Taking The Long Way Home With Nikon!!

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 1, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Boskey Guest

    I guess we now know what it takes to make you happy... an old D3!
    Boskey, Jan 2, 2008
  4. Oh well, it is what it is. I guess you are going to have to get used to it
    because that's all you are going to get. You never did show me some of that
    wonderful bokeh you get from your 500. LOL! ;)

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  5. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    I don't have a 500, but thats not the point.... poor bokeh is still
    poor bokeh and it results in less than impressive images. So many of
    us would rather use other equipment to achieve our desired results,
    rather than accept images that we consider are sub-par.
    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
  6. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    M-M Guest

    M-M, Jan 2, 2008
  7. You gotta work with what you have. I'm happy, that's all that matters.
    Like I said, maybe you could show me one of your images that has a very busy
    background and has surrounding clutter? I looked at your site and while I
    see some fine images, they are in an environment that is very sterile and
    void. Shoot some birds in thick brush with your favorite bokeh producing
    lens and post a pic that doesn't have any Tennessee bokeh Photoshopped in
    and I will strive to learn from you. Oh, let's not forget that I'm using a
    2x TC as well. So throw a 2x TC on that lens as well.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  8. Cool! Can you shoot it handheld and get good results?

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  9. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    M-M Guest

    With the straight-through version, likely as good as you can get
    handheld with the 2xTC. It is about 1/2 stop slower (f/8 vs f/12.2)
    though easier to hold. But the angled eyepiece is made for a tripod.

    I'd like to see a photo of the moon handheld with the TC. Or without.
    M-M, Jan 2, 2008
  10. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    70-200 2.8L IS plus 1.4x....


    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
  11. Yep, same thing in the way *distant* background. It's a nice pic, but it's
    not that challenging and doesn't have the branches around and in front of
    the bird that one has to shoot through. Seems we both got crappy lenses?
    That lens would fail miserably if you were shooting trough the branches.
    Not bad. Again, it's not a challenging shot and has no obstacles to shoot
    through. These are gravy shots that don't get any easier.

    Here's a bland shot on your site that looks like you had a bit of trouble
    with that needed a little bit of massaging in Photoshop.


    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  12. I'll have to give it a try.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  13. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Grabbing at straws are we?... that image is a prime candidate for the
    Formidable-able500 double-blur bokeh and yet it displays non of it.
    Branches in front have nothing to do with it.
    again, foreground branches have nothing to do with it. But again the
    background bokeh would have gone to crap with the Formidable-able500.
    Wow an old one from 10 or 20D days.... no photoshop massaging there
    at all.
    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
  14. What straws? I think if you are going make comparisons you need to compare
    apples to apples. Well, you know this that's why you won't post an image as
    I suggested. It really doesn't matter what you say since the old Nikkor is
    a great lens and I'm very happy with it. After comparing it to the 500/4L
    IS this old Nikkor is way better. And yes, branches *do* have a lot to do
    with it. I don't mind you trolling me since I'll play along with you, I'm
    bored tonight.
    Really? Prove it. Shoot a bird through some branches and come back and let
    us know what you find.
    What does the body have to do with the optics of the lens. You had
    distracting crap in that image that you felt the need to remove, a poor job
    at that. It's not a problem, just be honest with yourself. Even a Canon
    lens couldn't produce that level of crap in an image.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  15. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    The images posted are perfect for background bokeh comparison.
    Please explain to me WTF foreground branches have to do with
    background bokeh??
    Did I say it did just then? I was merely making a comment on how old
    the image was.

    But now that you mention it.... it will change the FOV and a change in
    sensor size will mean that a change in CoC must be considered with any
    DOF calc to a given print size.... then of course there is pixel
    density and the cameras ability to resolve what the image that the
    lens produces..... so while the "optics" don't change, there are
    other factors that need to considered as part of what the optics are
    capable of producing as part of an imaging "system".
    There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. So you
    are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.
    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
  16. LOL! Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit out of
    his images. Stop your trolling and blow smoke up someone else's ass.

    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  17. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    Ah yes... the young padawan has learned well from his master D-Mac and
    has adopted the "ignore the questions asked, redirect with false
    statements and hope that the thread goes away" approach.

    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
  18. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    Annika1980 Guest

    The facts are that I have posted a great deal of uncropped, actual-
    size images from my D60, 20D and 40D.

    Here is just one of them:

    To my knowledge you have never posted a full-sized image .... and no,
    1024x768 is not full-sized.
    So Rusty is exactly correct .... you are full of shit.
    I just don't know why it took him so long to figure that out.

    Perhaps if you used a real photo-sharing site instead of GeoCrap you
    could post a pic full-size.
    Annika1980, Jan 2, 2008
  19. You're a funny man, that's for sure. Like I said, I don't mind playing with
    you, but don't think that I don't know when to get off when you start going
    in circles. There wasn't a question to ignore. Once you start comparing
    apples to apple maybe we can revisit this. And no, I hope that the thread
    doesn't go away, you've been a real blast.

    Anyway, two can play that game. Here's a pic taken with the same
    configuration on the same day. Only difference is there are no branches
    being shot through nor is the background and foreground as busy. Like I
    said, stop trolling and compare apples to apple should you want to discuss
    this further.


    Rita Ä Berkowitz, Jan 2, 2008
  20. Rita Ä Berkowitz

    PixelPix Guest

    We were comparing two VERY similar images with VERY similar
    "backgrounds".... how is this not apples to apples? and still... WTF
    has shooting through branches got to do with it?
    PixelPix, Jan 2, 2008
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.