Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 4 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 18 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* No more doubts about the SB900 power !!! (sample photos) - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/048eb5829deae882?hl=en
* Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
* What a waste these groups are... - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 5:34 pm
From: John Navas

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:25:08 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<fgpd359e1c82on40ugvcc74ut87thoj1tl@4ax.com>:

>On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:37:22 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote
>in <Xns9C2BA919083E7meadowmuffin@216.168.3.70>:
>
>>Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:h14tgu$3ck$2@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>> At the same time, there's nothing that says you can't own SEVERAL
>>> different types of cameras - as with your brushes, you just pull out the
>>> one you need for the particular job you want to do.
>>
>>Only my budget - if I do save up for a DSLR inthe $600 vicinity, I just can't
>>afford adding a $300+ on top of that...unless I first do good enough work to
>>sell.
>
>Consider refurbished or clean used cameras -- my compact digital cameras
>usually cost me far less than the new price, often less than $200.

For example, the excellent Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5K for only $210:
<http://www.refurbdepot.com/PANASONIC_Lumix_DMC-TZ5K_DMC-TZ5K.cfm>
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX9 with full manual control for only $200:
<http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?sku=PNDMCFX9KRB>
They may not be the best models for you, but are examples of how much
money can be saved with refurb (factory warranty included).

--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)

== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 6:32 pm
From: Bob Larter

LOL wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:18:57 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-06-14 18:04:50 -0700, LOL <toofunny@noaddress.com> said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> <----------------->
>>>> Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
>>>> that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
>>>> Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
>>>>
>>>> So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
>>>> started.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>
>>>> - Kris
>>>>
>>> You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
>>> held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
>>> read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
>>> tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
>>> He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
>>> kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
>>> ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
>>> who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.
>>>
>>> Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)
>>>
>>> Too too funny! LOL!
>> ...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our
>> resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant
>> change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful.
>> There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he
>> has yet to submit any sample of his work.
>> The best advice remains buy what works for you.
>
> OH LOOK! It's the useless piece of shit pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL
> AGAIN! Don't believe anything he ever says!
>
> LOL
>
> You fuckingly childish idiot.

Nice job of proving his point, kook.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 6:38 pm
From: Matt Ion

On Jun 15, 12:01 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:

> > In any case, best of luck with your shopping, and I know I at least
> > would be interested to know what you end up with. I've been enjoying
> > Canon SLRs (digital *and* 35mm, and a fantastic little Minolta X-700
> > before that) for a good many years now as my main creative tools; I too
> > like the level of control the (d)SLR format affords me... and yes, I
> > vastly prefer a true optical viewfinder over an electronic one (although
> > I have found my 40D's LiveView mode extremely useful at times!)
>
> OH! Now, you see? It's unpredictable when some snippet will illuminate
> something for me. "Optical versus digital viewfinder". I had thought ALL
> digital cameras have those little screen-thingies. So it' scompletely new
> to me that some have optical ones. So I'll also have to compare that,
> because I'd been thinking that part of the advantage of digital is the
> "WYSIWYG" - IOW, being able to see a "preview" of what the pic will look
> like before yu commit the image to memory.
>
> SO even that helps me, thanks!

Until recently, DSLRs have all had purely optical viewfinders, the
same as their film ancestors - reflex mirrors, pentaprisms and the
like). It's only the last couple years that the live display has also
been available on the back LCD (normally just used for reviewing) on
mainstream models. Naturally, the through-the-lens optical view is
still available on pretty much all DSLR designs, although such time-
honored SLR features as interchangeable finders with goodies like
waist-level viewing, magnification, and so on are getting harder to
find.

You'll also find most modern autofocus SLRs (digital or not) are
sorely lacking in manual focus aids in the viewfinder (the split
center-dot rangefinder and the micro-prism being the most common ones
familiar to MF shooters). Fortunately, most models DO have easily
interchangeable focus screens, and most manufacturers have alternate
screens available with those focus aids. There are even some good
third-party screen available for most DSLRs, if you prefer your manual
focus (check out www.katzeyeoptics.com, for exampe).

The optical viewfinder, however, has been getting more and more
difficult to find on P&S models... I suspect the main reason for this
is that most P&S models also feature multi-times optical zoom, and
there's no easy and cost-effective way for a simple peek-through
window to display that without resorting to something cheesy like crop
marks on the glass (of course, it's still easy with the SLR framework,
because you're looking through the same lens that the sensor sees).
Otherwise you'd need a complex zooming feature in the viewfinder as
well, synchronized to the lens's zoom (and even that would be
ineffective if you start going into digital-zoom range)...

Thus, the optical viewfinder has become largely obsolete for P&S
designs. The closest thing you'll find is what's commonly called the
EVF, or "electronic viewfinder"... it looks like a typical peep-hole
viewfinder, but inside is a very small LCD that gives you the same
display as the rear-panel LCD. These things have their fans, but I
can't claim to be one of them. However, if it's a feature that
appeals to you, by all means, give it a closer look (pun intended ;)
The one advantage it does have over JUST the rear-panel LCD is that
your view isn't hampered when shooting in bright ambient light.

