REALLY BIG BIRDS LOVE THE 40D !

On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do.
Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago.
It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections
might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads.

Mother of pearl...!

I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd.
As if.

ROFL!

Yep... ROTFL some more Matt.
Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look
sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg

I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs
are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these
"monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images
with slight noise or artefacts in them.

Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend
$5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one
can tell apart from the Canon ones!

Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt!
How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just
to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again)
made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional
Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly!

Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a
$1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series
lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best
shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken
by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50???

Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting
from all the laughter!!!!

Doug

On Oct 15, 7:11 am, D_Mac wrote:
On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do.
Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago.
It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections
might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads.

Mother of pearl...!

I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd.
As if.

ROFL!

Yep... ROTFL some more Matt.
Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look
sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source...http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...ples2/original...

I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs
are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these
"monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images
with slight noise or artefacts in them.

Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend
$5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one
can tell apart from the Canon ones!

Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt!
How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just
to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again)
made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional
Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly!

Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a
$1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series
lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best
shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken
by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50???

Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting
from all the laughter!!!!

Doug


Sorry Douglas, but it lacks the detail as in Bret's image. I find it
on the soft side.
Helen

On Oct 15, 12:40 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87219140/original

Bret,
Wow! I'm most impressed by the lens! How did you focus
at f/8.

Wasn't easy. I did it with my feet.
First I focused with the 400 f/5.6L only.
Then I added the 1.4x. That got me close. Then I just pretended I
was taking a macro shot wuth the MP-E Macro lens and I moved forward
and backward very slightly to get the bird in sharp focus. Normally,
I'd just manually focus with the lens ring, but my lens is pretty beat
up and it slips really bad when you try to manually focus. Without the
TC (at f/5.6) it autofocuses fine. With it (at f/8) I have to
manually focus.
It's a pain, but momma always said, "Do what ya can with what ya got."

On Oct 15, 2:04 am, D_Mac wrote:

This is the sort of photography where the quality of the equipment
used, rather than any skill the photographer has is very evident.
Quite frankly I doubt this was a hand held shot as Bret has in the
past claimed all his 400mm lens work is but if by some miracle it was
hand held, all credit where credit is due.

As mentioned in the OP I used a monopod for this one.


What Bugs Bunny couldn't do and neither can I or anyone else do with a
P&S camera is obtain a picture which resolves as much detail as this
one.

Now you are getting the point.


They can but no $500
department store camera is going to equal the resolving power of the
$5,000 lens and the $400 multiplier he use with it.

Actually, the 400 f/5.6L is a $1,100 lens. I got mine off EBAY for
$850.
Now had I been using something like the $7,200 400 f/2.8L IS lens I'm
sure you'd really be impressed.


So in summary... I am impressed with the results you've managed to
coax out of Canon's bottom of the range but one DSLR. Everything I've
said in the past about your Photography is epitomised in this picture.
Take some art lessons. learn about composure, ditch the flash, study
light and shade then use it in your composure.


The pic was not intended to win any photo contests, but simply to show
the capabilities of the "given" equipment. Get it? "Given?" Like
the 40D. LOL! I amuse myself.

And what is this "composure" you so often speak about? Webster's
defines composure as:

": a calmness or repose especially of mind, bearing, or appearance
self-possession "

So if I stay calmer I'll take better pics? Wouldn't IS or a tripod do
the same thing?


People who paint lifelike subjects understand composure.

Funny you mentioned that. Last week i went to a Photoshop seminar in
the ATL given by Bert Monroy, who is perhaps the world's most well-
known photorealistic painter. The guy paints everything from scratch
and the resulting images look just like huge photographs, except they
have much more detail than a photo can capture.
Here is his latest work:

http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/te...eart_damen.htm

Bert also has a number of podcasts about Photoshop that you can view
for free he
http://www.revision3.com/pixelperfect

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:11:13 -0700, D_Mac wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do.
Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago.
It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections
might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads.

Mother of pearl...!

I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd.
As if.

ROFL!

Yep... ROTFL some more Matt.
Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look
sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg

I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs
are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these
"monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images
with slight noise or artefacts in them.

Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend
$5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one
can tell apart from the Canon ones!

Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt!
How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just
to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again)
made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional
Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly!

Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a
$1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series
lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best
shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken
by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50???

Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting
from all the laughter!!!!

Doug


Dougie,

This is crap.

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 04:11:13 -0700, D_Mac wrote:

On Oct 15, 1:57 pm, Matt Ion wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
OK sports fans, today we're gonna see what the 40D can really do.
Here is a full-size image from the 40D that I took a few hours ago.
It's a large (3888x2592) image so those of you with slower connections
might want to go get a tasty beverage while it loads.

Mother of pearl...!

I'll look forward to seeing equivalent pics from the P&S crowd.
As if.

ROFL!

Yep... ROTFL some more Matt.
Feathers are amongst the easiest of animal coverings to make look
sharp. SO to fulfil your wish - and from the most reputable source...
http://dpreview-img.fotki.com/galler...s/p1020675.jpg

I know, it's not quite as "clear" as Bret's at 72 PPI but photographs
are never printed at that resolution. Herein lies a key to why these
"monitor perfect" images never look as "better" as they seem to images
with slight noise or artefacts in them.


I know that I am no expert Dougie, but you will have to explain this
paragraph to me one step at a time. It just makes no sense at all.

Oh , by the way , this is the fourth reply I have made to your posts
today. Can I expect the stalking summons from Qld. Police sometime
soon?


Anyone who bought one these magic little $500 cameras gets to spend
$5000 on something else if they are satisfied with prints that no one
can tell apart from the Canon ones!

Oh, yes... ROTFL at that lot right enough Matt!
How bad is it when your best shot, printed at 16"x 20" - 360 PPI (just
to fool the judges) and a 16x24" pint at 360 PPI (to fool 'em again)
made from the image linked to above were shown to 15 Professional
Photographers today and only 5 picked the Canon print correctly!

Geez mate. How would you feel if your cyber lover just gave you a
$1.5k camera and you hook up that legendary 400mm Canon "L" series
lens you hump around like a Davy Crockett rifle and take your best
shot only to discover it wasn't any better when printed than one taken
by Phil Askey with a $500 Panasonic FZ50???

Oh... The irony of it all. I have to go now, my sides are splitting
from all the laughter!!!!

Doug

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 15, 2:04 am, D_Mac wrote:

This is the sort of photography where the quality of the equipment
used, rather than any skill the photographer has is very evident.
Quite frankly I doubt this was a hand held shot as Bret has in the
past claimed all his 400mm lens work is but if by some miracle it was
hand held, all credit where credit is due.

As mentioned in the OP I used a monopod for this one.


What Bugs Bunny couldn't do and neither can I or anyone else do with a
P&S camera is obtain a picture which resolves as much detail as this
one.

Now you are getting the point.


They can but no $500
department store camera is going to equal the resolving power of the
$5,000 lens and the $400 multiplier he use with it.

Actually, the 400 f/5.6L is a $1,100 lens. I got mine off EBAY for
$850.
Now had I been using something like the $7,200 400 f/2.8L IS lens I'm
sure you'd really be impressed.


So in summary... I am impressed with the results you've managed to
coax out of Canon's bottom of the range but one DSLR. Everything I've
said in the past about your Photography is epitomised in this picture.
Take some art lessons. learn about composure, ditch the flash, study
light and shade then use it in your composure.


The pic was not intended to win any photo contests, but simply to show
the capabilities of the "given" equipment. Get it? "Given?" Like
the 40D. LOL! I amuse myself.

And what is this "composure" you so often speak about? Webster's
defines composure as:

": a calmness or repose especially of mind, bearing, or appearance
self-possession "

So if I stay calmer I'll take better pics? Wouldn't IS or a tripod do
the same thing?


People who paint lifelike subjects understand composure.


I think the genius means "Composition" LOL

Funny you mentioned that. Last week i went to a Photoshop seminar in
the ATL given by Bert Monroy, who is perhaps the world's most well-
known photorealistic painter. The guy paints everything from scratch
and the resulting images look just like huge photographs, except they
have much more detail than a photo can capture.
Here is his latest work:

http://www.bertmonroy.com/fineart/te...eart_damen.htm

Bert also has a number of podcasts about Photoshop that you can view
for free he
http://www.revision3.com/pixelperfect

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 15, 12:40 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/87219140/original

Bret,
Wow! I'm most impressed by the lens! How did you focus
at f/8.

Wasn't easy. I did it with my feet.
First I focused with the 400 f/5.6L only.
Then I added the 1.4x. That got me close. Then I just pretended I
was taking a macro shot wuth the MP-E Macro lens and I moved forward
and backward very slightly to get the bird in sharp focus. Normally,
I'd just manually focus with the lens ring, but my lens is pretty beat
up and it slips really bad when you try to manually focus. Without the
TC (at f/5.6) it autofocuses fine. With it (at f/8) I have to
manually focus.
It's a pain, but momma always said, "Do what ya can with what ya got."


Have you ever tried taping the pins on the teleconverter? It won't be fast
AF and may hunt a little, but still much faster than the method you
described. I believe it is the three pins on the opposite end from the
raised ones.
John

On Oct 15, 11:45 am, "JohnR66" wrote:

Have you ever tried taping the pins on the teleconverter? It won't be fast
AF and may hunt a little, but still much faster than the method you
described. I believe it is the three pins on the opposite end from the
raised ones.

I've heard of that, but have never tried it. I'll give it a shot!

On Oct 15, 9:49 am, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:
..

I think the genius means "Composition" LOL

I thought he meant Composition + Exposure. But of course we all know
that's called Exposition.