Ten year old DSLRSome other bits and pieces
appleRX100: Can they use ISS to watch ISIS?
xlabsmedan: I can't decipher what you just said. A little help?
zacharry: I assume from the footage that the camera can lock on to a co-ordinate. Either that or the ISS is moving slower around the earth than I thought.
Well, 15.54 orbits per day is only 0.065°/s. You can however still visibly perceive the tallest features (e.g. Boston's Prudential Tower) "leaning" as the perspective changes.
Not sure I *need* to know. In fact, I could probably carry on just fine with my life without knowing.
Android 4.4. The one that was last updated almost a year ago.
Good work Panasonic.
Lapkonium: Do photographers who use copied gear have a moral right to prevent copying of their work? I'd say no.
Wait, who's mixing things up?
tkbslc: Since I am sure someone will say it is too expensive, how much is a high-grade 21mm f1.9 for FF?
SFXR: You are correct that f1.9 gathers less light than f0.95.
Per unit area.
Meanwhile, the FF sensor has almost four times the area of the FT sensor. That is why they are considered equivalent.
micke69: Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical is $569
SFXR: The point being made there is that f0.9 on mFT is necessary to take the same photo as you could with f1.8 on FF.
I thought this had been done to death?
How long does it take to rack from 4.3mm to 357mm (and vice versa)?
blakevanderbilt: I've never used a Tokina lens, but one question I have is why use italicised Times New Roman font for the lens name? It's hideous!
What should they have used; Comic Sans, or Papyrus?
The humour is deliciously bad. Especially that last one.
The typo in your RSS feed ("11-24mm F2.8") certainly got my attention.
Rahul Ranadive: Just tired of all the images showing death and destruction oh, and the Afghans and middle easterns. Its almost like a stage just created for all the photographers to show their concern!!
Unfortunately, we can't make war, famine, natural disasters, anthropogenic disasters, death, destruction and all the rest go away by ignoring them or pretending they're not there.
They'll always make powerful images and the images will always make the finals of photojournalism awards, because they will always bring attention to important issues.
Jonathan Mac: Anyone not capable of getting good shots from a film camera should not be calling themselves a photographer. Many people choose digital because it's easier and cheaper, and many choose digital because they're not competent enough to get good images if they don't have auto-everything and the chance to take 20 photos and choose the best. Most of these people will never improve. Some choose digital because it's the best tool for the photography they want to do, and they can produce good results from it. However, many have used digital and become bored with it's often flat, dull look and have now gone back to film.
I use both, but I enjoy film more. The Ferrania re-start is good news, especially once they get around to producing print films.
I don't know if it was intentional but that comes across as more than a little pompous...
OBI656: As simple aquation shows shooting film is cheeper then being involved in digital.Even I do digital if there will be film processing labs as use too I will be shooting film no question about it.
I may have misunderstood but your "simple equation" is so simple that it fails to address the cost differences between film and digital workflows, which I thought was your point.
Marcin 3M: At least these films are not treated as a "service for rent"...
Nothing lasts forever, but your choice of processing software doesn't affect the long-term viability of the files that come out of a digital camera (or the format to which you choose to archive).
Images stored on HDDs are far more compact than those stored on film, and have much more forgiving climate requirements. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages.
Tal Shachar: film is an environmental disaster, go digital now!
@Ontario Gone: You might just get your wish if things don't improve over in west Africa!
Meanwhile, unless you do your own processing...
What do you mean?
The real environmental disaster is the socioeconomic group that has the time and money to be concerned about whether to shoot film SLRs or digital SLRs. :)
Would you care to share your simple "aquation"?