vivek_kadiyala

<p>I don't mean to hijack this thread but I'm not clear on something: older metal bodies had metal exteriors whereas even the metal chassis today are wrapped in plastic. With this more recent approach is the metal really being used for impact resistance or to provide rigid platforms for heavy lenses, etc? As Lewis Hizer mentioned earlier it seems like in any event the delicate elecrtonics in modern digital cameras would be damaged by the shock/impact well before even a plastic chassis would break.</p>

<p>Putting kids in commercials is pretty much par for the course in advertising (within reason of course). I agree with those who expressed their disdain for the Nikon commercials featuring Ashton Kutcher - that was about as bad as I've seen for photo related ads. Canon got it right - have Maria Sharapova run around the court for a bit and you have a techno-geek's business. Now excuse me while I go rummage through my box of Powershots.<br>

<em>edited for horrific spelling</em></p>

 

<p>Another thing to think about has more to do with the inherent limitations of the all-in-one (as you mentioned an iMac) design be it a Mac or a PC. There is definately somethign to be said for the expansion and connectivity that having a tower gives you; internal space as well as something as simple as the number of USB/firewire ports. In the long term why not give yourself the opportunity to upgrade components? Sure it may not be as pretty but that's what all that room under your desk is for anyway.<br>

This is especially true with displays; it seems every few months the external display prices drop as their size and performance increases. I feel that these days most well equipped machines are quite capable, but when dealing with photos the machine is only as good as the display's ability to accurately reproduce colors, resolve detail, and provide enough realestate to work with the images. Many posters above have stated how long they have enjoyed their computers but in three years I would think that there would be more reason to upgrade the display then upgrade the hardware driving it. Display performance will degrade over time; there is no way around that but a well equipped PC or Mac tower will still have the same processing ability in three years.</p>

<p>You can find anecdotal support for either format as far as the user experience is concerned. There are many people on both sides who have had great experiences and horrendous experiences regarding reliability/customer service etc. In the end you are buying into a system that has it's own failure/problem rates. Is there any empirical evidence that there is a significant difference among the mainstream brands in this regard?<br>

I dont have much experience using Macs but as a PC user I do think the malware issue can be affectively and easily addressed; with appropriate antivirus and discretion while browsing the internet you can significanlty reduce (and maybe eliminate?) the chance of infection.</p>

<p>While the points stated above about the convenience of digital cannot be ignored there is another aspect to that instant feedback; it flattens the learning curve dramatically. Being able to see the result of my botched exposure right away to make the necessary changes and try again makes a huge difference with no ongoing cost penalty. I have taken over 12 thousand pictures in the last year and half while trying to learn how to properly use a camera, and likely will take at least that many more before even coming to a reasonable understanding. I can't multiply large enough numbers to see what that would have cost in film and processing.<br>

I think many people (myself included) would love to shoot film but reserve it as an upgrade once our skill rises to meet the capability of even the basic camera/film camera. The day I invest in a film system will be the day I am able to spend more effort on composition and subject that struggling with proper exposure (there will always be challenging sitations of course). I can't imagine I'm alone in this; perhaps in the future there will be a slight increase in demand for film systems as a percentage of digital owners (there HAS been an explosion in numbers recently) step into film also?</p>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

<p>Some stabilization systems are meant to be turned off when used with tripods, as per manufacturer recommendations. For example, Olympus recommends that IS be turned off when the E-510 is on a tripod. Nikon, recommends that some lenses have their VR turned off when used on a tripod, while other lenses' VR is capable of compensating for even the minute vibrations that may result from wobbly tripod legs. Presumably this is a consequence of the nature of the carious systems and/or their different levels of sophistication at their respective price points.<br>

<a href="http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=7676&p_created=1067977631&p_sid=i*U1v1oj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD01OSw1OSZwX3Byb2RzPTgxJnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0xLjgxJnBfY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE*&p_li=&p_topview=1">Nikon has a faq on this very subject</a></p>

<p>I don't have a Nikon but I do use live view on my Olympus quite a bit. Even with the fixed screen it makes getting awkward shots much easier when shooting macro. Additionally, Ashley is on the money as far as not putting your face within striking range of some of the nastier critters. Although not life threatening, frogs urinate when spooked by a fool that gets too close with their macro gear.</p>