Aw, CRUD!

[Dan]

Gentlemen ... be good to each other today. Dan's in a real p*sser of a mood.

Long story short?

A month or so ago, there was a spell of beautiful weather down here, and it was a great morning. I felt like a million bucks when I got up. A grand day for a photo-shoot down at the baseball fields at the college!

I pack up the gear, snagged a quick orange for breakfast, jumped in the truck and headed over to campus.

Things were looking up! There was a kid with one helluva arm warming up in the batting cage. He's got a buddy there with a bucket full of balls, chucking the ol' horsehides into the sweet spot, one after another, each with a fair amount of heat on them. Each pitch was duly followed by a very businesslike "CRACK!" from the Hickory stick.

Oooooh, Yeah! Eye candy!

So I stationed myself outside the safety net, roughly in Shortstop country, and screwed on the big flash, kicked on the trusty old FujiFilm S9600 ... and lined up for some great shots.

Gotta give the kid credit. He hits what he aims at. He glanced at me, then caught an incoming pitch with a prodigious swat ...which went exactly where the kid was last looking.

That's when I found out I had stationed myself about ten inches too close to the safety netting. <..:eek:..>

Baseball (1) Camera (0) <..:(..>


***


Fast forward to yesterday.

The Flash died instantly that day a month ago. I gave what was left of it a decent burial in a dumpster behind the field house where the kid couldn't see me. He felt bad enough already.

The camera, however, wasn't DOA. With a little work, and some gentle TLC, I nursed it through several more shoots. The focusing hadn't been quite right since the injury, but I adapted ... until yesterday morning. There was no more fooling myself. I got maybe a half dozen shots I could clean up enough to use.

This morning I did the post mortem. It wasn't good.

So for the first time in a very long while ... I went to the appropriate website .... and checked my available line of credit.

Damn!

[ryptyde]

Come on Dan you know you done it on purpose cuz you been eyeing up cameras for a while go on admit it. :)

ps: I'm trying to justify a new one myself, I think maybe my shutter is dying or something else terrible is about to happen to it. ;) I'd like to get a Canon 7D but will have to liquidate some of my assets first.

[beaker_]

Try swearing at 50' because the camera housing flooded (diver). Cursing ulp blrb blab doesn't have a soothing ring to it.

[stevea]

A new computer and a new camera - I guess Dan is trying to keep the economy afloat.

[Dan]

A new computer and a new camera - I guess Dan is trying to keep the economy afloat. ... and I could use a little help, guys! C'mon! Buy something! <..:p..>

[glennzo]

Come on Dan you know you done it on purpose cuz you been eyeing up cameras for a while go on admit it. :)

ps: I'm trying to justify a new one myself, I think maybe my shutter is dying or something else terrible is about to happen to it. ;) I'd like to get a Canon 7D but will have to liquidate some of my assets first.
This is my MO for justifying new computer hardware to the missus. She's not hardware savvy (get your minds out of the gutter) so if I say it's broke it must be broke, right? ;)

[Dan]

Come on Dan you know you done it on purpose cuz you been eyeing up cameras for a while go on admit it. :)

ps: I'm trying to justify a new one myself, I think maybe my shutter is dying or something else terrible is about to happen to it. ;) I'd like to get a Canon 7D but will have to liquidate some of my assets first. I dunno. I always have a tough time going out and spending that kind of cash until it's down to the point I can't really avoid it. I thought about upgrading to a nice big Nikon ... but then the reason I originally got the Fuji made it's way through the slick sales brochures into my mundane reality again. Part of the reason I went with the S9600 in the first place was, all-in-one package. No lenses to change in the field, which means no dust on the sensor issues.

Then there's the one that sealed the deal. I distinctly remember saying to myself back then, "Don't get too extravagant. Dan ... you don't do studio stuff. You shoot in the field. And if your shooter gets whacked in the field, which isn't a matter of if, but when, you'd much rather cry the blues about three digits worth of oopsy, instead of four ... or five.

*Sigh!*

That hasn't changed much, so it looks like the big-glass Nikon is going back on the drooling list.

Try swearing at 50' because the camera housing flooded (diver). Cursing ulp blrb blab doesn't have a soothing ring to it. Ah! Bright blblblue blubbles! <..:p..>

[Babylon5Nut]

My condolences, Dan.

