Magda

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:11:33 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] arranged some
electrons, so they looked like this :


... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxoptios/

Zoom too small. The Optio SV is more like what I need.

Mxsmanic

Magda writes:

    > 25 ISO ? I haven't seen it in 15 years !

Technical Pan is often exposed at ISO 25 for pictorial use.

    > I use Ilford. Do you *need* Kodak ?

Yes, for things like Tri-X and Technical Pan (now discontinued, alas!)
and the Portra films.

Ilford still doesn't know how to manufacture reels for 120 film, making
their film unusable in Hasselblads.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:03:18 +0100, Kristian wrote:

    > [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> There were surprisingly few German rock musicians.
    >>>There's a good reason for that.
    >>>All the Germans could muster were Kraftwerk, The Scorpions and Nena.
    >>but there have been others, not that I can remember the names :-)
    > ----------
    > Nina Hagen

... who "does a lot of work for charridy" ...

Udo Lindenberg, BAP, Die Fantastiche Vier,
Herbert Grönemeyer, Trio ("da da da") and
Rudolf "Rocky" Remmler ("Alles Hat Ein Ende nur die Wurst hat Zwei").

Not forgetting the pinnacle of German popular music acheivement: Modern
Talking and Boney-M.

--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:48:14 +0000, The Reids wrote:

    > Following up to Frank F. Matthews
    >
    >>> so how does a digital simultaneously expose the focused image for
    >>> your eye and for the sensors at the same time without a mirror?
    >
    >>By showing you what the sensors are sensing in your viewfinder.
    >
    > via a mirror?

No, there'd be a smaller display that the viewfinder looks at. In this case
there'd probably be 2 display in fact. One in the viewfinder and a bigger
one on the back.
--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:27:53 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

    > It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    > inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    > 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    > me into a creative mental 'zone'.

it seems to me your beef is not about digital vs. film, it's about SLRs vs
viewfinder cameras.

All Digital SLR cameras have the same info a film SLR has if not more.
A viewfinder film camera doesn't usually have all this information in the
viewfinder either.
Digitals *tend* to be viewfinders, but that's more of a marketing/sales
strategy, but they don't have to be.
--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:57:02 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Tim Challenger writes:
    >
    >> Through years of experience.
    >
    > Professional films have published characteristics that you can find
    > right on the Web.
    >
    >> What do you do what a film is discontinued or
    >> changed, which happens often enough?
    >
    > I try to find a substitute.
And then spend another year getting to know the characteristics of the
film. Sounds like a lot of effort. That effort is part of the enjoyment
certainly, but that's not what's being questioned here.

    > What do you do when a digital camera is discontinued, which happens
    > roughly three times a day?

The same as you do when a film camera gets discontinued. Don't even
notice.

You're thinking's getting sloppy, Mixi.
What you should ask is "what happens when the storage-card medium is
discontinued?"

I can continue to use the same card, until that finally packs in - that
should keep me going for a good few years, and when that does go, if I'm
lucky I could get a second-hand one to keep me going another 5-10 years.
But at least I don't have to 'learn' a new film colour balance as often or
as radically as I had to with film.
What I'd do after that time remains to be seen. I'd probably be in the
market for a new camera anyway by then, hopefully the price of a digital
SLR would have dropped to something mere mortals can afford.

--
Tim C.

Tim Challenger

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 18:55:37 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > [email protected] writes:
    >
    >> G;aucoma blurs the vision.
    >
    > There are many, many medical conditions that blur vision, as well as
    > many other situations that don't involve any type of eye disease or
    > medical anomaly.

I find being drunk quite a common one.
--
Tim C.

Go Fig

In article <1101803787.KpsNShUSZq1tL66gMtu0Bw@teranews>, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:27:53 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
    >
    > > It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    > > inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    > > 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    > > me into a creative mental 'zone'.
    >
    > it seems to me your beef is not about digital vs. film, it's about SLRs vs
    > viewfinder cameras.

When I look down at my old Leica Rangefinder, I can always read the
exposure values... even on the most sunny days.

jay
Tue Nov 30, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    > All Digital SLR cameras have the same info a film SLR has if not more.
    > A viewfinder film camera doesn't usually have all this information in the
    > viewfinder either.
    > Digitals *tend* to be viewfinders, but that's more of a marketing/sales
    > strategy, but they don't have to be.

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:56:42 -0800, Go Fig wrote:

    > In article <1101803787.KpsNShUSZq1tL66gMtu0Bw@teranews>, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:27:53 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
    >>
    >>> It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    >>> inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    >>> 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    >>> me into a creative mental 'zone'.
    >>
    >> it seems to me your beef is not about digital vs. film, it's about SLRs vs
    >> viewfinder cameras.
    >
    > When I look down at my old Leica Rangefinder, I can always read the
    > exposure values... even on the most sunny days.

There are always exceptions, and the reason you bought that camera over
dozens of other models had something to do with the facilities *it* has.
And let's face it, your old Leica is pretty unusual by any standards. It
certainly is going by the US$2800+ price tag.

And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
to do with markets and sales and demands.

