scottelly

<p>Andrew, you need to check into it a little more. The Apple displays are indeed special. They are Apple displays, and that means they are AMAZING!</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101218100340AA2rp2i</p>

<p>Oh, and for more modern info. http://www.apple.com/ca/displays/specs.html</p>

<p>Yes, it does not seem to have changed. Maybe the competition has caught up. This one looks pretty good:</p>

<p>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005494</p>

<p>The cheaper ones don't seem to either be as bright or produce the high resolution above 1920x1080, which the Apple displays are capable of achieving. Here's a nice Dell:</p>

<p>http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824260111</p>

<p>Don't sell your cameras just yet.</p>

<p>I would take the check, wait for it to clear, and then send him what you agree on. I would also tell him the price is higher now, because film developing and printing is more expensive now, so he has to pay a premium. There are still labs where you can get prints made. They are just few and far between now. You COULD get scans and have them printed as digital photos. Do you ever scan your own negatives? I would maybe offer him that service, telling him that would cost about the same, and you can give him digital versions of the photos on a thumb drive, so he will have them for the future.<br>

<br />If you don't want to do the work, you COULD just hand it all over to him, after his check clears, and give him the idea of getting the negatives scanned before trying to get prints made, so the prints don't cost him an arm and a leg. There is probably someone offering album creation services on-line or maybe even in his area. He could take the album and prints to them, if he likes.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Yes, and it is now available for pre-ordering at B&H. It says expected July 31.</p>

<p>Eric, why would the ISO have ANYTHING to do with the lens?</p>

<p>Yes, I've read that there are a LOT of fake SD cards out there. Meaning branded as a name brand card, but not really a legitimate name brand card. Weird, huh? You wouldn't think that would pay!</p>

<p>Looks GREAT! Thanks!</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>I think you would all do well to compare images from various lenses and the D800, D800E, and other cameras at a site like DPreview, or SLRgear.com. They have comparison tools that are quite helpful. Unfortunately, even their more scientific tests of lenses and cameras are flawed. I found that the playing card in the middle of the image, where the lens should be sharpest, actually makes the D800 look as though it shoots at lower resolution than a camera like a Nikon D5100 or D7000. That is, of course, absurd. If you look more closely, you will see that there is a depth-of-field or focusing issue, because some parts of the image look incredibly sharp. I have been comparing images from the Sigma SD1 with various cameras, including the Sony A77 and A65, the Nikon D5100 (and now the D5200), the Nikon D800 and D800E, and other cameras (like the Canon 5DMkIII and 7D). I have been pretty extensive in my research, reading articles and viewing sample images at multiple sites, downloading raw files and viewing them with various software, etc. I've found that there is very little perceivable difference in the image clarity between the 24 megapixel cameras and the D800. I have seen that the Sigma SD1, when used with a good lens can either produce detail that is as good or better than any of them, except the D800 and D800E. In my estimation, only Sony produces a 24 megapixel camera worth buying into a system, and Nikon builds a spectacular camera with two new cameras that make Nikon the almost clear choice (if you don't care so much about shooting a lot with a fold-out screen). Nikon gives the best combination of camera bodies and lenses. Canon just lags behind in the resolution and dynamic range areas, and they seem to be playing on the fact that they offer more variety of different cameras and low-end lenses. Canon sure does offer a lot of L lenses too! I have to admit that I really love Canon's L lenses, but Nikon is king, when it comes to auto-focus lenses. Zeiss, Schneider, and Leica may be kings of the manual focus world, but in my humble opinion, Nikon has a slight advantage in lens sharpness over Canon, especially in the wide-angle realm - my favorites being the 14-24mm f2.8 G and the 24-120mm f4 VR. (I think with those two lenses and maybe a D800 and a 135mm f2 DC I could be happy for the rest of my life . . . until I discover the joys of telephoto photography and want to get myself a 200-400mm f4 VR or something).</p>

<p>I have to give kudos to Canon for their TS 17mm. That would probably make the decision more difficult, if I were an architectural photographer. If I were, I would probably go with Canon and that lens, but I would wish I had the amazing 14mm end of the Nikon. I guess I'd just have to be happy with the 14mm L from Canon.</p>

<p>Anyway, I wanted to say Leicas shoot slow. It amazes me that people complain so abruptly about the slowness of the Sigma SD1, but say NOTHING about how slow the Leicas are, trying to compare them with Nikons and Canons. There really is NO comparison, except in the realm of image quality, which is where the Sigma was the winner for more than a year, until the Nikon D800 came onto the market. At this point the Leica costs MORE than the Nikon, but the Sigma costs considerably less, and it shoots faster in 6 frame bursts (though it takes an inordinately long time to write those images to a card). I just don't understand people . . . or maybe I do . . . they are biased toward whatever they like, rather than trying to be as objective as possible.</p>

