DSLR Cameras
booth...@hotmail.com
How many pictures would you expect to take with an average dslr camera
before needing repair or replacement.
The reason for asking i've just been asked to photograph 1500 35mm
slides, & wondered what sort of impact this would have on the lifespan
of my sony a300. When their done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000
in total.
Thanks in advance.
Marcus
Savageduck
<booth...@hotmail.com> said:
It should be just warmed up and ready to start working after 3000
shutter activations.
...but failures can happen to the best equipment. I would only start
worrying sometime after 100,000 activations. Your warranty should
handle a problem within the first 3000 shots.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Reality Bytes
<http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&mesg_id=2549>
Someone can't get their Canon DSLR repaired while still under warranty
after only 31,834 shots. Stop-motion animation shots being taken with no
more frequency than what you would be doing. Far less frequency considering
the time needed to pose the subjects for each animation frame. Doing what
you propose may eat up at least 10% of its warranty unless Sony honors
warranties different than Canon does for its DSLRs.
From:
<http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157594321328845/>
"brankog says: From Sony support I received info, that Sony Alpha A300
have shutter life of at least 100.000 shots."
A small project of that nature (3000 shots) will eat up 3% of its expected
life-time. Consider a mechanical failure, if not already happened, then
soon pending if you use it for only 33 more similar slide-copying sessions.
Putting DSLR failure-rates in a more realistic perspective.
Wally
... assuming it's under warranty. My Canon 40D suffered an err99
condition after about 4500 actuations. Cost $300 to fix it. (It was
the shutter assembly.)
Wally
Savageduck
That is some warranty Canon has!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Wally
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
It was a 1 year warranty. And the cam was 1 1/2 years old.
Wally
Savageduck
I guess you are going to have to shoot faster next time. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
bugbear
>
> <http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&mesg_id=2549>
>
> Someone can't get their Canon DSLR repaired while still under warranty
> after only 31,834 shots. Stop-motion animation shots being taken with no
> more frequency than what you would be doing. Far less frequency considering
> the time needed to pose the subjects for each animation frame. Doing what
> you propose may eat up at least 10% of its warranty unless Sony honors
> warranties different than Canon does for its DSLRs.
>
> From:
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157594321328845/>
>
> "brankog says: From Sony support I received info, that Sony Alpha A300
> have shutter life of at least 100.000 shots."
>
> A small project of that nature (3000 shots) will eat up 3% of its expected
> life-time. Consider a mechanical failure, if not already happened, then
> soon pending if you use it for only 33 more similar slide-copying sessions.
> Putting DSLR failure-rates in a more realistic perspective.
>
I think this raises an interesting point (and certainly one that
hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
So assuming digital cameras are made as well as film
cameras were (which I think reasonably likely) they will wear
out in less time.
BugBear
nospam
<bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
> I think this raises an interesting point (and certainly one that
> hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
> memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
> than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
> a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
very true.
ransley
You should google for shutter life statistics, the Rebel which might
be a close competitor is known to fail at 12000 and from what I have
read mine wont make 100,000. With film it would take me forever to
afford 3000 shots, with digital its just pressing a button and nobody
thinks twice. If I were to take a job with 3000 shots I would want to
figure my Rebel just went through 20% of its life, you should charge
for that. The high end Canons are I believe designed for 100,000
shots and have a commercial quality shutter I did my slide scans on a
scanner.
Wally
wrote:
Not so... a couple decades ago I was bragging to a Pentax rep that I
had shot approx. 500 rolls on my Spotmatic F. (That's about 18,000
shots.) He said, that's nothing.
And we kept those film cameras for decades (my vintage Spotmatic still
works 100%), whereas the digital cameras have a life of maybe 5 years.
Wally
MC
To be honest the A300 is only an entry level DSLR and should not be
expect to live up to the workload of a pro model. Camera
manufacturers build cameras to a quality according to their target
market and price them accordingly.
Too many people expect too much from their entry level cameras. If you
want to to hammer the machanism you need to buy a camera built for such
heavy use.
MC
Also Consider
wrote:
Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong. Never needed one
repair. It even has a more complex shutter mechanism than most P&S cameras,
because when switched to IR "Night-Framing" mode it also has to swap out
the IR filter in the shuttering mechanism before the shot then swap it back
in place while taking the shot, then quickly swap it out again for the
continuous IR framing and focusing in the viewfinder while in that mode.
P&S cameras' less complex and more accurate leaf-shutters have little to
wear out.
Ask the P&S camera owners in the CHDK forums who are putting their cameras
through time-lapse and video stress tests just from using the many
automated CHDK scripts to create new styles of photography. With
shutter-speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Thousands and thousands of
shots taken only 1 second apart (or faster in burst modes) for only one
session of the many hundreds time-lapse video projects being produced with
CHDK P&S cameras. Read the CHDK forums to see how long those Canon P&S
cameras are lasting. I've not heard of one failing yet from the strenuous
CHDK scripts that everyone is using. They're mighty-fine little work-horses
performing stallions' tasks. The S3's and S5's in particular have nearly
distortion-free lenses throughout their zoom range. Less than 1% barrel
distortion at wide-angle and less than 0.1% pincushion distortion at full
telephoto. Few, if any, DSLR zoom lenses of 12X range can accomplish that.
Excellent for the flat and square field needed for copying slides with a
slide-duplicator setup.
Savageduck
<cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> said:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0800 (PST), ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 16, 4:12�pm, "boothmar...@hotmail.com"
>> <boothmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> How many pictures would you expect to take with an average dslr camera
>>> before needing repair or replacement.
>>>
>>> The reason for asking i've just been asked to photograph 1500 35mm
>>> slides, & wondered what sort of impact this would have on the lifespan
>>> of my sony a300. When their done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000
>>> in total.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>
>> You should google for shutter life statistics, the Rebel which might
>> be a close competitor is known to fail at 12000 and from what I have
>> read mine wont make 100,000. With film it would take me forever to
>> afford 3000 shots, with digital its just pressing a button and nobody
>> thinks twice. If I were to take a job with 3000 shots I would want to
>> figure my Rebel just went through 20% of its life, you should charge
>> for that. The high end Canons are I believe designed for 100,000
>> shots and have a commercial quality shutter I did my slide scans on a
>> scanner.
>
> Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
> taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong. ..............
400,000 shots on his Sony P&S!!
Now you are being funny.
This from "he who shall remain unnamed"!!
Not that 155 to 160 shots a day, every day for seven years would be
impossible. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
There is no point in even asking you to prove that, as getting any
evidence of camera ownership, or actual images captured out of you is a
failing proposition.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
MC
>
> Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago
> has taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong.
Bet it hasn't
MC
nospam
<Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
> >> I think this raises an interesting point (and certainly one that
> >> hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
> >> memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
> >> than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
> >> a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
> >
> >very true.
>
> Not so... a couple decades ago I was bragging to a Pentax rep that I
> had shot approx. 500 rolls on my Spotmatic F. (That's about 18,000
> shots.) He said, that's nothing.
depends who is shooting. a pro probably shoots more than that, film or
digital. average users never shot anywhere near that much film, but
they are with digital because it doesn't cost anything.
> And we kept those film cameras for decades (my vintage Spotmatic still
> works 100%), whereas the digital cameras have a life of maybe 5 years.
true, but there is zero film and processing cost. digital pays for
itself *very* quickly.
ray
I'd tell them to get a scanner and do the job themselves.
Wally
wrote:
>In article <u7f5g5ldrl5a8r7s4...@4ax.com>, Wally
><Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
>
>> >> I think this raises an interesting point (and certainly one that
>> >> hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
>> >> memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
>> >> than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
>> >> a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
>> >
>> >very true.
>>
>> Not so... a couple decades ago I was bragging to a Pentax rep that I
>> had shot approx. 500 rolls on my Spotmatic F. (That's about 18,000
>> shots.) He said, that's nothing.
>
>depends who is shooting. a pro probably shoots more than that, film or
>digital. average users never shot anywhere near that much film,
We are talking about only about 50 rolls a year. I used to shoot 2
rolls/day roughly while on vacation. That's around 25 rolls right
there just for a 2 week vacation.
Those old cameras had no problem keeping up with that kind of volume
for many years.
> but
>they are with digital because it doesn't cost anything.
It doesn't cost anything for film and processing. Instead you pay
plenty for new bodies every 3-5 years or so. I don't think we are
saving any money!
(But I don't advocate going back to film.)
Wally
nospam
<Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
> We are talking about only about 50 rolls a year. I used to shoot 2
> rolls/day roughly while on vacation. That's around 25 rolls right
> there just for a 2 week vacation.
50 rolls a year = 1800 photos. i've done that in a weekend on digital.
> Those old cameras had no problem keeping up with that kind of volume
> for many years.
except that digital is *much* higher.
> > but
> >they are with digital because it doesn't cost anything.
>
> It doesn't cost anything for film and processing. Instead you pay
> plenty for new bodies every 3-5 years or so. I don't think we are
> saving any money!
it depends how much you shoot. for a few rolls of film a year, film
will be cheaper. for 50 rolls of film, digital will be *much* cheaper.
figure each roll is $5 and processing is $10, which is probably low but
the math is easy. that's $750 a year for supplies, and over 3-5 years,
it would be $2250- $3750. add in some enlargements and the difference
is even more dramatic.
> (But I don't advocate going back to film.)
nor do i.
tony cooper
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
>> taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong. ..............
>
>400,000 shots on his Sony P&S!!
>Now you are being funny.
Don't make fun of him. He's still hoping that one will be a decent,
in-focus, well-composed, interesting shot. Maybe that will happen on
his 400,301st.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
ransley
wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0800 (PST), ransley <Mark_Rans...@Yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What P&S has a shutter speed of 1/40,000 sec
Wally
You are not helping the discussion.
ransley
> In article <qvo5g5tr89t69bpvnr6uub1s32cpsis...@4ax.com>, Wally
Ok, I read about CHDK, that is new to me, a P&S may be able to take
that abuse as it doesnt have the same complex shutter as a Dslr. I
dont expect more than 10-25000 shots from my rebel, by then something
alot better and cheaper will be out. 3000 might be alot for the sony
a300.
Ray Fischer
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0800 (PST), ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Nov 16, 4:12�pm, "boothmar...@hotmail.com"
>><boothmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> How many pictures would you expect to take with an average dslr camera
>>> before needing repair or replacement.
>>>
>>> The reason for asking i've just been asked to photograph 1500 35mm
>>> slides, & wondered what sort of impact this would have on the lifespan
>>> of my sony a300. When their done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000
>>> in total.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>
>>You should google for shutter life statistics, the Rebel which might
>>be a close competitor is known to fail at 12000 and from what I have
>>read mine wont make 100,000. With film it would take me forever to
>>afford 3000 shots, with digital its just pressing a button and nobody
>>thinks twice. If I were to take a job with 3000 shots I would want to
>>figure my Rebel just went through 20% of its life, you should charge
>>for that. The high end Canons are I believe designed for 100,000
>>shots and have a commercial quality shutter I did my slide scans on a
>>scanner.
>
>Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
More bullshit from the asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wally
Your reply is not helpful.
Also Consider
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
600-700 shots a day or more is easy when documenting interesting habitats
and species for many months working up to 18 hours a day or more. You don't
get out much nor have much experience with creative photography techniques,
do you. Of course not, you're nothing but a lousy basement-living troll.
You are amazed if you get 2 shots per month even worth viewing on your POS
cameras. May you meet some real pros one day during your sad little
self-deceptive life.
>
>There is no point in even asking you to prove that, as getting any
>evidence of camera ownership, or actual images captured out of you is a
>failing proposition.
I could care less what you believe to the contrary, it's true. My photo DVD
archive is now up to "Pics_137" for the latest volume title, with an
average of 2,500-3,000 images per DVD, some night-shot projects having in
excess of 4,000 images on the DVDs. One I just checked had 4,472 shots on
it. (JPGs of night subjects compress very well.) That is not counting how
many were discarded of course. I only keep those that are salvageable,
printable, or marketable.
You're such an ignorant and inexperienced snapshooting DSLR-Troll and
moron. You always have been and always will be. And you'll always keep
proving just that. You can do no more than that, because you know and
experience no more than that.
Also Consider
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Thanks for outing yourself as one of the many ignorant, inexperienced,
snapshooting, DSLR-Trolls' brigade.
I love how you all step up to the plate every time to prove just that.
Also Consider
Thanks for outing yourself as one of the many ignorant, inexperienced,
Also Consider
wrote:
>
>What P&S has a shutter speed of 1/40,000 sec
MC
So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute for
18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including days off).
Why do you do this and where do your images end up. Where can we
obtain them.
I put it to you that you are telling fibs.
