General discussion - Mom and Dad Esq.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by tmdiva
I'm still seeing them on my screen, but it's entirely possible that Yahoo photos doesn't like the remote linking.

Thor is the baby. You do realize those aren't their real, actual names, right?

tm

I saw them for a bit . . . maybe there's some caching issue, so the link dies after a bit. Dunno.

I figured they were their real names . . . but one never knows on the internets.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
The pics disappeared?

Before, when they were there, my sharp eyes told me they were not taken by a point and shoot. Although I shoot film, still, for anything but snapz, you can get the same effect with a dSLR--that is, dial down the depth of field so the background is out of focus. That's what makes the pictures "pop". Wonk? More thoughts?

BTW, which one is Thor and which one Magnus?

Film can have a deeper "richness" of color. Sometimes, it's more saturation, sometimes, it's greater range of tonality.

You can do almost as much with depth of field and light levels with a digital SLR these days as you can with film at a reasonable price point. As an example, the Nikon D50 or D70s, or the Canon Rebel digital SLRs are both excellent amateur cameras with many of the same capabilities that professional cameras have.

But for color, you need far more pixellation, memory, and more scanning than most people can afford or want to afford. To really imitate or better film, you need a minimum of 10 megapixels, full frame scanning, and anywhere from $5-10,000 for just the camera body.

I still use a film camera for my art shots, but I'm thinking of changing over to the Nikon D50 one of these days.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Film can have a deeper "richness" of color. Sometimes, it's more saturation, sometimes, it's greater range of tonality.

You can do almost as much with depth of field and light levels with a digital SLR these days as you can with film at a reasonable price point. As an example, the Nikon D50 or D70s, or the Canon Rebel digital SLRs are both excellent amateur cameras with many of the same capabilities that professional cameras have.

But for color, you need far more pixellation, memory, and more scanning than most people can afford or want to afford. To really imitate or better film, you need a minimum of 10 megapixels, full frame scanning, and anywhere from $5-10,000 for just the camera body.

I still use a film camera for my art shots, but I'm thinking of changing over to the Nikon D50 one of these days.

I'm looking at the d50 as well, but the 6.1 mp CCD is cause for hesitation. the recently-released d80 has 10 mp, though at a stiffer price point.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
I'm looking at the d50 as well, but the 6.1 mp CCD is cause for hesitation. the recently-released d80 has 10 mp, though at a stiffer price point.

My neighbor has the D50 and it produces amazingly sharp prints with very good coloar saturation, even on a very cheap color inkjet printer. The 6.1 is really enough for all but a pro or the most hardcore amateur, at least until the 10 mp cameras come way down in price.

But this comment is based on my budget, not yours. Bottom line, if I could afford it, I'd lay down the $12,000 for a D1 and a much faster lens or two. But that's cause I'm an idiot when it comes to toys.

ETA I just looked at prices and saw the D2X has come down significantly in price. It's only about $4,000-5,000 now.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by taxwonk
My neighbor has the D50 and it produces amazingly sharp prints with very good coloar saturation, even on a very cheap color inkjet printer. The 6.1 is really enough for all but a pro or the most hardcore amateur, at least until the 10 mp cameras come way down in price.

But this comment is based on my budget, not yours. Bottom line, if I could afford it, I'd lay down the $12,000 for a D1 and a much faster lens or two. But that's cause I'm an idiot when it comes to toys.

The d80 is not a whole lot more than a d50 ($800 for the body, I think), though you can get a good body/lens set for the d50 for $600 or so.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
The d80 is not a whole lot more than a d50 ($800 for the body, I think), though you can get a good body/lens set for the d50 for $600 or so.

Hmmm. I may have to rethink my purchase. One nice thing about Nikon is that their full range of lenses will work with the digital body, so the lenses I have now won't be obsolete.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
I'm looking at the d50 as well, but the 6.1 mp CCD is cause for hesitation. the recently-released d80 has 10 mp, though at a stiffer price point.

Sony Alpha? The Minolta Maxxum D5 replacement for $900.

And, Wonk, I'll save you a post: No, it's not Nikon or Canon, so serious photographers won't take you seriously.

eta: oops. I was looking at the kit version of the d80. The prices are a lot closer (900 vs. 1000) than I thought.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sony Alpha? The Minolta Maxxum D5 replacement for $900.

And, Wonk, I'll save you a post: No, it's not Nikon or Canon, so serious photographers won't take you seriously.

eta: oops. I was looking at the kit version of the d80. The prices are a lot closer (900 vs. 1000) than I thought.

The Nikon has the Sony CCD in it, which is part of what makes it a great camera. I think Nikon has superior optics, but really the main reason I am firmly committed to Nikon is that I already have a decent investment in their lenses.

The Minolta is a good camera. I doubt that most people would be able to tell the difference between a good shot with the Minolta and one taken with the Nikon. The big difference other than optics is that the Nikon has better auto and special program modes, so it's more forgiving of amateurs like me.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sony Alpha? The Minolta Maxxum D5 replacement for $900.

And, Wonk, I'll save you a post: No, it's not Nikon or Canon, so serious photographers won't take you seriously.

eta: oops. I was looking at the kit version of the d80. The prices are a lot closer (900 vs. 1000) than I thought.

We have a bunch of NIKKOR lenses and accessories, so leaving the Nikon fold isn't really an option.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
We have a bunch of NIKKOR lenses and accessories, so leaving the Nikon fold isn't really an option.

Well, there you go. I have a set of Minolta lenses . . .

I'll bet you ditched a lot of windows software when you went Mac, though . . .

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, there you go. I have a set of Minolta lenses . . .

I'll bet you ditched a lot of windows software when you went Mac, though . . .

Speaking of Macs, my daughter's just died on her for the seventh time in three years. I'm beginning to think of Macs as the Italian sportscars of the computer world.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Speaking of Macs, my daughter's just died on her for the seventh time in three years. I'm beginning to think of Macs as the Italian sportscars of the computer world.

I'm beginning to think of your daughter as a mac wrecker.

I have had four in 17 years. All became obsolete before they failed.

[Alex_de_Large]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, there you go. I have a set of Minolta lenses . . .

I'll bet you ditched a lot of windows software when you went Mac, though . . .

I've been on the Mac since 1984, with the 128k Mac, so I've been here all along...

[nononono]

My 2-year-old just ripped apart my 5-year-old's gold bracelet that was a present from the grandparents on her first birthday. Doesn't appear to be fixable. Any ideas where to look for a replacement (I checked Fina)?

[nononono]

That was supposed to have been a reply not a new thread. Apologies.