Very nice pictures she has taken. BUT with a cheap lens I wonder how well they would print. If all I ever did was post 800px wide pictures on the web I wouldn't mind shooting with a kit lens.
Well, Fred is right, it is a time of anxiety for Canon users. Time for Canon to release a definitive answer to the D800 and at a 5D price.
Talking more generally, sometimes the threads here are a bit lightweight, but these still fulfil an important function. We are like neighbours in a global village, sometimes talking sense, sometimes just talking rubbish. We come here, partly, so as not to bore our wifes/partners/families/friends to death with our photo obsessions. For myself, I can't resist the UV/or no UV filter threads, just can't help replying. FM is partly a university, partly a pub.
In amongst the tripe there is also a huge amount of wisdom, I have learned alot from FMers, even, or sometimes especially, from the eccentrics, the trollers etc. There is wisdom of many kinds here free of charge, I am grateful for all of it.
Bad week for Canon shooters, that's all. The D800 looks awesome, and Canon releases a couple primes no one wants, and an upgrade that people have been waiting years for, for a big price without features many expected (IS).
The big picture can't be seen from where we sit, and that's frustrating. But, for some it's fun to come on here and vent those frustrations. Good news for those that don't like it, is that no one is forcing you to read through the threads (at least I hope not! )
As an Indianapolis Colts fan with a star quarterback that "might" be hurt or get cut, and a future quarterback who "might" end up a star someday, I can understand the frustration for not knowing what the future will bring, even on issues as trivial as photography gear and/or sports.
Marcus Watts wrote:
Oh no, Nikon board are laughing at us?
Seriously bud come onto the forum and click on the discussions that you want to. Pretty freaky that what others wish to discuss bothers you.
This is the lamest excuse to shut one eye on these endless useless threads...
I was just expressing an opinion....
How others create endless threads about ...pretty much nothing...I think I'm entitled to an opinion on that...
If yo click on the Canon sub-forum...you pretty much have no room to click except on crappy threads lately....(i'm referring to the lame rumour ones...)
I wouldn't go as far as to say it 'bothers' me...I don't have anything against those people....it just seems a bit imature and fanboy-ish...
It's like re-iterating the same questions/polls/stuff all over again and again...
And also...you can have an opinion regarding MY opinion on THEIR opinion on CANON's opinion
Monito wrote:
Those photos under discussion are relatively ordinary stuff over-amped to the point of near psychedelic super-saturation, probably in Photomatix.
I was afraid to be the first to put a comment like that.
David Baldwin wrote:
Well, Fred is right, it is a time of anxiety for Canon users. Time for Canon to release a definitive answer to the D800 and at a 5D price.
Talking more generally, sometimes the threads here are a bit lightweight, but these still fulfil an important function. We are like neighbours in a global village, sometimes talking sense, sometimes just talking rubbish. We come here, partly, so as not to bore our wifes/partners/families/friends to death with our photo obsessions. For myself, I can't resist the UV/or no UV filter threads, just can't help replying. FM is partly a university, partly a pub.
In amongst the tripe there is also a huge amount of wisdom, I have learned alot from FMers, even, or sometimes especially, from the eccentrics, the trollers etc. There is wisdom of many kinds here free of charge, I am grateful for all of it....Show more →
Nicely put.
That's why I starter this thread in the first place... All in all this forum seems like a place where one can learn something new,share something with others.....and that something should be more than just plain speculations on upcoming bodies
Fred Miranda wrote:
Recently I came across a local San Clemente shooter. She shoots with a Rebel XSi coupled with the kit lens. (18-55mm)
Look what she can do with this "equipment". That should put the gear talk into perspective. http://www.flickr.com/photos/didenze/sets/72157625201623175/
It isn't just what CAN be done...........because anyone CAN shoot great photos with any camera, and anyone CAN do HDR, Stitching, etc. And anyone CAN learn photoshop...
Although, you couldn't do with a Rebel XSi some things that CAN be done with other modern cameras requiring 1. 1/8000 shutter speed, 2. ISO6400 or higher (e.g. sports activities in limited light)...but the rest CAN be done...
But when the system is heavily dependent on a few critical features...like autofocus, for instance...and the system is inconsistent, inaccurate, limited to only one good focus point that gets about 70-80% hits, etc...then everything that depends on that feature to be consistent and reliable becomes much...LESS consistent, much harder to do, etc...
So you could shoot sports with a Rebel XSi IF there is enough light, and you could get some good shots IF the autofocus accurately locks the subject...or if you are extremely good with your camera you could increase your odds of getting good shots...but a better system, with better implementation of the critical feature required to get a higher number of good shots, makes the good shots easier to reliably and consistently get. It CAN (and most likely will) lead to a better overall photo product by giving greater variety of successful "HIT" shots that were in focus, etc...and having your photos come out sharp and the way you want them to leads to a better "photographic experience..."
And if you don't have to worry about that critical thing NOT working consistently every time you need it to, then you can spend less time worrying, repeating shots, taking extra time to check if the camera focused correctly, etc., and spend more time thinking about compositions and getting more shots and doing more good stuff...
So it isn't really just about what a camera CAN do...it's also how well, how easily, how quickly...which leads to improvement in other areas. Effort expended to work around a piece of equipment is effort that COULD have been spent improving one's overall skill/competence in the field the equipment is used for.
Monito wrote:
Those photos under discussion are relatively ordinary stuff over-amped to the point of near psychedelic super-saturation, probably in Photomatix.
adrianb wrote:
I was afraid to be the first to put a comment like that.
I'll second that
Yeah, those are super boring pics lacking any real asthetics. We see those kinds of pictures posted all the time.
So you don't want to talk about gear. You don't want to talk about nice photography. What exactly do you want to talk about?
jdben622 wrote:
Yeah, those are super boring pics lacking any real asthetics. We see those kinds of pictures posted all the time.
Not super boring, just kind of ordinary. Not lacking any real aesthetics, just lacking great aesthetics. We do see those kinds of pictures posted all the time. [no eyes]
Those photos don't have great composition. The compositions tend to be slightly above average, but nothing noteworthy. The treatment of colour is garish and ludicrously over-done. There is little effective use of technique. Where a longer exposure was used it had little effect except a faint blurring of the water. Basically the photos are rather "obvious".
If among them there is a photograph that you find particularly striking and original and illustrative of outstanding aesthetics, then please feel free to point it out and describe well those points.
jdben622 wrote:
So you don't want to talk about gear. You don't want to talk about nice photography. What exactly do you want to talk about?
Gear and great photography. Which we (and I) do talk about. However, the voluminous kvetching and hand-wringing about equipment that people feel they are owed by the company (Owed, I tell you!) is crowding out the talk about gear and how to use it to, you know, make photographs.
About "nice" photography: "Nice" is what mothers say. I seek great photography, stunningly good photography, breathtaking photography.
Fred's point in highlighting those photos is that the photographer actually gets out there, frequently, to make decent photographs with rather ordinary equipment (which would have been truly awesome equipment if it were available 30 years ago). Kudos to the photographer for making photographs and sharing them and best wishes to progress and continue to obtain satisfaction.
Monito wrote:
Not super boring, just kind of ordinary. Not lacking any real aesthetics, just lacking great aesthetics. We do see those kinds of pictures posted all the time. [no eyes]
Those photos don't have great composition. The compositions tend to be slightly above average, but nothing noteworthy. The treatment of colour is garish and ludicrously over-done. There is little effective use of technique. Where a longer exposure was used it had little effect except a faint blurring of the water. Basically the photos are rather "obvious".
If among them there is a photograph that you find particularly striking and original and illustrative of outstanding aesthetics, then please feel free to point it out and describe well those points.
Gear and great photography. Which we (and I) do talk about. However, the voluminous kvetching and hand-wringing about equipment that people feel they are owed by the company (Owed, I tell you!) is crowding out the talk about gear and how to use it to, you know, make photographs.
About "nice" photography: "Nice" is what mothers say. I seek great photography, stunningly good photography, breathtaking photography.
Fred's point in highlighting those photos is that the photographer actually gets out there, frequently, to make decent photographs with rather ordinary equipment (which would have been truly awesome equipment if it were available 30 years ago). Kudos to the photographer for making photographs and sharing them and best wishes to progress and continue to obtain satisfaction....Show more →
There are 9 presentation forums to discuss great photography. You are bitching about gear threads on the gear forum. Product specs is a part of gear. Might as well go to the B&S forum and bitch about people buying too much equipment.
form wrote:
It isn't just what CAN be done...........because anyone CAN shoot great photos with any camera, and anyone CAN do HDR, Stitching, etc. And anyone CAN learn photoshop...
Although, you couldn't do with a Rebel XSi some things that CAN be done with other modern cameras requiring 1. 1/8000 shutter speed, 2. ISO6400 or higher (e.g. sports activities in limited light)...but the rest CAN be done...
But when the system is heavily dependent on a few critical features...like autofocus, for instance...and the system is inconsistent, inaccurate, limited to only one good focus point that gets about 70-80% hits, etc...then everything that depends on that feature to be consistent and reliable becomes much...LESS consistent, much harder to do, etc...
So you could shoot sports with a Rebel XSi IF there is enough light, and you could get some good shots IF the autofocus accurately locks the subject...or if you are extremely good with your camera you could increase your odds of getting good shots...but a better system, with better implementation of the critical feature required to get a higher number of good shots, makes the good shots easier to reliably and consistently get. It CAN (and most likely will) lead to a better overall photo product by giving greater variety of successful "HIT" shots that were in focus, etc...and having your photos come out sharp and the way you want them to leads to a better "photographic experience..."
And if you don't have to worry about that critical thing NOT working consistently every time you need it to, then you can spend less time worrying, repeating shots, taking extra time to check if the camera focused correctly, etc., and spend more time thinking about compositions and getting more shots and doing more good stuff...
So it isn't really just about what a camera CAN do...it's also how well, how easily, how quickly...which leads to improvement in other areas. Effort expended to work around a piece of equipment is effort that COULD have been spent improving one's overall skill/competence in the field the equipment is used for. ...Show more →
I totally agree...and might add that there is a fine line between acknowledging that a 5Dc with a 17-40 L is much better than a Xsi with 18-55 and the exaggerated need of some to have the latest gizmo....
If you're only gonna shoot static stuff...the 5Dc /5D II is a wonderful camera....but try having a go at sports with it and you will see how crippled you feel by your 2000 $ body....
I will always appreciate when somebody does something with their camera...that others (most) were unable to do (with that same type of camera)...
I will always try to credit the photographer for the end results,not the body...the lenses...the high clean iso... etc
jdben622 wrote:
There are 9 presentation forums to discuss great photography. You are bitching about gear threads on the gear forum. Product specs is a part of gear. Might as well go to the B&S forum and bitch about people buying too much equipment.
Still why are you bitchin' about our bitchin' ?
It's a free bitchin' forum (by the looks of the canon threads)
If you want,we can add some 5D crappy AF flavor to it,so it's more natural...
jdben622 wrote:
There are 9 presentation forums to discuss great photography. You are bitching about gear threads on the gear forum.
I did not set out to discuss photographs, great or not so great. Take your complaint to the numerous people fawning over this set. Someone dares to not fawn and so therefore you complain about discussing photographs.
Gear threads on a gear forum are great. The endless kvetching about hypothetical cameras and how Canon is so stupid; well, that's not gear or great. Repeated threats to sell their equipment in April if Canon doesn't announce their dream camera at their dream price by March do much to stoke their egos but does little to advance discussion of how to use gear creatively. That some people don't like the autofocus on the 5D Mark II is understandable but after three years it is not news or enlightening.
Monito wrote:
Those photos under discussion are relatively ordinary stuff over-amped to the point of near psychedelic super-saturation, probably in Photomatix.
) 
