Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

Reply
Thread Tools

SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2008
On Jun 5, 8:53*pm, donLouis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> so anyway, are you able to handhold the 40d / 400mm combo, or
> do you need to use a tripod and or monopod for these types
> of shots?


TAFW!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2008
On Jun 6, 6:24*pm, donLouis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > On Jun 5, 8:53*pm, donLouis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > so anyway, are you able to handhold the 40d / 400mm combo, or
> > > do you need to use a tripod and or monopod for these types
> > > of shots?

>
> > TAFW!

>
> * * * * %wtf tafw<enter>
> * * * * %tafw: nothing appropriate
>
> translation, please?
>


Tripods Are For Wimps!


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2008
Isn't it great how acronyms save sooo much time and bandwidth...

donLouis wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
> Annika1980 <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 5, 8:53 pm, donLouis <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> so anyway, are you able to handhold the 40d / 400mm combo, or
>>> do you need to use a tripod and or monopod for these types
>>> of shots?

>> TAFW!
>>

> translation, please?


I'm guessing Tripods Are For Wimps.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Annika1980
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-06-2008
On Jun 6, 6:52*pm, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
wrote:
>
> I'm guessing Tripods Are For Wimps.


You know me too well.

I did wimp out on many of the nest shots, but of course the flying
shots were taken handheld using the 40D's awesome servo tracking
capability.
With a Nikon, all you'd get is a blurry bird or a dog's hairy
butthole.
But enough about Rita.....




 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 6, 6:52*pm, Mark Thomas <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com>
>wrote:
>>
>> I'm guessing Tripods Are For Wimps.

>
>You know me too well.
>
>I did wimp out on many of the nest shots, but of course the flying
>shots were taken handheld using the 40D's awesome servo tracking
>capability.


>With a Nikon, all you'd get is a blurry bird or a dog's hairy
>butthole.


That seems to say that the good pictures are solely the result of good
equipment. Does this mean that you feel that you could not take a
good photograph if all you had available was a Nikon?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008
tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote:
>> I did wimp out on many of the nest shots, but of course the flying
>> shots were taken handheld using the 40D's awesome servo tracking
>> capability.

>
>> With a Nikon, all you'd get is a blurry bird or a dog's hairy
>> butthole.

>
> That seems to say that the good pictures are solely the result of good
> equipment. Does this mean that you feel that you could not take a
> good photograph if all you had available was a Nikon?
>
>



Tony, do you have a Nikon? If so, could you post some similar shots so
we could compare the Nikon's AF efficiency? After all, this type of
photography is extremely challenging, and the hardware does indeed make
a difference.

I'd probably lean to a Nikon if I was to buy a DSLR today, but Bret's
images show me that the 40D is capable of some extraordinary results in
that shooting environment. (OK, so I'm not that interested in bird
photography.. but if I was...)

So why not add to the thread, instead of demonstrating that your sense
of humour appears to have been surgically removed? (O:
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:17:31 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote:
>>> I did wimp out on many of the nest shots, but of course the flying
>>> shots were taken handheld using the 40D's awesome servo tracking
>>> capability.

>>
>>> With a Nikon, all you'd get is a blurry bird or a dog's hairy
>>> butthole.

>>
>> That seems to say that the good pictures are solely the result of good
>> equipment. Does this mean that you feel that you could not take a
>> good photograph if all you had available was a Nikon?
>>

>Tony, do you have a Nikon?


Yes, two. A Nikon Coolpix P2 that I keep in the car every day, and a
Nikon D40 with an 18/55 and a 55/200 lens.

> If so, could you post some similar shots so
>we could compare the Nikon's AF efficiency? After all, this type of
>photography is extremely challenging, and the hardware does indeed make
>a difference.


Yes, the equipment makes a difference. Where I live in Florida,
osprey are pretty easy to spot, but seldom close enough to bring in
with the 55/200. Bret used a 400mm lens. Give me a 400mm lens, and
I'd be glad to try to get a comparable image.

That doesn't mean that I would *get* a comparable shot. Bret's a damn
good photographer. He positions himself well, he uses good equipment,
and he probably senses which settings will yield the best photograph.

To say, though, that a Canon 40D is what makes Bret's photograph good,
is to understate Bret's ability as a photographer. If he's good,
he'll get good images with a Canon or a Nikon.

