Focus stacking is not a magic solution. You still need to setup a tripod and very carefully take a focus bracketed series of exposures. If I wanted to setup a tripod and take images that way, I could stop the lens down to f32 and get a much deeper depth of field. However, that would take significant work for each shot. So there would be probably be two images of each ship. That all assumes I want a deep depth of field. I like em that way. You want snapshots with a point and shoot, the models are still in the display case. Have at it. You can focus stack all you want.

Focus stacking is not a magic solution. You still need to setup a tripod and very carefully take a focus bracketed series of exposures. If I wanted to setup a tripod and take images that way, I could stop the lens down to f32 and get a much deeper depth of field. However, that would take significant work for each shot. So there would be probably be two images of each ship. That all assumes I want a deep depth of field. I like em that way. You want snapshots with a point and shoot, the models are still in the display case. Have at it. You can focus stack all you want.

Well I for one appreciate the opportunity to look at some close up shots of these new ships, cheers matey.

Focus stacking is not a magic solution.

Well, no. But it is pretty good for ensuring you get the most out of the Moldy Crow's attack and defense rolls

Why does everyone think that the lasers on the E-wing would blind the pilot when the lasers on the TIE Fighter are just as close to the canopy and don't blind them? And there are twice as many cannons on the TIE Fighter's cockpit than there are on the E-wing, so twice the blindness.

I think getting blinded by the laser is the least of the problem. The dirty big visual obstacle in the pilot's 12 o'clock would be more concerning!

As for the models, they seem a bit rough. There's bits of mould flash showing on some, the paint jobs on the Z-95 and Phantom are pretty sub-standard. Not normally what I would expect from FFG.

As for the models, they seem a bit rough. There's bits of mould flash showing on some, the paint jobs on the Z-95 and Phantom are pretty sub-standard. Not normally what I would expect from FFG.

These are extremely magnified images of what is likely pre-production samples of the models. I wouldn't judge too harshly. If you too similar pictures of the rest of the models they would look similar.

As for the models, they seem a bit rough. There's bits of mould flash showing on some, the paint jobs on the Z-95 and Phantom are pretty sub-standard. Not normally what I would expect from FFG.

These are extremely magnified images of what is likely pre-production samples of the models.

Let's hope the production runs are better, then.

check out the location of the real world F-18 cannon... right in front of the cockpit!!!

I don't have a problem with nose mounted, or under the nose, or heck, even beside, but right above the canopy? No. That and if you look at how a F-18 fires the cannon, all you have is a puff of smoke, not a bright laser. Yea, it probably isn't as big of a problem as it seems, but it is still bothering. After all, the E-Wing is supposed to be a step forward =p

Psssst, <whispers> 'it's a fictional universe' shhhhh. One would ask on those lines of logic why spacecraft have wings at all... Or how TIE fighters make sound in space, or why every fighter and space fleet are always oriented the same direction as each other, or how lasers make sound, or why 'S-foils spread give better fighting stance but folded give you better flying when there is no drag...I don't disagree with you, a cannon looming over my entire canopy would get annoying if I were flying, but that's what targeting computers and HUDs are for. Especially in the infinite blackness of space, not much to look at your sensors couldn't already tell you.

Aesthetically, I agree, it looks stupid and makes no sense. That an engineer could have easily put that cannon below the cockpit in the bottom of the fuselage and gotten the same desired effect of a forward firing laser centerline with the ship. But then I suspend belief and try to enjoy it, remembering that an engineer didn't design this, an artist did.

I would like the E wing to look cooler.. I'm also missing the spine thing that stuck out of the back of the defender in the game, but I am excited for these ships.

Thanks for the images, I also found the DoF a bit jarring, but I get why you did it and can respect that choice. In any case it is moot, since I really enjoyed the photos.

Why does everyone think that the lasers on the E-wing would blind the pilot when the lasers on the TIE Fighter are just as close to the canopy and don't blind them? And there are twice as many cannons on the TIE Fighter's cockpit than there are on the E-wing, so twice the blindness.

