Photoshop How To Use: 25 new messages in 8 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:33 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <4913C112.4090009@qwest.net>, Roger N. Clark (change
> username to rnclark) says...
>
>> Many cameras have what is called "Live View." Live view is an
>> electronic method of reading the "digital" sensor and displaying the
>> result on
>> an LCD screen. The term "Live View" is a misnomer. It takes time
>> to read out the sensor, and the more pixels the sensor has, the more
>> time it takes. Very high speed electronics in high end cameras can
>> read out at rates of around 100 million pixels per second. On a
>> 10-megapixel camera, that means the time to read out is about 1/10th
>> second (100 milliseconds).
>
> Then how come frame refresh rates even on cheap DSLRs are way higher
> than 10 per second?

It depend how many pixels are read out. For live view display, you may
only need 300K-900K pixels, and not the full 10MP. But any live-view
system, be it DSLR or compact, will have a delay, and the user may need to
learn to live with that delay and compensate for it.

David

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:37 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1sg8h4d0ni1c1saua8jt6cf6ljigiu07e0@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>
>> You can see the effects of live view lag on high pixel count cameras
>> easily, and it's much greater than the LCD refresh rate.
>
> It's not. I have two live view cameras (Olympus 8080 and Sony R1)
> which have no noticeable delay in live view.
>
>> Just point
>> the camera at something and then move sharply and you'll see the
>> movement on the LCD image is delayed from when you actually moved the
>> camera.
>
> Only a few cameras have a feature which simulates the shutter lag, but
> you can turn that off.

This isn't an emulation, Alfred, this is a delay between the sensing and
the display of the image. I've seen this in may compact cameras, and it's
most noticeable at low ambient light levels when the image from the sensor
has to have an exposure of a significant fraction of a second. It seems
that some compact cameras integrate the image either on the sensor or
between sensor and display to produce an acceptable display in these
low-light conditions. The lag is then very noticeable.

David

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:44 am
From: Harlan Adams

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:22:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Thanks Roger, but I think this all went over the head of our favorite troll.

Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:11 am
From: Alan Browne

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:16:18 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>> Test your shutter lag in your camera at:
>> http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp

On Safari and Firefox (Mac) the arrow hesitates passing through 0, so
better to test from the 1 at the bottom...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:23 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alan Browne wrote:
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:16:18 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Test your shutter lag in your camera at:
>>> http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp
>
> On Safari and Firefox (Mac) the arrow hesitates passing through 0, so
> better to test from the 1 at the bottom...

It does that with Firefox and MS Internet Explorer on a PC as well. I
wonder if that's a deliberate built-in delay to allow for human reaction
time? Or just a fault in the Adobe Flash player?

David

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:41 am
From: franko

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:37:41 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <1sg8h4d0ni1c1saua8jt6cf6ljigiu07e0@4ax.com>, Steve says...
>>>
>>> You can see the effects of live view lag on high pixel count cameras
>>> easily, and it's much greater than the LCD refresh rate.
>>
>> It's not. I have two live view cameras (Olympus 8080 and Sony R1)
>> which have no noticeable delay in live view.
>>
>>> Just point
>>> the camera at something and then move sharply and you'll see the
>>> movement on the LCD image is delayed from when you actually moved the
>>> camera.
>>
>> Only a few cameras have a feature which simulates the shutter lag, but
>> you can turn that off.
>
>This isn't an emulation, Alfred, this is a delay between the sensing and
>the display of the image. I've seen this in may compact cameras, and it's
>most noticeable at low ambient light levels when the image from the sensor
>has to have an exposure of a significant fraction of a second. It seems
>that some compact cameras integrate the image either on the sensor or
>between sensor and display to produce an acceptable display in these
>low-light conditions. The lag is then very noticeable.
>
>David

You missed some important information (reposted below). Without this information
in your mind you keep appearing to be nothing but another of the many
virtual-photographer (or sub-amateur) trolls around here.