To say that a Nikon is only good for photographing your pet dog's butt
from 10 feet away is pure silliness. Yeah, I know he's just baiting
Rita, but it's still infantile.

>I'd probably lean to a Nikon if I was to buy a DSLR today, but Bret's
>images show me that the 40D is capable of some extraordinary results in
>that shooting environment. (OK, so I'm not that interested in bird
>photography.. but if I was...)
>
>So why not add to the thread,


What do you add to a thread like this? I'm not interested the Nikon
vs Canon dick-waving contests. While I admire some of Bret's images,
his battle with Rita and Rita's battle with him is beyond boring.

>instead of demonstrating that your sense
>of humour appears to have been surgically removed? (O:


Now that you've established that what you look for in an addition to a
thread is a topper for "a dog's hairy butthole", here's a contest that
should appeal to that keen and sophisticated sense of humor of yours:
http://tinyurl.com/4retk6

Not as good as the Windesmear vs Boomer contest that we laughed at in
the 1950s, though. Still, more humorous than the Canon vs Nikon
contest as presented here.








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008

"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:17:31 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>>tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 wrote:
>>>> I did wimp out on many of the nest shots, but of course the flying
>>>> shots were taken handheld using the 40D's awesome servo tracking
>>>> capability.
>>>
>>>> With a Nikon, all you'd get is a blurry bird or a dog's hairy
>>>> butthole.
>>>
>>> That seems to say that the good pictures are solely the result of good
>>> equipment. Does this mean that you feel that you could not take a
>>> good photograph if all you had available was a Nikon?
>>>

>>Tony, do you have a Nikon?

>
> Yes, two. A Nikon Coolpix P2 that I keep in the car every day, and a
> Nikon D40 with an 18/55 and a 55/200 lens.
>
>> If so, could you post some similar shots so
>>we could compare the Nikon's AF efficiency? After all, this type of
>>photography is extremely challenging, and the hardware does indeed make
>>a difference.

>
> Yes, the equipment makes a difference. Where I live in Florida,
> osprey are pretty easy to spot, but seldom close enough to bring in
> with the 55/200. Bret used a 400mm lens. Give me a 400mm lens, and
> I'd be glad to try to get a comparable image.
>
> That doesn't mean that I would *get* a comparable shot. Bret's a damn
> good photographer. He positions himself well, he uses good equipment,
> and he probably senses which settings will yield the best photograph.
>
> To say, though, that a Canon 40D is what makes Bret's photograph good,
> is to understate Bret's ability as a photographer. If he's good,
> he'll get good images with a Canon or a Nikon.
>
> To say that a Nikon is only good for photographing your pet dog's butt
> from 10 feet away is pure silliness. Yeah, I know he's just baiting
> Rita, but it's still infantile.
>
>>I'd probably lean to a Nikon if I was to buy a DSLR today, but Bret's
>>images show me that the 40D is capable of some extraordinary results in
>>that shooting environment. (OK, so I'm not that interested in bird
>>photography.. but if I was...)
>>
>>So why not add to the thread,

>
> What do you add to a thread like this? I'm not interested the Nikon
> vs Canon dick-waving contests. While I admire some of Bret's images,
> his battle with Rita and Rita's battle with him is beyond boring.
>
>>instead of demonstrating that your sense
>>of humour appears to have been surgically removed? (O:

>
> Now that you've established that what you look for in an addition to a
> thread is a topper for "a dog's hairy butthole", here's a contest that
> should appeal to that keen and sophisticated sense of humor of yours:
> http://tinyurl.com/4retk6
>
> Not as good as the Windesmear vs Boomer contest that we laughed at in
> the 1950s, though. Still, more humorous than the Canon vs Nikon
> contest as presented here.
>
>

Now, a really good photographer could take a similar shot with a manual
focus box, preferably with good glass...

In many situations, zone focusing works as well, sometimes better, than
servos...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008
tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:17:31 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Tony, do you have a Nikon?

>
> Yes, two. A Nikon Coolpix P2 that I keep in the car every day, and a
> Nikon D40 with an 18/55 and a 55/200 lens.
>
>> If so, could you post some similar shots so
>> we could compare the Nikon's AF efficiency? After all, this type of
>> photography is extremely challenging, and the hardware does indeed make
>> a difference.

