In 2007 (or early 2008?) I sent in a rebate for several cards and never received anything. Then last June I bought 3x8GB EX3 30 MB/sec. and was expecting to receive a $120 rebate card. I received only $40 and finally threw it in the trash. F*ck them. Rebate ripoffs are not worth my time.
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
I know here in Oz, the ACCC (Australia Competition and Consumer Commission) advises not to use rebates in purchasing decision, as they find more often than not, rebates are not honored correctly, in a timely fashion, or not at all.
Personally, if they want to give me a rebate, I'll take it at the time of purchase as immediate cash off the purchase.
Stereodude
Not really a
A few of the crappy shots from an Airshow I went to on Saturday:
mubs
0
Interesting angles on the ones with the yellow plane; your vantage point seems level with the planes in the shots, or higher. How so?
Stereodude
Not really a
I can assure you I was on the ground shooting up from one spot the whole time.
All the planes flew fairly low to stay under the clouds, so that helped some. Beyond that, it's just how they happened to be oriented when I tripped the shutter.
All the planes flew fairly low to stay under the clouds, so that helped some. Beyond that, it's just how they happened to be oriented when I tripped the shutter.
Nice pictures. I went to the Salinas Airshow a couple weekends ago. Blue Angels and a great A-10 demonstration, but no B-1 or B-2. And no camera (I forgot) 
Stereodude,
Why do you keep posting the thumbnail links to images? I can never really see anything from those tiny pictures and always have to remove the .th from the links to see them.
Why do you keep posting the thumbnail links to images? I can never really see anything from those tiny pictures and always have to remove the .th from the links to see them.
Stereodude
Not really a
A reasonable percentage of my pictures came out ok considering I had never shot an airshow before. From what I saw when I got home I probably I should have used a slightly higher shutter speed though. There's a bit of motion blur in a lot of my shots. It's really a fine line though. If you shoot with too fast of a shutter you'll freeze the props and get static looking pictures.Nice pictures. I went to the Salinas Airshow a couple weekends ago. Blue Angels and a great A-10 demonstration, but no B-1 or B-2. And no camera (I forgot)
They had an A-10 demonstration, but I missed it.
The Air Force version of the Navy's Blue Angels, the Thunderbirds, performed in their F-16's at the end of the show. I haven't gotten to looking through that portion of my pictures yet. :skepo:I do wish I had a monopod and a 1.4x TC at the show though. :-? Next time I guess.
Stereodude
Not really a
I was under the impression it was considered poor forum etiquette to post a pile of full size images in a thread.
There are no .th in any of the links. Every one of them opens in a new tab full size when clicked.
Well if you are just posting links, who cares how big the images are? Okay dial-up users do. And maybe those paying per KB like mobile users.
Anyway this is what I see when looking at this thread.
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4418/sfstereodude.png
And then when I click a link I see the following.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/366/sfstereodudelink.png
Anyway this is what I see when looking at this thread.
http://img34.imageshack.us/img34/4418/sfstereodude.png
And then when I click a link I see the following.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/366/sfstereodudelink.png
Stereodude
Not really a
You have Images as Visible Post Elements turned off in your User Control Panel.
You would otherwise see this: http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1963/sfscreenshot.png
You would otherwise see this: http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1963/sfscreenshot.png
paugie
0
there's one which looks like the paper airplanes I folded when I was a kid.
udaman
0
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 1,209
I figure dd 'idolizes' Ken, so he'll want to take a vacation from work and spend a long weekend hangin with the 'legendary' Ken, who gets 2k emails/wk...hate mail? 
http://www.davewyman.net/pointreyes.html
http://www.davewyman.net/pointreyes.html
How exactly did you figure this? Not actually a fan...
Stereodude
Not really a
I don't have a problem with Ken Rockwell. I have a problem with the sheep in his flock. Ken presents his opinion. That's fine and he's entitled to it. The problem is that people read his opinion and take it as an absolute fact and it degrades from there.
