quote: It would work if it wasn't $20,000/lb or whatever. I don't think radioactive waste will affect us from 93 million miles away.
/quote
reply: Uhm, the Earth is nice and habitable and well lit (for about half the day at most latitudes) because of waste products from a nuclear event. That event happens in a place about 93 million miles away. If the earth lacked it's electromagnetic field and ozone layer we'd be toast right quick double-time like. The sun puts out a boatload of hazardous emissions, and more than a lethal dosage reaches the earth.
Now, a few thousand (or even million) tons of radioactive waste added to the sun's output wouldn't likely to be noticed due to the overwheleming output of the sun (like lighting a candle outdoors at noon on a cloudless day on top of a snow covered mountain.)
Hasselblad CFH-39 digital back: 39 megapixel ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400 Capture rate: 35 captures per minute
Nice, but, it's not large format now is it? Do you have tilt swing and shift for control of focus and perspective?
It's a great tool for certain jobs but it's not going to outperform even a 4x5 view camera and a 3000dpi scanner [that's about 180 megapixels] (much less an 8x10 [720 megapixels].)
you nincompoop - yes it does. all SLR's, film or digital, need batteries, to cock/release the mirror and shutter.
Most SLRs (and most other non-digital cameras) use the power stored in a tensioned spring to motivate the movement of their shutters. Even digital SLRs. Of course almost all re-tension the springs with the use of eletric motors/solonoids/whatever.
Most modern cameras use batteries to power things like flashes, meters, motor drives, focusing motors, and other optional features.
Some cameras are made to function. Period. Battery goes dead, you don't loose the ability to trip the shutter or advance your film.
Sure, the meter goes dead, autofocus stops working, the built-in flash stops flashing.
The camera will still take photos as long as you have film and the ability to look through the viewfinder to focus and ratchet the film-advance lever on the camera to bring the next bit of film into position and re-cock the shutter.
Of course you'll have to use your brain (instead of the electronic brain put into the camera) to determine your exposure settings, but with a little experience this becomes less difficult. Of course this will make these sort of cameras far less popular with the "I don't want to learn crap" crowd to just want to press a button and get their photos.
SLRs predated the widespread use of electronic in cameras. They functioned perfectly well without batteries.
some guy on slashdot [slashdot.org] said the following:
Normally, if you want to make really huge-ass prints, you use a large format camera, using a 4"x5" or 8"x10" plate film.
I [slashdot.org] say in reply:
I have to assume you're not talking about the old process of using metal plates, invented in the late 18th century [wikipedia.org], but rather glass plate photography. I feel I must inform you that the use of Glass plates as photographic capture medium [wikipedia.org] has gone out of style a long time ago [wikipedia.org]. Large format photographers have been using film based processes [wikipedia.org] sense 1871 [wikipedia.org]. Time for you getget your head out of the 19th century and try to catch up with at least the 20th, if not the 21st, century.
Another guy on slashdot said:
And I have to assume that you don't seem to be familiar with modern large format cameras. Very, very few people use 8x10 glass plates anymore, but there's lots of people that use 8x10 negative and slide film.
I make it easy for the 2nd guy from slashdot:
The first poster(Photoman) said the use of plates was what one would use to make large prints. I pointed out that metal and glass plate photography fell out of style a long time ago (being processes from the late 1700s and mid 1800s respectively) and that film based photographic capture was invented in the late 1800s.
No where did I say that large format photographers were using glass plates as their primary medium.
Take it from a guy that's gone throuh thousands of sheets of 4x5, hundreds of 8x10, and even a few nighmareish experiences with 8x17 custom cut sheet films for an amazingly akward panoramic camera, film is the place to be when it comes to image capture in large-format for everything but studio still life photography (where digital backs are really nice.)
"Except for those who want to put a camera in their pocket."
Pentax *ist Ds2 with a DA 40/2.8?
Dude, I want to see your pants!
"Except for those who want a "quiet" camera with no loud focusing or mirror-slap."
Olympus E-1.
"Except for those who want a live-preview on the LCD for photos at odd angles."
Olympus E-10 or E-20.
The E-1 and E-20 are EVF (Electronic View Finders) if I am not mistaken. NOT DSLRs.
"Except for those who want work in the field for an extended duration where there is no convenient place to re-charge the battery for the camera."
