Hilarious Nikon D700(?) info leak

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 10, 2009.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Catch Up Guest

    On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    <> wrote:

    >RichA wrote:
    >
    >> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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.
     
    Catch Up, Aug 11, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    <> wrote:

    >RichA wrote:
    >
    >> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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.
     
    John A., Aug 11, 2009
    #3
  4. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 10, 7:14 pm, John A. <> 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.
     
    Twibil, Aug 11, 2009
    #4
  5. RichA

    corks Guest

    "Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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 shit photo's in low
    light or no light ????
     
    corks, Aug 11, 2009
    #5
  6. RichA

    Catch Up Guest

    On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >"Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>RichA wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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 shit 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.
     
    Catch Up, Aug 11, 2009
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bob Larter Guest

    Catch Up wrote:
    > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>
    >>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Aug 11, 2009
    #7
  8. RichA

    Bob Larter Guest

    Catch Up wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> "Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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 shit 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
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Aug 11, 2009
    #8
  9. RichA

    nospam Guest

    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.
     
    nospam, Aug 11, 2009
    #9
  10. 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.
     
    Trevor Taylor, Aug 11, 2009
    #10
  11. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Catch Up wrote:
    > On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>RichA wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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 shit 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.


    Big deal.
     
    RichA, Aug 11, 2009
    #11
  12. On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:


    >> 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.

    >
    >Big deal.


    Then why do you make such a big deal out of it when many P&S cameras can
    not only equal but exceed the performance of a DSLR? Oh, that's right,
    you're nothing but a lowly pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL.
     
    Replying to Trolls, Aug 12, 2009
    #12
  13. RichA

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Replying to Trolls <> wrote:
    >On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >>Big deal.

    >
    >Then why do you make such a big deal out of it when many P&S cameras can
    >not only equal but exceed the performance of a DSLR?


    Because, oh stupid one: Most cannot.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Aug 12, 2009
    #13
  14. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    "Ray Fischer" <> wrote in message
    news:4a8308c7$0$1632$...
    > Replying to Trolls <> wrote:
    >>On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 14:36:26 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>>Big deal.

    >>
    >>Then why do you make such a big deal out of it when many P&S cameras can
    >>not only equal but exceed the performance of a DSLR?

    >
    > Because, oh stupid one: Most cannot.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >
    >


    Umm, that would none can, if they could the P&S Troll would post images and
    he never ever does cos he can't do what he says he can. Even an idiot like
    him can surely see that saying a thing many, many times does not make it
    true.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Aug 14, 2009
    #14
  15. RichA

    Pete D Guest

    "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
    news:4a817348$...
    > Catch Up wrote:
    >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:44:04 +0800, "corks"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> RichA wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-secret-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 shit photo's in
    >>> low light or no light ????

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

    >
    > Really? Name three.
    >

    And while you are at it how about posting a few of these truly wonderous and
    amazing killer images?
     
    Pete D, Aug 14, 2009
    #15
  16. RichA

    Catch Up Guest

    On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:12:17 +1000, "Pete D" <> wrote:

    >
    >>

    >And while you are at it how about posting a few of these truly wonderous and
    >amazing killer images?
    >


    They've already been posted many times in the past. But trolls like you
    refuse to believe what camera they have come from. So why bother playing
    your game again? It's a waste of everyone's time, especially my own.
     
    Catch Up, Aug 14, 2009
    #16
  17. RichA

    Chris H Guest

    In message <4a813b7d$0$22818$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
    01.iinet.net.au>, corks <> writes
    >
    >"Catch Up" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 18:35:11 -0400, "Larry Thong"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>RichA wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> http://artoftheimage.blogspot.com/2009/08/uncle-bob-leaks-top-
    >>>>secret-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 shit photo's in low
    >light or no light ????


    More to the point if P&S are SOOOOO good why do NASA take the oh so
    heavy DSLR's with them?

    NASA is not stupid. They also have access to a lot of data the public
    don't.... Don't you think that if P&S were even as remotely usefull as
    the Trolls claim NASA would take P&S citing the weight as the over
    riding factor?

