Digital photography, changing the world
Dec 17th 2004, 8:07 am
#1156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Keith Willshaw writes:
> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Dec 17th 2004, 9:17 am
#1157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
>> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>
> And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
How do you deduce that?
J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
> Keith Willshaw writes:
>
>> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>
> And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
How do you deduce that?
J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
Dec 17th 2004, 9:18 am
#1158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On 2004-12-15 15:50:40 +0100, Tim Challenger <[email protected]> said:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> JohnT writes:
>>
>>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>>
>> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>>
>>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension, lack of knowledge of
>>> whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most importantly of all,
>>> the total lack of a sense of humour.
>>
>> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
>> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
>> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
>> agree with them.
>>
>> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
>> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
>> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
>> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
>> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
>> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
>> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
>> them in a world of illusion.
>
> Going to show us an example from your life?
Mixi has a life?
J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 19:58:47 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>
>> JohnT writes:
>>
>>> I don't really think that your limitation is low intelligence.
>>
>> I agree. But I don't resort to personal attacks, either.
>>
>>> Your limitations are obstinacy, condescension, lack of knowledge of
>>> whatever it is you are lecturing us about and, most importantly of all,
>>> the total lack of a sense of humour.
>>
>> All of these are simply ways of characterizing my persistent refusal to
>> adopt the opinions of others based solely on their emotional appeals.
>> People get upset when they rant and rave and others still refuse to
>> agree with them.
>>
>> I also deliberately attack opinions that I know to be objectively
>> baseless. Unfortunately (for those who hold them), these also tend to
>> be the opinions to which people cling most strongly for security. They
>> were indoctrinated with them or developed them based on emotion alone,
>> and they know that the opinions are baseless and fragile, and it upsets
>> them to consider abandoning them. Nevertheless, I think it more healthy
>> to abandon opinions that are without foundation than it is to cling to
>> them in a world of illusion.
>
> Going to show us an example from your life?
Mixi has a life?
J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
Dec 17th 2004, 10:33 am
#1159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
"Jeremy Henderson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>>> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>> And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
> How do you deduce that?
The voices in his head told him.
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> On 2004-12-17 22:07:59 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>>> Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>> And they still don't match film. So a 300D certainly won't do.
> How do you deduce that?
The voices in his head told him.
Keith
Dec 20th 2004, 2:12 am
#1160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 08:45:59 +0000, The Reids wrote:
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>Define decent film SLR.
>
> they are expensive. If I could afford somwthing that would do
> what my very modest film SLR does (cost under £200 IIRC) I would
> get one but last time I looked it was going to cost thousands and
> thousands, especially as there is nothing full frame that fits my
> lenses.
The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
--
Tim C.
> Following up to [email protected]
>
>>>For the digital equivalent of any decent film SLR.
>>Define decent film SLR.
>
> they are expensive. If I could afford somwthing that would do
> what my very modest film SLR does (cost under £200 IIRC) I would
> get one but last time I looked it was going to cost thousands and
> thousands, especially as there is nothing full frame that fits my
> lenses.
The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
--
Tim C.
Dec 20th 2004, 3:16 am
#1161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Tim Challenger
>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 20th 2004, 3:35 am
#1162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:16:44 +0000, The Reids wrote:
> Following up to Tim Challenger
>
>>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
>
> I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
> requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
;-)
>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>
> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
--
Tim C.
> Following up to Tim Challenger
>
>>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
>
> I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
> requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
;-)
>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>
> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
--
Tim C.
Dec 20th 2004, 4:06 am
#1163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 17:35:05 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:16:44 +0000, The Reids wrote:
>> Following up to Tim Challenger
>>
>>>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>>>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>>>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>>>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>>>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
>>
>> I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
>> requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
>I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
>You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
or use PS, with the appropriate filter.
:-)
>;-)
>>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>>
>> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
>> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
>Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
>I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
>than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:16:44 +0000, The Reids wrote:
>> Following up to Tim Challenger
>>
>>>The practical upshot of them not being "full frame" is to increase the
>>>apparent focal length. If you shoot lots of wide-angle (as I suspect you
>>>do, going by the photos on you site), I can see that would be a
>>>disadvantage, and you'd probably have to fork out for one shorter lens. If
>>>not, then I don't think it makes much practical difference.
>>
>> I use 17mm and 24mm, so non full frame is not a great option,
>> requiring unfeasible lenses like 10mm!
>I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
>You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
or use PS, with the appropriate filter.
:-)
>;-)
>>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>>
>> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
>> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
>Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
>I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
>than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
--
Martin
Dec 20th 2004, 4:13 am
#1164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
Following up to Tim Challenger
>I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
>You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
>;-)
They have started making super wides for non full frame digitals,
but it seems back to front to me as super wides have problems of
their own, i'll wait till they cam make the sensors more cheaply,
we are still at the equiv. of 32Mbte hard drives in cameras.
>>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>>
>> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
>> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
>Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
>I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
>than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
Without looking IIRC it isn't full frame, no doubt they will be
2-300 one day.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
>I can see that would be a problem. :-( Pretty pricey to boot.
>You could always put masking tape around the outer part of the objective.
>;-)
They have started making super wides for non full frame digitals,
but it seems back to front to me as super wides have problems of
their own, i'll wait till they cam make the sensors more cheaply,
we are still at the equiv. of 32Mbte hard drives in cameras.
>>>What make do you have now? The Nikon D70 can be had for around 800 quid,
>>>cheaper if you just want the body. And Canon have one for around the same
>>>price. Still too much for me unfortunately.
>>
>> Second hand Pentax P50 or was it 30? I just buy a new body when
>> the old one fails. Lenses I take more seriously.
>Pantax do a model called *ist DS. Around US$800-900.
>http://www.dpreview.com/articles/pentaxistds/page2.asp
>I guess the lenses would fit. You won't get a Digital SLR for much less
>than that at the moment. Prices are falling gradually though.
Without looking IIRC it isn't full frame, no doubt they will be
2-300 one day.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
Dec 20th 2004, 8:06 pm
#1165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 15:38:42 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:33:20 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>>>> They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
>>>> now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses
>>> What happened to the 1Ds?
>>Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>
> Not a case of count the GBPs and the 1Ds will look after themselves
I like that one! :-)
--
Tim C.
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:33:20 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]. ..
>>> Keith Willshaw writes:
>>>> They've come down a good bit. The 6.3 megapixel Canon EOS 300D
>>>> now sells for under £700 and uses the existing Canon EOS lenses
>>> What happened to the 1Ds?
>>Nothing , they are available for around £3,300
>
> Not a case of count the GBPs and the 1Ds will look after themselves
I like that one! :-)
--
Tim C.
Dec 20th 2004, 8:06 pm
#1166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:51:41 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
>> me" if you like.
>
> That is already one of its definitions.
Yes, as defined by you.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> I could say "you", and you could define the word to mean "someone but not
>> me" if you like.
>
> That is already one of its definitions.
Yes, as defined by you.
--
Tim C.
Dec 20th 2004, 8:18 pm
#1167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 15:48:31 GMT, devil wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:54:54 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>>
>>>> We're all over-emotional.
>>>
>>> I'm not.
>>
>> I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
>
> Why oh why don't you let Anthony show his emotions? Can't you see how
> badly he needs to?
:-) All that lack of testosterone is getting him down.
--
Tim C.
> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 09:54:54 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:05:19 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>
>>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>>
>>>> We're all over-emotional.
>>>
>>> I'm not.
>>
>> I was being sarcastic. But then you wouldn't know about that. My bad.
>
> Why oh why don't you let Anthony show his emotions? Can't you see how
> badly he needs to?
:-) All that lack of testosterone is getting him down.
--
Tim C.
Dec 21st 2004, 9:26 pm
#1168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>
> That depends on the circumstances.
>
>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>
> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
the aesthetic result that people are after.
--
Tim C.
> Tim Challenger writes:
>
>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>
> That depends on the circumstances.
>
>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>
> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
the aesthetic result that people are after.
--
Tim C.
Dec 21st 2004, 9:34 pm
#1169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:26:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>>
>> That depends on the circumstances.
>>
>>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>>
>> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
>It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
>For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
>final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
>the aesthetic result that people are after.
and not a stupid argument? :-)
--
Martin
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>
>>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>>
>> That depends on the circumstances.
>>
>>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>>
>> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
>It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
>For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
>final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
>the aesthetic result that people are after.
and not a stupid argument? :-)
--
Martin
Dec 21st 2004, 10:58 pm
#1170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital photography, changing the world
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:34:17 +0100, nitram wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:26:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>>
>>>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>>>
>>> That depends on the circumstances.
>>>
>>>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>>>
>>> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
>>It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
>>For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
>>final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
>>the aesthetic result that people are after.
>
> and not a stupid argument? :-)
There is that, of course. :-)
--
Tim C.
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:26:34 +0100, Tim Challenger
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 14:49:48 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> Tim Challenger writes:
>>>
>>>> A bit late by then isn't it.
>>>
>>> That depends on the circumstances.
>>>
>>>> No, just let the camera reset the balance, or do it yourself.
>>>
>>> Resetting the balance has no effect on the response of the sensor.
>>It has a very similar effect. So for most practical purposes it does.
>>For general photography, yours included going by your photos, it's what the
>>final photo looks like that matters, regardless of how it got there. It's
>>the aesthetic result that people are after.
>
> and not a stupid argument? :-)
There is that, of course. :-)
--
Tim C.
