craigd

Not entirely. The old Unified View was "new posts" plus old posts, with the new posts sorted first. The way "new posts" works, if I read some things and then refresh the page, everything that was there before disappears and can't easily be found again unless you remember which forum it was in. That's annoying and user-hostile.

 

The old Unified View was popular because it did what people wanted. Replacing it with something similar-but-different is always a risky move, and in this case I think it's a serious fail.

 

Hmm. What I describe above is what I saw when the new site first went live, but now it seems to be acting more like the old Unified View, but with the improvement that threads with new posts are boldfaced. If it stays this way, then it seems like a good replacement for Unified View.

As others have noted, the need to periodically log in again is annoying. The old site would let me stay logged in literally for years as long as I refreshed it occasionally -- and by "occasionally" I mean not even daily. Now I've had to log in at least twice in the last 24 hours, and my guess is it would have been even more than that if I had checked the site more often. This is another change that seems ill-advised.

 

Another irritation about this is that when I log in, the site doesn't return me to the page I was on, it always goes to my portfolio. Come on. Every other site I use (Amazon, eBay, Facebook, various forums) has enough sense to put me back where I was after logging in. It's such an obvious thing that it's really appalling that you missed it.

Craig/Alan: There's a "new posts" link at the top of the main forum view, which appears to work cross-thread. Is this what you're after?

 

Not entirely. The old Unified View was "new posts" plus old posts, with the new posts sorted first. The way "new posts" works, if I read some things and then refresh the page, everything that was there before disappears and can't easily be found again unless you remember which forum it was in. That's annoying and user-hostile.

 

The old Unified View was popular because it did what people wanted. Replacing it with something similar-but-different is always a risky move, and in this case I think it's a serious fail.

Have we lost the unified forum view again? I hardly ever used anything else. How annoying. And what's this about showing usernames rather than real names on our posts?

<p>Sorry to hear Greg's not doing well. Hope he recovers soon.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want AF for street photography. I would rather just use a 35mm lens at f/8 set to the hyperfocal distance. No hassle with waiting for focusing, no worries that the camera might decide to focus on the wrong thing.</p>

<p>The F2 is a terrific camera, but I wouldn't say it's really any better than an FM or FM2, which will be newer and probably less expensive, as well as somewhat smaller and lighter. The only thing that's really better about an F2 is the ability to replace the finder, but that only matters if you actually intend to do it.</p>

<p>I'm not sure about current pricing. I bought an F2 in 2010 on eBay for $180 with DP-1 finder and two lenses, but eBay auctions can vary a lot. KEH's price would probably have been double that or more.</p>

<p>Here's the thread I originally posted about my F2 when I bought it: http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00X3T6</p>

<p>That depends on whether you know enough about the culture in which you're photographing to be able to tell what parts of the image are essential. Somebody who travels all over the world photographing things can't possibly be an expert on every culture, so to avoid inadvertently corrupting the meaning of the image, or even potentially causing serious trouble for someone, best not to cut anything out that conceivably might matter. Removing a lamppost is probably safe; removing one person out of a group, possibly not.</p>

<p>Assuming his statements are factual, that's devastating... and it makes me glad I kept photography in my life as a personal pleasure and exploration rather than a profession.</p>

<p>I've been shooting my XE-1 since February 2014 and haven't had any trouble with dust. Rather surprising, actually. I guess it's better at keeping itself clean than my old DSLR was.</p>

<p>Price is affected by a number of factors. For one thing, if you're using an AI/AI-s camera (which most people are, these days), you probably don't want a pre-AI lens. That reduces the demand for the oldest lenses.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting. Very nice work with a terrific little camera.</p>

<p>I disagree with Marcus about the compatibility test. You need to test both of your Sigma lenses against the exact model of camera you're thinking of buying. Anything else is uncertain. Sure, if it works on an older Rebel, it will <em>probably</em> work on a T5i, but you don't know for sure that it works on a T5i until you actually try it on a T5i.</p>

<p>Antonio: No, I don't think Canon has licensed the EF electronic protocols to anyone.</p>

