>Well, a shot (Panorama) of a side walk cafe is not very interesting without >people in it, is it?
There are no rules as to what to pano or not, but unless I felt the movement (of the people) was an integral element of the shot I wouldn't take it. -Just me- >(I assume you didn't bother to looke at my photographs - that's all right, I >like them anyway). Good I'm glad you are happy with your pano's. I looked at them but chose not to comment. The harbor scene was quite nice, but the initial beach scene left me cold (the phantom people). Whether someone looks @ another's photos or not shouldn't matter one way or the other. Don't take this personally, its only photography Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Nov 11, 2005 1:56 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: Any reason not to buy a *istD? Well, a shot (Panorama) of a side walk cafe is not very interesting without people in it, is it? (I assume you didn't bother to looke at my photographs - that's all right, I like them anyway). Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. november 2005 19:04 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: RE: Any reason not to buy a *istD? >...For action shots, it is sometimes required to be able to do more than a >5-shot burst. Jens, While you can make a pano out of anything you choose, in general, I would not normally choose a subject with known, visible motion.... its more trouble than its worth - IMO (unless the motion was an element I was trying to employ) Kenneth Waller -----Original Message----- From: Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Any reason not to buy a *istD? What did I miss? When creating panoramas of scenery that involves moving objects - let's say people walking in the street or sitting in a street walk cafe, birds on the water, a machine working in a field, a boat crossing a bay etc. etc. it's curtail to be able do, let's say 30-40 shots in a row, without too many or too long breaks. The *ist D will allow me to do only 5 shots in a row (burst), then wait either 7 sec's for the next single shot (number 6, 7, 8 ...) or half a minute for the next 5-shot burst. This is what Rob meant when he wrote: Not great for creating pano sequences is it? :-( Of course panos like this IS difficult to do, which is one of the reasons I find them challenging :-) Nevertheless, I managed to do these, which involved hours of PS work later on: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/50969676/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/54541993/ Panos like these will, in any case, require some PS work at the computer, pasting in small parts, where people have been moving too much between shots. The longer it takes to shoot the sequence, the more PS work will be necessary afterwards. Of cource I can consider using my MS-Z instead (36 shots without any breaks to "catch breath" :-) For action shots, it is sometimes required to be able to do more than a 5-shot burst. That's just how I feel about the issue. In a perfect world, I'll like to be able to do 40 shots in 40 seconds, that's all. Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Kenneth Waller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 10. november 2005 01:07 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD? >>>Not great for creating pano sequences is it? :-( Not aware of an issue with panos. What did I miss? Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:44 PM Subject: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD? > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Francis" > Subject: Re: SV: Any reason not to buy a *istD? > > > >>> Not great for creating pano sequences is it? :-( >> >> Oddly enough, I've managed to use my D for (RAW) panoramas, >> and for motorsports action photography. > > I've tried some panos with mine. It can be done, but you have to be > patient with the camera. >> >> I guess it's just as well that I didn't know the camera >> couldn't be used for such things. > > Did someone say that or are you hyperbolizing? >> >> It could certainly be better for buffer size, write speed, >> and auto-focus performance (while I've got some great action >> shots, I've also got several near misses). > > I suspect that was Rob's point. I know for a fact I have missed a number > of pictures because of the small, slow buffer. > >> >> But I don't regret having purchased the camera, even though >> I paid almost $2000 (US) for the camera and battery grip. > > Nor I, but this does not mean I don't see room for improvement. > > William Robb > > ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com ________________________________________ PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
