Nothing in the GPL says derivitive works have to be named in a manner RMS approves of. RMS is a hypocrite on that one. Linux distros don't have to include GNU in the name of their products.
What is a decent midrange? There are basically two tiers of DSLR's only. Very little differentiates the Canon 300D/350D from the 20D and arguably the same distinction exists with Nikon's D70 and D100. Any problem you percieve with Nikon's midrange exists in Canon's lineup as well and no one else even competes.
The D70 is an outstanding camera. It's possible to make one with more ruggedness and performance but short of the D2 series but the manufacturers have said that the market would not support 3 tiers of models at this time. Pros want durability and environmental seals and are willing to pay. Others want the costs driven down. That's what we get from Nikon and Canon both.
It's being stuck at the very top of the screen that's the problem. Makes it arbitrarily far from the application window itself. Not an issue with the teeny screens and single task nature of the macs at the time but incredibly stupid now.
Sounds like you don't know how to use it. Of all the reasons you might have listed for not liking it, being unable to adjust contrast and saturation in the converter just makes you look stupid.
Yes, different converters produce different looks through their default settings. So what?
If they're using the D2X then they're not using the best camera around. Depending on how you judge it, the D2X may not even be the best Nikon-mount camera around.
It is true though that things such as this are just annoyances that cause users to become increasingly unhappy with the vendor. One of the reasons I like Adobe's converter is that they consistently get the image's EXIF data transfered during the conversion. Is that a deal breaker? No, but it encourages me to use a competitive product if I can.
Because different convertors have different features and produce different results? What's so hard to understand about that?
Raw conversion is a complex task; it is not a mere translation of bits. Different convertors produce different results and offer different interfaces that suit users with different needs. For example, Abobe's convertor (and none other right now) offers CA correction built into the process. CA should be corrected during the raw conversion and Adobe's convertor is the only way to get it.
Some users prefer a convertor that works the same way regardless of the camera since not everyone works exclusively with one camera model. Nikon's software doesn't offer this when your other camera is made by Canon.
A lot of pros use PS for raw conversions so the impact *is* significant but, much further than that, the encryption potentially impacts support by all RAW convertors other than Nikon Capture. I think you've failed to make your case. The question is what D2X owners actually use NC? I think the answer is very few.
The Nikon professional bodies are superior to Canon's and their ergonomics are better by far. Canon's lead is in sensor design and signal processing only. They also make full frame imagers whereas Nikon does not.
As far as lens, each makes fine lenses. Canon's telephoto primes are highly regarded. Nikon makes arguably better wides. You can't judge by comparing the two lenses you've chosen.
The D2X is highly anticipated specifically because there is a large base of professional Nikon shooters. Canon's success does not tranlate into a "large majority".
No serious shooter gives up photoshop. They may use additional tools and different raw convertors but Gimp isn't on the map.
The 650 is incredibly hard to use with a single thumb. the navigation control doesn't always do what you want and you can't always click with your thumb accurately. Additionally, the keyboard is far too difficult to operate with any speed using a single hand. Unrelated perhaps, but the software is terribly unstable. Mine spontaneously reboot several times a day. PalmOS is also not multitasking and there's no "Back" concept. Apps don't really exit but you have to re-enter them like you launch them. Why can't I bluetooth sync to a mac like my p910 does?
On the plus side, the email is good and the SMS support is exceptional. Overall I like it but it could be much, much better. No way is it a single thumb interface.
It won't take 5-8 years. It's done now. Perhaps it may take that long to be affordable by most people.
A Canon 1Ds2 far outresolves 35mm film, is full frame, provides 10 stops of dynamic range and overall better image quality. If you had $8K for the body you could have had one for quite a while now.
Digital 35mm SLR's have surpassed film for image quality. If you want good image quality don't use film, don't use a stupid digital point and shoot, and stop using your old piece of crap camera. Get with the times...
It's easy to learn what professional photographers want and it isn't big screens on their cameras. Oddly, at least some of them want these devices even though taking a computer and enough flash storage makes them irrelevant. Photo pros as a group are not the smartest or most computer literate people. Many of them use macs.
Lose some of your hate for Dell and you might just get to take advantage of all this tasty new technology. What parts in their new dual core system are "borderline functional generic"? You don't know what you're talking about.
I had a Dell dual Pentium desktop long before that.
Apple got into duals because the PPC line couldn't keep up with Intel's offerings. It didn't really matter at the time because Apple's OS couldn't actually support MP just like it didn't offer protected memory, virtual memory or preemptive multitasking. The only thing that could use it was Photoshop (thus the famous lies-err-benchmarks).
You really shouldn't brag about Apple's MP capability. It's more of an embarrassment than anything---current OSX/G5 solutions excluded. The Windows and Unix worlds have been far ahead of Apple on that until recently.
According to the article, the Dell includes a 20" LCD, a high performance graphics card, a DVD-ROM and a dual layer DVD+-RW, 500GB of disk and 1GB of ram. It may also include the speaker system and has the dual TV tuners. An Apple dual G5 configured that way, though not possible through the Apple store, would cost over $5000. $5K at Apple gets you the memory, disk, monitor, video card and base system without the speakers, TV tuners or similar optical drives. The Apple G5 is 30-35% more money than the Dell.
Slashdot Mirror
Nothing in the GPL says derivitive works have to be named in a manner RMS approves of. RMS is a hypocrite on that one. Linux distros don't have to include GNU in the name of their products.
What is a decent midrange? There are basically two tiers of DSLR's only. Very little differentiates the Canon 300D/350D from the 20D and arguably the same distinction exists with Nikon's D70 and D100. Any problem you percieve with Nikon's midrange exists in Canon's lineup as well and no one else even competes.
