rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/039ba0e9c2e42cfb?hl=en
* Rechargable batteries - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b45617abfbf5918?hl=en
* Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
* Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
* Christian Audigier Bikinis,Juicy Couture Bikinis,Ed hardy Bikinis and
Abercrombie and Fitch Bikinis - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cc0a276a8fac87c7?hl=en
* Kodak z980 - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c559353ce03702d?hl=en
* Anyone got video out working on Samsung NV series? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4d12e53da67ef3e4?hl=en
* Field of view - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2ddd5ce0344a1b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/039ba0e9c2e42cfb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 6:23 am
From: "David Ruether"
<tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message news:e9930d13-5789-4323-88c3-7d602768b6ee@t7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 9:35 am, "Darrell A. Larose" <ad...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it
> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory) base and a warm tone.
> Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>
> Darrell Larose
> Photo Technician
For an Inkjet printer try Epson Semi Matte, much flatter than Luster,
work on your toning skills in Photoshop and you will have close to a G
surface.
For David, after years of not being able to use anything but a matte
paper with pigment inkjets there is a definite push against glossy
papers, the main argument being too much glare. After not being able
to put a darkroom in where I live now, I have been revitalized by the
current quality of upper end pigment inkjet printers and the new
baryta papers. Two especially are very close to air dried Ilford
Fiberbased gloss. Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, slightly warm and Hahnemuhle
Photo Rag Baryta which is neutral.
Tom
--Thanks for the advice.
--
--DR
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 6:39 am
From: "David Ruether"
"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C5DEDF26.247F6%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
> On 3/12/09 3:08 PM, in article gpbq3q$j5o$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu, "David
> Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> ....if one starts with neutral coloring and the best possible
>> blacks and whites in a print paper, one can then do anything else.
>> Anything less than that is very limiting... (which is not to say that I did
>> not start out with a warm-toned "silk"-surfaced paper when I began
>> making paper prints ever so ridiculously long ago - and two of them are
>> [embarrassingly] in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art... 8^).
>> --DR
> I dunno about all of that, but one paper that most people hated when I was
> working at a "Camera Store" in the late 70's was called "E" surface. It had
> a raised surface resembling a fine 'mesh', much like a screen on a window.
> It was universally hated by my customers, but Kodak was using it, I guess to
> make copies of the prints more difficult, since the irregular surface
> produced myriad of reflections.
Yup, that was the surface I used, but made by Luminos...8^(
I also likely over washed those prints - so now metallic silver
has probably migrated to the paper surface, spoiling them
even further, sigh...! I liked the Luminos E surface at the time
for the deep blacks without the need for a high gloss to get
them. Much better papers arrived later, though...
--DR
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rechargable batteries
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0b45617abfbf5918?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 6:58 am
From: "J. Clarke"
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> They used to be found at walmart near me. But, no longer.
> Wonder if any of the other stores around me have them?
Having been unable to find them locally I finally ordered off of Amazon.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 7:44 am
From: Dave Cohen
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I caught a typo:
>
> "Holds charge better than any other rechargeable over time,
> even when sitting idol in a device. "
>
> Buddha batteries? But.... it passed the spell checker!
>
Spell checkers check spelling, not context in which words are used.
Dave Cohen
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 7:49 am
From: Dave Cohen
J. Clarke wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> They used to be found at walmart near me. But, no longer.
>> Wonder if any of the other stores around me have them?
>
> Having been unable to find them locally I finally ordered off of Amazon.
Ritz camera carried them the last time I checked. I have them and they
are very good, but I'm having what seems to be equally long life storage
from Kodak pre-charged. Be careful, the package must say pre-charged,
they also have normal NiMH in a very similar package. Walmart should
carry these.
Dave Cohen
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 7:57 am
From: Robert Sneddon
In message <Yzoul.6324$Lc7.2772@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> writes
>A disadvantage which Sanyo eneloops appear to have overcome - and they
>seem to last longer in my GPS that high-capacity NiMH cells....
