Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Any wildlife photographers prefer the full frame over DX mode?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Any wildlife photographers prefer the full frame over DX mode?

 
 
Robert Brace
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008

"John Sheehy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9A6541EF1097jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196...
> Alfred Molon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed) :
>
>> In article <Xns9A64B1C34BA9Bjpsnokomm@130.81.64.196>, John Sheehy
>> says...
>>
>>> That last statement is very important. The D3 will give excellent
>>> results, better than any 12MP or less APS-C or -H camera, if you can
>>> fill the frame with what you want to and don't need to crop. If you
>>> must crop, however, the D3 becomes, for example, a 5.4MP APS-C camera
>>> with more image noise.

>>
>> Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
>> noise will be lower.

>
> That is not true at all, as far as the image is concerned.
>
> The noise of an image is not directly proportional to the noise of a
> pixel. The noise of an image is more directly related to photon capture
> per unit of relative area, and pixel read noise divided by the linear
> resolution, vs displayed brightness.
>
> Some day all you pixel-centric thinkers will wake up and find that you've
> been staring at individual trees all along and have been making comments
> about forests from them.
>
> Big pixels are ultimately inferior, as far as filling a given sensor
> space is concerned; they are confusers of photon locations (enemies of
> resolution), and arbiters of high image read noise, especially at low
> ISOs or in systems unoptimized for high ISO (minimal circuitry between
> the photosites). They are only universally more useful if they are big
> because the sensor itself (or the crop used) is also relatively big.
>
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


There, all you ignorant "pixel-centric thinkers", I guess John P. has put
you in your place with his "beyond your comprehensive abilities"
pronouncement.
Everyone should, by now, be well aware that what they see, they don't see!!
Bob



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
user@domain.invalid
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>
>> Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
>> noise will be lower.

>
> Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.
>



But that often doesn't work with wildlife, at least the wildlife I see.

It's usually on the other side of an impassible chasm.

And my back it to the wall already.

This is known as "Murphy's Law".

Doug McDonald
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008
Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all that
>>> long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who went
>>> Nikon.
>>>
>>> Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about how
>>> good the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were bringing up
>>> their favourite documentary / TV specials and the many other fantastic
>>> things he did.
>>>
>>> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
>>> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging elephant
>>> to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting over wihis
>>> shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
>>>
>>> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell is...
>>>
>>> As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.

>> Interesting remark! How long have you been reading here, Dudley?
>>
>> "Rita" does hit the mark occasionally, same as a chap with a 12 guage and
>> blindfolded will hit the broad side of the nearby barn. And that's
>> hyperbole, same as "she" uses.


> Isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same picture. One sees
> an old lady, the other a pretty gal...
>
> One's frame of reference often determines what one grasps...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley


I am taking care, thank you. "Rita" is neither a lady nor a gal; in
short, not female, much less feminine.

So, Dudley, how long you been about here? Posting under other names
previous, or are you in fact new to the photo groups?

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008

"John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed). ..
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> "John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>> Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all
>>>> that long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who
>>>> went Nikon.
>>>>
>>>> Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about how
>>>> good the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were bringing up
>>>> their favourite documentary / TV specials and the many other fantastic
>>>> things he did.
>>>>
>>>> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
>>>> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging
>>>> elephant to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting
>>>> over wihis shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
>>>>
>>>> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell
>>>> is...
>>>>
>>>> As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.
>>> Interesting remark! How long have you been reading here, Dudley?
>>>
>>> "Rita" does hit the mark occasionally, same as a chap with a 12 guage
>>> and blindfolded will hit the broad side of the nearby barn. And that's
>>> hyperbole, same as "she" uses.

>
>> Isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same picture. One
>> sees an old lady, the other a pretty gal...
>>
>> One's frame of reference often determines what one grasps...
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley

>
> I am taking care, thank you. "Rita" is neither a lady nor a gal; in short,
> not female, much less feminine.
>
> So, Dudley, how long you been about here? Posting under other names
> previous, or are you in fact new to the photo groups?
>
> --
> john mcwilliams


I've been posting to this newsgroup for about six weeks now, I believe. And
of course, I read it for a while before I started posting. The name I use
is my real name. I'm not a big fan of aliases. But, I respect the wishes
of those who might wish the anonymity of posting under a pseudonym.

As noted in the past, I am legally blind, and a letter from the Canadian
National Institute for the Blind confirming this can and will be sent to
anyone who requests it, as long as they send me their address.

Given my unique situation and handicap, I think it would be easy to identify
any post I might write under a different name. It's kind of like if I tried
to rob a bank, I doubt I'd get far even if I got away because there aren't
that many six-foot for blind guys running around with a camera.

Any other questions?

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
John Sheehy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008
"Robert Brace" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
newsETDj.94946$pM4.65135@pd7urf1no:

> There, all you ignorant "pixel-centric thinkers", I guess John P. has
> put you in your place with his "beyond your comprehensive abilities"
> pronouncement.
> Everyone should, by now, be well aware that what they see, they don't
> see!! Bob


So tell me what it is that you see, and I will tell you why you see that.
Nothing that you see will surprise me. I've hear all the bad logic before.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Sheehy
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008
"Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:GpKDj.107099$w57.66366@edtnps90:

> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging
> elephant to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting
> over his shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
>
> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell
> is...


