| ||||||
| Meu novo tuto. Espero que gostem. My new tut. Thank you for looking. | ||||||
|
| | ||
| |
| The first is a lil something for Thanksgiving. We celebrate here in the US on November 27th this year. The second tutorial is a lil Christmas tutorial using Elias' new tube. Yes, I am an Elias fan and use a lot of his tubes in my tutorials...lol. The tutorial is called 'Just How Good' and can be found on my tutorial site here. | ||
| |
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;AAAAAA
FN:AAAAAA
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:AAAAAA
REV:20081108T223319Z
END:VCARD FERD TÜRKİYE
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Bizim "Hayaldunyamiz"
Mail gönderme adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz@googlegroups.com
Üye olma adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz-subscribe@googlegroups.com
Üyeliğinizi sonlandırma adresimiz:
hayaldunyamiz-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;AAAAAA
FN:AAAAAA
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:AAAAAA
REV:20081108T221427Z
END:VCARD
| |
Yaşamak özlemsiz, özlem sevgisiz, sevgi sensiz olmaz.
Unutma sevmek daima beraber olmak değildir, sen yokken bile seninle olabilmektir.
Söz netten
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;AAAAAA
FN:AAAAAA
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:AAAAAA
REV:20081108T221057Z
END:VCARD
|
BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:2.1
N:;***Cehennemgülü***
FN:***Cehennemgülü***
EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:hacergurcan@gmail.com
REV:20081108T204038Z
END:VCARD
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Bizim "Hayaldunyamiz"
Mail gönderme adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz@googlegroups.com
Üye olma adresimiz:hayaldunyamiz-subscribe@googlegroups.com
Üyeliğinizi sonlandırma adresimiz:
hayaldunyamiz-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hello,
Welcome to the ellenspsp_sharing group at Yahoo!
I love when you tell about yourself to the group.
Please remember to add previews to your tube sends if there is no preview do not sent it. You can make a preview to make a copy from the tube and save it as jpg. DONT SEND EROTIC OR NAKED. I will remove
you who send AC or SAC after my warning. Also dont send pay scrapkit
Ellen
Wil je jezelf even aan de groep voorstellen.
Vergeet niet om een voorbeeld van de tubes mee te zenden, heb je geen voorbeeld dan mag je die niet insturen. Maak een copy van de tube en sla hem op als jpg. Dan de tube als bijlage mee sturen en de opgeslagen tube invoegen in je email. Wanneer je iets bloots instuurd krijg je een waarschuwing, bij de 2e inzending van bloot wordt je verwijderd. Je mag ook geen betaalde scrapkits sturen.
Ellen
To learn more about the ellenspsp_sharing group, please visit
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ellenspsp_sharing
To start sending messages to members of this group, simply
send email to
ellenspsp_sharing@yahoogroups.com
If you do not wish to belong to ellenspsp_sharing, you may
unsubscribe by sending an email to
ellenspsp_sharing-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
To see and modify all of your groups, go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
Regards,
Moderator, ellenspsp_sharing
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 8 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* 30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f950caadce00853b?hl=en
* 500D and 70-200 For Macro - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e68bd9da7d399770?hl=en
* The 1248 mm challenge - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
* My DLSR is a P&S - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/38fd4912061b2683?hl=en
* Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/831184ccc9af1358?hl=en
* the p&s troll - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/394a6b6e8f462f95?hl=en
* Pro Wildlife Photographers Prefer FX Over DX!! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/eb534bd5da6c2966?hl=en
* Remember, check! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4311e6502bd1e5aa?hl=en
* P & S cameras - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
* photos - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e5821c93abc3b7d1?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:30 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"Thanatos" <atropos@mac.com> wrote in message
news:atropos-ED3652.10553808112008@news.giganews.com...
> In article <gf41a2$7bg$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
> > PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a legitimate
> > e-mail address.
> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one a coward?
I give my real address, and my in-box isn't clogged with spam. I have a
listed phone number, too.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:01 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Unclaimed Mysteries added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
>>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
>>> legitimate e-mail address.
>>
>> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one
>> a coward?
>
> It indicates how closed-minded you are to new ideas about
> cheap Cialis. Coward.
>
You can argue this point forever it that is your choice, but only
the arrogant or the ignorant willingly post their E-mail in their
headers without at least taking the time to munge it. Also, in
today's world of malware, it is also a very good idea to use E-mail
address(es) that cannot be easily guessed by automated tools.
One easy example of why it is a bad idea to post your E-mail in the
clear might be how both the Obama and McCain campaigns were hacked
sometime this year by believed foreign operatives. Seems they
somehow found a few addies, sent a key logger and an adress book
spyware program to them, then self-replicated themselves until they
had the entire campaign staff. There is very little known about
this since the FBI and CIA are conducting an active investigation.
Both campaigns did detect the compromises, fortunately, when a
brighter than average staffer wondered why he/she was getting E-
mails from someone they didn't know, nothing to do with campaign
contributions but including a web cite that had nothing to do with
them.
