| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2009/9/7-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53339 Activity:nil |
9/6 I find the following ad pretty offensive. What's the best way to
find out who this is? Garden Grove is full of Vietnamese.
http://orangecounty.craigslist.org/pho/1361935049.html
Like new, has 212 actuations. Includes everything that originally came with the camera.
Camera was purchased on 4/12/09 will include receipt and blank warranty card.
PRICE IS ABSOLUTELY FIRM. I WILL NOT SHIP
IF YOU ARE VIETNAMESE DO NOT CONTACT ME.
^^^ wtf is this???
\_ Why not just send an email offering to buy it? |
| 2009/9/1-9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53316 Activity:nil |
9/1 Canon comes out with an EOS 7D with 18 whopping megapixels! Read
and weep Nikoners!
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0909/09090105canoneos7d.asp#press
\_ Huh? That's stupid. It has 1.6x APS-C sensor. If it had full
36x24mm sensor AND 18MP, sure. Even then, I'd prefer 12MP.
Note I'm not a Nikoner, although these days, I wish I were.
I have 350D, 40D, and 5D (original). I gave away the 350D,
though.
\_ 12MP on a full frame is SWEET. How much ISO can you crank
up at night time comfortably? |
| 2009/8/31-9/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53311 Activity:nil |
8/31 Does it make sense to buy a nice 70-200mm f/4L lens and mount it on a
cheap Canon Rebel XSi with 12MP? I'd hate to upgrade the body
because bodies get outdated quickly, and I don't care about how fast
auto-focus is. I just care about image quality for non-sports pics. I'd
love to have a sharper lens than my cheapo 55-250mm and don't care
about the body, but I'm wondering if there are severe disadvantages
for going with a consumer body + pro lens combo. Thanks.
\_ There may be better lenses to consider depending on what your
photo priorities are, but I dont think you're making the mistake
of "too much lens for the body". As you imply, most amateurs
make the opposite problem: too much body for their lenses.
An issue may be the FOV multiplier ... which makes that quite
a long lens [I assume the 70-200 is calibrated to 35mm, so really
that's 110 at the short end ... that may still be useable indoors
but it starts getting impossible when you get a little longer ...
rooms arent big enough to get more than a headshot].
\_ The 70-200mm f/4 IS is SHARPER than 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at all aperture
except for 2.8, which of course the f/4 cannot get to. But
at f/4 and beyond, the f/4 IS beats the f/2.8 IS version
hands down. How important is that one extra stop? I'd say,
for outdoors and birds and weddings such, the f/4 is a better buy.
\_ The XSi is a fine camera; if you're not at the cutting edge of
photography, it will do just fine. A 70-200mm will be quite long
on the APS-C sized sensor, but that might be what you want if
you're doing wildlife photography or something. It'll certainly
give you better pictures than a cheap megazoom. -tom
\_ I saw a 1:1 picture from 50D at 800 ISO and it was surprisingly
noisy. I just don't see how a better (more megapixel) camera
is supposed to be better when it looks ugly at only 800 ISO.
\_ For a given sensor size, the more megapixels the camera
has, the noisier images will be, if all else is equal
(which is rare). -tom
\_ So newer cameras are crappier since they have higher MP?
\_ It's not so simple. A sensor using the same technology
will have more resolution and more noise at 15MP than
12MP. Whether that matters depends on what you're
shooting. And newer, and more expensive cameras
often have different/better sensor technology.
In any case, we do seem to be reaching the point
of diminishing returns on megapixel count. -tom |
| 2009/8/28-9/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53307 Activity:low |
8/27 http://www.flickr.com/photos/acornsarebitter On a scale of 1-10 (10=best), how good is this flickr stream? How interesting is it. Be honest please. Please post your comments directly on flickr if possible. \_ while we're at it, can someone critique this one please? http://www.flickr.com/photos/polvero/sets/72157611811908959 This is not mine. I'm just baffled as to why he has so many followers, for taking pictures that look the same... 200mm f/2 with bokeh, at night. After a while it gets really boring and I just want to know WHY he has so many followers. What do *you* like about his set and why would you follow him 365? \_ 365 people all follow each other. And contacts on flickr are mostly about how much you schmooze; some people will always set you as a contact if you set them as a contact. -tom \_ sorry it doesn't do it for me. Awesome camera, lousy photographer. People with 300D and kit lens take more interesting pictures. \_ he just bought a Panasonic GF-1, which means... he'll be taking more crappy pictures. \_ He's one of my contacts; met him at the OCVB awards. I think he does some interesting stuff, particularly in low light. Most of it is only OK. (And the vast majority of his stream is shot with a 450D; you might want to look at more than the first three pictures, which are just him trying out his new camera). If he's a soda person, that's news to me. -tom \_ what is your flickr id? I'd like to follow \_ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub -tom \_ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/3413190904/in/set-72157614269910859 This is amazing. \_ Thanks. Funny, it started out as a mistake (blown out highlights), but I cranked up the brightness and contrast to emphasize the texture and pattern. -tom \_ what did he win the award for, photographs? Shit, maybe I should start uploading my pictures as well. \_ The Oakland Convention and Visitors Bureau has a yearly photo contest for pictures of Oakland. He got a merit award for a shot of the Grand Lake Theater: http://www.flickr.com/photos/acornsarebitter/119705907 (which is a pretty good shot, I think). -tom \_ if his other 99% of the shots are like this one, he would be more interesting to follow. \_ Why do you care? -tom \_ I was getting frustrated that bozos with subpar looking pictures are getting lots of comments. FOR WHAT? Just look at his sets. They're mostly just patterns, circles, bits and pieces of buildings. There is hardly any living things, any movement, and little emotion. Nothing. But as you said before commenting is more of a social thing than anything else. Even your photos have more dynamics than his. \_ The amount of comments you get is mostly related to how many groups you participate in, how many friends you have on flickr, and how much schmoozing you do. Oh, and whether you're a female who takes self-portraits. -tom \_ Case in point, Rebecca: http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebba/3866531623 Oh she's quite something ain't she? ***droooool*** \_ Rebekka is actually a good photographer. There are plenty of crap photographers who get lots of attention because of self-portraiture. -tom \_ She's cuter IMHO: http://www.flickr.com/photos/24567277@N00 \_ http://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=431145 |
| 2009/7/21-24 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53172 Activity:moderate |
7/21 NASA uses Nikon cameras. NASA prefers Nikon cameras. There are more
Nikon cameras that went to outer space than any other brand. I love
Nikon cameras. They're built to be abused, built to last.
\_ When is Apple going to make cameras or partner with a good one?
\_ Canon cameras are just as good, and I think in the US Canon is more
popular than Nikon. -- yuen, owner 3 Nikon SLRs and 0 Canon.
\_ Canon cameras always give you more bang for bucks. It's always
been that way for eons. Canon was the first to forego tradition
and reimplemented their autofocus lenses (motor in-lens,
diaphragm in-lens), first to implement in-lens image stabilization,
first to implement live-view, first to create an affordable full-
frame camera (5D), first everything. Nikon usually lags behind,
but they have much higher built quality and lasts in battlefields.
Older Nikkor lenses also retain much higher resale values because
they are much MUCH more durable than plastic-built Canon lenses.
\_ Am honestly looking for a digital camera that works, no fuss,
turnkey solution with OSX. |
| 2009/5/28-6/5 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53053 Activity:nil |
5/28 Reading camera posts got me curious about rangefinder cameras. In an
era of DSLR, full automation, and instant digital imaging, why would
anyone want to use a rangefinder camera? Why are Voitglander and
Leica even making modern rangefinders when DSLRs are clearly superior
in terms of lens selection and features? -DSLR guy
\_ Rangefinders are still more quiet, have less vibration, and are
capable of higher sync speeds than SLRs. -- owner of 3 SLRs
\_ sync speed higher than 1/250? I find that hard to believe.
\_ Rangefinders can use leaf shutters. Most SLRs use focal-plane
shutters. -- PP
\_ I thought most rangefinders out there (M6, M8.2, etc)
still use cloth shutter.
\_ I think they are just trying to milk their "premium" brand
good well. There isn't much point of making rangefinder camera
when you view things electronically. By the way, same thing
goes with DSLR. If you are willing to give up optical finder,
you could get rid of mirrors and pentaprism to make camera
lighter, smaller, and quieter. I think Olympus got one of those.
it still called it a "DSLR" but I really think it should just
call it "DSL" since there are no "reflex" involved. kngharv |
| 2009/5/28-6/4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53052 Activity:nil |
5/28 Hey kngharv, you said "it's *IMPOSSIBLE* to make a good 6x zoom."
http://csua.com/2002/06/16/#25111
But Nikon and Canon came out with a 11X zoom. The 18-200mm.
Ironic how times have changed eh?
\_ You haven't justified that they are "good", only that they exist.
\_ Tamron also has a 28-300mm. Don't know if it's good though.
\- i own an older version of this lens which i bought very cheaply.
it's only useful for situations when you want to shoot
something but shooting isnt a priority but other things
are ... like not carrying multiple lenses, or not having
to swtich lenses a bunch. also it is a cheap way to get
out to 300mm. they way i would phrase it is "a 10x is
out to 300mm. the way i would phrase it is "a 10x is
going to have a number of compromises". this is pretty
obvious if you understand the issues ... i.e. it isnt a
kngharv opinion but an engineering+economics statement.
\_ soft when wide open, soft when zoomed. I also used the
18-200mm VR. The VR is a joy, but the image quality really
sucks at either end unless you're at f/8.0, which makes it
useless at night time. In short, I hate using super zoom
lenses, partly because I shoot mostly at night. Prime baby! |
| 2009/5/21-25 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53026 Activity:nil |
5/20 Germany's camera sweatshop:
http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/special_leica_mp_m7.php?langid=2 |
| 2009/5/20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53023 Activity:nil |
5/20 Captain Camera Log
09.05.09: bought Interslice's camera seal and repair kit, aka
Jon Goodman. http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/sealreplacement.html
http://shop.ebay.com/merchant/interslice_W0QQ_nkwZQQ_armrsZ1QQ_fromZQQ_mdoZ
09.05.14: received repair kit. Started working on a Nikon FE2.
Got rid of vulcanite goo gunk that deteriorated in the past
few decades. Removed FE2's focusing screen, did a major
clean-up. View finder is now all nice and bright. Added 3mm
mirror damper, re-sealed the light box.
09.05.17: started working on the Pentax K-1000. The view finder is
dirty with deteriated rubber seals. Awaiting for the
right tool to open up the speed dial.
09.05.18: lost bid on a bunch of cheap rangefinder cameras
09.05.19: lost bid on the expensive Leica M3 with original
box and receipt and paperwork (posted previously on motd)
09.05.20: received an Olympus OM-10. Focusing screen needs replacement
as the previous owner abused it with a strong solvent. Got
a new replacement from eBay. Awaiting for the replacement
so that a new mirror damper can be installed.
09.05.20: continue bidding on more broken cameras so that I can
repair them and resell at a profit |
| 2009/5/19-25 [Consumer/Camera, Industry/Startup] UID:53012 Activity:nil |
5/18 I spotted a pretty good deal on Craigslist. However, the seller is
offering the following (but doesn't want to meet):
"How about if we do the deal through a shipping company i've used to
complete several transactions... I ship the camera to you, provide
tracking and then payment to be done direct to the company agent. once
you have received the camera and decide to keep it, then you inform the
company to pay me."
How likely is this a scam? I've never done anything on Craigslist and
I'm a bit wary of doing anything on it for the very first time.
\_ There are a lot of shady escrow companies out there, but there are
some good ones, too. Get details and do research. -tom
\_ As long as you aren't cashing the "shipping costs" for them and
giving them money before you get the merchandise it should be fine.
Be very wary. My friend got a fake money order from H. Betty
Industries with instructions to pay the shipping company the
excess in cash. -scottyg
\_ Do not use an escrow company suggested by the seller, there are too
many scams out there. Suggest http://escrow.com and run screaming if they
balk at this. -guy who got burned this way
http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams
"AVOID DEALS INVOLVING SHIPPING OR ESCROW SERVICES "
http://www.ic3.gov/crimeschemes.aspx#item-8
\_ Yeah. There are exactly two companies licensed to do online
escrow in California: http://escrow.com and Elance Escrow Corporation.
See http://www.corp.ca.gov/FSD/licensees
\_ what did you get burned on? I lost about $800 on a nice looking
realdoll for what I thought was a $2000 realdoll.
\_ Jewelry
\_ You're buying used Real Doll? Yucks.
\_ how is this worse than sleeping with a hooker? If anything
it's a lot cleaner and safer. |
| 2009/5/19-25 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53010 Activity:nil |
5/18 http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200341656624&_trkparms=tab%3DWatching I've been eyeing on this Leica M3 with box, tag, certificate, case. If you look at picture 9 of 12, you'll see a receipt from March 16, 1957 for the amount of $1317.80. How much dollar is that in Deutsche Mark back in 1957, and how much is it now when you consider inflation? I'm trying to figure it out but historical prices are difficult to attain. Thanks. \_ http://www.westegg.com/inflation \_ good site but the OP is asking what 1317.80 is in German money and in fact, I don't even think Deutsche Mark was available until the Allies started issuing it in 1958. \_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Mark says 1948. I was confused by the "$" mark he used, you are probably right. Do you want DM:$ then inflated to today? Or inflated first, then converted? They will give different answers and the latter will be much harder to find the answer to. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/currency.htm Can give you the former pretty easily. |
| 2009/5/18-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53006 Activity:nil |
5/18 While my nemesis was putting on the green I had a chance to show
off my newly acquired Leica M6 and Leitz 5cm Summicron, in almost
mint condition. It turns out he's a rangefinder enthusiast himself,
except that it's behind the glass because the fucker doesn't want to
put a single scratch on his collection. That's why he only brings his
D-Lux 4 "the son of M8" and occassionalyl 1Ds mk 3. Later on
in the day he showed me his Nikon S3 limited edition behind a glass,
with original Nikon gold box, instruction manuals, warranty card,
and import card. Godamn mother fucker!!!
\_ Cage match.
\_ this reads like ad copy from the 1970s. Kudos! |
| 2009/5/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52944 Activity:high |
5/4 Which Canon dSLR should I buy?
\_ The cheapest one you can get away with, and the most expensive
glass you can afford. Camera body depreciates 1/2 every 18-24
months. Plastic kit lenses depreciate at about 15-20% each
year till they're worthless in about 3-5 years. Good glass
(constant f/2.8 and below) hardly ever depreciate, and some
actually go up in value.
\_ This general rule is good for film SLR, where the film is not
a function of the body. But is it also true for dSLR, where the
image sensor is a function of the body? Cheap bodies might not
have high-enough image resolution, low-enough noise ratio, etc.,
to appreciate your premium lens. -- yuen
\_ I beg differ. This rule is still applys for most
people. Most beginners don't care about noise ratio and
for most people, high resolution is more of burden.
Most of cheapo body has sensor that is identical to the
mid range camera. kngharv
\_ When Nikon D300 ($1800 prosumer) came out, it blew away
all APS-C competition with the Sony sensor. Many Canon 40D
and 50D users weep because they lust for D300's amazing low
light capability (engineering trade-offs -- Canon opted for
resolution while Nikon opted for high ISO and low noise).
Over a year later, the D90 ($999 high end consumer) came out
using the exact same sensor and takes exactly the same image
qualities, though with only 11 point AF (vs. 51 on the 300D),
less FPS, and other pro features). This year, cheap D5000 came
and again, using the exact same sensor. It is a lot cheaper.
So as you can see, there is a trickle-down effect on sensors.
You don't have to spend a lot of money to get the best sensor
quality. Unless you need massive AF and FPS and other pro
features, a cheap body will do just fine. You can just wait
1-2 years before a pro-quality sensor trickles down into
consumer end bodies. P.S. Canon used to win the DSLR sensor
race, but for the past 2 years the Nikon D3, D3x, and D300
have been winning. I'm sure next few years, Canon will have
an upper hand. It's a rat race, and an exciting one it is.
Like I said, camera bodies get obsolete as fast as CPUs.
But innovations in lens is slow... huge optical innovations
ended since the 50s, and optically innovation-wise we're about
the same as the 70s and 80s. All that Nikon N (nanocoating) and
Canon flouride coating is just marketing BS. Optical
the same as the 70s and 80s. All that Nikon N (nanocoating)
and Canon flouride coating is just marketing BS. Optical
innovations are slow hence glass retain their values. The
only new things we have these days is just stuff built on
and around the lens, like silent ultrasonic focus, G-ring
electric aperture rings, VR/IS. P.S. Nikon D400 is coming out.
\_ The one that fits your needs.
\_ LOL it doesn't matter. When you are married, have a house and
a baby, your priority will change and photography will no longer
be part of your life. Most married men sell off their extensive
photographic equipments after they're on the marriage track.
\_ I mostly want this to take pictures of the kids.
\_ Why limit yourself to Canon?
\_ Are there other good choices? What else would you consider?
\_ I agree with the first followup. But would add "what problem
are you trying to solve" and "where are you starting from?".
If you are "getting into photography", which is what I assume
from your question, you should fix your budget for the whole kit.
A colleague of mine bought more body than he needs and has cheapo
lenses and then rents higher end lenses ... a decision I thought
was crazy. This will likely mean you are picking from 2-3 Canon
bodies ... if you are looking at $5k bodies, you are certainly
not going to be looking at $500 bodies. More practically you
not going to be looking at $500 bodoes. More practically you
might be looking a $600 body and wondering if the $1.4k body is
worth the difference. Also, you should mention whether there is
some special considerations ... like "my sister just moved to
mombasa and i am going to visit her and squeeze in a safari" vs.
"i want to take pictures of my new child" or "i want to take
pix of my band" or "i want to take pix of my award winning roses",
"i am an avid birdwatcher and want to start taking pix of what
i see on birding trips." "i want to take a photography class".
BTW, i would stick with canon if:
1. you dont come in with a large investment in fancy glass
2. you are not on a super-low budget.
\_ I want to take pictures of my children. I currently have an SD750
which is okay, but I want something better.
\_ If you want to "take pictures of your children," you're
probably better off getting one of the Digital ELPH cameras
than an SLR. You'll save money and you'll have something
that you'll always carry with you, instead of a big
wad of equipment that sits at home. Pictures of the kids
are more about opportunity than quality.
If you want to do your own portraiture, the XSi with a
decent portrait lens (like the 35mm f/2.0) should be
fine. -tom
\- while it may be usable for protraits, that is not
a portrait lens, at least for headshot type
pix. you need big app and reasonably long focal
length to get parallel rays. probably want to
go at least 80mm ... 180mm is probably overkill for
home portraits. my 105 is a double purpose macro
and portrait. it's a little long on digital.
50 f1.4 will probably be better and is generally
a nice lens. 50 1.8 might be better and is
usually a cheap lens with decent optics [although
sometimes build quality isnt the best, but not
that big a deal on a forgiving lens].
\_ Assuming this isnt a troll: you probably arent going to get a
Canon 1-series [high end pro bodies]. So you are likely looking
at Canon 3digit, 2digit or 5x. So look at the price and
features of the Digital Rebel (<$800), the 50d ($1200) and
5D (+$2500) ... that should reduce this to a question
5D (+$2500) ... that should greatly reduce this to a question
about specific bodies ... at which point you can make trade off
within your budget and pushing your budget envelope outwards
by a little.
\_ I have a huge 70-200mm f/2.8L IS body on a Rebel XS. I know
people laugh at it, and it looks funny, but you know, I take
better pictures than a bunch of dumbasses with a 5Dmk2 with a
kit lens. Now, who is the dumbass here?
\_ I'm shooting with a Rebel XSi; it's a totally capable
camera. There's a pretty small range of shots that
would be easier to capture with a better body. But a
lot depends on your shooting; most of mine is landscapes
taken while riding/hiking, so light weight is a
significant consideration; if I were shooting concerts
a heavier body with better low-light performance would
be better. -tom
\_ If you're just taking daytime landscape while traveling,
a high quality P&S will do just fine. In fact you can't
really tell image difference under those conditions
(slower shutter, 100 ISO, f/8-11, bright light).
Let me dig up an article from a famous pro who carries
both a DSLR and a Canon G10 (Lumix LX3 does a good job
too). Seriously, can you tell the difference? If a pro
can't tell the difference, neither can 99.5% of the
people out there. A Canon XSi on a bike is just too
cumbersome. Go with the best point and shoot.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/lx3.shtml
\_ Well, actually I use a Canon PowerShot S5 if I'm
cycling without specific photography opportunities
in mind. -tom
\_ Oh ok, you're set then. Cool. -pp
\_ I took a G10 and a Nikon SLR on my last vacation
trip. I took maybe 50x as many pictures with the
G10 ... here are the main limitations:
1. for landscapes, I didnt have quite the field of
view i'd have liked ... compared to my 18mm.
2. i dont own a polarizer for the G10 ... i believe
it is a pretty expesnive addon
it is a pretty expensive addon
3. biggest problem: too much depth of field [LX3
is better in this regard, but still not as good
as a fast lens]
4. big, big win of the G10 was the really nice
image stabilization. there were a lot of pix
it took in a museum without a flash which
I took in a museum without a flash which
might be say 6.5/10, which i could have taken
might be say 6/10, which i could have taken
at 8/10 if i could control the lighting, but since
i could not control the lighting, the pix with
my SLR would have been 0-2/10.
5. and of course eventhough the G10 is pushing the
outer limits of "pocket camera", i could and did
carry it almest everywhere, where as i only
took the "big gear" on a could of occasions where
i was doing "serious photography" [Monte Alban]. |
| 2009/5/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52941 Activity:nil |
5/3 I'm in the market for a functional Leica IIIc Luftwaffe rangefinder
camera. I'm wondering where I should go to find it? eBay is full of
fake knockoffs from Russia.
\_ Also, which screw mount lenses are better? Summicron? Elmar? Planar?
Summilux? |
| 2009/4/17-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52860 Activity:moderate |
4/17 I never went to film school or even studied cinematography. Maybe
that's why I don't get Pulp Fiction. Can someone explain to me
why it's so great?
\_ so ignoring the trolls for a second, let's assume you don't have
to enjoy a film to internalize why it is notable. The
cinematography is good, but this is not why people fawn over it.
Pulp Fiction is known for:
- the mix of brazenly cheesey dialog with brutal violence
\_ And people like cheezy & violent shit? Really?
- 1970s film references. Tarantino is a film geek and 90% of
the content of his films are cribbed from earlier sources.
If you don't get the references, the film is not as enjoyable
\_ I don't watch old films. Maybe that's why I don't get it.
Fine, I'm too stupid to get this academically brilliant film
\_ you are intentionally ignorant, which makes you worse than
stupid, actually.
Fine, I'm too stupid to get this academically brilliant
film
\_ you are intentionally ignorant, which makes you worse
than stupid, actually.
- this also gets you the "postmodern" label, which is one
of the things that Tarantino is also known for. This sort
of weird nostalgia for a bunch of time periods that weren't
really like this.
- nonlinear storytelling in a mainstream movie - many people
hadn't seen a movie told nonsequentially, and this was new
to them
- it's "indie" in the sense that Tarantino is a pretty
uncompromising director in the creative / production sense
hope this answers your question. --brain
\_ If you have to explain it to someone, most likely that
person will still not get it.
\_ willingly, apparently. I'll never understand why
some people pride themselves in their ignorance.
\_ I've always liked this movie, but really appreciate brain's
explanation -- and thusly the op question. thx
\_ Oh my god you've got to be kidding me right? What is it that you
don't get? It's so obvious! It's refreshing. It's new. It's funny.
What else don't you get?
\_ I find it enjoyable. You do not. no big deal. Plenty of people
thought 'Leaving Las Vegas' was a great movie, I think they
must all have helium balloons for brains. |
| 2009/4/7-13 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52820 Activity:nil |
4/7 http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/dual_photography Dual photography. Make sure to look at the video on the bottom. You can infer what a playing card looks like without even seeing the card. |
| 2009/3/23-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52747 Activity:nil |
3/23 FedEx MD-11 plane bounced, flipped, crashed and exploded in Japan.
First fatal crash in Narita Airport since it opened in 1978.
http://www.csua.org/u/ntk
In the third video shot, the camera was actually following the plane
as it bounced. Probably it was a person holding the camera, not a
security camera. |
| 2009/3/4-13 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52672 Activity:nil Cat_by:auto |
3/4 How Image Stabilization works. Pretty cool!
http://i.gizmodo.com/5163783/how-optical-image-stabilization-lenses-work-jiggle-jiggle |
| 12/24 |
| 2009/2/23-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52623 Activity:nil |
2/23 Otter with a camcorder:
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ci_11736680 |
| 2009/2/23-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52621 Activity:nil |
2/23 Why is Slumdog Millionaire rated R ?
\_ http://screenit.com/movies/2008/slumdog_millionaire.html |
| 2009/2/23-25 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52620 Activity:nil |
2/22 Can't believe this didn't get posted:
http://nyulocal.com/on-campus/2009/02/19/flashy-protesting
\_ I agree with the protestors. Adobe Flash Player's monopoly
on personal computers must be stopped. We seriously don't
want the next Microsoft, in the form of a Flash Player.
\_ NSFW
\_ Doh, sorry!
\_ How come their breasts are so small? Anyways, I couldn't help
myself staring at that big Canon camera + lens with a wired
off-camera flash the photographer had. Is that a 24-70mm f/2.8?
I swear it looks like the 24-70mm but it has a pedestal
hood so it's probably something else. I'm almost certain it's
a 5D given the size of it, but not 100% sure since it's blurred. |
| 2009/2/9-17 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52549 Activity:nil |
2/9 Dear Canonboi, poll shows that Nikon is preferred over Canon,
at least as of December 2007:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9827989-39.html |
| 2009/2/9-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52539 Activity:nil |
2/9 http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2183/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-35mm-f%252F1.8G.html AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8G just announced. Best news: MSPR is only $200, and will make a perfect companion for the D400. |
| 2009/2/5-10 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52524 Activity:nil |
2/5 I'm a yuppie with a huge disposable income and I want to buy a high
quality LIGHT WEIGHT camera that I can carry in my pocket and
go hike in exotic places. I've ruled out Canon G10 and other
Japanese brands. Do you guys own a Leica M8 Rangefinder and
what do you think about it?
