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.

Having said all that, it *does* shoot nicer pictures than my mum's 7 
megapixel camera. Presumably because the lens on my camera is about 55mm 
across, whereas the lens on hers is 3mm. :-P

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.



The guy in the shop tells me this is the best-selling DSLR camera they 
have. (But then, he *would* say that, right?) All I know is that after 
inspecting the Nikon website, I can't find *any* difference in 
specifications between the D3300 and several other Nikon models 8x the 
price. (The differences I did find were all obscure stuff that only a 
professional photographer would give a damn about. Stuff like remote 
management, flash synchronisation, automatic focus bracketing, etc.)

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.)

The camera "kit" I purchased actually consists of the camera body plus 
one lens. (It's a Nikkor AF-S DX 18-55m f/3.5-5.6G ED II, in case you 
care.) It includes a lens cover, carry strap, and one battery. But it 
doesn't include any sort of carry case for the camera, hence why I 
bought the accessory pack (which primarily consists of a carry bag).

Having excitedly rushed home with my new £400 camera, I discovered that 
it takes 2 hours to charge the battery. (Apparently Lithium ion 
batteries should always be stored uncharged for maximum longevity.) 
Still, while I'm waiting for that, I got to do the more terrifying part 
of the unpacking process: INSTALLING THE LENS.

Yes. Having just paid £400 for a camera, I get to take the body cap off 
and stare into the gaping abyss that leads to the fragile heart of the 
device. At any moment, a single speck of dust or a stray human hair 
could fall into the machine, permanently destroying a very expensive 
piece of equipment. This is a harrowing time indeed!

It took me about 20 minutes to figure out how to slot the lens into the 
body. If only I'd read the instructions, I would have known that both 
the body and the lens helpfully have a mark that you're supposed to line 
up, and then it's easy. *sigh*

Having fitted the lens, everything is blurry as hell. But wait. It turns 
out, you have to give the zoom ring a twist, and the lens telescopes 
apart and becomes functional. Apparently it collapses to reduce storage 
space, but is only usable when unpacked. Good to know! (And kinda trippy 
to watch!)

The battery is still charging, but I was able to play with the lens a 
little. Since this is an SLR, you don't need power to look through the 
viewfinder and see the image that will be captured. The lens has a zoom 
ring, which gives an impressive degree of zoom in/out. It also has a 
tiny ring for manually focusing, which is kind of flimsy and difficult 
to use. The viewfinder is so tiny it's very hard to know if you're in 
focus or not.

Eventually the battery finished charging, and I was able to load the 
battery and SD card into my camera and actually SHOOT SOME STUFF, 
PEOPLE! :-D



I like this camera. I like this camera *a lot*! Let me tell you why I 
like it.

The first thing I did was to wander round my flat shooting stuff. At 
this point, it's dark outside, so everything is under artificial light. 
Running in full-auto mode, the camera produced really sharp, crisp 
images that accurately reflect the actual brightness and *colour* that I 
actually saw with my eyeballs.

Even when shooting in *silly* light levels, the camera still produces 
good shots. At one point, I went into my bedroom and turned all the 
lights off. *I* couldn't see a damned thing, but somehow the camera 
managed to produce a moderately well exposed image of the dim glow from 
the various LEDs dotted around the place. I mean, sure, it was grainy as 
hell, but I'm shooting photographs IN THE FRIGGING DARK! By rights I 
should have got nothing but a black screen. The camera managed far more 
than that.

I've since discovered that there's a night-vision mode. It makes 
everything black and white and stupidly grainy, but if you set a long 
exposure, you can take really quite good pictures in *absurd* lighting 
conditions.

I took my camera and shot the view from my window. It was after sundown, 
and there was a street light in shot. And yet, still the camera delivers 
a sharp, well-exposed image, while still not over-exposing the naked 
light in the shot. I took a shot of the inside of my fridge. Even with 
this hopeless lighting setup, the camera somehow delivered a clear, 
lifelike rendition of the scene.

The *other* thing, of course, is that my old camera has almost no 
adjustable settings. You can set the white balance between a few 
hard-coded presets, and you can turn the exposure up or down slightly, 
and you have some control over what the autofocus targets. And that's 
about it. But the new camera is an SLR. You can do *crazy* things like 
select a 30-second exposure time if you want. (I'm still waiting to try 
out the whole "blurry time-lapse waves" shot... It's just too ****ing 
cold outdoors right now!)

