ray_vann

My uncle is considering purchasing a Coolpix 8700. However, I

noticed that the 5700 is quite a bit cheaper and seems very

comparable in features. The big difference is the 8 million pixels

vs. 5 million. However, I shoot a D100 with only 6 and have not felt

a strong need for more. The big drawback that I have regarding the

8700 is that the ISO range is 50-400 where as the 5700 ISO range is

100-800. I really like having the capability of ISO 800. Anyway, I

would really appreciate input from all of you 5700 and 8700 owners.

Let me know what you think so I can point him in the right direction.

More specifically....

 

When I search for photos from the last 24 hours by rating, it begins to freeze on me aroung the ninth page. Other times and places, it is just slow. The first few pages are always pretty rapid and then it becomes sluggish and eventually stops.

Is it just me or are we having a problem with photo.net? It seems

that the past couple of weeks the site has been VERY slow and today

I can't seem to get past the first few of pages of "Top Photos"

before is slowly grinds to a halt and freezes. I've been running

all kinds of virus and spyware searches looking to see if I have a

problem and have found nothing. Other sites seem to be doing just

fine for me, but PN is just not moving. It's not been very fun to

visit here lately. Please let me know if my situation is unique or

not so that I will know whether or not to look for a computer

problem.

Just playing around...<div></div>

Since I started this thread, I guess it's time to put my "money" where my mouth is...I'll volunteer 50 hours over a 90 day period.

This makes me very happy. This is what true debate is about, finding solutions. I had never thought of the category idea. A filter is nice, but a category solution would probably work even better. I realize that here and there a mis-categorized item might appear, but when I sit down with my daughter we can visit the top pets category, top nature category, etc. Then when she's gone to bed, I can check out the top nudes! :-)

To ADAM BERGER - I'm not "scared of flesh," and seeking improvement is not striving for perfection.

 

To AMUL KUMAR - I not sure how to respond to a person who's main concern is "being forced to look at poorly lit, center-auto-focused Family Outings To Dennys." To answer your question, "How do you think they'd feel when their work was labelled such (offensive)?" Well, just ask all of those people out there who have received a 1, 2 or 3 rating. See, we already have a mechanism for that.

 

To KEITH MERRILL - You wrote, "But this isn't about you raising your children, you are trying to raise me too, and I don't like it." You are a child. Grow up! If a movie is marked NC17, a rating that would tell me not to take my 7 year old to that film, does it keep you from seeing it? No! Does it trample on your rights? No! All it does is help me in raising my children. Does that hurt you? No!

 

To GABRIEL M. A. - A filter would be a jail sentence? Such drama! BTW, it's Washington, D.C.

 

To VINCENT K. TYLOR - Thanks. I will probably come across as too angry or hateful in this post too. I'm firm in my belief, I guess that makes me look angry. By the way, I chose to use "What the hell is this?!" because I knew it would get attention.

 

To ROBERT CHURA - Thanks for your input. "Better Fathers are guides not Dictators." I like your daughter's way of thinking. But does not the act of providing a choice (filter) compliment her statement rather than contradict it.

 

To GERALD WIDEN - You are exactly right. I just can't figure out why this is so difficult to understand.

 

To ALL - This is a healthy debate. While I will disagree with most of you, I respect your freedom. I love photo.net and see a need for improvement. What I am learning here is that while you expect me to be open minded about your artwork, you are not willing to be open minded about my suggestions. Put your emotions aside for a moment and think about it. A filter. If used correctly, does it not enhance your photo? "But wait, I don't want the fake look of that sunset sky that is too orange," you might say. My answer, don't use the filter. But would you wish to ban everyone from using filters? Of course not. Imagine a world were photo filters were not allowed? Crazy, huh? I am not for banning anything. However, many of you are....

I am posting a new post because the thread of responses to my

previous post is now so long. First of all, my apologies if I came

across angry or bitter and I should have stated the suggested

solution along with my complaint. Solution (as so many others have

stated): Filter.