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:04 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Rev. Diva Schematic added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
>>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
>>> legitimate e-mail address.
>>
>> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one
>> a coward?
>
> He's got a default on that in order to reply to his posts, we
> have to email him directly...why bother activating that if
> he's not going to provide a legit email?
>
News readers and autoposters do require a valid FORM of E-mail, but
not a verifiable one. Some web sites, usually businesses, DO
require a verifiable addy, but that's hardly the case here.
As to taking things privately, that can easily be done by posting a
munged easily changed nonsensical E-mail to your prospective
friend. If things go south or you get spammed, it is very easy to
just kill that nonsense addy. OTOH, if you and others DO know each
other or DO want to converse off-line, then THAT is the time to
provide one's private address.
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:05 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
William Sommerwerck added these comments in the current
discussion du jour ...
>> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one
>> a coward?
>
> I give my real address, and my in-box isn't clogged with spam.
> I have a listed phone number, too.
>
I spent the last 5 1/2 years before retiring in an information
security job. When I was first appointed to the post, I did a deep
dive and discovered an interesting quote that I think is even more
true today:
"There are only two kinds of people who have never been compromised
- the arrogant and the ignorant."
Good luck, I think you're gonna need it - eventually.
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:13 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
>> On what basis is the Federal government supposed to
>> vet laws against Biblical standards?
> The old fashioned way -- just ask the people.
Wrong. If the people in a state passed a law declaring Christinaity as the
official religion, would that be legal? There is nothing in the Declaration
of Independence or the Constitution that even implies that any particular
religious belief (other than a weak nod to Deism to placate those more
traditionally religious than Jefferson or Franklin) is to serve as the basis
of American government.
If a law is passed (or rejected) to acquiesce to a particular religious
point of view, how is that _not_ "establishment of religion"?
You forget that people's perceptions of what is moral or just has changed,
and is still changing. You can easily quote the Bible to justify slavery or
the second-class status of women -- but our views of such things are not the
same as they were even 50 years ago.
When you argue that same-sex marriage should not become part of law, on the
basis of what _you_ think the Bible says, how is your argument _not_ a
request for the "establishment of religion"?
As to "the state" deciding as to what does or does not comprise marriage...
That is a leftover from the days of theocracy. One of the reasons for social
and economic progress in the West has been the gradual separation of church
and state, allowing _greater_ personal and religious freedom. Same-sex
marriage (or civil unions) is a further step in that direction.
As marriage exists for many reasons other than procreation, there is nothing
illogical about same-sex marriage. And it's not new -- a berdache sometimes
married another man (qv, "Patterns of Culture").
You should read "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". It's so scholarly
you'll probably fall asleep, but its discussion of marriage in Western
culture alone justifies reading it. (And, yes, it is heavily footnoted.)
> The prohibition against establishment of a state religion is often
> mis-quoted and has absolutely NO-thing to do with setting legal
> standards for behavior approved by a 2/3 majority of the people.
It does if the reason for passing or rejecting a law is soley or principally
religious.
The argument "I object to same-sex marriage because it violates what the
Bible says is moral behavior" is no argument at all, because you're
appealing to a specific religious belief.
Do you recall "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto
God the things which are God's"? Jesus was speaking metaphorically of
keeping the material and the spiritual separate, but the point is
well-taken -- government and religion do not mix. There is nothing in his
teachings that recommends joining the two, and indeed, Christianity began
its decline (including its healing ministry) when it became a state
religion.
This is not a rhetorical question... We live under a civil government, not a
religious government. Why is it so important to you that every aspect of
government conform to your religious beliefs? I'd like an answer.
By the way, you'll note that Massachusetts citizens are not dying of the
plague, nor has the state fallen off into the ocean.
> Don't believe,
> it? Cite the passage(s) in the Constitution that uphold your
> beliefs, but don't bother with the First Amendment because that's
> not what it says. Instead, start with the 10th and move forward
> from there. Oh, and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
> Amendment DOES give the government the power to decide these
> matters so long as you have your day in court - up until a new
> strong law, but preferably, a Consitutional Amendment is passed
> forever defining marriage as ONLY a union of one man and one
> woman.
How about "equal protection of the law"? This amendment was designed to keep
Southern states from writing laws that treated ex-slaves differently. Why
not argue that, as same-sex marriage is logical, that gay men and women
>> And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my
>> life -- especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
> Because you cost ME money. That gives me the right to tell you
> that you may NOT take advantage of marriage laws designed to
> provide tax advantages nor does it give you rights to commit
> sexual perversions or to raise children in a clearly immoral home.
> And, in case you don't know, willie boi, sodomy is still a
> crime in many places.
Oooh, oooh, I'm so scared. I'm going to go hide in my closet.
By "many places", do you mean within the US? I have to inform you that the
Supreme Court outlawed sodomy laws (that is, laws which prohibit certain
forms of private, consensual sexual behavior) just a few years ago. In fact,
the Court reversed its previous decision in the same Texas case, with one
Court member saying "How could we have been so wrong?".