\_ Panasonic LX3. Leica is mostly for showing off to other people,
it doesn't take good pictures.
\_ Seconded.
\- Leica -> signalling good. BTW, I was pretty happy with the G10.
IS, like AF years ago, is pretty addicting. Not for serious
photos for the most part, but really improves vacation snaps
and can carry around on the social parts of your vacation where
you wouldnt want to lug around big gear. |
| 2009/1/22-26 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:52441 Activity:nil |
1/22 Amazing inaugural ceremony shot. Zoom in to see GWB and Clintons!
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/20/us/politics/2009-inauguration-zoom-photo.html
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/20/us/politics/2009-inauguration-zoom-photo.html#4-1853-904
PS Bush is probably not feeling loved compared to Clinton.
\_ One more from a different angle. It's a friggin 1474 MEGAPIXEL
stitch picture.
http://www.davidbergman.net/blog/2009/01/22/how-i-made-a-1474-megapixel-photo-during-president-obamas-inaugural-address |
| 2009/1/15-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52390 Activity:low |
1/14 The official presidential portrait of Obama was shot on an
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American
history on a Canon 5D Mark II. Go Canon!
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/15/1353200
\_ 5D2 >> D700. Sorry Nikon, you've been losing every spec
war since 2002, and STILL losing in 2009. Canon >> Nikon.
http://www.photographybay.com/2008/12/27/canon-5d-mark-ii-vs-nikon-d700-in-depth-iso-comparison
\_ I really can't wait to see how your photograph are limited
by those lousy Nikon Cameras. I also bet your otherwise
beautiful handwriting are limited by those cheap Montblanc
pen you have.
\_ My investment into Canon gear will last me many decades
to come while your Nikon gear will be as dated as
Olympus and Pentax today. Invest in winners, ditch losers.
You still have a chance to switch now while your Nikon
gear are actually still worth something today. As to
your bet, I bet I'm taking better pictures today. My
IS lenses have been taking waay better picture even when
I have one shakey hand, way before Nikon even introduced
VR into the game. My Live View has been helping me take
awesome macro pictures in 1/4 the time of tradition view/
test conditions way before Nikon even considered
implementing their broken version of Live View. My Canon
cameras have had auto ultrasonic sensor cleaning systems
many years ago; Nikon just started implementing this. I
bet I've been taking cleaner pictures than you. And guess
what, I spend 20-35% less than Nikon equivalent gear. Why
\_ first of all, unless you are making money with your
photo on the side, the money you dump into Canon is
a *COST* not *INVESTMENT*. Real pro with *ROI* in
mind usually don't buy lenses like the way you do it.
they RENT it.
secondly, photography has been around for past 150
years. Many great masters has taken great photos
without all the fancy functionalities you've talked
about.
do people even consider Nikon these days? Oh I forgot...
they already invested in a bunch of legacy lenses, most
of which are feature crippled on new Nikon bodies in the
first place.
\_ FYI: it's "gear" not "gears". Gears refers to the
toothed sprockets.
\_ first of all, unless you are making money with your
photo on the side, the money you dump into Canon is
a *COST* not *INVESTMENT*. Real pro with *ROI* in
mind usually don't buy lenses like the way you do it.
they RENT it.
secondly, photography has been around for past 150
years. Many great masters has taken great photos
without all the fancy functionalities you've talked
about.
\_ The official presidential portrait of Obama was shot on an
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American, and
it's a Japanese camera!!?? Shame!
exclusive all digital camera for the first time in American ... with
a Japanese camera!!?? Shame!
\_ Yay, Free Market Democrats!
\_ I don't recall any serious camera makers from USA... |
| 2009/1/14-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52382 Activity:nil |
1/14 Why is there no anti-Cramer? In an efficient market, shouldn't there
be an equivalent dude who jumps up and down and waves stupid toys
and makes oogely boogely eyes at the camera, but who pushes the
stocks you should short?
\_ hasn't Cramer been bearish last 1-2 months? |
| 2009/1/12-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52361 Activity:nil |
1/12 I bought a camera from Costco 2 months ago and the price dropped
by another $80. Costco has a 3 month return policy even on
electronics. Do they give you the price difference (price
guarantee)? I'd like to keep it but if not, I'll just return it.
\_ Why not call them?
\_ The quick answer is yes. The long answer is that you might need
to do the return-buy again cha-cha. |
| 2009/1/8-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52340 Activity:nil |
1/8 camera discussion deleted. crap. hey i want to buy digital camera,
small enough to keep with me all of the time so i can get off some
great holub quality shots. suggestions? thanks.
\_ How small is small enough? Basically it doesn't matter very much,
just look at the usual suspects from Canon, Fuji, Panasonic...
look at the newest ones, compare size and zoom/aperture range
\_ I purchased the Canon G9 for simmilar reasons and have been happy.
It's not super small, but it travels easily and has all the bells
and whistles (12.1mpix, antivibration on ccd). -scottyg |
| 2009/1/7-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52336 Activity:low |
1/7 Anyone have a rangefinder camera? Like it?
\_ LESS CAMERA BULLSHIT, MORE BOOBIES. OK TNX BYE
\_ here you go: http://www.anonib.com/_teensnorules/index.php?t=2673
\_ What is the deal with geeks and cameras, anyway?
\_ There was a time when people were interested in rangefinder
camera because without the pentaprism, it's lighter than SLR....
and it's cheaper to build. Neither of these two reasons are
valid in these days. It seems that you are more interested in
"camera" than "photography." If that is the case, I would urge
you look at some of more interesting cameras, like Kodak Brownie,
Polariods, etc.
\_ Yes that is true. I like cameras more than taking pictures.
I like collecting them. It drives my wife nuts because she
hates "old junks." But I like them, and I'd like to put up
a mini at-home museum when I retire.
\_ Rangefinders are still more quiet and has less vibration than
SLRs. -- !OP, owner of 3 SLRs
\_ I don't know how they even work under certain situations. Let's
say I use a rangefinder lens equivalent to that of a 85mm f/1.2L
lens with only 1-2 inches of depth of field (DoF). How do I
even measure 1-2 inches precisely on a rangefinder? I can't
because the distance measurement isn't THAT precise on a
rangefinder. |
| 2008/12/29-2009/1/7 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52303 Activity:nil |
12/29 Good bye Polaroid! Good riddens.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/28/weekinreview/28kimmelman.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
\_ Riddance. Sigh. Kids these days |
| 2008/12/29-2009/1/3 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52302 Activity:high |
12/29 Hello, I am a film/digital SLR shooter [i.e. I care about DoF control]
but I am considering buying a Canon G10 to have something small I can
carry around all the time and take into "hazardous conditions" where
I would not bring my SLRs [water, climbing, other hands free/bag free
situations]. Any thoughts on the Canon G10 ... limitations an SLR
person would care about? Alternative/comparable models to consider?
Poor design/interface issues? [dont like laggy response, bad controls].
It sounds like some reports of noise above ISO 400? It's not super-
small, but is it "small enough" to carry in a pocket? [I know I'll
have to go try to find one]. I have a trip coming up and it looks
like you can get it for around $400 incl tax+shipping, so the timing
seems right unless there is something spectacular around the horizon
[Canon occasionally makes some announcements in Feb]. One technical
question: is there any way to use a polarizer with a camera like this?
I think this camera should do nicely shooting static outdoor scenes in
bright conditions, but how does it do shooting people indoors in the
evening/night? Also, is there some kind of lens cover [analogous to a
sky/uv filter on an SLR lens] that is recommended for these kinds of
camera [for protection, not contrast control]. Thanks.
\_ Obviously, you don't have the right SLR gears. The pro-series
DSLRs are well built and weather-proof. For biggest bang for
bucks I highly recommend the Canon 5D Mark II with 24-70mm
f/2.8L IS, which is superior over the Nikon D700 with 24-70mm f/2.8
*without* VR. It'll help you build a lot of muscle and look cool.
The D700 is much better weather-sealed though not as good as
the 1Ds or D3. At any rate, pro-series lenses and bodies are
weather-sealed, appropriate for rough conditions. ISO 6400 on
the D700 is the same as 1600 on my XSi.
\_ Ever considered Olympus E-420 with 25mm (50mm equivalent) pancake?
At the moment, it's the smallest DSLR in the world.
\_ That's an interesting suggestion. The price is comparable,
the weight is only 10% more than the G10 ... and it uses CF
instread of SD, so storage is compatible with by DSLRs. The
problem is it appears fairly significantly larger and is not
really plausible as an unbiquitous pocket camera. The form
factor of the Canon SD 980 is good, but it only goes up to 36mm
wide. Here is a question: is it remotely feasable to carry *any*
of these camera with 2.5 - 3in view screeen without a pouch/
bag, i.e. in a pant/fleece/jacket pocket.
\_ I carry the SD710 in a pocket all the time. -tom
\_ What kind of SLR do you use? What kind of post processing
software (white balance, exposure, etc) do you use?
\_ In the last 10 years: N90, D70, F4, F5, D1x and limited D2.
I am not very sophisticated about post-processing beyond
crop, sharp, and some limited color adjustments.
\_ I use a Canon PowerShot S5IS for this purpose. You can buy a
lens tube adapter which will let you use standard 58mm filters;
the G10 also has that option. The S5IS has pretty poor performance
at ISO400 and above; I really try not to use it for indoor/night
shooting except for snapshots. There are some lens distortion
issues at the far ends, but they're not too bad. Having the
super-zoom in a small package is really nice. I've taken more
outstanding photos with my S5IS than with my SLR, mostly because
I always have the S5IS with me and I only carry the SLR when I'm
specifically doing photography. -tom
\_ What kind of SLR do you have and what post processing
software do you use tom?
\_ Canon XSi, mostly Photoshop Elements. -tom
\_ Totally awesome pictures below, tom. What kind of
lenses do you have, what are your favorites?
\_ Well, like I said, most of those shots were
with my Fuji FinePix 4900, Canon PowerShot S2IS
or S5IS. In fact I think everything in the
first set was shot on those; most of them were
taken before I had an SLR at all. So far, all I
have on the XSi is the kit lens (18-55mm IS) and
an f/1.4 50mm prime. (Covers the greatest shortcomings
of the S5IS, low-light performance and depth of field.)
Next is some kind of zoom. -tom
\_ You're an out-dated fart but use modern (non-old-fart
Nikon-brand) cameras. Good job.
\_ Please post some links to your outstanding S5 and SLR photos.
\_ http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157594564966878
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tholub/sets/72157604346422780
-tom
\_ The S5 looks like a so-so choice for somebody with an SLR.
It's large, slow, I think electronic viewfinders are terrible
and doesnt really have wide angle, which is largely what
cameras with small sensors are good at. This seems clearly
a camera you either have to carry in a bag or around your
neck, not in a pocket.
(I have a strong negative reaction to these type of cameras
after using an awful, large clunky Coolpix with a big lens
and EVF).
Of course I dont know what were the other options on the market
at the time and what were your non-negotiable parameters.
No offense but this camera seems like a weird gimmick with
very long zoom as its distinguishing positive feature
[the "stalker lens" I use is a 200-400mm stabilized lens, which
on a digital has a 600mm field of view ... and this is of fairly
limited use ... I wouldnt call the picture I get from it
"outstanding", although you do get something, such as when
illegally shooting at concerts].
The one real win with the G10 seems to be *4 stop* IS at 150mm,
so I can see zoom being a strength. My problem is the strong
point of the G10 are the kinds of pictures I care the most
about and am the most willing to haul around the SLR gear and
tripods and filters. I dont think there really is a solution
in the market place for "point and shoot" priced and sized
camera I can carry around all the time to shoot people not too
far away with depth of field control.
\_ I think you're right that there isn't a pocket camera that
can perform like an SLR. But the most important camera
feature is that you have it with you. Last year I took
a trip to Belize and lost my S5IS to a crappy underwater
bag during the first week. I spent the rest of the trip
shooting with a pocket camera (Canon SD710) and got some
outstanding shots. The less featureful camera limits you,
but still can do a whole lot with it. People do great
photography with Polaroids and LOMOs. -tom
\_ Panasonic LX3. No question about it. 24mm f/2 on the wide end,
f/2.8 on the long end which give you some degree of DoF control.
relatively wide shutter speed selections, RAW capabilities,
hot-shoe, and 1cm minimum focus distance. The optics on this
p&s camera is for some reason a couple notch better than any of
the competitors. i would argue that it is a non-gimic,
photographer's compact camera kngharv
\_ OP here: this is an excellent suggestion given my parameters
[pocket size/weight, faster lens etc] at a comparable price.
I don't follow the "offbrands", so I was not very aware of
what the non-Canon best of breed options were. Thanks.
Question: at the long end, with this camera wide open [60mm
field of view, at f/2.8], aren't you getting the 35mm DoF of
f/8 - f/11? So do portraits look reasonable in terms of out of
focus background?
p.s. good to see somebody opting out of the megapixel arms race.
\_ I thought this was a good G10 v. LX3 comparison:
http://bythom.com/compactchallenge.htm
\_ I just noticed the LX3 doesn't have an optical view finder.
This may be a deal killer for me, at least at the moment.
I may end up buying both the LX3 and G10.
\_ Excellent link my friend. As a semi-pro (someone
who makes 1/8 a living by taking wedding pics), I
don't use anything other than f/2.8 or wider, DSLR
or not. Lumix LX3 fits that profile. I'm surprised
that they consider the lens "wide-angle". Wide-angle
is really 10.5mm on APS-C or 14mm on full frame.
\- i'm not totally sure what you are saying above.
f/2.8 on one of those micro sensors is not
f/2.8 on something like a 35mm portrait lens
when it comes to depth of field produced.
i dont know how much agreement over the focal length
where wide angle starts, but everyone i know would
consider 24mm [w.r.t. 35mm] to be shooting wide.
the 17-18mm range begin the ultra wides ...
beyond that you get into the rectilinear UUWs and
fisheyes.
Here are Ken Rockwell's ranges and classifications:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
[search for "definitions" and see the tables]
\_ What is the 24mm equivalent to a "normal" 35mm film?
\_ 24-60mm equivalent. Not as much as the legendary
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L, but certainly a lot cheaper.
PS, Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 sucks ass and costs more.
Why is Nikon even competing these days?
\_ I'm not a Canon expert, and I didnt look carefully for any
hidden gotchas, but this looks like a pretty great deal for
anybody looking to get a dSLR:
Canon 40D: $319:
http://soniccameras.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=4554
So if you can live with 1.6x crop factor and dont need new features
like LiveView ...
\_ http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Sonic_Cameras
\_ Are you looking to switch from Nikon? |
| 2008/12/12-17 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52235 Activity:kinda low |
12/12 Hey Camera wanks, here's a cake for you:
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2008/12/birthday_cake_made_into_t.html
\_ Nice, thanks! FYI that's a D700, $2700 new on Adorama/Amazon
and $2200 on eBay new. It's arguably the best DSLR for night
time, giving you 1-1.5 stops advantage over all the cameras
besides the D3 due to the size per pixel compared to the
half framed cameras. |
| 2008/12/11-16 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52226 Activity:kinda low |
12/11 http://www.pretec.com/epages/Store.storefront/?ObjectPath=/Shops/Store.Pretec/Products/CF233X 48GB compact flash card, perfect for your Canon 5D mk II camera that has a built in 1080 video camera. You *did* get a Canon instead of a crappy Nikon right? Ha ha ha -canon guy \_ get a life. \_ Camera guy is a troll. A little more subtle than Star Wars guy, but still a troll. |
| 2008/12/10-16 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52221 Activity:moderate |
12/9 Hey how old do you think the girl is in the picture?
http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/2008/01/nikon-flash-two-separate-metering.html
\_ Which one?
\_ Which one? Both are "too young for me"
\_ both, but the first one is cuter
\_ they both look mid-late teens to me, and I'd say the second
was cuter.
\_ teeage girls are cute.
\_ But we're bound to agree
on tautologies, like oxygen is necessary for living,
drinking water is good for you, literacy is good etc. |
| 2008/12/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52210 Activity:nil |
12/9 Philip Greenspun says Canon is better than Nikon. Therefore,
I'm selling my Nikon equipments and getting a 5DmkII.
http://photo.net/equipment/building-a-digital-slr-system
\_ Does he intentionally crank up the JPG compression to make
his small pictures look like ass so that you click-through? |
| 2008/12/8-10 [Consumer/Camera, Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:52196 Activity:low |
12/7 http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2008/12/a-rant-about-th.html Hitler curses at Nikon D3X, Capture NX, and all the idiotic things Nikon has done and totally fucked up in the past 5 years. \_ wow you weren't kidding. \_ Is this the goddamn The Bunker clip again? Jesus will that meme just die already? \_ I WISHED I LIVED IN SAN FRANCISCO \_ What does this mean? \- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CV4i7dWeu0c \_ These days it's more "I wish I was single" \_ Anyone have the original with subtitles handy? \_ Nikon is fucking up their 50-80 or so years of dominance. It's like watching Lehman Brothers' legacy going down the drain. It's a sad sad dark moment for all of us Nikon suckers. |
| 2008/12/7-10 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52192 Activity:nil |
12/6 I'm looking for a really fast 35mm film scanner. I have a bunch of
35mm film that I'd like to digitize then toss away. What's a good
35mm film scanner these days?
\_ you probably want to stick with Nikon. what you are looking for is
not actual speed of scanning, but rather, those "automatic dust
removal" that actually works. Removing dust via photoshop is going
take way much more time than a slow scanning process.
\_ OB Calling Nikon Philip Greenspun fanboi |
| 2008/12/5 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52176 Activity:nil |
12/5 How old is the girl on top? Take a guess:
http://nikonclspracticalguide.blogspot.com/2008/01/nikon-flash-two-separate-metering.html |
| 2008/11/25-12/1 [Consumer/Camera, Recreation/Activities, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:52101 Activity:nil |
11/25 how is allison stokke doing these days?
http://withleather.uproxx.com/?p=2994
\_ I'm sure she's still hot somewhere. cal athletics took all mention
of her off of their website
\_ That's not true, I see her bio (no picture though) and some of
her meet distances (heights? ... I don't know what pole vaulters
call it). Anyway, she seems to be setting all kinds of Freshman
records, so we should be seeing more of her in the future, maybe
even at the Olympics.
\_ do you bring telephoto lense to the meets? Nikon or Canon?
\_ Come on, Canon tele-white lenses dominate the sports
world. Everyone knows that Canon spends way more R&D
on sports shooting (waaay faster focus, better image
stabilization, amazingly fast shutter speeds) over
Nikon (good wide angle landscape, better flash
system, good compatibility). |
| 2008/11/24-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52091 Activity:nil |
11/23 Nikon sensor (D3, D700) beat Canon sensor (1Ds Mark 3), after
Nikon admits losing face for so many years in the DSLR world!
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor |
| 2008/11/24-29 [Consumer/Camera, Reference/RealEstate] UID:52085 Activity:nil |
11/23 Is there any photo rental place near the Fremont or Hayward area where
I can rent backdrops and a stand for shooting family portraits? I
see that Looking Glass has such rental, but I now live in Fremont. Thx.
\_ Can't help you there, but I'm wondering what kind of camera
equipments you have? Do you already have the strobes?
\_ I don't have strobes, but I have two electronic flashes and two
Photogenic Eclipse 45" umbrellas (I wish I had got the 60"). All
I need is a backdrop.
\_ if you know exactly what you are doing is one thing. If you don't
have a clue what kind of strobe
\_ ??? |
| 2008/11/14-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51973 Activity:nil |
11/13 Camera nuts, may be you want a REAL camera that REAL man uses:
http://xrl.in/128i
\_ not funny. BZZZZZZ.
\_ not funny. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
\_ "lulz"
\_ Large CCD sensor, world's largest |
| 2008/11/12-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51934 Activity:kinda low |
11/12 lulz here are some good photos of the prop 8 protest in San Francico
http://flickr.com/photos/spine/sets/72157608747847280
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-601.jpg
\_ whatthefuckdoeslulzmean
\_ lulz.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-601.jpg
\_ He uses NIKON. HOT. LOL.
\_ He uses NIKON. HOT.
\_ More specifically, D90 with 30mm f/1.4, which only means
one thing: he's using the infamous Sigma 30mm f/1.4. You
either love that lens, or hate that lens.
\_ lol I was just joking around but you are serious about this
\_ lulz I was just joking around but you are serious about this
\_ I was just joking around but you are serious about this
stuff arent you
\_ Oh yeah I'm serious about Nikon. I have a Nikon. But
Canon would have given me better bang for bugs. Nikon
hooked me onto its brand with its cheapo D40x. It's
like drugs. Then I realized D40x sucked and upgraded,
etc etc. I should have just started with a Canon with
better compatibility. I'm angry at Nikon. I'm angry
at myself. I'm such an idiot. Stupid stupid stupid.
\_ I warned you about D40 and D60 but you choose not to
listen.
\_ LOL. I'm sorry I just can't help it -Canon shooter
\_ lulz
\_ LOL. Hahahahahaha. Bahahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha
I'm sorry I just can't help it -Canon shooter
Hahahahahahaha. Nikon sucks. Bahahahahaha |
| 2008/11/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51889 Activity:nil |
11/9 Hi, I'm the cheap vacation guy. I've decided to go to Sedona, AZ
and try out my new DSLR camera. Where's a good scenic place to
go to?
\_ Just start walking down the street. Sedona's the capital of UFO-
and weird-energy kitsch. Something will pop out at you.
\_ Jerome (sp?)...a little mining town just up the hill with beautiful
scenery and houses.
\_ There is a famous chapel there. Also, the river flowing through
the canyon has some nice overlooks. The mesas on the drive in
(I got there from the south) were nice, too, as were the nearby
Native American ruins (Montezuma Castle). I wouldn't spend days
in Sedona, though. A weekend is plenty.
\_ Buy a Map to Stars map and visit one of John McCain's
mansions. |
| 2008/11/9-10 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:51886 Activity:kinda low |
1l1/9 http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml DSLR vs. Point and Shoot (Hasselblad vs. Canon G10). Image quality difference? Very little. \_ "Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back 55.110mm lens @ 70mm 1 second @ f/11 at ISO 50". Shooting an outdoor scene full of small branches and leaves at 1-second shutter speed. Was the photog sure that there was no slightest wind that would make the picture blurry? 1-sec shutter speed. Was the photog absolutely sure that there was no slightest wind that would make the picture blurry? (In contrast, The Canon point-and-shoot picture of the same scene was at 1/8-sec.) \_ agree. I think the blurr is due to motion. |
| 2008/11/3-5 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51789 Activity:nil |
11/3 What's a Slash Dot equivalent site for photography? I'd like
to learn about the latest announcements from Micro 4/3 and
the Canikon world, as well as stuff like AlienBee's cool
remote commander modules that beat the CLS system.
\- once upon a time, http://photo.net
\_ here is a hint for you: actually take photographs, instead
of spend all day at front of web looking for latest news in
equipment. If you one day sit down and divid dollars you spend
on equipments by number of photo you took, you will be a very
sad person. |
| 2008/10/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51762 Activity:nil |
10/31 I'm the Nikon D90 guy. This has been a very difficult decision I've
had to make but I've decided to ditch Nikon. What helped me decide
was the fact that I shoot RAW, and RAW on Canon is vastly superior
over Nikon. All the software that Nikon gives you is horrible! I
tried View NX (free) which gives you very basic features like viewing,
EXIF info, and launching yet another program (Picture Control Utility)
within the viewer to do quick color adjustments. It is really slow.
The user interface is nothing like I've ever seen, it's like it was
written in the late-80s where you have very awkward interfaces and
unintuitive, ineffective work flow buttons. The other program that
Nikon lets you try for 60 days free is Capture NX 2. This program
is much much more powerful. I like how you can drag/drop the dark
areas, and quickly tune the color. Unfortunately, it is huge and slow
(I have a 2GHz Pentium 2GB ram). It takes nearly a minute to launch,
and every little action you do takes quite a while. The batch
processing feature is pretty powerful... but converting each NEF to
JPG takes minutes!!! This is such a horrible piece of software, I
can't believe they're selling it for $100-150.
Out of curiousity, I downloaded Canon's free DPP 3 online and
downloaded a few sample CR2 files. DPP is incredibly easy to use,
and looks like software that's built in the 21st century. It's got
everything I need (color adjustment, macro button 1/2/3). It is
amazingly FAST. Unfortunately, these features are only available for
CRx files, exclusive to Canon shooters.
At this point, I'm very disappointed with Nikon. I love their
camera and how they feel in my hands. The CLS system is nice too as
I have a couple of SB-800 and SB-600. But everything else about it,
like comparable lens price (compare the prices of their 24-70mm f/2.8,
zoom, etc), software, features, etc. Speaking of software, I would
not even pay $10 for Capture NX 2 given that DPP is free and does
everything I need already, at 5-10X the speed. At this point, I
regret getting my D90. I waited long enough but Nikon just can't
keep up /w the 21st century. Good bye Nikon, and hello Canon... will
keep you guys updated on my new Canon acquisitions soon. |
| 2008/10/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51761 Activity:nil |
10/31 Phil Greenspun likes 'em nude, heh. NSFW.
http://photo.net/learn/nudes |
| 2008/10/28-31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51707 Activity:nil |
10/28 Good news Nikonians! Remember the days when Nikon didn't release
any FX bodies and instead concentrated on expanding their shitty
DX lenses, while Canon went full steam ahead with full frame
bodies & expanded their full frame lens lines, while taking away all
the Nikon faithfuls with them? Well, I just found out that Nikon
recently introduced a brand new 50mm f/1.4G FX (not DX this time)
lens which will deprecate the old 50mm f/1.4D lens. They also
introduced a more affordable entry level FX body (D700 at only
$2700 instead of D3 $5000). This is an indication that Nikon is
doing a 180 and wants to be serious about full frame again!
old:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1902/AF-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4D.html
new:http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2180/AF-S-NIKKOR-50mm-f/1.4G.html
So don't lose hope! I know 2002-2005 was bleak for Nikonians when
Canon already had a 3-5 year head start, but the new 50mm f/1.4G
and D700 means that Nikon is back in the game. I bet you that in
just 2.5 years, you'll have your affordable sub $1500 FX body just
like Canon has now.
