alot of my panning shots are sharp horizontally but blurred vertically. Might be my technique, i'm not sure...

So the non-IS 70-200 f/4L is no good then? The IS version is about $500 over what i'm willing to spend, so I might have to flag that option. The drainpipe would be cool, but they rarely pop up here in NZ. I could buy one through ebay, but by the time you factor in the currency conversion, shipping, paypal fees etc etc, I could've gotten a 70-300L for around the same price.

I've been reading some sweet reviews on the Tamron 70-300 VC. Sounds like it tops the Canon 70-300 non-L, and it's around $150NZD cheaper. It's also around $200 cheaper than a 2nd hand 70-200 f/4L non-IS. Seems to be the way to go I reckon, and unless you want to convince me otherwise, i'll probably pick one up!

_________________
1990 C83A 4WD 4G63T powered hatch - [PSIBRG]
1992 JZX91 2JZ powered Toyota Mark II

I wouldn't recommend the Tamron for a telephoto zoom. I've used them in the past and wasn't pleased with the results. They make a killer wide-angle and medium-range zoom, and their high-end stuff is pretty nice too, but not their cheap stuff. You always get what you pay for. Also, their VC really doesn't work that well from what I've heard.

I think the best option for you; given your budget, is the non-L 70-300 IS. You will be happy with that lens.

The 70-200 f/4L non-IS is a very very nice lens, don't get me wrong. Anything that wears an "L" badge is gonna be a quality piece of glass. With a telephoto, you really need to have IS, unless it's a super-fast lens. At 200mm zoom, you pretty much need to be shooting at 1/200th of a second shutter speed to get a sharp image. Anything faster than that, you're risking blur from shaking. Unless you have the steadiest hands known to man, or you're using a tripod or a monopod or something.

_________________
91 GSX - 511fwhp and 352 lb/ft 25psi 110 octane, 7.68 @ 95.9mph 1/8th 21psi 91 octane, 11.93 @ 112.9mph, 117.7mph best trap speed, 20psi 91 octane
98 Volvo S70 T5 - DD

http://www.facebook.com/captaintonus