Walt Wayman wrote:
>Anyway, the only thing bordering on a "keeper" I shot while testing old lenses
>is here, followed by a crop of the very middle section. This is straight out
>of the camera, with everything set flat. I'm still trying to decide which
>settings to tweak. It's probably not as sharp as it might've been if I'd used
>even a monopod, but it's what it is. I'll do better next time.
>
>http://home.att.net/~hiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html
><http://home.att.net/%7Ehiwayman/wsb/html/view.cgi-photos.html-.html>
>
>
Nice pose, cheeky title!
That thing is pretty noisy at 400. Quit usable, but noisy. My example
has all the problems yours has, but worse. For many years, we would see
the very occasional grosbeak, less than one a year. This year, we've not
only had many visits, but I've seen an adult feeding a fledge! Such
geogeous birds, I hope they like it and settle in.
They are, however, pretty skittish, and I haven't got a decent pic yet.
The best I've done so far is this grab shot, and at 300mm, hand held,
even the stationary bird is fuzzier than I would like.
So the only excuse I can find to show it is that it is a bird, like
Walt's shot, in the same size ballpark full pixel and shot at 1600 iso
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Grosbeak.htm>.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|