rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* ISP ending Usenet service: which free/cheap ones are best? - 7 messages, 7
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d77142c047e8f0?hl=en
* bluring a messy background? - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/16214bbd77176240?hl=en
* Ford, The Survivor....venting! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
* Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late... - 12 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ISP ending Usenet service: which free/cheap ones are best?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d77142c047e8f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:13 am
From: ray
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:38:24 -0500, AKT wrote:
> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
I've been quite happy with news.individual.net - it costs about one euro
per month.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:26 am
From: John McWilliams
AKT wrote:
> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
Yes.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:35 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-06-09 07:38:24 -0700, AKT <akt@null.void> said:
> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
I am using Panic.com http://www.panic.com/unison/access.php for $9.95/month.
I see you are a Mac/Thoth user. I also paid for Panic's client Unison,
which I find very Mac-centric and intuitive to use, but that would be
your decision. Their Usenet access can be used with whichever client
you want.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:37 am
From: Keith Nuttle
AKT wrote:
> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
I received the same thing to day. In response I have removed all yahoo
sites form my computer, including the ATT/yahoo home page.
While this may sound petty, if everyone who was a newsgroup user stopped
using yahoo, which is possible, it would reduce yahoo hits and
consequently the amount they can charge for advertisements.
I just set up with aioe.org, I don't know how it will workout.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:43 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 11:37:30 -0400, Keith Nuttle
<keith_nuttle@sbcglobal.net> wrote in <h0lvk6$3ve$1@aioe.org>:
>AKT wrote:
>> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>>
>>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>>
>> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
>I received the same thing to day. In response I have removed all yahoo
>sites form my computer, including the ATT/yahoo home page.
>
>While this may sound petty,
To me it sounds silly.
>if everyone who was a newsgroup user stopped
>using yahoo, which is possible, it would reduce yahoo hits and
>consequently the amount they can charge for advertisements.
Probably not enough to notice -- only a tiny minority still use Usenet.
Regardless, what's the point? Spite?
Usenet is dying. Get over it.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:23 am
From: whosbest54
In article <090620090938243222%akt@null.void>, akt@null.void says...
>My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
>Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
>
Go to alt.free.newsservers and read a bit. There are several choices.
whosbest54
--
The flamewars are over...if you want it.
Unofficial rec.audio.opinion Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rao.htm
Unofficial rec.music.beatles Usenet Group Brief User Guide:
http://whosbest54.netau.net/rmb.html
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:23 am
From: "Nobody"
"AKT" <akt@null.void> wrote in message
news:090620090938243222%akt@null.void...
> My ISP (ATT) just sent this:
>
>> Please note that on or around July 15, 2009, AT&T will no longer be
>> offering access to the Usenet netnews service.
>
> Does anybody know which free / cheap services are best?
both are free, ok most of the time
==============================================================================
TOPIC: bluring a messy background?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/16214bbd77176240?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:14 am
From: George Kerby
On 6/9/09 9:57 AM, in article 13us259r5akve7rrnb32qj3vkd2cpnsgbe@4ax.com,
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:46:06 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <1bts25ddmc317i07rvp1kqrs4ctc2brn1q@4ax.com>:
>
>> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>> I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>> not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>> person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>> Suggestion for next time: use a lens with a large apperture wide open,
>> thus creating a very shallow DOF.
>
> Gee, that's really helpful.
Navas, showing his ASS again as usual.
I thought you had fallen off that boat and was trapped on Alcatraz. Crap!
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:15 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:56:20 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<r9ts25tnj7ufa3rl5t6hstmh9k87bkq82l@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:26:08 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in
><02ss25dgspkvpsffee0e21ms20vv53mjml@4ax.com>:
>
>>I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>
>>I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>
>Photoshop - blur background
><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnJAQgjLk50>
>
>Better place to get Photoshop Elements help:
><http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop_elements>
Also:
<http://www.google.com/search?q=shallow+depth+of+field+%2B(photoshop-elements)>
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:22 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>
>I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
I don't use PhotoShop, but the method is rather generic.
First, do a selection that includes basically the part you
want to stand out. It does *not* have to be precise. Then
invert the selection so that it is everything you want to
be less obvious that is selected.
