If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote:
Annika1980 wrote: OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do. Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago. It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads. Mother of pearl...! I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd. As if. ROFL! Yep... ROTFL some more Matt. Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source... http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these "monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images with slight noise or artefacts in them. Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend $5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one can tell apart from the Canon ones! Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt! How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again) made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly! Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a $1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50??? Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting from all the laughter!!!! Doug |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 7:11 am, D_Mac wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote: Annika1980 wrote: OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do. Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago. It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads. Mother of pearl...! I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd. As if. ROFL! Yep... ROTFL some more Matt. Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source...http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...ples2/original... I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these "monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images with slight noise or artefacts in them. Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend $5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one can tell apart from the Canon ones! Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt! How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again) made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly! Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a $1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50??? Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting from all the laughter!!!! Doug Sorry Douglas, but it lacks the detail as in Bret's image. I find it on the soft side. Helen |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 12:40 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87219140/original Bret, Wow! I'm most impressed by the lens! How did you focus at f/8. Wasn't easy. I did it with my feet. First I focused with the 400 f/5.6L only. Then I added the 1.4x. That got me close. Then I just pretended I was taking a macro shot wuth the MP-E Macro lens and I moved forward and backward very slightly to get the bird in sharp focus. Normally, I'd just manually focus with the lens ring, but my lens is pretty beat up and it slips really bad when you try to manually focus. Without the TC (at f/5.6) it autofocuses fine. With it (at f/8) I have to manually focus. It's a pain, but momma always said, "Do what ya can with what ya got." |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 2:04 am, D_Mac wrote:
This is the sort of photography where the quality of the equipment used, rather than any skill the photographer has is very evident. Quite frankly I doubt this was a hand held shot as Bret has in the past claimed all his 400mm lens work is but if by some miracle it was hand held, all credit where credit is due. As mentioned in the OP I used a monopod for this one. What Bugs Bunny couldn't do and neither can I or anyone else do with a P&S camera is obtain a picture which resolves as much detail as this one. Now you are getting the point. They can but no $500 department store camera is going to equal the resolving power of the $5,000 lens and the $400 multiplier he use with it. Actually, the 400 f/5.6L is a $1,100 lens. I got mine off EBAY for $850. Now had I been using something like the $7,200 400 f/2.8L IS lens I'm sure you'd really be impressed. So in summary... I am impressed with the results you've managed to coax out of Canon's bottom of the range but one DSLR. Everything I've said in the past about your Photography is epitomised in this picture. Take some art lessons. learn about composure, ditch the flash, study light and shade then use it in your composure. The pic was not intended to win any photo contests, but simply to show the capabilities of the "given" equipment. Get it? "Given?" Like the 40D. LOL! I amuse myself. And what is this "composure" you so often speak about? Webster's defines composure as: ": a calmness or repose especially of mind, bearing, or appearance self-possession " So if I stay calmer I'll take better pics? Wouldn't IS or a tripod do the same thing? People who paint lifelike subjects understand composure. Funny you mentioned that. Last week i went to a Photoshop seminar in the ATL given by Bert Monroy, who is perhaps the world's most well- known photorealistic painter. The guy paints everything from scratch and the resulting images look just like huge photographs, except they have much more detail than a photo can capture. Here is his latest work: http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/te...eart_damen.htm Bert also has a number of podcasts about Photoshop that you can view for free he http://www.revision3.com/pixelperfect |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:11:13 -0700, D_Mac wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote: Annika1980 wrote: OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do. Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago. It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads. Mother of pearl...! I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd. As if. ROFL! Yep... ROTFL some more Matt. Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source... http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these "monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images with slight noise or artefacts in them. Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend $5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one can tell apart from the Canon ones! Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt! How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again) made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly! Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a $1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50??? Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting from all the laughter!!!! Doug Dougie, This is crap. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:11:13 -0700, D_Mac wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote: Annika1980 wrote: OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do. Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago. It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads. Mother of pearl...! I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd. As if. ROFL! Yep... ROTFL some more Matt. Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source... http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these "monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images with slight noise or artefacts in them. I know that I am no expert Dougie, but you will have to explain this paragraph to me one step at a time. It just makes no sense at all. Oh , by the way , this is the fourth reply I have made to your posts today. Can I expect the stalking summons from Qld. Police sometime soon? Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend $5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one can tell apart from the Canon ones! Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt! How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again) made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly! Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a $1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50??? Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting from all the laughter!!!! Doug |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com... On Oct 15, 2:04 am, D_Mac wrote: This is the sort of photography where the quality of the equipment used, rather than any skill the photographer has is very evident. Quite frankly I doubt this was a hand held shot as Bret has in the past claimed all his 400mm lens work is but if by some miracle it was hand held, all credit where credit is due. As mentioned in the OP I used a monopod for this one. What Bugs Bunny couldn't do and neither can I or anyone else do with a P&S camera is obtain a picture which resolves as much detail as this one. Now you are getting the point. They can but no $500 department store camera is going to equal the resolving power of the $5,000 lens and the $400 multiplier he use with it. Actually, the 400 f/5.6L is a $1,100 lens. I got mine off EBAY for $850. Now had I been using something like the $7,200 400 f/2.8L IS lens I'm sure you'd really be impressed. So in summary... I am impressed with the results you've managed to coax out of Canon's bottom of the range but one DSLR. Everything I've said in the past about your Photography is epitomised in this picture. Take some art lessons. learn about composure, ditch the flash, study light and shade then use it in your composure. The pic was not intended to win any photo contests, but simply to show the capabilities of the "given" equipment. Get it? "Given?" Like the 40D. LOL! I amuse myself. And what is this "composure" you so often speak about? Webster's defines composure as: ": a calmness or repose especially of mind, bearing, or appearance self-possession " So if I stay calmer I'll take better pics? Wouldn't IS or a tripod do the same thing? People who paint lifelike subjects understand composure. I think the genius means "Composition" LOL Funny you mentioned that. Last week i went to a Photoshop seminar in the ATL given by Bert Monroy, who is perhaps the world's most well- known photorealistic painter. The guy paints everything from scratch and the resulting images look just like huge photographs, except they have much more detail than a photo can capture. Here is his latest work: http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/te...eart_damen.htm Bert also has a number of podcasts about Photoshop that you can view for free he http://www.revision3.com/pixelperfect |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
"Annika1980" wrote in message
ps.com... On Oct 15, 12:40 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87219140/original Bret, Wow! I'm most impressed by the lens! How did you focus at f/8. Wasn't easy. I did it with my feet. First I focused with the 400 f/5.6L only. Then I added the 1.4x. That got me close. Then I just pretended I was taking a macro shot wuth the MP-E Macro lens and I moved forward and backward very slightly to get the bird in sharp focus. Normally, I'd just manually focus with the lens ring, but my lens is pretty beat up and it slips really bad when you try to manually focus. Without the TC (at f/5.6) it autofocuses fine. With it (at f/8) I have to manually focus. It's a pain, but momma always said, "Do what ya can with what ya got." Have you ever tried taping the pins on the teleconverter? It won't be fast AF and may hunt a little, but still much faster than the method you described. I believe it is the three pins on the opposite end from the raised ones. John |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 11:45 am, "JohnR66" wrote:
Have you ever tried taping the pins on the teleconverter? It won't be fast AF and may hunt a little, but still much faster than the method you described. I believe it is the three pins on the opposite end from the raised ones. I've heard of that, but have never tried it. I'll give it a shot! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !
On Oct 15, 9:49 am, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:
.. I think the genius means "Composition" LOL I thought he meant Composition + Exposure. But of course we all know that's called Exposition. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
T-BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 2 | November 23rd 06 03:20 AM |
BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 1 | November 21st 06 06:59 AM |
BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 20D ! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 4 | November 19th 06 08:46 AM |
BIG BIRDS LOVE THE D60 !!! | Annika1980 | Digital Photography | 26 | July 4th 04 05:09 PM |
BIG BIRDS LOVE THE D60 !!! | Annika1980 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | July 2nd 04 12:25 AM |