«

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <C795DA00.3E36E%(E-Mail Removed)>,
> George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
>
>>
>> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
>> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
>> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
>
>That, but a little Photoshop helped also
>
>Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
>comes out blue- reflecting the sky.

Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
fairly nicely.

But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?

Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
sensors and huge apertures wonderful?

Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
back home.

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>In article <C795DA00.3E36E%(E-Mail Removed)>,
>> George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
>>
>>>
>>> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
>>> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
>>> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
>>
>>That, but a little Photoshop helped also
>>
>>Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
>>comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
>
>Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
>still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
>fairly nicely.
>
>But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
>
>Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
>the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
>sensors and huge apertures wonderful?
>
>Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
>in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
>I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
>back home.
>

Interesting. Using an online DOF calculator, if those birds were only 50
ft. away, your camera and lens would only have a useful DOF of 9.9 inches.
I'm guessing that's probably pretty close to the situation, considering the
blurriness and their seemingly apparent positions on the twigs. Or else
they might even be closer, diminishing the DOF even further.

In order to get the same useless DOF with that focal length on a 2/3"
sensor P&S camera, I would have to use a 450mm EFL at about f/0.8 (?
possibly even wider). Instead, I can always get a useful DOF of about 22
inches at f/2.0. But since my favorite wildlife P&S camera only opens up to
f/2.4 at that focal length (f/2.0 at shorter focal lengths), then I get 26
inches of useful DOF to adequately capture both of those birds in sharp
focus. The other upside is that I can shoot at that same ISO noise-free
(easily) but use a shutter speed of 1/700s instead of the 1/125s that was
used, which probably also added to your image blur. What with that shutter
and mirror slap and all adding to the blurriness too.

With a 1/2.5" sensor P&S camera then at widest aperture of about f/3.5 on
most of them with that focal length, then you would get a 55 inch DOF at
that distance with that focal length. Still a much more useful DOF and both
birds would have been in sharp focus. Plus that's still 1.3 EV stops
advantage, meaning it could be shot at a shutter speed of 1/320s.

Well, that was a fun thing to calculate.

1.3 to 2.3 stops aperture advantage to the $250-$350 P&S cameras and both
providing a useful DOF. Then you would have come back home with a useful
printable image. Rather than what you have now. One that can't even stand
up to being published at 968x648 pixels, which means it can't even be
printed at 3-4 inches in size horizontally. Seems that an awful lot of
money was used to attain all that wonderful DSLR blur that everyone brags
on. What a shame.

Boy, the cost of that thing must be really burning about now.

Thanks for providing yet another example that proves P&S camera excel for
wildlife photography.

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:40:40 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Observant One <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
>
>
>That and the heat coming out of the house.

Why was there heat coming out of the house? Shooting through an open
window? If so, then you can't blame the glass. If it was closed then you
can't blame the heat. Which is it?

The little bit of radiant heat leaving through a closed window will hardly
be the cause of any air turbulence enough to cause that much blur. But as
previously stated, it's not that kind of blur. It's mostly DOF blur. That
wonderful bokeh that everyone prides their DSLRs in creating for them. A
shame when the subjects you want in focus happen to be in that bokeh too.
You got what you paid for. Right?

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 22:04:04 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> NameHere <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for providing yet another example that proves P&S camera excel for
>> wildlife photography.
>
>
>I think your P&S would have missed that shot since it would have been
>hunting for the focus and exposure in the time I got off 6 or 7
>continuous. Or is your camera without shutter lag?

Sorry to disappoint but my last P&S camera has only a 45ms shutter lag.
That's faster than yours. Yours has to take time to move that mirror out of
the way. I have many thousands of bird photos, some resting quietly on
branches like yours are. Why you, or anyone, would need burst mode for
those birds and shots is beyond me. They are clearly in roosting mode with
their legs tucked up under their feathers, fluffed-up and staying perfectly
still to keep warm. About all they'd do in that stance is move their heads
a bit. Sorry, you can't bullshit a real wildlife photographer with your
excuses. I know bird behaviors well. Most of my bird photos are in-flight
shots. Try following some swifts or swallows in flight sometime with
300-450mm focal lengths. You could probably use the practice, especially if
you'd need a crutch as big as any sort of burst mode for that unusable
photo of unmoving birds.

btw1: How come multi-shot isn't listed in your EXIF info? All the other
cameras normally list that. Does the EXIF info of "SceneType: Directly
photographed" mean single-shot mode?

