Another "Which Camera" Post
Charles
worked well for a long time. I kind of drifted into the Pentax line
of SLRs, just because.
For digital, I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
what I want, but with some problems.
The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
(presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.
Most of what I want to do is close-up, macro work, and all I can do
with the Nikon is generally point it and hope it focuses on the right
thing. Occasionally it does.
I considered the Pentax *IST, thinking I could recycle my glass.
However a look at :
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM
is somewhat discouraging, it looks like I could get better quality
from the Nikon 990 than the Pentax.
The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
lot of automation, low shutter lag is too much to hope for anymore.
Are there any other cameras I should be considering?
It would be nice if
http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/CDISPLAY.HTM
told us which lens was being used on the cameras which can use
interchangeable lenses, or maybe they do and I just haven't found it
yet.
thanks for any info/opinions.
--
- Charles
-
-does not play well with others
DJ
<snip>
>
>The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
>lot of automation, low shutter lag is too much to hope for anymore.
I love my dRebel. Shutter lag is trivial ... you can rattle off 4 shots in quick
order in RAW format, more in jpg. Definition is superb, especially with the low
cost 50mm/1.8 lens. See http://www.splatco.com/david/kids-web_deploy/index.htm
With the dRebel you will feel, after the CP990, like you are using a Real
Camera. Trust me, my previous camera was the CP990. Good (brilliant?) for still
macros, lousy for candids or anything requiring responsiveness. The dRebel has
manual controls that are usable if slightly different to an old fashioned SLR or
range-finder. As a bonsus the instant feedback on the LCD and the histogram let
you make on the fly adjustments. Unlike the CP990 you can also get useable
results at ISO1600.
David J Taylor
news:sc8qd09f08kjqpn1k...@4ax.com...
[]
> The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
> the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
> (presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
> aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.
> - Charles
Charles,
You might want to look for a camera with an Electronic View Finder (EVF).
This is like the optical finders in (D)SLR cameras, but without the wieght
and other penalities of the (D)SLR designs. Although I can't recommend
the camera for other reasons, the EVF on the Minolta A2 is vrey good, and
it can swivel to the vertical position which may be helpful if you want to
take macro photos of flowers etc.
A different set of possibilities opens up if you wish to go the DSLR
route, of course.
Cheers,
David
Douglas
much more capable than the Nikon 990,or the Canon Rebel! I own a Canon 10D
and two Nikon D70s.I would put the D70 well over the Rebel.I used the Pentax
for a weekend and loved it.It is smaller,so it did not fit my big hands
though.It is very well built,and used Pentax lenses are much easier th find
at a good price.Try it,you may like it!
"Charles" <ckr...@SPAMTRAPwest.net> wrote in message
news:sc8qd09f08kjqpn1k...@4ax.com...
Giorgio Preddio
I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
> what I want, but with some problems.
I'm sure I could guess at the plethora of problems.
> The Canon digital Rebel (EOS300D) does look promising. I don't need a
Yeah, it will promise to deliver you plenty of headaches.
> Are there any other cameras I should be considering?
You have left out the most obvious choice. The Sigma SD10 is probably
the best camera you can buy today. Any minor shortcomings of this
remarkable creation are easily outweighed by the enormous advantages
it has over other digital SLRs: image quality, resolution, build,
lenses/accessories, you know...the most important things people want
in a camera.
There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
Peter File
> shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
> you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
> With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
> body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
> sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
Fuckin hell not this guy again. Are Sigma really that desparate they have to
resort to spamming newsgroups?
tek...@yahoo.com
Preddy) wrote:
>"Peter A. Stavrakoglou" <nto...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<grzAc.1159$V57.5...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>> "Biff Mullins" <BiffM...@NOSPAAAAAMMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:200406180915...@mail.englishbaby.com...
>> >
>> > Thinking about buying the Sigma DSLR. Either the SD9 or the SD10.
>> > Is the SD10 worth the extra money? What would be the best lens to
>> start out with.
>> >
>> > Oh yeah, does anyone know when that Foveon point and shoot will be
>> available?
>>
>> If you need higher ISO settings, the SD10 is the better choice. If
>> you shoot at lower ISO settings as I do (I'm just a causal
>> photographer) than the SD9 is just fine. IMO< the 50mm EX lens is a
>> great starting point with either camera.
>
>I don't know of anyone who knows anything about digital who shoots
>above the lowest ISO setting.
He does get dummer the longer he is awake
On 26 Jun 2004 08:10:58 -0700, gio...@fuckshitpussyfuck.com (Giorgio
Preddio) wrote:
Sorta proves it
Tony Spadaro
other things. THe Sigma cameras are teh worst abominations of dead end crap
on the market and to be avoided. Even Preddy (not his real name) does not
own one, and he spent yearsa similarly "promoting" the Atari computer -- you
all remember the Atari computer don't you? No. Goodness.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Giorgio Preddio" <gio...@fuckshitpussyfuck.com> wrote in message
news:e316d0cf.04062...@posting.google.com...
Charles
take bad pictures, I want to be able to take better ones.
Ron Hunter
> More lies from the troll who calls himself George Preddy and various
> other things. THe Sigma cameras are teh worst abominations of dead end crap
> on the market and to be avoided. Even Preddy (not his real name) does not
> own one, and he spent yearsa similarly "promoting" the Atari computer -- you
> all remember the Atari computer don't you? No. Goodness.
>
Yes, many of us remember the Atari computer. I used a 1040ST from 1986
through 1995. Last I heard, it is STILL WORKING. Nice machine, but the
company didn't have a CLUE what to do with it.
Excessive cross-posting deleted.
Miro
"Giorgio Preddio" <gio...@fuckshitpussyfuck.com> wrote in message
The Sigma SD10 is probably
> the best camera you can buy today. Any minor shortcomings of this
> remarkable creation are easily outweighed by the enormous advantages
Yes the camera is good. Now find a lens for it. You sure wont find any cheap
deals on used lenses in the same calibre as other cameras.
J...@no.komm
Ron Hunter <rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
Preddy promoted the *Amiga* computer. You know, the one they used in
the video industry back in the late '80s and early '90s. It was a
computer where everything was synchronized to the video (NTSC or PAL),
and could do a lot, video-wise, with little CPU power. When it first
came out, it ran circles around Macs and PCs for multimedia, but you
know the story of the hare and the tortoise.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
James
"Giorgio Preddio" <gio...@fuckshitpussyfuck.com> wrote in message
news:e316d0cf.04062...@posting.google.com...
Ted Azito
the PC for consumer use, in its day. Atari ST and Amiga used 68000
Motorola CPU , logical instruction set, popular with programmers,Unix
available earlier than for Intel.
As far as which camera to get, any of the older metal mechanical SLRs
that may be found used cheaply with good prime lenses, is a good
starting place. The K-1000 Pentax had many good features, lacked
depth-of-field preview and a couple of other things, but was good
value. Other Pentaxes, Canons, Minoltas cheap are good. Bodies can be
had for $25 to $100 in good condition. Nikon is only modern system to
retain lens compatibility in autofocus (yecch) era, good Nikkors
therefore more expensive, but many Nikon/Nikkormat good value. Most
polycarbonate SLRs delicate.
Fixed lens rangefinders often good starter cameras if in good shape.
SM Leica awkward.
Best cameras: All pro Nikons. Canon old and new F1. Minolta pro line
heavy but reliable. Pro autofocus Canon reliable but complicated,need
to know menus. True pros hate LCDs and menus! M Leica best
rangefinder, rugged, durable, overpriced, optics corrected for
pleasing rather than strictly best measured results.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"James" <m...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:2k6j7uF...@uni-berlin.de...
Miro
> There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
> shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
> you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
> With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
> body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
> sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
It has image stability for second rate lenses.
Giorgio Preddio
> Thanks for the advice, but I think you missed my point. I already can
> take bad pictures, I want to be able to take better ones.
Then Sigma is exactly what you need.
JP
In it's day it was quite the machine.
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iMhDc.74941$tH1.3...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Steve Almond
"JP" <jpurvis...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:kkyDc.19538$HS3.3481@edtnps84...
> No doubt about it, the guy's a pain,
Yes, but do you know anyone else who can reel 'em in quite so easily?
One message and they queue up like sick fish.......
Steve
Tony Spadaro
I have to admit - I was not impressed with it.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"JP" <jpurvis...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:kkyDc.19538$HS3.3481@edtnps84...
Tony Spadaro
this forum and we don't want anyone to waste money on bad equipment on the
recomendation of a lying troll.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve Almond" <stephen...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:2k81gqF...@uni-berlin.de...
David J Taylor
> There is a need to counter every one of this trolls lies. Beginners read
> this forum and we don't want anyone to waste money on bad equipment on
the
> recomendation of a lying troll.
IMHO, better to recommend a killfile.
David
Dave
> worked well for a long time. I kind of drifted into the Pentax line
> of SLRs, just because.
>
> For digital, I had a Nikon 950, traded up to a 990 which does a lot of
> what I want, but with some problems.
>
> The optical viewfinder rarely shows me what I want to see, what with
> the goodies I hang on the front of the lens. My vision has degraded
> (presbyopia) to where I can't see the LCD viewer without an optical
> aid, and when I add that, the resolution isn't good enough.
>
> Most of what I want to do is close-up, macro work, and all I can do
> with the Nikon is generally point it and hope it focuses on the right
> thing. Occasionally it does.
>
Macros where? Out in the swamp or at your desk? At you desk stick with
the 990. Use the video output cable to a monitor. Out in the swamp
just get a bigger memory card and take more shots.
Charles
What I think you are saying is that I should learn to use what I
already have and not spend money on something I don't really need.
where's the fun in that?
Most of what I do is in the field, swamp or desert with wind and such,
also trying to shoot small fish in an aquarium.
the 990 has a built in delay so that whatever I have lined up on has a
chance to move before the camera takes the exposure. Again, the
autofocus tends to select something I don't particularly want to focus
on. I find myself focusing on my hand, holding the focus lock and
trying to frame the picture without being too much out of focus.
Giorgio Preddio
I personally have only used Apple computers. Windoze makes me pretty
sick. I'm diggin' OsX.
imbsysop
Preddio) wrote:
nothing but flame bait issued by a braindead troll .. cute .. :-)
listener
news:e316d0cf.04062...@posting.google.com:
Just when I though you couldn't become a bigger asshole. I hope you're
diggin' under that rock you can crawl back under.
Bye troll.
John McWilliams
Many first timers here have no idea how to create an effective kill
file, and half the righteous folks who take great pains to announce
their plonking disapproval don't either, or can't be bothered.
Besides, there are greener fields for the pranksters, just some of them
don't know how to find them.
If we respond *de minimus* to the goading of the GPs, perhaps with a
standard disclaimer, *maybe* that'd help. When "GP" posts something that
looks on the surface to be credible, that's one thing. When any of the
other GP's post maybe we can let the more obvious gibberish go. Maybe.
--
John McWilliams
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.uk> wrote in
message news:m_DDc.4361$iH6.46...@news-text.cableinet.net...
David J Taylor
> Beginners don't have him in thier killfile.
.. so rather than responding to misleading rubbish, advise others about
the validity of the message inclduing a recommendation to killfile.
Cheers,
David
David J Taylor
news:QkXDc.108991$Hg2.92872@attbi_s04...
[]
> If we respond *de minimus* to the goading of the GPs, perhaps with a
> standard disclaimer, *maybe* that'd help. When "GP" posts something that
> looks on the surface to be credible, that's one thing. When any of the
> other GP's post maybe we can let the more obvious gibberish go. Maybe.
>
> --
> John McWilliams
.. perhaps "how to killfile" information could usefully be added to the
regular "how-to-use r.p.d" postings ....
Cheers,
David
Tony Spadaro
objecting to, Ace. Make up your tiny little mind. Better yet - sod off. I'm
just adding you to the killfile. I don't have a lot of time to waste on
dweebs and idiots.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.uk> wrote in
message news:ilZDc.5240$go2.55...@news-text.cableinet.net...
David J Taylor
> I DO point out that his posts are lies -- that seems to be what you
were
> objecting to, Ace. Make up your tiny little mind. Better yet - sod off.
I'm
> just adding you to the killfile. I don't have a lot of time to waste on
> dweebs and idiots.
When discussion falls into insults, it would seem that reason has gone out
of the window. I will continue to make my contributions, which I know
that others find valuable, and I will ignore your insults.
Goodbye, Tony.
David
Richard Cockburn
David, I'm in his killfile too. I once replied to a spammer with a warning
not to spam (trying to be helpful to the group) and I forgot to trim the
spammer's quoted text from my reply. Tony went crazy, made an obscene
reference to my surname, and plonked me. Welcome to the club.
See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y6FF22CA8
--
"Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)
-Richard Cockburn
David J Taylor
news:Xns9517398C5119Eco...@130.133.1.4...
[]
> David, I'm in his killfile too. I once replied to a spammer with a
warning
> not to spam (trying to be helpful to the group) and I forgot to trim the
> spammer's quoted text from my reply. Tony went crazy, made an obscene
> reference to my surname, and plonked me. Welcome to the club.
>
> See: http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y6FF22CA8
>
> --
> "Live fast. Die young." (Nikki Sixx)
>
> -Richard Cockburn
Yes, I feel I have now really "arrived".
What an excellent club that has you and me as members!
Cheers,
David
Richard Cockburn
wrote in news:KtbEc.5701$zh2.62...@news-text.cableinet.net:
> Yes, I feel I have now really "arrived".
> What an excellent club that has you and me as members!
We're not alone! ;-)
Rebecca Ore
"David J Taylor" <david-...@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.uk> wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> .. perhaps "how to killfile" information could usefully be added to the
> regular "how-to-use r.p.d" postings ....
I'm using Mac and MT-NewsWatcher which does a dandy job of killing
anything crossposted to other groups (315 article, 268 unread, 259
killed). That and killfilling any posts with preddy in the from line
do an amazing job of cleaning up this group. Is there a news reader for
Windows that will filter out the crossposts as transparently?
John McWilliams
I am sure there are a bunch of choices for PCs, and they'll be suggested
by the score.
Killing all cross posts, though, leaves out a lot of good stuff, as
there are a number of threads that are crossposted that I like to read.
The trolls know, however, what many filter on, and of course are just
clever enough to get around them. Some of them are very clever indeed;
it's just the copy cats and wannabe's here now. And the ever-lovin
'porno troll'- although i'd say it's closer to filth.
--
John McWilliams
David W. Poole, Jr.
>> Preddy promoted the *Amiga* computer. You know, the one they used in
>> the video industry back in the late '80s and early '90s. It was a
>> computer where everything was synchronized to the video (NTSC or PAL),
>> and could do a lot, video-wise, with little CPU power. When it first
>> came out, it ran circles around Macs and PCs for multimedia, but you
>> know the story of the hare and the tortoise.
>
>I personally have only used Apple computers. Windoze makes me pretty
>sick. I'm diggin' OsX.
Still, the Amiga platform was far ahead of Windoze and Crapple.
Steve Hix
"David W. Poole, Jr."
<JosephineCrapfloIsARe...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
True. "Was".
It has been a while since that statement was current, though.
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-042A84....@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
David W. Poole, Jr.
Regardless, how much further do you think the computing environment
would have advanced had the masses rallied behind the better
technologies that failed, to be survived by the shit heap that is
Microsoft and Intel?
Steve Hix
DieSpammersD...@spamgourmet.com (David W. Poole, Jr.) wrote:
>
> Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> news:<sehix-042A84....@news-east.dca.giganews.com>...
> > In article <sv33e0paketkd3hj7...@4ax.com>,
> > "David W. Poole, Jr."
> > >
> >
> > True. "Was".
> >
> > It has been a while since that statement was current, though.
>
> Regardless, how much further do you think the computing environment
> would have advanced had the masses rallied behind the better
> technologies that failed, to be survived by the shit heap that is
> Microsoft and Intel?
Probably just about as far as it has in this timeline.
Neither MS nor Intel have appreciably retarded development, and there is
a lot more that could be done in the field, with or without them.
Gymmy Bob
I supported the underdog for my first 20 years on personal computers and
lost out big time. I thought it was much better. Windoze is only coming up
to the power of these old operating systems in the last few years.
"Better" could be considered as support, vast amounts of software support &
cheap hardware. I don't write machine code anymore so who cares what's
underneath or how many accumulators the CPU has?
"Steve Hix" <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
news:sehix-451B6B....@news-east.dca.giganews.com...
William Graham
"Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote in message
news:RL6dnQYhW8O...@golden.net...
> What is "better"?
>
> I supported the underdog for my first 20 years on personal computers and
> lost out big time. I thought it was much better. Windoze is only coming up
> to the power of these old operating systems in the last few years.
