Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:01 am
From: Don Stauffer

RichA wrote:
> There is a poster on dpreview, can't remember his name, who has as his
> signature image pictures of the Olympus cameras he's owned since the
> early 1990s. What you notice, strikingly, is the reversion across the
> years from experimental to absolutely conservative, lock-step camera
> design. DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
> for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.

It sounds like you are talking about styling. I could care less what the
styling is. The film SLR styling evolved over decades, and makes for a
fairly handy package. It is fine for me.
>
> http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2009/03/where-are-the-portrait-lenses.html
>
> extract:
>
> by Andy Westlake on March 05, 2009 in Lens reviews
>
> There's something that's been troubling me a bit recently, and I want
> to get it off my chest. It's an irritation about the photographic
> equipment available today, and its fitness for the purpose for which
> it's most likely to be used. It has germinated over the course of
> testing an array of 50mm prime lenses, developed further with the
> recent arrival at the dpreview offices of an array of new fast primes,
> and finally crystallized with the relative lack of interesting new
> products and ideas at PMA. And it's this; most manufacturers seem be
> be thinking very conservatively, treating digital as though nothing's
> changed from the days of 35mm film

Now you seem to be talking functionality. What function(s) of existing
cameras need improvement that could come with more innovative design?

Personally, I am thrilled by the performance of our DSLRs. Of course,
my film SLR was about 30 years old, so the newest DSLRs seem to be major
advances to me. However, for all its bells and whistles, I rarely use
my autofocus, and do not use hardly any of the programmed modes-
primarily use aperture priority.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:11 am
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-03-08 05:32:19 -0700, Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> said:

> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save for some
>> enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas being
>> presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
>> the cameras that need re-thinks.
>
> You know, I actually wish that were the case. The digital SLRs we get
> today are computerized monstrosities -- and I'm not talking about the
> "digital" part, which obviously has to be that, but the "camera" part.
>
> Last night I shot a roll of Tri-X on a mechanical 35mm SLR. What's
> striking is how much more enjoyable the act of photography is with a
> regular old camera, without all the crap getting in the way. I *wish*
> my digital SLR were just like that, only digital. I really, really
> wish.

Honestly, all that stuff does not get in my way. If I want simplicity,
then "f/8 and be there" works just fine. But I really like the control
that the DSLR gives me.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:31 am
From: Bob Haar

On 3/8/09 1:15 AM, "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

> There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
> being presented. Westlake concentrates on the lenses, but to me, it's
> the cameras that need re-thinks.

The maxim "If it aint broke, don't fix it." applies.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:31 am
From: Bruce

RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>DSLRs now look almost exactly like SLRs of the 1970s, save
>for some enhanced grips. There is NO innovation, no abstract ideas
>being presented.

That's nonsense. Different layouts have been tried, but they didn't
succeed in the market for a variety of reasons, one of which is the
conservatism of buyers who have expectations of what a (D)SLR should
look like. If it deviates too far from that, it is unlikely to sell.

Likewise, non-SLR digital cameras mostly follow a small number of widely
accepted designs, and woe betide any manufacturer who tries something
too radical.

Instead, all the innovation has gone into features, notably autofocus
and metering, which have become ever more sophisticated. The main
demand here comes from people who would never have bought a film SLR,
but want a DSLR that makes all their decisions for them.

OK, in film days, there were people who bought sophisticated SLR camera
bodies as status symbols, and then used them only in Program mode with a
consumer grade junk lens on the front. But there were nowhere near as
many of them as there are people buying very sophisticated DSLRs.

The fact is that features sell, and the more sophisticated DSLRs get,
the more people will buy them. The fact that most of these people
wouldn't have a hope of producing competent images without the help of
multi-point predictive autofocus, matrix metering and Program exposure
modes to do it all for them, is irrelevant. These cameras are bought to
make a statement about the purchaser, that (usually) he is "serious
about photography".

