Moved to the beginners section.
Bboy-MassUK, when I said lurk I meant it. At least lurk until you know enough to be able to start threads in the right sections.
Bboy-MassUK, when I said lurk I meant it. At least lurk until you know enough to be able to start threads in the right sections.
You can be sure that nobody really cares what rig you have (there are plenty of people here with good and bad machines. Mine's pretty poor), what real-life car you have (there are some nice cars owned by this forum's users) or what job you have (having a job isn't a big deal, btw.. it's fairly normal I think) but...
Win or lose, if you drive like an adult and don't wreck other people, this will earn you the beginnings of friendships on this forum.
Then instead of retaliating, try being the mature one. Let them look stupid on their own, instead of joining in and starting a double act.
There is a problem with having a go back, because it turns into forum disruption and then I have to get involved. And I'd rather just watch the Le Mans on Eurosport than have to deal with mudslinging in this thread.
Yes, I have.. every word. And...
This confirms my concerns.
You're new and you're unfamiliar with how things work around here. I recommend spending a bit more time lurking and a little less time starting new threads, trying to get into fights with people.
I'll be honest, if I were to lock them out I'd have to lock you out too.
You've admitted to trying to get a rise out of people, and as a moderator I gotta tell ya that kinda stuff sets off alarm bells.
We can drop the angst now. No need.
Threads merged. FYI, it's not okay to randomly start new threads on the same topic.
Either my sister bought that for him or the old goat bought it himself!!
The only thing I buy my dad is coffee.. maybe the occasional computer hardware upgrade 
I do take your point (and I did say pro/semi-pro). Perhaps I see it slightly differently, maybe even rose-tinted (possibly as bad as IR-filtered!? 
) but there have to be cost-constraints in producing budget-price cameras and one of the areas where the D40, for example, saves cost-weight is the absence of a lens motordrive in the body.
I think the D40 is targeted at the "new-daddy" consumer that isn't interested in old kit at all. They want (and get) a very capable camera with a really good kit lens and a range of relatively inexpensive other new lenses to pick from, that they can use without having to apply grey matter.
I do think the consumer that's looking for the ability to use a more full range of older glass is probably at the D90 end of the consumer spectrum, where I think they're handsomely catered for.
) but there have to be cost-constraints in producing budget-price cameras and one of the areas where the D40, for example, saves cost-weight is the absence of a lens motordrive in the body. I think the D40 is targeted at the "new-daddy" consumer that isn't interested in old kit at all. They want (and get) a very capable camera with a really good kit lens and a range of relatively inexpensive other new lenses to pick from, that they can use without having to apply grey matter.
I do think the consumer that's looking for the ability to use a more full range of older glass is probably at the D90 end of the consumer spectrum, where I think they're handsomely catered for.
While you'd think it should be like that it isn't really. With digital photography, there are two considerations.. the sensor and the lens.
The megapixels of the sensor don't translate to moar==bettah. What's important is how the sensor works and how the camera handles the data that it gets from the "photosites" (sensor pixels). And of course the data that it gets is also determined by the quality of the glass (or, worst-case scenario, clear plastic) in the lens.
hehe.. I understand how my dad works like this.. though I can't do it, myself. His work area is inches wide and all of the stuff he does at this table is tiny. Everything is within reach, and he's happy. He also has a spraying room, which is immaculate, so I know it's not dementia
Woot! You rock!
What an active thread this is today! (Days like this make life worth living!!)
I thought I'd post the result of a mini-test I did today. I wanted to know if the "VR" on the side of my lens counted for diddly. OMG!
I took the attached photo at 1/15th. One shot. Score!
Don't pay too much attention to the subject matter.. it's me dad in his basement, his hobby is restoring toy trains.. a cleaner sorts the rest of the house out, once a week!
(Days like this make life worth living!!)I thought I'd post the result of a mini-test I did today. I wanted to know if the "VR" on the side of my lens counted for diddly. OMG!
I took the attached photo at 1/15th. One shot. Score!
Don't pay too much attention to the subject matter.. it's me dad in his basement, his hobby is restoring toy trains.. a cleaner sorts the rest of the house out, once a week!
I bought 4 batteries for my Nikon.. total cost £18 inc. shipping from Hong Kong (took 2 days!). I numbered them and use them on rotation. Each battery seems to be good for about 600 photos. I never got half of that out of a set of AAs, even in my Fuji S5600
Just wanna address this, because I think it's important. Canon DID change their lens mount a few years ago, which made all lenses prior to the new camera range redundant. A LOT of photographers have never (even today) forgiven them.
Conversely, Nikon have never rendered any old lens useless. The oldest lenses made by Nikon go straight on the front of my camera. The oldest need a simple and inexpensive AI to AI-S conversion, simply because of what's generally accepted to be rectifying a poor design decision in early lenses. My favourite lens of all time, and one I still use today, a 105mm F/2.5 was introduced to the world 7 years before I was. I picked it up for about £30 ($45).
Backwards compatibility is a core feature of Nikon's pro and semi-pro series cameras, and there are even M42 mount converters available for the D40 consumer-level camera, so I feel it necessary to defend them.
Ohhhhh my goof! I read the S as a 5!
Sorry! Nice shots, Oli! I'm partial to a good sunset, myself!
In the slideshow, my fave is the very last image! I think it's because of the depth of field giving a slightly blurry background which brings emphasis to the flower in the foreground. Pocket cameras, like the Cybershots, with macro capability are brilliant. It's a characteristic of the layout of the sensor that results in such amazing depth of field, close up, with high-speed exposures. DSLRs really can't compete on that level because their advantages in other respects get in the way of their macro capabilities. I think specialised pocket-sized macro cameras are the future in that field of photography
Worthy! And you thought you'd bought a lemon, with that filter!
Yep, the A300 is a good camera by all accounts. The 18-70 is a good lens to start out with, as it gives wide angle through portrait focal lengths. You'll probably want to extend to a telephoto zoom later, so don't expect it to be your LAST spend on photography kit.
Great oaks from little acorns grow
For once, Alan, I have to agree with you. It is the same Manor, btw.
The list is out. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/76045
Very nice photo, btw
The S5700 isn't that old.. it's only a couple of years. I have an S5600 which I'm very fond of. It's a very versatile camera Just did a quick bit of hunting for info and apparently my D1x will work as yours does, unmodified! I'm going to start shopping for a cheap sturdy tripod and an IR filter
I'm going to start shopping for a cheap sturdy tripod and an IR filter Am I right in thinking that you haven't removed the IR filter from your sensor? And that's why exposures are longer, to capture enough light to get through both the front IR filter and the sensor's IR filter?
I love the idea of doing some IR photography.. but don't particularly fancy removing the IR filter from my camera's sensor
I love the idea of doing some IR photography.. but don't particularly fancy removing the IR filter from my camera's sensor
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG