Taking The Long Way Home With Nikon!!

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the great
action, I decided to take the long way home. I'm so glad I did since the
old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>





Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 8:32*am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the great
> action, I decided to take the long way home. *I'm so glad I did since the
> old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>
>
> Rita

Gee, with the bokeh that the Formidable-able500 has ben showing of
late, I expected it to look more like this...
http://pixelpix.com.au/samples/Formidableable500.jpg LOL! ;)

[Ext User(Boskey)]

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote in message
news:13nlg58sb483sdf@news.supernews.com...
> After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the great
> action, I decided to take the long way home. I'm so glad I did since the
> old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rita
I guess we now know what it takes to make you happy... an old D3!

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

>> After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the
>> great action, I decided to take the long way home. I'm so glad I did
>> since the old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.
>>
>> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>
>
> Gee, with the bokeh that the Formidable-able500 has ben showing of
> late, I expected it to look more like this...
> http://pixelpix.com.au/samples/Formidableable500.jpg LOL! ;)

Oh well, it is what it is. I guess you are going to have to get used to it
because that's all you are going to get. You never did show me some of that
wonderful bokeh you get from your 500. LOL! ;)




Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 10:23*am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> >> After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the
> >> great action, I decided to take the long way home. I'm so glad I did
> >> since the old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.
>
> >> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>
>
> > Gee, with the bokeh that the Formidable-able500 has ben showing of
> > late, I expected it to look more like this...
> >http://pixelpix.com.au/samples/Formidableable500.jpg*LOL! ;)
>
> Oh well, it is what it is. *I guess you are going to have to get used toit
> because that's all you are going to get. *You never did show me some of that
> wonderful bokeh you get from your 500. *LOL! ;)
>
> Rita

I don't have a 500, but thats not the point.... poor bokeh is still
poor bokeh and it results in less than impressive images. So many of
us would rather use other equipment to achieve our desired results,
rather than accept images that we consider are sub-par.

[Ext User(M-M)]

In article <13nlg58sb483sdf@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> After having a great day out with the old Nikkor catching all the great
> action, I decided to take the long way home. I'm so glad I did since the
> old D3 wasn't ready to be tucked in just yet.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/going_long.htm>

For 1/5 the cost and less than one stop slower you could have this if
you don't mind manual focusing:

http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/camera.html#FS

--
m-m

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

> I don't have a 500, but thats not the point.... poor bokeh is still
> poor bokeh and it results in less than impressive images. So many of
> us would rather use other equipment to achieve our desired results,
> rather than accept images that we consider are sub-par.

You gotta work with what you have. I'm happy, that's all that matters.
Like I said, maybe you could show me one of your images that has a very busy
background and has surrounding clutter? I looked at your site and while I
see some fine images, they are in an environment that is very sterile and
void. Shoot some birds in thick brush with your favorite bokeh producing
lens and post a pic that doesn't have any Tennessee bokeh Photoshopped in
and I will strive to learn from you. Oh, let's not forget that I'm using a
2x TC as well. So throw a 2x TC on that lens as well.





Rita

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

M-M wrote:

> For 1/5 the cost and less than one stop slower you could have this if
> you don't mind manual focusing:
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/camera.html#FS

Cool! Can you shoot it handheld and get good results?




Rita

[Ext User(M-M)]

In article <13nlou487d8tnfa@news.supernews.com>,
Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:

> M-M wrote:
>
> > For 1/5 the cost and less than one stop slower you could have this if
> > you don't mind manual focusing:
> >
> > http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/camera.html#FS
>
> Cool! Can you shoot it handheld and get good results?

With the straight-through version, likely as good as you can get
handheld with the 2xTC. It is about 1/2 stop slower (f/8 vs f/12.2)
though easier to hold. But the angled eyepiece is made for a tripod.

I'd like to see a photo of the moon handheld with the TC. Or without.
--
m-m

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 11:03*am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> > I don't have a 500, but thats not the point.... poor bokeh is still
> > poor bokeh and it results in less than impressive images. *So many of
> > us would rather use other equipment to achieve our desired results,
> > rather than accept images that we consider are sub-par.
>
> You gotta work with what you have. *I'm happy, that's all that matters.
> Like I said, maybe you could show me one of your images that has a very busy
> background and has surrounding clutter? *I looked at your site and whileI
> see some fine images, they are in an environment that is very sterile and
> void. *Shoot some birds in thick brush with your favorite bokeh producing
> lens and post a pic that doesn't have any Tennessee bokeh Photoshopped in
> and I will strive to learn from you. *Oh, let's not forget that I'm using a
> 2x TC as well. So throw a 2x TC on that lens as well.
>
> Rita


70-200 2.8L IS plus 1.4x....

http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6153.jpg

http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6149.jpg

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

>> You gotta work with what you have. I'm happy, that's all that
>> matters. Like I said, maybe you could show me one of your images
>> that has a very busy background and has surrounding clutter? I
>> looked at your site and while I see some fine images, they are in an
>> environment that is very sterile and void. Shoot some birds in thick
>> brush with your favorite bokeh producing lens and post a pic that
>> doesn't have any Tennessee bokeh Photoshopped in and I will strive
>> to learn from you. Oh, let's not forget that I'm using a 2x TC as
>> well. So throw a 2x TC on that lens as well.
>
> 70-200 2.8L IS plus 1.4x....
>
> http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6153.jpg

Yep, same thing in the way *distant* background. It's a nice pic, but it's
not that challenging and doesn't have the branches around and in front of
the bird that one has to shoot through. Seems we both got crappy lenses?
That lens would fail miserably if you were shooting trough the branches.

> http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6149.jpg

Not bad. Again, it's not a challenging shot and has no obstacles to shoot
through. These are gravy shots that don't get any easier.

Here's a bland shot on your site that looks like you had a bit of trouble
with that needed a little bit of massaging in Photoshop.

http://www.pixelpix.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/spoonbill_2.jpg




Rita

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

M-M wrote:

> I'd like to see a photo of the moon handheld with the TC. Or without.

I'll have to give it a try.



Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 1:27 pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> >> You gotta work with what you have. I'm happy, that's all that
> >> matters. Like I said, maybe you could show me one of your images
> >> that has a very busy background and has surrounding clutter? I
> >> looked at your site and while I see some fine images, they are in an
> >> environment that is very sterile and void. Shoot some birds in thick
> >> brush with your favorite bokeh producing lens and post a pic that
> >> doesn't have any Tennessee bokeh Photoshopped in and I will strive
> >> to learn from you. Oh, let's not forget that I'm using a 2x TC as
> >> well. So throw a 2x TC on that lens as well.
>
> > 70-200 2.8L IS plus 1.4x....
>
> >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6...
>
> Yep, same thing in the way *distant* background. It's a nice pic, but it's
> not that challenging and doesn't have the branches around and in front of
> the bird that one has to shoot through. Seems we both got crappy lenses?
> That lens would fail miserably if you were shooting trough the branches.

Grabbing at straws are we?... that image is a prime candidate for the
Formidable-able500 double-blur bokeh and yet it displays non of it.
Branches in front have nothing to do with it.

>
> >http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6...
>
> Not bad. Again, it's not a challenging shot and has no obstacles to shoot
> through. These are gravy shots that don't get any easier.

again, foreground branches have nothing to do with it. But again the
background bokeh would have gone to crap with the Formidable-able500.

>
> Here's a bland shot on your site that looks like you had a bit of trouble
> with that needed a little bit of massaging in Photoshop.
>
> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/spoonbill_2.jpg
>

Wow an old one from 10 or 20D days.... no photoshop massaging there
at all.

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

>>> http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6...
>>
>> Yep, same thing in the way *distant* background. It's a nice pic,
>> but it's not that challenging and doesn't have the branches around
>> and in front of the bird that one has to shoot through. Seems we
>> both got crappy lenses? That lens would fail miserably if you were
>> shooting trough the branches.
>
> Grabbing at straws are we?... that image is a prime candidate for the
> Formidable-able500 double-blur bokeh and yet it displays non of it.
> Branches in front have nothing to do with it.

What straws? I think if you are going make comparisons you need to compare
apples to apples. Well, you know this that's why you won't post an image as
I suggested. It really doesn't matter what you say since the old Nikkor is
a great lens and I'm very happy with it. After comparing it to the 500/4L
IS this old Nikkor is way better. And yes, branches *do* have a lot to do
with it. I don't mind you trolling me since I'll play along with you, I'm
bored tonight.

>>> http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6...
>>
>> Not bad. Again, it's not a challenging shot and has no obstacles to
>> shoot through. These are gravy shots that don't get any easier.
>
> again, foreground branches have nothing to do with it. But again the
> background bokeh would have gone to crap with the Formidable-able500.

Really? Prove it. Shoot a bird through some branches and come back and let
us know what you find.

>> Here's a bland shot on your site that looks like you had a bit of
>> trouble with that needed a little bit of massaging in Photoshop.
>>
>> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/spoonbill_2.jpg
>>
>
> Wow an old one from 10 or 20D days.... no photoshop massaging there
> at all.

What does the body have to do with the optics of the lens. You had
distracting crap in that image that you felt the need to remove, a poor job
at that. It's not a problem, just be honest with yourself. Even a Canon
lens couldn't produce that level of crap in an image.




Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 2:43*pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> >>>http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6....
>
> >> Yep, same thing in the way *distant* background. *It's a nice pic,
> >> but it's not that challenging and doesn't have the branches around
> >> and in front of the bird that one has to shoot through. *Seems we
> >> both got crappy lenses? That lens would fail miserably if you were
> >> shooting trough the branches.
>
> > Grabbing at straws are we?... that image is a prime candidate for the
> > Formidable-able500 double-blur bokeh and yet it displays non of it.
> > Branches in front have nothing to do with it.
>
> What straws? *I think if you are going make comparisons you need to compare
> apples to apples. *Well, you know this that's why you won't post an image as
> I suggested. *

The images posted are perfect for background bokeh comparison.