>
> Yes, the equipment makes a difference.


I see... So, given that a certain RB oft posts lengthy tomes on how
superior Nikon gear is, yet posts shots with abysmal bokeh, poor
composition and misleading (but I'm sure screamingly funny to you)
titles, then why is it not ontopic and relevant to show what a competing
camera can do, and have a brief poke at RB at the same time? After all,
you yourself have had the odd poke at Rita - one rule for you and
another for everyone else? At least I recognise and embrace my
hypocrisy. (O:

> Where I live in Florida,
> osprey are pretty easy to spot, but seldom close enough to bring in
> with the 55/200. Bret used a 400mm lens. Give me a 400mm lens, and
> I'd be glad to try to get a comparable image.


Given that RB allegedly has such lenses - I wonder where are the similar
shots from 'her'?

> That doesn't mean that I would *get* a comparable shot. Bret's a damn
> good photographer. He positions himself well, he uses good equipment,
> and he probably senses which settings will yield the best photograph.


But you couldn't bring yourself to say that earlier, instead of the
carping criticism you offered? Think about it. And then think about
"negativity breeds negativity" and maybe try a positive approach. Yes,
I'm being somewhat hypocritical again!

> To say, though, that a Canon 40D is what makes Bret's photograph good,
> is to understate Bret's ability as a photographer.


But hold on.. it's *Bret* who is saying it is all about the camera, and
haven't you got the joke *yet*? Hint - just a tiny bit of what Bret
says is tongue in cheek.
Yes, it's true. Some of us have spotted it, but he'll deny it of course.
And frankly, if he shoots such good work, he is entitled, imo. (That's
*my* opinion only (O

> If he's good,
> he'll get good images with a Canon or a Nikon.


And if he's really good, he'll help others make choices - gee, maybe the
Canon does run rings around other cameras for this work - if anyone can
show some countering images from other marques (links to other's images
are fine!), I'd be most interested. There was another guy who shot a
lot of images like this, in a similarly (somewhat controlled)
environment - I might try to find his stuff and see what he was shooting
with.

> To say that a Nikon is only good for photographing your pet dog's butt
> from 10 feet away is pure silliness.


So you really think Bret meant that, or are you doing *exactly* what you
criticise him for? Bret made a quick throwaway line directed squarely
at Rita (that was in the bit you carefully cut out). It could (and
should - are you Rita?) have been very easily ignored, and I'm guessing
it was intended to goad RB into posting something similar, if 'she'
can... And have you not noticed that RB has frequently posted dog butts
and blurry tele shots? (That's why I don't click on RB's crap any more)

> Yeah, I know he's just baiting
> Rita, but it's still infantile.


Yes, infantile. And you wouldn't do anything similar, would you...

> What do you add to a thread like this?

You've already answered that question. (O: Oh, you mean worthwhile?
Perhaps you could offer some comments on how Nikon/Sony/Pentax/? handle
fast-moving objects at >300mm.

> I'm not interested the Nikon
> vs Canon dick-waving contests.


It seems fashionable to call them that, and sometimes it does get a bit
silly. But I quite like listening to what people (well, the competent
ones..) perceive as the differences in cameras, and how they handle the
most challenging situations. And I like seeing images that back up the
talk. It's not hard to work out what is bullshit, and what is reality.
See Bret's pictures above... I note he also very kindly posted a much
larger rendition of one of them, which showed it truly was a killer
shot, pin-sharp and no post-proc that I could detect.

Good lens, good camera, very well used. Useful info, very nice images.

> While I admire some of Bret's images,
> his battle with Rita and Rita's battle with him is beyond boring.


So don't click on the links.

> Now that you've established that what you look for in an addition to a
> thread is a topper for "a dog's hairy butthole"


Oh. I see. My post tells you that? Extraordinary extrapolation. But
perhaps a little infantile... (O:

> here's a contest that
> should appeal to that keen and sophisticated sense of humor of yours:
> http://tinyurl.com/4retk6
>
> Not as good as the Windesmear vs Boomer contest that we laughed at in
> the 1950s, though. Still, more humorous than the Canon vs Nikon
> contest as presented here.


I'll pass. I tend to only click on links to photographic content. But
thanks for trying to work out my sense of humour. I wasn't actually
exercising it here. Just expressing my opinion about negative posts
with little or no addition to the thread.

