40D GETS EXTREME !

On Sep 28, 7:27 pm, "Pete D" wrote:
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?

public sex?!
I don't know where the hell your mind is!
Helen

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


No need to mate... I can get the same results with a different camera. And
besides... You know as well as me that Panasonic FZ50's don't have either an
ISO 3200 setting or 1/8000 shutter speeds...

They don't need these extremes any more than a 40D does. It's just marketing
hype. The resulting images are rubbish. They have no value.

But it's good to see you playing with a camera for a change. For a while
there I was really worried you wouldn't stop playing with yourself.

Anyone who really needed a that sort of performance, wouldn't bother with a
consumer grade 40D... They use a real Professional Camera.

Doug

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
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."

Hey mate... Give me then name of the store in town that sells that stuff and
I'll shout you a carton of it! Maybe send your iced sweetheat a couple of
cartons too!.

Doug

On Sep 29, 10:09 am, wrote:


public sex?!
I don't know where the hell your mind is!
Helen

probably in aus.photo?
you know, the Australian newsgroup
to which you and the other low-life
spammers and arse-kissers in you little
inbred group insists in cross posting to?

You know, Helen, it really would make your
life a lot less painful if you accepted that the
Usenet HAS rules, and these ARE there to be
followed. The penalty for not doing so is
to have to cope day to day with "envious nothings"
like me who don't take your sorry little arse
cosy world as a given authority.

But what the heck, it's your choice and
I'm happy to oblige:

**** OFF aus.photo, you stupid BITCH!

On Sep 29, 9:44 am, Annika1980 wrote:
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.

this "compare" thing is really an obsession
with you, isn't it? did it start at school when
everyone called you "shorty" and then progressed
to adulthood when they called you "speedy"?

On Sep 28, 8:09 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:
Post some of your Panasonic shots taken at ISO 3200 @ 1/8000sec so we
can compare.

No need to mate... You know as well as me that Panasonic FZ50's don't have either an
ISO 3200 setting or 1/8000 shutter speeds...

You're damn right. The 40D is incomparable!

It makes little sense for you and that other idiot to claim, "My P&S
can do it better," when your P&S can't even do it at all.

On Sep 28, 4:55 pm, NatureGuy wrote:
Your camera has as much
noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. .... 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.

I love it! This idiot thinks he's insulting the Fabulous 40D when he
claims that the 40D's ISO 3200 performance is equivalent to his camera
at ISO 800. All you are saying, dumbass, is that your POS P&S is
noisy as Hell, even at ISO 800!

Heed your own advice ...... "Think about it."

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:53:40 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

On Sep 28, 8:09 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:
Post some of your Panasonic shots taken at ISO 3200 @ 1/8000sec so we
can compare.

No need to mate... You know as well as me that Panasonic FZ50's don't have either an
ISO 3200 setting or 1/8000 shutter speeds...

You're damn right. The 40D is incomparable!

It makes little sense for you and that other idiot to claim, "My P&S
can do it better," when your P&S can't even do it at all.



Oh ye of little gray-matter. What you fail to realize is that those extended
settings were included in your dslr to TRY TO, but failed to come nearer to,
what any decent P&S camera can easily accomplish without them.

Get the drift?

I thought not. As proven by your photos and past (and forthcoming) replies.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:58:51 -0700, Annika1980 wrote:

On Sep 28, 4:55 pm, NatureGuy wrote:
Your camera has as much
noise at 3200 as a P&S camera does at ISO800. .... 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.

I love it! This idiot thinks he's insulting the Fabulous 40D when he
claims that the 40D's ISO 3200 performance is equivalent to his camera
at ISO 800. All you are saying, dumbass, is that your POS P&S is
noisy as Hell, even at ISO 800!

Heed your own advice ...... "Think about it."




Now why on earth would they need ISO3200 when their P&S camera comes included
with a lens with 2 stops more available light than your overpriced piece of ****
dslr lens? "Think about it." Or is that beyond you?

Are you always this stupid? Or do you just like to pretend to be for all the
pity and sympathy that you can get from it. I suspect both.

Funniest thing of all, I have a P&S camera from 6 years ago that has ISO3200 in
it. It even includes using that ISO3200 in complete darkness using IR alone as
the light source, including taking 30 fps videos in total darkness with just IR
light so as not to distract the animals from their normal behaviors. Note, this
is also all done completely silently so they don't even know any camera is
there. All of this is quite impossible to do with any dslr. I was just testing
batteries tonight to see if they were still good for my two small IR-LED floods
(~1.5x3 inches) for it that allow me to take high-resolution images AND MOVIES
of wildlife in total darkness up to 100 feet away. (The batteries are still fine
by the way, thanks for asking.) You can't even do decent IR photography in full
daylight with that crap dslr that you wasted your money on. Really, if you are
going to spend money for ISO3200 at least demand that the camera designers
include features that makes it worth having.

I get such a laugh every time another one of you idiots is scammed by yet
another camera company. It seems to be a non-stop event of late. Reading this
newsgroup is better than watching "Just for Laughs" on TV.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:08 am, Harold Hughes - Activity Director
wrote:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/86334400/original
Amazing shot, Thank you Mr. Extreme

Thanks. I know Noons will love them as well.

I forgot to mention the two flashes used for this shot.
The 580EX was on camera with the Gary Fong Lightsphere. The 430EX was
off camera two feet to the right of the bird (viewer's right). Both
cameras were set on High-Speed sync, but I'm not sure how much light
they actually contributed to the pic at 1/8000. You can see a small
catchlight in the bird's eye from the Lightsphere, however.


How come the exif data on that shot said NO FLASH was used?
Bob Williams