Photoshop How To Use: Jun 20, 2009

Saturday, June 20, 2009

[fnftwo] Osmose - as per tut

Thanks for looking

hugs

Carrie

[PSP-Snags] BON DIMANCHE GROS BISOUSSSSSSS

Papier offert par Tina

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
PSP-Snags Google group: http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags
Send to: psp-snags@googlegroups.com
Uunsubscribe: psp-snags-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

http://groups.google.com/group/Cartoon-PSP * http://groups.google.com/group/Disney-Tubes * http://groups.google.com/group/PSP-Snags-Adult * http://I-Love-PSP.com * http://PSP.I-Love-Disney.com * http://I-Love-Cartoons.com * http://I-Love-Disney.com * http://KTimothy.com * http://Disney-Stationary.com * http://Disney-Kingdom.com * http://Disney-Clipart.com * http://twitter.com/ktimothy *

This is a private email and is covered by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 and Internet Privacy Law. Sharing done, within this group, is for personal use only - NOT FOR PROFIT
NO COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS INTENDED.
Group owner is not responsible for the sends/opinions of its members
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[PSP-Snags] Fwd: t/p - colored lips

forwarding-geckoshoeKEMc09.jpg picture by mcgaelicgal

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 5 topics - digest

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware - 8
messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
* Anything for the Perfect Shot - 9 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
* CHDK P&S Cameras Soar Above All Others Again - Photos From the Stratosphere -
Again - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/481ec56ed2cf8bd2?hl=en
* CF dying? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
* Lenses for canon rebel T1i - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da6462c3a347e236?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boycott Panasonic cameras - forced proprietary battery use in firmware
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/79623194af1b296b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 3:43 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 20-06-09 17:46, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:3-idnRK-BvA50qDXnZ2dnUVZ_h5i4p2d@giganews.com...
>> On 20-06-09 16:48, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:epednUbel9xv2qDXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware
>>>>
>>>> Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras
>>>> including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify
>>>> genuine Panasonic batteries and _prevents the use of any third party
>>>> battery packs_. The company says it has taken this move to ensure
>>>> safety
>>>> of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging,
>>>> internal
>>>> heating or short circuit in third-party batteries.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061701panaservicenotice.asp
>>>>
>>>> What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony).
>>>
>>> Before screaming "boycott" like some 1970's shop steward you might like
>>> to consider that fake batteries could be a problem.
>>
>> As I use 3rd party batteries (at 1/3 the Sony price) and have had no
>> issues, why not? Most of these 3rd party batteries, esp. Li-ion, have the
>> protection circuit built in and this is stated on their product sheets.
>> And that is what I checked (via the re-seller) when I bought them.
>>
>> All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases.
>
> Sure, I accept there can be a forced OEM purchase angle as well as it being
> a way to head off iffy third-party sweatshop parts. Those are the extremes
> of control and greed, and you get it in the pharmaceutical, IT, and print
> industries. It's dumb but there you go.
>
> Personally, I'd favour third-party parts going through an independent and
> none discriminatory quality assurance process. Chips could help verify
> parts
> meet acceptable criterion and help push fake and potentially damaging parts
> off the board. Everyone's a winner.

Which would drive up the price. There is no reason to be suspicious of
suppliers who put up all their data and who have a good rep.

I found a deal, looked up the supplier, spec, phoned the distributor and
checked out the batts before buying.

--
-- 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.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:01 pm
From: ray

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:34:57 -0400, Alan Browne wrote:

> Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware
>
> Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras
> including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify
> genuine Panasonic batteries and _prevents the use of any third party
> battery packs_. The company says it has taken this move to ensure safety
> of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging, internal
> heating or short circuit in third-party batteries.
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061701panaservicenotice.asp
>
> What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony).

I doubt Sony would worry themselves over such an issue - after all many
of their cameras already require proprietary memory cards!

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:05 pm
From: "Charles E Hardwidge"

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:LeKdnWwuofm4-6DXnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 20-06-09 17:46, Charles E Hardwidge wrote:

>> Personally, I'd favour third-party parts going through an independent and
>> none discriminatory quality assurance process. Chips could help verify
>> parts meet acceptable criterion and help push fake and potentially
>> damaging parts off the board. Everyone's a winner.
>
> Which would drive up the price. There is no reason to be suspicious of
> suppliers who put up all their data and who have a good rep.
>
> I found a deal, looked up the supplier, spec, phoned the distributor and
> checked out the batts before buying.

That's possible but fakes aren't cost free in terms of policing, employment
conditions, preserving trade marks, and consumer safety. Fake car brake pads
used to be a favourite. Now, I hear, memory on EBay is another.

There's a big ding-dong over banking regulation in the UK. The generic
arguments are similar. Loose regulation can work but it falls down when
banks are run by shysters. Then, you have the knee-jerk problem of too much
regulation which falls down when *sigh* banks are run by shysters.

Quality and trust are important so, yes, I agree that credible specs and a
good reputation are important. After last weeks fiasco, I'd like to see a
bit more of that in the hardware calibration industry. Reviews seem based
more on the colour of the box and what everyone else is doing rather than
giving hard meaningful numbers for calibrator and software accuracy.

This is tipping in to Zen (which I'm never more than half a step away from
talking about) but I find the aims and values of Peter F Drucker and David
Ogilvy on management and advertising, respectively, to be better than the
bullshit and balls path many have gone down over the past few years.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:48 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:34:57 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
: Panasonic issues 'battery safety' firmware
:
: Panasonic has released firmware updates for its latest digital cameras
: including the GH1, G1, ZS3 and TS1. The new firmware can identify
: genuine Panasonic batteries and _prevents the use of any third party
: battery packs_. The company says it has taken this move to ensure safety
: of its users against possible injuries because of overcharging, internal
: heating or short circuit in third-party batteries.
:
: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0906/09061701panaservicenotice.asp
:
: What a BS ploy. (And I hope this does not occur to Sony).

Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system
changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content from
Sony CDs.

A few years ago laptop batteries sold by Dell and several other manufacturers
started exploding and starting fires. Some of the manufacturers had to issue
recalls. Who actually made the offending batteries for those manufacturers?
Sony.

I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it has
already occurred to Sony.

Bob

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 6:03 pm
From: "Charles E Hardwidge"

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:n40r3553pvt1kkis7tj47l77b4vpfvgjm9@4ax.com...

> Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system
> changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content from
> Sony CDs.
>
> A few years ago laptop batteries sold by Dell and several other
> manufacturers started exploding and starting fires. Some of the
> manufacturers had to issue recalls. Who actually made the offending
> batteries for those manufacturers? Sony.
>
> I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it
> has already occurred to Sony.

You mean a US division of Sony used a faulty third party tool, and they
recalled the broken batteries without issue? The last time I checked Sony
were suing that third party, and scammers aren't known for making good on
warranties. Ragging on Sony for that is as dumb as if I carried a grudge
against Americans for George Bush.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 6:41 pm
From: D Peter Maus

On 6/20/09 17:43 , Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> All this is is a ploy to force OEM battery purchases.
>>
>> Sure, I accept there can be a forced OEM purchase angle as well as it
>> being
>> a way to head off iffy third-party sweatshop parts. Those are the
>> extremes
>> of control and greed, and you get it in the pharmaceutical, IT, and print
>> industries. It's dumb but there you go.
>>

There may be other motives. One: Product liability. Third party
batteries may or may not be safe alternatives to OEM. Product liability
actions, whether or not justified, whether or not won, are expensive.
And in numbers, VERY expensive.

Forcing OEM batteries may limit potential product liablity actions by
limiting product to OEM spec batteries. If there is an issue with an OEM
battery, a free replacement may be offered, as Delphi did with some
portable XM receiver batteries, before cataclysmic results. In the event
of a failure resulting in damage or injury, such good faith efforts can
limit judgements.

If there is a third party battery incident, users holding Panasonic
liable can tie up the Legal department for years, resulting in hundreds
of thousands, if not millions, of dollars in costs and settlements, even
if it can be demonstrated that the third party battery manufacturer, not
Panasonic, is liable.

Anybody can sue for anything. Even a baseless suit requires a legal
response. That costs.

Forcing OEM battery use can limit, though not eliminate, product
liability costs.

That there is a second profit motive, spurring OEM sales, doesn't hurt.

Nakamichi, on it's portable cassette machine, a high drain device,
specifically recommended against SOME types of batteries on performance
grounds. Some batteries produced irregular variations in output voltage
under high drain, though constant conditions, compromising performance
of the device. Some batteries had too high an internal resistance, also
compromising performance of the device. Nakamichi approved batteries,
including, but not especially, Nakamichi branded batteries, produced
specific performance, with user perceivable differences in device
performance. Prompting complaints.

Complaints, like legal actions, require response. Response costs.

Nakamichi was quite specific that it would not honor, or even hear
complaints about the device if non approved batteries were used.

So it can be with Li-ion batteries in digital cameras, which are high
drain devices: there may be device performance effects with less well
manufactured batteries. This can produce performance issues that would
increased manufacturer warranty costs.

While corporate entities have certainly demonstrated, in recent
years, a history of being bad citizens, forcing OEM component use does
not, perforce, imply untoward motives.

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:26 pm
From: "Chris Pisarra"

"Charles E Hardwidge" <boing@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:YFf%l.45368$OO7.28434@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
> news:n40r3553pvt1kkis7tj47l77b4vpfvgjm9@4ax.com...
>
>> Surely you jest. Sony is the company that once sneaked operating system
>> changes into users' computers to prevent them from "stealing" content
>> from
>> Sony CDs.
>>
>> A few years ago laptop batteries sold by Dell and several other
>> manufacturers started exploding and starting fires. Some of the
>> manufacturers had to issue recalls. Who actually made the offending
>> batteries for those manufacturers? Sony.
>>
>> I think it's fair to say that if there's a way to make an extra buck, it
>> has already occurred to Sony.
>
> You mean a US division of Sony used a faulty third party tool, and they
> recalled the broken batteries without issue? The last time I checked Sony
> were suing that third party, and scammers aren't known for making good on
> warranties. Ragging on Sony for that is as dumb as if I carried a grudge
> against Americans for George Bush.

So? I carry a grudge against Americans for George Bush, and I
**am** American.

Chris

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:39 pm
From: Kevin McMurtrie

In article <epednUbel9xv2qDXnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

Calling for a boycott is a bit strong. It's better to warn people and
let them them decide that Panasonic is full of crap on their own.

I just bought a Panasonic TV a few hours ago. This kind of BS would
make me cancel my order if I could.

Most companies are screwing customers in a way that's probably illegal.
PR departments will claim it's increased revenue to improve product
quality without charging a higher up-front fee. Those who have already
paid the up-front fee call it a scam.

--
I will not see your reply if you use Google.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anything for the Perfect Shot
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/060da06a542937ca?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 3:45 pm
From: Alan Browne

On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.

I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.

== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:25 pm
From: "Lloyd W."

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:sNqdnaCpkpb-rqDXnZ2dnUVZ_q-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> On 20-06-09 15:03, Lloyd W. wrote:
>> "Semi-Yawning"<sy@here.com> wrote in message
>> news:h8qo35da3pc5i6sfuv8703t15rmbg01hjs@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 23:25:14 -0400, "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
>>> I fail
>>
>> Pompous blowhard
>
> Yes, but you could have clipped out his diatribe...
>
You are correct about that - I attempted to winnow down his blowardness and
pomposity to a few sentences but, in the end, thought latecomers may not
been able to capture the OPs smug ignorance w/o the full text.

Anyway, your point is well-taken.

== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:39 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:39:29 -0400, Alan (do as I say, not as I do)
Browne wrote:

>> Ah, it warms the cockles of my heart. To see them finally discussing the
>> only thing that they know something about, browsing software. Without that
>> knowledge how else then could they pretend to be photographers online.
>
> Well, oh wise one, please do post YOUR photos and show us what a master
> can do.
>
> By the way, most competent photographers keep their name the same so
> that they can be recognized. There is the problem however where the big
> mouths with nothing to show have to keep changing their names so they
> can avoid filtering.
>
> So I do wish you would stick to one name so that you could inhabit my
> filter set quietly and, well, productively.

Hmm, replying to our anti-DSLR sock puppet troll after advising
others in the ng :

======================================================

> John Navas wrote:
>
>> You may think you're being clever with changing From, but your headers
>> still identify you.
>
> Stop feeding it. Don't reply.

======================================================

> Stephen Bishop wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:59:27 -0600, Don Stauffer
> > <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't feed the trolls!
> >
> >
> > But they are SO hungry!
>
> You just reduce your own reputation by feeding them.

======================================================

Rally, Alan, rally. The troll is breaking you down!

Heed your own advice and don't feed the well known troll.

== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:02 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>
>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>
>I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
>don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.

See
http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm

Eric Stevens

== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:38 pm
From: John McWilliams

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>>> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
>> don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>
> See
> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm

Why? The site says there is mac anti virus software, but for now I say
it's useless, or worse than useless, as AV soft ware can interfere with
O/S ops.

There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.

--
john mcwilliams

== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 7:39 pm
From: Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:38:52 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:

>Eric Stevens wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:45:09 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20-06-09 17:31, lobo wrote:
>>>> "Matt Clara"<none@myexpense.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:wEY_l.350$W_2.197@newsfe02.iad...
>>>>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>>>> Be careful viewing this site. Avast! indicated a Trojan.
>>> I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
>>> don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>>
>> See
>> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm
>
>Why? The site says there is mac anti virus software, but for now I say
>it's useless, or worse than useless, as AV soft ware can interfere with
>O/S ops.
>
>There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.

That site doesn't agree with you.

Eric Stevens

== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 7:42 pm
From: nospam

In article <i3uq3594d7f08uh7ittn55rumu7r4h3p5m@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >I did get some pop ups there, but nothing from my virus detector. Oh, I
> >don't have a virus detector. I have a Mac.
>
> See
>
> http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Viru
> s_Resources.htm

if you took the time to actually read it rather than just post the
first hit that you found on google, you'd find out that most of what it
says no longer applies or is totally wrong. more importantly, no mac
malware spreads on its own, and instead it requires the user to install
it with an admin password and there's nothing anyone can do about that.
that's a flaw in the user not the system.

it also doesn't mention the drawbacks to mac anti-virus software such
as data loss and disk corruption directly caused by buggy anti-virus
utilities. in other words, the cure is worse than the (non-existent)
disease.

there's also some completely incorrect info, such as:

Can my iPod and iPhone be infected?
Yes. When Apple introduced application support for the iPod and
iPhone touch, they opened the door for malware that specifically
targets these devices (or, rather, the applications running on those
devices).

that's *totally* incorrect. every iphone app is sandboxed and
codesigned. even if something nefarious managed to get into the app
store (apple checks for that, btw), it won't be able to do much of
anything outside itself, and even if it did, the other apps would cease
to work unless it somehow managed to spoof the codesigning too.

== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 7:43 pm
From: nospam

In article <ka7r351gmpij94ba7f20f7ugqu8vvco97p@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >There aren't any proven Mac viruses in the wild.
>
> That site doesn't agree with you.

that's because it's wrong.

== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 9:55 pm
From: Bob Larter

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 19-06-09 23:25, Matt Clara wrote:
>> http://www.darkroastedblend.com/2007/07/anything-for-perfect-shot.html
>> Four pages, I believe. Some fun ones in there, too.
>
> Those have been posted before, Matt. There are some good ones in there
> (the fellow with the view camera on the side of cliff, for example...)
>
> That site had a lot of pop-up ads ("Your computer is a swamp filled with
> computer viruses") and persistent ads too. (Cancel the pop up and they
> come right up again).

That's where Firefox + NoScript is a life saver.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK P&S Cameras Soar Above All Others Again - Photos From the
Stratosphere - Again
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/481ec56ed2cf8bd2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:14 pm
From: "Wilba"

Deep Reset wrote:
> Bob Larter wrote:
>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> The Stupidity of Anit-DSLR-Trolls Never Ends wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Do read the rest of the posts in this thread. It explains exactly why
>>>> the links lead to photos as small and compression ruined as possible
>>>> but still retain enough information to wholly prove the point intended.
>>>
>>> "Prove" the point that anybody can steal a low-res photo with tons of
>>> compression artifacts.
>>
>> Except of course that nobody would want to.
>
> I think, like Neil Armstrong's famous pronouncement, this sentence is
> missing a definite article:
>
> "a nobody"

Um, that's an indefinite article.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CF dying?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2d949e57f899e814?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 4:25 pm
From: "Ron Recer"

"Gary Edstrom" <GEdstrom@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:uhkq35d5he7450fbm1lkuc89olgbldhbp8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:29:26 +0200, Jørn Dahl-Stamnes
> <newsmanDELETE@REMOVEdahl-stamnes.net> wrote:
>
>>And after 2-3 years your DVD will begin to suffer from Alzheimer. I don't
>>trust DVD or CD at all. I use DLT and LTO for backup. Slow, a bit
>>expensive
>>but safer than both disks and DVD/CD.
>
> I don't have as much experience with DVDs, but I have some CDs that I
> burned 12 years ago that are still perfectly readable.
>
> Gary Edstrom

And I have a lot of DVD's that I burned that are much older than 3 years and
work just fine!

Ron

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lenses for canon rebel T1i
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/da6462c3a347e236?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:08 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com>
wrote:
: Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
: looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
: about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar, and
: would it even make a notable difference. How would a Canon EF 20mm
: f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron. I would
: like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
: photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
: be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.

I still recommend the Sigma 18-50mm constant aperture f/2.8. My wife and I
both have it, and it's been a reliable workhorse. We have five other lenses
between us, but those two Sigmas and her 60mm Canon macro get most of the use.
It won't work on your putative 5D, but what do you care? If you win the lotto,
you'll give all your current equipment to your grandchildren anyway.

You don't want a 50mm lens as your walking around lens. On a 1.6-crop camera,
it's just too long.

Bob

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:16 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:40:55 -0700 (PDT), ransley
: <Mark_Ransley@Yahoo.com> wrote in
: <b4a52cd5-c1e1-4918-bc35-a564a0b07014@b9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:
:
: > Are there any sites that would rate the basic lenses for Canon, I
: >looked at DPs reviews ratings. Would the Canon EF 50mm 1.4 usm be
: >about as sharp as you can get without spending the highest dollar,
:
: Yes. It's a superb lens.
:
: >and
: >would it even make a notable difference.
:
: Depends on the final image and how critical you are. Won't make a
: difference in a 4x6 snapshot or Web image, but might well be notable to
: you in a mural size print. In other words, you need to first decide on
: the type of final image.
:
: >How would a Canon EF 20mm
: >f2.8 usm compare in photo quality or other brands like Tamron.
:
: I personally would never use a Tamron lens (or even a bargain OEM lens,
: often made by the likes of Tamron) for images I care about, not only
: because of optical quality, but also because of quality control,
: smoothness of operation, and durability,
:
: >I would
: >like wide angle its just the 50mm has the price point-quality of
: >photo, that makes it worth looking at. Whatever I get it would have to
: >be compatable with a 5D, incase I win the lotto someday.
:
: Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
: on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
: compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.

I think John overstates his case, although his basic point is valid. You can
do well with 3rd-party lenses if you're careful. Never buy any lens without
soliciting advice from those who already have it (as you're doing now).

Bob

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:21 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:18:35 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:08:56 -0700, John Navas
: <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
: <ft4i355a2uji060lssiemhb39n0amuq7l8@4ax.com>:
:
: >Glass matters! Better great glass on a bargain body than bargain glass
: >on a great body. I'm amazed by people who buy a very good body only to
: >compromise their images by cheaping out on the glass.
:
: In other words, first choose the glass, then the body.
:
: ...
:
: What first attracted me to Panasonic super-zoom compact digital cameras
: were the fantastic optically stabilized Leica-branded lenses, unmatched
: in the SLR world even at many times the price.
:
: If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
: than on the body.

Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.

Bob

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 5:27 pm
From: Robert Coe

On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 22:33:26 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
: On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:59:20 -0700, John Navas wrote:
:
: >> The Panasonic/Lieca lenses are indeed excellent, however, for some
: >> people the lack of a shallow depth of field on such lenses is an
: >> important limiting factor on their creativity. ...
: >
: > The available depth of field is sufficiently shallow for my needs.
: > As always, YMMV.
:
: IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.

Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
that's all that's required.

Bob

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 6:59 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:27:33 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

> : IOW, you don't need what you can't get. Very convenient.
>
> Aw, c'mon, Ace, you're putting words in his mouth. John is no newbie. You have
> to assume that he knows what his needs are; and if the camera meets them,
> that's all that's required.

John may know what his needs are, and topmost is the need to never
appear to be wrong. You apparently don't know John very well, and
here I thought that you were also an ace. Say it ain't so, Coe. It
would really be terrible if you were nothing more than a photo dood.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 20 2009 7:39 pm
From: nospam

In article <g2vq351l2iv9297nk1lo9vbrj7cbdevhd2@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
<bob@1776.COM> wrote:

> : If you really get into SLR photography, you'll spend far more on glass
> : than on the body.
>
> Well, yes, but that's mainly because you'll need more lenses than bodies. The
> statement, while true, is a bit of a red herring.

actually, most people only own one or two lenses.

==============================================================================

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