Traditionally, photographers had to spend a lot of time on film and chemistry before they got to the real stuff because they didn't have a choice.
That is the best reason to go with film. When it takes time to see your results, you learn better to pre-visualize. When you can't just shoot-review-delete ad infinitum until you get a good photo, you learn to take your time to see the image first. After 20 years of photography, you've forgotten that you learned (I hope) to pre-edit, to take a moment to see the final image before releasing the shutter. There is value in the 'inconvenience of film.'
The manufacturing processes of digital sensors are not benign. So, arguing that it is environmentally superior is a non-starter, and 'significant quantity' lacks precision as does 'nasty' chemicals. If one is really interested in environmentally benign photography, one can select different formulas, e.g., citric acid based developers, and methods, e.g., incorporating silver reclamation units to process fixer. Also, there are ways to neutralize chemicals before disposal. The hazardousness of photochemicals are frequently grossly overstated by the uniformed. Modern concern has lead to viable substitutes for the most dangersous components, with the notable exception of some classic toning processes. The photographer/darkroom worker can control these things, but cannot control the method of camera manufacture.
Limiting oneself to a short roll of film is the best way to hone one's ability to compose a shot, not shooting hundreds of digital throw-a-ways.
Going the MF TLR route, has an added advantage for a beginner. It naturally slows you down, preventing the snapshot mode that SLRs promote.
When you have to reload every 12 frames, you will be more careful and learn to value each frame more. Learning to take enough time to compose the best image, to see that image in your mind, is one of the most important things to learn in photography.
Quite the opposite of the digital promoters idea of shooting hundreds of images an picking the one lucky gem. Why waste time taking bad photos, when you can learn to make each one good?
The Yashica TLRs were very popular, partly because they were notably inexpensive compared to the Rollei's, and schools like them. That's a disadvantage - all that student ab/use isn't good. I'd recommend a Minolta Autocord first -- better value for the money, marginally better lenses, better build quality ('cept the tendency of the focus knob to break off), usually in better shape, and the brightest standard focussing screen of all TLRs.
hmm, remember the camera is just a box. The lens quality is the most important part of the package. So, from an economy pov, Yashica camera with Zeiss lenses yield the most bang for buck. The camera won't impress nameplate snobs, but your photos don't have nameplates on them. How impressive your photos are is what matters, not how impressive the nameplate on your camera is.
...and Nikons copied the Contax direction of focusing (clockwise toward infinity) and the real snobbery in the 30s - 50s was that artists used Leicas and more technical photogs used Contax. But I digress, the lack of a standard really gets gnarly when it comes to Pentacon 6 medium format cameras where different lens manufacturers build lenses with opposing directions of twist -- same camera different focus direction based on which lens you mount! But considering how many other things are relatively understandable from one camera to another there are enough conventions that lack of standards allows mfrs to come up with some very innovative solutions - check out the DOF indicators on the E & F model Rolleiflexes. It's ingenious.
The EM is not a rugged SLR. The bodies feel rugged - nice Nikon fit and finish, but the electronics are far from rugged. Most EMs have stopped working by now from failed circuitry. Those that are still working are livin' on borrowed time.
The EM was an experiment by Nikon to create a 'consumer' SLR. They weren't designed to be as long-lived as their more advanced/pro cameras. Now twenty years later is not the time to buy one.
DO NOT GET AN FM-10!!! (yes I mean to shout) It's not actually made by Nikon, but was sub-contracted to the lowest bidder. They are very cheaply made and a betrayal of the Nikon nameplate.
1/250sec shutterspeed is entirely mechanical and always works
Actually, on the FM2 ALL shutterspeeds work even with a dead battery. It actually has a more advanced shutter design than the FE2, and the F3 for that matter, which do have the fall-back single operable speeds (1/90 on the F3) with dead batteries.
look for an older Nikon Not too old because they changed the mounts, and get yourself a 50mm 1.4 or a 1.2 lens if you can find one, start with that.
I think the 50/f1.2 would bust that $200 total budget.
FUD clarification: All Nikon lenses are backward compatible (except the recent stripped down G series) to older cameras. However, the older (pre 1975) lenses are not forward compatible without modification. But it is advisable to get only Ai or Ai-S manual lenses for guaranteed compatibility to all cameras.
M$ does two things with this maneuver. The Sun JVM has been covered, but what about security patches?
Will they excuse their slow and ineffectual responses to security holes by claiming it's a dead (soon to be almost completely unsupported) product, and that anywho still using it is responsible if they haven't upgraded? Bunch a weasels.
It appears to me, that the main reason to target devices is to extort mfr's that want their devices to have the widest compatability with an existing standard. Of course, device mfr's could create their own file system and distribute OS drivers, but then it would be continually broken by OS updates (any bets on how quickly an m$ patch would render the idependent FS inoperable). Mfr's would much rather depend on the most widely distributed FS to maintain distributed compatability than have to maintain their own system.
M$ has got device mfr's right where they need them. Expect to see pre-formatted storage media to have premium pricing.
I beg to differ. Since it doesn't have a plural...
I beg to differ. It does have a plural, viruses American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Ed., 2000 Houghton Mifflin Company.
...you count either virus specimens or virus strains...
Perhaps such restrictive language works for overly-verbose micro-biologists. However, when speaking of strains of rhinovirus, each strain would be part of a group of viruses. In that sense it is more precise to speak of strains, but in the sense of computer viruses speaking of specimens and strains is anti-concision. Sticking tightly to the biological verbiage, one might argue that there are really only 10 or 20 original virus strains yet 10s of thousands of variant virus specimens (numbers used only for illustration).
Viruses is a simple plural expansion of a noun taken from a dead language that didn't need a plural before its use expanded. Viruses is concise. It doesn't require the reader or speaker to convolute the original word's pronunciation, i.e., veye-russ-es vs. veer-ree-ee, veer-ree-eye, veye-ree-eye, or whatever your convolution. Viruses communicates its meaning clearly. It adds utility to the original word.
It's hard to think of a situation where you have to use "viruses". The title of the discussion might be an exception...
So, actually it's easy to think of situations where the concision of viruses is more usable than virus strains or specimens. Try not to immediately contradict your own point it has a tendency to undermine the validity of your argument.
If someone doing it on purpose had hit the ATMs, they could have done something much more subtle. Something that wouldn't have been noticed
A very quiet little worm that get's distributed like every other outlook infection, that does nothing untoward other than continue forwarding itself and checking to see if it's landed on an ATM. Then it waits. Perhaps at 3am after it's found an ATM it executes the dump cash box command (or even better it waits until the cash box has been replenished, then it sends it's location as a post to some net forum as just the address before dumping the cash in the middle of the night).
Close to $30,000 see: http://www.atmdirect.ca/faq.html (Canadian, but still...)
The greatest fuel for conspiracy theories is the adamant eschewing of a required paper trail. Why is it that printing a record that the voter can verify, that is the source for recounts, so opposedl.
Including an auditable paper trail would just leave the actual veracity of the machine tabulation in question. The lack of a paper trail allows for manipulation and the consistent dismissals of such a simple method of verification certainly implies to me that their is an intent to allow deception. The assurances of self-interested CEOs who are also adamantly partisan aren't assuring.
Slashdot Mirror
The manufacturing processes of digital sensors are not benign. So, arguing that it is environmentally superior is a non-starter, and 'significant quantity' lacks precision as does 'nasty' chemicals. If one is really interested in environmentally benign photography, one can select different formulas, e.g., citric acid based developers, and methods, e.g., incorporating silver reclamation units to process fixer. Also, there are ways to neutralize chemicals before disposal. The hazardousness of photochemicals are frequently grossly overstated by the uniformed. Modern concern has lead to viable substitutes for the most dangersous components, with the notable exception of some classic toning processes. The photographer/darkroom worker can control these things, but cannot control the method of camera manufacture.
Limiting oneself to a short roll of film is the best way to hone one's ability to compose a shot, not shooting hundreds of digital throw-a-ways.
Going the MF TLR route, has an added advantage for a beginner. It naturally slows you down, preventing the snapshot mode that SLRs promote.
When you have to reload every 12 frames, you will be more careful and learn to value each frame more. Learning to take enough time to compose the best image, to see that image in your mind, is one of the most important things to learn in photography.
Quite the opposite of the digital promoters idea of shooting hundreds of images an picking the one lucky gem. Why waste time taking bad photos, when you can learn to make each one good?
The Yashica TLRs were very popular, partly because they were notably inexpensive compared to the Rollei's, and schools like them. That's a disadvantage - all that student ab/use isn't good. I'd recommend a Minolta Autocord first -- better value for the money, marginally better lenses, better build quality ('cept the tendency of the focus knob to break off), usually in better shape, and the brightest standard focussing screen of all TLRs.