This case is an excellent example of how values change. A century ago, it
was considered perfectly acceptable for the law to prohibit private,
consensual behavior that was deemed bad for society. We no longer feel that,
in a democracy, the government should be regulating private behavior. This
came about in part because of the increasing separation of the state from
religious and private matters.
> The last time I looked, there is simply NO protections in the
> Constitution of the United States that give anyone the right to
> a specific form of union, civil or religious.
The founders saw no reason to address the subject -- or any number of
hundreds of other matters best left to the states.
> But, if I had my way,
> we would start state by state enacting a constitutional amendment
> banning queer marriage - or more correctly, defining marriage as
> a union of one man and one woman - as just happened in
> California. Along the way, there should be enough of a
> groundswell of support from people that still have family values
> and a sense of morality to get the federal government to pass an
> Amendment bill that forever ends this debate and get it ratified
> by 2/3 of the states.
In other words, you would remove the states' traditional right to make their
own decisions about such things?
One of the things that must horribly scare you is the Constitution's
requirement that states respect each other's laws. (I'll get killed for
saying this, but the Dred Scott decision was legally -- though not
morally -- correct.)
> You want to debate family values, bring it on!
Well, I hate Mom, apple pie, and the flag. (I'm not sure about Chevrolet.)
Is that a sufficient start?
Homosexual desire is a normal part of mammalian biology. The overwhelming
majority of homosexual men and women were "born that way". You don't believe
this. For you to accept it would so upset your world view -- because it
implies that God created people in such a way that this could occur, or that
He permits it.
It's true -- homosexuals can't reproduce. But that's not a problem -- we
have people like you and Dick Chaney and Phyllis Schlafly doing it for us --
simply by having born-queer children.
The probability that any male child will turn out queer is about 3%. (That's
a guesstimate -- there are no really reliable figures.) Should this occur
with one of your kids, what will you do? Curse God? Try to find the
(non-existant) man who seduced your boy and murder the man? Kill yourself?
Kill your son?
>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
>> legitimate e-mail address.
> Nobody provides a legitimate E-mail, you idiot!
I do. I'm not afraid. You can even look up my phone number and address, if
you like.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:15 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message
news:Xns9B507AF0776EFReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> William Sommerwerck added these comments in the current
> discussion du jour ...
>
> >> Why does not wanting one's in-box deluged with spam make one
> >> a coward?
> >
> > I give my real address, and my in-box isn't clogged with spam.
> > I have a listed phone number, too.
> >
> I spent the last 5 1/2 years before retiring in an information
> security job. When I was first appointed to the post, I did a deep
> dive and discovered an interesting quote that I think is even more
> true today:
>
> "There are only two kinds of people who have never been compromised
> - the arrogant and the ignorant."
>
> Good luck, I think you're gonna need it - eventually.
Nope. I've been using e-mail and have been on the Web for over a decade. No
problems.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:53 am
From: trent-lockwood
You do realize that the only reason that "Hemi-Powered" is going on about this
is that this is the only socially-acceptable way that he has to interact with
gay people like himself. He's this desperate for attention from any gay people
and will do anything in his power to try to perpetuate this, his only contact
with his own kind.
Homophobes are always just highly desperate closet-cases.
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 09:13:54 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
<grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On what basis is the Federal government supposed to
>>> vet laws against Biblical standards?
>
>> The old fashioned way -- just ask the people.
>
>Wrong. If the people in a state passed a law declaring Christinaity as the
>official religion, would that be legal? There is nothing in the Declaration
>of Independence or the Constitution that even implies that any particular
>religious belief (other than a weak nod to Deism to placate those more
>traditionally religious than Jefferson or Franklin) is to serve as the basis
>of American government.
>
>If a law is passed (or rejected) to acquiesce to a particular religious
>point of view, how is that _not_ "establishment of religion"?
>
>You forget that people's perceptions of what is moral or just has changed,
>and is still changing. You can easily quote the Bible to justify slavery or
>the second-class status of women -- but our views of such things are not the
>same as they were even 50 years ago.
>
>When you argue that same-sex marriage should not become part of law, on the
>basis of what _you_ think the Bible says, how is your argument _not_ a
>request for the "establishment of religion"?
>
>As to "the state" deciding as to what does or does not comprise marriage...
>That is a leftover from the days of theocracy. One of the reasons for social
>and economic progress in the West has been the gradual separation of church
>and state, allowing _greater_ personal and religious freedom. Same-sex
>marriage (or civil unions) is a further step in that direction.
>
>As marriage exists for many reasons other than procreation, there is nothing
>illogical about same-sex marriage. And it's not new -- a berdache sometimes
>married another man (qv, "Patterns of Culture").
>
>You should read "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe". It's so scholarly
>you'll probably fall asleep, but its discussion of marriage in Western
>culture alone justifies reading it. (And, yes, it is heavily footnoted.)
