On 10 Oct 02 at 12:54, Harrison Mcclary wrote:
> I guess if I ever had to shoot in that range then yes I'd use my 1n...but
> in 20 years as a working pro there have been 0 times I have shot in the
> 15 to 14 range. The widest lens I had till my 16-35 was a 17...and it
> was only very recently
On 10 Oct 02 at 9:55, Icoz, Evrim wrote:
> How many times did you REALLY need a shot in that range? HOw many film
> photographers have a 14mm lens?
Even 14mm isn't wide enough, and a 8mm circular fisheye[*] is nearly
useless on less than 24x36mmCoastal Optics even designed a
shorter focal le
> As for the sensor size, I won't say it's a "holy grail". But it
would
> save a lot of my investment in lenses. It will never be possible to
get
> the same image quality from the same lenses when you don't use the
full
> frame. Smaller sensor sizes need more lens resolution than bigger
sensors.
At 02:59 AM 10/11/2002, you wrote:
>The number of photographers who shoot with a 17mm, or a 20mm, or even a
>14mm may actually be higher than you think.
LOTS of photojournalists use very wide lenses ALL the time. When a crowd of
PJ'ers is pressed together, backing up is nigh unto impossible.
--
At 06:12 PM 10/10/2002, you wrote:
> > There is a huge market for D60/D100/S2.
>I'll give you a clue: no.
If this suggests there is no current market for the D60/D100/S2, then all I
can say is ROFL, 'cause they continue to race out the door at breakneck
speed and orders continue to pour in at
>Jim Davis wrote:
> > and I think the EOS 650 looks less a toy than the EOS 7, but that's
> > just my opinion. Yes, it takes the same photos with the same lenses.
> > It worked well then, it works well today.
Vlad SOARE wrote:
>Yes, it works today exactly as well as it worked then. It's just tha
On 11/10/02 at 21:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Davis) wrote:
> And the age old problem of capturing a great image continues no matter
> what you put to your eye. Getting used to your equipment is real
> important, but how can you do that when you're upgrading so much,
> changing to digital, learning
Vlad SOARE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>> and I think the EOS 650 looks less a toy than the EOS 7, but that's
>> just my opinion. Yes, it takes the same photos with the same lenses.
>> It worked well then, it works well today.
>
>Yes, it works today exactly as well as it worked then. It'
Jim Davis wrote:
>Have you seen the price that a good old used Canon F1 goes for these
days?
I don't know. How much is it?
Paul
*
***
***
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
*http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/marker
>> Yes, and realize that there are still people who believe
>> vinyl records sound best and CDs are a fad.
> And maybe they are not so far off track as it seems. Probably not
> because of the bad quality of the CD system, but because of the
> lousy recordings that have become standard over the
"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" schrieb:
>
> John Lovda wrote (edited):
>
> Before the 1Ds came out there were many comments
> on this board that the "holy grail" of achievement was
> about 6mp AND a 24x36 image size.
>
> ---
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Vlad SOARE
> No, the D60 takes exactly the same pictures as id did before
> the birth of the 1Ds. The problem is that our expectations have
> increased. People were satisfied by the D60 because it was t
> and I think the EOS 650 looks less a toy than the EOS 7, but that's
> just my opinion. Yes, it takes the same photos with the same lenses.
> It worked well then, it works well today.
Yes, it works today exactly as well as it worked then. It's just that
our idea of "well" has changed over the y
Vlad SOARE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote/replied to:
>just that our idea of "perfectly well" has changed in the meantime.
>And this will be even more true in the future, as cameras tend to
>leave their world and move towards the computer world, where today's
>cutting-edge technology is tomorrow's tr
>> The D60 is relegated from a real camera to an amateur's toy.
> Is this for real? What kind of a remark is that.
> I guess suddenly D60 started taking worse pictures
> There is a huge market for D60/D100/S2.
No, the D60 takes exactly the same pictures as id did before
the birth of the 1D
> Wellas a working photographer who has 2 D60's the reduced sensor size
> really does not bother me at all. What matters to me is the quality of
> the image, and in that respeect the D60 delivers. I think this full frame
> stuff is WAY over blown, but to each his own.
The number of photogr
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tim Munro
> The depreciation rate for
> digital/computer equipment in Australia is 40% per annum, which means I
> fully depreciate the new body in 2.5 years. This reduces my taxable income
> over the 2.
- Original Message -
> Under such a set of conditions the cost of a digital camera spread over
3-5
> years is offset by tax allowances so the pro pays nothing for the gear in
> the end.
>
Rather too simplistic as pointed out by others. The depreciation rate for
digital/computer equipment
Yes yes you are right. I am so sorry. How dare I reply to such a silly
email Bad weather in England?
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Talbot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 3:28 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Canon EOS 1Ds Pri
> I have no interest in
> prolonging this discussion.
Then why did you reply at all ... ?
As to badmouthing a fine machine - I assure you my criticism of it has
not changed.
The BS about it "being technically impossible to create full frame
35mm sensors"
The BS about smaller sensors being someh
Icoz, Evrim wrote (edited):
I am surprised at people at some sites that buy cameras because
they are the latest and greatest in DIGITAL technology, and also surprised
at people who suddenly decide to bad mouth a perfectly fine machine.
--
> Turn this on head and you have an even more revealing question:
> "Why the need to get upset about someone saying something about a
> camera?"
I am just surprised by people who treat cameras or lenses in silly ways,
that's all. I am surprised at people at some sites that buy cameras because
the
> > The D60 is relegated from a real camera to an amateur's toy.
> Is this for real? What kind of a remark is that.
A reflection of how I feel it will be percieved by gadget freaks?
;o)
> I guess suddenly D60 started taking worse pictures
> There is a huge market for D60/D100/S2.
I'll giv
> Which, while a pain for the W/A crowd, is turning out to be a boon
for tele
> junkies like long-lens sports/nature shooters. One man's meat . . .
as they
> say.
Oh for goodness sakes ...
If a full frame sensor becomes available with the same "pixel" spacing
on the sensor - but a lot more of
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 1:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Canon EOS 1Ds Price
>
>
> Get a firewire card reader...they work GREAT. Much better
> than the USB
> camera connection!
>
> Once upon a time Ananda Subramaniam said:
>
> >Th
Get a firewire card reader...they work GREAT. Much better than the USB
camera connection!
Once upon a time Ananda Subramaniam said:
>The only complaint about the D60 is the
>auto focus (which I know how to work around) and I wish it had
>firewire support for file downloads.
Harrison McClary
I guess if I ever had to shoot in that range then yes I'd use my 1n...but
in 20 years as a working pro there have been 0 times I have shot in the
15 to 14 range. The widest lens I had till my 16-35 was a 17...and it
was only very recently addedactually was added when I got a D30..
How
At 12:09 PM 10/10/2002, you wrote:
>with the reduced sensor size, lens have the multiplier effect.
Which, while a pain for the W/A crowd, is turning out to be a boon for tele
junkies like long-lens sports/nature shooters. One man's meat . . . as they
say.
--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of S
How many times did you REALLY need a shot in that range? HOw many film
photographers have a 14mm lens?
There are advantages/disadvantages to each 'tool'. What does a film
photographer do when he has an ISO 100 in his camera when he needs ISO 800?
etc. etc.
For me, I just step back a little, or
> The new camera will be a must for any business pro - and a bummer for
> anyone who does not earn enough to cover it.
> The D60 is relegated from a real camera to an amateur's toy.
Is this for real? What kind of a remark is that.
I guess suddenly D60 started taking worse pictures
There is
John Lovda wrote (edited):
Before the 1Ds came out there were many comments
on this board that the "holy grail" of achievement was
about 6mp AND a 24x36 image size.
-
Yes, and realize that there are still people wh
> -Original Message-
> From: John Lovda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:02 PM
.. snip
> One thing I haven't figured out is what does a
> "digital" photographer do if he/she really needs a
> shot in the 14mm to 18mm range? Do they have to keep
> an old Re
Bob Talbot wrote:
> I wonder why they
> lowered the price of the EOS 3. Not a big rebate, but still, cheaper
than it
> used to be. Any comments?
Depite what many pundits here would have had us believe
1) Full frame sensors are not impossible - they were working on them
all along
2) The "focal l
One thing I haven't figured out is what does a
"digital" photographer do if he/she really needs a
shot in the 14mm to 18mm range? Do they have to keep
an old Rebel 2000 film body and scan the slides?
John
--- Harrison Mcclary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wellas a working photographer who has
Wellas a working photographer who has 2 D60's the reduced sensor size
really does not bother me at all. What matters to me is the quality of
the image, and in that respeect the D60 delivers. I think this full frame
stuff is WAY over blown, but to each his own.
Once upon a time John Lovda s
There is probably nothing wrong with the image quality
of a D60 (I don't own one) but with the reduced sensor
size, lens have the multiplier effect. Before the 1Ds
came out there were many comments on this board that
the "holy grail" of achievement was about 6mp AND a
24x36 image size.
John Lovda
"dickbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Canon EOS 1Ds Price
>
> Lets talk real life on professional prices shall we..
>
> If a pro is worth anything then that individual must surely be trading at a
> profit i.e. annual income = X+, annual expen
Why do you say this The D60 will still be as good of a camera
tomorrow as it is today. The files are excellent and more than many
clients need. Yes the 1DS will be nice...but quiet honestly a 6 mpix
file is more than enough for magazine covers and most other publishing
needs.
Once upon
- Original Message -
From: "dickbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: Canon EOS 1Ds Price
> Under such a set of conditions the cost of a digital camera spread over 3-5
> years is offset by ta
- Original Message -
From: "Jaakko Pitkäjärvi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 12:32 PM
Subject: Re: Canon EOS 1Ds Price
>And I also suppose after releasing 1Ds and Kodak 14 Mpx models that >EOS
1V will be the las
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The new camera will be a must for any business pro - and a bummer for
> anyone who does not earn enough to cover it.
> The D60 is relegated from a real camera to an amateur's toy.
> The equation of film or digital has also shif
> I wonder why they
> lowered the price of the EOS 3. Not a big rebate, but still, cheaper
than it
> used to be. Any comments?
Depite what many pundits here would have had us believe
1) Full frame sensors are not impossible - they were working on them
all along
2) The "focal length multiplier eff
I found the following prices for the 1Ds and 300V at this site:
http://www.ac-foto.com/ger/produkte.php
1 Ds - Eur
300V - 292 Eur
I thought that the 1Ds would only be available by the end of the year. Any
other sites listing them? Notice that the price of the EOS 3 and D60 has
dropped slig
43 matches
Mail list logo
