v.anisimov

"...We're based in Brisbane..."

 

Why am I not surprised. Evry time I hear about a dodgy deal, it just has to be in sunny Qld!. Must be the heat.

"...I will sit, wait and ponder..."

 

Great plan.

I think you've answered your own question. Try Sony.

 

On a side note, I never thought of camera purchases as investment. Depreciating assets - maybe, toys for boys - yes.

Correction (in case an ATO officer is reading this) - I was told it's consedered a non-claimable hobby if it's infrequent and non-core to your income - something like that. Check with a tax agent to be sure.

Thanks Andy. I think a hood (and baseball caps) are as useful in low light as in full sunshine. Example, if I go for a walk at night, the light from street lamps is very intrusive and my eyes hurt. Hence I usually wear a cap to shield from stray light. Same with lenses, they don't need any light from the sides.

Put the 5D in a clean plastic bag from adepartment store. Put it back in when you're finished taking puctures. This way, your tatal exposure to the elements will be minimised.

 

Also, a plastic bag with something in it will not attract any attention.

From the ATO perspective, to claim money you have to spend money. You have to use your camera to earn your TAXABLE income before you can claim. Check with a tax agent, I was surprised at the definion of HOBBY. Basically, if you shoot a few weddings a year, you might as well not declare any income from it as it's not regular enough. If you do calaim, camera depreciates over a long period (a few years - check with a tax agent). All in all, I find Australian taxation truly draconian.

Duh! [one Duff too many] ...In "aperture priority" mode set an aperture small enough for the effect...

In "aperture priority" mode to set an aperture small for the effect. Neutral density filters might also help.

 

Personally, I can't stand the "white water" effect - too corny, overused, easily achieved, etc

"...show the difference a lens hood makes..."

 

The easiest way is to wear a baseball cap on sunny day. Put it on, take it off - can you see a difference? See how it's easier for your eyes?

 

"...directly from the front..."

 

I don't think a lense hood (or a baseball cap) are going to help with DIRECT light.

Not porn at all. A very modest image, in my view.

 

However, this could become a big deal if you're accessing such images behind a corporate firewall.

No problems, Pak. You can easily check this yourself. For example, my 20D images are 3504 x 2336 pixels. Divide 3504 by 2336 = 1.5, same as 3/2. This will print natively as 15 x 10 cm.

 

Point & shoot digitals are usually in 4 x 3 format.

Oi

Images from Canon dSLRs are already in the "3 x 2" format. You don't need to change anything.

Minolta 5D, not Canon

Somehow, the SONY logo on an SLR looks wrong

1. RAW only. I tried RAW+JPG but found JPGs become redundant. Might as well shoot JPG in the first place.

 

2. JPG. Properly saved, there's virtually no loss. (TIF if you want to edit/resave later on. JPG is final output/storage).

Jochen - bear in mind that the "Soviet rangefinders" have been manufactured decades ago, bought locally by Soviet people, used and abused for years and then sold to Westerners for US$20 or less for FURTHER ABUSE. Compare this to their German equivalents that have been babied all the way, looked after, many never been used and kept as collectable investments... Which cameras do you think are more reliable?

So after a single episode with ONE camera and post "Rewinding trouble with Soviet rangefinderS"? (plural)

 

Big call, isn't it? There are millions of people using "Soviet rangefinders" who DON'T have a problem.

Format the card in-camera every time. Also, no need to start sentences with "Ok..."

"...bad Fstop..."

 

What are you on about? It's a 15-30 lens. The f3.5 may come handy when you're shooting wide-angle in low light.

Why would it be different? Also no need to capitalise "Still Life" or "Digital Camera"

RAW on point and shoots is the equivalent of a "rice" kit on a small car - spolers/mags/turbo/woofer whatever. Pointless and silly

I have a 20x30 print from Agfa Portrait 160. Looks great. Give it a shot.

 

I'd be more concerned about the method of printing rather than the type of film. Agfa 100 should be perfectly suitable for a proper OPTICAL print (enlarger/etc). If they use a typical minilab scanner (2000x3000pixels?)and then outpur to some kind of plotter - I'm not too sure!

Hope you get the issue resolved. Although I wouldn't be surprised if PN decide it's an IE issue and ask you to use Firefox:)