Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results
Stephen Henning
and another fellow had two Nikons including one with a very looong
telephoto lens. He didn't get very many shots, but his wife had many
bumps on her head. He had his loooong lens on a monopod. When he tried
to swing his loooong lens around he would inevitably hit his wife in the
head with it. Then it would be the wrong focal length. We got
extremely close to many of the animals, especially the cats. He had to
have a second camera for the closer shots. When his wife wasn't getting
banged in the head with the looong lens, she was holding it so that he
could use the camera with a shorter zoom lens. He didn't have time to
change lens, he just had to switch cameras. Several times our guide
stopped just below Leopards that were lying on a branch in a tree. He
missed some of the best shots. I know his cameras were much better than
mine, but they didn't get him very many good shots. I hope his marriage
survived.
I use my shots mostly for presentations with digital projectors, so most
of the super resolution is not useable. Several have been published in
magazines, so that I do try to get good resolution when I can. In my
case, the super zoom was much more effective. I also try to get at
least 4 good shots of each subject so that when I am doing my programs,
I don't dwell on the same photo very long but use the Ken Burns effect
and move right along. With the super zoom I can get lots of good shots
off. My wife was able to use her own camera and get some good shots of
her own.
Bigger isn't always better.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
AnotherD@rnedSock
This was a fascinating story.
Do you have any other imaginary adventures you want to share?
Socky
BÔwser
"Stephen Henning" <pig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pighash-9658BF...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>
> Bigger isn't always better.
Not according to your wife.
Dammit! I was trying so hard not to respond to trolls! Damn!
trevor thompkins
>
>"Stephen Henning" <pig...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:pighash-9658BF...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>
>> Bigger isn't always better.
>
>Not according to your wife.
>
Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're the only one that mentions
male genitalia when you imagine that you are engaged in a conversation
with another male?
Really, think about it. Ask yourself why those are always some of the foremost
topics in your own mind when addressing others, and is not a consideration in
the mind of anyone else.
The rest of us already know why these topics are always on your mind, now it's
just a matter of you trying to figure it out.
What a sad little closet-case that you are. Overtly obvious, but sad. You so
desperately keep trolling for masculine involvement on the internet but it'll
never fill that gaping closet-case hole of yours.
Try to find what you are after in real life then you don't have to be such an
obvious close-case troll on the internet.
Do try to stay on topic and not let your unfulfilled homosexual needs get in the
way of that, would you?
That's a good chap.
Thanks.
We'll all appreciate it.
Why oh why do these insecure closet-cases try to use the internet to come out of
the closet. I can only guess because it's the safest way for them. Nobody in
their personal life has to know who they are. How pathetically and immaturely
sad. The people that I know who are gay and secure with their lives just look
down on these kinds of insecure fools with a glance of abject pity. How
pathetically sad.
And now, back to something photography related ....
J. Clarke
If you get caught in a riot you'll find that Chinese lens to be very
handy. Pity that the owner didn't demonstrate the reason for you.
Oh, by the way, <plonk>.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Clarke Adams
The DSLR trolls just hate it when someone cites some REAL WORLD experiences that
prove the complete inconvenience and hundreds of miss shots that happen when you
actually use one of their favorite virtual-troll's bricks.
They'd rather poke their own eyes out and remain ignorant than face up to FACTS.
Thanks for stepping up and providing another example of why I threw away my
nearly-useless DSLR gear long ago.
Elmo von Thud
wrote:
[sneep]
>Bigger isn't always better.
Could you please enlarge upon that?
Elmo
Stephen Henning
> The DSLR trolls just hate it when someone cites some REAL WORLD experiences
> that
> prove the complete inconvenience and hundreds of miss shots that happen when
> you
> actually use one of their favorite virtual-troll's bricks.
>
> They'd rather poke their own eyes out and remain ignorant than face up to
> FACTS.
>
> Thanks for stepping up and providing another example of why I threw away my
> nearly-useless DSLR gear long ago.
You can tell they spend more time taking cyber jabs than taking
photographs. If they really had a camera and something to photograph,
they wouldn't be wasting their time trolling with junior-high school
insults.
Rich
> Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA -http://rhodyman.net
Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
MarkMark
Of course you didn't. Someone with no talent needs those machine-gun burst modes
to get those chance random shots like you do.
A talented photographer wouldn't have had any trouble with the P&S taking single
frames, knowing how to track his subject. Nor would his images be of any less
quality. I have hundreds of photos of birds in flight, where the birds fill the
frame. All as sharp and crisp as any DSLR image. Nearby birds in flight are much
more erratic in their flight paths than any predictable airplane motion in the
distance.
If you can't get the same quality images under all the same conditions with a
P&S as you can a DSLR, that only speaks tomes about your lack of skill and
talent as a photographer. That's all that it says.
Anyone claiming "DSLR is better" is even more loudly proclaiming "They are a
talentless-hack photographer."
That's all that they are saying. Make no mistake about it.
SMS
> Presuming it is true, there are often over monied hacks who buy
> equipment, take expensive trips, only to wish they had learned what
> they were doing. Just ask the idiots who died on Everest in 1996. I
> saw a Nat Geo photog use a 600mm telephoto on a Nikon to shoot animals
> in the Arctic and his motions were like ballet, he missed nothing that
> I saw. I also went to a airshow last year and watched some poor
> bastard with a superzoom P&S fail on about 40 attempts to track and
> lock focus and get decent images of the jets. He would have had no
> trouble with a DSLR, I didn't.
When I see people struggling like that, whether it's for wildlife or
jets (I took some good photos of the Blue Angels with the D-SLR), I'll
gently explain to them that it's really impossible to get photos they
want with that type of camera, and I'll offer to e-mail them my photos.
James Richter
When I see people struggling like that I realize they'd do no better with a
DSLR. Even more importantly, those that don't know this are just as talentless
and clueless about photography.
Rich
I tend not to use rapid fire, I prefer single shots. Olympus E-330,
old 300mm manual telephoto.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/84860213
Rich
I did exactly that. I often get asked for photos from non-photogs at
events.
Ray Fischer
My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Eric Stevens
Then there is the Niagra falls ...
Eric Stevens
Jürgen Exner
>>My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
>>the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
>>illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.
>
>Then there is the Niagra falls ...
A while ago I watched someone trying to illuminate Mt. Rainier from
about 10 miles away with the builtin flash at dusk. And she kept
wonderng why the pictures came out so dark....
jue
tony cooper
I don't see why that makes the snapshooter clueless. It's the camera,
not the shooter, that decides the flash will fire unless the camera
has settings to retard flash. Quite adequate photographs can come out
of P&S cameras if the field lighting is adequate.
They aren't going to be good photographs if taken from the stands with
most cameras, but some people just want to record that they were
there.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
SMS
> My favorite example of clueless snapshooters is stadium events where
> the lighting is dim and you see hundreds of camera flashes trying to
> illuminate the field from hundreds of feet away.
You see this at museums, aquariums, etc., too, where they tell people
that flash photography is prohibited. Most of the people don't know how
to turn off the flash. It was really annoying to watch the Olympics on
TV and see all those clueless people using their flashes, it was
distracting. They should just ban P&S cameras from these venues.
Art Grantsburg
You have that bass-ackward, as usual. It's not the cameras that are bad, it's
the people that own the cameras that are stupid. How much do you want to bet
that most of them with the flash going off were using DSLRs. Some of the most
stupid people I have ever met in life buy DSLRs because they think only an
expensive camera will do everything for them correctly, automatically. People
just like you who can't even focus a camera manually or pan to follow one of the
slowest soaring birds in the world. (See SMS's "I took photos of condors once"
thread.)
The correct solution would be to ban all stupid people from those venues, all
venues. Then people like you would be kept from annoying the more knowledgeable
at all times no matter what you do. Win win all around.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Please post your pictures or a link to your website so we can all see
the amazing things you can capture with your camera.
Stephen Bishop
Sounds like someone has a serious case of camera envy...