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

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak z980
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c559353ce03702d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:20 am
From: Robert Coe

On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:51:01 -0700, "pupick" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote:
: The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
: Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations for
: dubious quality.
: However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
: lose?

That question more or less answers itself, doesn't it?

Bob

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:31 am
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 10:20:33 +1000, Mark Thomas <mark.thomas.7@gmail.com>
wrote:
: pupick wrote:
: > The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
: > Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations
: > for dubious quality.
: > However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
: > lose?
: I'm afraid that to date all I like about the Kodak superzooms is that
: they *are* quite good for granma and granpa (for whom large prints are
: irrelevant), ...

Look here, Marco, let's not get personal. As the oldest (probably) participant
in this newsgroup, with five (5) grandchildren, I'm right in your gunsight. I
can assure you that large prints are not irrelevant to this "granpa". ;^)

Bob

P.S.: In the film days, I was a Nikon user; in digital, Canon. My only Kodak
was a "Brownie Reflex (Synchro Model)".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rechargable batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b45617abfbf5918?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:27 am
From: George Kerby

On 3/14/09 10:29 AM, in article
3qOdnWloYvTlUCbUnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<secret@illumnati.net> wrote:

>
> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gpbchm$bl2$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> I don't remember how old. At least a year. I've got a bunch
>> of the Duracell 2650, which I rotate in random order. It's
>> very possible they are just used up, and not holding a
>> charge.
>>
>> How would I test them for capacity and such?
>
> You can test them for capacity with a LaCrosse BC-900 charger, available at
> Amazon.com for $39.95 with free shipping. Almost 500 user reviews on Amazon,
> average 4.5 stars. It's the most versatile charger I've seen -- so impressed
> with the first one I bought a second, and now I seldom use my Baha chargers
> anymore.
>
Neil, I have read many Amazon reviews where people complained about the
BC-900 melting, charring the batteries and almost catching the house on
fire.

Does the thing run that hot? Have they fixed it? That kept me from further
consideration.

I am happy with my"M"aha charger, BTW...

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 1:40 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:05:37 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:

>> Yes, the camera has a setting choice, either for Oxyride, or
>> for akaline / NiMH cells. I don't know why alkalines and
>> nimmies are the same setting.
>
> That does seem odd. Nikon Coolpix cameras using AAs have different settings
> for alkaline, NiMH and lithium.

Perhaps the camera (like some chargers) is able to detect the
difference between alkalines and NiMH cells, but wouldn't be able to
distinguish between alkalines and oxyrides? It might be able to
tell them apart if only fresh batteries were ever placed into
cameras, but a slightly used oxyride could be a different matter.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:18 pm
From: "Neil Harrington"

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C5E14538.24A54%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 3/14/09 10:29 AM, in article
> 3qOdnWloYvTlUCbUnZ2dnUVZ_q3inZ2d@giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gpbchm$bl2$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>> I don't remember how old. At least a year. I've got a bunch
>>> of the Duracell 2650, which I rotate in random order. It's
>>> very possible they are just used up, and not holding a
>>> charge.
>>>
>>> How would I test them for capacity and such?
>>
>> You can test them for capacity with a LaCrosse BC-900 charger, available
>> at
>> Amazon.com for $39.95 with free shipping. Almost 500 user reviews on
>> Amazon,
>> average 4.5 stars. It's the most versatile charger I've seen -- so
>> impressed
>> with the first one I bought a second, and now I seldom use my Baha
>> chargers
>> anymore.
>>
> Neil, I have read many Amazon reviews where people complained about the
> BC-900 melting, charring the batteries and almost catching the house on
> fire.
>
> Does the thing run that hot? Have they fixed it? That kept me from further
> consideration.

Neither of mine have run at all hot, but I don't generally use them at more
than the 500 mA charge rate. I seldom feel need for the 700 mA rate and have
never used the 1000 mA rate at all. For this reason I'm also going to get
one of their newer BC-700 chargers which don't have anything higher than 700
mA. At the time I bought the BC-900s they were actually cheaper than the
(then new) BC-700 and came with a lot of extra goodies besides. Now the
BC-700 is only $25.16 with free shipping (just saw this today, thanks to
this discussion) and that's too good to pass up.