Then you want to "feather" the selection. But how much depends
on the resolution of your image and just how large the object
is. Set the value to enough pixels that a smooth gradient will
be produced, not a sharp transition that is obvious. This is the
first of a series, and each time the feathering will be greater.
This first one should be fairly thin.
Note that when you add feathering it will go on both sides of
the line where it is selected. Hence some of the feathered
selection will be outside of the area you want to blur, and
inside what you want to be sharp. Because of that, you'll want
to begin with very very mild adjustments. Blur the selection
with a setting that you can barely see, if at all. And then set
the contrast ever so slightly lower and perhaps brightness too.
After the first adjustments, decrease the size of the selected
area by about the same number of pixels as the amount of
feathering. Reset the feathering too, and use a slightly larger
number of pixels. Then do the same blur/contrast/brightness
adjustments, but with slightly greater values.
Repeat the above series. This should probably be done in at
least half a dozen increments. Eventually you get to a position
where the selection is half way from the edges of the image to
the area to be preserved, and it is then possible to set
feathering to the minimum width of the selected area and hit it
with the maximum blur that you want to show up at the edges.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:39 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:22:48 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87fxe9whx3.fld@apaflo.com>:
>Note that when you add feathering it will go on both sides of
>the line where it is selected. ...
Not necessarily -- some software (e.g., Corel PHOTO-PAINT) is also
capable of feathering inside or outside a selection, and Photoshop
Elements can do it with layers.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:50 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:15:23 -0700, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<j2vs25hrm3rra5lc18dsdjkaftogl4jfe1@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:56:20 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
><r9ts25tnj7ufa3rl5t6hstmh9k87bkq82l@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:26:08 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in
>><02ss25dgspkvpsffee0e21ms20vv53mjml@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>I took a photo of someone in a shop and the background is distracting.
>>>I tried to use the blur tool to blur the messy background but this did
>>>not look right. Is there a better way of buring a background so a
>>>person stand out and the background is not distracting to the viewer?
>>>
>>>I am using Adobe photoshop elements 7.
>>
>>Photoshop - blur background
>><http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnJAQgjLk50>
>>
>>Better place to get Photoshop Elements help:
>><http://forums.adobe.com/community/photoshop_elements>
>
>Also:
><http://www.google.com/search?q=shallow+depth+of+field+%2B(photoshop-elements)>
Last but not least: FocalPoint plugin:
<http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=35>
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor....venting!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 8:32 am
From: SylvanOhlmsted
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mtqn251hhklspvguguu66arp7kisf1fudp@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 11:59:28 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe all manufacturers design their vehicles this way now. Before I
>>>> buy
>>>> another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they
>>>> are, I
>>>> am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or
>>>> Korean.
>>>
>>> The two brands that have the least faults in the first 3 years of
>>> ownership are:
>>>
>>> Lexus and Accura
>>>
>>> followed by
>>>
>>> Toyota and Honda.
>>>
>> Apples and oranges, Alan. The complaint is about what is required to
>> fix a car that has a part that needs replaced, not about manufacturing
>> defects.
Smith said
>>>> buy
>>>> another vehicle I will find out if Fords are the same way. If they
>>>> are, I
>>>> am sorry to say that my next vehicle will be Japanese, Chinese, or
>>>> Korean.
That's what he answered.
Maybe you're right though, Japanese and US cars are apples and oranges.
The apples work and the oranges fail.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 10:25 am
From: Dymphna
For females it is worse.
--
Dymphna
Message origin: www.TRAVEL.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poor, poor P&S owner learns too late...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/555753247e2a15f7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 10:11 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>>[]
>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>
>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>> Preview
>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>
>>
>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>
>>David
>
> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
suffer virtually zero shutter lag, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 10:23 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:11:07 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote in <FOydnaKIfpAsCrPXnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>
>"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>[]
>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>
>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>> Preview
>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>
>>>
>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
>
>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
>suffer virtually zero shutter lag, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
Name calling only serves to concede the point.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 10:32 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:rh6t255f40ej8sjobrc40e3kt89c0l90c4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:11:07 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <FOydnaKIfpAsCrPXnZ2dnUVZ8vmdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>
>>
>>"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
>>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>[]
>>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>>> Preview
>>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays
>>>>you
>>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>
>>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more
>>> for
>>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of
>>> their
>>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash
>>> outdoors
>>
>>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
>>suffer virtually zero shutter lag, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
>
> Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
Justify, no.
