Thinkpads Forum

Ok so mine aren't as sexy as the other threads with the "X60" but here's my "X60s" plus toys.

waterfield designs sleeve, vertical strap only 22-18 size.


Some of the best things in life: computing, journaling, reading.


The machine below is an Avertec (hot, noisy, dies fast), and is a bit bigger than the X60s.


I'm sure I'll be posting a lot more photos of this cool lappy! Other people recently bought X60s machines, post them!

++**More here in the X60s Album**++

Nice nice nice...

I want one... May be in a year or two...

Nice machine the X60 , If I hadnt bought an X31 9 months ago I would surely buy the X60 now.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
current own:
IBM T43, 1,5G Ram,PM2.0Ghz, 2668-97U, 80G 5400RPM
IBM X31, 768MB Ram,PM1.6Ghz, 2673-PXP, 80G 5400RPM,Extended life battery

...a blunt?

dsigma6 wrote:...a blunt?

lol ... I saw that too..

Looks like a philly blunt son

if that's hand rolled (by you), i'll give you a dollar. it's symmetrical out the [censored].

anyways...nice X60s!

Is it BT Logitech mouse? How do you like it? I`m planing yo buy same.

djpharoah wrote:

dsigma6 wrote:...a blunt?

lol ... I saw that too..

Looks like a philly blunt son

dsigma6 wrote:if that's hand rolled (by you), i'll give you a dollar. it's symmetrical out the [censored].

anyways...nice X60s!

ahahhaha it's a fountain pen from italy. I was actually considering to put a blunt in the photo though!

deschek wrote:Is it BT Logitech mouse? How do you like it? I`m planing yo buy same.

Yeah it's logitech V270. I really like it so far. I used it all day between it and the infamous red dot. I actually use both off and on. I got a lot more used to the lovily red dot than I thought I would!

Nice laptop sleeve. Nice thinkpad. The 1st pic is blur...!

niceeeeeee....!

I know I know my camera has issues in low-light. Plus the focus is hard to determine on a low resolution viewfinder.

Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos

disagree strongly. you just have to know how to take photos (e.g. you can't expect to handhold your camera when shooting 1/8 sec).

THat's my point son.

On a good good camera you can hold it with your hand and snap an indoor pic without it looking like [censored] - without a tripod. Sure with a tripod it will still look better.

Anything with a long exposure time is crap IMO. I film a lot of moving objects at night you see.

gearguy wrote:THat's my point son.

On a good good camera you can hold it with your hand and snap an indoor pic without it looking like [censored] - without a tripod. Sure with a tripod it will still look better.

Anything with a long exposure time is crap IMO. I film a lot of moving objects at night you see.

That is not necessarily true. Aside from ISO values, a shot that requires f/2.8 at 1/8 is going to need f/2.8 at 1/8 regardless of the camera being used. The only way to to get that shutter speed faster is to get a wider aperture (lens issue) or raising the ISO (most P&S has a similar range and most dSLR have a similar range).

lucas wrote:disagree strongly. you just have to know how to take photos (e.g. you can't expect to handhold your camera when shooting 1/8 sec).

The first picture was shot a 1/60 which is fast enough for most handholding at these distances. The picture is actually out of focus and it appears that the camera focused on the books. Same thing happened for the second photo.

thanks, beavo. i completely agree.

also, gearguy, how is a long exposure time "crap"? depending on what the photographer is going for, you may want more depth of field over anything, in which case you have a trade off (and in the end either better lighting or a tripod).

i want all of my photos identical to ones that i would take if i had used a tripod. if you can notice a difference between tripod and non-tripod, you should be using a tripod. a tripod isn't always better.

Ehh, you people seem to be thinking I am talking about Good Cameras and seem to be convinced that there is no such thing as a bad Digital Camera (which there are).

Hence why I said most in the £170 range, as a lot of them really are bad. Regardless of how you look at them.

Remember, yes what Beavo or whatever his name is said about the exposure times being the same is true - But I'm talking about over a range of CHEAP NASTY cameras - Lenses? When was the last time you saw a Camera in the sub £170 range that allowed you to adjust the lens lmao (And some of them don't even have ISO setting... LOL). Remember on some of them you can't actually adjust the exposure times, or other settings well enough to give any notable difference as on cheapo-cams.

Most of them have like a tiny lense that resembles a pinhole so you get a nice photo in the middle with big dark edges and lots geometry issues.

Imagine I want to Photograph a toddler running along a street at Night (as toddlers tend to do wen you go out at night with them) - I set my camera up for so called night photography, find a surface to place the camera on if a Tripod is not immiediatly available - press the shutter button, to get a perfectly still shot of the street with crisp imaging everywhere - only to get blur instead of a toddler in the shot that resembles a semi-transparent tumor sliding through the streets,

This is a perfect example of why Digital Cameras are just in general, crap. Think about it - do you have to go to all that hassle with Film? No. And is Film better quality? Yes. Regardles of LCD displays and being able to delete shots - you find that you don't really ever need to "delete" shots from a Film camera as they don't look like [censored] because you've not set up your ISO right.

gearguy wrote:Ehh, you people seem to be thinking I am talking about Good Cameras and seem to be convinced that there is no such thing as a bad Digital Camera (which there are).

Hence why I said most in the £170 range, as a lot of them really are bad. Regardless of how you look at them.

Remember, yes what Beavo or whatever his name is said about the exposure times being the same is true - But I'm talking about over a range of CHEAP NASTY cameras - Lenses? When was the last time you saw a Camera in the sub £170 range that allowed you to adjust the lens lmao (And some of them don't even have ISO setting... LOL). Remember on some of them you can't actually adjust the exposure times, or other settings well enough to give any notable difference as on cheapo-cams.

Most of them have like a tiny lense that resembles a pinhole so you get a nice photo in the middle with big dark edges and lots geometry issues.

Imagine I want to Photograph a toddler running along a street at Night (as toddlers tend to do wen you go out at night with them) - I set my camera up for so called night photography, find a surface to place the camera on if a Tripod is not immiediatly available - press the shutter button, to get a perfectly still shot of the street with crisp imaging everywhere - only to get blur instead of a toddler in the shot that resembles a semi-transparent tumor sliding through the streets,

This is a perfect example of why Digital Cameras are just in general, crap. Think about it - do you have to go to all that hassle with Film? No. And is Film better quality? Yes. Regardles of LCD displays and being able to delete shots - you find that you don't really ever need to "delete" shots from a Film camera as they don't look like [censored] because you've not set up your ISO right.

Its all in the hands of the photographer.
Its still up to choosing the right shutter speed, aperture, ISO setting etc. to get a good photograph when photographing in dim light. Bad camera or not, analog or not. Everything depends on the sensitivity of your film (ISO) (and ISO setting, when digital), your aperture and the exposeretime you need to compensate for that.

In your example, you state

you find that you don't really ever need to "delete" shots from a Film camera as they don't look like [censored] because you've not set up your ISO right.

But its the same with analog cameras. You have to choose a film with a certain light sensitivity to match the scenery you are photographing. Big difference is, that on a digital camera is a matter of flicking a switch - where as on the analog, you have to buy the right ISO film etc.

I wouldnt go back to films, even if someone paid me.

gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos

Actually, alot of the compact cameras are more light sensitive ( F:2,8 for the most ) than the standard lenses on D-SLR's.

And I'm talking about the Powershot A-series, which is around the price you mention there. And they do fine in dim conditions. Again, its the photographer.

there is a little quote I recall from a photo class:

never handhold at a slower speed than the iso of your film.

Looks like I sparked much debate with my crappy pictures. If you can figure a way to determine focus manually on my camera I'll give you a hug (caution offer may be digital, and/or spurious.) I have a fuji S5100, also known as the S5500 for some reason.

