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 - 12 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
* A digital camera as a scanner - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9f34a60a3014088f?hl=en
* What a waste these groups are... - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?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
* Whatever happened to the "single pixel" camera idea? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/132ae2d328416321?hl=en
* Canon Reliability - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4222610fecc12359?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:34 pm
From: Kris Krieger
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-
this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in news:_8uZl.42890$OO7.19499
@text.news.virginmedia.com:
> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
> []
>> The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is
>> the Sigma DP1 and DP2. The reason is that these cameras have and
>> APS-C size sensor like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses
>> in their DSLR, it's pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who
>> just wants to P&S. Otherwise, if you are interested in the image
>> quality that a DSLR has, you won't find it in any other P&S.
>
> You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well.
>
> David
>
Thanks :) , I also want to investigate the Sony A-series (as mentioned on the
website luminiouslandscapes.com).
I'm pretty sure by now that I'll have to save up for a higher-priced one to
get the features I'm interested in ;)
- Kris
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:37 pm
From: Kris Krieger
Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote in
news:h14tgu$3ck$2@news.eternal-september.org:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to
>> spend. So I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do
>> need to widen my investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I
>> appreciate people taking the time to offer me that info.
>
> 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.
>
> A friend of mine has a Canon Rebel XTi and several very nice lenses
> (Canon 10-22mm, 60mm macro, etc.), and he loves the control and the
> results it gives him... but he also found it a lot to carry along on his
> job with the railroad, and he was always worried about it getting
> damaged or stolen... so he got himself a "compact bridge" camera in a
> Canon G9, something he can just toss in his truck to carry along at all
> times.
>
Valid point, and certainyl a good choice for many people, just out of my
budget ;)
THanks, tho'!
- Kris
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:47 pm
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:54:43 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in>
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
>
That's for a camera body only. No lens. The lens will add a couple
of hundred dollars. Note that ZipZoomFly does not accept returns. A
very bad sign!
Here's something else you need to check out: the reliability of the
store. ZipZoomFly has a rating of 6.2 out of 10 at
http://www.resellerratings.com/store/ZipZoomFly Almost 40% of their
buyers were unhappy after the sale.
Check any vendor at ResellerRatings. ZipZoomFly is not the worst, but
they aren't great. Some vendors are absolute rip-offs.
Your most dependable vendors are Adorama, Abe's of Maine, and B&H
Camera. Many of the others push accessories, cancel orders if you
don't buy accessories, add and over-charge for accessories included by
reliable vendors, or supply you with gray market (no US warranty)
items.
>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
>
The Nikon D40 is new, not reburbished. That's the set-up I have. Two
lenses.
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...?
Abe's of Maine is a dependable vendor.
Buying used is a gamble. Digital cameras are more delicate and more
prone to problems than are the old slrs. Electronics, you know. I'd
consider a used lens from KEH, but I wouldn't buy a used dslr body.
You can Google for all of the names I've mentioned.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:02 pm
From: Kris Krieger
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).
>
> 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.
>
> Unless you have one of the more expensive DSLRs with unusually
> accurate focussing aids this is not only much the fastest way of
> focussing, it is also the most accurate, because good modern autofocus
> systems are better than even the trained manual eye and hand. There
> are the usual special exceptions of course, such as shooting through
> wire netting or twigs when the autofocus will probably choose the
> wrong thing to focus on.
Exactly my point. It sounds to me like something I'd have to learn to work
around. Granted, I didn't knwo anythign about it before, but at this
point, it sounds like somethign that I could adjust to, but would probably
find annoying, like that thing that's plopped into the center of my film-
camera's viewfinder - whihc I *did* try using, and which screwed my photos
up every time, perhaps because it played havoc with my astigmatism.
That's one big reason I'm "down" on autofocus. As an analogy: I also
prefer to drive a stick shift - and only drive auto now because of
arthritis, but still find the auto-transmission lack of control VERY
annoying.
>
> The best modern autofocus systems can also do all sorts of new
> wonderful things, but only if you specifically ask them to do them,
> such as select the best compromise focus for a group shot, or track
> the rapidly changing focus of a bird in flight even when you can't
> keep it in the centre of the image.