The truth, of course, is that anyone who is genuinely serious about
photography will spend more time learning the craft rather than more
money on equipment. But the pressure is on consumers to upgrade their
equipment rather than their ability, because selling equipment is a lot
more profitable than selling books or tuition.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:17 am
From: "semoi"

This is an old issue: if an SLR does not resemble the form factor of a 1936
Exacta it will not be taken seriously by the advanced amateur/pro market
that drives sales.
The market has spoken and the market is driven by idiots, whether it is
camera buyers, home buyers, SUV buyers ad infinitum. Consumers do not
usually make informed choices regardless of what they think is their level
of sophistication. The marketers know this well and that it will not change
regardless of the current economic situation.
If a sensor does not adhere to the ancient and arbitrarily created 35mm
double frame format it will not be considered technically adequate
regardless of actual performance.
The sensor/electonics in the Nikon D300 equals or outperforms those in "full
frame" dSLRS at high ISOs and in every practical use that the morons on this
newsgroup could ever need but since the sensor is not the size of the holy
35mm double frame 1936 Exacta it is no good.
Olympus has a long history of trying to buck the prevailing camera form
factor going back to the Pen half frame series, the small bodied film SLRs
and the original 4/3 sensor dSLR designs (and the sensor itself) and its
reward is that it is about to go out of business.
Whither Minolta, the most innovative Japanese camera company ever, done in
by an idiot SUV driving jury in Minnesota.
Panasonic tried to buck the Exacta form factor with its first dSLR, which
went nowhere.
Now Panasonic is really on to something with the interchangeable lens EVF
camera--rejected sight unseen and unused by the nitwit trolls on this
newsgroup.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:48 am
From: Bruce

"semoi" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Now Panasonic is really on to something with the interchangeable lens EVF
>camera--rejected sight unseen and unused by the nitwit trolls on this
>newsgroup.

I tried a Panasonic G1 and was very disappointed with the EVF. It will
not satisfy anyone who has sets a minimum standard of, say, an average
full frame (D)SLR viewfinder. On the other hand, it will probably
satisfy owners of P&S digicams who don't value what a good reflex
viewfinder offers, or people who have only used the worst of the smaller
than full frame DSLR finders.

>Never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.

That's obviously a mantra you are determined to follow. ;-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Field of view
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2ddd5ce0344a1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:04 am
From: Don Stauffer

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> What is the formula for calculating horizontal and vertical field of
>> view out of focal length, crop factor and aspect ratio of the sensor?
>
> Tangent is your friend here. IIRC:
>
> FoV (H) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-width / focal-length)
>
> FoV (V) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-height / focal-length)
>
> FoV (diag) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-diagonal / focal-length)
>
> Ignore crop factor, and use the actual active area dimensions of the
> sensor.
>
> David

However, if you do not have the actual dimensions, they are 24mm divided
by the crop factor, and 36mm divided by the crop factor. Those are the
full height and width, you then need to divide by two to get the
semi-(values).

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:21 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Don Stauffer wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> What is the formula for calculating horizontal and vertical field of
>>> view out of focal length, crop factor and aspect ratio of the
>>> sensor?
>>
>> Tangent is your friend here. IIRC:
>>
>> FoV (H) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-width / focal-length)
>>
>> FoV (V) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-height / focal-length)
>>
>> FoV (diag) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-diagonal / focal-length)
>>
>> Ignore crop factor, and use the actual active area dimensions of the
>> sensor.
>>
>> David
>
>
> However, if you do not have the actual dimensions, they are 24mm
> divided by the crop factor, and 36mm divided by the crop factor. Those
> are the full height and width, you then need to divide by two
> to get the semi-(values).

Thanks, Don. My reservation is that the usually quoted crop factors are
not all that accurate!

Cheers,
David

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:40 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <B2Qsl.4402$Lc7.1828@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...

> Tangent is your friend here. IIRC:
>
> FoV (H) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-width / focal-length)
>
> FoV (V) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-height / focal-length)
>
> FoV (diag) = 2 * ArcTan (sensor-semi-diagonal / focal-length)

Long live the arctan ;-)

Let's calculate an example.