Look on the bright side, though: at least the camera got hit with that ball and not you! Believe me, medical bills are far worse than you buying the most expensive camera you can think of.

I have a Samsung point-and-shoot, and I really like it a lot. However, the issue I have with it is that (because of the nature of the beast) I do get a fair amount of lens distortion.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to bother getting a new camera in the first place for anything more than just trivial stuff, get an SLR. Abe's of Maine often has some decent pricing and deals, but obviously do some shopping around. I remember seeing some not-too-shabby pricing for the Nikon D3000, D5000, and related ranges at Costco back in about November or so.

DPreview has a nice comparison of the Nikon D3000, D5000 and D60 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3000/) SLR models, plus settings and results analysis, too.

[Dan]

Well ... the trouble with that, is the fact that I do exactly squat for indoor studio type shooting. Several needs point themselves out graphically. The first, is the rude truth that I could easily drop $3~$5K on a nice DSLR, and the glass to go with it, which would give me a really snazzy rig. Then I'd be dragging the complete kaboodle-kit out into the field amongst the mud, crud, smoke, dust, flying baseballs and completely clueless public who value their right of way and convenience and bumper-car courtesy philosophy far more than they do my personal and professional space, or my hyper-expensive imaging gear.

I was terribly tempted to go that route, though. It really strokes one's spending-ego into high pitched glee when you hear "Oooooohs!" and, "Aaaahhhs!" issue forth from bystanders when you pull a TOL DSLR with the $5K worth of glass hanging on it out of your ditty bag.

Trouble is, with the kind of work I do, You get the same pay for a photo -- as long as it's exposed well and in focus -- whether it gets shot with a $10K mega-rig or a $700 point-and-shoot.

And despite recent threads about my new computer to the contrary, basically I'm a cheap old curmudgeon.

[MorphingDragon]

Don't you know dan?

The penguin guardian angel will keep your technology safe, for whom is a true believer?

/And no Im not going to comment on an obvious joke

--- That does suck though...

[Babylon5Nut]

Did you look at the pricing on the D3000, D5000 and D9000? They're all sub-$1000 (depending on what lenses, if any, you buy with the body).

I am totally with you on the "general public has no respect" thing. Heck, people have no self-respect or self esteem, which ultimately serve as the basis for respecting others. It's funny that so many are such utter self-serving materialists, but they have so little respect for themselves.

You have to guard against the train-of-thought that leads you to not doing or getting something when it's based on external factors over which you have no control. That doesn't mean you shouldn't take care to safeguard your gear, but considering you can get killed by a jet engine dropping off a plane without you even leaving your house, if you let yourself be controlled in that way, you will never do anything. Well, at least that's the logical up-shot of it.

That doesn't mean I'm trying to tell you to drop $3K - $5K on a camera. I'm just trying to get you to consider some nicer DSLRs which aren't that ridiculously expensive (various specific kinds of lenses notwithstanding, of course) and which have some decent ratings and feedback.

But, at the end of the day, it's just my 2¢.

[Dan]

Understood.

However, the devil is always in the details. The DSLR bodies are indeed attractively priced -- especially the Nikons. The D90 definitely got my attention with an MSRP just a hair under $900USD. Then, however, one starts to add the glass.

Let's see. I need a nice AF low-light wide angle, then a middle of the road AF workhorse zoomer, somewhere in the 35~150mm range, then a long AF shooter that will reach out to around 500~700mm for those particularly shy politicos as they duck and run for cover.

So, thats ... Wow! Those didn't get any cheaper!

Uhm ... OK ... about what I expected for the workhorse. Spendy, but not stupidly so. That just leaves the long lens ...

BOING! <..:eek:..> Yowchie! That hurt!


Yeah. Not looking too likely. But ... I haven't totally rejected that idea yet, either.

[RupertPupkin]

Dan, that'll teach you to stalk baseball players when they're warming up! :D

[Dan]

Man, I guess! <..:eek:..>

[John the train]

Morning Dan!

