Nikon D2X review

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Alan Browne, Jun 1, 2005.

  1. The first defense is to mess up your "from" and "reply-to" e-mail
    address just enough so that spam-bots don't work, but that people that
    want to e-mail you for a good reason can figure out your address easily
    enough. Experienced Usenet users have been doing this for years (or
    decades!).
    This is true. Though the kill-file works wonders on these jerks. People
    like "Newsgroups," and "Preddy," thrive on attention. Kill-file them and
    you deprive them of what they crave. Of course you have to keep current,
    as they create one identity after another to hide their shame.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 10, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <>,
    I tend to ignore smileys as extraneous garbage, often used so that a
    person can decide what they meant after they see people's reactions.

    Saying something that is not true is not funny, in and of itself.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. I agree, but a few people are such pathological liars, i.e. "Preddy,"
    that their antics are amusing. It's like Joe Isuzu (David Leisure), who
    was a pathological liar who claimed all sorts of wild attributes of
    Isuzu trucks.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 11, 2005
  4. Alan Browne

    RichA Guest

    So have I. Usenet isn't the problem. The Web is as is the
    abomination that is Java.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, Jun 11, 2005
  5. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    I haven't used my real e-mail address in over three years ago. It was
    about three years ago that some sociopath decided to sign me up to
    hundreds of mailing lists, to silence me.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2005
  6. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <2ujqe.2053$>,
    If your camera is set to ISO 400, then the zone two stops below middle
    grey is ISO 1600, in a sense, and the noise at ISO 1600 is very similar
    to the noise at -2EV at ISO 400. The better the high-ISO performance of
    a camera, the better the shadow performance at medium and low ISOs, in
    general.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2005
  7. This is very true. As the review at Steve's Digicams stated: "I am a bit
    disappointed with the shadow noise present in images taken at ISO 200
    and above. Nikon attempted to mitigate the problem with their in-camera
    High ISO Noise reduction feature, but its effectiveness is only fair and
    you lose image detail as a result"
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 11, 2005
  8. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <6Trqe.2329$>,
    This makes me wonder about statements made by Ryadia and Tony Polson
    that Canon uses high noise-reduction in the high ISO modes. I haven't
    seen any evidence of this per se, except the fact that the bell curve
    for ISO 1600 blackframe noise for a short exposure is only about twice
    as wide as ISO 100, and the bulk of the curve about 3 times as wide. On
    the other hand, a grey piece of felt metered with a greycard for ISO
    400, exposed manually, but at 1600 and 100 instead, has an order of
    magnitude more detail in the ISO 1600 shot, so it is hard to believe.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 11, 2005
  9. My understanding is that they only do dark noise subtraction, the same
    as what is done at other ISOs. Further noise reduction is done outside
    the camera, if desired.

    It was probably a marketing decision to include the high ISO settings at
    all on the D2x, they had to have them to compete aganst the 1DMarkII,
    even though they are not all that usable.
     
    Steven M. Scharf, Jun 11, 2005
  10. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    I don't use AOL you dumb ****. It IS my mangled email address....
     
    Newsgroups, Jun 11, 2005
  11. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    I don't use AOL you dumb ****. It IS my mangled email address....
     
    Newsgroups, Jun 11, 2005
  12. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    "In a sense"???????????????????????? That's how you technically explain
    ISO 400 sensitivity and noise level and try to equate it to ISO 1600?????

    You and Scharf must be having a GREAT time sucking each other's cocks....
     
    Newsgroups, Jun 11, 2005
  13. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    Touché


     
    Newsgroups, Jun 11, 2005
  14. Alan Browne

    Roxy d'Urban Guest

    Get real. You gave no such thing. And you don't know shit about the world
    of professional photography either.
     
    Roxy d'Urban, Jun 11, 2005
  15. Alan Browne

    Newsgroups Guest

    Scharf is a troll. A Google search shows up a number of "Steven M. Scharf"
    characters as:

    1 - a sleep doctor
    2 - a coffee aficionado
    3 - a fung shui aficionado
    4 - a cardiologist
    5 - a telecomm guy
    6 - a bicycle helmet expert
    7 - a project engineer
    8 - a toilet flange aficionado

    Will the real/fake Steven M. Scharf please stand up? No, nevermind, please
    sit down, shut the **** up, leave this newsgroup forever...
     
    Newsgroups, Jun 11, 2005
  16. Alan Browne

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    Well, the signal-to-noise ratio, in the zone in question, is pretty much
    the same in both cases, as they both result in the same sensor exposure.
    The ISO 400 is more highly quantized, though.
    I won't ask why male/male fellatio fantasies roll "randomly" off the top
    of your head.
    --
     
    JPS, Jun 12, 2005
  17. Alan Browne

    Peter Guest

    A decade ago we didn't have to do this, never mind two...

    -peter
     
    Peter, Jun 13, 2005
  18. Alan Browne

    Andrew Haley Guest

    Good point! We're just past the tenth anniversary of the famous
    Canter & Siegel affair. Spam moved from Usenet to email fairly
    shortly after that, but I don't know eactly when.

    Andrew.
     
    Andrew Haley, Jun 14, 2005
  19. Alan Browne

    Scharf-DCA Guest

    Good point! We're just past the tenth anniversary of the famous
    Well until recently. Google Groups provided full e-mail addresses, and
    they archive messages very far back. So in the even that you've kept
    the same e-mail address for all that time, you may well have wished
    that you had had the foresight t mangle your "from" and "Reply-to"
    addresses.

    Canter and Siegel made a boatload of money from their
    activities--activities which these days seem tame. They also wrote a
    book about the whole affair. I don't think that they were harvesting
    e-mail addresses though..
     
    Scharf-DCA, Jun 16, 2005
    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.