|
I'm looking to buy a DSLR camera for my friend who is into photography. Something for beginners, decent quality, produces nice photos and has a lot of fun photographer stuff to play with. As long as it's not total overkill (in performance and price) I'm happy. There's so many different cameras, and I'm not at all interested in this sort of poo poo, so I'm at a loss. On top of that, if I bought them a camera, do I have to buy lenses too? This poo poo goes right over my head, so I've got no idea. I just want a nice gift idea for someone I've been good friends with for almost 10 years. I'm lucky in the sense that they haven't got a DSLR camera of their own, so I could literally buy anything and not worry about wasting money on getting gear they already have. Qubee fucked around with this message at 13:46 on May 2, 2018 |
#
?
May 2, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
There is an entire sub forum for photography, The Dorkroom in Finer Arts. Here is their Gear-buying megathread.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 14:31
|
|
|
Qubee posted:I'm looking to buy a DSLR camera for my friend who is into photography. Something for beginners, decent quality, produces nice photos and has a lot of fun photographer stuff to play with. As long as it's not total overkill (in performance and price) I'm happy. There's so many different cameras, and I'm not at all interested in this sort of poo poo, so I'm at a loss. This is a nice idea, but a very expensive gift. You probably don’t want to stick them with a crappy dslr that they’ll outgrow immediately, so a prosumer model is the way to go. And you should look for used for that. Check your local classifieds for cameras in the xxD range from Canon (50D and 60D should be around $400-600 with crappy kit lenses) or Nikon dxxx range. I’m not familiar with their line though. If you want to get them some nice glass, a prime lens like a 50mm/1.8 is the way to go and they’re only $150.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 14:36
|
|
|
Qubee posted:I'm looking to buy a DSLR camera for my friend who is into photography. Something for beginners, decent quality, produces nice photos and has a lot of fun photographer stuff to play with. As long as it's not total overkill (in performance and price) I'm happy. There's so many different cameras, and I'm not at all interested in this sort of poo poo, so I'm at a loss. What is your budget? And how rich is your friend? These are big variables, it's pointless to really answer the question without knowing. "Beginner" DSLRs stretch from probably around £150 to £600+ How flush your friend is also matters a lot, because if they are a genuine enthusiast, they will want to buy the lenses to go with their camera. Modern lenses are very pricey. Given that they don't have a DSLR already, I assume they are either totally new to photography or a bit strapped for cash. In which case, one of the primary buying criteria in my mind is backwards compatibility with vintage lenses, because decent ones can often be had for less than £50.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
tuyop posted:This is a nice idea, but a very expensive gift. You probably don’t want to stick them with a crappy dslr that they’ll outgrow immediately, so a prosumer model is the way to go. And you should look for used for that. Check your local classifieds for cameras in the xxD range from Canon (50D and 60D should be around $400-600 with crappy kit lenses) or Nikon dxxx range. I’m not familiar with their line though. If you want to get them some nice glass, a prime lens like a 50mm/1.8 is the way to go and they’re only $150. It's an expensive gift but they're a solid friend who have helped me get past a lot of poo poo through all these years, plus I've not gotten them anything for their past 4 birthdays... Crappy DSLR that they'll outgrow immediately is a good point, and the xxD advice is super helpful. Gives me something to look into. Jeza posted:What is your budget? And how rich is your friend? £400-600 is my budget, I'd say. I'm not sure how rich my friend is, they're recently-graduated rich, so probably not very. Your assumption about them being totally new is true, they've always had a passion for photography but never had the finances to back the hobby. They're really into it though and make do with phone camera stuff, but their pics are always lovely. I've got no idea about lenses, let alone the cameras themselves, so I appreciate you guys stopping me from dropping a wad of cash on something that becomes redundant after a few months. I'll head on over to the photography forums and repost this question there.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 14:56
|
|
|
tuyop posted:xxD range from Canon (50D and 60D should be around $400-600 with crappy kit lenses) or Nikon dxxx range. I’m not familiar with their line though. If you want to get them some nice glass, a prime lens like a 50mm/1.8 is the way to go and they’re only $150. If you want to buy used, the Canon 5D line (5D, 5D Mark II, 5D Mark III) is a pro camera, produced a beautiful image, and once the new version comes out (5D Mark IV) the pros all dump their old one and buy the new one and used values plummet. IMHO $500 on a Canon 5D Mk II is the best value in photography anywhere. The 50mm f/1.8 is the best value anywhere, everyone has one, it's easy to make pretty pictures with.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 16:23