APS-C sized sensor 23.5 x 15.7 mm

At 10mm:
Hor. fov = 99.2°
Ver. fov = 76.3°

At 16mm:
Hor. fov = 72.5°
Ver. fov = 52.3°

At 80mm:
Hor. fov = 16.7°
Ver. fov = 11.2°

At 300mm:
Hor. fov = 4.5°
Ver. fov = 3°
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:11 am
From: "David J Taylor"

Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> Long live the arctan ;-)
>
> Let's calculate an example.
>
> APS-C sized sensor 23.5 x 15.7 mm
[]
> At 300mm:
> Hor. fov = 4.5°
> Ver. fov = 3°

.. and my Nikon 300mm says "5 degrees 20 minutes FoV" in the manual, which
is 5.333 degrees diagonal. Your calculation gives 5.4 degrees. Probably
within the limits of the approximations in the data.

Cheers,
David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ISO & exposure comp. -- aren't they redundant?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/bec119cd055b0362?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 9:28 am
From: Marvin

Charles Packer wrote:
> My last film camera, a Minolta SLR, beyond shutter speed
> and F-stop, had one other means of controlling how much
> light reached the film: the ASA dial, which was
> customarily set to the same "speed" as the film and left
> there.
>
> My first digital, a Sony Mavica, dispensed with the
> ASA setting but had exposure compensation, called "EV",
> from -2 to +2, easily accessible in two clicks of the
> main button.
>
> My next digital, an Olympus SP-350, had both the -2/+2
> exposure compensation and "ISO", which seemed synonymous
> with film speed. The former was immediately available
> with up/down buttons; the latter was buried way the
> hell down in the menu, which seemed similar to film
> mentality.
>
> My current digital, a Canon 20D, reverses the
> accesibility of ISO and exposure compensation. The
> former is a button-press and a wheel; the latter,
> incredibily enough, is a power switch position,
> a half-press of the shutter, a peek in the viewfinder,
> and a wheel.
>
> Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
> aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?
>
> --
> Charles Packer
> http://cpacker.org/whatnews
> mailboxATcpacker.org

They are not redundant. If you are taking an action
picture, as one example, you don't want the shutter to stay
open long, so you let the camera alter only the f-stop or
ISO setting. If you want to improve your photo skills, buy
or borrow a book on photography basics. For a question like
this, it doesn't matter if the book is about film or digital
photography.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:01 am
From: "semoi"

As there are many paths to enlightenment there are many ways to alter
exposure.
Does one use manual exposure, a zen master of the Zone system driven by the
illusion of controlling all things photographic?
Is one slavishly devoted to programmed exposure, abandoning all
responsibility?
Is one unable to abandon an earthly desire for shutter/aperture control?
Does one comprehend the impact on the digital universe caused by altering
ISO settings?
Have you mastered the sacred rituals of Adobe Photoshop?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:42 am
From: Marco Tedaldi

Charles Packer schrieb:
> My last film camera, a Minolta SLR, beyond shutter speed
> and F-stop, had one other means of controlling how much
> light reached the film: the ASA dial, which was
> customarily set to the same "speed" as the film and left
> there.
>
Which is the right way to do it. You tell your Camera what kind of film
is inside, so it can calculate the right exposure.

> My first digital, a Sony Mavica, dispensed with the
> ASA setting but had exposure compensation, called "EV",
> from -2 to +2, easily accessible in two clicks of the
> main button.

Right, this way you can under or overexpose a picture when you think
your camera automatics are not doing it right.

>
> My next digital, an Olympus SP-350, had both the -2/+2
> exposure compensation and "ISO", which seemed synonymous
> with film speed. The former was immediately available
> with up/down buttons; the latter was buried way the
> hell down in the menu, which seemed similar to film
> mentality.
>
Thats wrong. the ISO-Setting on a digital camera is really like changing
the film and telling the camera the ISO-Setting of the new film. So a
picture taken at ISO400 should look the same as a picture taken at
ISO100 (except some more noise in an image with ISO400 in some cases)

> My current digital, a Canon 20D, reverses the
> accesibility of ISO and exposure compensation. The
> former is a button-press and a wheel; the latter,
> incredibily enough, is a power switch position,
> a half-press of the shutter, a peek in the viewfinder,
> and a wheel.
>
40D... the process sounds almost the same but i think it's quite convenient.
Half-Pressing the shutter button (releasing it, if I want) and turning
the thumb wheel on the back to change the EV-Correction. Shown on the
display on the top and in the Viewfinder. A no hassle process.

