Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fuming mad, unscheduled replacement camera suggestions?
13 views
Skip to first unread message
bad sector
May 30, 2012, 10:02:50 AM5/30/12
to
Hello!
Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
module on their web site!
something like this guitar selector
http://www.selectsmart.com/FREE/select.php?client=electricguitars
or the Gates belt design simulator (need to sign up):
http://www.gates.com/dfproweb/index.cfm
Having had a very bad and expen$ive experience with a fujifilm
(Fine?)Pix-s1500 product I am extremely cautious in finding a
replacement. Here are some of the problems encountered and some
inclusive features I'd like from my next camera.
Focusing
========
The fujifilm doesn't have manual focus so it has always been impossible
to shoot through a window because it locks on the window pane and all
else (outside) is severely out of focus!
- I set up a zoomed (outdoors) nightshot including a shoreline
settlement with its lights and the full moon rising only to
find that after having pressed to the autofocus detent, upon
pressing further for the actual exposure the focus went and
slewed to a blurr. This has not cleared and pretty well makes
the camera unusable ever since.
- I want a camera with manual focus in addition to auto.
- Preferably with an auto focus feature that also serves as
a rangefinder providing distance information only
- Preferably with a compensation feature to be used with
autofocus (such as already exists for exposure) so that I
might adjust autofocus +/- 20% in 1% steps
Exposure Control:
=================
The usual auto/apperature/shutter priority features with exposure
compensation/bracketing i.e. for example I want to be able to set
up shutterspeed priority with auto exposure CORRECTED by a desired
compensation % OR a bracketing sequence.
Movies:
=======
- INAUDIBLE MECHANICAL FUNCTIONS such as zooming and all others.
The Fujjifilm-s1500 sounds like a factory on the soundtrack even
without active zoom motoring during filming
- wide range manual framerate selection (down to 1 frame per minute)
between 1 & 30 fps in 1 fps increments
between 1 & 60 fpm in 1 fpm increments
- SOUND-ZOOMING allowing the sound from a distant source to dominate
and to partly suppress ambiant sound
- auto or manual but variable sound sensitivity OR limiting that
doesn't produce a distorted overkill in even a light wind
Power:
======
Standard (preferably 12vdc or else 6vdc) plus a wallplug adapter plus
an external DC adapter (cigarette lighter adapter for automotive 12vdc
battery) for one-week timelapse photos.
What is better, a widereange optical zoom or changeable (telephoto)
lens? Is there some rule of thumb to relate say a 15x zoom
to XYZ mm telephoto? Are there sharpness/distortion advanteges?
Does the gps feature in Nikons include a timestamp independant of camera
setup?
Thanks for any info
RichA
May 30, 2012, 3:50:12 PM5/30/12
to
On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
> module on their web site!
Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
> Hello!
>
> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
> module on their web site!
nick c
May 30, 2012, 5:33:35 PM5/30/12
to
bad sector
May 31, 2012, 7:02:10 AM5/31/12
to
still very tempting, when is the release expected?
RichA
May 31, 2012, 8:24:58 AM5/31/12
to
bad sector
May 31, 2012, 3:10:58 PM5/31/12
to
I'm also looking at the coolpix series which are more within my budget,
like the S6300 (retired). As far as not getting everything I want, and
eveb the d3200 would not give me time lapse features) this model would
do as a minimal camera except for the bloody autofocus! I'm still
traumatised by the focus problems my other camera gave me costing some
really good opportunity shots. Is there a way to lock the focus to
infinity on these models? I don't mean the so called focuslock which
seems to actually mean autofocus and autoexposure lock-in, just the
autofocus and a lock OUT? I'm thinking like pointing the camera to the
sky and then somehow disabling AF altogether. Anyone with ideas??? Or
should I just accept the autofocus and be confident that Nikon's will
not lock onto window panes nor slew back from infinity once set?
David J Taylor
Jun 1, 2012, 1:53:32 AM6/1/12
to
> I'm also looking at the coolpix series which are more within my budget,
> like the S6300 (retired). As far as not getting everything I want, and
> eveb the d3200 would not give me time lapse features) this model would
> do as a minimal camera except for the bloody autofocus! I'm still
> traumatised by the focus problems my other camera gave me costing some
> really good opportunity shots. Is there a way to lock the focus to
> infinity on these models? I don't mean the so called focuslock which
> seems to actually mean autofocus and autoexposure lock-in, just the
> autofocus and a lock OUT? I'm thinking like pointing the camera to the
> sky and then somehow disabling AF altogether. Anyone with ideas??? Or
> should I just accept the autofocus and be confident that Nikon's will
> not lock onto window panes nor slew back from infinity once set?
The lenses you would use with the D3200 have an auto-focus on/off switch
> like the S6300 (retired). As far as not getting everything I want, and
> eveb the d3200 would not give me time lapse features) this model would
> do as a minimal camera except for the bloody autofocus! I'm still
> traumatised by the focus problems my other camera gave me costing some
> really good opportunity shots. Is there a way to lock the focus to
> infinity on these models? I don't mean the so called focuslock which
> seems to actually mean autofocus and autoexposure lock-in, just the
> autofocus and a lock OUT? I'm thinking like pointing the camera to the
> sky and then somehow disabling AF altogether. Anyone with ideas??? Or
> should I just accept the autofocus and be confident that Nikon's will
> not lock onto window panes nor slew back from infinity once set?
on the lens. You may also find more options on the AF as to whether it
focuses on nearest object or something else. Likely a lot more options on
a DSLR than a P&S. Go to the shop and try it, or ask the assistant to
demonstrate.
David
Bruce
Jun 1, 2012, 7:59:38 AM6/1/12
to
get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
To get anything like the zoom range you get in a p&s, you would need
to buy at least one more lens, probably the 55-200mm. There is a
choice of two. one with vibration reduction at about $250 and one
without for $150. There is also a 55-300mm with vibration reduction
at about $400. Once again, they are good but not great lenses.
If you want just one lens that covers the zoom range of the 18-55 and
55-200mm lenses there is the 18-200mm with vibration reduction at
about $850. This is an 11X zoom. Lenses of that zoom ratio generally
are not good performers, and this one is no exception. It may be
slightly better than others of its type but they are all optically
poor.
So consider whether you want to spend $699 plus $850, a total of
around $1550, on a combination that will still fall short of the zoom
range that you can get from a Coolpix costing far, far less. Even the
camera body, 18-55mm lens and cheapest 55-200mm lens will cost you
around $1050.
Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
bad sector
Jun 1, 2012, 11:12:39 PM6/1/12
to
for the substantial response BTW!
I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still works,
must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I have
gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I had no
use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
Paul in Houston TX
Jun 2, 2012, 12:59:23 AM6/2/12
to
bad sector wrote:
>
> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
> how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still works,
> must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I have
> gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I had no
> use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
> degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
>
> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
>
> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
> how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still works,
> must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived I have
> gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features I had no
> use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit working or
> degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
>
> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
is no such thing on P&S.
I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.
Once in a while it will be fooled by glass but not very often.
I can always zoom out,lock focus, then zoom back in if
that happens. Full manual options for everything else.
Pros: It was the only camera that filled all my requirements.
Fits in shirt pocket, metal case, F 3.3-6.3, 60 seconds
to 1/4000 shutter, 16x zoom.
Its the ONLY one I found that can be operated with one hand.
I coated most of the case in clear packing tape as soon
as I got it. It is used in industrial environments.
I don't care about mp. 3 mp is what I use.
Dropped once on concrete from 3' with no damage except
to tape. Its been wet, dirty, sandy, hot, cold, etc.
Con: reds are somewhat brighter than blue or green.
Screen is somewhat hard to see in direct sun.
IMO, its a far better camera then any other P&S.
Nothing else even came close. Got it from B&H.
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 1:12:34 AM6/2/12
to
are perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they
are positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
particularly baggy shirt pocket.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul in Houston TX
Jun 2, 2012, 1:45:00 AM6/2/12
to
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX <Pa...@Houston.com> said:
>
>> bad sector wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
>>> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless
>>> of how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still
>>> works, must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived
>>> I have gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features
>>> I had no use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit
>>> working or degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
>>>
>>> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
>>
>> I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
>> read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
>> I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
>> is no such thing on P&S.
>> I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.
>
> On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX <Pa...@Houston.com> said:
>
>> bad sector wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
>>> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless
>>> of how expensive it was. Still have my 35mm SLR Nikon and it still
>>> works, must be like 18 years old but since the digitals have arrived
>>> I have gone through four of them, they were all loaded with features
>>> I had no use for, none could go out in -35c, and all just quit
>>> working or degraded to the point of being unusable :-(
>>>
>>> I could go for a P&S but none that I've seen has AF override.
>>
>> I did extensive research on point and shoots about 6 months ago,
>> read, compared, took notes, went to stores, held about 30 in hand.
>> I would have liked a manual focus override but evidently there
>> is no such thing on P&S.
>> I settled on a Panasonic ZS-8 and am quite happy with it.
>
> Both my Canon G11 and Fujifilm E900 have manual focus. Both of those are
> perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they are
> positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
> particularly baggy shirt pocket.
Both very nice cameras. I came close to buying a G12
> perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they are
> positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
> particularly baggy shirt pocket.
but really needed a shirt pocket cam. Sometimes I have to
climb structures at refineries and and chem plants and take
photos using one hand while I hang on for dear life with
the other hand. Easy to do in my 30's, not so easy now in
my 60's. :)
It was the recommendation of posters here that I check
out B&H and am quite happy I did.
bad sector
Jun 2, 2012, 6:16:41 AM6/2/12
to
of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the concrete
floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against a wall :-)
no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet from
the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two cameras,
which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF I'd want
it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical analysis. Looked
at some manuals and there's never any 'beef' in them like how actually
focus is accomplished. With hardcopy printed material gone out of style
you'd think that the otherwise now zero-cost manuals would contain some
technical detail other than brain-dead repetition and white space.
Bruce
Jun 2, 2012, 6:18:02 AM6/2/12
to
PeterN
Jun 2, 2012, 9:34:59 AM6/2/12
to
Awesome. It's a free app.
--
Peter
Savageduck
Jun 2, 2012, 10:03:11 AM6/2/12
to
The S100 has all that you require; full manual, RAW, IS, 1080p24 HD,
built-in GPS, and a good reputation.
...and very shirt pocketable.
< http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/ >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 2, 2012, 11:22:25 AM6/2/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> writes:
> I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a
> lot of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the
> concrete floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against
> a wall :-)
For what it's worth, the ZS7 came up as a high choice when I evaluated
> I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a
> lot of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the
> concrete floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against
> a wall :-)
super-zoom cameras my wife could take hiking and birding a while back;
so it's not too surprising that the next in that series is also looking
good.