There are several different low-discharge NiMH batteries on the market
which seem to use the same technology -- Sanyo's Eneloop as mentioned,
Uniroos Hybrio and Panasonic Infinium. They all cost about the same and
do the same job, and come ready-charged out of the pack. I've got
Eneloop AAs, Hybrio AAs and also a set of Hybrio AAAs.
Anecdotally, I've had a pair of the Hybrio AAA cells in some
noise-cancelling headphones for several months, not actually using them
in noise-cancel mode much. They still have a good charge in them even
after that length of time. The other AAA rechargeables I have kicking
around tended to drain in storage after a few weeks to the point where
they required a recharge. I haven't used my camera (Canon A640) much
recently but it's been months since I recharged or swapped out the AA
Eneloops it's currently got fitted. I just checked it and it's ready to
shoot, no low-battery warning.
--
To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 9:26 am
From: Ron Hunter
Dave Cohen wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> They used to be found at walmart near me. But, no longer.
>>> Wonder if any of the other stores around me have them?
>> Having been unable to find them locally I finally ordered off of Amazon.
>
> Ritz camera carried them the last time I checked. I have them and they
> are very good, but I'm having what seems to be equally long life storage
> from Kodak pre-charged. Be careful, the package must say pre-charged,
> they also have normal NiMH in a very similar package. Walmart should
> carry these.
> Dave Cohen
I suspect that the Kodak ones are simply rebranded ones from Panasonic,
or someone similar. Eneloop type batteries are ideal for the way I use
my digital camera.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 9:28 am
From: Ron Hunter
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I'm wondering if it's a bad charger. For a test, I'm trying
> my other one. I'd been using a Battery Manager Ultra, and
> now using a Sanyo wall box gadget, that's designed for nicad
> and nimmie cells.
>
> Yes, the camera has a setting choice, either for Oxyride, or
> for akaline / NiMH cells. I don't know why alkalines and
> nimmies are the same setting.
>
> Trying not to pay a buck a battery for single use cells.
> Then I'm back to the old film days when I have to think hard
> about every shot, if I want it or not. With rechargables, I
> can pop all the pictures I want.
>
I keep lithium batteries for backup. They last for about 300 shots, and
with 12 for $20, that works out to about three cents/shot. I can handle
that.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 9:58 am
From: "Paul"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gpdl3c$4kn$1@news.motzarella.org...
> They used to be found at walmart near me. But, no longer.
> Wonder if any of the other stores around me have them?
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
> www.lds.org
> .
>
>
> "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:gpbtup$tms$1@news.motzarella.org...
>
> The Eneloops are VERY good ... worth looking into.
>
I bought mine at Costco. I like them.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 7:23 am
From: Mark Thomas
bugbear wrote:
> rpd wrote:
>> Watanabe also thinks that SLR focusing is set to change. Instead of
>> having a separate focus module as is done today, he predicts that soon
>> systems using the image sensor will take over. Right now, this method
>> is used by compact cameras and SLRs in live view mode. As you may have
>> noticed, it's slow. Watanabe thinks that it will soon be a lot faster.
>
> What is the reason for the slowness?
>
> Video mode shows that the main sensor can be read
> at 30 frames per second, so focusing
> ought to be possible with roughly
> that degree of lag.
>
> I assume that there's something I don't know about
> holding it back - anyone have knowledge?
>
> BugBear
I understand (but am not totally convinced it is irreconcilable..) it is
simply because with contrast detection, the camera's af doesn't know
which way, or how much it has to re-focus, so it tries one way, dang,
then the other to look for improved contrast. Whereas phase detect
'knows' which way to go and also how far..
It seems to me a little intelligence could be applied to the problem,
and in fact the G1 already seems to get pretty kind comments about its
focus speed. I think this issue is gradually on its way out.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 11:09 am
From: SMS
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <bDhul.15595$as4.13825@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> The Nikon APS-C sensor is 64% larger than the 4:3 sensor. The Canon
>> APS-C sensor is 46% larger than the 4:3 sensor.
>
> But it's not two, four or ten times larger - just a bit larger.