>
> "Better" could be considered as support, vast amounts of software support
&
> cheap hardware. I don't write machine code anymore so who cares what's
> underneath or how many accumulators the CPU has?
>
> "Steve Hix"
It isn't, "what's better" that counts.....It's, "who's got the best
salesmen" that really makes the difference.
Gymmy Bob
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CFpFc.15241$a24.1861@attbi_s03...
>
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote in message
> news:RL6dnQYhW8O...@golden.net...
> > What is "better"?
> >
>
David W. Poole, Jr.
> In article <95a7672d.04070...@posting.google.com>,
> DieSpammersD...@spamgourmet.com (David W. Poole, Jr.) wrote:
> >
> > Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID> wrote in message
> > news:<sehix-042A84....@news-east.dca.giganews.com>...
> > > In article <sv33e0paketkd3hj7...@4ax.com>,
> > > "David W. Poole, Jr."
> > > >
> > > > Still, the Amiga platform was far ahead of Windoze and Crapple.
> > >
> > > True. "Was".
> > >
> > > It has been a while since that statement was current, though.
> >
> > Regardless, how much further do you think the computing environment
> > would have advanced had the masses rallied behind the better
> > technologies that failed, to be survived by the shit heap that is
> > Microsoft and Intel?
>
> Probably just about as far as it has in this timeline.
Negative; Microsoft has never innovated anything (except, perhaps, for
anti-competitive liscencing agreements). Everything "developed" by
Microsoft has been developed by other companies in advance of
Microsoft. Microsoft's last innovative software was the BASIC
interpreters that once populated the ROMs of home computers.
> Neither MS nor Intel have appreciably retarded development, and there is
> a lot more that could be done in the field, with or without them.
Again I disagree. MS certainly hasn't fostered development, and Intel,
well, generation for generation of their processor, they've lagged
behind. For example, the 80386's contemporary was the 68030; the 80386
took three clock cycles to execute a NOP (no operation), whereas the
68030 was doing nothing in one clock. So, it took Intel three times as
long to do nothing as it did Motorola. Anyone who believes that
Microsoft and/or Intel have fostered innovation hasn't followed the
market closely.
David W. Poole, Jr.
> What is "better"?
Better is innovative and bug free, and works as advertised.
> I supported the underdog for my first 20 years on personal computers and
> lost out big time. I thought it was much better. Windoze is only coming up
> to the power of these old operating systems in the last few years.
Agreed whole heartedly. Windows, approaching it's multiple gigabyte
install space, is *finally* approaching a mature position. And still,
compared to OS'es I've run in the past, it's still crap.
> "Better" could be considered as support, vast amounts of software support &
> cheap hardware. I don't write machine code anymore so who cares what's
> underneath or how many accumulators the CPU has?
I care what's underneath the hood, and have done so for twenty years.
I had a Zilog Z80 processor, that had a more efficient instruction
set, but was instruction compatible, with an Intel chip, so the Zilog
chip ran code faster than the Intel chip. Then, I encountered a 6809
system with a clock speed of almost half of the Z80 system. The 6809,
however, had a more efficient instruction set than the Z80. So, even
though the 6809 system had a slower clock speed, it still out
performed the Z80 system. Plus, the 6809's addressing modes were more
flexible than the Z80's, and that brought about many other advantages.
Intel did not reach this flexibility until the release of the 80386.
Pretty pathetic IMO. Not caring about the efficiency of a processor's
instruction sets has led us to slower, more inefficient processors
than we would have had, and correspondingly slower, more inefficient
systems.
As far as support is concerned, the only time I have ever called tech
support for an issue is when I called Microsoft over an issue in 1984.
Their support sucked then, and I decided at that point in my life that
I would learn enough about computers to never rely on them for help.
J...@no.komm
Once the x86 processors hit 32-bit data buses, though, they left the
680x0 processors in the dust as far as memory speed was concerned. It's
very easy to tell only half the story, isn't it?
I went from an Amiga with a 68040/68030 to a 486DX PC, and the PC ran
circles around the fastest Motorola of the time for many things. Your
"NOP" situation is just one part of the whole. How often is NOP used,
anyway, other than to get around synchronization issues with the
previous command? I remember one use of NOP on the 68040; you had to
issue a few in sequence before and/or after a special MOVE command that
moved large memory blocks around, new to the '040.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Alan Browne
>
> Regardless, how much further do you think the computing environment
> would have advanced had the masses rallied behind the better
> technologies that failed, to be survived by the shit heap that is
> Microsoft and Intel?
Time to move on. Bitter reflection on the past did not build
anything.
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Gymmy Bob
LOL
"David W. Poole, Jr." <DieSpammersD...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message news:95a7672d.04070...@posting.google.com...
Gymmy Bob
maybe?
I doubt the 68040, made for the current toy market is where Motorola
stopped.
Another interesting little tidbit. One Motorola processor clock cycle
performs many microcode operations inside the CPU as compared to Intel's 8
machine cycles that become one clock cycle. Or is it the other way around?
This is way a 2 MHz 6809 (8/16 bit hybrid) running OS9 would run circles
around a 40MHz Intel 8086 (pure 16 bit confusion).
The comparison used to be made with the Z80 having a block move instruction
that could move a whole block of memory from A to B in on instruction.
However the 6809 could set the block move up and complete the task in less
code and faster using discreet codes.
Intel has always made confusion supporting even the 4040 opcodes in Pentium
IV chips today. Who writes that kind of crap?
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:7kcde0hucpqi0r804...@4ax.com...
J...@no.komm
"Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote:
>Why are you camparing a 68040, what from 1978 with the 80386, what from 1988
>maybe?
Huh? I was comparing contemporaries; the 486DX, and the 68040, both
1993. The intel was much faster at many things, especially floating
point math and memory access.
>I doubt the 68040, made for the current toy market is where Motorola
>stopped.
They leaped to 68060, and stopped there. About 2x the performance per
clock than the 68040.
>Another interesting little tidbit. One Motorola processor clock cycle
>performs many microcode operations inside the CPU as compared to Intel's 8
>machine cycles that become one clock cycle. Or is it the other way around?
>This is way a 2 MHz 6809 (8/16 bit hybrid) running OS9 would run circles
>around a 40MHz Intel 8086 (pure 16 bit confusion).
I don't beleive that.
>The comparison used to be made with the Z80 having a block move instruction
>that could move a whole block of memory from A to B in on instruction.
>However the 6809 could set the block move up and complete the task in less
>code and faster using discreet codes.
>
>Intel has always made confusion supporting even the 4040 opcodes in Pentium
>IV chips today. Who writes that kind of crap?
Every time I upgraded my Amiga system to a new CPU, 68000->68030,
68030->68040, I lost software. Software that ran on the old CPU
wouldn't run on a later CPU generation. I never lost anything with the
x86 series and the Athlons I've used.
Gymmy Bob
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:6q5ge0hcvklm2fkd2...@4ax.com...
J...@no.komm
"Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote:
>I am not interested in Ping Pong video games or Wordstar anymore anyway.
Then you should care even less about backward compatibility. Do you
have a point, or are you just rambling?
Gymmy Bob
get with your brainless, unthought out comments?
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:vhgge0p31eaqflord...@4ax.com...
John McWilliams
> That was my point. Can you read or do you just mouth off every chance you
> get with your brainless, unthought out comments?
>
Or is this simply projection??
--
John McWilliams
J...@no.komm
"Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote:
>That was my point.
Really? I thought you had just *complained* about intel chip
developments breaking old code.
>Can you read or do you just mouth off every chance you
>get with your brainless, unthought out comments?
Every once in a while I mouth off without thinking, but most of the
time, I tend to be spot-on.
BTW, what is an unthought "out" comment, or did you really mean,
"un-thought-out"?
><J...@no.komm> wrote in message
>news:vhgge0p31eaqflord...@4ax.com...
>> In message <J7idnXG7YO0...@golden.net>,
>> "Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote:
>>
>> >I am not interested in Ping Pong video games or Wordstar anymore anyway.
>>
>> Then you should care even less about backward compatibility. Do you
>> have a point, or are you just rambling?
[snip]
Why do you quote my .sig?
David W. Poole, Jr.
> In message <WOCdncXL1ds...@golden.net>,
> "Gymmy Bob" <nospa...@bite.me> wrote:
> > >Another interesting little tidbit. One Motorola processor clock cycle
> >performs many microcode operations inside the CPU as compared to Intel's 8
> >machine cycles that become one clock cycle. Or is it the other way around?
> >This is way a 2 MHz 6809 (8/16 bit hybrid) running OS9 would run circles
> >around a 40MHz Intel 8086 (pure 16 bit confusion).
>
> I don't beleive that.
Too bad, 'cause I've seen it in action. Windows 95/NT *finally*
brought multi-tasking to a level from Microsoft/Intel that I had with
OS/9 and Motorola in the mid 80's.
David W. Poole, Jr.
> David W. Poole, Jr. wrote:
>
> >
> > Regardless, how much further do you think the computing environment
> > would have advanced had the masses rallied behind the better
> > technologies that failed, to be survived by the shit heap that is
> > Microsoft and Intel?
>
>
> Time to move on. Bitter reflection on the past did not build
> anything.
Well, the practical application of the current is an indication that
much less has been built than could have been possible if not for the
Microsoft/Intel cartel.
I personally prefer to see innovation in the field of technology, but
so far Microsoft and Intel appear to advance technology at a much
slower rate than other entities.
Sabineellen
>Well, the practical application of the current is an indication that
>much less has been built than could have been possible if not for the
>Microsoft/Intel cartel.
>
>I personally prefer to see innovation in the field of technology, but
>so far Microsoft and Intel appear to advance technology at a much
>slower rate than other entities.
>
>
Use PalmOS for a month or two and once used to it it'll strike you what a lousy
job microsoft did with windows in terms of usability and reliability. The
PocketPC version of windows is awful too and has the same problems as the
desktop one. I wish there was a PalmOS-like for the desktop.
Gymmy Bob
buy premade ones or else they were not available. I still do not
understand why Microsoft or even Unix could not adopt it's memory handling
features and check modules against corruption by checksums when loading.
Costs nothing in time.
The other feature I used to like is we could all run some 48K byte package
in memory and 5 of us could run it simultaneously in 64K of memory without
complaint. Of course memory was a bit more expensive back then. Most of the
big systems just hang if you did that now. The re-entrant, address
independant code used to be fun to write knowing it wouldn't even know where
it was until run time.
"David W. Poole, Jr." <DieSpammersD...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
message news:95a7672d.04070...@posting.google.com...
Jose Marques
> Use PalmOS for a month or two and once used to it it'll strike you what
> a lousy job microsoft did with windows in terms of usability and
> reliability. The PocketPC version of windows is awful too and has the
> same problems as the desktop one. I wish there was a PalmOS-like for the
> desktop.
--
Jose Marques
Sabineellen
>> a lousy job microsoft did with windows in terms of usability and
>> reliability. The PocketPC version of windows is awful too and has the
>> same problems as the desktop one. I wish there was a PalmOS-like for the
>> desktop.
>
> http://www.apple.com/
Thanks. I'm familiar with Apple. I'm still more impressed with PalmOS though.
Especially that now I use an iPaq (hardware choice), I really miss the 100%
reliability and unmatched usability that PalmOS has, and the simplicity, oh the
simplicity.
With regard to Apple, i had to give up on that. It may sound strange for me to
say that I consider windows XP more usable (when it works! though somewhat less
reliable) than Apple OSX, but it's true IMHO. I'm more impressed though with
Openoffice, GIMP 2, Mozilla, firefox... those are great apps.
David Kilpatrick
Mapanari wrote:
> "Peter File" <ted_mau...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrotenews:2k5jl9F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
>
>>>There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
>>>shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
>>>you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
>>>With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
>>>body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
>>>sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
>>
>>Fuckin hell not this guy again. Are Sigma really that desparate they
>>have to resort to spamming newsgroups?
>>
>>
>>
>
> It may be spam, or not, but Consumers Reports says the same thing. They're
> the only ones with that technology and a 6 mp camera of theirs is equivlent
> to a 14 of any others!
>
>
It is also completely untrue. The Sigma camera bodies do not incorporate
any kind of anti-shake mechanism. What they do incorporate is a
mirror-up function, and both a 2sec and 10sec self timer. Those are the
only aids to improving shake freedom and have little relevance to long
lenses, at all.
The new Konica Minolta DSLR will have in-body anti shake, and on the
basis of my experience with the A2 and also with Panasonic's in-body
anti-shake on their consumer cams, it should make a worthwhile
difference to pictures.
I was shooting a couple of days ago with the Sigma using exposures like
1/4 on a tripod with mirror up, and while static subjects are fine, anti
shake - or indeed a tripod - couldn't deal with the slight movement of
apples on branches. To get best quality from the Sigma, it's desirable
to shoot at ISO 100 though 400 is not as bad as some make out. However,
I stick to 100, and shoot a batch of exposures to pick out the sharpest
under these conditions. The quality is equivalent to a higher pixel
count, and I chose to use the SD10 rather than a Kodak 14 megapixel
Pro/c, which I've also got here, for these shots - it renders low light
with less noise, and has a nicer image look for natural history (the
main subject I was shooting was an impressive family of giant puffball
fungi ranging from a few inches to a foot across, which have appeared in
my orchard). Destined to become 48 megabyte files for Alamy picture
library, and like it or not, the Sigma does that job better than the 14
megapixel Kodak.
David
Tony Spadaro
inclined to believe this is not Goerge, note his email address before you
killfile the ahole.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Mapanari" <an-non...@fakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns955717FBAC14...@63.223.5.246...
> "Peter File" <ted_mau...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrotenews:2k5jl9F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> >> There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
> >> shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
> >> you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
> >> With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
> >> body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
> >> sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
> >
> > Fuckin hell not this guy again. Are Sigma really that desparate they
> > have to resort to spamming newsgroups?
> >
> >
> >
> It may be spam, or not, but Consumers Reports says the same thing.
They're
> the only ones with that technology and a 6 mp camera of theirs is
equivlent
> to a 14 of any others!
>
>
> --
> ---Mapanari---
>
Alan Browne
> Sod off George - a New alias only makes your lies into more lies. For anyone
> inclined to believe this is not Goerge, note his email address before you
> killfile the ahole.
Just ignore it Spadaro. We can make our own decisions on who to
killfile without your, er, "leadership".
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Skip M
news:Xns955717FBAC14...@63.223.5.246...
> "Peter File" <ted_mau...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrotenews:2k5jl9F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> >> There are alot of other nice pluses. Like for example, if you want to
> >> shoot handheld using long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds with Canon
> >> you would need to spend a fortune on lenses with image stabilization.
> >> With the Sigma, this feature is already incorporated into the camera
> >> body. And don't forget about the highly acclaimed Foveon X3 image
> >> sensor, which is the only true color sensor that exists today.
> >
> > Fuckin hell not this guy again. Are Sigma really that desparate they
> > have to resort to spamming newsgroups?
> >
> >
> >
> It may be spam, or not, but Consumers Reports says the same thing.
They're
> the only ones with that technology and a 6 mp camera of theirs is
equivlent
> to a 14 of any others!
>
>
> --
> ---Mapanari---
>
How can I put this clearly? Sigma does not put any form of image
stabilization into its cameras. This is an out and out lie meant to mislead
those who are in search of a DSLR with no experience in SLR bodies. Steve
G. and his aliases has been spreading this one for several months, and it
is, in no way, shape or form, true. If it were true, why does Sigma make a
stabilization lens of their own in their own mount?
As far as claims that x mp of a Foveon is equivalent to y mp of any other
mfr, while not an out and out lie, it is a serious bending of the truth. In
THEORY, Foveon color res should be on a par with much larger sensors, but
they haven't been able to get that in practice. Since their sensors are
smaller, the luminance res is lower, no matter what CR says. And to say
that a 6mp camera of theirs is the equivalent of 14mp of any others is just
bollocks, since Sigma doesn't make a 6mp camera. If you squint a little,
the Sigma 3.4 mp (which is what it really is) camera produces results close
to the Nikon D70 and Canon 10D, which it should, since the Sigma SD10 costs
in the same neighborhood as the Canon. It is seriously outperformed by the
Canon 1D mkII, 1Ds and Kodak DCS Pro/n and /c. And from the look of the
tests of pre release bodies, the Canon 20D, at the same $1500 price point,
seriously outperforms it, too. And don't even mention the SD9, a
discontinued camera that is being sold for prices in the area of $700, it is
a pretty poor performer, with issues that Sigma addressed with the SD10.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Tony Spadaro
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
news:2uqZc.46561$bT1.11216@fed1read07...