rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Ford, The Survivor....venting! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
* Taller de B/N digital avanzado - Hugo Rodriguez - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0ccbce102815cbe?hl=en
* bluring a messy background? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/16214bbd77176240?hl=en
* A newbie request help selecting digital camera - 13 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* Canon Reliability - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
* Auto Mount at Startup with 9.04 - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/19cd09d389e3f29e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor....venting!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 1:26 pm
From: Alan Browne
On 12-06-09 16:06, Frank ess wrote:
>
>
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 11-06-09 10:43, Dr.Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My truck has almost 90k on the odometer. I expect to have
>>> expenses other then regular maintenance. My main gripe was that
>>> you cannot replace individual parts now, you must replace whole
>>> assembles. Very expensive. I spent several years hanging around
>>> and working in garages in my teens. When wheel bearings went bad
>>> just got new bearings, greased them up, and put them in the hub
>>> along with a new seal and slid back on the spindle. Now you have
>>> to buy a new spindle, disk, speed sensor, etc. A $30 dollar job
>>> got turned into a $300 dollar job.
>>
>> Today, it is very likely that the wheel assembly on a car will go
>> 300K km or more without any maintenance at all (other than
>> replacing the brake disk and pads). And that is because these
>> units are sealed against moisture and dirt while also holding the
>> lubricant in place.
>> IOW, it costs more but results in less failure and ongoing
>> maintenance. 90K (miles?) is not much.
>>
>>> In the 1990's I had my first vehicle with a computer, no
>>> problem, but then I could still diagnose a 'check engine' light
>>> with no special tools. Just a jumper between a couple of the
>>> sockets in the interface connector. That was just to damn easy for
>>> the manufactureres. The redisigned the system so that the average
>>> person has no idea what the light is trying to communicate. It
>>> has two ways of signaling. 'Steady On' means minor problem.
>>> 'Blinking' means major problem (at this point it detunes the
>>> engine so it will not run over 3000 RPM or 1300 RPM, I forget).
>>
>> It astounds me that they don't have a simple problem code readout
>> on the dash of the car. And in today's world, a USB socket (again
>> in the passenger compartment) to plug in a "thumb" drive and
>> continuously record the state of the automobile for the owner to
>> playback on his computer. Might not be popular with dealerships -
>> but then the auto makers should illuminate and discover that their
>> customers are not the dealerships.
>>
>> Ford's new "SYNC" system (2.0) is supposed to provide this
>> capability per the article in wikipedia. The Ford site is mute on
>> this (or hides it well).
>
> My understanding from reading the bureaucratese/CYA material in a Ford
> owner's manual, and a few Ford newsgroups, numerous data are recorded
> within the vehicle's main computer. Some are apparently confidential,
> and will not be extracted without cause. The important ones might
> indicate any overspeed on the engine, in warranty repair cases; speed,
> throttle position, brake status, in accident investigations. And so forth.
>
> There is so much measurement taking place in modern cars, there really
> is the likelihood that an enterprising designer could come up with a
> better selection of parameters and a better display than the few now
> available. Trouble is, anything that can read and display the data might
> also be able to modify the factory settings outside government-approved
> and -accepted bounds.
A system that reports states does not mean it can be used to replace
programming of parameters in the system. IOW, a properly designed
system can output data without the same data path being used to replace
tables, parameters or executable code. Such outputs could also prevent
the o/p of "proprietary" data (if any) in the system.
The point is that if there is a fail status on the oxygen sensor or EGR
valve, or whatever, I'd like to know so I can order the part and
replace it myself or drag it along to the garage at the next oil change
and ask them to do it.
>
> http://www.sctflash.com/LW.php
>
> As more and more states become California-ized in emission requirements,
> more products will bear the California-style admonition, "Not legal for
> sale or use on street-licensed vehicles in California".
Again, the point is not to 'tune' a car, but to extract data from the
car. A properly designed data logger could do that w/o providing
modification services...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Taller de B/N digital avanzado - Hugo Rodriguez
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d0ccbce102815cbe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 1:57 pm
From: espaifotografic
El sábado día 4 de julio, espaifotografic.cat organiza un taller de
fotografia sobre "blanco y negro digital avanzado" que impartirá Hugo
Rodriguez, conocido especialista en gestión de color.
