rehess wrote:
Thank you for clearing my confusion.
I thought it might be useful to provide a "counter example" for comparison. I am not claiming that this is a great picture; it merely shows the alternative.
The back story is as follows: a strange bird had been flitting around our backyard; it never stayed still for more than a second, and never landed if we were anywhere near the sliding glass door, so I stood in a back corner of our living room with my old 8MP Rebel set to ISO 800 so I could have a shutter speed of 1/200 despite the overcast weather, and shot this picture diagonally through the glass door. Once we saw the picture we realized that our mysterious visitor was just a molting male cardinal.
Thank you for clearing my confusion. br br I thou... (
show quote)
I think your shot would fare a little better in comparison if you had shot it under more ideal conditions--a tripod perhaps, because either my eyes are tired or you have a little blur. There seems to be a more than enough resolution and detail.
Please don't take this as criticism--I'm painfully familiar with the type of issues you describe. Just saying you can catch a lot of good detail with todays smaller sensor cameras. I shoot with both, and I am much more concerned with getting a good shot than with how many feathers i can count. I'm perfectly happy shooting birds with DX on a tripod, because I love using the little Nikon remoter doohickey, and I sometimes like--or need-- the crop factor.
But I consider good composition, lighting, and subject matter to be the better metric for the "quality" of my images, not the resolution.
Pablo8 wrote:
**********************************************
I have used Linear filters on Leica..Nikon.. Hasselblad...MPP..and Sinar. None of these were double glass filters. I will take your word that double glass filters were available. I have used two together for a particular effect, or one over the light source and one on the lens (Microscope). But never seen two glasses in one unit.
Oops! I just dug out an old linear polarizer and checked it carefully, to prove you wrong--
Guess what? I WAS WRONG!! I always thought there were two elements, or perhaps my brain is more forgetful than I thought. Haven't used one in many years.
There are two rings so that the polarizing element can rotate relative to the incoming light, but only one element.
My bad...I apologize.
Basil wrote:
I can't wait to really get out and try this baby out! This is a shot of my living room at 10mm. First shot ever with my new toy!
I could tell you were in New Mexico before I even looked at your location.
Is the 7D full frame, or crop?
Rongnongno wrote:
No. Also I would not recommend you to post any raw file unless you really do not care about that image ownership.
The only way that works reasonably well is to convert/export the raw to a PGN and upload the PNG. A PNG file can be up to 20+MB when a JPG will time out long before that, possibly at the 10MB size.
Thank you.
The one photo I posted, some "helpful" soul tried to "fix" it for me, without reading my post where I said I was unhappy with the way it posted on UH, not with my original.
I am definitely concerned with the ownership of my work.
I sold my 70-200 VR f/2.8 (first edition) and bought one of these. Much nicer for hauling around, or hand holding. Seems every bit as sharp.
Nice shot.
Rongnongno wrote:
You start with a raw file. Then export to PNG (or save for for WEB for PS).
UHH specific: I always use 'store original' and place the PNG version there. UHH resize and uses JPG compression which destroys the image quality.
Question--Is there a way to post a photo on UH that allows it to look remotely like my original, PP'd image?
I'm new here and the one image I posted looked awful, especially compared to the original. It was a Raw file converted to JPEG. Can you just post the raw file and let UH do the "dirty work"?
Pablo8 wrote:
*********************************************
What ARE you talking about??? Circular and linear polarizers do NOT have two layers which are turned against each other. That is the system used for Variable Neutral Density Filters, and consists of two(single glass )polar filters. The Linear filter was the forerunner of Circular(nothing to do with physical shape) Polar's. The Linear filter was found to upset auto-focussing on cameras, hence the introduction of the Circular Polarizing filter (CPL). The 90 degree angle to the sun comment is ONLY for the maximum effect on the blue of the sky. To control reflections from shiny surfaces (water, glass, painted surfaces etc). the angle of 30-40 degrees is the most effective. Glad you admit to not understanding Techie Stuff, but you still write misleading information as though it is true.
********************************************* br W... (
show quote)
Sorry, but you're wrong. Linear polarizers also have two elements which rotate against each other to vary the degree of polarization. I used them for many years before switching to digital, and I still have one or two of them somewhere.
You may want to look it up...
