http://www.photobanter.com A web gateway to the rec.photo newsgroups discussing all aspects of photography en Tue, 07 Sep 2010 16:27:32 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.photobanter.com/images/002/misc/rss.jpg http://www.photobanter.com http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114556&goto=newpost Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:22:09 GMT
Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK?
Feature-wise, I mean, in cheaper cameras?
Time Lapse, remote, motion detection, manual, long video,
etc?

My impression is, once CHDK is properly tweaked, it can
load at power-up every time, and remain transparent,
buried in the features menus until needed. Is that true?

I saw a video demo of motion detection (object falling into
bathtub water). It didn't seem very sensitive, a moving hand
didn't trigger. Is sensitivity adjustable? If so how much?

All the reviews I've seen so far don't seem objective. They
either say my hero, or crapola. Nor do I see practical
questions like these (here) addressed. Look and feel, etc.
Any pointers?

Thanks!

=========
in rec.photo.digital, Re: CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we
are talking.....;
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, calvin-torgen wrote:


> This is why I know that so many of you ...have never even ran CHDK.
> ... and take advantage of the hundreds of new features and immeasurable
> new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
> photography.

]]> Digital Photography Crash! http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114556 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114557&goto=newpost Tue, 07 Sep 2010 02:27:40 GMT , JimG wrote: > I am a recent Canon T2i owner and am comparing metadata...]]> In article >, JimG
> wrote:

> I am a recent Canon T2i owner and am comparing metadata information reported
> in Adobe Bridge with photos taken with my P&S Canon A640. Bridge reports
> the resolution of the T2i photos as 72 ppi while the A640 are reported as
> 180 ppi. Both cameras were set to record images as "large jpeg". I
> realize that the cameras have different sensors and will have different,
> overall pixel dimensions but why are the ppi different? Is ppi density a
> setting on the T2i? I realize that Windows computer monitors display at 72
> dpi.

pixels per inch only matters when you print. cameras write various
values in that field and it makes no difference except to a couple of
page layout apps. it's easily changed, and doesn't actually change the
number of pixels.

what matters is the total number of pixels, which won't change unless
you upsize or downsize.
]]> Digital SLR Cameras nospam http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114557 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114555&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:06:20 GMT wrote: >On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article >3e469679-887b-4d9f-ab21-2635ec050ba0@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,...]]> George Kerby > wrote:
>On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article
, "RichA"
> wrote:
>
>> "You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
>> perform).
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100812...00mmemount.asp
>
>You have completely lost what was left of your mind.

You haven't even seen some of the disgusting filth he posts to other
newsgroups.

--
Ray Fischer


]]> Digital SLR Cameras Ray Fischer http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114555 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114553&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:06:20 GMT wrote: >On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article >3e469679-887b-4d9f-ab21-2635ec050ba0@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com,...]]> George Kerby > wrote:
>On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article
, "RichA"
> wrote:
>
>> "You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
>> perform).
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100812...00mmemount.asp
>
>You have completely lost what was left of your mind.

You haven't even seen some of the disgusting filth he posts to other
newsgroups.

--
Ray Fischer


]]> Digital Photography Ray Fischer http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114553 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114554&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:04:50 GMT wrote: >1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already With all you know about business and cameras it's...]]> RichA > wrote:
>1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already

With all you know about business and cameras it's amazing that you
haven't created your own company and simply taken over.

--
Ray Fischer


]]> Digital SLR Cameras Ray Fischer http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114554 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114552&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:04:50 GMT wrote: >1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already With all you know about business and cameras it's...]]> RichA > wrote:
>1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already

With all you know about business and cameras it's amazing that you
haven't created your own company and simply taken over.

--
Ray Fischer


]]> Digital Photography Ray Fischer http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114552 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114551&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:51:25 GMT It is sort of sad about you. You are rapidly loosing traction here and now find yourself digging really deep to find fresh fodder for your mill. Just... It is sort of sad about you. You are rapidly loosing traction here and now
find yourself digging really deep to find fresh fodder for your mill.

Just quietly go away. It might be the most dignified of all options now
available to you.

You have crapped in your own nest too many times.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about
> photography. I read another article where the author had to start a
> "Down Memory Lane" jag about film.
> They should no longer be wasting space including any comments on film
> cameras. Film is DEAD. It has been dead since Canon released the
> 30D. The nails in its coffin where pounded in when 8 megapixel DSLRs
> appeared. Some darkroom alchemist may be able to wring 8 megapixels
> of info out of 35mm film, but that is the absolute limit, lack of
> resolution being only one shortcoming of film. Film today is being
> rapidly abandoned by professionals and amateurs should do the same
> unless they are after some look film provides that digital can't, and
> today that covers very little ground. But if you are going to write
> some kind of comparison article, stick to digital versus digital,
> because comparing digital versus film is a useless exercise.

]]> Digital SLR Cameras http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114551 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114549&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:51:25 GMT It is sort of sad about you. You are rapidly loosing traction here and now find yourself digging really deep to find fresh fodder for your mill. Just... It is sort of sad about you. You are rapidly loosing traction here and now
find yourself digging really deep to find fresh fodder for your mill.

Just quietly go away. It might be the most dignified of all options now
available to you.

