more pics but there not to good

i didnt get em in good focos today think my glasses much a been better or i was to nervess.
http://img180.imageshack.us/gal.php?g=a0yd.jpg

Wow. I love the photos, especially the picture of the grasshopper. :kewlpics:

Raggie: Yes, they are. You have a good eye! I say that with more 30 years of photography experience + teaching it at a large private university when I was in grad. school. Now go take some more pictures!

Pretty darn good, looks like you've got a natural talent there. Just pratice take lots of pictures and post the good ones. Everyone will think you are a genius!!

They are really good, go take some more.

=D~~ Kilted

Mate! I have the same camera, and I sure wish I could compose such good shots. Those are fantastic raggie! Are you sure you didn't cut them out of the national geographic?

WHOA! Why did I miss this thread? I literally moved a bit back in my chair in surprise from such wonderful pix!

Man, you take AWESOME PICS!!!

Re: more pics but there not to good .more added today

wow thank you everyone .i realy realy love to take pictures .someday ill get a dslr with some kick but lens.but i love my panosoic fz 15 for now she feels good in my hand and i love the 12 x zoom .im kinda excited for fall cause no one will be at lake plus the leavess will change color .i didnt live this far norh last year.o ps i added more pictures today

Raggie, a kick butt super zoom lens for a DSLR costs a lot of money. Here is a case in point. I have a Canon Rebel 300D and I took these pictures the other night using my cheapo Canon 80-200mm EF lens at the Red Sox game in Fenway Park and the results reflect the lens quality (lack thereof) to a point. I have edited them the best that I could but I am not really pleased with any of them. Main problem was that it is difficult to hold the camera still in that focal range with the slower shutter speeds with lack of image stabilization. In this instance I would have loved to have one of the new super zoom point and shoot cameras with image stabilized lens. To buy a decent long range zoom for my DSLR would cost more then to buy a whole image stabilized point and shoot superzoom camera. Plus the lens would be huge and heavy. You did pretty good with what you have.

http://www.pbase.com/geepondy/red_sox_sept_15_2005

wow very good pics geepondy.im trying to pratcie a steady hand it takes me a while my hands shake a bit i guess im ok a course at 1/60. but im trying for like at 1/5 but i shake bad and get blurrry.im not sure what i think a the image stab on my camera i read it makes pics worst on pics such as moon i may try to get moon pic later if im still up when its over head its still pretty low now i want view itt from back porch its in frnt now i love them pics you took.man i wish i could go to a football gam but there way to crowded for me not a baseball fan but lovd ya pics

I particularly liked the photograph of the dragonfly. :thumbsup:
I may use that one as my Windows desk background.
Guess you can tell I like dragonflies.

The_LED_Museum said:

I particularly liked the photograph of the dragonfly. :thumbsup:
I may use that one as my Windows desk background.
Guess you can tell I like dragonflies.

Click to expand...

when i saw him i had to take his pic somehow i recall ya liked em but i dont remember where i read it but it was here on cpf somewhere there are lots of em in fla i seldem see em here

Raggie, I never owned a image stablized camera, but from what I read it does wonders in handheld shots but you don't want it on when using a tripod. Most people, certainly myself included cannot hand hold a shot below 1/30 but I have seen amazing handheld image stabilized shots all the way down to 1/5 in a few cases. The lens I would like for my camera,

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=150&modelid=9996

cost over a thousand dollars and ain't gonna happen anytime soon. You can buy the camera you posted about, the Panasonic Z30k for less then the cost of this lens.

sweet lens.i think if i ever get a dlsr id look for old canon 35 lens for it.if they fit .id love to be able to change lens id like a wide macro lens that gets in very very close like flys eyes and etc etc.also a zoom lens

Ragz, great pics they brightened my day here at work!

Thanks


Ryan

geepondy said:

Raggie, a kick butt super zoom lens for a DSLR costs a lot of money. Here is a case in point. I have a Canon Rebel 300D and I took these pictures the other night using my cheapo Canon 80-200mm EF lens at the Red Sox game in Fenway Park and the results reflect the lens quality (lack thereof) to a point. I have edited them the best that I could but I am not really pleased with any of them. Main problem was that it is difficult to hold the camera still in that focal range with the slower shutter speeds with lack of image stabilization. In this instance I would have loved to have one of the new super zoom point and shoot cameras with image stabilized lens. To buy a decent long range zoom for my DSLR would cost more then to buy a whole image stabilized point and shoot superzoom camera. Plus the lens would be huge and heavy. You did pretty good with what you have.

http://www.pbase.com/geepondy/red_sox_sept_15_2005

Click to expand...