I can sympathise over the demise of your camera gear, I've just had a couple of ' phew ' moments myself, first off I thought my laptop was dying - video symptoms - but that turned out to be corrupted/unstable drivers, then it looked as if my photo printer, a 6-ink Epson, had terminal indigestion, but I was able to nurse it back to health. I did consider getting a long ( 600mm 35mm equivalent + ) lens for bird photography, but decided against it on 3 points. As you've noted, once you get past the >400mm equivalent zooms prices get rather high, I'd probably have paid more for one lens than I did for the body and two lenses.:eek: In my stamping ground, once the trees are in leaf you hear the little critters more than see them, and when you do it's often a case of ' what was that? ' as something whips across your field of view. And finally, if you're photographing for pleasure, as opposed to on assignment or with a view to sales, feeling like a prospector's pack mule can rather reduce the pleasure.:p

Agree with you and Babylon5nut on some people's lack of respect for others, people who block supermarket aisle by stopping to chat are one of my pet dislikes, and I just hope that some people can drive a car better than a shopping trolley!;)

[kurtdriver]

The focusing hadn't been quite right since the injury

Damn!
Possibly the mirror was out of alignment a touch, easily fixed. Are there other injuries? Not much you can do if a PCB is broken.
If you're gonna buy new, you could get a real (http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item286.html)camera.:)

[bob]

Real camera? My last upgrade was: http://www.songofsnow.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=PCekdbl&click=35 Doubt they've improved much since then. :D

[Iron_Mike]

Hey Dan, Sorry about the camera. Were you in the process of taking a pic when it happened? And did you get a pic of the ball conking your camera? I always like looking a funny pictures.....:D

[Dan]

Actually, I was. But when the ball hit, it killed the power, so the shot didn't save. I was really hoping to see it, too -- being the morbid cretin that I am. <..:p..>

[clanky]

On the plus side, better it hit the camera than your head.

[Dan]

Update:

The untimely demise of my main shooter (just before Memorial Day Weekend) and the need for something to keep at the ready, sent me into the back-up bag for my old field shooter.

The FujiFilm FinePix S5200 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/fujifilm/finepix-s5200-zoom/fujifilm-finepix-s5200-zoom-review.html).



It certainly isn't the fanciest thing out there, and by current standards, 5.2 mega-pixels is the pixel-count equivalent of chump-change ... but other than that, and the lack of some fine grained manual controls ... I've still got no beef with the quality of pictures it takes. I shot these in the back yard this weekend trying to get re-aquainted with it. The first two are from a distance of about 20 feet. The last from about 8 feet.

Mimosa-1 (Moderate zoom - optical)
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=679


Mimosa-2 (Moderately high zoom - optical)
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=680


Mimosa-3 (Tight zoom, Macro mode from 8~10 feet - optical)
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=681


Maybe I'm not in as big a hurry to buy a new one as I thought I was.


Another 8 footer.
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=682

[Babylon5Nut]

Is it just me, or in that third picture is that flower giving us the bird?

Beautiful composition, btw.

[Dan]

It's just you. <..:p..>


But, thanks. <..;)..>

[beaker_]

Yeah, megapixels isn't a substitute for good optics.

You likely already know but I'll kick it out there anyway. Everyone already knows Cannon, but I've met those who also swear by their Pentax. I still use an old 4M cd mavica, and recently picked up an alpha (?). Definetly an improvement; good optics, good shutter & apeture control, and panoramas workout 90% of the time. But is weak wrt motion. With factory lens, outdoor lighting normally isn't an issue but indoor is a conscious decision between bluring and darkness (no hot pixels though): soccor, np; Taekwondo, I haven't quite figured out; below surface lit swimming pool in Veradero at 2am, 80' away, combined with the effects of 700ml of rum and a cristales lit, no problem. Just something to think about as you're checking out new cameras.

[Dan]

Bluntly, Cannon has priced themselves not only out of my business, but my interest as well. I had a chance to "play" with an EOS a while back when a friend rescued one from a pawn shop. I can't say I was all that impressed.

To be strictly honest, there were some things about the FinePix S9600 which I wasn't any too thrilled with, either. One of which was its performance in high fstops. f6.5 down to f4.0 were reasonably good, and anything below that worked quite nicely, but things fell apart pretty quickly above f6.5. At f8, it's a good thing you had every one of those 9mp to work with, because 90% of the time, you were going to be scaling and sharpening your way into a decently sharp shot.

Which brings me back to that whole must-have-huge-mega-pixel advertising blitz!

I still have to wonder about the sanity -- or motives -- of newspaper photogs who insist on 14+mp hyper-expensive work cameras. Even on broadsheet, you're shooting into a 75dpi jpg, which is going to get mangled and shrunk by the graphics department onto a 150 (absolute max -- more like 75) dpi press plate ... which is then notorious on its best day for 30% dot-gain on the newsprint.

