Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 22:00 ron_tom <findme(a)someaddress.org> wrote : > You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality. > While staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I > met up with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to > practice firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we > recovered as many shells as we could for reloading. Indeed. If only I could afford it, I'd be doing that with a .50 BMG rifle at the annual Colorado Machine Gun shoot here. :) http://www.rmfcsa.org/gallery/displayimage.php?pid=500&fullsize=1 Oh look! Are those women attending? Quick! Turn them over and check to be sure! LOL -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 22:06 > > You basement-life city-boy "males" are so out of touch with reality. > While staying at a hunter's-camp in the Everglades for a whole winter I > met up with a gal from Miami that wanted to come and have a place to > practice firing her .50 caliber handgun. Rounds are pricey so we > recovered as many shells as we could for reloading. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xB7iz1HTh9U No, I'm not THAT old yet. LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM1MTXZ9cxk&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsSjsBKOiyI Take a liberal woman shooting, they'll never go back. LOL -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 19 Jun 2010 22:21 "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9BC09504A1JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote : >> >>> >>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>> news:Xns9D9A8F95FCC1AJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : >>>> >> >>> >>> Ooooh. My kinda woman. (Though I'm mainly a Beretta guy myself.) >> >> As in 9mm? Wuss? LOL > > Yep. I've loved the 9mm Luger/Parabellum/NATO/x19 cartridge since long > before it became as commonplace as it is now. It's the perfect pistol > ammo and was probably designed by God. Not too big, not too small, it's > just right -- Goldilocks would have loved it too. Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL bare, people are still scared and hoarding. >> I was carrying an XD-9 for awhile but the guys in my gun group kept >> bugging >> me about its lack of "stopping power" ( heck it had 9mm +P JHP! ) > > Then it was for all practical purposes the equal of any .45 Auto in > stopping power, though of course you will never, never, ever convince > the .45-adoring guys of that. I know, so I finally went for the Xd-45 ACP. :) If ya cant beat em, join em. COme to think of it, I still have that XD-9 around and need to sell it. <sigh> But a woman cant have too many guns. ;-) > They do LOVE their pumpkin rollers! They > think a bullet that big just must be best -- never mind that it comes > out of a basically low-pressure cartridge (the .45 Auto can't handle > more than half the chamber pressure of the 9mm Luger) and has about the > trajectory of a slingshot. Yeah, but hit a bad guy in the shoulder and the whole arm will be gone. :) You should see the hand of the woman who was running the "ladies night" I used to attend, at the local gun shop here. She accidentally shot herself through the hand with a 9mm JHP. What a mess. Havent seen her in awhile, but she said it would take years of rehab to use the hand again. > Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan > Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years > evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms > of "one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories > about the subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their > conclusion: the best 9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or > other cartridge in their accumulated data. Now that was their first book > and they've written a couple of others since, which I haven't read, so > maybe that has changed. I KNOW. Much of the "9mm doesnt have the stopping power" tales come from the military, when the idiot politicians make them use FMJ. I know a woman who had a guy coming at her and fired 7 rounds into him at close range, before stopping him, because she was dumb enough to use FMJ. FMJ is for target practice. > Based on the ballistics figures alone, I would expect the 10mm Auto to > be best in stopping power (with the possible exception of some of the > humungous wheelgun cartridges) Yeah, a .50 Desert Eagle might be amazing. For home defense, the heck with a pistol, we got the 12 gauge pump, with 8 shells of alternating 00 Buck and slugs. Glad we got the Limbsaver pad for it though, that thing really kicks my shoulder. >, but I doubt there's enough data on the > 10mm in actual shootings to prove that. Next best would probably be the > shortened version of the 10mm, the now very popular .40 S&W (which some > wags called the ".40 Short & Weak," but they were of course comparing it > to its daddy). That does look like a very effective round to me, better > than either the 9mm or .45, and it's pleasant enough to shoot, but it's > not enough better to make me switch to it. All my reloading gear is in > 9mm/.38/.357 and this late in life I'm not going to take on a new size. > > I've owned a lot of .45 automatics (all Colts), also one S&W target > revolver in the same caliber, and liked them all a lot. When I was > shooting in competition in the '60s and '70s I had to have a .45 since > one-third of an NRA outdoor tournament requires that caliber (and > actually most competitors use their .45s in the Center Fire third as > well). But I haven't owned a .45 since, and have no interest in owning > another one. I still like the 1911 configuration, just don't care that > much for the cartridge. It DOES make sense for military purposes because > of the Geneva Convention FMJ rule, I'll say that for it. But I'm > satisfied that for civilian purposes the 9mm in JHP loads does at least > as well. Probably right. > >> and telling >> me to carry a .45 ACP. So I figure if 14 rds of 45 ACP JHP wont do the >> job now, I gotta call in Jack Bauer. LOL > > Jack Bauer doesn't use a .45 either. At least, not in the shows I've > seen (which were only from the first season). My recollection is that he > was using a SIG-Sauer, so presumably either a 9mm or a .40. Dont know for sure, but that scene where he tortured the russian snipe was one of the most gruesome ones I've ever seen on TV. Still, who would I want defending my country? Or if a nuke was in Denver and needed to be found? Him or Obama? >> "A pistol is just something you use to fight your way back to your >> rifle." >> >> LOL > > Well, I suppose there is something to that thought. That's what the military guys have always told me. :) -- - Jane Galt
From: Better Info on 19 Jun 2010 22:26 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:22:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan >Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years >evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms of >"one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories about the >subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their conclusion: the best >9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or other cartridge in their >accumulated data. Now that was their first book and they've written a couple >of others since, which I haven't read, so maybe that has changed. An inexpensive cross-bow has more stopping-power than any handgun. Plus it's quiet without any illegal silencer. It's the only inexpensive and readily available weapon that will consistently pierce a flak-jacket. It's due to the mass of the bolt and the inertia behind it. A little known fact that the "powers that be" don't want widely known. After recently purchasing a nice 3-9x 40mm illuminated reticle sight for my rife, I put the old favorite rifle-site on my cross-bow. Bulls-eyes at 75 yards every time. Trespassers (civilian or government) should take the "Armed Response" sign at the end of my driveway seriously. If they don't, their loss.
From: Neil Harrington on 19 Jun 2010 22:28
"Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010061914281040873-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-06-19 10:04:03 +0100, David J Taylor said: > >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9BBF7C3F59CJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote : >> [] >>>> You do know that "full HD", and your monitor, are only about 2MP, I >>>> presume? >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Oh my. >>> >>> Well whatever makes it look so sharp and clear, I want it. :) >> >> Yes, I sometimes wonder that as well, Jane! One thing is that the pixels >> are right on the surface of the display, with no intervening optics, and >> there's no "ink spread" which you might get in some printing processes. >> Of course, if you want to crop half the linear image you've taken, you >> then need four times as many pixels, so having that 8-10-12MP camera does >> make some sense.... >> >> Oh, and I've seen figures of around 200 pixels per inch for acceptable >> photos, and that on a 6 x 4 inch print is 1MP - others say 300 pixels per >> inch so that's 2MP. > > Yes, good 2 MP cameras produced perfectly acceptable 4x6 inch prints. A In fact, I have seen perfectly acceptable 8 x 10 prints made from 2MP images. Compared side by side with a higher resolution same-sized print you might see a difference, but who does that? > "pixel perfect" 2 MP image produces a large, sharp, and thoroughly > enjoyable image on a good HDTV, sometimes an exquisite image. > > Most journals are printed at 200 DPI/PPI therefore a double-page image, > between margins, is about 7 MP. Occasionally, 300 DPI is used for printing > books showing fine art. Some of the top-end printers manage a stunning 400 > DPI. > > A 300 DPI print viewed from 10 inches by someone with 20/20 vision is at > the limit of visual acuity: this is termed close scrutiny. For 35 mm film > an 8x10 inch print viewed at 10 inches was the accepted reference. It had > lead to false statement such as: a 12 MP Bayer CFA camera cannot produce > prints larger than 8x12 inches. The correct statement is approximately: To > evaluate the quality of an image, print it at 300 DPI on a top end printer > and assess the print from a distance of 10 inches, or the equivalent > thereof to compensate for vision that is not 20/20. > > Generally, children are able to focus on objects 5 inches away or less; by > our mid-forties the closest distance for many of us is 20 inches or > further. At 20 inches viewing distance the print must be 16x24 inches for > close scrutiny, which is 150 DPI, etc. etc. Of course, a 48 inch HDTV > viewed from a distance of about 6 feet gives a razor sharp 2 MP image. > Interestingly, it looks a lot more impressive (and bigger?) than a 4x6 > inch print viewed from 10 inches. [ . . . ] Yes. There I think the difference is mainly psychological. You're not used to seeing a still photograph that sharp, that large and at that distance. If you did that all the time and had been doing it for years, I daresay it wouldn't be so impressive. The fact that it's its own light source (rather than reflected light, as from a print) probably makes a difference too. I've seen a similar effect mentioned in connection with projected slides -- they "look sharper than they really are" compared to an equivalent print. |