The bird-in-flight is the main reason I'm considering it. When I'm
interested in a group of objects, what I've done with film is either use
the shorter lens to get the group (tho' it also includes more background,
which can distract from the main subject), or use the longer lens an
dselect which item in the group (flower, rock, etc.) I want to be Primary.
But that's a matter of desired composition - and it depends upon what it
was aboutthe group of objects that caught my eye in the first place.
So I don't know how that relates to DSLR vs P&S, or auto-focus...
If I were to photograph people as subjects, I'd approach that like any
other subject - look for the thing that caught my eye in the first place,
which is almost always an abstract compositional factor, be it light,
color, shape of a pose, etc. I don't knwo how to explain it better :(
>
> The same kind of choose-and-lock facility can be selected for
> autoexposure as well, e.g. in a portrait of someone looking at a
> sunset you can choose to set and lock the exposure on the face and
> then compose the shot.
If I did that, I'd prob want to focus really tight-in, for example catch
the reflection of the sunset in the eye. Other than that, people don't
usually interest me as subjects. So portraiture, while certainly a worthy
art form!, is just not a factor for me personally ;) I know it's a bit
weird, but there it is. So to be honest, I don't knwo how to even relate
it to my research; teh idea of having to focus on somethign centraly and
then go through a procedure to get teh camera to focus on my subject in the
place where I want it to bein the photo and then focus onit there...to be
honest, it sounds like a headache. I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just
trying to clarify my questions (both for the group, AND for myself, too!)
>
> I suggest you borrow the manual of a camera you fancy, or print a copy
> from the maker's web site, and have a good lengthy browse through
> it. I think you may be in for some pleasant surprises :-)
>
I've started looking at mfgr sites as I'm seeing camera models that look
interesting, so downloading manuals as a preview-assist is a good idea,
thanks!
- Kris
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:07 pm
From: Kris Krieger
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.
> I think it would work well if
> the lens's field of focus was spherical, but I think that most
> lenses are somewhere between spherical and the flat fields that are
> a property of macro lenses. If lenses were generally of the
> spherical focus type, even stopping down to get a large DOF probably
> wouldn't generally be enough to take edge to edge sharp multi-person
> portraits of people standing in a straight line. Or so it's said by
> Thom Hogan and a number of other photographers having similar
> knowledge, if lesser accomplishments. Using a corner or edge AF
> sensor (if available) is the best way to go.
>
>
Ah, I Googled Thom Hogan and got his website - good stuff, thanks!
- Kris
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:27 pm
From: P&S_PRO
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:41:33 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote in news:2hlb35ha9pl40aj7ecnr96v3514ir18o6f@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>>>> type" P&S cameras.
>>>
>>> Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard <LOL!!>
>>>
>>> Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!
>>
>> Virtually all of it intended to be misleading. This was, after
>> all, the pathetic anti-DSLR troll you were responding to, who is
>> easily recognizable and changes his name *very* frequently because
>> he knows that if he doesn't do so, most people will quickly add his
>> name to their newsreader's kill files.
>>
>> It's true that some *good* P&S cameras are capable of taking
>> excellent photos and they may be that you need, but they *all* have
>> severe limitations in many areas. First, if there isn't enough
>> light available, all digital cameras need to increase the ISO (in
>> other words, boost their light sensitivity - ISO is practically the
>> same as the ASA value used with film). Because they use much
>> smaller sensors than DSLRs, even a slight increase in sensitivity
>> degrades the image considerably.
"Practically the same"? ASA and ISO are the same when it comes to
exposures, idiot. Proving once again that you don't even know what cameras
and film are all about. You're such an obvious pretend-photographer
DSLR-troll. Really ASSAR, go get a real camera someday. Go out and use it.
You'll find out that 90% of what you say is utter nonsense. You'll hang
your head in shame realizing how much crap you have spewed onto the net all
these years while living in your basement.
ASSAR, haven't you been paying attention? He's been shooting with ISO100
(ASA100) film all his life. He doesn't need your high ISOs that you keep
going on about it (the one minor thing that DSLRs are sometimes better at).
Pros are like that, they don't need high ISOs. I never find a need to go
above ISO200 because I know what I'm doing. There is no more noise in the
images from a good P&S cameras at ISO200 than a DSLR at ISO800. Get a clue
will you? But that's impossible, you have to actually own and use cameras
for you to be able to get a clue.