>
>
>> The prohibition against establishment of a state religion is often
>> mis-quoted and has absolutely NO-thing to do with setting legal
>> standards for behavior approved by a 2/3 majority of the people.
>
>It does if the reason for passing or rejecting a law is soley or principally
>religious.
>
>The argument "I object to same-sex marriage because it violates what the
>Bible says is moral behavior" is no argument at all, because you're
>appealing to a specific religious belief.
>
>Do you recall "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto
>God the things which are God's"? Jesus was speaking metaphorically of
>keeping the material and the spiritual separate, but the point is
>well-taken -- government and religion do not mix. There is nothing in his
>teachings that recommends joining the two, and indeed, Christianity began
>its decline (including its healing ministry) when it became a state
>religion.
>
>This is not a rhetorical question... We live under a civil government, not a
>religious government. Why is it so important to you that every aspect of
>government conform to your religious beliefs? I'd like an answer.
>
>By the way, you'll note that Massachusetts citizens are not dying of the
>plague, nor has the state fallen off into the ocean.
>
>
>> Don't believe,
>> it? Cite the passage(s) in the Constitution that uphold your
>> beliefs, but don't bother with the First Amendment because that's
>> not what it says. Instead, start with the 10th and move forward
>> from there. Oh, and the "due process of law" clause of the 14th
>> Amendment DOES give the government the power to decide these
>> matters so long as you have your day in court - up until a new
>> strong law, but preferably, a Consitutional Amendment is passed
>> forever defining marriage as ONLY a union of one man and one
>> woman.
>
>How about "equal protection of the law"? This amendment was designed to keep
>Southern states from writing laws that treated ex-slaves differently. Why
>not argue that, as same-sex marriage is logical, that gay men and women
>
>
>>> And what right do you have to tell me how I should live my
>>> life -- especially when I had no say-so in the matter?
>
>> Because you cost ME money. That gives me the right to tell you
>> that you may NOT take advantage of marriage laws designed to
>> provide tax advantages nor does it give you rights to commit
>> sexual perversions or to raise children in a clearly immoral home.
>
>
>> And, in case you don't know, willie boi, sodomy is still a
>> crime in many places.
>
>Oooh, oooh, I'm so scared. I'm going to go hide in my closet.
>
>By "many places", do you mean within the US? I have to inform you that the
>Supreme Court outlawed sodomy laws (that is, laws which prohibit certain
>forms of private, consensual sexual behavior) just a few years ago. In fact,
>the Court reversed its previous decision in the same Texas case, with one
>Court member saying "How could we have been so wrong?".
>
>This case is an excellent example of how values change. A century ago, it
>was considered perfectly acceptable for the law to prohibit private,
>consensual behavior that was deemed bad for society. We no longer feel that,
>in a democracy, the government should be regulating private behavior. This
>came about in part because of the increasing separation of the state from
>religious and private matters.
>
>
>
>> The last time I looked, there is simply NO protections in the
>> Constitution of the United States that give anyone the right to
>> a specific form of union, civil or religious.
>
>The founders saw no reason to address the subject -- or any number of
>hundreds of other matters best left to the states.
>
>
>> But, if I had my way,
>> we would start state by state enacting a constitutional amendment
>> banning queer marriage - or more correctly, defining marriage as
>> a union of one man and one woman - as just happened in
>> California. Along the way, there should be enough of a
>> groundswell of support from people that still have family values
>> and a sense of morality to get the federal government to pass an
>> Amendment bill that forever ends this debate and get it ratified
>> by 2/3 of the states.
>
>In other words, you would remove the states' traditional right to make their
>own decisions about such things?
>
>One of the things that must horribly scare you is the Constitution's
>requirement that states respect each other's laws. (I'll get killed for
>saying this, but the Dred Scott decision was legally -- though not
>morally -- correct.)
>
>
>> You want to debate family values, bring it on!
>
>Well, I hate Mom, apple pie, and the flag. (I'm not sure about Chevrolet.)
>Is that a sufficient start?
>
>Homosexual desire is a normal part of mammalian biology. The overwhelming
>majority of homosexual men and women were "born that way". You don't believe
>this. For you to accept it would so upset your world view -- because it
>implies that God created people in such a way that this could occur, or that
>He permits it.
>
>It's true -- homosexuals can't reproduce. But that's not a problem -- we
>have people like you and Dick Chaney and Phyllis Schlafly doing it for us --
>simply by having born-queer children.
>
>The probability that any male child will turn out queer is about 3%. (That's
>a guesstimate -- there are no really reliable figures.) Should this occur
>with one of your kids, what will you do? Curse God? Try to find the
>(non-existant) man who seduced your boy and murder the man? Kill yourself?
>Kill your son?
>
>
>>> PS: This poster is such a coward that the doesn't provide a
>>> legitimate e-mail address.
>
>> Nobody provides a legitimate E-mail, you idiot!
>
>I do. I'm not afraid. You can even look up my phone number and address, if
>you like.