And I can count on the thumbs of my left ear the number of press masters who will actually spring for hyper-white paper for anything other than the (very) rare special section, or advertising (Naturally. That's where the money is!) inserts.

Combine that with the fact that only about 10% of the presses out there have ever actually seen an incidence of accurate registration, and the need for those hyper-pixel budget busters starts looking a little thin.

[kyryder]

Jeez man, I didn't know anyone was still shooting stills:p. I have been a cannon man for the past 10 years or so. I have gone through a XL-1 and 2 XL-1ses. Any time I have giving a still from the reel for plating it looks the same as the rest in the paper(poor quality) so I haven't shot much still in years. heck, I haven't spent much time with a box on my shoulder in the past year or so, but I always found it enjoyable (almost not like a real job). I envy you gentlemen that can make a living with stills, it is becoming a lost art.

Ky

PS. The pics from the FinePix looks good on my monitor.

[Dan]

Thanks.

I started in Nikon country, but the move to digital put me into FujiFilm. The two have a lot in common, but each has their own strengths.

FujiFilm's strengths mainly being an exceptional CCD and a sane price tag.

I've often wondered what you'd get if you hung a really nice chunk of Nikkor glass on a FujiFilm Hi-def EXR Super CCD.

[StephenH]

You may not equate Kodak with digital cameras, but have you checked out their cameras? I have had two, the current one a Z712 IS that has given me good service over the past few years. I took a quick look online at the Z981, and it has some pretty good specifications. I put a link to it below.

http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/Z981_Digital_Camera/productID.169236500

[Dan]

Thanks, Stephen.

Indeed I had looked into Kodak. Way back when, in my mis-spent youth, I mumbled my way through teaching digital photography classes at a local community college when digitals first got popular, and we used Kodak Easy Shares as class shooters. The particular model escapes me at the moment.

I ran across one of those "Damn-Near-Impossible" shots this afternoon, and tried it anyway. Those of you who shoot regularly will instantly recognize the challenges.

The question is ... what's your opinion of the way this shooter handled the problem on Full-Auto? (No fill-flash used.)

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=683

BTW, her name is, "PITA-Patches."

[StephenH]

We have some friends who had a part-Margay which they also named PITA for Pain in the XXX. PITA had a diamond-studded collar after our friends' aunt adopted her. She was fascinated with shiny things, and liked to steal them.

The picture turned out quite well. I do notice some pixilation, especially around her eyes. For her being back-lit and no fill flash, the photo is still quite nice. It is an interesting one with the calico kitten on a terrazzo floor.

Here's one of mine. It is a tangerine lantern (remove fruit segments, put oil in shell using center pith for wick and cutting an opening in the top. I scaled the image to 800x600 to reduce the file size before I attached it. This is taken with my Kodak Z712 IS camera.

[Dan]

We have some friends who had a part-Margay which they also named PITA for Pain in the XXX. PITA had a diamond-studded collar after our friends' aunt adopted her. She was fascinated with shiny things, and liked to steal them.

The picture turned out quite well. I do notice some pixilation, especially around her eyes. For her being back-lit and no fill flash, the photo is still quite nice. It is an interesting one with the calico kitten on a terrazzo floor.

Here's one of mine. It is a tangerine lantern (remove fruit segments, put oil in shell using center pith for wick and cutting an opening in the top. I scaled the image to 800x600 to reduce the file size before I attached it. This is taken with my Kodak Z712 IS camera.
Nice! I'd never seen that done with a citrus skin, before. Your Kodak did a good job of catching the glow, too.

[Babylon5Nut]

BTW, her name is, "PITA-Patches."

I do indeed. She has you well-trained, I see. BTW, does she know you put her photo on the Intertubez?

[dragonbite]

On the plus side, better it hit the camera than your head.

Or worse, a vital spot of the body! :eek:

We're getting close to picking up our first DSLR, a Nikon D90, but first want to get our hands on a working model from the store (and get over the price tag). We tried out the D5000 which was pretty good but might as well go a little further to get the better features (if appropriate) than have to do this exercise again in like 5-10 years.

Not that my wife will let me touch this one before that time frame.

Sorry to hear the "incentive" for looking at a camera. BTW, those are some pretty great shots!

