bobatkins

Could be fungus or could just be hairs! If it's fungus it will get worse with time. If you see the "hairs" appearing to come (and/or radiate) from the "dust spots", then it's most likely fungus. If the hairs look like single hairs, then they may well just be hairs. That lens probably isn't worth having cleaned since it would likely cost more to have it prefessionally cleaned than a new (used from ebay) lens would cost. Usual advice to kill fungus is exposure to UV light (sunlight or UV lanp). That will halt the progress (if it is fungus), but won't remove what's already there.

<p>It's an option for whoever initially set up the forum, not for users. Historically it's usually been set to "most recent thread first". Only the forum moderator can change it (if they want to).</p> <p>When I said "you can set...", the "you" I was referring to was the person creating the forum. Sorry for any confusion. I'm not aware of any functioning option that allows a user to select the order.</p>

<p>It's an option when setting up a forum. You can list threads new to old or old to new along with a few other options such has how long to list a thread on the index page.</p>

<p>Just on a historical note, the Nature forum has always welcomes posts on Landacape Photography as well as Macro Photography (which is usually nature related). Why that forum isn't used by those who want to discuss those topics is another question entirely of course.</p> <p>My experience with forums (which dates back to the days of rec.photo on Usenet in the 80s and 90s) is that people often want forums so that can read more about a topic that write about it. That, of course, doesn't lead to the desired outcome, so if you ask for a forum, please do your post to post to it on a regular basis.</p>

<p>Technically, it's #3 below, though these days most people would probably avoid such usage in this context. "Charitable" might be a better term. Sounds like a bug in the software rather than a feature...</p> <blockquote> <h2>Full Definition of Christian</h2> </blockquote> <ol > <li> <p >1a : of or relating to <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/christianity">Christianity</a> <<em>Christian</em> scriptures>b : based on or conforming with Christianity <<em>Christian</em> ethics></p> </li> <li> <p >2a : of, relating to, or being a Christian <<em>Christian</em> responsibilities>b : professing Christianity <a <em>Christian</em> affirmation> <a <em>Christian</em> country></p> </li> <li> <p >3: <em><strong> commendably decent or generous</strong></em> <has a very <em>Christian</em> concern for others</p> </li> </ol>

<p>I've never had the slightest problem with Canon rebates. I've always gotten the full rebate within the time-frame they specify. I must have done this a dozen times with never any problem. Many of the rebates were for multiple items.<br> Of course I sent then all the documents for any one rebate in their own envelope. Mixing up rebate forms is asking for trouble.<br> You won't sue them of course, just badmouth them on forums.</p> <p> </p>

<p>David - I don't know that there is any such mechanism anymore, but I'm not involved with advertising on the site. If you want a particular item and want Photo.net to receive credit you can try typing the item name into the search box and selecting "equipment store" from the drop down list of where to search. Maybe you'll get a hot, maybe you won't. These days it seems the links mainly go to Amazon or Beach Camera.</p> <p>Check your inbox ( http://www.photo.net/community/inbox ) for a PM</p> <p>If there is a way to go through Adorama, maybe Glenn can tell you how to do it.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Filters are either global or, in some cases, forum specific. Contact the forum moderator if you think a forum specific filter is inappropriate.</p>

<p>If you want sub second accuracy, shoot pictures of a clock/watch/stopwatch with a sweet second hand (or digital display). Presumably once you've calibrated things in this way they will stay the same. Almost any time lapse system will be based on digital timing so my guess is that it will be very accurate.</p> <p>Canon EXIF data records the time to the nearest second anyway.</p>

<p>There's an FAQ here - http://www.photo.net/info/frequent-questions and some community guidelines here - http://www.photo.net/info/guidelines/</p> <p>That might help. Documentation here isn't as good as it could be. There are no videos.</p> <p>Asking a question here is often the bast way to get information.</p>

<p>I didn't want to ignore the question, but I have no idea of the current status. As far as I know, PN 2.0 is still in the pipeline, but other than that I have no information.</p>

<p>I guess it developed a fault, or some change to the system (libraries?) caused a problem with reading the EXIF data. Luckily Jin is a wizard with these things and spotted the problem. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!</p>

<p><strong>Update #2 - </strong> I contacted Jin and he took a look at the single file uploader. It should now be working and your Technical Data should be visible no matter which uploader you use.<br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong> </strong></p>

<p>Works fine for me. I just uploaded an image and the Technical Details page was fine. Are your <strong><em>certain</em></strong> that the images you are uploading contain EXIF information? Have you looked at them with an EXIF viewer or editing software that shows the EXIF info?</p> <p> I did notice that the EXIF data seems to have been stripped out of the displayed images - ut if was recorded in the Technical Details before being stripped out when photo.net downsized the full image<p> <p> <b>Update</b> - All is well if you use the bulk uploader - however the singe file uploader does appear to ignore EXIF data. I don't know if it's always been this way or not. Both seen to strip the EXIF data form the uploaded image, even if the image uploaded doesn't have to be downsized. <p> So the "solution" is to always use the bulk uploader if you want EXIF data to be decorded</p>

<p>It's not a matter of resolution affecting print size so much as the noise (which is more visible in larger prints) and the overall sharpness (which is a function of both resolution and contrast - both of which relate to MTF).</p> <p>All else being equal (which it never is), 6D prints will look better, especially large prints shot at higher ISO settings.</p> <p>However the reason I have is that there are times and application for which one better than the other. Neither one is "best".</p>

<p>Keep both. I have a 70D and a 6D. They are different cameras. Sometimes I'll choose the 6D, sometimes I'll choose the 70D. It all depends on what I'm shooting.</p> <p>It's like asking if a Ford F150 pickup is better than a Mazda Miata.</p> <p>If forced to have just one, I'd have a Mazda Miata and a 70D, but I don't carry direweed or make huge prints.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 has a weird and somewhat fragile AF system. They put full time manual focus on a micro-USM motor (not the usual ring-USM moter). It known for a decadency to break.</p> <p>See http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00R90I for example.</p> <p>There are lots of complaints about it but Canon will still charge you to repair it.</p> <p>If you want to try taking it apart yourself, see

<p>I think it should work now.</p>

<p>Thanks. I'll check that out. We've had some serious spam attacks and needed to add some extra security.</p>

<p>I didn't try any ultrafast AF bodies. I had a 70D, a 6D and an 7D (Mk 1) and I didn't see any difference in AF speed. AF is probably limited by the lens. At f6.3 blazing fact AF probably isn't likely. The Canon primes are faster.</p>