But I'm sure Bret's having a good laugh at all this! Onyer, Bret..
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-07-2008
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:33:38 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:17:31 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> Tony, do you have a Nikon?

>>
>> Yes, two. A Nikon Coolpix P2 that I keep in the car every day, and a
>> Nikon D40 with an 18/55 and a 55/200 lens.
>>
>>> If so, could you post some similar shots so
>>> we could compare the Nikon's AF efficiency? After all, this type of
>>> photography is extremely challenging, and the hardware does indeed make
>>> a difference.

>>
>> Yes, the equipment makes a difference.

>
>I see... So, given that a certain RB oft posts lengthy tomes on how
>superior Nikon gear is, yet posts shots with abysmal bokeh, poor
>composition and misleading (but I'm sure screamingly funny to you)
>titles, then why is it not ontopic and relevant to show what a competing
>camera can do, and have a brief poke at RB at the same time? After all,
>you yourself have had the odd poke at Rita - one rule for you and
>another for everyone else? At least I recognise and embrace my
>hypocrisy. (O:


Any pokes I've directed at Rita have been pokes for the same reason
that I commented on Bret's post: text of the post, but not
photographic results. Rita's posted some good shots. Unfortunately,
she's not selective enough to link to only her good shots.

>
>> Where I live in Florida,
>> osprey are pretty easy to spot, but seldom close enough to bring in
>> with the 55/200. Bret used a 400mm lens. Give me a 400mm lens, and
>> I'd be glad to try to get a comparable image.

>
>Given that RB allegedly has such lenses - I wonder where are the similar
>shots from 'her'?


Perhaps she's tried. If she hasn't succeeded, it's not because her
photographic equipment failed her.

>> That doesn't mean that I would *get* a comparable shot. Bret's a damn
>> good photographer. He positions himself well, he uses good equipment,
>> and he probably senses which settings will yield the best photograph.

>
>But you couldn't bring yourself to say that earlier, instead of the
>carping criticism you offered?


Of course I've said it before. I've complimented Bret's skills as a
photographer in other posts. I've not criticized his skills as
photographer anywhere. What I criticized was bringing in a comparison
of Nikon and Canon in what should have been a simple link to good
shots.

>Think about it. And then think about
>"negativity breeds negativity" and maybe try a positive approach. Yes,
>I'm being somewhat hypocritical again!


You might say, then, "Positivity breeds Little Helens".

>> If he's good,
>> he'll get good images with a Canon or a Nikon.

>
>And if he's really good, he'll help others make choices - gee, maybe the
>Canon does run rings around other cameras for this work - if anyone can
>show some countering images from other marques (links to other's images
>are fine!), I'd be most interested. There was another guy who shot a
>lot of images like this, in a similarly (somewhat controlled)
>environment - I might try to find his stuff and see what he was shooting
>with.


Right. Go buy a Canon and expect that equipment alone will make you a
good photographer.

>But hold on.. it's *Bret* who is saying it is all about the camera, and
>haven't you got the joke *yet*? Hint - just a tiny bit of what Bret
>says is tongue in cheek.


And you haven't twigged to what Rita's posts are all about?

>But I'm sure Bret's having a good laugh at all this! Onyer, Bret..


And you don't think she's having a good laugh at all this?

>> here's a contest that
>> should appeal to that keen and sophisticated sense of humor of yours:
>> http://tinyurl.com/4retk6
>>
>> Not as good as the Windesmear vs Boomer contest that we laughed at in
>> the 1950s, though. Still, more humorous than the Canon vs Nikon
>> contest as presented here.

>
>I'll pass.


If I thought that your sense of humor was developed enough, I'd give
you credit for a good pun. But I don't.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
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
Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle? Dauphin de Viennois Digital Photography 2 07-16-2008 12:29 PM
SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 20D ! Annika1980 Digital Photography 4 03-12-2007 07:01 PM
Wide Screen not wide enough? michelebargeman@yahoo.com DVD Video 31 04-27-2006 08:50 PM
Not many "wide-angle" compacts but, heck, many are wide-angle anyway! JeffOYB@hotmail.com Digital Photography 10 01-09-2006 08:30 AM
char 8bit wide or 7bit wide in c++? Web Developer C++ 2 07-31-2003 08:09 AM



Advertisments