1Ds MkII

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Will D., Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Gotcha...
    You slandered me for the last time bastard.
    This group doesn't accept posts from mail2news remailing services for
    the very purpose of identifying where defamation from lying bastards
    like you originates from.

    Here's my offer again.
    $500 US CASH reward paid to anyone who can positively identify you with
    a valid address I can server papers to. I'll pay the money through a
    lawyer in the country you reside in. You and I will yet see each other
    in court. And don't you worry too much... The Mexicans don't take kindly
    to people using them for defamation either.


    netnum: 200.79.91/24
    status: reallocated
    owner: Reasignacion UniNet
    ownerid: MX-REUN-LACNIC
    responsible: David Chavez Alba
    address: Periferico Sur, 3190,
    address: 01900 - Mexico DF - DF
    country: MX
    phone: +52 55 54907000 [7049]
    owner-c: SRU
    tech-c: SRU
    created: 20031021
    changed: 20031021
    inetnum-up: 200.79.0/17
    inetnum-up: 200.79/16

    nic-hdl: SRU
    address: 01900 - MEXICO - DF
    country: MX
    phone: +52 55 52237234 []
    created: 20030701
    changed: 20030703
    Douglas MacDonald, Nov 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. ----------
    What you say Gisle is quite true. If it were not for the fact that a
    film has no intrinsic use until it it is converted to either a print or
    another film (transparency). In this conversion, it changes from one
    form of existence to another.

    That change is what no one seems to take into consideration when
    attempting a comparison. Digital images do not degrade from copying
    unless the copying medium loses data. When you change a digital image to
    a photograph, you have the opportunity not available with a film
    conversion to improve the image.

    Should we call a film 'analogue'? If so, it is easy to consider how much
    detail is lost when copying a VHS 'analogue' video compared to a digital
    video recording. The same applies to a film image, copy it and no matter
    how good your gear is, some of the image will be lost.

    You are absolutely correct that a good image is needed to obtain good
    results. This is after all a DSLR group so it is reasonable to make a
    few assumptions when posting here. One is that any DSLR will have at
    least some halfway decent glass and be able to capture a detailed image
    in the first place.

    As for those who say I'm advertising my business buy posting information
    of use to the group... Really? Show me which business, where, how and
    what I am accused of advertising and I'll stop.

    Douglas MacDonald, Nov 18, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    Not in response to me, but I started the thread...
    "Intrinsic use"? What does that have to do with anything?
    So what's your point?
    Okay, your point seems to be that digital is never lossy and film always
    is, right?

    Bushwa. Ever seen anyone click on the wrong icon and save a degraded
    file over the top of the original? Easy to do when you're working with
    jpegs. Ever seen a master darkroom tech produce a positive large format
    dupe that faithfully records the grain of the original? I have.

    In the real world, there's always the possibility of loss in both media.
    Now you're making assumptions that are "intrinsically" invalid. How
    many people have bought a DReb kit with that horrible piece of coke
    bottle glass, and thought they were doing just great? And inevitably
    some of them will wind up here, trying to get answers to questions they
    don't know enough to ask.
    How about the one you cited in your original response, the one you said
    was undergoing "electric" growth. Being coy and not naming the business
    gets people to ask, and that's a come-on.

    Nah, you're a troll, as far as I'm concerned.

    Will D.
    Will D., Nov 19, 2004
  4. [Interpolation versus enlarging analogue film]
    Only up to the point where the negative still holds additional
    information and where the gear used does not go past it's limits.
    Blowing up a 35mm film to 4m x 6m should widely surpass said
    True if you use a single image --- but (nitpick) if you have
    multiple, near-identical images, you can do, ah, interesting stuff
    Note that that eats lots of CPU time for larger images.

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Nov 19, 2004
  5. Will D.

    Lionel Guest

    'Bubba' is just another sock-puppet belonging to the same psycho who
    posted the original slander against Douglas & others in the various
    photography groups. He's a buddy of Steve Young's, & I believe I know
    who he is.
    Lionel, Nov 20, 2004
  6. Will D.

    Lionel Guest

    Douglas - The Mexican system Bubba/CharterFix/Orville posted through has
    an open web proxy port that he used to relay his post via Google. I'm
    gathering evidence on the actual person behind those identities, & will
    be in touch with you (& others he's slandered) when I have solid enough
    enough data to launch court actions.
    Lionel, Nov 20, 2004
  7. Will D.

    Alien Jones Guest

    When someone has a pre-concieved opinion, is it possible to change it?
    I think not Will, but for those poor individuals who use "that horrible
    piece of coke bottle glass" I have some valuable news.

    For you Will, well, you've already made up your mind so you might as well
    not read any further.

    The 18~55 kit lens which comes with a Digital Rebel and a 20D is not glass
    but acrylic plastic. It has the distintion of being one of the lightest zoom
    lenses Canon make. It is also a pretty good lens in it's own right and I
    offer a few examples of it's resolution capabilities, it's chromatic
    suppression and it's ability to shoot directly into the late afternoon sun
    without flair. Oh, did I mention image taken with that lens on a 20D enlarge
    to 2 feet by 3 feet without loss of detail? Well they do!