> no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
> some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
> opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
> foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet
> from the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two
> cameras, which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF
> I'd want it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical
> analysis.
analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Paul in Houston TX
Jun 2, 2012, 11:47:25 AM6/2/12
to
Savageduck wrote:
>
> In that case the Canon S series might also be a good place to check. The
> S100 has all that you require; full manual, RAW, IS, 1080p24 HD,
> built-in GPS, and a good reputation.
> ...and very shirt pocketable.
> < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/ >
>
A very nice cam, indeed!
>
> In that case the Canon S series might also be a good place to check. The
> S100 has all that you require; full manual, RAW, IS, 1080p24 HD,
> built-in GPS, and a good reputation.
> ...and very shirt pocketable.
> < http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/ >
>
I looked at a S95 but got the ZS-8 before the S100
came out. Guess its been 9 months now and not 6.
Paul in Houston TX
Jun 2, 2012, 11:52:58 AM6/2/12
to
bad sector wrote:
>
> I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a lot
> of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the concrete
> floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against a wall :-)
> no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
> some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
> opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
> foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet from
> the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two cameras,
> which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF I'd want
> it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical analysis. Looked
> at some manuals and there's never any 'beef' in them like how actually
> focus is accomplished. With hardcopy printed material gone out of style
> you'd think that the otherwise now zero-cost manuals would contain some
> technical detail other than brain-dead repetition and white space.
The zs-8 fit my specs but may not fit yours.
>
> I was just about to undertake a complete analysis so you saved me a lot
> of footwork, I will look that zs-8 up for sure. I like the concrete
> floor bit, the universal test should be throwing one against a wall :-)
> no, I'm NOT kidding! I too need a shirtpocket camera but I also need
> some goodies few of them offer like 1080 hd because I live in an
> opportunity rich locale for rare shots (like two days ago when my
> foot-and-ahalf tibetan terrier ran out to face down a moose 20 feet from
> the house in the backyard). Looks like I may have to get two cameras,
> which is ok if I find what I need. If I have to settle for AF I'd want
> it to be one that does not use a beam but only optical analysis. Looked
> at some manuals and there's never any 'beef' in them like how actually
> focus is accomplished. With hardcopy printed material gone out of style
> you'd think that the otherwise now zero-cost manuals would contain some
> technical detail other than brain-dead repetition and white space.
The zs-10 and zs-20 have full HD, fast sensor, gps.
SavageDuck suggested the G11 and S100.
I looked at the G12 and S95. Those are great cams but did
not fit my specs. I did not want pop up flash and needed more zoom.
Pop up flash gets the flash further away from the lens for a
better photo but I can see it easily getting broken in my line
of work.
Robert Coe
Jun 2, 2012, 12:44:48 PM6/2/12
to
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 07:03:11 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote:
Or you might look for a used S90 or S95. My daughter had an S90 before she got
her S100. She told me she actually liked the S90 better, although she admitted
that it may just be that she still has some learning to do.
My daughter has three young children and is very hard on cameras. When she
gets a new one, it's usually because she's wrecked her old one. But she's far
from a newbie, and I think her opinion can be trusted.
Bob
wrote:
her S100. She told me she actually liked the S90 better, although she admitted
that it may just be that she still has some learning to do.
My daughter has three young children and is very hard on cameras. When she
gets a new one, it's usually because she's wrecked her old one. But she's far
from a newbie, and I think her opinion can be trusted.
Bob
bad sector
Jun 3, 2012, 8:47:07 PM6/3/12
to
canon sx230?
1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
but the reviews are generally good.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 2, 2012, 4:32:32 PM6/2/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
>> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
>> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
>> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
> The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming).
The trick is to learn to produce the correct view during
> On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
>> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
>> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
>> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
> The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming).
shooting. Then you either have 24 MPix for printing or
everything will be fine with much less MPix.
> I don't really want any $1k+ digital kit because my experience with
> digital anything has been that it goes for a crap and soon regardless of
> how expensive it was.
Lenses loose their value slower --- and good ones can also be
had used.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 4, 2012, 7:20:01 AM6/4/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
and predict subject movement.
-Wolfgang
[1] There are apparently ways of using PDAF on a main sensor,
but that entails sacrificing several 10.000 perfectly working
green pixels by half-covering them. I doubt that's in
production yet.
[2] or corrected for the difference
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 4, 2012, 6:46:17 PM6/4/12
to
Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> writes:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
>
> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
> the main sensor.
Yes. And different for each focus point, and different for each shot
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
>
> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
> the main sensor.
(since the main and secondary mirrors won't return to *identical*
positions each time).
I'm referring to the entire system in practice when I say it's less
accurate -- that's what actually matters to those of us discussing
taking pictures with actual cameras.
> There's influence from the lenses (that's how
> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
>
> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
> and predict subject movement.
direction the subject is out of focus in, so the camera never has to
guess, and never guesses wrong and has to reverse. And it's just
inherently fast, too, doesn't have to read volumes of data from the main
chip and then analyze it.
It's still a total kludge; kinda like the internal combustion engine.
It's so highly developed that it actually mostly works most of the time.
I'm not sure how much of the tracking is based on that. The appearance
of face-detect AF on DSLRs is based on another sensor able to get enough
information for face detection, the actual PDAF sensors can't.
> [1] There are apparently ways of using PDAF on a main sensor,
> but that entails sacrificing several 10.000 perfectly working
> green pixels by half-covering them. I doubt that's in
> production yet.
> [2] or corrected for the difference
bad sector
Jun 4, 2012, 9:21:43 PM6/4/12
to
On 06/02/2012 08:32 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
>>> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
>>> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
>>> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
>
>> The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming).
>
> The trick is to learn to produce the correct view during
> shooting. Then you either have 24 MPix for printing or
> everything will be fine with much less MPix.
As an example today while working on my driveway a good 75-100 seagulls
> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>> On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>
>>> Unless you are certain that you have a real need for 24 MP and are
>>> happy to carry around a bulky kit with camera body and either two
>>> medium sized lenses or one large, heavy lens, I think a Coolpix or
>>> another good superzoom camera will probably suit you far better.
>
>> The 24 MP is handy for subsequent cropping (or zooming).
>
> The trick is to learn to produce the correct view during
> shooting. Then you either have 24 MPix for printing or
> everything will be fine with much less MPix.
were swarming all over the backhoe-loader while I had both hands more
than full (for 10 hours). They ate the worms that became uncovered,
sofar nothing spectacular. But a wind was producing all manner of micro
updrafts in which the gulls were soaring without otherwise moving, some
of them 'surfing' inches in front of the windshield. These things have
such a sense for the air that they ride even the wave over a full loader
bucket but won't even try an empty one. It's almost as if they could
'see' the air. Image composition is not always an available luxury.
Everytime I'd stop the magic would fall apart, so I would have had half
a second to grab a P&S with one hand and just fire it, maybe several
times, but the sorting out and framing would definitely have had to
follow :-)
I didn't even try mainly because this dynamic would have to be filmed
instead of photographed and that is really something I could not do
under the circumstances.
bad sector
Jun 5, 2012, 7:26:31 PM6/5/12
to
MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
focusing even manually :-(((
Secondary:
The depth of field table (or rule of thumb if any) that depends on lens
opening and focal distance, is that about the same on all cameras/lenses
or is it specific to every lens
Thanks
bad sector
Jun 5, 2012, 10:10:35 PM6/5/12
to
On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>> On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
>>>> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
>>>> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
>>>> module on their web site!
>>>
>>> Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
>>
>> a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
>> still very tempting, when is the release expected?
>
>
> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
The latest prices are 600us/750cdn with the 18-55 lens
>> On 05/30/2012 03:50 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> On May 30, 10:02 am, bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> Looking for a new camera, probably a low end (maybe SLR) Nikon
>>>> only because the last 'troublefree' camera I had was a Nikon.
>>>> I wish all (camera) manufactureres had a substantial selection
>>>> module on their web site!
>>>
>>> Nikon D3200. An insanely great bargain at $699. Once it is released.
>>
>> a little rich for me and doesn't offer everything I'm looking for but
>> still very tempting, when is the release expected?
>
>
> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
I'm not too nostalgic about carrying a bag of stuff either. Just took
out my old F-401 and cried over the $50's they're getting on ebay, that
and the POS s1500 might get me $100 total.
When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :-)
I'd love to buy a coolpix if it gave me some manual authority, in light
of the last p&s and the headaches it has given me I'm not really
interested in throwing good money after bad :-(
Bruce
Jun 6, 2012, 7:39:07 AM6/6/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
>> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
>
>The latest prices are 600us/750cdn with the 18-55 lens
>
>I'm not too nostalgic about carrying a bag of stuff either. Just took
>out my old F-401 and cried over the $50's they're getting on ebay, that
>and the POS s1500 might get me $100 total.
>
>When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
>they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :-)
Better at what? My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 (FZ35 in USA) which
>On 06/01/2012 11:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> Beware. $699 only buys you a camera body. Pay a little more and you
>> get a 3X 18-55mm zoom 'kit' lens that is good but not great.
>
>The latest prices are 600us/750cdn with the 18-55 lens
>
>I'm not too nostalgic about carrying a bag of stuff either. Just took
>out my old F-401 and cried over the $50's they're getting on ebay, that
>and the POS s1500 might get me $100 total.
>
>When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
>they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :-)
has an 18X zoom lens with an equivalent focal length range of
27-486mm. There is no zoom Nikkor which approaches that range.
The zoom Nikkor with the greatest range is the 18-200mm DX which has
an equivalent focal length range of 27-300mm. So it doesn't cover the
300-486mm range at all, but the Panasonic does.
The 18-200mm Nikkor is optically a poor performer. It reviews well
against other lenses of its type, but they are all pathetic performers
and the Nikon is only the least worst of a bad bunch. It appeals only
to lazy people who buy an interchangeable lens camera but cannot
manage to make the small effort to change lenses. So they buy one
lens that will "do everything". Alas, it will do everything except
provide decent results and I would not recommend it to anyone who
takes any pride in their results.
>I'd love to buy a coolpix if it gave me some manual authority, in light
>of the last p&s and the headaches it has given me I'm not really
>interested in throwing good money after bad :-(
particular the specifications of various p&s and superzoom cameras to
see if there is anything that better fits your needs.
bad sector
Jun 7, 2012, 1:18:12 AM6/7/12
to
On 06/05/2012 11:26 PM, bad sector wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>>
>>
>> canon sx230?
>>
>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>> but the reviews are generally good.
>
> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
> focusing even manually :-(((
I wouldn't want to mislead anyone, this is NOT quite accurate!
> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>>
>>
>> canon sx230?
>>
>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>> but the reviews are generally good.
>
> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
> focusing even manually :-(((
On p126 of the sx260 manual there is an "MF Indicator" bar that "shows
the distance and focal position" (somewhat different wording is used on
p96 of the sx230 manual). Not sure if I understand this, focus is a
distance and not a position. Does the manual mean that the bar shows the
distance marks and the focus distance against them? If so then where's
the infinity marking or is it one those dynamic scales? Could anyone
with access to one of these cameras try it out? There's no camera store
around my home so I can't just go over for some hands-on trial. What I
want is the ability to set focus by setting a distance in feet up to
infinity, interpolating as required but NOT by adjusting the 'texture'
in a focus square/rectangle.
TIA
otter
Jun 7, 2012, 9:37:53 AM6/7/12
to
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
You should try the Canon forums above to ask your question, You may
find someone who actually owns the camera. There used to be a
superzoom owner who politely offered helpful, informed opinion to the
DSLR owners here, but he may be in jail now.
If manual focusing on the sx230 is like other Canon compact cameras,
you will probably not be terribly happy with it. Seems everyone
expects the camera to do all of the work these days, and safeguards
are built in so that the camera reverts to autofocus after each shot.
At least that was my experience with manual focusing on the G12. But
maybe I was missing some configuration setting in a menu somewhere. I
only used the camera for a short while before my wife stole it from me.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 7, 2012, 12:45:55 PM6/7/12
to
Or let someone else drive.
Problem solved.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 7, 2012, 12:54:17 PM6/7/12
to
>>When you talk Nikon zoom lenses though I'm sure you'll agree that
>>they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :-)
> Better at what? My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 (FZ35 in USA) which
> has an 18X zoom lens with an equivalent focal length range of
> 27-486mm. There is no zoom Nikkor which approaches that range.
That's why Canon rocks and Nikkon sucks. Canon has two 9.3-930mm
>>they're still far better than the p&s allinwonder superzooms :-)
> Better at what? My partner uses a Panasonic FZ38 (FZ35 in USA) which
> has an 18X zoom lens with an equivalent focal length range of
> 27-486mm. There is no zoom Nikkor which approaches that range.
(1860mm with extender) f/1.7-4.7 lenses ...
:->
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 7, 2012, 1:27:15 PM6/7/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>> canon sx230?
>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>> but the reviews are generally good.
> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
> focusing even manually :-(((
Why would you want to focus at 200 feet? At that distance
> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>> canon sx230?
>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>> but the reviews are generally good.
> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
> focusing even manually :-(((
you have 60 feet DOF at the least with that camera.
> Secondary:
> The depth of field table (or rule of thumb if any) that depends on lens
> opening and focal distance, is that about the same on all cameras/lenses
> or is it specific to every lens
allowed circle of confusion, which again depends on the factor
between output and sensor size and viewing distance.
-Wolfgang
bad sector
Jun 7, 2012, 6:13:47 PM6/7/12
to
On 06/07/2012 01:27 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>
>>> canon sx230?
>
>>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>>> but the reviews are generally good.
>
>> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
>> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
>> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
>> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
>> focusing even manually :-(((
>
> Why would you want to focus at 200 feet? At that distance
> you have 60 feet DOF at the least with that camera.
Nothing special, I just threw in a number, or maybe I want the subject
> bad sector<none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
>> On 06/04/2012 12:47 AM, bad sector wrote:
>
>>> canon sx230?
>
>>> 1080p HD, manual overrides, large pocket size and since it's a year on
>>> the market prices have retreated some ($230-300). I never had a Canon
>>> but the reviews are generally good.
>
>> I just downloaded the manual and went in for a closer look at so called
>> MANUAL focus. There's no sign of numerical distance reference,
>> apparently it just allows one to eyeball focus on the monitor. Thus if I
>> want to focus at 200 feet I cannot see that number anywhere while
>> focusing even manually :-(((
>
> Why would you want to focus at 200 feet? At that distance
> you have 60 feet DOF at the least with that camera.
to just fit into the DOF. I should have been clearer about what I want.
There are two separate actions the first being fucusING (like in the
viewfinder) and the other SETting-focus where you set a number for the
distance. Let'say I want to make a 1 minute exposure of a town at night
in the snow from a water tower (I actually made a postcard that way
once). Trying to focus in the viewfinder would be an exercise in
futility but if I know the distance (and I can guess pretty good) then
that's where setting the focus distance comes in. In this case it was
infinity but it serves to illustrate one possible need for the number
approach.
Chris Malcolm
Jun 8, 2012, 1:10:18 AM6/8/12
to
check the accuracy of the number scale with respect to your
purposes. On some cameras/lenses it's accurate enough, on some it's so
silly you wonder why they bothered to put the numbers there.
--
Chris Malcolm
bad sector
Jun 8, 2012, 7:26:28 AM6/8/12
to
On 06/08/2012 01:10 AM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> If you want to set by number you should carry out some experiments to
> check the accuracy of the number scale with respect to your
> purposes. On some cameras/lenses it's accurate enough, on some it's so
> silly you wonder why they bothered to put the numbers there.
THAT I didn't know, thanks for the info
> If you want to set by number you should carry out some experiments to
> check the accuracy of the number scale with respect to your
> purposes. On some cameras/lenses it's accurate enough, on some it's so
> silly you wonder why they bothered to put the numbers there.
Joe Kotroczo
Jun 8, 2012, 9:17:10 AM6/8/12
to
On 02/06/2012 06:12, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX<Pa...@Houston.com> said:
>
(...)
> On 2012-06-01 21:59:23 -0700, Paul in Houston TX<Pa...@Houston.com> said:
>
> Both my Canon G11 and Fujifilm E900 have manual focus. Both of those
> are perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they
> are positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
> particularly baggy shirt pocket.
I've been known to carry my G11 in my shirt pocket...
> are perhaps not strictly P&S cameras. However compared to my DSLRs they
> are positively tiny, but not shirt pocketable, unless you have a
> particularly baggy shirt pocket.
Yes, it was a baggy pocket.
--
Illegitimi non carborundum
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 8, 2012, 12:22:32 PM6/8/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> distance. Let'say I want to make a 1 minute exposure of a town at night
> in the snow from a water tower (I actually made a postcard that way
> once). Trying to focus in the viewfinder would be an exercise in
> futility but if I know the distance (and I can guess pretty good) then
> that's where setting the focus distance comes in. In this case it was
> infinity but it serves to illustrate one possible need for the number
> approach.
Well, most cameras in the P&S class have a scene mode exactly
> distance. Let'say I want to make a 1 minute exposure of a town at night
> in the snow from a water tower (I actually made a postcard that way
> once). Trying to focus in the viewfinder would be an exercise in
> futility but if I know the distance (and I can guess pretty good) then
> that's where setting the focus distance comes in. In this case it was
> infinity but it serves to illustrate one possible need for the number
> approach.
for landscapes in the dark. Hyperfocal length.
And since at said 28mm the hyperfocal length is around 2 meters
for this camera ...
-Wolfgang
Chris Malcolm
Jun 10, 2012, 5:00:25 AM6/10/12
to
In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
> and predict subject movement.
What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>> I'm not aware of any mainstream camera that uses anything but optical
>> analysis for focusing. (Two different methods -- contrast detect, or
>> phase detect; phase detect uses special sensors, and is mostly limited
>> to DSLRs, and is MUCH faster, and is often less accurate.)
> PDAF (Phase Detect AF) is "less accurate" because it measures
> from a secondary, specialized sensor[1] --- and the optical path
> to said secondary sensor needs to be identical[2] in length to
> the main sensor. There's influence from the lenses (that's how
> microfocussing works: set an offset from the rays passing through
> the lens to the secondary sensor, often by lens and focus length.
> I.e. in theory it's as accurate as CDAF (Contrast Detecion AF) ...
> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
> and predict subject movement.
is out of focus. I do a lot of manual focusing because it's more
accurate, esp with wider angle lenses, and some of my lenses are
manual only. I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways. Looks like
chromatic aberration, but there's none present when it's properly
focused, only when it goes out of focus. The reddish and greenish
sides swop sides when passing through the focus point. They merge into
accurate focus at the focus point.
Is this a defect present in only some lenses, or is it a natural
consequence of the way chromatic aberration is corrected in all good
lenses? I can only see it easily on extreme focus targets, such as a
bright specular spot, but software should be able to track more subtly
shifts of colour.
If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
distance given by phase?
If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
focus target movement even better than phase.
(If a team isn't already working on these questions, sounds like a
good student project in machine vision :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 10, 2012, 1:12:21 PM6/10/12
to
the chromatic aberration as much on a sharp line as on a blurred one.
> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
> distance given by phase?
>
> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
> focus target movement even better than phase.
they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
Chris Malcolm
Jun 11, 2012, 8:31:15 AM6/11/12
to
subtle shifts of colour that I can't.
>> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
>> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
>> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
>> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
>> distance given by phase?
>>
>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
>> focus target movement even better than phase.
> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
it.
Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
only spreadsheet going Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
impossible to do on any computer.
Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
the managers who employ them.
But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
be simple and obvious :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 10, 2012, 6:04:21 PM6/10/12
to
Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
>> and predict subject movement.
> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
> is out of focus.
Nor having any idea how far to jump.
> In rec.photo.digital Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> People put up with this kind of crap because it's *much* much
>> faster than CDAF, handles low light well, and can properly track
>> and predict subject movement.
> What slows CDAF is not knowing which way to jump when the focus target
> is out of focus.
> I've noticed that when looking at a high contrast edge
> which isn't strongly coloured go in and out of focus that the blue and
> red ends of the spectrum shift in different ways.
> Is this a defect present in only some lenses,
-Wolfgang
Eric Stevens
Jun 11, 2012, 7:58:01 PM6/11/12
to
On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
wrote:
This was more a question of improved computing power and better
monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
Apple II hit the market.
> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
Eric Stevens
wrote:
monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
>
>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
>only spreadsheet going ...
>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
Apple II hit the market.
> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
>petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>
>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
>impossible to do on any computer.
>
>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
>the managers who employ them.
>
>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
>be simple and obvious :-)
Regards,
>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>
>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
>impossible to do on any computer.
>
>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
>the managers who employ them.
>
>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
>be simple and obvious :-)
Eric Stevens
David Dyer-Bennet
Jun 12, 2012, 3:46:22 PM6/12/12
to
>>> If so, it might be able to be used to get a directional handle
>>> on CDAF. If so, then CDAF should be able to track and predict not just
>>> lateral but distance movement of a moving focus target. But can this
>>> method be somehow contrived to deliver the resolution of out of focus
>>> distance given by phase?
>>>
>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
>>> focus target movement even better than phase.
>
>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
>
> Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
> believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
> impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
> design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
> then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
> it.
impossible on on character-cell terminals that couldn't represent fonts
and such; but that's a different level. On graphics systems, it was
obviously possible, just difficult. (I've been developing software
professionally since 1969.)
> Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
> only spreadsheet going Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
> petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
> Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
> resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
> Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>
> So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
> removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
> their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
> unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
> expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
> impossible to do on any computer.
>
> Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
> Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
> "ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
> they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
> on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
> the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
> the managers who employ them.
> But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
> be simple and obvious :-)
It's also not entirely clear it's that useful.
PeterN
Jun 12, 2012, 5:05:18 PM6/12/12
to
AppleII.
--
Peter
Eric Stevens
Jun 12, 2012, 6:43:42 PM6/12/12
to
recall its name but it had an interface quite different from Visicalc
and the like. As I recall it, it was constructed line by line with a
script. I do remember that it worked very well and I used it for
detailed budgeting.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
PeterN
Jun 12, 2012, 9:51:55 PM6/12/12
to
was used by my secretary and I had little access to it. Also, that
machine could not be used with anything by the daisy wheel printer it
came with. It was a Lanier word processor that cost a little over 14K. I
wanted my financial projections to be done on a dot matrix printer, so
they looked computer generated. At that time there as a strong
perception of accuracy of any financial documents that were computer
prepared. In less than three months my Apple II and Epson dot matrix
were paid for through additional billings that were generated.
--
Peter
bad sector
Jun 21, 2012, 1:12:40 PM6/21/12
to
received my nikon d3200 today
After clarifying the manual focus issue of the canon sx260 (there is one
and it's not bad at all) I ordered it and received it. Canon support was
A-1 throughout! Unfortunately upon unpacking I saw a deal-breaker I had
missed completely so I sent it back (no strap hooks either). It seems
like a good camera, far ahead of the Nikon p&s lot, and would have fit
my needs but it had an intergral lens cover very similar to that on my
first p&s (can't recall the make) which jammed with sand and junk in my
pocket. The first time it was replaced on warranty (I had to pay 2-way
shipping) the next time it was already off warranty so I threw it in the
garbage. The sx260 is a camera I can recommend with the above proviso, I
went throught the specs I don't know how many times. The D3200 has
features many of which I don't need and misses many I do need and is a
much solicited camera but that comes at TWICE the price. As I said I
leaned toward Nikon because of previous experience, if anything pisses
me off with this one then the next one is sure to be a Canon.
Thanks to one and all for the guidance & opinions!
bad sector
Jun 23, 2012, 7:35:40 AM6/23/12
to
difference is that I never had any nicad fires in my pockets :-)
Chris Malcolm
Jun 25, 2012, 6:27:06 AM6/25/12
to
In rec.photo.digital Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
>>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
>>>> focus target movement even better than phase.
>>
>>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
>>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
>>
>>Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
>>believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
>>impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
>>design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
>>then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
>>it.
> This was more a question of improved computing power and better
> monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
>>
>>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
>>only spreadsheet going ...
> I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
> Apple II hit the market.
Yes, I'd forgotten those. But the point is they were big heavy and
> On 11 Jun 2012 12:31:15 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>>In rec.photo.digital David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>> Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>>>> If so, given the processing power and ingenuity/education of the
>>>> programmers they employ, CDAF ought to be able to track and predict
>>>> focus target movement even better than phase.
>>
>>> I'd have to guess this falls under "too obvious"; if it were that easy,
>>> they would have been using it for the last 5 years.
>>
>>Not necessarily. In the early days of word processing it was widely
>>believed that WYSIWYG word processors were technically
>>impossible. Once someone clever and independent enough to be able to
>>design and implement one despite "everyone knows that's impossible",
>>then everyone realised it could be done, and soon everyone was doing
>>it.
> This was more a question of improved computing power and better
> monitors than a *gee-whiz* break through.
>>
>>Same with spreadsheets. Back in the days when the Apple II was the
>>only spreadsheet going ...
> I was running a spread sheet on a Z80-powered Cromemco before the
> Apple II hit the market.
expensive compared to the Apple II. You couldn't buy one out of petty
cash just as a spreadsheet tool, which you could with the
Apple. That's what the Esso accountants in London started doing. To
buy a Cromenko they'd have had to go through the computer systems
dept, but the Apple was within their petty cash limits.
>> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
>>petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
>>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
>>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
>>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>>
>>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
>>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
>>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
>>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
>>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
>>impossible to do on any computer.
>>
>>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
>>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
>>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
>>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
>>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
>>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
>>the managers who employ them.
>>
>>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
>>be simple and obvious :-)
> Regards,
> Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 23, 2012, 8:40:21 PM6/23/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> A-1 throughout! Unfortunately upon unpacking I saw a deal-breaker I had
> missed completely so I sent it back (no strap hooks either). It seems
> like a good camera, far ahead of the Nikon p&s lot, and would have fit
> my needs but it had an intergral lens cover very similar to that on my
> first p&s (can't recall the make) which jammed with sand and junk in my
> pocket.
Lesson: Don't put cameras to the sand and junk in your
> A-1 throughout! Unfortunately upon unpacking I saw a deal-breaker I had
> missed completely so I sent it back (no strap hooks either). It seems
> like a good camera, far ahead of the Nikon p&s lot, and would have fit
> my needs but it had an intergral lens cover very similar to that on my
> first p&s (can't recall the make) which jammed with sand and junk in my
> pocket.
pocket. You ought to have learned that by now. Use a real
camera bag you don't use as sand carrier.
-Wolfgang
Eric Stevens
Jun 25, 2012, 5:40:13 PM6/25/12
to
On 25 Jun 2012 10:27:06 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
The Cromemco would do much more than the Apple. But my point was there
never was a time when the AppleII had the only spreadsheet going.
Eric Stevens
never was a time when the AppleII had the only spreadsheet going.
>
>>> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
>>>petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
>>>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
>>>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
>>>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>>>
>>>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
>>>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
>>>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
>>>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
>>>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
>>>impossible to do on any computer.
>>>
>>>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
>>>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
>>>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
>>>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
>>>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
>>>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
>>>the managers who employ them.
>>>
>>>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
>>>be simple and obvious :-)
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Eric Stevens
Regards,
>>> ... Esso accountants were buying up Apples out of
>>>petty cash to do their spreadsheet work. Then they got a memo from
>>>Central Computing forbidding this acquisition of unapproved computer
>>>resources. They must first submit their requirements to Central
>>>Computing, who would decide how the facility should best be acquired.
>>>
>>>So the accountants photocopied the spec of the Apple II spreadsheet,
>>>removing all refs to Apple etc., and sent it to Central Computing as
>>>their requirement. After much deliberation they replied that
>>>unfortunately what the accountants wanted was impossible. Not just
>>>expensive, difficult, or impractical, but theoretically absolutely
>>>impossible to do on any computer.
>>>
>>>Mirth all round and egg on face for the technical experts of Central
>>>Computing! The history of computing is full of such delights. I said
>>>"ingenuity/education of the programmers they employ" because I know
>>>they'd have to be clever and ingenious and independent enough to take
>>>on the challenge despite the "obvious" reasons why it can't be done at
>>>the speeds required. Such people are rare, and often unrecognised by
>>>the managers who employ them.
>>>
>>>But once the problem has been solved, the solution will quite likely
>>>be simple and obvious :-)
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
J. Clarke
Jun 26, 2012, 8:19:03 PM6/26/12
to
In article <a4qsnq...@mid.individual.net>, c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk
says...
I'm curious as to what spreadsheet ran on a Cromemco in 1977. Visicalc
is generally regarded as the first spreadsheet and it didn't ship until
1979.
<snip>
says...
is generally regarded as the first spreadsheet and it didn't ship until
1979.
<snip>
Eric Stevens
Jun 26, 2012, 11:50:21 PM6/26/12
to
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 20:19:03 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>I'm curious as to what spreadsheet ran on a Cromemco in 1977. Visicalc
>is generally regarded as the first spreadsheet and it didn't ship until
>1979.
<jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
>I'm curious as to what spreadsheet ran on a Cromemco in 1977. Visicalc
>is generally regarded as the first spreadsheet and it didn't ship until
>1979.
As I previously wrote:
"I was running whatever I was running before SuperCalc also. I can't
recall its name but it had an interface quite different from
Visicalc and the like. As I recall it, it was constructed line by
line with a script. I do remember that it worked very well and I
used it for detailed budgeting."
I've been much digging since writing that and I suspect I may have
"I was running whatever I was running before SuperCalc also. I can't
recall its name but it had an interface quite different from
Visicalc and the like. As I recall it, it was constructed line by
line with a script. I do remember that it worked very well and I
used it for detailed budgeting."
been using 'Autoplan'. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheet
Even Visicalc was built on the work of others. See
http://dssresources.com/history/mattessichspreadsheet.htm
Regards,
Eric Stevens
bad sector
Jun 28, 2012, 10:03:33 AM6/28/12
to
would be a stranger to that either (first impressions like).
As for the lens cover I would devise a flip up type with a soft rubber
seal instead of overprojecting edges that can catch in something. I'd
have it spring loaded & soleniod released like a flash hood. When
finger-pressed closed against the rubber seal it would be latched so it
cannot be opened without electrical unlatching and nothing could drift
past the seal while peaople play volleyball around it on the beach.
'Nuff, let'em chew on this for a year.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Jun 29, 2012, 7:39:47 AM6/29/12
to
bad sector <none@_INVALID_.net> wrote:
> On 06/24/2012 12:40 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Lesson: Don't put cameras to the sand and junk in your
>> pocket. You ought to have learned that by now. Use a real
>> camera bag you don't use as sand carrier.
> On 06/24/2012 12:40 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Lesson: Don't put cameras to the sand and junk in your
>> pocket. You ought to have learned that by now. Use a real
>> camera bag you don't use as sand carrier.
> much easier not to buy poorly engineered stuff ..not that the d3200
> would be a stranger to that either (first impressions like).
I'm afraid only underwater and completely sand tight cameras
> would be a stranger to that either (first impressions like).
would be OK for your misusage.
> As for the lens cover I would devise a flip up type with a soft rubber
> seal instead of overprojecting edges that can catch in something. I'd
> have it spring loaded & soleniod released like a flash hood. When
> finger-pressed closed against the rubber seal it would be latched so it
> cannot be opened without electrical unlatching and nothing could drift
> past the seal while peaople play volleyball around it on the beach.
> 'Nuff, let'em chew on this for a year.
the flash and to have it break off easily, too.
-Wolfgang
0 new messages