The 20D is a good camera. Take a look at the 300D or the 350D. After 20,000 shots try getting your shutter replaced under warranty. The camera manufacturers aren't at all up front about this. (Try finding published shutter lifes for most consumer DSLRs).
Seriously you can shoot like a mad man with a prosumer, and I did. Then I moved up to a DSLR and hadn't read about or dealt with shutter life. (Prosumers which have less mechanics are much more tolerant). As a result I killed a D70 and had to deal with the service episode from hell. I was about 5 months without a camera. I happen to think it's a very big deal.
If like me you can take 2000 shots on an outing at the zoo, that's 10 trips before your camera is stuffed.
My gripe is that you can do this with a prosumer camera but not a DSLR yet the camera manufacturers don't even tell buyers that this is a problem.
By all means take all the pics that you want but if you don't realise there's a cost to taking the shot and you don't budget for it, you won't have a camera for very long.
See my other comments. The problem tends to be that people shoot more pictures when they go digital. They don't have to change film every 36 shots, so shooting 2000 pics in a day is entirely possible/practical. Meanwhile people moving up from prosumer cameras would be use to cameras that can take that sort of punishment since the shutter is either partly or wholely electronic. None of the camera companies are up front about the fact that if you take the same number of shots using a DSLR as you could with a prosumer it'd be much more expensive.
Ah but that's simply not true. People are much more likely to shoot a lot more when they don't have to carry film and can review the pics. I've shot 2000+ photos on a single day trip to the zoo. That wouldn't be practical if I had to change film every 36 shots as I simply wouldn't have the time.
The problem is not the shutter life itself but that those that choose to move up from a prosumer to a DSLR are not aware that the DSLR has a much more limited number of shuts in it due to the mechanical parts.
The problem isn't that DSLRs are not cheaper than film. The problem is that they don't tell the consumer about this cost when they buy an SLR. So if like me you're naive and assume that just like the prosumer cameras you can shoot thousands of shots a day, you end up with a nasty surprise - not just the cost, but a non-operational camera until you manage to get it fixed.
Yes. I'm torn by that. I like Nikon design and I own 2 Nikon lenses but if my SLR died out of warranty I'd be loath to buy another Nikon thanks to their authorised repairers here.
Don't go too snap happy with the new DSLR. Shutters on consumer models tend to last 20,000-50,000 shots on average depending on brand and model. Google for: SLR shutter life. Some cameras last much longer and some die more quickly, just realise that there is a cost associated with each shot.
There's a cost to clicking on a DSLR too. Shutter life is rated at between 20,000-50,000 shots on the consumer models. Sure you can just go snap happy but you'll stop after you kill your first shutter.
I believe being able to see what you've just done is a great tool, but like all tools it can be misused by the inexperienced or the lazy. That doesn't mean the capability is worthless.
35mm will die sooner than you think. It's cheap because it's a commodity and it's a commodity because it's common. If it becomes a specialty item costs will soar and thus begins a cost spiral: Less people use it because it's getting more expensive and it gets more expensive as less people use it.
All true except the expense. Since the actual cameras are still relatively expensive and consumer models have an expected shutter life of around 20,000-50,000 shots you'll find it very expensive to use your digital SLR like you can use a point and shoot. With a point and shoot you can snap 2,000 pics in an outing at the zoo and not worry. Do that 10 times on some consumer SLRs and you'll have a nice expensive repair waiting for you, and a camera you can't use in the meantime.
I should know. I managed to kill a Nikon D70 under warrant. (The shutter would start to jam after about half an hour of moderate shooting). I had to have it sent back 3 times. In the end the store I bought it from replaced it under warranty after I'd notified them in writing I would take it up with the local consumer body.
None of the camera manufacturers tend to put a figure on how many shots you can take before they'll refuse to replace the shutter under warranty. I'm told one leading manufacturer quotes 50,000. Most if not all cameras have a counter that tells you how many times the shutter has been triggered. (Nikon ones even imbed this information in NEF or EXIF).
