JBen

first 2 shots I don't recall and Im in the midst of revamping my website (hence why thieve gone). The 2 remaining shots I do think that was his name. I was out with Mike B and Randy and met him/them on the river. Ive been looking at micros myself lately, J

Nope not to bad. Only thing I'd comment on is trying to crop (blow it up) less. I know its tempting to want to fill the frame as much as possible with subjects but you don't have to.

great shots, glad to see the old PnS doing so well. Thanks Frankie

Well said Dana (nice pic )and supports what I tried to suggest. There are alot of "advantages" to PnSs. Size and weight...My back pack when Im loaded with a body, 3-4 lenses, some accessories can weighs upto 60 pounds and many more. While they can't do everything a DSLR can, if you work within their limits and strengths their IQ can rival that of the best bodies and lenses such that any "difference" is slight. More likely your like many photographers, very critical of their own work. I delete stuff I'm sure (actually I know) many people say...Why?

I agree Ctranter, and in part your two paragraphs address my points and the reason I started this. On one hand. If your serious about photography, or you want to go "deeper" into it, or you have stringent needs. A DSLR is for you. On the other DSLRs are overkill for some/many don't overlook the "lowly" PnS. Hence my post, I think PnSs have a "stigma" and while it may have been true at one time, it's not anymore. To emphasis a couple things. How many people "really" need to critically review files at full res? Unless you print 24x36 (and larger) no one really. Even at those sizes a Canon G12 is more than capable. And I do have files that even at 100% would be very difficult to determine which came a DSLR and which the PnS. And to take this one further, an untrained eye would find it even that much more difficult to distinguish. See other thread. Same can be said of "glass". Put a picture in front of me at 100% and I can see the differences between consumer glass and "Pro" glass. So if someone is going to want to be "that" critical... If you look at the two sample pics I provided in the other thread. The cover shot was taken with a 24-70 f2.8 L. The lens alone cost 3 times more than a good PnS. On this front, I would shoot with my PnS before using a "kit" lens..better IQ. RAW Agreed, I only shoot raw...both with my DSLR and PnS. Lots of PnS offer RAW. That said, I rarely and I mean rarely tweak exposure's in post. Get it right in camera. Be that as it may, again...theres two schools (hobbiest, enthusiest....someone more serious)...As an extreme example.Raw means a converter...CS5 add another $900 to your "investment". Consumer grade body and moderate lens? Now you need a good/solid tripod upwards of 100, 200 vs a $40 pod that can hold a PnS. The main gist and Im hoping people will add some pics. "Todays" PnSs have made leaps and bounds and are fully capable of producing images that rival images taken with a DSLR and "L" glass. Can you capture fast action ( compete with fps). No, you can snipe..Shutter lag on many is not an issue. Are they are good in low light (high ISO). No, but you can remedy that in post if you really want. For many people who just want a camera (something to have with them when out and about), who dont want/or need to be "picky" a good PnS is a very, very viable option for a fraction of the price. DSLRs are great, but for many they are also overkill.

I'm on many boards, some devoted to fishing or hunting, some devoted to other outdoor pursuits (camping, canoeing, hiking,etc), some devoted to photography. Mostly I read, and every now and then I chime in where there two worlds collide....usually when people who love the outdoors, are posting pics asking for photography advice etc. Who am I? Just another poster on many Outdoors boards with a passion for photography, like many here. Today that passion has me a contributing photographer to OOD, freelancing for many others, (OC, TFFJ etc) with hundreds of images published in various magazines, calendars, represented by a global stock agency and more. Point being, Im just a "poster" like anyone else who loved taking pictures of all the things we see/do, and now today am successful on a regional/national level as an "outdoors" photographer. Carrying on. One common theme I often come across on hunting/fishing/outdoors boards goes like this. "I'm looking for a new camera". Im thinking about a DSLR because...................But I'm not sure if I want to spend the money...(make no mistake, photogrpahy and DSLRs "can" get really expensive although it doesn't have to. One thing I will sometimes ask the poster is why are the not "considering" a Point and Shoot. The simple truth is, PnS's have many advantages over DSLRs and "cost" far, far less. So in honor of the "lowly" PnS. Post some of your pictures here if they were taken with a PnS. Lets see them. Heres just a couple of mine to get the ball rolling.

Oh Man that hurts You "might" be able to make a claim under your general homeowners insurance. They may not honor it and if they do there is definately a hard cap with regards to how much coverage they provide. Don't know, have you called?

What others have said, don't knock the hardware. The pics are good and the enthusiasm is evident. I often feel that people today jump into DSLRs when theres no real need. Meaning they can get a PnS and do just as well, for what they want. It's not the hardware that makes a good photo, and having all the best equipment while it helps in some respects, it's not the be all and end all. I know people that have spent tons of money on stuff, having all the best and it doesnt help them take better pictures. I have and use both, and which I'm using at any given time depends entirely on what I'm shooting/doing. Sometimes it's the driver, sometimes it's the car, usually a bit of both. Thats not to say you can do anything with a PnS that you can with a DSLR, you can't. But understanding each systems strengths, limitations and photography and staying within the limitations, makes Aay differences (and there are differences) moot. Even the best "hardware" has limitations. Obviosly a cover shot A "double truck"...2 page spread. One of those was taken with "thousands worth of gear" and one of those was taken with a $400 Point and Shoot. Can you see/tell a difference? Go out, continue to have fun with what you own and take great pictures, your well on the way and you can do it with any system. J

North Shore Lake O, off the point on Presquille.

