Consumer Camera - Berkeley CSUA MOTD
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Consumer:Camera:
Results 151 - 300 of 318   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

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.
        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.
        ^^^ 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!
        \_ 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,
           \_ 12MP on a full frame is SWEET. How much ISO can you crank
              up at night time comfortably?
2009/8/31-9/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53311 Activity:nil
8/31    Does it make sense to buy a nice 70-200mm f/4L lens and mount it on a
        cheap Canon Rebel XSi with 12MP? I'd hate to upgrade the body
        because bodies get outdated quickly, and I don't care about how fast
        auto-focus is. I just care about image quality for non-sports pics. I'd
        love to have a sharper lens than my cheapo 55-250mm and don't care
        about the body, but I'm wondering if there are severe disadvantages
        for going with a consumer body + pro lens combo. Thanks.
        \_ There may be better lenses to consider depending on what your
           photo priorities are, but I dont think you're making the mistake
           of "too much lens for the body". As you imply, most amateurs
           make the opposite problem: too much body for their lenses.
           An issue may be the FOV multiplier ... which makes that quite
           a long lens [I assume the 70-200 is calibrated to 35mm, so really
           that's 110 at the short end ... that may still be useable indoors
           but it starts getting impossible when you get a little longer ...
           rooms arent big enough to get more than a headshot].
           \_ The 70-200mm f/4 IS is SHARPER than 70-200mm f/2.8 IS at all aperture
              except for 2.8, which of course the f/4 cannot get to. But
              at f/4 and beyond, the f/4 IS beats the f/2.8 IS version
              hands down. How important is that one extra stop? I'd say,
              for outdoors and birds and weddings such, the f/4 is a better buy.
        \_ The XSi is a fine camera; if you're not at the cutting edge of
           photography, it will do just fine.  A 70-200mm will be quite long
           on the APS-C sized sensor, but that might be what you want if
           you're doing wildlife photography or something.  It'll certainly
           give you better pictures than a cheap megazoom.  -tom
           \_ I saw a 1:1 picture from 50D at 800 ISO and it was surprisingly
              noisy. I just don't see how a better (more megapixel) camera
              is supposed to be better when it looks ugly at only 800 ISO.
              \_ For a given sensor size, the more megapixels the camera
                 has, the noisier images will be, if all else is equal
                 (which is rare).  -tom
                 \_ So newer cameras are crappier since they have higher MP?
                    \_ It's not so simple.  A sensor using the same technology
                       will have more resolution and more noise at 15MP than
                       12MP.  Whether that matters depends on what you're
                       shooting.  And newer, and more expensive cameras
                       often have different/better sensor technology.
                       In any case, we do seem to be reaching the point
                       of diminishing returns on megapixel count.  -tom
2009/8/28-9/9 [Consumer/Camera] UID:53307 Activity:low
        On a scale of 1-10 (10=best), how good is this flickr
        stream? How interesting is it. Be honest please. Please
        post your comments directly on flickr if possible.
        \_ while we're at it, can someone critique this one please?
           This is not mine. I'm just baffled as to why he has so
           many followers, for taking pictures that look the same...
           200mm f/2 with bokeh, at night. After a while it gets
           really boring and I just want to know WHY he has so
           many followers. What do *you* like about his set and
           why would you follow him 365?
           \_ 365 people all follow each other.  And contacts on flickr
              are mostly about how much you schmooze; some people will always
              set you as a contact if you set them as a contact.  -tom
        \_ sorry it doesn't do it for me. Awesome camera,
           lousy photographer. People with 300D and kit lens
           take more interesting pictures.
           \_ he just bought a Panasonic GF-1, which means... he'll be
              taking more crappy pictures.
        \_ He's one of my contacts; met him at the OCVB awards.  I think he
           does some interesting stuff, particularly in low light.  Most of
           it is only OK.  (And the vast majority of his stream is shot with
           a 450D; you might want to look at more than the first three
           pictures, which are just him trying out his new camera).  If
           he's a soda person, that's news to me.  -tom
           \_ what is your flickr id? I'd like to follow
              \_ -tom
                    This is amazing.
                    \_ Thanks.  Funny, it started out as a mistake (blown out
                       highlights), but I cranked up the brightness and
                       contrast to emphasize the texture and pattern.  -tom
           \_ what did he win the award for, photographs? Shit, maybe
              I should start uploading my pictures as well.
