PhotoBanter.com - Digital Photography

Do Canon's competitors have something like CHDK? Time Lapse, etc?

Crash! — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 04:22:09 GMT

Do any of Canon's competitors have something like CHDK?
Feature-wise, I mean, in cheaper cameras?
Time Lapse, remote, motion detection, manual, long video,
etc?

My impression is, once CHDK is properly tweaked, it can
load at power-up every time, and remain transparent,
buried in the features menus until needed. Is that true?

I saw a video demo of motion detection (object falling into
bathtub water). It didn't seem very sensitive, a moving hand
didn't trigger. Is sensitivity adjustable? If so how much?

All the reviews I've seen so far don't seem objective. They
either say my hero, or crapola. Nor do I see practical
questions like these (here) addressed. Look and feel, etc.
Any pointers?

Thanks!

=========
in rec.photo.digital, Re: CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we
are talking.....;
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, calvin-torgen wrote:

> This is why I know that so many of you ...have never even ran CHDK.
> ... and take advantage of the hundreds of new features and immeasurable
> new creative possibilities that CHDK gives back to the world of
> photography.

Re: "Tonight, you men will sleep with your cameras!"

Ray Fischer — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:06:20 GMT

George Kerby > wrote:
>On 8/12/10 4:29 PM, in article
, "RichA"
> wrote:
>
>> "You will give your lens, a dog's name." (because that's how they
>> perform).
>>
>> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/100812...00mmemount.asp
>
>You have completely lost what was left of your mind.

You haven't even seen some of the disgusting filth he posts to other
newsgroups.

--
Ray Fischer

Re: Camera makers need to come unstuck from three things:

Ray Fischer — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:04:50 GMT

RichA > wrote:
>1. Fixed ISO values of 100, 200, 400. Most if not all have already

With all you know about business and cameras it's amazing that you
haven't created your own company and simply taken over.

--
Ray Fischer

Re: People who write serious articles about digital cameras

Charles[_2_] — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:51:25 GMT

It is sort of sad about you. You are rapidly loosing traction here and now
find yourself digging really deep to find fresh fodder for your mill.

Just quietly go away. It might be the most dignified of all options now
available to you.

You have crapped in your own nest too many times.

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about
> photography. I read another article where the author had to start a
> "Down Memory Lane" jag about film.
> They should no longer be wasting space including any comments on film
> cameras. Film is DEAD. It has been dead since Canon released the
> 30D. The nails in its coffin where pounded in when 8 megapixel DSLRs
> appeared. Some darkroom alchemist may be able to wring 8 megapixels
> of info out of 35mm film, but that is the absolute limit, lack of
> resolution being only one shortcoming of film. Film today is being
> rapidly abandoned by professionals and amateurs should do the same
> unless they are after some look film provides that digital can't, and
> today that covers very little ground. But if you are going to write
> some kind of comparison article, stick to digital versus digital,
> because comparing digital versus film is a useless exercise.

Re: Death of the DSLR-TROLLS

Neil Harrington[_5_] — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:06:18 GMT

DanP wrote:
> On Sep 1, 8:24 pm, TomTom > wrote:
>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 09:26:34 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Note that the Alpha 33 and 55 are "EVIL" ("Electronic Viewfinder
>>> Interchangeable Lens) cameras-
>>
>> You DSLR Trolls sure do love denigrating anything that's not a DSLR,
>> don't
>
> Even the people who likes them calls them EVIL.
> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/...tch-your-dslr/
> See the reference to compact cameras.

EVIL schmevil. Nothwithstanding those who like the term (apparently because
they think it's cute), it's not going anywhere.

Harrington's Famous Predictions #75,632: No camera manufacturer is going to
advertise or catalog any camera model as "EVIL."

H.F.P. #75,633: No serious photography periodical is going to adopt the term
either, though it may get an occasional mention here or there.

Re: Canon and Nikon mirrorless remind me of FOX and Disney at the inception of DVD

gamer_reg@yahoo.com — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:59:29 GMT

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 08:24:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA >
wrote:

>Sat on their greedy asses, let Warner Bros and MGM build the format
>and then they jumped in. Way to innovate! Same as always, I guess.
>Nikon and Canon haven't brought ANYTHING new to the table in the last
>10 years, they built only on other's work. Their saving grace
>(partially) is they do make good sensors. Or in Nikon's case, Sony
>does.

I imagine that would best correlate to you reminding me of
Neanderthals at the inception of the Homo Sapians.

Re: People who write serious articles about digital cameras

gamer_reg@yahoo.com — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:56:53 GMT

You mean as opposed to youorself?

Re: People who write serious articles about digital cameras

Robert Coe — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:45:44 GMT

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:20:21 -0700 (PDT), RichA > wrote:
: I'm speaking here about professionals who make a living writing about
: photography. I read another article where the author had to start a
: "Down Memory Lane" jag about film.
: They should no longer be wasting space including any comments on film
: cameras. Film is DEAD. It has been dead since Canon released the
: 30D. The nails in its coffin where pounded in when 8 megapixel DSLRs
: appeared. Some darkroom alchemist may be able to wring 8 megapixels
: of info out of 35mm film, but that is the absolute limit, lack of
: resolution being only one shortcoming of film. Film today is being
: rapidly abandoned by professionals and amateurs should do the same
: unless they are after some look film provides that digital can't, and
: today that covers very little ground. But if you are going to write
: some kind of comparison article, stick to digital versus digital,
: because comparing digital versus film is a useless exercise.

Is there a law in Ontario that compels you to read the articles written about
film? If not, why do you care? If so, your problems transcend photography, and
you ought to be out on the streets raising Hell instead of wasting your time
babbling to us.

Bob

First Eagle Shot Of The Season!!

Larry Thong — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 11:42:50 GMT

It looks like eagle season on the East Coast is starting early this year. I
wasn't ready for it, but was glad I had my trusty dSLR in hand when I
spotted this big guy above. He must be an old timer as he's the biggest one
I've ever seen. Anyone else spot eagles this time of year?

Agent puts my address in the from header

ckraftSPAMTRAP@west.net — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 08:58:11 GMT

rather than my name. I'd rather have it put my name there.

Version 6.00, just recovered from a severe unhandled exception error,
wiped out everything. Had to install agent from the beginning.

Re: how to choose a camera.....

bobwilliams — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:07:28 GMT

Val Hallah wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...ct-camera.html

Pity the poor newbie who follows that guide.
Totally useless (information?)

Bob Williams

Saint Rose of Lima

mmyvusenet[_2_] — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 23:13:30 GMT

Hello:

The last Monday in August was a holiday in Lima, and from a perspective of
history, I took the opportunity to take this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4943826462/

Thanks for your comments.

--
MMYV
http://www.mmyv.com

Re: Dpreview rejig's it's sample galleries to force you to endure more ads

OG — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 22:23:30 GMT

"RichA" > wrote in message
...
> The set-up before was perfect, you could simply jump from one to the
> next and see the Exif. Now it sucks. I guess Amazon wants more
> money out of them...
>
> http://dpreview.com/galleries/review...review-samples

You still can.

Re: Dpreview rejig's it's sample galleries to force you to endure more ads

Neil Harrington[_5_] — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 17:51:44 GMT

RichA Complaint # 134,786.

Re: Dpreview rejig's it's sample galleries to force you to endure more ads

Pete D — Sun, 05 Sep 2010 08:09:41 GMT