|
|
|
photomikey posted:This is exactly what I was going to suggest. except I was assuming you would want to buy new. The 5D mkII is awesome and a great deal, but it uses a full size sensor instead of an APS-C so you either have to crop in post or buy lenses that take advantage of the large sensor. That larger sensor does mean advantages in basically all aspects of performance, though. Another trade off is weight but pff. If you have babbie arms just stick with your cell phone.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
First DSLR I bought was a second-hand D200 from a wedding photographer. It's well out of date now, but it's still notable to me as a camera that could easily crush other, lesser DSLR's if used as a brick, and still work flawlessly afterwards. It weighs about a kilo without a lens.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
Do mods have access to the name on the credit card you used to pay for your account or is that just admins? There's a new mod who I'm pretty sure has told me quite a few times in the past that I deserve to die or that I should kill myself, and I'm wondering if I should expect him to be sending copies of my posts to anyone he can find connected to me in real life or something.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 04:08
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Do mods have access to the name on the credit card you used to pay for your account or is that just admins? There's a new mod who I'm pretty sure has told me quite a few times in the past that I deserve to die or that I should kill myself, and I'm wondering if I should expect him to be sending copies of my posts to anyone he can find connected to me in real life or something. what the gently caress maybe talk to an admin about this, it wouldn't be the first time a mod has gone off the rails
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 08:06
|
|
|
He wasn't a mod at the time, and it's on a different board than the one he mods, and he's just one of like half a dozen people that do it somewhat regularly, and I don't have plat anymore so I haven't gone back and searched to see if he's even for sure one of the people who specifically do it. It's not a big deal really, I'm not complaining or trying to get anything changed, and if there's even any damage done then it's too late now, I'd just like to know.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 08:30
|
|
|
If you kept nuking the same spot, would it just keep getting more radioactive indefinitely? (Where "more radioactive" is something like "you die faster if you visit it a year later".) Maybe more scientifically, is there a limit to how radioactive something can be? Are there materials that can't be irradiated? I know there's the science forum but I found nothing when I searched online so I figure my questions belong here more.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 10:06
|
|
|
uvar posted:If you kept nuking the same spot, would it just keep getting more radioactive indefinitely? (Where "more radioactive" is something like "you die faster if you visit it a year later".) It depends a bit on what you mean with 'kept nuking'. Radioactivity decays over time. After X time, you will have half of your radioactivity compared to your starting point (that's why we talk in 'half-life' of radioactive particles). If a nuclear weapon creates A amount of radioactive particles, after X time you will have 0,5*A radioactive particles. If you fire 5 identical nukes you create 5*A radioactive particles, and after X time you will 2,5*A. This is more than 0,5*A obviously, but over time this will even out; Say we take 5*X times, then you will have; 1 nuke = A radioactive particles at start but only 0.03*A left after 5*X time. 5 nukes= start with 5*A radioactive particles but only 0.15*A left after 5*X time. The longer X time you take, the closer those two values of radioactive particles left will come together. Now, theoretically, if you dump a near-infinite amount of nukes at the same spot at the same time you could build up your starting radioactive particles so high (a lot)*A that it would take a shitload of time (a lot)*X to decay. But it would not be indefinite. The other interpretation of 'kept'; if you keep nuking the same spot after X times have passed you could keep the radiation levels high until you stopped nuking, when it would follow the normal decay time. edit for the other questions; In principle something being 'radioactive' means that it has an unstable atom. This means that over time, the atom will try to fall into a stable configuration and in doing so emits something (can be light, can be an electron, can be a proton or neutron) at such energies that it is dangerous to life. In principle I think you could 'irradiate' anything if you pick your irradiating (so; make unstable) system carefully enough, but some things are definitely easier to irradiate than others. I'm not confident enough in my material science to give specific examples though. Namarrgon fucked around with this message at 10:27 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
don't different types of radiation-causing elements have vastly differing half-lifes? one thing might have a half-life of 2 minutes, another might have one of 500 years
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
Qubee posted:don't different types of radiation-causing elements have vastly differing half-lifes? one thing might have a half-life of 2 minutes, another might have one of 500 years Yes? You're asking the question wrong but wait what thread is this? Polonium is super crazy But seriously I did a whole paper on the Atomic Energy Commission and welp they were mostly sure that an atomic bomb wouldn't ignite atmospheric nitrogen And they dodged that or you and I wouldn't be alive. But also there are four types of ionizing radiation and those are the ones you worry about. Non-ionizing radiation like your microwave is harmless and can't damage your cells. Alpha, beta gamma neutron Just watch this https://www.mirion.com/introduction-to-radiation-safety/types-of-ionizing-radiation/ And this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTJ7AzBIJoI If you worry about radiation worry about this dang sun problem
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 11:01
|
|
|
If you cut the insides of your fingers and bandaged them together, would they heal to each other and form flippers?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 12:00
|
|
|
Qubee posted:don't different types of radiation-causing elements have vastly differing half-lifes? one thing might have a half-life of 2 minutes, another might have one of 500 years Yes. But if you irradiate your whole area with a mixture of radioactive particles it is easiest to just take the one with the longest half time. In the case of 2 minutes vs 500 years effectively all of your '2 minutes'-substance will be gone in the first 500 years anyway.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 12:25
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:Do mods have access to the name on the credit card you used to pay for your account They don't
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 12:38
|
|
|
Qubee posted:don't different types of radiation-causing elements have vastly differing half-lifes? one thing might have a half-life of 2 minutes, another might have one of 500 years Technically speaking every element in existence is a radiation-causing element with a differing half life. Everything decays. Even particles that make atoms decay. The reason materials we think of as "radioactive" are dangerous is because of the amount of radiation they give off. You are sitting in radiation right now. You are always sitting in radiation. Background radiation is mild enough that it doesn't hurt you and there are "radioactive" materials that you can hang around for a surprising period of time before they have any possibility of doing damage. Radiation in and of itself doesn't cause problems; it's the amount of it that causes problems. But yeah, there are elements that decay in times measured in nanoseconds while others have half lives measured in centuries but give off enough radiation to be dangerous. Common, stable elements decay so slowly that it's difficult or impossible to measure. We're talking half lives in the trillions of years in some cases.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:12
|
|
|
I’m minded to pay attention to ToxicSlurpee when they talk about deadly radiation 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:14
|
|
|
Robokomodo posted:If you cut the insides of your fingers and bandaged them together, would they heal to each other and form flippers? you can certainly have fingers heal in a way that they get stuck together if they are bandaged badly, though you wouldnt have a functional "flipper" just a painfully deformed hand
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Robokomodo posted:If you cut the insides of your fingers and bandaged them together, would they heal to each other and form flippers? Yes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 14:27
|
|
|
I have a drive on a Windows 10 computer that's entirely used for file storage (ie, no system files). I want to share this drive on the network with two authentication levels: 1) Guests have read access to specific folders. 2) Registered users (with the Windows login) have read/write access to the entire drive. What's the best way to set this up? Client computers will be using macOS if it makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 17:03
|
|
|
PRADA SLUT posted:I have a drive on a Windows 10 computer that's entirely used for file storage (ie, no system files). I want to share this drive on the network with two authentication levels: samba and nfs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhc2XfDn4K4&t=63s can someone please tell me what song this background bit is a sample of? it sounds very very familiar. ignore the lyrics, the background music just seems so familiar like it's taken from a popular song and sampled by these guys. Qubee fucked around with this message at 21:47 on May 3, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