              \_ The Oakland Convention and Visitors Bureau has a yearly
                 photo contest for pictures of Oakland.  He got a merit
                 award for a shot of the Grand Lake Theater:
                 (which is a pretty good shot, I think).  -tom
                 \_ if his other 99% of the shots are like this one,
                    he would be more interesting to follow.
                    \_ Why do you care?  -tom
                       \_ I was getting frustrated that bozos with subpar looking
                          pictures are getting lots of comments. FOR WHAT? Just look
                          at his sets. They're mostly just patterns, circles,
                          bits and pieces of buildings. There is hardly any
                          living things, any movement, and little emotion. Nothing.
                          But as you said before commenting is more of a social
                          thing than anything else. Even your photos have more
                          dynamics than his.
                          \_ The amount of comments you get is mostly related
                             to how many groups you participate in, how
                             many friends you have on flickr, and how much
                             schmoozing you do.  Oh, and whether you're a
                             female who takes self-portraits.  -tom
                             \_ Case in point, Rebecca:
                                Oh she's quite something ain't she? ***droooool***
                                \_ Rebekka is actually a good photographer.
                                   There are plenty of crap photographers
                                   who get lots of attention because of
                                   self-portraiture.  -tom
                             \_ She's cuter IMHO:
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."
        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:
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.
        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 and run screaming if they
           balk at this. -guy who got burned this way
           \_ Yeah.  There are exactly two companies licensed to do online
              escrow in California: and Elance Escrow Corporation.
           \_ 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
        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 $1317.80. How much dollar is that in
        Deutsche Mark back in 1957, and how much is it now when you consider
        inflation? I'm trying to figure it out but historical prices are
        difficult to attain. Thanks.
           \_ good site but the OP is asking what 1317.80 is in German money
              and in fact, I don't even think Deutsche Mark was available
              until the Allies started issuing it in 1958.
              \_ says 1948. I was
                 confused by the "$" 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.
                 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.
                       \_ 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?
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
                     \_ 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.
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2009/4/7-13 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52820 Activity:nil
        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.
        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!
2009/2/23-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52623 Activity:nil
2/23    Otter with a camcorder:
2009/2/23-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52621 Activity:nil
2/23    Why is Slumdog Millionaire rated R ?
2009/2/23-25 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52620 Activity:nil
2/22    Can't believe this didn't get posted:
        \_ 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:
2009/2/9-15 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52539 Activity:nil
        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!
        PS Bush is probably not feeling loved compared to Clinton.
        \_ One more from a different angle. It's a friggin 1474 MEGAPIXEL
           stitch picture.
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!
        \_ 5D2 >> D700. Sorry Nikon, you've been losing every spec
           war since 2002, and STILL losing in 2009. Canon >> Nikon.
           \_ 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
                 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
        \_ 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?
           \_ here you go:
           \_ 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
2008/12/29-2009/1/7 [Consumer/Camera] UID:52303 Activity:nil
12/29   Good bye Polaroid! Good riddens.
        \_ 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.
           \_ 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:
              \_ 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
                       Here are Ken Rockwell's ranges and classifications:
                        [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:
           So if you can live with 1.6x crop factor and dont need new features
           like LiveView ...
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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
    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?
        \_ 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.
        \_ 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
        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?
              \_ What does this mean?
            \_ 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:
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?
        \_ 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!
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:
        \_ not funny. BZZZZZZ.
        \_ not funny. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
           \_ "lulz"
        \_ Large CCD sensor, world's largest
2008/11/12-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51934 Activity:kinda low
11/12   lulz here are some good photos of the prop 8 protest in San Francico
        \_ whatthefuckdoeslulzmean
           \_ lulz.
        \_ He uses NIKON.  HOT.  LOL.
        \_ He uses NIKON.  HOT.
           \_ More specifically, D90 with 30mm f/1.4, which only means
              one thing: he's using the infamous Sigma 30mm f/1.4. You
              either love that lens, or hate that lens.