Rebuff part-truths, yes.
Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
But for versatility, nothing touches them.
Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief when
it comes to shutter lag?
>>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
>
> Name calling only serves to concede the point.
Names, where I come from, have a capital letter at the front.
Therefore, that wasn't name-calling (note the hyphen).
A troll simply isn't worth a capital.
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 10:46 am
From: Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:11:07 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>[]
>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>
>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>> Preview
>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>
>>>
>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays you
>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>>
>>>David
>>
>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more for
>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of their
>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash outdoors
>
>
>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
Fuck, the idiot doesn't even realize how his camera works. Those larger
photosites aren't going to do squat for you to help with composing and
focusing in dim light. Get a freakin' clue you moron DSLR-TROLL. But then,
only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
121,238th data point to prove it again.
>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms. Yours times in at about, what?
150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter out
of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have shutter
lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know of
another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only follows
that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:04 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!" <camdtya@camdtya.com> wrote in
message news:376t255m0cge65cb9sv9p9i29m6e546paq@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:11:07 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
>>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>[]
>>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>>
>>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>>> Preview
>>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays
>>>>you
>>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>>>
>>>>David
>>>
>>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more
>>> for
>>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of
>>> their
>>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash
>>> outdoors
>>
>>
>>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
>
> Fuck, the idiot doesn't even realize how his camera works. Those larger
> photosites aren't going to do squat for you to help with composing and
> focusing in dim light. Get a freakin' clue you moron DSLR-TROLL. But then,
"composing"?
That's knowing what your zoom range is, where your camera is pointing, and
/knowing/ that camera so well that the image is going to be pretty much how
you want it.
Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
squinting at that blurry LCD.
Really, it's not a pretty sight.
Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
Then, and only then come back and call me an idiot.
I have a P&S.
A Canon G9.
It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
my DSLR.
But above sea-level, really, not so good.
It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
> only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
> knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
> proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
> 121,238th data point to prove it again.
You're counting then?
That's a start.
>>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
>
> Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms.
And how long does it take to power-up?
> 150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter
> out
> of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
> the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have
> shutter
> lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know
> of
> another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
Wow! steps back in astonishment.
Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
>>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>
> So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
> wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
> F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
> for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
in my jacket pocket.
How about that?
I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
> windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
> you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only
> follows
> that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
No, really, I'm not.
>>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
>
> Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
> ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
No, really, we're all just *dying* to see the evidence of the brilliance of
your skills.
Have been for quite some time. <taps watch>
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:19 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:32:21 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote in <2NWdnVPHk6oxAbPXnZ2dnUVZ8oadnZ2d@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:rh6t255f40ej8sjobrc40e3kt89c0l90c4@4ax.com...
>> Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>
>Justify, no.
>Rebuff part-truths, yes.
>
>Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
>I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
>But for versatility, nothing touches them.
In your opinion. Not in the opinions of many others, including me.
>Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief when
>it comes to shutter lag?
I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
shutter lag just isn't an issue -- response (in the proper mode) is near
instantaneous.
"P&S" is a pejorative when applied to cameras like my FZ28, as
I'm sure you know -- since I'm not stooping to pejoratives like "dSLR
bigot", how about according me the same respect?
>>>Of course I don't you silly, silly troll.
>>
>> Name calling only serves to concede the point.
>
>Names, where I come from, have a capital letter at the front.
>Therefore, that wasn't name-calling (note the hyphen).
Of course it was, and all it served/serves is to make you less credible.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:30 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:04:50 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote in <eo6dnd_iLdbUObPXnZ2dnUVZ8i2dnZ2d@bt.com>:
>"composing"?
>That's knowing what your zoom range is, where your camera is pointing, and
>/knowing/ that camera so well that the image is going to be pretty much how
>you want it.
No problem with my FZ28.
>Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
>squinting at that blurry LCD.
I'm actually using the excellent EVF with OIS (optical image
stabilization).
>Really, it's not a pretty sight.
>Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
Again, no problem with my FZ28.
>I have a P&S.
>A Canon G9.
>It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
>water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
>But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
>my DSLR.
>But above sea-level, really, not so good.
>It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
Then try something better.
>And how long does it take to power-up?
Not long enough for me to care about, and takes much less time than
dragging a big SLR out of its case/holster and switching to the right
lens.
>Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
I use digital slaves, which work fine.
>Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>in my jacket pocket.
>How about that?
Must be a really, really big pocket!
Most of my pockets aren't that big.
>I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
Wasn't an option for me, since Canon orphaned its excellent FD mount
lenses, but the Leica-branded lens on my FZ28 is likewise excellent.
Don't get me wrong -- there is a place for dSLR, but it's not in size,
weight, ease of handling, or single lens capability.
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:30 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5s6kso9mi9i9b44l54@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:32:21 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <2NWdnVPHk6oxAbPXnZ2dnUVZ8oadnZ2d@bt.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:rh6t255f40ej8sjobrc40e3kt89c0l90c4@4ax.com...
>
>>> Only if you're that desperate to justify your equipment.
>>
>>Justify, no.
>>Rebuff part-truths, yes.
>>
>>Yes, DSLRs have their drawbacks - dirt on the sensor is one of them.
>>I don't pretend that that they're perfect.
>>But for versatility, nothing touches them.
>
> In your opinion. Not in the opinions of many others, including me.
>
>>Seriously, hand-on-heart, can you say that a P&S doesn't give you grief
>>when
>>it comes to shutter lag?
>
> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were* discussing
P&S cameras.
I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
Oh dear.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:34 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:30:31 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5s6kso9mi9i9b44l54@4ax.com...
>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>
>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were* discussing
>P&S cameras.
>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>Oh dear.
Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that,
but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great." -Mark Twain
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:40 am
From: "Deep Reset"
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:6kat255pjq5n6qbuhpn68okv6covqu70re@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:30:31 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
> wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5s6kso9mi9i9b44l54@4ax.com...
>
>>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>>
>>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were*
>>discussing
>>P&S cameras.
>>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>>Oh dear.
>
> Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
Point out to me the insult, please?
> The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
> FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
Remind me at what point I directed any pejorative terms at your camera?
I think it was you who brought it up.
What does *that* say?
Really, if you're happy with 36Mpix per cm^2, who am I to argue?
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:54 am
From: Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:04:50 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>"Caught Another Moron DSLR-TROLL - YEE HA!" <camdtya@camdtya.com> wrote in
>message news:376t255m0cge65cb9sv9p9i29m6e546paq@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:11:07 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Greg Amstead" <gamstead@xyz.com> wrote in message
>>>news:lh8r2596dqsd2q4h9ocsqj46u6kqri72vd@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:09:20 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>>> <david-taylor@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>>[]
>>>>>> The weight savings with comparable optical quality of current dSLR kit
>>>>>> over the 35 mm kit I carried is significant, but not substantial, and
>>>>>> nothing matches the quality and performance of the Leica-branded zoom
>>>>>> on my FZ28 even at many times the price. Caveat: The new Micro Four
>>>>>> Thirds (e.g., Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1) has the potential to get much
>>>>>> closer than APS sensor, given the smaller sensor and other
>>>>>> compromises. There is no magic.(c)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Panasonic DMC-GH1 brief hands-on"
>>>>>> <http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09030316lumixgh1handson.asp>
>>>>>> Preview
>>>>>> <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_GH1/verdict.shtml>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>The FZ28 is undoubtedly an excellent camera in its class, but you pays
>>>>>you
>>>>>money and takes your choice. Everything is a compromise, including the
>>>>>FZ28, and if you can live with the compromises, that's fine.
>>>>>
>>>>>David
>>>>
>>>> That's something that I'll never understand. Why people would pay more
>>>> for
>>>> compromised photography gear that prevents them from getting 70% of
>>>> their
>>>> shots because they're busy swapping lenses, can't use fill-flash
>>>> outdoors
>>>
>>>
>>>Of course, those of who plan our shoots can enjoy our DSLRs' big, juicy
>>>photosites that are virtual photon-magnets, don't need over-amplifying,
>>
>> Fuck, the idiot doesn't even realize how his camera works. Those larger
>> photosites aren't going to do squat for you to help with composing and
>> focusing in dim light. Get a freakin' clue you moron DSLR-TROLL. But then,
>
>"composing"?
>That's knowing what your zoom range is, where your camera is pointing, and
>/knowing/ that camera so well that the image is going to be pretty much how
>you want it.
Translation: Shooting blind and hoping something showed up in his camera's
FOV later.
>Meanwhile you're wobbling around, holding the camera at arm's length,
>squinting at that blurry LCD.
>Really, it's not a pretty sight.
What a pity that that's the only kind of P&S camera that you were too
ignorant to buy. There's better out there. Get some experience. Then again,
you probably don't know that using a camera with an LCD-only can be used to
effectively halt all camera-motion. It's a fun trick of mine that I use
when on boats, jeeps, trains, snowmobiles, and other fast moving vehicles.
Tack-sharp images all due to knowing how to use an LCD display properly.
I'll spare you the details, I wouldn't want to offend your "intelligence".
LOL!! But then, that's the only time I use the LCD, for my
camera-stabilization trick. Or when trying to capture a macro shot of a 5mm
long insect in flight at greater than 1:1 magnification, or when having to
take a macro shot of the underside of a mushroom-cap while it is still
growing in place on the ground. You couldn't even fit your lens under there
let alone compose properly with your POS DSLR.
Oh ye of little experience, talent, and creativity! You're revealing all
facets of these facts.
>Learn, and I mean really learn, all about your camera.
>Then, and only then come back and call me an idiot.
>
>I have a P&S.
>A Canon G9.
>It's quite good, and in some cases (mostly the clear-plastic one I use below
>water-level down to about 40metres) it is better than my DSLR.
>But that's only because I can't justify the cost of the dive enclosure for
>my DSLR.
>But above sea-level, really, not so good.
>It has visible noise, even on clear sunny days at ISO100.
>
>> only real morons buy DSLRs today. Anyone more intelligent and creative now
>> knows better. You, just like all the other DSLR-TROLLS are self-evident
>> proof that only ignorant idiots buy DSLRs. Thanks for providing the
>> 121,238th data point to prove it again.
>
>You're counting then?
>That's a start.
>
>>>suffer virtually zero shutter lag
>>
>> Shutter lag on my latest P&S camera is 45ms.
>
>And how long does it take to power-up?
From the time my hand touches it until I get it up to my eye to shoot, it's
ready. Doesn't have to be faster than that. Unless you're a fucked-up
gear-head moron instead of a real photographer.
>
>> 150ms, because it has to slowly slap that noisy mirror and slow shutter
>> out
>> of the way, while it's also shaking your camera so you can't even attain
>> the advertised optical resolution with it. Very very few DSLRs have
>> shutter
>> lags less than 100ms, and the few that do aren't as fast as 45ms. I know
>> of
>> another model of P&S camera with a recorded shutter-lag of only 32ms.
>
>Wow! steps back in astonishment.
>Can I use a proper flashgun (> 150V) with that, on a proper hot-shoe?
On two of my favorites. But you'll have to use an inexpensive adapter to
reduce that ANCIENT flash-trigger voltage to something that's designed for
use in this century. Don't you know how to buy better gear?
Then again, on all of my P&S cameras I'm not limited to using flash at only
1/250th of a second. I can use flash up to the top speeds on all my
cameras. Up to 1/40,000th of a second on one of them. And they're still in
perfect sync, the frame fully exposed by a single flash without loss of any
light.
Enjoy the top shutter speed of your camera being only 1/250th of a second.
That's how long it takes to traverse the sensor, so that's the true shutter
speed. Anything moving faster than that during that time will be distorted.