\_ first of all, the "news" you got is old.
Secondly, Personally, I think the new 50mm f/1.4 is a rip off.
There is no need to put a focus motor for short lens like that.
the old 50mm f/1.4 lens focus very fast as it is. and
instead of $270 USD new, how much they are asking for again?
\_ How old? -- !OP
\_ $439 pre-order on Adorama. You DO get USM which is much faster
than the one you're thinking of. In contrast, Canon people
have it good. They can get all of this for 1/2 the price.
\_ I am *NOT* think of. I used it before. It is a perfectly
fine lens. Adding USM and charge $200 USD for it is a
clever marketing/commerical move. I encourge people who
are stupid enough to fall for it to make the purchase, since
I am a Nikon user and I want to see that company commercially
viable.
Please don't make your decision and whine about it. You
could choose to get a 50mm f/1.8 for $110 and you only loose
2/3 of a stop.
If you are getting a 200mm (or longer) lens, I would encouge
to think about getting an USM. But for anything less than
135mm, I think USM is silly.
\_ Not that silly if you have a D40 and D60 which can't
use AF lenses (only AF-S). Nikon is slowly deprecating
their antiquated AF lines and upgrading it with AF-S
similar to Canon's lenses that they had since 1987.
There are hints that newer bodies will also stop supporting
AF lenses. Canon did the painful thing and upgraded
everything in 1987. Nikon is still holding on the legacy
even though it's already the 21st century. Yet another
example of how ass backward and behind Nikon is.
\_ I beg differ. Nikon's move of slowing destroying
backward compatibility is an stragetic error IMNSHO.
Nikon's biggest asset is their wide range of legacy
lenses. It should do everything it can to preserve it,
yet at the same time design lens good enough that
people WANT to buy the new one.
Nikon is destorying their backward compatibility
because they think old lenses is canniblizing ther new
lens sells. The reality is, most people would rather
buy the new lenses if they can. The only reason
why people were buying old lenses was because the new
lenses are not as good optically, or it simply doesn't
have the feature people prefer. My favorite example
is the 70-210mm lens. I went out of my way to get
an old, constant f/4 lenses instead of a much newer
f/4-5.6 because the old lens is 1. optically superior
2. constant aperture, making people like me who use
manual exposure all the time a god-send. The serious
down side for having such old lenses is that 1.
auto-focus is painfully slow even for Nikon standard
2. coating is not very good by modern standard. But
given the trade offs and the type of photo I do,
I made my choice.
The tragic part is, Nikon is looking at what Canon
doing and simply copying it. Canon is smart... pitch
their strength. Nikon was stupid, going to the battle
field which they are not particularlly strong.
Here are examples:
1. auto-focus speed. (Nikon's in-camera motor naturally
slower than Canon's. *BUT* this is only important
for long-focal-length lenses... Nikon should of pitch
the fact that Nikon lenses can still AF at relativly
dark condition, and unlike Canon, many lense can
auto-focus when the aperture is smaller than f/5.6)
2. number of auto-focus sensors
people care about AF effectiveness, not number of
sensors
That, and the fact that Nikon only made their
top-of-the-line camera feature complete totally
destroyed their market share from 80%+ to <40%
In the end, for new comers, it doesnt really matter.
I usually tell my friend to go to store and feel the
camera in his/her hand. if she/he prefer one over
another, i'll tell him/her to buy that one. It
can be Canon, Nikon, or in my friend's case, end up
with a Pentax.
\_ Thank you. An admission that Nikon can't keep up
with innovation. For you newbies out there who
don't have legacy lenses... GET A CANON! It's
a better choice. -Canonboi
\_ I see what you're saying. The focal length is so short
that motorized focus is already lightening fast (or at
least fast enough for normal indoor, people type of
subjects)? Whereas for longer focal lengths, the body
motor tends to "hunt" for the right focus.
\_ *YES* both USM and image stabilization become a
god-send if you are using 300mm or longer. |
| 2008/10/26-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51685 Activity:nil |
10/25 It was my impression that prime lenses have better contrast and
details. But the MTF says otherwise. For example, 24-70mm has
HIGHER number than 50mm. Why is that?
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom24-70mmf_28g/index.htm
http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/index.htm
\_ It says, "The MTF chart for each lens is based on the value at the
maximum aperture of the lens...." 50mm f/1.4 is two full stops
faster. That's 4x more light it can capture. 50mm lens stopped
down to f/2.8 will likely give much better MTF chart, not that MTF
chart is an end-all answer to everything.
\_ That TOTALLY makes sense, thanks! Yes I have a 50mm f/1.4 but
I don't have a 24-70mm to play with. I do notice that at f/1.4
it is very very soft and unusable, but at 2.8, it is much much
sharper (more color, more contrast, better details) than my
18-200mm. The difference is huge. Thanks for shedding light
on 4x more light! The forum's full of smart ppl -dumb foto guy
\_ how about just get a 50mm f/1.8 and try it. Borrow from a friend
or something. If you can't tell the difference yourself, then,
why bother with what MTF says? |
| 2008/10/24-28 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:51673 Activity:low |
10/24 Whoa, used Canon 5D (original) is only about $1300 on eBay. Now
I don't have to worry about stupid crop factors. Good deal? What
do you guys think?
\_ I think $1300 for a camera is crazy $$$ unless you are a semi-pro.
\_ what if you want to use FX lenses that you can't get on
EF-S/DX lenses?
\_ how much is 5D new? In general, I encourge full-frame for 2 reasons
1. larger sensor almost always yields better image
2. you can get a cheaper lens instead of an expensive super-wide
angle.
\_ Canon 5D new is $1999, and the 5D Mark II is $2699. The two
are VERY different. Much better sensor and amazing features
on the Mark II. |
| 2008/10/24 [Computer/HW/Printer, Consumer/Camera] UID:51665 Activity:nil |
10/24 Canon XSi for only $489.99:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?sku=A0726001&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=30322&lid=680414 |
| 2008/10/23-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51660 Activity:low |
10/23 I want to get a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens because the bokeh is incredibly
beautiful for portraits. However, it costs a lot. A Nikon version
is $1550 and a Canon version is $1100. Why is there such a big
difference? It makes me want to switch to Canon.
\_ Canon is better:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/d80/index.htm
\- why dont you look at the nikon 105mm "DC" portrait lens. ~$650.
\_ No because 105 is over 150 on my DX camera. Sucks to be a
Nikonian man. You pay more for everything.
\- er the price seems to have gone up a bit on that lens.
\_ High demand?
\- High yen.
\_ What about the 50mm f1.4? Pretty good bokeh and about 75mm
on the DX which is perfect. Got mine many years ago for
about $220.
\_ http://imaging.nikon.com/products/imaging/lineup/lens/af/normal/af-s_50mmf_14g/index.htm
The MTF chart is less than impressive...
\_ My experience tell me that f/2.8 at your given focal length
(<70mm) is not big enough for portrait. Further, my experience
told me that for portriat, a prime lens is much better than zoom.
If you are using a camera with a crop factor, then, you should
consider to spend <$110 USD for a 50mm f/1.8 . This lens beats
any zoom lenses.
\_ There are some decent portraits here: http://tinyurl.com/5ocznr
maybe 10-15 out of the ~100ish i think are quite good. you can
learn something from both the good ones and the non-good ones
[e.g. the ones where something is coming out of the subjects
head, exposure levels, DoF, composition, managing shadows etc] |
| 2008/10/23-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51648 Activity:nil |
10/23 I am probably going to retutn my D90 until they fix all the problems
in the next D90x version. I can't believe they released D90 is
such a beta-ish state. Don't get me wrong. I love the improved
highlight enhancement algorithm (that already existed on Canon over
a year ago) that Nikon calls Active D-Lighting. White balance is
much much better indoors. But a lot of other stuff really sucks!
1) In Live Mode, there is no Live Histogram! This feature would have
allowed metering on AI-S lenses in real time. This feature already
exists on Canon's cheapo XSi (sub $600, Nikon D40x equivalent) a year
ago, yet Nikon left it out. What the heck were the Nikon engineers
thinking?
2) In Live Mode, when I snap a picture, the mirror goes does
unnecessarily even when I'm on fully manual focus+aperature. On the
Canon 40D, it just lets the shutter go through, resulting in faster
shots and quieter sound.
3) In Live Mode, I can't pan around and zoom into focus. The cheapo
Canon XSi allows me to do that.
4) To change aperature on a non-AIS lens for video mode, I need to
EXIT the Live Mode, set aperature, then enter it again to get it
picked up. This is a known problem discussed in several forums.
The usability is just awful.
5) I can't press PLAY when I'm in the Live Mode. The usability is
just awful.
Overall, it's very disappointing. Nikon, you've really let me down
leaving my AIS lenses crying in agony.
\_ The XSi is a very good camera. -tom
\_ why u insist on live mode again? if you don't like Nikon, just
switch to Canon.
\_ Actually I'm thinking of getting a full frame used 5D. Also
I just tested an XSi. That thing is like a plastic toy and
didn't really inspire confidence. It's really great on paper
but didn't perform as I expected. D60 is pretty good on the
other hand, for beginners. But I'm beyond that now. At any rate
I love Canon's 24-70mm and Nikkor 105mm macro, I guess I'll
have to get both systems.
\_ don't be silly. Stick with D90. And don't obsessed with
one lens. 24mm on a crop-factored camera is not going to
be wide enough anyway. I wouldn't bother with D60 just
because it only fully compatible with the new lenses.
Further, you are complaining about D90 mostly on live-mode.
I don't know about XSi, but I know for sure that Canon 5D
doesn't have live mode. so, can u just pretend live-mode
in D90 doesn't exist and move on?
\_ Don't listen to Nikonboi, just lose a little bit and
switch to Canon. There's a reason why everyone's switching
to Canon. Just look at all the white lenses pros use.
Also go to any camera shop like Samy's Camera and check
how much Canon and Nikon cameras are being rented for.
Canon cameras priced similarly to Nikon are being rented
out at a much higher rate. For example, 30D is $125
a day and D80 is $80 a day even though both are similarly
priced. Even a really cheap Rebel XT is rented for $75
even though it is cheaper and lower end than a D80.
Doesn't this already give you indications like resale
value, among other great attributes? You simply can't
go wrong with Canon. Back in the 70s and 80s Nikon was
king, but now Canon is the Nikon of the 21st century.
Every pro knows that. You get much much more by paying
less. Listen. You'll lose a little bit of money by
switching to Canon now, but you'll thank me for it many
years later. As for the people who already own a bunch
of Nikon lenses, there is a really cool Nikon lense to
Canon lens adaptor we've been using for a while. However
the Canon-to-Nikon adaptor does not exist because many
Nikonians are up in their "I'll never use a Canon"
snobbery ars. You already know why you want to
switch. Just switch. You'll thank me for it. |
| 2008/10/22-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51629 Activity:nil |
10/22 I'm looking at the Adorama web site. They have a bunch of cheaper
lenses from "Gray Market." What the heck does that mean? Does it
mean it's not covered by warranty?
\_ corps sells product for different prices in diff parts of the world.
the corp is selling the product for a cheaper price, to you,
in a different country. your vendor has shipped the product from
the foreign market to your country. this probably voids
any warranties.
\_ The OEM's warranty is usually (not always) void. If it's B&H,
the store provides an equivalent warranty. Don't know about
Adorama. Sometimes the spec for the gray market one is slightly
different than the US one (e.g. Nikon SB-28). Gray market goods is
completely legal, except when the store lies and sells it as US
US market goods. Some products are not even marketd in the US by
US market goods. Some products are not even marketed in the US by
the OEM, so they are only available in gray market.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/find/HelpCenter/USGrey.jsp |
| 2008/10/20-21 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51589 Activity:high |
10/20 Brokers with hands on their faces!
http://brokershandsontheirfacesblog.tumblr.com
\_ Nice Bokeh! Are these shot with Nikon or Canon lenses?
\_ exiftool shows that none of those .jpg files contain camera
information. This is expected anyway as the pictures are most
likely scaled-down version of their originals.
\_ Those guys are spreading diseases by doing that. |
| 2008/10/19-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51584 Activity:low |
10/19 Sorry Nikon users, Canon is still more popular. More lenses, more
bang for bucks, there is no reason to switch to Nikon:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9882670-39.html
\_ Actually Nikon has most of the market share in Japan. Canon
is very popular elsewhere. It's a neck to neck race reall, but
Nikon seems to be doing quite well in the ultra-low-end DSLR:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=21818320
\_ Agreed. There is no reason for the typical Canon users to switch
to Nikon. Whatever advantage Nikon has over Canon nowadays, if
any, is not worth the re-investment. One rason I can think of
any, is not worth the re-investment. The only reason I can think of
that a Canon user would want to switch is that he/she needs to use
a very specific obscure lens that Canon doesn't make (e.g. 6mm
f/2.8 or 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8). Another one might be that for some
obscure reason you really need 1/4000sec shutter speed or 1/250sec
X-sync speed even when your camera battery is dead. Otherwise
there is no reason.
--- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ Unlike the old days when you had a Nikkor for 20-30 years,
today technology improves at an astounding rate (optics
combined with superior technology like IS/VR). The good news
is that with eBay these days, it's very easy to recoup or
reduce loss by selling Nikon and going to a superior choice
like Canon. By the way, do you actually use your film camera
these days? How often? When was the last time?
\- i am not the OP, but i occasionally shoot Velvia, E100,
and TMAX. a whole generation of digital-only photographers
has missed how good a nice slide looks projected as a
several foot wide image. again, not relevant if you just
take pictures at pt reyes or yosemite in the middle of the
day or in the backyard or the beach etc. i do not know
much about digital post-processing and i dont have a super-
high end digital SLR but i believe, and my associates agree,
portrait prints from TMAX for example look better than the
digital stuff shot at ~8mp. on the other hand, there are
places where i have taken ~300 digital pictures and kept
maybe 6 [like when shooting from a boat]. under those
circumstances in the film era, i wouldnt have bothered with
a camera at all, since the +$100 of film and dev costs
would not have been worth the 3 decent pictures. there
are a number of other aspects in which the upper echelons
of the film camera bodies [$500-$1000] are superior to the
sub-$1 digital bodies [in my case say my N90 vs D70 ...
over all build quality and controls of N90 are vastly
better than D70].
however, it is true ebay has had a real effect on the mkt
and consumer options, in my opnion. BTW, is it possible to
reasonably do long exposures ... say 60-90sec on the ~$1k
digitals today?
\_ I last used my film camera 11 months ago when I was the
photog for a wedding. The couple specified that they want
film, so I shot with Kodal Ultra 100UC. (BTW normally one
would use 160NC for wedding, but from my experience Chinese
people (including all my relatives) think the color from
160NC and even 160VC is too dull for wedding day pictures, so
I migrated to 100UC.) --- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ The D80 has a "bulb" shutter speed. Whether or not the
CCD actually produces reasonable result for a 60-90sec
exposure, I haven't tried and I don't know.
--- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\- yes, i know about bulb, i was wondering about the CCD.
\_ I last used my FM2n eleven months ago when I was the photog
for a wedding. The couple specified that they wanted film, so
I shot with Kodal Ultra 100UC. (BTW normally one would use
160NC for wedding, but from my experience Chinese people
(including all my relatives) think the color from 160NC and
even 160VC is too dull for wedding day pictures, so I migrated
to 100UC.) --- current owner of FM2n, N70, D80
\_ Interesting. These days, people want computer files so
they can reproduce easier, and it archives forever,
and it's a lot easier to share. Who are these people
who prefer film? Are they old fashioned?
\_ shooting film, then scan the film into computer still
yield better result than most of the camera on the
market (i don't have a high-end digital camra, so
i wouldn't know). Film also has color bias which
people who get used to it liked (I love NPH, it has
a GREEN bias). For Black-n-white, film beats digital
hands down. Film simply captures a lot more details.
In history of photography, people consistantly choose
convenience over quality. This is one of the reason
why those glass-plated b&w photos of civil war still
look very good today. kngharv
\_ None of the civil war pix are action shots. Also,
I bet you don't see all the ones that looked like
crap because only the good ones survived.
\_ there is no reason to switch from Nikon to Canon, nor vice versa,
period. Unless you are doing something REALLY specific, your
photograph is probably not going to be limited by the BRAND of
your equipment. kngharv
\_ I can tell you why. Canon lenses cost a lot less and you
have waaay more selections. A 28-70mm f/2.8 Nikon costs
$1600 new and $1500 used whereas the exact same one costs
only $1100 (NEW) on Canon. That's enough money to buy
a decent backup 1.6 body. When you build your equipment,
high quality lenses will dominate the body and in the long
term it's MUCH more economical to go with Canon. Personally
I don't see why people choose Nikon these days besides legacy
and loyalty. Given how uncompetitive Nikon has been I think
it'll follow the same fate as Cyrix or AMD... they just can't
compete feature for feature and bang for bucks with Intel, and
will die out slowly. Go with the loser and you'll get stuck
with expensive lenses that no one wants. Go with the winner
and you'll have decades of use on your equipments.
\_ I prefer Nikon because the availibity of used lenses.
For example. I can pick up a manual focus 500mm mirror,
or some Russian-made fisheye for <$300. I have about 8-9
lenses, only two of them cost more than $300.
(20-35mm f/2.8, Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro). For me, be able
to pick up a 20 year old lenses as a cheaper alternative
is an option which I find very NICE to have.
Further, I used only ONE lenses for my first 10 years of
photography: 50mm f/1.4. And, despite the crop factor,
I discover I start to use my 50mm a lot more (~25% of
the time). Most people will not own more than 3 lenses,
and most people certainly will not carry all three lenses
they own all the time. So, yes, I agree with you that
Canon is more successful commercially, but I don't think
that matters all that much. All brand, Nikon, Canon, Pentax,
Sony/Minota, even Sigma, make great equipments and chances
are, it is you that limits what you can do with it. kngharv
\_ Why did you use only one lens? |
| 2008/10/17-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51562 Activity:nil |
10/16 I bought a 18-200mm DX Nikkor a while ago but after reading the
posts below I have a lot of regrets. I already registered with
Nikon. Can I still sell it on eBay for a good price, since the
warranty is *not* transferable?
\_ What do you expect from a lens with 11X zoom range? I once compared
my friend's 18-200 DX with my 18-70 DX by shooting the same scene
with the same settings on my D80 body. My 18-70 yielded slightly
sharper pictures. I imagine a prime will do even better.
\_ So, you're saying that you had no regrets until you read
the posts here? Then what's the problem? Go out, take
pictures, enjoy it. No one should be expecting a
consumer-level lens with 11x zoom range to match a high-end
primes in contrast, color, and other qualities, but it's
still going to take good pictures (if used right) while
giving the you the flexibility of the 11x zoom. Even in
the worst case, it's going to give you much better image
than those little cameras with puny sensors can.
\_ I recommend you get the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 24-70mm f/2.8.
These two are the most amazing lenses I've ever had with
amazing contrast, sharpness, and bokeh. Sell your consumer
grade DX lens and take it as a hard lesson learned. Oh and
buy a couple of SB-800 (or more 600s) so you can do really
creative shots in almost any light conditions. |
| 2008/10/15-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51538 Activity:low |
10/14 Does it make sense to buy nice lenses (2.8L) to be used on your
non-full-frame DSLR?
\_ Why not? A nice lens is a nice lens. Also, 2.8L doesn't say much.
I mean, 135mm f/2.0L is a nice lens, regardless of if the body it's
attached to has a crop sensor or a full-frame sensor. There's no
other way to get f/2.0 at that focal length, so there's nothing
more to think about.
\_ For starter, it's like putting a Z rated 180MPH tire on
a Toyota Prius. It may work, but... WHY???
\_ No, that would decrease the Prius' gas mileage.
\_ LOL, I got it. ok, here is the thing. "L" doesn't necessary mean
"good" lenses. There are plenty of lenses that is not "L" in the
canon lines that has equivalent optical quality. Secondly, nobody
describe lens in your way. You don't say "2.8L" as it is some sort
of engine displacement. you can say f/2.8 or f2.8
Thirdly, optical quality of a lens has NOTHING TO DO with the
maximum aperature. There are plenty of good lenses that is actually
very slow. I've seen good lens that has aperature of f/4, f/5.6
even f/8.
My advices to you are: always go for best optical quality
lens you can afford. If it means sacrafice in features (AF/MF
clutch, Image stablization), zoom range (smaller zoom range or even
fixed-focal length), slower AF, or simply getting an used one
instead a new one, do it. 2nd. Always go for the lens that is
full-frame compatible. Camera is moving towards full-frames, and
\_ uh, no. Nikon is embracing DX, just look at their extensive
DX lens lines (much more than Canon). Nikon is aiming for the
consumer end DSLR market. They even made it possible to
mount DX lenses on FX bodies, whereas it's not possible on
Canon. Nikon is really losing grounds on the professional end
DSLR niche. Canon is not really embracing the consumer end DSLR
and instead is re-focusing on professional full-frame
cameras. There are signs that they're cooling off on the
1.6X EF-S end that the Nikon is dominating right now.
\_ the reason why I said full-frame eventually going to
prevail is simple. While non-full-frame's image sensor
is a lot cheaper than full-frame today, the ultra-wide
angle kit-lens is a lot more to make than the wide angle
kit-lens. While cost of manufacturing image sensor is
coming down at a rapid (eventhough not rapid enough even
for me) rate, cost of making lenses doesn't go down that
quickly. Eventually, it is going to be a lot cheaper to
make a full-frame body and attach with a cheap zoom, than
making a smaller sensor and attach with a more expensive
ultra-wide angle zoom. kngharv
\- i agree with your mkt read over holobs, but i think you
need to provide more guidance than "buy the best optical
quality lenses you can afford". ideally, you would have
some sense of what you budget is a couple of years out
and what kind fo photography is the most meaningful to
you, but usually this is a case of "decision making under
uncertainty" and it's the uncertainty you need to guide
somebody through ... as opposed to picking between Canon Y
and Nikon X or Lens A+B or Lens C. i think some people
would prefer to say able able to shoot 6/10 landscape and
6/10 portraits and 6/10 telephoto and others might prefer
to shoot 8/10 landscape, 8/10 portraits, and 2/10 t'photo.
and again, i think if you are shooting in "difficult
situation" [hiking/climbing or other wise on-the-go,
unsafe [theft or damage] etc] weight and cost really,
really matter. a 3lbs +$1k high quality lens which you
hardly ever use because it is an asspain to haul around
may not serve you as well as a >$500 zoom. if you are just
getting into photography and choosing betwee a $500 lens
and a higher quality $1500 lens, spend the $1000 on a
ticket to somewhere photogenic ... like Nepal or HKG.
\_ except that's like bringing a lot of condoms to
Amsterdam only to find that you don't have enough
money to blow on um... local attractions.
\- the ambiguously asexual psb does not get humor.
your lens is going to last a lot longer *AND* retain a lot more
resell value than your camera body. kngharv
\_ I've been waiting for a full-frame body for less than 1.5K
since 2002. I'm tired of waiting. Advice?
\_ Buy a non-full-frame body?
\_ I have a D80, should I skip the D90 upgrade path?
\_ Seconded. -tom
\_ Third EXCEPT for the D40 since it can't use regular
AF for auto-focus. Many signs point that AF will be
around for only 5-10 years since new lenses today
like the brand new AF-S 50mm f/1.4 that just announced
will replace the AF 50mm lines, for about $100 more.
\_ yup, that is why I own a D50 and go out of my way
to look for a refurbished D50 for my friends who
want go into photography and want to stick with Nikon.
\_ Why not own both Canon + Nikon? It doesn't cost
that much more considering the TOTAL system you'll
spend anyways on a variety of good prime lenses.
PS I hate zoom lenses. Convenient, shitty pics.
\- your brain -> ISO 32 [and i mean "slow" not
"sharp"]
\_ Well sometimes convenience is required to be able
to get the shot at all. You can't always lug
around a bunch of camera crap, and fiddling with
lenses/settings takes time.
\_ also EXCEPT for the D40x and D60. |
| 2008/10/14-17 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51528 Activity:nil |
10/14 Are DX/EF-S lenses in general less well built than FX/EF lenses?
\_ Don't know about Nikon, but there are no L-class EF-S
lenses, which means no environmentally sealed (mostly
anyway) EF-S lenses. They also don't make big metal cased
telephoto primes for EF-S, so obviously, you won't find
such tank-like builds in EF-S, but it's not an issue of
"less well built" but rather "non-existent."
\_ why you are even WORRY the build quality of these lenses?
Most of people, you probably included, tend to be very careful
about their lenses that the build quality is not really an issue.
More lenses got damaged during the process of cleaning it than
anything else. Secondly, since camera are moving towards full-
frame, your DX lenses are probably going to get outdated before
you really use it. |
| 2008/10/12-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51486 Activity:nil |
10/12 Is there a reason why people will spend $2500.00 on a new film
35mm camera that's just a reproduction of the old camera?
http://cgi.ebay.com/NIKON-S3-LIMITED-EDITION-BLACK-Mint_W0QQitemZ160291325395QQihZ006QQcategoryZ15234QQtcZphotoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262
\_ Collectible. |
| 2008/10/12-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51483 Activity:moderate |
10/12 Is it my imagination or camera lens prices have gone up slightly
on Amazon? I've been shopping and some of the lenses I want to
get have gone up in price. What the hell is going on? I thought
electronics are suppose to get cheaper, not more expensive.
\_ I don't know if prices wet up to down. But unlike a camera body, a
big part of a lens is the glass elements which don't have much to do
with electronics.
\- it could be affected by USD-JPY exchange rates. french cheese
prices have gone up massively due to the dollar deteriorating
against the euro.
\_ excellent point. Imports are getting more expensive.
Expect cheap Japanese cars to get more expensive.
\_ Does this mean Japanese porn DVDs will now cost a
lot more than before? Shit!!!
