Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / September 2007
WAKING UP WITH THE FABULOUS 40D !
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Annika1980 - 20 Sep 2007 15:21 GMT Nothing like waking up in the morning with a brand new camera and a nice hummer!
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original
Tony Polson - 20 Sep 2007 15:30 GMT >Nothing like waking up in the morning with a >brand new camera and a nice hummer! > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Two of your best compositions ever. Congratulations!
And all thanks to Helen.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 20 Sep 2007 15:33 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original WOW!! You even caught those lightning fast wings in mid-motion! Background is very pleasing. Superb work Bret! So happy you're enjoying the 40D! Helen
Deep Reset - 20 Sep 2007 15:35 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! Still can't work out where the caps lock key is though, I see.
Deep.
Pudentame - 21 Sep 2007 04:03 GMT >> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a >> brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > Still can't work out where the caps lock key is though, I see. > > Deep. ... and mis-spelled w.nking.
JimKramer - 20 Sep 2007 15:38 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Can we see some full res crops please. Jim
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 03:05 GMT > Can we see some full res crops please. > Jim Well, since you said please. Here's a full size crop from the second pic:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85938512/original
JimKramer - 21 Sep 2007 21:00 GMT > > Can we see some full res crops please. > > Jim [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85938512/original Thanks, played with the sRAW or the live preview yet?
Annika1980 - 22 Sep 2007 01:55 GMT > > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85938512/original > > Thanks, played with the sRAW or the live preview yet? The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length.
Robert Coe - 22 Sep 2007 11:28 GMT : > > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: : > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other : dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length. YMMV, but with my G-5 I found that when I composed a picture with the screen instead of the viewfinder, I had a lot more trouble keeping the camera level.
Bob
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 22 Sep 2007 14:06 GMT >> The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other >> dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length. > > YMMV, but with my G-5 I found that when I composed a picture with the > screen instead of the viewfinder, I had a lot more trouble keeping > the camera level. You can always use a monopod and a remote shutter release to get way above the crowd, but Live View still seems a waste. That will at least get you level.
Rita
JimKramer - 22 Sep 2007 12:45 GMT > > > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other > dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length. Can you show us a picture of you working at arms length with the 400, a couple of extension tubes and a teleconverter on it? ;-)
Specifically working with Live View and the MP-E 65? Is there any real advantage to using it? Is there enough detail on the LCD to accurately focus for macro work? Is the lens still resolving more than the camera?
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 22 Sep 2007 14:05 GMT > Specifically working with Live View and the MP-E 65? Is there any > real advantage to using it? Is there enough detail on the LCD to > accurately focus for macro work? Is the lens still resolving more > than the camera? The short answer to that is NO. Even with the totally awesome Mk III Live View is a waste of time. If you are tripod mounted and set the resolution to 5x you can focus accurately. I shoot handheld macro and Live View could never work in this situation. After the infatuation dies down you will turn off Live View and Sensor Cleaning.
Rita
Annika1980 - 22 Sep 2007 15:31 GMT On Sep 22, 9:05 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> > Specifically working with Live View and the MP-E 65? Is there any > > real advantage to using it? Is there enough detail on the LCD to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > never work in this situation. After the infatuation dies down you will turn > off Live View and Sensor Cleaning. I haven't tried the Live View with Macro shooting yet, but I think it would be very helpful. Here's one I just took a few minutes ago while I was out on the back porch enjoying my Pop Tarts: http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85997078/original
I used Live View for that one. The Forgotten 400 f/5.6L was on a monopod and using the Live View I was able to zoom in on the flower to 10x, auto-focus, and then zoom back out. I think I'm gonna be a big fan of Live View.
BTW, I can't imagine why you would ever want to turn off the Sensor Cleaning function.
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 22 Sep 2007 16:46 GMT >> The short answer to that is NO. Even with the totally awesome Mk >> III Live View is a waste of time. If you are tripod mounted and set [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > while I was out on the back porch enjoying my Pop Tarts: > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85997078/original Unless the LCD is worlds better on the 40D than the Mk III you will find it a challenge at best to use it for handheld 1:1 macro.
> I used Live View for that one. The Forgotten 400 f/5.6L was on a > monopod and using the Live View I was able to zoom in on the flower to > 10x, auto-focus, and then zoom back out. I think I'm gonna be a big > fan of Live View. Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never be able to toggle between 10x and normal quick enough to compose the shot. Tripod good, handheld bad.
> BTW, I can't imagine why you would ever want to turn off the Sensor > Cleaning function. Waste of time.
http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/sensor.htm
Rita
Annika1980 - 25 Sep 2007 00:15 GMT On Sep 22, 11:46 am, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in > space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never be > able to toggle between 10x and normal quick enough to compose the shot. > Tripod good, handheld bad. Yes, I can see where it would be a problem in anything that is so focus-critical like macro photography. But hey, that's what the 6.5fps is for. Press the button and fire away .... surely one of them will be in focus! The Fabulous 40D: The ultimate in Focus Bracketing!
SpottedAnotherDSLRJoke - 25 Sep 2007 00:51 GMT >> Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in >> space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >focus! >The Fabulous 40D: The ultimate in Focus Bracketing! If it's important then you should use a Canon P&S camera with CHDK and use this script
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/uBASIC/Scripts:_yet_another_DOF_stacker
Just focus on the nearest (or furthest) portion of your subject that you want in focus, run the script, set the furthest (or nearest) distance that you want in focus. Let the camera automatically take all your shots for you, each frame nicely dividing up your whole subject (from macro to infinity if need be) into appropriate in-focus planes. Then stack them all together using CombineZM (freeware) or Helicon Focus.
"The Fabulous 40D" has absolutely nothing compared to the focus bracketing capabilities on a CHDK capable camera. 40D's focusing bracketing is a child's joke when you see what a CHDK camera can do.
Paul Furman - 25 Sep 2007 01:56 GMT >>>Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in >>>space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never be [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > appropriate in-focus planes. Then stack them all together using CombineZM > (freeware) or Helicon Focus. That is a pretty cool trick... although the technically correct method for focus stacking is with a focus rail so the lens doesn't change focal lengths. It can also be accomplished with a DSLR in a machine-gun burst while moving your body.
SpottedAnotherDSLRJoke - 25 Sep 2007 03:06 GMT >>>>Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in >>>>space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never be [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >capabilities on a CHDK capable camera. 40D's focusing bracketing is a child's >joke when you see what a CHDK camera can do.
>That is a pretty cool trick... although the technically correct method >for focus stacking is with a focus rail so the lens doesn't change focal >lengths. It can also be accomplished with a DSLR in a machine-gun burst >while moving your body. Now that I'd love to see ... without them introducing a mass of parallax and framing errors. They can't even hand-hold their cameras any better than 1/fl for a shutter speed for just one shot without crying about their blurry photos. Heaven forbid that you take away their auto-focus from them too, that's 1 of the only 2 things that is slightly better on a DSLR vs. a P&S. High ISO low-noise being the other, circumvented by many methods on a P&S, 2 feeble stops advantage in ISO is hardly worth paying $5,000 extra.
So what you are really saying is that the focus-bracketing in any DSLR is just a joke if a focus-rail method is truly needed. And if not, then any P&S camera with CHDK's methods still surpasses any DSLR's focus-bracketing, including the new $5k - $8k bodies (body only) being introduced this year.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways, either all focus bracketing methods are not useful in all cameras including all DSLRs, or any P&S camera with CHDK is still better than any DSLR that has ever made or is being made.
Now find another way to try to justify why you wasted all that money on a DSLR, because focus-bracketing is surely not one of them.
Paul Furman - 25 Sep 2007 06:13 GMT yeah right, OK
:-) 1/fl on an APS DSlr would be 1.5/fl and on & small sensor P&S it would be what?
I'm saying the focus bracketing CHD method sounds good and I like it but the optimal setup would use a focusing rail. Thanks for the ideas!
SpottedAnotherDSLRJoke - 25 Sep 2007 09:49 GMT >yeah right, OK > >:-) > >1/fl on an APS DSlr would be 1.5/fl and on & small sensor P&S it would >be what? Anyone that's familiar with that rule-of-thumb for hand-held shots knows that 1/fl = 1/35mm eq. fl for suggested shutter-speed. Though with IS, in the right hands, that should be more like 5 to 7 / 35mm eq. f.l. Some people have no problems hand-holding their IS equipped cameras for 1 full second at 432mm and getting a crystal clear photo, making that rule-of-thumb totally obsolete.
But wait, that's right, you're not familiar with all the features of CHDK where it displays the camera's exact f.l., the ultrasonic-motor zoom-steps (0 to 128 steps), or the 35mm eq. f.l. in the viewfinder of whatever zoom setting you are using. In the case of the S-series cameras that entails 129 discreet focal-length steps of 36-432 mm (35mm eq.) This too is something that no DSLR on earth can ever do -- recreate the exact focal-length used with any zoom lens. So, if you want to reproduce a tele-macro setup using an exact lens focal-length set to 210mm (35mm eq.) one only needs to include the command "set_zoom 79". (79 being one of 129 discreet ultrasonic-motor steps.)
Do you need to recreate the EXACT manual focus setting on your camera from one day, week, or month to the next? No problem, use the "set_focus x" command, setting an effective focus in mm (yes, millimeter) increments out to a distance over 67 meters away. Lets see anyone do that with any DSLR, or any other cameras for that matter.
I guess you don't miss what you don't have, so rather than make you realize just how featureless every DSLR is compared to any CHDK P&S camera I won't mention any more of its capabilities that beat the pants off of every DSLR ever made.
If someone gave me a choice between a CHDK capable camera and a Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III (an $8000 body) for free I'd still choose the CHDK P&S, without a moment's hesitation. Because the CHDK camera can do much more than the Mark III will ever be able to do. I found it so funny, they thought they were doing great things in the Mark III by including 6 different cropping frame formats for composition. CHDK allows an unlimited number of cropping and composition frames by using very simple graphic commands in a small file that you can load and change any time on-the-fly. Custom cropping and composition masks any time you need a new one.
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/Grids
I bet every new Mark III owner will go "oooooo" and "ahhhh" over their 6 pathetic cropping formats because they don't realize just how lame that meager selection is. They have no idea how much they are being ripped-off.
Awww, what the heck. I know that you and every other DSLR owner is just dying to realize that your DSLR is highly inferior to some P&S cameras and it really was a waste of your money after all. So here's all the simple scripting commands available to every CHDK P&S owner to give them complete programmed control over all of their camera's features
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK/uBASIC/TutorialScratchpad
(Read it and weep.)
>I'm saying the focus bracketing CHD method sounds good and I like it but >the optimal setup would use a focusing rail. Thanks for the ideas! Yes, a rail setup is the optimal situation, but in real-world use the times where you have the chance to set up for the shot like that will be limited or for in studio use only. Great for the lab in canned situations with inanimate subjects with artificial lighting for documentation purposes, non-realistic for on-the-go photographers in the real world with real subjects.
By the way, while you are calculating your rail increments, don't take too long trying to find out how many hyperfocal in-focus planes that the f/stop you are using will require to cover the full depth of your subject. You might be at it a while by using a logarithmic progression to try to find those focusing-rail stops for each frame. While you're busy trying to figure that all out I'll just press 2 buttons on my P&S CHDK camera, if you don't mind.
