Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 29 May 2010 19:06 On May 29, 11:04 pm, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:30:21 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote in > <9283d5d6-31dc-4f58-8bd2-e2e86fee9...(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>: > > > > > > >On May 29, 9:12 pm, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:45:03 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> > >> wrote in > >> <b13a04f7-c541-486b-ae48-7e8a772cc...(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >On May 29, 5:54 pm, "David J Taylor" <david- > >> >tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> >> The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher > >> >> f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical > >> >> aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). > > >> >If this was true then the sunny f 16 rule will not work. > >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule > >> >It does and does not depend on type of lenses, only the f number. > > >> David is correct. The Sunny 16 rule is not violated. > >> More photons do indeed get in because the entrance pupil is larger.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number > > >More light means the exposure time has to be shorter. > > Not so. Read the references more carefully. From where? The only thing that matters is the f number. According to your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number lenses set at the same f stop will have the same illuminance in the focal plane. DanP
From: John Navas on 29 May 2010 20:02 On Sat, 29 May 2010 16:06:20 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in <341c78bc-b6cc-4e11-bce1-4b712e1e5953(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com>: >On May 29, 11:04�pm, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:30:21 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote in >> <9283d5d6-31dc-4f58-8bd2-e2e86fee9...(a)f14g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >On May 29, 9:12�pm, John Navas <jnsp...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, 29 May 2010 10:45:03 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> >> >> wrote in >> >> <b13a04f7-c541-486b-ae48-7e8a772cc...(a)q33g2000vbt.googlegroups.com>: >> >> >> >On May 29, 5:54�pm, "David J Taylor" <david- >> >> >tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> >> >> The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher >> >> >> f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical >> >> >> aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in). >> >> >> >If this was true then the sunny f 16 rule will not work. >> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_16_rule >> >> >It does and does not depend on type of lenses, only the f number. >> >> >> David is correct. �The Sunny 16 rule is not violated. >> >> More photons do indeed get in because the entrance pupil is larger.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number >> >> >More light means the exposure time has to be shorter. >> >> Not so. �Read the references more carefully. > >From where? >The only thing that matters is the f number. >According to your link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number lenses >set at the same f stop will have the same illuminance in the focal >plane. Correct, but you're confusing that with the number of photons. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Peter on 29 May 2010 21:43 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:jW_Ln.5128$Z6.2762(a)edtnps82... > > > Ranted like a true elitist... > > And you wonder why Muslims, Christians, Maoists, etc kill each other in > the name of who's right... > > Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer > might just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by > the Mona Lisa, a painting done by somebody with keen vision, superb motor > skills, and the social status necessary to obtain all the resources and > education needed to put it all together... > > "I remember, too, being very much influenced in this regard by a powerful > story by Antoine de Saint-Exup�ry. Travelling by train from France to > Poland with a coach full of immigrants who were being sent back home > because there was little work in France, Saint-Exup�ry noticed a beautiful > child with large sad eyes. The thought suddenly struck the writer that > this little boy might be as talented as Mozart, but he would never have a > chance. His parents were poor; it was obvious that they had little to eat. > He would never be able to learn a musical instrument. Saint-Exup�ry called > this story "Mozart Assassinated;" and I remember thinking that Canada must > organize itself so that we stop assassinating our Mozarts - that all > Canadians should have the opportunity to fulfil themselves to the best of > their ability." > > Quoted from the Memoirs of the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau > And yet there's this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4457278.stm -- Peter
From: Peter on 29 May 2010 21:50 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:P0cMn.5179$Z6.410(a)edtnps82... > > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message > news:htrhul21vgf(a)news6.newsguy.com... >> On 5/29/2010 11:50 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >>> "Jeff Jones"<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >>> news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >>>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind photographer >>>>> might >>>>> just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by >>>>> the >>>>> Mona >>>>> Lisa >>>> >>>> And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit that >>>> you've all come to know and support. >>>> >>> >>> I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a >>> better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical >>> abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a >>> sighted >>> person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, >>> with >>> your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... >> >> I'm noticing that you're doing unexpected things with focus, that don't >> make for "pretty" pictures but if one put them in a gallery then artsy >> people would wonder "what is the photographer saying with this?" >> > > My goal is a bit of both... > > As I've said in the past, I hope to produce pics that sighted people can > appreciate... While many have not achieved your goal, I have seen a few that do. > > That could mean anything from producing a nice, traditional portrait to > something like the "still trying to decide" pic. > Is a "traditional" shot art, or something else? > I'm actually starting to get a wee bit of control over focus, due mainly > to a lot of bad shots that the focus did something unexpected. In that > apple pic, it wasn't that tough to get the focus off the apple. All I had > to do is push the shutter release half way down so the camera focused on > something else, and then move the apple into position. > > What "Jeff" thought was an "over-exposed living room wall" is actually a > lamp shade. I held the apple right in front of the lens of the camera, > which was just slightly in front of the lamp shade, and the couch was on > the other side. > I have strong questions whether Jeff posts what he thinks. > Now, I wasn't sure whether the camera would focus on the shade, or on the > couch, but I knew it would not be on the apple, or, at least I was fairly > certain... (my cams still keep surprising me on a regular basis.) > > Both the apple and the couch were quite dark in colour, and the apple was > closer to the light, so I thought it would come out a lot brighter than > the dark material in the background, so I tilted the apple a bit and tried > to get my fingers (as well as the top ridge of the apple) to put it in a > bit of shadow. I was also hoping that, because it was a bit in front of > the shade, a bit of silhouetting might help darken the apple. > > The idea was to get a source of light (God? Truth?) bracketed by dark > things (uncertainty? desire?) which constitute the delemma. > > The end result of all this was to get that whole "Fall of Man" concept > going, but in a modern context, indicating that it wasn't just a one time > mistake the human race has made, but rather, an on-going ethical delemma > we all face with everyday choices, right down to our very comfort and > security... > > The idea isn't to make it look like we're all horrible sinners, but that > we are genetically constituted to want the good life, even though it might > be our ruin. -- Peter
From: Dudley Hanks on 29 May 2010 22:25
"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4c01c509$0$5546$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message > news:P0cMn.5179$Z6.410(a)edtnps82... >> >> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote in message >> news:htrhul21vgf(a)news6.newsguy.com... >>> On 5/29/2010 11:50 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >>>> "Jeff Jones"<jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message >>>> news:4gi1061ia6g7spmhoikfc161ai1gc9a7g9(a)4ax.com... >>>>> On Sat, 29 May 2010 02:25:19 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" >>>>> <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Once you get past arbitrary standards, a photo by a blind >>>>>> photographer >>>>>> might >>>>>> just well indicate better mastery of the art than that exhibited by >>>>>> the >>>>>> Mona >>>>>> Lisa >>>>> >>>>> And there you have it folks. Precisely the kind of delusional twit >>>>> that >>>>> you've all come to know and support. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I never said mine were, just that a blind photographer might exhibit a >>>> better mastery of the art than an artist who has exemplary physical >>>> abilities... The end result may not be as pleasing to the eye of a >>>> sighted >>>> person, but it may well have taken supreme skills to produce it. But, >>>> with >>>> your bigotted outlook on life, you'll never understand that point... >>> >>> I'm noticing that you're doing unexpected things with focus, that don't >>> make for "pretty" pictures but if one put them in a gallery then artsy >>> people would wonder "what is the photographer saying with this?" >>> >> >> My goal is a bit of both... >> >> As I've said in the past, I hope to produce pics that sighted people can >> appreciate... > > While many have not achieved your goal, I have seen a few that do. > Thanks, Peter, I'm still in the test shot stage of development, trying to find out just what I can do with what techniques, and how those techniques can enhance what limited sight I do have. For instance, I picked up another 75 - 300mm lens the other day (as my old one's AF system bit the bullet some time ago), and I went down to the local arena (yes, we're still playing hockey up here). In the past, I've been concentrating on how to frame mainly wide-angle shots, since it's extremely difficult for me to aim a pinpoint long focal-length lens with any kind of accuracy. This time, I thought, "The hell with it," and zoomed right out to 300mm (480mm @ 35mm equiv), and I started taking picks. After reviewing a few picks of ice, ceiling, lights, parts of the hockey nets, skates, sticks, etc, I thought to myself, there has to be a way I can get a feel for what is out there. At this point, I changed my grip slightly, so I could feel the lens focusing with the fingertips of my left hand, and I switched from single shot mode to AF servo, and I just panned the camera, feeling how the lens moved back and forth. It occurred to me that the lens would "hunt" for something to focus if I had it aimed towards open ice, the boards / glass, etc, and would suddenly jerk to an object whenever I passed it over something contrasting, players, the nets, face-off circles, etc. Using that technique, I started taking some picks. I ended up with a few interesting picks. Since it was just a hockey practice, I got some pics of coaches standing there, talking to groups of players, other players doing "push-ups" against the glass, and a couple of picks of players working at skating drills. There was nothing horribly interesting, but I did have a couple of neat pics where the coach was in focus along with one player, and two or three other players (either in front of or behind) were out of focus. It kind of looked like that player and the coach were engaged in there own discussion, excluding the others. Unfortunately, the shots were hand held, so there was a fair bit of camera shake, but the technique is one I think will work well if I can get a fast enough lens to use that focal length. In the case of a game, I can put the camera on a tripod and zone focus using that technique (single shot mode) and then snap happily away with the SX120 and use the tripod XSi via a cable release. I think my hockey game keepers should improve substantially because of that little scouting trip... Take Care, Dudley |