Este evento tendrá lugar en la localidad deVilassar de Dalt
(Barcelona). Podeis encontrar los detalles del taller en:
http://www.espaifotografic.cat/2009/06/09/taller-ef-de-blanc-i-negre-digital-de-qualitat/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: bluring a messy background?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/16214bbd77176240?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 2:00 pm
From: John Navas
On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:12:39 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
<2009061109123981735-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
>On 2009-06-11 07:31:00 -0700, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>> If you are willing to post an unaltered image, I'll be happy to
>> show two or three different attempts at custom editing on that
>> particular picture, with your permission. Even then, it will
>> not necessarily be something that everyone will grade the same
>> way. Some might not like any of the edits, and other will grade
>> them in different orders. It would only be an added example of
>> what can be done, not a definition of what is "right".
>>
>> And, assuming you are willing to donate that image... maybe
>> others would contribute their examples of what can be done.
>
>Thanks for the offer Floyd, but at this stage I will decline otherwise
>this thread will get beyond the OP into a whole new area.
Sounds like a good idea to me, in a new thread if you wish -- I think it
would be instructive to see the results of the various methods of
artificially creating shallow depth of field, perhaps even to the OP.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 2:46 pm
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-12 14:00:05 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> said:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:12:39 -0700, Savageduck
> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
> <2009061109123981735-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>:
>
>> On 2009-06-11 07:31:00 -0700, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) said:
>
>>> If you are willing to post an unaltered image, I'll be happy to
>>> show two or three different attempts at custom editing on that
>>> particular picture, with your permission. Even then, it will
>>> not necessarily be something that everyone will grade the same
>>> way. Some might not like any of the edits, and other will grade
>>> them in different orders. It would only be an added example of
>>> what can be done, not a definition of what is "right".
>>>
>>> And, assuming you are willing to donate that image... maybe
>>> others would contribute their examples of what can be done.
>>
>> Thanks for the offer Floyd, but at this stage I will decline otherwise
>> this thread will get beyond the OP into a whole new area.
>
> Sounds like a good idea to me, in a new thread if you wish -- I think it
> would be instructive to see the results of the various methods of
> artificially creating shallow depth of field, perhaps even to the OP.
I'll think about that, however I have some non-photo, non-NG stuff to
do this weekend.
In retirement I have the social life of a stump, so when things come up
it takes more effort than I find comfortable expending.
Then on Monday I am heading off to the Sierras for a week away from my
usual stomping grounds on the Central Coast. If I manage to get any
shots remotely beyond the cliche Adams attempts I will post them.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:07 pm
From: Kris Krieger
Hello!
I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
develop "experiments".
So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
go digital.
But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
to make my way through this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
Reviews.aspx
but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
So here I am.
WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
is a consideration
Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
Many Thanks in Advance!
Kris K.
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:16 pm
From: "Charles"
http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:27 pm
From: Kris Krieger
"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
>
>
>
Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early-
1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera body -
that will save me some grief ;)
I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website in
a new window ;)
THanks!
- Kris
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:37 pm
From: "Charles"
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Xns9C28B1A3AC29Ameadowmuffin@216.168.3.70...
> "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>
> Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early-
> 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera
> body -
> that will save me some grief ;)
>
> I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website
> in
> a new window ;)
>
> THanks!
Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
already have and what we already know.
As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think you
can go very far wrong.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:58 pm
From: ASAAR
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. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
> develop "experiments".
>
> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
> go digital.
>
> But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
> huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
> to make my way through this site
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
> Reviews.aspx
> but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
> where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>
> So here I am.
>
> WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
> such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
> been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
> see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
> to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
> develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
> their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
> Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
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.
By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
Full Frame) that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
prefer using DX DSLRs.
> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
> control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
> *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
> of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
> taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
ask about them.
> At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
> is a consideration
>
> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
> wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
with much cheaper P&S cameras.
> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
might be a better place. See
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
and check out these forums:
Beginners Questions
Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
Nikon D300 - D100
Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Sony SLR Talk
as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
that's near the end of each "full" review.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 4:41 pm
From: Matt Ion
Kris Krieger wrote:
> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start comparing features.
Some here will debate the "objectivity" of some of their reviews and
articles, but the side-by-side feature is handy for comparing different
cameras, and there's a Search function that lets you select which
features are important to you, to help narrow your selection.
Now, use of your existing lenses and accessories is something you're
interested in, and others have given you some info there that can also
help with your selection.
To that, then, I would add my standard advice: once you've narrowed your
search to two or three models, go to your local store (camera specialty
store, Best Buy, etc.) and actually try them out. Pick them up, handle
them, snap some lenses on and fire off some test shots... work all the
controls, look through the menus and settings. In the end, your best
choice will be the one that you're most comfortable with.
At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
Two different friends of mine were shopping for DSLRs not long ago, and
asked me what they should get... I told them both to get Canons, so I
could borrow their lenses and accessories :) Then I gave them both this
same advice... one ended up with a Nikon D80, the other with a Pentax
*ist, based largely on their own preferences after handling and trying
out several different bodies.
One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
1.6 for Canon's lenses."
The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
*always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
be it film or digital. What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
comparison to the 35mm frame. For example, you know what sort of view
you normally get out of your 55mm lens... on a Nikon body with a 1.5X
crop factor, then, you would need about a 36-37mm lens to achieve the
same view. Or conversely, as ASAAR notes, that lens on a 1.5X sensor
will look about the same an 82.5mm lens on your Minolta.
It's nit-picking, to a degree, and again, it's not something you'll
probably spend a lot of time comparing on the different DSLRs you look
at, but it's something important to just keep in mind - that for any
given lens length, the view is going to be "tighter" than you're used
to. That is, of course, unless you go for a body with a full-frame
sensor, but that's probably getting well out of your price range.
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 5:08 pm
From: Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>develop "experiments".
>
>So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>go digital.
>
>But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
>huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
>to make my way through this site
>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
>Reviews.aspx
>but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
>where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>
>So here I am.
>
>WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
>such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
>been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
>see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
>to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
>develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
>their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
>Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
>
>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
>*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
>of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
>taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
>
>At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
>is a consideration
>
>Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
>wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>
>
>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
>Many Thanks in Advance!
>
>Kris K.
Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've waited
so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera can't be
beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of exactly what
you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to mention high-quality
video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs dSLR-pushing trolls. They
know not of what they speak.
Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats a
new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S camera)
from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra 20 lbs. in
weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and heavy tripod to
be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I did the math.
Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even
have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400. That's the one and only thing that
dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller apertures
on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom settings on
P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO benefit.
For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S
camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro
photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough
depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to worry
about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your dSLR's
sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome lenses.
This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of the
1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and
horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to
adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end the
convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been doing
all along.
If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or will
ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by the free
CHDK software add-on for them.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was originally
provided by the manufacturer.
Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even
longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking
1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest speed.
You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's maximum
1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill shadows in
harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion detection for
nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response times are fast
enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the pre-strike
step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing hand-held lightning
photography during daylight this way. Using short shutter speeds and the
built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter at the right time. That's
never been done before in the history of photography. No need for a tripod
and keeping the shutter open hoping for a random lightning event. Just hold
the camera in the direction of the storm, composing your shot. The camera
snaps off a frame only when there's an actual strike.
Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in
weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal
intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and
archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures.
Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the earth.
Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras that run
internal scripts.
If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
CHDK Photos" at this link:
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
type" P&S cameras.
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 5:18 pm
From: tony cooper
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
wrote:
>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
>*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
>of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
>taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I
have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
is in focus in the edge of your image.
My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are
the same.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 5:59 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
[...]
>users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
>will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
>important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
>for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
>or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
>using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
>collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
100% ACK.
This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't
feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you.
jue
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 6:08 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Dear Ignoring
Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile
you over and over again.
[...]