              \_ lol I was just joking around but you are serious about this
              \_ lulz I was just joking around but you are serious about this
              \_ I was just joking around but you are serious about this
                 stuff arent you
                 \_ Oh yeah I'm serious about Nikon. I have a Nikon. But
                    Canon would have given me better bang for bugs. Nikon
                    hooked me onto its brand with its cheapo D40x. It's
                    like drugs. Then I realized D40x sucked and upgraded,
                    etc etc. I should have just started with a Canon with
                    better compatibility. I'm angry at Nikon. I'm angry
                    at myself. I'm such an idiot. Stupid stupid stupid.
                    \_ I warned you about D40 and D60 but you choose not to
                        \_ LOL. I'm sorry I just can't help it  -Canon shooter
                           \_ lulz
                        \_ LOL. Hahahahahaha. Bahahahahahaha. Hahahahahaha
                           I'm sorry I just can't help it  -Canon shooter
                           Hahahahahahaha. Nikon sucks. Bahahahahaha
2008/11/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51889 Activity:nil
11/9    Hi, I'm the cheap vacation guy. I've decided to go to Sedona, AZ
        and try out my new DSLR camera. Where's a good scenic place to
        go to?
        \_ Just start walking down the street. Sedona's the capital of UFO-
           and weird-energy kitsch. Something will pop out at you.
        \_ Jerome (sp?)...a little mining town just up the hill with beautiful
           scenery and houses.
        \_ There is a famous chapel there. Also, the river flowing through
           the canyon has some nice overlooks. The mesas on the drive in
           (I got there from the south) were nice, too, as were the nearby
           Native American ruins (Montezuma Castle). I wouldn't spend days
           in Sedona, though. A weekend is plenty.
        \_ Buy a Map to Stars map and visit one of John McCain's
2008/11/9-10 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Printer] UID:51886 Activity:kinda low
        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,
        \_ 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.
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!
        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
                 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

                        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?
        \_ 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
           \_ Canon 5D new is $1999, and the 5D Mark II is $2699. The two
              are VERY different. Much better sensor and amazing features
              on the Mark II.
2008/10/24 [Computer/HW/Printer, Consumer/Camera] UID:51665 Activity:nil
10/24   Canon XSi for only $489.99:
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:
        \- 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.
              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:
              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
        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.
2008/10/20-21 [Consumer/Camera] UID:51589 Activity:high
10/20   Brokers with hands on their faces!
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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
                           \_ 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?
        \_ 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.
           - 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
        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
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.
                       \_ 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
              \_ 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
        \_ Son, that urine doesn't look healthy.
        \_ Here's a great pic from the Denver post:
           \_ See, once you start attacking police, you should probably just be
              \_ 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?
        \_ I don't understand the question, but I probably wouldn't know
           the answer anyway.
        \_ That is a Street View camera car, if that's what you're asking.
        \_ Why was the driver getting a ticket?  Going too slow because the
           camera only works in low speed?
           \_ Too googly without a license.
2008/6/15-20 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50265 Activity:nil
6/15    I need an open mail relay to relay mail from a camera. The
        camera's OS does not do SSL or anything like that. How can I do
        this? I think <DEAD><DEAD> meets my needs, but it's not free. Is there
        a free solution?
        \_ If there were, spammers would be all over it.
           \_ Yeah, probably. There's no lack of spam, so...
        \_ John Gilmore runs one at -ausman
2008/6/3-4 [Consumer/Camera] UID:50126 Activity:nil
6/2     Does anyone know how to pictures like 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.
        \_ 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: (B&H)
              M42 to F: (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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
           \_ 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.
        \_ 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:
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 []
        \_ 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
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:
        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
           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
           \_ Seattle Pacific Univ.
2007/12/9-12 [Consumer/Camera] UID:48768 Activity:nil
12/8    Great fleet week photos:
        \_ 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:
        \- 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
        \_ 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?
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?
        \_ Too good to be true.  I only trust B&H and CameraWorld.
           \_ Check this out:
              0.71 out of 10 baby!
              \_ "Cannon 30D was previously opened and entire contents smells
                 like cigarette smoke.
                 "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 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
           Scroll to the alphabet soup. Also look at the history:
           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 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
                    --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,
                            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
                 and 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
                       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
                                        \- 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
        \_ 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
                 \_ 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
                       \_ 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
           '"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."'