tuyop posted:Yes. He sounds pretty sure. Ask him how he knows.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
Hipster_Doofus posted:He sounds pretty sure. Ask him how he knows. I took triathlons very seriously. 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 04:34
|
|
|
Hipster_Doofus posted:He sounds pretty sure. Ask him how he knows. Hi Hipster Doofus, I haven't been following whichever threads you post in lately but uh this is weird, just Hi m8
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
Qubee posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhc2XfDn4K4&t=63s Try the "identify a song" thread, a lot of questions are about samples. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=2388112
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 17:23
|
|
|
Is it even a sample in the song? Am I retarded?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
Kevin DuBrow posted:Try the "identify a song" thread, a lot of questions are about samples. thank you xoxo Jeza posted:Is it even a sample in the song? Am I retarded? there has to be, the background beat is so familiar, it's driving me crazy!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
If you're talking about the main beat and the sounds in it, it's probably from a sample pack- these are collections of beats, loops and sounds that beatmakers/producers use to make music. Sometimes the sounds within the pack such as a snare hit may have been sampled from existing songs though. There's a few middle eastern style percussion ones so there's a good chance you'll have heard that loop in another tune without it actually being a direct sample, if that makes sense? They're sorta like construction kits for making tunes, to the extent where its becoming increasingly common for sample packs to not just be a collection of short snippets and loops but entire song sections that can be put together. Some very popular songs have used 'stock' sounds that came with software, a good example would be Rhianna's 'Umbrella' which used one of the drumloops that comes with Garageband. NonzeroCircle fucked around with this message at 23:25 on May 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
That was an awesome reply, but drat I hope it's not true. Cause if that's the case, I feel like I'm never gonna get closure on this and the song is forever going to annoy me now. Maybe it's just a sample pack that I've heard in loads of other songs, but I just can't remember which. Because it just seems so eerily familiar, deja vu levels, and I want to find the other song that has it so it stops bugging me when I hear it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2018 23:38
|
|
|
What exactly are you referring to as the background? Because god drat if it doesn't sounds absolutely familiar to me as well. That progression of notes in 3/4: DAHHH-dah, rest, DUHHH-dah, rest, DOHHH-dah, rest, DEE-dah, rest, DUHHH-dah... Is that the part you mean? Whether it is or not this is gonna drive me crazy now too, so thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 00:50
|
|
|
Hipster_Doofus posted:What exactly are you referring to as the background? Because god drat if it doesn't sounds absolutely familiar to me as well. That progression of notes in 3/4: DAHHH-dah, rest, DUHHH-dah, rest, DOHHH-dah, rest, DEE-dah, rest, DUHHH-dah... Is that the part you mean? Whether it is or not this is gonna drive me crazy now too, so thanks! That's exactly the part that's mindfucking me! I'm glad I'm not the only one, but I'm really sorry to have dragged you into this. It was thrust upon me, so I figured I'd spread the pain. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obuz7XUG7mU someone said it sounds similar to this, which it does, and it kind of scratches the itch. But the more I listen to the two side by side, the more I realise it's not quite there 
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 01:34
|
|
|
Is there any way to check when a site you don't own has the most traffic (times of the day and days of the week)
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
There's like a forums meme of saying: "You loving idiot. You moron." and like, maybe more vitriolic stuff, but always the idiot / moron combo, and it's usually when someone's made a really innocent mistake, and it makes me laugh every time. I was just wondering if it was from anything or codified in any way, or just another SA thing.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
!Klams posted:There's like a forums meme of saying: https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 Possibly a reference to this?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 11:47
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:https://twitter.com/dril/status/473265809079693312 Oh, yeah, maybe its Imbecile not idiot! That makes sense, yeah. Who's this Wint guy? I see quotes from him on a few forums?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
!Klams posted:Oh, yeah, maybe its Imbecile not idiot! That makes sense, yeah. Who's this Wint guy? I see quotes from him on a few forums?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 16:19
|
|