Have a read through that. Although, I did try it but it had no positive results. Ran like that for a couple weeks, and sometime shortly after I unblocked it whatever the issue with my streaming was apparently fixed itself. I'm on 75/35 Verizon FiOS Business at the house, and am East Coast, USA.
This. Exactly this.
Why does a decommissioned server still have valid data on it nevermind remaining online and accessible to the world?
You mean like this one:
Sorry, but I can not relate to a non-car analogy. Please re-phrase. Thanks!
This thread is useless without pics.
In Soviet Russia, pen tests pen test you!
Congrats, you pass! A+
Wow... that IS big!
That's what she said.
I've heard this crap time and time again, and I have to wonder if it seriously works. I mean...long term. Besides the obvious fact that "Money will get ladies, but you have to show the ladies that you have it." is basically treating women like whores, the women that accept this pretty much are, in fact, materialistic whores...so I guess they do get what they deserve.
Sorry, but there are plenty of "real" women out there who don't give a crap about this sort of stuff. I know. I have one, and she loves me for being me, not for trying to pretend I'm some playboy wannabe. I am and will always been a jeans/t-shirt person, and I always will be. If a person of the opposite sex is too vain to accept that, then well, they're not good enough for me.
Spending $500 on single outfits is about the stupidest thing I have ever heard of, and I know rich people who spend more than that on just a single piece of their outfits. I don't understand, nor will I ever understand, why. But whatever, it's their money. They can waste it how they want.
Honestly though, if you need $500 outfits and fancy BMW's or whatever to get a girl, then you're obviously doing something wrong. I'd re-think your strategy because sooner or later you're going to need to have a conversation with your date. No money, outfit, or fancy car will be able to help with that.
...she had a pink DS Lite, I think for much the same reason as I had one.
Because you're both girly girls?
Haha...no, but I love it. However, I hate the fact I always seem to choose the expensive hobbies (cars, computers, and now photography). I can't win. lol
The other thing I'll say is that my impression is that the high end of at least the T2i is probably more noisy "natively" than it was on the XT (which maxed out at 1600), so effectively I'd say that the T2i is between one and two stops better than the XT on that count. However, it's a little hard to say; they've put more effort into noise reduction too, so I don't think it's quite a fair comparison.
That said, for amateur shots especially, many shots taken with ISO 6400 and with Lightroom 3's noise reduction (which pretty much rocks) still come out quite well. I'd say you can't quite rely on it, and you do lose some detail, but you could almost certainly shoot at 1600 with the T2i and have consistently good photos.
(I did see an article talking about camera manufacturers turning ISO into "the new megapixels" and cranking it up just because it sounds good, but they are slowly getting better. Personally, I'd love to see the T3i or whatever shed some megapixels and decrease noise.)
Thanks for the correction on the Rebel line.
I hadn't seen it personally because I picked up the 50D when I was upgrading at the time, but everyone was saying that the 40D handled noise much better than the 50D even though the 50D was newer, and Canon had put more effort into the noise reduction. This was due to the cramming of many more megapixels in the same effective area. So yea, the XT is 8mp versus 18mp of the T2i, but the physical sensor size is the same. But at the same time, I'm quite sure the T2i at 1600 is relatively clean even given that fact (which is counter to the 40D/50D debate) because of advances in noise reduction software, and even as you say...Lightroom 3 for post processing.
I agree with you about ISO being the new MP war, and seeing new bodies with less MP. I know we (the Canon community) were hoping prior to the 7D release and even specs were known, that they'd drop the MP back down to like 10 or 12mp. There was a huge debate about 18mp being too much for a crop body camera, but I think the 7D has turned out quite well. I just don't think there's anymore room left on that size of a sensor though, and this is where the ISO war is going to come into play.
Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.
This is why top photographers prefer disposable film cameras over DSLRs.
A good photographer can take good pictures with any camera -- but only because he factors the capabilities of the camera into the decision of which shots to take. Many images which could be captured with the flexibility provided by a high-end DSLR with the right lens cannot be captured effectively with a cheap point & shoot. Good equipment provides options. A poor photographer won't know how to use those options, but that doesn't mean a good photographer doesn't need them.
I've seen this argument before, and frankly, the cameras we have today (even the point and shoots) are MILES above the top of the line film cameras from even a couple decades ago. Yet, somehow, the photographers from that era (and earlier) managed to get these shots that people think are impossible on lower end models of today. All it takes is a little understanding of your in most cases.
And no...a good photographer doesn't need all these options on the flagship models. A good photographer will know how to get the shot regardless. All these options do is make it easier to get the shots, but its not impossible otherwise.
That said, however, I'm going to negate what I just wrote by referencing what I said in an earlier reply... I shoot dog shows which are sometimes held indoors. The indoor shows have lighting which is absolutely horrible. I refuse to use flash even when permitted as I want to be as invisible as possible for the dogs sake. What this means is that I'm shooting at ISO3200 at f/2.8 and still only managing 1/60th at some venues. Not even close to being fast enough to properly freeze the action, but I fake it by letting the angles work for me or just taking pictures with them standing still (I shoot confirmation, not agility...so standing still is mostly what they do anyways). I've found that at worst 1/160th is what will freeze the action, with 1/200th being the slowest ideal...but I can't always get that.
With that said, you need a body that can shoot *clean* images at that high of an ISO, and that means shooting with a relatively top of the line body. In my case I'm shooting with the 5D Classic which has a nice large full frame sensor to give me insanely clean images and light gathering ability. The also means, that a lesser body (like even my old 50D) simply wont do. The banding on the 50D at 3200 just didn't work for me, and Rebels top out at 1600 (although I may be wrong as I haven't checked the newer Rebels like the T1i/T2i). So yes, in some areas gear will matter...to an extent. However, a good photographer can, will, and should be able to get the shot regardless of the gear they are using. That's why they are called professionals after all.
Not to mention no one says 10x zoom and the like in reference to SLR's. Sensor size and the lens itself determines the "zoom" capability. A 100-400mm lens is only a 4x zoom for instance, but 400mm will get you a pretty good distance. Also, those ranges are provided for 35mm equivalent (ie: full frame bodies). On a crop body such as a Rebel series, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D, and 7D the figures for the same lens end up as the equivalent to 160-640mm (1.6x crop factor).
This also leaves out the very important prime lenses like the 300mm, 600mm, and 800mm and even the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters which will modify the ranges or any of these lenses while retaining their zoom factor.
With a 2x teleconverter your 100-400 becomes a 200-800mm, but its still a 4x zoom. I'm not 100% on the math, but a common all around lens is something like an 18-270mm which works out to a 15x zoom (or thereabouts). It's zoom factor is obviously much greater than your 100-400, but falls well short (by 130mm) in terms of distance.
The zoom factor means very little in regards how much of the frame you can fill with your subject, however, its much harder with an SLR because you're going to be loaded down with lenses which cost as much as a decent used car, and at least with Canon's L series you're going to be the center of attention with your massive white painted lens. I think with as impossible as it is to conceal what you're shooting with these lenses, unless I guess from inside of a car like in the cool spy movies, this ban is quite pointless from a spy/surveillance standpoint.