Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dark building lighting ideas
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/408c9e953febe458?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 8:07 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Any idea what the prices are like?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Bigguy" <NoSpam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70vopaFikvjbU1@mid.individual.net...

A video/film hand-held sun gun, with over shoulder battery
pack.
You can use it in bounce mode too.
The HMI ones are the brightest.
They are not cheap.

Also a tripod for the camera allows longer exposures when
there is some
available light.

I've used the Sachtler and Arri ones with good results. They
do not have
a massive coverage but will do the job.

http://www.sachtler.com/index.php?id=639&exp_mode=product&exp_cid=29&exp_pid=115#29
http://www.sachtler.com/index.php?id=639&exp_mode=product&exp_cid=29&exp_pid=121#29
http://www.sachtler.com/index.php?id=2298 LED
http://www.frezzi.com/mini-sun1.htm

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 8:09 am
From: "Stormin Mormon"

Only $94 a month? Hmm. And wheeled, too? That's a bit too
big and too pricey for what I was thinking. Great fun to
dream about.

I have for the moment ruled out LED light, typically too
blue color.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"Bigguy" <NoSpam@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:70vopaFikvjbU1@mid.individual.net...

Pelican do some nice LED kits
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590447-REG/Pelican_PC9470Y_9470_REMOTE_AREA_LIGHTING.html

again not cheap...

Guy

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 8:36 am
From: ASAAR

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:17:25 -0500, Stormin Mormon wrote:

> The one building I was in, had electricity, but for whatever
> reason, I couldn't get the lights to work. So, I'm walking
> around with my Mag light, and a flash camera, taking photos
> of wall damage, water on the floor, and so on.
>
> I'd like to find some kind of light that will have good
> output, and be a fairly even light. Flood light, of some
> kind. To suppliment the light that my flash camera provides.
> The last time I was in the store, I was there for about
> three hours. So, the light should ideally work for at least
> three hours on a charge, or on a set of batteries.

A flood light won't necessarily provide even lighting. For that
you need something to spread the light, such as umbrellas, soft
boxes, etc. Or multiple small speedlights. If the latter, you
wouldn't want them to be interconnected with wires, so slaved
flashes would be better. Ideally, something like Nikon's CLS, which
would allow you to place several small SB-600s or the smaller (and
less powerful) and cheaper SB-R200s, all controlled automatically by
the camera. The SB-600 uses 4 AA batteries and the SB-R200 uses a
single CR123A lithium battery, which is good for almost 300 full
power shots, many more at reduced power. Rechargeable CR123A
batteries are also available. Less smart slaved strobes will work,
but getting the right exposures won't be quite as easy. You could
easily carry 3 or 4 of them in a small bag, and place them on their
small included stands, or if you have an assistant or two, they
could be used handheld while you shoot with your camera.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 10:14 am
From: "J. Clarke"

Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I've been asked to do several "dark building inspections".
> Retail stores, which are closed for business. One of the
> things to do, is to take a lot of digital photos, and email
> them to the headquarters.
>
> The one building I was in, had electricity, but for whatever
> reason, I couldn't get the lights to work. So, I'm walking
> around with my Mag light, and a flash camera, taking photos
> of wall damage, water on the floor, and so on.
>
> I'd like to find some kind of light that will have good
> output, and be a fairly even light. Flood light, of some
> kind. To suppliment the light that my flash camera provides.
> The last time I was in the store, I was there for about
> three hours. So, the light should ideally work for at least
> three hours on a charge, or on a set of batteries.
>
> Ideas?

I'm not clear on what you're looking for. Are you looking for a portable
area light that you can set down and not have to carry, or a better
flashlight, or what? And what kind of budget are you talking?

Flying blind, a few suggestions.

