markci

<i>The idea of having to spend so much on an expensive DSLR and spend all that time on the computer is really daunting.</i>

<p>

How do you feel about having to spend far more money on film and processing, and far more time scanning?

Okeefenokee swamp at night. Do yourself a favor if you're camping on one of the platforms there: don't shine your flashlight out into the swamp in the darkness. You'll spend the rest of the night thinking about all those glowing eyes looking back at you.

Analog is a perfectly accurate term for both chemical photography and mechanical watches. Whether you like it or not.

Wait a minute, I thought the third rule was if someone says "stop" or goes limp, the photo session is over.

I don't think bird seed really qualifies as <i>prey.</i> Maybe you could attact some prey with it.

<i>"Color is the enemy of composition." Anybody know who coined that?" </i>

<p>

Yeah: you. The actual observation is that color is the enemy of shape, an observation of Jay Maisel's, among others. In other words, the more attention the color of an object draws, the less is drawn to its form.

Leica Camera is a small company (around 1000 employees) now almost completely owned by a rich guy who likes cameras. It'll last until he gets bored, or tired of losing money.

Claiming a camera is broken when it isn't to claim an upgrade isn't "underhanded." It's fraud. It's a crime.

<i>Dan, why bother naming cats? They won't answer to a name anyway.</i>

<p>

Because it's easier than saying "the black one that clawed out the cones of my stereo speakers" or "the orange one that keeps spraying on the living room carpet."

Word of advice: never, ever visit Australia.

<p>

<i>um, what is a fanboy?</i> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanboy">fanboy</a>

<i>Sure looks similar to one on this site</i>

<p>

In what conceivable respect?

It's a load of crap. The people who buy full-frame cameras aren't over-fixated on megapixels.

Some people have no idea what they're talking about. Nothing new.

The bokeh is mediocre to poor on that leaf shot.

<i>So the distance between the objects appears to increase with a wideangle lens but the size of the objects remains unchanged ... did I get that right?</i>

<p>

I'm not even sure what that means.

<p>

If you don't move the camera, changing the focal length of the lens just crops the photo differently. But a shorter lens will, if you frame the main subject the same, force you to move closer. Moving closer is what actually changes perspective. <i>Perspective itself</i> -- the size relationships of different objects in the photo is ONLY a function of camera position. Nothing else. <i>Perspective distortion</i> which is that weird exagerated effect you get with wide angles (or the compressed effect you get with long lenses) is caused by a mismatch between viewing angles when you take and when you view the photo.

<i>What you are saying, Mark, is that even if you change the focal length between two shots for a panorama, they will overlap and align exactly right. </i>

<p>

Uh, no. That's not what I'm saying. You clearly don't understand what I am saying.

<p>

Perspective distortion is a matter of viewing angle at taking not matching viewing angle when viewing. Period.

And as a display of precisely how full of shit you are, kindly explain why digicams, with tiny sensors and lenses with focal lengths typicall something like 6 or 8 millimeters, show no such perspective effects?

<i>With a long telephoto lens, the distance between the objects does not affect their relative sizes, as much as it does with a wider or fish-eye lens.</i>

<p>

My statement is correct, and you cannot even have tried the experiment you propose or you would have discovered it.

<p>

Long story short: you're full of shit.

<i>Whereas perspective is depending on the focal length</i>

<p>

Again, this is wrong. It is dependant solely on field of view. In particular it is a function of the field of view subtending a different angle when the photo is viewed than when it was taken.

<p>

<i>Perspective from a point, in strict technical terms, is the way in which two different objects appear with respect to each other at a certain focal length</i>

<p>

This is even more confused and wrong. The relative sizes of objects depend only on their distance from the camera. Focal length does not enter into it. If an object is twice as far away it will be half the size. It doesn't matter what lens you use to take the picture.

<i>I thought perhaps lenses retain the characteristics of their actual FL (except FOV) when used on a crop-sensor camera.</i>

<p>

They do. But perspective as we speak about it in photography is a function of field of view, not focal length.

<p>

The difference between 17mm and 28mm is ENORMOUS. I can't believe anyone would even compare these two lenses. Basically that tells me the Canon guy is a low-grade moron whose opinion can be safely ignored.

<i>..when the Loch Ness monster surfaces (just a few miles from where I live) it will matter not a whit that I use my 1DsMk2 or my shirtpocket Canon point 'n'shoot.</i>

<p>

From analysis of previous photos it seems pretty clear that Nessie, Sasquatch and the other cryptozoological wonders have an uncanny sense for the presence of high-quality photographic equipment, and avoid it like the plague. I'd suggest carrying only a pinhole camera made from an oatmeal box, loaded with whatever 10-year-old 3200 ISO film stock you can get your hands on. It should increase your odds of getting a shot markedly.

Well semiconductors rely on quantum mechanics for their operation. So I suppose once one these amazing new physical discoveries are made, our cameras may cease to function altogether (along with every other modern electronic device, chemical process, etc). At least we can cease having these stupid discussions on photo.net, because there won't be any computers.

I've experienced the disintegrating Ecco soles as well, with both of the two pairs I've owned (which will certainly be the last). Didn't take anything like 2 years either. More like six months.

I'm still waiting for Chris' links to Jeff's "film bashing" posts by the way. It doesn't look like they'll be forthcoming.