"James McNangle" <mcnangle@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:2ah3c41lrd5ff7k3mvoj162ba7dkeg041r@4ax.com...
> Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>>> What camera do you use?
>>
>>A CoolPix 8700.
>
> I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some
> serious
> limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the
> trigger.
> This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph
> grandchildren.
>
> Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are
> scattered
> randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to
> press some
> button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that -- as
> has
> happened to me -- you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the
> like,
> when you get home.
>
> It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and
> extension to
> specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not
> recorded on
> the photo.
>
> Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes excellent
> macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can
> get
> excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact and
> inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are
> travelling
> without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it.
> (Which is
> probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on-
> off
> switch.)
>
> I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon
> EOS400d
> with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a
> much
> nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the
> camera
> handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the
> Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect
> I must
> be doing something stupid, but I haven't managed to work out what.

Is that with the 17-85? I hate to say it but some copies can be really bad,
I had a copy and I also borrowed a copy once and I'll probably never use it
again. The 28-135 IS isn't as bad. With your flower shots are you stopping
it down at all? I'd love to get my hands on some of those macro lenses, the
wishlist is so long though lol.

> With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less
> suitable for fieldwork, and I don't think I would even consider it for
> travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and accessories,
> and
> eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I could
> no
> longer lug the kit around.)
>
> I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for outdoor
> work,
> and don't really know if my photos are any good until I can display them
> on my
> computer's hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor, but
> I
> suspect that any photographer wanting to critically assess their work
> would have
> the same problem.

I good trick is to turn the brightness to max when outdoors but don't forget
to turn it back down when you get inside or it could throw you off...the
best way to judge is to have the picture display along with the histogram.
If you can read what the histogram is telling you then you'll know if
anything is drastically wrong.

>
> You can see some examples of my work at
> http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php
>
>
> James McNangle

Nice pictures and happy shooting.

"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:fyovb4vj0hnf.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish
>> to
>> point and click.
>
> I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
> Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
> myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
> the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
> you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
> punk?

And thanks for that, I was seriously laughing my ass off!

"James McNangle" <mcnangle@westnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:2ah3c41lrd5ff7k3mvoj162ba7dkeg041r@4ax.com...
> Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>>> What camera do you use?
>>
>>A CoolPix 8700.
>
> I also have a CoolPix 8700, and I like it a lot, but it does have some
> serious
> limitations. The worst is the long inactive period after you press the
> trigger.
> This is a particular disadvantage when you are trying to photograph
> grandchildren.
>
> Next is the counter- intuitive menu system, and the buttons which are
> scattered
> randomly over the camera body in places where you are quite likely to
> press some
> button performing some obscure function without noticing, so that -- as
> has
> happened to me -- you find all your photos are taken at low res, or the
> like,
> when you get home.
>
> It is also a pity that it is impossible to set the focal length and
> extension to
> specific values, and the actual values of these parameters are not
> recorded on
> the photo.
>
> Its greatest virtue is that it is lightweight and compact, takes excellent
> macro photos without too much effort and is very flexible, so that I can
> get
> excellent photos in nearly every case. It is also relatively compact and
> inconspicuous, so that I can toss it over my shoulder when we are
> travelling
> without feeling that anybody is going to bother trying to steal it.
> (Which is
> probably also why it is currently in the repair shop with an erratic on-
> off
> switch.)
>
> I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon
> EOS400d
> with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a
> much
> nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the
> camera
> handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the
> Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect
> I must
> be doing something stupid, but I haven't managed to work out what.
>
> With its greater weight and decreased flexibility the Canon is much less
> suitable for fieldwork, and I don't think I would even consider it for
> travelling. (Over 40 years ago I had a Hasselblad 500c, and accessories,
> and
> eventually gave up photography for a number of years, when I found I could
> no
> longer lug the kit around.)
>
> I find the LCD screens on digital cameras essentially useless for outdoor
> work,
> and don't really know if my photos are any good until I can display them
> on my
> computer's hi-res LCD screen. Age is probably a contributing factor, but
> I
> suspect that any photographer wanting to critically assess their work
> would have
> the same problem.
>
> You can see some examples of my work at
> http://www.corybas.com/New_page.php
>
>
> James McNangle

have you tried this LCD hood??