> Where is the logic in all of this? In the digital world,
> aren't ISO and exposure compensation redundant, anyway?

Nope, not at all.
The EV-correction over the ISO setting in earlier days where a way
around a missing feature. You had to lie to your camera about the film
speed if you wanted it to behave like you wanted. Now you can tell your
camera, what you want and it should do it.

greets

Marco

--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 12:36 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

Charles Packer <mailbox@cpacker.org> wrote:
>My last film camera, a Minolta SLR, beyond shutter speed
>and F-stop, had one other means of controlling how much
>light reached the film: the ASA dial, which was
>customarily set to the same "speed" as the film and left
>there.

It also had the potential of changing to a film with a
different speed. (Which in some cameras, with some types
of film, could automatically set the ASA of the camera to
match that of the film.)

And indeed, some film cameras had Exposure Compensation
too, if they had a built in light meter. All that EC
does is change where the meter reads 0. If EC is set to
+1, it will take 1 fstop more light to zero the meter.

Note that for our purposes ASA values and ISO values are
the same thing. It is a measure of the light
sensitivity of the film/sensor. ASA was from the
American Standards Association and ISO is from the
International Standards Organization. The difference
between the two values is highly technical and isn't
enough to be of concern in this discussion.

Given the above, each of your different cameras can be
compared in a useful way.

>My first digital, a Sony Mavica, dispensed with the
>ASA setting but had exposure compensation, called "EV",
>from -2 to +2, easily accessible in two clicks of the
>main button.

No difference, except the Mavica could not use "film" that
had a different ASA value, it had only one type of film.

>My next digital, an Olympus SP-350, had both the -2/+2
>exposure compensation and "ISO", which seemed synonymous
>with film speed. The former was immediately available
>with up/down buttons; the latter was buried way the
>hell down in the menu, which seemed similar to film
>mentality.

That statement hits a nail right on the head!

As you say, this camera is no different than were film
cameras, except for the means of presenting the
functionality. With cameras manufactured before silicon
based electronics, everything was necessarily a
mechanical user interface. And as first transistor and
then computer technology became sufficiently developed,
that has allowed a much more complex camera design which
can include automation not available previously, and
user interface options that are different. (Which of
course is true whether the camera has an electronic
sensor or whether it uses film; hence this is not a
matter of "film vs. digital".)

The point your paragraph above makes is that there are
different approaches to the user interface. Mechanical
buttons on the camera (the face, the back, the top, and
which ones are visible in the viewfinder or on various
LCD displays???), or via a menu system? (And how are
menus presented? Via rotary dials, clicky buttons, or
whatever?)

Every manufacturer did their own studies to determine
what they thought their customer base would find most
comfortable.

Obviously it is indeed logical, but also targets different
types of people who may or may not be logical themselves.

And no, ISO and EC are not the same. However,
effectively you now have an ISO setting instead of
changing film, and you have EC rather than adjusting the
camera's ASA setting. Hence the old ASA setting is much
the same as todays EC setting.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing on special paper
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/542a3b490cd9e1ad?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:10 am
From: Ockham's Razor

Is there any photo printing service that can make prints of up to 20x30
on paper other than "glossy or matte"?

What I have are several photo TIFF's that have been "Painted" with
PainterX.

TIA

--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kenya - Belgium March 2009 Travel Pictures Country next to Country
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9202ae19347a3500?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:19 am
From: BoBi <1kdg@scarlet.be>

Dear,

This website Kenya-Belgium displays several pages each one containing
two comparative (similar, contrastive, ...) photos. Let your thoughts
flow freely and enjoy:
http://www.dongo.org/kenya-belgium/list_36_en/kenyan_road_works_and_belgian_road_works.html
Click the "-->"-button on the page opened for the following pictures.