Geepondy you can get another stop out of the camera by shooting in program mode and setting the ISO to 800. The image will have a bit more noise but if you shoot it in RAW and use a good post processing program it will still look great. If you don't have one I'd be glad to send you some links. I know it will take up a lot more room on the memory card but its worth it! I wasn't sure at first when I got my new camera but after some experiments I'm convinced.

An IS lens would get you about 3 more stops which would solve the problem to but as you know that is a solution that is in excess of $1000.

Another option is to get the Canon 70-200 F4L lens. You can pick up a refurb for about $500. I know $500 is real money but its a great lens and a great buy for an "L" lens. Here is a picture taken with a Canon 300mm IS F4L lens using the 1.4x extender. It was hand held. The body was a Canon 20d.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=36053945&size=m&context=set-796992

I've got some other pics here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/dieseladdict/

I love to look at the pictures people take. You can see some very creative stuff on flickr.com. Looking at other peoples pictures can help you take better pictures yourself.

Raggie, keep shooting. Having the latest camera doesn't make you a good photographer. Taking lots of pictures will though. I've taken some great shots with a Canon G1. Yours look just fine. I think not having a fancy camera makes you a better photographer. Especially when you are working to establish your own style.

Chris

Hi Chris, good to hear from you.

I have played around with the Canon 70-200L lens you mention and yes it absolutely has a reputation for being a very good value for the money. However although being light compared to some Canon lens (the f2.8 version of the same lens for example) it still is quite heavy and I think except for bright outdoor conditions, extremely difficult to get sharp hand held images at the full 200mm which is a equivalent 320mm for many of the Canon DSLR's. For many of my shots posted, I did set the ISO to 800 but shot the pics in fine jpg, not raw. If I'm in a similar situtation again, I'll try shooting in raw.

Chris_Medico said:

Geepondy you can get another stop out of the camera by shooting in program mode and setting the ISO to 800. The image will have a bit more noise but if you shoot it in RAW and use a good post processing program it will still look great. If you don't have one I'd be glad to send you some links. I know it will take up a lot more room on the memory card but its worth it! I wasn't sure at first when I got my new camera but after some experiments I'm convinced.

An IS lens would get you about 3 more stops which would solve the problem to but as you know that is a solution that is in excess of $1000.

Another option is to get the Canon 70-200 F4L lens. You can pick up a refurb for about $500. I know $500 is real money but its a great lens and a great buy for an "L" lens. Here is a picture taken with a Canon 300mm IS F4L lens using the 1.4x extender. It was hand held. The body was a Canon 20d.
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=36053945&size=m&context=set-796992

I've got some other pics here - http://www.flickr.com/photos/dieseladdict/

Chris

Click to expand...

Ah.. Ok. I was just going by the EXIF data for the pictures and it showed ISO of 400.

On my camera regardless to what I set the ISO if I put it in full auto it overrides the manual setting. It will only take the manual setting in PROGRAM or the other MANUAL modes.

To expand on the RAW thing a bit..

If you look the the histograms for your pictures you'll most likely find that you are several stops above what the camera can handle on the low end. What that means is that you can put the camera in Tv and set your shutter speed for 400 which is about 2 stops above what you had to use on your posted pics. This should sharpen up your pictures nicely.

If you shoot in RAW mode getting the extra stop or two back in post processing is no problem. The picture will look very dark on the screen if you look at it in the field but these cameras handle dark detail so well that it will look fine when processed on your computer.

Just throwing out some ideas, every little bit helps.

Chris

raggie33 said:

when i saw him i had to take his pic somehow i recall ya liked em but i dont remember where i read it but it was here on cpf somewhere there are lots of em in fla i seldem see em here

Click to expand...

I just now changed my Windows desktop wallpaper with that photograph of the dragonfly that you took. :thanks:

Thanks for the suggestions Chris. Like I said when I'm in a similar situation I will give them a shot. Don't mean to hijack Raggie's nice pictures thread so I'll post no more on this subject.

Raggie and everybody, post ya pics, I like looking at them. Girls in bikinis are nice, ha, ha.