On 2nd June 2008 10:56, Andy Edwards wrote:
Hi Gemm, thanks for the reply. Just to answer the points you make there if I may. As far as ISO goes, my camera has a range or 64 to 1600, and as we both know, that's a pretty good range, my cameras' default setting is 200 ISO I believe, but if I have to take shots with no noise I select 64 or 100. I have pictures that I've taken in rain, I have pictures of birds in flight too, in fact I have won photography competitions with them. As for macro, fair enough I can't get a close up of an ants head, but then neither can Canons, Nikons etc without a very expensive addition lens wise. I also find that most photographers with expensive cameras and lenses still use Photoshop etc to enhance their pictures, so they can't be that good can they? I certainly don't laugh at other peoples equipment, just their antics when they are carrying all that gear and taking all that time to set it up, that's what I meant. I can get 30 shots of a bird in a tree before they even get the tripod set up, usually it's flown before they take the first shot. Kindest regards, Andy.
Yes, your ISO range is good but my point was... my images sometimes have to be usable at ISO1600, for example as A3 prints. And low ISO doesn't always give me fast enough shutter speeds, so I'd be missing good shots if I was forced to stick to 64 or 100 for low noise.
I'm sure you have pictures you've taken in the rain, but again my point was there are situations I have to go through occasionally, e.g shooting in heavy rain where my camera/lenses are totally drenched (as well as myself). This is just one of the situations I'm glad my camera can cope with it.
And congratulation on winning competitions. I would love to see those images. (I don't mean I don't trust you. I honestly would like to see them)
As for macro, this is an option that's available to us however expensive it can be (well, in fact it's not that expensive). But again, this becomes an essential part of my photography and I'm glad to have this option.
There's nothing wrong with using Photoshop, is there? It certainly does not mean images taken are bad. Photoshop is not used for making bad images good (although I must agree many people do use it this way). Well, it's certainly not the way I use it.
It's not nice to laugh at their antics either. They are not doing anyting wrong and it's just not nice.
As I said in my previous post, it 'can' help in some situations. That's all I meant and I don't mean to slag off any equipment people use. Regards.