The flash does a surprisingly good job of illuminating even quite large 
spaces. And there's an "autofocus lamp" that briefly lights stuff up 
while the camera tries to focus (even if you don't use the actual flash 
for the shot itself). It's 9-point autofocus too, so I'm seeing far 
fewer incidences of the camera focusing on something completely 
unrelated to what I want to shoot.

I was also able to take pictures of some really tiny objects around the 
house. I've got a picture of my toaster where you can count the crumbs 
on the lid. And another of a spider in my bathroom where you can could 
the... uh... *damn*, I really need to clean my bathroom! :-S

I bought the camera specifically because I knew we're going to see my 
uncle John the next day. And I took *lots* of pictures in the car on the 
way. It snowed, so I was able to shoot lots of snowscapes.

With the camera in sport mode, I was able to make shots from a vehicle 
thundering along at 70 MPH look like we were perfectly stationary. And 
this on a dull, overcast winter's day. While I'm bouncing around inside 
a moving car! (The streaky wiper blades on my dad's car didn't help, 
however.) My God, I can take pictures with sky in them, and it looks 
sensible!

The zoom ring proved it's worth time and time again; somehow moving a 
physical ring with your hands just seems so much easier than pressing a 
button on a computer.

I also got good use out of the "continuous shoot" mode. I kept finding 
that I'd line up a nice landscape shot, and just as I press the button, 
a tree would go past, completely obscuring my view. But in continuous 
mode, you can shoot up to 5 frames per second, for up to 30 seconds 
continuously. So just hold the button down and take (say) 6 shots. One 
of them will be devoid of obstructions. (Hopefully!)

When I actually got to the destination, I was able to take several shots 
in really quite poor lighting conditions, and again end up with really 
quite impressive images. I think the cake is when I stood *indoors* 
photographing stuff *outside*, at night, with bright lighting *behind* 
it... and the camera correctly exposed the stuff I was actually trying 
to shoot. Makes it look drastically brighter than it actually appeared 
to my eyeballs. Looks like it's correctly lit, even though it wasn't. 
Just... wow.

This weekend, I've been doing some miniature shots. First I did some 
extreme close-ups of a glass paperweight I have. I made a few tiny 
bubbles look like a vast galaxy. (But even this lens, it seems, as 
limits to how close-up it can actually focus.) And today I did some arty 
slanted close-ups of a box of assorted chocolates, with lots of "bokeh". 
It looks damn sweet! On closer inspection, a little bit grainy, however.

Indeed, whereas the trouble with my last camera was that everything 
comes out dark orange, the only problem I've found so far with this 
camera is that some shots are a little bit grainy. Apparently that's 
what happens in low light. You still get a decent-looking shot, but if 
you look too closely, you find it's grainy. I guess the problem is 
figuring out how to flood the scene with sufficient light! (Not easy at 
this time of year when there's not much daylight...)

Post a reply to this message

Le 2016-01-31 11:22, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
 > stuff

Welcome to the world of photography. :)

You'll soon find out your lens is not that good for outdoor shots, so 
you'll need a wide angle. and a telephoto lens.  And a portrait lens. 
And a macro lens.  And a tripod.  And a remote trigger.  Directional 
flash.  Remote flash.  Diffuser.  Back drop....

-- 
/*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

On 01/02/2016 07:22 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2016-01-31 11:22, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>  > stuff
>
> Welcome to the world of photography. :)

Well, I was here before, but yeah, it seems I have a much more capable 
tool in my hands now.

> You'll soon find out your lens is not that good for outdoor shots, so
> you'll need a wide angle. and a telephoto lens. And a portrait lens. And
> a macro lens. And a tripod. And a remote trigger. Directional flash.
> Remote flash. Diffuser. Back drop....

I already have a tripod. It isn't very *good*, but I have one.

Looks like a remote trigger goes for about £20.

The cheapest Nikon-branded flash goes for about £90. It seems to be 
adjustable, so you can use the ceiling as your diffuser. (If you 
indoors, at least.) 18 meters at ISO 100, f/1.

I bought the camera from John Lewis, who apparently don't sell any 
accessories at all. [Except the carry bag I already purchased.] But I 
see Jessops have several interesting-looking lenses for around ~£200 
each. (I gather my current lens has a list price of around that, meaning 
that the lens is significantly more expensive than the actual camera!)

Weirdly, I can't seem to find white-balance calibration cards... Maybe 
Jessops sell them in-store and just don't list them on their website? 
(Also, didn't Jessops get liquidated years ago??)

Heck, I even found a portable soft-box with diffusers for £50...

Given the photos I've shot so far, it seems that the camera has stopped 
being the limiting factor. The problem now is light. There isn't enough. 
Or it's the wrong colour. Or it's in the wrong place...

I guess that's the problem with it being winter, so there's no daylight. 
And my flat is quite dimly lit. (Do you know what colour temperature is? 
My friend Tungsten does...)

Post a reply to this message

Oh, right. I just wrote 20 pages about a camera, and didn't post any 
pictures...

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'small01.jpg' (274 KB) Download 'small02.jpg' (242 KB)

Preview of image 'small01.jpg'

Preview of image 'small02.jpg'

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...

Here's a slightly more expensive paperweight.

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'small03.jpg' (250 KB) Download 'small04.jpg' (259 KB)

Preview of image 'small03.jpg'

Preview of image 'small04.jpg'

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!

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'small01.jpg' (265 KB) Download 'small02.jpg' (222 KB)

Preview of image 'small01.jpg'

Preview of image 'small02.jpg'

On 01/02/2016 09:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Take one ordinary box of chocolates. Shoot sideways with the widest
> aperture the lens can manage. PROFIT!

That second image? Probably the single best photograph I've ever taken 
in my entire 35 years of being alive. Just so you know...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 4:41 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 01/02/2016 09:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Take one ordinary box of chocolates. Shoot sideways with the widest
>> aperture the lens can manage. PROFIT!
>
> 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!

Post a reply to this message

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...

Can you see in the dark? My camera can, apparently.

This was taken at night, in the dark, through a pane of glass, from a 
brightly lit living room into a dark alley, with bright light coming 
from the facing window... and the camera has somehow *still* delivered a 
really quite acceptable exposure. I mean, it doesn't look like broad 
daylight, but the signs are all perfectly legible...

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '01-dark.jpg' (261 KB)

Preview of image '01-dark.jpg'

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

Le 2016-02-02 03:00, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> 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

Le 2016-02-01 16:40, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> 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!

Nice isosurfaces.  crackle texture?

-- 
/*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

>> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
> Scott: Canon

Begun, the camera wars have.

-- 
/*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

On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>  >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>> Scott: Canon
>
> Begun, the camera wars have.
>

If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's 
cheat. :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2/2/2016 2:46 AM, Mike Horvath wrote:
>
> Careful. That sounds kind of like socialism. Who are you to infringe
> upon the camera makers' right to differentiate.


Tee Hee
A dope smoking red under the bed. ;)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.02.2016 um 14:15 schrieb Francois Labreque:
> Le 2016-02-02 03:00, Thomas de Groot a écrit :
>> 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.

Well, the chocolates may contain VSOP...

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.02.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Stephen:
> On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>  >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>> Scott: Canon
>>
>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>>
> 
> If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's
> cheat. :)

Is that why smartphones have such small lenses? ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/2/2016 2:24 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 02.02.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>   >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>>> Scott: Canon
>>>
>>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>>>
>>
>> If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's
>> cheat. :)
>
> Is that why smartphones have such small lenses? ;)
>

I don't know. Why do smartphones have such small lenses?

;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2016 08:32 AM, scott wrote:
>> 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.

I've already got a tripod. It's not especially good though. And 
regardless, you can't use a tripod to hold the camera half an inch away 
from a horizontal surface, while facing at a jaunty angle. :-P

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2016 01:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>  >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>> Scott: Canon
>
> Begun, the camera wars have.

Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only 
acceptable brand.

I have no idea why.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/2/2016 6:17 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 08:32 AM, scott wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> I've already got a tripod. It's not especially good though. And
> regardless, you can't use a tripod to hold the camera half an inch away
> from a horizontal surface, while facing at a jaunty angle. :-P

Think about a monopod.
They are more stable for handhelds than not having one.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 2/02/2016 19:18, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 01:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>  >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>> Scott: Canon
>>
>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>
> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
> acceptable brand.
>
> I have no idea why.

Simple: they used to be, a long time ago, until around 2008. Then they 
completely stalled in terms of image quality, whereas Nikon, Pentax, 
Sony and Sigma (to my knowledge all DSLR brands that mainly use Sony 
sensors) kept improving to the point where today you can buy a Nikon 
DSLR (D5200 for example, 699Euro with an 18-140mm lens) that has in 
every way (light sensitivity, color accuracy, tonal accuracy, dynamic 
range) at least twice the image quality of a more expensive Canon (EOS
700D, 799Euro with an 18-135mm lens)

(This is not an opinion, by the way, I'm talking about measurable facts, 
and I know the new 750/760D has a much better sensor, but it still lags 
behind in terms of dynamic range by a factor of around 2 stops)

Most people that think of themselves as capable of giving advice about 
cameras, because of experience, have been using DSLR's for quite some 
time now, since before 2008. So from their perspective Canon is indeed 
better than Nikon (most people forget about Pentax and Sigma, and Sony 
doesn't really make DSLRs anymore, unless you call their SLT cameras 
real DSLRs, which I don't since it lacks the main component (and reason 
of invention) of a SLR: an optical viewfinder), either because they 
don't know Canon now has the lowest image quality of all DSLRs (again: 
not an opinion, but a measurable fact), or because they have a 
collection of lenses which makes it more interesting for them to stay 
with Canon (irrelevant really if they're giving advice to someone else, 
but people aren't always rational), or because they just don't know any 
better.

Now, in terms of ergonomics and ease of use, that is a matter of 
personal opinion, but I believe most people that have ever used a Pentax 
would agree: nothing beats Pentax :)
Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use 
aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the 
default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion), and Canon has 
some weird button placement (it's much easier to turn on and off a Nikon 
or a Pentax than a Canon, for example).
I have personally never really used a Sony or a Sigma, but I haven't 
heard anything good about the Sony menu structure.

In terms of speed, I'll give it to Canon: their EOS 7D mkII is probably 
the fastest camera in it's price range.

Having said all this, I'm not convinced I would recommend a DSLR these 
days, certainly not for a beginner.

If you're not going to change lenses (which most beginners don't), 
you're (imho) better off buying a Sony RX100 mkII (499euro, size of a 
compact camera, slightly more versatile lens than the 18-55mm on your 
DSLR, and the same image quality (or better, if you bought a Canon :))), 
or a Panasonic FZ1000 (699Euro, size of a small DSLR, virtually the same 
zoom range as an 18-300mm lens on your Nikon DSLR, slightly better image 
quality than a Canon DSLR (so about half as good as a Nikon, which is 
still a whole lot better than a normal compact camera) and weighs and 
costs about the same as that 18-300mm lens by itself), or ...
Point is that you don't need interchangeable lenses for good image 
quality or good speed anymore, that time is long past (ever since the 
Sony RX100 mkII, that is, so about 2 years now :))

However, if you want to be able to change lenses, and you're just 
starting, it is (again, imho) a better idea to invest in a mirrorless 
system, as DSLRs will (most probably) disappear from the market in about 
10 years. The advantages of a DSLR above a mirrorless camera are getting 
less every year. In the lower end, the only advantage a DSLR has today, 
is the viewfinder (low end mirrorless cameras don't have a viewfinder) 
and the available lenses (which isn't really a fair comparison: Nikons 
F-mount has been in use since 1959, Canons EF-mount since 1987, and 
mirrorless only since 2004 (or 2008 if you don't count Leica, which you 
probably shouldn't as it's out of most peoples price range :)))

But if you go mirrorless: stay away from the main DSLR brands, Nikon and 
Canon. They both seem to be more interested in protecting their DSLR 
market than they are in making a good mirrorless camera.

Sources: dpreview.com, dxomark.com, personal experience with most brands

cu!
-- 
ZK

Post a reply to this message

Am 03.02.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
> Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
> aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
> default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion),

I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
sensitivity.

On a digital camera I'd expect to have a shutter speed setting so I can
control the movement blur, and an aperture setting so that I can control
the focal blur, and that's that.

But then again, what do I know about photography -- my only camera that
might still be in sufficiently working condition is a 2001 compact
digicam. (Oh, and the inbuilt camera of my smartphone.)

Post a reply to this message

On 3/02/2016 3:51, clipka wrote:
> Am 03.02.2016 um 00:27 schrieb Zeger Knaepen:
>> Nikon has some weird default settings (like a fixed ISO.. when I use
>> aperture priority, that means I only want to select the aperture, so the
>> default ISO setting should be automatic, in my opinion),
>
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.

it's an amplifier setting. The aperture and shutter time defines how 
much lights enters, which results in a certain voltage in each pixel. 
Changing the ISO changes the amplification of that voltage, so it 
changes the "brightness" of that pixel.
Unfortunately you're also amplifying shot noise.

After that comes the analog to digital conversion (yes, those digital 
camera sensors are analog devices :)), and that's where Canon fails 
miserably: it adds a lot of extra noise, compared to the Sony sensors. 
The result is that with Canon, if you try to brighten the darker parts 
of the image, you're going to see that noise, very soon. With Sony not 
so much, which gives it a far superior dynamic range at lower ISO 
settings (at higher ISOs the shot noise is so high, there's just not 
enough data left for a high dynamic range).

> On a digital camera I'd expect to have a shutter speed setting so I can
> control the movement blur, and an aperture setting so that I can control
> the focal blur, and that's that.

That's possible with so called ISO-less sensors (no sensor is really 
ISO-less yet, but Sony sensors come very close), where it doesn't matter 
if you change the ISO in-camera, or do it digitally afterwards.

There is a good reason why you would do it digitally: with analog 
amplification you risk blowing out the highlights, with digital 
amplification the only problem is you're also amplifying read noise (the 
noise added in the analog-digital conversion, which is very low with 
Sony sensors and relatively high on a Canon sensor).

cu!
-- 
ZK

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2016 02:51 AM, clipka wrote:
> I can't wrap my head around what the ISO setting is for on digital
> cameras anyway. It's not like you can really change the sensor's light
> sensitivity.

That's a bit like saying you can't wrap your head around the volume 
setting on your dictaphone - after all, it's not like you can really 
change the microphone's physical response to sound...

Post a reply to this message

On 2-2-2016 15:56, Stephen wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 2:24 PM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 02.02.2016 um 14:39 schrieb Stephen:
>>> On 2/2/2016 1:19 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>>   >> Orchid Win7 v1: Nikon
>>>>> Scott: Canon
>>>>
>>>> Begun, the camera wars have.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it is not a pinhole it is not true to the spirit and is a softboy's
>>> cheat. :)
>>
>> Is that why smartphones have such small lenses? ;)
>>
>
> I don't know. Why do smartphones have such small lenses?
>
> ;-)
>

They are smart. :-0

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

> I've already got a tripod. It's not especially good though. And
> regardless, you can't use a tripod to hold the camera half an inch away
> from a horizontal surface, while facing at a jaunty angle. :-P

Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P

Take it back and get one that can do this:

http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG

Post a reply to this message

On 03/02/2016 08:56 AM, scott wrote:
> Doesn't surprise me that a Nikon shop would sell you a duff tripod too. :-P

Nikon shop? No, I bought it from John Lewis. And I've had the tripod for 
years. :-P

> Take it back and get one that can do this:
>
> http://www.johnnyego.com/photography/055PROBX/055PROBX_03.JPG

I think just buying a less cheap tripod is the thing...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2016 9:46 PM, Mike Horvath wrote:
> Careful. That sounds kind of like socialism. Who are you to infringe
> upon the camera makers' right to differentiate.
>
>
> Mike

This didn't come out as funny and critical of the camera manufacturers 
as I had intended.


Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
> acceptable brand.
>
> I have no idea why.

http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/

*facepalm*

OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study 
statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.

But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large 
margin!

(I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 2:11 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 06:18 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Yeah, everybody I speak to seems to think that Canon is the only
>> acceptable brand.
>>
>> I have no idea why.
>
> http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
>
> *facepalm*
>
> OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera. The study
> statistically proves that Canon is superior to Nikon. And Pentax. And Sony.
>
> But never mind that. Panasonic is superior to *all* of them. By a large
> margin!
>
> (I didn't even know they *make* cameras...)

And iPhone users have more sex!  I've had an iPhone for 6 years, I'm 
still waiting...

Post a reply to this message

On 2/12/2016 7:47 PM, dick balaska wrote:
> And iPhone users have more sex!

Is that because they have one hand free? :-P




-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/dont-be-ugly-by-accident/
>
> *facepalm*
>
> OK. So apparently I really did buy the wrong camera.

The fact is you went an bought a Nikon first though. It correlation, not 
causation - I assume you don't own an Apple device either :-)

Anyway, the overall correlation is obvious, the more geeky/tech-savvy 
you are, the less attractive you appear - with the only consolation that 
geeks are more likely to be able to take their photo using a big 
aperture and no flash.

Post a reply to this message