40D GETS EXTREME !

On 2007-09-28 12:08:42 -0700, "Eric Miller"
said:

I doubt it would make much of a difference since the pic was taken
in bright sunlight with the sun directly behind the camera.

Then likely neither would the use of flash make much of a difference at
all. If you need the flash, you need all it's output on the bird and
not just what small percentage that particular diffuser doesn't send
back at the sun and other places.

Now if
I'd used a couple of big studio strobes at night, that would be
different.

If you used them at night, you had better be good at finding sleeping
hummingbirds (in torpor) in the dark.

So while the colors might not have the pop that the strobes provide,
I think it presents a more natural look. YMMV.


Hummingbirds' refractive feathers act differently under different
lighting conditions - showing the most color under a cloudy sky. So
there isn't just one "natural look." In any event, it is possible to
get a reasonably "natural" look with flash.

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/view?id=2071344

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Verrrrrrrry nice! --- I particularly like the retracted landing gear.
--
Cease then to grieve for your private afflictions, and address
yourselves instead to the safety of the republic

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:55:13 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
your crappy P&S camera!


Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
better than this one of yours. With less noise too. Your camera has as much
noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. How much did those 2 stops more
cost you with no improvement? If the lens you were using wasn't f/2.0 (as exists
on one of my P&S cameras) but 2 stops smaller, then you really didn't gain a
thing. Think about it.

What a shame. All that money that you spent on camera, lenses, and flashes. Only
to get an image that's just as noisy as a P&S camera at ISO800. Then you go and
ruin the image too by using flash to flatten any realism into non-existence.

Keep practicing, you'll figure it out one day. You might want to start by
selling that dslr and its low quality lenses, you could probably buy 10 to 20
P&S cameras that take photos every bit as good if not better for the same price.
I'm sure one of them will be to your liking.

What a shame, what a sad sad shame.....

I just can't believe all the noise in your image. And you spent how much to get
that???

wow.... sad, just sad.....

I'm not sure what's worse, the performance of that camera for that price, or
your photography skills. Either/or, it's just sad all around.

"Ali" wrote in message
...
Bit noisy isn't it? ;-)



Shhhhh. You're not supposed to notice that or lack of detail in the light
areas.

Lack of detail is a common problem with all 1.6 crop Canon sensors at high
ISO. Most other brand too. But you did the wrong thing talking about the
technical quality of the image... It's the subject matter. That's what
Bret's pics are about.

Doug

NatureGuy wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:55:13 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

I always like to push the limits of my equipment so I thought I'd see
what the 40D could do at the extreme edge of sanity. Here's one taken
this AM at ISO 3200 and a shutter speed of 1/8000 sec. Try THAT with
your crappy P&S camera!


Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
better than this one of yours. With less noise too. Your camera has as much
noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. How much did those 2 stops more
cost you with no improvement? If the lens you were using wasn't f/2.0 (as exists
on one of my P&S cameras) but 2 stops smaller, then you really didn't gain a
thing. Think about it.

What a shame. All that money that you spent on camera, lenses, and flashes. Only
to get an image that's just as noisy as a P&S camera at ISO800. Then you go and
ruin the image too by using flash to flatten any realism into non-existence.

Keep practicing, you'll figure it out one day. You might want to start by
selling that dslr and its low quality lenses, you could probably buy 10 to 20
P&S cameras that take photos every bit as good if not better for the same price.
I'm sure one of them will be to your liking.

What a shame, what a sad sad shame.....

I just can't believe all the noise in your image. And you spent how much to get
that???

wow.... sad, just sad.....

I'm not sure what's worse, the performance of that camera for that price, or
your photography skills. Either/or, it's just sad all around.

Read the o.p. again. It's neither a good, much less a great, shot
compositionally or technically, but it's /at the extreme edge of sanity/
- capiche? IOW, it's a test, a demo, a whatever.

Sheesh.

--
John McWilliams

On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:


Phenomenal!

nonononono, Helen.

It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
make light work of repetitive chores.

Like this:
"Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
rule!!
I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
Helen "

See?

Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
same old boring, mindless adulation.

On Sep 28, 6:34 pm, Noons wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:



Phenomenal!

nonononono, Helen.

It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
make light work of repetitive chores.

Like this:
"Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
rule!!
I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
Helen "

See?

Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
same old boring, mindless adulation.

You mean like you with your
same old boring, mindless defamation?
I could never be like you. A cynic, defamer, slanderer and assassin
of all that is beautiful.

wrote in message
ups.com...
On Sep 28, 6:34 pm, Noons wrote:
On Sep 29, 2:17 am, wrote:



Phenomenal!

nonononono, Helen.

It's not like that. What you do is cut and paste
from other posts, that's why we use computers, to
make light work of repetitive chores.

Like this:
"Perfect lighting! Outstanding composition. Razor sharp. Bret...you
rule!!
I agree, don't settle for those cheap Chinese knockoffs. For the few
bucks that you paid for this little gem, it's the kind of gift that
paid for itself long time ago, and it's still giving.
Helen "

See?

Not hard, means exactly the same, saves you time
and everyone else can just skip it because it's the
same old boring, mindless adulation.

You mean like you with your
same old boring, mindless defamation?
I could never be like you. A cynic, defamer, slanderer and assassin
of all that is beautiful.


You could probably refrain from the public sex though and still get your
message across don't you think?

On Sep 28, 2:03 pm, "Ali" wrote:
Bit noisy isn't it? ;-)

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original


Hell yeah, before I "Photoshopped the crap out of it."

On Sep 28, 5:01 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

Shhhhh. You're not supposed to notice that or lack of detail in the light
areas.

Lack of detail is a common problem with all 1.6 crop Canon sensors at high
ISO. Most other brand too.

Post some of your Panasonic shots taken at ISO 3200 @ 1/8000sec so we
can compare.

On Sep 28, 4:55 pm, NatureGuy wrote:

Someone else already posted a hummingbird shot with a P&S camera that is MUCH
better than this one of yours. With less noise too.

Post some of your P&S shots taken at ISO 3200 @ 1/8000 sec so we can
compare. Otherwise, go sit down and enjoy another can of
"Shutthe****up."