Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Red Drool
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/485e826a7c4e7569?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 4:34 am
From: "Evad Remlu"

Red cameras?

See:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/more-red-scarlet-and-epic-pics-sure-to-induce-drool/

I love to see an American company trash the camera status quo.

Enjoy!

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:06 am
From: "Evad Remlu"

OOps there's more:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/reds-digital-still-and-motion-camera-system-now-official/

WOW!

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:56 am
From: "Me Here"

"Evad Remlu" <mrmsatellite@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:gfh6s0$bvh$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Red cameras?
>
> See:
> http://www.engadget.com/2008/11/13/more-red-scarlet-and-epic-pics-sure-to-induce-drool/
>
> I love to see an American company trash the camera status quo.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> ER
>
Hmmmm, a year until delivery, USD $12,000 for a 24 mp non-dSLR body in
either Nikon or Canon mount. Note that does NOT include the EVF, it's just
the sensor module. But add the EVF ($3K) the battery ($450), the CF Module
($500) to the recorder and the I/O module (no price found)

So for about USD $20K you have a big bulky 24x36mm 24 megapixel with no
lens. The unti is around the size of a Mamiya RZ67, and looks cumbersome to
use.

AND IT IS NOT A dSLR!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d7789e423256930a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:33 am
From: Steve

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:50:30 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com>
wrote:

>Steve wrote:
>
>>
>> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
>
>er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
>the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
>similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has

To satisfy my boundless curiosity, I just did a little experiment
while I was thinking about this. I grabbed the closest "analog" zoom
lens, which just happened to be the Nikon DX 12-24mm, and tried to see
just what kind of manual dexterity my fingers were capable of.

I set the zoom ring all the way to one stop and then, making sure that
it at least moved a tiny bit, moved it as little as I could over and
over, counting as I went, but with being fairly quick about it. By
fairly quick, I mean I didn't want to take all day so I was averaging
maybe 2 tiny moves per second. My technique was straightforward...
Just use the fingers of one hand to turn the zoom ring and the fingers
of the other hand holding the lens halfway over the zoom ring and half
off it, on the barrel. That way, I could feel and count the little
moves as the ring turned against the barrel.

I won't say what my results were right away because you should really
try this for yourself. I'll just say that I was fairly astounded at
just how many "steps" I was able to achieve.

Steve

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:05 am
From: RickBaynes

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:33:26 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:50:30 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Steve wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>>> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>>> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>>> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>>> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>>> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
>>
>>er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
>>the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
>>similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has
>
>To satisfy my boundless curiosity, I just did a little experiment
>while I was thinking about this. I grabbed the closest "analog" zoom
>lens, which just happened to be the Nikon DX 12-24mm, and tried to see
>just what kind of manual dexterity my fingers were capable of.
>
>I set the zoom ring all the way to one stop and then, making sure that
>it at least moved a tiny bit, moved it as little as I could over and
>over, counting as I went, but with being fairly quick about it. By
>fairly quick, I mean I didn't want to take all day so I was averaging
>maybe 2 tiny moves per second. My technique was straightforward...
>Just use the fingers of one hand to turn the zoom ring and the fingers
>of the other hand holding the lens halfway over the zoom ring and half
>off it, on the barrel. That way, I could feel and count the little
>moves as the ring turned against the barrel.
>
>I won't say what my results were right away because you should really
>try this for yourself. I'll just say that I was fairly astounded at
>just how many "steps" I was able to achieve.
>
>Steve

It doesn't matter how many that you get on any lens. You forgot to add in that
93-97% error factor in the FOV of your OVF. No matter how many "zoom steps" that
you have you'll never be able to use them to frame and compose your image
properly. This is what primarily drives the DSLR owner to buy more megapixels.
They always have to crop every photo that they take before it is presentable.
All those extra pixels that they dearly paid for always wasted due to that
inaccurate OVF. A DSLR's innacurate OVF can cause the difference between a
useful 12megapixels and the wasted excess of 14megapixels due to inherent
framing errors in that camera's optical design. In the earlier digital-days that
would be like throwing away a whole sensor's worth of pixels.

