-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
400mm 1/60 handheld.
- Thread starter Zoo Dad
- Start date
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
ha ok, camera shake is obvious. I guess it is ok for web size but you get better results with even just a monopod.
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
not sure. I see lots of camera shake when looking at the 100% crop. you can,t stop the body motion and probably a monopod would have given better results.
I thought it was interesting to see though, because I always wondered how good this thing was but I see it is not better than a monopod, quite the opposite.
To let other possible items of use or good
I agree, this devise has nothing to do with the camera used and can be interesting for anyone here.
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
they should ban hunting guns too.. a police woman just got shot in Montreal and was killed with a big caliber elephant hunting gun or something like that. she had a bulletproof jacket but that thing went right through her like butter...no matter the jacket.
guns are a nuisance but what does this has to do with photography??
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
The post has to do with using a rifle stock on a camera as an alternative support and use and I was making a bit of a joke.
As a side issue, bullet proof vests are sold to protect law enforcement people from shooting each other. A high powered rifle will go thru. When attending even a domestic dispute it is prudent to stand to one side when knocking on door..
If you think that getting rid of legally owned handguns or rifles will stop crime or gun violence or drug wars then you are less intelligent than I have given you credit for.
As a side issue, bullet proof vests are sold to protect law enforcement people from shooting each other. A high powered rifle will go thru. When attending even a domestic dispute it is prudent to stand to one side when knocking on door..
If you think that getting rid of legally owned handguns or rifles will stop crime or gun violence or drug wars then you are less intelligent than I have given you credit for.
they should ban hunting guns too.. a police woman just got shot in
Montreal and was killed with a big caliber elephant hunting gun or
something like that. she had a bulletproof jacket but that thing
went right through her like butter...no matter the jacket.
guns are a nuisance but what does this has to do with photography??
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.
deepak rao
Veteran Member
I'm really not that familiar with wetern names here.
--
Regards,
Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs
--
Regards,
Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
how do you stuck a rifle on a camera?
yes sad, very sad.
When attending even a domestic dispute it is prudent
I really don't know what she did but it was her last mistake unfortunatly. the worse is the guy was on probation and a well known trouble maker.
I never said that..you did. it's your words, not mine. to get rid of crimes by guns, all guns would have to be destroyed..and I mean all. even that would not stop crimes..there would be still stabbing etc.
this specific crime was done by someone with a hunting gun..not sure if the gun was legal or not. hunting guns are easy to buy though.
--they should ban hunting guns too.. a police woman just got shot in
Montreal and was killed with a big caliber elephant hunting gun or
something like that. she had a bulletproof jacket but that thing
went right through her like butter...no matter the jacket.
guns are a nuisance but what does this has to do with photography??
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send
them to me via email instead! thanks.
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
The specification " A hunting gun" Is there some other type ?
Buying a gun legally is not easy.
First you have to have a license to purchase a gun, then you have to go through the transfer and registration process. It is easy to critisize when you know nothing about the process.
This of course has nothing to do with photography . I find it annoying that people have an opinion of something and yet know nothing about it. This also applies to photography. Using a rifle stock as a camera mount is not new. It is just a means of holding a camera instead of a gun barrel. maybe a little imagination would help you.
I know guns very well and many different kinds of them. There are many more gun injuries (many are accidents inflicted) in households that have legal guns then household w/o any guns. Saying that I have nothing against people having gun as long as they understand the responsibility and therefore behavior that come with that.
In other words shooting birds with a BushHawk+400mm sound to me much more fun then shooting real guns.
Nyc
-
In other words shooting birds with a BushHawk+400mm sound to me much more fun then shooting real guns.
Nyc
-
Yes you are right Deepak, it often is a woman’s name but can be a man’s name as well. There are many western names like this. My comment of "ouch" was a friendly joke to Jody because I'm sure this idea of a "girls" name has come up in his past. My name is unusual in America and I sympathize with Jody for the kidding he may have taken in the past. We're all big boys now and can joke about such things. I didn't mean you any harm with my good natured joking with Jody. I'm sorry if I caused you any discomfort over it.