"A bit" would be like the difference between Canon's APS-C sensor and
Nikon's APS-C sensor. The Nikon is a "a bit" larger.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 11:54 am
From: Alan Browne
Markus Fuenfrocken wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
>> says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
> Woah that looks really bad! I really looks like a good 12 MP image
> upsized to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
> Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
> http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
Puh-leaze. I can't laugh this hard. It hurts.
Look at the pupil of your models eye: soft detail. Look at mine.
Crisp. Blood vessels, etc.
Really. And at all that I underexposed by a stop and corrected in ACR.
--
-- 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.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 1:22 pm
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote:
> "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>So I expect that the 12-24 won't fly on a 48MP camera, but that the new 17
>>and 24TSEs, the 50/1.4 (stopped down), and the 70-200/4.0 IS will.
>
> Fly? Quite possibly, but physical limits will prevent you from
> achieving the resolutions you claimed.
I think you misunderstand what I would want from a 48MP 24x35mm sensor and
expect I would get.
All I want is similar sharpness at the pixel level to what I've been
seeing up to now. And that means MTF50 at about 70% of Nyquist, which
produces very nice images on every dcam I've owned up to now.
I really don't expect the world to come to a complete end if the sensor
resolution increases by 1.5 times over what I have now. Again, with 21MP,
images are excellent at f/11, almost imperceptibly less so at f/16, and so
there's no reason not to expect f/8 to be similarly excellent at the pixel
level on a 48MP sensor.
>>> The Zeiss claim is based on a detection level MTF of 2%, not an
>>> MTF 50. That's useful for interpretation of surveillance photos,
>>> but not really for "most applications most customers need."
>>
>>The image in question was of a clock tower, and they argued that it was
>>nice
>>to resolve the numbers on the clock. That's pictorial photography...
>
> As you say. Without see the picture nor any reference to it, it's
> impossible for me to disagree. But with a 24MP dSLR, Zeiss's own
> engineers were only to achieve a 10% MTF at 100 lp/mm, much less
> 200 lp/mm. See: http://snipurl.com/8xdr7 [Zeiss.com] (PDF).
Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.
>>But I'm surprised he had so much trouble. TMX100 claims to be well over
>>50%
>>MTF at 100 lp/mm. Shoot at f/8 (MTF50 at 100 lp/mm), and he should have
>>been
>>home free to at least 15% contrast on the film, at least in the center.
>
> You shouldn't be. The f/8 diffraction limit for a 30% MTF is about
> 155 lp/mm. By the Higgens formula, to achieve 100 lp/mm at 15% you'd
> need a film with a MTF 50 of about 130 lp/mm. Kodak only claims 125
> lp/mm for TMax 100. So under perfect conditions and with perfect
> processing, it's barely possible.
So shoot at f/5.6. That may require that one use a better/more expensive
lens, though.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 2:26 pm
From: Alfred Molon
In article <gpd7vl$aqs$1@online.de>, Markus Fuenfrocken says...
> Alan Browne wrote:
> > http://www.aliasimages.com/images/Cynthia-20090210-0191FS.jpg
> > says you and Watanabe are full of crap.
> Woah that looks really bad! I really looks like a good 12 MP image upsized
> to 24 MP. Look at the hairs. Mushy details all over.
> Wanna see a sharp high MP picture on pixel level?
> http://www.eliassegui.com/paloma02.jpg
Huh? Look at the eyes of both girls. There is not much visible
difference in terms of resolution.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wish I'd said this...about a hundred times already
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/fd0d9f3a64f5d251?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 8:09 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
? "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
news:kgkjr4dslmdne3uevc8aidhb92sm2fks2q@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:50:14 -0400, Paul Arthur
> <flowerysong00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-03-13, John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 13 Mar 2009 00:58:55 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> J?rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
>>>>>> speed dial.
>>>>
>>>>> What I find most sad is that people seem to have forgotten what a
>>>>> shutter
>>>>> speed dial *is*.
>>>>
>>>>How do you feel about these new fangled electric keyboard thingies you
>>>>have to type on when writing to the newsgroup? Not quite the same as
>>>>the real old thing, are they?