Before you give me the answer straight from the user guide I should mention once again that it isn't that it's difficult to enable manual focus, or actually push the correct buttons to manually focus. It's determining focus in a reasonable manner with a pixelated viewfinder. (more accurately: 0.33-inch 115,000 pixels electronic viewfinder)

As for the lighting, I could put it on a tripod and open the shutter for a while longer and it would all be fine. I was just casually complaining when I said my camera sucks in low light, actually it works well in low light. I just was lazy and didn't want to setup the tripod, but I have since found the tripod and set it up. I am now going to take more shots.

Torque wrote:

gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos

Actually, alot of the compact cameras are more light sensitive ( F:2,8 for the most ) than the standard lenses on D-SLR's.

And I'm talking about the Powershot A-series, which is around the price you mention there. And they do fine in dim conditions. Again, its the photographer.

What is the difference between EV Compression and ISO setting?
My Camera as an "EV Compression" setting that seems to function... the same way as an ISO setting.

Is there anyway to film a speeding car at night on a Digital Camera without it being a blur? I've tried everything I can on my camera with no luck. Is my camera just a POS?:-/

well, i doubt that would be possible with film while getting decent quality (iso-6400..?)

and, yeah, i was also thinking of the canon powershot a-series. amazing cameras for the price.

gearguy wrote:

Torque wrote: Actually, alot of the compact cameras are more light sensitive ( F:2,8 for the most ) than the standard lenses on D-SLR's.

And I'm talking about the Powershot A-series, which is around the price you mention there. And they do fine in dim conditions. Again, its the photographer.

What is the difference between EV Compression and ISO setting?
My Camera as an "EV Compression" setting that seems to function... the same way as an ISO setting.

Is there anyway to film a speeding car at night on a Digital Camera without it being a blur? I've tried everything I can on my camera with no luck. Is my camera just a POS?:-/

Don't know about the EV-compression. Never heard of it, sorry.

If you take pictures at night (without the flash), its critical that you get your shutter speed down. Unless you are using a tripod, taking pictures of static stuff. Like etc. parked cars.
When you adjust the shutter speed down, you decrease the chip exposure time and thereby the light.
Now there are two factors left; The ISO and your aperture. Aperture depends on the motive of your picture. If your pictures does not require a large focus area, set your aperture as low as possible (lowest f-value).
The last is the ISO setting. This varies ALOT from camera to camera, when it comes to digital. A good D-SLR can run up to ISO 800 without generating too much noise. So trial and error - see how far you can go.

However, if you are shooting with flash, none of this matters. Its merely a matter of light or the distance to your motive.

gearguy wrote:Ehh, you people seem to be thinking I am talking about Good Cameras and seem to be convinced that there is no such thing as a bad Digital Camera (which there are).
Hence why I said most in the £170 range, as a lot of them really are bad. Regardless of how you look at them.

There is bad cameras, but if you buy a Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Panasonic they are not "crap".

Remember, yes what Beavo or whatever his name is said about the exposure times being the same is true - But I'm talking about over a range of CHEAP NASTY cameras - Lenses? When was the last time you saw a Camera in the sub £170 range that allowed you to adjust the lens lmao (And some of them don't even have ISO setting... LOL). Remember on some of them you can't actually adjust the exposure times, or other settings well enough to give any notable difference as on cheapo-cams.

Most of them have like a tiny lense that resembles a pinhole so you get a nice photo in the middle with big dark edges and lots geometry issues.

My friend has a 130USD Canon A400 with a 3x zoom and variable ISO. Very little lens distortions. No perceptible vignetting.

Perhaps you should use proper terminology and spend the effort use names (or screen names correctly) to retain some credibility

Imagine I want to Photograph a toddler running along a street at Night (as toddlers tend to do wen you go out at night with them) - I set my camera up for so called night photography, find a surface to place the camera on if a Tripod is not immiediatly available - press the shutter button, to get a perfectly still shot of the street with crisp imaging everywhere - only to get blur instead of a toddler in the shot that resembles a semi-transparent tumor sliding through the streets,

Not enough availble light, slow shutter speed..

