Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Attn: DRXT Users Only

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:49:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What are the things you like about using your DRXT?




What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?

More about : attn drxt users

Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:49:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:AJJAe.1462$mN1.1163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> What are the things you like about using your DRXT?
>
>
>
>
> What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?

Could you ask a little BROADER question, please????
:) 
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:05:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

For those that have chosen not to buy a DRXT, why not?





"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
news:AJJAe.1462$mN1.1163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> What are the things you like about using your DRXT?
>
>
>
>
> What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?
Related resources
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:42:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Pete D wrote:
> For those that have chosen not to buy a DRXT, why not?

I don't want to have the weight, cost and bulk of a DSLR with all its
accessory lenses. That was for my 35mm film days - today I can get
lighter cameras which work just as well for me.

David
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:38:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:40:56 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:

>
>"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
>news:AJJAe.1462$mN1.1163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> What are the things you like about using your DRXT?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?
>
>Could you ask a little BROADER question, please????
>:) 

OK...
What are things you like?

What are things you don't like?

:-)

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 3:45:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 07:05:00 GMT, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:

>For those that have chosen not to buy a DRXT, why not?

The 20D is a better camera....
******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 5:02:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:wYJAe.38187$oJ.17693@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> For those that have chosen not to buy a DRXT, why not?
>
>
>
>
>
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> news:AJJAe.1462$mN1.1163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> What are the things you like about using your DRXT?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?
>


Pete,

Spent about an hour with the XT at my local Ritz camera store. I didn't
like the size most of all. It was way too small. I brought my 28-135 and
put it on the XT and the balance seemed off and the bigger lens exaggerated
the small XT body.

The other thing I didn't like and I've seen posted her a few time recently
is the move to an all LCD menu for setting like ISO. I like the hacked
version of my 300D where the things I change the most are done with the
buttons.

Lastly, I can't stand the fact that they changed the battery. This wouldn't
be important for some one who only plans to have one camera but since I
already have a 300D the last thing I want is two different batteries to
carry around along with chargers.

I'm holding out for the cash to buy a 20D.

---

Rob
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 7:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:wYJAe.38187$oJ.17693@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> For those that have chosen not to buy a DRXT, why not?
>
>
>
>
>
We actually looked at one to augment our 20Ds when we have to have a camera
set up to shoot from a location and we don't have time to take to mount a
camera on a tripod, plus we thought it might make a good backup body for our
daughter to use when she assists us, instead of my old D30.
We felt it was too small to handle easily, and may not take the relative
pounding that a camera in heavy use would get.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
July 12, 2005 10:58:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:

> Spent about an hour with the XT at my local Ritz camera store. I didn't
> like the size most of all. It was way too small. I brought my 28-135 and
> put it on the XT and the balance seemed off and the bigger lens exaggerated
> the small XT body.

Look at it the other way - the smaller body will exaggerate the size of
a big lens :)  The humble 70-210 3.5/4.5 looks quite mighty when attached
to the XT. As for balance, the centre of gravity is pretty much where
the focusing ring is. I'd prefer a lighter body that balanced at the
zoom ring but it's livable with.

- Len
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:qpUAe.199$Dq5.197@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>
>> Spent about an hour with the XT at my local Ritz camera store. I didn't
>> like the size most of all. It was way too small. I brought my 28-135
>> and put it on the XT and the balance seemed off and the bigger lens
>> exaggerated the small XT body.
>
> Look at it the other way - the smaller body will exaggerate the size of
> a big lens :)  The humble 70-210 3.5/4.5 looks quite mighty when attached
> to the XT. As for balance, the centre of gravity is pretty much where
> the focusing ring is. I'd prefer a lighter body that balanced at the
> zoom ring but it's livable with.


All I can say is it didn't feel right to me. Admittedly I'm used to my 300D
and with the added battery grip it is quite heavy but for me the weight is
good because it helps steady the camera. Maybe I'd get used to it but add
that to the other issues I have with the XT and I see a 20D in my future.

I will add that my wife, who uses and Élan 7ne, liked the feel of the XT.
It's light much like her Élan and similarly shaped although smaller.

--

Rob
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 10:58:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:qpUAe.199$Dq5.197@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...

>
> Look at it the other way - the smaller body will exaggerate the size of
> a big lens :)  The humble 70-210 3.5/4.5 looks quite mighty when attached
> to the XT. As for balance, the centre of gravity is pretty much where
> the focusing ring is. I'd prefer a lighter body that balanced at the
> zoom ring but it's livable with.
>
> - Len

OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 1:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fednf_Tc8_zvUnfRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
>
> "Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:qpUAe.199$Dq5.197@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> Robert R Kircher, Jr. wrote:
>>
>>> Spent about an hour with the XT at my local Ritz camera store. I didn't
>>> like the size most of all. It was way too small. I brought my 28-135
>>> and put it on the XT and the balance seemed off and the bigger lens
>>> exaggerated the small XT body.
>>
>> Look at it the other way - the smaller body will exaggerate the size of
>> a big lens :)  The humble 70-210 3.5/4.5 looks quite mighty when attached
>> to the XT. As for balance, the centre of gravity is pretty much where
>> the focusing ring is. I'd prefer a lighter body that balanced at the
>> zoom ring but it's livable with.
>
>
> All I can say is it didn't feel right to me. Admittedly I'm used to my
> 300D and with the added battery grip it is quite heavy but for me the
> weight is good because it helps steady the camera. Maybe I'd get used to
> it but add that to the other issues I have with the XT and I see a 20D in
> my future.
>
> I will add that my wife, who uses and Élan 7ne, liked the feel of the XT.
> It's light much like her Élan and similarly shaped although smaller.
>
> --
>
> Rob

I as most would know have a Pentax Ds and after using that for about six
months I had a try of the XT and it just feels "wrong" to me, I like the
quiet shutter, but the thing just feels like really cheap plastic, I like
the feel of the 20D and the D70 but the XT is yucky, feels like an old
Yashica or something.
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 10:30:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...

But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with something
attached to it to record the image? In other words, why all the focus on the
camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of seeing the lens as the ticket to
happiness? I began typing this as a humorous response, but now that I think
about it some more... :>)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message
news:1rXAe.11406$HV1.1009@fed1read07...
> "Leonard" <user@example.net> wrote in message
> news:qpUAe.199$Dq5.197@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>
>> Look at it the other way - the smaller body will exaggerate the size of
>> a big lens :)  The humble 70-210 3.5/4.5 looks quite mighty when attached
>> to the XT. As for balance, the centre of gravity is pretty much where
>> the focusing ring is. I'd prefer a lighter body that balanced at the
>> zoom ring but it's livable with.
>>
>> - Len
>
> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 10:30:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:_x2Be.1719$_%4.622@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...
>
> But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with something
> attached to it to record the image? In other words, why all the focus on
> the camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of seeing the lens as the
> ticket to happiness? I began typing this as a humorous response, but now
> that I think about it some more... :>)

Please read all the way through...
:) 
Answer: Because this isn't film. The fact is, the digital body IS the
"film", of sorts, and this new "film" has different characteristics just as
regular, real film does. Film selection can be one of the most important
choices for any film-shooting photographer. It's simiilarly important with
digital bodies. Each has it's own set of characteristics and renditions.
While these differences are getting smaller in terms of visible differences
at a given ISO, other things like noise, ISO selection rangesabilities,
compression options, RAW file handling, and other factors remain diverse,
adn therefore require serious consideration (for the serious, picky photog).

When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying yourself
and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off agianst using
any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with film bodies. This is
a new aspect, which many who make your argument simply haven't thought
about.
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 10:30:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:_x2Be.1719$_%4.622@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...
>
> But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with something
> attached to it to record the image? In other words, why all the focus on
> the camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of seeing the lens as the
> ticket to happiness? I began typing this as a humorous response, but now
> that I think about it some more... :>)
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>

I was really only speaking in physical terms, not imaging. That little tiny
(relatively) camera mounted on the back of that lens, or even better, the
400mm f2.8 IS, would get lost to view. Its ability to record the image
would, of course, remain unimpeded.
That view of a camera as a light tight box was more the mode when film was
the recording medium, but now, the camera is so much more than that.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 12:47:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:_x2Be.1719$_%4.622@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400
>>> IS...
>>
>> But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with
>> something attached to it to record the image? In other words, why
>> all the focus on the camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of
>> seeing the lens as the ticket to happiness? I began typing this as
>> a
>> humorous response, but now that I think about it some more... :>)
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>
> I was really only speaking in physical terms, not imaging. That
> little tiny (relatively) camera mounted on the back of that lens, or
> even better, the 400mm f2.8 IS, would get lost to view. Its ability
> to record the image would, of course, remain unimpeded.
> That view of a camera as a light tight box was more the mode when
> film was the recording medium, but now, the camera is so much more
> than that.

How?

As Mike suggests, the camera part of a system is just the zone where
"a miracle occurs". If it were possible to accomplish the camera's
work by merely imagining the manipulations now accomplished by finger
and hand inputs, wouldn't everyone be as happy?

No, I say: Photographers would not be satisfied with no external
embodiment of their process to enable explanation to themselves and
others of exactly what occurs in lieu of a miracle. In my ideal
scenario, the camera disappears from my consciousness, and my choices
are revealed in the image. If someone wants to pin down the molecular
moves and relationships among "eye", "perception", "adjustment",
"exposure-imprint", and "revelation-exhibition", they would have to
infer something to fulfill their need. I think their interest, while
concerned with interesting, useful detail, is of secondary importance.

Most of us have done a lot of automobile driving, haven't we? Most of
that has been in aid of transporting our corporal selves from one
place to another. The end product is a simple relocation. I was there,
now I'm here. The cubic capacity of the engine or the passenger
compartment is not germane to the function performed. The diameter of
wheels, steering or road, doesn't matter in that equation. Color or
shape of the car? No tiene la menór importancia.

The process of moving a body from there to here can be that
uncomplicated; however, humans are complex and self-contemplative
beings, who view and evaluate themselves in complex environments. No
process is simple once a human ego is involved. Getting from there to
here suddenly becomes a matter of not only physical transport, but of
style.

My ideal camera, the one that disappears and simply does its job, is
similar to my ideal car: it disappears, too, and I just get where I'm
going without muss, fuss, or bother. Reality intrudes, and I _must_
have a tangible transport, so it is as uncomplicated as I can arrange:
a ten-foot long box with wheels at each corner, controllable steering,
motive, and retarding facility, protection from the elements, maybe a
little extra space for cargo. Does the job 99% of the time.

On the other hand, I like driving just to be _driving_. Something
about the control, the sensations of accelerating, turning, slowing,
just turns me on. I have had cars from those that were good for almost
nothing else ('66 Lotus Élan) to others, used similarly, that were
barely competent at that, but rendered similarly intense sensations
when used at their limits ('72 Vega GT). The greatest thrill in each
was taking them to their limits, performing at their highest possible
level. And in each configuration of physical vehicle and personal
application, at some point I became "one" with the instrument, it
disappeared as a manipulable object and became an extension of my
consciousness, kind of an exterior "skull" within which we—the car and
I—existed and performed.

Well, I've had a few such "zone moments" with cameras, too. Not as
many as "senior", but enough to keep me trying. It seems to me "luck"
plays a significant role in achieving such mini-Nirvanas, but that one
invites luck with thoughtful, careful preparation. Part of preparation
is choosing the right equipment. My experience is that the camera most
likely to disappear is the Canon 20D (Lotus); the RebXT (Vega) will do
many of the same things, but is more likely to remain at least
partially outside the "skull", more often.

Your style (process) may differ.

--
Frank ess
Anonymous
July 13, 2005 9:49:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:VoKdncUwWNoNqkjfRVn-qg@giganews.com...
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:_x2Be.1719$_%4.622@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400
>>>> IS...
>>>
>>> But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with
>>> something attached to it to record the image? In other words, why
>>> all the focus on the camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of
>>> seeing the lens as the ticket to happiness? I began typing this as a
>>> humorous response, but now that I think about it some more... :>)
>>>
>>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>>
>>
>> I was really only speaking in physical terms, not imaging. That
>> little tiny (relatively) camera mounted on the back of that lens, or
>> even better, the 400mm f2.8 IS, would get lost to view. Its ability
>> to record the image would, of course, remain unimpeded.
>> That view of a camera as a light tight box was more the mode when
>> film was the recording medium, but now, the camera is so much more
>> than that.
>
> How?
>
> As Mike suggests, the camera part of a system is just the zone where "a
> miracle occurs". If it were possible to accomplish the camera's work by
> merely imagining the manipulations now accomplished by finger and hand
> inputs, wouldn't everyone be as happy?

Well, with different sensors in different cameras, the camera becomes more
like a film box, the sensor is analagous to a roll of film. So, instead of
Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, et al, we have Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax,
etc. If you didn't like the film you used, you changed types or
manufacturers. Now, you have to change cameras, or even camera
manufacturers. And with the addition of things like internal image
stabilization and dust removal, the choice of body transends the "Get what
fits your hand" cliche. And even then, ergonomics are important, just not
any more important than they used to be.
>
> No, I say: Photographers would not be satisfied with no external
> embodiment of their process to enable explanation to themselves and others
> of exactly what occurs in lieu of a miracle. In my ideal scenario, the
> camera disappears from my consciousness, and my choices are revealed in
> the image. If someone wants to pin down the molecular moves and
> relationships among "eye", "perception", "adjustment", "exposure-imprint",
> and "revelation-exhibition", they would have to infer something to fulfill
> their need. I think their interest, while concerned with interesting,
> useful detail, is of secondary importance.
>
> Most of us have done a lot of automobile driving, haven't we? Most of that
> has been in aid of transporting our corporal selves from one place to
> another. The end product is a simple relocation. I was there, now I'm
> here. The cubic capacity of the engine or the passenger compartment is not
> germane to the function performed. The diameter of wheels, steering or
> road, doesn't matter in that equation. Color or shape of the car? No tiene
> la menór importancia.

Not germane to the function actually being achieved, maybe, but how it's
achieved is another matter. Would anyone say that getting from point A to
point B is the same in a Chevy Cobalt, Bentley GT and a Lotus Elise? Some
of us have a desire to get where we're going in a certain manner, whether it
be economically, in high speed luxury or with all the exitment available on
four wheels...
>
> The process of moving a body from there to here can be that uncomplicated;
> however, humans are complex and self-contemplative beings, who view and
> evaluate themselves in complex environments. No process is simple once a
> human ego is involved. Getting from there to here suddenly becomes a
> matter of not only physical transport, but of style.
>
> My ideal camera, the one that disappears and simply does its job, is
> similar to my ideal car: it disappears, too, and I just get where I'm
> going without muss, fuss, or bother. Reality intrudes, and I _must_ have a
> tangible transport, so it is as uncomplicated as I can arrange: a ten-foot
> long box with wheels at each corner, controllable steering, motive, and
> retarding facility, protection from the elements, maybe a little extra
> space for cargo. Does the job 99% of the time.

To do this, the camera must be more than just a light tight box, it must
function intuitively, all it's controls falling easily to hand, mutch like a
sports car must do the same for the journey to be enjoyable.
>
> On the other hand, I like driving just to be _driving_. Something about
> the control, the sensations of accelerating, turning, slowing, just turns
> me on. I have had cars from those that were good for almost nothing else
> ('66 Lotus Élan) to others, used similarly, that were barely competent at
> that, but rendered similarly intense sensations when used at their limits
> ('72 Vega GT). The greatest thrill in each was taking them to their
> limits, performing at their highest possible level. And in each
> configuration of physical vehicle and personal application, at some point
> I became "one" with the instrument, it disappeared as a manipulable object
> and became an extension of my consciousness, kind of an exterior "skull"
> within which we—the car and I—existed and performed.

Ok, so we're not so different, then...
>
> Well, I've had a few such "zone moments" with cameras, too. Not as many as
> "senior", but enough to keep me trying. It seems to me "luck" plays a
> significant role in achieving such mini-Nirvanas, but that one invites
> luck with thoughtful, careful preparation. Part of preparation is choosing
> the right equipment. My experience is that the camera most likely to
> disappear is the Canon 20D (Lotus); the RebXT (Vega) will do many of the
> same things, but is more likely to remain at least partially outside the
> "skull", more often.

My 20D is more like an Neon SRT-4, all the power and suspension to be quick,
but limited by its front wheel drive design from doing what a similarly
powered Audi Quatro will do, but it's still half the price. My 1n was more
like the Lotus, it had all the tools do "disappear" as you put it.
>
> Your style (process) may differ.
>
> --
> Frank ess

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 3:49:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <AJJAe.1462$mN1.1163@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>, measekite
<inkystinky@oem.com> writes
>What are the things you like about using your DRXT?
>
Image quality.
Its compactness. It took a couple of days to get used to it but now I
would be very reluctant to move to something significantly larger. I am
grateful for any weight and volume saving whilst walking. The largest
lens I use is a 70-200 f4L and I do not have any balance difficulties
with it.
Excellent battery life.
>
>
>
>What are the things you do NOT like about using your DRXT?
Lack of continuous ISO display.
Histogram/image display too small.
At first I was annoyed by the necessity to use the 'set' button
following changes to ISO settings but now it is second nature and I
don't think about it.
--
rbel
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:54:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
> yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
> agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with film
> bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument simply
> haven't thought about.
> :) 
> -Mark

Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it seemed,
had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a great big lens.
Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it imparts to the
recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that film does. Over time
I think such differences will become increasingly subtle, but for now
they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing, but also remain difficult
to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same universe as those who buy $400
speaker cables; for the most part, I believe we'll be able to settle on
objective criteria for the differences we see from one body to the next.

Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations that
should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been partially
obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity over time, and
then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or I could be totally
wrong! :>)

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:hd3Be.8729$Eo.6675@fed1read04...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:_x2Be.1719$_%4.622@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>>> OTOH, the little Rebel is overwhelmed when mounted on a 100-400 IS...
>>
>> But ultimately, isn't an imaging system really just a lens with something
>> attached to it to record the image? In other words, why all the focus on
>> the camera (in terms of size envy?) instead of seeing the lens as the
>> ticket to happiness? I began typing this as a humorous response, but now
>> that I think about it some more... :>)
>
> Please read all the way through...
> :) 
> Answer: Because this isn't film. The fact is, the digital body IS the
> "film", of sorts, and this new "film" has different characteristics just
> as regular, real film does. Film selection can be one of the most
> important choices for any film-shooting photographer. It's simiilarly
> important with digital bodies. Each has it's own set of characteristics
> and renditions. While these differences are getting smaller in terms of
> visible differences at a given ISO, other things like noise, ISO selection
> rangesabilities, compression options, RAW file handling, and other factors
> remain diverse, adn therefore require serious consideration (for the
> serious, picky photog).
>
> When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
> yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
> agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with film
> bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument simply
> haven't thought about.
> :) 
> -Mark
>
Anonymous
July 14, 2005 8:54:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>> yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>> agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with film
>> bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument simply
>> haven't thought about.
>> :) 
>> -Mark
>
> Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
> seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a great
> big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it imparts
> to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that film does.
> Over time I think such differences will become increasingly subtle, but
> for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing, but also remain
> difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same universe as those
> who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I believe we'll be able to
> settle on objective criteria for the differences we see from one body to
> the next.
>
> Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
> making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations that
> should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been partially
> obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity over time, and
> then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or I could be
> totally wrong! :>)

I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
comments...