Annika1980 - 25 Sep 2007 13:50 GMT On Sep 25, 4:49 am, SpottedAnotherDSLRJoke <insertnameh...@spamless.org> wrote:
> If someone gave me a choice between a CHDK capable camera and a Canon EOS-1Ds > Mark III (an $8000 body) for free I'd still choose the CHDK P&S, without a > moment's hesitation. That's because you are a fool who cares more about silly gimmicks than image quality. Who cares about scripts? Let's see some images from your awesome CHDK-equipped P&S.
BTW, Canon cameras have "A-Dep" mode which does largely the same thing.
DSLR Honesty - 25 Sep 2007 21:27 GMT >On Sep 25, 4:49 am, SpottedAnotherDSLRJoke ><insertnameh...@spamless.org> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >image quality. Who cares about scripts? Let's see some images from >your awesome CHDK-equipped P&S. Someone already did. You were so upset that you couldn't believe that a P&S camera would create better photos than your piece of sh.t DSLRs. You even insisted that they must have stolen them because they were so much better than anything that you could get with your overpriced, overweight, noisy, dust-crippled, slow-shutter, crap DSLRs..
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YOU FUCKTARD! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What are you? Some kind of f.cked-up glutton for punishment? You want to see MORE photos that are better than anything that you have ever taken, coming from a P&S camera??? So you can do what? Claim someone stole them again just so you can wrap your miniscule mind around the FACT that YOU ARE 100% WRONG? AGAIN??
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are fuckin' waste of time is all you are. It was already proven to you. You refused to believe it. You'll do the same again. That's how fuckin' delusional you are. No wonder you buy DSLRs. Only someone as f.cked-up in the head as you would make that choice. OH LOOK! There's so many just like you!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every last one of you is that f.cked-up in the head. Camera companies LOVE YOU!!! They can charge $1800 for a few piss-poorly ground lenses that aren't even to diffraction-limited specs and it only cost them $40 to make it with 3rd-world labor. Only idiots as f.cked-up in the head and delusional as you would fall for that! The place is crawlin' wid 'em!!!
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rwalker@despammed.com - 25 Sep 2007 22:22 GMT nothing useful.
Idiot.
John McWilliams - 25 Sep 2007 23:35 GMT > nothing useful. > > Idiot. You're too kind!
 Signature john mcw
Fishermac - 27 Sep 2007 13:28 GMT Hello x man or x mans mate see you back again did your $1 a hour job pay enough money this month so you could afford a bit of internet time shame you are so jealous of us richer DSLR owners who happen to have a P&S as well in our kit and know the truth its such a shame you are so poor that you have to be jealous of us richer camera owners but never mind you maybe able to find a real job one day and join the rest of us
Paul Furman - 25 Sep 2007 17:39 GMT >>yeah right, OK >> >>:-) >> >>1/fl on an APS DSlr would be 1.5/fl and on & small sensor P&S it would >>be what? Ah, nevermind, dumb question... 35mm equivalent.
> Anyone that's familiar with that rule-of-thumb for hand-held shots knows that > 1/fl = 1/35mm eq. fl for suggested shutter-speed. Though with IS, in the right [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > over 67 meters away. Lets see anyone do that with any DSLR, or any other cameras > for that matter. Some SLR lenses record the focal distance and most record the zoom focal length. But there's no motor for zooming and the focus motor isn't designed to work that way. I'm not sure why you'd need to recreate exact conditions but you could simply read the markings on the lens & twist into position. <shrug>
> I guess you don't miss what you don't have, so rather than make you realize just > how featureless every DSLR is compared to any CHDK P&S camera I won't mention [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Mark III (an $8000 body) for free I'd still choose the CHDK P&S, without a > moment's hesitation. Not me! :-)
Fishermac - 27 Sep 2007 13:31 GMT >>yeah right, OK >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >stops for each frame. While you're busy trying to figure that all out I'll just >press 2 buttons on my P&S CHDK camera, if you don't mind. you are so boring just because you are poor and dumb there is no need to be jealous of us rich camera owners that can afford any cameras we like what a shame you sad little man get a proper job
just bob - 25 Sep 2007 18:19 GMT On Sep 22, 11:46 am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> Just as long as you can guarantee that you can keep that exact position in > space you will find Live View unusable for handheld macro. You'll never > be > able to toggle between 10x and normal quick enough to compose the shot. > Tripod good, handheld bad. Yes, I can see where it would be a problem in anything that is so focus-critical like macro photography. But hey, that's what the 6.5fps is for. Press the button and fire away .... surely one of them will be in focus! The Fabulous 40D: The ultimate in Focus Bracketing!
Not a bad idea!
Tony Polson - 22 Sep 2007 17:13 GMT >I used Live View for that one. The Forgotten 400 f/5.6L was on a >monopod and using the Live View I was able to zoom in on the flower to >10x, auto-focus, and then zoom back out. I think I'm gonna be a big >fan of Live View. As I have predicted for some time now, even the most sceptical DSLR users will find Live View a superb feature, once they have a camera that offers it.
The rampant snobbery that infects so many discussions about this particular feature will have no place soon, given that the top pro DSLRs from Canon, Nikon and Olympus (among others) will all have LiveView as standard.
Alan Browne - 22 Sep 2007 21:27 GMT >> I used Live View for that one. The Forgotten 400 f/5.6L was on a >> monopod and using the Live View I was able to zoom in on the flower to >> 10x, auto-focus, and then zoom back out. I think I'm gonna be a big >> fan of Live View. > > As I have predicted for some time It's not like you were first to say so, nor alone to say so. Your predictions on other items have not come to pass at all.
just bob - 24 Sep 2007 21:48 GMT >> > > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > accurately focus for macro work? Is the lens still resolving more > than the camera? Speaking from experience with the 1D3, the screen is definitely sharp enough. If anyone here has had a home video camera with macro focus, the visual is exactly the same: you adjust focus until it is sharp to your eyes, just that easy. Even easier with the 10x zoom. Go test it at a store and be "wowed". Note: the zoom focus method is designed to work on a tripod, so test this feature in store with a tripod if possible, or if it will balance on the counter use that.
Doug McDonald - 24 Sep 2007 22:03 GMT > Speaking from experience with the 1D3, the screen is definitely sharp > enough. If anyone here has had a home video camera with macro focus, the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > test this feature in store with a tripod if possible, or if it will balance > on the counter use that. I'd like to see a view-screen preview with a 10x zoom focus zone in the center and a 1x view in the surrounding area for composition.
Doug McDonald
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 24 Sep 2007 23:09 GMT >> Speaking from experience with the 1D3, the screen is definitely sharp >> enough. If anyone here has had a home video camera with macro focus, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd like to see a view-screen preview with a 10x zoom focus zone in > the center and a 1x view in the surrounding area for composition. Try a Mk III in real world shooting conditions the way you would normally shoot or expect to shoot and you might find LiveView just doesn't cut the mustard in most situations. I'm not convinced that Canon couldn't have implemented a better LiveView system. If it had full AF function I might be impressed.
Rita
Annika1980 - 25 Sep 2007 00:12 GMT On Sep 24, 6:09 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> I'm not convinced that Canon couldn't have > implemented a better LiveView system. If it had full AF function I might be > impressed. They probably could have implemented that now, but now they have something to improve for the MK4.
just bob - 24 Sep 2007 23:44 GMT >> Speaking from experience with the 1D3, the screen is definitely sharp >> enough. If anyone here has had a home video camera with macro focus, the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Doug McDonald Just keep pressing the button to cycle through and back again. Pretty simple. Normally I get my composition right first and then zoom in for a sec to check focus.
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 24 Sep 2007 23:58 GMT > Just keep pressing the button to cycle through and back again. Pretty > simple. Normally I get my composition right first and then zoom in > for a sec to check focus. Do that for handheld macro (1:1) and come back and tell how much worth you find in LiveView. You'll never do that with action shots either.
Rita
Pete Stavrakoglou - 22 Sep 2007 22:01 GMT >> > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other > dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length. I never thought I'd appreciate live view on a DSLR, didn't think it was of much use until I bought an Oly I-330. The screen pivots so it works very well if you have to get down for a ground level shot. It's also handy when you have your camera on a tripod. It has its place and I'll bet you find yourself using it when the situation warrants it. I wouldn't use it if I can use the optical viewfinder but there are times when I've needed it.
~~NoMad~~ - 23 Sep 2007 16:01 GMT >> > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The Live View is pretty neat. Now I can look like all those other > dorks holding their P&S cameras at arm's length. A DSLR is too big for me to carry on my belt while riding my dirtbike. Now I use P&S exclusively and have found that the Live View screens allow me to compose better pictures than I can do with one eye in a viewfinder. Both eyes are better for composition.
NM
just bob - 24 Sep 2007 21:51 GMT >>> > Here's a full size crop from the second pic: >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to compose better pictures than I can do with one eye in a viewfinder. > Both eyes are better for composition. Great point: two eyes, and the fact that can look at your subject without pulling the camera away from your face and then glance back to the LCD to make sure you are really getting everything in your shot your eyes can see.
Draco - 20 Sep 2007 15:48 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Great shots Bret. You got a superd image on 26. The other guy looks like he had been out all night drinking and still had some on his snout.hehe And all with out a flash. Great images.
Thanks for the postings. Now and all the rest in the past.
Draco
George Kerby - 20 Sep 2007 15:53 GMT On 9/20/07 9:21 AM, in article 1190298106.622050.181330@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote:
> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Looks like the little guy needs a napkin!
Saguenay - 20 Sep 2007 16:29 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Perfect pics, especialy when waking up on early morning...
Ahah... I was the first to answer this? Proof that I monitor Brett's pictures.
So, since there will be no more "20D LIKES XYZ", I'll watch for your 40D feelings here.
mb
just bob - 20 Sep 2007 16:40 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Seems like only yesterday you got your 20D...
Annika1980 - 20 Sep 2007 17:00 GMT > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original > > Seems like only yesterday you got your 20D... 3 years and 3 days, but who's counting?
just bob - 20 Sep 2007 17:50 GMT >> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 3 years and 3 days, but who's counting? Nicely done. That's the way to do it. I had been fairly stable with a 1D from 2003 until 2006 and then last fall I tried the 400D, then a 5D and then settled on a 1D2N, until last month when I tried a 1DM3 for a couple weeks before deciding for me it was too much money/not enough camera. My N is fine but I'm doing less sports so I'm thinking of going back to the 5D or trying a 40D.
I'm glad to see a happy 40D user and look forward to another 3 years of surprises from you.
Allen - 20 Sep 2007 17:03 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Congratulations! You hit the ground running.
Allen
Scott W - 20 Sep 2007 17:13 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Off to a good start with the new camera, way to go.
Scott
Ali - 20 Sep 2007 19:18 GMT Good photos Bret, however is it just me or is the second photo quite noisy?
> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Ali - 20 Sep 2007 19:29 GMT Forgot to say, is the second one a 100% crop, or near?
> Good photos Bret, however is it just me or is the second photo quite > noisy?
> "Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
>> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a >> brand new camera and a nice hummer! >> >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original >> >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Mick Brown - 20 Sep 2007 23:04 GMT Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in news:1190298106.622050.181330 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Hi Brett,
I know I can say this to you as you take critiques well :-)
Is it me or is his/her chest a little blown? It may be my screen.
Mick Brown
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 03:10 GMT > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is it me or is his/her chest a little blown? It may be my screen. Don't make me sue you, you STALKER!
Almost blown, but not quite.
Mick Brown - 22 Sep 2007 08:13 GMT Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in news:1190340653.073941.85230 @d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Almost blown, but not quite. Yeah I wasn't sure, as my laptop screen is being a bit funny lately and my office is being renovated so I can't hook up the 19" LCD, my new Mac Book Pro arrives early next week, I will have another look after I get it calibrated.
Mick Brown
D-Mac - 21 Sep 2007 08:04 GMT > Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in news:1190298106.622050.181330 > @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mick Brown Oh yeah... If I'd have asked the questions about noise, clarity and definition which all seem to be missing, I'd have been accused of having an axe to grind. They are far from impressive examples.
Tony Polson git it right when he remarked on the composition but hey, technically I'd need to see lot better before I'd rush out and buy one. Maybe that's why Canon use 20D images to promote the camera?
Doug
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 13:27 GMT > Oh yeah... If I'd have asked the questions about noise, clarity and > definition which all seem to be missing, I'd have been accused of having an > axe to grind. > They are far from impressive examples. Here is a full-size crop. You can judge for yourself.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 21 Sep 2007 14:55 GMT > > Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in news:1190298106.622050.181330 > > @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Doug Douglas, most people are going to take what you say with a grain of salt. Had I bought Bret the 1Ds MKlll, you would have all negative things to say about that too, as a matter of fact ANY camera I bought for him. That green-eyed monster is taking over your soul. The best cure for that is to buy yourself a new camera, lens, whatever. Helen
George Kerby - 21 Sep 2007 16:41 GMT On 9/21/07 8:55 AM, in article 1190382914.167194.293860@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>>> Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in news:1190298106.622050.181330 >>> @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > cure for that is to buy yourself a new camera, lens, whatever. > Helen You can buy me anything you want in the Canon DSLR line. I'm not choosy.
;-)
John McWilliams - 21 Sep 2007 19:51 GMT > On 9/21/07 8:55 AM, in article > 1190382914.167194.293860@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com,
>> Douglas, most people are going to take what you say with a grain of >> salt. Had I bought Bret the 1Ds MKlll, you would have all negative [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > ;-) I'm well sorted for Canon bodies now, so my X-mas list has the 400 or 500 L on it. Address on request.
And well done, Helen!
More pictures, less braggadocio, Bret!
 Signature John McWilliams
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 21 Sep 2007 20:08 GMT > > On 9/21/07 8:55 AM, in article > > 1190382914.167194.293...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > -- > John McWilliams Thanks John! Hope you get one of those awesome lenses! Helen
John McWilliams - 21 Sep 2007 23:21 GMT >>> On 9/21/07 8:55 AM, in article >>> 1190382914.167194.293...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thanks John! Hope you get one of those awesome lenses! > Helen My address is on its way to you....
:) john
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 21 Sep 2007 22:48 GMT > Douglas, most people are going to take what you say with a grain of > salt. Had I bought Bret the 1Ds MKlll, you would have all negative > things to say about that too, as a matter of fact ANY camera I bought > for him. That green-eyed monster is taking over your soul. The best > cure for that is to buy yourself a new camera, lens, whatever. LOL! If the new D3 pans out to be a decent camera and totally blows away my Mk III, I might have to rethink my supertele collection strategy and find a loving and caring home for the totally awesome Mk III. Damn! Bret might be getting so many gifts this Christmas he's not going to know what to do.
Rita
Annika1980 - 22 Sep 2007 01:57 GMT On Sep 21, 5:48 pm, Rita ? Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> LOL! If the new D3 pans out to be a decent camera and totally blows away my > Mk III, I might have to rethink my supertele collection strategy and find a > loving and caring home for the totally awesome Mk III. Damn! Bret might be > getting so many gifts this Christmas he's not going to know what to do. > > Rita You know, that D3 does look like a super camera. I think you should go for it. And think what it'll do with all that Nikon glass on it!
(You can Google search for my address.)
Alan Browne - 21 Sep 2007 00:19 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Great phots. Congrats on the new camera.
 Signature -- 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.
Juan R. Pollo - 21 Sep 2007 01:06 GMT How many shots before you could get the wings up like that? Were you shooting in rapid mode or were you just incredibly lucky?
Juan R. Pollo
> Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Pete Stavrakoglou - 21 Sep 2007 02:52 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like better? How many times have you seen a hummingbird stationary like that? I can count the number of times I've even seen a hummingbird on one hand but when I did, they wouldn't sit still like that for one second.
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 03:09 GMT > Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like > better? The camera. It didn't cost me as much.
>How many times have you seen a hummingbird stationary like > that? Every day. Hummers are very territorial. They will sit on a perch or a limb and wait for another hummer and then they'll swoop down and terrorize the intruder. Sometimes when I get bored I'll toss an ice cube at the hummer sitting on a branch. The cube will only miss him by inches, but the hummer doesn't even flinch. Those suckers must have radar like a bat.
Allen - 21 Sep 2007 14:42 GMT >> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like >> better? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > by inches, but the hummer doesn't even flinch. Those suckers must > have radar like a bat. Many years ago I had a a class in a large lecture hall. One day a hummingbird (probably a male rubythroat, but it was over 50 years ago, so I can't be sure now) got into the hall and was flying all around, probably looking for an exit. The prof went into hysterics and tried to hide under a desk; it seems he had a terrible phobia about hummingbirds, having been told at an early age that they would poke his eyes out. I have never heard of another person with this particular phobia. Incidentally, he was an outdoorsy, very macho-acting type. Allen
Terry Anglith - 22 Sep 2007 00:15 GMT >>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like >>> better? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Incidentally, he was an outdoorsy, very macho-acting type. >Allen I knew there was some reason to despise Annika when I started to read this newsgroup. I thought it was from Annika's mediocre photography skills and their relentlessly spamming just for the attention. I've never seen such desperation for attention before. Now I know that it goes much further than that, intentionally trying to harm and kill hummingbirds out of boredom.
