Did you check out the lens coozie? Its $600 of neoprene.
The 5DI still costs considerably more, so I would expect it to. IIRC, the FF sensor helps as well.
Next we have our very own Moses with a review that put a smile on my face. I tell ya, I thank God for people like Darwin Wiggett and Moses because they make my work so much easier for me. Now I have some material to use in my arguments with Tokyo. Moses wrote down a lot of words on his website to essentially just make the following point, and I quote:
Now the 2 year old 40D costing round $800 delivers better image quality than the ’state of the art’ 7D which costs $1700. Does this make sense to you? Not to me!
So now we can’t post videos here at Canon while Nikon’s giving away $100,000 to do exactly that! This is just fucking childish behavior on their part. Just rub more salt on our wounds will ya? Fucking wankers. And they couldn’t have picked someone more suitable to do this either. That Jarvis guy’s on crack 24/7. I wish we had him on our side to promote our products. Did you see the videos he posted on his website? Boy that’s something else. A world of difference between those videos and my boring 1D4 sales talk.
So you see now why I need the whisky and the ganja, right? Nikon is encouraging photographers like Chase to use their equipment and even giving away tons of money doing so, while we are here shooting down talented people like Vincent Laforet, peace and blessings be upon him, and ordering them to take down their videos taken with our equipment. Boy that really has to have a positive influence on any good will they have towards us.
And I’m not even going to mention the new Nikon iPhone application. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, keep it that way.
ISO 102k, lol looks worse than the old Fuji F30 @3.2k, can you sayMeanwhile the Nikon D3s is available and people are already raving about the great image quality it offers. I’m quite sure that our 7D would have matched the D3s if it was kept at 10MP. But we all know how that worked out. Wildlife photographer Moose Petersen wrote about his experiences using the D3s on his website. Imagine that… a wildlife photographer called Moose… Anyway, if you look at the D3s samples on his website, it becomes clear that the 1D4 is going to have tough competition. I do know from my own tests here at the office that certainly ISO 102,400 on the 1D4 doesn’t look quite as good as ISO 102,400 on the D3s.
No, I haven't actually tried it yet. I'll take a look at it on Thursday when I'm at their house. I was just taking Nikon's word for it.I'm not sure that is true. Did you actually try it?
Good to know. Thanks!It works fine in three XP systems.
1. OEM XP32 SP2 -> XP32 SP3
2. 2K SP2 -> 2K SP4 -> XP32 SP2 -> XP32 SP3
3. OEM XP64 SP2
Have you considered using UFRaw? ( http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/index.html )Ahahah... I love Nikon... My dad went Nikon on the DSLR side (poor misguided soul). First of all, their RAW converter isn't free. Second, their free RAW application, Nikon ViewNX, requires a Windows install with the latest service pack slip-streamed on the install disk.
Works fine is relative. It works fine on my system until it crashes unexpectedly.
Haven't used it enough in windows 7 64bit yet to see if that still happens. But in XP 64bit it used to happen about every 3rd time I used it.
Well, even after installing SP3 it was still a no go. The application installs and runs, but when it attempts to process a file (JPEG or NEF) it crashes.That's probably not so feasible for my Dad. I'll see if I can get Nikon ViewNX running when I'm there for Turkey Day.
You have to be a geek to enjoy something so dry. I know I did.
....seems Marvin is just a vapid, shallow, and superficial with no life, like his American/Western cultural counterparts.The star of the show is 28 year old Marvin who spends all his money on a Mercedes SLK to drive around Singapore in, mostly cruising with his friends at night.
It was a good experience. The service was good and as soon as I arrived I signed in and saw a nurse within 5 minutes. Discussed what was going on and within another 10 I was being seen by others to go over my breathing issues. I was there for a while though waiting for results from the xrays.
It's obvious looking back at old magazines that the only thing that mattered was getting to the right place at the right time to take a picture of the right thing, and the choice of developer and wash treatments, 90% of what the magazines went off about, was irrelevant.
Today, its the same thing. Magazines go off about how to "fix" your pictures in your computer, but let's face it: the only way to fix them is, as always, get to the right place at the right time and see the right picture before you press the shutter.
If you waste your time making 3,600 exposures from the same place to stitch in four dimensions, it doesn't matter how much spatial (gigapan and pan-focus) or luminous (HDR) range or resolution you have, if it's a picture of something boring.
If it sucks, who cares if it's GPS geotagged? If it's great, it's because of the lighting and timing, which has nothing to do with the location.
A photo of an important event is rarely important by itself. It is the event which was important, not the photo. Making a strong photo is much more difficult than just being there with a tripod.
Hobbyists are so distracted by wondering which raw converter to use, worried about printer and camera profiles, wasting hours doing gigapan and HDR and pan-focus captures, and then wasting even more hours in front of their screens putting these all together back into photos and then screwing them up further with more plugins, that no hobbyists have any time left to look for better pictures.
Today's hobby has perverted itself into little more than something men do on their computers between porn sessions.
Artists and photographers are still out shooting, but the hobbyist of today is crippled by wasting the majority of his potentially creative efforts dicking around on his computer.
As always, there would be little available for photography today if it wasn't for those nutty hobbyists buying so much gear and software. Without them, we'd still have what we had back in the 1990s, which is fine with me.
Oh man, Ken is so right on! Imma gunna go get me a Tiffen steadycam for my iPhone right now, and start takkin great images just like him!Many of the popular hobby techniques that require multiple exposures to create just one big crappy picture are actually technically incapable of making a good picture, precisely because they require multiple exposures.
Still photographs need dynamic elements to be successful. Moving and living subjects have to be caught at the peak of the action, the decisive instant that says it all. Landscapes, nature and architecture needs to be caught in the right light. The right light isn't in the middle of the day: the right light is very short-lived at the ends of the day. Clouds come and go, and the best syrupy golden light of dawn often only lasts for seconds. The strongest photos are those that capture something in transition.
Think of the best photos you can imagine. Is the subject just sitting there? Not likely. Most likely, something is happening, be interaction between people, or it's nature doing something interesting. You can't capture any of that with multiple exposures.
Ansel Adam's Clearing Winter Storm? Similar conditions have repeated, but as the clouds blow around, multiple exposures won't stitch or stack because the clouds can't match.
Ansel Adams' Moonrise over Hernandez? Ansel was driving around New Mexico, and saw something crazy happening before him. He stopped, and realized he had about 120 seconds before he lost the light on the crosses. He took 110 seconds to set up his 8x10" camera, took 5 seconds to guess his exposure from experience because he forgot his light meter in the car, and 5 seconds to get off one shot before he lost his light. He had no time for bracketing, or even for a second safety shot.
If he had brought a DSLR, he would have lost it before he even started any series of exposures intended to be stitched or stacked.
No, simply lightening the crosses later in Photoshop would not have made a picture if he had already lost his light.
Those are what people call still-lifes, shot with large-format cameras. Just think of all the iconic news shots that are even more difficult to time.
If you take more than a half-second to fire all the shots you need to stitch and stack, you cannot possibly create a photograph as powerful as can be captured in one snap of my Powershot.
Sure, some few people make good photos with whack techniques, and those same people are the sort of people who could make great photos with any technique.
The people who can pull off good stitched photos are those who already know exactly where to set their tripods for great photos. If you don't already have this knack, and few people do, then the worst way to try to get better is by handicapping yourself with a system that paralyzes you for a half an hour at a time.
Women don't have this problem, since they'd rather go shoot, which is why they create a lot less crap than we men do.