50mm pictures with D300

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sosumi, Jan 21, 2008.

  1. Well said!

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 22, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. LOL! Amazing, isn't it? Some people just don't get it.

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 22, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Depends on what I have on the camera at the time. If I want a 35mm on I'll
    put one on. That doesn't mean that I can't change lenses in a situation
    that warrants it. Now, if I only carried one lens that day I will make it

    Rita Berkowitz, Jan 22, 2008
  4. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    He is indeed. I'm not persuaded by illogic no matter how many times
    it's repeated, and I'm totally unimpressed by insults, including yours.
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
  5. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    That would seem to be the bullshit part of your posts. LOL
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
  6. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    After flying home to get it. :)
    There's that bullshit again. :)
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
  7. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    Indeed we don't. We use the correct focal length for the best possible
    image based on such things as composition and perspective; i.e., we
    don't spoil the image by using the wrong focal length.

    "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." :)
    John Navas, Jan 22, 2008
  8. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Let me put it this way:

    I understand and appreciate your traditional definition of a zoom lens, and
    zooming in on a shot. In your case, you are talking about moving the outer
    elements of a lens away from the camera body which results in a narrowing of
    the lens's angle of view, a flattening of perspective (yes, it does
    flatten), and a reduction of depth of field (yes it is reduced).

    Period, but if that is all you want to take the time to understand, then you
    are being left behind by the vary technology you are depending on. What
    about digital zoom? All that happens here is that the camera focuses its
    attention on a smaller portion of the sensor and then enlarges it digitally
    to fill the screen. Is that all that different from physically moving in on
    a subject in order to more fully fill the screen? Not really, at least in
    my opinion. And, what about CGI? A computer programmer inputs enough data
    to sufficiently define an object and then that object can be put in any kind
    of situation and the field of view, perspective, angle of view all can be
    manipulated to provide whatever image the operator desires -- with results
    so realistic one can hardly tell what is real and what isn't. Which of you
    is going to be so arogant (or childish) to assert that this is not art?

    If you want me to capitulate to your narrow-minded definition of zoom in
    order to help you feel somewhat superior to others, forget it. I may be an
    old blind man, but I can probably take a better picture with half the
    equipment as many of the punks who have been so muddle-headed on this group.

    Get a life.

    Just Getting Warmed Up,

    After thought:
    The exercise was stated as above by the original poster, one just needs to
    know how to read in order to decode the letters.
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 22, 2008
  9. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    If you look at the samples you will notice that the CAMERA POSITION
    HAS CHANGED..... eg the distance to the objects within the image has
    been altered and IT IS THIS that has changed the perspective and the
    relationship between the objects and NOT the focal length.

    But, it's exactly what we are talking about. You take what equipment you
    have, decide what shot you want, or wander around until you find one you can
    take with the camera and lens you have at your disposal, and then you take
    the picture.

    Nobody said anything about maintaining a certain perspective, depth of
    field, or anything else. Especially camera position.

    In its most generic sense, zooming is commonly taken as the magnification of
    an image. In an earlier post, someone stated that to use a word in a
    non-standard way simply muddies the waters. Well, if you are using the term
    zoom in a way that only 2% of people use it, and are ridiculing the other
    98%, then are you not the one who is muddying the water?

    Think about this ligically.

    Dudley Hanks, Jan 22, 2008
  10. Sosumi

    PixelPix Guest

    It seems that you have failed to understand the thread itself, as much
    as the concepts that it contains. :(

    Giving up,
    PixelPix, Jan 22, 2008
  11. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    So what did you think?
    If I can't confuse them with the facts, I'll baffle them with bullshit?

    At the time mentioned, Adams was already 55 years old and *not* in the
    beginning of his career, as I wrote.
    Do you have a problem with reading? With understanding? Or is it the

    Personally I couldn't give the behind of a rat how you want to take
    pictures. Fact is, you'll understand one day when you're wide angle just
    isn't wide enough or your tele is not tele enough. That will be the time you
    will remember this thread and maybe get creative and move around.
    Sosumi, Jan 23, 2008
  12. Sosumi

    Sosumi Guest

    I think it has something to do with a card game....uh, playing with a full
    People who are less intelligent, I don't mind. It's the obnoxious ones that
    persist in "sharing" their stupidity that irritate...
    Sosumi, Jan 23, 2008
  13. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I know, John. You are only impressed with your own wit.

    But, judging by your hot water heater logic, you really shouldn't engage
    others in a battle of wits when you are so completely unarmed.
    Feeling Philosophical,
    Dudley Hanks, Jan 23, 2008
  14. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    John, for such a good photographer, you seem to spend more time in front of
    your computer than behind your eyepiece.

    Why is that?

    Dudley Hanks, Jan 23, 2008
  15. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    It seems that you have failed to understand the thread itself, as much
    as the concepts that it contains. :(

    Giving up,

    Rusty, this thread started because someone used a word in its generic sense,
    and was ridiculed for it.

    I supported the original poster, and now I am being ridiculed for not using
    a word in the same way that you would have me use it.

    This thread is really about symantix, and has little to do with lenses in
    any other aspect than the verbiage is the pretext for intolerence.

    Now, if I can't use a word in a slightly different way, yet in a way that
    98% of the people both understand and accept, then what hope have we in
    coming to a common ground of acceptance in more volatile areas like
    religion, politics, civil rights?

    I can truthfully say that this conference contains some of THE most
    intolerant people I have ever met.

    But, it's been sooo much fun shooting you down, especially John's
    water-heater logic. I can asure you, he'll never hear the end of that one.

    On the other hand, it sounds like there are some good photographers here.

    Stick around, and maybe I'll tell you about when I chatted with Sir Bob
    Geldorf, the then lead singer of the Boomtown Rats. That was a concert,
    John, you would have given your eye teeth to shoot.

    Dudley Hanks, Jan 23, 2008
  16. Sosumi

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    Couldn't have said it better myself.

    Dudley Hanks, Jan 23, 2008
  17. It's a figure of speech known as analogy. Seems that in this newsgroup
    that's far too complicated a concept :)
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 23, 2008
  18. Sosumi

    Krypto Guest


    "both wrongheaded and offensive."

    Sorry bud, you really need to get a life. I'm not trying to insult you
    but you spend so much time and effort ranting about such unimportant
    things! Take some pictures, enjoy life. Quit being a newsgroup know it
    all. Nobody really cares about this trivial BS but you.
    Krypto, Jan 23, 2008
  19. Sosumi

    John Navas Guest

    It's an invalid analogy. Very simple concept.
    "Bad advice is worse than no advice at all."
    John Navas, Jan 23, 2008
  20. Sosumi

    PixelPix Guest

    Yes it started that way, but then quickly changed to where the
    majority of this thread has been about your statements that clearly
    display a lack of understanding of the interaction between focal
    length & subject distance and how this effects perspective.
    We know what Rita meant by the original statement, but this does not
    change the fact that it is an incorrect use of word "zoom". The word
    implies a particular technique with very particular results.... As I
    stated earlier, both zooming and moving your feet are valid
    techniques, but they are mutually exclusive and cannot be interchanged
    while expecting the same results. It's like petrol and diesel, both
    are fuels, but get them mixed up and the desire result of going from A
    to B will not achieved.
    The vast majority of this thread has been to do with lenses.

    Quoting % that you picked out of the air is total BS and does nothing
    to support your argument.

    The only person that you have "shot down" is yourself, as you have
    repeatedly displayed you lack of understanding of the subject. Many
    people have simply tried to explain the matter at hand and before you
    cast the "intolerance" stone, I would suggest that you have a re-read
    of your own threads and the insults that they contain.

    There are and it's a pity that you fail to recognise them.
    Woop Doop!

    Totally given up,
    PixelPix, Jan 23, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.