I'll probably eBay off all but one of my other chargers. The reason for
keeping one is that the LaCrosse chargers think that a cell discharged below
some level is a dead one, and will refuse to charge it. This has happened to
me a number of times. So I pop the refused cell in another charger for a
little while, then return it to the LaCrosse which is then happy and will go
ahead and charge it. This is a known "feature" of the LaCrosse chargers;
I've read that the BC-700 does the same thing too.

The BC-900 has had firmware revisions which I understand fixed some earlier
problems. The latest one (as far as I know) is v.35, which is what both of
mine are. (The firmware version shows on the display when it's first turned
on.) I've had both of mine for some time so I presume all those being sold
now have the later version. The BC-700 has v.36 firmware, I understand. What
difference that makes, I don't know.

>
> I am happy with my"M"aha charger, BTW...

I've always liked mine too, but the Maha chargers *do* get the batteries
quite hot, at least at the higher rate. When I use my Maha C401FS chargers,
which have a charge rate switch, I usually set them at the "5 hour" rate,
which is 300 mA and keeps the cells pretty cool. The "100 minute" rate is a
full amp and that makes the batteries hotter than I like, as I'm sure it
shortens their life at least somewhat.

I like that the LaCrosse chargers offer intermediate charge rates, which are
shown on the displays.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:27 pm
From: "Neil Harrington"

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:185or4tang4l44mt1sh0g3anq538tbqttk@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:05:37 -0400, Neil Harrington wrote:
>
>>> Yes, the camera has a setting choice, either for Oxyride, or
>>> for akaline / NiMH cells. I don't know why alkalines and
>>> nimmies are the same setting.
>>
>> That does seem odd. Nikon Coolpix cameras using AAs have different
>> settings
>> for alkaline, NiMH and lithium.
>
> Perhaps the camera (like some chargers) is able to detect the
> difference between alkalines and NiMH cells, but wouldn't be able to
> distinguish between alkalines and oxyrides?

Probably. I've had other brands of AA-using cameras (Minolta, Canon, Pentax)
and now that you mention it I don't think any of them made any such
distinction between alkalines and NiMHs. So maybe that's a Nikon exclusive.
I always suspected that the only real reason for the setting was for the
sake of the low-battery warning, which probably should go on at a different
voltage for alkalines than for NiMH cells.

Oxyrides I never even heard of before today. WTF are oxyrides? :-)

> It might be able to
> tell them apart if only fresh batteries were ever placed into
> cameras, but a slightly used oxyride could be a different matter.
>

==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:29 am
From: Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
> in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
> are infinitely variable.

With Nikon at least, the ISO is definitely not stepless, it goes only
in 1/3 stops. I have never seen a shutter speed in EXIF in anything
other than 1/3 stops. I've never used the cameras in any way that
lets the camera choose an aperture, but I'd be surprised if it were
any different.

--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 10:50 am
From: nospam

In article <7224bjFnld0bU1@mid.individual.net>, Jeremy Nixon < )@(>
wrote:

> > the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
> > in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
> > are infinitely variable.
>
> With Nikon at least, the ISO is definitely not stepless, it goes only
> in 1/3 stops. I have never seen a shutter speed in EXIF in anything
> other than 1/3 stops. I've never used the cameras in any way that
> lets the camera choose an aperture, but I'd be surprised if it were
> any different.

i just looked at the exif of some of my images and saw nonstandard
settings such as iso 220, 1/290th second and f/5.9.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone in UK looking to buy a Canon SX1 IS? - heads up
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a1626f27a25f5f15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:38 am
From: "Nick"

I have been searching for one of these for a few days.
Best price I've found is £399.99 inc. vat & delivery (Amazon and others).