For a just a walking around light, a headlamp is convenient. Take a look at
a Princeton Tech EOS or Apex or if you've got bucks and want the best a
Stenlight S7. On medium power the EOS will give you about 4 hours, the Apex
about 9, the S7 about 8 on high. High on the Apex and S7 are about the
same, their medium is about the same as high on the EOS, the S7 also has a
turbo mode that's about 50 percent brighter. EOS is tiny, runs on 3 AAAs,
Apex is larger, has four AAs in a case on the back of the headband, S7 has a
separate battery pack that you keep in a pocket or on a belt clip. S7 also
has a DC-DC converter so it doesn't dim until the batteries are almost
completely gone. Eos is about 35 bucks, Apex about 80, S7 over 200. FWIW,
the EOS works fine for night hiking on trails in Connecticut.

For a flashlight, here's a real nice 3-LED conversion for a mini-Maglite for
17 bucks and shipping http://www.kidenergy.com/21-0100.html. This is
another with a DC-DC converter, it doesn't dim at all for about 8 hours then
drops to zero pretty quickly. (Note, I have several of those and everybody
I show them to wants one). EverLED has a nice conversion for D-cell
Maglites for about 40 bucks--gives the same brightness as a 3 cell
incandescent but it's another with the DC-DC converter that holds constant
brightness until the batteries are nearly gone at over 12 hours
http://www.ledsupply.com/everled.php.

One of these jobbies looks strange and cheap and crappy but it works
fine--gives you enough light to read by close up or not trip over things for
a good sized room and runs at full brightness (drops down a lot in the first
half hour or so then holds constant) for about 24 hours or dimmed down for a
week or more http://www.batteryjunction.com/f5fx-ck220.html.

Beyond that you might want to check out http://www.flashlightreviews.com/
(no longer being updated but still _lots_ of good information) and
http://www.candlepowerforums.com.

Note that on most LED flashlights you can increase the runtime by using NiMH
batteries instead of alkalines.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 2:06 pm
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 09:17:25 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've been asked to do several "dark building inspections".
>Retail stores, which are closed for business. One of the
>things to do, is to take a lot of digital photos, and email
>them to the headquarters.
>
>The one building I was in, had electricity, but for whatever
>reason, I couldn't get the lights to work. So, I'm walking
>around with my Mag light, and a flash camera, taking photos
>of wall damage, water on the floor, and so on.
>
>I'd like to find some kind of light that will have good
>output, and be a fairly even light. Flood light, of some
>kind. To suppliment the light that my flash camera provides.
>The last time I was in the store, I was there for about
>three hours. So, the light should ideally work for at least
>three hours on a charge, or on a set of batteries.
>
>Ideas?

Sure. I did a fair among of that kind of stuff way back in
the old days of flash bulbs.

The trick was to use the bulb or time setting on the camera
and then walk around flashing a strobe (we used flash bulbs back then)
to illuminate the subject area evenly from many positions. You can
even walk through and fire the flash in the field of view it is it
otherwise dark enough. It takes some experimentation and/
computations to get it right, but with modern digital cameras, you can
see the results and adjust right then. In the old days, you learned
to get it right quickly, the cost of a few dozen of those big
commercial flash bulbs added up fast.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reading on paper vs "screening" online and "screening" on a Kindle
Screener
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eee1f550dcc6ae4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 8:19 am
From: "J. Clarke"

David J Taylor wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
> []
>> Maybe schools should become interested in it as a way to buy
>> textbooks, and reduce the outrageous load our children cart around in
>> the backpacks these days....
>
> Feel lucky the school-children can read. Many here cannot, despite
> schooling, and probably even more cannot do simple maths. As for
> operating a camera correctly....

What textbooks can you get for it? And how resistant is it to being eaten
by dogs?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Long lens options
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/484fe667d2c46c51?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:01 am
From: Don Stauffer

David Ruether wrote:
If you use Nikon,
> look for the 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror described (it is a
> "gem"), and put up with its "bad bokeh" (which actually
> helps to make its images look sharper and more
> contrasty).

I was wondering about that. Theoretically, a lens with a central
obscuration like a Cassegrain should have an MTF peaking effect at high
spatial frequencies, at the expense of losing some shading nuances.

