FIRST PORTRAITS WITH THE FAB 5D2!

Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original

No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:19:20 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original

No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.

The Law of Diminishing Returns does seem to apply. Bret has been
doing well enough with his "old" equipment. I don't see how anyone
could look at these images and tell that he's upgraded.

Not that the pics aren't good, but with the ballyhoo about the new
camera one would be expect to scratch the dog's back in the photo and
see one rear leg start to move.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Alan Browne wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original

No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.


That was my initial reaction too but there 'seems' to be more clearly
defined fur on the cat and certainly the lighting is better than his
earlier work. This probably is achieved through higher ISO.

I think the real benefit of a higher resolution camera is lost on the
Internet. Apart from posting a full size image, there is now no way of
comparing image quality on the Internet.

I think critical mass was reached at about 6 Mp and anything else needs
large prints to see any meaningful improvement in detail rendering. As
has been shown in the past, downsizing an OOF image to web size often
conceals the OOF. Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.

Maybe his movies will be more impressive but right now, if this camera
was bought to impress Usenet junkies, it fails miserably. Let's wait to
pass judgement until we see some outdoor stuff. Plenty of winter scenes
around now that are worth taking.

tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:19:20 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original
No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.

The Law of Diminishing Returns does seem to apply. Bret has been
doing well enough with his "old" equipment. I don't see how anyone
could look at these images and tell that he's upgraded.

Not that the pics aren't good, but with the ballyhoo about the new
camera one would be expect to scratch the dog's back in the photo and
see one rear leg start to move.

I have little doubt over Bret's ability to present images that reflect
the capability of the camera; I just hope he doesn't do an entire repeat
of the family pets and post the links.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Alan Browne wrote:
tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:19:20 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original
No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.

The Law of Diminishing Returns does seem to apply. Bret has been
doing well enough with his "old" equipment. I don't see how anyone
could look at these images and tell that he's upgraded.

Not that the pics aren't good, but with the ballyhoo about the new
camera one would be expect to scratch the dog's back in the photo and
see one rear leg start to move.

I have little doubt over Bret's ability to present images that reflect
the capability of the camera; I just hope he doesn't do an entire repeat
of the family pets and post the links.

Yeah, like where did the cheerleaders go???

--
john mcwilliams

In fact, I'm a word nerd. I get a kick out of tossing a few odd ones
into my column, just to see if the pervicacious editors will weed them out.
--Michael Hawley

Jurgen wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 8:58 AM:

Annika1980 wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970377/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106957914/original

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106970378/original

No real difference compared to your 20D shots of the same subjects.


That was my initial reaction too but there 'seems' to be more clearly
defined fur on the cat and certainly the lighting is better than his
earlier work. This probably is achieved through higher ISO.

Nup, he's using 50.


I think the real benefit of a higher resolution camera is lost on the
Internet. Apart from posting a full size image, there is now no way of
comparing image quality on the Internet.

Of course not. Anyone claiming otherwise has gotta
have rocks in their head. Which Helen and Bret have in
abundance.


I think critical mass was reached at about 6 Mp and anything else needs
large prints to see any meaningful improvement in detail rendering. As
has been shown in the past, downsizing an OOF image to web size often
conceals the OOF. Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.


Doesn't take a university degree to figure they are.
Web-size photos like those can be taken with any 4MP camera,
to use a 5D2 for that and claim it looks different
only demonstrates the idiocy and ignorance of the
person(s) doing so.


Maybe his movies will be more impressive but right now, if this camera
was bought to impress Usenet junkies, it fails miserably. Let's wait to
pass judgement until we see some outdoor stuff. Plenty of winter scenes
around now that are worth taking.

Careful, he'll now post heaps of
minuscule shots of non-white snow...

Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 12, 8:29 pm, Noons wrote:

Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.

Doesn't take a university degree to figure they are.

You wish, dip****. Here's a full-size crop of Buster's eye:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106982614/original

I'd post the whole image full size, but I don't want you to ****
yourself.


Careful, he'll now post heaps of minuscule shots of non-white snow...

If we ever get snow here, you'll know it pretty fast.




I don't want to burst your bubble of joy at getting this new camera but
2 years ago I took a shot of an unspectacular wine glass with a 40D.
http://jurgens.smugmug.com/gallery/6...35539595_s5dLq

Sure there are artefacts in the full size clip of the glass but you have
to expect this when you shoot in JPEG mode. When the whole (cropped)
image is printed, you can't see them.

The original image was long ago cropped into a landscape orientation
from it's original portrait mode.

In comparing your "eye shot" where you used a shorter (more manageable)
lens with flash assist, there is not enough difference in the image
quality compared to this hand held, 200mm, natural light shot to make me
run out and buy a 5D to replace the old battered 40D that took this
shot, much less any of my new cameras.

Any chance you've taken any movies yet?

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 1:30 PM:


I'd post the whole image full size, but I don't want you to ****
yourself.

That would be real hard: first, few of your photos
have any more DOF than a paper sheet. Second, I was
taking 21MP photos years before you even attempted one.


Careful, he'll now post heaps of minuscule shots of non-white snow...

If we ever get snow here, you'll know it pretty fast.

Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 13/12/2008 1:48 PM:
On Dec 12, 9:30 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 12, 8:29 pm, Noons wrote:

Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.
Doesn't take a university degree to figure they are.
You wish, dip****. Here's a full-size crop of Buster's eye:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106982614/original

I'd post the whole image full size, but I don't want you to ****
yourself.

Careful, he'll now post heaps of minuscule shots of non-white snow...
If we ever get snow here, you'll know it pretty fast.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106982614/original
Now THAT is amazing detail!

Really? why is it that the eyebrow of the dog
is out of focus while between the eyes it appears
to be in focus? But then again: technical examination
of a photo is not your forte, is it?

Helen wrote:
On Dec 12, 9:30 pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 12, 8:29 pm, Noons wrote:

Not that I'm saying any of these are out of focus.
Doesn't take a university degree to figure they are.
You wish, dip****. Here's a full-size crop of Buster's eye:

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106982614/original

I'd post the whole image full size, but I don't want you to ****
yourself.

Careful, he'll now post heaps of minuscule shots of non-white snow...
If we ever get snow here, you'll know it pretty fast.


http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/106982614/original
Now THAT is amazing detail!

No. That's merely a low detail crop.

A high detail crop is:

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/a9...0428_CROP1.jpg

from:

http://www.aliasimages.com/images/a9...C00428_SML.jpg

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.