Or, if you're into landscapes and have a little extra budget, go for the Hasselblad X-PAN. It's dual-format (regular 35x24mm and medium-format panoramic 70x24mm) and is utterly superb.
Sometimes it is. When I was a clueless n00b I always did this. Sometimes it had the desired effect and one photo came out where others for one reason or another didn't. Other times I just ended up with several identical perfectly good shots. Gradually I learned that there's bugger all point taking six pictures of the same static scene if you have a halfway decent metering system and understand how it works and how to override it; on the other hand it can be very useful to take multiple shots to catch some piece of action or (say) a crowd scene where the effect varies rapidly. (I suppose that's why Canon put so much R&D budget into the EOS-1V's 10fps mode...)
Anyway. To an extent I agree with you, but I think a better guide would be "shoot as many as you need".
Hmm, sorry if that came across as mild flamage. Reading your post again, I think we're both basically saying the same thing. I had a look at you r photos, some of them are pretty cool. Did you enjoy Oxford BTW? I spent a great 4 years there.
Depends which lenses you get. Although I don't have enough money to test this for myself, I quote a man who does: Chris Gomersall, the RSPB's resident photographer. "Nikon have the best bodies, Canon have the best glass." For what it's worth he's a Nikon man, which I suppose makes sense if you're trying to capture such elusive quarry.
By and large, an expensive Nikon body with a consumer lens will take worse photos than a cheap Canon body with a pro lens and vice versa. And while both firms make both cheap and expensive bodies, what do those really give you? OK, fast winding speeds are sometimes useful, high-quality and fast autofocus is useful a lot of the time and fast shutter speed is pretty cool occasionally, but basically they give you a greater variety of ways to do all the stuff people used to do by hand. I seem to remember a lot of classic photos before there was automatic anything, from Canon or Nikon.
I'm still wiping up the drool after seeing one of the 600mm f4 L-series lenses. I know Leica have their fans but I'm totally in love with Canon's lenses. Even the (relatively) cheap f1.4 50mm is superb (optically, though it isn't weather-resistant like the L-series).
Digital can replace 35mm film. I'd like to see the CCD that can capture the resolution of a large-format film camera. Think of it like this: digital is okay for home movies. For IMAX you need big sheets of film.
I'm sure I'd appreciate the lightness after lugging my EOS-1N (with the high-speed winder, no less) around for a while. To have both would be cool, but I'm a little disappointed to learn that the EF-S lenses won't fit EF mounts. If I have to have this lens with the digital body I'd at least like to be able to use it as a wide-angle lens for my film body too. Sod it, I'm going to wait till I can afford a 10D.
Case intrusion is bullshit; it will pose a minor problem to ordinary geeks (what self-respecting geek doesn't own a hacksaw?) and none at all to organised pirates. Unless they have some kind of casing laced with a network of wires so that it stops working permanently if any of them are cut, it's useless. And I think even the RIAA would struggle to convince people they needed something that draconian - what if you dropped it and a wire snapped by accident?
I've posted my views on the "necessity" of working in a job you hate elsewhere, but it just struck me (based on my experience in the UK) that only an idiot would sign an employment contract without a stipulation regarding working hours. While it's often fair enough to bend this at times of great workload, at least here you generally get "time in lieu" ie extra holiday at a slack time to make up for the extra hours you worked during the busy time. The limit is set by an EU regulation called the "working time directive". Is there really no common equivalent in the states?
If not, might I suggest finding someone who's been made ill due to overwork and using them as the basis of a class action against employers who fail to set acceptable limits on working time. After all, if you can show they're responsible for making people ill then there are medical bills to be taken care of. Consider a medical bill for every overworked employee and they might just back off. (Yeah, I know it's a long shot...)
claimed it took her 40 hours a week to read her email.
Yeah, I hate those penis enlargement spams too. Maybe you could have de-stressed her by introducing her to bogofilter:-)
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
What, you couldn't even get a burger monkey job? If you can truthfully answer no to that, then you have my sympathy; if not, then you've implicitly made a trade-off between your bank balance and some kind of pride that says "I couldn't possibly do that kind of work, it's for lesser people." In which case, I find my sympathy waning rapidly.
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
I think you've been listening to Radiohead's Palo Alto too much. Lighten up!
And, if you can't get a job, have you thought about making one? Isn't there some skill you have that you could sell to others by setting up in business on your own?
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, they are. As employees, we check our dignity at the time clock, or we starve. It's a simple choice for most.
And that's why you find yourselves in the sorry state you're in. Hell, you can pay a rent working as a store clerk on a regular shift; you can grow your own food, you can cycle about without paying for petrol. I'm not saying that kind of self-sufficiency is for everyone (it certainly isn't for me!) but it is an option.
If you would be happier working an easier, non-responsible job and living in the way I've outlined, but with fewer posessions, perhaps you should re-examine why you carry on in a stressful job in the IT business. One answer might be "having a job in IT carries respect," but that's clearly not the case from what you say.
Re:No one took your time in the first place.
on
Take Back Your Time!
·
· Score: 1
Boss: Come in on the weekend please.
Employee: Can't. I'm going on a picnic with my family.
Boss: No, I'm going on a picnic with my family. You're working or you're fired.
What kind of cock-eyed job do you have, where it's interchangeable whether you or your boss is there?
Don't do it google! Sure, you'll get a bit of cash but you'll be selling your soul. Once you're in public ownership the only thing that is allowed to matter is shareholder returns, which will inevitably mean you turn into some sucky kind of portal with online shopping, instant messaging and all the crap I don't want from a search engine. This will happen regardless of whether the current people want it to or not - they'll just be voted out at an AGM, or sued for failing to maximise shareholder value.
So: google, consider this a plea. Remain smaller than you undoubtedly could become through an IPO, but retain your integrity and the essence that makes you great.
How did he check? Did you have to buy it from him in person, or did he just check before the end of the course? Just curious if there was a workaround.. BTW, is that kind of thing legal here in the UK? I would have thought a good bitch at his senior managers, possibly backed up with some legalese or a journalist, might make them sit on him rather hard.
Because we're trying to be better than them. That's the kind of thinking I'd expect from a 13-year-old spotty-face who's just installed Mandrake on his parents' computer and thinks he's l33t (but hasn't quite thought far enough ahead to realise the shit he's in when they get home...)
Grow up.
No, I prefer it as it is. Remember the original quotation is "I think therefore I am", which is more-or-less "I think so I am", therefore "I don't think so" would correspond more exactly with the first part of the inverse statement, which results in his vanishing.
Hmm.... I think there's a reason open-source humour never took off:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Heheh. I'm jealous now :)
Or, if you're into landscapes and have a little extra budget, go for the Hasselblad X-PAN. It's dual-format (regular 35x24mm and medium-format panoramic 70x24mm) and is utterly superb.
Sometimes it is. When I was a clueless n00b I always did this. Sometimes it had the desired effect and one photo came out where others for one reason or another didn't. Other times I just ended up with several identical perfectly good shots. Gradually I learned that there's bugger all point taking six pictures of the same static scene if you have a halfway decent metering system and understand how it works and how to override it; on the other hand it can be very useful to take multiple shots to catch some piece of action or (say) a crowd scene where the effect varies rapidly. (I suppose that's why Canon put so much R&D budget into the EOS-1V's 10fps mode...)
Anyway. To an extent I agree with you, but I think a better guide would be "shoot as many as you need".
Hmm, sorry if that came across as mild flamage. Reading your post again, I think we're both basically saying the same thing. I had a look at you r photos, some of them are pretty cool. Did you enjoy Oxford BTW? I spent a great 4 years there.
Depends which lenses you get. Although I don't have enough money to test this for myself, I quote a man who does: Chris Gomersall, the RSPB's resident photographer. "Nikon have the best bodies, Canon have the best glass." For what it's worth he's a Nikon man, which I suppose makes sense if you're trying to capture such elusive quarry.
By and large, an expensive Nikon body with a consumer lens will take worse photos than a cheap Canon body with a pro lens and vice versa. And while both firms make both cheap and expensive bodies, what do those really give you? OK, fast winding speeds are sometimes useful, high-quality and fast autofocus is useful a lot of the time and fast shutter speed is pretty cool occasionally, but basically they give you a greater variety of ways to do all the stuff people used to do by hand. I seem to remember a lot of classic photos before there was automatic anything, from Canon or Nikon.
I'm still wiping up the drool after seeing one of the 600mm f4 L-series lenses. I know Leica have their fans but I'm totally in love with Canon's lenses. Even the (relatively) cheap f1.4 50mm is superb (optically, though it isn't weather-resistant like the L-series).
Digital can replace 35mm film. I'd like to see the CCD that can capture the resolution of a large-format film camera. Think of it like this: digital is okay for home movies. For IMAX you need big sheets of film.
Or Kodak HIE.
I'm sure I'd appreciate the lightness after lugging my EOS-1N (with the high-speed winder, no less) around for a while. To have both would be cool, but I'm a little disappointed to learn that the EF-S lenses won't fit EF mounts. If I have to have this lens with the digital body I'd at least like to be able to use it as a wide-angle lens for my film body too. Sod it, I'm going to wait till I can afford a 10D.
Case intrusion is bullshit; it will pose a minor problem to ordinary geeks (what self-respecting geek doesn't own a hacksaw?) and none at all to organised pirates. Unless they have some kind of casing laced with a network of wires so that it stops working permanently if any of them are cut, it's useless. And I think even the RIAA would struggle to convince people they needed something that draconian - what if you dropped it and a wire snapped by accident?
I've posted my views on the "necessity" of working in a job you hate elsewhere, but it just struck me (based on my experience in the UK) that only an idiot would sign an employment contract without a stipulation regarding working hours. While it's often fair enough to bend this at times of great workload, at least here you generally get "time in lieu" ie extra holiday at a slack time to make up for the extra hours you worked during the busy time. The limit is set by an EU regulation called the "working time directive". Is there really no common equivalent in the states?
If not, might I suggest finding someone who's been made ill due to overwork and using them as the basis of a class action against employers who fail to set acceptable limits on working time. After all, if you can show they're responsible for making people ill then there are medical bills to be taken care of. Consider a medical bill for every overworked employee and they might just back off. (Yeah, I know it's a long shot...)
claimed it took her 40 hours a week to read her email.
:-)
Yeah, I hate those penis enlargement spams too. Maybe you could have de-stressed her by introducing her to bogofilter
What, you couldn't even get a burger monkey job? If you can truthfully answer no to that, then you have my sympathy; if not, then you've implicitly made a trade-off between your bank balance and some kind of pride that says "I couldn't possibly do that kind of work, it's for lesser people." In which case, I find my sympathy waning rapidly.
I think you've been listening to Radiohead's Palo Alto too much. Lighten up!
And, if you can't get a job, have you thought about making one? Isn't there some skill you have that you could sell to others by setting up in business on your own?
Yeah, they are. As employees, we check our dignity at the time clock, or we starve. It's a simple choice for most.
And that's why you find yourselves in the sorry state you're in. Hell, you can pay a rent working as a store clerk on a regular shift; you can grow your own food, you can cycle about without paying for petrol. I'm not saying that kind of self-sufficiency is for everyone (it certainly isn't for me!) but it is an option.
If you would be happier working an easier, non-responsible job and living in the way I've outlined, but with fewer posessions, perhaps you should re-examine why you carry on in a stressful job in the IT business. One answer might be "having a job in IT carries respect," but that's clearly not the case from what you say.
Boss: Come in on the weekend please.
Employee: Can't. I'm going on a picnic with my family.
Boss: No, I'm going on a picnic with my family. You're working or you're fired.
What kind of cock-eyed job do you have, where it's interchangeable whether you or your boss is there?
Unfortuantely, it seems that we're as far as ever from finding ways to break the tyrrany of a good, hard slashdotting...
Don't do it google! Sure, you'll get a bit of cash but you'll be selling your soul. Once you're in public ownership the only thing that is allowed to matter is shareholder returns, which will inevitably mean you turn into some sucky kind of portal with online shopping, instant messaging and all the crap I don't want from a search engine. This will happen regardless of whether the current people want it to or not - they'll just be voted out at an AGM, or sued for failing to maximise shareholder value.
So: google, consider this a plea. Remain smaller than you undoubtedly could become through an IPO, but retain your integrity and the essence that makes you great.
And another thing:
Better for there to be no bug in the first place. Or at least to be able to try to fix them...
How did he check? Did you have to buy it from him in person, or did he just check before the end of the course? Just curious if there was a workaround.. BTW, is that kind of thing legal here in the UK? I would have thought a good bitch at his senior managers, possibly backed up with some legalese or a journalist, might make them sit on him rather hard.
Because we're trying to be better than them. That's the kind of thinking I'd expect from a 13-year-old spotty-face who's just installed Mandrake on his parents' computer and thinks he's l33t (but hasn't quite thought far enough ahead to realise the shit he's in when they get home...)
Grow up.
What, "I'm happy for it to break all the time, so long as it often breaks in the same kind of way?"
That way lies madness.
No, I prefer it as it is. Remember the original quotation is "I think therefore I am", which is more-or-less "I think so I am", therefore "I don't think so" would correspond more exactly with the first part of the inverse statement, which results in his vanishing. :-)
Hmm.... I think there's a reason open-source humour never took off
Until it can be head-mounted on a shark :-)