\_ Aren't Japanese porn mostly in VCD format?
\_ True until 1998-1999 -j porn expert
\_ my take is following: blame Canon. and I mean it.
Canon has been doing pretty well at making lens more expensive,
and other manufacturers start to mimic their marketing techniques.
Some of technique Canon used includes:
- use a different color on lens barrel, and called it "L"
Since most people who buy the stuff 1. want the best stuff
2. couldn't tell the differences, they effectively created
this "sub brand" within the lens product line. And people
flocking for it.
\_ No. Blame:
1) The common people for flocking to Canon, who are seduced
by superior Canon marketing (starting with Andre Agassi
REBEL!) plus a bunch of good looking sports stars
2) Nikon for being old fashioned and not keeping up with
the time. They're moving waaaay too slow and toooo
conservative for the 21st century. They also lagged
behind in sports shooting, and completely missed the
market that allowed Canon to take over professional SLR
in the 90s (now 80% of the sports pros use Canon)
3) George W Bush for sending US economy into tail-spin
and making dollar very weak and import prices high.
-camboi
- add additional functionalities to the lenses that is not
necessarily useful. My favorite example is the "image stabilize"
functionalities. While it is extremely useful for longer focal
length, it is actually not all that useful on the short end.
yet, people flocking to get an "IS" wide angle lens, and willing
to pay premium for it. Another example is having focus-motor
built-into the lens instead of having focus motor in the camera
body. Again, having a focus motor in a long focal-length lens is
a god send, but the benefit of it (over in-body motor) is very
small for wide angle / standard lenses. All these functionalities
adds up, and better, people are willing to pay a lot more for it.
If you know what you want and aware of trade offs, you could be
frugal and still achieve the same optical quality of more
expensive, newer lens. The example I can give is the old,
Canon 70-200mm f/4 lens. Optically, it performs on par with the
baby "L" and it is A LOT cheaper.
\_ What short focal (less than 55mm) IS lens do you know?
I don't see any on their product line. And if they do
really have it, it's very useful for micro/macro. By the
way what camera system do you have? -camboi |
| 2008/10/10-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51469 Activity:nil |
10/10 http://terrywhite.com/techblog/?s=canon&submit=Go DSLRs can now shoot videos! Check out examples. Oh, I like that slutty looking model. Safe for work, of course. \_ I thought Terry White's a white super model. Why is Terry White black? And why is Terry male? WTF. \_ Yup. What a slutty model the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is (pun intented). |
| 2008/10/7 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51414 Activity:high |
10/7 I want to buy a Leica Noctilux-M 50mm f/0.95 ASPH. I'm also
ambiguously gay and I'm ethnically Indian but I prefer to
hang out with well educated white people.
\_ (Responding to the troll.) f/0.95 Leica? URL please?
\_ (Taking the troll bait.) f/0.95 Leica? URL please? |
| 2008/10/3-6 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:51379 Activity:low |
10/3 Hey tom, can you tell us why Canon is better than Nikon? I'm
shopping and can't decide.
\_ I think Canon and Nikon are comparable. -tom
\_ #f spec for spec, price-value-wise, lense selection,
Canon beats Nikon hands down.
\- if you dont have an investment in nikon, buy canon.
if price truly is not object, then there might be
some debatable issues depending on what you want.
but actually what you should do is fix you budget,
which will determine a small range of bodies and
you should them compare specific models not brands.
especially if you are in the $1k - $1.5k range ...
if you are never going to be looking at +$1k lenses,
who cares about those. --nikon owner
\_ You can rent lenses easily at pro shops. Even pros do
it all the time.
\_ Another reason might be that you have very specific needs
on lenses. I imagine you can use the 1972 Nikkor 6mm f/2.8
fisheye (angle of view = 220 degrees -- seeing behind
itself!) or the 1990 Nikkor 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 (not a
reflex) on a Nikon D body in manual mode. But other than
that, I heard that Canon usually gives a better bang for
the buck. -- owner of Nikon FM2n, N70, D80.
\- yes, that is why i wrote "if you dont have an investment
in nikon". and renting is not a reasonable option if
you are travelling for a month ... and those are the
pix i really care about. i still like the "feel" of
nikons more than canon, but it comes at a high price
and isnt directly contributing to the quality of the
results. when you get down to comparing specific models,
sometimes user inerface matters more than trivial diffs
in quantitiative stats. e.g. it is really annoying
when some setting you change a lot is on a two deep
menu rather than on a dedicated dial ... i would gladly
trade some megapixels for that interface change.
--http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/PSB_MISC/PSB_N1-fb.jpg
\_ UI is very subjective. Hey what kind of lenses
have you invested in? Do you have a bunch of
EF-S/DX lenses that'll get obsolete in 5 years?
\_ wedding photographers rent equipments all the time
\- the economics of photography change dramatically
if you can justify it as a business expence. |
| 2008/10/3-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51373 Activity:nil |
10/3 Dear photo buffs. Now that full frame FX cameras are getting into
the low $2000 range, and possibly much lower in a few years, do you
think DX 1.3 1.5 1.6 smaller frame DSLR cameras will be obviated
in the future? What is your prediction?
\_ the race for megapixel is dead. Small frame DSLR is good enough
and it'll be around for a very long time.
\_ I don't see full-frame as really providing much value. Canon
in particular is highly dedicated to APS-C frame size, and
gets results which make going any larger seem unnecessary. -tom
\_ Canon chose to never go back to full frame size. Their EF-S
lenses do not physically fit into their full frame bodies.
On the other hand, Nikon is waivering, undecided. Their DX
lenses all fit into FX bodies, and their FX bodies recognize
FX and crop accordingly. Canon=Republican, Nikon=Democrats
(their lenses and bodies all get along). Canon is firm and
takes better pictures. Nikon is queer and their indecisiveness
make them look like pussies.
\- it has implcations for noise, lens design and few other things,
just as canon's decision to change the lens mount to a larger
diameter.
\_ The reality is that noise is becoming less and less of an
issue. Even at ISO 1600 in low light my XSi displays
astonishingly little noise. Sure, there are implications for
lens design, but 35mm is an arbitrary size and there doesn't
seem to be much marginal value in pegging digital to that
size, particularly for Canon whose lenses are aimed at APS-C.
If Nikon is costing more and not producing signficantly
better results with 35mm sensors, the invisible hand will
smack them down to size. so to speak. -tom
\- look for serious photographers, there are more issues.
(not suggesting i'm in that category)
quality at 1600 is certainly better than it used to be,
but i still dont like it, but different things work for
different people, when you get to "qualitative" stuff
like this. on the other hand there are plenty of technical
difference, e.g. the DoF performance when shooting
portraits with a 105/2.8 on 35mm vs APC. i think you would
need something like a 80/2.0 for similar effect. i assume
the yields will improve and he total fraction of cost in
the sensor will come down, and the real estate will be
good for high end cameras. but i agree for "regular"
photographers [i.e. people usually not to "focused" on
photographers [i.e. people usually not too "focused" on
DoF], things like weight and cost and some features like
IS trump extreme quality, MTF curves and corner cases.
BTW, there are definitely places i've taken my <$1000
camera body i would not take a multi-$k body [risk of
damage, theft etc] ... so in once sense i was able to
take better pix with a lighter, cheaper camera. |
| 2008/9/21-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51248 Activity:moderate |
9/20 Dear motd, I have a bunch of darkroom photographic stuff, like an
enlarger, development tray, fast 35mm loader, chemical holders,
etc etc. What's the best way to dispose them? I doubt they're of
any value to anyone anymore.
\_ If you're local to LA, I'll take 'em. I'm currently taking a
beginners photography class. -chrchan
\_ Berkeley teaches photography? I didn't know that. Also, why
are they still using analog photography?
\_ Why do we still teach analog circuits, btw?
\_ There is some photography taught at Berkeley in the
architecture department, but chrchan is in LA anyway. -tom |
| 2008/9/19-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51237 Activity:high |
9/19 Do you guys use a prime lens (fixed length)? Which ones do you use
and which ones are useless?
\_ I don't understand why 35mm f2 is $300, but 35mm f1.4 is $700.
The difference is minute. Why would you pay double for slightly
better bokeh capability?
\_ You're not paying for bokeh, you're paying for speed.
If you're shooting in low light, that can make a huge
difference in the feasibility of getting a good shot. -tom
\_ I love 50mm on 5D (really 50mm) and 28mm on 350D (~45mm
equivalent). Other than that, I use 100mm macro a lot.
135mm is possibly the best lens I own, but I haven't had a
chance to use it very much. I also like my 85mm (not the
expensive f/1.2L, but just f/1.8). It should be obvious by
now that I like primes. I also have 200 f/2.8. I stick to
zooms on the wide end, though.
\_ What can you do with a bunch of prime lens that you can't
do with modern zoom lenses today?
\_ shoot at 2.8 and wider. 300 f2.8 is really expensive.
\_ I use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens quite frequently. I am considering
getting the Canon 24mm f/2.8 b/c the 50mm isn't wide enough for
my outdoor photography.
\_ In the old days, 50mm was the defacto prime lens because
it was a natural 1:1 ratio with what the normal human eye
would see. Today, 50mm on a DSLR is really 75mm, because
digital CCD is smaller than 35mm film by 1.3-1.6X. Therefore,
50mm on a DSLR is simply too focused.
\_ This is precisely why I want to get the 24mm f/2.8.
\- nikon and canon both have 50mm reasonably fast lenses [f/1.8]
at good optical quality [so-so build quality] for very cheap
~$100. so it's a decent investment. the 1/3 stop faster 1.4
has much better build quality, but is about 3x as much. lens
pricing can be kind odd with lenses with similar specs being
in different quality tracks [e.g. nikon 18-35 vs 17-35].
i also have a 105/ 2.6 prime 1:1 macro ... which is a decent
i also have a 105/ 2.8 prime 1:1 macro ... which is a decent
portrait lens. so fast primes with shallow DoF have their uses
[fast zoom are really heavy and expensive]. I have to say I dont
use my 24mm prime much any more ... but it is small and good
quality. Also note it takes a much smaller filter than my
18-35zoom ... so stuff like that adds up both in $ and weight.
\_ what f-stop is your 28mm? A Nikkor 28mm f1.4 costs $3000
\- if you are talking to me: my *24*mm is a landscape lens.
not f1.4. what is a wide angle f1.4 for? as you no doubt
know, the purpose of the 24prime is less distortion than
the zooms in that range ... and much, much lighter [some
what of an isue when climbing/on expedition].
\- oh i see: the 28 f1.4 is a way to get ~50mm on a DX
sensor. as ken rockwell says: "Because it was
so expensive, no one bought them. Because no
one bought them, Nikon stopped making
them. Because Nikon stopped making them,
photographers and collectors now want it"
Those are people with too much money.
\_ Yes you got it, that was what I was asking.
I really want one too, I want a 28mm prime.
\_ I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 MF that I used on my FM2, N70 and now
\_ I have a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 MF that I used on my FM2n, N70 and now
D80. Quality was good, but now a very small bug (insect) seemed to
have crawled inside the lens and died on one glass surface, although
I have no idea how that could have possible happened. However, I
don't notice any quality degrade in the 4"x6" pictures.
don't notice any quality degrade in my 4"x6" prints.
\- If you are in the Yeah Area, Horizon Electronics in Union City
[?] can fix this for you. However, you may be better off just
buying a Nikkor 50 1.8D ... or ignoring, if as you say it is
small enough not to affect anything. If plausible you can ask
for the "professional discount" ... plausibility I suppose
depends slightly on documentation [business card] or gear
[i.e. F5 vs D80]. I would just get a D lens for the D80 AF
if you want to stay with FullFrame lenses. BTW, this is one
semi-win for Nikon: no physically incompatible mounta change...
semi-win for Nikon: no physically incompatible mount change...
although in the case of people our age, Canon mount change
decision would have probably been a plus.
\_ what age is that?
\- If you didnt learn to shoot on a Canon F-1, then it
applies to you ... your photographic life would have
likely been all in the EF era.
\_ Don't you notice a big zoom difference (1.5) going from film
to D? It's more like 75mm.
\_ Yes I do. The angle of view is smaller on the D80. -- PP |
| 2008/9/15-19 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51178 Activity:nil |
9/15 I bought a Nikon D80 + 18-135mm F3.5 lense. After browsing around,
I have really deep regrets. Canon has way better lens than Nikon
for less price. I find myself that 18mm is still too narrow, not
realizing that DSLR is really 1.5X longer than traditional 35mm
(e.g. 18mm DSLR is really 27mm SLR). The best wide angle lens
Nikon has is 12-24mm F4 whereas Canon has 10-22mm F3.5, for a
fraction of the cost, with BIGGER F-stops. WHAT THE FUCK??? Canon
has IS stabilization for a long time, and Nikon recently has stocks
of VR available, just recently. REALLY pissed about Nikon. Fuck!!!
\_ Crop factor is not directly related to "D" SLR. Some DSLRs have
full film-sized sensors (1Ds, 5D, D3, D700, A900).
\_ Yes but they're shit these days, and there will no longer be
any full film-sized sensors in a few years anyways. They're
going to be like 100x100mm format in the old days.
\_ when writing of lenses, use a lower case f. F4 is a camera,
f4 or f/4 is an aperture. yes, nikon has kinda screwed people
for a while, unless price is no object. if you didnt have have
an investment in nikon lenses, "you choose ... poorly".
an investment in nikon lenses, "you chose ... poorly".
\- fucking pedantic prick. at any rate, canon is better for
outdoors and sports shooting, hands down. vastly faster focus
speed, quieter, way better light metering. thats why 70% of
sports photographers today use canon, and only 20% Nikon.
i used to have the nikon F series (film) and they were the
best in those days, but today, nikon is like mercedes to
canon is like lexus. nikon used to be the luxury car, but
feature per feature, comfort per comfort, performance per
performance, canon beats nikon hands down.
\_ I bought a brand new Lexus and it's a piece of shit. Two
years old and already $10K in work on it, which was
luckily covered under warranty. I almost filed a lemon
law claim and might still. I think Lexus is riding on
reputation. I bought a Lexus instead of a BMW (like I did
before) because I wanted reliability. That's a crock. My
next car will be a BMW again. I've had my BMW 7+ years
and while it has not been problem free it didn't break
down with 1500 miles on it like the Toyota did.
\_ Did you get IS? IS has a very bad reputation. GS is
still very reliable. ES is like Camry.
\_ Naw. Nikon has a superior CLS flash system. You can have a
almost near quality studio with a bunch of SB-600s and a
commander flash. Great if you plan to do a bunch of indoor
photography. Canon is so so wrt to lighting systems. Canon
has better lens selections and body performance, Nikon has
better "integrated systems"
\_ i own nikon and i like a lot about nikon. but for somebody
with modest goals [i.e. a prospective D80 buyer] and not
investment in nikon glass, i think canon would have been
a better choice. i still like nikon's feel, but it's an
expensive premium [and i bought a lot of my glass before
the digital era and the tiem when nikon started screwing
people more and delivering less]. --pp |
| 2008/8/26-9/3 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/Apps/Media] UID:50968 Activity:nil |
8/26 Recreate '68 tries to start riot in Denver, is shut down cold
http://csua.org/u/m6q
\_ Son, that urine doesn't look healthy.
\_ Here's a great pic from the Denver post:
http://www.denverpost.com/denver/ci_10306204
\_ See, once you start attacking police, you should probably just be
shot.
\_ The problem with shooting people (they learned in the 60's)
is, even if the people you're shooting at deserve it, there
tends to be collateral damage. I'm very impressed with how
these bozos have been handled by the Denver police. I'd buy
'em all doughnuts.
\_ no one remembers the nice meek protestors who follow the rules and
tastefully politely hang out in the Freedom Cafe knitting and
pleasantly expressing their right of free assembly
\_ Just what exactly are the Recreate 68 people trying to recreate?
The only thing that comes to mind for me is that MLK and RFK were
both assasinated leading up to the DNC. |
| 2008/6/18-24 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50296 Activity:nil |
6/18 Is this from Google Local Maps image rendering?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2584019149_edae7039fc_b.jpg
\_ I don't understand the question, but I probably wouldn't know
the answer anyway.
\_ That is a Street View camera car, if that's what you're asking.
\_ Why was the driver getting a ticket? Going too slow because the
camera only works in low speed?
\_ Too googly without a license. |
| 2008/6/15-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50265 Activity:nil |
6/15 I need an open mail relay to relay mail from a camera. The
camera's OS does not do SSL or anything like that. How can I do
this? I think <DEAD>smtp.com<DEAD> meets my needs, but it's not free. Is there
a free solution?
\_ If there were, spammers would be all over it.
\_ Yeah, probably. There's no lack of spam, so...
\_ John Gilmore runs one at http://www.toad.com -ausman |
| 2008/6/3-4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50126 Activity:nil |
6/2 Does anyone know how to pictures like http://www.csua.org/u/lon where the setting sun in the background is as big as a person? I've seen movie scenes where a person is walking on the ground, and the setting sun is as tall as the walking person. I have a 300mm lens, but the sun looks very small even with this lens. I imagine one can do it by shooting the subject from very very far away with a very very long lens. But is there a more practical way? Thanks. \_ The sun/moon looks a lot bigger when it is at the very horizon. More atmosphere to pass through. And that is pretty obviously shot from a pretty long ways away. \_ Lens effect is minimal, it's in your head. (Fascinating bit of how our brain works, actually.) |
| 2008/6/2-4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50119 Activity:nil |
6/2 I'm thinking of getting a 12-24mm lens ($480). I have a 18-200mm
right now. I'm wondering if anyone has pictures of 12mm vs 18mm
so that I can see if it's justified to spend $480 on a 12mm? ok thx
\_ Just make a hole the size of the sensor in your camera on a
piece of cardboard, and see what you can see with it 18mm
from your eye, and again at 12mm. There should be a HUGE
difference. Every bit matters more on the wide-angle side.
\_ http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm
\_ If it's not a fisheye, a 12mm lens roughly covers 1.5x the width and
1.5x the height of the same scene as a 18mm lens.
\_ You don't say what size sensor you're attaching this on. The edge
distortion is *much* less noticeable on smaller sensors when
using a wide angle. |
| 2008/5/23-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50040 Activity:nil |
5/23 Are there Pentax K-mount to Nikon F-mount converters out there?
I have a bunch of pretty good older Pentax K-mount lenses that
I'd like to use, and I don't mind manual F-stop and manual focus.
I also realize that I'll lose 1-2 F-stops by using a converter.
I'm just wondering if such a converter exists. ok thx.
\_ "Losing 1-2 F-stops by using a converter" is something
\_ 1. "Losing 1-2 F-stops by using a converter" is something
associated with teleconverters which increase the focal length,
not converters in general.
2. It looks like you'll need two converters:
K to M42: http://tinyurl.com/5ze892 (B&H)
M42 to F: http://tinyurl.com/5l5h62 (B&H)
I've never used lens mount adapters. You'd better call B&H to
confirm that this method actually works before you buy them.
Do lens mount adapters have lens elements to compensate for the
increased length of the combined lens? I imagine that if they
have lens elements, you'll lose optical quality. OTOH if they
don't have lens elements, you won't be able to focus at infinity. |
| 2008/5/20-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50013 Activity:low |
5/20 Does anyone know how Nikon's auto FP work? It says ... the flash
automatically fires at faster shutter speeds exceeding the
camera's sync shutter speed. How can that even be possible?
\_ As always, your question is answered by Ken Rockwell:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm
\_ I'm not sure about Nikon, but I'm sure it's no different
than Canon's High-speed Sync. What they do is fire the
flash bulb using high-frequency pulse, like at 50kHz. You
get significantly less instantaneous light, but you get a
stream of light instead of just one FLASH. It drains the
heck out of the capacitors, though.
\_ That makes a lot of sense! So if my sync speed is 1/200
seconds (where the start/end curtains take 1/200 second
to complete), then the flash is flashing at that duration?
to complete), then the strobe is on for that duration?
Very fascinating. This is all very interesting. Thanks
motd camera god!
\_ The fully-mechanical fully-manual 1984 Nikon FM2n has a sync
\_ My fully-mechanical fully-manual 1984 Nikon FM2n has a sync
speed of 1/250sec. |
| 2008/5/13-16 [Consumer/Camera] UID:49937 Activity:nil |
5/13 Dear Nikon guys, I'm the D80 flash guy. I just ordered a SB-800 and
hope to do lots of remote flash (with diffuser + bounce) photography
soon. I'm tired of harsh tones I keep getting from the built in
flash which is really useless, and I hope my new SB-800 (plus a book
entirely on this topic) will make night time photography more pleasant
again. I could have bought a SB-600 since my D80 has built in
Commander, but I have extra $$$ to burn anyways so why the heck not.
Besides, I'll probably buy multiple flash units in the future
like 2 more SB-600, so it's all good. Will let you guys know how
it goes. -Nikon D80 guy
\_ If you haven't ran across it yet, check out http://strobist.com
\_ Oh my, what an expensive hobby you have!
\_ cheaper than strip club
\_ Bonus information for the OP. If you use rear-sync (also known
as second curtain sync), but do manual preflash step (known as
FEL--Flash Exposure Lock in the Canon land), it won't do the
double flash on the actual shutter release. So, just telling the
subjects to ignore the first manual flash should help keep them
steady during the actual exposure. I have no idea how Nikon's
system works, but I hear Nikon's flash system is better designed
overall than Canon's flash system.
\_ Canon: great quality lens without the ridiculous price
of a genuine Nikkor
Nikon: CLS system in 2003 has been one of the most
revolutionary flash/lighting systems since
the 70s.
\_ A decade ago during my N70 days, the comparison was like this:
Canon: IS lenses, whereas Nikon didn't have VR lenses.
Nikon: The 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill Flash was a
revolutionary flash system, whereas Canon's flash
system was no match.
Nikon: 3D Multi-Sensor Balanced Fill Flash (or whatever it
was called) was a revolutionary flash system, whereas
Canon's flash system was no match. |
| 2008/5/12-16 [Consumer/Camera] UID:49931 Activity:nil |
5/12 I have a Nikon D80 and I'm looking for a good flashlight
system that'll go with it. I'd like to use the diffuser to
bounce the ceiling for softer lighting. What's a good
flashlight system for a D80? ok thx
\_ By the way when I set my D80 to flash rear-sync + slow (flash
at the END of the shutter not the beginning, with slow
exposure to capture background ambience colour better),
it always flashes twice-- once in the beginning and once at
the end. But I thought rear-sync only flashes once at
the end. Why does it flash twice? I don't have silly red-eye
reduction if you're wondering already -op
\_ Almost all (actually likely all) TTL (through-the-lens)
flash system uses 2-step metering. It does a low-power
preflash to measure the scene, calculates the final
flash power, and goes into actual exposure. The first
step happens without the shutter ever opening, of
course. With normal flash, they happen close enough to
each other that most people don't notice there were
actually two flashes. With rear-sync, it becomes
completely obvious.
\_ That's EXACTLY what it was... low power flash followed
by a high power flash. I just tried it again without
rear-sync and it happens so fast you don't see it. I
don't use rear-sync anymore to reduce this problem, but
it's not easy to tell your subject to stand still for 1/2
second in extreme low light situations since they have a
tendency to move right after the flash. Anyways,
YOU ARE CAMERA GOD, thank you. -op/pp
\_ I thought TTL metering is by measuring the light reflected
off the film's surface, which has to happen when the shutter
is open. No? -- !OP
off the film's surface, which occurs only when the shutter is
open. No? -- !OP
\_ Actually, that's correct. However, as far as I'm aware of,
no digital camera uses that technique. I guess I should've
said E-TTL or something. They're all just terms anyway.
dSLRs measure light before the shutter, and using a
separate preflash. On old film cameras with "classic" TTL,
there was only one flash, which gets shut off in a hurry
when enough light has reached the sensor looking at the
film. Whew!
\_ Are you using the built-in flash? I can try it out on mine
tonight and see what happens.
\_ Yeah I mean the built in flash. -pp, op
\_ Can you give me more details of your setting? E.g. are you
using P mode or M mode? If M, what shttter speed? Any
menu settings that you changed from the default values?
\_ I'm at work but let me see if I can remember. I used
the A mode, I almost open up the aperature to the
widest so that the shutter would be faster (1/30,
1/2, etc) at night time, hand held.
\_ Depends on what you want to do (e.g. being portable vs. in a studio
setting). I use my D80 with an SB-28 and a Sigma EF 430 Super
(neither of which are really compatible with D80) bouncing off two
Photogenic Eclipse 45" umbrellas for soft lighting. This way I
have fleshlights for portability, and very soft lighting when I
\_ Amazing. Is it junior high in here?
have flashlights for portability, and very soft lighting when I
have flashes for portability, and very soft lighting when I
don't need to move around. Of course if I have the $$, I'd rather
get some real strobes for the studio setting. |
| 2008/2/25-26 [Consumer/Camera, Academia/Berkeley/CSUA/Troll] UID:49230 Activity:low |
2/24 Who is hotter, Amy Murphy or Jackie Johnson?
\_ Jackie Johnson. But Lisa Guerrero is hotter than both.
http://www.hottystop.com/lisa-guerrero/4.jpg
\_ Who are these people? That photo can't be real.
photo is NSFW btw. - motd boob guy.
\_ Weather forecast girls.
\_ The photo is real, the boobs aren't.
\_ Lisa *was* hotter, but I saw her recently and while she's
an attractive woman shes 43 and cannot compete with a young
hottie (29) like Jackie Johnson.
\_ If Jackie's 29, she'll sure to fatten up considerably
when she reaches 40, since she's already pretty full.
\_ So? |
| 2008/2/8-10 [Consumer/Camera] UID:49104 Activity:nil |
2/8 Pretty cool 'realistic pixel art'
And quit squishing changes.
http://kotaku.com/photogallery/jimiyo/1000681749
\_ Why the hell is this worth posting? What a waste of my time.
\_ Welcome to the MOTD, blowhard. |
| 2008/1/19-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48975 Activity:nil |
1/18 Cloverfield: Not bad, really; quite gripping, actually.
\_ No motion sickness?