*whew* So... hopefully that helps some more, without triggering too
many more questions ;)

== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 6:49 pm
From: Matt Ion

On Jun 15, 3:35 pm, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote innews:79ndlgF1kp8o3U1@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> >> John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> >>news:5f3a35tuil28qq8hvkos1biisf840samg8@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
> >>> <no...@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37...@mouse.otenet.gr>:
>
> >>>>Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>
> >>> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
> >>> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take
> >>> great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot
> >>> take great pictures without a great photographer.
>
> >> My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out
> >> that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or
> >> some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...
>
> > You can make your own comparisons of picture quality from different
> > cameras by checking out public photosharing sites such as Flickr and
> > sites with plenty of technical discussion on user forums such as
> > dpreview, Digital cameras store camera model and the technical details
> > such as focal length and aperture along with the digital image, and
> > these details are still often present and examinable along with the
> > screen display of the image.
>
> Yup, someone had posted a flickr link - talk about addictive <LOL!> But it's
> giving me soem idea about what kind of photos are available using which
> models, so that's a very useful link! Same with dpreview :)

It's a good thought, but take this whole exercise with a very large
shaker of alt - unless people are posting their original RAW files,
you're not just comparing makes and models of cameras, but makes and
models of post-processing software, and more importantly, the widely
varying levels of proficiency of the users of both the hardware and
software.

As an example, I could take a $100 P&S down to Yellowstone, snap off a
few Half-Dome shots, and with several hundred hours' in Photoshop work
(since I really suck at Photoshop, it would probably take that long),
create a photo that on a sharing site, would be nearly
indistinguishable from Ansel Adams' original. Conversely, I could
accidentally leave my 40D's white balance set improperly, forget to
switch the lens from MF back to AF, and leave the exposure
compensation set at +2EV... go down to Yellowstone, snap merrily away,
and end up with nothing more than some strangely-tinted blobs of color
that I then upload to Flikr completely unedited. From comparing those
two displays, you might then arrive at the conclusion that the $100
P&S is far superior to the 40D...

== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 6:59 pm
From: Bob Larter

Kris Krieger wrote:
> Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a333f53$1
> @dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>> Kris K.
>>>
>>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>> Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>> complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>> want to downgrade to a digicam.
>>
>
> I thought DSLR is a type of digicam?

'Digicam' is a common term for any compact digital camera. A DSLR simply
means a Digital SLR.

> I want to get away from film because I
> missed too many shots (that I suffered to get) because of not getting the
> settings just right, and not finding out until paying a lot to get the film
> developed.

Indeed.

> I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
> for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
> know;

For me, the drawbacks to small digicams like the Powershots are image
quality & low-light performance. My first digital camera was a Canon
Powershot S30. It did an okay job, but eventually I outgrew it, &
upgraded $$$ to a DSLR. I've since given the S30 to my sister, who's
very happy with it.

> if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
> reliable (and outdoors-capable).
>
> I didn't mean to spark a war. I'm mainly trying to separate mere "snapshot
> boxes", from cameras I can use to take decent-to-good photographs. My first
> thought was DSLR, for the reasons I'd described, and I want to retain control
> over focusing my pictures in whatver area of the frame I want, so I don't
> like the sound of "auto-focus" - but if "point and shoot" includes some
> quality items, I'm open to info on them as well.

On a DSLR, you can use autofocus in much the same way you use the prisms
on a manual-focus SLR. That is; you aim the centre of the viewfinder at
whatever you want in focus, set focus, then recompose the shot. The only
difference is that auto-focus mechanism will (usually) set the focus a
lot faster than you could do it by hand.

> Right now, the variety of types is bewildering, tho' I'm not impressed by
> what I've seen in the under-$200-range (esp. when a lot of hoo-ha is made
> over "color choice" - black is fine by me), so the info and links people have
> generously provided here are a starting point for good cameras within my
> price-range.

If your budget is tight, you should consider a used DSLR, & one or two
used lenses.

> I know it takes time for people to offer info, regardless of their viewpoint,
> so I appreciate that, and really did not mean to start an argument... =:-o

Don't worry about it. The same people would be arguing about the smae
things whether you were here or not. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:13 pm
From: Bob Larter

Kris Krieger wrote:
> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:t8nb35dgubnq76gcti671l7694nm0a9s5g@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
>>> "Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.
>> Why did you wait so long to bring this up? At $300, you are limited
>> to compact cameras and to a camera that may not have the feature you
>> want the most: manual focus.
>>
>> At $500, you are limited to the Nikon D40 with just the 18/55 lens for
>> a dslr, or some of the better compacts. (I don't know the compacts)
>>
>> You can forget Canon or Pentax dslr unless you go used.
>>
>> I suggest you read Steve's Digicams at http://www.steves-digicams.com/
>> and read the specs very carefully of the cameras in your price range.
>>
>
>
> OK, I looked here
> http://www.steves-digicams.com/deals.asp
>
> THis doesn;t look bad, is pushing the budget but they have a discount for
> first-time buyers:
> http://www.zipzoomfly.com/jsp/ProductDetail.jsp?ProductCode=10007881
>
> These also don't look at all bad to me, but it might just be that I don't
> know any better:
> http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=NKD402LK&id=NKD402LK&l=CJ
> http://www.abesofmaine.com/item.do?item=NKD401855K&id=NKD401855K&l=CJ
>
> THey're refurbished, I think, but if the refurbisher is reputable, is that a
> bad thing...?