>> Live View drag
>
>This is such a huge misnomer. There really is no such thing as "live view drag"
>in any camera with an EVF/LCD system these days. A true live-view delay will
>never be more than about 1/60th of a second, and in many cameras much faster
>than that as a minimum, far shorter than any human perception. This is the
>refresh rate of the EVF/LCD display.
>
>What you are experiencing as "live view drag" is the live-view recreating the
>shutter-speed in real time. This is how an EVF/LCD viewfinder is able to
>accurately represent those soft moving-water effects at slow shutter speeds and
>stop-motion flapping bird wing images at high shutter speeds. The reason this
>"live-view drag" has become a mantra of those with less experience is that they
>test their P&S camera in the store. Never once realizing that the slower shutter
>speed used indoors is what causes this perceived "live view drag".
>
>For the experienced/advanced photographer that has come to understand the vast
>benefits they wouldn't buy any camera without this feature. Having what you call
>this "live view drag" is even more important to someone like me than being able
>to use a bright DOF preview (as also exists on all P&S cameras). I want to
>instantly see what happens to the final capture of my moving subjects as I
>change shutter speeds. I enjoy having that instantaneous film-to-print preview
>in real-time as I frame my shots.
>
>D-SLR owners who have never had this great feature all their lives won't
>recognize it for what it is, nor will they understand how to make use of it.
>They at first, wrongly and ignorantly, consider this some kind of drawback
>instead of the great asset that it is. Until they finally learn on their own.
>This is why "live view" is becoming more commonplace in D-SLRs, to slowly
>introduce them to the vast benefits that P&S cameras have had for a decade.
>
>The mindless D-SLR owner/buyer/promoter will eventually figure it out, one day.
>But then, come to think of it, the D-SLR owner lost use of something as simple
>as having a bright DOF preview (as used to exist in better SLRs of the past, and
>still exists on all P&S cameras). They don't consider that any great loss nor
>even realize why its important. Some will just never figure it out.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:06 am
From: SMS

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Test your shutter lag in your camera at:
> http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp

Cool site.

With prefocus, my SD800 IS is about 0.15 seconds. Without pre-focus it's
0.4 seconds.

With prefocus, my D-SLR is 0.09 seconds. Without prefocus it's 0.22 seconds.

If I changed lenses the D-SLR would probably be faster, it didn't like
focusing on the computer screen with the 10-22 EF-s

Professional testing of the same cameras shows the D-SLR doing full
auto-focus at 0.15 seconds, and 0.077 seconds for pre-focus, and shows
the SD800 IS at 0.4 seconds for full auto-focus.

So it's true that by doing pre-focus on a P&S, you can get about the
same performance as a D-SLR in full auto-focus, but of course you can't
even come close to a D-SLR that's pre-focused, the P&S is twice as slow.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:22 am
From: jdear64

On Nov 7, 7:44 am, Harlan Adams <had...@addressdeleted.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:22:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >Thanks Roger, but I think this all went over the head of our favorite troll.
>
> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
> bullshit.

<snip>

Wow, so many posters with exactly the same view point, spelling, and
writing
style as yourself.

You must be one of the loneliest losers on usenet to have to resort to
so many
sock puppets. I pity your lack of life.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:26 am
From: TrayJohnson

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 09:06:59 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
>
>> Test your shutter lag in your camera at:
>> http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp
>
>Cool site.
>
>With prefocus, my SD800 IS is about 0.15 seconds. Without pre-focus it's
>0.4 seconds.
>
>With prefocus, my D-SLR is 0.09 seconds. Without prefocus it's 0.22 seconds.
>
>If I changed lenses the D-SLR would probably be faster, it didn't like
>focusing on the computer screen with the 10-22 EF-s
>
>Professional testing of the same cameras shows the D-SLR doing full
>auto-focus at 0.15 seconds, and 0.077 seconds for pre-focus, and shows
>the SD800 IS at 0.4 seconds for full auto-focus.
>
>So it's true that by doing pre-focus on a P&S, you can get about the
>same performance as a D-SLR in full auto-focus, but of course you can't
>even come close to a D-SLR that's pre-focused, the P&S is twice as slow.

Not the same, the P&S is faster. And you are an outright liar if you think that
the time needed to move that noisy, image-jarring, and slapping mirror out of
the way, opening up that noisy and slow focal-plane shutter are in any way going
to be faster when both are prefocused. How transparently deceptive you are. You
also reveal that you don't know that contrast-focusing is much faster if the
image is steady and a higher-shutter speed is used. If you can hold the camera
steady with a 400mm lens then it is just as fast at focusing as at wide-angle.
All those the financially-biased owners of those "professional testing" sites
online don't even know how to hold a camera steady. As proved by their really
poor results when testing image-stabilization methods. They reveal much in their
tests, much that they wish a more intelligent and perceptive person wouldn't
notice. Namely, that they are really bad photographers who don't even know how
to use a camera properly.

It would help too if you actually bought some decent cameras. But then, now
would you know what is or is not a decent camera. You've made it quite obvious
that you never could figure that one out.

You really should read the following, you just keep making an even bigger fool
of yourself.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:37 am
From: ZamphorBiggins

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:22:20 -0800 (PST), jdear64 <jdear64@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 7:44 am, Harlan Adams <had...@addressdeleted.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:22:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks Roger, but I think this all went over the head of our favorite troll.
>>
>> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>> bullshit.
>
><snip>
>
>Wow, so many posters with exactly the same view point, spelling, and
>writing
>style as yourself.
>
>You must be one of the loneliest losers on usenet to have to resort to
>so many
>sock puppets. I pity your lack of life.

And this discounts the truth of what has been posted, how? Oh, that's right. You
think that you need 1 million people to say the same thing before it should be
believed. Just like any mindless non-thinking follower.

Do try to stay on topic. If this is the only way you can discount some facts I
truly pity your lack of intellect.

If only everyone discounted Einstein for being the only one to post "E=MC^2" all
those years ago, we'd be much better off just because everyone wasn't saying it.
Granted, the information here is not as ground-breaking (because any fool in his
right mind can see the truthfulness of the P&S's superiority), but the analogy
still holds true.

Holy fuck, you are one major idiot.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:39 am
From: TueDat

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:05:24 -0800 (PST), "Rev. Richard Skull"
<mshotz@verizon.net> wrote:

>Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
>
>Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
>
>By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle

Yes, the signs of a true closet-case. Those effeminate men that have to try to
appear more macho on the outside to overcompensate for what they lack on the
inside. They think that others will never suspect if they try to cover it up
enough.

No offense to gay people, but I visited a few gay friends' bars with them when
they were hosting a "leather night". The more macho that theses guys in leather
tried to appear on the outside the more that a purse would drop out of their
mouth when they talked, instantly revealing the inside. More power to them if
that's what they need and want, to be closer to masculinity. But this
over-compensation now exposing the real, but opposite, person on the inside
became so blatantly obvious.

A guy who is truly masculine and secure in his masculinity will still appear so
even in a woman's dress. He'll not even have any problems doing so for the fun
and laughs. You can't disguise innate masculinity no matter how much you try.
But a guy who is effeminate and worried about others discovering their
homosexuality will _always_ try to overcompensate on the outside. Doing things
like wearing always leather, chains, using names like "Hemi-Powered" for their
screen names.

Hemi-Powered is just SO MACHO! Isn't he. (At least he's hoping everyone else
will think so.)

A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
every time that he talks.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:49 am
From: Salad

Rev. Richard Skull wrote:

> On Nov 7, 8:10 am, lawrence winters <lwint...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 06:46:28 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <n...@none.sn> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
>>>queer or any member of the same sex.
>>
>>Your overt sexual-insecurity screams loud and clear that you are a major
>>closet-case.
>>
>>How does it feel to have outted yourself to the world?
>>
>>It feels better now that everyone knows, doesn't it. I bet you've been dying to
>>do that all your life.
>>
>>But to the whole world? You should have outted yourself to just a few close
>>friends first. That's how most of them do it.
>>
>>My bad, you probably have done that already, and it just wasn't enough. This
>>must be your phase-II.
>
>
> Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
>
> Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
>
> By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle, Probally a
> Dodge Ram 4x4 that never leaves the asphalt, and has never hualed
> anything larger then a bag of groceries.

It's called a "penis extender."

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:17 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Caesar Romano <Spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>
>>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>
>Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
>mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.

You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.

When a law is referred as a "blue law", it means that the law still
exists on the books, but it is no longer enforced. The legislative or
governmental body involved never bothered to repeal the law. These
so-called "blue laws" were passed, enforced at one time, and then
disregarded and forgotten. The action covered by the law is still
"outlawed", but violations of the law are not enforced.

Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
usually formally repeal the law.

Quite often you will see a magazine, newspaper, or online article
about weird laws in the US. It's fun to find them, and report on
them, but don't believe that these laws are enforceable today.

There are two accepted explanations for the term "blue law". One is
that in colonial times in the US, the printed form of laws was bound
in blue paper. The second is the definition of "blue" to mean
"off-color" or "offensive" because the laws in question dealt with
subjects that were offensive to some people. No one knows for sure
which is the true origin.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:18 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the street as
California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:

Yes, that is true. However I was referring to social acceptance rather
than legal acceptance. Those old laws from the eighteenth century are
still on the books, but only utilized when convenient or politically
expedient. At least that is what I observe.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:52 am
From: SilentOtto

On Nov 7, 7:14 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <4e7d186a-303a-43ea-a4cc-1b88948df...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:31 pm, ArchdeaconMa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
> > > engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
> > > outbreaks
>
> > Name ONE thing gays do that heterosexuals don't do.
>
> They have sex with members of the same gender.

Cute...

Now name a sex act that homosexuals do that straight people don't.

Don't bother...

I already know you can't.

Heh heh...

Rightards...

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:54 am
From: "J. Clarke"

tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
> <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Caesar Romano <Spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>>> At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>> between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily
>>> privately)
>>> considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>>
>>> That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>>
>> Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>> source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the
>> US
>> mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
>
> You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US
> laws
> passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
> some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
> are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.
>
> When a law is referred as a "blue law", it means that the law still
> exists on the books, but it is no longer enforced. The legislative
> or
> governmental body involved never bothered to repeal the law. These
> so-called "blue laws" were passed, enforced at one time, and then
> disregarded and forgotten. The action covered by the law is still
> "outlawed", but violations of the law are not enforced.
>
> Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the
> books
> and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
> court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
> system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body
> will
> usually formally repeal the law.
>
> Quite often you will see a magazine, newspaper, or online article
> about weird laws in the US. It's fun to find them, and report on
> them, but don't believe that these laws are enforceable today.
>
> There are two accepted explanations for the term "blue law". One is
> that in colonial times in the US, the printed form of laws was bound
> in blue paper. The second is the definition of "blue" to mean
> "off-color" or "offensive" because the laws in question dealt with
> subjects that were offensive to some people. No one knows for sure
> which is the true origin.

The blue laws in Massachussetts are most assuredly still in force and
are still enforced. The current statement on them can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Workers+and+Unions&L2=Wage+and+Employment+Related+Programs&L3=The+Massachusetts'+Blue+Laws&sid=Elwd.
In 2005 several Boston businesses were charged with violation of them
for staying open on Thanksgiving.

I do not believe, however, that these are the laws to which Caesar was
referring. His reference seemed to be specifically with regard to
prohibited sexual acts, collectively referred to as "sodomy". In 2003
the Supreme Court effectively struck down all anti-sodomy laws in the
United States. Prior to that time a number of states had such laws on
the books and per a 1986 Supreme Court ruling that was overturned by
the 2003 ruling, those laws were valid. Penalties ranged from a fine
of a few hundred dollars to ten or more years in prison depending on
the state. Note that such laws generally did not distinguish between
acts committed by couples of the same gender or of opposite genders,
and such were not explicitly anti-homosexuality laws, although they
were usually enforced more rigidly against homosexuals.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:06 am
From: Chris H

In message <bap8h4psl1mh6hvulfqjk9modgqorv364o@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
><jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Caesar Romano <Spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>>>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>>
>>>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>>
>>Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>>source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
>>mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
>
>You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
>passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
>some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
>are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.

Do you mean a Sabbath which can be a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
or do you mean on of those days in particular?

Don't you hate it when some else's religious law impinges on civil law
and God's law?

Morality is a movable feast and impossible to legislate for.

>When a law is referred as a "blue law", it means that the law still
>exists on the books, but it is no longer enforced. The legislative or
>governmental body involved never bothered to repeal the law. These
>so-called "blue laws" were passed, enforced at one time, and then
>disregarded and forgotten. The action covered by the law is still
>"outlawed", but violations of the law are not enforced.

That is a recipe for disaster.... removing laws always seems far more
problematical than creating them..

>Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
>and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
>court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
>system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
>usually formally repeal the law.

That's good. BTW what is the criteria for repealing these laws?

>Quite often you will see a magazine, newspaper, or online article
>about weird laws in the US. It's fun to find them, and report on
>them, but don't believe that these laws are enforceable today.

That happens in most countries some of the old laws in the UK defy
belief.

>There are two accepted explanations for the term "blue law". One is
>that in colonial times in the US, the printed form of laws was bound
>in blue paper. The second is the definition of "blue" to mean
>"off-color" or "offensive" because the laws in question dealt with
>subjects that were offensive to some people. No one knows for sure
>which is the true origin.

I think there are multiple unconnected origin which have become confused
over the years (search on Blue Movies for example)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Obamanation Gets a Dire and Critical Warning From South Africa..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/66a180c16d084ddf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:41 am
From: John McWilliams

Ignoramus3975 wrote:
> This "South African" author displays a very unlikely familiarity with
> minute details of American race relations, terms like "Chicanos" etc.
>
> And I think that I have seen this annoying, sad and turgid writing
> style before in quite a few falsely attributed anonymous posts.

I am sure you have. fu set.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:34 am
From: Jimbo

On Nov 6, 9:45 pm, For Europeans <sweep1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> by Alan Stang
> November 6, 2008
> NewsWithViews.com
>
> I read this warning on my daily radio talk show last week, before the
> election. It is even more relevant now, because the same thing that
> was imposed on South Africa – by the United States – is now happening
> here. So many people have asked for a copy of this message from a
> South African journalist that I post it here. My comments on her
> comments are in bold. Of course the parallels cannot be exact, but see
> whether you recognize any of this.
(snip away the rest of this crap)

Raciast BS and revisionist history offered as advice! No thanks! Any
article in which South Africa is held to be "advanced" either now or
at any point in it's history is naive and non-sensical. Then again,
given that ALL mankind is descended from Africans, maybe it was true.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama Getting Acceptance Speech Ready!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/8391501958e1a07c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:42 am
From: Allen

Xxxxx wrote:
> ...and a damn fine speech it was!
It will be wonderful to have a person who can speak in the White House
again, although David Letterman is going to have to find a replacement
for his "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" segment.
Allen

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:05 am
From: Chris H

In message <K-2dne3f7d9J_InUnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com>, Allen
<allent@austin.rr.com> writes
>Xxxxx wrote:
>> ...and a damn fine speech it was!
>It will be wonderful to have a person who can speak in the White House
>again, although David Letterman is going to have to find a replacement
>for his "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" segment.
>Allen

He could always interview Sarah Palin on her view of any Obama speech
:-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/831184ccc9af1358?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 7:46 am
From: Allen

James wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 06:56:39 +0000, Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> James <nospam@forme.com> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> James <nospam@forme.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>>> That may be true, but it is still the republicans who have pushed
>>>>>> for ever more spending while adamantly refusing to pay for their
>>>>>> spending. Of course, it's also republicans who have pushed policies
>>>>>> that mostly benefit themselves and their wealthy allies.
>>> The dems have had to ability to stop the spending for the last two
>>> years.
>> Bullshit. That would require yanking funding for the war, screwing over
>> thousands of US troops, and passing a budget which the republicans would
>> filibuster.
>>
>>>> For the past several decades the biggest deficit have come from
>>>> Republican administrations, usually by insisting that the US military,
>>>> which already costs as much as the rest of the world's militaries
>>>> combined, needs still more money.
>>>>
>>>>> How many poor or just average income
>>>>> politicians are there? It has taken both parties to pass the bills
>>>>> that increase spending no matter what they say.
>>>> And it takes one president to say no.
>>> And none have done it.
>> Clinton did.
>>
>>>>> Add all the wasted research that goes on to pander to some group that
>>>>> helped get one elected and there are billions to be saved one nickle
>>>>> at a time.
>>>> You still do not grasp the problem. The annual deficit is
>>>> $450,000,000,000. The debt is $11,000,000,000,000. That's $35,000
>>>> for every man, woman, and child in the country. Just paying interest
>>>> on that debt consumes one fifth of every tax dollar the federal
>>>> government collects. You'd have to cut $1000 in spending for
>>>> everybody in the country just to get to the break-even point.
>>>>
>>> OH I grasp the problem very well. What I refuse to be is a defeatist
>>> Spending must be redused the country not not continue to take loans to
>>> sustain its self.
>> Reducing spending will not balance the budget.
>>
>>> It's all those trite and trivial things that add up.
>> No, you can add them all up and it still will NOT balance the budget.
>>
>>>>> It has to be done and we are running out of time to do it.
>>>> You've already been screwed. Now it's going to hurt for a while.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry.
>>> I have vasiline incase Obama does raise taxes because it's really gonna
>>> hurt then.
>> Don't blame Obama for paying the bills that republicans have run up.
>
> You are real quick to dismiss all budget cuts no matter how much of the
> money is wasted. Cuts have to be done and its gonna hurt some people at
> 1st but they will eventually get of thier buts and fix thier own lives.
> Those who are trully unable to help themselves ( mental and physical
> reasons) still recieve help.
>
> Taxes need to be kept low since this does spur the economy araising them
> slows it. Proven over and over again starting wuth JFK's tax plan and
> Reagons reuse of it.
>
> The military can't stay at war for ever and when it's over we can reduse
> spending to a sustaining level rather then a combat level. It's going to
> be a while thou.
>
> So what is your plan? You dismiss every real option but offer nothing.
>
>
> Jim
>
Too bad that you never learned the English language.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital decline....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/2a7a2b9df6c5f2e5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:10 am
From: Alan Browne

Ralph Samuelson, III wrote:
> So why do SOME of you sneer at Olympus users?

Sneer? No. More like compassion for those stuck to the 4/3 system.
Very good (expensive) optics. Noise constrained growth due to the
sensor size.

I have not seen many 4/3 cameras around...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital Railroad disappears overnight
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e78f19b1651d2d0b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 8:41 am
From: jj@unspameljefe.net

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 18:18:05 -0500, "Charles"
<charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>
><jj@unspameljefe.net> wrote in message
>news:75gug4d6882nv4qqug1bd952jep4q47amu@4ax.com...
>> In the continuing saga of Why I Still Prefer Film Even Though I Now
>> Use A 5D, there's this:
>
>This has absolutely nothing to do with film ... and, face it, current film
>photographers most often scan/digitize their images.
>
>CD-R, DVD-R, huge USB hard drives at great prices!
>
>Nobody of any acumen would solely store their images on some remote server.

The last few years when I was still shooting film I would also have it
processed onto CD. That would give me a set of negs, a double set of
prints and digital media as well. If something happens to one, you've
still got the others as inherent back-ups.

Plus, I'd just drop the film off at the lab and come back an hour or a
day later to get everything. I didn't have to spend five hours a day
in front of a computer playing with Photoshop, et al, when I could be
out shooting. And I didn't need a hard drive and a computer screen to
see what I'd shot. Or 1TB back-up drives to store 13 MB RAW files.

You can back up digital files all you want. I do. But it's a pain in
the ass. I'd love to digitize the 30 years of negs in my archives, but
who's going to sit around doing that? Who can afford to farm it out?
Not me.

That being said, yeah, anybody who stores stuff on a remote server
without additional back-up is asking for trouble.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: G9 and D80
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/5d513bc2e483aa97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:26 am
From: Sheila

michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> "Sheila" <swdalton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:g9IQk.62896$vX2.47254@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>> The D80 is a lot lighter and does'nt feel like a brick! RecentlyI have
>>> started to shoot in RAW and the D80 allows each shot to be in RAW and
>>> JPEG simultaneously, so afterwards I just edit my RAW file and if its
>>> better than the cameras jpeg then I am reallly happy, if its worse then I
>>> have the default jpeg. On the D70 its either RAW or jpeg. Otherwise I
>>> can't say that I noticed any difference, the higher resolution of the D80
>>> does'nt make any difference to be honest, I think all this businessof
>>> increasingly higher resolution is a bit pointless.
>>>
>>> "Sheila" <swdalton@bellsouth.net> wrote in message > Which camera do you
>>> like better, the D70 or the D80?
>>>> --
>>>> Sheila
>>>> http://swdalton.com
>>>
>>
>> I have a D80 and like it fairly well and I do the same as you, shoot in
>> jpeg and raw. It's a lot easier than shooting in just raw and having to
>> convert all the photos.
>>
>> About the higher and higher number of megapixels, I agree with you, it
>> just makes you have to have more and more storage without any real benefit
>> as an amateur. Blowing up a photo to 16" by 20" is large enough for me.
>>
>> --
>> Sheila
>> http://swdalton.com
>
> I've been thinking lately that it could be another 3 years before something
> turns up thats better for me than the D80, and given that the D80 is coming
> down in price its tempting to buy a second one. I have a number of lens and
> I want to avoid changing them too often when I'm out in the countryside as I
> eventually accumulate all sorts of rubbish on the sensor. the D80 is just
> light enough to consider having two of them attached to two lens in my
> rucksack!
>
>
>

I don't like to change lenses either. Since I now have three digital
cameras and 4 lenses, I have my macro on one camera, an 18-200VR on my
D80 and the new 24-70 on my D300. I have another telephoto lens that I
am not using at present. The D300 has a sensor cleaning action built in
the vibrates the sensor to keep dust off, I don't know how this works
because I haven't changed the lens. When I go on vacation I take my D80
and my D300.

--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en