If you're making a lot of use of sub-35mm lenses you're going to hate the Rebel, but if you're using longer lenses on a traditional 35mm SLR the only real issue is having to mentally convert the lens lengths. (I dunno about you, but I have an ingrained mapping between "this is the shot" and "this is the lens I need" that has needed some tuning since going digital.)
Oh, do I ever. One of the reasons I went with an Olympus E-1 is because I can look at a scene, figure out what mm lens I need, then divide by two, to figure out which of the two zooms I need. Do I miss having good, sharp, wide prime lenses? Yes. Do the better bokeh of the primes matter? Not really -- my work is often done with my lens locked at infinity or at macro distances.
Sure do wish I could get a split viewfinder.
You know, I used to feel the same way, but the microprism screens of more recent vintage do offer one major advantage over the split-prism viewfinders while shooting faster-than-stillife -- you're not constrained to the center of your viewfinder to focus. I think camera manufacturers went away from the split-prism because the majority of the professionals are journalists, who need fast focusing to "good enough" of off-center subjects. Then autofocus took over (autofocus performance of F5, EOS-1v, and the D1/1D series are seriously good, with the F100/10D/E-1 class following fairly closely), and there was no reason for the split-prism screens.
As recently as five years ago, I would've said "the split-prism is essential, the automation isn't, get me a Nikon FM-3." Today, I find myself using aperture priority and shutter priority modes too much to say those modes are not needed. What's nice about the latest lenses (whether they be Nikon AF-S, Canon USM, Sigma HSM, or whatever Olympus is calling theirs), is the ability to tweak the focus after the AF has a go at it without fiddling for a autofocus-manual lever. I only use it for macro work, but when I do, it's a life-saver.
Couple of years ago, I went on an urban shoot with this gentleman, whose main camera was a Leica M3 rangefinder. Before he'd shoot, he'd see how far away his subjects were, and how much light there was, and as he was bringing the camera up to his face, he'd set those parameters on his Leica. He'd then compose, wind and release the shutter, as if he was using a point-and-shoot.
Even if I was shooting with the very best Canon or Nikon SLR with full automation, I would be *slower* than this gentleman (and I was with my Nikon F100). It was *amazing*.
Most makes, actually. Though Toyota's traction control used to be based on the engine rev limiter. Once it thought you were losing control, it would enter the "punishment mode", where your upper limit on power gets diminished severely, and it wouldn't come out of it for a while:)
Also, remember the 'feature reduced' version has the EF-S lens; for the 10D an equivalent EF would cost you about $700 more (so 10D body+equivalent lens > 2x the price of 300D with lens).
Something is really wrong with this picture, right? It actually looks like a baragain.
There's nothing wrong with this picture. The EF-S lens is quite mediocre optically, and unless you get the Japan-spec lens, you don't get Canon's superb USM focusing motor. Without it, autofocus is very slow, especially after one gets used to Canon's lightening-quick AF (as a former Nikon (film) and current Olympus E-1 user, I do get AF-envy when I look at Canon lenses and bodies).
According to Nikon's sales, D70 and 300D do not target the same audience. Spec comparison (beyond the simplistic Megapixel vs. Megapixel comparison) will tell you this. The D70, despite the lack of a "pro" body found on the D100, is more of a D100 replacement than a consumer D100. The quality of D70's "kit lens" furthers this claim; that lens that comes with D70 is fairly decent (better than Canon's EF-S in almost every way that matters), and the D70 has no artificial functionality limitations that's found on the 300D.
In camera world, you really do get what you pay for, and your "perfect camera" is a fine balance between cost and overall performance.
Here's a film SLR with 90%. That said, the biggest difference between the 10D and 300D's viewfinder isn't coverage but magnification. With same 50mm lenses, the 10D has a.88x magnification, while the 300D has a.8x. Between the 10% magnification difference and inherently dimmer pentamirror construction, the 10D will be much easier to use.
Mostly it's just an attitude problem.
When I'm shooting for a client, I need two things. I need a camera that won't fail, and I need a second camera. In that respect, if I had Canon lenses and my photography doesn't need the 1D/1D2's speeds or the 1Ds' resolution, the 10D/300D combination might be reasonable, if I can get over the severe difference in usability. No, it's not an "attitude" issue.
Your suggestion to get the 1Ds or the 1D Mark II are asinine, though, if they're looking at $800 and $1,000 bodies. Last I checked, the 1D Mark II costs $6,000, and the 1Ds costs $10,000, not to mention the weight increase from even 10D.