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:07 am
From: Don Stauffer

me@mine.net wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:31:10 -0600, in rec.photo.digital Don Stauffer
> <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>> My wife and I both have zooms that go out to 300mm, but occasionally
>> we'd like a longer option. I don't want to spend a lot of money, 'cause
>> we wouldn't use it that often.
>>
>> Which do folks think would have better performance- a 2X converter, or
>> one of those 600mm "mirror" lenses?
>
> IIRC you're shooting Nikon, correct? I'm not aware of a Nikon zoom which
> goes to 300mm and is compatible with the Nikon TC-2EII, though I may be
> wrong. That would limit you to a 3rd party TC. Regardless of the
> manufacturer, you will also lose 2-stops with a 2x. Which will effect AF
> speed, and depending upon which body you may lose AF altogether if the max
> aperture is smaller than f/5.6.

My wife has a Tamron, mine is a Nikkor 70-300. Now, I have a D40X, so
the Nikkor zoom, which I bought used, does not autofocus, but I seldom
autofocus anyway. I am a reactionary, who is only now beginning to
accept auto exposure :-)

BTW, since I would certainly have a converter/300mm combo on a tripod,
and do not autofocus, I don't worry much about the loss of speed.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:09 am
From: Don Stauffer

M-M wrote:
> In article <elniq4dm07ml421trhs4seonog8cpv4g64@4ax.com>, me@mine.net
> wrote:
>
>>> Which do folks think would have better performance- a 2X converter, or
>>> one of those 600mm "mirror" lenses?
>> IIRC you're shooting Nikon, correct? I'm not aware of a Nikon zoom which
>> goes to 300mm and is compatible with the Nikon TC-2EII,
>
>
> If you have a Nikon DSLR, I recommend a Nikon Fieldscope 82 with DSLR
> adapter. You get a very sharp 1500mm f/13 that will auto-expose but not
> auto-focus.
>
> Photo of my setup and some examples here:
>
> http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/camera.html#FS
>

Thanks, I will look into that.

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:11 am
From: Don Stauffer

Paul Furman wrote:

>
> What sort of shooting will you use this for?
> Birds in the back yard with a tripod?
> Hiking & traveling?
>

All of above. However, even while hiking and traveling I'd have a tripod.

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:57 am
From: Alfred Molon

In article <7f9lq41dbp8k6jphalu8b5uu4nkhh916f3@4ax.com>, says...

> Fixed,focal length, not focus, and a very nice lens. See:
> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2154/AF-S-VR-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html

Interesting. So this guy was walking around with a lens fixed at 600mm,
with no way to zoom in or out? How impractical.
--

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

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 10:29 am
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:57:20 +0100, in rec.photo.digital Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <7f9lq41dbp8k6jphalu8b5uu4nkhh916f3@4ax.com>, says...
>
>> Fixed,focal length, not focus, and a very nice lens. See:
>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2154/AF-S-VR-NIKKOR-300mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html
>
>Interesting. So this guy was walking around with a lens fixed at 600mm,
>with no way to zoom in or out? How impractical.

No. He has a step zoom. 300mm or 600mm. You obviously don't shoot wildlife
photography where at many times reach can be everything.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 11:45 am
From: "David Ruether"

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:49aabf85$0$33228$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> If you use Nikon,
>> look for the 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror described (it is a
>> "gem"), and put up with its "bad bokeh" (which actually
>> helps to make its images look sharper and more
>> contrasty).

[The one recommended is the earlier, larger version, but
with "barrel" rather than rear ring focusing - although the
more compact later Nikkor is almost as good for distance
shooting, and a tad better at closer focus distances.]

> I was wondering about that. Theoretically, a lens with a central obscuration like a Cassegrain should have an MTF peaking effect
> at high spatial frequencies, at the expense of losing some shading nuances.

