Wide Angle IS makes sense...

Paul Rubin wrote:

>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm
>
> I see a 1024x768 version but not a 100% version. Have you got a shot
> with more fine detail to look at?

Yes, I have the 100% version, but the file is too big and will eat up the
bandwidth limitations for this site.






Rita

Mark² wrote:

> Why do you have the VR version?

Because it sounded like a neat lens to buy. I already had the older non-VR
version that I was going to give to my son. He got the VR version instead
and he loves it.

> Actually, the crop factor is irrelevant at the pixel level as it
> concerns IS/VR.
>
>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm

I thought the focal length would make a difference, but I'll take your word
for it that it doesn't.

> So you decided to hand-hold this set-up shot?

> Why?

This was one of my typical nonsense shots for horsing around on the
newsgroups that was shot in my eBay shooting booth under diffused halogen
shop lights. I do all my eBay and newsgroup pics handheld since quality
pics aren't really required.

>> And here is a handheld shot with my favorite macro lens, the Micro
>> Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D. I love this lens since it doesn't have VR on
>> it. Both the old 105 and the new 105VR are both optically perfect
>> and equal in that department. The VR version has slightly better
>> bokeh for portrait work, but I don't use this lens for that since I
>> have the 85mm f/1.4.
>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/dots.htm
>
> Pointless image in this context. Are we supposed to just ASSUME that
> you used a very slow shutter speed on this bug-shot...even though
> it's clearly a brightly-lit scene? -Never mind that it's a mere 375
> pixels tall... What a joke.

It's there for whatever purpose you see fit. Pic it apart and shit on it
for all I care. And for all intent and purpose you can assume anything you
want. I posted it because it was taken with the older non-VR 105 and I
prefer that lens to the new one. Natural light macro is a real challenge,
especially if you want to get deeper DoF.

> BTW-- Is ANYTHING in focus in this shot (save for the little white
> leaf-boogers??? :)
> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/Flower.jpg

While I agree that it's not an astatically pleasing or technically perfect
pic, it was never meant to be, it was just a simple handheld shot that was
taken when I first got my 105mm non-VR lens. Considering that the flower is
not that much bigger than 0.25" it isn't a bad size comparison. The
"leaf-boogers" are grains of sand. Just for the record, I do all my macro
handheld. It's a real challenge at times, but it's something I enjoy doing.
And no, the VR on the new lens doesn't work for macro, so it was a total
waste for me since I already had a great 105.

> Wow.

LOL! I'm glad you enjoyed them.

> I'll get around to shooting on and off versions...perhaps in the wee
> hours when I return home tonight. It will be nice and dark again,
> which will give a better comparison with the original office shot. The
> bright window in my 1/4th version is rather distracting.

Thank you. The whole point of this discussion is to get you to realize that
you can shoot razor sharp images at 24mm handheld without IS. You have the
advantage over me since I was shooting with a macro lens. Plus, I'm sure
your skills far exceed mine so this isn't even going to be but a 5-minute
exercise for you.







Rita

Bill wrote:

> (this is a photography group, so no wise-ass comments please)

Nothing like that. Just a couple nice lenses I picked up on eBay for a song
that I'll probably flip when I'm done playing with them and if the price is
right.






Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>> Why do you have the VR version?
>
> Because it sounded like a neat lens to buy. I already had the older
> non-VR version that I was going to give to my son. He got the VR
> version instead and he loves it.
>
>> Actually, the crop factor is irrelevant at the pixel level as it
>> concerns IS/VR.
>>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm
>
> I thought the focal length would make a difference, but I'll take
> your word for it that it doesn't.

The focal length does make a difference... It's just that the crop factor
has no effect on actual focal length. -Only in the perceived focal
length...
>
>> So you decided to hand-hold this set-up shot?
>
>> Why?
>
> This was one of my typical nonsense shots for horsing around on the
> newsgroups that was shot in my eBay shooting booth under diffused
> halogen shop lights. I do all my eBay and newsgroup pics handheld
> since quality pics aren't really required.
>
>>> And here is a handheld shot with my favorite macro lens, the Micro
>>> Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D. I love this lens since it doesn't have VR on
>>> it. Both the old 105 and the new 105VR are both optically perfect
>>> and equal in that department. The VR version has slightly better
>>> bokeh for portrait work, but I don't use this lens for that since I
>>> have the 85mm f/1.4.
>>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/dots.htm
>>
>> Pointless image in this context. Are we supposed to just ASSUME that
>> you used a very slow shutter speed on this bug-shot...even though
>> it's clearly a brightly-lit scene? -Never mind that it's a mere 375
>> pixels tall... What a joke.
>
> It's there for whatever purpose you see fit. Pic it apart and shit
> on it for all I care. And for all intent and purpose you can assume
> anything you want. I posted it because it was taken with the older
> non-VR 105 and I prefer that lens to the new one. Natural light
> macro is a real challenge, especially if you want to get deeper DoF.
>
>> BTW-- Is ANYTHING in focus in this shot (save for the little white
>> leaf-boogers??? :)
>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pics/Flower.jpg
>
> While I agree that it's not an astatically pleasing or technically
> perfect pic, it was never meant to be, it was just a simple handheld
> shot that was taken when I first got my 105mm non-VR lens. Considering
> that the flower is not that much bigger than 0.25" it
> isn't a bad size comparison. The "leaf-boogers" are grains of sand. Just
> for the record, I do all my macro handheld. It's a real
> challenge at times, but it's something I enjoy doing. And no, the VR
> on the new lens doesn't work for macro, so it was a total waste for
> me since I already had a great 105.
>> Wow.
>
> LOL! I'm glad you enjoyed them.

Ha ha...

>> I'll get around to shooting on and off versions...perhaps in the wee
>> hours when I return home tonight. It will be nice and dark again,
>> which will give a better comparison with the original office shot.
>> The bright window in my 1/4th version is rather distracting.
>
> Thank you. The whole point of this discussion is to get you to
> realize that you can shoot razor sharp images at 24mm handheld
> without IS. You have the advantage over me since I was shooting with
> a macro lens. Plus, I'm sure your skills far exceed mine so this
> isn't even going to be but a 5-minute exercise for you.

Ha ha...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Paul Rubin wrote:
>
>>> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm
>>
>> I see a 1024x768 version but not a 100% version. Have you got a shot
>> with more fine detail to look at?
>
> Yes, I have the 100% version, but the file is too big and will eat up
> the bandwidth limitations for this site.

Ever hear of a 100% crop???


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:52:31 -0400, Bill wrote:

> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>
>>Who's dodging? I've posted many photos to my targeted audiences in these
>>groups and you have seen them. Actually, it's been a spectacularly great
>>week since I have a few nice new toys coming in.
>
> What kind of toys?

Well, I did remind Rita of Steely Dan a few messages back.


> (this is a photography group, so no wise-ass comments please)

Oops.

Mark² wrote:

> Ever hear of a 100% crop???

LOL! Yes, but whatever part I select to post will assuredly be the wrong
one.





Rita

Mark² wrote:

>> I thought the focal length would make a difference, but I'll take
>> your word for it that it doesn't.
>
> The focal length does make a difference... It's just that the crop
> factor has no effect on actual focal length. -Only in the perceived
> focal length...

That's good to know.

>> LOL! I'm glad you enjoyed them.
>
> Ha ha...

I knew you'd get a kick out of that.

>>> I'll get around to shooting on and off versions...perhaps in the wee
>>> hours when I return home tonight. It will be nice and dark again,
>>> which will give a better comparison with the original office shot.
>>> The bright window in my 1/4th version is rather distracting.
>>
>> Thank you. The whole point of this discussion is to get you to
>> realize that you can shoot razor sharp images at 24mm handheld
>> without IS. You have the advantage over me since I was shooting with
>> a macro lens. Plus, I'm sure your skills far exceed mine so this
>> isn't even going to be but a 5-minute exercise for you.
>
> Ha ha...

Do you doubt you are up to the task? I'm 100% confident in you.







Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>> I thought the focal length would make a difference, but I'll take
>>> your word for it that it doesn't.
>>
>> The focal length does make a difference... It's just that the crop
>> factor has no effect on actual focal length. -Only in the perceived
>> focal length...
>
> That's good to know.
>
>>> LOL! I'm glad you enjoyed them.
>>
>> Ha ha...
>
> I knew you'd get a kick out of that.
>
>>>> I'll get around to shooting on and off versions...perhaps in the
>>>> wee hours when I return home tonight. It will be nice and dark
>>>> again, which will give a better comparison with the original
>>>> office shot. The bright window in my 1/4th version is rather
>>>> distracting.
>>>
>>> Thank you. The whole point of this discussion is to get you to
>>> realize that you can shoot razor sharp images at 24mm handheld
>>> without IS. You have the advantage over me since I was shooting
>>> with a macro lens. Plus, I'm sure your skills far exceed mine so
>>> this isn't even going to be but a 5-minute exercise for you.
>>
>> Ha ha...
>
> Do you doubt you are up to the task? I'm 100% confident in you.

And I'm 100% confident that you're an insincere putz.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Sun, 3 Sep 2006 16:25:04 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>>>> with a macro lens. Plus, I'm sure your skills far exceed mine so
>>>> this isn't even going to be but a 5-minute exercise for you.
>>>
>>> Ha ha...
>>
>> Do you doubt you are up to the task? I'm 100% confident in you.
>
> And I'm 100% confident that you're an insincere putz.

Your annoyance, coming as it does after Rita supplied the images
that you repeatedly tried to browbeat her into providing indicates
that it is *you* whose sincerity is in doubt. As to whether the
"putz" part applied to you as well, that was never in doubt. It was
only a matter of time before you reverted to form. :)