www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Nice to see another Sony DSLR user! I thought I was the only one

Eccles, Gruditch...
hmm maybe there is a way of finding out which is really better, and resolve this - although it is rather entertaining...

How about you two send me your best butterfly shot. Personally Peacock butterflies are my favourite, plus it makes it slightly fairer as they are the same species. No Image editing. As I won't be able to tell the difference between the quality of your shots, so I can't be bais. Sure there is the skill of the photographer - another key factor, but surely the camera is also very important factor. Then I can put them up on a thread allowing people to vote on which one is of better quality with out them knowing who took the photo Lets see if that brings the debate any closer to which one is better Do you rise to the Challenge you two?

After thinking about it, I'd love to see the outcome now

Em

Mouse, doesn't your great idea sound a bit like the monthly comps we already run.

Gruditch

Gruditch wrote:Mouse, doesn't your great idea sound a bit like the monthly comps we already run.

Not at all!! No one would know which image was taken by which camera
Come to think of it, why not extend the voting to all members except the chief protagonists. Undoctored stuff and preferably using the same glass.....
Vveeerry interesting

We would have to be in the same place, at the same time, taking pictures of the same subject, using the same settings and mode on our cameras, and be using the same lens, otherwise it would be a pretty pointless exercise wouldn't it.

Only a few short months ago you were asking our advise on which camera to get, now you think you are an expert enough photographer to distinguish which DSLR can turn out the better quality image, you have come a long way in a short time.




Gruditch

An interesting suggestion, Em, but Gary has a point. By far the biggest contributor towards the quality of a butterfly photo is the photographer. I believe I can take a decent butterfly shot with my camera, and I know that Gary can as well, so for each of us at this moment in time our respective cameras are the 'best'.
The thread was started as a bit of fun, a wind up that I guessed Gary and Roger couldn't resist, and I think it certainly achieved that aim.
Beyond that, if you want to pixel peep, you might want to look at comparative resolution figures on DPReview. You'll find that currently the leader at normal light levels is the Sony A900, and at lower light levels probably the Nikon D700, with the Canon 1Ds III a compromise between the two, but even there, a camera is more than just sensor resolution. It's about its handling, how well it fits in the user's hands, the menu system, and the accessories that are available for it. The latter is a good reason for selecting Canon, particularly if you only buy new. For me, the difference in handling and other aspects were enough to sway me to the Sony and accept a necessity to buy second user Minolta where Sony hadn't yet caught up. Being a bit of a cheapskate helped there as well.

Gruditch wrote: now you think you are an expert enough photographer to distinguish which DSLR can turn out the better quality image, you have come a long way in a short time. Gruditch

That's a little unkind . I was in no way suggesting that I might be able to separate the images. I just thought it would be interesting to see what turned up and what the various UKB members thought of the results. If the experts in the photo mags are unable to separate most of this stuff, I doubt that many of us would see any difference at all. I really only made the suggestion to back up what Mouse said. Anyway, I now feel suitably chastised and contrite and will think long and hard before posting anything else on the Photo thread

Antonym wrote: will think long and hard before posting anything else on the Photo thread

Snap Antonym

For pete's sake people, a camera is a useful tool for taking pictures, nothing more. Enjoy yours, whatever make and model it is.

Mouse, and Antonym, please continue to post here.

My posts in this thread were in no way intended to be anything more than simple lampooning. Let's face it, my choice of camera manufacturer has faced a certain amount of derision from certain contributors over the last year or so. It may be a little unpalatable that some of my comments have struck a little nearer the bone than I intended, for which I apologise, so let me make it clear:
I believe Sony make good cameras capable of good pictures.
I believe Canon make good cameras capable of good pictures.
I believe Nikon make good cameras capable of good pictures.
I believe Pentax make good cameras capable of good pictures.
I believe Olympus make good cameras capable of good pictures.

If I have omitted anyone's camera, please feel free to add it to the above.

Sigma, Fuji, Kodak, Leica, Panasonic... it can be a who can think of the most camera makes competition now

Oh...Leaf AFi-II 10 - 56MP Medium Format sensor. $40K. Bet that should take decent pics in the right hands. Might be a bit of a lump to lug around for macro work but the resulting detail should blow the mind!

Eccles, just for the record, none of your comments hit near home, or offended me anyway.
You just don't know when to shut up, even in this tread, you have posted twice after you promised to shut up. I only came down on Mouse and Antonym, cuz I knew they would start you of again. I do enjoy a bit of light hearted brand banter, but not 24-7, so for the love of God shut up.

Gruditch

Gruditch wrote: I only came down on Mouse and Antonym....

Lest I be considered inconsistent, I have thought long and hard before writing this post .
I'm not sure that it should be within the remit of any member of staff to 'come down on' anyone, without a VERY compelling reason. It is totally inappropriate on what is otherwise an extremely friendly and helpful site. I also note that I am by no means the first to experience this particular scourge . Perhaps a probationary period of prior editorial approval might be in order. After all, we don't want to go down the way of Ross and Brandt, do we?

Gruditch wrote:I only came down on Mouse and Antonym, cuz I knew they would start you of again.

And because they were talking complete nonsense

Gruditch

promised to shut up

To paraphrase Captain Barbossa, not a promise, more a sort of guideline.

I had to Wikipedia Captain Barbossa. Next time we get in to a brand war, we should call a halt with a Parley.

Can't believe I had to vote for your pic this morning.

Gruditch

But it was good lighting hence the low noise

The shot got mine also.

Shuuuuush, we mustn't influence the voting.

Gruditch

I shouldn't worry. I think most people got fed up with this thread by now and don't come in here

FISHiEE wrote:I shouldn't worry. I think most people got fed up with this thread by now and don't come in here

I certainly hope so. Unfortunately, the web (and email) is not the best medium for knowing if someone is being serious or not when they post, since there's no "body language" (for example). And there are obviously some quite scathing and personal remarks in this thread.

I'd therefore kindly request that members are careful about what they post since what might be seen as humourous by you, might be taken the wrong way by others. I think it's fine when you know someone, but others joining in may not have that personal relationship and then things turn sour. And based on a couple of private messages I've received, that's how this one has ended

Perhaps we should start a thread on "posting etiquette"?

Cheers,

- Pete

Pete Eeles wrote: Perhaps we should start a thread on "posting etiquette"?

Yes please Pete.

there's no "body language"

I totally agree, I have that problem anyway, so I am aware of the impacts that it has socially. But I like Pete's idea of a thread on it.

Em

P.S. Gruditch - we were only having a bit of fun... I guess with body language, voice tone or whatever that would have been a bit clearer. Anyway, lets forget that. Here goes for a bit of body language - *shakes hand*