MC
MC
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:28:56 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > Also Consider wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years
> ago >> has taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong.
> >
> > Bet it hasn't
> >
> > MC
>
> Thanks for outing yourself as one of the many ignorant, inexperienced,
> snapshooting, DSLR-Trolls' brigade.
>
Hahahah
> I love how you all step up to the plate every time to prove just that.
I just know a fibber when I see one, that's all.
MC
Also Consider
>
>So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute for
>18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including days off).
>
The ignorant DSLR-Troll can't even do simple math correctly.
@650 in 18 hours that's 36 photos per hour. You can't shoot 36 quality
photos per hour? You're just sad all around, aren't you. Now confirmed in
two ways.
>Why do you do this and where do your images end up. Where can we
>obtain them.
*YOU* can't. Others can.
>
>I put it to you that you are telling fibs.
>
>MC
Put it to anyone all you want. I could care less what you want to believe
in your little psychotic cyber-world. Reality is something that, no doubt,
doesn't concern you.
whisky-dave
"Wally" <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote in message
news:qvo5g5tr89t69bpvn...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:41:58 -0600, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>
> It doesn't cost anything for film and processing. Instead you pay
> plenty for new bodies every 3-5 years or so. I don't think we are
> saving any money!
There's also storage costs, but I'm not sure how to compare a hard disc
to albums of prints or keeping negatives safe.
But I do miss the chemical smells of processing......
Just double-clicking isn;t the same ;-)
whisky-dave
"MC" <a...@any.any> wrote in message
news:xn0ghsd1...@news.virginmedia.com...
But anythings possible it's just whether or not you believe the stats.
When doing videos I can claim a frame shooting rate of 25 per second.
So when film a 30min gig of friends bands that's 45,000 frames I'm taking
and each one is kept. :-)
>
> MC
MC
Ah but the OP specifically mentioned "images" and "JPGs" on DVDs
labelled "pic". So I am to assume he was referring to stills :o)
MC
MC
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:16:08 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> >
> > So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute
> > for 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including
> > days off).
> >
>
> The ignorant DSLR-Troll can't even do simple math correctly.
>
> @650 in 18 hours that's 36 photos per hour. You can't shoot 36 quality
> photos per hour? You're just sad all around, aren't you. Now
> confirmed in two ways.
>
You said you shoot 18 hours a day at approx 600-700 photos a day. This
works out at 36 photos an hour or 1.6 photos a minute.
Your figures, my friend, your figures.
>
> YOU can't. Others can.
>
Why not? Who are these others?
> Put it to anyone all you want. I could care less what you want to
> believe in your little psychotic cyber-world. Reality is something
> that, no doubt, doesn't concern you.
Then ignore me. No skin off my nose.
MC
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> I think this raises an interesting point (and certainly one that
> hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
> memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
> than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
> a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
> So assuming digital cameras are made as well as film
> cameras were (which I think reasonably likely) they will wear
> out in less time.
If the main failure mode for film cameras was shutter failure
due to too many activations, then yes. This, however, is not
necessarily given --- you can also have a camera fail from
not actuating the shutter for a long time or oils going bad
etc. etc. etc.
On the gripping hand, would you like to use a 5, 10, 15 year old
digital camera? Digital sensors are rapidly getting better and
faster and will continue to do so for some time yet --- quite
unlike film.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Ok, I read about CHDK, that is new to me, a P&S may be able to take
> that abuse as it doesnt have the same complex shutter as a Dslr.
Some P&S have shutters (I own one), and some DSLRs can focus and
shoot without actuating the mirror and shutter.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
[the usual]
Please excuse and ignore the photogroups-clown. It doesn't own
a camera but invents wild stories of how P&S cameras are the
saviours of mankind. All it's statements are outright lies or
completely misleading half-truths and won't do in real life what
they seem to promise. Be aware that this entity posts under ever
changing names and false, stolen email domains to make it harder
to ignore it.
-Wolfgang
Also Consider
>Also Consider wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:16:08 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute
>> > for 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including
>> > days off).
>> >
>>
>> The ignorant DSLR-Troll can't even do simple math correctly.
>>
>> @650 in 18 hours that's 36 photos per hour. You can't shoot 36 quality
>> photos per hour? You're just sad all around, aren't you. Now
>> confirmed in two ways.
>>
>
>
>You said you shoot 18 hours a day at approx 600-700 photos a day. This
>works out at 36 photos an hour or 1.6 photos a minute.
>
>Your figures, my friend, your figures.
>
I so hate having to teach some online-troll things that they should already
know by second-grade in school.
Can you think? 1.6 photos a minute is nearer to 2 photos per minute. That
would be 120 photos per hour. At 1.6 photos per minute that's 1.6 X 60 = 96
photos per hour, nearly 3 times higher than the rate I stated. Don't you
even know how to use a simple calculator? I dread to see what would happen
with any modern camera in your hands.
Oh, if only computers were never made idiot-friendly. <sigh>
>
>>
>> YOU can't. Others can.
>>
>
>
>Why not? Who are these others?
>
>
Private buyers in limited editions. Those rare times that I care to sell
anything to anyone these days. I have no need to use photography for an
income today. Quite a few technical authors have asked to purchase my
images of very rare or unknown species. But after some online thumbnails of
those were used and published without my permission I pulled all of those
without further thought of any future sales or publication anywhere. The
best that the world will ever have as evidence of those species existence
are the stolen low-resolution thumbnails of only a few of the many I have
managed to photograph.
I share my photography on *my* terms, no one else's terms, ever. Far better
basement-living trolls than you have tried to manipulate me into showing
them my good photography. All were unsuccessful, just as they are with
their real lives.
Also Consider
Another pretend-photographer troll, right on cue.
Go ahead, get involved in another technical discussion. Let me show the
world what an inane idiot troll you are again. You can't dazzle them with
brilliance so you baffle them with bullshit. It's easy for you to do, since
so many in these newsgroups are just as inexperienced and ignorant as you
are. But not all. That's why we can so easily out you for what you really
are.
MC
> I so hate having to teach some online-troll things that they should
> already know by second-grade in school.
>
> Can you think? 1.6 photos a minute is nearer to 2 photos per minute.
> That would be 120 photos per hour. At 1.6 photos per minute that's
> 1.6 X 60 = 96 photos per hour, nearly 3 times higher than the rate I
> stated. Don't you even know how to use a simple calculator? I dread
> to see what would happen with any modern camera in your hands.
OK, yep, I hold up my hands. It should have read one photo every 1.6
minutes.
