SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Jun 5, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Bob Williams Guest

    Bob Williams, Jun 5, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    Helen, Jun 5, 2008
    #3
  4. Tzortzakakis Dimitrios, Jun 5, 2008
    #4
  5. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 5, 10:13 am, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <>
    wrote:

    > IFYPFY.
    > Otherwise, your photos are as good as ever.


    WTF does IFYPFY mean?

    TTFN,
    -A.
    Annika1980, Jun 5, 2008
    #5
  6. Annika1980

    jimkramer Guest

    "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Jun 5, 10:13 am, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <>
    wrote:

    > IFYPFY.
    > Otherwise, your photos are as good as ever.


    WTF does IFYPFY mean?

    TTFN,
    -A.
    http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IFYPFY
    -Jim
    jimkramer, Jun 5, 2008
    #6
  7. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    On Jun 5, 1:18 pm, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > On Jun 5, 10:13 am, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > > IFYPFY.
    > > Otherwise, your photos are as good as ever.

    >
    > WTF does IFYPFY mean?
    >
    > TTFN,
    > -A.


    "IFYPFY" means:
    I Fixed Your Post For You.
    Helen, Jun 5, 2008
    #7
  8. Annika1980

    jimkramer Guest

    "BobW" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "jimkramer" <> wrote in message
    > news:g29a4o$uar$...
    >> "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> On Jun 5, 10:13 am, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> IFYPFY.
    >>> Otherwise, your photos are as good as ever.

    >>
    >> WTF does IFYPFY mean?
    >>
    >> TTFN,
    >> -A.
    >> http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/IFYPFY
    >> -Jim
    >>

    >
    > Yep. One just needs to RTFM in order to find out what IFYPFY means.
    >
    > Bob
    > --
    > == NOTE: I automatically delete all Google Group posts due to uncontrolled
    > SPAM ==
    >
    >

    But "most" people reading Usenet are illiterate. :)
    -Jim
    jimkramer, Jun 5, 2008
    #8
  9. Annika1980

    jimkramer Guest

    jimkramer, Jun 5, 2008
    #9
  10. Annika1980

    Walter Banks Guest

    jimkramer wrote:

    > "Annika1980" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > The 40D always brings home the goods!
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98146203
    > >
    > >
    > > A few more taken this evening:
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98149649

    >
    > Why are we eating a twig??


    Maybe the beak needs cleaning. :)

    >
    >
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98149650
    > >
    > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98149652


    Great series of shots.

    http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98146203

    How nice it is floating through the air with treasure. I wonder how they land with a load grasped in their claws.

    Well done..

    w..
    Walter Banks, Jun 5, 2008
    #10
  11. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 5, 8:53 pm, donLouis <> 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!
    Annika1980, Jun 6, 2008
    #11
  12. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jun 6, 6:24 pm, donLouis <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 06:42:12 -0700 (PDT)
    >
    > Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > > On Jun 5, 8:53 pm, donLouis <> 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!
    Annika1980, Jun 6, 2008
    #12
  13. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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 <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Jun 5, 8:53 pm, donLouis <> 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.
    Mark Thomas, Jun 6, 2008
    #13
  14. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    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.....
    Annika1980, Jun 6, 2008
    #14
  15. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 15:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
    <> 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
    tony cooper, Jun 7, 2008
    #15
  16. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    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:
    Mark Thomas, Jun 7, 2008
    #16
  17. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    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
    tony cooper, Jun 7, 2008
    #17
  18. Annika1980

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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
    Dudley Hanks, Jun 7, 2008
    #18
  19. Annika1980

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT, or at least somewhat.. Re: SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

    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..
    Mark Thomas, Jun 7, 2008
    #19
  20. Annika1980

    tony cooper Guest

    Re: OT, or at least somewhat.. Re: SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

    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
    tony cooper, Jun 7, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Larry Samuels

    Heads up--this one is spreading fast!

    Larry Samuels, Jan 27, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    469
  2. Larry Samuels

    Heads up--this one is spreading fast!

    Larry Samuels, Jan 27, 2004, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
  3. Boomer

    [Alert] SoBig Worm Spreading Online

    Boomer, Aug 20, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
    Boomer
    Aug 20, 2003
  4. Annika1980

    SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 20D !

    Annika1980, Mar 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    358
    timeOday
    Mar 12, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    744
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page