Anyway, the difference between 10D and 300D is mostly one of the photographer's skill. But it's always easier to blame the tool. How many of the 300D dissers would make half-decent pictures with a classic Leica?
No, the skill will remain constant for a given photographer. However, with better ergonomics and specs of the 10D, you're less likely to miss shots with it than with the 300D. That's the whole point of buying say pro-grade over consumer-grade -- you're more likely to get usable results. Is that worth the price difference? I don't know. Ask your wallet.
The biggest difference between 300D/Kiss Digital/Digital Rebel and the D70 is that the former is a lower-level model of the 10D, while the latter is more of a replacement for the D100. Nikon didn't place asinine limitations on the D70 like Canon did to their low-cost DSLR.
Re:Blame it on Linksys
on
The 3Com Saga
·
· Score: 1
FWIW, WinXP will, when you have a tonne of browsers open, place them under one entry on your taskbar. Same goes with Excel windows, vi windows, etc. I think it goes by the process names.
What's not too obvious is that a lot of Windows administration tools are instances of one executable (though I imagine it executing different things), so they all get lumped under one entry on my taskbar too.
Doors have cables to power your power windows and locks, as well as that dinky light on your door. Also in the door will be at least enough power to power your side-impact sensors and air bags.
The roof, by comparison, will have very little. Maybe the dome lights? A lot fo the cables should go through the floor.
This will indirectly turn to profits immediately, by acting as advertisement. They now hope, when you're looking at a Honda, a Toyota, and someone else's car, you'd think, "Well, Toyota and Honda can make robots... their cars must be engineered well."
Well, it's simple to spec a PC 2 years in advance. It becomes remarkably more difficult to spec what will be a high-end PC 2 years from now, though. Maybe that's what you meant?
So you're saying you cannot have psychological experimentations with both experimental and control groups while giving one and not the other a certain stimuli and looking at the results? Because like it or not, that is how a large portion of social sciences work too; it's just a matter of size of your groups and the type of stimuli (whether behaviorlogical, psychological, or economic) the researcher applies.
Or are you saying that it is possible to reliably and experimentally recreate conditions approaching fractions of nanoseconds after the Big Bang?
As part of my job, I find myself travelling a lot, and I find my headphones not only helps me say "no" to unwanted attention, but also helps me shut out unwanted -- and fatiguing -- noise from my environment as I travel (afterall, food processors and headphones are both merely tools to *help* me achieve my goals). I would much rather have a relaxed focus on music than have my mind wander aimlessly, helping me stay sharper once I'm at my destination. So in my case, my headphones aren't about shutting off social interaction, but shutting off nonsocial and nonhuman elements of my environment.
Illustrator CS is much better at doing 3D-ish stuff:)
You're right, though. Even Illustrator CS is a bit annoying. I tend to mock things up in Illustrator, and then touch up the site design using Photoshop. Or, individual portions of my Illustrator design get touched up in Photoshop, and exported into a PDF or something. Right tools for the right job, obviously.
It was nice, after we grabbed the last version of Dreamweaver (pre-MX). We stopped training my designers in html, and just trained them in a Dreamweaver class.
Sure. We use Dreamweaver all the bloody time. I had some reservations at first, but the productivity gains you get with Dreamweaver, our view, is higher than any speed gains we might get from hand-coding HTML/CSS.
And when you say you mock things up in Photoshop, surely you mean Illustrator? Doing any original art in Photoshop is such a pita.
I think you're confusing bombardment of visual media with actual consumption thereof. The advertisers can afford to bombard within specific JR East train lines because of the vast numbers who use it. You could see something similar in NYC too:)
If anything, Arial is a derivative work on Helvetica. If you look closely, though they are both sans-serif fonts, Arial looks different from Helvetica. However, the number of Arial derivatives I saw before Windows 3.x was popular makes me believe it's older than that.
Here's my knee-jerk response.
I recently got tired of DoCoMo's (dis)service, and I went shopping for a new phone. Almost all the phones from the big-3 carriers (DoCoMo, Au, and Vodafone) had cameras of some sort. Browsers have been integrated into these phones for a while, and same with email capabilities.
Thing is, these phone manufacturers need to offer something new in order to differentiate themselves, but the differentiation cannot be a lack of feature. So if manufacturer A makes a phone with a camera, they all will make a phone with a camera (though one may make a 2MP and another may make a 3MP camera).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, do I ever. One of the reasons I went with an Olympus E-1 is because I can look at a scene, figure out what mm lens I need, then divide by two, to figure out which of the two zooms I need. Do I miss having good, sharp, wide prime lenses? Yes. Do the better bokeh of the primes matter? Not really -- my work is often done with my lens locked at infinity or at macro distances.
You know, I used to feel the same way, but the microprism screens of more recent vintage do offer one major advantage over the split-prism viewfinders while shooting faster-than-stillife -- you're not constrained to the center of your viewfinder to focus. I think camera manufacturers went away from the split-prism because the majority of the professionals are journalists, who need fast focusing to "good enough" of off-center subjects. Then autofocus took over (autofocus performance of F5, EOS-1v, and the D1/1D series are seriously good, with the F100/10D/E-1 class following fairly closely), and there was no reason for the split-prism screens.
As recently as five years ago, I would've said "the split-prism is essential, the automation isn't, get me a Nikon FM-3." Today, I find myself using aperture priority and shutter priority modes too much to say those modes are not needed. What's nice about the latest lenses (whether they be Nikon AF-S, Canon USM, Sigma HSM, or whatever Olympus is calling theirs), is the ability to tweak the focus after the AF has a go at it without fiddling for a autofocus-manual lever. I only use it for macro work, but when I do, it's a life-saver.
I do a fair bit of macro photography, where autofocus is completely useless. The 10% difference in viewfinder size and clarity is very significant.
Of course, in my case, I felt my best solution was an Olympus one.
Ok, I did my price comparisons a few months ago, just after the D70 came out.
I never once did diss the 300D because of its plastic body. I will, however, diss its lack of a second command-dial in the back.
Couple of years ago, I went on an urban shoot with this gentleman, whose main camera was a Leica M3 rangefinder. Before he'd shoot, he'd see how far away his subjects were, and how much light there was, and as he was bringing the camera up to his face, he'd set those parameters on his Leica. He'd then compose, wind and release the shutter, as if he was using a point-and-shoot.
Even if I was shooting with the very best Canon or Nikon SLR with full automation, I would be *slower* than this gentleman (and I was with my Nikon F100). It was *amazing*.
Most makes, actually. Though Toyota's traction control used to be based on the engine rev limiter. Once it thought you were losing control, it would enter the "punishment mode", where your upper limit on power gets diminished severely, and it wouldn't come out of it for a while :)
There's nothing wrong with this picture. The EF-S lens is quite mediocre optically, and unless you get the Japan-spec lens, you don't get Canon's superb USM focusing motor. Without it, autofocus is very slow, especially after one gets used to Canon's lightening-quick AF (as a former Nikon (film) and current Olympus E-1 user, I do get AF-envy when I look at Canon lenses and bodies).
According to Nikon's sales, D70 and 300D do not target the same audience. Spec comparison (beyond the simplistic Megapixel vs. Megapixel comparison) will tell you this. The D70, despite the lack of a "pro" body found on the D100, is more of a D100 replacement than a consumer D100. The quality of D70's "kit lens" furthers this claim; that lens that comes with D70 is fairly decent (better than Canon's EF-S in almost every way that matters), and the D70 has no artificial functionality limitations that's found on the 300D.
In camera world, you really do get what you pay for, and your "perfect camera" is a fine balance between cost and overall performance.
Here's a film SLR with 90%. That said, the biggest difference between the 10D and 300D's viewfinder isn't coverage but magnification. With same 50mm lenses, the 10D has a .88x magnification, while the 300D has a .8x. Between the 10% magnification difference and inherently dimmer pentamirror construction, the 10D will be much easier to use.
When I'm shooting for a client, I need two things. I need a camera that won't fail, and I need a second camera. In that respect, if I had Canon lenses and my photography doesn't need the 1D/1D2's speeds or the 1Ds' resolution, the 10D/300D combination might be reasonable, if I can get over the severe difference in usability. No, it's not an "attitude" issue.
Your suggestion to get the 1Ds or the 1D Mark II are asinine, though, if they're looking at $800 and $1,000 bodies. Last I checked, the 1D Mark II costs $6,000, and the 1Ds costs $10,000, not to mention the weight increase from even 10D.
No, the skill will remain constant for a given photographer. However, with better ergonomics and specs of the 10D, you're less likely to miss shots with it than with the 300D. That's the whole point of buying say pro-grade over consumer-grade -- you're more likely to get usable results. Is that worth the price difference? I don't know. Ask your wallet.
The biggest difference between 300D/Kiss Digital/Digital Rebel and the D70 is that the former is a lower-level model of the 10D, while the latter is more of a replacement for the D100. Nikon didn't place asinine limitations on the D70 like Canon did to their low-cost DSLR.
now they're tinydns?
FWIW, WinXP will, when you have a tonne of browsers open, place them under one entry on your taskbar. Same goes with Excel windows, vi windows, etc. I think it goes by the process names.
What's not too obvious is that a lot of Windows administration tools are instances of one executable (though I imagine it executing different things), so they all get lumped under one entry on my taskbar too.
What's wrong with placing it in both locations? :)
Doors have cables to power your power windows and locks, as well as that dinky light on your door. Also in the door will be at least enough power to power your side-impact sensors and air bags.
The roof, by comparison, will have very little. Maybe the dome lights? A lot fo the cables should go through the floor.
This will indirectly turn to profits immediately, by acting as advertisement. They now hope, when you're looking at a Honda, a Toyota, and someone else's car, you'd think, "Well, Toyota and Honda can make robots... their cars must be engineered well."
Well, it's simple to spec a PC 2 years in advance. It becomes remarkably more difficult to spec what will be a high-end PC 2 years from now, though. Maybe that's what you meant?
o/~ If you're writing printer firmware clap your hands *clap* *clap*. o/~
:)
Sorry, I couldn't resist
So you're saying you cannot have psychological experimentations with both experimental and control groups while giving one and not the other a certain stimuli and looking at the results? Because like it or not, that is how a large portion of social sciences work too; it's just a matter of size of your groups and the type of stimuli (whether behaviorlogical, psychological, or economic) the researcher applies.
Or are you saying that it is possible to reliably and experimentally recreate conditions approaching fractions of nanoseconds after the Big Bang?
though it was only in our past 30 years or so that we had portable canned music you could take with you while, e.g. riding a subway.
As part of my job, I find myself travelling a lot, and I find my headphones not only helps me say "no" to unwanted attention, but also helps me shut out unwanted -- and fatiguing -- noise from my environment as I travel (afterall, food processors and headphones are both merely tools to *help* me achieve my goals). I would much rather have a relaxed focus on music than have my mind wander aimlessly, helping me stay sharper once I'm at my destination. So in my case, my headphones aren't about shutting off social interaction, but shutting off nonsocial and nonhuman elements of my environment.
My main issue in .jp is my bank locking me out of my money on certain Saturday nights when I want to get home via taxi after shuuden, damnit :)
Illustrator CS is much better at doing 3D-ish stuff :)
You're right, though. Even Illustrator CS is a bit annoying. I tend to mock things up in Illustrator, and then touch up the site design using Photoshop. Or, individual portions of my Illustrator design get touched up in Photoshop, and exported into a PDF or something. Right tools for the right job, obviously.
It was nice, after we grabbed the last version of Dreamweaver (pre-MX). We stopped training my designers in html, and just trained them in a Dreamweaver class.
Sure. We use Dreamweaver all the bloody time. I had some reservations at first, but the productivity gains you get with Dreamweaver, our view, is higher than any speed gains we might get from hand-coding HTML/CSS.
And when you say you mock things up in Photoshop, surely you mean Illustrator? Doing any original art in Photoshop is such a pita.
What do rape and other crimes have to do with anything?
I think you're confusing bombardment of visual media with actual consumption thereof. The advertisers can afford to bombard within specific JR East train lines because of the vast numbers who use it. You could see something similar in NYC too :)
If anything, Arial is a derivative work on Helvetica. If you look closely, though they are both sans-serif fonts, Arial looks different from Helvetica. However, the number of Arial derivatives I saw before Windows 3.x was popular makes me believe it's older than that.
Here's my knee-jerk response. I recently got tired of DoCoMo's (dis)service, and I went shopping for a new phone. Almost all the phones from the big-3 carriers (DoCoMo, Au, and Vodafone) had cameras of some sort. Browsers have been integrated into these phones for a while, and same with email capabilities. Thing is, these phone manufacturers need to offer something new in order to differentiate themselves, but the differentiation cannot be a lack of feature. So if manufacturer A makes a phone with a camera, they all will make a phone with a camera (though one may make a 2MP and another may make a 3MP camera).