From what I've seen, a very few mirrors (the Nikkor 500mm
f8s, the Minolta 250mm, and maybe the Tamron 350mm f5.6)
are good (but there may be others). I did not like any other I
tried (Vivitar Series I 600/800mm, Tamron 500mm, Nikkor
500mm f5, Nikkor 1000mm, MTO 1000mm, and likely some
others I've forgotten. The Nikkor 500 seems to have "extra DOF"
due to its high contrast, and it is *relatively* easy to focus (but
of course, atmospheric effects and camera-lens steadiness can
spoil things, even if focus is correct). Here is an example of a
"deep" subject that appears to be entirely covered by the DOF
with this mirror, at -
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/500mm-Nikkor.htm
BTW, this is a bit of a monster, but the 100-500mm Cosina is
very impressive (but SLOW!) 100-400mm, and decent out to
500mm, and the Nikkor 300mm f4.5 ED-*non-IF* (rare, but
much better than the 300mm f4.5 ED-IF) is really excellent on
the TC300 2X converter, but neither of these is compact. The
best combination of performance, price, availability, and
portability is, I think, the Nikkor 500mm mirror described
above.
--DR

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 12:00 pm
From: Alfred Molon

In article <ksklq4h2sbshb20ftrcebo1pup9gbtu96q@4ax.com>, says...

> No. He has a step zoom. 300mm or 600mm. You obviously don't shoot wildlife
> photography where at many times reach can be everything.

True, reach matters a lot in some situations.

Still, the same guy just half an hour before was shooting elephants
(Borneo pygmy elephants) at a distance of about 10m with the 300mm lens
and 2x teleconverter on. With that setup he was only able to capture
part of the head.
I was instead using a 70-300mm lens (105-450 equiv.) and got both
closeups of the elephants and the whole elephants (using focal lengths
between 150 and 450mm).
--

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

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:00 pm
From: Paul Furman

David Ruether wrote:
> "Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message
> news:49aabf85$0$33228$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>> David Ruether wrote:
>
>>> If you use Nikon,
>>> look for the 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror described (it is a
>>> "gem"), and put up with its "bad bokeh" (which actually
>>> helps to make its images look sharper and more
>>> contrasty).
>
> [The one recommended is the earlier, larger version, but
> with "barrel" rather than rear ring focusing - although the
> more compact later Nikkor is almost as good for distance
> shooting, and a tad better at closer focus distances.]
>
>> I was wondering about that. Theoretically, a lens with a central obscuration like a Cassegrain should have an MTF peaking effect
>> at high spatial frequencies, at the expense of losing some shading nuances.
>
> From what I've seen, a very few mirrors (the Nikkor 500mm
> f8s, the Minolta 250mm, and maybe the Tamron 350mm f5.6)
> are good (but there may be others). I did not like any other I
> tried (Vivitar Series I 600/800mm, Tamron 500mm, Nikkor
> 500mm f5, Nikkor 1000mm, MTO 1000mm, and likely some
> others I've forgotten. The Nikkor 500 seems to have "extra DOF"
> due to its high contrast, and it is *relatively* easy to focus (but
> of course, atmospheric effects and camera-lens steadiness can
> spoil things, even if focus is correct). Here is an example of a
> "deep" subject that appears to be entirely covered by the DOF
> with this mirror, at -
> http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/500mm-Nikkor.htm

That triggered my Escher meter... I guess it's just optical illusions;
he small window above and stone wall joints appear to be tilted a bit.

> BTW, this is a bit of a monster, but the 100-500mm Cosina is
> very impressive (but SLOW!) 100-400mm, and decent out to
> 500mm, and the Nikkor 300mm f4.5 ED-*non-IF* (rare, but
> much better than the 300mm f4.5 ED-IF) is really excellent on
> the TC300 2X converter, but neither of these is compact. The
> best combination of performance, price, availability, and
> portability is, I think, the Nikkor 500mm mirror described
> above.