Trawling this afternoon I came upon this:
Canon Powershot SX1 IS
8gb high speed class 6 SD/HC card
Pro case
Charger kit inc. 4x 2000 minh (sic) batteries
£400.00 inc vat. Delivery is £8.00

I think the price is a typo and should be around £460.
I have ordered one and received email confirmation of order.
I suspect someone will be hung out to dry when the error is discovered.

http://www.ukcamerastore.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000066.cgi?REFPAGE=https%3a%2f%2fwww%2eukcamerastore%2eco%2euk%2fcgi%2dbin%2fos000066%2ecgi&WD=sx1%20canon&PN=Canon_Powershot_SX1_IS_Bundle_Offers%2ehtml%23aSX1_208GB_20SUPER#aSX1_208GB_20SUPER

2nd from bottom.

I have no connection with the company and have never used them before, just
a heads up.

Nick.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slideshow question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7096cb56447df3eb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 9:39 am
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 11 Mar 2009 09:53:57 -0700 (PDT), Inez <savagemouse123@hotmail.com>
wrote:
: I want to do a powerpoint slide show which will be projected on a
: screen. Quite a few of the images are scans of medium format
: negatives and are of gianormous size, and I am not sure how much I
: should reduce them. Unfortunately I won't have a shot using the
: projector until it is too late to make changes, so I can't
: experiment.
:
: I know this is a rather nebulous question, but what is a good size for
: an image to be projected? I'll probably resize them in photoshop, if
: that matters.

Projectors tend to be pretty primitive. Most won't do better than 1024 x 768.

But you don't really have to reduce your pictures. Powerpoint will do that for
you as it constructs the image for the screen.

Bob

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 10:19 am
From: Paul Furman

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote:
>> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
>>> and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will.
>> Fly? Quite possibly, but physical limits will prevent you from
>> achieving the resolutions you claimed.
>
> I think you misunderstand what I would want from a 48MP 24x35mm sensor and
> expect I would get.
>
> All I want is similar sharpness at the pixel level to what I've been
> seeing up to now. And that means MTF50 at about 70% of Nyquist, which
> produces very nice images on every dcam I've owned up to now.
>
> I really don't expect the world to come to a complete end if the sensor
> resolution increases by 1.5 times over what I have now. Again, with 21MP,
> images are excellent at f/11, almost imperceptibly less so at f/16, and so
> there's no reason not to expect f/8 to be similarly excellent at the pixel
> level on a 48MP sensor.
>
>>>> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
>>>> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
>>>> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
>>> The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was
>>> nice
>>> to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
>> As you say. Without see the picture nor any reference to it, it's
>> impossible for me to disagree. But with a 24MP dSLR, Zeiss's own
>> engineers were only to achieve a 10% MTF at 100 lp/mm, much less
>> 200 lp/mm. See: http://snipurl.com/8xdr7 [Zeiss.com] (PDF).
>
> Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
>
>>> But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over
>>> 50%
>>> MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have
>>> been
>>> home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
>> You shouldn't be. The f/8 diffraction limit for a 30% MTF is about
>> 155 lp/mm. By the Higgens formula, to achieve 100 lp/mm at 15% you'd
>> need a film with a MTF 50 of about 130 lp/mm. Kodak only claims 125
>> lp/mm for TMax 100. So under perfect conditions and with perfect
>> processing, it's barely possible.
>
> So shoot at f/5.6. That may require that one use a better/more expensive
> lens, though.

What if you use a bellows to enlarge the projected image? I know that's
kind of cheating but it gets to the heart of what the lens is capable of
resolving. Or a teleconverter to assess resolution at a distance.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 10:34 am
From: Paul Furman

SMS wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <bDhul.15595$as4.13825@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>
>>> The Nikon APS-C sensor is 64% larger than the 4:3 sensor. The Canon
>>> APS-C sensor is 46% larger than the 4:3 sensor.
>>
>> But it's not two, four or ten times larger - just a bit larger.
>
> "A bit" would be like the difference between Canon's APS-C sensor and
> Nikon's APS-C sensor. The Nikon is a "a bit" larger.