Of COURSE the toddler is going to be a blur. Without a wide aperture and ISO to get a shutter speed above 1/60, moving people are going to blur. It does not matter if you use a tripod, stable surface, or hand hold.

This is a perfect example of why Digital Cameras are just in general, crap. Think about it - do you have to go to all that hassle with Film? No. And is Film better quality? Yes. Regardles of LCD displays and being able to delete shots - you find that you don't really ever need to "delete" shots from a Film camera as they don't look like [censored] because you've not set up your ISO right.

ISO speeds do not vary with a roll of film. A roll of ISO 200 film is going to be ISO 200, no matter what. The exception might be that the lab will push or pull your film in processing in an attempt to rescue horribly exposed shots. I'll leave the "film is better than digital" alone with the exception of saying that I cannot tell the difference between prints of film and digital.

There are so many ignorant statements about photography in the above post. What is your experience with photography?

Torque wrote:

gearguy wrote: What is the difference between EV Compression and ISO setting?
My Camera as an "EV Compression" setting that seems to function... the same way as an ISO setting.

Is there anyway to film a speeding car at night on a Digital Camera without it being a blur? I've tried everything I can on my camera with no luck. Is my camera just a POS?:-/

Don't know about the EV-compression. Never heard of it, sorry.

If you take pictures at night (without the flash), its critical that you get your shutter speed down. Unless you are using a tripod, taking pictures of static stuff. Like etc. parked cars.
When you adjust the shutter speed down, you decrease the chip exposure time and thereby the light.
Now there are two factors left; The ISO and your aperture. Aperture depends on the motive of your picture. If your pictures does not require a large focus area, set your aperture as low as possible (lowest f-value).
The last is the ISO setting. This varies ALOT from camera to camera, when it comes to digital. A good D-SLR can run up to ISO 800 without generating too much noise. So trial and error - see how far you can go.

However, if you are shooting with flash, none of this matters. Its merely a matter of light or the distance to your motive.

ISO is the sensitivity of the media to light. More sensitivity also results in more noise (digital) or grain (film). Which usually equals a loss in detail.

EV compensation is exposure compensation to override the light meter in the camera. Example: If camera meters to expose a f/8, 1/250 ISO 100, EV +1 would force the camera to overexpose by one stop. Then the exposure will be taken at any of the following combinations:

f/7.1, 1/250, ISO 100
f/8, 1/125, ISO 100
f/8, 1/250, ISO 200

All the combos will resoult in an exposure one stop over the exposure indicated by the meter.

Torque wrote:

gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos

Actually, alot of the compact cameras are more light sensitive ( F:2,8 for the most ) than the standard lenses on D-SLR's.

And I'm talking about the Powershot A-series, which is around the price you mention there. And they do fine in dim conditions. Again, its the photographer.

While this is true, the P&S cameras need the wide aperture due to the fact that their sensors are so tiny and produce so much noise that the ISO values are very low. A dSLR at ISO 200 or even 400 usually has better noise characteristics than a P&S at ISO 50.

The reference was "EV compression", as an alternative to ISO. Which I had never heard of, for obvious reasons

Torque wrote:The reference was "EV compression", as an alternative to ISO. Which I had never heard of, for obvious reasons

May I ask which distro you are running in those *nix shots? Ive heard the X60/s doesnt really like Linux, how was your luck?

Unfortunately I'm running windows.

Although I am interested in trying SuSe:
http://www.remset.net/Members/Markus/su ... kpad-x60s/
Looks very successful.

also see:
http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Category:X60s

Otherwise I really want it to work with NetBSD, my favorite OS. I think it may have problems though as I have read elsewhere.

Here's a link for one person who tried installing freebsd/netbsd and some linux variant: http://www.hack.org/mc/freebsd-x60.html