>
>***OH!!***
>
>OK, that's important to me!! With my fil camera, I can open the lens
>aperture and/or increase teh exposure time, but *have* been able (when I
>get it right) to get soem beautifully crisp images in shadow, and in
>backlit situations.
>
>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 have quite a few photos just like that. I just looked through them and
was going to post one for you. All taken with P&S cameras. But now I
believe we are all being trolled from two sides and there's no reason to
entertain trolls nor hand out valuable shooting experience for free to
them. I could give you some simple pointers on how to ensure you capture
those web-rainbows correctly (it's not as simple as you might think at
first, no matter what camera you use).
>
>That's one sort of photography I want to do, but didn't know whether
>digital was capable of handlign that sort of contrast and color-range. But
>it does sound like DSLR would be stronger in that sort of situation.
>
Why would that be so? All of my rainbow-hued web photos look just fine here
taken with all manner of P&S cameras.
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
Before the pretend-photographer DSLR-trolls start spouting their nonsense,
sensor-blooming artifacts and aliasing artifacts have absolutely nothing to
do with all the myriad rainbow-hued colors that you see in this photo. I
know the difference and am 100% certain. I realize that basement-living
trolls never get out into the real world, but yes, spider webs from certain
species of spiders actually do look this way in sunlight from the proper
angles. See what you are missing? Not enough incentive yet for you to crawl
out of your troll's basements? I thought not.
>
>> When the low base ISO is boosted
>> to 200 or 400 the images from P&S cameras become "noisy" and is
>> often easily seen without substantial magnification. Many DSLRs can
>> be used at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and produce cleaner images than P&S
>> cameras. I have several of the better Canon Powershots and they're
>> nice, but they turn into little noise boxes when the lighting is
>> low.
>
>OK, that would definitely not cut the proverbial mustard...
>
>>
>> Second, P&S cameras focus using contrast detection, which is
>> *much* slower than the phase detection used by DLSRs, which under
>> similar conditions is much quicker and more accurate. Try them out
>> in a camera store that allows you to test them. You'll see, easily.
>
>THat's another term I can add to my list - I previously would not have even
>known to ask abotu that! So Thanks!
Contrast focusing CAN be slower, so much depends on light levels. DSLRs
cannot auto-focus in low light no matter what, which makes them infinitely
slower than any P&S camera on earth. And then the light-levels are so low
that you can't focus a DSLR by using the optical viewfinder either,
lose-lose. Something that DSLR-Trolls conveniently seem to forget when
going on about them. They've never actually used any of these cameras that
they talk about in real-world conditions. Contrast focusing is much more
accurate and can focus in light levels so low where you would normally put
away any SLR type of camera. Contrary to what ASSAR says. He knows not of
what he types. I am also 100% certain of that.
>
>>
>> P&S cameras have several other drawbacks (which others can point
>> out if they wish), but they still serve a purpose and most DSLR
>> owners find it convenient to also use a P&S. So if you get a one
>> and find that its limitations are sufficient to force you to get a
>> DSLR, all is not lost.
>>
>
>There isn't room in the budget for me to get two. The above example of
>things I would like to photograph is tellign, also, I like things such as,
>small tree frog among a slew of palm leaves (haven't yet developed the fil
>but tried to get that a couple weeks ago; green tree frong on the still-
>shrubby Pindo palm in my back yard); or a dragonfly warmign up in the
>morning light on a blade of the 7'-tall 'Dallas Blues' var switchgrass
>(near the pindo palm). Or water glinting in the moonlight.
>
In possession of tons of photos just like that. All taken with super-zoom
P&S cameras. You won't be able to get the full body of the frog nor
dragonfly in focus with any DSLR, not enough DOF. This is where P&S smaller
sensor cameras will always excel, for macro nature photography.
>Not sure whetehr the following clarifies, but here goes =:-o :
>
>My "manifesto", is:
>I don't "do" snapshots.
>I want to photograph **what __I__ perceive**,
>not cutesy pic-lets that show someone else touristy views of this place or
>that - for that, there are postcards, and tourist guides, and visitor
>booklets. To be totally "rude" about it <LOL!>, I don't really give a crap
>whetehr my photos would appeal to people who wabnt to see snapshots. I do
>these things because I am driven to do them, and wht matters to me is
>whether *I* am satisfied - and I'm pretty demanding of myself.
>
>Yeah, I admit, *occasionally*, I might send a distant relative a
>"snapshot" of the garden or house or whatever, but overall, nope.
>
>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.
>
>OTOH, that's what I *do* like about the film camera - I do have the option
>of using the one that best suits the capture of what *I* am perceiving
>(again, with the lack of preview being the biggest frustration, along with
>expense of film-development).
>
>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...
I hope you choose any of them. Then find out that you're going to have to
spend well over $5000 in lenses to get comparable images to what you would
get from any decent $200-$300 P&S super-zoom camera right off the shelf.
Along with all the cumbersome dust-covered sensor problems that come along
with any DSLR, only to find out that all your images are ruined when you
get back to the computer to view them. Each and every moment lost forever.
Been there, done that way too many times, never again. That should make you
very happy. It'll be just like sending your photos off to a lab only to
have them come back all ruined.
>
>Anywhere, that's all very rambling, but I'm sort-of at that "rambling"
>stage right now in terms of the search, so I guess it fits ;)
>
>- Kris
This is fun, watching you take the advice a troll who's never even held a
camera before. :-) (i.e. ASSAR)
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:33 pm
From: Kris Krieger
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-
this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in news:8gmZl.42676$OO7.6382
@text.news.virginmedia.com:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
> []
>> 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...
>
> Kris,
>
> I think you will find that any of today's DSLRs will do what you want.
> They all have fine control over the colour rendering - but it may be up to
> you to get the colour temperature correct for your shots or using manual
> colour balance and a white card. You can usually adjust the sharpness for
> the JPEGs produced by the camera.
>
> My prime camera is a Nikon D60 - the bottom of the range - and I've been
> very pleased with it. I usually carry the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR (image
> stabilised) lenses, giving me a "35mm equivalent" focal length range of
> 24-450mm. I also carry a compact P&S camera - the Panasonic TZ3 - for
> those times when I need a "pocket-sized" camera.
>
> Cheers,
> David
>
>
Thanks, yes, I started looking at the Nikon D-series. Good not ebaout color
adjustment!, I didn't know you could do that, either!
Amazon has a new one for apx $170.50 with shipping.
They have, for $399, a NikonD60 Body Only (wondering whether my Minolta 45mm
lens and Minolta Celtic 135mm lens will fit onto it...my impression is
Yes...)
ALso, refurbished Nikon D60 10.2MP Digital SLR Camera with 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G
AF-S DX VR Nikkor Zoom Lens for $450 with shipping. THere is aplain-old-
used one for an insignificant amount ($50) less.
The PITA about trying to shop online is that, when you put in "Nikon d80
DSLR", you get everythign from bags to straps to all sorts of other drivel,
as opposed to just CAMERAS (or even camera "kits" with lenses).
- Kris
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:35 pm
From: Kris Krieger
Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in
news:79ndlgF1kp8o3U1@mid.individual.net:
> Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>> news:5f3a35tuil28qq8hvkos1biisf840samg8@4ax.com:
>
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
>>> <noone@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37r$1@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 :)
THanks!,
- Kris
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 5:04 pm
From: John Navas
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote
in <Xns9C2AC362D404Cmeadowmuffin@216.168.3.70>:
>(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)
Well, duh. AFAIK the only qualification for salespeople at Best Buy is
a pulse, and I'm not even sure about that. I'd be even harder on their
Geek Squad except their screwups generate a fair amount of good
undo-the-damage business for me. :)
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 5:17 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:50:43 GMT, nick c <nchen711@cloudnine.net> wrote
in <nCxZl.1179$P5.1094@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>:
>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. ...
In other words, (P)oint and Shoot, aka P&S. ;)
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 5:25 pm
From: John Navas
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.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 12 of 12 ==
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)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A digital camera as a scanner
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9f34a60a3014088f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:45 pm
From: Allen
il barbi wrote:
> I just want a scanner for slides being as fast as a photocopier...
> Now I see these devices from www.heartlandamerica.com being actually digital
> cameras
> I agree the components seem cheap and not accurate (the price does not
> exceed 100 $) but why couldn't it work if I use some top level digital
> camera with a full frame sensor and 12 Mpixels and build some device to
> embed it with the slide to scan?