Sincerely,
--
Alastair
http://www.pbase.com/alastair
Sincerely,
--
Alastair
http://www.pbase.com/alastair
deepak rao
Veteran Member
No problem Alastair, as long as Jody is not miffed ;-)
--
Regards,
Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs
--
Regards,
Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs
Daniella68313
Veteran Member
I know one thing that you seem to ignore..guns are made to kill.
This also applies to photography. Using a rifle
my imagination is best served with more creative things then using guns..that's too destructive for my creativity, sorry
--
Please do not start new thread for private message to me but send them to me via email instead! thanks.
I agree. I do not hunt ! Shooting birds and other wildlife with a camera and a 100-400 L lens is my idea of enjoyment. Having said that, I am tired of people condeming legal ownership of guns as the cure for all the illegal use of firearms. What the bleeding hearts fail to mention is that more people are killed or maimed by cars than by guns. More people have died from medical malpractice then have died from gun violence. It is just easy for non thinkers or a government to say "get rid of guns and problem will disappear". The people that have legal guns are acting responsible. The problem is with the people who have illegal guns and doing illegal business. Stating That "many more gun injuries (many are accidents inflicted) in households that have legal guns then household w/o any guns. " is simply not true and only proliferates the stupid reasoning that prevails. All the problems are from illegally obtained firearms.
getting back to photograpy... A rifle stock on a camera is a good alternative to handholding and the trigger activation is quite natural.
It is just another alternative to a tripod or monopod. All equipment is a valid discussion topic.
getting back to photograpy... A rifle stock on a camera is a good alternative to handholding and the trigger activation is quite natural.
It is just another alternative to a tripod or monopod. All equipment is a valid discussion topic.
I know guns very well and many different kinds of them. There are
many more gun injuries (many are accidents inflicted) in households
that have legal guns then household w/o any guns. Saying that I
have nothing against people having gun as long as they understand
the responsibility and therefore behavior that come with that.
In other words shooting birds with a BushHawk+400mm sound to me
much more fun then shooting real guns.
Nyc
-
Daniella wrote:
All guns are not used to kill. That is BS. That is a silly response.
My use of guns is only for target shooting. It is as harmless as golf.
You should not condemn a hobby if you know nothing about it. many things come into play...trajectory, weight of powder, bullet size and weight of projectile. Feet per minute etc etc etc.
You are hung up on the word guns. When I suggested using your imagination I said rifle stock as used to hold a camera. Don't be so pushy.
If you think that the only alternative is hand hold , tripod or monopod is the only thing you can think of then your imagination is severely limited.
All guns are not used to kill. That is BS. That is a silly response.
My use of guns is only for target shooting. It is as harmless as golf.
You should not condemn a hobby if you know nothing about it. many things come into play...trajectory, weight of powder, bullet size and weight of projectile. Feet per minute etc etc etc.
You are hung up on the word guns. When I suggested using your imagination I said rifle stock as used to hold a camera. Don't be so pushy.
If you think that the only alternative is hand hold , tripod or monopod is the only thing you can think of then your imagination is severely limited.
I know one thing that you seem to ignore..guns are made to kill.
This also applies to photography. Using a rifle
my imagination is best served with more creative things then using
guns..that's too destructive for my creativity, sorry
MSpivey
Well-known member
I've noticed specific camera forums change as people progress to better cameras. The Canon Powershot A forum (a very nice group of people) finally had to change it's name to Canon Photography Group as members migrated to G series and dSLRs. They even welcome some guys who, for some unknown reason, bought Pentax cameras.
In this case, the only point I would make is that the Bushhawk, while inexpensive itself, is mainly an advantage using lenses that cost 2 to 10 times the cost of the XT body. That said, I'm glad it was posted because I didn't know it existed, and just as soon as I win the lottery, I'm going to get one to mount my big $7000 IS Bazooka and attatch it to an XT.
I've looked at the 1 series forum too, and it is very snooty. Almost to the point of amusement. If you havent lurked there, you might enjoy it.
My only suggestion to Zoo Dad is to tailor your remarks to your audience here.
