Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dsturr
Page: <<prev 1 ... 84 85 86 87 88 next>>
Dec 3, 2013 19:56:25   #
photo169 wrote:
You idiots are still arguing about something your brains can't comprehend.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: But I do give praise to those who got it at the beginning of the post.


Did you actually go to the link? Do you think that a bunch of smiley faces mean understanding? Are you aware you can change the magnification of a telescope by changing the eyepiece? That a telescope with a shorter focal length can give a higher magnification than one with a longer focal length? God and I thought there were knotheads in my Math 400 class and used to wonder how they made it there. This stuff is trivial but obviously not to everyone. I give up.
Go to
Dec 3, 2013 19:36:00   #
photo169 wrote:
You still don't get it !!!!!!!! :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: A 300mm lens will bring you closer than a 200mm lens,screw the pixels,they have nothing to do with it. View has nothing to do with magnification. 300mm will bring you closer than a 200mm. Plain and simple why can't you disbelievers soak this in ????????? :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


Try this link and maybe you'll understand what "cropped sensor" refers to. This term is supposed to help but has obviously come up short. At least in your case. Maybe the term "form factor" will stop you thinking about pixels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
Go to
Dec 2, 2013 19:09:06   #
photo169 wrote:
Doesn't anybody get it ? A 200mm lens on small 1.5x sensor does not bring you as close to the subject than a 300mm lens on a full frame. Simple as that !!!!! The manufacturers are fooling people on this. SOME SMART PEOPLE ON THIS SITE GOT IT RIGHT AWAY. OTHERS STILL HAVE THEIR HEAD SPINNING!!!!!!
:hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


I don't know what kind of camera you have but I've got a "full frame" and a "cropped frame". A 200mm on the cropped gives an identical view to the 300mm on the full frame. Neither lens brings ME any closer to the subject. The 200mm is still 200mm. I checked the marking on the front of the lens and it didn't change at all. Should be the end of the story but I doubt it. Manufacturers fooling people? Sounds like conspiracy theory when it's actually just simple geometry.
Go to
Dec 2, 2013 12:40:13   #
tainkc wrote:
You are probably right!


Difficult to identify individual species but all seem to suffer from Photoshopophobia.
Go to
Dec 2, 2013 10:58:09   #
tainkc wrote:
I really don't care about any of that. If I like the lens, I use it. I have more important things to worry about like not sneezing when I depress the shutter button.

I am serious. This is one issue that I think there is way too much emphasis put upon. I never even knew this was a concern until I joined UHH. It is so nice being naive.


And I bet you never realized that the creationists are sort of right. Here dinosaurs actually do walk with men.
Go to
Dec 2, 2013 09:07:46   #
Jersey guy wrote:
You're right, technically, but I wouldn't fault the manufacturers quite yet. To my knowledge, they almost universally use language like, "equivalent focal length".


And the focal lengths are clearly marked on the lenses.
Go to
Nov 29, 2013 12:27:02   #
cthahn wrote:
Probably not. If you had stayed with Nikon there would be no problem.


But he didn't and there is.
Go to
Nov 25, 2013 10:19:04   #
BboH wrote:
What I find interesting is the number of responses suggesting this or that PP program to merge the images when the question was about the IN-CAMERA feature.....
Am I missing something?


No. The question could be "Are you Canadian or American" and at least one reply would be "It's raining outside."
Go to
Nov 12, 2013 11:19:42   #
twillsol wrote:
I am sure he is referring to the fact that Lightroom is totally non destructive. You can go back to the original any time you want.


The point being it didn't answer the question. On a par with when a guy asks a question about a Canon and some guy responds with "Get a Nikon".
Go to
Nov 12, 2013 08:28:27   #
Rip Tragle wrote:
Use Lightroom.


So exactly how does running Lightroom bring up a "reset" button in ACR?
Go to
Oct 30, 2013 17:10:05   #
tturner wrote:
John Sexton started his career this way, for 20 years he only had one 4x5 camera and a 150mm lens. I also remember a quote "If you need more than one lens, you are not a photographer"

I once shot wedding this way with a 50mm on my 35mm body, it was the best wedding I ever did.


That quote pretty well dismisses Ansel Adams as a photographer.
Go to
Oct 29, 2013 13:50:32   #
camerapapi wrote:
We are talking about discipline here. You will see me often using my 1963 Nikon F with a prime lens, in this case an old 50mm f1.4 and a hand held exposure meter. When I do that I "zoom" with my feet and I do what I used to when film was more prevalent, select my subjects very carefully.
This view of the Miami buildings was made late in the evening, when there were still light colors in the sky. I used my Nikon F loaded with Fujifilm 200 set to ISO 160 on my Manfrotto tripod with a Linhof ballhead. I used my Minolta meter for the exposure, which I regret I cannot remember what it was.
We are talking about discipline here. You will see... (show quote)


You should have used a longer focal length as the "zoom" stopped at the water's edge. To get around that I used a C8 f10, 2000mm. Then to zoom out i only had to walk back a couple of miles. Unless there was water.


Go to
Oct 28, 2013 16:29:06   #
GaryS1964 wrote:
I'm a Canon man and I have a MK III but I wouldn't recommend he switch. The D800 is a good camera. If he's not getting good results then it's either operator error or it's always possible the camera is defective.

But until the OP posts a photo we are at a standstill and this thread will continue to wander aimlessly.:-)


I also own a MK III and wouldn't recommend he switch. But some of the previous answers make it sound like the camera is difficult to use. It's not. Just shoot on full auto and then read the manual. With photographers reading the manual first is usually not an option.
Go to
Oct 28, 2013 15:42:39   #
ROCKY JA wrote:
I had an old Graphex 4x5 camera that I enjoyed using. I learned an important lesson by using that camera. Do not waste film! I didn’t have a darkroom, so processing and printing one photo would cost me around $5.00.. Back then, 5 bucks was a lot of money.

So, before I squeezed off a shot, I double checked my composition, lighting, and any obscurity or objects in the background, or on the body, if it was a portraiture, that would ruin my final print. Than, and only then did I take the shot.

Now that we have digital cameras, I still treat each shot as if I was still paying that 5 bucks for the shot. I don’t pump off my shots and hope that one will come out great. As far as I’m concerned, I’m still shooting my Graphex 4x5 camera.. and rules are still the same.

I wish that all new photo enthusiast had the opportunity to use a land-camera and learn the importance of rechecking everything, before shooting that special image in front of him.

I wish I knew what I ever did with that camera. Hmmm.
I had an old Graphex 4x5 camera that I enjoyed usi... (show quote)


Probably sitting on a shelf in your garage right between your 8 track and your grandfather's gramophone. If not and you really miss it, then check out ebay; literally hundreds of them for sale.
By the way, you misspelled the name of your fondly remembered camera.
Go to
Oct 27, 2013 14:08:37   #
GaryS1964 wrote:
Post a picture that you are unhappy with so we can look at it and the meta data. Might help us figure out whats wrong.

One other thing. Have you tried shooting in full Auto mode to see how those images come out?


Best answer. Some of the other ones are going to make the poor guy want to run out and buy a MK III.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 84 85 86 87 88 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.