2007/5/4-6 [Consumer/Camera] UID:46527 Activity:nil
5/4     Telemundo, other video showing police response to agitators
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!:
        \_ 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):   -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)
        \_ 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
        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:
        \_ 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
        \- 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,  -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 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 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
              \_ 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
           \_ 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
        \_ 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:
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:
        \_ Sony release something similar:
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:
2006/8/29-30 [Consumer/Camera] UID:44180 Activity:moderate
8/29    Michelle Malkin summarizes the fake ambulance stories from Hizbullah
        More detail at:
        \_ 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:
        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
                 \_ 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
                 \_ 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:
           \_ Supposedly it will be ~ $900:
        \_ Official name is the Rebel XTi:
        \_ Official name in the US is the Rebel XTi:
           \- 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.
        \- $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:
        \_ 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
        \_ 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.
        \_ (
           \_ (
                \- 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
                   \_ 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
                                        \_ 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.
                                                      \- 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
                                                         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
                                                            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
                                                               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
                      \- 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://
2006/8/6-10 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:43925 Activity:nil
8/6     Blatantly doctored photo of Beirut on yahoo news:
        \_ 404
        \_ Hmm, they took it down.  It was a Reuters photo, there are
           small cropped versions here.
           \_ Here's a link to the first draft:
        \_ A detailed column about it:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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 (
        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
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
           In short, rule of thumb is:  1. AA battery 2. go for 4Mpixel or
           *LESS*, and 3. get less than 3x optical zoom, and 4. get at least
           35mm on the wide end of zoom, as wide end of zoom is much more
           useful and critical than the long end (and 35mm is the equivl of
           35mm format, of course).
           \_ Thanks!
           \_ I have a Nikon Coolpix 3200 and it also uses AA batteries.
2006/7/8-10 [Computer/SW/OS/Linux, Consumer/Camera] UID:43601 Activity:nil
7/8     What is a good and free program to edit .mov files (macromedia i assume)
                        eh?  .mov is Apple's Quicktime container. _/
                        \_ ug, yeah, sorry, haven't been getting much sleep.
                           These are quicktime movies.
        from my camera.  Pref windows, but linux o.k. too.
        \_ just convert it to a more open format and edit it there.
           There are plenty of free (and legally questionable) software
           that converts .mov to xvid avi files.
2006/6/21-26 [Consumer/Camera] UID:43457 Activity:nil
6/21    New Panasonic DSLR camera:
        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)
                 (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
                 (General List of Countries)
                 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 also assume your friends
              are not going to be running around in neon shorts and fanny
              packs talking in loud nasal American tourist voices.  -John
                \_ I thought FARC and the shining path had their
                   own Disneyland area in Peru
                   \_ FARC, maybe in way Northern Peru, who knows, but SL
                      were supposedly pretty well castrated by Fujimori and
                      his goons.  -John
2006/5/12-17 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:43041 Activity:nil
5/12    What do people use to clean their laptop screens? Mine is full of
        finger smudges and dust. Thanks.
        \_ Microfiber towels that I get with my sunglasses.  Go to a good
           optician, they should have some (I think every pair of Ray-Bans
           you buy comes with one.)  Wipe gently.  I don't use those moist
           alcohol screen cleaners, because I haven't found any that don't
           streak.  I use these little towels for my camera lenses too,
           by the way.  If you find something better, please post.  -John
        \_ Microfiber towels that I get with my sunglasses.  Go to a good
           optician, they should have some (I think every pair of Ray-Bans
           you buy comes with one.)  Wipe gently.  I don't use those moist
           alcohol screen cleaners, because I haven't found any that don't
           streak.  I use these little towels for my camera lenses too,
           by the way.  If you find something better, please post.  -John
2006/4/28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42856 Activity:low
4/27    webcam malfunction in cory, film at 11.
        \_ where's the film, it's past 11?
           \_ <DEAD><DEAD>
              \_ The malfunction is that I can't connect to it?