\_ Not really, no; good luck getting your handicam to match
the quality of their handicam. There are a couple of
shaky moments, but nothing like Blair Witch.
\_ Apparently the real camera probably cost over $100K:
http://gizmodo.com/347463/the-real-camera-behind-cloverfield |
| 2008/1/18-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48970 Activity:nil |
1/18 Okay, this is awesome. Photo stabilizer made from a washer, string,
and bolt [metacafe.com]
http://csua.org/u/kij
\_ While this may be better than just plain hand holding, I
wouldn't call it "image stabilization." Yes, it can be called that
if you consider a generic definition. But given the context of
photography, I consider it misleading. At best, I would call it
reverse monopod. It does have some value in that it takes very
little room compared to a monopod.
\_ It's not as good as a monopod. A monopod only allows camera
rotation about the vertical axis, while this method allows
rotation about all three axes. But then this method is still
better than hand holding, and IMHO whoever invented this is a
genius. |
| 2008/1/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48913 Activity:low |
1/9 New digital camera capable of 60fps for still pictures and 1200fps
for movies:
http://www.casio.com/news/content/7AD51123-7BE6-4C82-8D26-F29FCB99A6B8
Does that bring demise to Nikon and Canon DSLRs?
\_ No. Cost vs. Performance curve says they'll all have their niches.
\_ Is there price info for the Casio one? I don't see it in the
press release. Thx.
\_ How much of your photography requires 60fps? -tom
\_ People are greedy.
\_ the thing is essentially a movie camera; with the possible
exception of sports photography, it will have no impact on
the SLR market. -tom
\- http://appleorangescale.com/?wd0=casio&wd1=canon&wd2=nikon
casio < nikon < canon
\_ 26x as many references for Canon vs. Nikon? I don't think Canon
cameras are that much more popular than Nikon ones.
\_ Canon owns the pocket-camera market. -tom
\_ Never buy a camera from people who make calculators and etc.
\_ So no Casio or Canon. |
| 2007/12/11-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48779 Activity:nil |
12/11 Is there some kind of photography major that's not photojournalism?
Some friend's kid just started college (not Cal) with an undeclared
major. He has an talent in shooting artistic pictures, but not the
newspaper kind. Thanks for any info.
\_ Sure, they have photography majors at art schools. However,
what do you mean "not the newspaper kind"?
\_ I guess what I means is pictures that just look good, but not
related to a particular event (birthday party, protest, natural
related to a particular event (wedding ceremony, protest, natural
disaster, etc.)
\_ Depends on the school. Did he go to a school with a heavy arts
focus?
\_ Seattle Pacific Univ. |
| 2007/12/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48768 Activity:nil |
12/8 Great fleet week photos:
http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1a
\_ BZ's 2007 San Francisco Fleetweek Photo Gallery
These are some pictures I took at the 2007 San Francisco Fleetweek airshow.
All shots taken w/ a Nikon D50 w/ Nikkor 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G lens; center spot met\
ering and focus, jets shot w/ shutter priority at 1/2000sec.
I went back and cleaned up all the images in photoshop. Level adjusted them, cro\
pped and rotated some (leveled out the sneak pass). Post processing does help fi\
x exposure and framing issues!
Added some additional context shots (12/10/07), hope you like 'em! |
| 2007/8/26-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47754 Activity:moderate |
8/25 Alright guys. Nikon D80 with 18-135mm lens for only $709:
http://www.usaphotonation.com/products.asp?product_id=13642#acc
\- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom
enters the suspect range for distortion, although this may be
\- you should read the reviews of the 18-135. a 7.5x zoom mitigated
for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's price if the
lens measures up optically and in physical construction [some
cheaper big zooms have had construction issues]. \_ don't
bother with big zooms. get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if you
have the money; 30mm f/2 if you don't. these big zooms tend to
use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
\_
mitigated for a DX format lens. that being said, if that's
lend bundled in for $700, that seems like a pretty good effective
price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
5A5A price if the lens measures up optically and in physical
construction [some cheaper big zooms have had construction
issues].
\_ don't bother with big zooms. get a 17-35mm f/2.8 as a starter if
you have the money; 30mm f/2 if you don't. these big zooms tend
to have very bad optical qualities, AND that it is usually useless
to use other than bright sunny day due to small maximum aperature.
\- do you think the poster above is really looking for a +$1000
\_ So you haven't ever touched a woman, huh?
"starter" lens [17-35 f/2.8]? 30mm f/2? again, a big but cheap
zoom with a long range will never be great, but DX format and
modern lens design and glass may mitigate this.
modern lens design and glass may mitigate this. OP: it is
quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX
at the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures
in the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
quite possible you will not need more than 80mm-DX/120mm-FX at
the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures in
the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
decent lenses in that area are multi-thousand dollar lenses.
\- oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for
somebody with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30%
on a prime lens unless he wants it for something very
specific. the 50mm 1.8 is $100 ... which would be around
the 85mm FX FoV and is a fast lens of decent optical
\-
quality, eventhough not the most solid construction
[less imp for a small, light lens]. now are you going to
tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for somebody
with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30% on a prime lens
unless he wants it for something very specific. the 50mm 1.8 is
$100 ... which would be around quality, eventhough not the most
solid construction [less imp for a small, light lens]. now are
you going to tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
\_ if you want long end, fetch an used 70-210mm f/4-5.6 they are
cheap and almost good enough. (I personally find f/5.6 a bit too
slow at the 210mm end... and i am using ISO400 all the time).
And yes, my recommendation for newbies are: 17-35mm f/2.8,
50mm f/1.8 and 70-210mm f/4-5.6 (go for an older 70-210mm f/4 if
you can find one). The new 70-300mm f/4-5.6 VR is nice if you can
afford it. |
| 2007/8/25-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47750 Activity:nil |
8/25 javascript question. Is there a way to change
window.href.location without the browser reloading?
\_ No. This is intentional.
the long end. I really dont take a lot of serious pictures
in the super-telephone ranges [birds, wildlife, sports], and the
decent lenses in that area are multi-thousand dollar lenses.
\- oh you mean the 35mm f/2. look it's probably silly for
somebody with say a $1-1.2k photo budget to spend 25-30%
on a prime lens unless he wants it for something very
specific. the 50mm 1.8 is $100 ... which would be around
the 85mm FX FoV and is a fast lens of decent optical
quality, eventhough not the most solid construction
[less imp for a small, light lens]. now are you going to
tell him the 50mm/1.4 is nicer.
?? |
| 2007/8/23-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47739 Activity:nil |
8/23 While we're on the topic of Nikons, I'm really pissed about my
new Nikkor 18-135mm lense. When I bought my Nikkor 18-135mm for
only $330 I thought I was getting an awsome deal, only to find
out that it has pretty much the *same* view angle as my vintage
1977 SLR with a newer Sigma 28-85mm lens. Why did they advertise
it as 18-135mm when it is not? This is really misleading. Does
Canon do the same thing?
\_ http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_01.htm |
| 2007/8/23-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47726 Activity:nil |
8/23 Nikon D80 for only $279.00 and $609.00. What's the catch?
http://www.pricingdepot.com/compare.asp?item=25412
\_ Too good to be true. I only trust B&H and CameraWorld.
\_ Check this out:
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Express_Cameras
0.71 out of 10 baby!
\_ "Cannon 30D was previously opened and entire contents smells
like cigarette smoke.
\_ http://thomashawk.com/2005/11/priceritephoto-abusive-bait-
and-switch.html http://redirx.com/?7mel
"I will make sure you will never be able to place an
order on the internet again." "I'm an attorney, I will\
sue you." "I will call the CEO of your company and play
him the tape of this phone call." "I'm going to call your
local police and have two officers come over and arrest
you." "You'd better get this through your thick skull."
"You have no idea who you are dealing with."
and-switch.html
http://redirx.com/?7mel
"I will make sure you will never be able to place an order on
the internet again." "I'm an attorney, I will
sue you." "I will call the CEO of your company and play him
the tape of this phone call." "I'm going to call your local
police and have two officers come over and arrest you." "You'd
better get this through your thick skull." "You have no idea
who you are dealing with."
I think you should refrain from ordering that camera.
\_ Damnit I was hoping to get a good deal. Guess I'll
keep surfing for good deals.
\_ thomashawk is kind of a nut. But there are lots of
shady camera stores. Buy from B&H. -tom
\_ I ordered it and it was cancelled within two hours as being
"out of stock" but it is still listed on their site. |
| 2007/8/23-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47723 Activity:nil |
8/23 Dear Nikon experts, can you enlighten me on the complex
compatibility issues with Nikon G/E/etc lenses? I'd like to
understand how they fit/don't fit with each other, and
what features I'd miss (AF, etc) I'd miss if I don't fit
them correctly. The whole Nikon thing's pretty
DAMN COMPLICATED, compared to Pentax. -Old Pentax expert guy
\_ http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm
Scroll to the alphabet soup. Also look at the history:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dslr.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm
The main website's pretty good too.
\- if you arent buying/inheriting old lenses the only thing
you need to be aware of is D and G. The Nikon mounts are all
the same physically [unlike Canon]. G lenses are "cheaper" and for
digital only. The differences are for the lenses that will
with for digital sensors size only and the full frame, and some
of the cheepers digital lenses dont have an aperture control ring,
you can only control aperture form the dial on the camera body.
now once you get into the most complicated bodies [F200, F5, F6]
and the advanced metering, then you get into the super-complicated
lens by lens, but by and large if you get lenses the same vintage
as camera bodies things generally work. i assume the "problem you
are trying to solve" is something narrow and not "i am trying to
understand everything about nikon lenses and bodies".
\_ G lenses are not for digital bodies only. The F6, for example,
is a film body and it works with G lenses. DX lenses, on the
other hand, are for digital bodies only, because the image that
they project only covers the size of Nikon's "DX format"
(16mm x 24mm), i.e. the image sensor size in Nikon's current
digital SLRs. You can still use DX lenses on film bodies, but
you'll get a vignetting effect because a 35mm film frame is
24mm x 36mm. (BTW, the upcoming D3 digital body will have a
24mm x 36mm image sensor.) --- yuen
\- oh sorry, that;s right. the 3 series to concern yourself with
are D, DX and G. but best is to research hold the body to
a small set and concern yourself with a small set of lenses.
like if you dont even have a film camera, you dont haev to
researc the "partial functionality" of the DX zooms. [those
series refer to slightly different things. G refers to lens
design and D to focusing, so G lenses are D w.r.t. to metering
and such].
\_ i agree that Nikon has made their lenses a lot more complicated
than they should. They should of stuck with the gun and
be compatible with everything from AI and down. Since I
am an old school, I want two things: 1. all my lenses should be
compatible with 135 frame size (e.g. full frame" 2. I want
to be able to adjust aperature on the aperature ring on the lens
Because I want these two things, I just avoid any DX or G lens.
DX == APS frame size lens which would make lenses useless once
the frame size increases in camera (e.g. D3). G lenses doesn't
have the mechanical aperature ring, which means you need to
use camera's dial and buttons to adjust it. Nothing wrong with
that per se, just that i find it less intuitive than the good
old mechanical ring.
Then again, Pentax is not exactly easy to figure out neither.
what is the difference between K-, KA-, KAF-, KAF2 and regular
"K" mount? kngharv |
| 2007/8/5-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47537 Activity:low |
8/5 I'm thinking of getting a serious SLR camera. Costco is selling
a Canon SLR for $1299. Is that a decent SLR at a decent price?
\_ If you don't know, you shouldn't be buying a $1300 camera. -tom
\_ I agree with tom. What do you need it for? If you don't
know, it's obviously not _worth_ it. If you do know, only you
can make that decision. If you're wondering about price
comparison alone, go check out on-line sites, like buydig,
bhphotovideo, onecall, amazon, etc. And it's a huge can of
worms talking about DSLR. Why Canon? Did you check out
Nikon, Pentax, etc.? Again, it comes down to what you want
out of it. --owner of 350D and 5D.
\_ I didn't know what I needed my SLR for when I bought my
350D and it's one of the best purchases I ever made. If
you can afford it, it's a great opportunity to learn about
photography -- I found a shitload of stuff I had no clue
about that I could just teach myself on the SLR. Sites
like http://dpreview.com have good explanations of all the
features you're likely to see; a colleague recommended
that for starters I look at the D70 and 350D, which are
very similar cameras at a beginner's skill level. I'd
just recommend getting a better lens than what you're
likely to get in a kit. -John
\- overall i have some ambivalence about digital [in part
because i am not real good with the software] but two
unambiguous wins are:
--you can get at least something in low keep-rate
situations where you probably wouldnt have shot at
all if film+dev was coming out of your pocket [like
shooting on a boat in 10ft seas ... i kept maybe
10/150px.
--speaking more to your point: you get immediate feedback
on your pix so it is easier to casually learn about
DoF, motion blurr etc. The EXIF info means you dont
have to record the f-stop info in a shooting notebook,
and since so film/developing costs, you might as well
bracket. So you can see what the difference is, if any,
shooting an panorama with infinity focus at 1/500th
or 1/4000 sec.
--re: kit lens: when i bought my Nikon D70, eventhough
i have better lenses in the same range,
i still got the kit lens because: the marginal
effective price was pretty low, and there are times
and places i dont want to take the expensive glass ...
when i fell off a camel, you can bet i was happy it
was with the kit lens, and not the lens with the 77mm
front element. of course this may not apply in some
cases depending on other equipment, finances, type
of photography etc
\_ I dragged my 17-85 all over South America through
some pretty shitty places, and I was glad I didn't
have the 18-55. I read a good opinion once that
no amateur photographer should need more than 3
lenses, and I agree -- your camera is there to be
used, if you take reasonable care it'll be fine,
but sometimes random shit just happens. As for
falling off camels, get a good camera bag or learn
your priorities (camera > personal injury) -John
\_ Let's see some pictures you have taken and then
we'll decide whether to listen to you.
\- what do you think those three lenses should be?
i certainly an am amateur, and i think you want
to be able to shoot from 24mm-300mm [and going a
little wider than 24 is nice for "big landscapes"]
i'd compose this range from 3 zooms, although
you can do two. however, a decent protrait lens
is reasonable to have. 1:1 macro can be nice,
[http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/Maroc2006/Hib61.jpg]
although something like the nikon 105 1:1 can
serve as both. anyway, photography is one of those
areas where the range of amateurs is so wide,
i dont think it's a meaningful group to generalize
about. i think the issue is more about what
conditions you shoot under [big landscapes,
indoor events, posed portraits, sports, "small
nature" etc].
BTW, there is also a element of adaptation ...
once you shoot slides, you cant go back to even
nice color prints. Once you've shot at 17-18mm,
24mm doesnt see enough, once you've used a
medium-high quality zoom, it's hard to go back
to the 5.6@300mm zooms [i havent used the
legendary 2.8 thrus].
\_ As implied in multiple posts, you should first consider how it
will be used. dSLRs have gotten so popular these days because
many people think they will take better pictures than the
compact snapshooters because they are more expensive. But
many of these people will also stick with just the kit lens for
rest of the camera's life. Keep in mind that most snapshooters
will do extra processing to make the photo "look better" for
casual shooters like increasing saturation levels and such that
serious dSLRs won't do as much of. For example, I can't remember
if it was the XTi does it or not, but at least for XT, the
default setting when shooting in JPEG uses higher saturation than
[123]0D series. And if you do decide to go with dSLRs, the XTi
may be a better way to go than the 30D as mentioned below. Two
advantages I really like about the [123]0D series over dRebel
series are the second control wheel on the back and the build
quality/feel. (The feel of the shutter between the dRebel and
X0D series alone makes me lust for the X0D, but I opted for the
X0D series alone makes me lust for the X0D, but I optedor the
XTi until I can afford a 5D series.) The second wheel is not as
useful unless you are constantly shootin in full manual mode,
and the build quality alone probably won't justify the cost
difference. But if you can afford the extra cost and go with
a 5D, the price difference is probably justifiable.
\_ That sounds expensive to me. You should be able to get a
Rebel XTi for around $700 w/ the 18-55 EF-S lens.
\_ Canon EOS 5D 12.8MP Camera Body Only & 2 2GB Card: $2649.99
Canon 30D 8.2MP 18-55mm EF-S Lens 2 2GB Card: $1249.99
Canon XTi 10.1MP 18-55mm 1 2GB Card: $799.99
These are Costco prices. Is it worth it?
\_ If you can't tell the difference, no. You should be going
to an actual camera store where you can talk with someone
about what you're trying to do with your photography. -tom
\_ Well, they are reasonable prices, but unless you are
a google millionaire w/ money to burn, I would suggest
that at least you research these cameras on http://photo.net
and http://dpreview.com to figure out which one best suits
your needs. If you are a google millionaire w/ money
to burn, why the heck are you looking at something
w/ so few MP? You really need a Hasselblad H3D, a Canon
1Ds Mark III or a Sigma SD14.
\_ And obviously, you're just an average consumer,
too, stuck on MegaPixel marketing talk. Why do
you think 30D costs more than 400D (XTi) even
though it has lower MP? And 5D has more MP (12.8)
than 1D Mk.III (10.1), too, unless you're talking about
the unreleased model. And I'm not even going to talk
about Sigma's Foveon sensor pixel count quirks.
\_ I totally argree that I am an average consumer,
which is why I own a 400D (XTi). I admit that
one of the big reasons I bought the XTi was the
10 MP sensor. So what? I researched different
dSLRs and picked the one that fit my budget
and produced reasonable images w/ very little
manual futzing.
My point was simply that OP ought to do some
research before buying unless he has money to
burn, in which case why settle, just buy the
best.
manual futzing. Also, the added weight of the
30D was a big minus for me.
But, in any case my point was simply that OP
ought to do some research before buying b/c
it is hard to recommend a camera based on
price alone.
Re 30D unless you are a fairly accomplished photographer
it is the same camera as the older XT (350D) and you will
be better served by the cheaper XTi (400D) w/ some decent
lenses. Also the 30D may soon be replaced by the 40D, so
you should expect a price drop on it as well.
\- it's not just a matter of money. if you arent committed
to taking pictures, it is an asspain to carry 5-10lbs
of photogear around. remember the pro cameras dont have
built in (fill) flash etc. [1Ds = +2.5lbs body alone].
40D is around the corner. you can find the (likely) specs
on the weeb.
\_ Yeah, I totally agree w/ the weight issue. The
extra weight of the 30D over the XTi is a big
issue if you are just a causal photographer.
\_ It all boil down to the weight. Before you jump into the world of
dSLR, you need to think how much you are willing to carry all the
time. Once you've decided that you are willing to carry the weight,
then, my suggestion is to get a 17-40mm f/4 if
you go with Canon, 17-35mm f/2.8 if you go with Nikon. Then, use
the spare money to get a camera body. Don't get me wrong,
both Pentax and Sony also make good cameras, I am just less familiar
with their product lines.
You do need to remember that dSLR doesn't necessary take good
pictures. It just offers more option to tweak with settings.
If you don't know what to tweak, then, don't expect too much from it
kngharv
\- you realize the bhphoto price on
the nikon 17-35/2.8 is $1500, or
more than x2 the Canon lens.
the Nikon 18-35/3.5+ is $450.
I think the Nikons have a 1.5 crop factor while _/
Canons have 1.6 (unless you go up to the full frame).
Nikon 18mm x1.5 = 27mm 35mm-equivalent
Nikon 18mm x1.5 = 27mm equivalent
Canon 17mm x1.6 = 27.2mm
So the Nikon 18 is actually the same (ok .2mm better)
effectively. The Canon gets a tad more long end, but
the wide angle is probably what's important here.
(I have no idea about possible quality differences.)
\- my point is the nikon 17-35 is an very expensive
lens. it's not a reasonable recommendation for
this person. the 18-35 is the lens to recommend
at most. maybe even the kit digital only.
if you are not going to shoot film or fullframe,
might not make sense to buy the expensive D lenses.
\_ Yeah, I was just making an observation. Since
this person seems to basically want an expensive
P&S, might as well get the 18-135mm/3.5+ DX.
The DX lenses are much more compact.
\- what do you guys shooting in the 10mp range do with all those
pixels? at 8mp i think i am already at the point when my
ability to crop aka "digital zoom" is limited by shutter
blurr ... in really stable shots, i can already see the
stiching on shoes and clothing. they are nice to have and
storage is cheep now, but really quantitative factors
probably should matter more for 99% of you ... 8mp + good
menu design > 10mp + bad interface. etc.
\_ Well, I bought the 400D (XTi) mostly b/c it was only
like $100 more than the 350D (XT). I really don't need
the extra MP. The only difference I've found between
the 400D and the 350D is that the 400D seems to have
less noise at ISO 400 than the 350D.
\- yeah i agree often you are getting the extra pixels
"for free", like when buying a new camera, but i think
when evaluating across models, not weighting the "+2mp"
too heavily. although i have to say occasionally when
i take a "documentary" photo, it's kinda neat to be able
to read small print etc.
\_ Same here. I got the XTi for less noise factor. In my
recent snapshooter purchase, I went with Fuji f31fd
purely because of its low noise quality. MP was one of
the last things on my mind. |
| 2007/7/16-19 [Transportation/Car, Consumer/Camera] UID:47299 Activity:moderate |
7/16 Is there a place to report people who illegally laminate license
plates of their vehicles trying to avoid being caught by red light
cameras?
\_ Is there a place we can complain about the poor timing of
traffic lights that would cause people to run red lights?
\_ Some engineer who was ticketed by the traffic light camera at
Alvarado Niles Rd cross H St in Union City actually won the case
in court and got someone to change the timing of the light. I
don't know who was responsible for the timing though.
\_ Ditto. Northbound Shattuck turning onto University light seems
to have gotten much shorter since they installed the camera.
I see the flash going off almost every time I'm driving through
it (on someone else, not me.) I wonder what percentage of those
flashes actual end up being ticketed?
\_ Not a central place, no. You could contact your local DPT.
\_ You could just shoot them. Why do you care?
\_ I just think that a speedning Mustang with a laminated plate
\_ I just think that a speeding Mustang with a laminated plate
probably tends to run red lights. I just want him/her to get
caught when he/she actually does.
\_ Mythbusters tested various techniques. The camera gets you
anyway.
\_ Good to know. Thanks.
\_ That is between the cops, the driver and the dmv. The last I
checked the legal system in this country still had a
presumption of innocent until proven guilty not "you're in a
mustang and i don't like your plate so the State needs my
help to bust you". And no I don't own a mustang, have
laminated plates or run red lights. Do you drive exactly 65
in the fast lane to keep people from speeding, too?
\_ I'm trying to report a violation of laminated plate which
I am a witness, not trying to report a possible violation
of running red light which I'm not (yet) a witness.
\_ You think the cops don't have better things to do?
\_ In my mind there's a huge difference between running
a red light and speeding a bit on the freeway. The
former is very likely to result in harm. I think every
instance of red light running is serious and should
be punished. I mostly don't care about speeding.
\_ In this case the driver hadn't done either. They have
a laminated plate. They haven't sped or run a red
light that anyone knows of.
\_ I would agree with you if everything was as simple as
you make it out to be. In reality, it's not that
simple. In the vast majority of cases, most red-light
violations are more accidental than anything else.
When you subtract the reaction time of a perfect
driver without any kind of hesitation, it requires
the driver to execute a violent emergency stop
(straight line braking with ABS kicking in) in
order to stop before the light turns from yellow
to red. At that point, the driver runs the risk of
being rear-ended. This is the problem with many
intersections. They don't design the length of yellow
lights or the time between a red light to green light
transition to account for these kinds of things.
\_ In your scenario, the party which should be
punished is the city for having unsafe yellow-
light timing! It is still very serious and
should be punished! Just not necessarily the
driver, if he's not at fault. I say again,
*every* instance of red-light running is serious
and should be punished.
\_ I see assholes in SF running the red light,
nearly barreling into pedestrians, all of the time,
it's certainly not a case of breaking distance,
it's driver assholism. Maybe a few stiff red
light tickets will cure them of Chronic
Asshole.
\_ they absolutely do design the length of yellow
lights and the time between a red light and green
light based on human reaction times. What makes
you think they don't?
\_ Oh they do. To insure that you run the red.
\_ The light on the left turn around the corner from
me goes yellow when the first car gets 3/4s
through the intersection and the timing is really
short so the last car or two *always* run the
red even though they entered on green.
\_ Those cameras snap only if you enter on red.
I know because I enter on yellow all the time
at an intersection with a working camera,
and I haven't gotten any tickets. |
| 2007/7/13-18 [Consumer/Camera] UID:47284 Activity:nil |
7/13 Katherine Heigl sure is hot in Valentine. What a crappy
movie though.
\_ 'Katherine Heigl, 29, used her real vagina for the birthing scenes
in Knocked Up, stating "I'm the type of person who does my own
stunts.'
'"Katherine's brave decision to insert a watermelon-sized fake baby
head into her vagina and then push it out on camera is a tribute to
mothers across the globe."'
http://aaaathatsfiveas.blogspot.com/2007/06/pass-it-on.html |
| 2007/5/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:46527 Activity:nil |
5/4 Telemundo, other video showing police response to agitators
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYm_9PYbWvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkvNrtk6GJ0 |
| 2007/4/6-8 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/Languages/JavaScript] UID:46217 Activity:low |
4/6 What webcam does this? Is this fake?
Crazy image processing software? Help!:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWzYVJQRdM
\_ The comment says "its the logitech quickcam orbit MP with a robotic
camera head thats also really cool, because it actually moves and
follows you and keeps you zoomed in if you move around the room."
I counted the comments. 70% of the comments say "Nice tits"
20% says "nice smile."
\_ Nice tits indeed! |
| 2007/3/26-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:46104 Activity:kinda low |
3/26 I have been sort of teaching myself photo stuff on the go, mainly
from my camera manual and trial and error, and found this pretty
helpful (don't remember where it's from):
http://tinyurl.com/2jxg6p -John
\_ WELCOME BACK JOHN. Please post more Eurohumour. -john #1 fan
\_ Well, last weekend, I faked a heart attack in Paris to freak
out some American toursists...actually, I'm traveling around
S. America for 3 months and haven't really had net, but I'll
post loads of pictures around May when I return. -John
\_ What are you doing in S America? Are you riding a motorcycle
across S America? And how much money have you swindled by
faking heart attack? -john #1 fan |
| 2007/3/19-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:46016 Activity:nil |
3/19 Question. Hot chick has Macbook with the camera and iChat.
I run Linux. I can chat with gaim, etc. How do I view
the output of her camera?
\_ Yahoo messenger. |
| 2007/2/17 [Consumer/Camera] UID:45761 Activity:nil |
2/17 Where should I post these photos of my roommate's
32DDD bras I just took with my new Canon digital camera? |
| 2007/2/14-17 [Consumer/Camera] UID:45738 Activity:low |
2/14 Amazing photo (Comet Between Fireworks and Lightning)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070205.html
\_ Lightnings are just fractions of a second. How do photographers
capture them?
\_ It's pretty clear that's a longer exposure. But I've seen some
equipment that actually detects flashes. Also, in a good
thunderstorm, if you just click a bunch of exposures as fast as
the camera will go over a few seconds, you'll get some lightning.
\- er how is that supposed to work? lighting happens at t0,
reaches "flash detector" at t0+\episilon, shutter opens
at t0+\epsilon+\shutter_lag ... with no AF, the shutter
lag on expensive professional bodies [Canon 1D, Nikon D2]
is in 10s of miliseconds (there are a couple of consumer
camera that are faster, but not in the "couple of ms" range.)
How long does a lightning bolt last, do you think?
Anyway, you would normally do this with a bulb setting and
a pretty decent aperture ... note also on a digital it
might be kinda noisy. Shooting lightning at night and day
as as different as night and day ... so to speak. i havent
personally shot any lightning but have done some night
long exposure stuff [ymte valley ... came out ok] and some
fireworks [didnt come out well].
\_ You do know that lightning is not an instantaneous
phenomenon, right?
\- i've given you some numbers on shutter lag.
where are yours? photo flashes are not instantaneous
either but from the point of view of the shutter
flash-flash syncing basically occurs at the same time.
flash->flash (slave) syncing basically occurs at the
same time.
BTW, I am not saying this wont work any way any how ...
i am just curious how it would given the numbers i am
aware of. |
| 2007/2/14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:45736 Activity:high |
2/14 http://www.harpers.org/TheSecretMainstream.html Yet Herzog continued working with Kinski--they eventually made five films together--and in this, one can detect something of the perversity that impelled the director to drag a boat across a mountain in the first place. Herzog has never really been able to fully account for his and Kinski's twisted reliance upon each other. He did pull from Kinski some astonishing performances--particularly in Woyzeck, a film basically composed of several long one-take sequences--but their working relationship involved serial pledges to kill each other. Kinski, who died in 1991, wrote in his autobiography that "I absolutely despise this murderous Herzog. . . . Huge red ants should piss into his lying eyes, gobble up his balls, penetrate his asshole, and eat his guts!" [16][4] |
| 2007/1/30-2/1 [Consumer/Camera, Science/Space] UID:45622 Activity:nil |
1/30 Hubble's main camera might be failing:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/print?id=2832926
\_ I thought we already knew it was completely dead? |
| 2006/11/7-8 [Consumer/Camera] UID:45240 Activity:high |
11/7 looking for an entry level digital slr camera. canon eos
digital rebel xt with lens selling at $590 with shipping.
good deal? thanks!
i am new to slr camera. i just want to get something
cheap to start with. will the price come down for
thanksgiving?
\- my one piece of advice: for similarly priced camera [like
the entry level nikon dSLRs] rather than focusing on small
technical details, pick on interface. things like location of
exposure copensation or focus lock ... or does one camera have
something on a 1-deep menu that another has on a 3 deep menu ...
this stuff really ends up matting in practice. for example
one of the really annoying thins on the Nikon D70 is dual
purposing the ISO change button ... that is something i do a
lot and it is annoying that if the preview display is active
the button changes picture preview type. this stuff ends up
mattering more than a few pixels here and there or other stuff
that will be mostly a wash.
\_ Nikon D70 or or the Rebel XT. If you can afford it, get the 400D
instead of the 350D, but there's no huge difference. I don't like
the Nikon's size. More important: get a decent lens (I have a
350D with an 17/85) and a UV or polarization filter or something
similar to protect it with. The kit lenses are usually kind of
crap. If money's an issue, go for the lesser model with the
better lens and a big memory card and shoot RAW. As for the ISO
button, I shoot in ISO 100 unless it's absolutely not possible, so
YMMV. If you want really specific info, http://dpreview.com -John
\- you do not get a polarizing filter to "protect" the lens:
1. they actually do something 2. they are expensive. the kit
lenses are going to be reasonable but not great ... they
will have distiortion at the ends of the zoom range, but
this is fine for entry level. for entry level photographer
the most important thing is what encourage you to take
lots of pix ... since you skill will be the "liming reagent",
not the technical specs of the camera. [i am assuming the OP
doesnt have that much photo experience. if you are
an experienced photographer looking for a cheep digital,
other criteria apply]. i also thing shooting RAW is a mistake.
also i would get probably 1-2gb memory cards at the largest.
you really dont want to put all your eggs in one basket
when it comes to your pix ... and it's not like carrying
3 cards is a lot of extra weight. cant give lens advice until
the OP says what kind of photography is important to him ...
but the kit lens is generally a cheep enough addition
that it's worth getting.
\- BTW, the comparison to the Rebel 400 is the Nikon D80.
also if you have a friend you can borrow gear from (lenses
typically), that can be a consideration for which camera
to get sometimes. if you budget is in the $600 range, these
may exceed that.
\_ _You_ do not get a UV filter, I do. YMMV, let op do some
research. Fair point on the D80, hence dpreview. Do some
comparison. I found the 17/85 a great general purpose lens
to start with, it's just a tip. As for RAW, if he's getting
an SLR I assume it's for higher quality pics. It took me a
while to figure out that shooting jpeg was pretty pointless
as I lost a lot of detail and color even highest settings--
just passing that on. And I have two 2GB cards, I wasn't
talking about 16GB or anything likee that, probably should
have been clearer. -John
\- you realize a UV filter != polarizing filter right?
yes, the lens protection filter is often called a UV
or Haze or skylight filter. Also a circular polar
will cause prolems if you have polarizing sun glasses.
I really like polarizing filters ... if you do plan to
shoot landscapes, i'd get a decent one. [and make sure
it doesnt vignette at 18mm ... although may not be an
issue on a dSLR]. as for shooting RAW, i think you are
better off braketing a lot than shooting RAW ... which
isnt to say cant do both, but i bet you arent ...
hundreds of giant files are pretty hard to deal with.
[how big are your RAW images?]
[how big are your RAW images? ... also RAW is not really
a format ... so it is unclear software will be able
to read it in 10years. canon RAW today isnt even canon RAW
of 5 yrs ago ... although i assume at a given point in time
canon-RAW is the same across the whole product line. but
i would think with a major platform like canon there
will be some software aroudn that can read/convert it].
you might want to google(raw, jpg, workflow). a lot of
people ahve weighed in on this.]
\_ Partha, you may have noticed I said "UV filter OR
pol filter." My RAW are about 7 megs, which is, what,
35,000 photos on a 250GB drive? Plus, CR2 is
handled very nicely by iPhoto, GIMP, and most other
non-stone-age photo tools. As for bracketing, it takes
some practice to get the feel, and I've not found it to
be nearly as good dealing with haze. OP: You might
prefer to find a good photo store where they can advise
you, given what we posted. I'd still look at dpreview
first just to get the skinny on all this crap. I don't
know good stores in the SFBA, but http://bhphotovideo.com in
NYC is where I've gotten 2 cameras and they're great.
\- re: filter: you get a UV filter for protection.
nobody who isnt stupid gets a polarizer ... because
they are expensive and they will affect you picture
and you want the protection element to be as netural
as possible, while a pol will cost you some stops.
taking refuge in the "or" is like saying "you can
either get a UV filter OR a cow to protect your lens,
BUT the cow might now work as well." OP: bhphoto is
great. anybody significant cheeper than bh ... you
should worry about no free lunch. there are a huge
number of sleazy dealers so do some research if
price seems too good to be true. well if you
are up to using RAW, that's fine, but it's not a
no brainer. i'd distinguish between "settled"
info and personal preference when giving advice.
you might find some of the debates interesting BTW.
\_ Re. filter: UV filter _is_ more neutral, but my
use of a pol filter is based on my own
experimentation. As I said, YMMV. I don't
notice much difference--you were aware that you
can adjust these, right? Try turning the little
ring thingy, it's pretty cool. -John
\- i wrote the mueller calculus software to
model polarimetry systems for NASA and was
one of the underpaid designers [along with
another ucb person] the polarimetry system
on http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu so yes,
i know how polarizers work. you might use
a CP opprotunistically as lens pro, but nobody
gets one as lens pro.
\_ Fine, that sounds more reasonable. I got
mine for about $120 (no drop-in.) -John
\_ The Nikon D50 and D70s have 1/500sec top flash sync speed. this
comes handy when you don't want to spend money on an external flash
and you want to use the whimpy built-in flash to fill when shooting
in sunny outdoor settings. The higher and newer model D80, on the
other hand, only goes up to 1/200sec. Stupid. -- yuen |
| 2006/11/2-4 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:45109 Activity:kinda low |
11/02 A one megapixel picture on screen looks pretty good. Yet if you print
the same picture on a sheet of paper that's the same size as the screen
image, it looks bad regardless of what inkjet/laser printer you use.
Why is there a difference?
\_ That's a good question. Assuming a proper photo print out
(real developed photo or dye-sublimation printing), I can
think of a couple of possibilities. One is that a monitor
is an active display device (it glows at you) whereas a
printed media is a passive medium (it only reflects
light). That probably gives the monitor a perceived
advantage. Another is that printed medium usually has
higher resolution. Since the dots are smaller, we may look
closer, expecting more. If the printed medium's pixels are
made the same size as that of a monitor output, it may
reduce the perceived difference. It's kind of like
displaying DVD-resolution video using HDTV-resolution
display device. Unless the scaling algorithm is very good,
it gives worse perceived crispness to the image than when
the same image is displayed using matching resolution
display device.
\_ Because we're used to seeing crappy-looking images on screen. -tom
\_ I'm not sure about 1mp, but photo paper always made shit nice.
\_ Two factors. 1. surface of paper is not smooth. 2. the resolution
of printer is very limited.
\_ Look, if you don't know the answer, just keep your mouth shut,
OK? Printer resolution is *much higher* than screen resolution.
Your screen runs at maybe 100dpi; cheap printers print at
600dpi, good ones higher than that. -tom
\_ yeah, how may color can a printer produce per pixel again?
we are talking about EFFECTIVE pixel here. If all you have
is a 16-color EGA screen, you will need a quite a bit
DPI to make the picture look half-way decent. *FURTHER*
many of the printer has a much lower mechanical resolution
than optical resolution. And the mechanical resolution is
typicaly max out at 300 dpis.
\_ which is still three times better than your screen.
And while your video card may produce 16 million colors,
that's almost certainly more than your monitor can
display, especially most LCD panels. Cheap inkjet
printers can produce fine-looking prints from files
of sufficient resolution; 1 megapixel is simply not
enough resolution. You could sent one to a pro developer
and it still would look fairly crappy. Again, it looks
good on screen because we are willing to accept extremely
low-resolution images on screen (TV is only 320x240). -tom
\_ Actually many (most?) LCD are 8-bit now (16M colors).
They may only produce like 73% of the color space
but some get to high 90s. Either way it is much better
than a cheap inkjet printer which may have like 16
colors.
\_ whoa there tom.
_n_ ______
_/o \/ \@ _________
O_ pig )=( tom__I_ \______
\___/\______/ \ \ \_____ I
II II II II
\_ On your monitor, each pixel is RGB 888 or 16M possible colors
per pixel. Printers have far less color precision. They can only
produce those colors by dithering etc. with more dots.
produce those colors by dithering etc. with more dots. There should
be some scale to print at that would look around the same though.
Dye-sublimation printers can do the full color range.
\_ Is this a home print job or you used one of the various online
services?
\_ Actually, I tried both an Epson Stylus Photo 1200 inkjet at home,
and various 600dpi mid-range color laser printers at work. -- OP |
| 2006/10/28-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:45021 Activity:nil |
10/28 Criss Angel Spoiler
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/162401/criss_angel_spoiler
\_ This doesn't explain how he does the ones where he 'hovers' 10+
feet off the ground. I always figured it was just hired actors
to go "aaaaah!" and staging/camera tricks. Even this simple one
foot lift wouldn't work for a streeet performance. |
| 2006/10/7-10 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/Database] UID:44722 Activity:nil |
10/7 Howto make your own passport photos:
http://www.dpchallenge.com/tutorial.php?TUTORIAL_ID=22 |
| 2006/9/26-27 [Consumer/Camera, Consumer/GPS] UID:44542 Activity:nil |
9/26 GPS tagging device that fits in the flash slot of a DSLR:
http://www.geotagger.co.uk
\_ Sony release something similar:
http://tinyurl.com/ljfny (pcworld.com) |
| 2006/9/19-22 [Consumer/Camera] UID:44443 Activity:nil |
9/18 Since digital cameras are taking over film cameras, are film scanner
business going downhill too? I'd think so, but I still see new film
scanners being announced.
\_ I think film scanners have always appealed mostly to professionals
or high-end amateurs. I think those groups are still using film for
many things.
\_ another small incentive might be that BECAUSE photography is going
digital, more people are finding that they want to convert their
old film shots to digital. |
| 2006/9/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:44267 Activity:nil |
9/4 400D/XTi review:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon400D/index.shtml |
| 2006/8/29-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:44180 Activity:moderate |
8/29 Michelle Malkin summarizes the fake ambulance stories from Hizbullah
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/29/ambulances-for-jihad
More detail at:
http://zombietime.com/fraud/ambulance
\_ Oh now there's a source I trust.
\_ How about the clip she shows of Anderson Cooper who talks about
Hizbullah faking ambulance shots?
\_ How about the clip Malkin shows of Anderson Cooper who talks
about Hizbullah faking ambulance shots? And zombietime has a
history of good photography analysis.
\_ Zombietime, like many highly partisan websites on both
sides of the issues, has a history of taking one photo
out of thousands, the one photo that can be used to
say what he wants to say, and using that one photo
to paint an entire issue with a broad brush. If that's
what you consider analysis these days then analysis is
dead. And Malkin is just a raving loon.
\_ I thought it was pretty convincing: bombed out
bus not very damaged on the inside, RUST in
the bullet holes, super healing ambulance driver,
etc. -- the story didn't rely on just 1 image.
\_ You don't like Malkin? Is that an Anne Coulter
thing where everyone is going to post pictures of
her looking bad as proof she's stupid?
\_ Nah, they'll just post links to her frothing and
call it a day. |
| 2006/8/23-26 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:44118 Activity:low |
8/23 Canon EOS 400D:
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/9685/canon_eos_400d
I'm glad I skipped the 350D/20D/30D.
\_ And I'm sure you'll skip this one, too, for the upcoming 450D.
Sheesh. I got my 350D for $500 after rebate. No complaints.
Spent shit load on lenses, which will continue to be compatible.
\_ I had a 300D w/ several lenses and I kept putting off an
\_ I have a 300D w/ several lenses and I kept putting off an
upgrade. I was planning on buying a 350D this weekend, when
I saw this.
\_ my question of the day is: why upgrade? what is wrong with
300D?
\_ 7 pt af; small LCD; no usb 2.0; pentamirror instead of
pentaprism (pentaprism is brighter); detectable noise
at ISO400 and higher.
Don't get me wrong, I really like the 300D. I've had
since the first day it was available and have enjoyed
shooting w/ it. I just wanted to upgrade to something
w/ a bit less noise, usb 2.0 and a pentamirror; the
XTi/400D seems like it will be a very nice upgrade for
me.
\_ Another one is, 300D uses the outdated Digic1
processor, which is much slower and consumes more
power. It also doesn't have the near-instant
startup time of the later cameras. Between 350D
and 400D, 400D loses dedicated LCD display and
each pixel on the sensor is smaller (2 more
million pixels on the same size sensor). I think
300D to 350D was a big jump, but 350D to 400D isn't
as obvious.
\_ I bet it will be more expensive than those.
\_ So ok, it isn't (much). This is odd though. I wonder how it fits
with the 30D? And I wonder if it is as low-noise as the others.
\_ According to this it should be low-noise:
http://tinyurl.com/jwkpb (livingroom.org.au)
\_ Supposedly it will be ~ $900:
http://tinyurl.com/j2paj (dealmac.com)
\_ Official name is the Rebel XTi:
\_ Official name in the US is the Rebel XTi:
http://tinyurl.com/ojojt (canon.com)
\- when do people think FF will be <$1500?
or will it be artificially delayed to keep from
competing with higher proced models?
\_ late 2008 --old gypsy woman
actually though, I don't think they will all go FF. The
reduced size and weight of APS body and lens makes sense for
a lot of people. This 10MP thing seems to be on the money.
I like Nikon and Sony's lens selection better than Canon
though :( and on-body IS
\_ only in USA, buddy. Everywhere else is called 400D.
\_ Corrected. |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43963 Activity:nil |
8/10 Nikon announces D80.
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25412
\- $1000 for a d70 with 10mp and SD instead of CF. is that a
fair summary? anything qualitatively better aside from
more pixels ... i'd think for most people d70 would be
enough pixels ... and without good quality lenses, i dunno
if you really get a lot more "digital zoom" potential.
i suppose the only thing i am really interested in is fullframe.
i think "feature" like "it is smaller than a d70" is actally
not good. dont like small. there are some interface disagreements
i have with the d70. if those are fixed, that would be a win.
\_ Not only that, the 1/200sec sync speed is slower than the
1/500sec of the N70s and the N50. -- OP
1/500sec of the D70s and the D50. -- OP
\_ I imagine not having to move the curtains so fast
helps with long-term reliability. It's certainly not
as efficient as singular flash, but there's always
the high-speed-sync (continuous high-speed pulses
covering the entire time shutter is (partially)
open). I don't know about Nikon, but Canon flashes
can do high-speed-sync.
\_ Nikon flashes have high-speed-sync too, but it doesn't help
if the reason you want high shutter sync speed is to
overpower the ambient light (e.g. the sun).
\_ And slower than the 1/250s of the all-mechanical FM2n too.
\_ but it has iso 100 (d70 only supports >= iso200 ) which
compensates for the slower sync speed. and a better
focusing system (same as that of the d200).
\_ It also has a better viewfinder. More pixels with no
drawback other than file size is a win too. 6 vs. 10
is noticeable. You could make larger prints. Not that
I'd necessarily run out and buy this if I had a D70.
Actually Sony's version seems better with anti-dust
and CCD antishake for similar dough.
\- one thing i really do miss in the "second rate"
nikons [i still mean good camera ... N90, D70 etc,
just not F4, F5, D1 etc] is the view finder area
ratio is signifcantly lower in my opinion ... and
i think it affects composion in tight cases.
there still seems something just not right with
digital. for example i shot some associates with
N90+TMax and loved a large fraction of the pix,
people asked for prints, they printed them out and
gave them as presents. I then shot 5 times as many
pix in similar environment [zeitgeist beer garden
etc] with D1x, D70 and though most of the pix came
out ass. i'm wondering is it is still some micro
lag in the digital pipeline that separate the great
facial expression and the "half open mouth" or "head
at slightly the wrong angle" etc look. i know some
other people shoot perfectly good pix with digitals
by i cant figure out exactly what i'm doing wrong.
this is separate from my opinion that a lot of digital
pix look too sharp to the point of being clinical
for me.
\_ How does a lower ISO compensate for a slower sync speed?
Are you sure about that? |
| 2006/8/10-14 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43957 Activity:moderate |
8/10 Categories and examples of photo fraud. Best I've seen so far:
http://www.zombietime.com/reuters_photo_fraud
\_ I agree photo manip is bad, but it seems really minor.
I'll just make up a scale, it seems like the horrific
bombing of civilians (yes I am well aware Hezbollah
sticks their operations deliberately in densely packed
civilian apt buildings), is 5 percent worse in the
doctored photographs.
\_ That's not the point. Regardless of who is right or wrong,
an organ that is supposed to report as impartial a picture as
possible is distributing pretty bad misinformation that
can be misinterpreted as propaganda. All the "dude, you trust
the news?" stupidity aside, I expect outfits like Reuters to
use a minimal amount of good judgment when providing
news photos. -John
\_ http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/pictures/2006/08/09/080906-950x315-badreporter.gif
\_ I'm not Hezbollah supporter. I think Israel has the right to
defend itself. I think Israel fucked up majorly by not
making a fuss when Iran/Hezbollah moved all those rockets
into Lebanon. I think they fucked up again when they
wildly overreacted to the kidnapping of the 2 soldiers,
and showing the world that their amazing military is not
quite as unbeatable as they have led the world to believe.
\_ link:tinyurl.com/jtpxk (sfgate.com)
\_ http://img145.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20060806godzillarutoh9.jpg
\_ http://tinyurl.com/gg94m (img145.imageshack.us)
\- do you consider a POSED photograph [like the Iwo Jima
Flag one] to be the moral equiv of manipulation if it
isnt disclosed that it is posed? i think there is something
to be said for asthetic and editorial manipulation ...
aesthetic might disqulaify you from winning an award,
but i really didnt see the big deal with the photoshopped
smoke one [i think the employer has a right to be pissed
off because that wasnt disclosed, but i dont think there
is much of a "bigger picture" issue, so to speak ... in
the case of the smoke one, i dont see what the *public*
outrage is about.]. --psb, combat photographer
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/PSB_MISC/PSB_Nikon-Muj1.jpg
\_ There is a small but important semantic difference. The
Iwo pic is a "hey, great, look at us" shot. The dead
baby ones are "grr, what injustice, get angry!" shots.
I'd rather compare the staged pics in effect to the
naked running girl or dying republican soldier than the
Iwo flag pics. As to your question about cropping and
other cosmetic edits, IMHO it becomes inacceptable when
the staging/edit is clearly designed to provoke a
certain emotional response in the viewer--at that point
it becomes propaganda. Cosmetic edits just sort of
cheapen the aesthetic effect of any picture purporting
to convey a "this is authentic" message. -John
\_ The public is rightfully outraged because the public
rightfully gets pissed off when fed lies, distortions
and propaganda. It is bad enough when the headlines are
misleading, don't match the articles or are just
outright lies but pictures are held to a higher standard
because there is limited ability to fake things with
pictures without photoshop compared to text. The
written word is subject to personal experience,
interpretation, various biases intentional and not, and
ability to write clearly and concisely. A picture can
be cropped, the brightness or colors can be changed a
bit, that's understood. But the objects and people
should be real, not complete fabrications from photoshop
or razor and glue. The written word can be analysed,
compared to other sources and past work of the author.
The author's history is also subject to debate and
analysis. A picture is a moment in time and often it is
the only record of an event with little else to compare
against. When we can't believe our own eyes, what can
we believe? I don't understand how this isn't obvious
to you. I have too much respect for you to
automatically assume the negative regarding your
position on this. Can you please elaborate on your
thoughts regarding faked photos?
\_ Are Ansel Adams' photos "faked" because he
extensively modified them (invented a new system
to do so) between negative and print? A photograph
can never capture what the photographer was seeing,
and we view photographs differently than we view
real objects, so the emotional impact is different.
I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing
a teddy bear in the rubble of a destroyed building
and positioning it so it photographs better;
the photographer is trying to convey is the feeling
the photographer is trying to convey the feeling
of being there, not the precise location of a
particular teddy bear. -tom
\_ Actually, unless the teddy photographer is taking
the photo for its pure artistic value, he shouldn't
touch it. There is a huge difference between Ansel
Adams photos and, say, Robert Capa war photos in
terms of the message they convey. With an AA
pic, the editing is part of the overall artistic
presentation, while a war photo is supposed to
show things as they are, period. Anything more
is questionable at best. -John
\_ I acknowledge the difference between Adams
and a photojournalist, but I don't think a
photojournalist must never touch anything.
Again, the purpose of photojournalism is
to capture what it was like to be there,
not to minutely document a particular event.
If composing a photo can improve the
journalist's ability to make the photo
convey an impression, I don't think it's wrong
to do so. Bringing your own teddy bear would
be wrong. Cloning in more smoke to make it
look worse than it was is wrong. But
touching things is not inherently wrong. -tom
\_ The problem is, where do you draw the line?
I'd rather argue that for anything that
purports to be news, no editing is ok. -John
\_ As with any profession, ethics are not
black and white; there isn't a line,
there's a fuzzy zone. I'd say cloning
in more smoke is unethical, but
repositioning an object is generally
not, unless the repositioning
fundamentally changes the image
you're shooting. -tom
\_ Ethics are fuzzy? Photo journalism
in a hotly contested war zone should
not require any special effort to get
it ethically right. Don't touch
things, don't photoshop pics, don't
avoid taking certain photos because
they'd make 'your' side look bad.
Point camera, shoot, send photos to
editor to decide which to use. It
takes a lot more effort to screw up
war photos than just to take ethically
clean shots. I've got no problem
cropping extraneous items, shrinking
or enlarging the entire photo to fit
on a page, etc. But any 3rd grader
can figure out that using photoshop
to fundamentally alter a photo is not
ethical.