> Perhaps such kit already exists?
> il barbi
>
>
Back before digital was among us, I realized that practically all the
pictues of my children were on slides. I decided to make Christmas gifts
for them with, as it turned out, 360 slides instead of the 100 I had
planned). I made a copying device for my Canon Elan and mounted an old
Miranda 50mm lens reversed attached. This old lens from the 1960s was
absolutely needle sharp. I copied the slides to Kodacolor and had 4x6
prints made of them. They were totally overjoyed, to say the least. Two
or three years ago I got a Canoscan 8400 and rescanned those slides,
alond with a few thousand others. The results were much better than what
I got with the adapted camera, plus it was faster. I wish I could
invest in a film scanner, but that just isn't possible.
Allen
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:46 pm
From: Marty Fremen
"il barbi" <angeieri.barboggi@ngi.it> wrote:
> I just want a scanner for slides being as fast as a photocopier...
> Now I see these devices from www.heartlandamerica.com being actually
> digital cameras
> I agree the components seem cheap and not accurate (the price does not
> exceed 100 $) but why couldn't it work if I use some top level digital
> camera with a full frame sensor and 12 Mpixels and build some device
> to embed it with the slide to scan?
> Perhaps such kit already exists?
IME a proper scanner is better than a digital camera, because scanners
scan pixels at full colour whilst cameras interpolate 2/3 of the colours
which creates chromatic artefacts. A 12 megapixel camera producing a
2800x4300 scan is probably going to be no better than a 1800x2400 scan
produced by a proper scanner, if you want quick reasonable quality scans
you would probably be better off using a flatbed with one of those
transparency adaptors that scans 20 or more slides/negs at a time. Of
course a propoer film scanner is better still, there are some that take
a hopper full of slides, or IIRC there was also one which took a slide
magazine, either would surely work out better than using a camera jig
which has to be loaded up with individual slides, and for which you need
to set up a good white light source which has no unevenness of
illumination.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:48 pm
From: Nicko
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:05:51 GMT, Marvin wrote:
:
>>> I just want a scanner for slides being as fast as a photocopier...
>
> There was once a great construction article for this purpose entitled
> "Make your own slide duplicator"
> at:
> http://users.iafrica.com/m/mc/mcollett/brsd/index.htm
>
> But, I see the page is dead. And it cannot be found at The Way Back
> Machine. And, Googling for the terms does not seem to find it at
> a new web site. sigh...
>
> I was emboldened by the article to make my own "slide duplicator" (in
> reality a slide copier) -- using various cardboard tubing, plastic
> pipe, etc. Since every digital camera has to be a different size and
> shape, what you might make will look nothing like what I cobbled up.
Why did you waste your time composing a post that contains *less tnan
zero* information?
--
YOP...
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:34 pm
From: Allodoxaphobia
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:05:51 GMT, Marvin wrote:
>
> Why did you waste your time composing a post that contains *less tnan
> zero* information?
Works as a dick-head detector.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 4:54 pm
From: Nicko
Allodoxaphobia wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:05:51 GMT, Marvin wrote:
>> Why did you waste your time composing a post that contains *less tnan
>> zero* information?
>
> Works as a dick-head detector.
Ah. Gotcha.
Touché.
--
YOP...
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What a waste these groups are...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad679aa87d2eb7b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 2:48 pm
From: Allen
Frank ess wrote:
>
>
> M. wrote:
>> "Bertram Paul"/Focus/whoever wrote:
>>> I'm out of here.
>> Promises, promises ... but my fingers are crossed!
>
>
> See, M., you need to learn to read subtext. He didn't want you to
> understand he was going to leave; he'd like to have less reason to
> leave, and was willing to have anyone interested join a discussion about
> it, perhaps even to the extent he is dissuaded.
>
> Speak to the point; OK? Oh, you're part of the point? Conceded.
>
>
> My view: a newsgroup is what you make of it. If you respond to trolls,
> it becomes at least partly a respond-to-trolls group, to the delight of
> trolls. If it becomes a check-out-my-latest-sock group, they'll be
> lining up for attention. If it becomes
> my-excuse-for-throwing-my-weight-and-or-intellect-(if any)-around group,
> boredom and disdain will ensue. If it becomes a
> hardcore-photography-information-and-decent-evaluation-of-equipment-and-work
> group, the dips**ts will discover it and convert it to something a lot
> more like their favorites. Count on it.
>
> Such is Usenet.
>
> "We become just by the practice of just actions,
> self-controlled by exercising self-control,
> and courageous by performing acts of courage."
> --Aristotle
>
A very good post. I must add one thing to it--the degree of throwing
intellect around id inversely proportional to the value of that "intellect".
Allen
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:58 pm
From: Twibil
On Jun 15, 2:48 pm, Allen <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "We become just by the practice of just actions,
> > self-controlled by exercising self-control,
> > and courageous by performing acts of courage."
> > --Aristotle
>
> A very good post. I must add one thing to it--the degree of throwing
> intellect around is inversely proportional to the value of that "intellect".
Er, so you're discounting the value of Philosophers such as Aristotle
(see above) who were in fact famed for doing exactly that: "throwing
their intellect around".
How strange, then, that you think it was a good post...
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 5:24 pm
From: "Frank ess"
Twibil wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2:48 pm, Allen <all...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "We become just by the practice of just actions,
>>> self-controlled by exercising self-control,
>>> and courageous by performing acts of courage."
>>> --Aristotle
>>
>> A very good post. I must add one thing to it--the degree of
>> throwing intellect around is inversely proportional to the value
>> of that "intellect".
>
> Er, so you're discounting the value of Philosophers such as
> Aristotle (see above) who were in fact famed for doing exactly
> that: "throwing their intellect around".
>
> How strange, then, that you think it was a good post...
Q.E.D.
==============================================================================
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 2:55 pm
From: "michael adams"
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message news:877hzd5jf1.fld@apaflo.com...
> "michael adams" <mjadams25@onetel.net.uk> wrote:
> >"Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
> >news:K-qdnUari8lHa7XXnZ2dnUVZ8sadnZ2d@novis.pt...
> >
> >> The 900 was just sitting in the hotshoe. How else?
> >
> >If so, then you have yet to explain how the rock at the bottom left of 090517120,
> >the first in the sequence
>
> What's to explain?
>
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/bertram-paul/3596302086/in/set-72157619252249256/
> >
> >shows very strong illumination coming from the left.
>
> 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.
michael adams
...
>
> >A point made by another poster which you've chosen to ignore.
>
> You should have too... :-)
>
> --
> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Whatever happened to the "single pixel" camera idea?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/132ae2d328416321?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 3:28 pm
From: daveFaktor
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I remember reading about it a few years back.
>
>
> Here is the result of Google search on the subject.
> http://tinyurl.com/nfz78b
>
> The idea still seems to be alive and well.
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
A serious problem with Google is dates.
They never but the date of the last entry in a link and it could very
well be 2 years old if no other site has more recent info conforming to
their idea of a relevant site.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 4:09 pm
From: mike
In article <nead35ll5050rrq35q730s2arts3b6g9jf@4ax.com>,
eric.stevens@sum.co.nz says...
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:23:58 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I remember reading about it a few years back.
>
>
> Here is the result of Google search on the subject.
> http://tinyurl.com/nfz78b
>
> The idea still seems to be alive and well.
>
I took a look at "Physics Buzz", the first link in the search. How the
hell did they get the mandrill to sit still for 15 minutes?
Mike
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon Reliability
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/744b5f8d8994cb7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 4:51 pm
From: John Navas
On 14 Jun 2009 20:22:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
<4a355c21$0$1625$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
>>>Gee, if the lottery is such a bad bet then why do people keep winning
>>>the lottery?
>>>
>>>Idiot.
>>
>>If you don't think lotteries are a bad bet, then you are the "idiot",
>
>Apparently you're too stupid to notice that I was parodying your own
>logic.
Your posting style has any sane person baffled. ;)
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jun 15 2009 4:56 pm
From: John Navas
On 14 Jun 2009 20:27:48 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in
<4a355d44$0$1625$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>[SNIP]
I'm pleased to inform you that you've earned a coveted spot in my twit
filter. It's not easy -- posts have to be all crap and no content --
but you cleared the bar with room to spare! Have a nice day.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
==============================================================================
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