Yep, insurance is what lets you have fun without worrying. While I won't take over the top risk, I do risk my gear in ways other people shake their heads at. I don't go out my way, but if I "see" a shot I want, and that might entail risking the camera to water or fall damage, I don't let that stop me. Not uncommon at all for me to walk into rivers/lakes where the footing is dicey..I often do it in winter, where theres ice, freezing water, stand knee deep the lake and get my shot. I've soaked my camera in fact, needing to clear the ice off the body/lens that forms within seconds. For a series of these, I walked about 30feet onto an ice shelf, lied down right at the edge, wanting to get the back lit water that "sprayed" as the waves hit the edge of the shelf, kind of like "fireworks". Lot of clearing ice off the lens that day I was shooting waterfalls in May on a rainy day (slick rocks), lost my balance, went with the fall to protect my camera and as a result cracked my head and suffered a nasty concussion that I still havent fully recovered from. Saved my camera at least While I hope I never have to make the call, knowing that I can make that call if need be...............

You've missed focus. There could be a few reasons for it, starting with a)how many active focus points you are using. b)the camera locking onto something other than what you wanted (this will occur even when using single focus points) as the camera always looks for contrast and busy BGs or intervening obstructions (more common). This is highly related to "a". The algorithims will always grab the highest points of contrast near to far. The more active points you have the more likely it will grab something other than what you want. c)can happen if your using the focus/recompose method ( don't suspect thats the cause here). d) Another possibility is that the ducks are inside your lenses MFD (don't think this is the case either but is one such possible reason, might explain the first) e) Back or front focusing J

What he said. The 10D was (is) a capable body but remember DSLRs are like most technology. Todays bleeding edge, is next years dinosaur. You can do alot better with your budget. Look for anything, current or previous generation in the entry level lines that falls under your budget. If you get a steal, you might have room for an accessory or a better lens. The thing to keep in mind is this is only your first body. You will replace/upgrade at some point. So you want something reasonably "current" that will last you either a long time before replacing, or as your learning/growing until you feel it's holding you back (upgrade). With regards to lenses. Depending on how deep you get into it, lenses can cost as much and more than bodies. Depending on what you start with don't be in a rush to go out and get more (thats a fast way to burn money). Use the time while your learning to discover what you really enjoy shooting...that will give you a starting point to "target" a lens designed for that application. Until you "understand" some of the nuances of photography and why you might prefer fixed aperture over a variable aperture for a given application ....Or why "fast glass" cost so much more than "slow" glass...what DoF is,...is "focus speed" important to you? I have lenses that are brutally slow (relative term) and lenses that are lightning fast acquiring initial acquisition....and on and on and on. But each and every lens I own, was purchased with specific applications in mind and are ideally suited (have certain strengths) for that "application". Yes, they often fill secondary roles or more and can be used in ways other than thier "forte"... So until "you" have a sense of what those things are, and what's important (in the end most/all lens purchases come down to trade offs) how can "you" know what your willing to "trade off" for what you really "want"?? Lastly. Glass last....bodies don't...(see above). Worded another way....Your "bodies" will grow old get replaced/upgraded. Your glass if you take care of it will last a lifetime. Lenses are an investment and so you should "invest" in them.

tough bird to get close to. Nice one

Canon has been updating a lot of their lenses. 24-70 70-200 300 f2.8 500 f4 600 f4 etc The primary reason is to bring them up to date with todays bodies, especially given they have much higher MP counts. In order to really take advantage the lens have more/better resolving. Would you notice on an older body with smaller files? Probably not Would you notice on a newer body with larger files? Maybe but the difference will likely be almost imperceptible.

Im not as up to speed on Nikon (Im Canon), as I used to be so I don't want to get to technical and will instead speak in general terms. If someone were to give either body/system you would fall in love with them, no mater which you got. Thats not to say there aren't differences, there are but for most those differences aren't going to be noticeable per se. For example, it's generally thought/accepted that Nikon's flash system does a better job. Will the average person notice/care? Probably not. For a professional wedding photographer who does a lot of lighting photography, they might opt for N. I have a friend who shoots both C and N...He tends to use C for fast action and N for weddings/portraits. What I would do is take some time and look a few years down the road...Is photography something you see taking "seriously"? Say moderate to advanced levels? The fastest way to "burn" money with photography is to make "upgrades". Some are inevitable..what you want to avoid is a lot of them. Bodies, glass, accessories... If its possible then some good planning/purchases now will make the path to growing a little smoother...if not then it wont make much of a difference now...go out..shoot and enjoy.

Spincast. I shoot with a 1Dmkiv and a wide assortment of lenses. Those images were taken with the 500mm f4 L

Few shots of a Red Tail from ealier this winter. incoming The table is set seating for one this is going to taste good

Grats Brandon

Osprey are a lot of fun to shoot

I sense a little danger in what I'm about to say "Showing" better judgement.... aka editting the show so as to appease those that might get offended at the thought/sight of a frog on a hook is not only the wrong thing to do imo. Its a little hypocritical.. To Whit. Some are saying/suggesting the show went too far because the poor little frog struggles to free the hook and kids shouldnt see that. Yet it's perfectly ok to bury hooks into fish, (once they take the bait) haul them through slop, or fight them out to near exhaustion in some cases. Remove said hooks buried in their mouths, give them a tender pat on the back, take a pic , all for no other real reason than our own personal 2 or 10 minutes of gratification. Then release them so someone else can do the same to them tomorrow? aka we don't want kids or the public to see us torturing frogs, it sends the wrong message but we do want our kids to see/learn how to torture fish so they to can enjoy it Just food for thought. /edit add Anyone think this Bow isnt struggling to free the hook?

Been playing a little with HDRs lately. Still prefer the more traditional method of using filters to balance a scene but HDRs can be a lot of fun to.

Common for chickadees, but you dont see hairy/downy WPs doing that often

Like the CB Brandon. Around these parts anything beyond Mallards and Buffleheads are pretty rare.

Thanks all. J