Isn't it fun when one test reveals the huge drawbacks of another part of your
favorite camera? I found it quite amusing.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:33 am
From: Steve

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 08:05:04 -0600, RickBaynes
<rbaynes@yourmailnotwanted.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:33:26 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 19:50:30 -0500, "H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "all intents and purposes" "pretty much" is not the seamless range
>>>> that a DSLR gives. So even the high-end super zoom "P&S" (and I put
>>>> P&S in quotes because once you get to that level, DSLRs are just as
>>>> much a P&S as those bulky cameras) can't match the seamless zoom range
>>>> of a DSLR. DSLR zoom range is analog, i.e., seamless. P&S zoom range
>>>> has discrete steps, i.e., not seamless.
>>>
>>>er .. It also depends on the resolution a human hand/fingers can move
>>>the 'seamless' zoom with, along with the precision. Your argument is
>>>similar to that analog tape is better than an audio CD because CD has
>>
>>To satisfy my boundless curiosity, I just did a little experiment
>>while I was thinking about this. I grabbed the closest "analog" zoom
>>lens, which just happened to be the Nikon DX 12-24mm, and tried to see
>>just what kind of manual dexterity my fingers were capable of.
>>
>>I set the zoom ring all the way to one stop and then, making sure that
>>it at least moved a tiny bit, moved it as little as I could over and
>>over, counting as I went, but with being fairly quick about it. By
>>fairly quick, I mean I didn't want to take all day so I was averaging
>>maybe 2 tiny moves per second. My technique was straightforward...
>>Just use the fingers of one hand to turn the zoom ring and the fingers
>>of the other hand holding the lens halfway over the zoom ring and half
>>off it, on the barrel. That way, I could feel and count the little
>>moves as the ring turned against the barrel.
>>
>>I won't say what my results were right away because you should really
>>try this for yourself. I'll just say that I was fairly astounded at
>>just how many "steps" I was able to achieve.
>>
>>Steve
>
>It doesn't matter how many that you get on any lens. You forgot to add in that
>93-97% error factor in the FOV of your OVF. No matter how many "zoom steps" that

Apparently you're not smart enough to know what an error factor is. I
think you mean 93-97% coverage. Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that
have 100% coverage. So using your illogical logic so evident in that
BS list you keep trolling, if there's one camera in a category with
any particular positive trait, that extends to all cameras in that
category. So that proves you wrong yet again, using your own logic. I
find that quite amusing.

>you have you'll never be able to use them to frame and compose your image
>properly. This is what primarily drives the DSLR owner to buy more megapixels.

Just because YOU say YOU are incapable of framing and composing YOUR
images using an OVF doesn't mean other people can't. Everyone already
knows you're just a hack with no photographic skills.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:32 am
From: Thatch Hudson

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 14:33:43 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

> Of course, there are DSLR OVF's that have 100% coverage.

Only one D/SLR camera has ever existed in the world of photography with a full
100% OVF coverage, the Sony A900.

Unless you own one of these then the rest of your claims are just self-deluded
wishful thinking on your part. Sorry, but facts is facts.

This camera was specifically engineered to address that nagging and annoying
problem that professionals have had to deal with for decades upon decades.
Camera makers refused to address this issue due to the precision and refinements
required to pull it off properly.

Now, if they could only do something about that god-awful low-light performance
of all OVFs then they might finally start to approach the usefulness of a good
EVF. It still won't allow them to relay real-time shutter-speed effects, overlay
live histograms, under/over-exposure area alerts, DOF and focal-length
information, custom cropping and framing grids, etc., etc., but at least it'll
be one small step in the right direction.

Hopefully by then they'll have realized their folly and abandon the SLR design
altogether in favor of a more accurate and useful leaf-shutter system with a
highly functional and adaptable EVF that performs well under all lighting
conditions. I believe some camera designers are doing just that. Some people,
who are forever trying to justify their expensive and inaccurate DSLR purchase
by putting down all other cameras, wrongly call them "P&S" cameras.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:07 am
From: John McWilliams

Atheist Chaplain wrote:
> "gregory blaine" <greggoryb@keepyourspam.net> wrote in message
> news:av5oh4llgc0n8na1lt2th73433j5angmd9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:37:02 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
> <tiresomely repeated cut and past removed>
>
> so that's the extent of your knowledge, a cut and past argument, and a
> name change every other post, seems the one here who is the troll would
> be you. but your probably to stupid to even realise it.
> http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
>

Please, you're giving trolls a bad name by referring to Vern and his
thousand socks as such.