Best regards, BoBi

Annex: overview of the photos:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Somewhere out there, a monkey just got his drivers licence...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e162be148f308e39?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 10:58 am
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:8KLsl.1560$im1.1241@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>>
>> You be the judge:
>> http://www.photography.dudley-hanks.com/Images/MichOnBus-small.jpg
>> (quick loading)
>
> Well done!
>
>
>> Sorry, though, I have to copyright this one...
>
> Ha, yeah right, like you are ever going to know <evil grin>.

Did I forget to mention that click activated virus embeddede in the image?
In graphical terms, it helps embellish the glint in his eye, but, I wouldn't
want to be on the wrong end of a copyright violation... :)
>
> BTW as mentioned, that was the P&S troll the other day...

Yeah, I know. He actually makes a nice whipping boy for some long-standing
frustrations... :)

>
> PS are you going to post these to the blog? The link above goes to what
> appears to be a dead domain, if I clip off the details... so no way to
> find these other than your posts here.

Yep, I'm in the final stages of moving my blog from blogspot to my own
site -- this pic will probably accompany my first article. Also, I've got
sstreaming video ready to go, so I should be doing some short video clips
(with the help of my daughter's new video cam, another Canon).

But, what pleases me the most is that my XSi finally feels good in my hands.
The mindset has changed from "Can I do it?" to "I can do it!" So, I don't
overthink pics as much. I've always been more of a reactive shooter than a
studio dweller, so I do the best work when a scene pops up in front of my
lens.

I've had to reprogram a few "muscle memories," but I think my shooting days
have definitely gotten their second wind.

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did the Canon boat sink?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0dfb9b4ed431024?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:00 am
From: Petri Lopia

bowser wrote:
> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra batteries?
> Still no stock I can find.

I have on here... Got it about week ago.

--
Nature, StormChase, Lightning, Galapagos, Kenya, Ecuador photos:
http://www.petrilopia.net/

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:46 am
From: SMS

Petri Lopia wrote:
> bowser wrote:
>> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra
>> batteries? Still no stock I can find.
>
> I have on here... Got it about week ago.

They seem to be back in stock now everywhere. There was a big shortage
when they first came out because so many Nikon owners were switching
over to the 5D Mark II, but now that most of them have completed the
transition production is keeping up with demand.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 12:45 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

SMS wrote:
> Petri Lopia wrote:
>> bowser wrote:
>>> Just wondering where all the 5D IIs are, along with the extra
>>> batteries? Still no stock I can find.
>>
>> I have on here... Got it about week ago.
>
> They seem to be back in stock now everywhere. There was a big shortage
> when they first came out because so many Nikon owners were switching
> over to the 5D Mark II, but now that most of them have completed the
> transition production is keeping up with demand.

Oh, you are so amusing at times!

Or is that "funny"? <G>

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: cameras with built in GPS
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a307891b045195c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:04 am
From: Petri Lopia

Pioneer42 wrote:
> _aperture wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> What are the cameras out there with a built in GPS so that the photos
>> get geo-tagged? I am looking for a compact camera - not an SLR.
>>
>> What are the other ways (software, perhaps) of getting the longitude/
>> latitude information into the image EXIF?
>>
>> tia,
>> bala
>
>
> You can use Microsoft's Pro Photo Tools to geotag photos using a .gpx
> track file from any GPS receiver. It coordinates the time stamps of the
> photos with the time data of the GPS track.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/tools.aspx
>
> You can also use Picasa/Google Earth for manual geotagging, but it will
> not coordinate the timestamps automatically.

And it's actually pretty easy to make that kind of "software" your self.
I have make one what takes time from photos Exif tags and then lat/lon
from Nokia SportTracker CSV track and then make google maps map with
thumbnails on the right places and so on...

--
StormChase, Lightnings, Nature, Galapagos, Ecuador, Kenya photos:
http://www.petrilopia.net/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More info on black silicon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/acbb29b472f7c8c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:19 am
From: Paul Furman

rjn wrote:
> Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>> ...maybe this implies 30MP cell phones with the
>> performance of high end astronomy sensors? <g>.
>
> Full color nightvision.

Yep. And super IR performance too.