We can only hope that the hummingbirds eventually learn how truly ugly you are inside Annika and visit you no longer. If not the hummingbirds, then at least those that foolishly feed your photo-trolls might wake-up to the kind of person they are entertaining by replying to you. The ugliness of you not only shows in your beginner's-level photography but now in your behavior.
What a shame that the hummingbirds are even around to entertain something as vile as you.
Atheist Chaplain - 22 Sep 2007 00:57 GMT >>>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like >>>> better? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > as > vile as you. Hi Frank, or is it A.Neuman, Allan D., Baumbadier, BetterEditors, BigBrother, Bobbert, Brad M, BrokenP&S, Bucky, CharleiD, CoffeeTalk, CoolGuy, Craig Stevens, D. Farmington, Dartagnon, DaveB, David Baires, Do This, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, Danny V., DSLR Honesty, EdBancroft, Educator, DSLRs SUCK!, EdiTOR, email@email.com, FeastForThought, Fed-Up-With-Corel, FixItMan, Frank, Franklin B., FrankLM, Gaile S., GET A ROOM, GilfordBrimly, Glen Bankwood, GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, GreggAkin, GregoryH., Henry Hank, HatTrick, HokusPokus, IdiotDetector, IdiotsIdiotsEverywhere, Idiot Train - All Aboard!, ImpressMe, It Takes Time, Jack Johnson, JoeBS, Lurk, John Kaiber, Les Danesworth, LoserSpotter, M. Goode, MoronDetector, Mr. Observant, NameHere, NameThere, New2_S3, nobody@noplace.org, NotaFreeBillboard, Notes4theClueless, OptionsRus, OTPolice, Passing Through ..., RealityCheck, Reality Czech, ReplyingToStupid, Rob Akins, RockyZ, SamanthaSpade, SayWhat, SelfImporantName, SelfImportantName, Siskel, Sigh...More Fools, SmartAdvice, SmartGuy, Soujourner, SpamAlert!, SPAM ALERT!!, spamless, SpamDetector, Stephen James, Tech Man, Tester, Trevor D., Troll Detector, TryinToHelp, Wayne J.L., Wayne Wrangler, WhileOutShopping..., WillyWonka, X-Man, Yeti, youmustbejoking or YourPsychologist.
another day, another name!
 Signature "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg
Janice D. - 22 Sep 2007 01:42 GMT >>>>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you >>>>> like [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > another day, another name! Even if that is true It doesn't matter who says it, Terry is 100% right.
Atheist Chaplain - 22 Sep 2007 02:01 GMT do you often stick up for yourself by creating another alias ??
 Signature "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg
Allen - 22 Sep 2007 14:46 GMT >>>>>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you >>>>>> like [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > Even if that is true It doesn't matter who says it, Terry is 100% > right. Talking to yourself again, Janice/Terry/Frank/WillyWonka/tc. Allen
Allen - 22 Sep 2007 14:45 GMT <snip>
> Hi Frank, or is it A.Neuman, Allan D., Baumbadier, BetterEditors, > BigBrother, Bobbert, Brad M, BrokenP&S, Bucky, CharleiD, CoffeeTalk, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > another day, another name! Actually, it has become "another post, another name". Allen
George Kerby - 22 Sep 2007 01:13 GMT On 9/21/07 6:15 PM, in article nej8f3p8ki7tq4v1mfa303ld9etp7rdhm1@4ax.com,
>>>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like >>>> better? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > What a shame that the hummingbirds are even around to entertain something as > vile as you. Why do you hold back? Go ahead -tell us how you REALLY feel. It's OK!
<group hug>
Robert Coe - 22 Sep 2007 01:20 GMT : I knew there was some reason to despise Annika when I started to read this : newsgroup. I thought it was from Annika's mediocre photography skills and [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : What a shame that the hummingbirds are even around to entertain something : as vile as you. Oh, sh.t, yes; we all know what a fine fellow you are and that your work is a hell of a lot better than Bret's. The only thing that puzzles us is that you don't show it to us. When may we expect you to put your pictures where your mouth is?
Incidentally, you shouldn't feel obliged to participate in this group. We'll try to contain our despair if you decide to mosey on down the road.
Bob
Annika1980 - 22 Sep 2007 02:05 GMT > We can only hope that the hummingbirds eventually learn how truly ugly you are inside Annika .... I don't plan to eat them.
FWIW, troll, pretty much all animals love me. Except a.ses, like yourself.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 22 Sep 2007 03:54 GMT > >>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like > >>> better? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > What a shame that the hummingbirds are even around to entertain something as > vile as you. What a cruel and vicious thing to say about somebody. If you believe Bret could harm something so sweet and delicate as a hummingbird, then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn for you. It's common knowledge that Bret is an animal/bird advocate. Helen
Terry Anglith - 22 Sep 2007 06:39 GMT >> >> Sometimes when I get bored I'll toss an ice >> >> cube at the hummer sitting on a branch. The cube will only miss him >> >> by inches, but the hummer doesn't even flinch. Those suckers must >> >> have radar like a bat. [Trees Snipped]
>What a cruel and vicious thing to say about somebody. >If you believe Bret could harm something so sweet and delicate as a >hummingbird, then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn for you. >It's common knowledge that Bret is an animal/bird advocate. >Helen There, I got rid of all those trees that were preventing you from seeing the forest.
Do note, Annika doesn't say "One time I was drunk and I stupidly ..." or "Once I accidentally flung a...", or "my stupid little brother that didn't know any better tossed an ice-cube at a...", or "something hit my drink once at an outdoor party and an ice-cube was accidentally thrown past a nearby hummingbird", or any other easily excusable scenario.
No, Annika claims SOMETIMES, not just once, not all the time, SOMETIMES throwing hard objects at hummingbirds for entertainment. A block of ice that weighs far more than any small hummingbird. No different than if Annika proudly proclaimed throwing stones at hummingbirds or other living things.
But then I don't suspect you'll see this, knowing where your head is. My advice to you: Get your head out of your a.s.