Still completely ridiculous though over that period of hours days and
months.
>
> > Why not? Who are these others?
> >
> >
>
> Private buyers in limited editions. Those rare times that I care to
> sell anything to anyone these days. I have no need to use photography
> for an income today. Quite a few technical authors have asked to
> purchase my images of very rare or unknown species.
Where do you take these photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species you
have photographed? I am a bit of a naturalist myself and it would be
interesting if you could give me an example of what species you have
photographed that fall into these categories.
> online thumbnails of those were used and published without my
> permission I pulled all of those without further thought of any
> future sales or publication anywhere. The best that the world will
> ever have as evidence of those species existence are the stolen
> low-resolution thumbnails of only a few of the many I have managed to
> photograph.
So where do these private buyers hear about these photos that you seem
to spend 3/4 of your time producing? What reward do you get from doing
all this "so called" work.
>
> I share my photography on my terms, no one else's terms, ever. Far
> better basement-living trolls than you have tried to manipulate me
> into showing them my good photography. All were unsuccessful, just as
> they are with their real lives.
Don't particularly want to see them. Maybe you have some really good
images, who am I to argue that. However, this 400,000 photos lark,
with just one p&s camera? Nah, don't believe it.
Which camera from "seven years ago" did you use to get 400,000 photos.
Are you still using this camera? If not what camera do you now use and
how many pictures have you taken with it. I am genuinely interested
because I am trying to work out how you could be so prolific. Are you
a robot?
MC
Also Consider
> However, this 400,000 photos lark,
>with just one p&s camera? Nah, don't believe it.
Then don't believe it. Just as you won't believe anything else I might
type. I only ask myself why should I waste my valuable time entertaining a
troll like you.
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:55:10 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
>>Also Consider wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:16:08 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute
>>> > for 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including
>>> > days off).
>>> >
>>>
>>> The ignorant DSLR-Troll can't even do simple math correctly.
>>>
>>> @650 in 18 hours that's 36 photos per hour. You can't shoot 36 quality
>>> photos per hour? You're just sad all around, aren't you. Now
>>> confirmed in two ways.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You said you shoot 18 hours a day at approx 600-700 photos a day. This
>>works out at 36 photos an hour or 1.6 photos a minute.
>>
>>Your figures, my friend, your figures.
>
>I so hate having to teach some online-troll things that they should already
>know by second-grade in school.
You can't. The troll doesn't care about facts. It cares about being
an asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
MC
Notice you can't answer my other questions. This doesn't make for a
very strong case for you does it. Yeah, I know, you don't care.
Case closed your m'lud.
MC
Paul Furman
> In article <qvo5g5tr89t69bpvn...@4ax.com>, Wally
> <Wa...@luxx.com> wrote:
>
>> We are talking about only about 50 rolls a year. I used to shoot 2
>> rolls/day roughly while on vacation. That's around 25 rolls right
>> there just for a 2 week vacation.
>
> 50 rolls a year = 1800 photos. i've done that in a weekend on digital.
>
>> Those old cameras had no problem keeping up with that kind of volume
>> for many years.
>
> except that digital is *much* higher.
>
>>> but
>>> they are with digital because it doesn't cost anything.
>> plenty for new bodies every 3-5 years or so. I don't think we are
>> saving any money!
>
> will be cheaper. for 50 rolls of film, digital will be *much* cheaper.
>
> figure each roll is $5 and processing is $10, which is probably low but
> the math is easy. that's $750 a year for supplies, and over 3-5 years,
> it would be $2250- $3750. add in some enlargements and the difference
> is even more dramatic.
My D200 shutter died at 89,736 shutter actuations in just under 2 years
(1 year warranty) but they fixed it & gave it a CLA for $200 plus
shipping. I do time lapse movies & bang it around a lot in the woods.
Now, a year & a half later it's got a new problem where the aperture
reads f/45 in all but AF-S lenses... possibly I banged up the electrical
contacts somehow... it works otherwise, just doesn't show the aperture.
The meter even works. Hmm, well D lenses don't work because they require
the aperture set to f/22 so it blinks EE... grrr
>> (But I don't advocate going back to film.)
>
> nor do i.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
whisky-dave
"MC" <a...@any.any> wrote in message
> whisky-dave wrote:
>
>>
>> "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote in message
>> news:xn0ghsd1...@news.virginmedia.com...
>> When doing videos I can claim a frame shooting rate of 25 per second.
>> So when film a 30min gig of friends bands that's 45,000 frames I'm
>> taking and each one is kept. :-)
>>
>>
>> >
>
> Ah but the OP specifically mentioned "images" and "JPGs" on DVDs
> labelled "pic". So I am to assume he was referring to stills :o)
I think it's command F to save a still frame from a movie,
although I doubt I'd do that 45,000 times, it'd wear my keyboard out.
Anyway from a post of yours.. quote "I am a bit of a naturalist myself "
I have this rather disturbing image.
So do you really walk around naked all day taking photos,
and is that were the term point 'n' shoot cums from ;-)
You can be arrested for that sort of behaviour where I live :)
Pete D
> So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute for
> 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including days off).
>
> Why do you do this and where do your images end up. Where can we
> obtain them.
>
> I put it to you that you are telling fibs.
>
> MC
How about he is just a lying troll that should just be ignored.
MC
That I have now established, but it's still good to show him up as a
fool. Not that he doesn't achieve that himself but a few feeders do
help him along :o).
MC
Also Consider
The only place you might have established anything is in your own miniscule
troll's psychotic mind. That, however, will never reflect facts and
reality.
I am not going to waste my time trying to prove things to useless trolls.
Just as it would be impossible for you to prove to anyone online even what
gender you are. It can't be done.
No matter what I offer as proof to what you ask you will invariably find a
way to question it. That's what trolls do, that's what trolls are, that's
all you've ever done. You ARE the essence of troll.
MC
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:57:23 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > Pete D wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a
> minute >> > for 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not
> including >> > days off).
> >> >
> >> > Why do you do this and where do your images end up. Where can we
> >> > obtain them.
> >> >
> >> > I put it to you that you are telling fibs.
> >> >
> >> > MC
> >>
> >> How about he is just a lying troll that should just be ignored.
> >
> > That I have now established, but it's still good to show him up as a
> > fool. Not that he doesn't achieve that himself but a few feeders do
> > help him along :o).
> >
> > MC
>
> The only place you might have established anything is in your own
> miniscule troll's psychotic mind. That, however, will never reflect
> facts and reality.
>
> I am not going to waste my time trying to prove things ....
Then stop making false claims.
> Just as it would be impossible for you to prove to anyone online even
> what gender you are. It can't be done.
>
> No matter what I offer as proof to what you ask you will invariably
> find a way to question it
Try me. Answer my previous questions:
Where do you take your photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species have
you
photographed? As I have said, I am a bit of a naturalist myself and I
would be genuinely interested in learning what species feature in your
photographs that particularly fall into the "unknown" category.
Refusing to answer will just add proof to the fact you are fibbing.
Oh, and what camera did you use to take your claimed 400,000 photos?
Do you still use it and if not what camera do you use now?
MC
rwalker
<cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
snip
>
>The only place you might have established anything is in your own miniscule
>troll's
Bow wow wow. Woof woof woof. Just like clockwork. And you come on
command. Good doggie.
Also Consider
>
>
>Where do you take your photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species have
>you photographed?
Well now, what good would it be telling you the names of species that have
no names? For you to even ask that question shows the world what a hopeless
dumbfuck you are.
However, here's two species to which the photos of them were stolen without
my permission:
Telamona ampelopsidis
Only seen and photograhed a few times by anyone.
Otiocerus kirbyii
The last live specimen was seen back in the 1930's I believe, recently
photograhed by myself 9 US states outside of its original range.. The last
known preserved specimen (if I remember from my research on it) was in a NY
museum that was lost in the 1950's due to poor storage conditions. No known
existing drawings nor photos, but mine from live specimens (yes, plural).
It was identified from old taxonomic descriptions.
As well as many other insect species which have yet no name. I also
discovered many rare orchids that are likewise unnamed. As well as one of
the rarest known named orchids on earth, Prosthechea pygmaea. At one time
thought to exist on only one small patch about 1.0m x 0.25m in size. I
managed to find 3 more patches approx. 5.0m x 0.4m in size and reported
their locations to those who protect them.
(Doing a quick google image search, I'm surprised so many of those
Prosthechea pygmaea images are misnamed, misidentified. Most of the ones
shown there labeled with that name don't look anything at all like the real
thing. Further proof of how the net is littered with BS from useless trolls
who mindlessly parrot nonsense.)
> As I have said, I am a bit of a naturalist myself and I
>would be genuinely interested in learning what species feature in your
>photographs that particularly fall into the "unknown" category.
You're not a bit of a naturalist-anything. You're nothing but a pathetic
and hopeless pretend-photographer troll that's never even touched a camera,
that's all you are. You have all the earmarks of all the role-playing
trolls who have come before.
>
>Refusing to answer will just add proof to the fact you are fibbing.
I could give a fuck whether you think I'm fibbing or not. Who are you?
Where's your photography to sit there smugly demanding that others prove
anything at all to you? Who are you that you think you even deserve a
respectable answer? You're nothing but a lousy low-life fuck of a troll.
It's all you are and will ever be. I didn't reply to prove anything at all
to you. I only replied with the above information to prove to everyone that
you're nothing but a low-life fuck of a troll.
>
>Oh, and what camera did you use to take your claimed 400,000 photos?
Guess.
>Do you still use it and if not what camera do you use now?
>
Yes, I still use it. It has many features that many newer cameras do not
have, and better glass than many newer cameras have. Consequently it can
provide some better images than any newer cameras can. Newer never
automatically equates to better.
Now go climb back under your rock, you useless time-wasting fuck.
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Dear Resident Troll,
Your replies are completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved)
topics that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future
discussions and posts:
If nothing else, be sure to read reason number 26. What fun! :-)
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
26. A good P&S camera can even rival the images produced by a Medium-Format
Hasselblad H2. Something that no DSLR owner would even think of trying to
do. Even when the Hasselblad is securely mounted on an expensive and hefty
tripod, the mirror locked-up, and using a self-timer and cable-release to
trip the shutter to ensure the utmost in image resolution and clarity;
while the P&S camera was just set on top of the Hasselblad, HAND-HELD, and
the shutter tripped with a finger. The images between the two cameras are
still indistinguishable. Don't believe it? Then you need to enjoy this fun
read. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in
just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."
MC
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:09:30 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Where do you take your photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species
> > have you photographed?
>
> Well now, what good would it be telling you the names of species that
> have no names? For you to even ask that question shows the world what
> a hopeless dumbfuck you are.
Hmmm. So how do you know they are "unknown"? If they were unknown to
science when you photographed them then it must be you who have
discovered them. As the discoverer you have the priviledge of naming
the species. How long ago did you photograph them? Whay have they
not yet been named? So many questions you are unable to answer.
>
> >
> > Oh, and what camera did you use to take your claimed 400,000 photos?
>
> Guess.
Oh, so I'm also a mind reader. How lucky am I. Oh, hang
on.........yes........it's coming to me............yes..........hang
on.......yes, I'm getting a male cow in a field...........
and........and its eating grass and.................. Oh...ooh...
aah...........OK, so now it's having a crap. Mmmm. These cryptic
thoughts I keep getting are a little too obscure these days.
>
> > Do you still use it and if not what camera do you use now?
> >
>
> Yes, I still use it. It has many features that many newer cameras do
> not have
Uses film? Uses plates? Has one megapixel resolution? Has a pinhole
in the front?
> and better glass than many newer cameras have. Consequently
> it can provide some better images than any newer cameras can. Newer
> never automatically equates to better.
It's a kodak instamatic. No? So tell me what it is then.
MC
MC
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:26:17 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0600, Also Consider
> ><cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
> >
> > snip
> >
> > >
> > > The only place you might have established anything is in your own
> > > miniscule troll's
> >
> > Bow wow wow. Woof woof woof. Just like clockwork. And you come on
> > command. Good doggie.
>
> Dear Resident Troll,
>
> Your replies are completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved)
> topics that befit these newsgroups. Please consider them for future
> discussions and posts:
>
> If nothing else, be sure to read reason number 26. What fun! :-)
<snip>
Whoops. Damn, where did all that bulshit go? I never even got to No 26
(or number 2 for that matter) and I was so looking forward to it. I
have never seen so much bullshit in one place before.
MC
Pete D
"Also Consider" <cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote in message
news:cs58g5l38k3hvhbrd...@4ax.com...
Just walk the walk and you will be saved brother, talking the talk is easy
but leads to the troll side.
DOH!!! Tooooooo late...
rwalker
<ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:26:17 -0500, rwalker <rwa...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0600, Also Consider
>><cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
>>
>>snip
>>
>>>
>>>The only place you might have established anything is in your own miniscule
>>>troll's
>>
>>Bow wow wow. Woof woof woof. Just like clockwork. And you come on
>>command. Good doggie.
>
>Dear Resident Troll,
>
snip
Woof.
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:57:23 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
>>Pete D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > So you took average 650 photos a day. That's 1.6 photos a minute
>>> > for 18 hours a day (without breaks) for 615 days (not including
>>> > days off).
>>> >
>>> > Why do you do this and where do your images end up. Where can we
>>> > obtain them.
>>> >
>>> > I put it to you that you are telling fibs.
>>> >
>>> > MC
>>>
>>> How about he is just a lying troll that should just be ignored.
>>
>>That I have now established, but it's still good to show him up as a
>>fool. Not that he doesn't achieve that himself but a few feeders do
>>help him along :o).
>>
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
C J Campbell
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:12:35 -0800 (PST), "booth...@hotmail.com"
> <booth...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> How many pictures would you expect to take with an average dslr camera
>> before needing repair or replacement.
>>
>> The reason for asking i've just been asked to photograph 1500 35mm
>> slides, & wondered what sort of impact this would have on the lifespan
>> of my sony a300. When their done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000
>> in total.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Marcus
>
>
> <http://www.stopmotionanimation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=10&topic_id=2549&mesg_id=2549>
Someone
>
> can't get their Canon DSLR repaired while still under warranty
> after only 31,834 shots. Stop-motion animation shots being taken with no
> more frequency than what you would be doing. Far less frequency considering
> the time needed to pose the subjects for each animation frame. Doing what
> you propose may eat up at least 10% of its warranty unless Sony honors
> warranties different than Canon does for its DSLRs.
>
> From:
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/groups/sony_alpha/discuss/72157594321328845/>
>
> "brankog says: From Sony support I received info, that Sony Alpha A300
> have shutter life of at least 100.000 shots."
>
> A small project of that nature (3000 shots) will eat up 3% of its expected
> life-time. Consider a mechanical failure, if not already happened, then
> soon pending if you use it for only 33 more similar slide-copying sessions.
> Putting DSLR failure-rates in a more realistic perspective.
Uh, the OP said 1500 shots for the project, or 1.5% of the expected
life, not 10%. He could do 67 similar slide-copying sessions.
How long is your car's powertrain warranted? Do you expect your car to
suddenly quit running when the warranty runs out?
I keep my cameras maintained. They go in for periodic service, warranty
or not. It is a cost of doing photography. I do expect them to last a
lot longer than 100,000 clicks.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Another DSLR-Troll trying to defend his poorly designed and easily
breakable piece of shit camera. He can't even read what he replies to. OP:
" ... When their [they're] done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000 in
total."
I can only imagine how good this C J Campbell DSLR-Troll's photography must
be with that kind of attentiveness to details. With a similar amount of
framing and focusing error applied photographically it would be like him
trying to take a portrait and cutting off the whole head and half the
torso.
Can you say, "Beginner Snapshooter"? I knew you could.
Also Consider
>male cow
LOL! The depths of your oxymoronic 1st-grader's ignorance never ceases to
amaze. Were your parents as much of dumbfucks as you are? I'm wondering if
this is due to your genetics.
Is that where you got your nym from? "Male Cow" MC?
LOL
You certainly leave enough cow-pies spewed behind you on your path in life
to qualify.
Also Consider
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:34:38 -0600, Also Consider
<cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
>
>No matter what I offer as proof to what you ask you will invariably find a
MC
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:38:13 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
> > male cow
>
> LOL! The depths of your oxymoronic 1st-grader's ignorance never
> ceases to amaze. Were your parents as much of dumbfucks as you are?
> I'm wondering if this is due to your genetics.
>
> Is that where you got your nym from? "Male Cow" MC?
>
> LOL
>
Oh dear! There really is no hope for you is there?
MC
Neil Ellwood
Where I live you wouldn't be arrested for being a 'naturalist' although
you might be if you practised being a 'naturist' in ppublic.
--
Neil
Reverse 'r and a' Delete 'l'
Linux counter 335851
Robert Coe
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2009-11-17 07:38:24 -0800, Also Consider
: <cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> said:
:
: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:57:55 -0800 (PST), ransley <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com>
: > wrote:
: >
: >> On Nov 16, 4:12�pm, "boothmar...@hotmail.com"
: >> <boothmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: >>> Hi all,
: >>>
: >>> How many pictures would you expect to take with an average dslr camera
: >>> before needing repair or replacement.
: >>>
: >>> The reason for asking i've just been asked to photograph 1500 35mm
: >>> slides, & wondered what sort of impact this would have on the lifespan
: >>> of my sony a300. When their done i will have taken approx 2500 - 3000
: >>> in total.
: >>>
: >>> Thanks in advance.
: >>>
: >>> Marcus
: >> You should google for shutter life statistics, the Rebel which might
: >> be a close competitor is known to fail at 12000 and from what I have
: >> read mine wont make 100,000. With film it would take me forever to
: >> afford 3000 shots, with digital its just pressing a button and nobody
: >> thinks twice. If I were to take a job with 3000 shots I would want to
: >> figure my Rebel just went through 20% of its life, you should charge
: >> for that. The high end Canons are I believe designed for 100,000
: >> shots and have a commercial quality shutter I did my slide scans on a
: >> scanner.
: >
: > Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
: > taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong. ..............
:
: 400,000 shots on his Sony P&S!!
: Now you are being funny.
: This from "he who shall remain unnamed"!!
:
: Not that 155 to 160 shots a day, every day for seven years would be
: impossible. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
:
: There is no point in even asking you to prove that, as getting any
: evidence of camera ownership, or actual images captured out of you is a
: failing proposition.
Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
point. A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
slides. If you're going to be doing that kind of work often, buying a P&S may
make good economic sense.
Bob
de...@reny.net
>: > Or get a high-quality P&S camera. My older Sony from seven years ago has
>: > taken over 400,000 shots and it's still going strong. ..............
>:
>: 400,000 shots on his Sony P&S!!
>: Now you are being funny.
>: This from "he who shall remain unnamed"!!
>:
>: Not that 155 to 160 shots a day, every day for seven years would be
>: impossible. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.
>:
>: There is no point in even asking you to prove that, as getting any
>: evidence of camera ownership, or actual images captured out of you is a
>: failing proposition.
>
>Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
>point. A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
>be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
>slides. If you're going to be doing that kind of work often, buying a P&S may
>make good economic sense.
>
George Kerby
On 11/21/09 2:24 AM, in article ai8fg51irg457ed07...@4ax.com,
"Also Consider" <cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:38:13 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
>> male cow
>
> LOL! The depths of your oxymoronic 1st-grader's ignorance never ceases to
> amaze. Were your parents as much of dumbfucks as you are? I'm wondering if
> this is due to your genetics.
>
> Is that where you got your nym from? "Male Cow" MC?
>
> LOL
>
Also Consider
wrote:
Perhaps that should have been, "The depths of THEIR oxymoronic 1st-grader's
ignorance never ceases to amaze."
Thanks for providing that link. It displays just how pathetically ignorant
vast factions of humanity have become and how fools like you are instantly
drawn to mindlessly follow and support them.
George Kerby
On 11/21/09 9:10 AM, in article hg0gg5th3tsaa3i28...@4ax.com,
"Also Consider" <cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:54:56 -0600, George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/21/09 2:24 AM, in article ai8fg51irg457ed07...@4ax.com,
>> "Also Consider" <cons...@spamfreeaddress.info> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:38:13 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>>>
>>>> male cow
>>>
>>> LOL! The depths of your oxymoronic 1st-grader's ignorance never ceases to
>>> amaze. Were your parents as much of dumbfucks as you are? I'm wondering if
>>> this is due to your genetics.
>>>
>>> Is that where you got your nym from? "Male Cow" MC?
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>> http://www.mancow.com/
>>
>
> Perhaps that should have been, "The depths of THEIR oxymoronic 1st-grader's
> ignorance never ceases to amaze."
>
> Thanks for providing that link. It displays just how pathetically ignorant
> vast factions of humanity have become and how fools like you are instantly
> drawn to mindlessly follow and support them.
>
YOU were the one asking. My response was to be helpful in your quest for
knowledge. Obviously, the many beating you received as a child and a young
man have left you in such a bitter approach to life.
May I suggest a Colonic provided by a .357?
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
> point.
Sorry, stopped clocks may be right twice a day, but they are
wrong at every other moment --- and you never really know when
they might be right. Worse, they are completely unusable and
impractical for all normal use cases.
> A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
> be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
> slides.
Useful? For thumbnails, no problem.
For high quality copies --- that's a different game. Maybe the
slime can point out some P&S cameras that are good for that kind
of shooting --- ooops, I forgot, the slime never had any cameras
and never names any cameras ...
In addition, even P&S cameras can fail and do fail.
Extending the optics every time it's switched on? Failure means
death. Focussing automatically? Failure means death. Dust on
the sensor, sucked in by the extending optics? Hard and expensive
to clean. And so on and so on.
Ask yourself, will you bet on a convenience P&S, made by the lowest
bidder, sold by the lowest price, pandering to the general public
(who doesn't do slide scanning in the least), a nearly unrepairable
throw-away article?
> If you're going to be doing that kind of work often, buying a P&S may
> make good economic sense.
Only if you need enough shutter replacements. Good P&S cameras
aren't necessarily cheap, and special use P&S cameras even less ...
... and you'll probably replace a professionally used camera
every couple years anyway. :-)
Personally, I wouldn't worry, I'd wait until I had a shutter
failure (or replaced the camera). THEN I'd see what the MTBF
says and think about replacement or repair.
-Wolfgang
Outing Trolls is FUN!
Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
Many points (new & improved, like #26) outlined below completely disprove
your usual resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate
yourself, or don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are
nothing but a virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
Teraposa Lunodas
hadn'd occurred to me before). With monstrous, and cheap,
memory cards, I think most of us are TAKING more photographs
than we ever would have with film - and this MUST be putting
a heavier load on the exposure mechanisms.
So assuming digital cameras are made as well as film
cameras were (which I think reasonably likely) they will wear
out in less time.
Spamm Trappe
> I think this raises an interesting point ....
*WHAT* raises an "interesting point"?
Please stay out of usenet until you learn how to quote in followups.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:55:10 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
[...]
>> Why not? Who are these others?
>
> Private buyers in limited editions.
LOL.
Those rare times that I care to sell
> anything to anyone these days. I have no need to use photography for an
> income today. Quite a few technical authors have asked to purchase my
> images of very rare or unknown species. But after some online thumbnails of
> those were used and published without my permission I pulled all of those
> without further thought of any future sales or publication anywhere. The
> best that the world will ever have as evidence of those species existence
> are the stolen low-resolution thumbnails of only a few of the many I have
> managed to photograph.
>
> I share my photography on *my* terms, no one else's terms, ever. Far better
> basement-living trolls than you have tried to manipulate me into showing
> them my good photography. All were unsuccessful,
Well yeah - you can't show something that doesn't exist.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>The P&S Troll, AKA Also Consider wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:55:10 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>[...]
>>> Why not? Who are these others?
>>
>> Private buyers in limited editions.
>
>LOL.
>
> Those rare times that I care to sell
>> anything to anyone these days. I have no need to use photography for an
>> income today. Quite a few technical authors have asked to purchase my
>> images of very rare or unknown species. But after some online thumbnails of
>> those were used and published without my permission I pulled all of those
>> without further thought of any future sales or publication anywhere. The
>> best that the world will ever have as evidence of those species existence
>> are the stolen low-resolution thumbnails of only a few of the many I have
>> managed to photograph.
>>
>> I share my photography on *my* terms, no one else's terms, ever. Far better
>> basement-living trolls than you have tried to manipulate me into showing
>> them my good photography. All were unsuccessful,
>
>Well yeah - you can't show something that doesn't exist.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
Paul Furman
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:09:30 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>
>>
>> Where do you take your photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species have
>> you photographed?
>
> Well now, what good would it be telling you the names of species that have
> no names? For you to even ask that question shows the world what a hopeless
> dumbfuck you are.
>
> However, here's two species to which the photos of them were stolen without
> my permission:
>
> Telamona ampelopsidis
>
> Only seen and photograhed a few times by anyone.
http://bugguide.net/node/view/306379
"A common species on Virginia Creeper."
http://www.flickr.com/photos/craves/3733963136/
-can't be you, it's a DSLR shot <g>
> Otiocerus kirbyii
>
> The last live specimen was seen back in the 1930's I believe, recently
> photograhed by myself 9 US states outside of its original range.. The last
> known preserved specimen (if I remember from my research on it) was in a NY
> museum that was lost in the 1950's due to poor storage conditions. No known
> existing drawings nor photos,
http://www.archive.org/details/journalofelisham38elis
"Fig. 332. Otiocerus kirbyii, dorsal view."
http://www.archive.org/stream/journalofelisham38elis#page/n337/mode/2up
Paul Furman
> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
>> point.
>
> Sorry, stopped clocks may be right twice a day, but they are
> wrong at every other moment --- and you never really know when
> they might be right. Worse, they are completely unusable and
> impractical for all normal use cases.
>
>> A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
>> be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
>> slides.
>
> Useful? For thumbnails, no problem.
> For high quality copies --- that's a different game.
A flat field macro lens with no barrel distortion is most likely
impossible for a P&S. You could fix the barrel in post but a general use
super-zoom is just not going to cut it for high quality slide dupes.
That kind of work is done with very expensive highly corrected lenses to
maintain contrast, like $4,000 lenses for copying hollywood movies, etc.
Anyways a scanner is the better tool for digitizing slides. A P&S could
be handy for quickly capturing them for web display though I suspect
you'd need to run them through software for distortion correction.
Also Consider
wrote:
>Also Consider wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:09:30 GMT, "MC" <a...@any.any> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Where do you take your photos and what "rare" or "unknown" species have
>>> you photographed?
>>
>> Well now, what good would it be telling you the names of species that have
>> no names? For you to even ask that question shows the world what a hopeless
>> dumbfuck you are.
>>
>> However, here's two species to which the photos of them were stolen without
>> my permission:
>>
>> Telamona ampelopsidis
>>
>> Only seen and photograhed a few times by anyone.
>
>
>http://bugguide.net/node/view/306379
>"A common species on Virginia Creeper."
Then they improperly identified the species from the images I submitted
(and then promptly stole). The ones I photographed are nothing like what
you found. I never bothered to double-check it or cross-check it as these
were submitted to experts in their field, writing their theses on these
species. I trusted their findings. The ones I photographed have a similar
elytra shape but with a sharper recurve (hook-like) on the posterior
section. Also different coloring patterns and smooth texture, bold greens
and yellows. I'll chalk up the ones I have photographed to yet another
unknown species then. They only identified as the closest species they
could find to it.
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/craves/3733963136/
>-can't be you, it's a DSLR shot <g>
A poor one at that.
>
>
>> Otiocerus kirbyii
>>
>> The last live specimen was seen back in the 1930's I believe, recently
>> photograhed by myself 9 US states outside of its original range.. The last
>> known preserved specimen (if I remember from my research on it) was in a NY
>> museum that was lost in the 1950's due to poor storage conditions. No known
>> existing drawings nor photos,
>
>http://www.archive.org/details/journalofelisham38elis
>"Fig. 332. Otiocerus kirbyii, dorsal view."
>http://www.archive.org/stream/journalofelisham38elis#page/n337/mode/2up
>
Congratulations, you managed to find only a partial technical drawing made
from the taxonomic description, published in 1922-1923. I still hold the
only photos of it in existence (as well as being the only person to have
seen some alive since the 1920's-1930's, or from the 1950's when the only
known dead specimens (allotype and holotype) were accidentally destroyed.
Unless those who stole my photos publish the greatly downsized images that
I showed to them. They were going to use them to make technical drawings
for their for-profit publications, derivative works from the only known
photographs in existence. Since you could not find any photographs of this
species, nor color drawings (photos from live specimens revealing a rather
colorful little fellow), I surmise the "professional thieves" have
reconsidered their acts and intentions.
I consider this no less than photographing an Ivory-Billed Woodpecker. Only
up-close and in full detail, unmistakable and in high resolution. Including
managing to capture microscopic views of the ventral and dorsal head
structure. (Without harming them.)
Also Consider
wrote:
>Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
>>> point.
>>
>> Sorry, stopped clocks may be right twice a day, but they are
>> wrong at every other moment --- and you never really know when
>> they might be right. Worse, they are completely unusable and
>> impractical for all normal use cases.
>>
>>> A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
>>> be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
>>> slides.
>>
>> Useful? For thumbnails, no problem.
>> For high quality copies --- that's a different game.
>
>A flat field macro lens with no barrel distortion is most likely
>impossible for a P&S. You could fix the barrel in post but a general use
>super-zoom is just not going to cut it for high quality slide dupes.
For example, the S(n) series of Canon Powershots have less than 1% barrel
distortion at the wide end and less than 0.1% pincushion distortion at full
telephoto. When affixed with an achromat close-up lens then you use the
zoom somewhere in mid to long-range to focus on your macro subject.
Obtaining field-flatness and geometric distortions somewhere between +0.5%
and -0.1%.
Why must you invent such outlandishly ignorant claims about something which
you know absolutely NOTHING about?
Why must you insist on revealing yourself to be nothing but an outrageously
ignorant DSLR-Troll spewing nonsense and misinformation to the world?
>That kind of work is done with very expensive highly corrected lenses to
>maintain contrast, like $4,000 lenses for copying hollywood movies, etc.
>Anyways a scanner is the better tool for digitizing slides. A P&S could
>be handy for quickly capturing them for web display though I suspect
>you'd need to run them through software for distortion correction.
Keep dreaming in order to delude yourself and trying to justify the cost of
your camera which is the totally wrong tool for many purposes.
Charlie Groh
...wouldn't such an eminent photographer, scientist, explorer and
general genius have a name with which to grace us? I mean, with all
his extensive work it should be out there, eh?
cg (I can fly a helocopter and I'll betcha he does, too...better, just
ask him...)
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:28:26 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I think he may have a
>>>> point.
>>>
>>> Sorry, stopped clocks may be right twice a day, but they are
>>> wrong at every other moment --- and you never really know when
>>> they might be right. Worse, they are completely unusable and
>>> impractical for all normal use cases.
>>>
>>>> A P&S usually does have a simpler shutter mechanism, and it shouldn't
>>>> be difficult to find one that's good enough optically to be useful for copying
>>>> slides.
>>>
>>> Useful? For thumbnails, no problem.
>>> For high quality copies --- that's a different game.
>>
>>A flat field macro lens with no barrel distortion is most likely
>>impossible for a P&S. You could fix the barrel in post but a general use
>>super-zoom is just not going to cut it for high quality slide dupes.
>
>For example, the S(n) series of Canon Powershots have less than 1% barrel
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net