thought i'd show you some examples i took of pictures which are sometimes better than words.
this is a windsurfing photo with a 800/s shutter speed and camera tracking which creates motion blur
(unfortunately i didn't track this one very well and it's blury)
this shows the effect depth of field can have blurring the background.
and increasing the f stop to extend the depth of field.
this ones shows centre weighted metering looking towrds the light so the subject is exposed and the background over exposed.
this one is the opposite. metering off the sky so the subject is in silhouette
for faster shutter speeds to freeze the action.
slow shutter speeds with me spinning right to left past the subject. (who enjoyed the process 
)
Nice series.
I really like the blurry black and white one the best, because even though it's technically flawed, it's a very dramatic shot and more so because of the flaw.
The subject also fills the frame which adds impact.
Here's a few more pics to illustrate things.
This one shows how much background blur you can get at f2.0
It's importatnt to remember that if the subject is closer to the background than it is tto the camera, it's hard to bet it to pop, until you get to a very wide apeture.
I re-posted this below, after I figured out the image uploader at home.
It's a Canon 200mm f2.0L IS USM, an expensive but oh so worth every freaking cen bit of gear that came home recently.
These shots are form our first session with it, early morning. I was handling our dog to get her in the right position for the shots, while Menna does the shooting.
I think the bottom one is one of the best pics she has ever taken, against some stiff competition, including a lot of published work.
^ lol, no mrs gestalt would show me one finger or use the force and give me the death stare! hehe,
that was a work colleague 
was my first attmpted sports photography at a lawn bowls day. by that stage the beers were flowing very well.
hey i got my monopod in the post today. got a benro carbon mc91 with the fold out feet. not sure what the feet are for, it's ok at min extension but at any other extension it's a bit wobbly. anyways, i'll be using it without the feet, first run will be the burrum weekend. hopefully the new filter arrives tomorrow, time is ticking. problem with these cheap online overseas purchases is they take ages to arrive.
what's your thoughts on heads? i was thinking a ball head but is there anything more appropriate for monopods. i noticed your head isn't a ball head. (yes i know, there is ample comedy opportunity in there.)
hi Ken,
mate those photos are so impressive. must be noce to buy something top shelf nad then take full advantage of it.
A simple footplate is all you need for a monopod. A ball head gets too wobbly, and a monopod gives you so much flexibility anyway, whihc providing a stable rest. I have a ball head you can borrow if you want to try it.
Hey, I keep meaning to mention, we have a Canon 70-200L IS USM for sale.
The lens is in very good condition, with no marks or scratches on the case or glass. This is the most useful lens you can have, it's just been superceded by the 200 prime in our home, and was planned to be sold to hel;p pay for the new lens. Retail is currently around $2300 at teh cheapest. We are looking for $1600.
Also have a Canon 2x extender in perfect condition, for $300. Again, nothing wrong with it, just don't need it now we have the 400mm.
PM me here or call on 0405 386155
hmm, i have read that some people like the ball heads on the mono's some don't also.
i'd love the 70-200 but my next purchase will be the tokina 116 wide angle for work purposes.
next on the list after that is the 100-400 IS L or maybe the 70-200 with the converter. not sure if the converter will work on the 40d so something to look into. probably just go straight to the 100-400 and put a converter on that if it fits and try and get an more reach.
there was a chat on seabreeze a while back about the 70-200 with converter versus the 100-400. both excellent options.
ah, i see. that is the best explanation i have read to date. cheers, now i understand. i'm not so keen on increasing the aperture so i'll give that idea a miss with the bigger lens and most likely just go the bigger lens.
yep, i'm keen to try out a ball head.
thanks again.
the monopod was $55 and the tilting head was about $50 from memory. I think it all came from teds. For some reason at the time they could match or beat the online american stores for tripods and bodies, but not lenses
damn i got ripped.......... 
do you have any issues tilting to portrait and what's your thoughts on ball heads?
you are a man of few words mr........
it's an alloy manfrotto, not carbon. i bought it before the financial crisis hit and all gear was cheaper at the time
i only use it for the sports stuff. i've got a proper tripod with front & side tilting with a fluid video head for everything else. It's slow for still shot setups, but it can do everything a ball head can do.
ok, i thought you had a carbon one also.
yeah it's crazy how everything went up after the crash. don't make no sense.
i nearly bought a carbon benro tripod for $140............ now that seemed an awesome price. but then i rmembered i am not going to use tripods.... hehe.
