Post your most convincing DSLR pic

djentley wrote in post #11166707
That is easily the most awesome thing I have seen in ages.

Thanks but I can top it...

www.eaa.org/wallpaper

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11167982
Thanks but I can top it...

www.eaa.org/wallpaper

That definitely awesome (and very cool, too :cool!

stsva wrote in post #11168236
That definitely awesome (and very cool, too :cool!

Thanks...

Very flattered that EAA found it worthy. Doubly so when there are only 12 chosen per year.

Some of my examples..

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

tdodd wrote in post #11167351
Have you not seen the EXIF? 500mm at f/4 on a 7D (so that's 800mm equivalent) at ISOs 2000 and 1000 respectively. Exactly which compact cameras can match those specs? And deliver that IQ?

No exif attached to the pictures
There are point and shoots with what, 30x zoom now? That's equivalent to almost 900mm....usually at F/5.6 or so. So right now they're a little more zoomed in and a stop less light. I don't know what your shutter speed is, but assuming they shoot at 400 ISO, they could produce some pretty good pictures that don't look too different from that one.
And mikehookm....no, not at all.

Trainboy wrote in post #11168764
No exif attached to the pictures
There are point and shoots with what, 30x zoom now? That's equivalent to almost 900mm....usually at F/5.6 or so. So right now they're a little more zoomed in and a stop less light. I don't know what your shutter speed is, but assuming they shoot at 400 ISO, they could produce some pretty good pictures that don't look too different from that one.
And mikehookm....no, not at all.

You want to pitch a 30X compact zoom lens and a diminutive sensor against that 500/4 prime and expect to match the result? Let's not forget that this was at 2000 ISO. Even if you only lose one stop from the lens that'll be 4000 ISO, or a major compromise on shutter speed. Here's the shooting data for the tiger....

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

At web sized images you might be surprised ... it sure would be interesting to see such a comparison.

There we go, 1/800. Now, it doesn't look as though anything's moving, so let's convert those settings to 'acceptable' P&S numbers. F/4 --> F/5.6 = 1 stop, 2000 ISO --> 400 ISO = 2 1/3 stops, so we need to subtract 3 1/3 stops from the shutter speed. That gets us 1/160. Certainly handholdable with IS, pop in a little NR and sharpening, contrast and saturation, and it won't look as good, but it'll still be a pic you can get with a P&S.

mikehookm wrote in post #11168197

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

in coloradO??

^^^ Stunning! ^^^

A few I would probably show... Usually to show off shallow DOF, sharpness and overall image quality. Full size, of course.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR