rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 11 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* For Sale: Premodded Video Game Consoles, Backups & Retro Stuff - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/375f69cd8a96f6fb?hl=en
* P & S cameras - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
* Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
* 500D and 70-200 For Macro - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e68bd9da7d399770?hl=en
* The 1248 mm challenge - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
* Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e8507563c32175c6?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:14 am
From: TruDat
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 05:54:26 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>GMAN added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> The reason so many churches are for banning these marriages is
>> because if its allowed, churches will be both forced to
>> recognise these marriages and perform them. that is very wrong
>> for the state to force a religion to do what they do not want
>> to do.
>>
>No one can force a church to perform any marriage, not between a
>man and a woman as God intended or between two people of the same
>sex. The separation of church and state has been talked about some
>and WOULD specifically prohibit churches from being forced to
>either marry the queers or to not marry them. Pastors and ministers
>answer to their Bishops and their congregations on whom they marry,
>not their state or federal government. But, churches do like
>increasing their membership so chances are they would marry anyone
>who walks in the door, which is why we MUST outlaw queer marriage
>by passing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment defining
>marriage as ONLY a union between one man and one woman.
I have yet to understand why anyone would be so spiritually and culturally
hypocritical as to choose the very religion that destroyed their own ancestral
Pagan heritage. For anyone to choose to be christian is no less of a spiritual
and cultural hypocrisy than if a jewish person was praying heil-hitler to a
swastika. Yes, their personal, spiritual, cultural, and historical hypocrisy is
precisely that deep.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:22 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9B50479303B76ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> Seon Ferguson added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
> >> I favor equal rights for all Americans. "Anti American
> >> traitors" think they have the right to take rights away from
> >> others without their consent. Shame on you.
> > Do you believe that gay people should be given the same
> > freedom's as other American's?
> Yes, EXCEPT the right to cohabitate and the right to marry. That is
> reserved by God for one man and one woman and anything else is
> morally wrong.
According to your standards. Civil government is not obliged to observe or
support specific religious. Indeed, the Constitution prohibits it.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:29 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
> You only call it a perversion because you're scared of admitting
> that you have homosexual tendencies that you can't cope with.
I've never bought this. There is no such thing as "latent homosexuality".
But...
As someone said, "Men are neither heterosexual or homosexual. They are
sexual."
Men are often afraid of getting emotionally close to each other because
they're afraid it might lead to sexual acts. As it might very well.
Straight men who want close emotional relationships with other men sometimes
turn to gay friends for them, precisely because the relationship is out in
the open, and implicitly non-sexual.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:30 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
>> The reason so many churches are for banning these marriages is
>> because if its allowed, churches will be both forced to
>> recognise these marriages and perform them. that is very wrong
>> for the state to force a religion to do what they do not want
>> to do.
> No one can force a church to perform any marriage, not between a
> man and a woman as God intended or between two people of the same
> sex. The separation of church and state has been talked about some
> and WOULD specifically prohibit churches from being forced to
> either marry the queers or to not marry them. Pastors and ministers
> answer to their Bishops and their congregations on whom they marry,
> not their state or federal government. But, churches do like
> increasing their membership so chances are they would marry anyone
> who walks in the door, which is why we MUST outlaw queer marriage
> by passing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment defining
> marriage as ONLY a union between one man and one woman.
But such an amendment would violate the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom
of religious belief and practice.
If a liberal/progressive Church (such as the Unitarian Universalists, or
some of the Episcopalian divisions) decided to provide same-sex marriage,
both the Federal and state governments would be absolutely obliged to honor
it.
I know you're not interested, but I'm going to recommend "Same-Sex Unions in
Pre
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:36 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
Whoops.
I know you're not interested, but I'm going to recommend "Same-Sex Unions in
Pre-Modern Europe".
This extremely controversial book discusses the same-sex unions (not
marriages) performed by the church for over 1000 years. (That's the right
number.) The book is also interesting for its discussion of marriage and the
church's attitude toward it. In summary, the church was initially not much
interested in worldly affairs (including marriage), and left marriage to the
state. (This is why many marriage traditions -- such as giving away the
bride -- come from Roman practice.) It was not until 1200 or so that
marriage became a church sacrament.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:37 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9B4F4DCF1DE34ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> zzpat added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
> > Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
> > away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
> >
> > Which group will these nuts target next?
> >
> > I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
> What "rights"?
The conservative California supreme court said we had the right.
> Show me where the right to dork your partner is
> condoned by the people of the United States,
Whether the majority of people damn or condone something is beside the
point. Democracy is not about majority rule.
> besides which there is a far bigger law involved here - that of God
> Almighty who says that marriage is a union of one man and one woman
It is? David had multiple wives.
> and that the actions of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked,
> religious law trumped non-existent civil law.
Not in this country. Read the 2nd Amendment.
PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
e-mail address.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:38 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
> if we stopped using the euphemisms "gay" and "lesbian" and stuck
> with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
> and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
> stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
> states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts. I'd like
> to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
> Constitutional Amendment. God's Law shall not be ignored by some
> nuts in Kalyfornia.
On what basis is the Federal government supposed to vet laws against
Biblical standards?
And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life --
especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
e-mail address.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:39 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
> Actually, it's not. It may be very unlikely but the Democratic
> leadership in both the House and the Senate led by none other than
> Dennis Kuchinich plans to take their new, larger majorities for a
> test spin and try to impeach President Bush before he leaves
> office. And, failing at that which is likely, they intend to get
> the new AG to bring him up on charges of treason, abuse of power,
> and obstruction of justice. Those charges ARE likely and may even
> stick.
I certainly hope so. But there's so little time.
What the Democrats should do is have public hearings outlining the "high
crimes and misdemeanors" of one the most-corrupt and anti-democratic
administrations of my lifetime.
PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
e-mail address.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:10 am
From: "J. Clarke"
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> The reason so many churches are for banning these marriages is
>>> because if its allowed, churches will be both forced to
>>> recognise these marriages and perform them. that is very wrong
>>> for the state to force a religion to do what they do not want
>>> to do.
>
>> No one can force a church to perform any marriage, not between a
>> man and a woman as God intended or between two people of the same
>> sex. The separation of church and state has been talked about some
>> and WOULD specifically prohibit churches from being forced to
>> either marry the queers or to not marry them. Pastors and ministers
>> answer to their Bishops and their congregations on whom they marry,
>> not their state or federal government. But, churches do like
>> increasing their membership so chances are they would marry anyone
>> who walks in the door, which is why we MUST outlaw queer marriage
>> by passing and ratifying a Constitutional Amendment defining
>> marriage as ONLY a union between one man and one woman.
>
> But such an amendment would violate the First Amendment guaranteeing
> freedom of religious belief and practice.
An Amendment to the Constitution cannot, by definition, "violate"
another
Amendment. Alter it, yes. Invalidate it, yes. Repeal it, yes.
Modify its effect, yes. But "violate"? No.
> If a liberal/progressive Church (such as the Unitarian
> Universalists,
> or some of the Episcopalian divisions) decided to provide same-sex
> marriage, both the Federal and state governments would be absolutely
> obliged to honor it.
Why would they be "absolutely obliged to honor it"? Islam and some
branches of the LDS provide polygamous marriage but neither state nor
Federal government is obligated to honor such a marriage, so why would
same-sex marriage be any different.
In point of fact the Presbyterians have presided over a number of
same-sex marriages in places such as Cincinnati, OH, where such
marriage is not recognized by the government, and such action has not
forced such recognition upon the government.
The government has taken it upon itself to decide what constitutes
"marriage" and the courts have upheld its power to do so, so what
various religions decide to do is irrelevant.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:19 am
From: "J. Clarke"
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
> news:Xns9B4F4DCF1DE34ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
>> zzpat added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights
>>> away from a minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>>>
>>> Which group will these nuts target next?
>>>
>>> I'm ashamed of my country. We're bigger than this.
>
>
>> What "rights"?
>
> The conservative California supreme court said we had the right.
>
>
>> Show me where the right to dork your partner is
>> condoned by the people of the United States,
>
> Whether the majority of people damn or condone something is beside
> the
> point. Democracy is not about majority rule.
Well, actually it is. This is one of the reasons that the United
States was not set up to be a democracy.
>> besides which there is a far bigger law involved here - that of God
>> Almighty who says that marriage is a union of one man and one woman
>
> It is? David had multiple wives.
Well, now, there he has you--David worshipped some fellow with a
four-letter Hebrew name and if you had mentioned "God Almighty" to him
he would have figured you were talking about some one of those weird
deities that the pagan outlanders worshipped.
>> and that the actions of queers is an abomination. Last time I
>> looked,
>> religious law trumped non-existent civil law.
>
> Not in this country. Read the 2nd Amendment.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the existence of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed"? What does that have to do with religious law trumping or
not trumping non-existent civil law?
> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
> legitimate
> e-mail address.
Well, dealing with people who take the Second Amendment as an
expression of religious freedom, I don't blame him.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:03 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
> Well, dealing with people who take the Second Amendment
> as an expression of religious freedom, I don't blame him.
I goofed. I meant First, of course.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: For Sale: Premodded Video Game Consoles, Backups & Retro Stuff
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/375f69cd8a96f6fb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:24 am
From: wmic71@yahoo.com
We're a video game specialist and wholesaler for modded consoles,
retro consoles and game backups, we ship worldwide. Below are some of
our offerings at wholesale prices. For any enquiries, please feel free
to contact us at gamersparadisemy@gmail.com
Sony Playstation 3 - 40GB Pack (NTSC/U & NTSC/J versions available)
comes with two dual shock 3 controllers and Hori cooling fan.
USD 350 (with worldwide shipping)
XBOX 360 Elite (with HDMI)
– 120GB Pack (NTSC/U & NTSC/J) comes with two controllers and Nyko
cooling fan.
Modded and able to run XBOX 360 backups, homebrew softwares and able
to go online via XBOX Live.
USD 400 (with worldwide shipping)
XBOX 360 Premium (with HDMI, free 2 ori games, Forza 2 and Viva
Pinata)
– 20GB Pack (NTSC/U & NTSC/J) comes with two controllers and Nyko
cooling fan.
Modded and able to run XBOX 360 backups, homebrew softwares and able
to go online via XBOX Live.
USD 330 (with worldwide shipping)
XBOX 360 Core (without HDD and HD cable, only composite video)
– (NTSC/U & NTSC/J) comes with 1 controller.
Modded and able to run XBOX 360 backups, homebrew softwares and able
to go online via XBOX Live.
USD 260 (with worldwide shipping)
Nintendo Wii - (NTSC/U & NTSC/J) comes with two controllers and Nyko
cooling fan.
Modded and able to run Nintendo Wii backups and homebrew softwares.
USD290 (with worldwide shipping)
Sony PS2 - (NTSC/U & NTSC/J) comes with two controllers and Nyko
cooling fan.
Modded and able to run PS2 backups and homebrew softwares.
USD140 (with worldwide shipping)
Sony PSP with 4GB MSPD
Able to run PSP backups and homebrew softwares.
USD180 (with worldwide shipping)
Nintendo NDS Lite with R4 (2GB MiniSD card included)
Able to run NDS backups and homebrew softwares
USD180 (with worldwide shipping)
*** Remarks: All modded consoles come with 5 backups of your choice
whereas for portables, they will come with 5-10 preloaded games of
your choice on the memory card.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XBOX 360 / Wii / PS2 Backups,
USD2 each (dvd-r), USD3 each (factory pressed gold disc) – minimum
order of 10 games needed.
NDS / PSP Roms
USD2 per game, burnt on dvd-r, USD5 for any 3 games burnt on dvd-r
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Used Retro Consoles, Original Games & Backups
(Please email us for the best price, we have many used retro consoles
and games in stock, all in perfect condition, sourced from Shibuya,
Japan)
Neo Geo Cart (Original Games Only)
Neo Geo CD
PSX
SNES (CD Backup Machine with complete SNES roms)
N64 (CD Backup Machines with complete N64 roms)
Sega Saturn
Sega Dreamcast
Sega Megadrive
Sega Game Gear (Original Games Only)
Sega 32X (Original Games only)
Panasonic 3DO
Atari Jaguar (Original Games Only)
PC Engine (Backups Only For CD Version)
XBOX
Gameboy Advance
Gameboy Micro
Atari Jaguar (Original Games Only)
Gamers Paradise Sdn. Bhd.
LG 148, Sungai Wang Plaza,
Jalan Bukit Bintang,
55100 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
gamersparadisemy@gmail.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: P & S cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:18 am
From: "J. Clarke"
David J Taylor wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>>> .. and you may find that six months after the particular P&S has
>>> been
>>> introduced, that the adapters and converters you wanted to buy are
>>> no
>>> longer available. It takes much longer to screw-on and unscrew
>>> these
>>> add-ons than changing the typical bayonet lens - you may have to
>>> dig
>>> into the menus and tell the camera what you've done as well. Been
>>> there, done that with both types of camera.
>>
>> A lot of them seem to have a 52mm thread.
>
> .. but would you want to buy 3rd-party adapters? From the reports
> I've seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without
> them, as my previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm
> (35
> mm eq.) cameras. About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
Depends on the third party. My Panasonic will take Canon auxiliary
lenses and some Canon models will take the Panasonic converters.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:36 am
From: albert grast
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:45:37 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>[]
>>> .. and you may find that six months after the particular P&S has
>>> been
>>> introduced, that the adapters and converters you wanted to buy are
>>> no
>>> longer available. It takes much longer to screw-on and unscrew
>>> these
>>> add-ons than changing the typical bayonet lens - you may have to dig
>>> into the menus and tell the camera what you've done as well. Been
>>> there, done that with both types of camera.
>>
>> A lot of them seem to have a 52mm thread.
>
>.. but would you want to buy 3rd-party adapters? From the reports I've
>seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without them, as my
>previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm (35 mm eq.) cameras.
>About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
>
>Cheers,
>David
Again he can only parrot what he might have read somewhere at some time about
some thing he's never used nor owned.
And again he's 100% wrong. :-)
Watch him bitch and moan and complain about something that he's never used and
something faster and easier than changing DSLR glass, yet he'll never lodge a
complaint about having to screw on filters on a DSLR lens. LOL
What a hypocritical double-standard ignoramus.
You are such a vast fount of valuable knowledge and expert opinions when you
expose just how little you know about real cameras and real photography. LOL
Anyone taking advice from you is a major fool.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:39 am
From: Gary Lursen
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 20:49:05 +1100, Elmo von Thud <damnspam@sham.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:01:25 -0000, <michaelk@fromCardiff.com> wrote:
>
>>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses.
>
>[sneep]
>
>What are these B&S cameras? It's all very mysterious.
>
>Elmo
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 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 4:57 am
From: "David J Taylor"
J. Clarke wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> .. but would you want to buy 3rd-party adapters? From the reports
>> I've seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without
>> them, as my previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm
>> (35
>> mm eq.) cameras. About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
>
> Depends on the third party. My Panasonic will take Canon auxiliary
> lenses and some Canon models will take the Panasonic converters.
Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens than
anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like not
being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....
Cheers,
David
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:38 am
From: Adler Robinson
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:57:55 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>J. Clarke wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>[]
>>> .. but would you want to buy 3rd-party adapters? From the reports
>>> I've seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without
>>> them, as my previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm
>>> (35
>>> mm eq.) cameras. About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
>>
>> Depends on the third party. My Panasonic will take Canon auxiliary
>> lenses and some Canon models will take the Panasonic converters.
>
>Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
>one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens than
>anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
>supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like not
>being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....
>
>Cheers,
>David
Holy fuck, yet another amazingly moronic comment from the virtual-photographer
trolls.
Do tell why you'd want to use the camera-lens' full zoom range when a converter
lens is only intended to be used for extra focal-lengths for part of that zoom
range. Are you this phenomenally stupid and ignorant about camera functions,
lenses, and how to use both for photography? (You already answered that.)
You don't put on a 0.25x adapter on a 38-190mm zoom lens and then expect to use
it for more than 9.5mm to 38mm range. Meaning you don't zoom in to more than
the152mm focal-length on the camera's own lens. Plus you actually want
vignetting at the widest-angle 180-degree fish-eye view. You buy it specifically
for that effect.
You don't put on a 1.7x adapter and expect to use it for anything less than a
190mm to 323mm range. Meaning you don't zoom out to wide-angle any more than the
112mm focal-length setting on the camera's lens with the converter attached. You
never need to zoom out to where vignetting would occur. The camera's own lens
picks up at those focal-lengths long before you need to use it where the
teleconverter would show vignetting.
You are the most amazingly stupid and ignorant morons that I've ever had the
displeasure to read from. Your ignorant and inexperienced advice NEVER applies
to ANY photography application in real world situations. Always proving, without
a doubt, that none of you ever really use any REAL cameras and lenses.
I'd give you tips about which manufacturer's converter lenses work best with
which cameras (a converter lens from the same company is rarely the best match
for their own cameras, surprising but true), but I'd hate to educate you and
then have you parrot the information wrongly again, as you do with everything
else that you read on the net.
Your only expertise in life appears to be spewing misinformation as often as you
can. You can't help it. You can't comprehend even the most basic principles of
optics and photography so there's no way that you can remember to retell it
right the next time. Every last one of your comments are self-evident of that
simple fact.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:12 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <pceRk.84476$E41.10712@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...
> Perhaps you're lucky. I've just tried all the compact cameras in the
> house, and they /all/ show blurring when they are rotated in a dark
> environment - as if you were panning.
Have you tried setting them to a short exposure time, for instance
1/100s? It would seem that the motion blur emulation was activated with
your cameras.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:23 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <lheRk.84480$E41.81898@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...
> It's a pity, because it was a camera I was really looking forward to. The
> size and weight put me off. I suppose its zoom must be similar to the
> 16-85mm VR lens I have now (no IS/VR on the Sony, of course), and I do
> find that a good range.
It's quite likely that the lens of the R1 is better than the Nikon 16-
85. Almost sure for what concerns vignetting and quite likely for what
concerns resolution.
> It's nice to be able to quickly swap to the
> 70-300mm VR (105-450mm 35mm equivalent FoV) for those distant shots,
> though. That's an 18.75:1 zoom range.
I hate swapping the lens, because dust could come into the body. It's a
bit tough holding the body down so that dust (hopefully) won't come in
and at the same time holding two lenses with the mount side down,
quickly so that dust won't come onto the lens lid etc. Some places are
quite dusty. Over 99% of the time I use the CZ16-80.
> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
These cameras have all different resolutions, so you can't directly
compare the lenses. But the CZ16-80 has some ugly, non-correctable
vignetting when you use it with a polariser filter (and I bought a slim
one). Which means that a number of images have to be edited manually
with the copy tool (overwrite the blackened sky corners with parts of
sky which have a normal brightness).
The 8080 had no such problems and the images of the R1 could all be
corrected during the RAW conversion, but the vignetting of the CZ16-80
is simply too strong.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:26 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <pceRk.84476$E41.10712@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>
>> Perhaps you're lucky. I've just tried all the compact cameras in the
>> house, and they /all/ show blurring when they are rotated in a dark
>> environment - as if you were panning.
>
> Have you tried setting them to a short exposure time, for instance
> 1/100s? It would seem that the motion blur emulation was activated
> with your cameras.
I tried that by setting the flash to "on", and it made no difference on
most cameras. With the Panasonic FZ20, setting the exposure to 1/1000s
resulted in the display being invisible in dark conditions, with the Nikon
8400 the lag and blurring were unchanged at 1/3000s exposure. In the very
low light, the sensor needs a longer exposure to create a sufficiently
acceptable image for display.
Of more concern, to be honest, was the visible delay between the subject
movement and the movement portrayed on the LCD display. This was
noticeable even in bright lighting conditions on some of the cameras.
Cheers,
David
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:53 am
From: clayton J
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 14:23:50 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <lheRk.84480$E41.81898@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>Taylor says...
>
>> It's a pity, because it was a camera I was really looking forward to. The
>> size and weight put me off. I suppose its zoom must be similar to the
>> 16-85mm VR lens I have now (no IS/VR on the Sony, of course), and I do
>> find that a good range.
>
>It's quite likely that the lens of the R1 is better than the Nikon 16-
>85. Almost sure for what concerns vignetting and quite likely for what
>concerns resolution.
>
>> It's nice to be able to quickly swap to the
>> 70-300mm VR (105-450mm 35mm equivalent FoV) for those distant shots,
>> though. That's an 18.75:1 zoom range.
>
>I hate swapping the lens, because dust could come into the body. It's a
>bit tough holding the body down so that dust (hopefully) won't come in
>and at the same time holding two lenses with the mount side down,
>quickly so that dust won't come onto the lens lid etc. Some places are
>quite dusty. Over 99% of the time I use the CZ16-80.
>
>> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
>
>These cameras have all different resolutions, so you can't directly
>compare the lenses. But the CZ16-80 has some ugly, non-correctable
>vignetting when you use it with a polariser filter (and I bought a slim
>one). Which means that a number of images have to be edited manually
>with the copy tool (overwrite the blackened sky corners with parts of
>sky which have a normal brightness).
>The 8080 had no such problems and the images of the R1 could all be
>corrected during the RAW conversion, but the vignetting of the CZ16-80
>is simply too strong.
You've never heard of filter step-up rings that allow you to use larger filters
on your cameras? They cost about $4-5 from reputable dealers. I always buy
oversized filters so I may use the same ones on all my cameras. I have to travel
light and for great distances with minimal equipment and still provide for the
most adaptable "anything can happen" configurations. I use the step-up rings on
the cameras with smaller filter-thread diameters. No vignetting ever, no matter
how many that you need to stack.
You people seriously need some remedial photography classes ... or something.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 500D and 70-200 For Macro
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e68bd9da7d399770?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:25 am
From:
anthony_grimmens <agrimmens@wouldntyouliketoknow.org> wrote:
>You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
>and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
>your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
That's perfectly correct.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 5:25 am
From:
anthony_grimmens <agrimmens@wouldntyouliketoknow.org> wrote:
>You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
>and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
>your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
That's perfectly correct.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:01 am
From: RaymondD
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 13:25:07 +0000, <barack_o_bugger@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> You'll need an exceptionally small penis with a small set of nuts
> and a giant chip on your shoulder to make
> your efforts worth anyone's viewing time.
>
Have you ever stopped to wonder why you're the only one that mentions
male genitalia when you imagine that you are engaged in a conversation
with another male?
Really, think about it. Ask yourself why those are always some of the foremost
topics in your own mind when addressing others, and is not a consideration in
the mind of anyone else.
The rest of us already know why these topics are always on your mind, now it's
just a matter of you trying to figure it out.
What a sad little closet-case that you are. Overtly obvious, but sad. You so
desperately keep trolling for masculine involvement on the internet but it'll
never fill that gaping closet-case hole of yours.
Try to find what you are after in real life then you don't have to be such an
obvious close-case troll on the internet.
Do try to stay on topic and not let your unfulfilled homosexual needs get in the
way of that, would you?
That's a good chap.
Thanks.
We'll all appreciate it.
Why oh why do these insecure closet-cases try to use the internet to come out of
the closet. I can only guess because it's the safest way for them. Nobody in
their personal life has to know who they are. How pathetically and immaturely
sad. The people that I know who are gay and secure with their lives just look
down on these kinds of insecure fools with a glance of abject pity. How
pathetically sad.
And now, back to something photography related ....
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 1248 mm challenge
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:17 am
From: "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
Assertions:
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.)
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)
3. .... Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the
best DSLR glass ever made.
The chance to prove these assertions is coming up around November 13:
photograph the full moon with your DSLR or P&S. Only camera lenses
and teleconverters allowed; no telescopes. Do your best to match
1248 mm (35mm equivalent). The test is with HAND HELD imaging only.
Then post a link to your results for everyone to compare.
Any images within a day or so of full moon will do. Tell us
your equivalent focal length, and exposure time. No up scaling;
show the full resolution image, and a single image with no stacking.
Exposure times you can expect at ISO 200:
1/500 sec f/8, 1/250 f/5.6, 1/125 f/4, 1/60 f/2.8.
Exposure times will vary depending on how close to full moon you image.
Here is my entry: DSLR at 1000 mm, 1.3x crop factor camera giving
1300 mm (35 mm) equivalent.
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon.rnclark.handheld.c10.25.2007.jz3f6583f-8s-800.html
Roger
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sometimes DSLRs achieve comical/pathetic results
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e8507563c32175c6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 6:17 am
From: Stephen Henning
I was on safari in Kruger in South Africa. I had a Minolta Super-Zoom
and another fellow had two Nikons including one with a very looong
telephoto lens. He didn't get very many shots, but his wife had many
bumps on her head. He had his loooong lens on a monopod. When he tried
to swing his loooong lens around he would inevitably hit his wife in the
head with it. Then it would be the wrong focal length. We got
extremely close to many of the animals, especially the cats. He had to
have a second camera for the closer shots. When his wife wasn't getting
banged in the head with the looong lens, she was holding it so that he
could use the camera with a shorter zoom lens. He didn't have time to
change lens, he just had to switch cameras. Several times our guide
stopped just below Leopards that were lying on a branch in a tree. He
missed some of the best shots. I know his cameras were much better than
mine, but they didn't get him very many good shots. I hope his marriage
survived.
I use my shots mostly for presentations with digital projectors, so most
of the super resolution is not useable. Several have been published in
magazines, so that I do try to get good resolution when I can. In my
case, the super zoom was much more effective. I also try to get at
least 4 good shots of each subject so that when I am doing my programs,
I don't dwell on the same photo very long but use the Ken Burns effect
and move right along. With the super zoom I can get lots of good shots
off. My wife was able to use her own camera and get some good shots of
her own.
Bigger isn't always better.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment