Palace of Fine Arts

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that POS P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used an f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:13:38 +0000, DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that
POS P&S camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at
least used an f/1.4 prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings'
shadows at night. I suspect your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too
considering the low noise levels. You must've had to use pretty high
ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

Ha,ha,ha. P&S lesson 101! Six second exposure sure would have cramped
your hand... Should have used a tripod!

Douglas

--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

The silence is deafening. :-)

Where oh where are all the DSLR advocates?

See, this is why I don't post mine, it's just too easy to shut them up. There
goes all the fun.

:-)

In article ,
DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that POS P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used an
f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I
suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise
levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...g%2024%202002/

Taken back in 2002 on the SF Bay Photo Group's second meeting -
when I had a P&S

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:26:17 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote in
:

In article ,
DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that POS P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used an
f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I
suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise
levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...g%2024%202002/

Taken back in 2002 on the SF Bay Photo Group's second meeting -
when I had a P&S

You really think
http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Aug%2024%202002/011.JPG
measures up to my image?

p.s. You apparently missed the sarcasm and leaped to conclusions -- my
image was taken with my FZ8.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:19:41 GMT, John Navas wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:26:17 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote in
:

In article ,
DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that POS P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used an
f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I
suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise
levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...g%2024%202002/

Taken back in 2002 on the SF Bay Photo Group's second meeting -
when I had a P&S

You really think
http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Aug%2024%202002/011.JPG
measures up to my image?

p.s. You apparently missed the sarcasm and leaped to conclusions -- my
image was taken with my FZ8.

Awww shucks, now you went and spoiled all the fun. :-)

I've got some remarkable P&S aurora photos and constellation photos. One that
I'm particularly fond of. A rainbow hued moonset on a remote island-dotted,
mirror-still, lake that takes your breath away. You have no idea how difficult
it was to under-expose that one just right to get it to look like a moonset and
not just another sunset. That is the biggest challenge of the thousands of
moonlit photos that I've taken with my P&S cameras, capturing too much light
rather than too little.

If I shared any of those at full resolution the suicide rates in the DSLR camps
would drastically rise. I refrain from posting those so as not to completely
challenge their mental-health (what's left of it).

Interesting in that the deafening silence from the DSLR proponents persists.

OK - I'll be the first of the DSLR guys to comment - Nice shot.

On Nov 18 2007 10:09 PM, DustinR. wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:19:41 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:26:17 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote in
:

In article ,
DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas

wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that
POS P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used
an
f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I
suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise
levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...g%2024%202002/

Taken back in 2002 on the SF Bay Photo Group's second meeting -
when I had a P&S

You really think
http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Aug%2024%202002/011.JPG
measures up to my image?

p.s. You apparently missed the sarcasm and leaped to conclusions -- my
image was taken with my FZ8.

Awww shucks, now you went and spoiled all the fun. :-)

I've got some remarkable P&S aurora photos and constellation photos. One that
I'm particularly fond of. A rainbow hued moonset on a remote island-dotted,
mirror-still, lake that takes your breath away. You have no idea how
difficult
it was to under-expose that one just right to get it to look like a moonset
and
not just another sunset. That is the biggest challenge of the thousands of
moonlit photos that I've taken with my P&S cameras, capturing too much light
rather than too little.

If I shared any of those at full resolution the suicide rates in the DSLR
camps
would drastically rise. I refrain from posting those so as not to completely
challenge their mental-health (what's left of it).

Interesting in that the deafening silence from the DSLR proponents persists.

--------*
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:54:30 -0800, "Juan Moore Beer"
wrote in :

OK - I'll be the first of the DSLR guys to comment - Nice shot.

Thank you. Of course DSLRs take nice shots too.

What matters is the photographer, not the tool.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article ,
John Navas wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 21:26:17 -0800, Kevin McMurtrie
wrote in
:

In article ,
DustinR. wrote:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 08:44:23 GMT, John Navas
wrote:

http://img250.imageshack.us/img250/9812/p1030674qy8.jpg

Finally. It's about time that you came to your senses and dumped that POS
P&S
camera and got a decent D-SLR and L-glass. You must have at least used an
f/1.4
prime lens to get that much detail in the buildings' shadows at night. I
suspect
your camera has a full-frame CMOS sensor too considering the low noise
levels.
You must've had to use pretty high ISOs to get that image.

Nice example.

Now if only P&S cameras could do that well.

:-)

http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%...g%2024%202002/

Taken back in 2002 on the SF Bay Photo Group's second meeting -
when I had a P&S

You really think
http://www.pixelmemory.us/Photos/SF%20Bay%20Photo/Aug%2024%202002/011.JPG
measures up to my image?

p.s. You apparently missed the sarcasm and leaped to conclusions -- my
image was taken with my FZ8.

I was playing along, actually.