\_ uh, yes, which is why I said using
photoshop to fundamentally alter
a photo is not ethical. -tom
\- why do some of you keep on about
photoshop? it seems clear to me
cropping can far more
dramatically alter the interp
of a picture than "adding smoke"
might. hey, in fact photo
composition is basically
cropping ... so again there
are the issue between the
photgrapher and whomever
he has a "contract" with ...
whether that is an media org,
a teacher, a contest, a
prvate indiv ... in that case
narrow technical questions,
but for photgraphers who have
an "audience" rather than a
partner, the class of ethical
Qs are different ... and to
talk about these, i think you
need to focus on abstract
issue like "intention" ...
rather than techniques. when
somebody decieives with
statistics, we dont "focus on"
what statisitical techniques
the mislead us with [e.g. small
sample size, vs biased sample,
or rejecting/smoothing outliers]
when we are having a moral
rather technical criticism.
here is an interesting example
of an "cropping matters" ...
a photjournalist took a number
of friendly looking russian boys
in the age 10-15 range. there
were also a couple of pix of
similarly aged nice looking
russian girls ... the natural
reaction was "oh there is the
next generation of kids coming
up in hard time in russia" ...
it turned out the kids were all
at a children's prison and were
murderer and rapists ... and the
girls were accessories to their
boyfriends. now if he had passed
them off as "nice kids" it seems
that would have been kinda leem.
but i can understand cropping
out the sign, so you initial
reaction is "what nice kids"
but when you read the caption,
or go hear the talk, you go
"holy shit ... dont judge a
book by its cover". the reaction
is massively different. there
are lots of other example i can
give you were this "mental
revision" based on what is in/
not in the pix makes a far
stronger impression than a more
"clinical photographic approach".
it's like "irony" is not lying.
even though you may be saying
the opposite of the truth. --psb
\_ Here is what I said above
about cropping, "I've got no
problem cropping extraneous
items, shrinking or enlarging
the entire photo to fit on a
page, etc." So in the case of
your Russian photo, dropping
the sign through cropping is
just as bad as PS'ing it out
as it is an important part of
who the kids are. If they
cropped out some random tree
that would be ok. Again:
cropping extraneous items is
ok, cropping something that
is meaningful is not, and
PS'ing more than to change
the entire photo size for
print or similar mechanical
changes required for technical
reasons is *never* ok for a
journalism photo. Do whatever
you'd like with art, personal
stuff, entertainment or just
about anything else that isn't
expected to be absolutely
true in all senses of true.
And while we're here, no I'm
not ok with moving a teddy
bear in a war zone either.
That's called staging and is
dishonest. This stuff just
isn't that hard to figure out.
\_ It's not called staging,
it's called photography.
-tom
\- i think posing the
teddybear is cheep
because without
disclosure you assume
the photographer
"found it" and it is
definitely harder
to "find" a shot
than to produce one...
it undermines the
notion of "THE DECI-
SIVE MOMENT" [ref:
Henri Cartier Breson,
google for some of
his equisitely timed
shots ... wouldnt you
feel ripped off if
they were staged?]
"i could camp on this
mountain 3 more days
until the moon is
full and the weather
is fine or i can
photoshop it in" ...
i think that's pretty
comparable to moving
the teddy bear or
getting the little
third world kid to
assume the cute pose
via an interpreter and
a bribe ... because
usually this isnt
disclosed and the
implication is it is
spontaneous. [of
course in the case
of a portrait, it is
closer to anything
goes]. however, again
it's hard to draw
bright lines ... if
general macaurthur
waited for the
photgrapher to get
set up before he
waded ashore, is that
"staging" what if
the general did it
of his own volition
instead of being
"directed" etc.
a team i do some
trekking and climbing
with has a lot of
photgraphers and i
think they are almost
all pretty sleazy
about posing things
or crossing lines
[we were thrown out
of a buddhist mon-
estary once], so i'm
kinda cynical about
what a lot of photo-
graphers will do.--psb
graphers will do.
unposed stuff is really
really hard to get
right ... like this
is an ok picture, but
it could have been way
better if it was
posed:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/ANNAPURNA_01/DhanerKhete-girl.jpg
it's the stuff HCB
did without posing
[or shooting on
continuous] that makes
him so amazing.
\_ Moving the teddy
bear is a little
cheesy, I'll
agree, but it's
not far from
fairly typical
photographic
setup. What if
he didn't move
the teddy, but
there were a piece
of wood sticking up
blocking a clean
shot in the
direction the
photographer wanted
to frame it, I
think most photogs
would have little
problem moving the
stick. The key
point is that
photography is
all about choosing
a perspective and
trying to make
an emotional
impact; anyone who
says "just point
camera, shoot, and
send photos to the
editor" knows
nothing about
photography. -tom
\- the teddy bear
and mickey mouse
pictures are just
so cloying ... i
just assume they
are staged. the
only question i
have is "did the
photographer
bring it along
like a prop".
as a premed-
itated prop?
i wouldnt be
surprised. maybe
if i get a chance
i'll put up
some pix and
people can try
and guess which
are posed. it's
REALLY interest-
ing to get the
backstory to
some pix [like
the russian
kids one].
\- Note: there is a difference between
news-photo journalism and what you might
call the photo essay or feature ... that's
not so much covering an event but doing more
of an indepth thing. so it isnt at all
intending to be neutral any more than
painters portrait is suppose to tend
to a photograph ... those are artistic
works but can have poltical and editorial
content. american examples include that
DLANGE person or EUGENE SMITH [that guy
was crazy], but also famous studies like
WERNER BISHOF in south american and
GEORGE RODGER "Humanity and Inhumanity".
A somewhat remote aqaiantance is a
professional photog who does both of these
and he was telling me for the feature
works they very carefull pick a printer
[his developer summonned him to paris for
an interview to decide whether he'd do
the printing for the book], so as you might
imagine, the manipulation was well beyond
some marginal tweaks but was a parnership
like a team writing a score and lyrics ...
we dont "blame" mozart for not writing the
words to marriage of figaro.
the point is "altering a photograph"
isnt a sin. if there is a sin, it is
something downstream ... either misleading
the viewer about something outside the
photograph [faking a mass grave ...
probably the worst offense], misleading
the viewer about something about the
photograph [i was there when the rainbow
it the potala palace with the full moon
in back ... when you photshopped in the
moon], or it can simply be cheating in a
contest ... e.g. you are entering a
non-digital contest and you photoshop
in a moon then reprint it to slide or
you change a boring black umbrealla to
a brilliant red one etc. so again, in
the photshopped smoke case, i can understand
why AP or reuters was pissed ... his offense
was "lying" or "cheating". but something
like the "darken OJ on the mag cover to
make him seem evil" is a different
matter and the public does have a bigger
stake in that one ... well except for
the fact that OJ is evil. i think he's
still looking for the racist photoshopper.
\_ Iwo Jima wasn't staged
http://www.paulrother.com/IwoJima/JR50YearsLater.html
\- hmm, fair point. maybe it is better to say: the
actual narrative and the legend have diverged.
[like it being the second flag raising etc] ...
i guess this gets into a discussion about what
staged means. like the picture of macarthur
disembarking ... is there a difference between
his being told which way to walk, or just waiting
for the photographer to get in position or reenacting
it 3-4 times to get the best pix etc. the capa
death of a soldier also has controversy attached
to it. but these are the interesting questions ...
more than was the smoke shape changed or a moon
photoshopped in [again, w.r.t to the editorial
pale, not the aesthetic]. is cropping cheating?
how about dodge-n-burn? ... or those analog techniqies
are ok?
\_ Why is everyone so up in arms about photo fraud? People have
been doing this with pornographically doctored photos of
celebrities and models since the inception of the internet, and
it's not a big deal. -Paris Hilton
\_ How is that celibacy thing going? 1 week and counting ...
\- so are people OUTRAGED by interviews that are rehearsed?
[e.g. where the questions are asked ahead of time, the
person has time to think of the answers, and then then it
is filmed]. BTW, there is a DOCUMETNARY called WAR PHTOGRAPHER
about JAMES NACHTWEY, who i think is the best photojouranlist
in the world now ... a lot of photjournalists also hold in
in awe. i thought i was worth seeing. his pix are
unforgettable. http://http://www.jamesnachtwey.com |
| 2006/8/6-10 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43925 Activity:nil |
8/6 Blatantly doctored photo of Beirut on yahoo news:
http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060805/ids_photos_ts/r3101797657.jpg
\_ 404
\_ Hmm, they took it down. It was a Reuters photo, there are
small cropped versions here.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3286966,00.html
\_ Here's a link to the first draft: http://csua.org/u/gmj
\_ A detailed column about it: http://csua.org/u/gmk
\_ After this, Reuters is no longer accepting work from that
photographer. It's stupid, because the altered image actually
doesn't add anything besides looking fake:
\_ Reuters is no longer accepting work from that photographer.
It's stupid, because the altered image actually doesn't add
anything besides looking fake:
http://www.leftandright.us/index.php/site/reuters_faking_photos
\_ That is a totally bogus assertion. How dare you accuse someone
of doctoring, altering, or spinning something to further a
political agenda?!? -Michael Moore & Ann Coulter
\_ Of course there's no difference between two paid political
hacks making big bucks being annoying and a news service used
around the world that is supposed to have "journalistic
integrity", but I wouldn't expect a motd troll to "get" this.
\_ Oh, like when Michael Moore suggested that the best way to
deal with a conservative is with a baseball bat, or when
Michael Moore endoresed the assasination of public figures
he dissagreed with? Oh, wait, that never happened. I hate
Michael Moore, but you, sir, are a fucking idiot.
\_ What does MM have to do with Reuters spreading Hezbollah
propaganda verbatim? Nothing. I was going to ask wth
you're talking about but it really doesn't matter. Carry
on with your nuttitude.
\_ What is your definition of "spreading"? When is a full
retraction and apology enough?
\_ The same definition as everyone else uses. A full
retraction and apology is quaint and some what cute.
How about they stop serving up Hezbollah propaganda
as unvarnished truth and actually, ya know, maybe
investigate something and stop showing severe bias?
Then they'd have nothing to apologise for. Trust
is earned, not granted and they've blown it big
time on more than one occasion. |
| 2006/7/24-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43775 Activity:nil |
7/24 http://tinyurl.com/kp3bq (yahoo.com) Floating artwork which people can walk through comes free from moorings, rises 30 feet, flips upside down, and tosses out occupants including children, killing two and injuring 13. \_ This kind of thing is clearly good for the environment, especially when it kills lots of children before they can pollute. \_ And before they can create more children who will then pollute |
| 2006/7/10-11 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43622 Activity:nil |
7/10 Looking for a digital camera for mom. Mom still hasn't figured
out how to work the DVD player. She loves her Yashica T4
(point-and-shoot film camera). Is there's anything like a
digital version of the T4? Are there cameras that always do
the right thing if you turn it on and push the big button?
What camera did you get for your mom? :)
\_ just get a Nikon Coolpix. it is one of the most under-rated
consumer camera out there on the market. However, Yashica T4
is a very high standard to beat for several reasons:
1. Yashica T4's prime lens is EXCELLENT. You will not able to find
a decent digital camera without zoom. Optically, it will be
difficult to beat T4
2. Unless your mom is relatively sufficient with computer,
she would find that digital camera is a lot more complicated than
film point-n-shoot. Typical film P&S camera has something like
4-5 controls. Typical digital camera has at least 2 dozen options.
3. Yashica T4 has a relatively fast response time, both in terms of
shutter lag and time between frames. typical low end digital camera
is notorious for slowness in both catagory.
I bought my dad (who doesn't knows how to turn on a computer and
doesn't know how to check voice mail on cell phone) couple cameras.
Olympus D100 (very easy to use and pretty good optics at the time),
Nikon Coolpix 4200 and Canon A-series. Canon A-series is good
because it uses AA battery. I find my dad kept using alkline
battery despite i already bought him two sets of NiMH. From this,
I know that my dad really prefer AA batterys. Canon's A-series
is a bit slower than Nikon counter part. and its array of manual
overwrite confuses people. Nikon doesn't have manual override,
which turned out to be a blessing. But the response time is also
slow.
In short, rule of thumb is: 1. AA battery 2. go for 4Mpixel or
*LESS*, and 3. get less than 3x optical zoom, and 4. get at least
35mm on the wide end of zoom, as wide end of zoom is much more
useful and critical than the long end (and 35mm is the equivl of
35mm format, of course).
\_ Thanks!
\_ I have a Nikon Coolpix 3200 and it also uses AA batteries. |
| 2006/7/8-10 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Consumer/Camera] UID:43601 Activity:nil |
7/8 What is a good and free program to edit .mov files (macromedia i assume)
eh? .mov is Apple's Quicktime container. _/
\_ ug, yeah, sorry, haven't been getting much sleep.
These are quicktime movies.
from my camera. Pref windows, but linux o.k. too.
\_ just convert it to a more open format and edit it there.
There are plenty of free (and legally questionable) software
that converts .mov to xvid avi files. |
| 2006/6/21-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43457 Activity:nil |
6/21 New Panasonic DSLR camera:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0606/06062101panasoncdmcl1.asp
This one looks to have a great lens. Leica 14-50mm/F2.8-3.5 (28-100
35mm equivalent). Plus a nice indirect flash mode for indoors.
Too bad you can't get that lens on another camera. Sony's new DSLR
looks pretty good too. Hooray for competition.
Actually, looking at the price of that Panasonic and apparently no
image stabilization, Canon still looks better.
\_ Do not buy cameras from companies who make vacuum cleaners,
stereo equipment and etc. Buy cameras from companies whose only
business is cameras.
\_ So Canon is out then. We're stuck with Nikon and Olympus?
Or those obscure high end cameras? Whoops, I just looked at
Olympus' site and they make medical equipment so they're out.
Ohh and Nikon makes industrial equipment like IC and LCD
steppers, eyewear, and instruments. Who do I buy from?
\_ What is the big deal of this camera again? just because has a
Leica lens? have you notied the 1 second shutter lag?
\_ Where do you see that about shutter lag? I am not sold on it
for other reasons. I guess since there aren't that many dslr
companies any new entry is kind of a big deal. Sony seems
more of a big deal though. |
| 2006/6/15-17 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/Crime] UID:43398 Activity:nil |
6/15 Dear MOTD apprentice lawyers, I sent in a camera to be repaired
under a third-party warranty. When I filled out the repair
website, after indicating that I am in South America, it indicated
that return shipping would cost $10 (the company's in the US.)
Now I receive a mail telling me it will cost $72 to get my camera
back, and that the $10 is only for US shipping addresses.
Aside from the fact that this is b.s. (I could see $25-$30), does
anyone have any advice on how to best get my camera back without
forking over? It's more a matter of principle... -John
\_ Where are you? My friend is going to Peru with her girlfriend and
they are wondering how scary it is for two girls to be wandering
Peru alone.
\_ I think the state department has regular updates/releases
about safety for Americans travelling abroad. I'll see if I
can dig up a URL if I have the time. -mice
\_ Some travel links:
(US State Department Travel Warnings)
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html
(Consular information about Peru -- the section on crime
seems pretty detailed, while the Safety and Security
section gives a good overview of the general political
climate)
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_998.html
(General List of Countries)
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html
I hope this helps! -mice
\_ Chile. Most S. American tourist stuff is perfectly safe.
A friend of mine took a budget bus tour into Bolivia, and
had absolutely nil problems. I think if you stay out of
most parts of Colombia/Venezuela and exercise caution in
most urban areas (mainly Buenos Aires and Brazilian cities,
according to friends) you should be fine. From what I hear,
Peru is very safe. A good site for info about more exotic
destinations (beyond "where not to go as an American") is the
Lonely Planet BB at http://thorntree.com--I also assume your friends
are not going to be running around in neon shorts and fanny
packs talking in loud nasal American tourist voices. -John
\_ I thought FARC and the shining path had their
own Disneyland area in Peru
\_ FARC, maybe in way Northern Peru, who knows, but SL
were supposedly pretty well castrated by Fujimori and
his goons. -John |
| 2006/5/12-17 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:43041 Activity:nil |
5/12 What do people use to clean their laptop screens? Mine is full of
finger smudges and dust. Thanks.
\_ Microfiber towels that I get with my sunglasses. Go to a good
optician, they should have some (I think every pair of Ray-Bans
you buy comes with one.) Wipe gently. I don't use those moist
alcohol screen cleaners, because I haven't found any that don't
streak. I use these little towels for my camera lenses too,
by the way. If you find something better, please post. -John
\_ Microfiber towels that I get with my sunglasses. Go to a good
optician, they should have some (I think every pair of Ray-Bans
you buy comes with one.) Wipe gently. I don't use those moist
alcohol screen cleaners, because I haven't found any that don't
streak. I use these little towels for my camera lenses too,
by the way. If you find something better, please post. -John |
| 2006/4/28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42856 Activity:low |
4/27 webcam malfunction in cory, film at 11.
\_ where's the film, it's past 11?
\_ <DEAD>moorecam.eecs.berkeley.edu<DEAD>
\_ The malfunction is that I can't connect to it? |
| 2006/4/24-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42820 Activity:low |
4/24 Dear motd photo gurus: I have a Canon EFS 17-85mm lens that's got a
ca. 1cm, thin and shallow scratch in the front lens. Can this be
replaced or ground out, or do I need to buy a new lens if I want to
get rid of it? -John
\_ holy crap that a long psb response.. anyway short answer..
small scratch on front lens not bad and usually not at all
noticable. scratch on rear glass is bad. dont let it happen.
i agree w/ psb tho, buy a cheap UV filter and leave it on 100%
of the time. look on ebay. try to search for Hoya 67mm HMC UV
and expect to pay ~$60 -shac
\- i doubt you'll save that much money on ebay rather than
bhphoto. i'd start with bhphoto to get a sense of the
"standard price" and the primiums for various brands
and see what your options are. in fact you might just
call them on the phone and have them recommend a reasonable
protection filter for your lens. of course if you are
international that might change the calculations a bit. --psb
\- Um if you have dirt/smudging on a lens, that's generally not
too bad of a problem ... you can keep shooting in the field and
you can get a shop to clean that, but if you actually have a
scratch substantial enough to cause diffraction problems, i
you can get a shop to clean that, but IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A
SCRATCH SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH TO CAUSE DIFFRACTION PROBLEMS, i
think you may be hosed in terms of the resale value [that is a
$500 lens, no?] since obviously that is the part of the lens people
are going to care about the most ... and a scratch could potentially
totally ruin a picture with an artifact rather than just cause a
subtle amount of distortion. I've occasionally shot with my 52mm
subtle amount of distortion. I've occasionally used my 52mm
lenses without a skylight/uv filter but for my large front element
lenses I keep some filter on them 100% of he time. [although
somewhat ironically, the only filter i've cracked was a 52mm one,
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/PSB_MISC/PSB_Nikon6.jpg but it saved
a $350 lens]. it is possible the lens is in ok shape but i dont
know how on the one hand you do full disclosure to the seller
without totally killing the lens value. are you that chile fellow?
if you wre in the BA area i'd suggest getting the opinion of the
if you wre in the SFBA i'd suggest getting the opinion of the
HORIZON ELECTRONICS people. if you havent done so already, buy a UV
or skylight filter for all of your lenses. even the cheep ones...
... for the cheep lenses you can get the cheep $15
filters. different people will give you different advice about how
much to spend on a protective filter for a nice lens. ok tnx.
for the cheep lenses you can get the cheep $15 filters. different
people will give you different advice about how much to spend on a
protective filter for a nice lens. ok tnx.
protective filter for a nice lens. if you buy filter, either get
them used in person or buy over the net. the markup on filters
is often huge. ok tnx.
\_ Thanks, good tips. I don't think it's causing smudging (I
thought it was resulting in some ugly blotches.) As I don't
intend to sell it anytime soon (great lens) it's not so much of
an issue, I guess. I've been using mainly a polarization filter,
but I should probably get something protective for that. -John
\- You want to keep the UV/skylight filter on when you are
NOT using the CP. on a wide lens you may get vignetting
if you put two filters on [although "digital" lenses
may be more forgiving there]. the problem wont be
"smudging" but more of a flare-like problem or some
chromatic problem because of the scratch acting like a
diffraction grating. lenses, especially like this one,
can take quite a bit of the kind of of dirtiness you
might think may cause a smudge on a picture. in fact
some people clean their lenses too much.
\_ I use microfiber towels I get from the optician where I
buy my shades--I have gotten quite a lot of smudging from
not-serious-looking dirt. In fact, I thought the shadow
I asked about removing from large series of images in an
earlier post is something I thought stemmed from the
scratch on the lens. I need to play with the UV filter;
I have found that the polarization filter lets me take
pictures with far nicer light, with effects that I haven't
managed just with camera settings (EOS 350D.) -John
\- carry a blower/brush then. i'm not saying cleaning is
never necessary, just that a lot of people over clean
by rubbing. if you want to figure out if the "shadow"
is a "bug", i guess you are going to have to treat
this as a "debugging problem" ... maybe you can find
somebody else with that lens ... which should be pretty
common i think. the UV/skylight filter wont really do
that much for you ... there isnt really much to "play"
with. it is "lens insurance" ... to protect your $500
glass with $50 glass, rather than a functional filter
like your CP. i love my wildly expensive CP. yes, there
are definitely things you cannot do otherwise:
\_ circular polarizer!
\- you should get a blower brush and use that instead of
wiping mostly. sometimes wipe cleaning is needed but
a lot of people over do it. whether or not the scratch
is causing the shadow is a "debugging" problem you
probably will need to figure out by swapping the lens...
i'd think that would be a pretty common lens and should
be simple to analyze with a digital camera. there really
isnt much to "play with" with the UV filter ... it's
really $50 "lens insurance" for your $500 glass, not a
much of a functional component of your lens array.
i like CPs alot for use in the mountains ... you can
definitely get some dramatic exposures you cannot
otherwise although sometimes what you really need are
things like graded filters. this is a decent example of
very heavy pol:
http://home.lbl.gov:8080/~psb/ANNAPURNA_01/AnnapurnaI-SWFace+ASG.jpg
\_ Nice picture. I need to wipe the lens a lot, it's a pretty
dirty country. And what sort of iso/WB/polarization do you use
for those colors? For example, GlacialStream-AnpSanctuary.jpg
is a lot darker and more vibrant than the colors (esp. sky) I
usually get. -John
\- all of the annapurna pix were either Fuji Velvia or
Kodak E-100 VS? [i havent taken a digital camera on a
serious mountain trip. used n90 and f4 and only shoot
slide film]. the big problem with mountain shots
is how to deal with snow on teh mnt but get detail of
the darker foreground ... e.g. by using graded filters,
but i think those are a little hard to use. the glacial-stream
picture i actually think is pretty boring. that's more
"documentary". i am not too fond of most of the digital
pictures i've taken.
\_ it depends upon the scratch. The scratch CAN BE cosmetic
(in a realistic term). If the scratch didn't really ruin your
picture quality as far as you can tell, then, don't worry about it.
kngharv |
| 2006/3/31-4/3 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42577 Activity:nil |
3/31 an update on my quest to get into Medium Format for cheap.
I end up getting a very good conditioned Yashica Mat 124G.
I had to send into shop because flash synch circuit was out of action.
While the camera is in the shop, I got focus-screen replaced,
light meter adjusted to modern 1.5V battery. I now have a fully
functional TLR that has very bright screen, and a working meter!
not bad for a 30 yr old camera, huh? I am now trying to get used to
the square aspect ratio and enjoying it :p ok, i spend too much on
this camera :p
\_ How much did it cost you?
\_ $145 for focus screen. $135 for clean, lublicate and adjust.
If I ever do this again, I would spend $80 to buy a broken
camera, and spend the money to fix it, instead of spend $200
and get a good condition camera. I could go for an older
model (Yashica LM) and hoping spare parts are still avaiable.
Now, I have a relatively modern medium format camera that has
a very bright focus screen and working meter. Now the focus
is taking good pictures :p |
| 2006/3/29-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42507 Activity:high |
3/28 Hey motd -- I was looking to buy a decent quality starter digital
camera without spending too much money. Eventually I'd like to move
up to something really nice, but at the start I'd just like decent
quality, affordable equipment that can easily download to my
win2k machine. Can anyone offer any advice/suggestions/warnings?
TIA. -mice
ps. Thanks everyone for answering the mp3/audio question I asked!
\_ I'd wait for slickdeals to post a deal on the SD400/500/550.
\_ I have an old powershot. Cheap, does the job but nothing special.
Maybe the new models will take pictures faster but mine is useless
for anything moving faster than a snail.
\- there are lots of people who can give you advice, but you
have to tell people more about your budget and plans.
there is a big difference between a $1k budget and $400 budget.
and are you looking for something that weights ~8oz and
can fit into pocket/purse/belt or a real SLR where you are
committing to carrying a camera bag? are you mostly looking
to shoot landscape or indoor candids of people etc. dont worry
about easy download or "the future" at this point ... if you
move to something "really nice", you will essentially start
over. also see dpreview, kenrockwell[somewhat opinionated but
basically resonable] and http://photo.net. ok tnx.
\_ Fair enough: I think $500 is my absolute upper limit for
this first purchase. I'd be doing a fair mix of indoor
and outdoor photography, but I seriously doubt I'll be doing
much in the way of landscape or action shooting.
Smaller is better, but within reason, size is really
secondary to my needs. Thanks for the links! -mice
\_ http://www.dpreview.com . I really like my Canon Digital Ixus SD500
as a portable camera, but all the Ixus models in that class are pretty
nice--I also have an EOS 350D as an SLR--they were ca. $500 and
$1200 respectively (the 350D with a nice non-kit lens). On the off
chance that you are in the NYC area, B&H Photo Video
(http://bhphotovideo.com has decent prices but I've found them to be
tops in terms of advice and customer service three times around
already. Plus, what psb said. -John
\_ The dude wanted a starter camera, and you are talking about
all these expensive ones.
\_ If you want to get a DSLR, I'd look for a used Digital Rebel on
cl or http://keh.com. The DRebel is a very nice camera (I love mine)
and should be ~ $400-$500 w/ a lens.
Otherwise I'd go w/ one of those little Canon cameras, whichever
is best suited to your budget (they are all pretty good).
\_ Also there are refurbished Nikon D50s for $479 with lens. Try
http://pricegrabber.com and select the "used and refurbished" results.
I have no idea how the refurbs are but it is a good camera.
\_ Please define "affordable" for you. i guess I'd recommend a tiny
camera like John suggested, although I don't specifically recommend
(or not) that Canon but I don't think you can go far wrong. The
portable will still be useful even if you get an SLR later.
\_ I think $500 is my upper limit (though of course I'd rather spend
less if I can do so and still get decent equipment). -mice
\- $500 is under the SLR threashold. get a decent compact canon.
\_ Canon "A" Series. If you don't care about manual override, then,
Nikon Coolpix 4xxx is pretty good. Those things runs about $200.
Try to get the *LOWEST* pixel beyond 4Mpxel.
\_ price is not an issue. what you want is. You may be one of those
who would only carry a small camera with you. You may be the type
who don't mind carry your two camera body and 4 lenses with you
when you travel to Europe. You need to decide how much you are
willing to carrying with you. Most of ultra-slim camera takes
*LOUSY* pictures. Canon "A" series is decent as it has manual
override. dSLR is beyond your price range and the "kit" lens is
usually not THAT great... and it's heavy and bulky.
In general, make sure you have easy access to 1. exposure
compensation, and 2. white balance override on the digital camera,
as you will be spending a lot of time tweaking it. Otherwise,
most of the camera on the market is actually pretty good.
kngharv |
| 2006/2/15 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX, Consumer/Camera] UID:41869 Activity:low |
2/15 I know this has probably been asked before, but I can't find it
in the archives: is there a (Windows) tool to change metadata
(date & time taken) of a large number of JPG photos? I just realized
that my camera's 12 hours off. -John
\_ http://www.sentex.net/~mwandel/jhead --dbushong
\_ Many thanks. -John |
| 2006/1/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41607 Activity:nil |
1/27 http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004342.php |
| 2005/12/29 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41168 Activity:nil |
12/29 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051229/od_nm/germany_camera_dc |
| 2005/12/27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41144 Activity:nil |
12/27 I am seeking recommendations for a CDMA phone with good voice quality
and reception/transmission. I've been through a couple phones since
attempting to replace my old Kyocera 2135 and both sucked by
comparison. I don't care about camera and other bling. |
| 2005/12/21-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41101 Activity:low |
12/21 Camera advice. I want to get into medium format for *CHEAP*
preferablely $400 including a light meter. Right now, only thing
fit the bill is Chinese made Seagull. Since none of my 35mm gears
were bought it new, I am certainlly don't mind getting an used camera.
Aside from built-in light meter which I dont think I can get given
the price constraint, I would like to have following features:
* single action for film advance
* shutter speed and apature info in view finder
* use standard film, 120 or 220. I can live with 120 alone.
* less than 25 years old.
Any recommendation on what kind of used TLR I should get? what are
the good and cheap models? What kind of caveat I should watch out?
and finally, I want to buy a cheap light meter along with it. any
recommendations and pointers? thanks kngharv
\_ quick google search:
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00ERjv&tag=
ebay revealed the Hasselblad 500C/M starter kits (used) for ~$600.
ebay also shows a lot of Kiev cameras, for ~$250. If price is
a big issue, the Kiev's might work well. I figure it's nice to
work on a Hasselblad knockoff as you can eventually switch to the
real thing.
\_ also: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=medium+format+starter+kit
and http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/budget.html
\_ thanks all. I am leaning toward Yashica 124 now.
\_ I was in the same situation a bit back. I ended getting the
Yashicamat LM. I've had some fun with it. You have to be very
careful with film advance. I've heard that Yashica's film advance
aren't smooth as Rollei's, and it seems right in my case. If I
advance too fast, it won't advance evenly. Make sure you understand
that there's Yashica set of models and Yashica-MAT set of models.
They may have the same model number and whatnot, but will be
different. Yashicamat 124 is really popular and fetch a premium on
ebay these days. So if you can live with just 120, you can save
money by going with the LM or the like as I did. This is a good
info site on Yashica TLRs:
http://www.williamsphotographic.com/yashica.html
\_ LOL. I think i can fetch an ok condition Yashica 124G for $210.
Then I need to send it to get it cleaned and adjusted (especially
adjust the light meter for the non-mercury), adding a lens
hood, it will be more than $400 :p How do you deal with
mercury battery issue?
\_ If you don't mind have a viewfinder camera instead of a TLR, check
out the Holga cameras at B&H. New ones are selling for less than
$50.
\_ Holgas are a different breed. People like them for having a
sharp center/blurred edges as well as the looks the lightleaks
create. You can easily get past the lightleak issue with some
black artist/masking tapes. That said, an unmodified Holga
should go for no more that $25 new unless you want the hotshoe.
\_ Doesn't medium format development and printing cost a lot? Even if
you get a camera for cheap, medium format photography still won't be
cheap overall.
\_ none of my gear cost more than $300 per piece, but the
development for one trip can easily cost more than that. This
is why I rather spend the money on developing, scanning, and
printing films than drop thousands on a camera. --OP
\_ Just curious, why do you want to get into medium format? I
was told that the the aspect ratios in medium format (3:4,
1:1, 6:7) are more pleasing than the 2:3 ratio in 35mm. But
then I thought I can crop develop & print 35mm pictures for
cheap and then crop them to the medium format ratios. I
inherited a Yashica D from my uncle a year ago, and I still
haven't shot anything with it yet. |
| 2005/12/17-19 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41056 Activity:nil |
12/16 Question for camera buffs: I was flipping through a gift catalog and
it struck me that the digital cameras all have a tiny "lens" but the
optical ones are much larger. The digital cameras don't require as
much light to get the same picture or just get shittier pictures?
\_ you need to tell us what do you mean by 'tiny' lenses? apature?
or the physical size of the lens?
\_ I think the answer you are looking for is discussed in
this article:
http://philip.greenspun.com/photography/building-a-digital-slr-system
Scroll down to "What kinds of digital SLRs are available?"
\_ digital CCD's are generally smaller than their film counterparts.
This may translate into a smaller avg physical lens' size. |
| 2005/12/8-11 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40924 Activity:nil |
12/8 Anyone have any overall advice or comments for someone going to
Sundance film festival for the first time? Is it pretty much as
depicted in South Park?
\_ There is nothing for someone not in the industry to do there.
It's a place to network and party a little bit. It's the
equivalent of going to DECUS or something, but for small(er)-time
film makers. I've never been, but my gf works for a film school
which often submits films to all of the festivals (including
Cannes). I have heard this sentiment from people who have gone.
If your film is entered, then have a blast. If not, why go?
\_ Because a good friend of mine's film is showing. He's new to
this stuff as well, and made his film for about 9k. I was just
planning to go for the day his film shows plus one more day
to drive around Utah, and that sounds like about the right way
to do it.
\_ Stick with him. If it's a good film he will be your
ticket to fun and interesting things.
\_ That's the plan. Thanks. |
| 2005/11/30-12/3 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40775 Activity:kinda low |
11/30 I know that there is at least two photo geeks who are even
more geeky than I am, and this question is for you:
I am buying a camera-mount electronic flash unit for my brother's
Nikon D70. Should I get a Metz? What are the advantages of Metz
Flash? It is as expensive as Nikon. It seems that only hard-core
tend to use it. But from the spec and all, I can't tell any
advantages, thanks
\- i bought an sb800 for my d70. flashes are pretty cheep.
it works for me [communication with camera and guide number].
\_ ditto.
\_ my last Sunpak was $80. Out of 7 lenses and two bodies
not a single one has the price tag more than $280 (though
most of lenses I got are used :p) --OP
\_ I compared the specs of Metz 45 CL3 and CL4 with Nikon SB-28 four
years ago. Both CL3 and CL4 have slightly higher guide number than
the SB-28. The CL4 also has a secondary fill flash. I ended up
buying an SB-28 though, because it was cheaper and is guaranteed to
be compatible with my N70. BTW I don't actually mount the SB-28 on
the camera. I use a bracket.
be compatible with my N70.
\_ but what kind of communcation do you really need, though? I only
want TTL/iTTL and I don't care about bell and whistles. Have any
one compare the color temperature output by Metz versus Nikon? -OP
\_ Aren't all electronic flashes 5500K?
\_ supposely, but almost all of them are a bit blue.
\- you look good in blue
\_ Have you considered the Sigma flashes? They are cheaper than the
Nikon speedlights. Besides the SB-28, I also bought a Sigma EF-430
Super seven years ago which works well with my N70. It even has a
slave mode which the SB-28 doesn't. The only thing I don't like
about the EF-430 Super is that it doesn't swivel. Now the EF-500-
series ones are pretty cheap too.
\_ people are bitching about Sigma not being really iTTL. |
| 2005/11/29-12/2 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40770 Activity:nil |
11/29 Cool camera from the farm:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05112206refocuscamera.asp
\_ tres cool. http://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera
is the engineer's website. It has some cool WMV demos.
It also has a tech report. If anyone reads it, can you post a
summary?
It also has a tech report. So far, I get the idea that they're
taking a 4000x4000 resolution digital back and refocusing reduces
it to 296x296 resolution. Some somehow, each 13x13 capture of
each microlens captures ~200 points of 4D light field.
\_ I'd love to have that Contax 645 just by itself, even without his
invention.
\_ why WMV? typical Stanford, I guess. |
| 2005/11/28-30 [Consumer/Camera, Recreation/Media] UID:40755 Activity:kinda low |
11/28 Watched Electra on cable. I was expecting a real turkey and
was surprised to see that it wasn't, at least compared to the
other Marvel films out there. The only ignificant gripe was
that it was too long. Most of those flashback scenes could
have gotten cut resulting in a better flow. According to the
net: DD2 is a good possibility. Supposedly electra 2 is being
considered as well.
\_ I caught Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Definitely
Charlie Kaufman's best film yet.
\- editing becomes electra
\_ yeah, batman begins actually had cheesier moments
\_ yeah, batman begins was actually cheesier imo
\_ batman begins had a lot going for it, but quite a bit that
didn't really work. it had enough that i hope they continue
in this vein and work out the kinks.
\_ you're kidding? the cameraman spent half the film pointing at her
flabby stomach. maybe i saw a different film.
\_ Well, I wasn't thinking of it like a porn
flick. If you want that; try Entrapment.
I am thinking in comparing it to other superhero
films.
\_ I was trying to focus on the positive aspects of the
film. "Flabby stomach" was the best it got. The
acting sucked. The fight scenes mostly sucked. The
plot.. well I'd say it sucked but that implies it had
one. Even the worst of the batman movies were better
because they actually attempted to entertain the
audience. I'm not sure what this film was trying to do.
plot.. well I'd say it sucked but that implies it
had one. Even the worst of the batman movies were
better because they actually attempted to entertain
the audience. I'm not sure what this film was
trying to do.
\_ Elektra. God, I thought it was horrible. The action was close-in,
dark, and poorly choreographed... and that's really all there was to
the movie. You didn't really understand her motivation, powers,
future...anything
\_ This is actually something I can agree with. My
original point was keeping in mind that all superhero
movies are cheesy and campy. Its just puzzling considering the
relatively good reviews that Batman begins got compared to
other superhero moviews of late. Yet it suffered from many
of the same problems. The most vitriol seems to focus on
Jennifer Garner which is similar to what Clooney got when he
was batman (now that was just plain bad).
\_ This is actually something I can agree with. My original
point was keeping in mind that all superhero movies are
cheesy and campy. Its just puzzling considering the
relatively good reviews that Batman begins got compared
to other superhero moviews of late. Yet it suffered from
many of the same problems. The most vitriol seems to
focus on Jennifer Garner which is similar to what Clooney
got when he was batman (now that was just plain bad). |
| 2005/11/5-8 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40454 Activity:nil |
11/4 Those crazy french film makers:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1627442,00.html?gusrc=rss |
| 2005/11/3-4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40430 Activity:nil |
11/3 How can I set iPhoto to not automatically lanuch when the camera
is inserted?
\_ /Applications/Image Capture.app
Preferences
\_ Thanks! so intuitive.. |
| 2005/11/1-3 [Finance/Banking, Consumer/Camera] UID:40388 Activity:moderate |
11/1 A friend has his film X-rays on loan from the lab but needs to
transfer them to digital format so's he can take them for a second
opinion. What's a reliable method of doing this without sacrificing
image quality (and thereby rendering the exercise worthless)? Would
the old lamp and scanner trick work here, or would there be too many
flaws to make it worthwhile? Since this is to document the progress
of arthritis in his back, the level of detail must remain high.
TIA. --erikred
\_ Kodak PHOTO CD. you need to find who does it though. This would
cost you $75 per scan. it is probably your best option besides
real drum scan. I would not trust regular flat-bed scan due to
lack of dynamic range for most of CCD scan. do *NOT* mistaken
"PHOTO CD" service with "Picture CD" service. kngharv
\_ What's the difference between the two?
\_ *HUGE* difference. PHOTO CD is designed for art works and
professionals who requires very deep (wide dynamic range)
scanning. picture CD is a nice version of negative
scan which is relatively consistant, to JPEG files.
Given the fact that you are scanning a B/W X-rate
positive film, I would not trust regular CCD scanning
as your life is probably depend upon how well these various
degree of shades are represented.
\_ He can just have copies made/sent to the other doctor. Why
bother with digitizing unless this is somehow just fun for him?
\_ His films are stored at various and sundry labs. It would be
more time-consuming to coordinate the copy/send than to
digitize. --erikred
\_ He already went to the trouble to get the x-rays on loan.
He could've just asked for his own copy at that time.
\_ Thank you. I'll pass that on. Now, do you have any
suggestions pertaining to the original request? --erikred
\_ Have him ask for his x-rays in DICOM format. There are
free DICOM viewers. Typically film like this (if
scanned) uses a proprietary scanner (cost is thousands
of dollars) to scan to a standard image format (BMP or
JPEG2K, etc.). -emarkp
\_ What ever happened to JPEG2K? It was the next big
thing, woo! woo!.. then silence. Not being built
into Mozilla, that I can see, which pretty much
implies it's dead... unless I'm missing something.
\_ I guess this answers my question: legal crap:
<DEAD>bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36351<DEAD>
-pp
\_ Just out of stupid curiosity, can't you just scan them? -John |
| 2005/10/10-11 [Consumer/Camera] UID:40039 Activity:high |
10/10 Any horror stories/raves about the Olympus D-580? I'm looking for a
regular everyday camera for work and play under $300. Consumer Reports
gave it high marks. -- ulysses
\- if i were you, i'd use the canon models in your price range
as a reference and see what more/less you are getting in
various other cameras within a price band [i assume your
price range is really $250-$350 say]. also, you should specify
a few more criteria than $price to narrow down to say ~5 models
to pick from. for example do you want a pocket-sized camera or a
camera pouch sized camera or a ~.75-1lb size camera. etc.
once you have narrowed down to ~5 models, you really should
try them out. interface makes a huge difference ... like if
one camera has an oft-used feature buried in a menu 2 deep
vs another has a button for it, that can make a much bigger
difference than a 105mm vs 120 zoom or 10% or 20% pixel differnce
on a modern sensor. canon is the standard.
\_ http://www.dpreview.com -John
\_ I know 3 people with this model, all love it. I have the 550 (580
didn't exist at the time) and I love mine (wish I had a 580).
-emarkp
\_ Oh, hey, I think that's the one I have. It's a pretty nice
camera. Color, picture, and video are all fine. I only have
2 complaints, I think the UI is a little clunky, and I wish
they used a different memory card. (They use some Olympus
propietary kind, rather than compact flash or some such.)
-jrleek
\_ Yes, you're one of the 3 people I referred to. I believe it uses
xD cards, doesn't it? -emarkp
\_ Yes. I don't have anything else that uses them. -jrleek
\_ Okay, but xD isn't proprietary AFAIK. -emarkp |
| 2005/9/27-29 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/OS/OsX] UID:39901 Activity:nil |
9/27 Invisibility cloak:
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/1860
\_ fake! it looks nothing like a +1 cloak! :-)
\_ what's the big deal? he's projecting an image of the background
on a retro-reflective mac. it only makes you invisible in a very
controlled environment.
\_ A better link:
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html
\_ Yeah, that's been on slashdot. It's a complete hoax. There is
nothing in any of the videos that can't be done with a green screen.
-emarkp
\_ is the following a hoax as well?
projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/images/mirror.mpg
\_ Of course it is. The front of the "mirror" is a green screen
over a stationary background which was filmed as a still and
placed on the green bit in post production (or possibly live).
Note in this movie:
http://projects.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/images/oc-wired.mpg
there are discontinuities in the video screen as the person
moves around, which can't be explained by the claimed
technology, but is entirely consistent with a pre-recorded
loop that was imperfectly put in the video sequence. -emarkp
\_ emarkp, I understand that you believe that you have an
alternate explanation for how they achieved the effect,
but your ability to posit such an explanation does not
necessarily make it a hoax; please provide an in-depth
examination of the supposed discontinuities, preferably
on a website so the laypeople can judge for themselves.
\_ I /do/ have an alternate explanation which doesn't
multiply entities. You know, Occam's razor? Nothing in
the videos is even hard with a green screen. Why accept
the extremely difficult claim of an invisibility cloak
then? I'm not willing to invest the time to smash this
right now, because it /should be obvious/. Look at the
"wired" video at the 9 second mark (the guy wearing
the hood) and as he moves side to side watch the people
in the video on the screen behind him. If you don't see
the discontinuities, you're blind. -emarkp
\_ I'm blind! That explains everything! ...except why
I can see that you're shouting louder rather than
contributing constructively. Perhaps I'll see your
explanation on http://snopes.com. |
| 2005/9/24-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:39856 Activity:low |
9/24 I was thinking about buying a Canon EF 28-135 IS lens, but
I just noticed that it is sold out in several places (bhphoto,
adorama). Does anyone know if there is a new model on the
way? If so, I'm wondering if I should hold off for a little
while.
\_ you sure you want that lens? at that focal length, IS is not
really necessary. You might as well go for something that
has bigger maximum apature.
\_ Do you have a film or digital camera?
\_ does it matter?
\_ 28-135 IS is perfect for film. Digital SLRs have a
cropping factor. There is a similar version of the
IS for digital cameras. I might have a 28-135IS used,
for sale.
\_ I have a digital rebel. |
| 2005/8/25-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:39271 Activity:kinda low |
8/25 She's hot! (SFW)
http://image10.webshots.com/11/0/93/11/143609311mdCzFb_ph.jpg
\_ Go motd boob man go!
\_ those pants are hideous
\_ You're the only one who noticed.
\_ Um, okay mr. queer eye.
\_ I'm gonna guess I'm not alone here: eww.
\_ You're not alone - you've got Rosy Palm and her five sisters.
\_ If I don't like grotesquely large breasts, I'll be forced to
resort to masturbation? I think you've got that backwards...
\_ I like this one better
http://tinyurl.com/73s8s
\_ "... like twin dirigibles emerging from the same hangar."
http://community.webshots.com/photo/195587840/195587840eBNkEY
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392263358/392289114JKSXsh
http://community.webshots.com/photo/288499898jueFXg
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392263358/392289932hxQtNI
http://community.webshots.com/photo/392248611/410327667RPmPFa
http://community.webshots.com/photo/410019847/410054858yhpWaG
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401722637uZSwBy
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401721327KcZHLm
http://community.webshots.com/photo/401676323/401715729iaJCiU
http://community.webshots.com/photo/411231453/411293059OgPRtp
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/430591768bNjSVl
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/430591472hPuipH
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/422570388beeiBX
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487425/422569620ESIvPI
http://community.webshots.com/photo/422487402/422560097PcfbjV
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/363235560XSfOjt
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/370745895MROxyX
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/370784110RlIVEJ
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/371092413XYRDQG
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/371094774cPPmPh
http://community.webshots.com/photo/346939855/432165551sjnnXZ
http://community.webshots.com/photo/331877678/331877678vFjqrM
\_ You guys need girlfriends or balls to go to a stripclub or
something. Lusting over the tits of random clothed women
is pathetic.
\_ Nah. Who'd want a gf, even with big boobs, that's accessible
to thousands of other men?
\_ Huh? |
| 2005/8/19-20 [Consumer/Camera, Recreation/Humor] UID:39183 Activity:nil |
8/18 Practical photography lesson:
"Funny thing about angles and webshots"
http://csua.org/u/d39
\_ Slightly NSFW. |
| 2005/8/7-8 [Consumer/Camera] UID:39031 Activity:nil |
8/7 Mel Gibson asked to stage live snuff film!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050807/ap_en_mo/people_gibson |
| 2005/8/2-4 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:38953 Activity:nil |
8/2 Is Jessica Lynch hot? http://csua.org/u/cwe (Yahoo! News Photo) \_ White Trash extreme makeovers! \_ Something done to her face and hair for sure. Damn Hollywood. |
| 2005/7/27-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:38854 Activity:nil |
7/27 Cellphones could lead to eye problems:
http://www.isracast.com/tech_news/250705_tech.htm |
| 2005/7/26-29 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:38835 Activity:low |
7/26 What are the pros and cons of Compact Flash versus Secure Digital
for a camera?
\_ Please add to the list:
Pro for CF:
1. harder to break physically
2. harder to lose
Pro for SD:
1. smaller form factor
\_ You can get a Firewire CF reader from Lexar and SanDisk but
afaik no one makes a FW SD card reader.
I've tried a FW and a USB2 CF reader and the FW reader is
noticably faster.
\- my understanding is cameras are moving in the direction of SD
but it seems to me there isnt much of a choice today, meaning
you can choose whether to get the same body with CF or SD.
and i wouldnt think not having SD is a reason to rule out
a body or somethign especially important to wait for [as might
be a full size sensor etc. with somethign that small, who cares
about size [assuming it is a decent sized camera].
\_ Really? A friend who knows pro photographers said that SD
isn't taken seriously because it's too fragile. It's thin
isn't taken seriously because it's too fragile. It's small
and the "pins" are exposed. On the other hand, perhaps
amateur photography has moved toward SD; PDAs certainly have.
\_ There are loads of multi-card readers (CF, SD, Memory Stick, etc)
around. I have one, I can look up the maker if you want. -John
\- the author of http://tinyurl.com/8s9ky made the claim
about moving CF -> SD. i find this peculiar ... i'd think
it would be easier to make say a 8gb card in the CF form
factor than SD, and i think people want space and speed
over saving 1oz. anyway, just passing along a claim.
\_ Is one or the other more reliable/longer lasting?
\_ As above mentioned, size is a key factor. I think for consumer
digicams, SD is the way to go. Last I checked, CF was still quite
a bit faster than SD. If that's still the case, CF definitely
belongs in prosumer and upper level cameras. Oh, and another
advantage for CF is that it's just a PCMCIA on a smaller form.
So compatibility with laptops(with pcmcia adapter) will be better.
\_ new laptops and pcs seems to have card readers built in. |
| 2005/7/25-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:38814 Activity:nil |
7/25 Time to send out a pre-boycott message. Mel Gibson to film another
conservative film. Boycott all Gibson crap, and send this
message to 10 of your friends now!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050725/ap_en_mo/film_mel_gibson
\_ And while we're at it, we'll piss into the wind as a protest! |
| 2005/7/12-13 [Consumer/Camera, Reference/Military, Computer/Theory] UID:38548 Activity:nil |
7/11 Just wanted to thank the person who posted about the PBS special
Guns, Germs and Steel. Tonight's eps. (the 1st?) was pretty good.
I'm not sure I completely agree w/ the premise that geography
dictated "success", but I'm pretty sure I can go along w/ the
fact that it predisposed certain people to create civilization
and culture.
\_ I can't believe I missed this book when I came out in
1999. I'm going to have to get it from the library after
finals. BTW, he seems to have written another book last
year called Collapse. Have you read that one?
\_ I forgot to watch. The newest hardback edition of the book
out now has a new chapter on the author's theory of the
origin of the Japanese language and people. - danh
\_ I can't believe I missed this book when I came out in
1999. I'm going to have to get it from the library after
finals. BTW, he seems to have written another book last
year called Collapse. Have you read that one?
\_ I read the stuff at http://pbs.com, which seemed to contain the entire
show content, and you can read it all in 5 minutes or whatever.
I guess seeing the landscapes and people on camera would be fun.
Oh well.
\_ I watched it in HD and it looked great.
\_ http://www.pbs.org not http://pbs.com. |
| 2005/6/29-30 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:38360 Activity:nil |
6/29 I just upgraded to Tiger, and to I simply copied all my photos
and albums into iPhoto from saved versions (from the previous OS).
iPhoto has all the albums listed with their photos, but the
"Photo Library" at the very top doesn't contain anything. How can
I get all the photos from the subalbums to appear in Photo Library
too? Thanks. |
| 2005/6/21-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:38217 Activity:low |
6/21 Has anyone seen Triumph of the Will (1934)? What are your
thoughts on it? Should this piece be banned from the film
studies class or does it actually have substantial historical
and educational value in it?
\_ Nazi propaganda film? I think you are a troll.
\_ No, I'm asking because it's included in many film studies classs
and I'm surprised it's not banned or anything like that
\_ "If we fail to know history, we are doomed to repeat it."
\_ also, she did a lot of very interesting things with the
editing that were kind of mind-blowing at the time, but are
taken for granted nowadays. It's educational from a film
history perspective, even if the content does make me want
to vomit. -sax
\_ I don't really recall, I think I saw it when I was 12. I
remember it being interesting from a historical and film
technique perspective. Very effecitive propoganda. Worth
seeing. Another similarly influential/horrifying file is
"Birth of a Nation." I remember that one with a lot more ire,
but I saw it much more recently as well. I especially liked
presdient Wilson's quote at the beginning calling it
"history written in lightning." THAT made me want to vomit.
\_ The cinematographic techniques in it are absolutely fascinating,
as is the whole thing as a phaenomenon in and of itself. There
are far spooker Nazi propaganda films, such as "I accuse"
(forget the German title) and most of the not-so-in-your-face
ones. They're extra-scary because of the banality with which
they present what to most people is plain evil. If the topic
interests you, there are some rare late interviews with Leni
Riefenstahl that shed some light on her motivations. As for
"Birth of a Nation", it's much plumper in its propaganda. -John
\- Do you read Hannah Arendt?
\_ No, nor her books. I assume you're referring to her
idea of the destruction of familiar social contexts as
a basis for totalitarianism? I think the "scary shit"
I'm referring to would better be described as "chutzpah".
\_ "Eichmann In Jerusalem" should be required reading for
anyone, but I'm a little confused as to how it would
apply in this case.
\- the expression "the banality of evil" is most
tightly bound to HA. |
| 12/24 |