I think getting blinded by the laser is the least of the problem. The dirty big visual obstacle in the pilot's 12 o'clock would be more concerning!

As for the models, they seem a bit rough. There's bits of mould flash showing on some, the paint jobs on the Z-95 and Phantom are pretty sub-standard. Not normally what I would expect from FFG.

Again, I don't see the problem.

You're talking about a tube which is, at most, 3 inches wide. Why would that be a concern at all in a universe where you've got ships with gigantic solar panels blocking your sides (TIE Fighters), enormous engines blocking your 3 and 9 o'clock (X-wings), and canopies with very limiting fields of view to the top (the Y-wing and TIE Fighter), or no forward view at all (the HWK-290).

Besides that, in the Star Wars universe the pilots have a head-up display which allows them a 360* view of the space around them, at least in the X-wing games. In those games you spend most of your time looking at those displays, tracking the enemy until he gets in front of you. And even if there was no forward view (like the HWK), there are computerized systems that can compensate.

The E-wing's design is no concern whatsoever.

Love the pictures, I have two of each on pre-order as I'm still waiting for A's and B' to come back in stock over here in the UK.

But then I suspend belief and try to enjoy it, remembering that an engineer didn't design this, an artist did.

Not a very good artist....

I'll be buying some, but it still reminds me of this:

Argh, please stop down your aperture so your depth of field isn't so narrow. Only a little slice of each ship is in focus, which makes looking at them difficult.

I spent thousands of dollars on professional camera equipment which I have no idea how to use.

ftfy

Some of the photos are acceptable compositions. Most are not even slightly okay.

Still, it's cool that you took the time to do this and to share the images with us. So thank you for that.

Always been a fan of the E-Wing, ever since I went to a dozen stores trying to find the Action Fleet E-Wing as a kid. I am going to buy at least 2, maybe 3-4.

Argh, please stop down your aperture so your depth of field isn't so narrow. Only a little slice of each ship is in focus, which makes looking at them difficult.

I spent thousands of dollars on professional camera equipment which I have no idea how to use.

ftfy

Some of the photos are acceptable compositions. Most are not even slightly okay. I don't understand that photographers can make their own choices and I'm super jealous of your photo gear.

Still, it's cool that you took the time to do this and to share the images with us. So thank you for that.

ftfy

I made my choices, and I like them. I'm not terribly interested in your 'thanks'. I have been shooting on both film and digital for decades. I know how to use my gear just fine 'thanks'.

Argh, please stop down your aperture so your depth of field isn't so narrow. Only a little slice of each ship is in focus, which makes looking at them difficult.

I spent thousands of dollars on professional camera equipment which I have no idea how to use.

ftfy

Some of the photos are acceptable compositions. Most are not even slightly okay. I don't understand that photographers can make their own choices and I'm super jealous of your photo gear.

Still, it's cool that you took the time to do this and to share the images with us. So thank you for that.

ftfy

I made my choices, and I like them. I'm not terribly interested in your 'thanks'. I have been shooting on both film and digital for decades. I know how to use my gear just fine 'thanks'.

No, you definitely have not and no, you definitely do not.

No, you definitely have not and no, you definitely do not.

That was uncalled for, let's not have another needless flame war eh?

"No, you definitely have not and no, you definitely do not."

Down vote / unlike.

I'll suffer the blow to my reputation .

Dude needs a reality-check.

Introverdant , you quite literally know nothing.

I have been a photography hobbyist since a young child. Shooting on and off for over 30 years. I started doing some paid work on the side about a decade ago, enough to fairly call myself a (very) part time professional photographer. I work as a computer consultant and make a lot of money, so I can afford to buy very nice camera gear. Like many geeks I study the fundamentals and the equipment itself. I understand the physics, optics and math behind the photographic process both with silver nitrate (film) and with CMOS sensors (or CCD, yuck). I could go into excruciating detail about how the aperture interacts with DoF and available light, how you need to compensate for that with shutter speed and/or sensor sensitivity (ISO). I also kinda despise snapshots with cellphone cameras, with their tiny crap sensors. I like my huge 35mm film sized sensor, and use it to it's fullest by using large aperture lenses, almost always wide open. That's how I like things. Don't like it my way, meh, go take your own pictures.

You really are barking up the wrong tree thinking I'm some ignorant dude who dropped $5k on gear not knowing what I was buying. I like to take images the way I like, you can go take pictures the way you like. I don't insult other photographers if I don't agree with their choices, I just move on with my day.

I'm already shooting at ISO 1600, F4, 1/250th, with an IS macro lens on a full frame sensor DSLR.

I also like the shallow DoF. It highlights a specific aspect of the model in each shot, and the images were selected from a larger set to pick out features I though were cool. My camera, my images, my choices. Take your own images if you are so unhappy.

From a technical standpoint, since you're shooting the 100L HIS, you likely would have been able to drop your shutter 3 stops down to 1/30 since the lens is rated at 4 stops of IS compensation.

Those 3 stops of light could have been applied to your aperture, bringing your fstop to f11 while maintaining the same exposure, giving a larger depth of field. That compounded by the fact your 5DIII has stupid high ISOs that work brilliantly up to 12,800 gives you even more headroom should you have wanted a higher shutter speed or even more depth of field.

I'm just saying that I think you can push your gear much further, which is why full-time, commercial and event photographers pay what they pay to shoot with your gear.

But this is all moot and besides the point anyway because you wanted shallow DOF and you were taking creative license with your images, which I'm totally in agreement with. I can understand your frustration if people are critical when you are just trying to do the community a favor.

Yeah, it does work crazy good at high ISO, and I can and do push it much higher given different scenarios. I shot a roller derby event in very dark conditions a couple weeks ago. Bumped up to iso 25,600 with the 70-200 f2.8L IS @ between f5.6 and f8, shooting around 1/80th in the near darkness to beautiful results. Just a hint of motion blur, to give them a feeling of speed, but still sharp around intended subject due to IS. Deep enough DoF for the skaters on the track to be in focus, but the crowd behind them to be out of focus, creating a nice subject isolation. All the while skipping any sort of strobe that would kill the arena's lighting feel. Doing that at ~6 frames per second, took ~2300 images on a few hours.

I don't shoot full time because I enjoy my full time gig a lot, and it pays very well. It doesn't mean I don't know how to utilize what I have to the fullest extent.

On the wave 4 ships, even at f5.6, worse yet at f8, and terrible at f11 the background starts to become super distracting. Since I can't get them out of the case to move the background many feet back, I get to work with what I have on hand. Guess based on this guy's feedback I should just stop trying to do anyone any favors.

Yeah, it does work crazy good at high ISO, and I can and do push it much higher given different scenarios. I shot a roller derby event in very dark conditions a couple weeks ago. Bumped up to iso 25,600 with the 70-200 f2.8L IS @ between f5.6 and f8, shooting around 1/80th in the near darkness to beautiful results. Just a hint of motion blur, to give them a feeling of speed, but still sharp around intended subject due to IS. Deep enough DoF for the skaters on the track to be in focus, but the crowd behind them to be out of focus, creating a nice subject isolation. All the while skipping any sort of strobe that would kill the arena's lighting feel. Doing that at ~6 frames per second, took ~2300 images on a few hours.

I don't shoot full time because I enjoy my full time gig a lot, and it pays very well. It doesn't mean I don't know how to utilize what I have to the fullest extent.

On the wave 4 ships, even at f5.6, worse yet at f8, and terrible at f11 the background starts to become super distracting. Since I can't get them out of the case to move the background many feet back, I get to work with what I have on hand. Guess based on this guy's feedback I should just stop trying to do anyone any favors.

I get to see this in person, so I feel lucky, but your photos allow me an even better appreciation for them. Thanks