On 01/02/2016 09:46 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 4:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> That second image? Probably the single best photograph I've ever taken
>> in my entire 35 years of being alive. Just so you know...
>
> I liked, and was going to comment on the first one. And then I scrolled
> down to the second...
>
> nice!

Thanks. :-)

The Sun was behind the clouds, but just as I took the final shot, it 
unexpectedly started shining, and give the image some nice highlights. I 
did half a dozen shots similar to this, but this was definitely the best 
one due to the superior lighting.

Although... now that I look at it... that's rather a lot of sensor 
noise. ISO 5600? Hmm.

So I went back and tried to redo the shot at ISO 100. Aaaand captured a 
whole load of camera shake, and not much else.

I see there's a 40mm f/1.8 lens that's cheap...

OH GOD, IT HAS STARTED! O_O

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 4:38 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/02/2016 09:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Oh, right. I just wrote 20 pages about a camera, and didn't post any
>> pictures...
>
> So here's a paperweight I happen to have in my flat.

Is that some type of bong?

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/02/2016 09:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Oh, right. I just wrote 20 pages about a camera, and didn't post any
>> pictures...
>
> Take one ordinary box of chocolates. Shoot sideways with the widest
> aperture the lens can manage. PROFIT!


Oh, and hashish filled chocolates I presume.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>
> While I was there, I also bought the accessory bag - mostly because it
> includes a spare battery. (This camera is powered by a custom Lithium
> ion battery pack, so it's presumably irreplaceable once it inevitably
> stops working.)

There really should be an international LAW mandating some kind of *standard* as
to shapes and sizes of camera batteries. It's currently kind of ridiculous--
just about *every* camera requires its own proprietary battery (even similar
cameras made by the same company.)

That's one reason why I bought a small CANON camera several years ago, powered
by two simple AA batteries. (Which was surprising, because CANON *also* seems to
come up with a new proprietary battery for every camera they make.) Sure, the AA
batteries don't last very long before needing a recharge (I use NIMH
batteries)-- but the sheer CONVENIENCE of using them far outweighs the need to
buy some kind of proprietary replacement in the future (IF one is still
available by then!)

Although, for a nice DSLR camera, I suppose it would need 8 to 10 AA batteries
to power the thing. The battery 'pack' would probably be bigger then the camera.
 *sigh*

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 7:58 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
>>
>> While I was there, I also bought the accessory bag - mostly because it
>> includes a spare battery. (This camera is powered by a custom Lithium
>> ion battery pack, so it's presumably irreplaceable once it inevitably
>> stops working.)
>
> There really should be an international LAW mandating some kind of *standard* as
> to shapes and sizes of camera batteries. It's currently kind of ridiculous--
> just about *every* camera requires its own proprietary battery (even similar
> cameras made by the same company.)
>
> That's one reason why I bought a small CANON camera several years ago, powered
> by two simple AA batteries. (Which was surprising, because CANON *also* seems to
> come up with a new proprietary battery for every camera they make.) Sure, the AA
> batteries don't last very long before needing a recharge (I use NIMH
> batteries)-- but the sheer CONVENIENCE of using them far outweighs the need to
> buy some kind of proprietary replacement in the future (IF one is still
> available by then!)
>
> Although, for a nice DSLR camera, I suppose it would need 8 to 10 AA batteries
> to power the thing. The battery 'pack' would probably be bigger then the camera.
>   *sigh*
>
>

Careful. That sounds kind of like socialism. Who are you to infringe 
upon the camera makers' right to differentiate.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 1-2-2016 23:42, Mike Horvath wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 01/02/2016 09:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Oh, right. I just wrote 20 pages about a camera, and didn't post any
>>> pictures...
>>
>> Take one ordinary box of chocolates. Shoot sideways with the widest
>> aperture the lens can manage. PROFIT!
>
>
> Oh, and hashish filled chocolates I presume.

I think he is fooling us. Those are POV-Ray renders, not photographs.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> In the category of "nobody cares but I'm going to tell you all about it
> anyway": I just bought a new camera.
>
> For those of you not following this saga, my previous camera has been
> annoying me for years. It has a number of problems:
>
> * It's powered by 4x AA batteries. The batteries will run flat after
> about 90 minutes, regardless of WHETHER THE CAMERA IS TURNED ON! >_<
> Yes, you heard me right. If you put batteries in, wait a while, you will
> find them stone-dead. That can't be right...
>
> * It's a 3 megapixel camera, but each and every time you put the
> batteries back in, you have to tell it the date isn't 2002, and you have
> to tell it to *not* shoot everything at 1 megapixel. Because that's why
> you bought a 3 megapixel camera, right?
>
> * Unless you're standing in the Sahara desert at noon on midsummer's
> day, the camera will whine and complain that there's insufficient light.
> It will demand that you use the flash. If you do not use the flash, the
> images will come out shaky as hell, and/or a dark orange / brown colour.
>
> * Paradoxically, in direct sunlight, everything turns a weird shade of
> blue.
>
> * The camera point-blank *refuses* to focus on very small objects. If
> something is less than a foot away from the lens, the camera will just
> focus on the stuff behind it instead.

Yes, these are the exact same reasons why I got a dSLR (and I'm on my 
third now). Welcome to a hobby that can get very expensive very quickly!

> So anyway, when I got home from Christmas, I discovered that my landlord
> had refunded me THREE THOUSAND POUNDS that they accidentally overcharged
> me since I moved it. (??!) So naturally, I did what any normal human
> would have done: I bought a Nikon D3300 digital single lens reflex camera.

There's only one thing I can suggest, and that is to return it to the 
shop, get a refund, and order a Canon one instead :-)

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2016 12:58 AM, Kenneth wrote:
> There really should be an international LAW mandating some kind of *standard* as
> to shapes and sizes of camera batteries. It's currently kind of ridiculous--
> just about *every* camera requires its own proprietary battery (even similar
> cameras made by the same company.)

See also: Mobile phones. Laptops. Portable satnav. GPS receivers...

Post a reply to this message

> So I went back and tried to redo the shot at ISO 100. Aaaand captured a
> whole load of camera shake, and not much else.
>
> I see there's a 40mm f/1.8 lens that's cheap...
>
> OH GOD, IT HAS STARTED! O_O

:-)

Get a tripod, invaluable for shots like this.

Post a reply to this message

> On 1-2-2016 23:42, Mike Horvath wrote:
>> On 2/1/2016 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> On 01/02/2016 09:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>>> Oh, right. I just wrote 20 pages about a camera, and didn't post any
>>>> pictures...
>>>
>>> Take one ordinary box of chocolates. Shoot sideways with the widest
>>> aperture the lens can manage. PROFIT!
>>
>>
>> Oh, and hashish filled chocolates I presume.
>
> I think he is fooling us. Those are POV-Ray renders, not photographs.
>
It's a twist on the RSOCP.  The RSs are embedded in the CP.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message