Wide Angle IS makes sense...

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>> A link? Hell, I don't even have a camera or a computer and you
>>> expect a link?
>>
>> Ha ha. But setting your clever attempt to dodge via humor...when you
>> shoot your mouth off as you do...yes. I expect you to back it up.
>> Got any actual goods behind that mouth?
>
> I'm still waiting to see that handheld shot you promised with IS off.

Quote me, troll.

We're all still waiting for ANY shot of yours other than those which come
from your mouth.
You won't post anything, and we both know why.
--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>> Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>> A link? Hell, I don't even have a camera or a computer and you
>>>> expect a link?
>>>
>>> Ha ha. But setting your clever attempt to dodge via humor...when
>>> you shoot your mouth off as you do...yes. I expect you to back it
>>> up. Got any actual goods behind that mouth?
>>
>> I'm still waiting to see that handheld shot you promised with IS off.
>
> Quote me, troll.
>
> We're all still waiting for ANY shot of yours other than those which
> come from your mouth.
> You won't post anything, and we both know why.

Tell you what: You post a link to your images which demonstrate your
mastery and I'll happily post a non-IS version. Deal?

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

Cynicor wrote:
> Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
>> John McWilliams wrote:
>>
>>>> Have you ever been willing to share why you post as a man?
>>>>
>>> Oh, so clever a dodge!
>>>
>>> I post as who I am. Real name, real person.
>>>
>>> Back to you, "Rita", for more ducking repartee.
>>
>> LOL! Since you *think* you have it all figured out, why ask?
>>
>> I post as who I am. Real name, real person.
>
> When you're not doing signings and spiritual readings!
> http://www.sandwichvillageherb.com/p...ge/1578163.htm

Interesting take, but some time ago some reputable folks stated "Rita"
was a male, and nothing I've seen refutes that. Of course, it's not
proof, either.

Since he/she has gone into a mode of simply dodging every question,
making smart replies to reduce the idiot quotient on usenet, and can't
seem to post a single photo, I've lost hope that the nice "Rita", the
clever one, has had only a bad week.

--
john mcwilliams

Mark² wrote:

>> I'm still waiting to see that handheld shot you promised with IS off.
>
> Quote me, troll.

LOL! No need for the name calling since I sense you are very flustered.
So, you are saying that you won't post a shot from the world famous 5D at
24mm with IS off? Not surprising since it would prove to yourself and
others that IS is totally ineffective on an FF sensor at 24mm.






Rita

Mark² wrote:

>> We're all still waiting for ANY shot of yours other than those which
>> come from your mouth.
>> You won't post anything, and we both know why.
>
> Tell you what: You post a link to your images which demonstrate your
> mastery and I'll happily post a non-IS version. Deal?

Fair enough. Here's a shot taken with the world famous and outrageously
stupid for putting VR on a macro lens, the Micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G VR.
This was taken at ISO 400, 1/15 sec, f/16, VR=OFF, and handheld. Please
note that this is on an APS-C sensor so you have to factor in the 1.5x crop
factor for an effective focal length of 157.5mm. There is a good bit of
motion blur, but it's still usable at 100% size right out of the camera.

http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm

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

Now live up to your end of the deal. Take your shot of the same room with
the same settings and conditions at 24mm on the 5D with IS off. You're a
great photographer so I know you will get a razor sharp image handheld
without IS. Use any technique you feel comfortable with. Lay on your
stomach in 6" of mud, beanbags filled with lead shot, brace yourself against
a wall or doorway. You get the idea just as long as it's a technique you
normally would use out in the field if you don't have a tripod or monopod.
Trust me, I know you can produce a handheld image at 24mm on FF without IS
that will blow mine away for sharpness.







Rita

John McWilliams wrote:

>> When you're not doing signings and spiritual readings!
>> http://www.sandwichvillageherb.com/p...ge/1578163.htm
>
> Interesting take, but some time ago some reputable folks stated "Rita"
> was a male, and nothing I've seen refutes that. Of course, it's not
> proof, either.

I guess it solely hinges on your definition of "reputable folks" to support
your argument? Let's break this down so you can understand it. One of your
"reputable" folk, a homo, got caught stealing bandwidth via Wi-Fi. And the
other two "women" are borderline sexual deviants. But, at least they are
reputable folks.

Don't let my posting style fool you. I know you think you have it all
figured out, but there are many possibilities you haven't even considered.
I can be a Bulldacious Bulldyke, but I won't tell. My Usenet account can be
used by various other family members, but I won't tell. Of course, you can
be 100% correct, but I won't tell. There are numerous possibilities, but I
won't tell. You get the idea. Believe what you want since it's more
important to you than it is to me.

> Since he/she has gone into a mode of simply dodging every question,
> making smart replies to reduce the idiot quotient on usenet, and can't
> seem to post a single photo, I've lost hope that the nice "Rita", the
> clever one, has had only a bad week.

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.






Rita

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Cynicor wrote:
>
>>> I post as who I am. Real name, real person.
>>
>> When you're not doing signings and spiritual readings!
>> http://www.sandwichvillageherb.com/p...ge/1578163.htm
>
> Sorry, no relation.

That's too bad, she's pretty.

Rita Ä Berkowitz <ritaberk2O04 @aol.com> writes:
> This was taken at ISO 400, 1/15 sec, f/16, VR=OFF, and handheld. Please
> note that this is on an APS-C sensor so you have to factor in the 1.5x crop
> factor for an effective focal length of 157.5mm. There is a good bit of
> motion blur, but it's still usable at 100% size right out of the camera.
>
> 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?

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>> We're all still waiting for ANY shot of yours other than those which
>>> come from your mouth.
>>> You won't post anything, and we both know why.
>>
>> Tell you what: You post a link to your images which demonstrate your
>> mastery and I'll happily post a non-IS version. Deal?
>
> Fair enough. Here's a shot taken with the world famous and
> outrageously stupid for putting VR on a macro lens, the Micro Nikkor
> 105mm f/2.8G VR. This was taken at ISO 400, 1/15 sec, f/16, VR=OFF,
> and handheld. Please note that this is on an APS-C sensor so you
> have to factor in the 1.5x crop factor for an effective focal length
> of 157.5mm. There is a good bit of motion blur, but it's still
> usable at 100% size right out of the camera.

Why do you have the VR version?
Actually, the crop factor is irrelevant at the pixel level as it concerns
IS/VR.

> http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/pressure.htm

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

> 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.

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

Wow.

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.




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

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?

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