2006/4/24-28 [Consumer/Camera] UID:42820 Activity:low
4/24    Dear motd photo gurus:  I have a Canon EFS 17-85mm lens that's got a
        ca. 1cm, thin and shallow scratch in the front lens.  Can this be
        replaced or ground out, or do I need to buy a new lens if I want to
        get rid of it? -John
        \_ holy crap that a long psb response..  anyway short answer..
           small scratch on front lens not bad and usually not at all
           noticable. scratch on rear glass is bad. dont let it happen.
           i agree w/ psb tho, buy a cheap UV filter and leave it on 100%
           of the time. look on ebay. try to search for Hoya 67mm HMC UV
           and expect to pay ~$60 -shac
           \- i doubt you'll save that much money on ebay rather than
              bhphoto. i'd start with bhphoto to get a sense of the
              "standard price" and the primiums for various brands
              and see what your options are. in fact you might just
              call them on the phone and have them recommend a reasonable
              protection filter for your lens. of course if you are
              international that might change the calculations a bit. --psb
        \- Um if you have dirt/smudging on a lens, that's generally not
           too bad of a problem ... you can keep shooting in the field and
           you can get a shop to clean that, but if you actually have a
           scratch substantial enough to cause diffraction problems, i
           you can get a shop to clean that, but IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A
           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,
  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:
           \_ 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.
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 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
        \_ .  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
           ( 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 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
     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.
2006/2/15 [Computer/SW/OS/OsX, Consumer/Camera] UID:41869 Activity:low
2/15    I know this has probably been asked before, but I can't find it
        in the archives:  is there a (Windows) tool to change metadata
        (date & time taken) of a large number of JPG photos?  I just realized
        that my camera's 12 hours off.  -John
        \_  --dbushong
           \_ Many thanks.  -John
2006/1/31 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41607 Activity:nil
2005/12/29 [Consumer/Camera] UID:41168 Activity:nil
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:
           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:
        \_ 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:
           \_ 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
           \_ 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:
           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:
        \_ tres cool.
           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
           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
        \_ 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
                     \_ 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,
                \_ 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:,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
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
        \_ -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).
        \_ 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.)
           \_ 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:
        \_ 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:
        \_ 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.
           \_ is the following a hoax as well?
              \_ 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:
                 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
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
        \_ 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)
        \_ 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
           \_ "... like twin dirigibles emerging from the same hangar."
           \_ 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"
        \_ Slightly NSFW.
2005/8/7-8 [Consumer/Camera] UID:39031 Activity:nil
8/7     Mel Gibson asked to stage live snuff film!
2005/8/2-4 [Consumer/Camera, Politics/Domestic/HateGroups] UID:38953 Activity:nil
8/2     Is Jessica Lynch hot? (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:
2005/7/26-29 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/HW/Laptop] UID:38835 Activity:low
7/26    What are the pros and cons of Compact Flash versus Secure Digital
        for a camera?
        \_ Please add to the list:
           Pro for CF:
           1. harder to break physically
           2. harder to lose
           Pro for SD:
           1. smaller form factor
        \_ You can get a Firewire CF reader from Lexar and SanDisk but
           afaik no one makes a FW SD card reader.
           I've tried a FW and a USB2 CF reader and the FW reader is
           noticably faster.
           \- my understanding is cameras are moving in the direction of SD
              but it seems to me there isnt much of a choice today, meaning
              you can choose whether to get the same body with CF or SD.
              and i wouldnt think not having SD is a reason to rule out
              a body or somethign especially important to wait for [as might
              be a full size sensor etc. with somethign that small, who cares
              about size [assuming it is a decent sized camera].
              \_ Really?  A friend who knows pro photographers said that SD
                 isn't taken seriously because it's too fragile.  It's thin
                 isn't taken seriously because it's too fragile.  It's small
                 and the "pins" are exposed.  On the other hand, perhaps
                 amateur photography has moved toward SD; PDAs certainly have.
           \_ There are loads of multi-card readers (CF, SD, Memory Stick, etc)
              around.  I have one, I can look up the maker if you want.  -John
                 \- the author of made the claim
                    about moving CF -> SD. i find this peculiar ... i'd think
                    it would be easier to make say a 8gb card in the CF form
                    factor than SD, and i think people want space and speed
                    over saving 1oz. anyway, just passing along a claim.
        \_ Is one or the other more reliable/longer lasting?
        \_ As above mentioned, size is a key factor.  I think for consumer
           digicams, SD is the way to go.  Last I checked, CF was still quite
           a bit faster than SD.  If that's still the case, CF definitely
           belongs in prosumer and upper level cameras. Oh, and another
           advantage for CF is that it's just a PCMCIA on a smaller form.
           So compatibility with laptops(with pcmcia adapter) will be better.