>
>And a narrow DOF is an advantage, especially in this shot. You can have
>a different opinion if you like.

If you consider having a photo so blurry that it can't even be printed at
3-4 inches in size as any kind of advantage, then ... I can only say that
you have to be a camera salesperson's ultimate wet-dream.

btw2: Don't worry about all the lies you've tried to use for excuses so
far. Most DSLR owners have to resort to that to justify their purchases to
themselves. All that money they spent you know. What a bank-account
heartache if they had to face up to reality. Nothing to worry about though.
You're typical of most all DSLR owners and promoters.

DanP wrote:
> On Feb 9, 1:50 am, NameHere <w...@address.info> wrote:
>
>> Interesting. Using an online DOF calculator, if those birds were only 50
>> ft. away, your camera and lens would only have a useful DOF of 9.9 inches..
>> I'm guessing that's probably pretty close to the situation, considering the
>> blurriness and their seemingly apparent positions on the twigs. Or else
>> they might even be closer, diminishing the DOF even further.
>
> Assuming the distance was 50ft the depth of field in that photo is
> 1.86ft (EXIF data Nikon D80 with 300mm and f/5.6)
> Narrow DOF is alway desirable. To increase it you can use always
> narrower aperture.

No, it isn't always desirable! What is desirable is the ability in a
wide range of lighting conditions to be able to have shallow DoF-
something only a quality DSLR and good lenses provide. Sometimes you'll
want greater, sometimes lesser, DoF.

--
John McWilliams

M-M wrote:
> In article
> <ae5ce680-86f8-4963-9d1e-(E-Mail Removed)>,
> DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>>> One that can't even stand
>>>> up to being published at 968x648 pixels, which means it can't even be
>>>> printed at 3-4 inches in size horizontally.
>>> It looks very nice hanging in my office at 8.5" x 11"
>>>
>>> --
>>> m-mhttp://www.mhmyers.com
>> That is 88 dpi, more than what computer monitors have.
>
>
> Re: http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
>
> The image posted was reduced to 25% of original and is not cropped, so
> full-scale it printed at 300 dpi.
>
Nobody prints at 300 dpi anymore. You probably mean the file from which
it was printed was 300 ppi, no?

-=-
john mcwilliams

DanP <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That is 88 dpi, more than what computer monitors have.

My monitors run in excess of 120 dpi, so 88 dpi isn't really more.
No, we're talking about rather old monitors ...

-Wolfgang

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:00:08 -0600, Observant One <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:14:53 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >In article <C795DA00.3E36E%(E-Mail Removed)>,
: > George Kerby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >
: >> >>> http://www.mhmyers.com/d80/DSC_21427w.jpg
: >
: >>
: >> Being a native Houstonian, I never realized the soft reflectivity factor of
: >> snow, since it is so rare here. I assume that is what is providing the light
: >> on the birds' bellies. Very interesting.
: >
: >That, but a little Photoshop helped also
: >
: >Interesting also that when you take a photo of snow on a sunny day, it
: >comes out blue- reflecting the sky.
:
: Composition is pretty bad overall, but with some strong cropping you could
: still get a decent composition out of it because the birds posed themselves
: fairly nicely.
:
: But why is it so blurry? Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
:
: Looks more like the DOF is so shallow that only the mid-point of the twig
: the male cardinal is sitting on is the part in focus. Aren't those giant
: sensors and huge apertures wonderful?
:
: Just checked the EXIF. Sheesh, f/5.6 and you still couldn't get both birds
: in focus. Yeah, I'll pass on those kinds of cameras, thanks anyway. When
: I'm shooting wildlife I have to make sure I have a useful image when I get
: back home.

<Guffaw!!>

If simpleton trolls like you didn't exist, we might have to invent one now and
then, just to remember what a hearty belly laugh feels like in these trying
times.

Bob

On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 19:57:23 -0600, Observant One <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Feb 2010 20:40:40 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
:
: >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
: > Observant One <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: >
: >> Shot through a few panes of glass or something?
: >
: >
: >That and the heat coming out of the house.
:
: Why was there heat coming out of the house? Shooting through an open
: window? If so, then you can't blame the glass. If it was closed then you
: can't blame the heat. Which is it? ...

He wasn't "blaming" anything, you stupid twerp. His is a better picture than
any you ever took, and you damn well know that we all know it. ;^)

Bob