Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Hilarious Nikon D700(?) info leak

Reply
Thread Tools

Hilarious Nikon D700(?) info leak

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Catch Up
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html

>
>LOL!!!!
>
>"Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to Nikon
>because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in space."
>
>Well, if what he says about the D700x is even remotely true I'm getting on
>the pre-order wait list. Now all I have to do is get really flush and have
>Remy dig up a couple of them Mason jars I have buried in the back yard so
>that I can pay for it.


"Imagine video like you've never seen from a DSLR, and imagine full auto
focus with it."

P&S cameras already do this, for many years.


"Imagine auto ISO for the video,"

P&S cameras already do this, for many years.


"And what about that vari-angle LCD thingie"

P&S cameras already do this, for many years.


"How about voice recognition?"

The CHDK gurus thought of this years ago. While they've not done it yet
(after lengthy discussion it seemed a fairly stupid memory-wasting idea
considering all the many other ways a CHDK camera can be controlled), it's
still on the "to do" list for someone with too much time on their hands.


I fail to see why anyone would be astounded to have a camera that can do
these things. Nearly all these features have been around for a long long
time, working well, and their owners have been productively enjoying them
for just as long. It sounds more like the author of that article is just
making fun of all dSLRs. You just didn't read it right. I thought it quite
hilarious that anyone would be astounded by such things, let alone still
waiting for them to be incorporated into their cameras.


Catch up.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html

>
>LOL!!!!
>
>"Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to Nikon
>because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in space."


"They'd likely have me whisked away, locked up in a little room
somewhere, and you'd never hear from your good 'ole Uncle Bob again if
I even breathed a whisper of what NASA's D700X cameras can do."

I think he's got NASA confused with NSA.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Twibil
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
On Aug 10, 7:14*pm, John A. <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> "They'd likely have me whisked away, locked up in a little room
> somewhere, and you'd never hear from your good 'ole Uncle Bob again if
> I even breathed a whisper of what NASA's D700X cameras can do."
>
> I think he's got NASA confused with NSA.


Or possibly the NRA.

 
Reply With Quote
 
corks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009

"Catch Up" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>
>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html

>>
>>LOL!!!!
>>
>>"Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to
>>Nikon
>>because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in
>>space."
>>
>>Well, if what he says about the D700x is even remotely true I'm getting on
>>the pre-order wait list. Now all I have to do is get really flush and
>>have
>>Remy dig up a couple of them Mason jars I have buried in the back yard so
>>that I can pay for it.

>
> "Imagine video like you've never seen from a DSLR, and imagine full auto
> focus with it."
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>
>
> "Imagine auto ISO for the video,"
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>
>
> "And what about that vari-angle LCD thingie"
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>
>
> "How about voice recognition?"
>
> The CHDK gurus thought of this years ago. While they've not done it yet
> (after lengthy discussion it seemed a fairly stupid memory-wasting idea
> considering all the many other ways a CHDK camera can be controlled), it's
> still on the "to do" list for someone with too much time on their hands.
>
>
> I fail to see why anyone would be astounded to have a camera that can do
> these things. Nearly all these features have been around for a long long
> time, working well, and their owners have been productively enjoying them
> for just as long. It sounds more like the author of that article is just
> making fun of all dSLRs. You just didn't read it right. I thought it quite
> hilarious that anyone would be astounded by such things, let alone still
> waiting for them to be incorporated into their cameras.
>
>
> Catch up.
>

if P + S cameras are so good - how come they take such **** photo's in low
light or no light ????


 
Reply With Quote
 
Catch Up
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Catch Up" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>RichA wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html
>>>
>>>LOL!!!!
>>>
>>>"Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to
>>>Nikon
>>>because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in
>>>space."
>>>
>>>Well, if what he says about the D700x is even remotely true I'm getting on
>>>the pre-order wait list. Now all I have to do is get really flush and
>>>have
>>>Remy dig up a couple of them Mason jars I have buried in the back yard so
>>>that I can pay for it.

