RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote: >Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus,
Plus the fact that the jockey appears to have a horsehair beard and the horse initially appears to have a stump for a near-hand foreleg.
Composition at its best.
As is suggested elsewhwere the shot was most likely prefocussed using the horse passing a pole in the background as the trigger. Which as the horses will all follow a fairly narrow band around the track - is not a particularly difficult thing to do.
Shame matey didn't wait for the next horse coming around the bend though, so as to get all of its legs outlined.
The modelling on the horse is solely the result of the way the sunlight falls at that hour of the day, again nothing to do with the camera.
And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, with its superb Leica lens? Bob Williams
Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....@la.poste.net> wrote: >RichA wrote: >> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> RichA wrote: >> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't have > been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, with its > superb Leica lens? > Bob Williams
Not enough Depth of Field for a short lens the same field of view with a FZ30 @64mm. The shot is not great, but not a P&S.
jurgenhaus wrote: > RichA wrote: >> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> Yeah... > It's OK but the buildings in the background are out of focus.
ROTFL.
Betcha that's what the P&S troll says. ;^)
-- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
jurgenhaus wrote: > RichA wrote: >> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:39:19 -0700, RichA wrote: > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote: > > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a > > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't > have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, > with its superb Leica lens? > Bob Williams
I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:39:19 -0700, RichA wrote: > > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a > > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
> Most likely, I wouldn't even want to try to do that with a P&S. Just like > I wouldn't attempt a 10 mile hike with a dslr and all it's gadgets.
I don't know. A compact DSLR with two lenses is not exactly massively heavy. Soldiers do hikes like that with 70lbs of gear. Is 3lbs going to kill you?
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >> RichA wrote: >> > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >> with its superb Leica lens?
>I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote in > <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams<mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>> RichA wrote: >>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 >>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>> with its superb Leica lens? >> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > super-zoom.<http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.
A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks, political events.. you name it.
When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more responsive camera.
The key to spontaneity is adequate preparation. And the right tools.
No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job. To put that in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast. If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a '63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to corner with it.
"John Navas" <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote in > <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>> RichA wrote: >>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
>>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>> with its superb Leica lens?
>> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
NavASS example: Underexposed, unbalanced and non-challenging snapshot of a close boring subject does NOT compare with the well-composed action shot at a great distance of man and animal at the exact moment that only Edison could prove with his camera.
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:55:48 -0700, Rich wrote: > On Jul 8, 11:05 am, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:39:19 -0700, RichA wrote: >> > Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >> > fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
>> Most likely, I wouldn't even want to try to do that with a P&S. Just >> like I wouldn't attempt a 10 mile hike with a dslr and all it's >> gadgets.
> I don't know. A compact DSLR with two lenses is not exactly massively > heavy. > Soldiers do hikes like that with 70lbs of gear. Is 3lbs going to kill > you?
Is it going to kill me? No, probably not. I also don't train to do hikes with 70 pounds of gear. Now, what two lenses are going to give me 28 to 450 equiv - and exactly how much do they weigh? I quite prefer to simply pack up my Kodak P850 and be on my way.
>On 07/08/09 12:27, John Navas wrote: >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com> >> wrote in >> <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams<mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>>> RichA wrote: >>>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. >>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 >>>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>>> with its superb Leica lens? >>> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >>> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> super-zoom.<http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
> While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try >capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.
The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (for example) can burst 5 frames at 3 fps, and shoot 2 fps indefinitely.
> A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big >Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks, >political events.. you name it.
> When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture >any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you >can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and >adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the >critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure >the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the >release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance >of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able >to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment >and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more >responsive camera.
For THAT, HE needs his Canons, presumably because of the way he works. I, OTOH, need my compact digital super-zooms because of the way I work. For me they have big handling and responsiveness advantages over a dSLR. "Different strokes for different folks."
> No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f >shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting >together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is >tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job.
>To put that >in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast. >If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a >'63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to >corner with it.
> The JOB determines the correctness of the tool.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> > wrote in > <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams <mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>> RichA wrote: >>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. >>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 >>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>> with its superb Leica lens? >> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need glasses. Like all miniature sensor cameras, detail is lost and the dynamic range has to be artificially compressed post shoot in a lame attempt to compensate for the inadequacies of the camera.
Very clearly, you haven't discovered yet the difference between colourful images and ones accurately defining both detail and colour.
-- D-Mac... Back from the near-dead! With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking. I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:15:15 +1000, D-Mac <p...@news.group> wrote in <7bk9htF240m9...@mid.individual.net>:
>John Navas wrote: >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need >glasses. ...
If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
In article <chs9559id2m8ev0urik193fp6v63d4o...@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their > >> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a > >> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
> >If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need > >glasses. ...
> If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless > has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. > ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed > to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
> On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:46:31 GMT, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterM...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in > <XX45m.428134$4m1.306...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>> On 07/08/09 12:27, John Navas wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich<rander3...@gmail.com> >>> wrote in >>> <069d3b65-bfc3-4188-893a-75541078c...@y17g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>:
>>>> On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams<mytbobnos...@cox.net> wrote: >>>>> RichA wrote: >>>>>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>>>>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome. >>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32315884 >>>>> And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't >>>>> have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, >>>>> with its superb Leica lens? >>>> I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and >>>> inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic. >>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>> super-zoom.<http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg> >> While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try >> capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.
> The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (for example) can burst 5 frames at 3 fps, and > shoot 2 fps indefinitely.
>> A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big >> Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks, >> political events.. you name it.
>> When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture >> any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you >> can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and >> adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the >> critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure >> the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the >> release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance >> of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able >> to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment >> and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more >> responsive camera.
> For THAT, HE needs his Canons, presumably because of the way he works. > I, OTOH, need my compact digital super-zooms because of the way I work. > For me they have big handling and responsiveness advantages over a dSLR. > "Different strokes for different folks."
>> No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f >> shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting >> together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is >> tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job.
>> To put that >> in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast. >> If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a >> '63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to >> corner with it.
>> The JOB determines the correctness of the tool.
> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, > you will see every problem as a nail." > -Abraham Maslow
You may wish to notice when someone is agreeing with you.
> On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:15:15 +1000, D-Mac <p...@news.group> wrote in > <7bk9htF240m9...@mid.individual.net>:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their >>> cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a >>> super-zoom. <http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg>
>> If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need >> glasses. ...
> If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless > has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder. > ;) None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed > to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."
Actually "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting." ...and in the case of your example you have a finely presented "pudding" which is lacking the flavor of one produced by a chef with a good oven.
Allen wrote: > jurgenhaus wrote: >> RichA wrote: >>> Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a >>> fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
|