>
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:59 am
From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey)
In article <gf4epl$j3i$1@registered.motzarella.org>,
William Sommerwerck <grizzledgeezer@comcast.net> wrote:
>> But, before the subpeonas start flying and room is made at
>> Leavenworth, be sure that YOUR guy isn't the next target. Remember
>> that it isn't IF the Republicans will regain a Congressional
>> majority, it is only WHEN. And, the mid-terms are less than two
>> years away, so, Mr. President Obama, best govern at least to the
>> center and rein in Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris
>> Dodd and the other architects of the current economic mess.
>
>Oh, the Democrats are the only ones responsible? What about all those
>anti-regulation, anti-government Republicans? Don't they take even a teensy
>bit of blame?
I hate to get into a political argument in an audio group... but I would
really, really like to vote for someone who would actually do some of
the things that Republicans keep saying they are going to do.
I really, really want to see government spending cut, and I realize that
cutting spending is going to hurt everyone involved. The Republicans
keep saying they're going to cut spending, but then they wind up running
guys like Reagan and Bush Jr. for president who spend outrageous amounts
of money. I can't even imagine the amount of money Bush has flushed down
the toilet in this crazy Iraq war.... you need exponential notation to
deal with units like that.
Finally, after many years the Republicans have run someone for president
who isn't a loonie, who isn't an idealogue, and who doesn't have a history
of fiscal irresponsibility. Finally someone I can vote for... and then
they stick this idiot Palin up as his running-mate. It's as if someone
inside the Republican party is deliberately trying to sabotage it.
For some reason the Republican party, since Nixon or so, has gone out
of their way to get involved in social issues that the government really has
no power over. In spite of increasingly draconian drug laws over the past
40 years, in spite of trillions of dollars spent on the war on drugs,
there are still more people using drugs than ever. Maybe making drugs
illegal isn't the solution?
Same thing with abortion.... nobody LIKES abortion. Everybody wishes it
would go away, but a lot of Republicans seem to think that making it illegal
is going to stop it. Unfortunately, as things like the war on drugs show,
making things illegal just results in more deaths. It doesn't actually
solve anything.
I think I put the current furor over homosexual marriage in the same
category. People think that by making it illegal they are going to
somehow stop homosexuality. The thing is, it doesn't work like that.
It's enough to make you vote Libertarian, and that's scary.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 30D, 40D, 50D, Raw, sRaw, sRaw1, sRaw2, ISO 100-12,800 test shots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/f950caadce00853b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:46 am
From: "Paul"
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5fadnTjlHdS0KYjUnZ2dnUVZ_sHinZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> Interesting comparisons page (magnifier top right):
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/5uog2m
>>>>
>>>> Even with downsized images, the 30D noise levels/banding look better
>>>> than the 50D.
>>>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>>>> 50D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/5mpe3u
>>>>
>>>> 30D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6cb53u
>>>> 50D Raw 1600 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6pwjzv
>>> Adobe 50D conversion seems to be lacking at this point in time; a rushed
>>> implementation. Adobe typically ignores banding issues and has minimal
>>> NR
>>> for new cameras, before they are tweaked (all cameras have lots of RAW
>>> noise at high ISOs, and even "0" NR usually means "medium"; not "none").
>>> Thomas Knoll has acknowledged in the past that banding removal is
>>> applied
>>> to individual cameras on a per need basis, and is not done
>>> automatically.
>> But even if you look at the difference between the 30D with ACR and the
>> 50D with DPP, the 30D noise levels/banding still look better than the
>> 50D. Hit the magnifying glass and look at the top right of the following
>> pictures;
>>
>> 30D Raw 3200 LR: http://tinyurl.com/6dfpau
>> 50D Raw 3200 DPP: http://tinyurl.com/6c2yjr
> Why isn't the comparison between both photos processed by DPP? Two RAW
> converters will never give the exact same rendition no matter how you
> tweak settings.
No particular reason. They original links were with ACR as this is what I
use myself. But then John pointed out that ACR was lacking for the 50D, so
I posted a link showing the 50D converted with DPP as a comparison.
On the original link, you can compare 30D, 40D and 50D with whatever
ISO's/RAW converters you wish.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 500D and 70-200 For Macro
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e68bd9da7d399770?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:57 am
From: Paul Furman
Paul wrote:
> I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos
> on juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with
> macro I've yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens,
> I am considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only
> make it half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe
> having a better working distance and also won't take up much room in the
> bag meaning I will always have it with me.
>
> The other option is using Kenko extension tubes on my 50mm lens, whereby
> using the 36 and 12 extension tubes will effectively make it just under
> life size, but is maybe not as flexible and will suffer from more light
> loss than the 500D.
>
> I know the 500D is no replacement for a proper macro lens, but anyone
> have any experience using a 500D with a 70-200?
Yes I have a Canon 500D +2 diopter 2-element closeup lens (77mm thread)
and use it on the front of a 70-200/2.8 VR and other lenses with
step-down rings. Great for butterfly & bee chasing with the VR & no
light loss.
Where it suffers is reflective subjects such as shiny insects, there is
more flare/ghosting from reflections back & forth between all those
chunks of glass. The bokeh suffers too with those kinds of strong
highlights. As with extension tubes, it's going to be asking more from
the center of the lens than the lens was designed for. Speaking of
centers... I've used the 500D on a 300mm f/2.8 (112mm thread) by cutting
a 77mm hole in a makeshift plastic cap and that works fine because at
closest focus you only use the center anyways. So a smaller one might
work on a 70-200.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:46 am
From: "Paul"
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:2yjRk.6053$c45.4883@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> I've never really been into macro, but after seeing some of the photos on
>> juzaphoto it seems like there's a whole new world out there with macro
>> I've yet to experiment with. So, instead of buying a macro lens, I am
>> considering using a 500D on a 70-200. It seems that it will only make it
>> half life size (0.50) @ 200mm, but has the advantage of maybe having a
>> better working distance and also won't take up much room in the bag
>> meaning I will always have it with me.
>>
>> The other option is using Kenko extension tubes on my 50mm lens, whereby
>> using the 36 and 12 extension tubes will effectively make it just under
>> life size, but is maybe not as flexible and will suffer from more light
>> loss than the 500D.
>>
>> I know the 500D is no replacement for a proper macro lens, but anyone
>> have any experience using a 500D with a 70-200?
>
> Yes I have a Canon 500D +2 diopter 2-element closeup lens (77mm thread)
> and use it on the front of a 70-200/2.8 VR and other lenses with step-down
> rings. Great for butterfly & bee chasing with the VR & no light loss.
>
> Where it suffers is reflective subjects such as shiny insects, there is
> more flare/ghosting from reflections back & forth between all those chunks
> of glass. The bokeh suffers too with those kinds of strong highlights. As
> with extension tubes, it's going to be asking more from the center of the
> lens than the lens was designed for. Speaking of centers... I've used the
> 500D on a 300mm f/2.8 (112mm thread) by cutting a 77mm hole in a makeshift
> plastic cap and that works fine because at closest focus you only use the
> center anyways. So a smaller one might work on a 70-200.
Hello Paul. How does the bokeh suffer with highlights? Parts of the image
washed out?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 1248 mm challenge
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:30 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Sam Taylor wrote:
>
>> To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even
>> realize that the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact
>> same exposure no matter how much of it is showing.
>>
>> Holy XXXX this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.
>
> Incorrect. The phase function of the moon changes rapidly near
> full moon. There are two reasons for this effect. (The phase
> angle is the angle from the sun to the object to the observer.)
> At full moon, the phase angle is near zero (if too close to zero,
> the moon goes into the Earth's shadow, and we see an eclipse).
> At such low phase angles, the tiny shadows cast by grains in the
> surface are hidden by other grains so the intensity of light
> from the surface is greater (1st effect). Second, and much more
> important is an effect called coherent backscatter: the constructive
> interference of photons scattered from a particulate surface.
> You can often see this effect from airplanes as a bright spot on
> the ground in the direction opposite the sun.
So _that_'s what that is. I've noticed it many times and wondered
about it, but by the time I'd gotten to somewhere where I could
research it I always forgot about it.
> All this means that the exposure on the moon changes significantly
> near full moon, so one must meter for the conditions at that time.
>
> Try googling: coherent backscatter lunar phase function
> and you will find scientific articles like:
>
> Phase Curves of Selected Particulate Materials: The Contribution of
> Coherent Backscattering to the Opposition Surge
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45K0YV5-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31fbc122696d5595db91f74e98126ff2
>
> Roger
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:15 am
From: JohnFarrel
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:59:22 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>Sam Taylor wrote:
>
>> To top it off this self-deceptive misinformed moron doesn't even realize that
>> the sunlit portion of the moon will require the exact same exposure no matter
>> how much of it is showing.
>>
>> Holy XXXX this guy is a majorly clueless idiot.
>
>Incorrect. The phase function of the moon changes rapidly near
>full moon. There are two reasons for this effect. (The phase
>angle is the angle from the sun to the object to the observer.)
>At full moon, the phase angle is near zero (if too close to zero,
>the moon goes into the Earth's shadow, and we see an eclipse).
>At such low phase angles, the tiny shadows cast by grains in the
>surface are hidden by other grains so the intensity of light
>from the surface is greater (1st effect). Second, and much more
>important is an effect called coherent backscatter: the constructive
>interference of photons scattered from a particulate surface.
>You can often see this effect from airplanes as a bright spot on
>the ground in the direction opposite the sun.
>
>All this means that the exposure on the moon changes significantly
>near full moon, so one must meter for the conditions at that time.
>
>Try googling: coherent backscatter lunar phase function
>and you will find scientific articles like:
>
>Phase Curves of Selected Particulate Materials: The Contribution of Coherent Backscattering to the Opposition Surge
>http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-45K0YV5-K&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=31fbc122696d5595db91f74e98126ff2
>
>Roger
>
>
Wow, a whole 1/3rd f-stop! If that. Do everyone a favor and stop inventing
picayune things just as an excuse to continually spam usenet with your
commercial website links to deceptive misinformation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: My DLSR is a P&S
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/38fd4912061b2683?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:01 am
From: ransley
On Nov 8, 9:24 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
> playing with the settings.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
> Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum athttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/http://myolympus.org/photo sharing site
My P&S fits in my pocket
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Keeping An Open Ear Out For Obama!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/831184ccc9af1358?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 8:58 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu
HEMI-Powered wrote:
>
> No, you reall CAN'T cut or eliminate Social Security and
> Medicare, at least not and stay in office. Do you really suppose
> all the recipients backed by the AARP would just docilly take it
> in the ass? Nope. There'd be MASSIVE recall campaigns, charges of
> malfeasance and many impeachable offenses and ALL them dudes
> voting to cut/kill SS and Med would either get their asses kicked
> out very quickly or at least we'd have a brand new bunch of
> people in just two years. Social Security and Medicare are by far
> the biggest of the political 3rd rails.
>
> Now, the real trick is how to save them and make them fiscally
> and actuarily sound. Nobody yet has figured a way past the
> reality of cut benefits, raise taxes, or both.
>
Of course it can be saved. But it can't be saved without cutting
benefits. It can't be saved by raising taxes alone, without
an exponential population increase with time (or an exponential
productivity gain versus time, with the same exponent ... and,
barring robots, this cannot happen.)
> I'd be most interested to hear how you plan to do what you
> propose.
I propose it cut benefits or raise the retirement age.
>It isn't that I disagree with your fiscal conclusion -
> I'm a BIG fan of David Walker - it's just that I don't know how
> to make it happen. But, thankfully, the problem will be left to
> my daughter because I'll be dead, likely, by the time the shit
> hits the fan, circa 2040.
I hopefully will be dead sometime about 2040. I'm not worried about
Social Security since I'm not involved with it. I am worried about
the solvency of the Illinois pension system (which is, relatively speaking,
in good shape ... it's still maybe 30% funded and still constitutionally
guaranteed.)
My guess as to the mechanism of collapse: hyperinflation.
Finally ... I just realized that the above contains the "be happy" answer, which actually
is not all THAT farfetched: robots.
I feared Obama because his spouting implied a dedication to "global warming"
that that would destroy productivity. We shall see.
Doug McDonald
==============================================================================
TOPIC: the p&s troll
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/394a6b6e8f462f95?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:22 am
From: StayOnTopic-Trolls
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 08:02:12 -0800, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>old.salt@cmaaccess.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 12:10:50 +1300, Eric Stevens
>> <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
>>
>> Trolling isn't offence, spamming is, which he is not doing.
>> Use you Usenet Client to kill file him.
>
>Reposting the same stuff is spamming and against the TOS of every News
>Provider I know of.
>
>It's not difficult to report: it's in the [full] Headers where to send it.
>
>You can't k=f a nym shifting coward.
Then you'll have to report every DSLR troll that relentlessly posts the same
misinformed crap. Or how about I report all those that relentlessly sabotage
every thread by going off topic?
LOL
You are such a fuckin' useless moron.
Do try to stay on topic, won't you? Oh that's right, you don't know enough about
photography to be able to do that.
Here's a little something to get you started in your education:
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:31 am
From: SMS
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:46:53 -0500, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>> I think I have the answer, the guy wants attention
>> Stop feeding it, even with these posts.
>
> Has anyone tried complaining to his ISP?
ISPs don't care about Usenet. He's harmless. You can kill file him by
message ID if it bothers you. No one believes anything he posts anyway.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pro Wildlife Photographers Prefer FX Over DX!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/eb534bd5da6c2966?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:16 am
From: "Rita Berkowitz"
After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon and
Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full frame with
their super-teles. And when told that DX is better for wildlife most got a
nasty attitude.
<http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Attitude.htm>
Rita
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:32 am
From: "Paul"
"Rita Berkowitz" <ritaberk2008@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jpqdnchCXrnFV4jUnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> After talking to many pro wildlife photographers from both the Nikon and
> Canon camps, I have found that most prefer shooting FX or full frame with
> their super-teles. And when told that DX is better for wildlife most got
> a
> nasty attitude.
>
> <http://ritaberk.cedhost.com/Attitude.htm>
Of course. They were probably shooting 35mm before the digital era.
But remember, as pro's they can justify higher lens prices.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Remember, check!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/4311e6502bd1e5aa?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 9:29 am
From: Cal Ornton
On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:59:29 +0000, Henry <henryNOeqitablelife@tiscali.co.uk>
wrote:
>After reading some of the more recent threads I felt the urge
>to repeat my previous post of a few days ago. It seems to me
>that there is something quite horrible going on in this ng.
>
>You probably are already aware that usenet attracts all sorts of
>numpties, nutters and malignant entities. This news group is no
>exception. Indeed it may well have more than its fair share.