Oh look! Here's what you can expect from using higher than 1/250th of a
second shutter speeds on your DSLR!
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
Rubber Helicopters! Who knew they were making them out of rubber today! I
just love how the tail-rotor and its shadow are 90 degrees from each other.
DSLRs can even capture rips in the fabric of time! Aren't they speshul!
>
>>>, really *do* have seamless zoom ranges
>>
>> So do mine. One going seamlessly from 9mm EFL to 550mm EFL, F/2.0 at the
>> wide-end and F/2.4 at 550mm. Another going from 8mm at F/2.7 to 1249mm at
>> F/3.5 You couldn't even haul glass with that much aperture and zoom range
>> for any DSLR cinder-block POS. My rigs conveniently fit all in one roomy
>
>Actually, with my 30 year-old 40mm pancake, my DSLR also fits conveniently
>in my jacket pocket.
>How about that?
Yeah, how about that? ONE WHOLE FOCAL LENGTH! WOW! LOL!!!!!!!! That should
help you to compose maybe one or two photos a week. We'll all wait while
you run back to your house 5 miles away to go get another lens.....
Okay, now you just bore me. Your comments aren't even a challenge. I'll
let you continue showing more of your ignorance. All on your little own.
>I invested in "archaic" DSLR technology precisely because I could continue
>to enjoy my scalpel-sharp glass collected over the years.
Oh wait, one more. I can't resist. "Scalpel-sharp" glass? LOL!! It's not
even diffraction limited! Simple proof: If the image gets less sharp at
widest aperture then that is NOT a diffraction-limited figure in that
glass. Meaning, IT'S CRAP GLASS. The larger the aperture, the sharper the
image. That's how the best figured glass is tested. I have yet to see even
ONE piece of DSLR glass that can stand up to this simple test. This doesn't
even begin to take into account that the small amount of clarity that you
get with it is instantly ruined by the camera shaking and jarring from the
mirror and shutter slap.
LOL!!!!!!! Boy, they sure saw you coming, didn't they.
>
>> windbreaker pocket. Are you this ignorant to what's out there? Of course
>> you are. You're that stupid to invest in archaic DSLR gear, it only
>> follows
>> that you'd be this fuckingly ignorant about all other cameras too.
>
>No, really, I'm not.
>
>>>(rather than what the mfrs of our P&S allow us to have)...need I go on?
>>
>> Oh please do share more direct evidence of your untapped amounts of
>> ignorance. You're only barely scratching the surface I bet.
>
>No, really, we're all just *dying* to see the evidence of the brilliance of
>your skills.
>Have been for quite some time. <taps watch>
Keep begging, on your knees though, your favorite position. LOL!!
Now, do continue to show more of your extensive ignorance and zero talent
and total inexperience. It's all quite entertaining.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jun 9 2009 11:56 am
From: John Navas
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:40:40 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
wrote in <ea6dnSrpRKQtMbPXnZ2dnUVZ8oGdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:6kat255pjq5n6qbuhpn68okv6covqu70re@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 19:30:31 +0100, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com>
>> wrote in <JeGdnZPghazLN7PXnZ2dnUVZ8mWdnZ2d@bt.com>:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6m9t25h34vgrderu5s6kso9mi9i9b44l54@4ax.com...
>>
>>>> I don't have a "P&S" -- I have an excellent compact super-zoom -- and
>>>
>>>I'm sorry, I thought from the title of ths thread that we *were*
>>>discussing
>>>P&S cameras.
>>>I just assumed that you'd read the title too.
>>>Oh dear.
>>
>> Oh insults -- why am I not surprised.
>
>Point out to me the insult, please?
Don't be disingenuous.
>> The Subject is of course a pejorative that's applied to cameras like my
>> FZ28 by those trying to put it down (a sign of insecurity).
>
>Remind me at what point I directed any pejorative terms at your camera?
>I think it was you who brought it up.
>What does *that* say?
That doesn't work either.
>Really, if you're happy with 36Mpix per cm^2, who am I to argue?
Just can't resist, can you? Insecurity is a bitch, isn't it?
To be clear, those are rhetorical questions -- I'm done --
have the last word.
--
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