Stereodude
Not really a
A few more:
Pradeep
0
So Sony has announced their a850
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_r...aging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/41559.html
To think that a 24 MP full frame sensor DSLR would be $2000 when the 1Ds MkIII entered the ring at $8000, that is impressive progress. In fact it could be seen that Sony is now pushing Nikon and Canon in a way that they just didn't have to back in the day when it was a cosy duopoly.
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_r...aging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/41559.html
To think that a 24 MP full frame sensor DSLR would be $2000 when the 1Ds MkIII entered the ring at $8000, that is impressive progress. In fact it could be seen that Sony is now pushing Nikon and Canon in a way that they just didn't have to back in the day when it was a cosy duopoly.
That cheaper Sony is in the 5D II class, not the D3X or 1Ds MK III class. The original 5D was around $2000 before the 5D II was available. It's not really that much of a stretch. Basically the sensor manufacturing prices have come down. I'm still waiting for the D700x.
Stereodude
Not really a
The A900 didn't exactly blow the doors off the competition with it's noisy performance. I wouldn't expect the A850 to differ.
Still, I hope they put some price pressure on Canon (who is busy playing games with 5D Mk II supply to keep the price artificially high).
There is a point of diminishing returns on cheap 24x36 bodies with high-res sensors. The lens costs as percentage of the system go up substantially if high IQ is desired. The novice users with no 135 experince will be horrified that their relatively expensive zooms are no longer up to par. It happens very time.
Guess I should start saving up for L-series glass, then. Or should I be looking to Nikon, too? The mucking about with the 5DII is annoying, but I don't have the money for it at the moment anyway.
Pradeep
0
In the long term I see DSLRs and camcorders merging into something that shoots video and you just pick the frames you want as photos. The Red devices showing what is possible.
Pradeep
0
At 16 mp the 1Ds mkII could easily show the diff between the 100mm macro and the 24-70mm 2.8 L series. I can only imagine what 24 mp is revealing.
Stereodude
Not really a
So Canon has announced their 7D. Dpreview.com has a preview with images from the camera.
Thanks for the link. Looks good. The ISO12800 test shot is noisy, but at least it has ISO12800. And I wouldn't need to ditch all my -S lenses.
Stereodude
Not really a
It doesn't focus at f8. FWIW, I think it would have been a better camera at 12MP at 12FPS instead of 18MP at 8FPS.
I also don't understand why it only has a 15 shot buffer for RAW. :erm:
I also don't understand why it only has a 15 shot buffer for RAW. :erm:
Because the files are quite large, the writes speeds are be very fast, and it is an inexpensive camera?
MP are useless without AF.
Well, maybe 14-15 MP with better IQ.
Canon likes to retain mediocre IQ and increase the pixels.Stereodude
Not really a
That's likely not a 1:1 comparison. The 5D is probably closer or has a longer lens attached. I would not use such a low-res body as the 5D for anything at distance. A little over 4 MP in the center is not a match for 18.
The 5DI still costs considerably more, so I would expect it to. IIRC, the FF sensor helps as well.
Sensor size is generally more important than pixel size if you have the reach to fill the frame.
Changing topic slightly. I find that the things that are far away that I would want to photograph are things that tend to move (birds, cars, people). This lends itself to hand-held shots (as tracking is required). Hand-holding at even 480mm (35mm eq) is near impossible in anything but bright daylight. Would it be preferable to shoot at 80mm and take the lower MP sharp center?
Yeah, a new tripod and all associated gear is also on "the list". Unfortunately, "a house" is now in front of everything else on "the list".
Stereodude
Not really a
They are 1:1. Apparently the 5D had the 100mm F2.8 macro on it and the 7D had it's zoom lens on it which accounts for the softness in the 7D shot.
Pradeep
0
It's hard to beat the 100mm macro for performance. It easily outperforms many L series lenses.
Pradeep
0
What is the pixel spacing of 18 mpixels in APS-C size compared to 24 mpixels in 24*36mm?
Tannin
0
24MP FF is the same pixel density as 8MP 1.6 APS-C.