Next thing ya know someone will be recommending a Topcon.
hmm, remember the camera is just a box. The lens quality is the most important part of the package. So, from an economy pov, Yashica camera with Zeiss lenses yield the most bang for buck. The camera won't impress nameplate snobs, but your photos don't have nameplates on them. How impressive your photos are is what matters, not how impressive the nameplate on your camera is.
...and Nikons copied the Contax direction of focusing (clockwise toward infinity) and the real snobbery in the 30s - 50s was that artists used Leicas and more technical photogs used Contax. But I digress, the lack of a standard really gets gnarly when it comes to Pentacon 6 medium format cameras where different lens manufacturers build lenses with opposing directions of twist -- same camera different focus direction based on which lens you mount! But considering how many other things are relatively understandable from one camera to another there are enough conventions that lack of standards allows mfrs to come up with some very innovative solutions - check out the DOF indicators on the E & F model Rolleiflexes. It's ingenious.
The EM is not a rugged SLR. The bodies feel rugged - nice Nikon fit and finish, but the electronics are far from rugged. Most EMs have stopped working by now from failed circuitry. Those that are still working are livin' on borrowed time.
The EM was an experiment by Nikon to create a 'consumer' SLR. They weren't designed to be as long-lived as their more advanced/pro cameras. Now twenty years later is not the time to buy one.
DO NOT GET AN FM-10!!! (yes I mean to shout) It's not actually made by Nikon, but was sub-contracted to the lowest bidder. They are very cheaply made and a betrayal of the Nikon nameplate.
Linhof makes an interesting digital body with a full 35mm frame sensor that takes Nikon lenses. It ain't cheap. It is a Linhof after all.
FUD clarification: All Nikon lenses are backward compatible (except the recent stripped down G series) to older cameras. However, the older (pre 1975) lenses are not forward compatible without modification. But it is advisable to get only Ai or Ai-S manual lenses for guaranteed compatibility to all cameras.
M$ does two things with this maneuver. The Sun JVM has been covered, but what about security patches?
Will they excuse their slow and ineffectual responses to security holes by claiming it's a dead (soon to be almost completely unsupported) product, and that anywho still using it is responsible if they haven't upgraded? Bunch a weasels.
Can I have a "Duuh," from the audience.
if your camera can't format the media, you really bought the wrong camera.
It appears to me, that the main reason to target devices is to extort mfr's that want their devices to have the widest compatability with an existing standard. Of course, device mfr's could create their own file system and distribute OS drivers, but then it would be continually broken by OS updates (any bets on how quickly an m$ patch would render the idependent FS inoperable). Mfr's would much rather depend on the most widely distributed FS to maintain distributed compatability than have to maintain their own system.
M$ has got device mfr's right where they need them. Expect to see pre-formatted storage media to have premium pricing.
Perhaps such restrictive language works for overly-verbose micro-biologists. However, when speaking of strains of rhinovirus, each strain would be part of a group of viruses. In that sense it is more precise to speak of strains, but in the sense of computer viruses speaking of specimens and strains is anti-concision. Sticking tightly to the biological verbiage, one might argue that there are really only 10 or 20 original virus strains yet 10s of thousands of variant virus specimens (numbers used only for illustration).
So, actually it's easy to think of situations where the concision of viruses is more usable than virus strains or specimens. Try not to immediately contradict your own point it has a tendency to undermine the validity of your argument.Viruses is a simple plural expansion of a noun taken from a dead language that didn't need a plural before its use expanded. Viruses is concise. It doesn't require the reader or speaker to convolute the original word's pronunciation, i.e., veye-russ-es vs. veer-ree-ee, veer-ree-eye, veye-ree-eye, or whatever your convolution. Viruses communicates its meaning clearly. It adds utility to the original word.
Close to $30,000 see: http://www.atmdirect.ca/faq.html (Canadian, but still...)
the pin is verified against the card, which is why scanning the stripe yields all the data needed to create and use a replicated card
just say no to beige
The greatest fuel for conspiracy theories is the adamant eschewing of a required paper trail. Why is it that printing a record that the voter can verify, that is the source for recounts, so opposedl.
Including an auditable paper trail would just leave the actual veracity of the machine tabulation in question. The lack of a paper trail allows for manipulation and the consistent dismissals of such a simple method of verification certainly implies to me that their is an intent to allow deception. The assurances of self-interested CEOs who are also adamantly partisan aren't assuring.
Having no sympathy is being calous. Calousness is the basis of ridicule.
These wouldn't be, at the moment, effective weapons for the U.S. to use, but they would be highly effective against U.S. forces.
...eet eese scratched.