«

"Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Atheist Chaplain wrote:
>
>>> Yes folks, it's true. Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds,
>>> posers, wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we
>>> have out here,
>>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically
>>> correct terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. It
>>> even goes further into the realm of scientific wonders.
>>>
>>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
>>
>> Nice looking cat Rita, does it have a name please
>
> Thanks. His name is Max, we just call him Cat.
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita

He reminds me of my old cat "Chuck," he was the boss of the block, weighed
in at over 14lbs when he was in his prime and not an ounce of fat, he was a
BIG cat
I got 21+ years out of him before he had a seizure (stroke) there was only
one decent thing to do after that, and I'm not ashamed to say I cried when I
bought him home from the vets and laid him to rest under his favorite shady
bush in the back yard

--
God made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom?

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/08 12:11 PM, in article , "Rita
> Berkowitz" <> wrote:
>
>> Yes folks, it's true. Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds, posers,
>> wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we have out here,
>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically correct
>> terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. It even goes
>> further into the realm of scientific wonders.
>>
>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Rita
>>
> You zoomed too far and cut off the kitty's left ear. Try again.
>

Yeah, that was my thought too.

Rita proves yet again that a tool is only as good as the person using
it: not very, in this case.

On 1/25/08 5:53 PM, "Draco" <> wrote:

> On Jan 25, 1:11*pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Yes folks, it's true. *Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds, posers,
>> wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we have out here,
>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically correct
>> terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. *It even goes
>> further into the realm of scientific wonders.
>>
>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
>>
>> Rita
>
> Being able to zoom with your feet beats a mechanical zoom any day.
> Being able
> to get closer to your subject is much better than being far away.

Depending on the shot that you want, you might choose the perspective and
DOF effects of of lens zoom versus "foot zoom." But I agree in general.
There is too much dependence on using a zoom lens as a replacement for
proper position.

> Unless it
> is a life changing moment. Like getting a full view finder of a lion
> on the
> hunt with a 50mm lens.
>
> That would be a life ending moment if one was dumb enough... Oh yeah.
> I
> forgot where I was.
>

Or if you are already at the edge of a cliff and want to get closer to the
bird flying in the valley.

Robert Haar <> wrote:
>
>Depending on the shot that you want, you might choose the perspective and
>DOF effects of of lens zoom versus "foot zoom." But I agree in general.
>There is too much dependence on using a zoom lens as a replacement for
>proper position.


In the days when I used only fixed focal length lenses, I was a strong
advocate for zooming with the feet. That was partly due to the fact
that most zoom lenses were optically vastly inferior to fixed focal
length lenses.

When I could finally afford to buy zoom lenses that were optically as
good as fixed focal length lenses - I used the 20-35mm, 35-70mm and
80-200mm AF Nikkors, all f/2.8 - I realised that zooming with the feet
was not such a good idea after all.

If you are walking around looking for a good shot, and you find it,
then you want to be able to hold your camera to your eye, frame it,
set aperture and shutter speed, focus and shoot. The zoom lens is the
key to doing this quickly without having to change your position.

Zooming with your feet sounds OK in theory, but it fundamentally
alters the relationship between subject and background, or between
primary and secondary subjects. In other words, the perspective.

If you have to move from the position where you chose to make the shot
because you only have fixed focal length lenses, the perspective will
change and the symmetry of the shot (or its asymmetry) will change or
even be lost.

With a zoom lens you don't move. You change only the framing, because
you stand firmly planted in the same place. You therefore retain the
perspective and the symmetry.

I now use a mixture of Canon zoom and Carl Zeiss and Leica fixed focal
length lenses on my Canon 5D bodies. When I am using a fixed focal
length lens and have to zoom with my feet to such an extent that the
shot I wanted is impossible to get, I can change to a zoom lens and go
back to where I started.

So why don't I use the zoom lens all the time? Because Canon zooms
are a long way from being optically as good as Carl Zeiss and Leica
fixed focal lenses, especially when used wide open, which is something
I choose to do more often than not. If I was entirely happy with the
performance of the zoom lenses, I would use them all the time.

Matt Ion wrote:

>> You zoomed too far and cut off the kitty's left ear. Try again.
>>
>
> Yeah, that was my thought too.

Wrong! Had you paid for two ears you would have gotten two ears.




Rita

Atheist Chaplain wrote:

> He reminds me of my old cat "Chuck," he was the boss of the block,
> weighed in at over 14lbs when he was in his prime and not an ounce of
> fat, he was a BIG cat

Yes, Max is a big boy as well. He's getting up there in age as well.

