ryanx27
Aug 27, 10:18 PM
There are a few good spoofs of the "I'm A Mac" commercials on You Tube. My favorite is the one where Mac and PC both make fun of Linux Guy:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0
CEAbiscuit
Oct 27, 08:09 AM
I love everything I can do with .mac, and I am willing to pay the $99 bucks for iDisk, Sync , etc. But please increase the storage space. I know it's been said 100 times, but 1 gb is just a joke.
kallisti
Mar 19, 05:23 PM
In response to all the "Recommend Me a Camera/Lens/Editor etc" threads, I offer this. Comments or additions?
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
Oh my. I feel like I posted this myself. I would add one more to the list:
Get disgusted after spending a boatload of money on a DSLR setup and then spend another boatload of money on a rangefinder setup. Obviously the DSLR system didn't work for you, so the problem must still be a gear issue-- but in this case it's because you chose the wrong system. Time to start all over again, but this time with an artistically "proven" format.
Too funny. Always easy to point the accusatory finger for bad images everywhere except where it really belongs--at the photographer. Certain images can really require specific gear (including lighting gear), but often a bad image isn't about the gear but about the choices made by the photographer at the time of capture.
I somehow agree, at least as long as those others have nothing to show that they did that you clearly find impressive. The comments of others rarely help you improve your own work.
That certainly is better than reading Macrumors or other non-photographer blogs when photography is what you're interested in.
Actually, you should buy a camera that does not even have an "auto" switch. I strongly recommend something like an old (analog!) Pentax K-1000 as the first camera. There was a time when photography schools did not accept cameras with automatic features. With K-1000, you have to do EVERYTHING manually - and that is the best way to actually learn how to take photos.
Better gear does not make anyone a better photographer. HOWEVER, it can drastically improve the TECHNICAL aspects/results. If you want to make large posters of your pictures, then there are natural limits to what you can do with, let's say, a 6 MP camera.
Photoshop is a tool for graphics designers and the print business. For almost all photography needs, Aperture or Lightroom provide as much features as one will probably ever need. But none of those digital toys make you a better photographer.
I agree. And you probably shouldn't start with taking photos of models/people -- it's demanding and can easily become frustrating. Try mastering your camera and training your eye(!) first. Get a feel for what a photo will look like before you even begin processing/developing it. There's usually a big difference between what you see and what your camera sees; try to get your tool in sync with your eye and imagination. It requires a lot of practice, so shoot a lot. The beauty of digital photography is that you can shoot as much as like without depleting your bank account - analog photography was more expensive to learn.
I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you Winni. What's more it is the first constructive post I have seen from you on this site. Most of your posts seem to fall into the curmudgeon category. This one is actually positive, helpful, and full of "win" :) I'd love to see more posts like this from you....
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
Oh my. I feel like I posted this myself. I would add one more to the list:
Get disgusted after spending a boatload of money on a DSLR setup and then spend another boatload of money on a rangefinder setup. Obviously the DSLR system didn't work for you, so the problem must still be a gear issue-- but in this case it's because you chose the wrong system. Time to start all over again, but this time with an artistically "proven" format.
Too funny. Always easy to point the accusatory finger for bad images everywhere except where it really belongs--at the photographer. Certain images can really require specific gear (including lighting gear), but often a bad image isn't about the gear but about the choices made by the photographer at the time of capture.
I somehow agree, at least as long as those others have nothing to show that they did that you clearly find impressive. The comments of others rarely help you improve your own work.
That certainly is better than reading Macrumors or other non-photographer blogs when photography is what you're interested in.
Actually, you should buy a camera that does not even have an "auto" switch. I strongly recommend something like an old (analog!) Pentax K-1000 as the first camera. There was a time when photography schools did not accept cameras with automatic features. With K-1000, you have to do EVERYTHING manually - and that is the best way to actually learn how to take photos.
Better gear does not make anyone a better photographer. HOWEVER, it can drastically improve the TECHNICAL aspects/results. If you want to make large posters of your pictures, then there are natural limits to what you can do with, let's say, a 6 MP camera.
Photoshop is a tool for graphics designers and the print business. For almost all photography needs, Aperture or Lightroom provide as much features as one will probably ever need. But none of those digital toys make you a better photographer.