[Dan]

Well, the deed is done (http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/digital_cameras/s/finepix_hs10/index.html).

The more I thought about the way my heart sank when that ball clouted me, and when I get out of the truck in an east Texas rain to get a shot, the less warm-fuzzies I felt about dumping a bazillion bucks into a D90 and a triple-threat of good glass as a working camera.

I'll get the D90 eventually, just for myself, but in the meantime, I went ahead and picked up one of these (http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10020206fujifinepixhs10series.asp). All in all it doesn't do too bad, although it's obvious we are going to take a while to get to know each other.

And at under $450.00USD, my conscience didn't pitch a fit when I pulled out the old bruised and battered VISA card.

[Dan]

One of the final shots from the S9600. It was the only shooter within reach when Splotch decided to help me patrol the forum this morning. It took some doing, but I finally got it focused for this shot.

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=688

[JONOR]

A most beautifully groomed keyboard/monitor interface eclipsed only by the grooming of the seat/keyboard interface. :D

[Iron_Mike]

One of the final shots from the S9600. It was the only shooter within reach when Splotch decided to help me patrol the forum this morning. It took some doing, but I finally got it focused for this shot.

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=688


Dan, I see you've taught the kitty where the "nuke" button is....:p

[Dan]

Absolutely! First thing. Priorities, man! <..:D..>

[Dan]

Update:

Well, the HS10 is earning it's keep now. Still going to be a while before the controls are reflexive, though.

Shot this with it this morning.


ISO 200
fstop 5.7
Shutter 1/4000
focal length 44.8 ~300mm equiv.

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=711


I'm thinking this one is going to work ... for a while, anyway.

[JONOR]

There are some lovely textures in that.
Did it need a tripod or fill in flash ?
1000 fps would have been interesting too.

[Dan]

No. I really should have used a tripod, but I just rested on the fence rail and faked it. Gotta wonder what they're calling 1/4000 though. At nominal temp and pressure, a carpenter bee beats at 120~150 hz.

I'm thinking those wings should be hard frozen and crystal clear.

[Dan]

Now ... I never have claimed to be any good at math. Especially with my shoes on. However, I took the opportunity a little while ago to wrinkle up my brow, munch down on my tongue ... and crunch some numbers.

The end result is, unless I got something horribly wrong, this isn't actually unexpected for the factors involved. Which the following shot seems to bear out.

Full Reverse Thrusters
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=712




So ... given:

Wing speeds in carpenter bees are nominally around 120~150cps -- possibly substantially higher at hover.

1 wing cycle = 360 degrees (Full down to full down.)

1/4000sec. shutter speed.




... Whereas I definitely overheated my wetware processor during the operation, I came to the conclusion that a bee's wingtip could easily cover between 11 ~ 23 degrees of travel during the exposure time provided by the specified shutter speed, so the indicated evidence would be normal.

However, like I said ... I'm not a mathematician by any means -- real or imagined.

[JONOR]

Wow,that is more revealing.
Where i have seen slo-mo's of insect wings, they quite often make wide sweeps forwards and backward twisting the angle of the wings at the start of each new sweep.
I would accept that shot as a 150/4000 of a beat.
Using the continuous shooting option would give a better chance of capturing a slower moving part of the beat before the beasty buzzed off.
Have you tried training that zoom on a full moon ?

[Dan]

And here I thought I was plain lucky just to capture the bugger in-frame at all. <..:p..> Haven't explored a lot of the full-auto fancy features yet. Although "sports-mode" should do well for things like this.

Not yet on the moon. I'd planned to, but the clouds were uncooperative last go-round. And the next full moon isn't until this coming Saturday, which should give me plenty of time to forget what I was going to do again.

[dragonbite]

Now ... I never have claimed to be any good at math. Especially with my shoes on. However, I took the opportunity a little while ago to wrinkle up my brow, munch down on my tongue ... and crunch some numbers.

The end result is, unless I got something horribly wrong, this isn't actually unexpected for the factors involved. Which the following shot seems to bear out.

Full Reverse Thrusters
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=712




So ... given:

Wing speeds in carpenter bees are nominally around 120~150cps -- possibly substantially higher at hover.

1 wing cycle = 360 degrees (Full down to full down.)

1/4000sec. shutter speed.




... Whereas I definitely overheated my wetware processor during the operation, I came to the conclusion that a bee's wingtip could easily cover between 11 ~ 23 degrees of travel during the exposure time provided by the specified shutter speed, so the indicated evidence would be normal.

