www.flickr.com
Thanks Man
Thanks!Hi Barry
This is just testing to get used to especially the DOF. However I always try to frame as tight as possible. For me that is the challenge of bird photography getting as close as possible. The more MP's you can get into the frame the more detail I believe.
Is this bee in your bonnet about Sigma going to spread into every conversation you have now?
Hi BarryThanks!Hi Barry
This is just testing to get used to especially the DOF. However I always try to frame as tight as possible. For me that is the challenge of bird photography getting as close as possible. The more MP's you can get into the frame the more detail I believe.
I used to think that. I mainly used slide film from the early 1970s to 2004. I framed closely, often too closely.
In the last nearly three weeks, since I received my K-1, I've been re-thinking the balance between resolution and other factors. In the past, I've printed successfully at A3+ with just a fraction of the pixels available in a K-1, and the K-1 has good pixels; I don't need them all in the final photo.
Obviously the bird needs to be covered by at least a certain number of good pixels. But what happens when that lower limit is exceeded? If a photographer is willing to throw away half the pixels of a K-1, what benefits can be achieved in their place? Ease of use? Better AF? Lighter, cheaper, lenses?
For me, one of the benefits of the K-1 is that I can stop trying to frame as tight as possible.
I can stop trying to get ever more MPs into the frame.
Obviously none of that contradicts "the challenge of bird photography getting as close as possible".
--
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Barry_Pearson
www.flickr.com
That is a stunning photo!
I don't think that a subject as relatively small scale and simple as a bird needs the 36mp of the K1. Those 36mp wíll prove their value in e.g. wide angle landscapes with lots of trees and tons of other detail, as well as a wide dynamic range.Thanks!Hi Barry
This is just testing to get used to especially the DOF. However I always try to frame as tight as possible. For me that is the challenge of bird photography getting as close as possible. The more MP's you can get into the frame the more detail I believe.
I used to think that. I mainly used slide film from the early 1970s to 2004. I framed closely, often too closely.
In the last nearly three weeks, since I received my K-1, I've been re-thinking the balance between resolution and other factors. In the past, I've printed successfully at A3+ with just a fraction of the pixels available in a K-1, and the K-1 has good pixels; I don't need them all in the final photo.
Obviously the bird needs to be covered by at least a certain number of good pixels. But what happens when that lower limit is exceeded? If a photographer is willing to throw away half the pixels of a K-1, what benefits can be achieved in their place? Ease of use? Better AF? Lighter, cheaper, lenses?
For me, one of the benefits of the K-1 is that I can stop trying to frame as tight as possible.
I can stop trying to get ever more MPs into the frame.
Obviously none of that contradicts "the challenge of bird photography getting as close as possible".
I think I agree.
That is where I differ. The problem with Crop Mode it that it is in a fixed position.
You have very nice birds that sit still and pose for you
EDIT:
Image 1, 2 and 3 are a bit special.
The birds are all siting on a stick. And I think 1 and 3 on the same stick.
I have a guess. You have a stick somewhere in the middle of a field. Birds like to sit there and look out over the field. So, you have a camera mounted and focused on the stick.
Hi Chris
www.flickr.com
