Consumer Camera - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Consumer:Camera:
 Results 151 - 300 of 318   < 1 2 3 >
 Berkeley CSUA MOTD Match all Match any Histogram Relevance Most current Least current

 WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ http://csua.com/feed/
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 9/20

 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?
2018/09/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
 9/20

 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
 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
 2008/11/9-12 [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 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] 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 smtp.com 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 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/OS/Linux] 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? \_ moorecam.eecs.berkeley.edu \_ 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 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/SW/OS/OsX] 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: bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36351 -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