the carbon mono is very light. strpas onto my backpack really well and weighs next to nothing. if all else fails i can use it as a mast for a kids sail.
what filters are you guys using for cpl? any thoughts?
also, i pestered laurie for a photography forum (surf stuff) i'm sure there are lots of guys into it. theres a few pros running arond the forum and that's just the windsurfers. i'm sure every kiter has a camera. they love small gadgets and stuff.
some of the surf photgraphy forums you can't even sign up to as they are all full.
i broke an expensive canon cpl, and now just use the cheap $60 hoya purple. the $250 canon one was better (very thin & fragile), but not 3x better
that's the tripod. again it was teds that bet everyone. legs and head came to about $300
wow, how many bodies do you mount to it? does it take more than one for the lightning shots.
lol, no just one. the top half can go vertically or horizontally. there's a button on the base of the top section u press and it can pivot
this shows the top set vertically, and u can set the legs so it has a huge footprint for stability. the pic shows the left leg set fully out while other two are at their most vertical position. it's beaut for shooting into a light tent, and quite versatile
sweet, it has an adjustble pole....hehehehe
i'm trying out a hoya HD cpl, hopefully it's bomb proof and doesn't come with the yellow cast the cheaper hoya cpl have.
time will tell i guess.
there's a cheap hoya blue green too. I've never noticed a yellow cast from either one??
i have the green and the purple. i notice it most on the green, the purple isn't so bad but it is still there.
i think it's maybe a big ask to find a cpl without any cast as they by default will add some tone but i am every optimistic.
not sure if u guys have tried it, but the 70-200 2.8 i've used for a time was less sharp at 100mm f4 and 200mm f5.6 than the 100-400, plus the 70-200 had noticeably more distortion and CA at the edges. i've got some photos i've taken comparing the two. It gets noticeably even less sharp with the 1.4 extender, when using the extender only the centre point is reliable on the 40d (which is what i used it with), and it's heavy - but if u gotta have 2.8 u could live with it
i've never really felt any issues with my middle of the range lens at f5.6 with windsurfing. if the sun goes away i just remove the cpl.
i would htough like to be able to shoot at 100 or 200 iso in the surf. 400 is ok, i don't mind a bit of grain, makes the image feel nicer. 
my concern with the 70-200 with the converter is the loss of quality, i think the 100-400 will beat it every day for quality.
with my wider lenses though i want as open an aperture as i can get because of handheld nightime shots i do plus the indoors stuff.
the wish list also contain a 35mm and 50mm prime, i mate just grabbed the canon 50mm F1.4, it's build quality didn't seems so good but the images are fairly sweet.
i'm disappointed with the 50mm 1.4 for what it's worth. It feels pretty cheap and it has a semi-usm clutch focus, not the real usm. it has just enough slop in the focus ring that it makes it hard to manually focus in a hurry, but not as bad as the slop in the f1.8. It's probably the one canon lens where a sigma might be a better option if u don't want to pay for an L
I had two 50mm 1.8's before it. The first was faulty and it was replaced, and although the second was much better it's auto focus was still slow, unreliable, the lens barrel very sloppy, and the focus ring very sloppy, but for around $120 when you get the focus right it's terrific. I did some nice photos for chairman with it, but it was frustrating, lucky the subjects were of good quality ;) - anyway i sold it.
The 1.4 is better than the 1.8 for AF and wide open sharpness/contrast, but AF is still pretty unreliable compared to many of the other short full time USM primes
i'm catching up on my word count
the one cheaper non L lens i own that i think was really worth the money is the canon 100mm Macro
ken, 
i have a weak stomach. i had to take my 2 year old to the doctor on the weekend with a bleeding head and it still makes me squirm.
haircut, haha, yes you need to stop drinking and smoking. 
The 50mm 1.2 is way out of my league as well. currently using the 17-85 is usm and it is a fantastic lens for the price. just it has that damn f4 cheap lens problem.
so that's 2 votes for the 100mm macro.
my immediate need is for a wide lens to shoot indoors, architectural, landscape and night time all hand held. i need it to be fast as i am alergic to the flash unless it's fill flash.
it's so hard to find a lens that's good value for money in the wide angle category. the sigmas are ok but i think only because the canon are not that great. i am hoping the tokina is my saviour!
plus hunting for a f2 prime 35mm canon on ebay for parties
Is this a windsurfing forum or a camera forum? 
Was a bit confused when I saw a pic of a T Bag.