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:20:33 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 03:56:42 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
    >> In article <1101803787.KpsNShUSZq1tL66gMtu0Bw@teranews>, Tim Challenger
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 05:27:53 -0800, Go Fig wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It can be, which gets me back to where I entered... the lack of info
    >>>> inside the viewfinder of a digital camera. I miss the
    >>>> 'experience'/habit of the viewfinder ('HP' of course!)... it helped get
    >>>> me into a creative mental 'zone'.
    >>>
    >>> it seems to me your beef is not about digital vs. film, it's about SLRs vs
    >>> viewfinder cameras.
    >>
    >> When I look down at my old Leica Rangefinder, I can always read the
    >> exposure values... even on the most sunny days.
    >There are always exceptions, and the reason you bought that camera over
    >dozens of other models had something to do with the facilities *it* has.
    >And let's face it, your old Leica is pretty unusual by any standards. It
    >certainly is going by the US$2800+ price tag.

Don't exaggerate, googling I can find them on sale for US$2499.99 +

What an odd and confusing name for a camera.

    >And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >to do with markets and sales and demands.

and personal choice :-)
--
Martin

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:18:17 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    >>> When I look down at my old Leica Rangefinder, I can always read the
    >>> exposure values... even on the most sunny days.
    >>There are always exceptions, and the reason you bought that camera over
    >>dozens of other models had something to do with the facilities *it* has.
    >>And let's face it, your old Leica is pretty unusual by any standards. It
    >>certainly is going by the US$2800+ price tag.
    >
    > Don't exaggerate, googling I can find them on sale for US$2499.99 +
    >
    > What an odd and confusing name for a camera.

If only it were a gun ....

    >>And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >>exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >>plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >>to do with markets and sales and demands.

    >and personal choice :-)

Well, I include that in demand. You can still only choose from th range
that manufacturers offer based on what their marketing divisions decide
what they think we want. - er that doesn't make sense, does it?

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:47:43 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 15:18:17 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>> When I look down at my old Leica Rangefinder, I can always read the
    >>>> exposure values... even on the most sunny days.
    >>>There are always exceptions, and the reason you bought that camera over
    >>>dozens of other models had something to do with the facilities *it* has.
    >>>And let's face it, your old Leica is pretty unusual by any standards. It
    >>>certainly is going by the US$2800+ price tag.
    >>
    >> Don't exaggerate, googling I can find them on sale for US$2499.99 +
    >>
    >> What an odd and confusing name for a camera.
    >If only it were a gun ....

Exactly.

    >>>And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >>>exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >>>plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >>>to do with markets and sales and demands.
    >>and personal choice :-)
    >Well, I include that in demand. You can still only choose from th range
    >that manufacturers offer based on what their marketing divisions decide
    >what they think we want. - er that doesn't make sense, does it?

I was referring to those, who think we have no personal choice and
that only they know what we should buy with our hoarded pocket money.
--
Martin

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:33:07 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    >>>>And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >>>>exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >>>>plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >>>>to do with markets and sales and demands.
    >>>and personal choice :-)
    >>Well, I include that in demand. You can still only choose from th range
    >>that manufacturers offer based on what their marketing divisions decide
    >>what they think we want. - er that doesn't make sense, does it?
    >
    > I was referring to those, who think we have no personal choice and
    > that only they know what we should buy with our hoarded pocket money.

Exactly. That's what it boils down to.
I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the digital photos from my
Casio QV4000. But I still prefer the feel and speed of my film Nikon SLR -
which is now gathering dust.
The things that combine both are out of my price range.

--
Tim C.

nitram

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:47:33 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:33:07 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>>And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >>>>>exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >>>>>plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >>>>>to do with markets and sales and demands.
    >>>>and personal choice :-)
    >>>Well, I include that in demand. You can still only choose from th range
    >>>that manufacturers offer based on what their marketing divisions decide
    >>>what they think we want. - er that doesn't make sense, does it?
    >>
    >> I was referring to those, who think we have no personal choice and
    >> that only they know what we should buy with our hoarded pocket money.
    >Exactly. That's what it boils down to.
    >I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the digital photos from my
    >Casio QV4000. But I still prefer the feel and speed of my film Nikon SLR -
    >which is now gathering dust.
    >The things that combine both are out of my price range.

I have taken far more photos, since I have had a camera that will fit
in a pocket.
--
Martin

Tim Challenger

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:54:31 +0100, [email protected] wrote:

    > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:47:33 +0100, Tim Challenger
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 16:33:07 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
    >>>>>>And there are some viewfinder digital cameras where you can see the
    >>>>>>exposure values in the viewfinder even on sunny days as well. Or on the top
    >>>>>>plate, or whatever. It has *nothing* to do with the storage medium. it has
    >>>>>>to do with markets and sales and demands.
    >>>>>and personal choice :-)
    >>>>Well, I include that in demand. You can still only choose from th range
    >>>>that manufacturers offer based on what their marketing divisions decide
    >>>>what they think we want. - er that doesn't make sense, does it?
    >>>
    >>> I was referring to those, who think we have no personal choice and
    >>> that only they know what we should buy with our hoarded pocket money.
    >>Exactly. That's what it boils down to.
    >>I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the digital photos from my
    >>Casio QV4000. But I still prefer the feel and speed of my film Nikon SLR -
    >>which is now gathering dust.
    >>The things that combine both are out of my price range.
    >
    > I have taken far more photos, since I have had a camera that will fit
    > in a pocket.

Yep, I know what you mean. My digital camera isn't as small as that, but I
didn't use my film pocket camera that much. But I take a lot more than I
used to with the SLR.
--
Tim C.