Well better late then never. ;-) Been real busy since Bristol so I haven't
had time to post this but here ya go. Hope you enjoy them. :-)

Base Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/bristol_spring_2006

Individual Galleries
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/speed_stage
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/practice_busch
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/bristol_cup_race

And here are a few race shop photos
http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/race_shops



--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Great job Rob! Thanks for sharing. And not to nit-pick, but why doesn't your
EXIF data show the actual lenses used? I am pretty sure mine does. I like to
see literal "in use, side-by-side" comparison photos with different
lenses....and of course can be considered an elitest snob as a result. :-)

Whatever lens it is that you're using on some of those shots that reported a
"focal length" of 280mm look pretty good to be from a (presumably variable
aperture) tele-zoom. Is it a 300mm or 400mm max FL lens? It produces very
good quality IMO, regardless of its range. I mean, the EOS 20D is a DSLR,
nes pas?

"SimRacer" <nOspaM@simracer68 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote


Thanks a lot!!

The race shots are almost exclusively shot with my Canons EF 100-400mm
f/4.5-5.6 L IS lens. At one point I had Mrs K's 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lens +
1.4 TC but don't remember what I shot with it. That could explain the
280mm focal length however. I'll go back through the RAW images and make
the notations in the galleries.

The race shop shots were taken with my EF 17-40mm f/4 L lens.

Yes the 20D is a DSLR. The thing I really love about the 20D is the lack of
noise at high ISOs. The close-ups if DW, Larry Mac, et al where shot at
1600 and are almost noiseless. Makes low light shooting fun. ;-)


--

Rob
"A disturbing new study finds that studies are disturbing"

Thanks for sharing-

pe2

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

I think the IS-nature of the lenses explains their great sharpness - no slam
on the photographer inferred. I notice similar step-ups in quality when I go
from a standard Nikkor to my 80-400 VR on my rig too, when shooting at the
long end of the focal range in less than optimum ligth anyway. I just don't
have access to more than that one VR lens (which I assume you know to be
Nikon's version of IS), just yet anyway. When I purchased it, it was the
only lens available in the then-new VR line. I see in mags now that they
have several out, and in useful zoom ranges too. I haven't been actively
pursuing the photog hobby much of late, and haven't had the fire to get any
new lenses. I guess you could say my latest photo toys were offset by a race
car, a trailer to haul it in, and a pricey Impact! brand firesuit.


No need to notate the lenses just for me, just found it odd that it wasn't
in the EXIF data natively. Or do you have to manually feed in the EXIF data
at your photo host?

You HAVE to HAVE an ultrawide lens like that with a DSLR, don't you? Mine is
a 15-22 Sigma EX AS IF. The images are quite nice from them with very little
pincushion or barrel distortion today IMO. Compared to older, ultra-wide
telephotos anyway...too bad this guy didn't use a HQ ultrawide, look (after
enlarging it to full size in your browsa) at the front ends and tires of the
edgemost cars in the photo below:

http://www.jayski.com/schemes/2006/8cup.htm (third photo down, with all the
cars and Teresa in it)

Very soft, almost out of focus at the edges. Maybe a little more DOF
would've helped, but I think this is simply typical U-Wide angle lens
distortion in all its glory.

I agree. My D100 is very old school now, and does very well even at the very
high "boosted" ISOs of 3200 and 6400, which it supports (native range is
200-1600). Of course you can see pixels at those ISOs, but damn, films that
speed are very grainy too. Anything on the D100 @ 1600 or below is very
acceptable IMO, and printable to at least 11X14 with nice quality from my
photo printer - an Epson 2200. Anything grabbed at the higher ISO settings
are certainly ok for web use, and for printing small prints, in a pinch.