> I got 21+ years out of him before he had a seizure (stroke) there was
> only one decent thing to do after that, and I'm not ashamed to say I
> cried when I bought him home from the vets and laid him to rest under
> his favorite shady bush in the back yard

No shame, they are family. We went through the same grieving period when we
had to put our chocolate lab, Rex, down.




Rita

"Ron Hunter" <> wrote in message
news:AZudnS-...
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>> In article <>,
>> "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes folks, it's true. Contrary to what the misfits, inbreeds, posers,
>>> wannabes, miscreants, and other assorted flavors of idiot we have out
>>> here,
>>> "zooming with your feet" is the industry standard and technically
>>> correct
>>> terminology adopted and used by pro shooters world wide. It even goes
>>> further into the realm of scientific wonders.
>>>
>>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/zoom_zoom.htm>
>>>
>>> Rita
>>
>> A midrange fixed lens can beat the quality of a zoom lens costing 10x
>> more. I'll carry a single 28mm F/1.8 sometimes. You can also combine
>> "zooming with your feet" with a zoom lens to alter perspective to your
>> liking.
>>
>
> Please don't try that 'zooming with your feet' thing when you are
> photographing the Grand Canyon, or Royal Gorge scenic sites. Bloody,
> broken bodies detract from the pleasure of others....

It's a bit hard to do when you are engaged in astro-photography
too........Although waiting for the right time of year is kind of like,
"zooming with your feet", I suppose......

Tony Polson wrote:

> If you are walking around looking for a good shot, and you find it,
> then you want to be able to hold your camera to your eye, frame it,
> set aperture and shutter speed, focus and shoot. The zoom lens is the
> key to doing this quickly without having to change your position.
>
> Zooming with your feet sounds OK in theory, but it fundamentally
> alters the relationship between subject and background, or between
> primary and secondary subjects. In other words, the perspective.
>
> If you have to move from the position where you chose to make the shot
> because you only have fixed focal length lenses, the perspective will
> change and the symmetry of the shot (or its asymmetry) will change or
> even be lost.
What you say is correct, but at the same time, if you rely
soley on your zoom to frame from the position where you are,
you will only ever see the likely shot from one perspective.
If you are "zooming with your feet", you will move to
different positions to examine different perspectives. You
might ultimately return to the previous location, or end up
shooting from an entirely new location. This is regardless
of whether you are using a lens of fixed or variable focal
length.

If you get into the habit of moving around forward and
backwards, to get the perspective right, then use the
appropriate focal length (regardless of whether that means
changing fixed lenses, or turning the barrel on a zoom lens)
to get the appropriate framing, then ultimately the photo
will be better.

On 1/26/08 4:09 PM, in article , "Rita
Berkowitz" <> wrote:

> Matt Ion wrote:
>
>>> You zoomed too far and cut off the kitty's left ear. Try again.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that was my thought too.
>
> Wrong! Had you paid for two ears you would have gotten two ears.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
Well, this one is free and you get both ears.

http://image50.webshots.com/650/7/91...0yPnpKL_fs.jpg

BTW: "Rita" is was done with the despiciable Canon 85mm Ÿ1.2 that you
consider to be beneath your dignity. Moron. More $$$ than grey matter.

A jpeg - unaltered (as out of the camera) that was captured with my MK-II
about a year and a half ago. It has not been sharpened, screwed with, or
even resized with any software. Nada.

Wide open Ÿ1.2 - 1/640 sec @ ISO 800

Pure CREAMY!

Show us what your Nikon crap can do.

(tap-tap-tap)

Toodles, bitch.

LOL!!!!!!

George Kerby wrote:

> Well, this one is free and you get both ears.
>
> http://image50.webshots.com/650/7/91...0yPnpKL_fs.jpg
>
> BTW: "Rita" is was done with the despiciable Canon 85mm Y1.2 that you
> consider to be beneath your dignity. Moron. More $$$ than grey matter.

It aint about money, fool, it's about quality. The dirt cheap 85/1.4 Nikkor
kills every version of the 85 Canon offers.

> A jpeg - unaltered (as out of the camera) that was captured with my
> MK-II about a year and a half ago. It has not been sharpened, screwed
> with, or even resized with any software. Nada.
>
> Wide open Y1.2 - 1/640 sec @ ISO 800

I highly suspect that isn't either version of the 85/1.2L since the bokeh
and DoF is way too shitty. Don't get me wrong, the 85/1.2L has crappy
bokeh, but this is more on par with a 24-105 or 24-70 on a good day.




Rita