Also good lenses for SLRs are a lot more expensive than point and shoots. Crappy lenses are a waste of time and produce blurry images that can be outdown by some point and shoots. Point and shoots also can have movie modes so good they almost double as a video camera. (I have an Olympus C-770 that'll do 45 minutes of continuous movie in mpeg 4).
If you want professional quality photos though, you'll still need the outlay of a good SLR and GOOD glass (lenses). You can't beat the ISO sensitivites and quality that the larger DSLR sensors give you with a point and shoot. You also can't beat the range of depths of field that an SLR will give you. Finally if you were to do anything professional, a DSLR would be expected and you'd be laughed at if you came out with a point and shoot.
If my kids spent half the time that they play games on learning a computer language, then they would be pulling down six figure salaries.
Well a lot of good coders aren't paid 6 figures. A lot of good coders are still out of work, and a lot more make adequate salaries at the expense of 80+ hour weeks.
You might as well say that the kid should be out learning to be a plumber or a carpenter.
In any case if they get into games in the right way and have a bit of curiousity they can start modding and building addons for software out of their own interest. That could lead to a career in graphic arts or programming anyway.
Playing games is about having fun - do your best to make sure they find learning fun and it will put them in good stead. In the mean time only let them at the games if they keep up their grades. The rest will take care of itself.
2.) Then reveals that he only sleeps five hours a day.
That could be medical. I use to do that and thought nothing of it until I COULDN'T get more than about 6 hrs sleep without getting a headache. Then years later I found I couldn't stay awake even if I did try to sleep for 10 hrs at a time. (I was lucky I didn't lose my job!) Turns out I'd been snoring really badly and no one had bothered to tell me for fear of offending me. Well it turns out I had sleep apnea. I've got treatment in the form of CPAP (check Wikipedia or Google it)). I don't fall asleep inappropriately but I do have to be exhausted to get to sleep so I tend to get about 6 hours a day.
People always assume the problem is of a person's own doing. Sometimes there's an underlying problem the person either isn't aware of, or isn't able to control.
This person probably needs a sleep study.
4.) Then reveals a doctor has already told him what's going on.
Doctors can be apathetic and/or wrong. He needs a couple of opinions but then he needs to act on the best information he has.
If you're going to have totally unrelated BS animations interfeer the study to show that kids' education is hampered by computer based courses, all you're showing is your own bias, dishonesty and/or lack of education.
The equivalent book would have to be litered with lots of unrelated text. We're talking lines from an episode of Sesame street mixed in with lines from Hamlet and the lyrics from this week's no 1 pop song here.
As I understand it you move your head, but have to keep your eyeballs fixed to the screen. Isn't that disorienting? I would have thought multiple screens where you turn your head and your eyes go to the same place would be better? I've never tried trackIR though.
Um, the setup in Tom's is a quad 7800 GT. The cards in the article run 7800 GTX. That X is very important speed wise. Also, NVidia and ASUS have done it slightly differently, and I'm not sure which is better but I'm guessing NVidia. I just hope they put out stable @#$@ing drivers!
I want something that'll give me at least 3 screens on MS flight sim 2004 (and FSX when it's released).
This setup would allow me to turn everything up and have it running on 4 screens! If the price comes down by the end of the year I'll be considering this sort of thing (realistically I'll probably end up with the mid range cards of the day rather than top of the line)....and in non-specialist situations the speed's going to be a godsend when the next wave of resource hogging eye candy (games) comes along. I want to keep my next rig for 3-4 years.
I could give a @#$k about bragging rights.
And for those of you who think 3 screens are a gimmick, try landing a 747 with a 3 or 4 screen setup before you say so. Makes the experience much more fun.
No one in their right mind places that kind of warranty on the code they write.
They might place that warranty on code their underlings write if they're a CEO intending to charge more up front then retire before the company goes down the toilet.
The nature of software is that you: 1) Rely on existing libraries and hardware as black boxes 2) Write to ambiguous specs (if any) under time pressure 3) It gets used under different circumstances than you expected, probably violating every assumption you had to make.
I wouldn't even guarantee a single assignment statement for 10 years at no cost. I would guarantee to look at it and fix it at a reasonable price.