I have a monster sized old 500mm f/4.5 by Century, a Hollywood
manufacturer in the early 80's. I'm going to get rid of it though since
I discovered my 300mm f/2.8 (old MF 3rd party lens) with a 1.4x
teleconverter is sharper, smaller & faster. The 300 plus TC cost more
though. The 500/4.5 was $500 with a 17-pound tripod. It was used for
shooting surfers so not exactly like-new condition.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:40 pm
From: Paul Furman

Bob Williams wrote:
> trevor thomas [the P&S troll] wrote:
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Don Stauffer wrote:
>>
>>>> My wife and I both have zooms that go out to 300mm, but occasionally
>>>> we'd like a longer option. I don't want to spend a lot of money,
>>>> 'cause we wouldn't use it that often.
>>>>
>>>> Which do folks think would have better performance- a 2X converter,
>>>> or one of those 600mm "mirror" lenses?
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone know what optical configuration those mirror lenses are-
>>>> are they Cassegrains, or Newtonians (flat folding lens), or
>>>> something entirely different?
>>>
>>> Don, I bought a 500mm, f8.0 Vivitar Mirror lens for my Canon A-1 film
>>> camera and was very disappointed in the results.
>>> Mirror lenses have only one f-stop (f8.0 in this case).
>>> At f8.0 it is VERY difficult to focus accurately even in bright sunlite.
>>> At low light levels it was almost impossible to focus accurately.
>>> My canon A-1 has a split image focusing aid. At f8.0, one side of the
>>> aid tends to go black as you try to focus.

There have been improvements in the 3rd party replacement screens, they
black out much slower. The limitation becomes the overall dark screen in
anything less that bright daylight.
http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/page--Katz-Eye-Plus--plus.html

>> That's not caused by the size of the aperture but the focal-length of the
>> lens and the angle of the light-rays hitting the focusing screen.
>>
>> As example, special focusing screens for the Olympus line of SLR cameras
>> were designed with specific optical applications in mind. I particularly
>> like my 100% clear one with the shorter focal-length fresnel lens for
>> microscopy and astrophotography purposes. It provides for an ultra-bright
>> display with little to no light loss for those applications,
>> independent of
>> whatever focal-length is providing the image.

That would show a lot more DOF than the final photo.
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/om-screens.shtml
"Focus by microprism only. Clear screen does not show good or bad focus."

>> There was a whole line of
>> specialty focusing screens for Olympus SLR cameras at one point (and may
>> still be). Ones for wide-angle lenses, telephoto lenses, microscopy
>> applications, etc. Olympus was bright enough to know that you had to
>> match
>> the focusing screen to the optics used for imaging. The darkening that
>> you
>> see is due to the angle of the imaging light-path and the way it is
>> entering the focus-assist prism surface, not the light intensity. It
>> would
>> still be dark on one limb of that focusing area even if you were pointing
>> it at the sun. This is also due to the micro-fresnel lens' focal-length
>> mounted to the surface of your focusing screen. It can't focus on the
>> main
>> lens' virtual image light-path as presented by the longer focal-length
>> lenses.
>>
>> This is why fixed focusing screens in SLR-like cameras designed to
>> accept a
>> wide array of optical components is just plain foolish. Those who buy
>> cameras with fixed focusing screens, never realizing they have to be
>> matched with the lenses in use, are even more foolish. Not only does the
>> lens' focal-length change the camera's exposure metering accuracy but so
>> too the ability to focus. Unless the focusing screen is matched to the
>> right focal length lens your exposure and focusing will always be a
>> crap-shot.
>>
>> There's a lot of foolish camera buyers out there who don't know the first
>> thing about the principles of optics and how their cameras work. They buy
>> what they are told to buy, by those even less informed and less educated,
>> never knowing the difference. Nor do they comprehend why their exposures
>> are always off and then have to depend on RAW image formats to try to fix
>> what their lousy one-optical-path-fits-all optics created in the first
>> place.
>>
> What you say is probably right,

I would not assume that coming from the P&S troll.

