Full Suss 2014 KTM Lycan 27.5 (now with video)

Kowalski675

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

hyperfocal focusing - focus approximately one third of the way into the frame, and that will give the greatest depth of field. Bear in mind that focal length affects depth of field too, when using a zoom lens - a longer focal length (zoomed in) gives a shallower depth of field (for when you want to throw foreground/background out of focus to draw attention to the subject), and also compresses perspective.

distance for hyperfocal focusing is not the same for all focal lengths

Show me where I said it was. I said that you can get a simple approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is true.

Kowalski675

declan1 wrote:

I know how to use a camera thank you.

It would seem not.

Kowalski675

kammybear wrote:

Thanks for all the camera discussion dudes! Give me a few months and I'll be a semi pro

I love that expression, it's such meaningless bollocks. I've sold a few prints, so could claim to be "semi pro", but I prefer to label myself "strictly amateur". One guy on a m/c forum I know of claimed to be "semi pro", but his images were crap - looked like phone snaps somebody had taken with not a moment's consideration for composition. If you want some good sound bs free information, have a look at Ken Rockwell's site - he cuts through the crap.

poah

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

hyperfocal focusing - focus approximately one third of the way into the frame, and that will give the greatest depth of field. Bear in mind that focal length affects depth of field too, when using a zoom lens - a longer focal length (zoomed in) gives a shallower depth of field (for when you want to throw foreground/background out of focus to draw attention to the subject), and also compresses perspective.

distance for hyperfocal focusing is not the same for all focal lengths

Show me where I said it was. I said that you can get a simple approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is true.

in bold - its not true for all focal lengths like I said so you can't use it as a general rule

declan1

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I know how to use a camera thank you.

It would seem not.

Take a look at my website (in my sig) and re-think that statement. If you still think the same, well, everyone's entitled to an opinion...

rapid_donkey

Liking the look of that KTM, didnt even know they made mountain bikes. From the video, your freehub is quite clickey, what hubs are they?

All the long, boring photo argument/comments are getting a bit silly, can we start another photography tips thread where people who are actually interested/care can look.

poah

Kowalski675 wrote:

If you want some good sound bs free information, have a look at Ken Rockwell's site - he cuts through the crap.

you are kidding right

kammybear

rapid_donkey wrote:

Liking the look of that KTM, didnt even know they made mountain bikes. From the video, your freehub is quite clickey, what hubs are they?

All the long, boring photo argument/comments are getting a bit silly, can we start another photography tips thread where people who are actually interested/care can look.

I didn't know either until last year when I watched the Olympics to see what the pros were all riding. It was all BMC, KTM and Orbea all round. Orbea and KTM were on my radar since then and last week I saw an ad in pink bike and replied right away! Love the paint job! Orange is my new riding colour! Just need a decent orange shirt now

Isn't the clickyness a sign of quality? I've always linked that sound with a decent bike? They're DT Swiss of somekind!

It is a bit like Stalingrad with cameras in here

rockmonkeysc

Lewis A wrote:

This is incredibly boring. I haven't seen many KTMs around, are they new to the UK?

They have been around for a little while. A mate has just got the KTM downhill bike, it's a fairly uninspiring ride but looks like it will survive anything and last forever.

Lewis A

This looks nice too, I haven't seen the dh bike though.

Kowalski675

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

hyperfocal focusing - focus approximately one third of the way into the frame, and that will give the greatest depth of field. Bear in mind that focal length affects depth of field too, when using a zoom lens - a longer focal length (zoomed in) gives a shallower depth of field (for when you want to throw foreground/background out of focus to draw attention to the subject), and also compresses perspective.

distance for hyperfocal focusing is not the same for all focal lengths

Show me where I said it was. I said that you can get a simple approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is true.

in bold - its not true for all focal lengths like I said so you can't use it as a general rule

Now try quoting the whole sentence, rather than quoting half of it to try justify your error? As I said - show me where I said it - you can't, because I didn't. :roll:

Kowalski675

declan1 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I know how to use a camera thank you.

It would seem not.

Take a look at my website (in my sig) and re-think that statement.

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

poah

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

hyperfocal focusing - focus approximately one third of the way into the frame, and that will give the greatest depth of field. Bear in mind that focal length affects depth of field too, when using a zoom lens - a longer focal length (zoomed in) gives a shallower depth of field (for when you want to throw foreground/background out of focus to draw attention to the subject), and also compresses perspective.

distance for hyperfocal focusing is not the same for all focal lengths

Show me where I said it was. I said that you can get a simple approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is true.

in bold - its not true for all focal lengths like I said so you can't use it as a general rule

Now try quoting the whole sentence, rather than quoting half of it to try justify your error? As I said - show me where I said it - you can't, because I didn't. :roll:

I did quote the whole sentence, note the full stop at the end. The second sentence was about focal length and DOF. I also corrected that part as well. you made the mistake not I sir

poah

Kowalski675 wrote:

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

better than anything I've seen from you

While his focusing technique is not wrong its certainly not the best way to do it.

declan1

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I know how to use a camera thank you.

It would seem not.

Take a look at my website (in my sig) and re-think that statement.

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

So, why exactly do I need to read my camera's manual again?

rockmonkeysc

Is this about some dudes shiny new bike or an argument about taking photos.

declan1

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Is this about some dudes shiny new bike or an argument about taking photos.

The latter I think :P

We should create a general 'Argument' thread.

Lewis A

Or everyone could be nice to one another.

declan1

Lewis A wrote:

Or everyone could be nice to one another.

Not on the internet

rockmonkeysc

declan1 wrote:

Lewis A wrote:

Or everyone could be nice to one another.

Not on the internet

There's some videos of people being nice to each other on the internet.

declan1

RockmonkeySC wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Lewis A wrote:

Or everyone could be nice to one another.

Not on the internet

There's some videos of people being nice to each other on the internet.

Really? Wow

Lewis A

declan1 wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Lewis A wrote:

Or everyone could be nice to one another.

Not on the internet

There's some videos of people being nice to each other on the internet.

Really? Wow

If I got that right, most of them aren't that nice anymore.

Kowalski675

POAH wrote:

I did quote the whole sentence,

No you didn't - your quote starts part way through a sentence. As I said already - show me where I supposedly said that hyperfocal focusing is the same for all focal lengths. You can't, because I never said that. Try actually reading what's written next time, rather than what you think is. I said that if you're looking to get maximum depth of field then you can get an approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is correct. If you're using hyperfocal focusing then it's because you want maximum depth of field. If you're wanting to get maximum depth of field then you'll already be using a small aperture (typically f16), at which the rough and ready approximation method will give pretty much the same result. The only mistake here is with your ability to read...

Kowalski675

declan1 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

declan1 wrote:

I know how to use a camera thank you.

It would seem not.

Take a look at my website (in my sig) and re-think that statement.

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

So, why exactly do I need to read my camera's manual again?

It might help you take some better images, those are some of the most uninspiring pictures I've seen in quite some time. It won't help with your (lack of) composition skills though, admittedly.

Kowalski675

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

better than anything I've seen from you

I'm not the one crowing about my website and trying to make out that I'm a good photographer. If those are all he's got to back up that claim, then he certainly better not give up his day job any time soon...

declan1

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

Kowalski675 wrote:

If that's your best, then definitely no rethink required.

better than anything I've seen from you

I'm not the one crowing about my website and trying to make out that I'm a good photographer. If those are all he's got to back up that claim, then he certainly better not give up his day job any time soon...

Let's see some of your photos then. I'm not claiming to be a good photographer, I'm pointing out that I know how to use a camera. Can you really not be nice to anyone on here? You have to argue with every piece of advice anyone gives...

kammybear

To be fair....those photos are pretty good...

Twelly

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

I did quote the whole sentence,

No you didn't - your quote starts part way through a sentence. As I said already - show me where I supposedly said that hyperfocal focusing is the same for all focal lengths. You can't, because I never said that. Try actually reading what's written next time, rather than what you think is. I said that if you're looking to get maximum depth of field then you can get an approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is correct. If you're using hyperfocal focusing then it's because you want maximum depth of field. If you're wanting to get maximum depth of field then you'll already be using a small aperture (typically f16), at which the rough and ready approximation method will give pretty much the same result. The only mistake here is with your ability to read..BLAH BLAH BLAH.

Boring.

Try discussing bikes on the the bike forum. Oh and grow up. and play nice.

rapid_donkey

This thread is getting ridiculous now. I would love to see you all arguing and facing up to eachother in person, its pathetic.
Im not being funny, but Kowalski, you do seem to just attract trouble. You joined less than a year ago, went to Halfords and bought a bike, smash in nearly 4k posts, and in almost all of them, you talk down to people like you know the absolute best of everything. I have nothing against you, but maybe try winding your neck in a bit? It just gets peoples backs up.

poah

Kowalski675 wrote:

POAH wrote:

I did quote the whole sentence,

No you didn't - your quote starts part way through a sentence. As I said already - show me where I supposedly said that hyperfocal focusing is the same for all focal lengths. You can't, because I never said that. Try actually reading what's written next time, rather than what you think is. I said that if you're looking to get maximum depth of field then you can get an approximation of hyperfocal focusing by focusing a third of the way into the frame, which is correct. If you're using hyperfocal focusing then it's because you want maximum depth of field. If you're wanting to get maximum depth of field then you'll already be using a small aperture (typically f16), at which the rough and ready approximation method will give pretty much the same result. The only mistake here is with your ability to read...

just admit you got it wrong. I went from the start to the end. a sentence ends with a full stop :roll:

you wrote "hyperfocal focusing - focus approximately one third of the way into the frame, and that will give the greatest depth of field. "

note the full stop at the end. then you started on something else

Bear in mind that focal length affects depth of field too, when using a zoom lens - a longer focal length (zoomed in) gives a shallower depth of field (for when you want to throw foreground/background out of focus to draw attention to the subject), and also compresses perspective

which while you could have linked it into the first part to explain about the 1/3 into the frame focusing you didn't. you described something else which was wrongly described. If I was to mark an exam with that written on it I would not give you full marks for the first part and little for the second. If you are going to give advice at least make it correct.