<p>Any Canon EOS EF or EF-S lens will work on a new T5i, regardless of age.<br>

<br /> The Sigmas will probably work but you will have to try them. Since Canon has never published the technical specifications of their electronic interface, third-party lens makers like Sigma and Tamron have had to figure it out for themselves. Sigma in particular has had a history of putting out lenses that worked on the cameras that existed when the lens was designed, but which may have trouble on later cameras. If you have trouble with a ten-year-old Sigma lens on a new camera, most likely Sigma will not help you.</p>

<p>Very pretty pictures -- and camera also! I agree with Louis that "Down the Beach" is particularly nice, and very deftly exposed.</p>

<p>The FE and FM are absolutely awesome cameras. They're comfortable to hold and shoot, they're solidly built and reliable... there's just nothing to say against them. Well, just one thing: eye relief isn't great if you want to shoot while wearing glasses. But that aside, they're basically flawless.</p>

<p>I really like the FE's dual-needle meter display, which shows you both what speed the camera recommends and (in manual mode) what you currently have selected. It's so easy to tell how many stops off you are, which makes manual compensation very easy.</p>

<p>As much as I love all my cameras, if I were forced to choose a single 35mm film SLR to use for the rest of my life, it would have to be a Nikon. For eye-relief reasons I'd have to choose the F3HP, but there's something about the FM and FE that makes them feel better in my hands and makes them an even more pure pleasure to use than the F3.</p>

<p>Btw, I also originally bought my FE because of Ken's enthusiastic review.</p>

<p>Has she lost her left arm, or is it very uncomfortably held behind her back or stretched out behind her along the windowsill?</p>

<p>I'd go for a Minolta X-700, personally. It's a better-made camera than any of the XG series and its Program AE mode is quite good. Also, Minolta lenses seem to be easier to come by and less expensive than comparable Olympus lenses.</p>

<p>Nothing is.<br>

Nothing becomes.<br>

Nothing is not.</p>

<p>I bought an Elan (the US name of the EOS 100) new back in 1995. Great camera. The surface of the hand grip tends to get sticky after a few years, but a bit of rubbing alcohol takes care of that.</p>

<p>Very nice performer. I've never been into Tamron (I think I have one Tamron Adapt-All or Adapt-All 2 zoom, but I don't recall if I've ever actually shot with it), but this one looks quite decent.</p>

<p>Even though it doesn't show the defocusing capability, I find my eye drawn to #5 -- nice composition of contrasting angles and colors.</p>

<p>Barry: I don't suppose the chrome filter ring matters other than as an indicator of an early FD lens. In this case, the early 35mm f/2 is the one with the radioactive rare earth element(s?). It's a famously sharp and contrasty lens. Mine has a strong yellow cast to it at this point; I'm told I could correct that by leaving it in the sun for a few weeks, but I haven't tried it, and anyway it's great for B&W work -- sort of like having a built-in yellow filter.</p>

<p>35mm f/2 with the chrome filter ring.</p>

<p>Is there a problem with providing a distance? The calcuator needs a distance because DoF varies with focus distance as well as focal length, aperture, and circle of confusion (CoC). If you're mostly shooting landscapes, you can probably just use the hyperfocal distance.</p>

<p>If you want to make "the same picture" (that is, similar framing, DoF, and exposure, printed at the same size) with two different formats of camera (say 35mm and 6x7), shooting from the same location, you will need to use a longer focal length with the larger format to match the framing, and because of the longer focal length, you will need a smaller aperture to match the DoF. At the same time, though, one typically uses a larger CoC with a larger format because the image won't need to be enlarged as much to reach the same print size (that is, to make, say, an 8x10" print, a 36x24mm negative needs to be blown up more than a 70x56mm negative), which will tend to partly counteract the need for a smaller aperture. You can fiddle with the different parameters to try to get the final images from both cameras to match as closely as possible, but it's really kind of an academic exercise because nobody would bother doing this in the real world other than as a technical experiment.</p>

<p>As a general rule of thumb, when shooting landscapes or other distant subjects, I would tend to use f/8 with a 35mm camera, f/11 or f/16 with medium format, and f/16 or f/22 with large format. </p>

<p>I will be very interested to read reviews of this new reprint. If the print quality is good, I will definitely buy it.</p>