4:3 -> 1.5x -> DX -> 1.5x -> FX

-or close to equal steps like that:

FX -> .64x -> DX -> .66x -> 4:3

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taking The D3x Into The Valley Of Darkness To Tame The Beast!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/145e223d07f40589?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 11:10 am
From: tony cooper

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:22:06 -0400, "bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote:

>
>"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:C5E1315E.24A0A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/14/09 7:50 AM, in article
>> 0L2dncETrY54NSbUnZ2dnUVZ_gwLAAAA@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It's hard to image that "The Beast", Nikon's old 28-70/2.8 can perform so
>>> well on the old D3x.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Valley.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>> It's hard to imagine that was not a pinhole camera image...
>
>True, but it was a pinhead camera image. Love to see someone (they claim)
>wasting that hardware on model train sets.

A waste, hunh? But a close-up shot of a model train would be a
perfectly legitimate entry in your new Shoot-In mandate. I may use
it.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 12:23 pm
From: "bowser"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mksnr45gffsq7gdv6rvdpdc1in0t7aift8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:22:06 -0400, "bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote:
>
>>
>>"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:C5E1315E.24A0A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/14/09 7:50 AM, in article
>>> 0L2dncETrY54NSbUnZ2dnUVZ_gwLAAAA@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>>> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's hard to image that "The Beast", Nikon's old 28-70/2.8 can perform
>>>> so
>>>> well on the old D3x.
>>>>
>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Valley.jpg>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's hard to imagine that was not a pinhole camera image...
>>
>>True, but it was a pinhead camera image. Love to see someone (they claim)
>>wasting that hardware on model train sets.
>
> A waste, hunh? But a close-up shot of a model train would be a
> perfectly legitimate entry in your new Shoot-In mandate. I may use
> it.

Capital idea. I have no idea what I'm going to submit for the next mandate,
but it can't be of a model train since I don't have any. But I do have a
friend who builds some killer model jets. Yeah, that's it. Model jet on the
tarmac, ultra wide angle, low angle shot...?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 1:03 pm
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-03-14 12:23:03 -0700, "bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> said:

>
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mksnr45gffsq7gdv6rvdpdc1in0t7aift8@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:22:06 -0400, "bowser" <wh@tisgoing.on> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:C5E1315E.24A0A%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 3/14/09 7:50 AM, in article
>>>> 0L2dncETrY54NSbUnZ2dnUVZ_gwLAAAA@supernews.com, "Larry Thong"
>>>> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's hard to image that "The Beast", Nikon's old 28-70/2.8 can perform so
>>>>> well on the old D3x.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Valley.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It's hard to imagine that was not a pinhole camera image...
>>>
>>> True, but it was a pinhead camera image. Love to see someone (they claim)
>>> wasting that hardware on model train sets.
>>
>> A waste, hunh? But a close-up shot of a model train would be a
>> perfectly legitimate entry in your new Shoot-In mandate. I may use
>> it.
>
> Capital idea. I have no idea what I'm going to submit for the next
> mandate, but it can't be of a model train since I don't have any. But I
> do have a friend who builds some killer model jets. Yeah, that's it.
> Model jet on the tarmac, ultra wide angle, low angle shot...?

Hand reaching down to pick it up...
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 4:32 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

tony cooper wrote:

> A waste, hunh? But a close-up shot of a model train would be a
> perfectly legitimate entry in your new Shoot-In mandate. I may use
> it.

Considering the model train display is an exact reproduction of the 13 mile
stretch from historic Ellicott City to Baltimore depicting the B&O Railroad
line of yesteryear it is very impressive.

http://www.ecborail.org/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Going To The Other Side Of The Tracks With The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/142d287410ebfbcf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 1:01 pm
From: C J Campbell

On 2009-03-14 05:49:31 -0700, "Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> said:

> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>>> Amazingly enough things like this don't happen on our side of the
>>> tracks. Once you take the old D3x to the other side of the tracks all
>>> bets are off.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Tracks.jpg>
>>
>> You have an "old" D3X?
>
> And an old 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200, 50/1.4 (several versions), 85/1.4,
> 105/2.8 (both versions), 200/2, 500/4 Nikkor lenses. Plus, I will
> reluctantly and shamefully admit that I have two very old DX lenses, the
> 18-200 and 12-24. There are a few more that I'm sure I forgot to mention
> since they aren't part of my daily walk around kit. Let's not forget the
> old D200 and D3 for bodies. Thanks for making me take inventory first thing
> in the morning before my first coffee. You?

12-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 80-400, 400/2.8, 105VR/2.8, 12-24 DX,
18-200 DX, 17-55/2.8 DX, 1.7x TC, Lensbaby, 60/2.8, 12/2.8 DX fish eye,
and some other lenses I am probably forgetting. D70 (busted), D200,
D300 and D3X bodies. Four SB800, 1 SB900 strobes. R1 closeup kit.

>
>> Poser. What did you really take this photo with?
>
> You tell me?

Couldn't. You continually remove the exif information from pictures
that you post and the quality is usually so low that they could have
been taken with cell phones. Of course, I only post low resolution
pics, too, so that is not meant as a criticism.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:54 pm
From: "mj"

"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:0L2dncYTrY54NSbUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@supernews.com...
> Photochimper wrote:
>
>>> Amazingly enough things like this don't happen on our side of the
>>> tracks. Once you take the old D3x to the other side of the tracks all
>>> bets are off.
>>>
>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Tracks.jpg>
>>>
>>>
>> I would of got lower to enhance the size of the trains
>
> Yep, the possibilities for better composition and shooting from different
> vantage points would have been endless if that damn Plexiglas barrier
> wasn't
> between me and this ultimate train set. I was lucky enough to be allowed
> to
> get the old D3x above the top of the Plexiglas. Especially for this
> breathtaking shot.
>
> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Valley.jpg>
>
Wasn't there another person who shot train photos? From the UK I believe.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 4:32 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

C J Campbell wrote:

>>> You have an "old" D3X?
>>
>> And an old 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, 70-200, 50/1.4 (several versions),
>> 85/1.4, 105/2.8 (both versions), 200/2, 500/4 Nikkor lenses. Plus,
>> I will reluctantly and shamefully admit that I have two very old DX
>> lenses, the 18-200 and 12-24. There are a few more that I'm sure I
>> forgot to mention since they aren't part of my daily walk around
>> kit. Let's not forget the old D200 and D3 for bodies. Thanks for
>> making me take inventory first thing in the morning before my first
>> coffee. You?
>
> 12-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 80-400, 400/2.8, 105VR/2.8, 12-24
> DX, 18-200 DX, 17-55/2.8 DX, 1.7x TC, Lensbaby, 60/2.8, 12/2.8 DX
> fish eye,
> and some other lenses I am probably forgetting. D70 (busted), D200,
> D300 and D3X bodies. Four SB800, 1 SB900 strobes. R1 closeup kit.

Do you mean the 14-24/2.8 since there isn't a 2.8 Nikkor version of the
12-24? Nice lens but doesn't take filters. I won't buy a lens that doesn't
allow or offer frontal protection.

Thanks for reminding me about the 1.4x and 2.0 TCs. Got the D70 and 18-70
DX lens that has been sitting in the closet for years. Shit! I got more
fucken DX lens than I would publicly like to admit to. Surprisingly the
battery is still holding the charge. Got the SB800s and R1C1, but haven't
yet worried about the SB900. Got some other neat stuff I need to add to
the list. Almost had a 300/2.8VR last weekend but the gentleman didn't want
to sell it to me as he didn't like the price I was will to give him.

>>> Poser. What did you really take this photo with?
>>
>> You tell me?
>
> Couldn't. You continually remove the exif information from pictures
> that you post and the quality is usually so low that they could have
> been taken with cell phones. Of course, I only post low resolution
> pics, too, so that is not meant as a criticism.

To the point, does it really matter since I know what I'm shooting with?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 4:33 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

mj wrote:

>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Valley.jpg>
>>
> Wasn't there another person who shot train photos? From the UK I
> believe.