>>
>> "Imagine video like you've never seen from a DSLR, and imagine full auto
>> focus with it."
>>
>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>
>>
>> "Imagine auto ISO for the video,"
>>
>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>
>>
>> "And what about that vari-angle LCD thingie"
>>
>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>
>>
>> "How about voice recognition?"
>>
>> The CHDK gurus thought of this years ago. While they've not done it yet
>> (after lengthy discussion it seemed a fairly stupid memory-wasting idea
>> considering all the many other ways a CHDK camera can be controlled), it's
>> still on the "to do" list for someone with too much time on their hands.
>>
>>
>> I fail to see why anyone would be astounded to have a camera that can do
>> these things. Nearly all these features have been around for a long long
>> time, working well, and their owners have been productively enjoying them
>> for just as long. It sounds more like the author of that article is just
>> making fun of all dSLRs. You just didn't read it right. I thought it quite
>> hilarious that anyone would be astounded by such things, let alone still
>> waiting for them to be incorporated into their cameras.
>>
>>
>> Catch up.
>>

>if P + S cameras are so good - how come they take such **** photo's in low
>light or no light ????
>


Many of them do just fine in low light and even no light. I have plenty of
star-field images taken with P&S cameras with stars down to magnitude 9.6
recorded in the images. Some of them even allow you to see, frame, focus,
and shoot in total darkness by IR light alone.

Where have you been? Living under a rock for the last 9 years?

Catch up.


Now since you want to play the question game ...

If dSLRs are so good why can't you take them into 95% of all public places
and performances because they are so annoying, obtrusive, huge,
distracting, and obnoxiously loud?

If dSLRs are so good why do people always get dust on their sensors ruining
all their shots, finding out too late to go back and take those
once-in-a-lifetime shots again?

If dSLRs are so good why can they only have flash-sync up to 1/250 second?

If dSLRs are so good why can't they have shutter-speed preview?

If dSLRs are so good how come you can't have a live histograms, under-over
exposure overlays, and other important shooting data displayed in that
"superior" optical viewfinder?

If dSLRs are so good why is their "superior" optical viewfinder unable to
display an accurate 100% of the framed image of what will be recorded in
most of them?

If dSLRs are so good why do they get so dim that you can't even use DOF
preview with your lens that has that as an expensive optional feature when
all P&S cameras continually display the same brightness in the viewfinder
no matter the aperture and DOF selected?

If dSLRs are so good how come none of their glass is diffraction limited,
the best you can get, why are those overpriced lenses only good at one
aperture?

If dSLRs are so good how come they are so loud?

If dSLRs are so good how come their shutter-life expectancy is 1/10th that
of any decent P&S camera?

If dSLRs are so good how come it costs so much to repair them when they
break so easily?

If dSLRs are so good how come you get condensation on the mirror and
focusing screen every time you try to change lenses when the body is below
the dewpoint of the air around you and have to wait an hour for the body to
warm up and evaporate all that condensation before you can shoot images
again?

If dSLRs are so good how come the shutter and mirror mechanisms freeze up
solid in freezing temperatures with high humidity levels?

If dSLRs are so good how come the gummy viscous lubricants used in the
lenses to have them hold their zoom and focusing positions in normal
temperatures cause the lens to become useless in sub-freezing temperatures
because their lubricants have turned to cement?

If dSLRs are so good how come you miss so many shots every time you have to
change lenses to frame and compose your subject properly?

If dSLRs are so good why is their shutter response time even slower than
most P&S cameras these days due to the SLOW speed that the mirror has to be
moved out of the way and that SLOW focal-plane shutter has to traverse the
image plane?

If dSLRs are so good why do their focal-plane shutters distort the shape of
anything that moves faster than can be captured by the x-sync speed of the
shutter?

If dSLRs are so good why do you have to have 3-5 lenses for them to get the
same focal-lengths on a P&S camera, and even then you don't even get as
much aperture on the dSLR at the longer focal-lengths?

If dSLRs are so good how come you have to use a heavy tripod to use long
focal-length lenses with larger apertures?

If dSLRs are so good how come you have to haul about 20lbs of camera gear
to match the same image quality and focal-lengths of a good super-zoom P&S
camera that only weighs 1.3 lbs?

If dSLRs are so good why can't you get enough DOF for macrophotography
unless you use subject-destroying flash for enough illumination?

If dSLRs are so good are so good why can you get the same image quality in
a single P&S camera that even rivals a medium-format Hasselblad at 1/10th
to 1/50th of the cost it would take to outfit that dSLR body properly with
enough glass to equal it?

If dSLRs are so good ... why do only useless know-nothing
pretend-photographer trolls on usenet incessantly support the use of them?

If dSLRs are so good ....

Well, this is just getting boring. I could list about 200 more questions
off the top of my head that you will also be unable to answer.

Catch up!

Or .... go away you USELESS IDIOT **** OF A DSLR-TROLL.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
Catch Up wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> RichA wrote:
>>
>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html

>> LOL!!!!
>>
>> "Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to Nikon
>> because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in space."
>>
>> Well, if what he says about the D700x is even remotely true I'm getting on
>> the pre-order wait list. Now all I have to do is get really flush and have
>> Remy dig up a couple of them Mason jars I have buried in the back yard so
>> that I can pay for it.

>
> "Imagine video like you've never seen from a DSLR, and imagine full auto
> focus with it."
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>
>
> "Imagine auto ISO for the video,"
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>
>
> "And what about that vari-angle LCD thingie"
>
> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.


You really are a clueless idiot.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bob Larter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
Catch Up wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Catch Up" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/20...t-info-on.html
>>>> LOL!!!!
>>>>
>>>> "Rumor around NASA headquarters in Washington has it that they went to
>>>> Nikon
>>>> because Canon's auto focus problems are even worse in zero G out in
>>>> space."
>>>>
>>>> Well, if what he says about the D700x is even remotely true I'm getting on
>>>> the pre-order wait list. Now all I have to do is get really flush and
>>>> have
>>>> Remy dig up a couple of them Mason jars I have buried in the back yard so
>>>> that I can pay for it.
>>> "Imagine video like you've never seen from a DSLR, and imagine full auto
>>> focus with it."
>>>
>>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Imagine auto ISO for the video,"
>>>
>>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>>
>>>
>>> "And what about that vari-angle LCD thingie"
>>>
>>> P&S cameras already do this, for many years.
>>>
>>>
>>> "How about voice recognition?"
>>>
>>> The CHDK gurus thought of this years ago. While they've not done it yet
>>> (after lengthy discussion it seemed a fairly stupid memory-wasting idea
>>> considering all the many other ways a CHDK camera can be controlled), it's
>>> still on the "to do" list for someone with too much time on their hands.
>>>
>>>
>>> I fail to see why anyone would be astounded to have a camera that can do
>>> these things. Nearly all these features have been around for a long long
>>> time, working well, and their owners have been productively enjoying them
>>> for just as long. It sounds more like the author of that article is just
>>> making fun of all dSLRs. You just didn't read it right. I thought it quite
>>> hilarious that anyone would be astounded by such things, let alone still
>>> waiting for them to be incorporated into their cameras.
>>>
>>>
>>> Catch up.
>>>

>> if P + S cameras are so good - how come they take such **** photo's in low
>> light or no light ????
>>

>
> Many of them do just fine in low light and even no light.


Really? Name three.


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
In article <2009081108292118024-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > If dSLRs are so good why can they only have flash-sync up to 1/250 second?

>
> To answer one of your questions, that might be true for built-in flash
> units, but the following is also true;
> While the default sync is 1/250 second, my D300 in combination with my
> now disontinued SB-800, or the new SB-900, can in High-Speed Sync
> operate in a range of 1/8000 to 1/350 second.


that's high speed flash sync which reduces the power output.

however, the nikon d1x/h, d40, d50 and d70 could sync at any speed.

> As to the Compact/P&S vs. DSLR issue I have no axe to grind, I use both.


most people do.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-11-2009
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:29:21 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>
>To answer one of your questions, that might be true for built-in flash
>units, but the following is also true;
>While the default sync is 1/250 second, my D300 in combination with my
>now disontinued SB-800, or the new SB-900, can in High-Speed Sync
>operate in a range of 1/8000 to 1/350 second.


If that is the fake "pulsed flash" method (akin to the old focal-plane
flash-bulbs that burned with a longer duration to cover the shutter-slit's
slow passage over the imaging plane), then you still lose flash output at
any speeds over flash-sync shutter speeds. I'm not going to surf to look up
flash specs to see if that is the kind of flash you refer to. With pulsed
high-speed-sync flash unit then at 1/500 second you can only capture 1/2
the light output from the flash. 1/1000 second only 1/4th. Keeping in mind
that the illumination is an inverse square of the distance, then the times
where it can be used as an effective fill-flash are minimal indeed.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I can't get over how hilarious this is Mike Henley Digital Photography 1 04-15-2006 03:29 AM
Hilarious Video james@viralhq.com Digital Photography 0 02-12-2006 04:25 PM
Hilarious Linky !! Kat MCSE 41 04-27-2004 02:33 PM
[OT] Hilarious output from whois Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou Python 0 12-09-2003 02:45 AM



Advertisments