He is successfully trolling Steve, SMS and a few others, but they have
said they'll stop. For everyone else, he's but a minor pest.

Please! No replies!

Do paste in the drivel as a reply, pest.

--
lsmft

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Truth About Resident-Trolls Re: The truth about Sunny 16 (
misleading information posted by "Vern") Re: P&S V DSLR debate here
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d9743709abcda6dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:44 am
From: Steve

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 05:59:35 -0600, KD-Grande
<kdgrande@notworththebother.org> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:59:46 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> the dead-mouse was
>still thrashing around and managed to squeak the following before expiring:
>
>>You see, I have the original .NEF file from the camera and Image
>>Authentication was turned on when I shot it.
>
>I like that new feature where it detects what filters you have on your lens and
>what color socks you wore.

As usual, you missed the salient point that proves you're full of BS
when you snipped the following from the post you replied to:

>I'll even recreate a similar shot for you without
>any ND filter just so you can be sure that I'm not lying when I say
>there was no filter other than a UV filter (which just happens to be a
>Hoya Super Pro1 UV(0) 77mm) used on that shot.

So, are you willing to put up?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:58 am
From: John McWilliams

savvo wrote:
> On 2008-11-13, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Ps. Did you catch the moon just after sunset? Twas the biggest over the
>> hills of the East Bay I've ever seen.
>
> You foolish amateur. Were you to use the 2km f/1 lens available on the
> typical compact came(*&^($R CARRIER LOST

Ooooops! By catch in this case I meant, "Got a glimpse of", not
captured. Had I wished to capture, I would have hauled out my Big Red
system for mega video, sorted through the 4800 frames for the best still
capture. Well, maybe not.

--
john mcwilliams

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printer (and laptop) preferences?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bf598c8109289ef5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:49 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Longfellow" <not@this.address> wrote in message
news:suKdnZflcbV7_obUnZ2dnUVZ_ozinZ2d@posted.olypeninternet...

>
> I read a lot of good things about the Canon printers. And then I read
> that the HP B9180 just blows the Canons out of the water when it comes
> to print quality. I've never had a Canon printer, but I've had several
> HP printers and have had excellent service from each one.

I'm not what you'd call a photographer, more of someone that does
photography
amonst other things. A friend has a canon S900 A4 phot printer and sh;es
very pleased
with it reliability and just uses it for printing photos, she hasn't had
many problems with it
compared to my epson 1270 which keeps clogging up. Although it was better
behaved when I left it on 24/7. So my next photo printer might well be a
canon or HP.

>
> What printer do you use? What laptop do you find a) most useful, b)
> most reliable?

Personally I wouldn't choose a laptop unless I really needed the
portability.
I'd also go for a Mac probbaly an iMac 24" or maybe 20" if I wanted to carry
it betweeen rooms.

> I'm also currently leaning to the HP
> Pavilion laptops, probably the 17" (although I really dislike the metal
> finish!).

I often wonder why so many opt for a laptop like it's such an easy choice.
I tend to think it's the I need a plasma 40" TV type.

I'd choose a Mac for relibility both sotware and hardware sure tehy can go
wrong,
but PCs seem to have more problems from viruses. Macs seem more expensive
but it's difficult comparing like with like.
I simulated a disc crash on my Mac. I was using time machijne the new backup
software
that comes with Leopard OS and I had my Mac back up and running in under
4 hours including installing everything, and it was all dome with pretty
much one mouse click
and I wnet off and did something else for 3 hours.
I work with PCs too so I know what a opin they can be to get back to a
working state,
and for some time=money.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 5:52 am
From: tomm42

On Nov 12, 6:16 pm, Longfellow <n...@this.address> wrote:
> I'm asking about printer preferences in this forum (rather than in
> comp.periph.printers) because I want to know about the experiences and
> preferences of photographers specifically.
>
> I bought an Epson 2200 when it was the only pigment ink game in town.
> Quit using it when I couldn't get it to stay unclogged without using it
> continuously 24/7; it would clog in the space of less than a day! Gave
> up printing entirely. Was shooting slide film, which I was scanning for
> prints as an option. Finally consigned the entire mess to the local
> dump, fully packed in its shipping box with the unused roll accessary
> and all!
>
> But now I've gone digital, which means that prints are the reasonable
> end result. And now I've got to choose a printer. Again!! Argh!
>
> No more Epsons, and I don't care if they ever start using replaceable
> heads, because they are no longer the only game in town. Which leaves
> me the Canon and the HP (unless there is yet another photo printer
> manufacturer about which I know nothing at all) between which to make a
> choice. The blurbs are useless. The reviews are suspect; what to they
> actually reflect? Soreheads and fanatics?
>
> I read a lot of good things about the Canon printers. And then I read
> that the HP B9180 just blows the Canons out of the water when it comes
> to print quality. I've never had a Canon printer, but I've had several
> HP printers and have had excellent service from each one.
>
> I understand that fast and quiet is important for many people, but not
> so important for me. What I'm looking for is bullet-proof reliability
> and quality of image. Eventually, the option of using a range of media
> may become relevant, but not at the moment.
>
> I've considered the dye printer, but the idea of having colors knock my
> eyeballs out the back of my head somehow just doesn't appeal to me :)
> So I guess that pigment prints is that choice already made. Which leads
> me to my second question:
>
> What choices of laptops have been made, and what experiences had?
> Here's why I ask: I know little or nothing about Microsoft and Apple
> software products, having always used one or another *NIX operating
> system and software. I will not trust either to a network gateway,
> which means that my LAN system is a mixture of GNU/Linux and one or
> another descendent of Berkeley's BSD UNIX. Problem with all that is
> that software choices are limited (duh...)
>
> I've used the GNU Gimp with great success, but it currently has a
> limitation that cannot be countenanced: it is limited to 8 bit word
> length, which means that it is an unacceptable bottle-neck for image
> quality. I have used Cineprint, a fork of Gimp 1.x for Hollywood types
> that uses 16 bit word lengths, but the printing plugins were pretty
> primitive and I'd really like to step up to something more powerful.
>
> Also, HP says that it will never provide a *NIX driver for the
> B91800, and I've no idea how the Linux drivers work with the Canon
> printers.
>
> All of which means a PC (Mac is probably unacceptably expensive)
> solution, ergo Microsoft stuff. What's now available is MS Vista, about
> which I've heard little that is positive. Nevertheless, it would seem
> that Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom 2 is the way to go, specifically
> because they both handle 16 bit word lengths. I've got a 40D Canon
> which puts out 14 bit words.
>
> I read that Lightroom 2 means that Photoshop Elements is all that
> one needs, and I've been given to understand that all sorts of other
> opinions are the only "truth", so I tend to discount it all. Which
> leaves me having to ask those who have had to deal with all this.
>
> What printer do you use? What laptop do you find a) most useful, b)
> most reliable? What software works best and why? I'm currently leaning
> to the HP because a) I've had good luck with HP, and b) the heads are
> user replaceable and apparently much less hassle to replace than with
> either of the Canon printers. I'm also currently leaning to the HP
> Pavilion laptops, probably the 17" (although I really dislike the metal
> finish!).
>
> Opinions, experiences, all are invited!
>
> Longfellow

Current Epsons have a new head design that minimizes clogging. Owners
of the 3800 report very few clogs. Keep in mind humidity plays a big
factor in head clogs too, Epson's specs I believe are at least 40%
humidity. Again the 3800 seems to have the clog problem solved.
Canon makes a good printer, either the 5100 for a 17 inch or the 9500
for 13 inch. I really prefer the 17 inch as ink costs are about 1/2 as
much as with the small cartridge 13 inch printers. But remember the
big cartridges are far more expensive. I have to replace just 3 of the
12 in my Canon iPF5000 and they will cost $72 a piece, on the other
hand they have been in the printer for a year. So you don't have to
run out every weekend for ink. Also most other carts are at 40% so I
won't have to replace them for a while, very seldom do a lot of carts
empty at the same time. The one problem with the Canon iPF series is
they are big printers, but well built.
I am using an HP B9180 at work, ink costs are the same as the Epson 13
inch but the carts are 27ml instead of 12 or 15ml so they have to be
replaced less frequently. Shop around places like IT Supplies and
Atlex have good prices, sometimes other vendors have sales too.

Tom

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic G1 - some AF numbers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/380eee98b6f748d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:19 am
From: Steve

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:46:14 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>The other major limiting factors for the p&s are:
>- lens range/flexibility. The G1 addresses that, even if there are some
>limitations on the current choices. *If* the format takes off, there
>will be few limitations in the future as Tamron/Sigma/etc jump on board.
>- viewfinder quality/ability to manual focus. The reports on the G1
>viewfinder are fairly promising, but I'll take a wild guess that we are
>still one generation (at least) away from an evf that truly competes
>with a good ovf.
>- AF speed. It seems the G1 has respectable performance there, although
>again I'd like to see what the next round brings.
>
>So, to me, it appears as if the G1 is (almost) the first true 'bridge'
>camera. I'll wait for the second or third, I think..

I think they're going to have to do a little better though, at least
for that price and for what the competition, such as a cheap low-end
DSLR like a D60 brings to the table for $200 less. Not even counting
the lens choices available since this G1 is something fairly new
compared to the Nikon F mount, a few of the specs even in addition to
what you pointed out above (noise, Autofocus, EVF vs OVF for the G1
vs. the D60) are in need of improving if it wants to compete at that
price point:

- Flash sync speed of only 1/160 (G1) compared to 1/200 (D60)
- Flash guide number of 10.5 vs. 12 at ISO 100.

There's other things also, like the CLS system that the D60 supports
with the built in flash as a controller. And why is the Bulb shutter
limited to 8 minutes with the G1? I know that's tiny and nit-picky
and probably will never come up as a limitation in the real world, but
it doesn't make sense. Maybe they'll change that with a future
firmware release.

Yes, those things are tiny nit-picks and you can find things about the
G1 that are a bit better than a D60 also.

But I think a revolutionary new system has to be more than just tiny
nit-picks better than the establishment for it to take hold. This one
is not, and the price is higher.

>> It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
>> factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
>> since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.
>
>I have the feeling it will leap off the shelves, frankly. There have
>been very few truly innovative camera formats of late, and this just
>might be 'the one'. Of course the price will drop, and there will
>probably be some issues with the first few runs of the camera that will
>see its used value drop dramatically also. It's all good, and I wish
>Panasonic and Olympus well in this new venture... Diversity rules!

So do I. Hopefully you're right and this is just the first in a
series and the next few offerings will provide something
revolutionarily better than the cheap DSLRs of today.

It does look interesting as a replacement for a bridge camera. But
even there, the price is over twice as much as a lot of decent bridge
cameras. And I'm not sure you're getting all that much more for that
much more money. Maybe the G2 will be different, or a half price G1.

Steve

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:29 am
From: Dale Donner

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:14:29 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>For those watching this rather interesting camera, Imaging Resource has
>some numbers from a production model.
>
>The G1's AF lag is around 0.35-0.39s.
>
>To put that into perspective, Canon 40D is ~0.13s, Sony A200 ~0.19s,
>Nikon D60 ~0.26s, Olympus E420 ~0.14s...
>
>Not quite up to dslr speed, but not too shabby. Compared to p&s
>cameras, the Oly SP550 is 1.1-1.5s, Pan FZ18 ~0.5s, Canon G9 ~0.6s.
>
>Be interesting to see how the rest of this camera pans out. I'm looking
>forward to having a good hard look at that EVF...

They should have two lists of tests. In daylight and then in low-light
situations where contrast-detection cameras will always win.

Though I fail to understand how autofocus speed is ever a selling point to
someone that knows what they are doing. I never look at nor consider the specs
on autofocus in any camera that I buy, that feature is always last on my list.
Autofocus is insignificant, like buying a camera based on the kind of neckstrap
that comes with it. I'll occasionally use it to get the lens quickly into the
range needed then I take over from there, as any decent photographer should.

I can only guess that for the snapshooter it's very important. Lots of
snapshooters that hope their purchase will turn them into a professional. What a
shame that they are the ones defining the market and designing the next cameras
with their purchases. The real professionals then have to put up with the
end-result of their majority-rules inexperience and no-talent choices in life.
There's something consummately wrong in that mechanism.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:25 am
From: SMS

Steve wrote:

> It does look interesting. But $800??? I would think that by removing
> the mirror box, prism, etc., which simplifies assembly and by going to
> a smaller sensor, they could save some cost over over something like a
> D60 with a similar lens. But it's like $200 more! Oh well.

They don't price it based on how much it costs them to build, they price
it based on how much they think the market will pay.

Maybe they think they have the digital equivalent of a Minox, LOL. It's
the smallest interchangeable lens, relatively large sensor, P&S. Maybe
the market for it is the people that are currently buying tele and
wide-angle adapters for their P&S cameras, and that don't like the
results, but that don't want an SLR because they think it's too complicated.

> And sure, it's smaller. But only slightly. It not small enough to
> replace a pocket P&S so I'm not sure the slightly smaller size and
> weight is worth the extra cost. We're talking about 124x84x45 vs
> 126x94x64 mm in size for the body. And weight is 380g vs 495g for the
> body alone. 630g for the G1 with lens and battery vs. about 730g for
> the D60 with an equivalent lens and battery. So even though it's
> smaller, not enough so to make much difference in terms of
> portability.

This is true. But there's another disadvantage as well. Until micro 4:3
lenses become more available, you'll have to use regular 4:3 lenses with
an adapter. Now you've _really_ lost any size and weight advantage.

> It'll be really interesting to see whether the new "gee whiz" nifty
> factor of the camera is enough for it to compete. I'd wait a bit
> since I suspect you'll see that high price drop quickly.

I suspect it'll be like a Sigma D-SLR. A few people will buy it at the
introductory price, then the price will drop like a rock as Micro 4:3 fails.

If I had $800 to spend on a P&S I'd probably get the Canon SX1 and at
least get that wide-range, but likely mediocre, zoom lens included.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: any body have experience with canon SX100IS?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/def5326f63e17b4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:33 am
From: "Evad Remlu"

The SX100is or SX110is are the most versatile cameras you can buy that fit
in a belt pouch.

"H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote in message
news:6c525$491b9c66$cef8808f$12722@TEKSAVVY.COM-Free...
>
> It is on deal here. I was wondering how it compares with Canon's G9 or G
> series of cameras?
>
> It looks like the SX100IS does hot have a hot shoe, right?
>
> Thanks.
> --
> Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
> one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:06 am
From: Stephen Henning

"H.S." <hAs.saLEmixT@gTHEmail.com> wrote:

> It is on deal here. I was wondering how it compares with Canon's G9 or G
> series of cameras?
>
> It looks like the SX100IS does hot have a hot shoe, right?
>
> Thanks.

No hot shoe.

Hi resolution:

G9 - $500, 12 MP, 35-210 mm, Macro, 1.5 fps, 3" lcd, lithium, 1/2200
sec., optical rangefinder, hot shoe

G10 - $500, 15 MP, 28-140 mm, Macro, 1.3 fps, 3" lcd, lithium, 1/4000
sec., optical rangefinder, hot shoe

Super Zoom:

SX100IX - $250, 8 MP, 36-360 mm, Macro, 1.3 fps, 2.5" lcd, AA, 1/2500,
no viewfinder, no hot shoe

SX110IS - $250, 10 MP, 36-360 mm, Macro, 1.2 fps, 3" lcd, AA, 1/2500, no
viewfinder, no hot shoe

SX10IS - $400, 10 MP, 28-560 mm, Super Macro, 1.4 fps, 2.5" lcd, AA,
1/3200 sec, .23 MP EVF, hot shoe

Notes:

The above is list price, megapixels, zoom, macro, frames per second, lcd
monitor, battery, max shutter speed, rangefinder/electronic viewfinder,
hot shoe.

Zoom quoted is the 35mm equivalent.

Comments:

I consider AA a big advantage. The AA MNiH batteries are cheap,
available everywhere, and rapid chargers are cheap. They have an
excellent capacity. I keep 4 sets in may bag when I travel. Li is
expensive and requires a dedicated charger.

I much prefer either the rangefinder or EVF over the LCD. They use much
less power with lcd turned off and allow more stable hold of camera.
The LCD is great for reviewing pictures already taken.

For this and much more go to:

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/Pow
erShot/#

--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Panasonic Lumix G1 vs. Nikon D60
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2e4c9773d4651ba5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:35 am
From: ASAAR

On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:15:33 -0800 (PST), aniramca@gmail.com wrote:

> I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
> VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
> camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
> good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
> features in the camera? Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
> (Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?

If the kit is complete, that is, if it includes all of the things
normally provided with the camera, it's a good deal. If the D60 is
like all of the Nikon DSLR kits that I've seen, it will include a
battery, a battery charger, cables (A.C., USB, video), manuals and
quick guides (an English and a Spanish version), an errata sheet, an
eyepiece cap, a 1 year warranty for the camera and each lens, and a
4 year warranty extension for each of the lenses.

I just checked B&H's website, and their price for the D60 kit that
includes only the 18-55mm VR lens is $599.95 ($649.95 minus a $50
instant rebate). A way to look at it is that your dealer is giving
you B&H's kit for the same price and adding the 55-200mm lens for
another $50. B&H has a two lens kit for $849.95 (this includes a
$100 instant rebate), but both lenses have VR. Their price for the
55-200mm lenses is $144.95 for the non-VR and $199.95 for the VR
version. So you could buy the two lens kit from your dealer for
$650, buy the VR version of the lens from B&H for $200 and try to
sell the non-VR 55-200mm lens. If you can get more than $50 for it
you'll come out ahead.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 6:58 am
From: tony cooper

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:35:46 -0500, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:15:33 -0800 (PST), aniramca@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I checked the flyer, and it definitely said that only the 18-55mm with
>> VR, NOT the 55-200mm. I guess this sometimes a catch for the sell. The
>> camera body D60 plus 18-55mm VR and 55-200mm is US $650. Is this a
>> good bargain? Can I assume that these lenses work for auto focus
>> features in the camera? Is VR (Vibration Reduction) similar to IS
>> (Image Stabilization) in Canon lenses?
>
> If the kit is complete, that is, if it includes all of the things
>normally provided with the camera, it's a good deal. If the D60 is
>like all of the Nikon DSLR kits that I've seen, it will include a
>battery, a battery charger, cables (A.C., USB, video), manuals and
>quick guides (an English and a Spanish version), an errata sheet, an
>eyepiece cap, a 1 year warranty for the camera and each lens, and a
>4 year warranty extension for each of the lenses.
>
> I just checked B&H's website, and their price for the D60 kit that
>includes only the 18-55mm VR lens is $599.95 ($649.95 minus a $50
>instant rebate). A way to look at it is that your dealer is giving
>you B&H's kit for the same price and adding the 55-200mm lens for
>another $50. B&H has a two lens kit for $849.95 (this includes a
>$100 instant rebate), but both lenses have VR. Their price for the
>55-200mm lenses is $144.95 for the non-VR and $199.95 for the VR
>version. So you could buy the two lens kit from your dealer for
>$650, buy the VR version of the lens from B&H for $200 and try to
>sell the non-VR 55-200mm lens. If you can get more than $50 for it
>you'll come out ahead.

In today's local newspaper, both camera stores in this town are
advertising the D60 at $599 for the body and 18-55, and $149 more for
the 55-200. With the purchase of both, you get a camera bag and some
extra goodies.

The lenses are VR.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:25 am
From: ASAAR

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:58:09 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

> In today's local newspaper, both camera stores in this town are
> advertising the D60 at $599 for the body and 18-55, and $149 more for
> the 55-200. With the purchase of both, you get a camera bag and some
> extra goodies.
>
> The lenses are VR.

With prices are dropping as fast as the Dow it might be best to
wait a while to see how low they go. As I said a couple of replies
back it's a buyer's market, and the holiday shopping season is about
to start.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:35 am
From: SMS

tony cooper wrote:

<snip>

Buydig has it with both VR for $729 and a 4GB card, but no bag.

"http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=NKD60KT2"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: sigma buys foveon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b45194b6b402b71a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:32 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <IYQSk.303$jZ1.244@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> Ah, now I see where you're confused. A digital photograph isn't a
>> random color image. Yes, I'm sure you could create a test image
>> where you'd see a 50% increase in perceived resolution.
>
> There is no confusion at all here. It is very obvious that if you
> sample an image with a sensor which is limited to one colour
> component per pixel and then you reconstruct the image by
> interpolating it, the resulting image will significantly less
> resolution than the nominal pixel count. I don't think there is
> anything to debate about this.

But the eye doesn't /need/ that much colour resolution as it does
luminance resolution. So an image with greater colour resolution than
another may not actually appear that much better.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera shake - quantifying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3513b4241587a4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 7:59 am
From: bugbear

I can find lots of discussions on "circle of confusion"
and "depth of field", and quite a bit on "diffraction limits".

(e.g.
http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html
)

Can anyone point me at a reasonable technical
discussion on camera shake in relation
to pixel errors?

In particular resolution versus shutter speed?

Clearly (!?) a very low res camera (.e.g 640x480)
is much more tolerant of camera shake than a Megavision
(
http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
)

Since camera shake can be reasonably expressed
as angular movement of the camera, the relationship
between pixel count and lens length appears key,
but the maths is beyond me.

I know the old rule says 1/focal length as shutter speed
for hand held, but that rule (it appears to me) ASSUMES
some constant sensor resolution.

Can anyone point me at an analysis?

BugBear

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:22 am
From: Paul Furman

bugbear wrote:
> I can find lots of discussions on "circle of confusion"
> and "depth of field", and quite a bit on "diffraction limits".
>
> (e.g.
> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/tech/dof.html
> )
>
> Can anyone point me at a reasonable technical
> discussion on camera shake in relation
> to pixel errors?
>
> In particular resolution versus shutter speed?
>
> Clearly (!?) a very low res camera (.e.g 640x480)
> is much more tolerant of camera shake than a Megavision
> (
> http://www.findatlantis.com/wiki/index.php/Keeping_it_Sharp
> )
>
> Since camera shake can be reasonably expressed
> as angular movement of the camera, the relationship
> between pixel count and lens length appears key,
> but the maths is beyond me.
>
> I know the old rule says 1/focal length as shutter speed
> for hand held, but that rule (it appears to me) ASSUMES
> some constant sensor resolution.
>
> Can anyone point me at an analysis?

Print size is part of the calculations so the DOF calculators including
that are the place to start. Low-res sensors mean smaller print sizes. I
don't know what number to assign to camera shake, it's different for
each person.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is this the future?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/005781276d8e357a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 13 2008 8:00 am
From: kenny_corrin

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 09:14:25 -0000, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
wrote:

>
>"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:kuGdnfFNpq8EdofUnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> If the Chinese can come up with a zoom lens for a cell phone will
>>> interchangeable-lens cell phones be next?
>>>
>>> http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.10813
>>
>> I liked this comment:
>>
>> Bottomline: It's cheap cheerful and does what it says. If you want quality
>> photos, go spend a few hundred on a proper digital camera.
>
>Ah, but they didnt; say whether it should be a P&S or a DSLR :-)
>
>But I'm guessing they'll be a troll along to tell us that camera phones
>are better and more versatile than either a P&S or DSLR but won;t have any
>pictures to back it up. :-D
>

The only thing that we do know is that you think your chosen camera is going to
make you into a "pro". A real pro would never look down their noses on any kind
of camera. In their hands they can take an award-winning photo with a
camera-phone if they wanted to. No proof is needed. As explained with the
Scientific American article even a 240x180 pixel resolution is good enough for
REAL pros.

What we can also deduce is that you are a photographer-wannabee troll. Asking
for photos as proof online, only leads to people like you then yelling "fake".
There's no winning against a troll's argument. That's why they are trolls.

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Thursday, November 13, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic