|
spf3million posted:Why the gently caress does everyone add an extra e to the end of lens? I can let a few typos pass without comment but jesus, it's spelled "lense" so often that I'm questioning whether it's actually spelled "lens" at all. Am I actually the idiot who's misspelling it all the time? I just swap between them, sometimes mid-paragraph. I like lense better, though, since that's how I've spelt it since I was a young'n. On that note, I was telling an excellent story last weekend, in my own house, and this guy, one year older than me, invited by some acquaintance, stopped me and said "listen, sorry, it's actually "nickon", not "nighkon". Sorry, it was annoying me. Continue." and I just poo poo on him for 10 minutes or so until he was clenching and unclenching his fists, stood up and walked out. Apparently he spent something like $60 on cab fare going home. What made him just stand up and walk out is when I turned off the music and quizzed him loudly on which dictionary we were supposed to use and like, ended up yelling drunkenly about y being e in old english and how we should be using a transcribed word list from the thirteenth century god knows we don't evolve so our language never should either. I feel bad now, though. I should have just plied him with spiked drinks and pissed on him when he passed out.
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Helmacron posted:I feel bad now, though. I should have just plied him with spiked drinks and pissed on him when he passed out. You say Nickon I say Nighkon, let's yell at each other until one of us leaves. How do you say bokeh? That's the normal photo nerd slap fight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 06:32
|
|
|
The actual proper proper way is more like "knee-cone".
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 06:38
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just swap between them, sometimes mid-paragraph. I like lense better, though, since that's how I've spelt it since I was a young'n. I want to party with you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just swap between them, sometimes mid-paragraph. I like lense better, though, since that's how I've spelt it since I was a young'n. Seriously - where the gently caress do you live - we need to drink tequila.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 06:47
|
|
|
Australians always say nick-on but I dont think anyone actually knows the proper way to say it. Nor do we give a poo poo. Unless an american says nigh kon then we will just argue for the sake of it. loving americans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 07:05
|
|
|
Sushi in Yiddish posted:I imagine a future in which the ipod can be slotted into the back of a apple-manufactured camera and used as a wireless screen for live view, image storage and remote control. And you can only access your photos via iTunes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 07:11
|
|
|
Nikon's own television adverts in the Western markets pronounce it Nigh Con. It is Knee Con in native Japanese. Not unlike lense, which is probably the British spelling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 07:18
|
|
|
I'm in the market for a good Crumpler bag and while their American website looks informative their British website is so loving indie http://www.crumpler.co.uk 
Tincans fucked around with this message at 08:37 on Sep 2, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 08:32
|
|
|
Tincans posted:I'm in the market for a good Crumpler bag and while their American website looks informative their British website is so loving indie Their old Australian website (they're originally from Fitzroy in Melbourne I think) was a massive toilet where one could pull the handle to flush the page clean and make farting noises, girlfriends love it  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 12:44
|
|
|
pwn posted:Nikon's own television adverts in the Western markets pronounce it Nigh Con. It is Knee Con in native Japanese. Not as far as I'm aware! We need to perpetuate typos and misspellings when it comes to camera equipment so I can one day find an ebay auction for a cannon 24-70 eff2.8 lense for next to nothing
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 12:51
|
|
|
Helmacron posted:I just swap between them, sometimes mid-paragraph. I like lense better, though, since that's how I've spelt it since I was a young'n. To confuse your detractors just claim it's proto-Germanic or something. In fact the German word for lens is Linse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 20:35
|
|
|
Why hasn't this caught on yet? 1$ image stabilizer for any camera! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLlJl7TbXTA
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:10
|
|
|
ease posted:Why hasn't this caught on yet? 1$ image stabilizer for any camera! mostly because it doesn't really work
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:15
|
|
|
It's loving retarded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:16
|
|
|
I think you would be more likely to shake the camera trying to keep tension on the string than if you were just concentrating on not shaking the camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:30
|
|
|
I just tried two shots at 1 second, first holding the camera normally, then using the strap sort of like that, and it made a noticeable improvement.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:40
|
|
|
Yeah it actually does help stability quite a bit because the tension on the string not only braces the camera to a consistent height but also helps you keep the camera at a fairly consistent orientation. Obviously it's not as good as a tripod or even a monopod but in a pinch it's better than nothing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2010 23:59
|
|
|
The likely-to-have-it-when-you-need-it factor is important too. A monopod that's back in the car provides no stabilization.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 00:07
|
|
|
ease posted:Why hasn't this caught on yet? 1$ image stabilizer for any camera! It's been around for a long time, I think I first came across it in a book I was reading from the 50's or 60's.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Also, a friend of mine started this site (http://shutterspike.com/) a little while ago as a resource for people to share local shooting locations. Please feel free to goonrush it with useful content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2010 02:55
|
|
|
Here's a little E/N, hopefully nobody minds. I'm really bummed out with photography lately. It's the equipment. I know the saying is "it's not the equipment but the photographer that makes the image great", but having lovely equipment definitely hinders. My two lenses are a 28mm f/2.8 and 70-200 f/4, both manual focus and ridiculously soft at anything wider than f/8. The 28mm is a lens I can't complain too much about because it has tight focus at least, but the 70-200 is the range I find myself shooting most. Being manual focus is more of a pain than I had ever imagined, and the fact that the lens is push/pull means that it drops out of focus and zoom creeps at the drop of a hat. It's a lot of little things, but the all add up to an extremely frustrating shooting experience. I don't really have fun anymore because I feel like I'm fighting the equipment. I can easily remedy this by investing in some autofocus lenses, but I have absolutely no faith in Pentax's future so that's right out. My plan right now is to just dump the entire setup and go with a Nikon D90 + kit and work myself up to a nice setup with lenses I'll never need to replace. It's all a matter of money. So until I can scrape enough together, I'm almost afraid to go out shooting these days because it's so demoralizing. The worst part of all this is that this setup has completely ruined the manual focus experience for me. I have a Mamiya 645 that I rarely feel like taking out anymore because I'm so jaded on the whole man-focus experience. I know that's a stupid thing to say because the 645 was designed for mf and all, but I can't help myself. I kind of feel like I need to maybe switch subjects for now, go shooting some waterfalls or landscapes that are more doable with the setup I have. I think that's what I'm going to try to focus on. It's just so lame feeling like you're handicapped by your equipment when all you see around you is opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:23
|
|
|
Why on earth don't you have at least a 50mm f/1.8 with autofocus?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:31
|
|
|
HPL posted:Why on earth don't you have at least a 50mm f/1.8 with autofocus? I can't really justify sinking any more money into the existing setup :\
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:46
|
|
|
Ditching your Pentax kit (don't know which body it is) won't get you enough money to reinvest in a different line up, fyi. This is especially the case if you're shooting with manual focus lenses. The FA line is seriously great bang for the buck, but their prices have gone up a lot in the past few years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:49
|
|
|
Oh I'm not under the impression that I can recoup the cost to switch systems. It's just going to be a cost I'll have to eat. Body is the K10D. It should at least recoup enough to put a dent in the price of a new body though. And on the upside, at least I get to hang out with friends on photowalks and stuff. It's not all bad at least 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
Maybe because he said he is using Pentax and doesn't want to spend money on an AF lens because he know he is going to switch brand soon? Check out canon too, 40D has a tough body, live view and nice AF. All for around 500 bucks used. Their 50mm 1.8 AF is also dirt cheap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 07:53
|
|
|
I use my K10D to loan out to friends. That's about as much use as it gets nowadays. I'd look into FA lenses that come up on pentaxforums marketplace as there's typically reasonable deals to be had. FA zooms are pretty cheap and sharp (I got my FA telephoto for $40 that was lost somewhere in a ritz camera and have no complaints except it's not fast). If having slow, non-AF glass is your issues then you might be able to fix that for cheaper than a switch over unless you just want to borrow lenses from friends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
Long lens can be a bitch to manual focus with though :/ especially if you have a non fullframe viewfinder without microprism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 10:00
|
|
|
I feel the same way with my D40, autofocus is so indecisive I just don't bother most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 15:35
|
|
|
Got a Fotodiox Nikon to EOS adapter and borrowed a 80-200 f2.8 telephoto that no one uses from work: I have really got to start buying GOOD glass... My cheapo EF 70-300 non IS or USM tele can't do anything this sharp.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 16:10
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:especially now when the target resolution for most pictures wouldn't exceed whatever limits are on facebook or myspace. You don't even really need more than 5 mpix for that. I used to make 4x6 prints from my iPhone v1 and they looked fine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
brad industry posted:I used to make 4x6 prints from my iPhone v1 and they looked fine. Yeah, exactly. There isn't really a "need" for consumer cameras beyond maybe this or even like you say the last generation of cellphone cameras.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 19:58
|
|
|
Haven't seen it here, but some silliness: http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/04/iphone-4-gets-stuffed-inside-canon-slr-body/ Is it wrong of me that I'm almost infuriated that somebody would go through all that, and repeatedly call it a Cannon camera.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 22:35
|
|
|
Should I feel guilty for gratuitous use of the vibrance and clarity settings in Lightroom? In most shots I keep cranking former up like god knows what (plus some saturation attenuation on certain colors) and latter one also quite a bit. It's kinda cheating, but enough shots kinda look better to me like that 
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 22:52
|
|
|
Combat Pretzel posted:Should I feel guilty for gratuitous use of the vibrance and clarity settings in Lightroom? In most shots I keep cranking former up like god knows what (plus some saturation attenuation on certain colors) and latter one also quite a bit. It's kinda cheating, but enough shots kinda look better to me like that I felt the same way, but with some time and experience (and critique from here via PAD and some lightweight photo courses), I have dialed back on them and I'm even trying to experiment some more in the opposite direction with some low desaturation. Definitely know where you are coming from, though, and I'll still make liberal use of my good slider friends for the right shots. Question for everyone: I've spent a lot of time scouring for Lightroom presets, and now have an immense collection of which only 4-5 are any good, and everything seems like an eyesore. Do you guys have any particular favourite general purpose or specific use presets, as opposed to general collections of presets? Anyone care to share? Can post a couple of mine when I'm back at my home Lightroom installation. Had some good luck with this one, plus a bit of tinkering to lower the vignette/recovery. http://x-equals.com/blog/?p=262 Piquai Souban fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Sep 4, 2010 |
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 23:08
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Haven't seen it here, but some silliness: That was first thing I saw too, but I probably wouldn't have noticed if I didn't spend so much time in this forum. And for content: http://awkwardfamilyphotos.com/  I wouldn't actually mind staging a photo like this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2010 23:32
|
|
|
Speaking of DIY image stabilization, I'm thinking about getting a head holding gyro for an RC helicopter, attaching a screw that will thread into the tripod screw. Maybe cram it into a hollowed out battery grip. Also, I'm noticing a couple of Forums Cancer avatars in The Dorkroom belonging to people who actually contribute here, and if you find it's impeding your browsing experience, add this to Firefox's usercontent.css file or get the Personalized Web extension for chrome and add it: td.postbody .cancerous { opacity: 1 !important; }
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 00:42
|
|
|
Shmoogy posted:Haven't seen it here, but some silliness: That also annoy me much more than it should. Even more than the silliness of combining all the bad points of an iphone with all the bad points on a DSLR. That I don't mind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 07:55 |
|
|
Martytoof posted:I can't really justify sinking any more money into the existing setup :\ Yeah, it would have been fine a couple of years ago before the 50/1.4 doubled in price ($200 > $400), but it just seems their lenses haven't been updated in ages. I think they're going to announce a new body at Photokina, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2010 11:33
|
|