However, like I said ... I'm not a mathematician by any means -- real or imagined.

huh? :confused:

Just call it an awesome picture and leave it at that! Before everybody's head starts to hurt! :D

[Dan]

You didn't do so good at Algebra either, eh? <..:eek:..>

<..:D..>

[MorphingDragon]

This thread came to mind. :rolleyes:

http://cheezpictureisunrelated.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/129183491549780339.jpg

[Dan]

I shudder to think how much money is hanging around that lady's neck! <..:eek:..>

[Danielisawesome]

I shudder to think how much money is hanging around that lady's neck! <..:eek:..>

I'd pay money to see how much shutter is around her neck...

[John the train]

I was talking to a photographer at the railway the other day, his camera is a full frame 24MP Nikon, £7000! As Dan so eloquently put it " Holy negative cash flow! "

[Dan]

Update: Supplemental



*Sigh!*

I guess it's the curse of all cheapskates who wield the golden screwdriver. Once in a while ... it works.

The Short Version:

With the courage provided by having a replacement safely in the camera bag, I was left with the dilemma of what to do with the S9600. It would still shoot. The auto-focus was a mess, and there was an unhealthy crunchiness in the zoom range, but the dang thing still functioned.

The classifieds came immediately to mind. Can't sell it broken, though. I needed to at least make the effort.

So, the operating theatre lights came on, the batteries came out, the thing got flipped over on it's back, and the guts/parts commenced to flying.

Lessons learned:

1) The pack a LOT of stuff in not much space in those things.
2) Tiny black screws, big fingers and dark colored carpeting are a problem looking for an opportunity to happen.
3) My eyes ain't what they used to be.
4) Small plastic support blocks can be "welded" back into place with a hot needle.

The outcome ... ?

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=721


http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=722


*Deeper Sigh!*

It looks like I'm gonna need a bigger ditty bag. <..http://forums.fedoraforum.org//forum/images/icons/icon6.gif..>

[beaker_]

Never tried it on consumer electronics but I have a nice plastic welder and it works wonders on abs, pvc, urethane and that mix of crap in between. Have a look around, you should be able to find a 1 or 2 c-note pen-like unit and they work well on smaller stuff.

Late edit: Ah, the pics appeared after I replied. Good stuff man.

[Dan]

Thanks!

However, it occurs to me I've posted waaaay too much cute, cuddly, flowery and pretty lately.

If I keep this up, my man-card could be in jeopardy. Therefore ... from the HS10 ...

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=723

*Snort! ... Shpit!*


<..:p..>

[bob]

Looks a bit like my granny's snow plow. Yep, still cute & cuddly.

[Dan]

This from a guy what still plays with "Teddy Bears"?!

[beaker_]

Na, you need something raw to reaffirm your masculinity. Yeah, last year.

[Dan]

Oooh! I know where I'm headed for dinner!


EDIT: Same concept ... except "on the hoof."

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=5&pictureid=229

[CiaW]

So I was oooh-ing and ahhh-ing at the fireworks. Then, LOL -- on the heavy machinery. :D

[John the train]

This from a guy what still plays with "Teddy Bears"?!

No, THIS is a Teddybear!:p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_14

[JONOR]

Dan, i'd love to see a shot from the HS10 sometime with it out at x30. Never thought this could be had for an affordable price.

[Dan]

Reasonable enough.

Some caveats here, though.


These were shot very soon after I got the camera, so they do not represent the best it will do. The limiting factor here is the operator headspace involved.

These were shot off the cuff, through my office window -- including the window screen -- without the use of a tripod. (I was standing right here in front of my desk.)

These were minimally processed. I've posted them only with minimal levels adjustments (to raise the shadows some) and shrinkage in the GIMP to 1024x768.

The zoom levels are sequential but random. I made no effort to use any particular units or divisions.

The time span between the first shot and the last shot was 30 seconds.


That being said ...

Wide Angle -- no zoom.
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=732

First zoom
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=731

Second zoom
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=730

Third zoom
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=729

And zoom-3 at 100%
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=728

That should give a rough idea of what it will do.

[John the train]

Were you shooting with auto-focus Dan? To my eye the focus on the final shot seems to be on the top rail of the fence.Certainly looks as if the new rig has potential though.