I agree. And you probably shouldn't start with taking photos of models/people -- it's demanding and can easily become frustrating. Try mastering your camera and training your eye(!) first. Get a feel for what a photo will look like before you even begin processing/developing it. There's usually a big difference between what you see and what your camera sees; try to get your tool in sync with your eye and imagination. It requires a lot of practice, so shoot a lot. The beauty of digital photography is that you can shoot as much as like without depleting your bank account - analog photography was more expensive to learn.
I think this is the first time I have ever agreed with you Winni. What's more it is the first constructive post I have seen from you on this site. Most of your posts seem to fall into the curmudgeon category. This one is actually positive, helpful, and full of "win" :) I'd love to see more posts like this from you....
jwascher
Feb 23, 10:52 PM
Looks to me like they all have white wine in their glasses, but Steve's is still full while everyone has been drinking form theirs'.
more...
chrmjenkins
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
But these taxes are historically for funding the construction and upkeep of the highways, not to curb gas usage or to spur efficiency.
A car that gets 60 mpg will do just as much 'damage' to a road surface as a car that get 8 mpg....but the 50mpg car will pay much, MUCH less for upkeep of that road than the other in a gas-tax based situation.
A car that is more fuel efficient also likely does less damage to the road as heavier vehicles that do the highest amount of damage as typically consume the most fuel.
I just don't see the practicality of this tax based on the difficulty in enforcing it.
A car that gets 60 mpg will do just as much 'damage' to a road surface as a car that get 8 mpg....but the 50mpg car will pay much, MUCH less for upkeep of that road than the other in a gas-tax based situation.
A car that is more fuel efficient also likely does less damage to the road as heavier vehicles that do the highest amount of damage as typically consume the most fuel.
I just don't see the practicality of this tax based on the difficulty in enforcing it.
Transporteur
Apr 18, 01:25 PM
snip
Ah allright, rural areas are of course different. That being said, the rural areas in most european countries don't really have a good public transportation infrastructure either, but you're absolutely right, the sheer size of the US makes it worse. Even in rural areas in Europe, you don't have to travel far to get to a train station, airport etc.
But yes, there's the problem with us Europeans. For us the US consists only of very large cities, which indeed have public transport. :)
Ah allright, rural areas are of course different. That being said, the rural areas in most european countries don't really have a good public transportation infrastructure either, but you're absolutely right, the sheer size of the US makes it worse. Even in rural areas in Europe, you don't have to travel far to get to a train station, airport etc.
But yes, there's the problem with us Europeans. For us the US consists only of very large cities, which indeed have public transport. :)
more...
james92se
Nov 18, 09:39 PM
Aren't there a half dozen or so other websites that sell/do the exact same thing as this kid? As well as likely hundreds of eBay sellers?
So, what I missing here? Why all the scrutiny for this kid?
Plus, his website clearly says they're non-OEM parts. So I really don't get all the negative hooplah here.
So, what I missing here? Why all the scrutiny for this kid?
Plus, his website clearly says they're non-OEM parts. So I really don't get all the negative hooplah here.
AdamBOh3
Mar 24, 01:04 PM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
NONSENSE! As a recent active duty infantry Marine and now employed by the USMC I completely disagree! Do you work for SPAWAR or NMCI? You do contracts with the Navy everyday, eh? My father-in-law is a retired Naval Flight Officer, an electrical engineer, and works for SPAWAR in San Diego. He does not like Apple, he likes to do things the hardway and is stuck with windows, even though he concedes things like the iPhone have better technology than his Blackberry (The Blackberry's touch screen pushes down and triggers a touch vs. on an iPhone you just touch it, similar to putting a folder over your keyboard and calling it a touchkeyboard - keys are still being stroked).
And gov't tax dollars!!! Get out of town. My father-in-law has also submitted proposals to deliver millions in savings to the gov't by utilizing off-the-shelf components for USN,USCG, and USMC systems. He has been consistently squashed by higher-ups, some of them who are younger and maybe even Apple users, and they have virtually shut him up in favor of proprietary systems that utilize government contracts to make new systems that are COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS. The simplified version is called waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Army is smart for working with Apple and I'm sure that DARPA does already (if not they should be). It sounds like you would rather sit back and see the good 'ol boy government system drown us in stagnation. It seems that BIG ARMY is maybe waking up. Then again, the equipment or chips will most likely be built in China where electronic spyware and backdoors could be put into play. And, do you think the Chinese military and foreign militaries around the world aren't reverse engingeering Apple products and modeling themselves after Apple's management and innovation processes? Welcome to the 21st century of warfare and espionage. You apparently abhor competetion, modernization, and warfighting superiority and would rather return to pre 1984.
Today, I work for the Marine Corps in remote CA. Wi-Fi is coming, as in it's not just a thought but a reality in the works. We have mobile equipment in Iraq/Afghanistan and all over the world and guess what... it's up to military standards but not particularly great and DEFINITELY NOT SUPERIOR TO APPLE PRODUCTS. I can go to amazon or a bix box store and by a better GPS unit than the military will provide and the same thing can be said about off-the-shelf Apple products and HOPEFULLY the Army believes this can be translated into military specific applications. Privates to Generals use Macs during war and they can be used on SIPRnet/NIPRnet. I know, I have done it. Tamper Proof silicon... you must be joking.
Still not sure if you are a Mac fan or a Mac hater. I do know that you don't know it all and I know that I too do not know it all. Yet, I do speak from operational experience.
NONSENSE! As a recent active duty infantry Marine and now employed by the USMC I completely disagree! Do you work for SPAWAR or NMCI? You do contracts with the Navy everyday, eh? My father-in-law is a retired Naval Flight Officer, an electrical engineer, and works for SPAWAR in San Diego. He does not like Apple, he likes to do things the hardway and is stuck with windows, even though he concedes things like the iPhone have better technology than his Blackberry (The Blackberry's touch screen pushes down and triggers a touch vs. on an iPhone you just touch it, similar to putting a folder over your keyboard and calling it a touchkeyboard - keys are still being stroked).
And gov't tax dollars!!! Get out of town. My father-in-law has also submitted proposals to deliver millions in savings to the gov't by utilizing off-the-shelf components for USN,USCG, and USMC systems. He has been consistently squashed by higher-ups, some of them who are younger and maybe even Apple users, and they have virtually shut him up in favor of proprietary systems that utilize government contracts to make new systems that are COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS. The simplified version is called waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Army is smart for working with Apple and I'm sure that DARPA does already (if not they should be). It sounds like you would rather sit back and see the good 'ol boy government system drown us in stagnation. It seems that BIG ARMY is maybe waking up. Then again, the equipment or chips will most likely be built in China where electronic spyware and backdoors could be put into play. And, do you think the Chinese military and foreign militaries around the world aren't reverse engingeering Apple products and modeling themselves after Apple's management and innovation processes? Welcome to the 21st century of warfare and espionage. You apparently abhor competetion, modernization, and warfighting superiority and would rather return to pre 1984.
Today, I work for the Marine Corps in remote CA. Wi-Fi is coming, as in it's not just a thought but a reality in the works. We have mobile equipment in Iraq/Afghanistan and all over the world and guess what... it's up to military standards but not particularly great and DEFINITELY NOT SUPERIOR TO APPLE PRODUCTS. I can go to amazon or a bix box store and by a better GPS unit than the military will provide and the same thing can be said about off-the-shelf Apple products and HOPEFULLY the Army believes this can be translated into military specific applications. Privates to Generals use Macs during war and they can be used on SIPRnet/NIPRnet. I know, I have done it. Tamper Proof silicon... you must be joking.
Still not sure if you are a Mac fan or a Mac hater. I do know that you don't know it all and I know that I too do not know it all. Yet, I do speak from operational experience.
more...
BRLawyer
Feb 19, 04:30 AM
Steve looks the same as he did at the last two keynotes.
Exactly what I said before this thread turned into a shambles...there's no way to tell whether he looks better or worse than the last six months - it's just the same.
And I am gonna mirror another poster's question: was the bad actor banned?
Exactly what I said before this thread turned into a shambles...there's no way to tell whether he looks better or worse than the last six months - it's just the same.
And I am gonna mirror another poster's question: was the bad actor banned?
Full of Win
Nov 6, 05:09 AM
I'm waiting for the Mark of the Beast = RFID comments to begin.
Serious, there are several segments of the population out there that have objections to this type of technology. I don't know if Apple cares though.
Serious, there are several segments of the population out there that have objections to this type of technology. I don't know if Apple cares though.
more...
lostngone
Apr 14, 06:31 PM
There goes the neighborhood...
Ok, so now we need a Fail-Whale equivalent because I see the Apple cloud going down a lot.
Ok, so now we need a Fail-Whale equivalent because I see the Apple cloud going down a lot.
MacNut
Mar 26, 02:57 PM
http://www.connecticutgasprices.com/tax_info.aspx
According to this its 25 cents per gallon of gas, with an additional 5% sales tax....:confused:I thought it was higher than that.
Connecticut levies a 6% general sales or use tax on consumers, above the national median of 5.85%. In 2007 combined state and local general and selective sales tax collections were $1,424 per person, which ranked 21st highest nationally. Connecticut's gasoline tax stands at 41.9 cents per gallon (4th highest nationally), while its cigarette tax stands at $3.00 per pack of twenty (2nd highest). Additionally, Connecticut levies a 5.8% gross receipts earnings tax on oil companies, which is collected at wholesale. The sales tax was adopted in 1947, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/17.html
According to this its 25 cents per gallon of gas, with an additional 5% sales tax....:confused:I thought it was higher than that.
Connecticut levies a 6% general sales or use tax on consumers, above the national median of 5.85%. In 2007 combined state and local general and selective sales tax collections were $1,424 per person, which ranked 21st highest nationally. Connecticut's gasoline tax stands at 41.9 cents per gallon (4th highest nationally), while its cigarette tax stands at $3.00 per pack of twenty (2nd highest). Additionally, Connecticut levies a 5.8% gross receipts earnings tax on oil companies, which is collected at wholesale. The sales tax was adopted in 1947, the gasoline tax in 1921 and the cigarette tax in 1935.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/17.html
more...
JAT
May 3, 05:10 AM
It's pretty clear that the lens is in a deeper "well" in the white model. This is consistent with the rumor that light was impinging on the camera in the white model. What you need to do is limit all light that isn't coming from directly in front of the lens. No light from the side, and definitely no light from the inside of the camera. The way to fight it if you have an SLR? Invest in an old fashioned thing called a bellows, which shields the lens from any light that isn't coming from the area you can focus on, and which doesn't do anything but add glare or make blacks in the picture more like dark gray. This deeper camera acts like a bellows, I presume, blocking any light coming through the white, more translucent body.
As mentioned, a bellows does not surround a lens, it is a means to alter magnification. In fact, a bellows (or the portion of a modern macro lens that is equivalent to a bellows) will not have any lens elements in it at all.
I believe that's also what the little aluminum trim ring around the camera sensor is used for too to block out the light from the translucent body and the LED flash. The prototype iPhone 4 never had that ring I believe.
It's all just ridiculous. The lens blocks light itself. No lens is simply glass, it would never work at all, who would make such a stupid product? How would it hold together? A lens, esp in the case of a large SLR lens, is many glass/plastic elements. Here's a standard lens (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-sigma), look at the diagram at the bottom of the 8 elements and the positioning. (and there must be at least 2 in the iPhone lens) They have to be held in their respective positions by something around the outside. The suggestions of "light leakage" imply that the surrounding material would have to be translucent....what, more glass? Transparent aluminum? :rolleyes: The photo in the OP clearly shows black plastic and silver metal as the lens surround, independent from the rest of the phone or the color of the phone.
Look at that picture. The lens on the left has more plastic in it, which I suppose could block light more easily than less, but that's the one from a black phone. Shouldn't it be the other way around for this theory to have any teeth at all? It's probably just a newly or differently sourced lens, and if they took apart new black phones they'd find the same newer one in some of those.
The thickness issue is within manufacturing tolerances, I would guess. Again, if we could measure each and every brand new phone, we'd no doubt be able to find a black one that is thicker than a white one. This is the problem for case makers, always has been. What no one is thinking about is the size of the cases, those also will have some size variation within the same model line.
As mentioned, a bellows does not surround a lens, it is a means to alter magnification. In fact, a bellows (or the portion of a modern macro lens that is equivalent to a bellows) will not have any lens elements in it at all.
I believe that's also what the little aluminum trim ring around the camera sensor is used for too to block out the light from the translucent body and the LED flash. The prototype iPhone 4 never had that ring I believe.
It's all just ridiculous. The lens blocks light itself. No lens is simply glass, it would never work at all, who would make such a stupid product? How would it hold together? A lens, esp in the case of a large SLR lens, is many glass/plastic elements. Here's a standard lens (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/50mm-f14-ex-dg-hsm-sigma), look at the diagram at the bottom of the 8 elements and the positioning. (and there must be at least 2 in the iPhone lens) They have to be held in their respective positions by something around the outside. The suggestions of "light leakage" imply that the surrounding material would have to be translucent....what, more glass? Transparent aluminum? :rolleyes: The photo in the OP clearly shows black plastic and silver metal as the lens surround, independent from the rest of the phone or the color of the phone.
Look at that picture. The lens on the left has more plastic in it, which I suppose could block light more easily than less, but that's the one from a black phone. Shouldn't it be the other way around for this theory to have any teeth at all? It's probably just a newly or differently sourced lens, and if they took apart new black phones they'd find the same newer one in some of those.
The thickness issue is within manufacturing tolerances, I would guess. Again, if we could measure each and every brand new phone, we'd no doubt be able to find a black one that is thicker than a white one. This is the problem for case makers, always has been. What no one is thinking about is the size of the cases, those also will have some size variation within the same model line.
Giaguara
Sep 17, 03:47 AM
Be (the positive side of) yourself and just try.
I'm really bad in advising for pickup lines etc so just say something nice to start with. ;)
I'm really bad in advising for pickup lines etc so just say something nice to start with. ;)
more...
neiltc13
Apr 1, 06:34 AM
I when to France once before. I remember the cheapest gas had an octane rating of 95 or so, the next level up was 98 octane. I'm assuming that regular in the UK is around 95 octane as well? That tops what get. Our gas starts at 87 octane and tops out at 93 octane for so called premium (about $0.40 per gallon more than regular where I'm at).
Anyhow, judging by how our gas is priced, it's about 2x what we pay here in the States. You win some (having better cars), you lose some (higher priced gas).
Yes 95 octane is the lowest and there are also brands like Shell V-Power and BP Ultimate that offer up to 102 octane.
I always go with the 95 octane version and my car gets about 41mpg (US) using this fuel.
Anyhow, judging by how our gas is priced, it's about 2x what we pay here in the States. You win some (having better cars), you lose some (higher priced gas).
Yes 95 octane is the lowest and there are also brands like Shell V-Power and BP Ultimate that offer up to 102 octane.
I always go with the 95 octane version and my car gets about 41mpg (US) using this fuel.
macusersince5
Mar 23, 04:10 PM
this is awesome!!! you know sharing of information can and usually does go both ways:apple::cool:
more...
thatisme
Mar 29, 10:58 AM
sorry man.. i just cannot help you...
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
you are beyond what we, on planet earth, define as normal...
I tried.. i really tried..please read carefully what i wrote..
the "cropping" was referred to only one camera body.. just to illustrate you the whole crop size thing.
Now on the top of my quote you write to show you an exif intact photo with an EFs and EF lens..
I cannot do that as I don't have my cam but I will have it back on the weekend and I actually own a dx and FX lens (EF-s and EF) in Nikon land that overlap at 24mm, so I CAN show you..
to everyone else: Can someone do this before then to show our poor misguided soul what is going on?.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
F Mount has not changed since the 1950's and the reason why they kept it was that they can let people use older lenses.. Canonians for example got forced to EF in the 80's if I am not mistaken.
Now drop it.. you lost.
I have not made claims on Nikon mounts. Only about the crop mode. I used to shoot Nikon gear. So I am familiar with the cameras and the lenses. I now shoot Canon gear, ok. I am also very familiar with the lenses and gear.
Every time this subject comes up, the general response is... "but if you crop"... which is what you brought into the conversation. The fact is if you want a true comparison, you cannot crop. As from the example in #27 or whatever post it was with the 5D image, yes, you could crop it and get a 1.6 FOV. BUT, that is NOT what the lens is transmitting (see the black corners). Is the actual FOV the same? Again, who gives a flying flip. What is the true definition of FOV? Again, Does it matter to the average Joe with a camera? NO. It's the resulting image that matters, and if you got those black corners in your pictures, would you be happy that in order to get a usable image you ..."just have to crop"?
At the end of the day, the debate is... is the IMAGE the same or not. Who gives a flying flip about the FOV. All that matters is do you have the same subject in the frame, and the resulting print. If your print has more subject in the frame than another, then the image is DIFFERENT (and yes, this can be achieved with the same focal length lens, different sensor sized cameras). Again, see #27.
As far as Nikon goes: The reason was the F- Mount.. High speed crop is a byproduct. the D700 does not have it and some other don't either but they all MOUNT DX lenses in crop mode AND full frame mode.
So do this experiment for fun.... Mount your F mount lens to your Nikon body. Set your Focal length. Mount to tripod. Shoot an image. Look at your results
Now, take that same setup and simply change your setting to your DX setting (1.6 or 1.5.. I forget for Nikon). Look at your results.
Are the images different or the same? What changed? The lens is the same focal length on both images, but your sensor capture are has changed. The DX mode only records the center of the image circle.
Now, Im fairly certain the next logical argument you will bring up.... IF you change the physical dimensions of the resulting images because of the number of megapixels and file size (dimensions)...... This will bring us to another debate about the merits of up-rezzing or down-sampling an image. Again, not an Apple-to-Apple comparison.
skunk
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
Something I am seeing more and more which is downright terrifying/befuddling to me is the notion that not giving someone something is the same as taking something from them. Example: Tax cuts. I hear time and time again that tax cuts "cost" the government money. Excuse me?I don't really understand your confusion here: the government is essentially selling the taxpayer a bundle of services. If they lower the price, it costs them money. Surely that isn't so complicated?
mrsir2009
Apr 5, 01:44 PM
That must mean I'm not normal. :D
Same here, I do stuff on my MacBook Pro beyond the iPad's capabilities :eek:
Same here, I do stuff on my MacBook Pro beyond the iPad's capabilities :eek:
Hellhammer
Jun 14, 04:55 PM
That design is just awful. Reminds me of a cheesy alienware case:
http://patersoninc.com/ebay/computer/ALIEN/alienware-alx.jpg
I knew it looks like one of those cases, just didn't remember which! :D
http://patersoninc.com/ebay/computer/ALIEN/alienware-alx.jpg
I knew it looks like one of those cases, just didn't remember which! :D
flopticalcube
Mar 15, 08:10 PM
WTF? :confused:
That's it folks, surely the end is upon us for skunk is lost for words.
That's it folks, surely the end is upon us for skunk is lost for words.
Ieo
Apr 5, 04:57 PM
While I don't see anything that specifically mentions thunderbolt other than Macrumors' own speculation, I would find it hard to believe this wouldn't include it if it were to see the light of day. the 30 pin dock is a BIG connector- plenty of real-estate for a next-gen version to incorporate all of these standards from the looks of it.
My questions are:
Will it be backwards-compatible
Obviously you'll need to buy different cables according to what the other end is plugging into (Thunderbolt or USB 2/3)....but will apple include both or charge $25 for the other one?
It's smart to include USB 3, especially on "iToys", as it will eventually become the standard. The only way to avoid it would be to stop putting USB ports on their computers all together, and that will alienate all of their non-mac "iToy" customers (probably the majority).
My questions are:
Will it be backwards-compatible
Obviously you'll need to buy different cables according to what the other end is plugging into (Thunderbolt or USB 2/3)....but will apple include both or charge $25 for the other one?
It's smart to include USB 3, especially on "iToys", as it will eventually become the standard. The only way to avoid it would be to stop putting USB ports on their computers all together, and that will alienate all of their non-mac "iToy" customers (probably the majority).
integlspwr
Apr 19, 03:37 PM
dude those vietkong mf's a'ways seem to cop the exclusive apple s.hit
Vandam500
Jan 12, 03:59 PM
We are working on a Facebook status update. Our app so far updates users via Twitter on daily things that get tracked. Glad to see Facebook become more iPhone friendly. If you have anything to track / improve in your life, have a look at Track & Share. Try the lite version for free. All the best to all Facebook fans,
T&S
I'll try it.
T&S
I'll try it.
No comments:
Post a Comment