Need help selecting digital camera
Newsgroup,
I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * The camera will be used mostly for documentation of things like scope traces, printed circuit traces, control panel pictures, and some field test items that may be in bright sun. Light levels run from normal room lighting to bright sun. Speed from stationary, to oscilloscope display, to moderately fast moving (1/30s to 1/250s typically). * Users of the camera vary between no photography experience, to a fair amount of experience. That said, the camera should be as simple to use as possible because I don't want people spending time tweaking settings. * Picture size is typically 5 in. by 7 in. some are larger. * Budget is limited and I would like to stay at $100 (U.S.) or less. * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Some cameras that I'm considering are the ones that will be on sale for black Friday. They a http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...83 2852010904 http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...16 2793659556 Nikon Coolpix L18 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Olympus Stylus 760 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Kodak EasyShare C913 9MP 2.5" LCD With Free Canon Photo Printer, $79.99 at Staples Casio EX-Z9 8.1MP Digital Camera - $99.99 at K-Mart (Thur. only) Kodak EasyShare MX1063 10MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Zoom - $89.00 Target Thanks for any serious suggestions. Dave |
Need help selecting digital camera
"Dave Boland" wrote in message ... Newsgroup, I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * The camera will be used mostly for documentation of things like scope traces, printed circuit traces, control panel pictures, and some field test items that may be in bright sun. Light levels run from normal room lighting to bright sun. Speed from stationary, to oscilloscope display, to moderately fast moving (1/30s to 1/250s typically). I can't offer any real recommendations but from taking pictures of scopes traces you'll need a camera with a good and easy focus at short distances of around 50cm or so. So check how easy/good the macro function is. We have brought LCD scopes that have built in USB ports for direct printing and saving the trace as an image file. I brought a canon G10 last week, haven't used it much yet, but did get a reasonable picture of a blown op-amp. easier to manually focus than my old S70 but I'd still prefer a good olde fashion focusing ring around the lens and a sturdy tripod. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
Newsgroup, I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * Picture size is typically 5 in. by 7 in. some are larger. * Budget is limited and I would like to stay at $100 (U.S.) or less. * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Nikon Coolpix L18 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Olympus Stylus 760 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Kodak EasyShare C913 9MP 2.5" LCD With Free Canon Photo Printer, $79.99 at Staples Casio EX-Z9 8.1MP Digital Camera - $99.99 at K-Mart (Thur. only) Kodak EasyShare MX1063 10MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Zoom - $89.00 Target Thanks for any serious suggestions. www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:08:02 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote: Dave Boland wrote: Newsgroup, I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * Picture size is typically 5 in. by 7 in. some are larger. * Budget is limited and I would like to stay at $100 (U.S.) or less. * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Nikon Coolpix L18 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Olympus Stylus 760 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Kodak EasyShare C913 9MP 2.5" LCD With Free Canon Photo Printer, $79.99 at Staples Casio EX-Z9 8.1MP Digital Camera - $99.99 at K-Mart (Thur. only) Kodak EasyShare MX1063 10MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Zoom - $89.00 Target Thanks for any serious suggestions. www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. Looking at his conditions, I would rule out the Casio because it doesn't use AA batteries. The Olympus is not rated well at all. Of that group, the Nikon is the most likely to produce good "macro" photos. I'd go with the Coolpix L18. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
Need help selecting digital camera
Alan Browne wrote:
Dave Boland wrote: Newsgroup, I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * Picture size is typically 5 in. by 7 in. some are larger. * Budget is limited and I would like to stay at $100 (U.S.) or less. * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Nikon Coolpix L18 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Olympus Stylus 760 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Kodak EasyShare C913 9MP 2.5" LCD With Free Canon Photo Printer, $79.99 at Staples Casio EX-Z9 8.1MP Digital Camera - $99.99 at K-Mart (Thur. only) Kodak EasyShare MX1063 10MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Zoom - $89.00 Target Thanks for any serious suggestions. www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, hence, ppi, not dpi. I know you are capable of making this distinction, so just do it instead of arguing how unimportant it is to you. It may be important to some who are trying to learn digital processing. -- lsmft Coach: "Are you just ignorant, or merely apathetic?" Player: "Coach, I don't know, and I don't care." |
