Macro Insect Photos

In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

Tim wrote:

It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and
Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to
your images?

I hear crickets.

For the record, I didn't say they couldn't shoot them. I said I
haven't seen them.

And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.

Tim wrote:
In article .com,
"Annika1980" wrote:

Tim wrote:

It sounds like Bret doesn't think you Nikon, Pentax, Minolta/Sony, and
Olympus users can shoot quality macros. Anyone care to share links to
your images?

I hear crickets.

For the record, I didn't say they couldn't shoot them. I said I
haven't seen them.

And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.

There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 7/16/06 8:02 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Tim wrote:

And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.

There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind.


And, Tim, lad, you are trolling the wrong part of the lake.

Good luck, and all that.

--
lsmft

Even if you learned to speak English perfectly, whom would you speak it to?

Annika1980 wrote:
Tim wrote:

Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do).

Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon
gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or
Pentax.


Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots
taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I
stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I
wonder why that is?


http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html or the home page starting at
http://www.naturfotograf.com

Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
afficionado.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html or the home page starting at
http://www.naturfotograf.com

Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
afficionado.


Sorry, that stuff isn't for me, no matter what kind of gear he used.
It looks like Ken Rockwell threw up on Peter Max.
I blame Photoshop for that mess, not Nikon.

Gordon Moat wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Tim wrote:

Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do).

Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon
gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or
Pentax.


Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots
taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I
stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I
wonder why that is?


http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html or the home page starting at
http://www.naturfotograf.com

Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
afficionado.

Oh come Gordon I am sure a Nikon can do much better then that.
I don't think many if any of those shots are even a Macro shot, more
like close ups
with way too much Photoshop.

Scott

John McWilliams wrote:
On 7/16/06 8:02 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Tim wrote:

And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.

There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind.


And, Tim, lad, you are trolling the wrong part of the lake.

Good luck, and all that.

Good grief. I thought that was a joke, but I think you are
saying Tim is wrong and what I said is true, he *is* blind.

Interesting condition for a photographer.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

John McWilliams wrote:

On 7/16/06 8:02 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Tim wrote:


And you were implying that they didn't exist. They do.

There is also the possibility that he is claiming to be blind.



And, Tim, lad, you are trolling the wrong part of the lake.

Good luck, and all that.


fishin' in the shallow end of the gene pool as it were.

Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

Tim wrote:


Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do).

Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon
gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or
Pentax.


Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots
taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I
stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I
wonder why that is?


http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html or the home page starting at
http://www.naturfotograf.com

Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
afficionado.


Oh come Gordon I am sure a Nikon can do much better then that.
I don't think many if any of those shots are even a Macro shot, more
like close ups
with way too much Photoshop.

Scott


Both you guys should e-mail Bjørn then. He does lots of UV light
imaging, which is a better explanation of colours in his images. He also
has converted microscope lenses, and made other strange adapters for
various lenses, like the Rodenstock f0.75 lens that can only be used for
macro imaging.

Since both you guys think the camera brand is what makes the image,
there is not much point in further discussion. I am not into macro or
micro imaging either. Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most
of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree
with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and
micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you
with your Canon gear.

So there you go guys . . . you got your Nikon .vs. Canon thread that you
wanted . . . have fun with that.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Gordon Moat wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

Tim wrote:


Yes, it is incredible (what Canon gear can do).

Actually, it's incredible what a good photographer can do. The Canon
gear is irrelevant. The same photos could have been taken with Nikon or
Pentax.


Perhaps you can share some links to similarly outstanding macro shots
taken with Nikon or Pentax? I'd love to see em, cause every time I
stumble across a great macro gallery it's taken with Canon gear. I
wonder why that is?


http://www.naturfotograf.com/Fp_gall.html or the home page starting at
http://www.naturfotograf.com

Quite a few macro, micro, nature images, et al. Mostly using Nikon gear.
You might actually like this, since he is known as somewhat of a gear
afficionado.


Oh come Gordon I am sure a Nikon can do much better then that.
I don't think many if any of those shots are even a Macro shot, more
like close ups
with way too much Photoshop.

Scott


Both you guys should e-mail Bjørn then. He does lots of UV light
imaging, which is a better explanation of colours in his images. He also
has converted microscope lenses, and made other strange adapters for
various lenses, like the Rodenstock f0.75 lens that can only be used for
macro imaging.

Since both you guys think the camera brand is what makes the image,
there is not much point in further discussion. I am not into macro or
micro imaging either. Funny thing is that I while I don't care for most
of the images Bjørn has on his website, and I don't necessarily agree
with his opinions, it is my opinion that he has shown better macro and
micro images on his website than I have ever seen from either of you
with your Canon gear.

So there you go guys . . . you got your Nikon .vs. Canon thread that you
wanted . . . have fun with that.

Gordon sometimes you are just full of BS, like now. The images are not
that good, but
I said that I was sure a Nikon could do much better. I have never
bashed Nikons (other then the D70 and D50 with are not all that good).

I just don't see much there in the images, unless you like rather wild
colors

As for myself, I don't own a true Macro lens so it is unlikely that I
have ever produce a really good macro shot. I don't even own a lens
that can image a 1:1 I have done a few close up images but this is not
my main area.

But I will say that Bret's Macro images are far better then the ones in
the link you provided.

Scott