I made some more flower pix today, testing the repeatability of results. To my eye, they're just as good, if not better for the lack of a breeze. This little camera strikes me dumb with awe (yeah, yeah dumb -- that'll be the day). Ergonomically and for picture quality, it is a superlative instrument: dinky sensor be damned.
All of the attached were HAND HELD by 81 YO geezer.
22' camera to subject; 1200mm, stabilizer on, Intelligent Auto
Same
Same except 13', shade.
GHO
Loc: Rock # 3
0627ramram32 wrote:
I made some more flower pix today, testing the repeatability of results. To my eye, they're just as good, if not better for the lack of a breeze. This little camera strikes me dumb with awe (yeah, yeah dumb -- that'll be the day). Ergonomically and for picture quality, it is a superlative instrument: dinky sensor be damned.
All of the attached were HAND HELD by 81 YO geezer.
Looks very steady, tell me this 81 YO geezer is still breathing!
Kidding aside these are much better then a lot I've seen from $$$equipment.
GHO
Loc: Rock # 3
0627ramram32 wrote:
I made some more flower pix today, testing the repeatability of results. To my eye, they're just as good, if not better for the lack of a breeze. This little camera strikes me dumb with awe (yeah, yeah dumb -- that'll be the day). Ergonomically and for picture quality, it is a superlative instrument: dinky sensor be damned.
All of the attached were HAND HELD by 81 YO geezer.
Looks very steady, tell me this 81 YO geezer is still breathing!
Kidding aside these are much better then a lot I've seen from $$$equipment.
What's the big deal - at your age, you're too slow to move very fast anyway. (Nice shots!!)
You are right as rain, unless you count tremors as 'movement'. Thanks for the 'nice'.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.