I've never been there but my hubby was there when he was in the Navy, many years ago. He said he didn't much care for the place, to restrictive and not much to do and no where to go. He once described it as a paradise with a barbed wire boarder. Problem was, most of it was on the other side of the fence. I like your photo, it's interesting, sceren.
If you can't afford software like Lightroom or Photoshop, there are alternatives like Paint Shop and Paint Shop Pro.
I've never paid more than $3600 for a camera and one of my current favorites only cost just over $500 for full featured 24 megapixel DSLR. Lenses on the other hand can get real expensive.
She's a pretty little thing.
Average; nothing special.
Rob48 wrote:
No need to apologize, Blaster; everything is political with these people. Liberals have made being offended into an art form.
Something tells me you don't even know what the true definition of a liberal is. You do realize that all the rights you have as an American ( I'm just assuming you are an American, I apologise if you are not ) were thought of and guaranteed by "Liberals".
Acountry330 wrote:
Yes, But all of those megapixels are nice to have,
Darn right they are nice to have...!
Pablo8 wrote:
Just trying to keep the 'Bragging-Rites' of the High MP brigade under control.
I don't get your point. Yes, I own a Canon EOS 5DSr, but I certainly wasn't bragging about it. In fact I was pointing out how I use my lower resolution cameras far more often than the higher resolution 5DSr. In fact, one of my favorite cameras for every day use, my snap shooter if you will is my 24 megapixel EOS SL2, with an EF 24-105L lens attached. It's a great camera combo for both stills and video.
Pablo8 wrote:
I would expect a 50 megapixel image to not need any editing!!
One of the biggest advantages of the 50 megapixel camera is the remarkably awesome resolution inherent to all those millions and millions of pixels and how one can crop the image and end up with another image that still has pretty darn good resolution.
GrandmaG wrote:
Why not a gimbal on a monopod?
Same problem as anything on a monopoly, even the ones with little legs. You have to be holding it all the time. With a tripod you can do other things with your hands than supporting a camera on a stick.
Yes I have monopods that are self supporting. They are fine if all they are supporting is a speedlight. I'm not about to even attempt to try to support a $2000 lens on a $3600 camera body with a self supporting monopods, that's a recipe for disaster; the slightest gust of wind and there goes that Sigma 150-600 Sport crashing on to the ground.
The best route to take in this situation is a tripod and a gamble.
For those that believe you shouldn't use a zoom lens on a gimbal, well, you usually have the lens zoomed all the way out anyway so it doesn't really matter.
I can't tell you what gimbal to buy but I can tell you, don't get a cheap one. The cheap ones wear out too quickly and are a big headache. I have two gimbals, they cost around $250 each and they have the word pro in their name. Are they pro gimbals? I don't know, what makes a gimbal a pro gimbal?! Am I happy with them? Yes, very much.
Someone suggested a monopoly instead of a gimbal. Hey, to each their own, except, it would be very difficult for a monopoly to stand on its own and even more difficult to operate two cameras if they were on monopods.