    Nikon would love to have their CoolPix on a shuttle flight. I can see it
    now

    "hen you are stuck for space/weight but need the best pictures what is
    the one thing you take... The Nikon CoolPix-NASA for out of this world
    photos"


    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
     
    Chris H, Aug 14, 2009
    #17
  18. On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:38:59 +0100, Chris H <> wrote:

    >
    >More to the point if P&S are SOOOOO good why do NASA take the oh so
    >heavy DSLR's with them?


    Because they have to operate them with heavy and difficult to flex
    pressure-suit gloves when out in space. They wouldn't be able to do that
    with any present-day P&S camera. You need the gargantuan size of a DSLR to
    allow for those seemingly uncoordinated motions that any ape might make. On
    the ground all DSLR owners do the same but without pressure-suit gloves.

    On the plus side, should they run out of retro-rocket fuel, they can
    manually fling them away from or toward earth, using the opposing force of
    the DSLR's huge mass to correct for any course error to bring their craft
    safely back to earth. (How much do you want to bet that that's included in
    the list of their possible emergency uses to help justify for their extra
    weight. If not now, then I bet it was considered and even listed when
    smaller spacecraft were originally launched with DSLRs aboard.)

    Just for the record, how silly is it for an astronaut wanting
    voice-recognition control? As if that's going to help them when outside the
    shuttle? Someone's been watching too many poorly done made-for-TV sci-fi
    movies.
     
    They Still Can't Think For Themselves, Aug 14, 2009
    #18
  19. On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:18:58 -0500, They Still Can't Think For Themselves
    <> wrote:

    >the list of their possible emergency uses to help justify for their extra
    >weight. If not now, then I bet it was considered and even listed when
    >smaller spacecraft were originally launched with DSLRs aboard.)
    >


    Correction, "... were originally launched with SLRs aboard."
     
    They Still Can't Think For Themselves, Aug 14, 2009
    #19
  20. RichA

    John A. Guest

    On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:18:58 -0500, They Still Can't Think For
    Themselves <> wrote:

    >On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:38:59 +0100, Chris H <> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>More to the point if P&S are SOOOOO good why do NASA take the oh so
    >>heavy DSLR's with them?

    >
    >Because they have to operate them with heavy and difficult to flex
    >pressure-suit gloves when out in space. They wouldn't be able to do that
    >with any present-day P&S camera. You need the gargantuan size of a DSLR to
    >allow for those seemingly uncoordinated motions that any ape might make. On
    >the ground all DSLR owners do the same but without pressure-suit gloves.
    >
    >On the plus side, should they run out of retro-rocket fuel, they can
    >manually fling them away from or toward earth, using the opposing force of
    >the DSLR's huge mass to correct for any course error to bring their craft
    >safely back to earth. (How much do you want to bet that that's included in
    >the list of their possible emergency uses to help justify for their extra
    >weight. If not now, then I bet it was considered and even listed when
    >smaller spacecraft were originally launched with DSLRs aboard.)
    >
    >Just for the record, how silly is it for an astronaut wanting
    >voice-recognition control? As if that's going to help them when outside the
    >shuttle? Someone's been watching too many poorly done made-for-TV sci-fi
    >movies.


    And someone else forgot how the astronauts have radios with mics in
    their helmets, and how they themselves *just now* explained how
    difficult it is to operate a camera by hand with a space suit on.

    LOL
     
    John A., Aug 14, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Paul Furman

    Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!!

    Paul Furman, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    958
    Alotta Fagina
    Jul 3, 2008
  2. Cynicor

    OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900

    Cynicor, Jul 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    584
    Jufí
    Jul 1, 2008
  3. vinnyss
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,193
    bmw2007
    Nov 7, 2008
  4. bowzer

    Re: 5D Mk II Users Selling In Favor Of Nikon D700!!

    bowzer, Jan 9, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    522
    Noons
    Jan 10, 2009
  5. Replies:
    15
    Views:
    660
    Noons
    Feb 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page