> but before I got the mirror lens, I used
> a 400 mm f4.5 tele lens (refractor) and never had any kind of focusing
> problem with it. Focusing was done "Wide Open" and everything worked
> normally. I was semi-pissed that neither Canon nor Vivitar pointed out
> this problem with a 500 mm Mirror lens. My Vivitar lens now just sits on
> a closet shelf, unused.
>
> I guess it's just as well because I now use my Panasonic Lumix FZ-15
> with f 2.8 Image Stabilized 36-432mm (Equiv. F.L.) lens for everything.
> The camera does all the focusing and gets it spot on every time.

You lose high ISO performance though. It's worth noting that 300mm on a
DX SLR is 450mm equivalent, so the OP is already there with his current
lens.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:53 pm
From: Paul Furman

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article me@mine, says...
>
>> No. He has a step zoom. 300mm or 600mm. You obviously don't shoot wildlife
>> photography where at many times reach can be everything.
>
> True, reach matters a lot in some situations.
>
> Still, the same guy just half an hour before was shooting elephants
> (Borneo pygmy elephants) at a distance of about 10m with the 300mm lens
> and 2x teleconverter on. With that setup he was only able to capture
> part of the head.
> I was instead using a 70-300mm lens (105-450 equiv.) and got both
> closeups of the elephants and the whole elephants (using focal lengths
> between 150 and 450mm).

I'll bet his pictures came out nice though <g>.
300/2.8 is a very useful lens and doesn't need to be so large. My old
manual focus Tokina, similar to the Nikkors of the day is manageable
with the hood removed and costs 1/10th of the new VR version. The 1.4x
TC is surprisingly small. Some of the old Nikkors have a built in
retractable hood.

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

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CMOS and Movie option in Professional DSLR cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/98220c9695910754?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:24 am
From: aniramca@gmail.com

Apart from the debate between CCD and CMOS, I seem to notice that the
CMOS is replacing CCD DSLR cameras in the fight against time. Perhaps
this may also be associated with the ability to utilize faster and
better movie mode in a DSLR cameras.

The history of CMOS DSLR started with Canon 30D in Oct 2000. Kodak was
using CMOS in their 14n DSLR (not very successful) in Sept 2003. Nikon
started with CMOS in their Pro flagship of the D2X in Apr 2005. Sony
A700 was using CMOS in Sept 2007, followed by A900 in Sept 2008. Among
other DSLR brands now with CMOS are Nikon D90, D300, D700, D3 and D3X,
Canon 20D, 1DS(Sept 2002), 1 DS Mark 3, 5D Mark2, 50D/40D, and XS,
Panasonic G-1, L10 (NMOS), Samsung GX20, Pentax K20D, etc.

In high end P&S, only Canon SX-1S is currently using CMOS. Canon G10,
Nikon P80/P6000, Pana FZ28/LX-3 are still using CCD.

I am curious to know among the readers of the followings:
- Are professional photographers or those who are using Pro cameras/
DSLRs often using movie feature mode while shooting? Or do they prefer
the conventional taking "photos" instead of "making movies"?
- Is moving from CCD to CMOS driven from the need for faster movie
option (in which CMOS is considered better than CCD), or is it because
of other advantages of CMOS over CCD. Is it CMOS cheaper to produce
than CCD sensor?

Thanks for the comments

- would you believe with the trend that CMOS will be out of the
picture for DSLR and pro cameras soon (based on the trend now and as
mentioned above)?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Any thoughts/comparisons on Canon SX1 and SX10
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36cdce01855e0f15?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 9:49 am
From: Stephen Henning

Hi Nick,

SX1 IS takes hi-def movies, and has low-light/low-noise capability.
Those are the only advantages of the CMOS sensor. The slightly higher
pixel count is because it can take either 16x9 or 4x3. The effective
pixel count is the same.