[Dan]

Ayup. *Sigh!* Guilty as charged.

[JONOR]

Nice demo Dan, looks like you got all the way to the end of the rainbow with that shot, you've got yourself a little treasure there.

[Dan]

I'm thinking so. I haven't explored the speed-shooting stuff yet. About all we've got going on right now is baseball ... and I'm still a little gun-shy about that. <..:p..>

However, that zoom is proving to be a lot of fun.



This critter was about 20 feet up in a mimosa tree.
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=96&pictureid=718

[John the train]

If you were in the UK I'd call that some variety of Swallowtail, what's it's local name?

[Dan]

John ... I wish I could tell you, but don't have a clue.


EDIT: Looks like it's a male Tiger Swallowtail (http://www.dallasbutterflies.com/Butterflies/html/glaucus.html).

[dd_wizard]

If I saw that one in Oregon, I'd call it a Monarch butterfly.

dd_wizard

[Evil_Bert]

That is one fine camera. Puts my old Minolta Maxxum with 70-300 AF Zoom to shame!

[John the train]

Dan,

Saw this and thought of you.;)

[Dan]

Lol! Ayup. An "Excedrin" moment in the making.

[JONOR]

What is it with golfing attire these days.
Just how are players supposed to see what they are doing wearing one of those pullovers.
Perhaps it is all part of the gamesmanship. :p

[Dan]

Update:

Ayup! I'm gonna keep it. (The HS10) As of today, it has fiscally paid for itself. (twice)

And ...



I just can't complain much about the performance. Something about this guy makes me think of ZZ Top (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_EFdod4YDo&a=Bix7aGLxAqi).

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=734
(Gotta love the fat yellow fingers!)

[wolfen69]

Nice shooting Dan!

[Iron_Mike]

Gotta admit Dan, those are some fine pics....

[Dan]

Thanks, guys!

Good gear helps a helluva lot!

[John the train]

Update:

Ayup! I'm gonna keep it. (The HS10) As of today, it has fiscally paid for itself. (twice)

And ...



I just can't complain much about the performance. Something about this guy makes me think of ZZ Top (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_EFdod4YDo&a=Bix7aGLxAqi).

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=734
(Gotta love the fat yellow fingers!)

I copy you Dan, also reminds me of a certain forum admin?:p

[dragonbite]

These are great shots! I have enough trouble trying to keep my fingers out of the pictures!

Do you have a gallery for these shots? Heck, isn't there a Gallery section in this forum? or Flickr? or PicasaWeb? etc.

[Dan]

All of us here on the forum have a gallery available to us. Go to your user control panel, and grope around a bit. (It's been long enough since I set mine up ... I don't remember all the steps.) Anyway, first you create some albums, then you put photos in them.

[bob]

So that's what good equipment and real talent can produce? I'm hanging my head in shame. :(

[Dan]

I've seen your work too, Bob. Don't beat yourself up. <..;)..>

Remember I only post the "good" stuff. In reality, the "Empty Trash" button and I are intimate friends.

However, this is a good opportunity to get some feedback on an iffy one.

I crunched the one linked below into a gif to alternate between two color schemes. Question is, which do you prefer ... and why? Natural yellow ... or GIMPed Blue?

http://www.zyloo-enterprises.com/storage/temp/wallpapers/luna-yellow-blue.gif


(The switch between them is timed at around seven seconds.)

(This one was shot with the old S5200. (5.2mp))

[dragonbite]

I crunched the one linked below into a gif to alternate between two color schemes. Question is, which do you prefer ... and why? Natural yellow ... or GIMPed Blue?

http://www.zyloo-enterprises.com/storage/temp/wallpapers/luna-yellow-blue.gif


(The switch between them is timed at around seven seconds.)

(This one was shot with the old S5200. (5.2mp))


Gimped blue, because the background (which get slighter) and silhouette are more definable than the yellow one, which is much darker.

[Dan]

Gimped blue, because the background (which get slighter) and silhouette are more definable than the yellow one, which is much darker.
A mix is better?

http://www.zyloo-enterprises.com/storage/temp/wallpapers/luna-yellow-blue-mix.jpg

[dragonbite]

A mix is better?

http://www.zyloo-enterprises.com/storage/temp/wallpapers/luna-yellow-blue-mix.jpg

Not so sure on the mix, it doesn't look natural.