Need help selecting digital camera
McPhotos wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, Please read more carefully next time. The tie in is his desire for 7x5 prints and the arithmetic provided (and restored above) makes the link clear enough. Take your annon-nym and blow. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Alan Browne wrote:
McPhotos wrote: Alan Browne wrote: www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, Please read more carefully next time. You simply don't get it, or you're too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Neither is becoming. The tie in is his desire for 7x5 prints and the arithmetic provided (and restored above) makes the link clear enough. The conclusion is all right, but you're confused on dots and pixels; always have been. Take your annon-nym and blow. My bad on the latter; am trying new newsfeeds, and normally sign in full, as you know. In the case of intransigents, I sometimes use the dismissive "lsmft". -- John McWilliams |
Need help selecting digital camera
John McWilliams wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: McPhotos wrote: Alan Browne wrote: www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, Please read more carefully next time. You simply don't get it, or you're too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Neither is becoming. Please read below very carefully. The tie in is his desire for 7x5 prints and the arithmetic provided (and restored above) makes the link clear enough. The conclusion is all right, but you're confused on dots and pixels; always have been. Not at all. I am not confused. Merely redacting what is of little use to the OP. Rather than being anally precise about terms, I focused on what seems to be important to the OP ... somebody who probably is not all that interested in what happens between the shutter click and the printer. And that's what I refer to: how well will the sensor translate to the printer. Explaining all the interim crap in the middle is of no value to anyone, least of all this OP. So, John, at due risk of falling in your killfile, F U C K O F F O N T H I S I S S U E. Cheers, Alan. -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
Need help selecting digital camera
McPhotos wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: snip for brevity For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: text erased by "McPhotos" 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. /text erased by "McPhotos" Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, hence, ppi, not dpi. I know you are capable of making this distinction, so just do it instead of arguing how unimportant it is to you. It may be important to some who are trying to learn digital processing. It's pretty darn obvious what Alan Browne intended, the fact that DPI was confused for PPI is really neither here nor there. I would only suggest that slightly more resolution is ideal, especially if you want to crop off extra image detail that isn't relevant to your intended final image and that 6MP or 8MP would be a better idea. I'm also not sure that there are many new cameras which are made with less than 10MP anyway. I feel that the most important bit these days is to see how easy the controls are to manipulate and how easy it is to navigate to alter the settings to your liking. This can only be done by actually going to a real shop and testing for yourself. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Alan Browne wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Alan Browne wrote: McPhotos wrote: Alan Browne wrote: www.dpreview.com is a very good place for you to winnow your choices. For good prints at 5x7 and reasonable at 8x10 consider a camera with about 300 dpi potential output: 5 x 300 = 1500 7 x 300 = 2100 X = ~ 3 Mpixels. So any 4 or 5 Mpix camera that otherwise meets your needs should suffice. Cameras do not have dpi output. Digital images are composed of pixels, Please read more carefully next time. You simply don't get it, or you're too arrogant to admit you're wrong. Neither is becoming. Please read below very carefully. The tie in is his desire for 7x5 prints and the arithmetic provided (and restored above) makes the link clear enough. The conclusion is all right, but you're confused on dots and pixels; always have been. Not at all. I am not confused. Merely redacting what is of little use to the OP. Rather than being anally precise about terms, I focused on what seems to be important to the OP ... somebody who probably is not all that interested in what happens between the shutter click and the printer. And that's what I refer to: how well will the sensor translate to the printer. Explaining all the interim crap in the middle is of no value to anyone, least of all this OP. So you maintain. I disagree, and will continue tilting at the occasional windmill; others can learn and use correct terms, even if you have to defend your errors ad nauseum. So, John, at due risk of falling in your killfile, F U C K O F F O N T H I S I S S U E. Cheers, Alan. Never! I correct folks on this minor minor nomenclature error as it will help those who are trying to learn, that pixels and dots are different. And you're far too important to be in my k-f, dontcha think? Chairs! -- john mcwilliams |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
Newsgroup, I need to get a digital camera to replace the Polorid 600, and would appreciate any help. Some information about the camera use to help guide the comments: * The camera will be used mostly for documentation of things like scope traces, printed circuit traces, control panel pictures, and some field test items that may be in bright sun. Light levels run from normal room lighting to bright sun. Speed from stationary, to oscilloscope display, to moderately fast moving (1/30s to 1/250s typically). * Users of the camera vary between no photography experience, to a fair amount of experience. That said, the camera should be as simple to use as possible because I don't want people spending time tweaking settings. * Picture size is typically 5 in. by 7 in. some are larger. * Budget is limited and I would like to stay at $100 (U.S.) or less. * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Some cameras that I'm considering are the ones that will be on sale for black Friday. They a http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...83 2852010904 http://www.walmart.com/catalog/produ...16 2793659556 Nikon Coolpix L18 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Olympus Stylus 760 Digital Camera - $99.99 at Ritz Kodak EasyShare C913 9MP 2.5" LCD With Free Canon Photo Printer, $79.99 at Staples Casio EX-Z9 8.1MP Digital Camera - $99.99 at K-Mart (Thur. only) Kodak EasyShare MX1063 10MP Digital Camera w/ 3x Zoom - $89.00 Target Thanks for any serious suggestions. Dave Thanks for all the responses. Some have been very helpful. I regret the anger that it caused some, but that is life. To clear up one thing, I do understand analog scopes very well. My concern was that the readers of this forum would not. I agree, capturing a trace is challenging. Currently I do it with my Nikon film camera, but it is a pain to have to get the film developed because it takes time. A digital would be good, but I also agree that it is wise to take my time and investigate the cameras before I buy. Hope everyone had a good Thanksgiving (U.S.). Dave, |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
* Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Get the Canon A590IS. It's $102. "http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120256&CMP=AFC-C8Junction" Use "CAMERA118" coupon for $8 off. It has everything you need. If you need more manual control you can use CHDK firmware on it. |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:41:57 -0800, SMS wrote:
Dave Boland wrote: * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Get the Canon A590IS. It's $102. "http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120256&CMP=AFC-C8Junction" Use "CAMERA118" coupon for $8 off. It has everything you need. If you need more manual control you can use CHDK firmware on it. Oh goody, our resident google-photographer is back. He'll do all our googling and look up things in manuals for us. It's as close as he ever personally gets to anything photography related. Let's let him live out his phantasy while being our internet coolie, gofer, and grunt. Yes, even virtual-photographer trolls can have their uses. FETCH, BOY! Good boy, atta boy. Now go lay down in your cage until we need you again. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Bernstein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 10:41:57 -0800, SMS wrote: Dave Boland wrote: * Features that seem important a - Easy to use is number 1, which includes controls and menus. - Very good quality pictures (focus, exposure, color) important. - Very reliable. - Easy to use in the sun. I like viewfinders for this, but... - Optical zoom of 3 to 1 or better. - Batteries that can be obtained at 'mart's is a must. - Easy to down-load to P.C. or printer, and quickly. - Macro would be nice for close-ups of circuit card failures. - Manual controls would be nice, at least for some of us. Get the Canon A590IS. It's $102. "http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16830120256&CMP=AFC-C8Junction" Use "CAMERA118" coupon for $8 off. It has everything you need. If you need more manual control you can use CHDK firmware on it. Oh goody, our resident google-photographer is back. He'll do all our googling and look up things in manuals for us. It's as close as he ever personally gets to anything photography related. Let's let him live out his phantasy while being our internet coolie, gofer, and grunt. Yes, even virtual-photographer trolls can have their uses. FETCH, BOY! Good boy, atta boy. Now go lay down in your cage until we need you again. I don't see how this is helpful. If you have a better idea, then let's hear it. Otherwise, it may be time to refocus you energy. Dave (OP) |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:30:38 -0600, SmarterGuy wrote:
For those of you that aren't aware of another problem caused by focal-plane shutters, which is not a limitation of leaf-shutters, do a simple experiment. A tube-type TV is nothing more than an oscilloscope running at a set 50Hz or 60Hz. Photograph the screen of your CRT type television (the tube-type display, not LCD or other) with a DSLR camera and then a P&S camera at 1/500 shutter speed. In the DSLR you'll see a bent block of scan-lines in your image. The faster the shutter speed that you use the more easily you'll see this distortion This is caused by the agonizingly slow passage of that focal-plane shutter's slit across the sensor. Using a P&S camera with a leaf-shutter you'll see a nice even block of properly recorded scan-lines. This is how leaf-shutter accuracy was easily tested for true speeds a few decades ago. Count the full TV scan-lines recorded and there's your accurate shutter speed. (Calculated from your display's refresh-rate in your country. 50Hz or 60Hz) Minor Correction/Clarification: If the slit of the focal-plane shutter is moving parallel to the scan lines on the TV (or CRT computer monitor) display then you may not first see the bent-block distortion caused by the typical horizontally moving focal-plane shutters of the past. But it also won't reveal the true shutter speed either by trying to count the scan lines. This is because if the shutter's slit is moving parallel with the forming scan-lines then they will be either compressed or expanded vertically. (Just as a diver diving into a pool of water will be compressed or stretched a bit, distorted, by being photographed with a focal-plane shutter camera.) In many modern cameras the focal-plane shutter was changed from a horizontal motion to a vertical motion to increase apparent speed. The narrower distance of the image-frame being a shorter distance to traverse, doing so "faster" at the same speeds as all of last-century's shutter curtains. If you don't notice this distorted curved block of TV/CRT scan lines when photographed with your dSLR at shutter speeds faster than x-sync, just tilt the camera to portrait mode and shoot again. There will be your direct evidence of focal-plane shutter distortion. In some focal-plane shutter designs faster speeds were obtained by reorienting the shutter's slit from being parallel to one side of the frame to a more diagonal orientation. Then this distortion will show up in either orientation of the camera, landscape or portrait. For example, see this $43,000 Hasselblad M8 camera's focal-plane shutter: http://www.farines-photo.com/wp/wp-c...shutter_m8.png (I guess it's true, you do get what you pay for. Even more chance of distortions by paying higher prices. The focal-plane shutter distortions, now happening in both orientations of the camera caused by the Hasselblad's diagonal shutter, being just one of the many problems with the M8 camera. The M8's problems are voluminous. Most images no better than a $70 discount-store bubble-pack camera that hangs from a display hook. Now don't forget, "You get what you pay for!" :) Keep saying that. It might come true one day. Then you'll be able to finally justify why you spend so much money.) This distortion doesn't just happen at speeds above x-sync either. If you study the TV/CRT scan-line image carefully you will notice that you get distorted ghosted (lesser exposed) scan-lines from the partial exposure as the individual curtains slowly open and close too. Just because the full frame is fully open at one point doesn't mean the full frame is completely exposed during the total exposure at all times. The focal-plane shutter design, no matter how it is implemented, is fraught with problems. This being just one of many. Leaf-shutter cameras/lenses have none of these problems. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. Some have been very helpful. I regret the anger that it caused some, but that is life. To clear up one thing, I do understand analog scopes very well. My concern was that the readers of this forum would not. I agree, capturing a trace is challenging. Currently I do it with my Nikon film camera, but it is a pain to have to get the film developed because it takes time. A digital would be good, but I also agree that it is wise to take my time and investigate the cameras before I buy. I remember in high school electronics class we had a Polaroid Scope Camera. It was a really good deal at the time compared to the ones the scope companies sold. I think you'll just need to fashion some sort of a hood for the camera and play with the manual settings, and perhaps use CHDK. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
I don't see how this is helpful. If you have a better idea, then let's hear it. Otherwise, it may be time to refocus you energy. Dave (OP) LOL, since when has our favorite troll ever been helpful? Especially since unlike him, I actually have used digital cameras for scope traces (though thankfully now I use digital storage scopes!). Anyway, there's some other reasons why something like the A590 would be suitable. There is a way to attach extension lenses and tubes, and such a device would be very helpful in fashioning a hood that fits over the scope tube and onto the camera. And as I stated before, if you need more manual control, at least on the Canon models there's a way to get it. Yeah, a lot of the CHDK stuff is geeky, but some of it is quite useful, especially when you're doing out of the ordinary stuff like this. Look at "http://www.truetex.com/tektronix_xg_polaroid_oscilloscope_hood_adapter.pd f" for some ideas, and remember it's much easier if the digital camera is designed for lens tubes and conversion lenses. |
Need help selecting digital camera
SMS wrote:
Dave Boland wrote: Thanks for all the responses. Some have been very helpful. I regret the anger that it caused some, but that is life. To clear up one thing, I do understand analog scopes very well. My concern was that the readers of this forum would not. I agree, capturing a trace is challenging. Currently I do it with my Nikon film camera, but it is a pain to have to get the film developed because it takes time. A digital would be good, but I also agree that it is wise to take my time and investigate the cameras before I buy. I remember in high school electronics class we had a Polaroid Scope Camera. It was a really good deal at the time compared to the ones the scope companies sold. I think you'll just need to fashion some sort of a hood for the camera and play with the manual settings, and perhaps use CHDK. I've used those devices on the older Tek. scopes. They work well. The hood provided the correct focal length and kept out extraneous light. The hood had to fit the bezel of the scope display. I'm not worried about ambient light or focal length because I can controll both of them. Dave, |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:50:30 -0600, Arnie_R_Ungers
wrote: If the slit of the focal-plane shutter is moving parallel to the scan lines on the TV (or CRT computer monitor) display then you may not first see the bent-block distortion caused by the typical horizontally moving focal-plane shutters of the past. But it also won't reveal the true shutter speed either by trying to count the scan lines. This is because if the shutter's slit is moving parallel with the forming scan-lines then they will be either compressed or expanded vertically. (Just as a diver diving into a pool of water will be compressed or stretched a bit, distorted, by being photographed with a focal-plane shutter camera.) In many modern cameras the focal-plane shutter was changed from a horizontal motion to a vertical motion to increase apparent speed. The narrower distance of the image-frame being a shorter distance to traverse, doing so "faster" at the same speeds as all of last-century's shutter curtains. I suppose you could test the true speed of a focal-plane shutter with this method. Just determine your shutter's direction of travel. If top to bottom then orient that to the TV/CRT display, top to bottom. Your motive is to align the shutter's slit to be parallel with the scan-lines of the display. Take a picture. Now flip the camera upside down to show the other extreme of this compression and expansion distortion created by all focal-plane shutters. Take the average number of scan-lines between both images and that could be used to test the accuracy of your shutter. If the shutter's direction of travel is horizontal then hold the camera in portrait mode. One shot one way, the next shot with the camera turned 180-degrees. If you use a slanted-slit focal-plane shutter as in that who-on-earth-would-be- stupid-enough-to-buy-that-thing Hasselblad, then you'll have to determine the angle of that moving slit and make it parallel with the scan-lines on your TV/CRT display. Again, taking one of each, the second shot with camera turned 180-degrees from the first one. |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 22:41:53 -0600, Joey Pilsner
wrote: who-on-earth-would-be- stupid-enough-to-buy-that-thing Hasselblad Don't you know? One of those intelligent PRO photographers. LOL The same kind of "Pros" that all their blind followers in this newsgroup strive emulate. |
Need help selecting digital camera
Dave Boland wrote:
Thanks for all the responses. Some have been very helpful. I regret the anger that it caused some, Huh, who got angry about this?! but that is life. To clear up one thing, I do understand analog scopes very well. Wow, analog scopes. I remember those! Lately the times I've found I've needed a picture of a scope trace it's to prove something that isn't retriggerable at a regular frequency, but is a one time event based on an abnormal trigger. I remember the old analog storage scopes with the special screens that would store one trace were useful for this. The problem you're going to run into is controlling the camera shutter to get the actual trace you want. For lower frequencies, i.e. less than 50 MHz, the inexpensive PC based digital storage scopes I've seen at shows like Embedded Systems Conference would be a great alternative to trying to use a digital camera. There are combination storage scopes/logic analyzers for less than $600 ("http://www.usbee.com/ax.html"). There's one really low frequency scope from Parallax for around $150. |
|TROLL| Need help selecting digital camera
samueld wrote:
Joey Pilsner wrote: Arnie_R_Ungers wtote: SmarterGuy wrote: LOL Wow, a 4-way conversation with yourself. |
|TROLL| Need help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:37:12 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
samueld wrote: Joey Pilsner wrote: Arnie_R_Ungers wtote: SmarterGuy wrote: LOL Wow, a 4-way conversation with yourself. Dear Resident-Troll, Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts: 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras. 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens. 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks. 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results. 6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence. 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ) 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.) 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks. 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.) 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day. 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.) 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera. 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. 20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned. 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more. 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth. 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience. 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day. 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace. There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it. The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." |
|TROLL| Need help selecting digital camera
Paul Furman wrote:
samueld wrote: Joey Pilsner wrote: Arnie_R_Ungers wtote: SmarterGuy wrote: LOL Wow, a 4-way conversation with yourself. Only 4 this time? Has he started recycling names yet? |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 00:53:30 -0800, SMS wrote:
Paul Furman wrote: samueld wrote: Joey Pilsner wrote: Arnie_R_Ungers wtote: SmarterGuy wrote: LOL Wow, a 4-way conversation with yourself. Only 4 this time? Has he started recycling names yet? Dear Resident-Troll, Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts: 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras. 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens. 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks. 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results. 6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence. 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ) 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.) 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks. 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.) 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day. 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.) 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera. 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. 20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned. 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more. 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth. 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience. 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day. 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace. There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it. The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:50:30 -0600, Arnie_R_Ungers
wrote: On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:30:38 -0600, SmarterGuy wrote: For those of you that aren't aware of another problem caused by focal-plane shutters, which is not a limitation of leaf-shutters, do a simple experiment. A tube-type TV is nothing more than an oscilloscope running at a set 50Hz or 60Hz. Photograph the screen of your CRT type television (the tube-type display, not LCD or other) with a DSLR camera and then a P&S camera at 1/500 shutter speed. In the DSLR you'll see a bent block of scan-lines in your image. The faster the shutter speed that you use the more easily you'll see this distortion This is caused by the agonizingly slow passage of that focal-plane shutter's slit across the sensor. Using a P&S camera with a leaf-shutter you'll see a nice even block of properly recorded scan-lines. This is how leaf-shutter accuracy was easily tested for true speeds a few decades ago. Count the full TV scan-lines recorded and there's your accurate shutter speed. (Calculated from your display's refresh-rate in your country. 50Hz or 60Hz) Minor Correction/Clarification: If the slit of the focal-plane shutter is moving parallel to the scan lines on the TV (or CRT computer monitor) display then you may not first see the bent-block distortion caused by the typical horizontally moving focal-plane shutters of the past. But it also won't reveal the true shutter speed either by trying to count the scan lines. This is because if the shutter's slit is moving parallel with the forming scan-lines then they will be either compressed or expanded vertically. (Just as a diver diving into a pool of water will be compressed or stretched a bit, distorted, by being photographed with a focal-plane shutter camera.) In many modern cameras the focal-plane shutter was changed from a horizontal motion to a vertical motion to increase apparent speed. The narrower distance of the image-frame being a shorter distance to traverse, doing so "faster" at the same speeds as all of last-century's shutter curtains. If you don't notice this distorted curved block of TV/CRT scan lines when photographed with your dSLR at shutter speeds faster than x-sync, just tilt the camera to portrait mode and shoot again. There will be your direct evidence of focal-plane shutter distortion. In some focal-plane shutter designs faster speeds were obtained by reorienting the shutter's slit from being parallel to one side of the frame to a more diagonal orientation. Then this distortion will show up in either orientation of the camera, landscape or portrait. For example, see this $43,000 Hasselblad M8 camera's focal-plane shutter: http://www.farines-photo.com/wp/wp-c...shutter_m8.png (I guess it's true, you do get what you pay for. Even more chance of distortions by paying higher prices. The focal-plane shutter distortions, now happening in both orientations of the camera caused by the Hasselblad's diagonal shutter, being just one of the many problems with the M8 camera. The M8's problems are voluminous. Most images no better than a $70 discount-store bubble-pack camera that hangs from a display hook. Now don't forget, "You get what you pay for!" :) Keep saying that. It might come true one day. Then you'll be able to finally justify why you spend so much money.) This distortion doesn't just happen at speeds above x-sync either. If you study the TV/CRT scan-line image carefully you will notice that you get distorted ghosted (lesser exposed) scan-lines from the partial exposure as the individual curtains slowly open and close too. Just because the full frame is fully open at one point doesn't mean the full frame is completely exposed during the total exposure at all times. The focal-plane shutter design, no matter how it is implemented, is fraught with problems. This being just one of many. Leaf-shutter cameras/lenses have none of these problems. Regardless of how much technobabble you read, the above rarely if ever happens in real life. Never, except as an exremely rare oddity. |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:12:45 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:50:30 -0600, Arnie_R_Ungers wrote: On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:30:38 -0600, SmarterGuy wrote: For those of you that aren't aware of another problem caused by focal-plane shutters, which is not a limitation of leaf-shutters, do a simple experiment. A tube-type TV is nothing more than an oscilloscope running at a set 50Hz or 60Hz. Photograph the screen of your CRT type television (the tube-type display, not LCD or other) with a DSLR camera and then a P&S camera at 1/500 shutter speed. In the DSLR you'll see a bent block of scan-lines in your image. The faster the shutter speed that you use the more easily you'll see this distortion This is caused by the agonizingly slow passage of that focal-plane shutter's slit across the sensor. Using a P&S camera with a leaf-shutter you'll see a nice even block of properly recorded scan-lines. This is how leaf-shutter accuracy was easily tested for true speeds a few decades ago. Count the full TV scan-lines recorded and there's your accurate shutter speed. (Calculated from your display's refresh-rate in your country. 50Hz or 60Hz) Minor Correction/Clarification: If the slit of the focal-plane shutter is moving parallel to the scan lines on the TV (or CRT computer monitor) display then you may not first see the bent-block distortion caused by the typical horizontally moving focal-plane shutters of the past. But it also won't reveal the true shutter speed either by trying to count the scan lines. This is because if the shutter's slit is moving parallel with the forming scan-lines then they will be either compressed or expanded vertically. (Just as a diver diving into a pool of water will be compressed or stretched a bit, distorted, by being photographed with a focal-plane shutter camera.) In many modern cameras the focal-plane shutter was changed from a horizontal motion to a vertical motion to increase apparent speed. The narrower distance of the image-frame being a shorter distance to traverse, doing so "faster" at the same speeds as all of last-century's shutter curtains. If you don't notice this distorted curved block of TV/CRT scan lines when photographed with your dSLR at shutter speeds faster than x-sync, just tilt the camera to portrait mode and shoot again. There will be your direct evidence of focal-plane shutter distortion. In some focal-plane shutter designs faster speeds were obtained by reorienting the shutter's slit from being parallel to one side of the frame to a more diagonal orientation. Then this distortion will show up in either orientation of the camera, landscape or portrait. For example, see this $43,000 Hasselblad M8 camera's focal-plane shutter: http://www.farines-photo.com/wp/wp-c...shutter_m8.png (I guess it's true, you do get what you pay for. Even more chance of distortions by paying higher prices. The focal-plane shutter distortions, now happening in both orientations of the camera caused by the Hasselblad's diagonal shutter, being just one of the many problems with the M8 camera. The M8's problems are voluminous. Most images no better than a $70 discount-store bubble-pack camera that hangs from a display hook. Now don't forget, "You get what you pay for!" :) Keep saying that. It might come true one day. Then you'll be able to finally justify why you spend so much money.) This distortion doesn't just happen at speeds above x-sync either. If you study the TV/CRT scan-line image carefully you will notice that you get distorted ghosted (lesser exposed) scan-lines from the partial exposure as the individual curtains slowly open and close too. Just because the full frame is fully open at one point doesn't mean the full frame is completely exposed during the total exposure at all times. The focal-plane shutter design, no matter how it is implemented, is fraught with problems. This being just one of many. Leaf-shutter cameras/lenses have none of these problems. Regardless of how much technobabble you read, the above rarely if ever happens in real life. Never, except as an exremely rare oddity. It only never happens to someone that lives on usenet and has never owned a camera. Or if they do own a camera they don't know how to use it for anything but photographing one of their 25 kitty-cats. |
Need help selecting digital camera
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:13:06 -0600, jerry-r
wrote: On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:12:45 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote: On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 18:50:30 -0600, Arnie_R_Ungers wrote: On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:30:38 -0600, SmarterGuy wrote: For those of you that aren't aware of another problem caused by focal-plane shutters, which is not a limitation of leaf-shutters, do a simple experiment. A tube-type TV is nothing more than an oscilloscope running at a set 50Hz or 60Hz. Photograph the screen of your CRT type television (the tube-type display, not LCD or other) with a DSLR camera and then a P&S camera at 1/500 shutter speed. In the DSLR you'll see a bent block of scan-lines in your image. The faster the shutter speed that you use the more easily you'll see this distortion This is caused by the agonizingly slow passage of that focal-plane shutter's slit across the sensor. Using a P&S camera with a leaf-shutter you'll see a nice even block of properly recorded scan-lines. This is how leaf-shutter accuracy was easily tested for true speeds a few decades ago. Count the full TV scan-lines recorded and there's your accurate shutter speed. (Calculated from your display's refresh-rate in your country. 50Hz or 60Hz) Minor Correction/Clarification: If the slit of the focal-plane shutter is moving parallel to the scan lines on the TV (or CRT computer monitor) display then you may not first see the bent-block distortion caused by the typical horizontally moving focal-plane shutters of the past. But it also won't reveal the true shutter speed either by trying to count the scan lines. This is because if the shutter's slit is moving parallel with the forming scan-lines then they will be either compressed or expanded vertically. (Just as a diver diving into a pool of water will be compressed or stretched a bit, distorted, by being photographed with a focal-plane shutter camera.) In many modern cameras the focal-plane shutter was changed from a horizontal motion to a vertical motion to increase apparent speed. The narrower distance of the image-frame being a shorter distance to traverse, doing so "faster" at the same speeds as all of last-century's shutter curtains. If you don't notice this distorted curved block of TV/CRT scan lines when photographed with your dSLR at shutter speeds faster than x-sync, just tilt the camera to portrait mode and shoot again. There will be your direct evidence of focal-plane shutter distortion. In some focal-plane shutter designs faster speeds were obtained by reorienting the shutter's slit from being parallel to one side of the frame to a more diagonal orientation. Then this distortion will show up in either orientation of the camera, landscape or portrait. For example, see this $43,000 Hasselblad M8 camera's focal-plane shutter: http://www.farines-photo.com/wp/wp-c...shutter_m8.png (I guess it's true, you do get what you pay for. Even more chance of distortions by paying higher prices. The focal-plane shutter distortions, now happening in both orientations of the camera caused by the Hasselblad's diagonal shutter, being just one of the many problems with the M8 camera. The M8's problems are voluminous. Most images no better than a $70 discount-store bubble-pack camera that hangs from a display hook. Now don't forget, "You get what you pay for!" :) Keep saying that. It might come true one day. Then you'll be able to finally justify why you spend so much money.) This distortion doesn't just happen at speeds above x-sync either. If you study the TV/CRT scan-line image carefully you will notice that you get distorted ghosted (lesser exposed) scan-lines from the partial exposure as the individual curtains slowly open and close too. Just because the full frame is fully open at one point doesn't mean the full frame is completely exposed during the total exposure at all times. The focal-plane shutter design, no matter how it is implemented, is fraught with problems. This being just one of many. Leaf-shutter cameras/lenses have none of these problems. Regardless of how much technobabble you read, the above rarely if ever happens in real life. Never, except as an exremely rare oddity. It only never happens to someone that lives on usenet and has never owned a camera. Or if they do own a camera they don't know how to use it for anything but photographing one of their 25 kitty-cats. I don't have any kitty-cats and I have yet to see any instances of focal plane shutter distortion, except as a very rare oddity that someone has published. IOW, it never manifests itself in real-life photography, so it is a totally moot point. But one well-documented and genuine disadvantage of FP shutters is lack of high speed flash synch. However, photographers have been dealing with that issue for decades, it's never been a show stopper. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com