markci

<p>I think there are aproximately a billion more film cameras out there right now than there are film camera users. And there aren't enough equipment fondlers obsessed with the "perfect" mechanical film camera that they would sell more than a handful. And even for the people who do get some sort of sexual gratification from mechanical devices, there are enough F2's and M6's and others out there to last about 100 years.</p>

<p>And that's what Nikon thinks too, and that's why they don't make one.</p>

<p><em>"So how come a small company like Leica can release and APS-C fixed lens camera with a reasonably fast 35mm equivalent lens when all the biggies struggle to combine these factors?"</em><br>

They don't "struggle" to do any such thing. If Canon or Nikon had the slightest interest in making something like that, it would be out next week. It's just not something that's going to sell in the numbers that they care about.</p>

<p><em>I'm going to guess there is at least one similarity, my "portfolio" isn't going to solve my debt problems either.</em></p>

<p>Given that her portfolio is valued at $40 million, it probably will, actually. And if she files bankruptcy she'll have considerable control over which assets to keep and which to liquidate. Considering that she also has $40 million in real estate, and her total debt seems to be $24 million, I don't think she's in much danger of the poorhouse any time soon.</p>

<p>Charles is right.</p>

<p><em>"Hi guys! You really know what you are talking about."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

So long as you ignore John-Paul, who is plainly confused about the focal length thing.</p>

<p>Some of this stuff is hilarious:</p>

<p><em>"Yet another idea is to have the camera communicate with computers on a network, such as a photo-hosting service on the Web. Imagine, Levoy says, if the camera could analyze highly-rated pictures of a subject in an online gallery before snapping the shutter for another portrait of the same subject. The camera could then offer advice (or just automatically decide) on the settings that will best replicate the same skin tone or shading. By communicating with the network, the camera could avoid taking a ghastly picture."</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

Wow, so the next time I'm out taking a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge and press the shutter button, the camera will use its 3G internet connection to spider Photonet for other pictures of the Golden Gate Bridge, retrieve the top-rated ones, get their embedded shutter speed and aperture settings from the EXIF data, and set them on my camera before releasing the shutter.</p>

<p>Now that's some shutter lag. And so very helpful besides.</p>

<p>Have this guy ever actually taken a photo?</p>

<p>Chromogenic print or C print.<br>

Color prints are certainly not silver gelatin. There is no silver in them at all after processing.</p>

<p>A "satisfactory" rating from the BBB is an extremely low standard. If you aren't actually knocking your customers over the head with a tire iron as they come through the door, stealing their wallets and dumping their unconscious bodies in a ditch some place (or at least haven't been caught doing it too many times) you can get a satisfactory rating from BBB. Businesses worth dealing with do much better.</p>

<p><em>"Diffraction, which is the cause of quality loss at small apertures, depends on the physical size of the aperture, not the f-number."</em></p>

<p>This is absolutely incorrect. Diffraction depends on focal ratio, not absolute aperture. This error has been posted here about fifty times over the past thirteen years that I have noticed. It was wrong the first time and it is wrong this time.</p>

<p>If you want legendary, buy a Leica. If you want to take photos, buy a Nikon. On the other hand, 24mm and 35mm are apples and oranges, so it doesn't sound a need to take photos has much to do with the question. I'd recommend the last pre-aspherical version of the 35mm Summicron.</p>

<p>Whatever happened to the dupe post filter in this forum?</p>

<p>Rich needs to take ECON 101, or else retake it while not stoned. Hint: supply and demand work completely differently in the long run than they do in the short run.<br>

If B&H continued to sell the film cheap the only result would be that speculators would buy it up and you'd be paying through the nose to somebody on eBay instead of B&H. Several others here should take a course as well.</p>

 

<p>What an odd question. Name anything that "everyone" uses.</p>

<p>Ignore the DPI stuff. As Jeff says, total nonsense. It controls the size the photo will be went sent to a PRINTER. I has no effect whatsoever on screen display.<br>

Also, for god's sake ignore the person who told you to buy Lightroom. You have all you need. Picture Window Pro is a professional caliber graphics program. It's damn near as good as Photoshop, and better at some things. Figure out how to use it to resize images.</p>

<p>Would you happen to be in the Central US time zone? The difference between CDT and universal time is five hours. Sounds like it could be a time zone issue.</p>

<p>Would you happen to be in the Central US time zone? The difference between CDT and universal time is five hours. Sounds like it could be a time zone issue.</p>

<p><em>"The F3 was in production for 20 years. What does that tell you?"</em></p>

<p>How badly the F4 sucked.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Have people completely lost the ability to think for themselves and to try even the simplest things on their own without validation from a bunch of strangers online? It's not like you'd even be consuming film anymore.</p>

<p><em>The sun beating on an unshaded trunk easily will hit 100F degrees.</em><br>

Then I guess my camera will be ruined if I take it outside at all in Atlanta in August.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>The "rule of thumb" is simply wrong. DOF distribution can be anything from 1:1 at very close distances to 1:infinity at long distances. 3 is no better a number than any other.<br>

They don't put depth of field scales on lenses because focus throws on AF lenses are so short, the scales would be too small to be useful.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Nice. Though it sort of blows my theory that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golda_Meir_03265u.jpg">Golda</a> was actually just <a href="http://coolaggregator.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/lyndon-johnson-picture.jpg">Lyndon Johnson</a> in drag.</p>

 

<p>What did they do when Golda Meir was PM?</p>

<p>OK John, then lets use the correct terminology for what you term "a bit much." It was attempted murder.</p>

<p>The method of payment has nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>Well a typical monitor is 1024x768 these days. So whether 600x400 is "good enough" is neither here not there. It's as good as you're going to be able to do if you're displaying them 2 per page. </p>