<p>I like the sharpness and price of the Sigma SD1. I like the price, speed and sharpness of the Sony A77, and it is the ONLY professional level camera in the World with a fold-out screen for considerably less than the other camera in that realm . . . the Sony A99. (Or has Canon come out with a weather-sealed camera that has a fold-out screen? I know Nikon hasn't.)</p>

<p>Why would someone try to compare the Leica M240 digital rangefinder camera with the Nikon D800? I don't get that at all. One shoots fast and has lots of auto-focus lenses available for it. One shoots slow, is more compact, and is a camera body designed to be used with a slew of old Leica lenses, which can be mounted on a Sony mirror-less body or the Nikon D800 body with an adapter, meaning that people can use them anyway, even if they choose not to get a Leica camera body. In my opinion, this makes the M240 a camera with very little appeal. Of course, I don't drive a Ferrari and I don't have money to burn. If I did, I would probably have both a Leica M240 AND a Nikon D800 . . . and a Leica S2 system . . . and a Red system with the EPIC 617 Mysterium Monstro sensor, producing 251 megapixel photos that blow away all the rest.</p>

<p>Both cameras can be used to shoot very sharp photos that are "clear" enough to print at 40x60 inches with excellent results. I have seen excellent results from a 21 megapixel Canon at that print size, so just imagine.</p>

<p>The REAL question is whether you want to invest in those expensive Leica lenses and be limited in your lens selection, or do you want to buy into a modern, auto-focus system with a range of great zoom lenses that offer image stabilization features (VR), etc. Oh, and there is the video capability and shooting speed of Nikon cameras too. Maybe you're the type to shoot large format though. I don't know.</p>

<p>It's up to you, of course.</p>

<p>I would choose Hawaii, but maybe that's just because I've seen Belize, and in my opinion, the world under water is the most interesting part of Belize. If you will be shooting with a waterproof camera, then the out islands of Belize offer you second-to-none reef photo opportunities. I would LOVE to shoot the beaches and lava flows on the big island in Hawaii. Apparently Maui is a MUST SEE, so if you go to Hawaii, make sure you don't spend ALL your time on the big island. Visit Maui.</p>

<p>Oh, and much of Jurassic park was filmed on Kaua'i and O'ahu. Maybe that will help you figure out what to do, if you decide to visit Hawaii.</p>

<p>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090524090740AAVxtrG</p>

<p>Frankly, I think a quick search of photos on images.google.com will give you an idea what sort of landscape photos you can likely shoot in the two destinations. The people photos in Belize are likely to be more interesting, but then again, you are probably more likely to get great photos of girls in grass skirts in Hawaii, if that's your thing.</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1293/cat/11</p>

<p>I would have the Canon 15-85mm. You can always crop a little to get the equivalent of the 105mm of the Canon 24-105mm f4 L IS, but you can not get wider shots than 24mm with the 24-105. The 15-85 is rated very well, and since you have a 50mm f1.4 already, you don't need to have a wide aperture. The 135mm f2 L is a great addition to the 15-85, and with the 50mm f1.4 those three lenses would make a great trio. Eventually I would also buy the Tokina 10-17mm fisheye and maybe a 70-300mm, if I were you. You could take trips with two lenses (the 15-85mm and 70-300mm), and the 15-85mm is a GREAT walk-around lens, which lets you take nice landscapes and zoom in to shoot portraits. If you just LOVE the blur that wide apertures give you, you could compliment the 15-85mm with a 70-200mm f2.8 L IS lens at some point in the future. That lens is STELLAR.</p>

<p>I have a friend who shoots a 7 D with the 24-105mm f4 L IS and the 135mm f2 L. Those are the only lenses he uses. I am a wide-angle lover though, and I could only handle having just those two lenses if I were shooting with a full-frame camera. This is why I lean toward the 15-85 with those other lenses I mentioned as future possibilities. I'm one of those people who thinks you can always crop later, but you can't do the opposite. As you can tell, I'm also a zoom lover. I've discovered over the years that f8 and f11 are my best friends, even when shooting for good bokeh. Shallow depth of field is more about the relationship of subject to camera and background distance and focal length rather than sensor size and aperture.</p>

<p>I have had such problems with every camera and probably just about every card. It happens from time to time. It is a digital thing (as opposed to the problems that happen with film). Sometimes it happens as a function of the card. Sometimes it is a function of the camera overheating. Sometimes it is a function of the computer "mis-reading" the images from a card, whether that be a function of a bad connection in the memory card reader, a software or hardware problem in the computer itself, or some other issue, and sometimes it is true corruption in the images that seems to just be a function of quantum probability. Remember, we are talking about computers here, and they are fallible, just as humans are fallible. (I am including digital camera in my use of the word computer, because that is exactly what a digital camera is . . . a computer . . . a very advanced and powerful little computer.)</p>

<p>It seems that the more powerful my cameras and computers become, the more I have these "problem" photos, which are as you describe . . . "truncated" or corrupted in some way. I must admit that I do not get them very often, and I do blame myself for "doing the wrong thing" in most cases. I believe that it is more often than not a user error, such as turning off the camera, rather than letting the camera finish writing to the card (though that is normally not a problem), or taking out a card before the camera is finished writing to it (VERY BAD! lol). Of course, I have had the odd "bad card" issue, since I do buy my memory cards on sale. I have had HP micro-SD cards "burn up" or "fry" in a Nikon D5000 (some worked fine, while others seemed to be unable to take the greater power or whatever it was that the Nikon D5000 was doing). I would say that if you stick with high-end memory cards and original brand batteries, you will be less likely to have such issues.</p>

<p>One more thing to consider. What was the environment you were shooting in like at the time of shooting? Was it very cold, very wet, or very hot? Could the issue be with your computer, rather than with your camera?</p>

<p>There are many things to consider.</p>

<p>;)</p>

<p>Eric, I get it. Most people don't seem to get it. The D5200 is a winner. Get it. I shoot with Sony too. There will always be advantages of one system over the other. The Sony still maintains its shooting speed and "live view" focus speed advantages (along with many other advantages), but the Nikon will give you slightly better image quality, and you can use the amazing Tokina 10-17mm fisheye on it and the better-than-any-other Nikon 10-24mm lens too. Then there's the god of lenses . . . the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G. Yes . . . get the D5200. You might want to keep the Sony though, for those times when you're using the fold-out screen and want to shoot and focus fast. Even the new D5200 has problems doing that, unfortunately. Oh, and the Sony is probably still much better for shooting video too. I think things will stay that way for quite some time. I don't see Nikon or Canon catching up in that regard. They are just not into the whole "video camera" thing . . . even though Canon seemed to be the great pioneer of the video feature set in a full-frame DSLR.</p>

<p>Just so you know . . . I like the panorama feature of the Sony too. It works surprisingly well . . . though the shoot every 5 or 10 degrees from a tripod and stitch it together in the computer method is DEFINITELY better (you will need to use a manual shutter speed and aperture setting for this, of course).</p>

<p>For other people's edification, the Nikon has some advantages over Sony and Canon cameras in that it includes the interval timer shooting feature, which is GREAT for making time-lapse videos! The Nikon D5200 also has a slight dynamic range advantage over the Sony cameras (all of them except for maybe the new A99). Also, going with a Nikon will allow Eric to step up in the future into a truly professional level of equipment with a range of lenses available that is second to none. I might sound like a Nikon rep. here, but I assure you that I am not. I don't own a Nikon camera at the moment. I grew up shooting Canon and I moved to Nikon and then eventually Sigma and Sony. I will be moving back to Nikon soon, but I will be keeping my Sigma and Sony equipment (and gradually adding to those systems in the future, while I build a stellar Nikon system). Really there is no one system that will provide everything you will need, if you are the type of photographer who wants a really wide range of capabilities. From what I've seen, you can be a minimalist and shoot with one camera and one or two lenses, or you can have multiple systems with multiple camera bodies and lots of lenses for each system. Either way, you will have your advantages and disadvantages, just like camera brands. I've been a minimalist in the past. I like it, but I see the limitations, and they have been smacking me in the face way too long. I think it's time I do more with equipment (mostly the variety of lenses), and I think maybe Eric is of the same mindset.</p>

<p>Sean, going manual will be a great experience for you. With digital you get instant feedback, so it is a no-brainer to have that sort of control. If you want to get good results without having to do the slave thing (or if you just can't get the flash to see the camera's flash firing for some reason), you might want to get a wireless trigger. Here is a good example:</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/754154-REG/Vello_RFW_N_FreeWave_Fusion_Wireless_Flash.html</p>

<p>There is lots of cool stuff on eBay too.</p>

<p>NIKON is better than Canon. The only thing that I like about Canon these days is that the 17mm TS lens is only available in a Canon mount.</p>

<p>Why is Nikon better?</p>

<p>1.) Nikon cameras capture a greater dynamic range.<br>

2.) Nikon cameras have features like auto ISO.<br>

3.) Nikon cameras do stuff like interval timer shooting.<br>

4.) Nikon makes a 36 megapixel camera, while even the most expensive Canon cameras only do 18 and 21 megapixels (and their new 5 D Mk III does 22 megapixels).<br>

5.) Nikon makes the best wide-angle lens - the 14-24mm f2.8 G.</p>

<p>Nikon's the best for shooting landscapes. For SOME architecture work Canon is better. For just about everything else, I would say it's a toss-up. I shoot with Sony and Sigma cameras and a variety of lenses, but I want a Nikon system with a D5200 and the amazing Tokina 10-17mm fisheye, the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 G, a Nikon 24-120mm f4 VR, the amazing Nikon 50mm f2.1 AIS, and a Nikon 135mm f2 DC (and eventually a Nikon D800 body, as my second Nikon camera body, which will compliment the D5200 quite well with that selection of lenses).</p>

<p>I still say get a super wide lens, like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689635-REG/Sigma_203101_8_16mm_F4_5_5_6_DC_HSM.html</p>

<p> . . . or the other one I recommended above. They are WONDERFUL!</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>I bought a Sony A55 display model. I got a great deal on it. It needs to be cleaned. I haven't cleaned it, even though I have shot thousands of photos with it. I just clean the photos in an image editor, when I find one I like. I have probably spent ten times as long as it would have taken me to learn how to clean the camera and do it, but I really am not that worried about it. Why get your panties in a bunch? Just get the killer new camera, and you probably won't need to worry anyway. If it's dirty, send it back, or try to clean it first, and if you can't, THEN send it back!</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>Get a Nikon D5100 (they are on sale right now) and this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/468738-REG/Tokina_ATX107PRODXN_10_17mm_f_3_5_4_5_AT_X_107.html</p>

<p>Whatever you get will move . . . no matter how heavy or expensive, if there is wind. If there is no wind, almost nothing will move, if you use your 10 second timer and mirror-up mode. I use rocks and railings most of the time, but I had a Benbo tripod. That's BENBO - not BENRO (they are different - TOTALLY different). It was wonderful and let me do things that are impossible with other tripods. Mine was the biggest one and weighed 10 lbs. Too heavy for you, I'm sure. It all depends on how heavy it can be. Is 5 lbs. too heavy for you? What about 3 lbs? You need to figure it out yourself. I suggest going to Wal-Mart or some other place and getting a $30 tripod, just to try a tripod and see how much it weighs and how carry-able it is. Nothing beats experience. You can give it away or just keep it as an extra, when you're ready to get your "real" tripod. You will know SO much more, after having some experience with a full-size tripod. How high do you want to be able to go with it? Do you want a ball head, or is that not necessary for you?</p>

<p>Here: http://www.photographytalk.com/photography-articles/how-to-photography/2688-how-to-photography-finding-the-perfect-tripod</p>

<p>Don't shoot wide open with a kit lens. They don't like that! lol</p>

<p>(Meaning you should shoot at f8 or f11, if you want to get the best sharpness from lower quality lenses.)</p>

<p>Sharp is a function of many things. Are you shaking the camera, while shooting your photos? Hold the camera still. Maybe put it on a tripod. Are your photos in focus? Good focus makes a HUGE difference. I found that I would not only shake my camera, but I would be shooting photos that were out of focus too. When I fixed both of those problems, I found that I could get even sharper images by stopping down the aperture a little. I found that even on very expensive, wide-aperture lenses (like my Canon 70-200mm f2.8 L IS) stopping down makes images sharper (as long as you don't compromise shutter speed and ISO too much).</p>

<p>Oh, and shooting at lower ISO settings helps to keep images sharp too.</p>

<p>It's a balancing act. If you shoot at high ISO settings, the image looks grainy or muddy (not so sharp). If you open up the aperture too much, so you can lower your ISO setting, the image the lens projects onto the sensor is not as sharp. If you slow your shutter speed down too much, so you can use a low ISO setting and a smaller aperture, you will get motion blur, because your subject moves or your camera is shaking. It just SUCKS! lol</p>

<p>Balance the settings and hold your camera still you must, young paduan.</p>

<p>Oh, and THIS is the bee's knees: http://interestechnology.blogspot.com/2009/09/red.html</p>

<p>You can make clean stuff dirty, but it's basically impossible to do the opposite. Muddy is muddy. You can't get clarity from a blur.</p>