If you go to KEH, you could pick up a used EOS 10D (no lens, though) for
$200-300.
<http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=Digital&item=10&ActivateTOC2=&ID=2&BC=DC&BCC=3&CC=2&CCC=1&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=>

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:14 pm
From: P&S_PRO

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:

>
>Here is somethign I'd like to photograph, *if* I ever see it again:
>I was in the woods one time, and came across anopening where a shaft of
>light illuminated a huge spider-web that spanned teh space between two
>trees - and the "threads" of the web were refracting the light, creating
>hair-fine "rainbows".

I failed to mention some important things which may not be apparent to you
at first. DSLRs will be unable able to capture these web-rainbow photos
properly. The lighting conditions in which they need to be shot preclude
the use of very small apertures needed in ALL DSLRs for enough DOF. At the
small apertures required by a DSLR for enough DOF you'll need to use
flash--instantly destroying the very lighting that causes this effect. A
P&S camera does not have these huge drawbacks. If using a DSLR you cannot
line up the angle of the web to the camera in a flat plane to get enough in
focus while getting any kind of decent composition while also making sure
the angle of the sun is where you need it to be and still see and
photograph the refraction rainbows. The most you will ever hope for with
any DSLR is to get a few strands in focus that will show one color at best,
all the rest being just a huge smear of out of focus blobs, never being
able to focus on the large expanse that shows all the hues of the rainbow
at once. Which is precisely what makes the sight so spectacular in the
first place. Otherwise it's not even worth photographing. I speak from many
many years of experience doing all manner of photographs just like this, a
minor subset of the types of nature-photography that I do.

Here's a good example of someone attempting this with a DSLR, the best I
could find.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11957541@N08/1198711037

I found a lot of great shots online of rainbow-refracting webs from P&S
cameras (many of them far better than the example scrapshot that I posted,
that's why it's a scrapshot), but this is all I could find from a DSLR user
that was good enough. None of the rainbow-hued strands are in focus.
Smearily artistic perhaps, but not a good representation of nature and the
awe inspiring sight you are trying to capture. If they align the DSLR to
get a flatter plane and get more in focus then they lose the rainbows. Been
there, done that. A waste of time and effort, and a total waste of the
thousands of dollars spent on the camera and lenses you'll need in
attempting to do so.

Sorry, no DSLR on earth will ever cut it for decent macro
nature-photography. No matter what all the DSLR-Trolls in newsgroups might
whine about to the contrary.

They know not of what they speak. None of them have ever used any of the
cameras that they cry about in real-world nature photography shooting
conditions or they'd instantly know better. This is precisely how I know
that they are pretend-photographer DSLR-Trolls and nothing more than that,
nor will they ever be more than that.

Buy a DSLR to bolster some pretentious "wannabe pro" pride while cutting
off 90% of all great nature photo opportunities. A bit like cutting off
your nose to spite your face. It's up to you.

== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:15 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:50:43 GMT, nick c wrote:

> I found all this very interesting. After reading this post several
> times, I have to say it's a great post. It's well written and may be
> very helpful to anyone who may be interested in having two systems.

Agreed. I archive only a small number of newsgroup posts, and
they're most often the ones that are either interesting or contain
useful information. That's why I saved his (your son's) and more
recently yours.

> When I was active, I used 35 mm cameras, 2-1/4 cameras and Speed
> Graphic (sheet film 5x7 and 8x10) cameras, all at the same sequence of
> time so I think nothing of someone being happy using two systems. By
> all appearances it does sound like something I would write but
> unfortunately it wasn't from me. Upon further investigation I found it
> was written by my son, Alex, using one of my laptop computers, which
> he borrowed while his was being repaired. Since he visits me often, he
> may have written it while he was visiting me. I have several laptop
> computers 'cause the damn things seem to always need maintenance and
> are often in the repair shop. A pox be on whoever opened Pandora's
> computer box.
>
> Alex originally bought into Canon because I had bought into Canon.
> While he was, and I think still is, satisfied with keeping Canon,
> wasn't. I won't keep what I'm not comfortable with. I changed back to
> Nikon. This morning when I called him to inquire about this post, I
> find he's still using the two systems and seems to be content. I
> noticed this post is signed Nick. That momentarily puzzled me 'cause I
> don't usually sign my posts. Perhaps Alex thought I was a regular
> poster in this group 'cause I've often referred this group to him and
> signing my name, to him, while using my computer may have seemed
> proper. I neglected to ask him about that. Anyway, AFAIC, I really
> don't care to know. Shrug. Alex is not into news groups, he's much too
> busy in the world of finance to become attached to news groups. Now,
> as for me, I like to lurk and at times, I fire up one of my Ser Jacopo
> pipes and take a bottle of Port and one of my laptops outside and sit
> in the shade of the patio and play with my laptop while watching the
> grass grow. Now, that's interesting.

No pipes for me, but maybe a bit of port . . .

> Have to ask, did the post, in your opinion, contain information that
> was not correct or informative? If there's beef in this hamburger, I
> can't find it. I'll tell Alex not to upset the net police again. I
> don't think he meant to do anyone harm.

No, nothing incorrect. The replies (both of them) were
interesting and informative. Alex did no harm, needs no warnings,
and I certainly wasn't trying to be a net cop. I you look a little
closer at my previous post, I was only trying to understand an
apparent discrepancy between the two posts, which you didn't have to
answer, but you cleared it up nicely. Thanks.

I don't understand the "beef" reference. I'd have thought that
most people would *want* beef in their hamburgers. At least Clara
Peller, the "Where's the beef?" lady in the Wendy's commercials did!

> I'm 100% Nikon. I even bought my wife the D60 kit and she loves it.
> Oh,well ... what the hell, she leaves it on "P" and doesn't care to go
> any further. I guess I don't really care how she uses her camera.
> Whatever makes her happy tickles me half to death. Besides that, when
> she's content she tends not to futz around with my toys.

She might like Nikon's little P6000. True, it can't do everything
a DSLR can do, but it takes some very nice pictures, has all of the
manual controls of Nikon's DSLRs, works with Nikon's Speedlights, is
much more silent in operation, easier to carry and even has a
built-in GPS receiver, so she'd later be able to say "We were at
these coordinates when we realized that we were lost." :)

== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:20 pm
From: Bob Larter

Kris Krieger wrote:
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in news:29dc35ts9al3gjvtb808qm2to9oljukgt0@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On 15 Jun 2009 11:28:46 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use
>>> its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus
>>> and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus
>>> point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you
>>> want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on
>>> the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button
>>> half pressed.
>>>
>>> You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the
>>> focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done.
>> I've done that too, but it won't guarantee that the intended
>> subject is precisely focused after swinging the camera round, but it
>> may be good enough for many people.
>
> Now THAT is good to know! If it's not a guarantee, then it's not useful to
> me - I know how to do it fast'n'EZ with my old Minolta (my film camera), and
> adding multiple steps to the process, *especially* with variable results!, is
> definitely not good enough to me.

ASAAR is being very picky. I use that method most of the time, & it
works well for me.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:22 pm
From: Bob Larter

Kris Krieger wrote:
> Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in
> news:79mpjeF1roiuvU1@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do
>>> things like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a
>>> tree frog that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that
>>> it will be what is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations
>>> about auto-focus - it sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because
>>> it isn't what I think it is...
>> In your manual focussing SLR you probably had a special central
>> focussing aid, such as a split prism.
>
> Yup - and I *loathe* it. It is a huge distraction and I've never used it.
>
>> So you pointed that at what you
>> wanted to focus on, got the focus right, and then swung the camera
>> round to compose the shot as you wanted.
>
> Nope, I place the subject (say, frog on palm leaf) where I want it, IOW
> move the camera (which is usu on a lightweight tripod) to get the subject
> placed correctly in the viewfinder, then "fiddle" with the lens until the
> subject looks crisp - while trying my best to ignore the obnoxious
> facetted-circle-thingy in the center of the viewfinder. When the subject
> looks crisp, I snap (using an extender, so I don't juggle the camera by
> pressing the button directly).

In that case, you'd just switch off the auto-focus, & focus manually.
Any DSLR will allow you to do that.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:33 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

>> You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well.
>
> Thanks :) , I also want to investigate the Sony A-series (as mentioned
> on the website luminiouslandscapes.com).

You may want to read up on the DSC-R1. It's an interesting
camera, but that model was discontinued long ago. It had an
excellent lens and a large APS-C sensor, the size used in DX DSLRs.
Its drawbacks were that it was expensive for a non-DSLR ($1,000),
was slow writing JPG and *very* slow writing RAW files (9 seconds
each), high noise levels at high ISO, autofocus wasn't the best,
especially in low light, and it was a heavy camera, a real brick.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSCR1/page27.asp

== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:44 pm
From: dj_nme

Kris Krieger wrote:
> ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in
> news:01l535h413r8i8prfa3teograp68fl50u3@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
>> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
>> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
>> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
>> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
>> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
>> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
>> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
>> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
>> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
>> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
>
> Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
> about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
> take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.

If you are currently using Minolta manual focus SLR gear and hope to use
the lenses on the Sony Alpha DSLR cameras, you may be in for some
disappointment.

> I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
> interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
> dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
> that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
<snipped for brevity>

That may cause you a problem: not having any autofocus lenses.
Particularly if you're currently a Minolta film SLR camera user, as
their AF mount (called "Dynax" by Minolta, now "Alpha" by Sony) is
incompatible (different bayonet and longer mount to sensor distance)
with MC/MD manual focus lenses.

You might be better served to look for a DSLR camera which can take your
lenses, otherwise you'll have to purchase all-new AF lenses.

If you're a Minolta MD/MD or Olympus OM user, then you will have to
either start from scrath again with lenses or you could use an adapter
on a FourThirds DSLR or MicroFourThirds EVIL camera and put up with a 2x
crop factor (50mm lens would have the same angle of view as a 100mm
lens on a 35mm camera when used via adapter on FourThirds cameras).

It's ultimately your money to spend as you like, so the final decision
is really up to you.

== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 8:08 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

> So that's the core of my concern - what will best allow me to do the above?
> I've occasionally changed lenses using my film camera, but usually use
> (going to check) (OK, am back) the "MD Minolta Celtic f=135" lens, and only
> VERY rarely use the "MD Rokkor 45mm 1:2" lens, because i'm usually doing
> something like, picking out a cardinal sitting on a branch are of leaves
> but loaded with berries, or similar.

One of several problems I had with my P&S cameras (Canon, Olympus)
was that it didn't focus well on the things that the manuals warned
would be problems, such as fur. Trying to focus in squirrels in
trees would sometimes work, oftentimes would not. With a DSLR, the
same shots focused quickly and accurately.

> So for now, I've been looking at the Flickr site, selecting the photos that
> are similar to the sort I'd like to take, and seeign what poeple use. So
> far, tops are Canon EOS series (from 20D up to 50D), and Nikon D-series
> (D200, D50, etc). SO that seems to be useful info, too...

Make sure that you compare similar cameras. The D200 is
discontinued and was replaced by the D300 a year or two ago. It's
most comparable to Canon's 50D. The 50D is a much better choice if
your primary need is for macro photography. For sports and wildlife
photography, the D300's superior autofocus makes it a better choice
than the 50D. Nikon's D50 is a nice little camera (I use one of
these), but it was discontinued several years ago and was Nikon's
entry level camera, so it shouldn't be compared to anything in the
20D through 50D range. The D50 is probably comparable to Canon's
Digital Rebel XT (aka EOS 350D), also discontinued.

It might be useful to bookmark the URL for the index page of
DPReview's full review. That page shows the review dates of many of
the DSLRs that were covered, and will give you an idea of how old
the cameras are. BTW, while the 50D is a nice camera, many
(including many Canon owners) feel that it's not sufficiently better
than the 40D to justify the relatively large price increase. DPR
agrees, so first here's the index page, then a snippet from the 50D
review's conclusions page :

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/default.asp?view=alpha

> * High ISO performance worse than 40D
> * Reduced dynamic range in the shadow areas compared to EOS 40D
> * Per-pixel detail not as good as on good 10 or 12 megapixel cameras
> * High-end lenses required to get the most out of the camera
> * Live view not as accurate as on 40D (framing very slightly off-center, in
> contrast detect AF mode not possible to magnify right out to the extreme corners)

> It appears that Canon has reached the limit of what is sensible,
> in terms of megapixels on an APS-C sensor. At a pixel density
> of 4.5 MP/cm² (40D: 3.1 MP/cm², 1Ds MkIII: 2.4 MP/cm²) the
> lens becomes the limiting factor. Even the sharpest primes at
> optimal apertures cannot (at least away from the center of the
> frame) satisfy the 15.1 megapixel sensors hunger for resolution.
> Considering the disadvantages that come with higher pixel
> densities such as diffraction issues, increased sensitivity towards
> camera shake, reduced dynamic range, reduced high ISO
> performance and the need to store, move and process larger
> amounts of data, one could be forgiven for coming to the
> conclusion that at this point the megapixel race should probably
> stop. One consequence of this is that the 50% increase in pixel
> count over the 40D results in only a marginal amount of extra detail.
>
> We're by no means saying the 50Ds image quality is bad but
> it's simply not significantly better than the ten megapixel 40D.
> In some areas such as dynamic range and high ISO performance
> it's actually worse and that simply makes you wonder if the
> EOS 50D could have been an (even) better camera if its sensor
> had a slightly more moderate resolution.
>
> The EOS 50D has to stand its ground in a highly competitive
> bracket of the DSLR market. It is currently almost $500 more
> expensive than the 40D, almost $500 more expensive than the
> Nikon D90 and for an extra $100 you can bag yourself a Nikon
> D300. Looking at the specification differences between the
>EOS 40D and our test candidate it appears you pay quite a
> premium for the 50D's extra megapixels and as we've found out
> during this review you don't get an awful lot of extra image quality
> for your money. The Canon EOS 50D still earns itself our highest
> reward but considering its price point and our slight concerns
> about its pixel-packed sensor, it only does so by a whisker.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp

== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 8:21 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:45:48 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:

>> At $300, you are limited to compact cameras and to a
>> camera that may not have the feature you
>> want the most: manual focus.
>
> What about refurbished cameras? Are they too risky...?

Used cameras can be risky, but factory refurbished cameras should
be at least as reliable as new cameras. I've bought several P&S and
DSLRs from Adorama and B&H, and they've all been indistinguishable
from new models. The downside is a 90 day vs. a year warranty, but
the price savings would more than cover several extended warrantees.
I do without them (well, I got one a couple of years ago) and
haven't needed any yet. KEH is supposed to be good for used cameras
and *maybe* Adorama.

== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 8:28 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:47:54 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

> The Nikon D40 is new, not reburbished. That's the set-up I have. Two
> lenses.

Even if the D40 is still a current model it can be purchased as a
refurb. I got one earlier this year from Adorama ($274, IIRC). The
discontinued D40x was also available refurbed for the same price.
The price started to climb after that but I haven't checked lately.

== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 8:43 pm
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:20:06 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

>>> I've done that too, but it won't guarantee that the intended
>>> subject is precisely focused after swinging the camera round, but it
>>> may be good enough for many people.
>>
>> Now THAT is good to know! If it's not a guarantee, then it's not useful to
>> me - I know how to do it fast'n'EZ with my old Minolta (my film camera), and
>> adding multiple steps to the process, *especially* with variable results!, is
>> definitely not good enough to me.
>
> ASAAR is being very picky. I use that method most of the time, & it
> works well for me.

Very picky? Nay, slightly picky. As I said, I've done that too,
but for example, when I wanted to shoot swimming ducks and geese, I
prefer to frame first and then use an AF sensor where the duck/goose
is positioned in the frame. As their distances changes while
swimming, I can easily refocus without having to swing the camera's
lens back and forth each time I'd want to focus and re-frame. Much
easier, even for those in the picky set!

== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 9:05 pm
From: nospam

In article <h166ut$qrd$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr@optonline.net> wrote:

> Have you seen large prints from the DPs or the SD14 such as the ones
> displayed at PMA? I have and the detail in them is very high.

yes i have, as well as large prints from other cameras. the details in
the sd14 prints were not as good as from other cameras. that's not
really all that surprising since the sd14 is 4.7 mp versus 12-24 mp for
the others, depending on the camera. maybe more if they used a phase
one back.

> We won't
> change each other's minds and this argument has been played out. We
> disagree, that's how it is. There are a lot of users I know who have both
> Sigma and a Bayer system mostly Canon or Nikon) and there is quite a
> consensus that the Sigma meets or exceeds the resolution.

exceeds what resolution? something like a nikon d100 maybe but it
definitely doesn't exceed a nikon d90 or canon 50d and not even close
to a d3x or 5d mark ii. just about every review of the sd14 said it
was comparable to 8 or so megapixels. dpreview said this about the
dp1:

it cannot really compete with a modern 10 megapixel DSLR such as the
Nikon D60.

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sigmadp1/page19.asp>

> >> m4/3 aren't P&S cameras.
> >
> > what would you call this:
> >
> > <http://43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2aaecd1.jpg>
>
> How many P&S cameras have interchangable lenses? By definition it is not a
> P&S, is it?

where is it written that a p&s camera cannot have interchangeable
lenses? rangefinders certainly do and a lot of p&s cameras have
accessory lenses which is almost the same. and if you put a dslr on
full auto, it is basically point and shoot anyway.

and what about the panasonic g1? it looks and feels exactly like an
slr, but there is no mirror so it isn't truly a single lens reflex yet
it isn't really a p&s either.

welcome to a new breed of camera.

> >> The Oly looks to be larger than the DP1 and DP2
> >> but it (Oly) does have interchangable lenses unlike the DPs.
> >
> > it's actually about the same size as a dp1, if not slightly smaller,
> > plus as you say it has interchangeable lenses rather than a single
> > fixed focus lens so there's no need to buy multiple cameras if you want
> > something other than either 28mm or 41mm.
> >
> > <http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/orwell_photos/comparison.jpg>
>
> I believe the front-to-rear depth of the Oly is thicker than the DP. Put a
> larger lens on it and it's not very pocketable. We'll see how the m4/3
> works out. I find the price too high myself. For the money I'd rather have
> a DSLR than a compact camera, but that's just me.

as you can see in the above photo, the difference in size is not very
much. according to engadget, it's about the same as a dp2:

<http://www.engadget.com/2009/06/15/leaked-olympus-ep-1-micro-four-third
s-compact-has-us-hot-bother/>

Possible specs accompanying authentic looking images have now entered
the rumor mill. Said specs have the camera measuring in at 120 x 70 x
35mm (about the size of a Sigma DP2 or slightly larger than mainstream
point-and-shoots)

of course you could put a huge zoom lens on it but that defeats the
purpose and at that point you might as well get an slr. on the other
hand, with its 17mm pancake lens on it (34mm equivalent), it's in
between the dp1 and dp2 and without the weirdness.

== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 11:32 pm
From: "David J Taylor"

ASAAR wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:34:53 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>>> You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well.
>>
>> Thanks :) , I also want to investigate the Sony A-series (as
>> mentioned on the website luminiouslandscapes.com).
>
> You may want to read up on the DSC-R1. It's an interesting
> camera, but that model was discontinued long ago. It had an
> excellent lens and a large APS-C sensor, the size used in DX DSLRs.
> Its drawbacks were that it was expensive for a non-DSLR ($1,000),
> was slow writing JPG and *very* slow writing RAW files (9 seconds
> each), high noise levels at high ISO, autofocus wasn't the best,
> especially in low light, and it was a heavy camera, a real brick.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSCR1/page27.asp

I had considered the DSC-R1 at one time because of the potential high
image quality, but it was too big and bulky, too heavy, and too limited in
lens range. I'm glad I waited and got the Nikon D60 with 16-85mm and
70-300mm VR (image stabilised) lenses.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: No more doubts about the SB900 power !!! (sample photos)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/048eb5829deae882?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 6:42 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:55:07 +0100, michael adams wrote:

>> Certainly. Just where to you think the hot shoe is when the
>> camera is oriented as it is in that shot?
>
> Assuming that the centre of the flash is one foot away from the lens
> just how wide a shadow could you expect to be thrown, by say a six high
> foot rock from even just ten feet away ?
>
> Try drawing it out paper substituting inches for feet. This is the width
> of the shadow as can be seen from the viewpoint of the centre point of
> the camera lens. It's certainly a much narrower shadow than appears on
> that shot.

I went over how the SB-900 might have been used (mounted
somewhere, on a bracket, handheld) but Bertie said "The 900 was just
sitting in the hotshoe. How else?". That's possible, because as I
earlier also said, the distances in the picture were misleading,
making objects appear to be much farther from the camera than they
actually were. The 16-85mm lens was at 16mm focal length, and the
camera was apparently focused on the last person on the path, the
one closest to the camera, and the EXIF data said that it was
focused at 5 meters, so that "boulder" was a much smaller rock than
it appeared to be, and was very close to the SB-900.

When I first saw the "boulder"s shadow, I also at first thought
that it was further away and the SB-900 would have been maybe a foot
or two to the left of the camera. Guess not. Still, Bertie was
entirely wrong about the SB-900 being so amazingly powerful that it
could illuminate subjects at 70 meters. Nobody on that trail was
remotely close to 70 meters from the camera, but Bertie is unable to
stifle his imagination when it veers off into never never land. As
I showed (and Bertie ignored) the little SB-400 puts out more than
enough light to duplicate Bertie's cave shot, and the SB-900, with
the same lens, could provide sufficient illumination for shots up to
60 meters, but that would have the camera using ISO 6400, so I
wouldn't care to shoot 70 meter shots without, say, a 70-300mm lens
and something like a Better Beamer in front of the SB-900. Even
then, the ISO would need to be pretty high.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Correct name for "pinhole lens" used in covert cameras?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a3f36ff97395b3f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:26 pm
From: Bob Larter

The Correction Police wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 12:05:22 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Correction Police wrote:
>>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:56:58 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Correction Police wrote:
>>>>> they left off. Taking a <5mW $10 green laser-pointer's optics and finely
>>>>> tuning it to <1.05 mRads divergence. As long as I'm in there fiddling with
>>>>> things I will also ramp-up the output to ~75mW.
>>>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha!
>>> Oh ye of such vast ignorance, with an attention-deficit deeper than the
>>> Mariana Trench. Google for laser pot mod Some people adjust their's
>>> higher, to 150mW output, but I feel that that will shorten their life
>>> greatly. I do have one set that high, just for the life-expectancy
>>> experiment. It readily ignites a phosphorous match in under a second. It's
>>> still working two months later, but for how long. Granted it is only used
>>> intermittently.
>>>
>>> The ones I buy direct from China are actually $8 each, shipping incl., (not
>>> $10, but some people can't get them that inexpensive), all easily adjusted
>>> for a 75mW output. Their heat-sink is more than adequate to be tuned that
>>> high. The emergent beam of light clearly visible in a sunlit room after the
>>> exceptionally simple modification.
>> This is a complete & utter load of bullshit. Cheap Chinese laser
>> pointers do not use >75mW rated laser diodes. Attempting to put that
>> much power through one will kill it stone dead instantly. You obviously
>> don't have the faintest idea how to measure the output of a laser.
>
> I built my own power-meter from one of the better DIY methods (uses an
> inexpensive IR thermometer and an easy to fabricate sensor, in a sealed
> environment). It's accurate to within 5%. Good enough for what I need it
> for.

Rubbish. You're making the whole thing up.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 7:30 pm
From: Bob Larter

Savageduck wrote:
> On 2009-06-14 18:13:09 -0700, LOL <toofunny@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:09 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-14 17:13:15 -0700, "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> said:
>>>
>>>> You show some picture, you get none or just a few replies.
>>>>
>>>> You start talking about something trivial like card types and you get
>>>> hundreds of replies. But all are fighting each other.
>>>> It makes kinder garden look like a university!
>>>>
>>>> I'm out of here.
>>>
>>> Relax, enjoy it for what it is.
>>> ...but I agree there are times the digression from OP can be damaging
>>> to the groups.
>>
>> Oh look! It's another DSLR TROLL!
>>
>> You mean continuously going off-topic like that?
>>
>> You useless piece of shit pretend-photographer TROLL.
>>
>> LOL!!!!!!!
>
> We still wait for the evidence that you even own a camera, or an image
> you have created, good, mediocre or bad, if you do.

At long last, he's posted a link:
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 8:47 pm
From: ASAAR

On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:30:24 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:

> At long last, he's posted a link:
> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
> Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.

With EXIF data stripped out, probably to hide the camera used. :)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 9:24 pm
From: "Frank ess"

ASAAR wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:30:24 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
>
>> At long last, he's posted a link:
>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
>> Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.
>
> With EXIF data stripped out, probably to hide the camera used. :)

Hey! That looks like one of /my/ masterpieces!

--
Frank ess

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 10:06 pm
From: ASAAR

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:24:38 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

>>> At long last, he's posted a link:
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
>>> Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.
>>
>> With EXIF data stripped out, probably to hide the camera used. :)
>
> Hey! That looks like one of /my/ masterpieces!

What a tangled web you weave . . .

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 10:35 pm
From: Turning a Light On the Roaches

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:24:38 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

>
>
>ASAAR wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:30:24 +1000, Bob Larter wrote:
>>
>>> At long last, he's posted a link:
>>> <http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg>
>>> Unsurprisingly, it's an average snapshot.
>>
>> With EXIF data stripped out, probably to hide the camera used. :)
>
>Hey! That looks like one of /my/ masterpieces!

I guess you missed the part where it was originally called a scrapshot to
begin with.

Interesting, that the usual resident-trolls would extract that link from
the text that explains it and talk about it in another thread. How else
then could they use if for their more-immature-than-a-child comments?

For those of you that missed the accompanying text, here it is from the
other thread:

>Oh what the hell, let's entertain the trolls. Here's one of my scrapshots
>(meaning not anywhere near good enough for commercial use, the only kind I
>will ever rarely post to the net a few times a year). Don't bother to zoom
>in looking for details. I use a lot of downsizing and extra-high JPG
>compression, enough to destroy all details so nobody can use these photos
>for anything of importance.
>
>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3398/3629777547_e63d510046.jpg

And ...

>I failed to mention some important things which may not be apparent to you
>at first. DSLRs will be unable able to capture these web-rainbow photos
>properly. The lighting conditions in which they need to be shot preclude
>the use of very small apertures needed in ALL DSLRs for enough DOF. At the
>small apertures required by a DSLR for enough DOF you'll need to use
>flash--instantly destroying the very lighting that causes this effect. A
>P&S camera does not have these huge drawbacks. If using a DSLR you cannot
>line up the angle of the web to the camera in a flat plane to get enough in
>focus while getting any kind of decent composition, while also making sure
>the angle of the sun is where you need it to be and still see and
>photograph the refraction rainbows. The most you will ever hope for with
>any DSLR is to get a few strands in focus that will show one color at best,
>all the rest being just a huge smear of out of focus blobs, never being
>able to focus on the large expanse that shows all the hues of the rainbow
>at once. Which is precisely what makes the sight so spectacular in the
>first place. Otherwise it's not even worth photographing.

>Here's a good example of someone attempting this with a DSLR, the best I
>could find.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/11957541@N08/1198711037
>
>I found a lot of great shots online of rainbow-refracting webs from P&S
>cameras (many of them far better than the example scrapshot that I posted,
>that's why it's a scrapshot), but this is all I could find from a DSLR user
>that was good enough. None of the rainbow-hued strands are in focus.
>Smearily artistic perhaps, but not a good representation of nature and the
>awe inspiring sight you are trying to capture. If they align the DSLR to
>get a flatter plane and get more in focus then they lose the rainbows. Been
>there, done that. A waste of time and effort, and a total waste of the
>thousands of dollars spent on the camera and lenses you'll need in
>attempting to do so.
>
>Sorry, no DSLR on earth will ever cut it for decent macro
>nature-photography. No matter what all the DSLR-Trolls in newsgroups might
>whine about to the contrary.
>
>They know not of what they speak. None of them have ever used any of the
>cameras that they cry about in real-world nature photography shooting
>conditions or they'd instantly know better. This is precisely how I know
>that they are pretend-photographer DSLR-Trolls and nothing more than that,
>nor will they ever be more than that.