    All the irrelevant stuff which was below has been snipped out
    Alien Jones, Nov 21, 2004
  8. .... at 350 x 228 pixels, JPEG-compressed to hell.

    I am not dissing your lens - but your "examples" are a bad joke.

    If you don't want to post full size images for bandwith reasons,
    why don't you - at least - post some crops from a full size frame?
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 21, 2004
  9. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    Well, I just had my lunch handed to me here, and I deserved every bite!

    Apologies to those folk who have this apparently quite nice lens. It is
    *not* the same kit lens that comes with the film bodies, which by all
    accounts is coke bottle glass. Guess I should look to see if the brain
    is in gear before engaging fingers, eh?

    The 18-55 is the lens that cannot be mounted on a film camera, costs
    around $100, and is generally considered a no-brainer as a purchase. As
    I'm thinking about a 20D, I'll probably get one of those as well.

    As far as the lens optics are concerned, Canon says they are made of
    lead-free glass. Size and weight reduction are largely due to
    downsizing the image circle requirements. Flare reduction caused by
    enhanced lens coatings, especially on the rear elements, AIUI.

    Also, there appears to be a new USM version of the lens now available.
    I'll go for that. I've got only one EF lens that is not USM and that's
    the 50mm f1.4. By comparison, it's not only noisy but slow. Given the
    20D advertises a shutter lag of 65ms, the USM lens is probably the way
    to go.

    Will D.
    Will D., Nov 21, 2004
  10. Will D.

    Alien Jones Guest

    Tell me please Will... the 50 1.4 you speak of. Is this the lens which is
    noisey? I just ordered a 50mm 1.4 USM lens. I hope you are talking about a
    different model!!!

    If you do some landscapes, a (as yet un confirmed) good quality lens from
    Canon is the 10~22 "coke bottle" lens. The USM (f4.0) 17~40 is a big hit on
    the cost of a kit version 20D. Financially speaking, I can see a lot of
    value in a 18~55, 20D kit and an additional 10~22 lens. There is not much
    wider without a fisheye and if it is as good as the other speciality lenses
    from Canon, it will be good enough for most people. Me included.

    Alien Jones, Nov 22, 2004
  11. Will D.

    Alien Jones Guest

    I would have thought the pictures demonstrated many aspects of a lens's
    usefulness, regardless of the size or compression of the pictures. The peg,
    demonstrates crisp focus. The backlit beach scene that the lens has minimul
    flair, the red geranium, that wide open at full aperture, in poor light,
    the lens is still usable and the frangipani's, that soft focus is possible
    when using manual focus even though it is not a soft focus lens. I just
    included the other photo because I liked it!

    Basically I'm saying that if you take the time to understand your gear, how
    much it cost is no measure of how good it is. None of this has any impact on
    the size of the picture I posted, just reinforces my words. Why do you want
    20 megabyte files anyway? How stupid is it to expect me to post 60 meg of
    images just so you can examine every pixel in all it's glory while 50 other
    people steal the images to re-sell?

    The principal problem here is that I provided commercial images some of
    which I sell, to reinforce my belief that a lens often described as crappy,
    is in fact a reasonable quality lens. There is no way in the world I am
    prepared to post any images that may have value, to the Internet in a form
    which can be pirated.

    Live with it Gisle, or don't look at them. If you seek images you can
    download at full resolution, I can sell you some. Otherwise just accept the
    reality of the Internet that people often (not just sometimes) steal
    photographs, put their own name to them and then sell them as if they were
    their own work.

    Alien Jones, Nov 22, 2004
  12. Are you unfamiliar with the word "crop"?
    OK. Forget I ever mentioned it.
    Gisle Hannemyr, Nov 22, 2004
  13. Will D.

    Will D. Guest

    Heh, well, They call it a micro USM lens. That means it has the small
    micromotor instead of the larger older micromotor. Most USM lenses use
    the ring motor which is virtually silent and vibration free, not so the
    micro USM. And it has a gritty movement, compared to the other ring
    motors. At the time I got it, I was disappointed in these facts, but
    checking around a bit revealed that they all did that. Maybe the newer
    ones are smoother, I don't know.

    That said, it is one hell of a great lens, possibly the very sharpest of
    the Canon EF lenses, and it is sturdy, etc, etc. The small annoyance of
    the AF movement is easily offset by the capabilities of the lens itself.
    Note that I don't call it a "coke bottle" lens. The lens I was referring
    to (had in mind) was the 28-85(?) zoom that comes with the film Rebels
    as the kit lens. The wide angle zooms are altogether a different lens
    in a different price range.

    I don't do a lot of landscapes now, and never did landscape per se with
    cassette film, only roll and sheet film cameras.
    These new lenses are evidently very fine performers, though there is
    still some difference between zooms and primes, just nowhere near as
    much as there used to be. I've no idea what sort of wide lenses I will
    be looking at when I eventually go DSLR.


    Will D.
    Will D., Nov 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.