<p>That said, film is cool. It's slow . . . but it's cool. I have a friend who brought out his 4x5 press camera the other day, when we were shooting a model on a boat, and it was really interesting. Of course, he missed lots of shots that I got, because he was futzing with his film and camera, and I was shooting away with my 16 megapixel digital camera with an 8 GB card in it. Try shooting 10 fps with a medium format film camera! lol (You need a medium format film camera to get the quality of a good modern digital camera, in my opinion, though the lenses really are the key. Scanning is really important too.)</p>

<p>Unfortunately for film shooters, it seems that development on film scanning technology has come to a virtual stand-still. The Epson V750 is about as good as the home user can get, I believe, and those things have been around for years now. I find it amazing that they actually cost the same or more today (for brand new equipment) than they did when they came on the market!</p>

<p>Anyway, you can keep your film. I've been there and done that, and I would like the ability to review what I just shot, to make sure I got what I was after. I also like to see what I'm about to get, before shooting it, which is why I shoot with a Sony A55. Soon I'll get a Sony A65 or A77, and I'll be pretty darn happy with that. As it is, the A55 is totally amazing. Just blows away my Canon T90.</p>

<p>These responses are hilarious! lol</p>

<p>Is the new Nikon viewer only for Nikon users?</p>

<p>Is the latest Sony RAW processor only for Sony users?</p>

<p>Duh.</p>

<p>I was just looking at the image comparison tool at DPreview. You have to go to the SD1 review to use it with the SD1 photos. Otherwise the SD1 will not show up as a camera that is available for image comparison. (Does that seem like Sigma is being shut out to anyone else?)</p>

<p>Anyway, the SD1 images actually look better in some parts, even though they are slightly lower resolution, compared to the Nikon D7100, D5200, Sony A77 and Sony A99. I didn't even bother to look at Canon images, because in my opinion the Nikon D7100 is the APS-C camera to beat right now. The Nikon D800 and D800E are the full-frame cameras to beat. The Sigma SD1 really holds its own well though, even compared to the new Nikon D7100 which doesn't have an anti-aliasing filter. Interestingly, it looks like ALL the other images from APS-C sensor cameras that are 24 megapixels seem to have jagged angular lines. Look at parts where there are angled lines, and you will see the difference. It's pretty startling. I always thought the Sigma camera did that more, because they lack the anti-aliasing filter, but not in this case.</p>

<p>I'm sure Mark will stay happy with his decision. The only reason to get a high-end camera like these is image quality. Why would you not go the extra mile to get the D800? If you're not that concerned about image quality, then why not just get a D700?</p>

<p>Thanks for the heads-up on the Sandisk Extreme Pro James. I guess my new, $18 Sony card isn't bad afterall. Maybe I'll get a 32 GB version too. Thanks also for telling me about the A65 not supporting this card. That might make my decision about the A65 vs. the A77 a little easier. I already like how fast the A77 starts up compared to the A65. I guess the A77 is just WAY more professional than the A65, which is all part of why it costs hundreds more, presumably.</p>

<p>I don't agree with you about full-frame being consumer equipment. I think they will keep full-frame pretty far beyond consumer prices for quite some time. There is NO full-frame camera for $1,500 today, and frankly, I don't see there being a full-frame camera for less than $1,000 for a long, long time. I would say it will be 5 years before we see brand new full-frame cameras for $999. They will come down to $1,799 in a year and maybe even $1,499 in two years, but it will be three years at least before we see a full-frame camera on sale brand new for $1,299, and that will be a severely crippled Sony model, no doubt. It will probably be 24 megapixels, but it might be more. By that time there will be a slew of 36 megapixel cameras, and there will be a few cameras with sensors that capture more than 40 megapixels. Medium format will probably hit 100 megapixels or more by that time, and as is the case today, they will be VERY expensive. Still, most full-frame DSLR and SLT cameras (and the future full-frame mirrorless cameras) will be priced for and targeted at advanced amateurs and low-end professionals. There will still be models that are very expensive, like the successors to the 1Dx and D4, and they will cost thousands. You can't tell me those are consumer cameras or will be thought of as such. And if you think those will go the way of the dinosaur, then you're just out of touch with reality. There will be a 1Dxs or something (maybe a 1Dx MkII?) and there will be a D5 or a D4s or D4x in a couple of years.</p>

<p>Micro 4/3 will NOT go away completely, but it does seem to be stagnating a little, because people do seem to be going for more compact models or models with larger sensors. The mirrorless field sure is opening wide. It's definitely an interesting thing that's going on. I never did see the point of those things. They really aren't all that small, and why would you invest in such an expensive lens system, when the sensor is so noisy?!?</p>

<p>I just wish the A65 would give me full speed with my new card. Oh well. So be it.</p>