Yes, but his was so much more sought after than mine.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 1:28 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:03:16 GMT, The incorrigible David J Taylor,
wrote:

> ASAAR 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?
>>
>> which specifically asked for a formula using the crop factor, which
>> if the one for 4/3 sensors is used wouldn't have the greater
>> inaccuracy of Nikon's crop factor. Perhaps you also have a feeling
>> that the OP didn't really mean to phrase his question in terms of
>> crop factors? My "feeling" is that you will again attempt to
>> sidestep the issue, but it would be nice if I'm mistaken. :)
>
> To know the "crop factor" exactly, you need to know the exact size of the
> sensor. I don't see what your problem is with that.

You've reverted to the classic David. This has never been about
knowing the crop factor "exactly". The "usually quoted crop
factors" (your words) are more than good enough for most people,
most of the time. You'll argue all day rather than be reasonable,
if it means you'd have to back down from unreasonable positions.
Since you've accused me of having a "problem", it's only fair to
note that the problem here isn't what you think it is. But then,
when have you ever acknowledged your own "problems"?

> If you insist on muddying the issue with 4/3 sensors, then you have two
> "crop factors", one for vertical and one for horizontal.
>
> horizontal: 36/18 = 2
>
> vertical: 24/13.5 = 1.777....
>
> Easier to use 18 x 13.5mm, isn't it?

Speak of muddying the waters . . . This is a good example of the
lengths you'll go to avoid being reasonable. Based on your way of
thinking, all of the photographers (and DPReview, et. al.) that
recognize the 4/3 system's generally accepted crop factor must have
problems of their own, and have no good reason to speak of crop
factors for 4/3 cameras because their image's dimensions don't share
the same 3:2 ratio. How foolish the photographic world must be when
they dare speak of crop factors for so many of the P&S cameras, such
as one of Panasonic's that lets you choose from among 4:3, 3:2 and
16:9 ratios. You'll probably want to expand on this to show why
it's so overwhelmingly important to be able to know the several crop
factors and FOVs for each of these different formats, but I and most
people don't really care. That's your problem, not ours.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: paypal wholesale Shoes Stock
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9d5089e2a9c3a84a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:18 pm
From: sneakershopisgoodz@163.com

paypal wholesale Brand Sport Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Men's Sport Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Fashionable Sports Shoes (paypal payment)
( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
paypal wholesale Running Shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
Other Sports Shoes
paypal wholesale Basketball Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Ladies' Dress Shoes
paypal wholesale Children's Sports Shoes
paypal wholesale Mobile Phones(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale Hiking Shoes & Boots
paypal wholesale Shoes Stock
paypal wholesale Tennis Shoes (paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale brand sport shoes
paypal wholesale men's sport shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale fashion sport shoes
paypal wholesale basketball shoes
paypal wholesale running shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
brand shoes
paypal wholesale fashion shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
paypal wholesale men's shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com )
sneakers
paypal wholesale athletic shoes
paypal wholesale basketball shoes(paypal payment)( www.sneaker-shop08.com
)
badketball jersy

==============================================================================
TOPIC: discount Air MAX 89 shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d9eeb59fef9da4bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:18 pm
From: sneakershopisgoodz@163.com

wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
discount Air Max tn8 shoes
discount Air MAX tn9 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount MEN'S WOMEN'S Shox R5 R4 trainers
discount Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL trainers
For more products pls visit: www.sneaker-shop08.com

discount Air max 95 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
wholesale Air Max 87 shoes
discount Air MAX LTD shoes
sell Air max 90 shoes
discount Air Max 88 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount Air MAX 89 shoes
discount Air max tn shoes
discount Air Max tn8 shoes
discount Air MAX tn9 shoes www.sneaker-shop08.com
discount MEN'S WOMEN'S Shox R5 R4 trainers
discount Men's women's shocks OZ NZ TL trainers
For more products pls visit: www.sneaker-shop08.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Camera enthusiasts
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ffe47c9820c0c1b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 3:26 pm
From: "Charles"

It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.

Is it just me?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kill Deer Along The Shoreline With The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7c1993484d84af7c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 14 2009 4:32 pm
From: "Larry Thong"

It should be banned!! Fortunately the old D3x was able to document the
carnage at 700mm from a safe distance.

<http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Killdeer.jpg>

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

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