Buy another battery?
I've depleted three LI-ION battery packs in a five hour session (abnormaly high shooting rate for me, but if I've done it once I'm sure there are active professionals who have done it alot.) Notice I said "extended duration." We're not talking a two hour hike. We're talking multiple days "roughing it" in the back-country/side of a mountain/whatever.
"Except for those who want to use "alternative processes" for creative effect."
Easy to emulate in Phot5oshop - which also let's you do SO MUCH MORE!
Photoshop can't make bromoil prints, paladium prints, cyanotypes, or anything that's not a file full of 1s and 0s. Photoshop does alot, but it's not GOD software.
"Except for those who want to use their cameras in enviroments that would expose a D-SLR's sensor to dusty condition (I guess they could get multiple D-SLRs, one for each lens, no need to risk dust on the sensor that way.) [Yes, I have done this myself. Photo geek here.]"
Olympus E-1, E-300, E-500.
The list of cameras (not all of them D-SLRS) grows, going to prove my point that D-SLRs aren't a tool for all situations.
"Except for those who want to use AA batteries."
Nikon D200 et al.
"Except for those who want stay away from decisions about buying a Tamaron vs Sigma vs Tokina vs Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Contax/Pentax/etc lens for their camera."
That's just stupid.
Yes, that is. Many consumers are stupid. Look at photography message boards and count the stupid questions/comments made by consumers regarding digital cameras.
"Except for those who want to take photos and not stand out in a crowd with "expensive looking" photo gear."
You could always 'distress' your camera.
You mean beat the crap out of it in a way that diminishes its cosmetic new-ness(forgive me) without diminishing it's functionality. So your $800+ DSLR(body only, and only the cheap-o model) will look less professional to a theif because he will inspect its condition BEFORE mugging you. The overzealous security drone wont care if your camera is dirty, just that it looks like the ones he sees "professionals" using on TV.
"Except for those who want spend more on going on vacation than buying a camera to photograph said vacation."
Is that what cameras are for?
Cameras are not for sucking all your disposable income out of your vacation-fund. They are (most often used) for making a visual record of what exists in the world (even if the record is made in an artisticly unrealistic form.)
For non-professionals cameras are used primarily to capture memories. If you spend so much on a camera that you miss out on memorable experiences due to the depletion of disposable income then what's the point?
I COULD buy an ASTON MARTIN DB-9 (car analogy watch out!) but then I'd have no money left over to fuel or insure it. So I drive something a little more reasonable with enough performance to kill me if I screw up driving so it's still fun to play with when off the street.
I could buy a $20,000 camera kit, but then be unable to fund a vacation for the next three or four years, or I could buy a $500 camera and have plenty of money available for vacationing.
Okay, let's sumarize, DSLRs are not the right tool for every job. They're are often the best tool for many jobs, but not all. You mentioned several diffrent cameras that you seem to belive to be best in several diffrent situations, some of those cameras are not D-SLRS. I believe this helps make my point.
The diffrence is smaller (usualy) as the quality(and price!) of the digital camera in question go up.
YOU:
You obviously haven't tried even one of the newer entry level DSLR's. They are instant on. You can turn the camera on and take a shot with it at the same time.
ME AGAIN:
I said that the diffrence between film and digital diminishes as quality, and most often price, go up. I own three D-SLRs. One which might be called "entry level" (Digital Rebel, it is now a dust collector for what that's worth.) It is near instant on. Less than a second if you made me guess. I didn't say it was the DSLRs that gave alot of power-on lag.
"A fool is a man who goes into combat with the saftey on and no round in the chamber." -- can't recall might be that Cooper guy from the Gunsite ranch (an ex-marine.)
He'd agree with you. If you're going to take photos you turn on your camera ahead of time. I agree with you. But, not everyone is as smart as you and I.
Except you now have an additional set of potential points for failure in a system many will come to rely upon to keep themselves safe. There's alot of evdience(go google it) that suggests people drive faster knowing they have ABS,APRS,SC[stability control],TC[traction control],etc. to help them drive (and survive accidents in the case of Active Passenger Restrain t Systems[airbags].)
In addition to your race-boy reasons I have a big one.
If you push a joystick forward to activate the brakes or the gas, and you pull to active whatever isn't activated by the push you have a BAD problem.
Imagine heavy braking used in the process of an emergency stop (jay-walker, car in neighborlanes prevent emergency lane-change.)
Your momentum pushes you forward. Your seatbelt MOSTLY holds you in place. Your arms being un-belted will move forward to some extent (based on strength, anticipation of decceleration forces, strength of deceleration forces, "oh shit brace for impact factor" as you stiffen your limbs and brace against the steering wheel(now a stick.))
That forward push your arm makes will either make you apply more brakes (no big deal with ABS and if no-one is going to rear-end you) or you will apply less braking force (or worse yet, go so far as to get back off the brake entirely and end up back on the accelerator.) Now we have unintentional activation of a vital vehicle saftey and control system durring an actual stressful emergency. Things just got more complicated and a j-walker is about to get splatted.
The CPU in a digital camera will require more time to "boot up" than the one in a film camera. The diffrence is smaller (usualy) as the quality(and price!) of the digital camera in question go up. Pick up a $150 digital cheapy and a novel to read while you wait. Even expensive (700$+) cameras (many D-EFVs in particular at this price range) will give you a wait time (2-3 seconds isn't uncommon) than can be maddening when your subjects aren't stationary landscapes or still-lifes.
Quite obvious. Digital SLR's are great for everybody
Except for those who want to put a camera in their pocket.
Except for those who want a "quiet" camera with no loud focusing or mirror-slap.
Except for those who want a live-preview on the LCD for photos at odd angles.
Except for those who want to capture vido with their digital camera.
Except for those who want work in the field for an extended duration where there is no convenient place to re-charge the battery for the camera.
Except for those who want to use "alternative processes" for creative effect.
Except for those who want to use their cameras in enviroments that would expose a D-SLR's sensor to dusty condition (I guess they could get multiple D-SLRs, one for each lens, no need to risk dust on the sensor that way.) [Yes, I have done this myself. Photo geek here.]
Except for those who want to use AA batteries.
Except for those who want stay away from decisions about buying a Tamaron vs Sigma vs Tokina vs Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Contax/Pentax/etc lens for their camera.
Except for those who want to take photos and not stand out in a crowd with "expensive looking" photo gear.
Except for those who want spend more on going on vacation than buying a camera to photograph said vacation.
This said I own: 5+ 35mm film cameras (non SLR) [mostly collecting dust] 3 medium and large format film cameras [mostly collecting dust] 1 digital back for medium format camera [mostly collecting dust] 3 Digital SLRs [one is mostly collecting dust] 2 35mm film SLRs [mostly collecting dust] 2 Digital "compact" cameras (can be put into a pocket) [no dust, always in pocket or briefcase when possible/legal]
So, I'm not trying to troll, just let you know a D-SLR isn't the be all and end all of photography.
Take your digital scanning back out into the field, and the high powered PC/MAC workstation required to use said back. And a whole lot of noise(generator) or weight(batteries.)
Or you can take a box of sheet film.
Scanning back: ISO: 50 (may have changed, it's been a while) Capture time for 4x5 frame: 30 seconds (again, see ISO) Portion of those 30 seconds objects in the frame have been blown about by the wind or moved under their own power: 100% (except for people who take macro photos of rocks in the field.)
Film: ISO: 50 to 1600 (6400 with two stop push) Capture time for 4x5 frame: 1/1000th on the fast side, infinite on the long/slow side. [faster with a super-expensive shutter, again, we're talking field, not studio use. No, even in the studio, the scanning back has a fixed scanning time, where the effective shutter speed of a film sheet is that of the flash duration of your lighting kit.][Try a 30 minute exposure with your scanning back and see your power supply be drained in short order, if you can even get the thing to slow down the scan rate.] Time subjects move: 100%, but at 1/1000th of a second they didn't go far so who gives a damn.
So, try to shoot a living breathing subject, or anything outside the studio with a scanning back. You'll be crying out for someone to bring you film!
I have to assume you're not talking about the old process of using metal plates, invented in the late 18th century, but rather glass plate photography. I feel I must inform you that the use of Glass plates as photographic capture medium has gone out of style a long time ago. Large format photographers have been using film based processes sense 1871. Time for you getget your head out of the 19th century and try to catch up with at least the 20th, if not the 21st, century.
pull out your rose tinted glasses and try to see it this way:
The Planet of the Apes is a social commentary in the form of a sci-fi film, MLK was a historic figure who made great efforts to make society more equal.
Trying to view a glass that's half full I'll try to see that as a connection that some software somewhere made. Of course the victocrats(glass half empty types) will see nothing beyond the titles of the connected products. To them I say get over it and try to look beyond the superficial.
Yup, if you're from slashdot and you're hitting the singles websites then you need to stay away from the hot chicks and the babes with some social skills. Just stick to the ugly nerdy girls who live in their father's basements. Just like the chicks you find on slashdot. That is, in an alternate reality where chicks read slashdot.
Now, I'm ready to be flamed by those who lack a sense of humor.
I have a CD based mp3 player. Transitions between tracks are *ALMOST* seamless.
In the last few seconds of a track you hear, well, feel, the CD spin up (if it's in your lap, further away and it's undetectable.) When the CD is up to speed the track is stored in RAM and the CD spins down. Depending on the size of the track (in terms of MB) the CD may or may not spin down before the transition. If the file is LARGE and the CD is actively reading durring the transition (say, when playing audiobooks with 20MB+ files) you will notice the change from one track to the next. When the file sizes are small enough that the player isn't still reading from the CD at the transition then it's a seamless transition. I suspect that the machine dosen't have enough CPU to read and decode the start of the next audiostream in real-time and gets a hiccup (a tiny gap in the sound.)
Slashdot Mirror
It would work if it wasn't $20,000/lb or whatever. I don't think radioactive waste will affect us from 93 million miles away.
reply:
Uhm, the Earth is nice and habitable and well lit (for about half the day at most latitudes) because of waste products from a nuclear event. That event happens in a place about 93 million miles away. If the earth lacked it's electromagnetic field and ozone layer we'd be toast right quick double-time like. The sun puts out a boatload of hazardous emissions, and more than a lethal dosage reaches the earth.
Now, a few thousand (or even million) tons of radioactive waste added to the sun's output wouldn't likely to be noticed due to the overwheleming output of the sun (like lighting a candle outdoors at noon on a cloudless day on top of a snow covered mountain.)
quote /quote
/. reader were clever the name of the character would not have been needed.
That might have been clever if you hadn't included the name of the character.
If the average
Dr. Ian Malcolm: I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.
(Can anyone guess the Movie or Book title?)
He really should have used the sarcaughaphus back on the mothership(okay, you try spelling it)
Hasselblad CFH-39 digital back:
39 megapixel
ISO 50, 100, 200 and 400
Capture rate: 35 captures per minute
Nice, but, it's not large format now is it? Do you have tilt swing and shift for control of focus and perspective?
It's a great tool for certain jobs but it's not going to outperform even a 4x5 view camera and a 3000dpi scanner [that's about 180 megapixels] (much less an 8x10 [720 megapixels].)
you nincompoop - yes it does. all SLR's, film or digital, need batteries, to cock/release the mirror and shutter.
Most SLRs (and most other non-digital cameras) use the power stored in a tensioned spring to motivate the movement of their shutters. Even digital SLRs. Of course almost all re-tension the springs with the use of eletric motors/solonoids/whatever.
Most modern cameras use batteries to power things like flashes, meters, motor drives, focusing motors, and other optional features.
Some cameras are made to function. Period. Battery goes dead, you don't loose the ability to trip the shutter or advance your film.
Sure, the meter goes dead, autofocus stops working, the built-in flash stops flashing.
The camera will still take photos as long as you have film and the ability to look through the viewfinder to focus and ratchet the film-advance lever on the camera to bring the next bit of film into position and re-cock the shutter.
Of course you'll have to use your brain (instead of the electronic brain put into the camera) to determine your exposure settings, but with a little experience this becomes less difficult. Of course this will make these sort of cameras far less popular with the "I don't want to learn crap" crowd to just want to press a button and get their photos.
SLRs predated the widespread use of electronic in cameras. They functioned perfectly well without batteries.
some guy on slashdot [slashdot.org] said the following:
Normally, if you want to make really huge-ass prints, you use a large format camera, using a 4"x5" or 8"x10" plate film.
I [slashdot.org] say in reply:
I have to assume you're not talking about the old process of using metal plates, invented in the late 18th century [wikipedia.org], but rather glass plate photography. I feel I must inform you that the use of Glass plates as photographic capture medium [wikipedia.org] has gone out of style a long time ago [wikipedia.org]. Large format photographers have been using film based processes [wikipedia.org] sense 1871 [wikipedia.org]. Time for you getget your head out of the 19th century and try to catch up with at least the 20th, if not the 21st, century.
Another guy on slashdot said:
And I have to assume that you don't seem to be familiar with modern large format cameras. Very, very few people use 8x10 glass plates anymore, but there's lots of people that use 8x10 negative and slide film.
I make it easy for the 2nd guy from slashdot:
The first poster(Photoman) said the use of plates was what one would use to make large prints. I pointed out that metal and glass plate photography fell out of style a long time ago (being processes from the late 1700s and mid 1800s respectively) and that film based photographic capture was invented in the late 1800s.
No where did I say that large format photographers were using glass plates as their primary medium.
Take it from a guy that's gone throuh thousands of sheets of 4x5, hundreds of 8x10, and even a few nighmareish experiences with 8x17 custom cut sheet films for an amazingly akward panoramic camera, film is the place to be when it comes to image capture in large-format for everything but studio still life photography (where digital backs are really nice.)
"Except for those who want to put a camera in their pocket."
Pentax *ist Ds2 with a DA 40/2.8?
Dude, I want to see your pants!
"Except for those who want a "quiet" camera with no loud focusing or mirror-slap."
Olympus E-1.
"Except for those who want a live-preview on the LCD for photos at odd angles."
Olympus E-10 or E-20.
The E-1 and E-20 are EVF (Electronic View Finders) if I am not mistaken. NOT DSLRs.
"Except for those who want work in the field for an extended duration where there is no convenient place to re-charge the battery for the camera."
Buy another battery?
I've depleted three LI-ION battery packs in a five hour session (abnormaly high shooting rate for me, but if I've done it once I'm sure there are active professionals who have done it alot.) Notice I said "extended duration." We're not talking a two hour hike. We're talking multiple days "roughing it" in the back-country/side of a mountain/whatever.
"Except for those who want to use "alternative processes" for creative effect."
Easy to emulate in Phot5oshop - which also let's you do SO MUCH MORE!
Photoshop can't make bromoil prints, paladium prints, cyanotypes, or anything that's not a file full of 1s and 0s. Photoshop does alot, but it's not GOD software.
"Except for those who want to use their cameras in enviroments that would expose a D-SLR's sensor to dusty condition (I guess they could get multiple D-SLRs, one for each lens, no need to risk dust on the sensor that way.) [Yes, I have done this myself. Photo geek here.]"
Olympus E-1, E-300, E-500.
The list of cameras (not all of them D-SLRS) grows, going to prove my point that D-SLRs aren't a tool for all situations.
"Except for those who want to use AA batteries."
Nikon D200 et al.
"Except for those who want stay away from decisions about buying a Tamaron vs Sigma vs Tokina vs Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Contax/Pentax/etc lens for their camera."
That's just stupid.
Yes, that is. Many consumers are stupid. Look at photography message boards and count the stupid questions/comments made by consumers regarding digital cameras.
"Except for those who want to take photos and not stand out in a crowd with "expensive looking" photo gear."
You could always 'distress' your camera.
You mean beat the crap out of it in a way that diminishes its cosmetic new-ness(forgive me) without diminishing it's functionality. So your $800+ DSLR(body only, and only the cheap-o model) will look less professional to a theif because he will inspect its condition BEFORE mugging you. The overzealous security drone wont care if your camera is dirty, just that it looks like the ones he sees "professionals" using on TV.
"Except for those who want spend more on going on vacation than buying a camera to photograph said vacation."
Is that what cameras are for?
Cameras are not for sucking all your disposable income out of your vacation-fund. They are (most often used) for making a visual record of what exists in the world (even if the record is made in an artisticly unrealistic form.)
For non-professionals cameras are used primarily to capture memories. If you spend so much on a camera that you miss out on memorable experiences due to the depletion of disposable income then what's the point?
I COULD buy an ASTON MARTIN DB-9 (car analogy watch out!) but then I'd have no money left over to fuel or insure it. So I drive something a little more reasonable with enough performance to kill me if I screw up driving so it's still fun to play with when off the street.
I could buy a $20,000 camera kit, but then be unable to fund a vacation for the next three or four years, or I could buy a $500 camera and have plenty of money available for vacationing.
Okay, let's sumarize, DSLRs are not the right tool for every job. They're are often the best tool for many jobs, but not all. You mentioned several diffrent cameras that you seem to belive to be best in several diffrent situations, some of those cameras are not D-SLRS. I believe this helps make my point.
ME:
The diffrence is smaller (usualy) as the quality(and price!) of the digital camera in question go up.
YOU:
You obviously haven't tried even one of the newer entry level DSLR's. They are instant on. You can turn the camera on and take a shot with it at the same time.
ME AGAIN:
I said that the diffrence between film and digital diminishes as quality, and most often price, go up. I own three D-SLRs. One which might be called "entry level" (Digital Rebel, it is now a dust collector for what that's worth.) It is near instant on. Less than a second if you made me guess. I didn't say it was the DSLRs that gave alot of power-on lag.
"A fool is a man who goes into combat with the saftey on and no round in the chamber." -- can't recall might be that Cooper guy from the Gunsite ranch (an ex-marine.)
He'd agree with you. If you're going to take photos you turn on your camera ahead of time. I agree with you. But, not everyone is as smart as you and I.
Except you now have an additional set of potential points for failure in a system many will come to rely upon to keep themselves safe. There's alot of evdience(go google it) that suggests people drive faster knowing they have ABS,APRS,SC[stability control],TC[traction control],etc. to help them drive (and survive accidents in the case of Active Passenger Restrain t Systems[airbags].)
pssssssssssst... the Legend is an Accura.
PS: I know Accura is a wholy owned subsiduary of Honda (even if I can't spell it.)
In addition to your race-boy reasons I have a big one.
If you push a joystick forward to activate the brakes or the gas, and you pull to active whatever isn't activated by the push you have a BAD problem.
Imagine heavy braking used in the process of an emergency stop (jay-walker, car in neighborlanes prevent emergency lane-change.)
Your momentum pushes you forward. Your seatbelt MOSTLY holds you in place. Your arms being un-belted will move forward to some extent (based on strength, anticipation of decceleration forces, strength of deceleration forces, "oh shit brace for impact factor" as you stiffen your limbs and brace against the steering wheel(now a stick.))
That forward push your arm makes will either make you apply more brakes (no big deal with ABS and if no-one is going to rear-end you) or you will apply less braking force (or worse yet, go so far as to get back off the brake entirely and end up back on the accelerator.) Now we have unintentional activation of a vital vehicle saftey and control system durring an actual stressful emergency. Things just got more complicated and a j-walker is about to get splatted.
I drove an '89 Celebrity with no ABS or anything other than power steering up until a year ago.
You used to drive the car. Now [in soviet russia?] the car drives you!
The CPU in a digital camera will require more time to "boot up" than the one in a film camera. The diffrence is smaller (usualy) as the quality(and price!) of the digital camera in question go up. Pick up a $150 digital cheapy and a novel to read while you wait. Even expensive (700$+) cameras (many D-EFVs in particular at this price range) will give you a wait time (2-3 seconds isn't uncommon) than can be maddening when your subjects aren't stationary landscapes or still-lifes.
Quite obvious. Digital SLR's are great for everybody
Except for those who want to put a camera in their pocket.
Except for those who want a "quiet" camera with no loud focusing or mirror-slap.
Except for those who want a live-preview on the LCD for photos at odd angles.
Except for those who want to capture vido with their digital camera.
Except for those who want work in the field for an extended duration where there is no convenient place to re-charge the battery for the camera.
Except for those who want to use "alternative processes" for creative effect.
Except for those who want to use their cameras in enviroments that would expose a D-SLR's sensor to dusty condition (I guess they could get multiple D-SLRs, one for each lens, no need to risk dust on the sensor that way.) [Yes, I have done this myself. Photo geek here.]
Except for those who want to use AA batteries.
Except for those who want stay away from decisions about buying a Tamaron vs Sigma vs Tokina vs Canon/Nikon/Minolta/Olympus/Contax/Pentax/etc lens for their camera.
Except for those who want to take photos and not stand out in a crowd with "expensive looking" photo gear.
Except for those who want spend more on going on vacation than buying a camera to photograph said vacation.
This said I own:
5+ 35mm film cameras (non SLR) [mostly collecting dust]
3 medium and large format film cameras [mostly collecting dust]
1 digital back for medium format camera [mostly collecting dust]
3 Digital SLRs [one is mostly collecting dust]
2 35mm film SLRs [mostly collecting dust]
2 Digital "compact" cameras (can be put into a pocket) [no dust, always in pocket or briefcase when possible/legal]
So, I'm not trying to troll, just let you know a D-SLR isn't the be all and end all of photography.
Take your digital scanning back out into the field, and the high powered PC/MAC workstation required to use said back. And a whole lot of noise(generator) or weight(batteries.)
Or you can take a box of sheet film.
Scanning back:
ISO: 50 (may have changed, it's been a while)
Capture time for 4x5 frame: 30 seconds (again, see ISO)
Portion of those 30 seconds objects in the frame have been blown about by the wind or moved under their own power: 100% (except for people who take macro photos of rocks in the field.)
Film:
ISO: 50 to 1600 (6400 with two stop push)
Capture time for 4x5 frame: 1/1000th on the fast side, infinite on the long/slow side. [faster with a super-expensive shutter, again, we're talking field, not studio use. No, even in the studio, the scanning back has a fixed scanning time, where the effective shutter speed of a film sheet is that of the flash duration of your lighting kit.][Try a 30 minute exposure with your scanning back and see your power supply be drained in short order, if you can even get the thing to slow down the scan rate.]
Time subjects move: 100%, but at 1/1000th of a second they didn't go far so who gives a damn.
So, try to shoot a living breathing subject, or anything outside the studio with a scanning back. You'll be crying out for someone to bring you film!
some guy on slashdot said the following:
Normally, if you want to make really huge-ass prints, you use a large format camera, using a 4"x5" or 8"x10" plate film.
I say in reply:
I have to assume you're not talking about the old process of using metal plates, invented in the late 18th century, but rather glass plate photography. I feel I must inform you that the use of Glass plates as photographic capture medium has gone out of style a long time ago. Large format photographers have been using film based processes sense 1871. Time for you getget your head out of the 19th century and try to catch up with at least the 20th, if not the 21st, century.
pull out your rose tinted glasses and try to see it this way:
The Planet of the Apes is a social commentary in the form of a sci-fi film, MLK was a historic figure who made great efforts to make society more equal.
Trying to view a glass that's half full I'll try to see that as a connection that some software somewhere made. Of course the victocrats(glass half empty types) will see nothing beyond the titles of the connected products. To them I say get over it and try to look beyond the superficial.
What else can we stick a USB drive in?
Well if you want to get pummeled you could always say, "Your Mother" "Your Wife" or "Your Girlfriend".
[ Reply to This ]
Missing option:
BREASTS
Anyone scan the headlines and see that TARDIS was involved in this story? I clicked the story link, and what do I see?
The vests were developed by the Army's Tank Automotive Research, Development & Ingineering Senter, known as TARDIS
Yup, if you're from slashdot and you're hitting the singles websites then you need to stay away from the hot chicks and the babes with some social skills. Just stick to the ugly nerdy girls who live in their father's basements. Just like the chicks you find on slashdot. That is, in an alternate reality where chicks read slashdot.
Now, I'm ready to be flamed by those who lack a sense of humor.
If it's a SONY Blue-ray-DVD-drive then the rootkit comes in the firmware and drivers. No fear from a disk based rootkit.
Real geeks don't Save Ferris nor do they Vote for Pedro.
REAL GEEKS *FREE KEVIN!*
I have a CD based mp3 player. Transitions between tracks are *ALMOST* seamless.
In the last few seconds of a track you hear, well, feel, the CD spin up (if it's in your lap, further away and it's undetectable.) When the CD is up to speed the track is stored in RAM and the CD spins down. Depending on the size of the track (in terms of MB) the CD may or may not spin down before the transition. If the file is LARGE and the CD is actively reading durring the transition (say, when playing audiobooks with 20MB+ files) you will notice the change from one track to the next. When the file sizes are small enough that the player isn't still reading from the CD at the transition then it's a seamless transition. I suspect that the machine dosen't have enough CPU to read and decode the start of the next audiostream in real-time and gets a hiccup (a tiny gap in the sound.)