> It really doesn't matter what you say since the old Nikkor is
> a great lens and I'm very happy with it. *After comparing it to the 500/4L
> IS this old Nikkor is way better. *And yes, branches *do* have a lot to do
> with it. *I don't mind you trolling me since I'll play along with you, I'm
> bored tonight.
>
> >>>http://www.potd.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/LamingtonNP_I7U6....
>
> >> Not bad. *Again, it's not a challenging shot and has no obstacles to
> >> shoot through. *These are gravy shots that don't get any easier.
>
> > again, foreground branches have nothing to do with it. *But again the
> > background bokeh would have gone to crap with the Formidable-able500.
>
> Really? *Prove it. *Shoot a bird through some branches and come back and let
> us know what you find.

Please explain to me WTF foreground branches have to do with
background bokeh??

>
> >> Here's a bland shot on your site that looks like you had a bit of
> >> trouble with that needed a little bit of massaging in Photoshop.
>
> >>http://www.pixelpix.com.au/gallery/albums/userpics/10001/spoonbill_2.jpg
>
> > Wow an old one from 10 or 20D days.... *no photoshop massaging there
> > at all.
>
> What does the body have to do with the optics of the lens. *

Did I say it did just then? I was merely making a comment on how old
the image was.

But now that you mention it.... it will change the FOV and a change in
sensor size will mean that a change in CoC must be considered with any
DOF calc to a given print size.... then of course there is pixel
density and the cameras ability to resolve what the image that the
lens produces..... so while the "optics" don't change, there are
other factors that need to considered as part of what the optics are
capable of producing as part of an imaging "system".

> You had
> distracting crap in that image that you felt the need to remove, a poor job
> at that. *It's not a problem, just be honest with yourself. *Even a Canon
> lens couldn't produce that level of crap in an image.
>
> Rita

There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. So you
are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

> There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. So you
> are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.

LOL! Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit out of
his images. Stop your trolling and blow smoke up someone else's ass.




Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 3:09*pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> > There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. *So you
> > are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.
>
> LOL! *Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit out of
> his images. *Stop your trolling and blow smoke up someone else's ass.
>
> Rita

Ah yes... the young padawan has learned well from his master D-Mac and
has adopted the "ignore the questions asked, redirect with false
statements and hope that the thread goes away" approach.

LOL

[Ext User(Annika1980)]

On Jan 2, 12:09*am, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> > There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. *So you
> > are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.
>
> LOL! *Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit out of
> his images. *

The facts are that I have posted a great deal of uncropped, actual-
size images from my D60, 20D and 40D.

Here is just one of them:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73661889/original

To my knowledge you have never posted a full-sized image .... and no,
1024x768 is not full-sized.
So Rusty is exactly correct .... you are full of shit.
I just don't know why it took him so long to figure that out.

Perhaps if you used a real photo-sharing site instead of GeoCrap you
could post a pic full-size.

[Ext User(Rita Ä Berkowitz)]

PixelPix wrote:

>>> There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. So
>>> you are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.
>>
>> LOL! Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit
>> out of his images. Stop your trolling and blow smoke up someone
>> else's ass.
>
> Ah yes... the young padawan has learned well from his master D-Mac and
> has adopted the "ignore the questions asked, redirect with false
> statements and hope that the thread goes away" approach.

You're a funny man, that's for sure. Like I said, I don't mind playing with
you, but don't think that I don't know when to get off when you start going
in circles. There wasn't a question to ignore. Once you start comparing
apples to apple maybe we can revisit this. And no, I hope that the thread
doesn't go away, you've been a real blast.

Anyway, two can play that game. Here's a pic taken with the same
configuration on the same day. Only difference is there are no branches
being shot through nor is the background and foreground as busy. Like I
said, stop trolling and compare apples to apple should you want to discuss
this further.

<http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/pics/Killer.jpg>





Rita

[Ext User(PixelPix)]

On Jan 2, 3:42*pm, Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> wrote:
> PixelPix wrote:
> >>> There is absolutely no photoshop editing in that image at all. So
> >>> you are just showing that you are full of shit as usual.
>
> >> LOL! Right, and next you'll be telling us Bret doesn't crop the shit
> >> out of his images. Stop your trolling and blow smoke up someone
> >> else's ass.
>
> > Ah yes... the young padawan has learned well from his master D-Mac and
> > has adopted the "ignore the questions asked, redirect with false
> > statements and hope that the thread goes away" approach.
>
> You're a funny man, that's for sure. *Like I said, I don't mind playing with
> you, but don't think that I don't know when to get off when you start going
> in circles. *There wasn't a question to ignore. *Once you start comparing
> apples to apple maybe we can revisit this. *And no, I hope that the thread
> doesn't go away, you've been a real blast.
>
> Anyway, two can play that game. *Here's a pic taken with the same
> configuration on the same day. *Only difference is there are no branches
> being shot through nor is the background and foreground as busy. *Like I
> said, stop trolling and compare apples to apple should you want to discuss
> this further.
>
> <http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2008/pics/Killer.jpg>
>
> Rita


We were comparing two VERY similar images with VERY similar
"backgrounds".... how is this not apples to apples? and still... WTF
has shooting through branches got to do with it?