"Dirty Harry" <nothin@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:cLcwk.147685$nD.63430@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:fyovb4vj0hnf.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who
>>> whish to
>>> point and click.
>>
>> I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
>> Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
>> myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital
>> Camera,
>> the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
>> you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
>> punk?
>>
>> The point is, Callahan, that the mayor's office wants you to start
>> playing
>> by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the
>> equipment, or we're going to have to throw your whole case out again.
>>
>> Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR's automated toys. If
>> you
>> believe that, then you're playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR's are,
>> IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
>> gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
>> sensor put in.
>>
>> All that said, I'll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even
>> the type you've shown, if your images are excellent. So you've got to
>> ask
>> yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might
>> impress?
>> Well, do ya ... ?
>> --
>> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
>
> I'm glad you asked as I'm a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you
> cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open
> shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is
> BRUTAL! Why? It's a physical limitation because of the sensor size,
> they're trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my
> thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the
> front. Guess what that means? It means you're not going to be taking any
> photos with a nice background blur (unless you're in the macro range, not
> so good for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent
> to f 16 on an slr (look it up if you don't believe me). You might not
> want background blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I
> don't know how many people have asked me "can you do those pictures with
> the blurry background?" http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the
> nice cage cause it was shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
> Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s:
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...s/img_1425.jpg - judging by
> the star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_0689_5x7.jpg this was
> probably only 10-15 seconds but it's completely noise free.
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_2715_4x6.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...d_img_7461.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonto...100007_rt8.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer...s/IMG_8026.jpg - 30 seconds...
> I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn't be possible
> on a p&s but I haven't updated the site in forever...
>
> Now don't get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a
> little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I'd be
> chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my
> slr. ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can't take
> my night pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why
> am I pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for
> the camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try
> my camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the
> button because they're not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed
> by a "holy shit!"


you do excellent work Harry
enjoyed looking at your photos

"KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com> wrote:

>have you tried this LCD hood??

Which LCD hood?

I haven't tried an LCD hood, but it sounds like one more thing to get in the
way. Like 'take off glasses, put them away, take a photo, get out glasses & put
them on again, try to find some shade to inspect the LCD screen, then zoom in
and hope to see something'.


James McNangle

"Dirty Harry" <nothin@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Is that with the 17-85? I hate to say it but some copies can be really bad,
>I had a copy and I also borrowed a copy once and I'll probably never use it
>again.

That IS a nasty thought. I just automatically assumed it was my stupidity, but
your suggestion is entirely compatible with the observations. I will have to
rig up a test, and investigate the matter seriously. Thanks :-(

>With your flower shots are you stopping
>it down at all?

I seldom try to use the camera unless I have bright sunlight, so they're mostly
at f/11 or f/16.

I get the feeling that there is something about the dynamics of the camera in my
hands, and the speed of response, which enables me to get better results with
the Nikon than the Canon. Unfortunately it is hard enough to get myself to many
of the places I go, without trying to take a tripod, and photographing
wildflowers in the bush with a tripod is a very slow process. (As every
photographer will know, cameras are cloud and wind magnets, and tripods even
more so, so if you really want good close-up photos you virtually have to pick
the flowers and bring them home. And this, naturally, is usually illegal.)

>I'd love to get my hands on some of those macro lenses, the
>wishlist is so long though lol.

Unfortunately I try to do too many things at once (like designing fancy web
pages!), and getting good quality lifesize photos is difficult, while getting
any worthwhile photos with the x5 macro is extremely difficult, so I have not
got very far with the macro lenses.

At life size the pixels are separated by 5.5 microns, and the performance is
diffraction limited at f/11. At f/11 the depth of focus is about 0.05
millimetres.

At five times magnification the pixels are nominally 1.1 microns apart, the
nominal depth of focus is about 10 microns (0.01 millimetre) and the performance
is always diffraction limited. If you want to get a photo which is (moderately)
sharply focused all over you virtually have to prepare a microscope slide.

>Nice pictures and happy shooting.

Thanks.
James McNangle

James McNangle <mcnangle@westnet.com.au> wrote:

<snip>
> I am interested in extreme close-up work, and recently bought a Canon EOS400d
> with EFS 17-85mm, EFS 60mm macro, and super macro lenses. This feels a much
> nicer camera to use, but I was very disappointed to find that using the camera
> handheld to photograph flowers I can generally get better results with the
> Nikon, and even for scenery it does not appear to be as sharp. I suspect I must
> be doing something stupid, but I haven't managed to work out what.

