Canon dSLR's
Matalog
you take a photograph) was actually a recording and could be turned off (and
I don't mean by stopping the mirror from coming down). Is this true? In
any of the cameras in the canon dslr range?
acl
Remove the lens, and, while looking at the mirror, release the
shutter. Is the sound a recording?
Eric Miller
"Matalog" <mat...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%ruii.9321$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
DSLR's have the mirrors that make the sound. So there is no need for a
recording in a DSLR.
Some Non-DSLR's do have a sound recording because they have no mirror and/or
no shutter to make the characteristic shutter and mirror slap sound. In the
one that I own, a Canon Powershot G2, the sound can be turned off.
It is my guess that the quiet, shutterless and mirrorless cameras would
prove to be frustrating to many people if the recording was not played to
let them know when the photo had been taken.
Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com
Gordon
I loaned a Sony Cybershot to a friend and had turned the shutter sound
off some time ago (it was annoying to me). She was to take a bunch of
wedding photos and thought she had, as she said she pushed the shutter
button. She brought the camera back and asked if I would retrieve her
photos only to find out she actually took no photos... very
disappointed was she...
Jim
Robert Coe
She never looked at the screen to see the picture she just "took"?
Bob
Ali
Also, not an answer to your post (as that has already been answered), but
just as additional info, with the Canon 1D Mark III, there is a setting for
'soft mode' to make the noise a bit softer.
And, if you want to hear a shutter on a camera that will knock your socks
off, listen to the 1D Mark III here at 10fps: ;-))))
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Sounds/Canon-EOS-1D-Mark-III-10fps-Burst.mp3
"Eric Miller" <millerer...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%Auii.7685$3a....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
Matalog
"Ali" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:z--dnf9MvtcnFxfb...@pipex.net...
> Eric gave a pretty good summary.
>
> Also, not an answer to your post (as that has already been answered), but
> just as additional info, with the Canon 1D Mark III, there is a setting
> for 'soft mode' to make the noise a bit softer.
Well that explains it. The person that told me is a 1d owner, so he must
have meant the soft mode, although he did say that you couldn't hear it
atall, and he said (wrongly assumed?) that it's the same for all canon
dslrs.
He is obviously mixed up.
Thanks for the answers everyone.
Matalog
"Eric Miller" <millerer...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%Auii.7685$3a....@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
>
> news:%ruii.9321$nE2....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
>> Someone told me that the sound of the mirror moving (the sound you hear
>> when you take a photograph) was actually a recording and could be turned
>> off (and I don't mean by stopping the mirror from coming down). Is this
>> true? In any of the cameras in the canon dslr range?
>>
>
> DSLR's have the mirrors that make the sound. So there is no need for a
> recording in a DSLR.
That is what I thought, and why I had to ask the question.
Thanks for answering.
Gordon
Apparently not...
Jim
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:17:35 -0400, Gordon <jimmyga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : I loaned a Sony Cybershot to a friend and had turned the shutter sound
> : off some time ago (it was annoying to me). She was to take a bunch of
> : wedding photos and thought she had, as she said she pushed the shutter
> : button. She brought the camera back and asked if I would retrieve her
> : photos only to find out she actually took no photos... very
> : disappointed was she...
>
> She never looked at the screen to see the picture she just "took"?
>
I can't speak for her, but I can give you my take on this. I will
check the screen when I do the first shot or two to make sure the
lighting is coming out right. But after that, I rarely look at the
screen. I am busy shooting, and my job is to have my eye in the
viewfinder. I admit that I can usually see some light from screen, so
I am aware that something is being displayed. But a lot of
photographers are secure enough in their skills that they aren't
checking the screen on a regular basis.
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:07:38 -0700, acl <achilleas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> This is reason #3 (out of a list of 100+ of them) of why a DSLR design is
> useless, especially for any worthwhile nature-photography of any kind. Unless
> you love shooting "wild" animals at the zoo and from behind glass so the sound
> of the camera won't disturb their "normal" captive-animal behavior.
Hmmm, so all those pro photographers with their DSLRs
don't know what they are doing?
>
> The wonderful slapping and swishing sounds of the DSLR mirror and shutter. They
> even record it and put it in as a sound-event in cameras that don't have it,
> just to reassure the idiots who are using the better P&S cameras that a photo is
> being taken. What a wonderful sound to make when you are in a blind just 15 ft.
> from a mountain-lion feeding on its prey. Or when having just slowly crept to
> within 3 feet from the gaping jaws of 18 ft. alligator that's basking in the
> sun.
Well, that's real smart! Of course with a DSLR you can put on
a long lens and BE AT BOTH A SAFE DISTANCE AND FAR ENOUGH
AWAY THAT YOU DON'T STRESS THE ANIMAL.
Yes, it's doable, if you are careful, and quiet, I have the close-up "gator
> jaw & eye" photos to prove it.
Yeah, real smart.
> You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and shove them
> where the sun don't shine. The very first thing I do on any better P&S camera is
> to disable all sound-events just to make sure it's not emulating the uselessness
> of a DSLR.
You must be a troll, and idiot or both.
I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
These cheetahs, lions, and other animals never reacted
to mirror slap:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa
These grizzly bears never reacted to the mirror slap:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear
These birds never reacted to mirror slap:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird
Roger
Randall Ainsworth
<wr...@noplace.info> wrote:
> You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and shove them
> where the sun don't shine. The very first thing I do on any better P&S camera
> is
> to disable all sound-events just to make sure it's not emulating the
> uselessness
> of a DSLR.
