--
--
Ah! I won't worry about it then until I start to go blind from looking through this darn thing all the time.
Actually it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be . . . until I put that 200 on it! It looks like a portable rocket launcher. I'm gonna need a chiropractor.
Jeez Cindy, rub it in why don't ya?
that just might be your saving grace... the one thing that keeps sarah from using it...
--
--Jeez Cindy, rub it in why don't ya?
Mt. Shasta: 14,162 ft. (so the Web tells me)
Mt. Kosciuszko: 7,310 ft.
Duh... Next contestant please! :-(
I keep forgetting how flat it really is "down" here. Sure looks
like real snow in your back yard!
Your next assignment (buttons-and-dials homework) has just
announced itself in the form of Canon PhotoStitch
You're right about the ISO 100 mindset. I'm not ready for the move
yet, but every time I start to research these beasts -- and the
question immediately turns to lens availability and cost -- I have
to keep reminding myself what a non-event these cams' high ISO
performance is making of the f4.0 or so that typifies relatively
affordable zooms. It always took a team of wild horses to drag me
beyond 100 with film, and it's one of the big things that the
"digital will never surpass film" brigade quietly forgets about. I
imagine forcing one's self to go to ISO 400 as a default wouldn't
be too easy, but it might be a good one -- even at 800 it eats what
the consumer gear is doing at 100.
And I don't know why you're downplaying your 'coon. For a quick
grab with a largely unknown piece of equipment that's a pretty
impressive start! I happened on a Powerful Owl just the other day
in the middle of some tree branches at just conversational
distance. The chance of a lifetime, literally. Turned out I'd set
the 5700 to auto focus zone mode (an experiment in very low light)
and not used the camera for a month or so. Took me more than a
minute to rediscover where the damn fool convoluted menu setting
was, to restore manual zones, while he sat there patiently waiting.
I got the shot (sort of) but it was more luck than good management.
When I eventually make the move to something more serious,
ergonomics will play a big part in it. All those buttons might take
a bit of learning, but I fancy they'll make for very quick setup
when you get there.
Congratulations, and enjoy it!
Mike
Well, you guys have some pretty big reefs I think.
haha, that's in my "front" yard. My back yard looks like this:
I have taken a few 200-800 shots with very little difference really. The sky on the mt. had a little noise that was withing the correctable range.
Thanks, he isn't really that bad except the DOF lost his nose! I would have needed to up the ISO speed up the shutter AND stop it down to do that right. I thought later he wasn't going anywhere until I clicked away. I'm sure I would have had time to quietly adjust the thing. I just wasn't familiar enough with my equipment yet - that really was the very first pic with that lens! lol
Thanks!
Boy do I love the color! I took this in the early evening in my
yard. Brightened it up using levels and sharpened it a bit. What I
really love is the rich color and the velvety look of the petals. I
was in such a hurry to play I didn't even set the camera date. Got
to fix that. LOL
--
also known as PT Kitty > ^..^
http://www.pbase.com/ptkitty/galleries
http://www.annchaikin.com
Mine is. Didn't expect that.
Ann
Ann Depends in what form you view it, Ann. It looks fine on pBase at the "original" uploaded size of 1000 x 667; but don't forget that pBase will compress the dickens out of it when generating the "large" view from anything with either side longer than 800 pixels. Secondly, I'm not sure if the pBase default has changed in this regard, but when you hot link an image here using "image-serial-number.jpg" (i.e. without the size suffix) I had the impression that you used to see it at your own personal pBase size preference (if you'd visited pBase before) or at "original" if you hadn't. These days I'm finding that "large" is coming up (here in dpReview) almost regardless; and yes, it does look decidedly soft here relative to your 1000 x 667 version which livens up nicely with a good dollop of USM applied. It's a nice change to be able to hit it with a 0 sharpening threshold in the absence of any discernible noise! It really looks magnificentl in terms of both smoothness and detail.