For you to support such a vile and disgusting person as Annika makes you no better. What's the matter, didn't you pull enough wings off of butterflies today because you weren't bored enough? Since you agree with these kinds of behaviors perhaps both of you should get together and compare how you torture small animals to prevent your boredom.
You and anyone that would support this kind of person is a just disgusting waste of flesh who should have never been born.
Robert Coe - 22 Sep 2007 11:48 GMT : Do note, Annika doesn't say "One time I was drunk and I stupidly ..." or "Once : I accidentally flung a...", or "my stupid little brother that didn't know any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : more than any small hummingbird. No different than if Annika proudly proclaimed : throwing stones at hummingbirds or other living things. You really are full of sh.t. How many times have you seen a hummingbird up close, other than in a zoo? I'm probably twice as old as you are, and in my case the answer is "once". Yet Bret gets to photograph them anytime he feels like it. (And unlike you and most of the other loudmouths, he actually shows pictures to prove it.) If the birds felt threatened by the way he treats them, do you suppose they'd keep hanging around his house?
: But then I don't suspect you'll see this, knowing where your head is. My advice : to you: Get your head out of your a.s. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] : You and anyone that would support this kind of person is a just disgusting waste : of flesh who should have never been born. Why don't you get your sorry a.s out of rec.photo.digital? Reading your crap is just a disgusting waste of our time.
Bob
RBrickston - 22 Sep 2007 12:19 GMT > : Do note, Annika doesn't say "One time I was drunk and I stupidly ..." or "Once > : I accidentally flung a...", or "my stupid little brother that didn't know any [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Bob My take from Bret's post is that the bird would have moved had it "radared"the cube as being on a direct path to strike it. The hummer, knowing that the cube wasn't going to hit, conveniently stayed where it was.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 22 Sep 2007 13:34 GMT > : Do note, Annika doesn't say "One time I was drunk and I stupidly ..." or "Once > : I accidentally flung a...", or "my stupid little brother that didn't know any [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Bob This guy knows nothing about Bret or me. He's making assumptions that are so outrageous that even I had to laugh. I should have re-worded my reply, because he still didn't get it: Bret was yanking your chain! People like that remind me of dog crap on the city's sidewalk. You see it there, you find it repulsive, so you avoid it and ignore it by walking around it and continuing on your way. Helen
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 22 Sep 2007 14:06 GMT > You really are full of sh.t. How many times have you seen a > hummingbird up close, other than in a zoo? I'm probably twice as old [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > birds felt threatened by the way he treats them, do you suppose > they'd keep hanging around his house? I wouldn't even waste my time responding to this nym-shifting fool more than once. As for the hummers, you got that right. We have them over here but not as many as I would like to see. Ducks, now, that's a different story. I have a family of ducks that take up residence in our swimming pool every year. They are used to us and aren't afraid. Sometimes they get spooked when Remy gets a bit aggressive with them.
Rita
Robert Coe - 22 Sep 2007 15:23 GMT : > You really are full of sh.t. How many times have you seen a : > hummingbird up close, other than in a zoo? I'm probably twice as old [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : I have a family of ducks that take up residence in our swimming pool every : year. They are used to us and aren't afraid. Ducks are fun. But we haven't had any since before the advent of digital photography.
When our kids were small, we had a family in our pond almost every year. The kids would feed them bread crusts, so they'd swim over whenever the kids came out. One year they were so tame that they'd bang on our back door if the kids didn't go out and feed them promptly enough.
Another year we had two duck families, who didn't like each other much. Near the end of the summer a third female hatched a brood, and her ducklings were of course much smaller than the half-grown ducklings in the other two families. One day all three families were at the shoreline being fed bread crusts, when a huge fight broke out between the two older families. The small ducklings were right in the middle, with their mother frantically trying to keep them from getting injured. The next day she relocated her brood across the neighborhood to the Hop Brook Marsh. We saw them walking over there.
: Sometimes they get spooked when Remy gets a bit aggressive with them. You did admit to being a Red Sox fan, right? There's no other plausible reason for naming your dog "Remy". ;^)
Bob
George Kerby - 22 Sep 2007 14:54 GMT On 9/22/07 12:39 AM, in article bq99f3pineg4bb2bilupbp4lsg29cqt46s@4ax.com,
>>>>> Sometimes when I get bored I'll toss an ice >>>>> cube at the hummer sitting on a branch. The cube will only miss him [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > perhaps both of you should get together and compare how you torture small > animals to prevent your boredom. Spoken like one with firsthand knowledge. Projecting again are we?
Terry Anglith - 22 Sep 2007 06:41 GMT >> >> Sometimes when I get bored I'll toss an ice >> >> cube at the hummer sitting on a branch. The cube will only miss him >> >> by inches, but the hummer doesn't even flinch. Those suckers must >> >> have radar like a bat. [Trees Snipped]
>What a cruel and vicious thing to say about somebody. >If you believe Bret could harm something so sweet and delicate as a >hummingbird, then I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn for you. >It's common knowledge that Bret is an animal/bird advocate. >Helen There, I got rid of all those trees that were preventing you from seeing the forest.
Do note, Annika doesn't say "One time I was drunk and I stupidly ..." or "Once I accidentally flung a...", or "my stupid little brother that didn't know any better tossed an ice-cube at a...", or "something hit my drink once at an outdoor party and an ice-cube was accidentally thrown past a nearby hummingbird", or any other easily excusable scenario.
No, Annika claims SOMETIMES, not just once, not all the time, SOMETIMES throwing hard objects at hummingbirds for entertainment. A block of ice that weighs far more than any small hummingbird. No different than if Annika proudly proclaimed throwing stones at hummingbirds or other living things.
But then I don't suspect you'll see this, knowing where your head is. My advice to you: Get your head out of your a.s.