I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one thing
that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the net is
that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't really show
itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP Canon 1Ds Mark
II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless they can zoom in
and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is pretty tough on a
screen), they won't really appreciate the quality/capabilities. But...when
they see a HUGE print from one of these (liek a 20"x30" lansdscape),
compared with one from an 8MP or less, the difference is clear. Fact is,
it's only a tiny portion of the photographic market who even care to
consider such large prints...so the ever-narrowing quality differences are
often lost on many people.

End of ramble...
:) 
-Mark
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:19:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
> illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one thing
> that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the net is
> that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't really show
> itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP Canon 1Ds Mark
> II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless they can zoom
> in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is pretty tough on a
> screen), they won't really appreciate the quality/capabilities.
> But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these (liek a 20"x30"
> lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the difference is
> clear.

The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.

So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
reasonable distance)? :>)

The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>> When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>> yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>>> agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with
>>> film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument
>>> simply haven't thought about.
>>> :) 
>>> -Mark
>>
>> Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>> seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>> great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it
>> imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that
>> film does. Over time I think such differences will become increasingly
>> subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing,
>> but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same
>> universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I
>> believe we'll be able to settle on objective criteria for the differences
>> we see from one body to the next.
>>
>> Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>> making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>> that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>> partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity over
>> time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or I
>> could be totally wrong! :>)
>
> I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
> comments...
>
> I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
> illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one thing
> that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the net is
> that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't really show
> itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP Canon 1Ds Mark
> II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless they can zoom
> in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is pretty tough on a
> screen), they won't really appreciate the quality/capabilities.
> But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these (liek a 20"x30"
> lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the difference is
> clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of the photographic market who
> even care to consider such large prints...so the ever-narrowing quality
> differences are often lost on many people.
>
> End of ramble...
> :) 
> -Mark
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 4:19:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:biDBe.2345$Rv7.608@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>> I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>> illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>> thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>> net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>> really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>> Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>> they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>> pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>> quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>> (liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>> difference is clear.
>
> The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
> printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
> bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.
>
> So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
> reasonable distance)? :>)

I use a 20.1" LCD, which is fairly large, but the time it seems REALLY large
is when I rotate it 90 degrees to edit portrait-orientation shots! -You'd
have to have an absolutely HUGE NON-rotating monitor to equal this view,
since without rotation, you can't take advantage of screen-space for tall
images. For anyone considering an LCD, I'd highly recommend looking into
ratation-capable ones...but don't forget that your video card needs to
support it. If it does, it's absolutely GREAT for working not only on tall
images, but also documents and web-pages. There are software solutions for
rotation, but I found them clunky and slow at best. Better off with
hardware-based support which means full power video in portrait mode.

-Mark

>
> The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>>
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>> When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>>> yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>>>> agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with
>>>> film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument
>>>> simply haven't thought about.
>>>> :) 
>>>> -Mark
>>>
>>> Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>>> seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>>> great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it
>>> imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that
>>> film does. Over time I think such differences will become increasingly
>>> subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing,
>>> but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same
>>> universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I
>>> believe we'll be able to settle on objective criteria for the
>>> differences we see from one body to the next.
>>>
>>> Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>>> making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>>> that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>>> partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity
>>> over time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or
>>> I could be totally wrong! :>)
>>
>> I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
>> comments...
>>
>> I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>> illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>> thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>> net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>> really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>> Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>> they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>> pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>> quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>> (liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>> difference is clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of the
>> photographic market who even care to consider such large prints...so the
>> ever-narrowing quality differences are often lost on many people.
>>
>> End of ramble...
>> :) 
>> -Mark
>>
>
>
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 8:21:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one thing
>>that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the net is
>>that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't really show
>>itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP Canon 1Ds Mark
>>II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless they can zoom
>>in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is pretty tough on a
>>screen), they won't really appreciate the quality/capabilities.
>>But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these (liek a 20"x30"
>>lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the difference is
>>clear.
>
>
> The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
> printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
> bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.
>
> So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
> reasonable distance)? :>)
>
> The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Mark�" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>
>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>>>>When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>>>yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>>>>agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with
>>>>film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument
>>>>simply haven't thought about.
>>>>:) 
>>>>-Mark
>>>
>>>Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>>>seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>>>great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it
>>>imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that
>>>film does. Over time I think such differences will become increasingly
>>>subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing,
>>>but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same
>>>universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I
>>>believe we'll be able to settle on objective criteria for the differences
>>>we see from one body to the next.
>>>
>>>Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>>>making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>>>that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>>>partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity over
>>>time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or I
>>>could be totally wrong! :>)
>>
>>I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
>>comments...
>>
>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one thing
>>that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the net is
>>that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't really show
>>itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP Canon 1Ds Mark
>>II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless they can zoom
>>in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is pretty tough on a
>>screen), they won't really appreciate the quality/capabilities.
>>But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these (liek a 20"x30"
>>lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the difference is
>>clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of the photographic market who
>>even care to consider such large prints...so the ever-narrowing quality
>>differences are often lost on many people.
>>
>>End of ramble...
>>:) 
>>-Mark
>>
>
>
>
Hi,
LCD? You do real graphics/photo work on CRT hi-res tubes yet.
Tony
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 8:21:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:D RGBe.1957085$Xk.873357@pd7tw3no...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>>>they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>>>pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>>>(liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>>>difference is clear.
>>
>>
>> The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
>> printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
>> bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.
>>
>> So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
>> reasonable distance)? :>)
>>
>> The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> "Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>> news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>>
>>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>>>When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>>>>yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>>>>>agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with
>>>>>film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument
>>>>>simply haven't thought about.
>>>>>:) 
>>>>>-Mark
>>>>
>>>>Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>>>>seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>>>>great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it
>>>>imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that
>>>>film does. Over time I think such differences will become increasingly
>>>>subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing,
>>>>but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same
>>>>universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I
>>>>believe we'll be able to settle on objective criteria for the
>>>>differences we see from one body to the next.
>>>>
>>>>Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>>>>making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>>>>that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>>>>partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity
>>>>over time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or
>>>>I could be totally wrong! :>)
>>>
>>>I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
>>>comments...
>>>
>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>>>they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>>>pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>>>(liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>>>difference is clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of the
>>>photographic market who even care to consider such large prints...so the
>>>ever-narrowing quality differences are often lost on many people.
>>>
>>>End of ramble...
>>>:) 
>>>-Mark
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi,
> LCD? You do real graphics/photo work on CRT hi-res tubes yet.
> Tony

Oh is that so...
That might have been true a few years ago, but **properly configured** and
capable LCDs keep up quite well these days. I've never had better
calibration (on any CRT) than I've had with this LCD. Love it. Add to this
that it's color and beightness has not had to be readjusted even one time.
Steady as they come--far more steady than any CRT I've used.
-Heck...it's not even one of the super duper high end "graphics" ones. :) 
(Although it did cost a pretty penny when I bought it...twice what you can
NOW buy it for, of course...)
-Mark
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:27:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:D RGBe.1957085$Xk.873357@pd7tw3no...
>
>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>
>>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>>>>they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>>>>pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>>>>(liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>>>>difference is clear.
>>>
>>>
>>>The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
>>>printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
>>>bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.
>>>
>>>So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
>>>reasonable distance)? :>)
>>>
>>>The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...
>>>
>>>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>>>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>www.ChainReaction.com
>>>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>>
>>>"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>>>>>yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing off
>>>>>>agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue with
>>>>>>film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your argument
>>>>>>simply haven't thought about.
>>>>>>:) 
>>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>
>>>>>Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>>>>>seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>>>>>great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that it
>>>>>imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out, that
>>>>>film does. Over time I think such differences will become increasingly
>>>>>subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a subjective viewing,
>>>>>but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully we're not in the same
>>>>>universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables; for the most part, I
>>>>>believe we'll be able to settle on objective criteria for the
>>>>>differences we see from one body to the next.
>>>>>
>>>>>Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>>>>>making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>>>>>that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>>>>>partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity
>>>>>over time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent. Or
>>>>>I could be totally wrong! :>)
>>>>
>>>>I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical size
>>>>comments...
>>>>
>>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen, unless
>>>>they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image (which is
>>>>pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of these
>>>>(liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or less, the
>>>>difference is clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of the
>>>>photographic market who even care to consider such large prints...so the
>>>>ever-narrowing quality differences are often lost on many people.
>>>>
>>>>End of ramble...
>>>>:) 
>>>>-Mark
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Hi,
>>LCD? You do real graphics/photo work on CRT hi-res tubes yet.
>>Tony
>
>
> Oh is that so...
> That might have been true a few years ago, but **properly configured** and
> capable LCDs keep up quite well these days. I've never had better
> calibration (on any CRT) than I've had with this LCD. Love it. Add to this
> that it's color and beightness has not had to be readjusted even one time.
> Steady as they come--far more steady than any CRT I've used.
> -Heck...it's not even one of the super duper high end "graphics" ones. :) 
> (Although it did cost a pretty penny when I bought it...twice what you can
> NOW buy it for, of course...)
> -Mark
>
>
Hi,
Couple more years for LCD, price and performance.
Tony
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 10:27:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:9HIBe.1959576$6l.561495@pd7tw2no...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Tony Hwang" <dragon40@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>> news:D RGBe.1957085$Xk.873357@pd7tw3no...
>>
>>>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>
>>>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen,
>>>>>unless they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image
>>>>>(which is pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of
>>>>>these (liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or
>>>>>less, the difference is clear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The irony here is that, for smaller images, they often look better when
>>>>printed than on-screen. Many of the small artifacts that one finds
>>>>bothersome on the screen don't seem to show up when printed.
>>>>
>>>>So I guess what we need are wall-sized LCDs (which are viewed at a
>>>>reasonable distance)? :>)
>>>>
>>>>The idea of editing something on a wall-sized screen is interesting...
>>>>
>>>>--Mike Jacoubowsky
>>>>Chain Reaction Bicycles
>>>>www.ChainReaction.com
>>>>Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>>>
>>>>"Mark?" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
>>>>news:NjnBe.8812$Eo.5851@fed1read04...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:o emBe.2034$Rv7.410@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>When you choose a particular digital body, it is essentially tying
>>>>>>>yourself and your photography to a SINGLE line of film--and signing
>>>>>>>off agianst using any other "film" brands. This was NEVER an issue
>>>>>>>with film bodies. This is a new aspect, which many who make your
>>>>>>>argument simply haven't thought about.
>>>>>>>:) 
>>>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Mark: I agree completely. I was reacting primarily to those who, it
>>>>>>seemed, had aesthetic issues with a tiny little camera attached to a
>>>>>>great big lens. Obviously the digital camera has characteristics that
>>>>>>it imparts to the recorded image, much in the way, as you point out,
>>>>>>that film does. Over time I think such differences will become
>>>>>>increasingly subtle, but for now they're not only apparent to a
>>>>>>subjective viewing, but also remain difficult to quantify. Thankfully
>>>>>>we're not in the same universe as those who buy $400 speaker cables;
>>>>>>for the most part, I believe we'll be able to settle on objective
>>>>>>criteria for the differences we see from one body to the next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Right now, we're in a world where improvements in image processing are
>>>>>>making such rapid improvements that the more-obvious differentiations
>>>>>>that should show up between larger & smaller sensor sizes have been
>>>>>>partially obscured. I would expect to see a bit of processing-parity
>>>>>>over time, and then the sensor size issues will become more apparent.
>>>>>>Or I could be totally wrong! :>)
>>>>>
>>>>>I realized after I posted that you were talking more about physical
>>>>>size comments...
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree that the whole quality-difference idea is a little tough to
>>>>>illustrate on the internet (or "quantify" as you said). I think one
>>>>>thing that jsut doesn't translate n terms of quality comparisons on the
>>>>>net is that many of the most expensive cameras' true quality doesn't
>>>>>really show itself clearly until huge prints are made. Take the 16+MP
>>>>>Canon 1Ds Mark II... When people look at samples on their screen,
>>>>>unless they can zoom in and still retain a sense of the whole image
>>>>>(which is pretty tough on a screen), they won't really appreciate the
>>>>>quality/capabilities. But...when they see a HUGE print from one of
>>>>>these (liek a 20"x30" lansdscape), compared with one from an 8MP or
>>>>>less, the difference is clear. Fact is, it's only a tiny portion of
>>>>>the photographic market who even care to consider such large
>>>>>prints...so the ever-narrowing quality differences are often lost on
>>>>>many people.
>>>>>
>>>>>End of ramble...
>>>>>:) 
>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Hi,
>>>LCD? You do real graphics/photo work on CRT hi-res tubes yet.
>>>Tony
>>
>>
>> Oh is that so...
>> That might have been true a few years ago, but **properly configured**
>> and capable LCDs keep up quite well these days. I've never had better
>> calibration (on any CRT) than I've had with this LCD. Love it. Add to
>> this that it's color and beightness has not had to be readjusted even one
>> time. Steady as they come--far more steady than any CRT I've used.
>> -Heck...it's not even one of the super duper high end "graphics" ones.
>> :) 
>> (Although it did cost a pretty penny when I bought it...twice what you
>> can NOW buy it for, of course...)
>> -Mark
>>
>>
> Hi,
> Couple more years for LCD, price and performance.

Not for me. I'm there! :) 
-But then again...I am from the year 2008.
July 17, 2005 7:47:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip and Frank wrote about human-automobile bling...

pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?

Jeff
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:47:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:96ljd11alqtccib25i5jd3vsuraotcgtqe@4ax.com...
> Skip and Frank wrote about human-automobile bling...
>
> pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?
>
> Jeff

Have I insulted your gear? Why is you feel compelled to deride a product
that you probably haven't used, at least to any extent?
No, one of the old Vivitar 35mm cameras would be more like a pinto, out of
production and not much missed.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 17, 2005 7:47:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Skip M wrote:
> "Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
> news:96ljd11alqtccib25i5jd3vsuraotcgtqe@4ax.com...
>> Skip and Frank wrote about human-automobile bling...
>>
>> pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Have I insulted your gear? Why is you feel compelled to deride a
> product that you probably haven't used, at least to any extent?
> No, one of the old Vivitar 35mm cameras would be more like a pinto,
> out of production and not much missed.

He's called "Confused" for good and certain reasons.

"Bling" is more likely that Farfergnugen (approx.) with Owdy
pretentions.

20D is in the Toyodel 2WD pickup range; 1DS sorta 4WD-ish., next step
"up" adds four doors and a fancy paintjob.

--
Frank ess
July 17, 2005 10:41:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> >> pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
> > Have I insulted your gear?

heck no... I *like* my 20D series Pinto... ;^)

> > Why is you feel compelled to deride a
> > product that you probably haven't used, at least to any extent?
> > No, one of the old Vivitar 35mm cameras would be more like a pinto,
> > out of production and not much missed.
>
> He's called "Confused" for good and certain reasons.

:-)

> "Bling" is more likely that Farfergnugen (approx.) with Owdy
> pretentions.
>
> 20D is in the Toyodel 2WD pickup range; 1DS sorta 4WD-ish.,
> next step "up" adds four doors and a fancy paintjob.

Sounds like a 21st century Pinto to me... LOL

Jeff
Anonymous
July 18, 2005 12:05:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Confused" <somebody@someplace.somenet> wrote in message
news:ee9ld1dkm0qtnbobomcm0aoim3bvf8qvqg@4ax.com...
> "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>
>> >> pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >
>> > Have I insulted your gear?
>
> heck no... I *like* my 20D series Pinto... ;^)
>
>> > Why is you feel compelled to deride a
>> > product that you probably haven't used, at least to any extent?
>> > No, one of the old Vivitar 35mm cameras would be more like a pinto,
>> > out of production and not much missed.
>>
>> He's called "Confused" for good and certain reasons.
>
> :-)
>
>> "Bling" is more likely that Farfergnugen (approx.) with Owdy
>> pretentions.
>>
>> 20D is in the Toyodel 2WD pickup range; 1DS sorta 4WD-ish.,
>> next step "up" adds four doors and a fancy paintjob.
>
> Sounds like a 21st century Pinto to me... LOL
>
> Jeff

Yeah, dig your self deeper....

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
July 20, 2005 5:05:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 20:05:56 -0700
In message <k0FCe.15176$HV1.1581@fed1read07>
"Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> >> >> pssst... wouldn't a 20D be more like a PINTO?
> >> >> Jeff
> >> >
> >> > Have I insulted your gear?
> >
> > heck no... I *like* my 20D series Pinto... ;^)
> >
> >> > Why is you feel compelled to deride a
> >> > product that you probably haven't used, at least to any extent?
> >> > No, one of the old Vivitar 35mm cameras would be more like a pinto,
> >> > out of production and not much missed.
> >>
> >> He's called "Confused" for good and certain reasons.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >> "Bling" is more likely that Farfergnugen (approx.) with Owdy
> >> pretentions.
> >>
> >> 20D is in the Toyodel 2WD pickup range; 1DS sorta 4WD-ish.,
> >> next step "up" adds four doors and a fancy paintjob.
> >
> > Sounds like a 21st century Pinto to me... LOL
> > Jeff
>
> Yeah, dig your self deeper....

Maybe if I picked a more up-to-date model...

The KIA 20D ;-()

Jeff
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 5:05:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:05:17 GMT, Confused wrote:

>> Yeah, dig your self deeper....
>
> Maybe if I picked a more up-to-date model...
>
> The KIA 20D ;-()

That "dig" referred to your previous message. It wasn't intended
to be a command to dig yourself a deeper hole. Congratulations,
just another couple of inches and it'll be 6 feet deep.
July 20, 2005 11:54:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <m6frd1hc0u58pt8h75halmvvd17v02ih86@4ax.com>
Posted from kimbo
ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 01:05:17 GMT, Confused wrote:
>
> > > Yeah, dig your self deeper....
> >
> > Maybe if I picked a more up-to-date model...
> > The KIA 20D ;-()
>
> That "dig" referred to your previous message. It wasn't intended
> to be a command to dig yourself a deeper hole. Congratulations,
> just another couple of inches and it'll be 6 feet deep.

LOL...will my 20D survive the dirt, mold and dampness?

Jeff
Anonymous
July 20, 2005 11:54:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:54:48 GMT, Confused wrote:

> > just another couple of inches and it'll be 6 feet deep.
>
> LOL...will my 20D survive the dirt, mold and dampness?

I don't know, but it might help if instead of periodically
bringing flowers, you have a small chute in installed for former
friends to drop little dessicant pouches into. Being a nifty
camera, the 20D probably has a noise reduction option that really
helps when it's really dark and long exposures are needed. This
should increase the time needed to process each picture, but with
few places to go and all the time in the world this shouldn't be
anything to be concerned about. :) 
July 21, 2005 12:47:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:20:25 -0400
ASAAR wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 19:54:48 GMT, Confused wrote:
>
> > > just another couple of inches and it'll be 6 feet deep.
> >
> > LOL...will my 20D survive the dirt, mold and dampness?
>
> I don't know, but it might help if instead of periodically
> bringing flowers, you have a small chute in installed for former
> friends to drop little dessicant pouches into. Being a nifty
> camera, the 20D probably has a noise reduction option that really
> helps when it's really dark and long exposures are needed. This
> should increase the time needed to process each picture, but with
> few places to go and all the time in the world this shouldn't be
> anything to be concerned about. :) 

Works for me. I could have it all exhumed in 2 years for a
pre-arranged book deal:

Decomposing Jeff -- No Longer Confused

Most likely though, the 20D will be in a land fill when
that time arrives. There will probably be a $1599.95
256MP KIAOTA 2030Dsxt Mark III that won't need the pouches.

Jeff
!