>>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
>Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
>cameras).
Most old lenses will be fully functional on most newer cameras. Famous
exceptions are e.g. non-AF-S lenses on entry-level Nikons or FD lenses
on Canon EOS bodies.
>You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
>models.
[Rest of standard boiler plate drivel snipped]
Yeah right, keep on dreaming.
jue
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 6:10 pm
From: Jürgen Exner
tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
>wrote:
>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
>>*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
>>of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
>>taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
>
>I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I
>have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
>use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
>In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
>bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
>camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
>using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
>is in focus in the edge of your image.
Furthermore most (all?) dSLRs allow you to select which focus area(s)
should be taken into consideration by the camera. If you know that your
subject will be in the upper right corner for the next 20 shots, then
set the focus to the upper right corner.
jue
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 6:55 pm
From: ASAAR
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:41:17 -0700, Matt Ion wrote:
> One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
> are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
> from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
> clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
> sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
> the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
> what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
> for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
> 1.6 for Canon's lenses."
>
> The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
> *always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
> has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
> be it film or digital. What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
> comparison to the 35mm frame.
Yes, but it may be easier for some to say that it's a multiplier
for all lenses on that body. For instance, if a lens is zoomed to
120mm, you're already looking at the lens's markings, and won't
really consider the body or sensor other than to determine if you
should or shouldn't apply the multiplier, and that should have been
known long before.
Your point is good though in that when the owners of DX DSLRs buy
DX lenses, they shouldn't assume that the DX lens's focal length has
been "pre-multiplied". Even if they can or will never be used on FF
bodies, the DX lenses are (as you said) always identified by the
manufacturer with the true focal length, never with the application
of a multiplier or crop factor, which would really add confusion.
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:04 pm
From: Josh Grolger
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:08:19 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls <nocontact@noaddress.com> wrote:
>>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>Dear Ignoring
>
>Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile
>you over and over again.
>
>[...]
>>>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>>Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>>lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
>>cameras).
>
>Most old lenses will be fully functional on most newer cameras. Famous
>exceptions are e.g. non-AF-S lenses on entry-level Nikons or FD lenses
>on Canon EOS bodies.
>
>>You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
>>models.
>[Rest of standard boiler plate drivel snipped]
>
>Yeah right, keep on dreaming.
>
>jue
How convenient and typical of a pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll to snip out
the very part that makes you out to be a deceptive liar, or ignorant. Most
likely both. Here again is the proof of your ignorance and lies that you
didn't want to have to admit to, nor want anyone else to pay attention to.
>If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
>http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>
>It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>type" P&S cameras.
It looks like the data-mining done there allows a few snapshots and
test-shots to slip through here and there, but overall the images are
exceptional. Far more creative and interesting than anything that I've ever
seen from any DSLR user's collections. That's for damn sure.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon Reliability
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:08 pm
From: Doug Jewell
John Navas wrote:
>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>
> I have experience, not bias.
My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
then dealing with sending them away for repair:
1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
qualify for sure).
4. Canon
5. Nikon
What did we try to sell the most? Nikon - the kick-backs for
the salesperson were better (ie sell a certain qty and score
a free camera).
What did the staff buy themselves? Canon or Sony (most of
the Nikon freebies got sold back to the store for sale to
customers, and the salesperson would then buy a Canon or Sony).
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:11 pm
From: Doug Jewell
Stephen Henning wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>
> The most reliable SLR cameras are Fuji with 3% serious problems.
>
> The least reliable SLR cameras are Nikon with 7% serious problems.
>
> Olympus, Canon and Sony SLRs are in the middle with 4-5% serious
> problems.
>
Those failure rates would be consistent with my experience
in retail.
I'd rank them as
1. Sony
2/3 Pentax/Olympus
4 Canon
5 Nikon
We didn't sell fuji so I can't rank them.
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 3:15 pm
From: Doug Jewell
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:18:58 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
> wrote in <h0u9n2$sfk$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> It's probably (but not necessarily)
>>> better than anecdotal data on Usenet or the Web, but clearly worse than
>>> statistically valid sampling.
>> Depending on the size of the sample, way better than usenet anecdotes.
>
> With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
> sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
> universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
> even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
> universe.
>
But the sample should remain consistent between brands.
Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
remain fairly consistent across brands.
ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
to report faults than owners of other brands.
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 4:07 pm
From: John McWilliams
Doug Jewell wrote:
> John Navas wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:18:58 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net>
>> wrote in <h0u9n2$sfk$1@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>
>>>> It's probably (but not necessarily)
>>>> better than anecdotal data on Usenet or the Web, but clearly worse than
>>>> statistically valid sampling.
>>> Depending on the size of the sample, way better than usenet anecdotes.
>>
>> With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
>> sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
>> universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
>> even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
>> universe.
>>
> But the sample should remain consistent between brands. Because people
> who have had a fault are more likely to respond, it will likely show a
> higher failure rate than the acual failure rate. But that higher failure
> rate should remain fairly consistent across brands.
> ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7% Nikon, when the
> actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
> It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely to report
> faults than owners of other brands.
>
Quite right; well said.
John: I am pretty aware of the pitfalls of sampling and statistics
(well, 94.8% of them). Your caveats are valid, as is my general assertion.
--
john mcwilliams
Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?"
Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care."
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:07 pm
From: John Navas
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:15:10 +1000, Doug Jewell
<ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
<4a32d36e$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> With all due respect, the size of the sample is not helpful -- a larger
>> sample with a certain bias or error is no more representative of the
>> universe than a smaller sample with that same bias or error, and could
>> even be worse, since the smaller sample might actually be closer to the
>> universe.
>>
>But the sample should remain consistent between brands.
>Because people who have had a fault are more likely to
>respond, it will likely show a higher failure rate than the
>acual failure rate. But that higher failure rate should
>remain fairly consistent across brands.
>ie, the sample might show an fault rate of 3% Canon 7%
>Nikon, when the actual fault rate is 1.5% and 3.5% respectively.
>It is unlikely that owners of one brand would be more likely
>to report faults than owners of other brands.
Unfortunately, unless you just care about the CR population, it just
doesn't work that way. The reason is that you have no way of knowing if
the CR sample is biased for or against a particular manufacturer as
compared to the universe.
For example, let's suppose CR published a scathing review of product C
and a glowing review of product N. That might not only bias the buying
habits of the CR sample as compared to the universe, it might also
influence how they report -- when people are told a product is crappy
then they tend to be more vocal about issues and vice versa.
If you can't control sampling bias and error, as in the case of CR, then
you simply can't make any sort of valid generalization of the universe
from the results. All you have is interesting data.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 7:09 pm
From: John Navas
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 08:08:25 +1000, Doug Jewell
<ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in
<4a32d1da$0$32392$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>:
>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> Of course, if you have a bias against Canon then you ignore the
>>> statistics which shows them to be reliable and you focus instead on
>>> the inevitable problems that every manufacturer has.
>>
>> I have experience, not bias.
>My experience of reliability, having sold the things, and
>then dealing with sending them away for repair:
>1. Sony (surprisingly, for similar faults they had the
>lowest non-warranty repair costs too)
>2. Pentax / Olympus (small sample size though, so hard to
>qualify for sure).
>4. Canon
>5. Nikon
My experience on service and support:
1. Nikon
2. Sony
2. Pentax / Olympus
5. Canon
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Auto Mount at Startup with 9.04
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/19cd09d389e3f29e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 5:09 pm
From: dave
Version 9.04 runs better than any previous version on my machine, but
detected hd/volumes are not automatically mounted until accessed. What
do I edit to get them to do this (as did versions 8.x) so I can access
via a start up script.
Dave Cohen
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jun 12 2009 5:12 pm
From: dave
dave wrote:
> Version 9.04 runs better than any previous version on my machine, but
> detected hd/volumes are not automatically mounted until accessed. What
> do I edit to get them to do this (as did versions 8.x) so I can access
> via a start up script.
> Dave Cohen
So sorry, I thought I was in Ubuntu group, please ignore.
Dave Cohen
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment