|
Since I already have a few cats this thread makes me want a DSLR shopping snipe
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
i want a dslr but i can't justify given how infrequently i shoot. it still hurts me inside when i see how limited the resolution of my p&s tho 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:exactly how enormous are the aperture and sensor in your camera dunkman they dont really look that big ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
ahhh spiders posted:they dont really look that big ? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:34
|
|
|
this is f/1.8 on a DX sensor
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:36
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:exactly how enormous are the aperture and sensor in your camera dunkman I have a 7D (crop sensor), and that picture with the tongue was taken with a 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm at f/2.8
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I have a 7D, and that picture with the tongue was taken with a 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm at f/2.8 see, told you
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:37
|
|
|
pik_d posted:wanna bury my face in that fur
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I have a 7D (crop sensor), and that picture with the tongue was taken with a 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm at f/2.8 yeah i don't understand cameras that well  nonetheless it's impressive that they came out that well in natural light with what must have been short exposure times. i figured the aperture and sensor would have to be fairly large in that case. esp. given how bright the whites are, jebus
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:yeah i don't understand cameras that well 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:yeah i don't understand cameras that well i thought you were more referring to the narrow dof
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:42
|
|
|
flickr strips out exif info so i cant see what the shutter time was 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
ahhh spiders posted:i thought you were more referring to the narrow dof nah, even a camera plebe like me can see the dof isn't that shallow. guess i just need a non-poo poo camera. and know how to use it  ahhh spiders posted:flickr strips out exif info so i cant see what the shutter time was also this 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:44
|
|
|
white balance dawg
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
i never leave the house so i just take pictures of things on my desk
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:47
|
|
|
ahhh spiders posted:white balance dawg i always get better results when i evaluate the white balance in advance for sure. it's just never as vivid as those pictures. then again i'm sure that my camera doesn't cover anywhere near the range of a decent dslr, so
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 05:50
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:wanna bury my face in that fur careful. he's grouchy
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:07
|
|
|
there is thing thing called photoshop and it can make bad pictures look good again
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:08
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:there is thing thing called photoshop and it can make bad pictures look good again too bad theres no postingshop for your posts!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:10
|
|
|
well played, well played
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
johndis posted:too bad theres no postingshop for your posts!! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:12
|
|
|
mod sassinator posted:there is thing thing called photoshop and it can make bad pictures look good again you can't polish a turd
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:22
|
|
|
Trig Discipline posted:yospos/69.7 is a decent approximation after reading this windows + r calc did the math well played
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:30
|
|
|
PipeRifle posted:here's that crabby catte I mentioned stop feeding your cat newport 100s
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:33
|
|
|
Detroit Q. Spider posted:you can't polish a turd 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
dunkman posted:I have a 7D (crop sensor), and that picture with the tongue was taken with a 70-200 2.8 IS at 200mm at f/2.8 that is a seriously nice setup, i'm envious
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 06:57
|
|
|
define irony: spending 3 grand on a camera and poo poo to take photos of some dumbass cat licking its not-nuts
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:10
|
|
|
just kidding it's all appreciated
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
piperifle wash you're catte... coat is greasy as gently caress, yo
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
CoupleBeersNoBeers posted:define irony: spending 3 grand on a camera and poo poo to take photos of some dumbass cat licking its not-nuts   I do a lot more with it than just take cat pictures, although if I could be a professional cat photographer for a living, I would. Maybe 1 year of instate community college tuition, I guess. Or maybe just a semester some places. \/ \/ \/ milquetoast child fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jan 5, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:12
|
|
|
p sure those lenses would put a kid thru college
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
dunkman posted:i hope they found good homes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
CoupleBeersNoBeers posted:after reading this Accurate to 3 decimal places, poo poo son.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:49
|
|
|
FISHMANPET posted:Accurate to 3 decimal places, poo poo son. well christ i went to school for comp sci not math oh wait
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 08:51
|
|
|
cat locked in a light box, forced to pose for a shadowy silhouette
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 09:55
|
|
|
teh autofocus on that 70-200mm lens must be fast as hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 09:58
|
|
dunkman posted:I do a lot more with it than just take cat pictures, although if I could be a professional cat photographer for a living, I would. Should I buy an old Miata to wrench on or a DSLR with set of lenses and learn to capture cattes? 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 10:20
|
|
|
ahhh spiders posted:teh
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 10:29
|
|
|
CoupleBeersNoBeers posted:stop feeding your cat newport 100s i chuckled
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 06:29 |
|
|
these pics make me wish i had a real camera, getting a good picture of a cat with my iphone very difficult. but this is my other cat who is actually cute.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2011 15:06
|
|