Why do you think when anything is TRUELY important you have 2 or 3 redudant systems. eg. on the space shuttles you have 3 onboard control computers doing the exact same thing - and even then with billions spent 2 still blew up and killed people (not to mention set back the US space program).
Also my experience has been that companies either overcharge by a factor of 2 when they do fixed price, or they're hoping to win the contract from the competition, then push the price up when the specs change (as it inevitably does).
This "we promise, trust us" behaviour is not to be encouraged.
If you had a truely dangerous idea, and you knew it, and you were a world renowned scientist, you'd have to be either an egomaniac with no morals, or a fool to share it.
These scientists won't tell you their most dangerous ideas. The less scrupulous might just sell them to the military though.
Anyway, you'd have all manner of government agency after you if you went public with a really good idea.
They don't want more sales. They couldn't care less about more sales in and of themselves. what they care about is more money. They don't want to be in a high volume, low value business. They want to be in a high volume high value business. In other word's they're greedy.
...you teach creationism as science. You get a bunch of kids that think someone saying "let there be light" created the universe in 6 day. Cause and effect. Then you wonder why they can't tell that dropping the hammer on their foot doesn't make it rain marshmellows.
Why? SMS voting, advertising revenue. DVD sales. Lots of ways to make money out of fools watching the show. Won't people just stop watching. No, some will even go on about how clever it was.
So your argument is "Ignorance is bliss". I'll take full knowledge of how things are done over being ignorant and wondering about it any day of the week. If you don't want to watch the making of or read articles about how it's done then for goodness sake don't. There are some of us that rather enjoy the knowledge. So have some self control and leave our special features, explanations etc. alone.
Slashdot Mirror
The 20D is a good camera. Take a look at the 300D or the 350D. After 20,000 shots try getting your shutter replaced under warranty. The camera manufacturers aren't at all up front about this. (Try finding published shutter lifes for most consumer DSLRs).
Seriously you can shoot like a mad man with a prosumer, and I did. Then I moved up to a DSLR and hadn't read about or dealt with shutter life. (Prosumers which have less mechanics are much more tolerant). As a result I killed a D70 and had to deal with the service episode from hell. I was about 5 months without a camera. I happen to think it's a very big deal.
If like me you can take 2000 shots on an outing at the zoo, that's 10 trips before your camera is stuffed.
My gripe is that you can do this with a prosumer camera but not a DSLR yet the camera manufacturers don't even tell buyers that this is a problem.
By all means take all the pics that you want but if you don't realise there's a cost to taking the shot and you don't budget for it, you won't have a camera for very long.
See my other comments. The problem tends to be that people shoot more pictures when they go digital. They don't have to change film every 36 shots, so shooting 2000 pics in a day is entirely possible/practical. Meanwhile people moving up from prosumer cameras would be use to cameras that can take that sort of punishment since the shutter is either partly or wholely electronic. None of the camera companies are up front about the fact that if you take the same number of shots using a DSLR as you could with a prosumer it'd be much more expensive.
Ah but that's simply not true. People are much more likely to shoot a lot more when they don't have to carry film and can review the pics. I've shot 2000+ photos on a single day trip to the zoo. That wouldn't be practical if I had to change film every 36 shots as I simply wouldn't have the time.
The problem is not the shutter life itself but that those that choose to move up from a prosumer to a DSLR are not aware that the DSLR has a much more limited number of shuts in it due to the mechanical parts.
The problem isn't that DSLRs are not cheaper than film. The problem is that they don't tell the consumer about this cost when they buy an SLR. So if like me you're naive and assume that just like the prosumer cameras you can shoot thousands of shots a day, you end up with a nasty surprise - not just the cost, but a non-operational camera until you manage to get it fixed.
Yes. I'm torn by that. I like Nikon design and I own 2 Nikon lenses but if my SLR died out of warranty I'd be loath to buy another Nikon thanks to their authorised repairers here.
Don't go too snap happy with the new DSLR. Shutters on consumer models tend to last 20,000-50,000 shots on average depending on brand and model. Google for: SLR shutter life. Some cameras last much longer and some die more quickly, just realise that there is a cost associated with each shot.
I disagree about 3 things.
There's a cost to clicking on a DSLR too. Shutter life is rated at between 20,000-50,000 shots on the consumer models. Sure you can just go snap happy but you'll stop after you kill your first shutter.
I believe being able to see what you've just done is a great tool, but like all tools it can be misused by the inexperienced or the lazy. That doesn't mean the capability is worthless.
35mm will die sooner than you think. It's cheap because it's a commodity and it's a commodity because it's common. If it becomes a specialty item costs will soar and thus begins a cost spiral: Less people use it because it's getting more expensive and it gets more expensive as less people use it.
All true except the expense. Since the actual cameras are still relatively expensive and consumer models have an expected shutter life of around 20,000-50,000 shots you'll find it very expensive to use your digital SLR like you can use a point and shoot. With a point and shoot you can snap 2,000 pics in an outing at the zoo and not worry. Do that 10 times on some consumer SLRs and you'll have a nice expensive repair waiting for you, and a camera you can't use in the meantime.
I should know. I managed to kill a Nikon D70 under warrant. (The shutter would start to jam after about half an hour of moderate shooting). I had to have it sent back 3 times. In the end the store I bought it from replaced it under warranty after I'd notified them in writing I would take it up with the local consumer body.
None of the camera manufacturers tend to put a figure on how many shots you can take before they'll refuse to replace the shutter under warranty. I'm told one leading manufacturer quotes 50,000. Most if not all cameras have a counter that tells you how many times the shutter has been triggered. (Nikon ones even imbed this information in NEF or EXIF).
Also good lenses for SLRs are a lot more expensive than point and shoots. Crappy lenses are a waste of time and produce blurry images that can be outdown by some point and shoots. Point and shoots also can have movie modes so good they almost double as a video camera. (I have an Olympus C-770 that'll do 45 minutes of continuous movie in mpeg 4).
If you want professional quality photos though, you'll still need the outlay of a good SLR and GOOD glass (lenses). You can't beat the ISO sensitivites and quality that the larger DSLR sensors give you with a point and shoot. You also can't beat the range of depths of field that an SLR will give you. Finally if you were to do anything professional, a DSLR would be expected and you'd be laughed at if you came out with a point and shoot.
Sorry, I'm browsing at +4 and got lazy. Never did think it was your comment.
If my kids spent half the time that they play games on learning a computer language, then they would be pulling down six figure salaries.
Well a lot of good coders aren't paid 6 figures. A lot of good coders are still out of work, and a lot more make adequate salaries at the expense of 80+ hour weeks.
You might as well say that the kid should be out learning to be a plumber or a carpenter.
In any case if they get into games in the right way and have a bit of curiousity they can start modding and building addons for software out of their own interest. That could lead to a career in graphic arts or programming anyway.
Playing games is about having fun - do your best to make sure they find learning fun and it will put them in good stead. In the mean time only let them at the games if they keep up their grades. The rest will take care of itself.
2.) Then reveals that he only sleeps five hours a day.
That could be medical. I use to do that and thought nothing of it until I COULDN'T get more than about 6 hrs sleep without getting a headache. Then years later I found I couldn't stay awake even if I did try to sleep for 10 hrs at a time. (I was lucky I didn't lose my job!) Turns out I'd been snoring really badly and no one had bothered to tell me for fear of offending me. Well it turns out I had sleep apnea. I've got treatment in the form of CPAP (check Wikipedia or Google it)). I don't fall asleep inappropriately but I do have to be exhausted to get to sleep so I tend to get about 6 hours a day.
People always assume the problem is of a person's own doing. Sometimes there's an underlying problem the person either isn't aware of, or isn't able to control.
This person probably needs a sleep study.
4.) Then reveals a doctor has already told him what's going on.
Doctors can be apathetic and/or wrong. He needs a couple of opinions but then he needs to act on the best information he has.
If you're going to have totally unrelated BS animations interfeer the study to show that kids' education is hampered by computer based courses, all you're showing is your own bias, dishonesty and/or lack of education.
The equivalent book would have to be litered with lots of unrelated text. We're talking lines from an episode of Sesame street mixed in with lines from Hamlet and the lyrics from this week's no 1 pop song here.
Stupid story. Stupid study. Stupid conclusion. Stupid people.
As I understand it you move your head, but have to keep your eyeballs fixed to the screen. Isn't that disorienting? I would have thought multiple screens where you turn your head and your eyes go to the same place would be better? I've never tried trackIR though.
Not trolling. I genuinely don't understand.
If your customers are on a paid support contract that does not mean you've given a 100% warranty on a price fixed for developing the software only.
Note that I said I'd guarantee to look at and fix problems for a reasonable cost. How is this any different to what you're describing?
Um, the setup in Tom's is a quad 7800 GT. The cards in the article run 7800 GTX. That X is very important speed wise. Also, NVidia and ASUS have done it slightly differently, and I'm not sure which is better but I'm guessing NVidia. I just hope they put out stable @#$@ing drivers!
Bragging rights?
...and in non-specialist situations the speed's going to be a godsend when the next wave of resource hogging eye candy (games) comes along. I want to keep my next rig for 3-4 years.
I want something that'll give me at least 3 screens on MS flight sim 2004 (and FSX when it's released).
This setup would allow me to turn everything up and have it running on 4 screens! If the price comes down by the end of the year I'll be considering this sort of thing (realistically I'll probably end up with the mid range cards of the day rather than top of the line).
I could give a @#$k about bragging rights.
And for those of you who think 3 screens are a gimmick, try landing a 747 with a 3 or 4 screen setup before you say so. Makes the experience much more fun.
No one in their right mind places that kind of warranty on the code they write.
They might place that warranty on code their underlings write if they're a CEO intending to charge more up front then retire before the company goes down the toilet.
The nature of software is that you:
1) Rely on existing libraries and hardware as black boxes
2) Write to ambiguous specs (if any) under time pressure
3) It gets used under different circumstances than you expected, probably violating every assumption you had to make.
I wouldn't even guarantee a single assignment statement for 10 years at no cost. I would guarantee to look at it and fix it at a reasonable price.
Why do you think when anything is TRUELY important you have 2 or 3 redudant systems. eg. on the space shuttles you have 3 onboard control computers doing the exact same thing - and even then with billions spent 2 still blew up and killed people (not to mention set back the US space program).
Also my experience has been that companies either overcharge by a factor of 2 when they do fixed price, or they're hoping to win the contract from the competition, then push the price up when the specs change (as it inevitably does).
This "we promise, trust us" behaviour is not to be encouraged.
If you had a truely dangerous idea, and you knew it, and you were a world renowned scientist, you'd have to be either an egomaniac with no morals, or a fool to share it.
These scientists won't tell you their most dangerous ideas. The less scrupulous might just sell them to the military though.
Anyway, you'd have all manner of government agency after you if you went public with a really good idea.
The Dover school board need just introduce a new course "Mysticism, Superstition and Things That Go Bump in the Night". Then they could teach ID
It's called religion class. I suffered many years of it.
More like impracticality meets extravagance.
They don't want more sales. They couldn't care less about more sales in and of themselves. what they care about is more money. They don't want to be in a high volume, low value business. They want to be in a high volume high value business. In other word's they're greedy.
...you teach creationism as science. You get a bunch of kids that think someone saying "let there be light" created the universe in 6 day. Cause and effect. Then you wonder why they can't tell that dropping the hammer on their foot doesn't make it rain marshmellows.
I think you overestimate people.
Why? SMS voting, advertising revenue. DVD sales. Lots of ways to make money out of fools watching the show.
Won't people just stop watching. No, some will even go on about how clever it was.
So your argument is "Ignorance is bliss". I'll take full knowledge of how things are done over being ignorant and wondering about it any day of the week. If you don't want to watch the making of or read articles about how it's done then for goodness sake don't. There are some of us that rather enjoy the knowledge. So have some self control and leave our special features, explanations etc. alone.