>It seems to me to be infested with brainless trolls who exhibit a
>nasty malign tendency to dish out aggravation under the
>guise of "help".
>
>My advice would be for you to post your queries to other news
>groups and consider the replies sent to this one with extreme
>caution. There are of course genuine people frequenting this
>news group who will only give good advice but they are in the
>minority, in my honest opinion that is.
>
>I hope this advice helps in your dealings with this news group.
>The follow-ups will give you hours of mirth.
>
>Regards,
>
>Henry.
It's people like you who constantly go off topic and post about nonsense that
ruins any newsgroup.
Here's some on-topic info to help you out. Discuss:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
==============================================================================
TOPIC: P & S cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:08 am
From: Sheila
michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:LU%Qk.4032$hc1.2769@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>
>>> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
>>> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>> I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
>> bad purchasing decision that they've made, against all facts and logic.
>> They don't want to believe that they've been "taken" so they launch into
>> these tirades of incorrect information that they really do know to be
>> false. They may be trying to draw others into making the same mistakes, as
>> a way of validating their decisions. You see this more in the automotive
>> newsgroups and forums, or the Apple newsgroups and forums; there's
>> apparently only one individual in rec.photo.digital with this problem,
>> which is a pretty good thing!
>>
>> The constantly changing e-mail addresses are often used to create
>> sock-puppets, though in this case he doesn't deny that he's doing this, so
>> it's probably being done to get around everyone's kill-files. Above all
>> these people seek attention. It doesn't matter that they're made to look
>> foolish--simply getting a response is all they desire.
>>
>> You're right of course that each type of camera has its uses. I have one
>> D-SLR, and we have four P&S cameras in the house. The core problem with
>> our troll seems to be a keen lack of understanding of the pros and cons of
>> each type of camera.
>>
>> It's not clear if he really owns anything at all, but if his claims of
>> teleconverters is true, he is apparently trying to convert a P&S to the
>> functionality, at least in zoom range, of a D-SLR with these kludges. When
>> the cheapest D-SLR was $1500, this sort of kludge at least made a bit of
>> sense for the person with little money that needed extreme wide-angle or
>> long range telephoto, even though all the experts agree that using these
>> devices results in sub-standard shots, not to mention the other issues
>> such as shutter and auto-focus lag, and poor low light capability.
>
> The weird thing is that posting that enourmous list of plus points for P&S
> does'nt, in my opinion endear anyone towards P&S.
>
> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
> after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and mobile
> phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time. There is a
> growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think sales of these
> cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
>
>
Even though the SLRs are getting smaller all the time they are still
too big to carry around all the time. It seems that a lot of times when
I'm out for the day, shopping etc, I see something I would like to take
a photo of but my camera is at home. I might add, that in hot weather I
don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard that the heat may
destroy the sensor, so if I take my SLR, I have to carry it everywhere I
go on these trips.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:11 am
From: Sheila
Jürgen Exner wrote:
> <michaelk@fromCardiff.com> wrote:
>> Do you see the camera phone making a dent in the P&S market?
>
> Actually I do. Now, this has nothing to do with the quality of the
> photos or the feature set or camera but simply with convenience and that
> people are lazy.
>
> Phone are so ubiquitous that many people will use them instead of a
> dedicated camera to shoot snapshot. And don't forget that with a phone
> you can send that snap shot to your friends immediately. Quality is
> irrelevant because those friends will view the photo on a phone, too,
> and those phone displays have a resolution of what, 300x400 or something
> like that.
>
> Now, you might argue that is not photography and probably you are right.
> But it is what a lot of people want and while in the past those people
> had no choice but to buy a low-end P&S in the future they will just use
> the phone camera simply because it is there already and even does a
> better job in some tasks like send the picture to your friends.
>
> jue
If that is all they use for a camera, they will have no decent photo
memories to look at when they grow older.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:22 am
From: Alan Browne
Sheila wrote:
> I might add, that in hot weather I
> don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard that the heat may
> destroy the sensor,
Keep it in a padded camera bag and it won't heat up enough to matter.
For that matter, as long as direct sunlight (through the car glass)
doesn't reach it, don't worry.
If you're in a very hot place (Death Valley in July) then just leave the
windows cracked open half an inch.
The spec for my DSLR is 60C (140F) for storage. Check your manual.
Does your car ever get that hot? (Thermometer in a shaded part of the
car will tell).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/e5821c93abc3b7d1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:32 am
From: Sheila
get_a_life2@webtv.net wrote:
> it is from a camera card
> thanks
>
Oh, then my solution won't work. A few days ago, I accidentally deleted
my photos on a camera card.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 8 2008 10:35 am
From: Alan Browne
Sheila wrote:
> get_a_life2@webtv.net wrote:
>> it is from a camera card
>> thanks
>>
>
>
> Oh, then my solution won't work. A few days ago, I accidentally deleted
> my photos on a camera card.
I haven't managed that (yet). Matter of time probably.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
==============================================================================
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