 

What all of you out there who have decided to tell me how to parent

my child don't understand is that I am prescreening what my child

sees. This is why it has become a burden to share photo.net with my

daughter. She usually sits next to me at the computer and I have to

ask her to walk away while I click the next page of photos. Back and

forth, back and forth. Then the accident happens. Because this

image "Ghost" was so large, it was the last one to load and I (yes,

my mistake) told my daughter to return before the coast was clear

since I thought all was okay.

 

So many of you seem to miss the point with your thought that

photo.net never claimed to be a family oriented site and therefore

doesn't have to be a responsible site. The point is that with a

simple filter, it could be a family oriented site and would probably

gain much more support.

 

I must have misjudged the community of photo.net. I see such

beautiful images. Now I am seeing the other side of the camera and

more often than not, it is a rather ugly picture.

 

The last response to my original post basically said I should go

somewhere else. This will make many of you happy, but I guess that

is exactly what I will have to do.

 

And this parting statement will really upset a lot of you...God bless

you and photo.net. (I'm sure now I'll be labeled as a religious nut

or right-winger, but so be it. Most of you have already labeled me

anyway.)

When I first came across photo.net, I was so excited. What a great

place to learn and share! I thought photo.net was the best thing in

the world when I first found it. I was more than happy to support

it financially. So, here I am tonight, with my 7 year old daughter,

helping her learn all about photography. Instead of explaining to

her the basics of composition or something like that, instead I have

to explain to her why there is a lady "spread eagle" with a ghostly

man fondling her breast and vagina (see Pierpaolo

Pessini's "Ghost"). I have about had it! There is a BIG

difference between a tasteful nude and this smut that keeps popping

up. It is time that somebody, ANYBODY becomes responsible and takes

some action when the line has been cross. IT HAS BEEN

CROSSED!!!!!!! Censorship? If that's what you want to call it, so

be it. You supporters of trash hide behind that censorship defense

as though it is some sort of sacred idol. All I care about is that

my daughter (as well as all other little learners) and I have a

place to learn about photography, not pornography. I'm sure this

opinion of mine will not gain popular support. After all, there

just aren�t too many people willing to stand up for what is right

and what is wrong these days. AGAIN, please understand, I�m not

talking about tasteful nudes such as Michael Cohen�s and Pedro G.

Cases� work. But please, put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself

if you would share crap like �Ghost� with your 7 year old daughter?

If you would, then you need help. If you would not, then why accept

it on photo.net?

Ooops. Typo. It is an 80-200mm, not 70-200mm.

I have a Nikon D100 and my largest lens is a 70-200mm f2.8 Nikkor AF-

D (not an S). I would like to find a teleconverter for this

combination. Does anyone know of one that will allow you to use the

camera meter and/or autofocus? Thanks!

There is a fine line between art and porn...some photo.net images are crossing it! There is all of this talk about the definition of porn vs. art, but to me it is simple. I am teaching my 7 year old daughter photography. I do not mind questions such as, "Daddy, why does that lady have her shirt off?" That is not too bad. But I do not want to address the question of, "Daddy, why is that lady touching herself there." So to me it's simple. If it's art, it's okay for my daughter. Sad to say, more and more of the nude shots are crossing the line.

A couple of months ago, I woke up and asked myself the exact same question. Why Minolta? I quickly realized that I had no answer. I loved my equipment, but was very frustrated in waiting for the DSLR. So that day, I listed on eBay my Minolta Maxxum 9, Minolta APO 80-200 f2.8, Minolta 300mm APO and everything else in my house with the Minolta brand stamped on it. It all sold and I bought the same equipment in Nikon. I bought a D100, Nikon lenses and even a couple Sigma lenses. I haven't looked back.

 

I tend to get used to a brand and become a loyal patron. Well, Nikon, here I am, your new loyal patron. And to all of you who are holding on to your Minolta equipment, better start dumping it now...those Minolta resale values seem to be falling fast!