In this case, the only point I would make is that the Bushhawk, while inexpensive itself, is mainly an advantage using lenses that cost 2 to 10 times the cost of the XT body. That said, I'm glad it was posted because I didn't know it existed, and just as soon as I win the lottery, I'm going to get one to mount my big $7000 IS Bazooka and attatch it to an XT.
I've looked at the 1 series forum too, and it is very snooty. Almost to the point of amusement. If you havent lurked there, you might enjoy it.
My only suggestion to Zoo Dad is to tailor your remarks to your audience here.
I should rephrase, the last statistics I saw on TV stated that a person in a household with a gun at a certain age group are more likely to get injured if there are few weapons in the house. Source is from the school of public health of unknown University (Harvard).
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11834986&dopt=Abstract
And: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms9803.htm
Saying that, I am saying again, that a responsible person will lock his/her weapons when not in use (ammunition separately) and never let young kids touch the weapons (supervised or not).
Back to photography, I think that the idea of BushHawk is a great one, and as long as it DOSEN'T spook the police or any one else, I could not care less what other people might think about it.
I also agree that shooting at targets that are NOT A LIVING things (Olymics) can be a lot of fun (as long as you protect your ears of course).
Nyc
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11834986&dopt=Abstract
And: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/Firearms9803.htm
Saying that, I am saying again, that a responsible person will lock his/her weapons when not in use (ammunition separately) and never let young kids touch the weapons (supervised or not).
Back to photography, I think that the idea of BushHawk is a great one, and as long as it DOSEN'T spook the police or any one else, I could not care less what other people might think about it.
I also agree that shooting at targets that are NOT A LIVING things (Olymics) can be a lot of fun (as long as you protect your ears of course).
Nyc
Numfar
Veteran Member
That type of argument isn't particularly effective. It's pretty easy to get away with stating truths when speaking in absolutes.
It would be equally true to suggest "If you think spending $10 million in an attempt to innoculate every child in the country against the flu will eliminate the disease, you are less intelligent than I have given you credit for."
Of course the flu will still happen, and one in 10,000 kids may get seriously ill from the vaccination - but without the innoculation, hundreds, if not thousands MORE children die from the flu every year. The innocualation won't get rid of the flu, but it will reduce the impact, and save lives.
What's this got to do with guns? A fair bit, given the argument above.
Getting rid of guns won't eliminate gun crime - that is true. Illegal guns will still be around - particularly since they funnel in so easily from the south. That said, many of the gun deaths in Canada every year are not just drug or gang related. Domestic violence is where eliminating legal handguns will have a serious, positive impact.
When a spouse becomes enraged, they may strike out at their partner with the maximun available force. If a gun is handy - which is may well be in the house of a handgun owner - then it's pretty easy, in those moments of rage, to grab the gun and fire. It's not fantasy or a construct - it happens. Taking those guns out of the hands of those folks - not the die-hard criminal element, but the otherwise 'normal' citizen who, due to work or economic stress, collapsing home life, whatever - snaps and goes into a rage.
Whether or not this is a sufficient argument to justify banning handguns is up to you - I'm not going to argue it one way or another. But it is a fact that eliminating hand guns will reduce the number of gun-deaths in Canada in any given year. It won't eliminate it, no, but it will reduce the numbers.
Given that, the question becomes what is the ballance between the value of those lives and the value of our 'right' to own and keep a hand gun.
But it's not equitable to try to skew the debate by passive-agressively arguing in absolutes when they don't necessarily properly frame the issue.
JackJosephJr
Leading Member
Oh Jeez, here we go again.
All the people (and nations) who want to be away from guns, thinking that the things might jump up and shoot them, can do so.
Just don't forget to call the folks with the guns the next time you need your sorry a$$es bailed out. It has happened in the past and it absolutely will happen in the future. Human history is much like the Dpreview forum, it just keeps repeating itself over and over and over.
Now, how 'bout the 5D?
All the people (and nations) who want to be away from guns, thinking that the things might jump up and shoot them, can do so.
Just don't forget to call the folks with the guns the next time you need your sorry a$$es bailed out. It has happened in the past and it absolutely will happen in the future. Human history is much like the Dpreview forum, it just keeps repeating itself over and over and over.
Now, how 'bout the 5D?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum