Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AA and AAA battery charger problems?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/33805e33ddcdc88a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:19 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"

Ï "John Doe" <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:snWYk.7879$D32.3058@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> Need a charger that will forewarn the failure of AA and AAA (Energizer
> Duracell Kodak) batteries, avoid killing them, or whatever is going
> wrong with my NiMH batteries. Or maybe it's just be a lower number of
> recharge cycles than I expected.
>
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductReview.aspx?Item=N82E16817355014
>
> Are any of the MH-C9000 AA/AAA chargers completely silent? I
> understand why some electronics make noise, but IMO an electronic
> device that isn't intended to produce sound shouldn't be audible.
> (BTW... I realize that question might sound like a troll to a
> Maha/POWEREX fan boy, but I seriously dislike high-pitch device
> noise.)
>
> The next most discussed charger appears to be the La Crosse BC-900.
> Early firmware versions of that one might have had problems with
> overheating? Is the new La Crosse RS900 a better charger, or at least
> guaranteed to be more reliable?
>
> http://www.lacrossetechnology.fr/en/P-16-229--0-D1--rs900-our-
> products-specialized-appliances.html
>
> Anything comparable to those two?
Any microprocessor-controlled charger that individually charges each battery
will do. I have a charger I bought from Lidl www.lidl.gr (or www.lidl.de)
for 20 euros, tronic brand. I have a maglite that probably was left for days
on inside my toolbox. The Sanyo NiMHs were of course toast (I got a blinking
red light on the charger). I could rejuvenate them, however, by interrupting
the circuit, by removing the battery and then connecting it again, to let
the charger make a fresh attempt. After a couple of dozen attempts I got a
steady red light, and the batteries got charged, and work ok now. The one I
wasn't able so far to save was an 9 V NiMH which I used on a water leakage
detector that was left out in the rain, I always get a blinking red light,
even after many attempts, I suspect the water soaked the innards of the
battery.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:06 am
From: John Doe

"Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> wrote:

> I could rejuvenate them, however, by interrupting the circuit, by
> removing the battery and then connecting it again, to let the
> charger make a fresh attempt. After a couple of dozen attempts I
> got a steady red light, and the batteries got charged, and work ok
> now. The one I wasn't able so far to save was an 9 V NiMH which I
> used on a water leakage detector that was left out in the rain, I
> always get a blinking red light, even after many attempts,

After four dozen attempts?

That's the experience I had with Energizer's one-hour charger (the
one with four slots around the center of the charger) and AAA
batteries. Someone here had the same experience with the same
charger (unfortunately, the Google USENET archive server is messed
up so I can't find the posts).

Removing and reinserting the battery dozens of times is for the
birds, IMO. Instead of wasting my money on cheap chargers (Energizer
Duracell Kodak), I probably should have bought an analyzer years
ago.

Good luck.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:41 am
From: SMS

John Doe wrote:
> Someone here had the same experience with the same
> charger (unfortunately, the Google USENET archive server is messed
> up so I can't find the posts).

If you're using Firefox, try using Internet Explorer. There is some
problem with Firefox and Google Groups searches. I.e. if I have the URL
"http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&q=AA+charger&btnG=Search"
in Firefox, it shows that there should be three pages of results, but
none of the results actually show up. In Internet Explorer it works fine.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: When will AA lithium-ion replace NiMH in stores?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/85b8ebeb3c9950b2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:22 am
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:02:17 GMT, John Doe wrote:

>> SMS has utilized sock puppets before, and this looks like another
>> case where he's answering one of his creations. The OP (who
>> doesn't seem to have ever been here before) suddenly appears
>
> Off the top of my head... I posted here about early Energizer an AA
> NiMH battery charger, that it wouldn't charge AAAs. Another time I
> posted about shopping for an inexpensive digital camera. Another
> time I posted about the move from film to digital. And probably
> other times. It's a big group with lots of intelligent people.
>
> I have no idea why it matters, Jack, but there you go.
>
>> and creates two battery threads, one in which he at first appears
>> to be a clueless battery newbie,
>
> Because I didn't know or forgot to consider the cell voltage of
> lithium ion batteries, Jack?
>
>> and another in which he also appears clueless,
>
> Hello troll.
>
>> yet knows about the MH-C9000 and La Crosse RS900 chargers,
>
> It's called "research", Jack.

As I said, you appear to be clueless. With all your research into
batteries and chargers, you don't know Jack. I didn't say that you
definitely were SMS's sock puppet, but there were indications that
you might be one, which I mentioned already. If you aren't, then
you also don't know much about SMS.

As per my reply in your other thread :

>> Need a charger that will forewarn the failure of AA and AAA (Energizer
>> Duracell Kodak) batteries, avoid killing them, or whatever is going
>> wrong with my NiMH batteries. Or maybe it's just be a lower number of
>> recharge cycles than I expected.
>
> A new charger probably won't help. The devices that NiMH cells
> are used in are the real battery killers, if you allow them to
> mistreat the cells.

Both of the above are excellent chargers, but are unlikely to be
of much help. It's extremely unlikely that your current charger
(pa!) is killing your cells. They may show that your NiMH cells are
losing capacity more quickly than normal, but you know that that's
happening already. Focus instead on how you use your NiMH cells.
If you have a pool of NiMH cells that are shared among devices, stop
doing that, at least until you're able to determine what's damaging
your NiMH cells. It may be only one or two of your devices that are
damaging them, so if in the future you use known good NiMH cells and
use each set in only one device, you'll be better able to pinpoint
the device that may be prematurely damaging them.

Each device treats batteries differently. Some are (whether
intentionally or not) designed to shut down when the first NiMH cell
is depleted. This helps to protect all of the cells in that device.
Others can operate at lower voltages, and can continue operating
when one cell is completely exhausted, which will rapidly shorten
that cell's life. Devices that are much more likely to damage cells
are those that use 3 or more cells (the more they use, the more
likely they are to damage cells), and analog devices such as those
that contain motors, non-digital radios, flashlights that use bulbs
instead of LEDs, etc. In digital cameras that use 4 NiMH AA cells,
it's prudent to recharge them before the battery warning indicator
gives you its first alert.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:48 am
From: Allen

SMS wrote:
> Allen wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> John Doe wrote:
>>>> How long do you think AA and AAA NiMH will remain in retail stores?
>>>
>>> Until 2018.
>>>
>>>> When will AA and AAA nickel metal hydride be replaced with
>>>> lithium-ion AA and AAA batteries?
>>>
>>> Panasonic is designing an AA Li-Ion rechargeable. It's complicated
>>> and expensive because they have to include a buck/boost switching
>>> regulator inside each battery to convert the 3.7 volts to around 1.5
>>> volts during discharge, but to be able to charge them from a standard
>>> NiMH charger. They expect the cells to sell for about $18 each for a
>>> 3000 mAH cell. They could get a higher amp-hour rating, but a lot of
>>> space inside each cell is used by the circuitry. The prototypes
>>> worked okay, but occasionally explode and catch fire during recharging.
>
>> I don't believe I'll be interested.
>
> Sorry, it was an early April Fool's response to a troll.
Got me! SMS, 1---Allen, 0.
Allen

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:57 am
From: SMS

John Doe wrote:

> Because I didn't know or forgot to consider the cell voltage of
> lithium ion batteries, Jack?

Sorry about that, there's so many trolls and sock puppets in this group
lately, and this question has been posed so many times, that I
mistakenly assumed the worst, especially since you're using a pseudonym.
I apologize.

In reality, AA _sized_ Li-Ion cells _do_ exist already. The problem is
that they aren't interchangeable with standard AA cells except in
limited circumstances (where the device can accept higher voltages due
to internal switching regulators with a wide input range). You need to
use a charger designed for them. Obviously these cells need to be
marketed very carefully, but some of them do have internal protection
circuitry to protect against fire or explosion (but they would still
damage many AA powered devices).

If you go to the battery information web site there is more information
about these batteries. Here is an except from the site:

"AA sized Li-Ion cells do exist, but please don't call them AA cells!
The designation is 14500, and they are relatively inexpensive. They have
protection circuitry built in. They need to recharged in a Li-Ion
charger, and the voltage is 3.7V, so they are not interchangeable with
"stnadard" 1.2V to 1.7V AA batteries, except in some devices that have
internal switching regulators. For example, many high end LED
flashlights have internal switching regulators that can accept a wide
range of voltages (they can run off one or two stnadard AA batteries, or
a 3V CR123 battery, or a 14500 battery). In terms of capacity, there is
a slight advantage with these cells, versus low-discharge NiMH cells; a
3.7V, 900mAH cell yields a capacity of 3.33WH, while an AA Sanyo Eneloop
yields a capacity of 2.5WH."

There are links to sources for these batteries and chargers on the web site.

To get to the battery information web site, type "nimh versus li-ion"
into Google's search window and click on "I'm Feeling Lucky" and it'll
take you right there. The direct URL is "http://batterydata.com/".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: e: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 6:27 am
From: Steve

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:09:37 -0600, AllanBriggs
<abriggs@inyourface.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:12:49 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>
>>The claim I am making is this:
>>
>> Compute the pixel pitch in microns.
>> Multiply that number by 1.8. Call the product N.
>>
>> If you stop your lens down beyond (approximately) f/N,
>> you are guaranteeing that you will not be able to use the full
>>resolution of your sensor.
>
>But you imply that that f/stop will always be true. For all DSLR glass no f/stop
>will take full advantage of their sensor's photosite resolution. Even worse if
>that glass is matched against a sensor of even smaller photosites where an even
>smaller unit of measure can reveal even more glaring defects. If the optics are
>not approaching diffraction-limited quality then it cannot define one photosite
>of detail (as is often achieved in most P&S lens+sensor pairings). The best I
>have ever seen in any DSLR sensor + expensive glass is at *least* 2 photosites
>are needed to define an edge of detail. 3-6 photosites being needed is much more
>common with the vast majority of optics available for DSLRs. You don't need

Specious argument. By definition, you *always* need at least 2
photosites to define an edge of detail. And I've seen plenty of
pictures from my 10MP DSLR using several of the lenses I have where
edges are defined by 2.

If you want the math behind it, all you need to do is look at the MTF
of the lens at any particular f-stop, zoom setting, etc., and see if
it's above or below the nyquist frequency of the camera body being
used. If it is, then the lens can over resolve the sensor. If not,
it can't.

Just as a simple example, I was just looking at the review of the
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 on dpreview and they have a nice graphic of the
measured MTF-50 vs. aperture/zoom and plot the nyquist frequency of
their test camera on the graph.

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/page5.asp

You can see by playing with the sliders that this relatively cheap
lens can over resolve the sensor across the entire frame at a rather
limited aperture and zoom setting. Most settings, it can't over
resolve just the corners. Some, it's not as sharp in the center.
Strange but true for this lens. And at other settings, it's under
resolved everywhere. But this relatively cheap DSLR lens can blow
away the performance of any P&S lens. And it can take advantage of
the full resolution of the sensor at some settings.

In reality, most bodies aren't going to be able to resolve at their
nyquist frequency because of the anti-alias filter. So if you move
that line of max theoretical resolution down to where the camera can
actually resolve, the lens is over resolving the sensor at a lot more
of it's zoom and aperture range than you would think by just looking
at those graphs.

>Your calculations still assume that your glass can at least resolve 1-photosite
>of detail at some aperture. That's never going to happen with DSLR's glass and
>their photosite sizes. You know it. I know it. And if anyone is being honest
>with themselves they know it too. Why continue to try to find ways to deceive
>everyone?
>
>Look at any of your DSLR photos taken with even the most expensive L-glass. Do
>any of them have details resolved down to just 1 pixel, consistently, across the
>image, edge to edge, at any aperture setting?
>
>No. Of course not.

Again, you've been proven to be full of crap by even the cheapest
70-200mm f/2.8 DSLR lens you can get.

Steve

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:17 am
From: tomdobson

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:27:52 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:

>
>On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:09:37 -0600, AllanBriggs
><abriggs@inyourface.org> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:12:49 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" <ark@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>>>The claim I am making is this:
>>>
>>> Compute the pixel pitch in microns.
>>> Multiply that number by 1.8. Call the product N.
>>>
>>> If you stop your lens down beyond (approximately) f/N,
>>> you are guaranteeing that you will not be able to use the full
>>>resolution of your sensor.
>>
>>But you imply that that f/stop will always be true. For all DSLR glass no f/stop
>>will take full advantage of their sensor's photosite resolution. Even worse if
>>that glass is matched against a sensor of even smaller photosites where an even
>>smaller unit of measure can reveal even more glaring defects. If the optics are
>>not approaching diffraction-limited quality then it cannot define one photosite
>>of detail (as is often achieved in most P&S lens+sensor pairings). The best I
>>have ever seen in any DSLR sensor + expensive glass is at *least* 2 photosites
>>are needed to define an edge of detail. 3-6 photosites being needed is much more
>>common with the vast majority of optics available for DSLRs. You don't need
>
>Specious argument. By definition, you *always* need at least 2
>photosites to define an edge of detail. And I've seen plenty of
>pictures from my 10MP DSLR using several of the lenses I have where
>edges are defined by 2.

No, I'm not talking about 1 white pixel and one black pixel. I'm talking about
them requiring at least 2 pixels of intermediate values between edges.

>
>If you want the math behind it, all you need to do is look at the MTF
>of the lens at any particular f-stop, zoom setting, etc., and see if
>it's above or below the nyquist frequency of the camera body being
>used. If it is, then the lens can over resolve the sensor. If not,
>it can't.
>
>Just as a simple example, I was just looking at the review of the
>Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 on dpreview and they have a nice graphic of the
>measured MTF-50 vs. aperture/zoom and plot the nyquist frequency of
>their test camera on the graph.
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/page5.asp
>
>You can see by playing with the sliders that this relatively cheap

Right, a widget on a web-page is going to take into account all the variables
during manufacturing where those tolerances aren't maintained in any product off
the line because it costs to much to do so. Hint: A digital lens on a web-page
applet has very little relation to the real thing. It can show how something
*should* work in a perfect situation, but that's as far as it goes.

You live in a virtual world playing with virtual lenses and virtual cameras,
just like all the other idiot arm-chair photographers in this newsgroup.

NO different than your calculation that only works if glass was ground to
diffraction-limited tolerances in all lenses. It doesn't exist in the real world
due to manufacturing costs it would take to attain that.

You keep leaving reality out of your calculations. (out of your life too, no
doubt)

>lens can over resolve the sensor across the entire frame at a rather
>limited aperture and zoom setting. Most settings, it can't over
>resolve just the corners. Some, it's not as sharp in the center.

If it can't do it for all settings then it is not diffraction-limited quality.

>Strange but true for this lens. And at other settings, it's under
>resolved everywhere. But this relatively cheap DSLR lens can blow
>away the performance of any P&S lens. And it can take advantage of
>the full resolution of the sensor at some settings.
>
>In reality, most bodies aren't going to be able to resolve at their
>nyquist frequency because of the anti-alias filter. So if you move
>that line of max theoretical resolution down to where the camera can
>actually resolve, the lens is over resolving the sensor at a lot more
>of it's zoom and aperture range than you would think by just looking
>at those graphs.
>
>>Your calculations still assume that your glass can at least resolve 1-photosite
>>of detail at some aperture. That's never going to happen with DSLR's glass and
>>their photosite sizes. You know it. I know it. And if anyone is being honest
>>with themselves they know it too. Why continue to try to find ways to deceive
>>everyone?
>>
>>Look at any of your DSLR photos taken with even the most expensive L-glass. Do
>>any of them have details resolved down to just 1 pixel, consistently, across the
>>image, edge to edge, at any aperture setting?
>>
>>No. Of course not.
>
>Again, you've been proven to be full of crap by even the cheapest
>70-200mm f/2.8 DSLR lens you can get.
>
>Steve

If it can't do it for all settings then it is not diffraction-limited quality.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:18 am
From: Kenny Andersen

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:28:50 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:09:09 -0600, AlexDules <alexdules@alexdues.edu>
>wrote:
>
><mercy snipping>
>
>
>>>I don't see the relevance if anything it seems to be supporting my position.
>>>
>>
>>Then you are again a total moron.
>>
>>A point source is imaged by an airy-disk. A point-source of light is just a
>>convenient way to see just one single airy-disk. A single airy-disk from a point
>>source of light, whether it is from a star or from the sun reflecting off of a
>>chrome ball-bearing from the other side of a football field, is just a
>>convenient way of analyzing the true resolving power of optics, to determine how
>>close those optics are to being diffraction limited and to assist with alignment
>>of those image forming surfaces. Each bit of light coming off of every point on
>>the surface of an illuminated subject is its own "point source." Any image
>>formed by optics from the surface brightness of any object is comprised of a
>>nearly infinite number of overlapping airy-disks coming from a nearly infinite
>>points on the subject's surface. The size of those airy-disks is what determines
>>your true resolution. The size of those airy-disks is dependent on the physical
>>diameter of the aperture (as you have now finally learned, perhaps). Just the
>>f-ratio alone is meaningless when trying to determine airy-disk size unless also
>>accompanied by either focal-length or aperture measure. Cambridgeincolor's
>>website was written by a complete and total moron who doesn't even comprehend
>>basic optics and light. They should rename their domain to Cambridgeinthedark.
>>They are fools pretending to be professionals. Anyone dealing with them
>>professionally should have their head examined.
>>
>>Go back to kindergarten where you belong. You're clearly never going to ever
>>comprehend any of this. You're wasting the valuable time of people, of which you
>>don't deserve even one more second.
>
>
>More evidence of being educated beyond one's intelligence.
>
>Of course, when you are a legend in your own mind and the rest of the
>world is stupid, anything you say sounds good. To yourself, that is.
>
>Let's see the proof that you actually know what you are talking about.
>A professional portfolio would be a good place to start. Or perhaps
>you can at least tell us where you received your advanced degree in
>physics or optical design?
>
>OBTW, responding to this with your "Dear Resident-Troll" list of
>debunked points only shows that you aren't capable of original
>thought.
>
>Pictures, please. Where have you actually put this theory into
>practice? Dazzle us with your brilliance.
>
>If you are reluctant to do so because your photography skills aren't
>that good, there are many people here who would be more than happy to
>offer you suggestions as to how to improve.
>
>

Dear Resident-Troll,

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

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) 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 telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. 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
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S 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 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses 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, by the obnoxious clattering 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 pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly 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 at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done 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. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

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!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. 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.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
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. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.

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: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:17 am
From: Paul Furman

_________ wrote:
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> __________ wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> ___________ wrote:
>>>>> Stuffed Crust wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After all, if a thumbnail-sized mirror is so much cheaper and better
>>>>>> than one that's a couple meters in diamater by virtue of it being
>>>>>> diffraction-limited, why exactly does anyone bother with large mirrors
>>>>>> in telescopes?
>>>>> ...Nobody ever said that a
>>>>> 1-inch mirror was better, cheaper yes--astronomically cheaper. Better? No....
>>>>> All mirrors (and good refractive optics) are polished to
>>>>> diffraction limits if they are of the best quality, so a 1-inch mirror-lens
>>>>> might have the same quality as a 100-inch lens. That is the base highest-quality
>>>>> rating in the world of astronomy.
>>>>>
>>>>> In telescopes they strive for diffraction-limits in all optics because that is
>>>>> the only thing (in reflective optics) that will create more resolution in their
>>>>> images. The larger the lens that's figured to diffraction-limits, the smaller
>>>>> the airy-disk. Consider the airy-disk one perfect pixel in astronomy. The larger
>>>>> the mirror the smaller the pixels (units of information) on their resulting
>>>>> image. The more units of measure containing clearly-defined information for a
>>>>> given space, the greater the resolution. The larger the optics (if
>>>>> diffraction-limited) the more information.
>>>> Whew, you got it. So you understand why larger sensors can get more
>>>> detail than smaller sensors and why 'diffraction limited' doesn't mean
>>>> much when the smallest detail that can be rendered is big compared to
>>>> the sensor size.
>>> <snipped personal insults>...
>>>
>>> Lesson-1: You have 9 squares 1-inch in size, each containing only one number (go
>>> ahead, write a number in each square it it'll help, but keep the numbers small
>>> so as not to confuse your crippled mind more than it already is). You also have
>>> a larger square the size in area of 9 of those smaller squares put together.
>>> This would be one of those 3" squares that you were told to have ready. It too
>>> can only contain one number (write a number on it within the range of the first
>>> numbers used). Which set of squares has more information contained in them? The
>>> 9 smaller squares or the larger single square?
>> The larger squares have room to write longer numbers. That's the high
>> ISO lesson
>
> No, that's not the high-ISO lesson. You are limited to whatever bit-depth of the
> AD converter. 10, 12, or 14 bit. Some P&S cameras also put out 10, 12, or 14 bit
> RAW files.

Larger sensors count more photons. Each photon contributes to the number
so larger sensors give bigger numbers. I believe bit depth helps with
rounding errors from the A/D converter a tiny little bit but I don't
bother with those very minor differences. Feel free to make any
corrections, I might well be missing something but it seems clear enough.

> I'll not even bother to correct the rest...

Your choice, I explained it pretty clearly so anyone can understand.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:46 am
From: Cal Bickman

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:17:20 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>_________ wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> __________ wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>> ___________ wrote:
>>>>>> Stuffed Crust wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After all, if a thumbnail-sized mirror is so much cheaper and better
>>>>>>> than one that's a couple meters in diamater by virtue of it being
>>>>>>> diffraction-limited, why exactly does anyone bother with large mirrors
>>>>>>> in telescopes?
>>>>>> ...Nobody ever said that a
>>>>>> 1-inch mirror was better, cheaper yes--astronomically cheaper. Better? No....
>>>>>> All mirrors (and good refractive optics) are polished to
>>>>>> diffraction limits if they are of the best quality, so a 1-inch mirror-lens
>>>>>> might have the same quality as a 100-inch lens. That is the base highest-quality
>>>>>> rating in the world of astronomy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In telescopes they strive for diffraction-limits in all optics because that is
>>>>>> the only thing (in reflective optics) that will create more resolution in their
>>>>>> images. The larger the lens that's figured to diffraction-limits, the smaller
>>>>>> the airy-disk. Consider the airy-disk one perfect pixel in astronomy. The larger
>>>>>> the mirror the smaller the pixels (units of information) on their resulting
>>>>>> image. The more units of measure containing clearly-defined information for a
>>>>>> given space, the greater the resolution. The larger the optics (if
>>>>>> diffraction-limited) the more information.
>>>>> Whew, you got it. So you understand why larger sensors can get more
>>>>> detail than smaller sensors and why 'diffraction limited' doesn't mean
>>>>> much when the smallest detail that can be rendered is big compared to
>>>>> the sensor size.
>>>> <snipped personal insults>...
>>>>
>>>> Lesson-1: You have 9 squares 1-inch in size, each containing only one number (go
>>>> ahead, write a number in each square it it'll help, but keep the numbers small
>>>> so as not to confuse your crippled mind more than it already is). You also have
>>>> a larger square the size in area of 9 of those smaller squares put together.
>>>> This would be one of those 3" squares that you were told to have ready. It too
>>>> can only contain one number (write a number on it within the range of the first
>>>> numbers used). Which set of squares has more information contained in them? The
>>>> 9 smaller squares or the larger single square?
>>> The larger squares have room to write longer numbers. That's the high
>>> ISO lesson
>>
>> No, that's not the high-ISO lesson. You are limited to whatever bit-depth of the
>> AD converter. 10, 12, or 14 bit. Some P&S cameras also put out 10, 12, or 14 bit
>> RAW files.
>
>
>Larger sensors count more photons. Each photon contributes to the number
>so larger sensors give bigger numbers.

Not "bigger" numbers. Just a smoother voltage curve between light and dark.

You have one sensor that might reveal voltage levels between 0 and 1 volt with
100,000 increments (photons). You have another sensor with voltage levels
between 0 and 1 volt with 1,000,000 increments (photons). Which sensor's 0.5
volts is better and why? (You don't know do you, nor can you explain it. I can.)

You don't understand a thing about any of how this all works. So it's senseless
to try to educate you any further until you're able to discuss this with a
modicum of real knowledge on the subject. EVERY sentence you type only reveals
more and more of your ignorance and stupidity.

> I believe bit depth helps with
>rounding errors from the A/D converter a tiny little bit but I don't
>bother with those very minor differences

Translation: You have no idea what is happening. You know of some words related
to this subject and might interject them where it seems they should go, but
beyond that you haven't a clue to what any of them mean or what they actually
refer to.

>. Feel free to make any
>corrections, I might well be missing something but it seems clear enough.
>
>
>> I'll not even bother to correct the rest...
>
>Your choice, I explained it pretty clearly so anyone can understand.

No, you explained it as all resident trolls explain things. By parroting
misinformation that you read somewhere else because it sounded good to you (but
you don't really understand any of it when it comes right down to it). And since
everyone else is saying it, it must be right.

WRONG.

Go ahead, quote cambrideinthedark web page info again. I already proved how
their calculator is meaningless just by a simple two word phrase "Dawes' Limit".
Now every web page that has depended on cambridgeinthedarkness' idiot's
information is going to have to change their web pages. You know, all those
other web pages that all of you useless resident-troll's use as references. ALL
OF THEM WRONG.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why Can't My D3 Find The UAW Pay Scale? Some Say $70 HR!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ba913c75d227cfe1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:13 am
From: Paul Furman

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On 02 Dec 2008 06:26:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> RichA <obama@haslittletime.com> wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> Larry Thong <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>>> David Starr wrote:
>>>>>> When I retired as an electrician in 05, my pay rate was $30.01 an
>>>>>> hour. No way do benefits add up to 40 bucks an hour.
>>>>> You conveniently forgot to add that UAW workers get to collect 95% of
>>>>> their
>>>> You forgot to remember that you're a dishonest rightard who's already
>>>> been exposed as being dihoenst.
>>> According to analysts, retirees from GM cost so much money that GM's cost of
>>> labour overall is is $55/hr. Toyota's cost is $45.00. GM are dead, even if
>>> the government tries to save them. Damn shame.
>> Corporations in Japan don't have to pay for health insurance.
>> GM does.
>
> Which is interesting but not relevant to what Japanese car
> manufacturers do in America.

I heard Toyota gives nice health benefits in the US, presumably not so
nice pensions. Japan has universal health care so that's covered over there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon Speedlite 580EX Flash
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1edb0d374b5c5114?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:19 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:06:10 +0000, eugene wrote:

> I have just received my EOS 40D and now I want a flashgun. The Canon
> Speedlite 580EX Flash is recommended but it costs nearly £300. Any
> advice on whether I should buy that or a compatible?
>
> Eugene

Only you can answer that. See and try,if possible in a photo shop and
decide which one suits you.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:36 am
From: junkmail@nowhere.com

When the 20D first came out I gritted and sprung for a 580ex (plus a
couple 420ex's as slave units.) It was a BIG spend, and worth every
cent of it. The ability of these canon strobes to work with the
exposure system on the camera is amazing. Great exposure, even in
challenging situations involving windows, mirrors, depth. Very seldom
to faces look "flashed out". By controlling exposure, aperture and
flash intensity, all in real time they have achieved nirvana (at least
if you started out with manual strobes and guide numbers, and feet,
and and and. There is even a built in difuser and bounce card right in
the 580ex head.

PS: Just the 580EX is satisfactory - the slaves are just gravy for
larger rooms and supressing shadows.

several years later I can say with certainty - If I were doing it
again I would DEFINITELY buy the Canon gear as a set again.

On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:06:10 -0000, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:

>I have just received my EOS 40D and now I want a flashgun. The Canon
>Speedlite 580EX Flash is recommended but it costs nearly £300. Any advice on
>whether I should buy that or a compatible?
>
> Eugene

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:47 am
From: "eugene"

<junkmail@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:07laj4p00ekb9pfj9e3sce4cmb7tb389or@4ax.com...
> When the 20D first came out I gritted and sprung for a 580ex (plus a
> couple 420ex's as slave units.) It was a BIG spend, and worth every
> cent of it. The ability of these canon strobes to work with the
> exposure system on the camera is amazing. Great exposure, even in
> challenging situations involving windows, mirrors, depth. Very seldom
> to faces look "flashed out". By controlling exposure, aperture and
> flash intensity, all in real time they have achieved nirvana (at least
> if you started out with manual strobes and guide numbers, and feet,
> and and and. There is even a built in difuser and bounce card right in
> the 580ex head.
>
> PS: Just the 580EX is satisfactory - the slaves are just gravy for
> larger rooms and supressing shadows.
>
> several years later I can say with certainty - If I were doing it
> again I would DEFINITELY buy the Canon gear as a set again.

Thanks for that. I just have a feeling that "compatibles" may not do
everything that a Canon will. I buy a lot of stuff from www.7dayshop.com and
they have a gun that is a third of the price but I have my doubts. See it
here http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=104274
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 12:06:10 -0000, "eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote:
>
>>I have just received my EOS 40D and now I want a flashgun. The Canon
>>Speedlite 580EX Flash is recommended but it costs nearly £300. Any advice
>>on
>>whether I should buy that or a compatible?
>>
>> Eugene

--
"and in the end, the love you save is equal to the love you made"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Call for mandate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2f77547071bdb07b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 7:21 am
From: Neil Ellwood

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 11:30:30 +0000, Allen Smithee wrote:

> "BÔwser" <b0wser@h0me.c0m> wrote in message
> news:493509b3$0$2809$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>
>> So what's it going to be? Journalism? High school football games at
>> night? Fisheye shots? Post your suggestions and let's get started
>> shooting for next month's gallery.
>
> What does [SI] mean?

It's a drainage product regularly discarded by mankind,
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I get a genuine Sony memory stick pro duo 8gb
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/23c4542d9a6a38f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:12 am
From: Irwell

On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:37:33 -0600, Sarah Houston wrote:

> Irwell <hook@yahoo.com> wrote :
>
>>> I'm just concerned about functionality.
>>>
>>> I just ordered a Cybershot DSC-S750 and I understand it can do some
>>> cool stuff in video mode if I have a fully functional memory stick
>>> in it. I also heard that some of the fakes aren't?
>>
>> Stay away from adapters, they have insertion losses that can effect
>> your video taking.
>
> Sounds wise.
>
>> You can find Genuine Sony Pro duo Mark 2 at
>> Amazon.com
>
> Hey what about Sandisk? Do they make them 100% compatible with Sony?

They do, but I keep away from them because the Sandisk Memory Stick
I bought from Staples physically broke, the top parted from the
card, still functioned but the contacts were exposed, I ditched it.

> But then I suppose I run into the question of fakes with them too?

Possible.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hey Arlan, where are your photos?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2b0b8721f86b8173?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:44 am
From: BradlyRobins

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:06:27 +1100, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>M.Jander wrote,on my timestamp of 2/12/2008 3:54 PM:
>
>
>> Attempting to undo almost a decade of resident-troll net-parroted photographic
>> ignorance and stupidity, and the blind leading the blind sheep-following
>> insanity. It also provides something to quote in message, for people like you
>> who have nothing important to say on your own.
>>
>> What's your point? Just to troll for attention without saying anything of value
>> to anyone? Can't think for yourself, is that it? (of course it is, how obvious)
>>
>> And now, back to something photography related, instead of this having
>> adequately outted you as nothing but another useless resident usenet troll ....
>>
>
>Amazing: you can actually articulate a thought
>rather than just parrot someone else's!
>
>Still: what's your point?

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

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."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did this group die or something?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da925152c89cb7fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:49 am
From: Chris Post

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:40:13 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:00:30 +1100, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>Milford Ordent wrote,on my timestamp of 29/11/2008 10:50 AM:
>>
>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>
>>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
>>> befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
>>>
>>>
>
>
> <mercy snipping>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>What's your point?
>
>His point? He believes he is smarter than you and he wants you to
>know it. The number of words he uses proves it.
>
>In his own mind.
>
>Yet if anyone actually goes through the exercise of reading his list,
>he contradicts himself while posting links that disprove his points.
>
>For example, his claim that his camera's lens will outperform "the
>best slr glass made" refers to a comparison between a p&s and a cheap
>kit lens on a rebel. It's laughable.
>
>But I'm sure you knew this. I'm just concerned that people who are
>new to photography will see his "points" and conclude that he is an
>expert.
>
>NOT.
>

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

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."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:49 am
From: tom_gleason

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:34:25 +1100, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

>Stephen Bishop wrote,on my timestamp of 2/12/2008 9:40 PM:
>>>>
>>
>>
>> <mercy snipping>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your point?
>>
>> His point? He believes he is smarter than you and he wants you to
>> know it. The number of words he uses proves it.
>>
>> In his own mind.
>
>
>Oh dear...

Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:

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."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Megapixel War Over for Point and Shoots?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5dc37789e8771332?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 8:50 am
From: Stepen Bashop

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 06:00:46 -0500, Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 23:58:09 -0600, pat_kingsley
><pk@timefortrollkilling.org> wrote:
>
>>On 01 Dec 2008 05:10:34 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>_________ wrote:
>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have CS1
>>>>>
>>>>> There's your problem. Using tools designed almost two decades ago
>>>>
>>>>It's only 3 or 4 years old.
>>>
>>>You're responding to a known troll and liar.
>>>
>>>Ignore it.
>>
>>
>>Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>>Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual
>>resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't
>>read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a
>>virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
>>
>
>Our troll is still showing signs of being educated beyond his
>intelligence, just as some of those high pixel count p&s cameras have
>far more pixels than their limited area can handle properly.
>
>DSLRs are not immune to this, either. The D40 actually produces
>better output by many standards of measure than the D40x, even though
>the latter has a higher pixel count.
>

Dear Resident-Troll,

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."

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:40 am
From: SMS

measekite wrote:
> Using the G10 as an example do the majority of readers feel the MP war is
> over.

It may not be quite over. There could still be a move to lower noise
CMOS sensors (as in the G10) in lower priced P&S cameras. But even then,
they may not increase the resolution, choosing instead to decrease the
noise.

What we're seeing now is people owning multiple digital cameras. They
use a point and shoot when portability is of paramount importance, and a
D-SLR when image quality, shutter lag, and the need for longer or wider
lenses trumps portability.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just what is a photograph
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ae5b8bcd68d37760?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:18 am
From: shiva das

In article <gh38m8$ih0$1@news.motzarella.org>,
"Celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A painting has more to do with interpretation. When a painting simply
> _replicates a scene_, it's deemed to be LIKE a photograph, which in reality
> should not be in the realm of a painting.

Vermeer, Rembrandt, Van Eyck, used either a Camera Lucida or a Camera
Oscura (or both) as in evidenced in the circles of confusion which are
lens artifacts.

Albrecht Dürer used what he called a "perspective glass" to project the
correct line of perspective on his drawing surface.

Chuck Close painted huge photorealistic images by examining photographic
prints under high magnification.

None of these should be "in the realm of a painting"?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dunk shoes for woman (paypal payment)(www.king-trade.cn )
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bc1830aeaec788ac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:21 am
From: air max 87 88 89 90 91 95 97 180 2003 360 shoes

w w w . n i k e - s h o e s . c o m . c n www.shoestrade168.cn

dunk shoes adidas shoes Ugg boots

w w w . n i k e - s h o e s . c o m . c n www.shoestrade168.cn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to turn your DSLR into a rotten P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/76e71711e9a86d3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Dec 2 2008 9:23 am
From: RichA

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0812/08120201tamron_18-270_vc_review.asp

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

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

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic