Lens question
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 12:15 In article <hcpk2p12pm1(a)news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > malfunctions can occur for a variety of reasons. that's not proof that > > the radio was the cause. > > How about if turning it off fixed the problem and turning it back on > resulted in it returning? how about controlled tests, many of which have been done and none of which have found any link. and in this particular case, the radio was not turned back on to see what happened.
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 12:15 In article <4a967c85-edfa-4f95-9ecb-9750ca106db1(a)b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > Its simply in-camera cropping, which carries the disadvantage of not > permitting an image to be re-composed if the operator missed slightly > when tightly framing the subject. This results in lower yield. right. there's no point in discarding 2/3rds of the pixels when taking the shot. do it later, cropping as needed. > The simple reality is that flying birds are a challenging subject no > matter what gear one has. Not only does it have focal length > considerations, but it also stresses autofocus systems, both for speed > of acquiring, but also for their dynamic tracking accuracy. right. and notice his bird pic is a stationary bird. > Of course, John will continue to claim to high heaven that the > Panasonic is the bees knees, but if one were to go buy the hardware to > test for one's self, any failures will predictably result in the > excuse of "Operator Error". of course.
From: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 12:15 In article <pfn0f5ho4e4scbgb2of1p36nq7srln55j1(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > And, making an exception to my rule: > <http://i38.tinypic.com/mukgzm.jpg> an 800 x 600 pixel sample of a bird that's not moving?? that's the best you can do??
From: John Navas on 3 Nov 2009 13:39 On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 13:53:08 -0000, "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in <hcpro9$1mab$3(a)adenine.netfront.net>: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:vhrue5phalna19cjlgcj6jq0fs4470omoe(a)4ax.com... >> Your FM radio is cheap junk compared to aircraft systems. >Hello again John and thank you for the posting. > >I'd better clarify the comment about the 747. >If one system on the aircraft (the fuel gauge system) was not immune to >intererference from another system on that aircraft (the radio transmitters) >then why should we expect any immunity from electronic systems brought on >board by passengers? 1. They're not at all comparable. 2. The fuel sensor may well have been faulty. 3. Without careful analysis no valid conclusion can be drawn. -- 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: nospam on 3 Nov 2009 13:23
In article <1601f554ok0ks0j7762iltna6aeo1pm4i7(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > Adding a foxtail the antennae, fuzzy dice hanging from the rear view > mirror, and valve stem covers in the shape of a skull is not > upgrading. you forgot the spinning wheel covers :) |