The Truth about Nikon Sensors (finally) ... for All the Sony Fanboys ...
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
Never said your photographs were bad, John. The macros are really awesome indeed.
How the hell do you get 27 shots of a living insect without it moving a hair? I can't even get close to them to take a single picture.. (Especially not bees or flies..).
Thank you.
By getting up very early, when it's cold, so they (and the air) move much less.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
But my point was about the camera.. Your pictures could've been taken with a Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, etc.
Hell, the Canon 65mm macro could've done these without reversing anything, if I'm correct about it's specs.
I had the MP-E 65mm. Great lens (the only Canon lens I miss).
Do you realize the MP-E is essentially a zoom lens, reversed and doctored with a tripod collar?
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
But I'm not a macro person..
The only decent macro I ever took.. handheld.. and on a decade old Canon DSLR
Nice image.
For perspective, the spider I photographed would cover half your girlfriend's pupil (size-wise).
Me, I am not much of a landscape person. I just take 'habitat' shots, to document the terrain, but I really concentrate on trying to do well in my macro work (or, lately, birds, etc.)
Been doing macro for 10 years ... bird, about 1.
Next year I will try to do better in both landscape and bird (and other) photography besides macro.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
You may continue rambling on and on about the superiority of your Nikon camera, but there hasn't been a single image that even remotely demanded the plus in dynamic range that a Nikon offers. Not even close (several stops from it, in fact!)
Camera and lenses.
It's better to have extra abilities, and not need them, then it is to need extra abilities, and not have them.
That's why I shoot Nikon ... and make every effort to buy the best lenses for the focal range(s) I am interested in that I can afford.
The Truth about Nikon Sensors (finally) ... for All the Sony Fanboys ...
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
Never said your photographs were bad, John. The macros are really awesome indeed.
How the hell do you get 27 shots of a living insect without it moving a hair? I can't even get close to them to take a single picture.. (Especially not bees or flies..).
Thank you.
By getting up very early, when it's cold, so they (and the air) move much less.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
But my point was about the camera.. Your pictures could've been taken with a Canon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, etc.
Hell, the Canon 65mm macro could've done these without reversing anything, if I'm correct about it's specs.
I had the MP-E 65mm. Great lens (the only Canon lens I miss).
Do you realize the MP-E is essentially a zoom lens, reversed and doctored with a tripod collar?
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
But I'm not a macro person..
The only decent macro I ever took.. handheld.. and on a decade old Canon DSLR
Nice image.
For perspective, the spider I photographed would cover half your girlfriend's pupil (size-wise).
Me, I am not much of a landscape person. I just take 'habitat' shots, to document the terrain, but I really concentrate on trying to do well in my macro work (or, lately, birds, etc.)
Been doing macro for 10 years ... bird, about 1.
Next year I will try to do better in both landscape and bird (and other) photography besides macro.
mbphoto_2.8 wrote:
You may continue rambling on and on about the superiority of your Nikon camera, but there hasn't been a single image that even remotely demanded the plus in dynamic range that a Nikon offers. Not even close (several stops from it, in fact!)
Camera and lenses.
It's better to have extra abilities, and not need them, then it is to need extra abilities, and not have them.
That's why I shoot Nikon ... and make every effort to buy the best lenses for the focal range(s) I am interested in that I can afford.
Sep 16, 2017 at 04:54 PM
Previous versions of JohnK007's message #14184143 « The Truth about Nikon Sensors (finally) ... for All the Sony Fanboys ... »