[William Haller]

I'd vote for natural yellow. In the lighter version, the tree is too much of a distraction. In the natural, it's darker... It's there, but it doesn't impose itself on your mind as much to overshadow the moon shot itself. On the other hand, in the darker version the darker blue background has some artifacts that are a bit distracting as well. Never a clear choice, I'm sure.

I've liked your shots as well. The last bee posted was fantastic. I tried to navigate your website, but it isn't very konqueror friendly and even in firefox there seemed to be lots of placeholders where nothing came up. Might just be my not knowing where to look.

My kids and wife are always trying to think of something to buy me for Christmas and you got me to thinking about a new camera. I still have my dad's old Rollei SLX, but don't use it much anymore as it's not digital - even if it takes great pictures. I hate to think of the money he has in just the lenses for that chunk of iron.

The only thing that I see posted about the HS-10 that is really negative at all (other than shot to shot speeds which wouldn't matter for the shots I take) is a comment that is true for most non DSLR cameras - the low light / ISO problems due to the small sensor size. I've looked at the reviews of several DSLRs and the pictures with higher ISO ranges with many of them aren't so hot either. What has been your low-light experience with this camera (or do you always have enough flash that it isn't an issue?)

Edit: After I posted and saw the two question marks I realized that I had been running a test to see how our company website would react to no user string and had turned off konqueror's user agent reporting - tangled web might work fine if it actually knew what it was getting hit with.

[Dan]

The gif process reduces the palette so far that artifacts are inevitable. And I tend to agree that the mixed version looks like a bad cut & paste job. I tend to prefer the darker, natural version myself, but I can see the merit in a brighter sky.

To my chagrin, I haven't messed with the website in over a year. A lot of it is just plain busted, and much of it is still un-done. I got so busy doing other things I haven't gotten back to it. Probably should pull it completely down until I get it whipped into shape. In fact, I think I'll do that right now.

Sadly, film is dead. When I asked a dealer what my film Nikon was worth, he shrugged and said he didn't want to mess with it. When I pressed him for a realistic number ... he said ten bucks, and he honestly meant it. <..:eek:..>

I haven't shot much high ISO on the HS10 yet. I don't entertain much hope for higher ISOs in digitals, though. In the S5200 and the S9600 anything over 400 was a complete waste of time. But, realistically, in film (especially the latest DX coded -- which is all basically ISO 800 film anymore, just adapted (read: cheat-coded) in the camera) anything over 400 was a waste of time, too.

The FujiFilm FinePix EXR series gives some hope in that direction, though. The sample shots I've seen at 800~1600 are remarkable useable.

[John the train]

From my memories of seeing early evening moon-rises the yellow is more natural when the moon is near the horizon ( adjacent trees and buildings ) but it becomes more white as it rises in the sky. Purely a subjective impression, but the gimped blue version is perhaps a touch too much ' blue moon '

[dragonbite]

From my memories of seeing early evening moon-rises the yellow is more natural when the moon is near the horizon ( adjacent trees and buildings ) but it becomes more white as it rises in the sky. Purely a subjective impression, but the gimped blue version is perhaps a touch too much ' blue moon '

I can believe that, the atmospheric effect.

[Dan]

Speaking of the old man in the night sky, and hearkening back up to JONOR's number 43 post (http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showpost.php?p=1373526&postcount=43), I finally got around to having a go at the moon with the HS10.

Tonight wasn't ideal, though. The moon is not full, and I had to shoot this through a high cloud layer, (remnants of a thunderstorm) and I didn't use a tripod. So there's both motion blur and cloud haze limiting both quality and clarity. There is also some fidelity loss due to shrinkage in the GIMP at work here, too.

All that being acknowledged ...

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=735

Also note I'm in RHEL6 Beta2 tonight, so my usual range of tools was not available in the GIMP.

[John the train]

Despite your caveats a very impressive result Dan, you can even make out the irregularities on the edge due to the lunar mountains. Look out Hubble!

[Dan]

Okey dokey! Back on my main F11 install, so I've got my normal collection of GIMP tools available.

And the end result of that is ...

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=737

[Dan]

Tonight, no haze! (and I did use a tripod. <..:rolleyes:..> ) The results have been minimally processed, but here it is:

http://forums.fedoraforum.org/picture.php?albumid=192&pictureid=738

[clanky]

Wow, I thought the first one was awesome until I saw that.