Did you read my post? I was talking about the subject fleeing you; not
charging you.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <(E-Mail Removed)>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008

"Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:8zWDj.110821$w57.23826@edtnps90...
>
> "John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed). ..
>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>> "John McWilliams" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps my memory is worse than I thought, but, it doesn't seem all
>>>>> that long ago that Rita posted a reference to a pro-Canon shooter who
>>>>> went Nikon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, people pooh poohed it, and then they got to reminiscing about
>>>>> how good the pro was. And, before you know it a few folks were
>>>>> bringing up their favourite documentary / TV specials and the many
>>>>> other fantastic things he did.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
>>>>> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging
>>>>> elephant to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting
>>>>> over wihis shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell
>>>>> is...
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, you aren't far off the mark, Rita.
>>>> Interesting remark! How long have you been reading here, Dudley?
>>>>
>>>> "Rita" does hit the mark occasionally, same as a chap with a 12 guage
>>>> and blindfolded will hit the broad side of the nearby barn. And that's
>>>> hyperbole, same as "she" uses.

>>
>>> Isn't it interesting how two people can look at the same picture. One
>>> sees an old lady, the other a pretty gal...
>>>
>>> One's frame of reference often determines what one grasps...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley

>>
>> I am taking care, thank you. "Rita" is neither a lady nor a gal; in
>> short, not female, much less feminine.
>>
>> So, Dudley, how long you been about here? Posting under other names
>> previous, or are you in fact new to the photo groups?
>>
>> --
>> john mcwilliams

>
> I've been posting to this newsgroup for about six weeks now, I believe.
> And of course, I read it for a while before I started posting. The name I
> use is my real name. I'm not a big fan of aliases. But, I respect the
> wishes of those who might wish the anonymity of posting under a pseudonym.
>
> As noted in the past, I am legally blind, and a letter from the Canadian
> National Institute for the Blind confirming this can and will be sent to
> anyone who requests it, as long as they send me their address.
>
> Given my unique situation and handicap, I think it would be easy to
> identify any post I might write under a different name. It's kind of like
> if I tried to rob a bank, I doubt I'd get far even if I got away because
> there aren't that many six-foot for blind guys running around with a
> camera.
>
> Any other questions?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>


Oh yes, if you require additional confirmation of my disability, contact me
by e-mail. I will then give you the name of my case coordinator with the
Canadian national Institute for the blind. Since you probably wouldn't
believe any phone number I might give you, you could look up the number for
the Edmonton, Alberta office and phone and talk to my case coordinator,
who will verify that I am registered with the Institute and and indeed a
person with less than 10% of normal vision and that my blindness is due to a
condition known as retinitis pigmentosa.

I can also send you a copy of my identification card from Guide Dogs for the
Blind, and both mine and my guide's certification can be easily verified by
contacting the school.

I realize my situation is a bit unusual, but that's life. We live with the
hand we're dealt.

Take Care,
Dudley



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008

"John Sheehy" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9A65B47642371jpsnokomm@130.81.64.196...
> "Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:GpKDj.107099$w57.66366@edtnps90:
>
>> There are two things, in particular, that come to mind. One was how
>> impressed people were that he lay down in the path of a charging
>> elephant to get some great shots. The other was that he was shooting
>> over his shoulder as he sprinted to outrun an angry hippo.
>>
>> If that isn't "zooming with your feet," I don't know what the hell
>> is...

>
> Did you read my post? I was talking about the subject fleeing you; not
> charging you.
>
> --

Isn't the latter just a bit more extreme version of "zooming with your
feet"?

Although, that fellow's version of photography should be titled "Extreme
Photography".

Cheers,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Rita Berkowitz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2008
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)lid wrote:

>>> Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
>>> noise will be lower.

>>
>> Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.
>>

>
>
> But that often doesn't work with wildlife, at least the wildlife I
> see.
>
> It's usually on the other side of an impassible chasm.
>
> And my back it to the wall already.
>
> This is known as "Murphy's Law".


Yep, it happens. Always carry two bodies and you minimize this problem.





Rita

 
Reply With Quote
 
Mr.T
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-19-2008

"Rita Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Well, even then the D3 pixels are still bigger than APS-C ones, so
> > noise will be lower.

>
> Zooming with your feet eliminates all of this.


Lets hope Rita tries a few photo's of lions, hippo's etc with a 50mm lens
and "zooming with her feet".

MrT.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Arrest more photographers! Arrest more photographers!" RichA Digital Photography 0 09-10-2010 01:56 PM
Re: Any wildlife photographers prefer the full frame over DX mode? Rita Berkowitz Digital Photography 7 03-25-2008 04:54 PM
VOIP over VPN over TCP over WAP over 3G Theo Markettos UK VOIP 2 02-14-2008 03:27 PM
Why do people prefer Ajax apps over Java applets? jason.m.ho@gmail.com Java 6 09-24-2006 03:07 PM
Would you prefer Sipura over Grandstream?? SniperSquad VOIP 4 01-20-2004 01:01 PM



Advertisments