Neah! there is no such thing that one gives more disappointment than
other, but operator problem. For MACRO you better learn to use tripod, and
I am talking about the real Macro Lens not the macro mode or the add-on.

There is a huge difference between P&S and DSLR, and DSLR not only require
GOOD GLASS to capture good quality image, and DSLR usually require more post
processing skill. If you meet those requirement then you will have a much
better image than any current P&S can offer.

I don't know about the 17-85mm, but I expect the 60mm macro should be
top_of_the_line_lens which should give you very sharp image. Macro is often
hard to get IF so tripod is often a good idea, yes, it's possible to capture
sharp image without tripod but it depends on how small the subject may be,
or how close between the lens and object. And if you have $$$ to spend then
Sigma 150mm macro is a winner (and not much more expensive than the 60mm
macro, except you cap capture from a greater distance).

"KatWoman" wrote: (clip) optical zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom
(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is not intended as a nit-pick--I just want to avoid confusion. I
believe you meant to say, "digital zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom."
And, of course, real zoom *IS* optical zoom.

This is interesting.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), ronviers@gmail.com wrote:

> This is interesting.
> http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

Yep - and notice the tug of "legacy glass", trying to keep the future from
happening. "Fear not. Sleep tight. RED is awake." I love it - these guys
got the mojo!!

BTW - I just ordered my camera for the next several years from B&H. The
Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD, and 18x zoom with
image stabilization and no chance of dust on the sensor. This just a
sample of the kind of stuff DSLR's are keeping us from.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 19, 10:48 pm, Mike Russell <group...@MOVEcurvemeister.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), ronvi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This is interesting.
> >http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710
>
> Yep - and notice the tug of "legacy glass", trying to keep the future from
> happening. "Fear not. Sleep tight. RED is awake." I love it - these guys
> got the mojo!!
>
> BTW - I just ordered my camera for the next several years from B&H. The
> Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD, and 18x zoom with
> image stabilization and no chance of dust on the sensor. This just a
> sample of the kind of stuff DSLR's are keeping us from.
> --
> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Just taking a look at it on dpreview. It also does 1080p. It looks
very nice. Too bad it only has the 1/3stop brackets. You can still do
hdri but it will not be as easy. I wonder, does Fuji make the sensors
for Panasonic?

I was just looking at this one.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...n_5dmarkII.asp
A dSLR that does video at 1080p.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:32:37 -0700 (PDT), ronviers@gmail.com wrote:

> I was just looking at this one.
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08...n_5dmarkII.asp
Very sweet looking camera.

> A dSLR that does video at 1080p.
Boy, that mirror must really buzz, LOL.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 19, 10:48 pm, Mike Russell <group...@MOVEcurvemeister.com>
wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:33:46 -0700 (PDT), ronvi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Panasonic DMC-FZ28. It does live histogram, 720p HD
> --
> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Do you see Curvemeister playing a role in making color correction/
enhancements or otherwise color grading the video output of the new
cameras? Is there a gap between Curvemeister as it exists now and
something like Synthetic Aperture's Color Finesse (coming in at around
a thousand bucks for the standalone) that will need to be filled?
Would it even be possible inside Photoshop or would something like
AfterEffects or a Curvemeister standalone be necessary? It seems like
by adding a simple batch mode to Curvemeister it might be possible to
make very important adjustments. And without the complications of
anamorphic distortion, you may be able to pull off simple motion
tracking for selections without breaking the bank.

On Sat, 20 Sep 2008 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT), ronviers@gmail.com wrote:

[re correcting videos]
> Do you see Curvemeister playing a role in making color correction/
> enhancements or otherwise color grading the video output of the new
> cameras? Is there a gap between Curvemeister as it exists now and
> something like Synthetic Aperture's Color Finesse (coming in at around
> a thousand bucks for the standalone) that will need to be filled?
> Would it even be possible inside Photoshop or would something like
> AfterEffects or a Curvemeister standalone be necessary? It seems like
> by adding a simple batch mode to Curvemeister it might be possible to
> make very important adjustments. And without the complications of
> anamorphic distortion, you may be able to pull off simple motion
> tracking for selections without breaking the bank.

This is an interesting idea - or have the customer manually move pins to
follow neutrals, skin tones, etc.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com