lol ... I saw that too..dsigma6 wrote:...a blunt?
djpharoah wrote:lol ... I saw that too..dsigma6 wrote:...a blunt?
Looks like a philly blunt son
ahahhaha it's a fountain pen from italy. I was actually considering to put a blunt in the photo though!dsigma6 wrote:if that's hand rolled (by you), i'll give you a dollar. it's symmetrical out the [censored].
anyways...nice X60s!
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!deschek wrote:Is it BT Logitech mouse? How do you like it? I`m planing yo buy same.
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).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.
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.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).
Its all in the hands of the photographer.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.
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.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.
Actually, alot of the compact cameras are more light sensitive ( F:2,8 for the most ) than the standard lenses on D-SLR's.gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos
What is the difference between EV Compression and ISO setting?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.gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos
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.
Don't know about the EV-compression. Never heard of it, sorry.gearguy wrote:What is the difference between EV Compression and ISO setting?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.
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?:-/
There is bad cameras, but if you buy a Nikon, Canon, Sony, or Panasonic they are not "crap".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.
My friend has a 130USD Canon A400 with a 3x zoom and variable ISO. Very little lens distortions. No perceptible vignetting.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.
Not enough availble light, slow shutter speed..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,
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.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 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.Torque wrote:Don't know about the EV-compression. Never heard of it, sorry.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?:-/
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.
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.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.gearguy wrote:Most digital Cameras in the sub £170 range aren't good for indoor photos
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Homepage
Forum
Drivers
HMM
MTM
Feed