I have both formats. DX cameras are smaller and lighter. My D7100 with 18-300 is my travel, My Biking, Kayaking point and shoot setup, handheld usually. It takes superb images.
As you know, it's more about the image and the photographer than the gear.
I also have a D810 and a bevy of prime and other very good lenses for landscapes and use with a tripod. I wouldn't want to lug all that around in a bag if I was going very far, or putting it all at risk in a boat or on a cliff.
You should be aware, that FX systems are of necessity much larger and heavier than DX, to accomodate the larger sensor.
I'd rather have the gear that lets me get the shot, so most of the time I grab the D7100, and have fun.
As others have said, choose your lenses wisely, and you'll be a happy guy.
MT Shooter wrote:
Upgrading your lenses will make a bigger improvement in the quality of your images than upgrading your body ever will.
Good luck.
Where does one go to upgrade one's body? :mrgreen:
wings42 wrote:
Just ordered the lens and hood from Adorama. They had both in stock and are preparing the shipment to go out. My thanks to "dpardue" for starting this thread and everybody who participated for giving me the clarity to just do it.
A bit of philosophy: I came close to dying about 5 years ago from bacterial pneumonia. For decades before that I avidly took photos with a succession of "bridge" cameras and had wanted a DSLR but just couldn't justify the expense for a "hobby". The brush with death made me realize that photography wasn't "just" a hobby. Photography is something I need to do, especially photographing birds and other critters.
After a lot of research I bought a Nikon D5100 with two kit lenses. I used it for two years before buying the Nikon D7000. Hiking and walking daily is as important to me as photography, so the thought of a huge lens and a tripod never appealed to me. With my Nikon 70-300 lens I could get some good bird shots, but missed many great scenery/architecture/gardens/water falls and river/etc shots. and especially missed many closeup shots of insects, spiders, and other critters.
This 18-300mm lens will allow all the above (until the next best thing comes along. Maybe the Nikon D7200 or D8300?).
We're not promised tomorrow and we can't take it with us. Now is the time to make the most of the moment and follow your passion.
Just ordered the lens and hood from Adorama. They ... (
show quote)
Good post. I think you'll be very happy with this lens. A little bump in ISO goes a long way...
wings42 wrote:
Not awful. It's a beautiful composition.
It looks like a very low light photo and you don't know until after the shot. With perfect 20/20 hindsight I'd probably have shot it in Manual mode, f6.3, ISO 400, about 1/400 sec. as the viewfinder tells me.
Even as is, post processing with a bit of brightening and noise reduction should make it fine. This took about 20 seconds. It's basically a beautiful photo.
Checking LR info, 1/1250, f8, ISO 1000, 18-300 set at 300 on D7100.
Hand held, aperture priority.
dcampbell52 wrote:
Good answer. I did get the Square Trade insurance policy for drops and spills for 3 years but, I really don't want to have to use it because my camera went swimming..
I'd rather get the shot, and worry later.
My brother took his 5D mark III or whatever Canon calls those, and a brand new 70-200 IS, latest version, out for a paddle in his new Kayak. He's an excellent and experienced photographer, not so much with the boats. Long story short, wave knocked him over, no insurance, lost both--(or come to think, one may have survived, but anyway...)
I'm a big believer in getting the shot, and having insurance.
wings42 wrote:
Not awful. It's a beautiful composition.
It looks like a very low light photo and you don't know until after the shot. With perfect 20/20 hindsight I'd probably have shot it in Manual mode, f6.3, ISO 400, about 1/400 sec. as the viewfinder tells me.
Even as is, post processing with a bit of brightening and noise reduction should make it fine. This took about 20 seconds. It's basically a beautiful photo.
Thanks--But I am quite happy with the photo as shot and PP'd. I simply meant that it didn't reproduce well on the forum, and I need to figure out how to make it look on the forum as it does on my monitor.
You did OK, but it really looks better than that. Of course, that's all in the eye of the beholder. :)
Bram boy wrote:
it's a good shot , but not what I would call detail . if you can count single hairs
maybe .
Why worry about how many hairs you can count? It's a great shot with good lighting and good composition. Plus it's in focus. Nobody viewing your image is going to count hairs. You got the shot, that's the only thing that matters.