I seldom take movies, so hi-def movie capability wasn't an attractive
feature at all. The low-light (low noise) feature is attractive, but I
haven't had a problem with noise in any photos I have taken with the
SX10 IS. Besides having the camera I prefer, I saved nearly $200.

The other features I demand, super long zoom, hot shoe, AA batteries,
viewfinder, and macro focusing seem to be the same on these cameras.

Since cameras become obsolete rather quickly, I can apply the $200 I
saved to my next camera a few years down the road. It is hard to
imagine cameras better than these though. These are fantastic.

"Nick" <nick.s@fume.co.uk> wrote:

> I want to buy a new camera.
> Don't want and can't justify the purchase of a DSLR, also don't want a p&s
> but I do require something that is easily portable.
> A good zoom range would be useful, good macro facilities a neccessity.
> The 2 Canons above seem to fit my requirements.
> The SX1 has the 'advantage' of a CMOS sensor.
> I have read a lot on this ng and also many reviews but still don't know what
> camera to go for.
> Any thoughts on these or suggestions for alternatives would be much
> appreciated.
> You blokes know your stuff and generally fair advice is given on this ng.
> Usage will be mainly work related stuff for archives and family snaps.
> The ability to take short videos a bonus. Storage media doesn't matter too
> much.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: For those panorama pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c6fd10f2cd6f1691?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 10:01 am
From: Marco Tedaldi

Gary Edstrom schrieb:
> For those panorama pictures:
> http://www.funpic.hu/files/pics/00035/00035747.jpg

Nice one... Funny that only 4 of them do have reflections on the desk,
must be some special stealth screens!

But even 4 four screens it is quite cool .-)

kruemi

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just Some Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/eb8b8316d35df58a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 10:50 am
From: "Thea Plus"

"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:h5SdnQ0sRcVQ5TfUnZ2dnUVZ8hULAAAA@novis.pt...
> http://atlantic-diesel.com/JSP/
>
> --
> ----
> Focus
>

I really like the first one.

Thea

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Peru
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c87c3fec1f23bc85?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:07 pm
From: Nugget

On Feb 28, 1:10 pm, "Hans Kruse" <hans.kr...@mail.tele.dk> wrote:
> Just having returned from Lima, Peru here is a gallery giving a broad view
> of the cityhttp://www.pbase.com/hkruse/peru_2009. A city with many more
> possibilities than 3 weeks of shooting could reveal. I did have police
> protection a couple of times in the more rough parts of the city. For best
> viewing choose original size.
>
> --
> Med venlig hilsen/Kind regards,
> Hans Kruse www.hanskrusephotography.com

nice fotos...I hope they were not the same Police that wanted to
examine my money belt....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: printing for panorama stitched photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/abfa6a477328704b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:07 pm
From: "ps56k"

I have a panorama photo shot stitched together from a recent swim meet and
it looks neat.
It's about 5500 x 1164 - which looks to be 28" x 6" or ....

SO - where or how can I get this jpeg printed - options ?

--
----------------------------------
"If everything seems to be going well,
you have obviously overlooked something." - Steven Wright

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:37 pm
From: "ps56k"

"ps56k" <pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote in message
news:LICql.13885$D32.6508@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>I have a panorama photo shot stitched together from a recent swim meet and
>it looks neat.
> It's about 5500 x 1164 - which looks to be 28" x 6" or ....
>
> SO - where or how can I get this jpeg printed - options ?

I may take it to Ritz, Kinkos, or some other place that can print a 28 x 6
jpeg
and then put it into a 36 x 12 frame -

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Mar 1 2009 1:45 pm
From: me@mine.net

On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 15:07:24 -0600, in rec.photo.digital "ps56k"
<pschuman_no_spam_me@interserv.com> wrote:

>I have a panorama photo shot stitched together from a recent swim meet and
>it looks neat.
>It's about 5500 x 1164 - which looks to be 28" x 6" or ....
>
>SO - where or how can I get this jpeg printed - options ?

http://ezprints.com/Prints/panoramas/default.aspx

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

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