bobbyjohn wrote:
There is one flaw in this set of equations, leading to an impossible conclusion that 1=2. Can you find it?
If a=b
B cannot equal a+b as a and b have the same value.
Roadrunner wrote:
Very well done, Sir
Thanks Roadrunner. Much appreciated.
I have been a Nikon shooter for many years. I shot with the D70, the D200, the miraculous D700, and the superb D810. I have also experimented with the Sony A7Rii but found I missed the rich Nikon colours. Recently I traded two of my Sony lenses and some cash for the mirrorless Nikon Z7 with the 24-70mm F4 S, the Nikkor 50mm f1.8 S and the current adaptor which I use with my Nikkor 16-35 f4.
I hate to admit I'm still on the fence with this camera. I'm posting a couple of Z7 photos so others of you who are sitting on the fence can see the camera as it is being used in the real world.
From my previous experience when I shot with the D700 and the D810 perfect white balance and pleasing colour were just something that happened. A little bit of tweaking and one was good to go. With the Z7 I find I have to work at it using a colour checker as my base and proceed from there. Admittedly the Z7 can be hand held at ridiculously low speeds and the ibis is exceptional but it's still a question of trust.
With a planned trip to Germany coming up shortly I am still leaning towards lugging the trusty D810 and trinity of lenses with me and leaving the Z7 on the shelf. Once I have convinced myself that it can consistently perform it can join me on future travels but not until then.
I would be very interested in hearing about your experiences with the little Nikon mirrorless.
Nikkor 16-35 with adaptor, f18, 1/80, iso 160
(
Download)
Nikkor 16-35 with adaptor, f14, 1/160, iso 320
(
Download)
Nikkor 16-35 with adaptor, f14, 1/125, iso 320
(
Download)
Nikkor 16-35 with adaptor, f20, 1/180, iso 320
(
Download)
Roadrunner wrote:
Actually this is only a fun thing, playing around, and three shots or more still do the job. Different times of day, played with, whatever you eye sees but with keeping the principal subject visible.
Hope to see you.....................
Here are three shots of Ottawa's old city hall taken at different times of the day.
I
A. T. wrote:
I currently own what I would consider to be a medium-sized CF tripod; however, I am 6'6" tall and when using my tripod, I have to extend the single middle section of the tripod to get enough height for me to comfortably view my subject. I really don't want to break the bank for a tripod but I do need something taller that won't require extending that center section which causes stabilization issues. Any advice would be extremely appreciated.
I’m only 6’2 but I use a carbon fibre Sirui tripod. When I purchased it about 5 years ago it was acknowledged as the most stable tripod on the market. It has served me well. It is also relatively light not much heavier than the gitzo traveller but at half the price. I believe I paid just over $500 CA including the recommended sirui ball head versus $1,300 for the gitzo and rrs ballhead. I highly recommend the sirui pairings. They easily handle my Nikon D810 and nikkor 70-200 f2.8 v2
I have the sirui m-3204x tripod and K-30x ballhead. Don’t let the low price put you off. When I shoot the gitzo stays at home. Their US website is siruiusa.com. Global office is sirui.com. They also have an office in Toronto.
Photogirl17 wrote:
Great set AH..Pg. 23
Thanks Photogirl. What i’m Struck by is the similarity of the construction for the covered bridges. The one in Wakefield is almost identical to some of the others that have been posted.
photophile wrote:
I like to share the many types of bridges in our area and would like to see yours also:
A few bridges from the Ottawa Valley
Covered Bridge at Wakefield, Quebec
(
Download)
Minto Bridge on the Rideau River
(
Download)
The O Train Bridge at Carleton University
(
Download)
The Champlain Bridge Across the Ottawa River
(
Download)
Under the Patterson Creek Bridge, Ottawa
(
Download)
S
Photogirl17 wrote:
I gather from your response to Patogoraphy that the Handsome Bloke in the Photo was indeed yourself..
You had beautiful Hair..But like they say "Hair Today and Gone Tomorrow"..
Thanks Karin. You’re right on both counts.
Photogirl17 wrote:
Nice Portrait, He's got Beautiful Hair..Pg. 23
Thanks Photogirl. Today he has just a little more grey and a lot less hair.
PAToGraphy wrote:
p.23 And still a heart stopping portrait. The colors, softness and folds of the shirt plus a pensive, handsome young man really came together in this image - Timeless and priceless
Thanks Pat, it’s been a great ride. My barber eventually got the hair, my daughter got my shirt and my wife of 40 years still has all that remains.
RichardQ wrote:
This is a wide-ranging subject, not limited to humans. Of course, your personal coiffure -- past or present -- whether as a selfie or snapped by a spouse, is fine. If you got it, flaunt it! But anything or everything that even faintly resembles hair is fair game! (Are there hairy fish?) Pets of all kinds, wild critters, bugs and birds, babies and crazy teeners, Halloweeners in costume -- you name it. Go to it.
When hair seemed important. Yellowknife circa 1970.