For you to support such a vile and disgusting person as Annika makes you no better. What's the matter, didn't you pull enough wings off of butterflies today because you weren't bored enough? Since you agree with these kinds of behaviors perhaps both of you should get together and compare how you torture small animals to prevent your boredom.
You and anyone that would support this kind of person is just a disgusting waste of flesh who should have never been born.
D_Mac - 22 Sep 2007 08:42 GMT On Sep 22, 12:54 pm, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >>> Nice shots. Congrats on the new truck and camera. Which do you like > > >>> better? [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > It's common knowledge that Bret is an animal/bird advocate. > Helen Common knowledge where? In Chattanooga? Where the hell is that?
Doug
Annika1980 - 22 Sep 2007 13:41 GMT > Common knowledge where? In Chattanooga? Where the hell is that? About 12,000 miles NE of Tangalooma, wherever the f.ck that is.
helensilverburg@hotmail.com - 22 Sep 2007 13:42 GMT > On Sep 22, 12:54 pm, helensilverb...@hotmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > Doug Common knowledge among his friends, family and people who really know him.
"In Chattanooga? Where the hell is that?"
Heaven, man.....Heaven! Helen
Rita Ä Berkowitz - 22 Sep 2007 10:40 GMT > I knew there was some reason to despise Annika when I started to read > this newsgroup. I thought it was from Annika's mediocre photography > skills and their relentlessly spamming just for the attention. I've > never seen such desperation for attention before. Now I know that it > goes much further than that, intentionally trying to harm and kill > hummingbirds out of boredom. At least Bret has one thing you don't you cowardly nym-shifting troll, a totally awesome 40D and he's loving every bit of it. Why don't you post some of your hummer pics? Jokes on you again, a.shole!
Rita
woods - 21 Sep 2007 06:23 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original nice shots.
anything you dislike about the 40D?
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 13:41 GMT > nice shots. > > anything you dislike about the 40D? Like my 20D and the D60 before it, I can't autofocus using the f/5.6L and the 1.4x. Unlike Canon's "1" series bodies the 40D only retains autofocus with a minimum aperture of f/5.6. The "1" series cameras will still autofocus up to a minimum aperture of f/8.
Also, the 40D really blazes through the CF card when you set it to high-speed (6.5fps) shooting. So my current 1GB and 2GB cards aren't going to get the job done. I'll be buying at least a 4Gb or 8GB card soon.
Also, there is no ISO 100 setting. It only goes down to ISO 200, although there is an Auto-ISO setting which changes ISO for you.
Everything else looks great. I'm still struggling with a few of the Custom Functions having to do with AF point Selection and stuff, but once I figure all that out I'll be rockin and rollin.
Annika1980 - 21 Sep 2007 14:48 GMT > soon. > > Also, there is no ISO 100 setting. It only goes down to ISO 200, > although there is an Auto-ISO setting which changes ISO for you. Oops. I'd better correct myself! There is in fact an ISO 100 setting. The 40D has ISO settings from ISO 100 to ISO 3200 (ISO 3200 is obtained via a Custom Function. However, the 40D has a Highlight Tone Priority mode which is useful for getting more detail out of the highlights, such as a white wedding dress (are you listening, D-Mac?). When you have the 40D set to Highlight Tone Priority the ISO range shrinks to 200-1600. That's why I couldn't find the ISO 100 setting on my 40D. Guess I won't be using Highlight Tone Priority unless I decide to shoot weddings.
sheepdog 2007 - 21 Sep 2007 16:01 GMT >> soon. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > the ISO 100 setting on my 40D. Guess I won't be using Highlight Tone > Priority unless I decide to shoot weddings. My main source of disappointment with AE* in digital cameras is the blown highlights. With film the quest was usually to get more shadow detail. The cameras I'm using now are doing a good job on the shadows, but highlights which should have detail are frequently overexposed. A feature like the one you're describing would, for me at least, be well-worth trading some ISO range. I use mostly aperture priority and the quality @ 200 ISO is completely adequate. I'm shooting for prints no larger than 8 x 10 and monitor display.
*The first TTL light meters I ever used were notorious for underexposing dim scenes and overexposing bright ones. For years I was in the habit of using bracketing AND dialing in correction when shooting color film.
 Signature Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address yourselves instead to the safety of the republic
Paul J Gans - 21 Sep 2007 18:17 GMT In rec.photo.digital sheepdog 2007 <barking@mailman.net> wrote:
>>> soon. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> the ISO 100 setting on my 40D. Guess I won't be using Highlight Tone >> Priority unless I decide to shoot weddings.
>My main source of disappointment with AE* in digital cameras is the >blown highlights. With film the quest was usually to get more shadow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the quality @ 200 ISO is completely adequate. I'm shooting for prints >no larger than 8 x 10 and monitor display.
>*The first TTL light meters I ever used were notorious for >underexposing dim scenes and overexposing bright ones. For years I was >in the habit of using bracketing AND dialing in correction when >shooting color film. I agree with what you are saying. One note though: with *negative* film one exposed for shadow detai. But for slide film, one exposed for the highlights.
In this respect digital cameras are similar to slide film.
The difference is that with a dSLR you can see a histogram and so you can know right away how both the highlights and the shadows are being treated.
 Signature --- Paul J. Gans
Carl Neil Ellwood - 21 Sep 2007 10:10 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Bret - you ruffled his feathers.
 Signature Neil
annika1980@aol.com - 21 Sep 2007 16:06 GMT >> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original > > Bret - you ruffled his feathers. Ain't the first time thats ever happened.
Beladi Nasralla - 21 Sep 2007 13:46 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original I am impressed. For the first time. With Annika.
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Rita Ä Berkowitz - 21 Sep 2007 22:48 GMT > Nothing like waking up in the morning with a > brand new camera and a nice hummer! > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917026/original > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/85917027/original Damn SWEEEEET! Nice s
|
|