Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Why interchangeable lenses? (Score 1) 402 402

Bridge cameras give you all of the drawbacks of a DSLR with none of the benefits. Their sensors are as small as a pocket P&S. Their lenses are soft, full of CA, they distort like crazy, and are so slow that the extended zoom range is almost useless unless you only shoot at high noon. There's literally no reason anybody should ever buy one.

Comment Mirrorless lacks in quality compared to a DSLR... (Score 1) 402 402

...if you insist on comparing apples and oranges. Yes, a high-end DSLR will obviously outperform any mirrorless except the M9 because there are no high-end mirrorless cameras except the M9! That said, I guarantee that my $200 NEX-3's sensor will outperform any DSLR at that price point. And those DSLRs can't even mount any of the lenses I own. For me, the choice is obvious.

You like SLRs, and that's fine. It doesn't mean they're better, it only means you prefer them.

Comment Re:Learn photography. (Score 1) 402 402

Haha, you're worried about 6 incompatible lens standards? That's nothing. Back in the day, you had Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Konica, Olympus, Contax, Fuji, Leica M, Leica R, Pentax, M42, and a bunch more less common ones.

Anyway, mirrorless cameras can literally mount any lens ever made for any system. Incompatibility is a non-issue.

Comment Re:what... (Score 1) 99 99

The title of the article is "2010's best tales from the tech trenches". Each tale that's mentioned in the article has a link. If you click on the link, you get more information. For example, in the story that you mentioned, the full article is "User ignorance wreaks havoc on company's computer files". If you read the full article it clearly explains what happened. I suppose you could say that Infoworld sucks at pull quotes but all the information was there, one click away.

Comment Re:what... (Score 1, Flamebait) 99 99

Overall, he had deleted almost 300MB off of his 20MB hard drive.

Wait... what?

Infoworld really sucks at giving Information...

Or maybe you suck at reading?

His laptop only had a 20MB hard drive. He actually did delete 300MB of files. That is the whole point of the story. The only way it would be possible for him to delete that much data is if he was deleting it from somewhere other than his laptop hard drive.

Comment Worked for me! (Now with technical details.) (Score 4, Informative) 313 313

It's linked to from TFA but Valve's technical article Game Performance Improvements in Latest Mac OS X Update gives a lot of insight into the OS X driver situation.

Personally, I have a MacBook Pro with a NVIDIA 9600 chip. I was kind of disappointed when I got StarCraft II. I had to run on one of the lowest resolutions with medium defaults. Increasing any setting made the game close to unplayable when complex graphics were being displayed (such as the lava level). Then I updated the graphics drivers. I was able to bump to the highest supported resolution and bumped the graphic settings to high defaults without noticeable slowdowns. I had to go to the ultra defaults before I started getting slowdowns and warnings.

I haven't had a chance to really sit down with it and play for an extended time (damn real life...) but there certainly is a huge improvement. The urge to upgrade is fading...

Comment Re:14k buys a lot of film. (Score 1) 347 347

Average seems to be around $15-$20 per roll, so you're looking at $20-$25 per roll of film total.

I said this before, but I don't think I could pay that much for processing even if I tried. Even on the high end, $5-10 is more accurate, and it can definitely be done for less than that.

Given that most professional photographers and high-quality photography enthusiasts like to take a dozen or more shots of the same event and pick the best one, 560 rolls is not a very big number, depending on the exact type of film it's either 6,700 or 123,000 final shots.

No. People don't shoot medium format film the same way they shoot digital. MF film shooters take their time and only take photos of things that are worth taking photos of, instead of mashing their machine gun 1523fps shutters in hope that they get lucky.

If you figure a couple hours wasted time vs the digital, and only pay yourself $10 an hour, that cuts in half the number of photographs you can get out of $14,000. It probably wouldn't last a pro a year.

Scanning doesn't take as long as weeding through your 4000 digital photos of the same thing, looking for the best one. I know, I've done it both ways.

An amatures could get a lifetime out of that much film, but what amature is using a friggin Hasselblad?

Actually, most Hasselblad users at this point probably are amateurs. The prices of the gear have gone down so much that these cameras are very affordable for hobbyists.

I'm not trying to make a "film is better than digital" argument here (both have their merits, and I believe film is the better choice for some applications), just want to stop the spread of misinformation. There seems to be a lot of it in here.

A slow pup is a lazy dog. -- Willard Espy, "An Almanac of Words at Play"

Working...