           \_ new laptops and pcs seems to have card readers built in.
2005/7/25-27 [Consumer/Camera] UID:38814 Activity:nil
7/25    Time to send out a pre-boycott message. Mel Gibson to film another
        conservative film. Boycott all Gibson crap, and send this
        message to 10 of your friends now!
        \_ And while we're at it, we'll piss into the wind as a protest!
2005/7/12-13 [Consumer/Camera, Reference/Military, Computer/Theory] UID:38548 Activity:nil
7/11    Just wanted to thank the person who posted about the PBS special
        Guns, Germs and Steel. Tonight's eps. (the 1st?) was pretty good.
        I'm not sure I completely agree w/ the premise that geography
        dictated "success", but I'm pretty sure I can go along w/ the
        fact that it predisposed certain people to create civilization
        and culture.
           \_ I can't believe I missed this book when I came out in
              1999. I'm going to have to get it from the library after
              finals. BTW, he seems to have written another book last
              year called Collapse. Have you read that one?
        \_ I forgot to watch.  The newest hardback edition of the book
           out now has a new chapter on the author's theory of the
           origin of the Japanese language and people. - danh
           \_ I can't believe I missed this book when I came out in
              1999. I'm going to have to get it from the library after
              finals. BTW, he seems to have written another book last
              year called Collapse. Have you read that one?
        \_ I read the stuff at, which seemed to contain the entire
           show content, and you can read it all in 5 minutes or whatever.
           I guess seeing the landscapes and people on camera would be fun.
           Oh well.
           \_ I watched it in HD and it looked great.
           \_ not
2005/6/29-30 [Consumer/Camera, Computer/Companies/Apple] UID:38360 Activity:nil
6/29    I just upgraded to Tiger, and to I simply copied all my photos
        and albums into iPhoto from saved versions (from the previous OS).
        iPhoto has all the albums listed with their photos, but the
        "Photo Library" at the very top doesn't contain anything. How can
        I get all the photos from the subalbums to appear in Photo Library
        too? Thanks.
2005/6/21-23 [Consumer/Camera] UID:38217 Activity:low
6/21    Has anyone seen Triumph of the Will (1934)? What are your
        thoughts on it? Should this piece be banned from the film
        studies class or does it actually have substantial historical
        and educational value in it?
        \_ Nazi propaganda film?  I think you are a troll.
           \_ No, I'm asking because it's included in many film studies classs
              and I'm surprised it's not banned or anything like that
              \_ "If we fail to know history, we are doomed to repeat it."
              \_ also, she did a lot of very interesting things with the
                 editing that were kind of mind-blowing at the time, but are
                 taken for granted nowadays.  It's educational from a film
                 history perspective, even if the content does make me want
                 to vomit.  -sax
        \_ I don't really recall, I think I saw it when I was 12.  I
           remember it being interesting from a historical and film
           technique perspective.  Very effecitive propoganda.  Worth
           seeing.  Another similarly influential/horrifying file is
           "Birth of a Nation."  I remember that one with a lot more ire,
           but I saw it much more recently as well.  I especially liked
           presdient Wilson's quote at the beginning calling it
           "history written in lightning." THAT made me want to vomit.
           \_ The cinematographic techniques in it are absolutely fascinating,
              as is the whole thing as a phaenomenon in and of itself.  There
              are far spooker Nazi propaganda films, such as "I accuse"
              (forget the German title) and most of the not-so-in-your-face
              ones.  They're extra-scary because of the banality with which
              they present what to most people is plain evil.  If the topic
              interests you, there are some rare late interviews with Leni
              Riefenstahl that shed some light on her motivations.  As for
              "Birth of a Nation", it's much plumper in its propaganda.  -John
              \- Do you read Hannah Arendt?
                 \_ No, nor her books.  I assume you're referring to her
                    idea of the destruction of familiar social contexts as
                    a basis for totalitarianism?  I think the "scary shit"
                    I'm referring to would better be described as "chutzpah".
                    \_ "Eichmann In Jerusalem" should be required reading for
                       anyone, but I'm a little confused as to how it would
                       apply in this case.
                       \- the expression "the banality of evil" is most
                          tightly bound to HA.
2022/06/25 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular
Results 151 - 300 of 318   < 1 2 3 >
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Consumer:Camera: