|
Holy Camera BAtman!!
At my price point, I had the choice between a used D200 vs. a new D80. The D200 is sooooo much better than the D80. I'm glad I went the way I did. I got the used D200, a brand new 18-200 VR lens and a brand new SB-600 speedlight for less than the cost of just a D300 body. You have an awesome package that would serve just about anyone's needs for years to come. My strategy is to use my D200 until there is a significant price drop in the D300. Maybe that will happen by the end of the year, maybe it won't. I don't much care. I just got an email a few weeks ago from Nikon informing me that my 1-year warranty on the D200 was about to expire. Nikon offered to extend the original factory warranty for an additional two years for $169. I took them up on the offer. Even though I've never had a hiccup from the D200 or the D70 before it, it seemed like a reasonable deal. There is nothing that could be repaired on the D200 for only $169, and it buys me plenty of time to eventually pull the D300 trigger. It's nice that I only need to buy the body. My lenses and filters, the SB800, and other goodies still get to keep on working. In 2007 I dropped a little over $1k for a very nice tripod and ball head. It's made a very noticeable improvement in my landscape work. I was never much of a tripod guy, but I got tripod religion in 2007. As another D200 shooter, I'll share with you another revelation that came to me in 2007. Always shoot raw, and use Nikon Capture NX as your raw converter and primary editor. It's a huge improvement over using Adobe Camera Raw. Capture NX won't completely eliminate the need for PhotoShop or similar, but it's the best place to start, and more often than not you'll have no need to do any further editing in another application. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:11:05 GMT, "RG" wrote:
At my price point, I had the choice between a used D200 vs. a new D80. The D200 is sooooo much better than the D80. I'm glad I went the way I did. I got the used D200, a brand new 18-200 VR lens and a brand new SB-600 speedlight for less than the cost of just a D300 body. You have an awesome package that would serve just about anyone's needs for years to come. My strategy is to use my D200 until there is a significant price drop in the D300. Maybe that will happen by the end of the year, maybe it won't. I don't much care. I just got an email a few weeks ago That's a good strategy. I'm sure the D300 price will drop as soon as the next one in the series, I'm guessing a D400, comes out. Then you'll see the same thing going on with the D300 that is going on now with the D200. Of course, you'll probably want whatever new goodies are in the D400. lol [...] filters, the SB800, and other goodies still get to keep on working. In 2007 I dropped a little over $1k for a very nice tripod and ball head. It's made a very noticeable improvement in my landscape work. I was never much of a tripod guy, but I got tripod religion in 2007. A tripod is definitely a necessity for great landscape work. Especially if you're going to stitch together multiple shots for a panarama. I have a half decent tripod. No, not $1k, more like $100. But it works for me. As another D200 shooter, I'll share with you another revelation that came to me in 2007. Always shoot raw, and use Nikon Capture NX as your raw converter and primary editor. It's a huge improvement over using Adobe Camera Raw. Capture NX won't completely eliminate the need for PhotoShop or similar, but it's the best place to start, and more often than not you'll have no need to do any further editing in another application. If I was a pro I'd do that. I shoot some things in raw and some in jpg. I use jpg most of the time but I'll shoot in raw if I'm in a tough situation as far as white balance or exposure is concerned. It's easier to adjust those things later when shooting in raw. I'll also shoot raw if I think there's any chance of making large size prints, like over 8x10. Otherwise, I shoot jpg normal. For those shots in that New Hope slide show, everything was shot in jpg normal except for some of the train photos which were raw and converted. Capture NX is pricey. I just use the free Nikon PictureProject for basic raw editing and conversion It does all the things I normally want to do, like adjust exposure, crop, etc. It uses the same conversion engine as Capture NX. It just doesn't have all the bells and whistles. If I want a little more capability for raw files, I use RawShooter Essentials. When I want to do "photoshop type" editing, I use PaintShopPro 9 because I already have that and it works well. It only works in jpg though, not raw. If you get the white balance correct with the camera, for anything 8x10 or less, I can't tell the difference between shooting in raw and jpg. And there's absolutely no way you can tell the difference if you're just looking to post pictures on a website. But the caveat is you have to have the camera set up right for jpeg shooting. And for that, here's a hint for you: This may be why you're seeing a big difference between raw and jpg and I'm not: go to Shooting Menu-JPEG Compression and change the file compression from the default of Size Priority to Optimum Quality. For some strange reason, Nikon thinks the default should be to make all the jpeg images around the same size. If you have a bland scene with no detail it will take up as many bytes as a complex detailed scene. Of course, the complex detailed scene image quality will suffer. If you change that option, pictures with little detail will make little files and pictures with a lot of detail will make bigger files, preserving the quality. If you make that change and just shoot jpeg normal (not even fine) quality, you'll have a hard time discerning the difference between raw and jpeg. Steve |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:04:10 GMT, Steve wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:33:57 GMT, "RG" wrote: I've been looking at the new E-3 anyway - good excuse to get one. You owe it to yourself to give the new D300 a hard look. If I was shopping today, that's where I'd go and never look back. It's that good. Camera of the Year and deservedly so. If you're on a budget, look on ebay for the ton of D200's that people are offloading now because the D300 came out. You can pick up a D200 for 1/2 of what someone paid for it just a few months ago, and less than 1/2 the price of a D300. And most of them are in pretty much like new condition because the camera update cycle is so short. Yes, the D300 is nice. But the little bit extra it gives you isn't worth anywhere near over twice the going rate for a D200. Especially if most of your photography isn't of indoor low light without a flash, which is the only place the D300 really outpaces the D200. Yes, I have a D200. And it's awesome. Mate it up with the 18-200 VR zoom lens and you have the ultimate walk around camera. Here's some shots I took last week with that combo on a little walk around tour of New Hope, PA. I just bought it myself and these are the first pictures I took. I'm looking forward to even better ones once I really get to know the camera. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheliko...08607375/show/ Steve Nice shots, Steve, especially the locomotive. I'm also a D200 owner, as are several other folks here, and I love mine. I just sent my 18-200 VR back to Nikon to get the auto-focus checked. But I like the outfit. I can think of nothing that would make me trade up, unless I dropped mine walking down the steps! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:38:12 GMT, Steve wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:11:05 GMT, "RG" wrote: At my price point, I had the choice between a used D200 vs. a new D80. The D200 is sooooo much better than the D80. I'm glad I went the way I did. I got the used D200, a brand new 18-200 VR lens and a brand new SB-600 speedlight for less than the cost of just a D300 body. You have an awesome package that would serve just about anyone's needs for years to come. My strategy is to use my D200 until there is a significant price drop in the D300. Maybe that will happen by the end of the year, maybe it won't. I don't much care. I just got an email a few weeks ago That's a good strategy. I'm sure the D300 price will drop as soon as the next one in the series, I'm guessing a D400, comes out. Then you'll see the same thing going on with the D300 that is going on now with the D200. Of course, you'll probably want whatever new goodies are in the D400. lol [...] filters, the SB800, and other goodies still get to keep on working. In 2007 I dropped a little over $1k for a very nice tripod and ball head. It's made a very noticeable improvement in my landscape work. I was never much of a tripod guy, but I got tripod religion in 2007. A tripod is definitely a necessity for great landscape work. Especially if you're going to stitch together multiple shots for a panarama. I have a half decent tripod. No, not $1k, more like $100. But it works for me. As another D200 shooter, I'll share with you another revelation that came to me in 2007. Always shoot raw, and use Nikon Capture NX as your raw converter and primary editor. It's a huge improvement over using Adobe Camera Raw. Capture NX won't completely eliminate the need for PhotoShop or similar, but it's the best place to start, and more often than not you'll have no need to do any further editing in another application. If I was a pro I'd do that. I shoot some things in raw