> Pin hole cameras could make a big comeback.
> Lenses will need to stop down to f4096 or so.
> Good bye bokeh.
> Hello diffraction.

It would start suffering from diffraction around f/2, and hard to design
a lens faster than that so maybe just a pinhole is all you need. No need
to focus then, and no distortion or chromatic aberrations.

> And, when you aren't shooting, you can point your
> camera at the sun, lock up the mirror, and feed
> power back into the grid.

It should charge the battery when you take pictures. Only reviewing on
the LCD would use energy <g>. Shooting in bright sunny conditions would
require opening a steam release valve <g>.

> If investors weren't running for the hills, SiOnyx
> would make a fabulous IPO, or SEC poster child.
> Time will tell.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Soft, protective "pouch" for SLR available?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/95ee274557142f53?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 11:59 am
From: tony cooper

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 08:21:04 -0700, C J Campbell
<christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>http://blackrapid.com/
>
>The R strap is different from other camera straps in that it holds the
>camera by the tripod mount. The camera slides up and down the strap
>like it is on a zip line. This allows the camera to move freely, but
>the strap stays relatively snug and the camera does not swing around
>while you are walking. It also takes all the pressure off your neck. I
>also have a variant made by another company that holds two cameras,
>allowing me to instantly switch between either camera.

Nothing to do with the strap itself, but what kind of idiot makes a
video demonstrating his black product, connected to a black camera
body, and wears a black shirt?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 12:26 pm
From: "MaryL"

"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009030808210475249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-03-07 15:11:51 -0800, ASAAR <caught@22.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:41:03 -0600, MaryL wrote:
>>
>> That's what I also normally use, but are we talking about the same
>> type of padded camera bag? (I'm just wondering if yours is one of
>> the rectangular bags that can hold at least a body and a pair of
>> lenses) Mine is Tamrac's 5684 which holds the camera with the lens
>> pointed down, and the bag is tapered, narrower at the bottom, so
>> it's barely larger than the camera.
>
> I use a Boda bag for that sort of thing:
>
> http://www.goboda.com/
>
> This excellent and extremely compact bag will carry a couple lenses, a
> strobe, and accessories in a pouch that you can either sling over your
> shoulder or wear on your waist -- it comes with its own belt. However,
> even the large one will not hold a pro body. So, the strategy for using
> this bag is to pack a couple lenses in it and wear the camera on your
> shoulder using an R Strap.
>
> http://blackrapid.com/
>
> The R strap is different from other camera straps in that it holds the
> camera by the tripod mount. The camera slides up and down the strap like
> it is on a zip line. This allows the camera to move freely, but the strap
> stays relatively snug and the camera does not swing around while you are
> walking. It also takes all the pressure off your neck. I also have a
> variant made by another company that holds two cameras, allowing me to
> instantly switch between either camera.
>
> Of course, the Boda Bag, the R Strap, and the WP-1 photopack mentioned in
> my previous post are a bit on the pricey side. For me, the speed and
> portability of these systems are worth it. If you have plenty of time and
> space, then any old camera bag will do.
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor
>

The R-Strap looks interesting, but I don't see any information on cost or
how to order. Some dealers were listed, but they don't seem to have search
sites. Where did you get yours? Can you supply a web site?

Also: Can the R-Strap be adjusted so the camera will not swing to the back?
Everyone keeps warning me about theft!

Thanks,
MaryL

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon warranty for grey products
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3604654c98233051?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 8 2009 12:16 pm
From: "mianileng"

This is about something I read on the Nikon website not long
ago - a couple of months at most. Unless my memory's playing
tricks on me, what I saw was a list of FAQs where they say that
even cameras bought from the grey market are eligible for full
warranty support. The only cautionary note was that the full
range of spare parts, service equipment and expertise may not be
readily available at a particular service center for a product
that's not specifically intended for distribution in that region.

I also remember that this was immediately preceded by an advice
to potential customers against buying from the grey market. It
is, however, possible that Nikon stated that their servicing
centers are equally open to grey imports and I confused it with
repairs under warranty. In any case, I just have not been able to
find that FAQs page on the Nikon website again. Anyone know about
this?

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

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