>>>
>>> You can still get IBM model M style keyboards, actually. Unicomp makes
>>> them now.
>>
>>That's still an electronic keyboard. Buckling springs does not a
>>mechanical keyboard make.
>
> True enough. How about these alternatives, then:
> http://www.multipledigression.com/type/
> http://www.ahleman.com/ElectriClerk.html
And how about a japanese typewriter?
http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/rekishi_e/kyota_sugimoto.htm
Now, to type japanese, all you need is an ordinary PC, with win XP. XP
includes japanese support... I never got the hang of typewriters, my small
fingers were always too weak to type (touch type).
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 10:06 am
From: nospam
In article <71ujicFn5jjjU1@mid.individual.net>, Jeremy Nixon < )@(>
wrote:
> > Again, the meter reads 1/3 stop increments, so I can't set the meter
> > reading
> > in the camera.
>
> You know what's interesting, is that the digital camera's meter only
> gives you 1/3 stop increments. My film camera's light meter is infinitely
> variable, and the shutter speed is, too, in automatic mode. So you get
> *more* precision there. Why live with only 1/3 stop increments?
the 1/3 (or 1/2) stop increment is only when using the control wheel.
in automatic mode, shutter speed and aperture (and iso with auto-iso)
are infinitely variable.
> The aperture ring is infinitely variable, too, not limited to 1/3 stops.
> I never actually take advantage of this feature, but it's there.
good luck trying to adjust the ring on the lens in between the click
stops.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 11:52 am
From: Savageduck
On 2009-03-13 08:09:56 -0700, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <noone@nospam.com> said:
>
> ? "John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> ?????? ??? ??????
> news:kgkjr4dslmdne3uevc8aidhb92sm2fks2q@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:50:14 -0400, Paul Arthur
>> <flowerysong00@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-03-13, John A <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 13 Mar 2009 00:58:55 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Jeremy Nixon <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> J?rgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't tell my Nikon D80, doesn't know that it doesn't have a shutter
>>>>>>> speed dial.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I find most sad is that people seem to have forgotten what a
>>>>>> shutter
>>>>>> speed dial *is*.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you feel about these new fangled electric keyboard thingies you
>>>>> have to type on when writing to the newsgroup? Not quite the same as
>>>>> the real old thing, are they?
>>>>
>>>> You can still get IBM model M style keyboards, actually. Unicomp makes
>>>> them now.
>>>
>>> That's still an electronic keyboard. Buckling springs does not a
>>> mechanical keyboard make.
>>
>> True enough. How about these alternatives, then:
>> http://www.multipledigression.com/type/
>> http://www.ahleman.com/ElectriClerk.html
> And how about a japanese typewriter?
> http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido_e/rekishi_e/kyota_sugimoto.htm
> Now, to type japanese, all you need is an ordinary PC, with win XP. XP
> includes japanese support... I never got the hang of typewriters, my small
> fingers were always too weak to type (touch type).
Then there is always this concept:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/apple_introduces_revolutionary
--
Regards,
Savageduck
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christian Audigier Bikinis,Juicy Couture Bikinis,Ed hardy Bikinis and
Abercrombie and Fitch Bikinis
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/cc0a276a8fac87c7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 8:20 am
From: mingqingqimqq@gmail.com
If you want to buy cheap and high quality fashionable bikinis,please
view our store.
Our Ed hardy Bikinis,Christian Audigier Bikinis,Juicy Couture Bikinis
and Abercrombie and Fitch Bikinis all are the fine quality.
You can check them:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Ed-Hardy-Women-Bikinis.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Christian-Audigier-Bikinis.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Juicy-Couture-Bikinis.html
http://www.luxury-fashion.org/static/Apparels/Abercrombie-and-Fitch-Women-Bikinis.html
If you need find more kinds of fashionable apparels and shoes,please
view:
http://www.luxury-fashion.org
Welcome check our other pages or feel free contact us.
You can find what do you want here!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Kodak z980
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4c559353ce03702d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 9:24 am
From: ray
Got an e-mail today from Kodak pointing me to the new Z980. Upon closer
investigation, I find it has a 24x (26-624 35mm equiv) zoom, has a second
shutter releas button for easier side hold photos, captures RAW as well
as jpeg. Captures video at 1280x720 at 30 fps. It's a 12mp camera. Would
be interesting to see one.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 3:51 pm
From: "pupick"
The specs and price on this camera are intriguing.
Unfortunately Kodak cameras have earned every bit of their reputations for
dubious quality.
However at what will likely be a $300 street price what have you got to
lose?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone got video out working on Samsung NV series?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4d12e53da67ef3e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 11:20 am
From: blackhead
I have a Samsung NV30 digital camera, but I guess all the NV series
have the video function out using the supplied AV cable.
I've selected the PAL rather than NTSC option since I'm in the UK. I
connect the camer's USB port to the TV digital inputs using the yellow
cable for the video and white for the audio. But I don't get anything
on the screen of the TV and the LCD of the camera just goes blank,
with the power still on.
Has anyone used the AV cable supplied with an NV model successfully?
Thanks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Field of view
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4e2ddd5ce0344a1b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 12:42 pm
From: ASAAR
On Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:49:51 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
>> Does it matter with less than 100% accurate viewfinders? Most
>> cameras are used for taking pictures, not for surveying. :)
>
> I rather suspect that anyone who wants to calculate the FoV has more idea
> than "most people". I am grateful that we do not get the same advertising
> as you, it would likely put me off buying /anything/! For the sensor
> sizes, DP Review is one sourse:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/page2.asp
>
> where the D60 is given as 23.6 x 15.8 mm, so it's not that difficult to
> find out. It's what appears on the final image, not in the viewfinder
> which matters.
We seem to be talking past each other. Sure, those that are
*really* interested in photography are likely to be able to find
sensor dimensions with little effort. Your last sentence above
seems little more than a non sequitur truism. If what you see in
the viewfinder is less than what you get (for most DSLRs), and isn't
a concern, then why be concerned about the inaccuracy of using 1.5
as the crop factor for Nikon's DSLRs? It also promises a little
less than you actually get, and the difference is trivially small.
The advantage of using crop factors is that they only require simple
math. Telling photographers that they should use arctangents
instead violates the KISS principle but might be useful in that it's
likely to convince many to avoid asking you for further help. :)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 2:29 pm
From: Alfred Molon
In article <8Zqul.6383$Lc7.482@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
Taylor says...
> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
> > For the sensor sizes, DP Review is one sourse:
>
> Argh: s/sourse/source/
Never mind. Today a colleague "corrected" one of my slides in a ppt
presentation. He replaced "licence" with "lisence", not just on one
page, but on several pages. I sent him a link to an online dictionary.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 3:13 pm
From: "J. Clarke"
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <8Zqul.6383$Lc7.482@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
> Taylor says...
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>> []
>>> For the sensor sizes, DP Review is one sourse:
>>
>> Argh: s/sourse/source/
>
> Never mind. Today a colleague "corrected" one of my slides in a ppt
> presentation. He replaced "licence" with "lisence", not just on one
> page, but on several pages. I sent him a link to an online dictionary.
What's truly sad is that Google has more than 4 million hits on "lisence".
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 13 2009 4:26 pm
From: "David J Taylor"
ASAAR wrote:
[]
> We seem to be talking past each other. Sure, those that are
> *really* interested in photography are likely to be able to find
> sensor dimensions with little effort. Your last sentence above
> seems little more than a non sequitur truism. If what you see in
> the viewfinder is less than what you get (for most DSLRs), and isn't
> a concern, then why be concerned about the inaccuracy of using 1.5
> as the crop factor for Nikon's DSLRs? It also promises a little
> less than you actually get, and the difference is trivially small.
> The advantage of using crop factors is that they only require simple
> math. Telling photographers that they should use arctangents
> instead violates the KISS principle but might be useful in that it's
> likely to convince many to avoid asking you for further help. :)
My feeling is that someone who wants to calculate the FoV wants an exact,
and not an approximate, answer. Calculation was the OP's requirement.
David
==============================================================================
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