and some in jpg. I use jpg most of the time but I'll shoot in raw if I'm in a tough situation as far as white balance or exposure is concerned. It's easier to adjust those things later when shooting in raw. I'll also shoot raw if I think there's any chance of making large size prints, like over 8x10. Otherwise, I shoot jpg normal. For those shots in that New Hope slide show, everything was shot in jpg normal except for some of the train photos which were raw and converted. Capture NX is pricey. I just use the free Nikon PictureProject for basic raw editing and conversion It does all the things I normally want to do, like adjust exposure, crop, etc. It uses the same conversion engine as Capture NX. It just doesn't have all the bells and whistles. If I want a little more capability for raw files, I use RawShooter Essentials. When I want to do "photoshop type" editing, I use PaintShopPro 9 because I already have that and it works well. It only works in jpg though, not raw. If you get the white balance correct with the camera, for anything 8x10 or less, I can't tell the difference between shooting in raw and jpg. And there's absolutely no way you can tell the difference if you're just looking to post pictures on a website. But the caveat is you have to have the camera set up right for jpeg shooting. And for that, here's a hint for you: This may be why you're seeing a big difference between raw and jpg and I'm not: go to Shooting Menu-JPEG Compression and change the file compression from the default of Size Priority to Optimum Quality. For some strange reason, Nikon thinks the default should be to make all the jpeg images around the same size. If you have a bland scene with no detail it will take up as many bytes as a complex detailed scene. Of course, the complex detailed scene image quality will suffer. If you change that option, pictures with little detail will make little files and pictures with a lot of detail will make bigger files, preserving the quality. If you make that change and just shoot jpeg normal (not even fine) quality, you'll have a hard time discerning the difference between raw and jpeg. Steve Other than the limitation as to number of pictures on a card, which are getting quite cheap, why would you not shoot everything in jpeg 'fine'. At least then you can crop segments of the shot or the whole shot if you want. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:00:36 GMT, Steve wrote:
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:10:13 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 21:34:08 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Just got off the phone with Olympus. The bill to repair my E-300, flat rate, is $310 plus 6% tax which brings it to $328.60!! Damn. So much for that camera. My daughter just told me she needs a film SLR, with wide/normal/tele lenses, UV filter, etc, for a required college class. Has to have manual ap/shutter/focus. She's an ed major. I guess I'm going to fix the shutter leather on my Minolta 102, or buy a working body. I've got the rest. But I am somewhat ****ed about this, because the last time I got the sticking shutter fixed it cost $125 and only lasted maybe 100 frames. That was at least ten years ago. I was ready to go digital SLR, and you would think that a college class would go that way. They will do film processing, but you don't need an SLR for that. [...] You won't find many professionals using film anymore. Just the specialized large format stuff. But the good thing about that is you can find *tons* of really high quality 35mm SLR film cameras being offloaded for cheap since no one wants that stuff anymore. Ebay and Craigslist are your friend. I was in WalMart the other day and saw a new Canon EOS Rebel 35mm film SLR for about what it costs you to fix your sticking shutter. If you want new, that would be perfect for her class. It has all the modes you mentioned. Good thoughts. She'll need my lenses, which won't fit Canon. I'll go the used route. --Vic |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
|
Holy Camera BAtman!!
Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:50:28 GMT, "RG" wrote:
Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Absolutely spectacular! Now why didn't my pictures of Yellowstone and Oak Creek Canyon come out like that? You really need to take a trip to DC and capture the local scenery! Maybe with Reggie during cherry blossom time? Would it be possible to share that with a friend of mine in Holland? He's been through a lot of that country by motorcycle, so he'd appreciate the work tremendously. Thanks for sharing that. Most cool! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 8:50*am, "RG" wrote:
Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
|
Holy Camera BAtman!!
Absolutely spectacular! Now why didn't my pictures of Yellowstone and Oak Creek Canyon come out like that? You really need to take a trip to DC and capture the local scenery! Maybe with Reggie during cherry blossom time? Been there, done it. I have a vey nice collection of DC shots. It's an extremely photo-rich location. Unfortunately, my shots were taken quite a number of years ago and reside on 35mm slides and some old prints of those slides that are showing their years from fading. It's definitely a place worth revisiting. Would it be possible to share that with a friend of mine in Holland? He's been through a lot of that country by motorcycle, so he'd appreciate the work tremendously. Sure. Go ahead and forward him the link. The link is only good for six more days. Thanks for sharing that. Most cool! -- You're welcome. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 9:34*am, wrote:
On Jan 8, 8:50*am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? sorry about the long email address. you could link me at: sawdust @ smallboats com |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
sorry about the long email address. you could link me at: sawdust @ smallboats com Done. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"John H." wrote in message ... snip... But I like the outfit. I can think of nothing that would make me trade up, unless I dropped mine walking down the steps! -- John H Yup...laugh it up at someone elses misfortune. I imagine you'd be in hysterics if Tom had broken his neck. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"RG" wrote in message m... Hate to be a pest, but I'd love to view your work if it's not too much trouble to add another. rerik (at) comcast (dot) net TIA, Eisboch |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
Hate to be a pest, but I'd love to view your work if it's not too much trouble to add another. rerik (at) comcast (dot) net Done. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 8:50 am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? Slight change of subject. I was perusing your small boat building web site and I find it quite impressive. You should be very proud of the various boats you have constructed. Are you intentionally generating an intermittent, 1/2 second, "gurgle" sound when the site is open? Before I go searching for what it is, please enlighten me. From some of the posts of yours I've read here, it sounds like some thing quirky you would do. Thanks |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 07:31:47 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:00:36 GMT, Steve wrote: You won't find many professionals using film anymore. Just the specialized large format stuff. But the good thing about that is you can find *tons* of really high quality 35mm SLR film cameras being offloaded for cheap since no one wants that stuff anymore. Ebay and Craigslist are your friend. I was in WalMart the other day and saw a new Canon EOS Rebel 35mm film SLR for about what it costs you to fix your sticking shutter. If you want new, that would be perfect for her class. It has all the modes you mentioned. Good thoughts. She'll need my lenses, which won't fit Canon. I'll go the used route. FYI, just bought a supposedly good X-700 on ebay for $68.00 total cost. Came with a couple lenses, but will take mine too. Thanks again for the advice. I had already started to look for a repairman for my 102, but you sobered me up. --Vic |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"John H." wrote in message ... On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:04:10 GMT, Steve wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:33:57 GMT, "RG" wrote: I've been looking at the new E-3 anyway - good excuse to get one. You owe it to yourself to give the new D300 a hard look. If I was shopping today, that's where I'd go and never look back. It's that good. Camera of the Year and deservedly so. If you're on a budget, look on ebay for the ton of D200's that people are offloading now because the D300 came out. You can pick up a D200 for 1/2 of what someone paid for it just a few months ago, and less than 1/2 the price of a D300. And most of them are in pretty much like new condition because the camera update cycle is so short. Yes, the D300 is nice. But the little bit extra it gives you isn't worth anywhere near over twice the going rate for a D200. Especially if most of your photography isn't of indoor low light without a flash, which is the only place the D300 really outpaces the D200. Yes, I have a D200. And it's awesome. Mate it up with the 18-200 VR zoom lens and you have the ultimate walk around camera. Here's some shots I took last week with that combo on a little walk around tour of New Hope, PA. I just bought it myself and these are the first pictures I took. I'm looking forward to even better ones once I really get to know the camera. http://www.flickr.com/photos/sheliko...08607375/show/ Steve Nice shots, Steve, especially the locomotive. I'm also a D200 owner, as are several other folks here, and I love mine. I just sent my 18-200 VR back to Nikon to get the auto-focus checked. But I like the outfit. I can think of nothing that would make me trade up, unless I dropped mine walking down the steps! -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." Looked at Craigs list for D200 prices. They have not dropped since the D300 came out. Actually most of the prices were very close to what a New York mailorder camera store will sell for new. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"RG" wrote in message m... Absolutely spectacular! Now why didn't my pictures of Yellowstone and Oak Creek Canyon come out like that? You really need to take a trip to DC and capture the local scenery! Maybe with Reggie during cherry blossom time? Been there, done it. I have a vey nice collection of DC shots. It's an extremely photo-rich location. Unfortunately, my shots were taken quite a number of years ago and reside on 35mm slides and some old prints of those slides that are showing their years from fading. It's definitely a place worth revisiting. Would it be possible to share that with a friend of mine in Holland? He's been through a lot of that country by motorcycle, so he'd appreciate the work tremendously. Sure. Go ahead and forward him the link. The link is only good for six more days. Thanks for sharing that. Most cool! -- You're welcome. Is there an easy way or reasonable way to transfer slides to CD? My dad left lots of slides and quite a few of them I would like to transfer to CD. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:12:05 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "RG" wrote in message om... Absolutely spectacular! Now why didn't my pictures of Yellowstone and Oak Creek Canyon come out like that? You really need to take a trip to DC and capture the local scenery! Maybe with Reggie during cherry blossom time? Been there, done it. I have a vey nice collection of DC shots. It's an extremely photo-rich location. Unfortunately, my shots were taken quite a number of years ago and reside on 35mm slides and some old prints of those slides that are showing their years from fading. It's definitely a place worth revisiting. Would it be possible to share that with a friend of mine in Holland? He's been through a lot of that country by motorcycle, so he'd appreciate the work tremendously. Sure. Go ahead and forward him the link. The link is only good for six more days. Thanks for sharing that. Most cool! -- You're welcome. Is there an easy way or reasonable way to transfer slides to CD? My dad left lots of slides and quite a few of them I would like to transfer to CD. This may help: http://tinyurl.com/7bk24 -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
Is there an easy way or reasonable way to transfer slides to CD? My dad left lots of slides and quite a few of them I would like to transfer to CD. There are two ways to get it done. First is to buy or rent a quality slide scanner such as the Nikon 5000 or equivalent and scan the slides yourself into jpeg files to your computer's hard drive. A flatbed scanner isn't going to get the job done with any level of quality. The files can then be burned to CD or DVD. Unless you have a ****load of slides and like to do this sort of thing, this is probably not the cost-effective or time-effective way to do it. The other alternative is to take your slides to a lab to have them scanned for a fee. They will scan your slides on quality equipment (if you go to the right place) and burn them to CD or DVD for you. If your slides need cleaned before scanning, they will do that for a fee as well. Many photo print and processing labs will offer this service, as well as the places that transfer video tape and film movies to DVD. I'd hit the Yellow Pages and call a few local places to check prices and at what resolution they will scan the slides. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 12:27*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 8:50 am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? Slight change of subject. *I was perusing your small boat building web site and I find it quite impressive. *You should be very proud of the various boats you have constructed. Are you intentionally generating an intermittent, 1/2 second, *"gurgle" sound when the site is open? *Before I go searching for what it is, please enlighten me. *From some of the posts of yours I've read here, it sounds like some thing quirky you would do. Thanks That sound tells you someone else has accessed the page.. I kind of like to goof on people, I used to have a rather vicious flame link hidden in a graphic, but I took it down on 9/11 as it was pretty political and at the time, I felt uncalled for;) |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 6:21*pm, wrote:
On Jan 8, 12:27*pm, "D.Duck" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 8:50 am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? Slight change of subject. *I was perusing your small boat building web site and I find it quite impressive. *You should be very proud of the various boats you have constructed. Are you intentionally generating an intermittent, 1/2 second, *"gurgle" sound when the site is open? *Before I go searching for what it is, please enlighten me. *From some of the posts of yours I've read here, it sounds like some thing quirky you would do. In fact it's my counter which we got many moons ago he http://www.chami.com/html-kit/ in case you want to check it out.. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:52:17 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Just got off the phone with Olympus. The bill to repair my E-300, flat rate, is $310 plus 6% tax which brings it to $328.60!! Damn. So much for that camera. You think camera repair people should work for wal-mart wages? No - I don't expect that. I do expect a reasonable rate to replace the viewfinder glass and upload the latest software. It seems to me that 2/3s of the cost of the camera new (as of 2 1/2 years ago) is a bit excessive. My point and shoot Olympus 35 mm had a sticky switch on the lens. Was 2 weeks past warranty when I sent it back. They wanted $5 less than a new one, and only warranteed the camera for 6 months as opposed to a year with a new camera. Last Olympus I bought. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:04:46 -0800, "CalifBill"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:52:17 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Just got off the phone with Olympus. The bill to repair my E-300, flat rate, is $310 plus 6% tax which brings it to $328.60!! Damn. So much for that camera. You think camera repair people should work for wal-mart wages? No - I don't expect that. I do expect a reasonable rate to replace the viewfinder glass and upload the latest software. It seems to me that 2/3s of the cost of the camera new (as of 2 1/2 years ago) is a bit excessive. My point and shoot Olympus 35 mm had a sticky switch on the lens. Was 2 weeks past warranty when I sent it back. They wanted $5 less than a new one, and only warranteed the camera for 6 months as opposed to a year with a new camera. Last Olympus I bought. I've never had a problem with an Oly and when I had my OM-1 cleaned, it was very reasonable - I think less than $60. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 6:21 pm, wrote: On Jan 8, 12:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 8:50 am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? Slight change of subject. I was perusing your small boat building web site and I find it quite impressive. You should be very proud of the various boats you have constructed. Are you intentionally generating an intermittent, 1/2 second, "gurgle" sound when the site is open? Before I go searching for what it is, please enlighten me. From some of the posts of yours I've read here, it sounds like some thing quirky you would do. In fact it's my counter which we got many moons ago he http://www.chami.com/html-kit/ in case you want to check it out.. Thanks for the info. There was quite a bit of "gurgling" going while I had your site open, you must be a popular guy. Once again, congrats on some really slick look craft. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 8:20*pm, "D.Duck" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 6:21 pm, wrote: On Jan 8, 12:27 pm, "D.Duck" wrote: wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 8:50 am, "RG" wrote: Please don't forget me! jherringatcoxdotnet Check your inbox. Well, this has drawn quite a bit of interest, can I see?? Slight change of subject. I was perusing your small boat building web site and I find it quite impressive. You should be very proud of the various boats you have constructed. Are you intentionally generating an intermittent, 1/2 second, "gurgle" sound when the site is open? Before I go searching for what it is, please enlighten me. From some of the posts of yours I've read here, it sounds like some thing quirky you would do. In fact it's my counter which we got many moons ago he http://www.chami.com/html-kit/ in case you want to check it out.. Thanks for the info. *There was quite a bit of "gurgling" going while I had your site open, you must be a popular guy. Once again, congrats on some really slick look craft.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - thanks;) |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:16:09 -0700, Jeff Burke
wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:50:21 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: FYI, just bought a supposedly good X-700 on ebay for $68.00 total cost. Came with a couple lenses, but will take mine too. Thanks again for the advice. I had already started to look for a repairman for my 102, but you sobered me up. If that's an SRT 102 you're talking about Garry's can refurb it for about $50. http://www.garryscamera.com/ The 102 is a camera worth fixing too. Yes, it's an SRT 102. In researching a while back I read that aging leather and other non-metal parts can make them pretty expensive to fix properly. It's 34 years old now, and has recorded many, many memories. I might decide to give it a new lease on life yet. Just don't want to give it up. Whoa, Garry's is not more than 5 minutes from me! Hey Jeff, thanks a lot! --Vic |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:10:00 -0500, John H.
wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 04:38:12 GMT, Steve wrote: [...] If you make that change and just shoot jpeg normal (not even fine) quality, you'll have a hard time discerning the difference between raw and jpeg. Steve Other than the limitation as to number of pictures on a card, which are getting quite cheap, why would you not shoot everything in jpeg 'fine'. At least then you can crop segments of the shot or the whole shot if you want. The fine vs. normal distinction doesn't change the number of pixels, only the amount of compression. So you can still crop the same with either. I don't see hardly any difference between fine vs. normal so I make my life easier with smaller files. Less time to offload the pictures to the computer, less time to open them up in image editing programs, etc. Steve |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 13:09:34 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote: Looked at Craigs list for D200 prices. They have not dropped since the D300 came out. Actually most of the prices were very close to what a New York mailorder camera store will sell for new. The prices people are asking for on craigslist is a couple of hundred more than the final selling prices on ebay for the same thing. If you offer a few hundred less than the craigslist asking price, I'm sure they'll take it if they want to sell. Especially if they see what the ebay prices are. Steve |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:50:22 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:16:09 -0700, Jeff Burke wrote: On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:50:21 -0600, Vic Smith wrote: FYI, just bought a supposedly good X-700 on ebay for $68.00 total cost. Came with a couple lenses, but will take mine too. Thanks again for the advice. I had already started to look for a repairman for my 102, but you sobered me up. If that's an SRT 102 you're talking about Garry's can refurb it for about $50. http://www.garryscamera.com/ The 102 is a camera worth fixing too. Yes, it's an SRT 102. In researching a while back I read that aging leather and other non-metal parts can make them pretty expensive to fix properly. It's 34 years old now, and has recorded many, many memories. I might decide to give it a new lease on life yet. Just don't want to give it up. Whoa, Garry's is not more than 5 minutes from me! Hey Jeff, thanks a lot! While the SRT-102 is nice (my brother used to have one many moons ago) the X-700 is a much nicer camera. Just make sure the metering is accurate. You may have to dial in a different ISO than your film speed to get properly exposed shots. That's the easiest way to put in a consistent exposure compensation with a film camera. A test reel is important when you first try out a new to you camera. Vary the exposures shot to shot (make sure you take notes on what you did so you can compare the results) and see what looks best. An X-700 for $68 really is the way to go rather than fixing up an SRT-102 for the same price. But if it has sentimental value, go for it. Sounds like you got a great deal. Steve |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:06:49 GMT, Steve wrote:
A test reel is important when you first try out a new to you camera. Vary the exposures shot to shot (make sure you take notes on what you did so you can compare the results) and see what looks best. Thanks, Steve. Will do. --Vic |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 7:31*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:04:46 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:52:17 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Just got off the phone with Olympus. The bill to repair my E-300, flat rate, is $310 plus 6% tax which brings it to $328.60!! Damn. So much for that camera. You think camera repair people should work for wal-mart wages? No - I don't expect that. I do expect a reasonable rate to replace the viewfinder glass and upload the latest software. It seems to me that 2/3s of the cost of the camera new (as of 2 1/2 years ago) is a bit excessive. My point and shoot Olympus 35 mm had a sticky switch on the lens. *Was 2 weeks past warranty when I sent it back. *They wanted $5 less than a new one, and only warranteed the camera for 6 months as opposed to a year with a new camera. *Last Olympus I bought. I've never had a problem with an Oly and when I had my OM-1 cleaned, it was very reasonable - I think less than $60.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have a circa early 80's MX 700 Minolta if you wanted to play with it for a while, let me know, I will dig it up. Should be in mint or close condition. What I really liked about that body was the button on the side that would allow you to visually adjust your depth of field and exposure. I liked the split screen focus rings and the ability to set the stop to adjust +or- at the time of exposure.. It was a real neat camera but I never really used it much except for a couple of Indy races and such.. |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 9, 10:51*am, wrote:
On Jan 8, 7:31*pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 16:04:46 -0800, "CalifBill" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message .. . On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:52:17 -0500, HK wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: Just got off the phone with Olympus. The bill to repair my E-300, flat rate, is $310 plus 6% tax which brings it to $328.60!! Damn. So much for that camera. You think camera repair people should work for wal-mart wages? No - I don't expect that. I do expect a reasonable rate to replace the viewfinder glass and upload the latest software. It seems to me that 2/3s of the cost of the camera new (as of 2 1/2 years ago) is a bit excessive. My point and shoot Olympus 35 mm had a sticky switch on the lens. *Was 2 weeks past warranty when I sent it back. *They wanted $5 less than a new one, and only warranteed the camera for 6 months as opposed to a year with a new camera. *Last Olympus I bought. I've never had a problem with an Oly and when I had my OM-1 cleaned, it was very reasonable - I think less than $60.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have a circa early 80's MX 700 Minolta if you wanted to play with it for a while, let me know, I will dig it up. Should be in mint or close condition. What I really liked about that body was the button on the side that would allow you to visually adjust your depth of field and exposure. I liked the split screen focus rings and the ability to set the stop to adjust +or- at the time of exposure.. It was a real neat camera but I never really used it much except for a couple of Indy races and such..- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Great camera. I had one that I left on the top of my car, then drove off..... |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
Steve wrote:
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 03:15:53 GMT, "RG" wrote: Yes, I have a D200. And it's awesome. Mate it up with the 18-200 VR zoom lens and you have the ultimate walk around camera. I shoot with a D200 and the 18-200 VR as well. I'm extremely happy with the outfit and am not ready to trade up at this time. However, if I was starting from scratch and shopping for a new camera, I'd spend the extra dinero for the D300. Well, if I was shopping for new and money wasn't much of an issue, I'd spend the extra dinero and get a D3. There, you have a huge jump in capability over practically anything else and if you really are a discriminating professional photographer, it's worth the price. Otherwise, no. While the D300 is well worth the price when compared to the list price of a new D200, it just didn't seem to me to be worth over twice what a D200 costs used. And I don't mind buying used. The one I got looks and works like new, with less than 4000 shutter actuations. At my price point, I had the choice between a used D200 vs. a new D80. The D200 is sooooo much better than the D80. I'm glad I went the way I did. I got the used D200, a brand new 18-200 VR lens and a brand new SB-600 speedlight for less than the cost of just a D300 body. I enjoyed you photos. RG Thanks. That's all that counts anyway. Steve What's the deal with the fountain in the teacup? Very amusing. DT |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:17:49 -0600, dt wrote:
Steve wrote: [...] What's the deal with the fountain in the teacup? Very amusing. DT I think it's supposed to look like a spell concoction. If you look carefully, there's smoke coming out of it too. It's outside a witchcraft shop. There's a few of them in that town. Steve |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
On Jan 8, 9:46*am, "RG" wrote:
sorry about the long email address. you could link me at: sawdust @ smallboats com Done. Hey, those are just incredible. My whole family was summoned to take a look, they were not dissappointed. Nice job. Anyway, ever think of posting them on line? I know they are big, but I have a couple of servers and plenty of bandwidth if you want to make them available to folks easier. I also have a great web based software package you could use to upload and make thumbnails, catergories, indexed catalogues, password protected albums, etc.. Neat little package, very straight forward... Let me know if you want to play, it's free, my dime... although it really does not cost me anything either;) |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
wrote in message ... On Jan 8, 9:46 am, "RG" wrote: sorry about the long email address. you could link me at: sawdust @ smallboats com Done. Hey, those are just incredible. My whole family was summoned to take a look, they were not dissappointed. Nice job. Anyway, ever think of posting them on line? I know they are big, but I have a couple of servers and plenty of bandwidth if you want to make them available to folks easier. I also have a great web based software package you could use to upload and make thumbnails, catergories, indexed catalogues, password protected albums, etc.. Neat little package, very straight forward... Let me know if you want to play, it's free, my dime... although it really does not cost me anything either;) _______________________________ I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I was beginning to wonder if you were able to download the file since I hadn't heard back from you. I haven't heard anything back from Eisboch either. I hope he got the file downloaded as well. The eBook was a special project, designed to be very concise and somewhat limited in scope. It was my first stab at such a project. I did it for my own gratification as a hobby project and with the idea of distributing the book via CD-ROM to friends, family and clients as a slick little Christmas gift. In my estimation, it has succeeded nicely on those counts. But I never really intended it for any sort of mass distribution or commercial intent, although I've been told by more than a few that it is worthy of such. As I've mentioned to a few via email, the hardest part of the project was culling to 90 or so photos in the book down to a manageable level that would be considerate of the reader's time and level of interest. I shot somewhere in the vicinity of 4000-5000 photos during those two road trips, and eventually culled those down to just under 1,000 "keepers". The real chore was choosing just 10% of those for the book. Suffice it to say that many images of the same quality as those in the book were left behind, although that's hardly anything new when editing a photo book. I appreciate your offer to make the eBook available on your website, but I think I'll decline for now. I'm not sure I can explain just why, but for now I'd like to retain a level of control over the distribution of the book. Who knows what I may want to do with those images at a later date. A modest career in photography once I retire is a possibility. So for now, I think I'd just as soon make it available as a gift for those that I think would appreciate it and simply ask for it. I've been meaning to subscribe to an image hosting web site such as Smugmug and put together a portfolio of my images, but I just haven't had the time. It was all I could do to get the eBook done in time for Christmas card mailing. Again, thanks for your kind comments and offer of web hosting, and I hope you continue to enjoy the book and share it with your family and friends. Russ |
Holy Camera BAtman!!
"RG" wrote in message m... I'm glad you enjoyed the book. I was beginning to wonder if you were able to download the file since I hadn't heard back from you. I haven't heard anything back from Eisboch either. I hope he got the file downloaded as well. Regretfully I haven't Russ. I never got the link although I watched the email closely. Eisboch |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com