Have you been retarded all of your life?
King Sardon
to rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
>the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
>when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
>there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
>lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
I noticed that capucin monkeys in the tree tops in Costa Rica reacted
to the very soft in-focus "chirp" that my Rebel made. Didn't scare
them, exactly, but they heard it clearly.
KS
Unclaimed Mysteries
> X-Man wrote in part:
>>
>> The wonderful slapping and swishing sounds of the DSLR mirror and
>> shutter. They even record it and put it in as a sound-event in
>> cameras that don't have it, just to reassure the idiots who are
>> using the better P&S cameras that a photo is being taken.
>
I agree. Slapping and especially swishing sounds send the WRONG MESSAGE
to all who hear it. I want a bold sonic statement that commands manly
respect for my pro-grade P&S camera, and for me. Here's my camera
shutter sound event:
http://blog.rickbreslin.com/extras/doink_doink.wav
Pick up on it.
>> You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and
>> shove them where the sun don't shine.
Now that's an innovative mirror-slap sound suppression technique. Please
report back to us on your results.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
frie...@zoocrewphoto.com
<usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
> I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
> the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
> when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
> there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
> lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
>
And of course, people have photographed them with a variety of cameras
long before digital cameras. I can't imagine trying to get
professional quality images on a consistent basis with a little point
and shoot. I much prefer the option of longer lenses as well as fast
lenses for when I am shooting in low light areas and need to capture
action.
I have had animals react to the camera sounds, a few showing fear, but
they were fearful already. A lot of cats respond with curiosity, so I
sometimes shoot once just to get them to look, and the take the real
shot right afterward.
The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
spooky. She was being worked on a long lead, and I wanted to get a
series of her trotting. Kind of like the classic photos of a trot that
are showin in books. Well, the motor drive on the camera was noisy,
and she scooted forward, slipped, and fell. After that, she spooked
every time she passed me for the next couple minutes even though I
wasn't shooting. I learned to watch their reactions to single shots
and not shoot spooky animals if they are too close to me.
Unclaimed Mysteries
> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
> spooky. She was being worked on a long lead, and I wanted to get a
> series of her trotting. Kind of like the classic photos of a trot that
> are showin in books. Well, the motor drive on the camera was noisy,
> and she scooted forward, slipped, and fell. After that, she spooked
> every time she passed me for the next couple minutes even though I
> wasn't shooting. I learned to watch their reactions to single shots
> and not shoot spooky animals if they are too close to me.
>
I am SO sorry but I just had to see this part again.
Louis des Tombe
in news:468B254D...@qwest.net:
> I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
> the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
> when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
> there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
> lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
I have different experiences. I do mostly birds. I often see that they
react to the click noise my 20D makes. Some dislike it and fly away, e.g. a
white breasted nuthatch that I photographed. Others are curious and turn
their head to take a look. I sometimes use this fact and take a picture
when the bird is looking away, to get a better position of the head and
eye.
One day I met a bobcat who came for a drink. It did not mind my moving
towards the camera (which was on a tripod of course), but when it started
clicking the animal calmly walked away.
Of course this bobcat thing could be a coincidence but the birds behaviors
are most certainly not.
In case somebody is interested, some of these pictures, including that
nuthatch and that bobcat, are here: http://www.destombe.nl/np/cc-07/
--
Louis
fishermac
Roger save your time X man is a sad jealous Troll who just comes on
here to wind people up he is the man who cannot afford the equipment
and so slags off every who can, no doubt he start on again about how
wonderful Photoline 32 is over photoshop as well in the coming days
Steve
Chris Malcolm
> On Jul 3, 9:42 pm, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
> <usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
>> I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
>> the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
>> when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
>> there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
>> lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
> And of course, people have photographed them with a variety of cameras
> long before digital cameras. I can't imagine trying to get
> professional quality images on a consistent basis with a little point
> and shoot.
In the old days of wet film technology Leica made a rather good small
point and shoot which was very popular with professionals :-)
> I have had animals react to the camera sounds, a few showing fear, but
> they were fearful already. A lot of cats respond with curiosity, so I
> sometimes shoot once just to get them to look, and the take the real
> shot right afterward.
> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
> spooky. She was being worked on a long lead, and I wanted to get a
> series of her trotting. Kind of like the classic photos of a trot that
> are showin in books. Well, the motor drive on the camera was noisy,
> and she scooted forward, slipped, and fell. After that, she spooked
> every time she passed me for the next couple minutes even though I
> wasn't shooting. I learned to watch their reactions to single shots
> and not shoot spooky animals if they are too close to me.
I've never tried to photograph animals other than local semi-urban
wildlife, but when close to them so many of them took off after the
first shutter clack that I always carried my rangefinder 35mm with its
silent shutter for close work.
Silent operation is also very useful when photographing anthropoid
wild life in its natural habitat of cafes, shops, pubs, etc.. These
large animals sometimes get very aggressive when they suspect you of
photographing them, and they're smart enough to know what's going on
when they see a long lens pointing at them from a distance even when
they can't hear the mirror clack.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Robert Coe
<frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
As you say, she would only have had to check the first shot or two to have at
least established that she knew how to turn the camera on.
I've been taking pictures off and on for almost sixty years, and I'm not
secure enough in my skills to start clicking away with an unfamiliar camera
without even once looking to see whether I'm actually getting anything. ;^)
Bob
acl
<usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
> X-Man wrote:
>
> > You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and shove them
> > where the sun don't shine. The very first thing I do on any better P&S camera is
> > to disable all sound-events just to make sure it's not emulating the uselessness
> > of a DSLR.
>
> You must be a troll, and idiot or both.
Very perceptive :)
Allen
also. The two words come close to being synonyms.
Allen
Bill Funk
>The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
>spooky.
OK, I know a letter was left off here, but the question remains:
What letter, exactly?
:-)
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Barack Obama on Sunday reported his campaign
raised thirty-two million dollars in the second
quarter. He beat Hillary Clinton by ten million
dollars. His donations come from Democrats who
are exhausted by the whole Clinton psychodrama,
while her donations come from comedians who only
want to work half-days for the next eight years.
Bill Funk
>Save your time, Steve is just a Troll who comes on here to try to justify why he
>wasted all his money on an overpriced and limited functioning DSLR. He can't
>face up to the fact that people with even more money than him don't want to
>waste it on something as useless as a noisy, mirror-slapping, image-shaking,
>last-century's design DSLR for wildlife photography. Some people are smarter
>than him and are even better at photography and KNOW what is the better camera
>for the intended purposes. He just can't live with those FACTS, so he tries to
>declare anyone that's more wealthy, knowledgeable, talented, and experienced
>than him must be a troll.
Don't be a tease!
Tell us who these "some people" are, and what cameras they use, and
why.
Bill Funk
>Awww... the now-poorer DSLR fools can't handle being proven wrong yet again. :-)
You haven't proven anything yet.
Well, other than that you are good at flapping your lips.
John McWilliams
>
> As you say, she would only have had to check the first shot or two to have at
> least established that she knew how to turn the camera on.
>
> I've been taking pictures off and on for almost sixty years, and I'm not
> secure enough in my skills to start clicking away with an unfamiliar camera
> without even once looking to see whether I'm actually getting anything. ;^)
Ain't it handy now? Don't ever need to check if the film is advancing,
something I tried to make sure I did before the first shot. Now the
little screen just lights up.....
--
john mcwilliams
Randall Ainsworth
<"frie...@zoocrewphoto.com"> wrote:
> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
> spooky. She was being worked on a long lead, and I wanted to get a
> series of her trotting. Kind of like the classic photos of a trot that
> are showin in books. Well, the motor drive on the camera was noisy,
> and she scooted forward, slipped, and fell. After that, she spooked
> every time she passed me for the next couple minutes even though I
> wasn't shooting. I learned to watch their reactions to single shots
> and not shoot spooky animals if they are too close to me.
Yeah, every time I photograph hores they get spooked at the sound of
the mirror slap. :-)
m II
> frie...@zoocrewphoto.com wrote in part:
>
>> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
>> spooky.
> I am SO sorry but I just had to see this part again.
It's not a big deal..the 'S' is missing.
Mind you, if I were immature, it would be an absent 'W'.
mike
Unclaimed Mysteries
And he did NOTHING to deserve any ridicule. We all makes spelling
errors, especially in the notoriously irregular English language.
Sometimes they make no difference except to grammar nazis. But other
times, they are COMEDY GOLD to those in the right frame of mind.
In the gutter, of course.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
"You know, I had a computer once. It tried to KILL me."
-Space Ghost
JohnR66
news:tn9m831a0qq06jko5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:42:53 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Roger
>
> Oooo, lookie Martha! The tourist shot photos from a tour bus!
>
> Get some real photos sometime.
>
What camera do you suggest be used?
A super zoom point and shoot? Very few go beyond the equivelent field of
view as a 400mm lens in 35mm format. and I've not seen any that can compare
to the image quality produced by a dslr and a high end super telephoto lens.
Jürgen Exner
> This is reason #3 (out of a list of 100+ of them) of why a DSLR
> design is useless, especially for any worthwhile nature-photography
> of any kind.
I am sure you can suggest as useful design?
jue
Joe Makowiec
> In the old days of wet film technology Leica made a rather good small
> point and shoot which was very popular with professionals :-)
Yeahbbut... those Leicas had interchangable lenses.
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
Robert Coe
On a vacation trip about 30 years ago, I once neglected to make sure that the
takeup spool of my Nikon had fully engaged the film leader. I was up around 45
exposures on a 36-exposure roll before it dawned on me that I was firing
blanks. I've been pretty damn careful not to repeat that error (or any of its
digital counterparts) ever since. :^|
Bob
Paul J Gans
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:07:38 -0700, acl <achilleas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> This is reason #3 (out of a list of 100+ of them) of why a DSLR design is
>> useless, especially for any worthwhile nature-photography of any kind. Unless
>> you love shooting "wild" animals at the zoo and from behind glass so the sound
>> of the camera won't disturb their "normal" captive-animal behavior.
>Hmmm, so all those pro photographers with their DSLRs
>don't know what they are doing?
>>
>> The wonderful slapping and swishing sounds of the DSLR mirror and shutter. They
>> even record it and put it in as a sound-event in cameras that don't have it,
>> just to reassure the idiots who are using the better P&S cameras that a photo is
>> being taken. What a wonderful sound to make when you are in a blind just 15 ft.
>> from a mountain-lion feeding on its prey. Or when having just slowly crept to
>> within 3 feet from the gaping jaws of 18 ft. alligator that's basking in the
>> sun.
>Well, that's real smart! Of course with a DSLR you can put on
>a long lens and BE AT BOTH A SAFE DISTANCE AND FAR ENOUGH
>AWAY THAT YOU DON'T STRESS THE ANIMAL.
>Yes, it's doable, if you are careful, and quiet, I have the close-up "gator
>> jaw & eye" photos to prove it.
>Yeah, real smart.
>> You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and shove them
>> where the sun don't shine. The very first thing I do on any better P&S camera is
>> to disable all sound-events just to make sure it's not emulating the uselessness
>> of a DSLR.
>You must be a troll, and idiot or both.
>I have photographed animals all over the world, and not once has
>the slap of a mirror startled or affected any animal behavior
>when I have photographed them. The animals always know you are
>there, and the most important factor is having a long enough
>lens to get the shots you want without disturbing the animals.
>These cheetahs, lions, and other animals never reacted
>to mirror slap:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.africa
>These grizzly bears never reacted to the mirror slap:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bear
>These birds never reacted to mirror slap:
>http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird
>Roger
I suspect that the OP doesn't have a camera with a
really long lens since he only buys P&S cameras.
He can't shoot in low light either.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Ray Fischer
> acl <achilleas...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>On Jul 3, 8:04 pm, "Matalog" <mata...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> Someone told me that the sound of the mirror moving (the sound you hear when
>>> you take a photograph) was actually a recording and could be turned off (and
>>> I don't mean by stopping the mirror from coming down). Is this true? In
>>> any of the cameras in the canon dslr range?
>>
>>Remove the lens, and, while looking at the mirror, release the
>>shutter. Is the sound a recording?
>
>This is reason #3 (out of a list of 100+ of them) of why a DSLR design is
>useless, especially for any worthwhile nature-photography of any kind. Unless
>you love shooting "wild" animals at the zoo and from behind glass so the sound
>of the camera won't disturb their "normal" captive-animal behavior.
>
>even record it and put it in as a sound-event in cameras that don't have it,
>just to reassure the idiots who are using the better P&S cameras that a photo is
>being taken. What a wonderful sound to make when you are in a blind just 15 ft.
I can put a 2500mm lens on my dSLR.
How long a lens does your toy P&S have?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Jürgen Exner
> DSLR fan-boys are so fun to tease. They can't handle ***THE FACT****
> that there ARE better cameras than DSLRs. LOL!!!!!!!!!!
1: "Better" by which metric? Without talking about the metric this
discussion is about as pointless as a discussion about if there is better
transportation than cars.
2: You still haven't provided any suggestions at to _WHICH_ cameras or
camera designs are better (by whatever metric) than SLRs.
jue
Ray Macey
> You haven't proven anything yet.
Actually, I think he's given conclusive proof that he is an expert
troll :)
Ray
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> one P&S
> model I own that will even take photos in total darkness without flash
OOOOOOH I want one, I want one! Please tell me what model
that is so I go rush out and buy one!
David J. Littleboy
The Sony F707/F717 have a built-in IR light source that can be used both for
focusing in the dark prior to a flash shot and for IR imaging.
Unfortunately, the IR function forces the (f/2.0-f/2.4!!!) lens wide open,
so it's not usable outdoors. Sigh.
Nice cameras for P&S models, actually. The swivel body is nice for waist
level and overhead shooting without having to worry about an easily-broken
LCD hinge. Mine was retired for medium format film about the time that the
A/B tests of the 5MP F707 and 3MP D30 showed that the D30 trounced the F707
for image quality. The F707 had nasty problems rendering reds and the F717
ran afoul of the bad batch of Sony CCDs.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Paul J Gans
>--
>THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
>Barack Obama on Sunday reported his campaign
>raised thirty-two million dollars in the second
>quarter. He beat Hillary Clinton by ten million
>dollars. His donations come from Democrats who
>are exhausted by the whole Clinton psychodrama,
>while her donations come from comedians who only
>want to work half-days for the next eight years.
I understand that it is not to be taken seriously.
But we don't need political wars to add to our
troll, idiot, and spamming problems.
Paul J Gans
He wants you to use his 10.2 megapixel point&shoot at
dusk with his 12-800mm hyperzoom lens.
I'd bet you can't get the sparkle in the dark regions
that he gets. And he gets nice color fringes too. And
neat outlines on contrasty things when he turns the
sharpening up.
David J. Littleboy
"CharleiD" <spam...@noaddress.net> wrote in message
news:38ko835n1gk430q96...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 10:51:44 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>The Sony F707/F717 have a built-in IR light source that can be used both
>>for
>>focusing in the dark prior to a flash shot and for IR imaging.
>>Unfortunately, the IR function forces the (f/2.0-f/2.4!!!) lens wide open,
>>so it's not usable outdoors. Sigh.
>>
>
> possible
> by using the proper filters to reduce daylight IR levels (and remove all
> visible
> light) to those within range of the camera's night-vision modes settings.
The F707/F717 lens is way sharper at f/5.6 than it is wide open, so one
takes a big hit in image quality over one's other images, which already
weren't good enough for what I wanted.
Ray Macey
>
> What a fucking joke.
No, the joke is that you've gotten such a vitriolic response to your
deliberately overly emotionally stated claims of what could
theoretically be a valid opinion.
The joke is that people still feed the trolls, because whether or not
you genuinely believe the opinion you're throwing around here, you're
still trolling
Mark B.
news:tn9m831a0qq06jko5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:42:53 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
> rnclark)" <user...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>>Roger
>
> Oooo, lookie Martha! The tourist shot photos from a tour bus!
>
> Get some real photos sometime.
>
Then please by all means, post links to your photos.
fishermac
>
>>
>>
>>Roger save your time X man is a sad jealous Troll who just comes on
>>here to wind people up he is the man who cannot afford the equipment
>>and so slags off every who can, no doubt he start on again about how
>>wonderful Photoline 32 is over photoshop as well in the coming days
>>
>>Steve
>
>Save your time, Steve is just a Troll who comes on here to try to justify why he
>wasted all his money on an overpriced and limited functioning DSLR. He can't
>face up to the fact that people with even more money than him don't want to
>waste it on something as useless as a noisy, mirror-slapping, image-shaking,
>last-century's design DSLR for wildlife photography. Some people are smarter
>than him and are even better at photography and KNOW what is the better camera
>for the intended purposes. He just can't live with those FACTS, so he tries to
>declare anyone that's more wealthy, knowledgeable, talented, and experienced
>than him must be a troll.
>
>Now go crawl back under your arm-chair-photography rock you useless moron.
Oh dear x man seems to be so upset it must be hard for you to be so
jealous and bitter and twisted wanting the better equipment but not
being able to afford it so you have to rubbish every one else. come on
lets have the good old photolins is best trick next I havent heard
that one in a while.
Just remember as I am rich I can afford DSLR and I also have the best
P&S as well to play with and each tool has its place but because you
are poor and sad you cant use both types of equipment so you never
know what a shame poor old sad x man
Also I never said i was a good photographer I think i am just average
who can afford to buy what i like unlike you who probably have never
even took a photo in his life with a camera
Poor sad lonely x man billy no mates
fishermac
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 07:24:54 -0500, Allen <al...@nothere.net> wrote:
>
>>acl wrote:
>>> On Jul 4, 8:42 am, "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)"
>>> <usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>> X-Man wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You can take your noisy mirror-slapping, image-shaking DSLR's and shove them
>>>>> where the sun don't shine. The very first thing I do on any better P&S camera is
>>>>> to disable all sound-events just to make sure it's not emulating the uselessness
>>>>> of a DSLR.
>>>> You must be a troll, and idiot or both.
>>>
>>> Very perceptive :)
>>>
>>Most of the people in either of those categories fall into the other,
>>also. The two words come close to being synonyms.
>>Allen
>
>Awww... the now-poorer DSLR fools can't handle being proven wrong yet again. :-)
The poor trailer trash x man strikes again
fishermac
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:15:12 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>
>>You haven't proven anything yet.
>
>Do your own research and real-life testing like I did. You can't afford what it
>would cost for my research and testing services. I was very surprised how many
>"toy" P&S cameras surpass the image quality and capabilities of nearly all DSLRs
>with those overpriced glass paperweights that you have to buy for them. Some P&S
>cameras have beaten DSLRs for quite a few years now. But you're stuck in the
>immature mindset of "Oooo, I have to impress someone because some
>self-proclaimed idiot, fool, and asswipe told me that a DSLR is the only pro
>equipment."
>
>What a fucking joke.
Then x man woke up from his dream and found he is still poor and
wished he could afford a DSLR and Photoshop
fishermac
>
>I can backpack 3 P&S cameras with better image quality than a DSLR (one P&S
>model I own that will even take photos in total darkness without flash), hauling
>them for 9 months in the wilderness to take images that you can never even get
>to with that 2500mm lens in even one short day-hike. Let me guess, you need a
>motorized vehicle and volunteers to haul all that lame-assed back-breaking and
>bank-breaking equipment, and by the time you have it set up .... ooops too late,
>the sun has already set! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>DSLR fan-boys are so fun to tease. They can't handle ***THE FACT**** that there
>ARE better cameras than DSLRs. LOL!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Keep trying dslr-fan-boy, I'm sure you'll find SOME way to justify why you
>wasted all your time, money, and energy on that overpriced noisemaker built
>around century-old optic designs. Don't you just hate it when you found out
>you've been duped into something by advertising hype and less-experienced
>advice? Buy another DSLR body and 20 overpriced lenses to make it even remotely
>functional, I'm sure those CEO's will love their new yacht that you bought for
>them from your own stupidity.
>
>Someone call P.T. Barnum, he's missing out on the best laugh of the century.
X man you have to let me know what drugs you take to get dreams like
this
One other question are you related to D Mac from Austrialia as he has
wonderful dreams like you
fishermac
>On 04 Jul 2007 22:10:40 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>
>>I can put a 2500mm lens on my dSLR.
>
>And for the record, I can put a 16" dia. telescope on my P&S camera (or more)
>reaching 35mm equivalent lens-focal-lengths up to 112,000 mm. Your claim to
>lenses is just as futile as the rest of the reasons you wasted money on a DSLR.
>Any focal length you can put on a DSLR I can put on a P&S. Focal-length
>availability is just as lame of an excuse as you are.
>
>Keep trying dslr-fan-boy! LOL!!!!!!!!
again xman dreamed he had a camera of his own to use and then he awoke
to find nothing
Allen
blank. Caution: if you print them, be sure to have a large supply of
black ink on hand; one advantage, though, is that the prints looks just
as good when made on a laser printer.
Allen
Bill Funk
wrote:
You say you understand that it's not to be taken seriously, then you
take it seriously.
Who's starting anything here?
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Bill Clinton flew to Iowa Monday to make speeches
with Hillary Clinton before Iowa voters. Iowans
are always sorry to see the Clintons go home.
Whenever Bill and Hillary leave Iowa, the farmers
have to go back to fertilizing the crops themselves.
Bill Funk
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:15:12 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>
>>You haven't proven anything yet.
>
>Do your own research and real-life testing like I did.
Do you even understand the concept of "proof"?
>You can't afford what it
>would cost for my research and testing services. I was very surprised how many
>"toy" P&S cameras surpass the image quality and capabilities of nearly all DSLRs
>with those overpriced glass paperweights that you have to buy for them.
Yet, you produce nothing in the way of proof.
Back up your claims, or be called when you produce buillshit.
>Some P&S
>cameras have beaten DSLRs for quite a few years now. But you're stuck in the
>immature mindset of "Oooo, I have to impress someone because some
>self-proclaimed idiot, fool, and asswipe told me that a DSLR is the only pro
>equipment."
You have no idea what my nindset is, other than calling you on your
bullshit claims.
They remain bullshit until you can provbe them.
>
>What a fucking joke.
Yes you are.
Bullshit.
King Sardon
wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:40:02 -0500, X-Man <wr...@noplace.info> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:15:12 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You haven't proven anything yet.
>>
>>Do your own research and real-life testing like I did.
>
>Do you even understand the concept of "proof"?
>>You can't afford what it
>>would cost for my research and testing services. I was very surprised how many
>>"toy" P&S cameras surpass the image quality and capabilities of nearly all DSLRs
>>with those overpriced glass paperweights that you have to buy for them.
>
>Yet, you produce nothing in the way of proof.
>Back up your claims, or be called when you produce buillshit.
>>Some P&S
>>cameras have beaten DSLRs for quite a few years now. But you're stuck in the
>>immature mindset of "Oooo, I have to impress someone because some
>>self-proclaimed idiot, fool, and asswipe told me that a DSLR is the only pro
>>equipment."
>
>You have no idea what my nindset is, other than calling you on your
>bullshit claims.
>They remain bullshit until you can provbe them.
I was WONDERING what insecure dSLR users would respond to X-Man...
KS
Karl Winkler
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 22:42:53 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>
> rnclark)" <usern...@qwest.net> wrote:
> >Roger
>
> Oooo, lookie Martha! The tourist shot photos from a tour bus!
>
> Get some real photos sometime.
Oooo, lookie everyone, another complete a-hole. Thing is, there's just
so many of them around that they're all getting frustrated due to the
overwhelming lack of positive acknowledgment. How does one cut through
the clutter these days? This stupid turd doesn't even have a pair big
enough so that he uses his real name. So not only is he an a-hole,
he's a coward, too. Did you grow up with rat droppings in your
oatmeal? Your mamma use a wire brush to teach you some manners? Or
maybe you've just run out of spare change enough to buy another bottle
of Thunderbird and make the headaches go away for a few hours. It's a
good thing Usenet is here so you can post your crap for all to see
without a moderator kicking you off the forum. Yay for all of us!
And while you're all revved up, go ahead and show us some of your
photos. I'm sure we'll all be impressed.
-Karl Winkler
John Sheehy
news:f6hiro$t1t$1...@nnrp.gol.com:
> The Sony F707/F717 have a built-in IR light source that can be used
> both for focusing in the dark prior to a flash shot and for IR
> imaging. Unfortunately, the IR function forces the (f/2.0-f/2.4!!!)
> lens wide open, so it's not usable outdoors. Sigh.
With all the hacks out there these days, is there anything for these Sonys?
I loved using the F707 NIR in daylight, but of course the shutter speed and
aperture limitations really put a damper on it (just so that people
couldn't look at black underwear under white clothes! - how ridiculous and
prudish).
Getting RAW files would be nice, too, but they'd have to be big and would
take long to write.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Unclaimed Mysteries
I think this newsgrope is on the verge of being overfished.
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Unclaimed Mysteries
> "David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote in
> news:f6hiro$t1t$1...@nnrp.gol.com:
>
>> The Sony F707/F717 have a built-in IR light source that can be used
>> both for focusing in the dark prior to a flash shot and for IR
>> imaging. Unfortunately, the IR function forces the (f/2.0-f/2.4!!!)
>> lens wide open, so it's not usable outdoors. Sigh.
>
> With all the hacks out there these days, is there anything for these Sonys?
> I loved using the F707 NIR in daylight, but of course the shutter speed and
> aperture limitations really put a damper on it (just so that people
> couldn't look at black underwear under white clothes! - how ridiculous and
> prudish).
>
> Getting RAW files would be nice, too, but they'd have to be big and would
> take long to write.
>
You'd think hax0ring it would be easier than other cameras, maybe just
reversing the logic in the Nightshot mode. But noooooo. And getting Sony
to change their stance on letting the firmware be modded is like talking
to X-man about the benefits of manly, studly dSLRs with long lenses.
I still like the Nightshot-enabled Sony F828 for IR because I lean a lot
on the live preview and histogram in IR. A modded dSLR with live preview
might catch my eye also. Yes, I know it's a crutch. I prefer to think of
it as a tool. Yeah, that's the ticket.
ASAAR
> You must be a troll, and idiot or both.
Indeed he is. He's one of the several childishly offensive and
fanatical Photoline 32 / CHDK (the Russian hack for some Canon P&S
models) sock puppets. Belongs in a lockdown with Baumbadier,
GoKiting, nob...@noplace.org, and RockyZ.
ASAAR
>> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
>> spooky. She was being worked on a long lead, and I wanted to get a
>> series of her trotting. Kind of like the classic photos of a trot that
>> are showin in books. Well, the motor drive on the camera was noisy,
>> and she scooted forward, slipped, and fell. After that, she spooked
>> every time she passed me for the next couple minutes even though I
>> wasn't shooting. I learned to watch their reactions to single shots
>> and not shoot spooky animals if they are too close to me.
>
> I am SO sorry but I just had to see this part again.
It didn't quite reach Parker's level, but was amusing and worth
repeating. Gracias.
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think." -- D.P.
David J. Littleboy
"Unclaimed Mysteries"
>
> I still like the Nightshot-enabled Sony F828 for IR because I lean a lot
> on the live preview and histogram in IR. A modded dSLR with live preview
> might catch my eye also. Yes, I know it's a crutch. I prefer to think of
> it as a tool. Yeah, that's the ticket.
I'm thinking about sending my 300D in to be modded for IR. One place
mentioned that the 10-22 (which I have) requires different AF adjustment,
and I was thinking that I could just make it a dedicated superwide IR
camera. Another place, though, has an option with a deeper IR filter (the
previous place replaces the IR block with a filter that passes some deep
red).
With the mod, you don't get live IR (doh!), and the image on the display
will be mostly red, so hard to interpret. And the 300D is really slow about
saving images and displaying them on the LCD.
ASAAR
>>I can put a 2500mm lens on my dSLR.
>>
>> How long a lens does your toy P&S have?
>
> I can backpack 3 P&S cameras with better image quality than a DSLR (one P&S
> model I own that will even take photos in total darkness without flash), hauling
> them for 9 months in the wilderness to take images that you can never even get
> to with that 2500mm lens in even one short day-hike. Let me guess, you need a
> motorized vehicle and volunteers to haul all that lame-assed back-breaking and
> bank-breaking equipment, and by the time you have it set up .... ooops too late,
> the sun has already set! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ooops, too late. You sock puppets can't keep your alter egos
straight. It was the BaumBadier moron that previously said :
> From: BaumBadier <spam...@antispam.org>
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
> Subject: Re: Asking too much for one bag?
> Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:48:23 -0500
> Message-ID: <6vuj83dmer5bvuneo...@4ax.com>
> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
>
> I've used a Tamrac "Adventurer 8" for the last 4 years. I don't
> know if they make that model anymore. In it I carried 2 advanced
> P&S cameras (DSLRs suck-royal-ass for wilderness treks of any
> extent whatsoever), 3 conversion lenses (fish-eye, wide, & tele),
> external high-powered focusable flash for long-range nighttime
> wild-life photography, IR illumination kit for long-range IR
> nighttime nature photography of nocturnal animals, extra battery packs
> (home-brew & DigiPower), .5W folding solar-panel for charging
> batteries & equipment, misc. filters (IR, special purpose) and
> add-ons (cable releases, etc.), with tripod strapped on the outside.
> When out in the wilds for many months (9 months out of each year)
> I would carry it on the front (quick access to anything I need without
> stopping) with my main backpack on the back. It's been from the top
> of the Rocky Mountains to the dense swamps deep in the Everglades
> photographing the rarest orchids on earth.
HAND, dimwit. <g>
fishermac
wrote:
>
>I was WONDERING what insecure dSLR users would respond to X-Man...
>
>KS
None really just bored peeps like me who like to play with the trolls
every now and again
fishermac
<the_letter_k_and_...@unclaimedmysteries.net> wrote:
>>
>
>I think this newsgrope is on the verge of being overfished.
where where I love fish MMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
Bill Funk
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:56:59 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com>
I don't know.
But I did ask for proof of claims.
Are you one who also thinks DSLRs are only used by fools?
If so, please teall us why.
--
THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!
Al Gore's son was pulled over by cops in Southern
California Tuesday going one hundred miles an hour
in his Prius. He had marijuana, Valium, Xanax and
Vicodin in the car. The Los Angeles Times headline
read, Prius Goes One Hundred Miles an Hour.
Bill Funk
I didn't know you had a 300D. Is it the KISS model?
Unclaimed Mysteries
>
> Al Gore's son was pulled over by cops in Southern
> California Tuesday going one hundred miles an hour
> in his Prius. He had marijuana, Valium, Xanax and
> Vicodin in the car. The Los Angeles Times headline
> read, Prius Goes One Hundred Miles an Hour.
HE IS TEH CHUCK YEAGER OF TEH PRIUS!!!
--
It Came From Corry Lee Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
In a time of deception telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -
George Orwell
David J. Littleboy
"Bill Funk" <Big...@there.com> wrote:
> I didn't know you had a 300D. Is it the KISS model?
http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/38599569/large
Like the EXIF says: Kiss my Rebel ...!
Ray Macey
>
> I don't know.
> But I did ask for proof of claims.
> Are you one who also thinks DSLRs are only used by fools?
> If so, please teall us why.
The only thing he thinks is that by being controversial and demeaning,
he can troll people in to responding like you just did
Ray
fishermac
>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:29:38 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't know.
>>But I did ask for proof of claims.
>>Are you one who also thinks DSLRs are only used by fools?
>>If so, please teall us why.
>
>LOL ...
>
>Sorry to take so long getting back to you, unlike all these armchair
>photographers (like yourself) that live on their keyboards posting all these
>fool replies and questions and have never owned a camera in their lives, let
>alone know how to use one -- I've actually been out taking photos!
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>You cyber-DSLR asswipes are a hoot and half!
>
>Keep on typing!
>
>I'll be out getting more photos. :-)
>
>
Yippee X pratt is back so what you been shooting then with your cheap
.3 mega pixel camera phone that was given to you by the charity shop
Not Disclosed
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 23:21:00 -0700, "frie...@zoocrewphoto.com"
> <frie...@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> The only bad spook I ever had was a hore that was already known to be
>> spooky.
>
> What letter, exactly?
> :-)
>
replace the "o" with an "a" and you'll get an animal that can be
skittish ...
Bill Funk
>On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 09:29:38 -0700, Bill Funk <Big...@there.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I don't know.
>>But I did ask for proof of claims.
>>Are you one who also thinks DSLRs are only used by fools?
>>If so, please teall us why.
>
>LOL ...
>
>Sorry to take so long getting back to you, unlike all these armchair
>photographers (like yourself) that live on their keyboards posting all these
>fool replies and questions and have never owned a camera in their lives, let
>alone know how to use one -- I've actually been out taking photos!
>
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>You cyber-DSLR asswipes are a hoot and half!
>
>Keep on typing!
>
>I'll be out getting more photos. :-)
>
>
Yup, that's what I thought.
Nothing to back up your hot air.
Run for political office; the pay's better.
bob
>>Sorry to take so long getting back to you, unlike all these armchair
>>photographers (like yourself) that live on their keyboards posting all
>>these
>>fool replies and questions and have never owned a camera in their lives,
>>let
>>alone know how to use one -- I've actually been out taking photos!
>>
>>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>>You cyber-DSLR asswipes are a hoot and half!
>>
>>Keep on typing!
>>
>>I'll be out getting more photos. :-)
>>
My my, such an angry young man. Love to see some examples of your work. You
must be very good...
bob
"X-Man" <wr...@noplace.info> wrote in message
news:ic9o83pr7947389hs...@4ax.com...
> On 04 Jul 2007 22:10:40 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>
>>I can put a 2500mm lens on my dSLR.
>
> more)
> reaching 35mm equivalent lens-focal-lengths up to 112,000 mm. Your claim
> to
> lenses is just as futile as the rest of the reasons you wasted money on a
> DSLR.
> Any focal length you can put on a DSLR I can put on a P&S. Focal-length
> availability is just as lame of an excuse as you are.
>
> Keep trying dslr-fan-boy! LOL!!!!!!!!
>
Ooooh, please show me your 112,000 mm afocal shots.
ASAAR
>>> I'll be out getting more photos. :-)
>>>
>
> My my, such an angry young man. Love to see some examples of your
> work. You must be very good...
In his case, "getting out" probably refers not to getting out into
the field to shoot photos, but getting out to a book store, where
the best work is produced by pros. DSLR using pros. <g> And
considering the ethics of this sock puppet (X-Man), they were
probably glommed by stuffing them inside a jacket or down his pants.
Ray Macey
>
> In his case, "getting out" probably refers not to getting out into
> the field to shoot photos, but getting out to a book store, where
> the best work is produced by pros. DSLR using pros. <g> And
> considering the ethics of this sock puppet (X-Man), they were
> probably glommed by stuffing them inside a jacket or down his pants.
If he's a trolling sock puppet, why are you replying with a comment
about dSLRs and how they're used by pros? Given that a troll being
used as a sock puppet by someone is unlikely to hold such an opinion
as the one X-Man demonstrates except as a means to troll people,
getting in to the specifics of his discussion just means he's caught
another one...
Ray
ASAAR
Because this particular clan of related sock puppets shares at
least three concerns, and it would be useful for people to be able
to recognize them when they surface. The three beliefs are that
DSLRs are much less capable than P&S cameras, that only fools
wouldn't modify their Canon P&S cameras by using the Russian
CHDK-hack software, and that Photoline 32 is the best possible photo
editor. I didn't state *how* DSLRs are used by the pros, just that
if the troll has any good photos (as requested by bob, who isn't one
of the sock puppets), they're likely to be contained in a book of
photos. I have several, and the photos are invariably taken with
DSLRs, which these troll/sock puppets insist aren't as capable as
P&S cameras. I'm wasn't arguing with the trolls, and certainly am
not trying to convince anyone that DSLRs have some capabilities that
P&S cameras don't have. That's a given, and if I tried to prove it,
that *would* be being "caught" by the troll, as you said. My reply
was simply a humorous poke at those folk. You know, the ones that
sleep under bridges. :)
Ray Macey
> Because this particular clan of related sock puppets shares at
> least three concerns, and it would be useful for people to be able
> to recognize them when they surface. The three beliefs are that
> DSLRs are much less capable than P&S cameras,
But it's quite evident that X-Man at least believes no such thing.
He's just stating it over and over because it's controversial, not
because it's an actual opinion he holds. And any reply that acts as
if the opinion he is offering is a real one /is/ being hooked by it.
Ray