You have crapped in your own nest too many times.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about
> photography. I read another article where the author had to start a
> "Down Memory Lane" jag about film.
> They should no longer be wasting space including any comments on film
> cameras. Film is DEAD. It has been dead since Canon released the
> 30D. The nails in its coffin where pounded in when 8 megapixel DSLRs
> appeared. Some darkroom alchemist may be able to wring 8 megapixels
> of info out of 35mm film, but that is the absolute limit, lack of
> resolution being only one shortcoming of film. Film today is being
> rapidly abandoned by professionals and amateurs should do the same
> unless they are after some look film provides that digital can't, and
> today that covers very little ground. But if you are going to write
> some kind of comparison article, stick to digital versus digital,
> because comparing digital versus film is a useless exercise.

]]> Digital Photography http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114549 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114548&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:06:18 GMT On Sep 1, 8:24 pm, TomTom wrote: >> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:26:34 -0400, "J. Clarke" >> ...]]> DanP wrote:
> On Sep 1, 8:24 pm, TomTom > wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:26:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Note that the Alpha 33 and 55 are "EVIL" ("Electronic Viewfinder
>>> Interchangeable Lens) cameras-
>>
>> You DSLR Trolls sure do love denigrating anything that's not a DSLR,
>> don't
>
> Even the people who likes them calls them EVIL.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...tch-your-dslr/
> See the reference to compact cameras.

EVIL schmevil. Nothwithstanding those who like the term (apparently because
they think it's cute), it's not going anywhere.

Harrington's Famous Predictions #75,632: No camera manufacturer is going to
advertise or catalog any camera model as "EVIL."

H.F.P. #75,633: No serious photography periodical is going to adopt the term
either, though it may get an occasional mention here or there.


]]> Digital Photography http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114548 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114550&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 15:26:47 GMT OK, I'm the first to admit I'm just an amateur photographer but I
do have a little technical knowledge (a little knowledge is a dangerous
thing). A couple of things I just want to check my understanding:

1. With all else being equal (lens, light, aperture etc. etc.) if you
have a FF sensor instead of a cropped one could you use a faster shutter
speed for a given image because of more light falling on the sensor?

2. Similarly, all else being equal, if you have a lens with a larger
front element could you use a faster shutter speed because more light
would be collected?

I (try to) take a lot of pictures of birds but there's rarely enough
light for me to get a fast enough shutter speed. I'm trying to work
out what equipment I'd be best off getting for faster shutter speeds.
A lens with a larger aperture and/or a body with better high ISO
performance would, I guess, be the main considerations but would the
above (FF and larger front element) help as well? Not that I can afford
another lens or body at the moment. :-)

I'm hoping these aren't completely stupid questions. If they are, at
least it will show the gaps in my understanding.

Cheers,

Ollie
]]> Digital SLR Cameras Ollie Clark http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114550 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114547&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:59:29 GMT wrote: >Sat on their greedy asses, let Warner Bros and MGM build the format >and then...]]> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA >
wrote:

>Sat on their greedy asses, let Warner Bros and MGM build the format
>and then they jumped in. Way to innovate! Same as always, I guess.
>Nikon and Canon haven't brought ANYTHING new to the table in the last
>10 years, they built only on other's work. Their saving grace
>(partially) is they do make good sensors. Or in Nikon's case, Sony
>does.

I imagine that would best correlate to you reminding me of
Neanderthals at the inception of the Homo Sapians.
]]> Digital SLR Cameras gamer_reg@yahoo.com http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114547 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114543&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:59:29 GMT wrote: >Sat on their greedy asses, let Warner Bros and MGM build the format >and then...]]> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA >
wrote:

>Sat on their greedy asses, let Warner Bros and MGM build the format
>and then they jumped in. Way to innovate! Same as always, I guess.
>Nikon and Canon haven't brought ANYTHING new to the table in the last
>10 years, they built only on other's work. Their saving grace
>(partially) is they do make good sensors. Or in Nikon's case, Sony
>does.

I imagine that would best correlate to you reminding me of
Neanderthals at the inception of the Homo Sapians.
]]> Digital Photography gamer_reg@yahoo.com http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114543 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114546&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:56:53 GMT You mean as opposed to youorself? You mean as opposed to youorself?
]]> Digital SLR Cameras gamer_reg@yahoo.com http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114546 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114542&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:56:53 GMT You mean as opposed to youorself? You mean as opposed to youorself?
]]> Digital Photography gamer_reg@yahoo.com http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114542 http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114545&goto=newpost Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:45:44 GMT wrote: : I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about :...]]> On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:20:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA > wrote:
: I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about
: photography. I read another article where the author had to start a
: "Down Memory Lane" jag about film.
: They should no longer be wasting space including any comments on film
: cameras. Film is DEAD. It has been dead since Canon released the
: 30D. The nails in its coffin where pounded in when 8 megapixel DSLRs
: appeared. Some darkroom alchemist may be able to wring 8 megapixels
: of info out of 35mm film, but that is the absolute limit, lack of
: resolution being only one shortcoming of film. Film today is being
: rapidly abandoned by professionals and amateurs should do the same
: unless they are after some look film provides that digital can't, and
: today that covers very little ground. But if you are going to write
: some kind of comparison article, stick to digital versus digital,
: because comparing digital versus film is a useless exercise.

Is there a law in Ontario that compels you to read the articles written about
film? If not, why do you care? If so, your problems transcend photography, and
you ought to be out on the streets raising Hell instead of wasting your time
babbling to us.

Bob
]]> Digital SLR Cameras Robert Coe http://www.photobanter.com/showthread.php?t=114545