The D70 is an outstanding camera. It's possible to make one with more ruggedness and performance but short of the D2 series but the manufacturers have said that the market would not support 3 tiers of models at this time. Pros want durability and environmental seals and are willing to pay. Others want the costs driven down. That's what we get from Nikon and Canon both.
and bigots.
x86-64 linux is even more restrictive. Try downloading an x86-32 plugin and installing it.
you think it takes true genious to come up with that?
Not at all. Top of the screen and top of the window are not remotely the same thing.
In an argument over who does what better specific design features/failures are certainly relevant. Why you think it's asinine is hard to understand.
It's being stuck at the very top of the screen that's the problem. Makes it arbitrarily far from the application window itself. Not an issue with the teeny screens and single task nature of the macs at the time but incredibly stupid now.
Yes, I suppose some dumb ones will. Why would they bother shooting RAW in that case since GIMP will only work with 8 bit data?
The D2X is a professional camera. No one will waste their time using inadequate software with it.
Sounds like you don't know how to use it. Of all the reasons you might have listed for not liking it, being unable to adjust contrast and saturation in the converter just makes you look stupid.
Yes, different converters produce different looks through their default settings. So what?
If they're using the D2X then they're not using the best camera around. Depending on how you judge it, the D2X may not even be the best Nikon-mount camera around.
It is true though that things such as this are just annoyances that cause users to become increasingly unhappy with the vendor. One of the reasons I like Adobe's converter is that they consistently get the image's EXIF data transfered during the conversion. Is that a deal breaker? No, but it encourages me to use a competitive product if I can.
Care to defend the claim that Adobe does a terrible job with Nikon raw formats? I know plenty of smart guys who don't use Nikon Capture.
Because different convertors have different features and produce different results? What's so hard to understand about that?
Raw conversion is a complex task; it is not a mere translation of bits. Different convertors produce different results and offer different interfaces that suit users with different needs. For example, Abobe's convertor (and none other right now) offers CA correction built into the process. CA should be corrected during the raw conversion and Adobe's convertor is the only way to get it.
Some users prefer a convertor that works the same way regardless of the camera since not everyone works exclusively with one camera model. Nikon's software doesn't offer this when your other camera is made by Canon.
A lot of pros use PS for raw conversions so the impact *is* significant but, much further than that, the encryption potentially impacts support by all RAW convertors other than Nikon Capture. I think you've failed to make your case. The question is what D2X owners actually use NC? I think the answer is very few.
The Nikon professional bodies are superior to Canon's and their ergonomics are better by far. Canon's lead is in sensor design and signal processing only. They also make full frame imagers whereas Nikon does not.
As far as lens, each makes fine lenses. Canon's telephoto primes are highly regarded. Nikon makes arguably better wides. You can't judge by comparing the two lenses you've chosen.
The D2X is highly anticipated specifically because there is a large base of professional Nikon shooters. Canon's success does not tranlate into a "large majority".
No serious shooter gives up photoshop. They may use additional tools and different raw convertors but Gimp isn't on the map.
The 650 is incredibly hard to use with a single thumb. the navigation control doesn't always do what you want and you can't always click with your thumb accurately. Additionally, the keyboard is far too difficult to operate with any speed using a single hand. Unrelated perhaps, but the software is terribly unstable. Mine spontaneously reboot several times a day. PalmOS is also not multitasking and there's no "Back" concept. Apps don't really exit but you have to re-enter them like you launch them. Why can't I bluetooth sync to a mac like my p910 does?
On the plus side, the email is good and the SMS support is exceptional. Overall I like it but it could be much, much better. No way is it a single thumb interface.
You mean when you compile a Metafont document. TeX is not involved with font creation.
It won't take 5-8 years. It's done now. Perhaps it may take that long to be affordable by most people.
A Canon 1Ds2 far outresolves 35mm film, is full frame, provides 10 stops of dynamic range and overall better image quality. If you had $8K for the body you could have had one for quite a while now.
Digital 35mm SLR's have surpassed film for image quality. If you want good image quality don't use film, don't use a stupid digital point and shoot, and stop using your old piece of crap camera. Get with the times...
It's easy to learn what professional photographers want and it isn't big screens on their cameras. Oddly, at least some of them want these devices even though taking a computer and enough flash storage makes them irrelevant. Photo pros as a group are not the smartest or most computer literate people. Many of them use macs.
Lose some of your hate for Dell and you might just get to take advantage of all this tasty new technology. What parts in their new dual core system are "borderline functional generic"? You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes, slashdot is ripe with dumbasses today.
"And as a general rule, RISC processors are more efficient than CISC processors running at the same clock speed"
Where did that "general rule" come from? It's nonsense.
I had a Dell dual Pentium desktop long before that.
Apple got into duals because the PPC line couldn't keep up with Intel's offerings. It didn't really matter at the time because Apple's OS couldn't actually support MP just like it didn't offer protected memory, virtual memory or preemptive multitasking. The only thing that could use it was Photoshop (thus the famous lies-err-benchmarks).
You really shouldn't brag about Apple's MP capability. It's more of an embarrassment than anything---current OSX/G5 solutions excluded. The Windows and Unix worlds have been far ahead of Apple on that until recently.
According to the article, the Dell includes a 20" LCD, a high performance graphics card, a DVD-ROM and a dual layer DVD+-RW, 500GB of disk and 1GB of ram. It may also include the speaker system and has the dual TV tuners. An Apple dual G5 configured that way, though not possible through the Apple store, would cost over $5000. $5K at Apple gets you the memory, disk, monitor, video card and base system without the speakers, TV tuners or similar optical drives. The Apple G5 is 30-35% more money than the Dell.