dmanthree: In order for the aerosol can to explode, you'd need oxygen inside the can. It is highly unlikely that the can would explode since there is no oxygen inside it, and the pressure of the gas coming out also deters the flame from retreating back into the can. Same reason the flame on a gas stove doesn't travel back down the gas pipe; it needs oxygen to burn. However, the open flame is another matter...
When I was a kid, I knew another kid that used his mouth with gasoline in it for an aerosol can many, many times, the last time, it didn't work. He survived, but not by a lot. He's OK now as far as I know...couple of skin grafts I guess. A person had better guess well at how far the aerosol can shoots. :-) Or where (make sure the nozzle is not aimed at oneself)
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/1387692077/photos/1937084/diffuser-reflectorThis works. Cheaper than a Gary Fong.
In my previous post I should have said "relevant or irrelevant" ;-)
carabas: Sorry, but that article means I'm removing DPr from my favorites...
Not because I'm a small format fan or whatever, but because I'm a photographer.
That article and for that matter Equivalence and Total Light make perfect sense from a Physics/Engineering point of view, but from a purely photographic perspective, which only relies on a simplified optics model (except of course for the actual design of the thing) it's utter nonsense, if only because it brings the sensitive surface noise characteristics into the equation.
So, between fairly useless (and usually very late) reviews and the fact that you made the last step from being a photography site to being a tech one, I no longer see any value in what DPr has to offer, there are thousands of other tech sites around, that wasn't what I came here for, I can read a spec sheet myself, thank you very much.
Well to much of a degree, I agree that equivalence is really only important when comparing formats..and not too important to me. There are so many other considerations involved, ergonomics, size, etc. etc. and some of the smaller formats are very close to the larger ones in IQ. Agreed, most photographers think about the format they're shooting in, rather than comparing it to another when they are doing what they do. I know when shooting in M43 now, I never think in 35mm (or larger) terms, nor did I when I shot with a bridge camera, or as I'm doing lately with film medium format. Why should we? But if comparing formats, I suppose equivalence is useful to some. My way of looking at things is that cameras just do what they do, and we use 'em like they are.
The trouble is, when someone explains something relevant here, it seems everyone (well a lot) of people just import what they want someone else to 'have' said, rather than what they actually say. To prove that total light matters with larger entrance pupils. The speed boosters gain around a stop of light, by focusing the light cone from a larger entrance (35mm) on a smaller sensor, and increasing the FOV in the meantime...Total light doesn't depend on the sensor, but on the lens in relation to it. It is simple when a person thinks in those terms. Gaining a stop, means you can decrease your ISO a stop (less noise) for the same exposure using a speed booster with a 35mm sized lens of the same relative FOV and physical aperture to a lens designed for your smaller system (like the one I use mostly now) .irregardless of any capabilities your camera may or may not have.
Ok. I was once a doubter of the Equivalence thinking (as I think were many). But it is more than thinking. As a simple proof. Take a Legacy (I don't like that term so I usually say manual) lens. Put it on an APS-C or M43 camera, but with a Metabpnes Speed Booster and presto you gain an F-Stop or so. Why is that? Go figure. There are other reasons to use certain cameras, ergonomics, live view functionality, blah, blah. Lots of reasons one person may like one, and another another. But why do you gain an F stop, putting a 35mm lens on a smaller format with a Speed booster?...it ain't magic. (and yes you are changing the FOV to more so, but not quite represent the 35mm lens field of view) At least that's how I think about it.Wow this is an active topic ;-)
We also learned in art production, to do the image large, and reduce it for sharpness. Which a larger sensor sort of does, if all else is the same. The same would apply in blowing up an image, the larger the original the sharper the result, again if all is the same. It's why an 8X10 view camera can be printed very large, why a medium format camera (either digital or film) bests a 35mm or smaller. This is irregardless of noise or grain. Simple. To some degree, smaller formats have gotten much better, higher resolution, less noise, so that they can be very useful, well balanced according to size and IQ. Good enough for many purposes. But the larger format, under equal conditions will win...the question really is to many..how much does it matter? And how much does portability matter when weighing IQ - ain't no free lunches. Just my 2 cents. Thanks for the article, has elicited some spirited responses :-)
The only part of Equivalence that I have a difficult time in understanding is why would more light fall on an equal sized cropped area of a larger sensor, if the sensors were of the same exact design, than on a cropped sensor? with the same exact lens? at the same aperture? Yes for an equivalent FOV with different lenses I can understand that more light would fall on the larger sensor, since the entrance diameter of the lens would be larger. All the other stuff I can understand more easily, the DOF being different, diffraction being different...and of course FOV. I'm not trying to argue, but rather trying to understand...or perhaps no one is really saying this ;-)
I kinda think products like the Metabones adapters for APS-C and M43 are an interesting side-track in the Equivalence debate.
I would think that the cloning out of the camera in no way alters the truth of the shot...but then rules are rules and once bent soon may be broken. A shame though for such a small infraction on such a powerful shot.For some other thoughts research the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima shot back in the 40's ?
I refuse to buy it, the grip doesn't match either the camera or the Vespa.
Mr Tudor: I just discovered that clicking on "Edit" on your "You" page will bring up the old page layout.
If it's still available, it's strange why they don't let the viewer customize it, if they like the old look better. Think you will win your bet though.
brudy: It's so awful from so many perspectives I don't know where to begin.
I still like Pbase. Old and clunky, Once in a great while breaks down...but the user interface is very easy to customize, you get 800mb a year (not like Flickr but who has 1TB of good photos?), the navigation is easy, the display qualities good for 24.95 and NO adds. I'm just using this to illustrate a point, since there are many equally good photo services available Zenfolio, Smugmug etc. etc....maybe some better...and many not mentioned. From what I've seen on the new Flickr, it's flashy etc. It all seems like Flickriver now sort of to me, endless. Is it going to hurt the groups and communities that have grown up around them? Has Flickr shot itself in the foot?
Hee hee. The irony
Alternative Energy Photography: Here's a thought. How many people here have at least once in their lives lost their job and it took 3, 4, 8, 12 months to find a new one? Yes, I am raising my hand too.
During that dry period, did you do like I did and cancel the cable, the newspaper, and even consider cancelling all non-essential memberships, retirement plans, kids' soccer, and other subscriptions except for the electric, water, and gas services? Yep, me too.
Maybe the "pros" will consider their Adobe membership critical, and will cancel their health club memberships instead. They cost about the same, $50 per month, depending on where you live.
But I think for most people, when family finances get tight as in this example, the priority will be to feed the wife and kids, not Adobe. So the Adobe subcription model might end up hurting Adobe in down times.
But then again, I still see a lot of apathy. Most of you will probably just put your Adobe membership on the credit card even when you have no job, right?
I think you are right. Especially in this case.
Wow..I don't remember more comments on a news item in DPR ever. Especially so quickly. I don't understand what happens to third party plug-ins and actions in the Creative Cloud. It seems to me that software plugin development will now be aimed at the "cloud", so programs like Gimp and Corel's Paint Shop will be left in the cold (since they've been able to use Photoshop plugins). This looks to me like a marketing move by Adobe, rather than a striving for excellence move (as in their previous efforts) to limit and monopolize photo editing. I jumped off their treadmill a while back. My version of Photoshop still does OK by me, even if I do have to develop Raw files in something else..Like Aftershot, Raw Therapee, or Lightroom and then transfer them in 16bit to Photoshop. Far as I'm concerned I may not purchase any more Adobe software.
I have an older version of Photoshop. It does pretty much what I want it to, but in conjunction with other editing programs (like Elements, Lightroom, Aftershot Pro, Raw Therapee, etc.etc). and it will stay as such. I fell out of the upgrade path (every third version), and at the time was worried that I did. I'm not so worried now, but instead rather happy. I'm not a "cloud" type of person...would rather control my own creative destiny, for better or worse.
It's a little different, someone taking street shots as opposed to shining strobes out of a vehicle. Kind of amazing that someone hasn't flipped a rock or two at him...or worse. Yeah I'm sort of a fan of good street shooters, and this guy except for a couple of shots doesn't make it with my view of it (not exactly a HCB, Maier or Winogrand), but of course, it's well that everybody has differing tastes.