 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 200780 Digital Photos Now On My Web Page...
I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on my web page, beginning at www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) > I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on > my web page, beginning at > www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm Some very nice photos there, but off-topic for this NG. >> I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on >> my web page, beginning at >> www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm > Some very nice photos there, but off-topic for this NG. Well, I used a digital camera with an eye-piece finder that shows what the lens covers, not a peep-sight (or the "invisible" rear screen), though the VF may have contained an electronic screen instead of a purely optical system (but some older film SLRs didn't even offer gg surfaces to view DOF on...), and I often use with this camera a WA converter or an achromat for close-in work (and an interchangeable lens does not define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a "digital SLR system"...;-) -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) > define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a > "digital SLR system"...;-) I won't repeat the charter war discussions. But the 707 belongs in the .zlr category, not here. >> define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a >> "digital SLR system"...;-) > I won't repeat the charter war discussions. But the 707 belongs in the .zlr category, not here. Then ignore the mention of the 707, if you wish, and just view the photos (BTW, there is no mention on the web page of what I used to shoot them...). -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) >> I won't repeat the charter war discussions. But the 707 belongs in >> the .zlr category, not here. > > Then ignore the mention of the 707, if you wish, and just > view the photos (BTW, there is no mention on the web > page of what I used to shoot them...). That would remove the sole reason for some people's existence, to bitch about insignificant things. Nice shots, by the way. Rita Today, Alan Browne made these interesting comments ... >> define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a >> "digital SLR system"...;-) > > I won't repeat the charter war discussions. But the 707 > belongs in the .zlr category, not here. what difference does any of this make? it would be preferable for the OP to post his works of art to some binary NG but if he/she wants to brag up the value of their work, why would anybody really care?  SignatureHP, aka Jerry > what difference does any of this make? it would be preferable for > the OP to post his works of art to some binary NG but if he/she > wants to brag up the value of their work, why would anybody really > care? Because it breathes new life into a dieing and boring group. Most here would rather talk off topic political bullshit or fight amongst each other than talk about important things such as the legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor or the mystifyingly amazing Noct-Nikkor. Rita : the mystifyingly amazing Noct-Nikkor. : Rita Double trouble in that sentence! Lovely lens but totally off topic for this group. We're Canon D60 and 20D exclusively here. No Minolta or Sony crap allowed. Maybe ...just maybe, an occasional mention of double adjective Nikon stuff but frequent mention will invoke the wrath of Canada on the poster, for sure. > than talk about important things such as the legendary 17-35/2.8 Nikkor Nobody knows anything about it, only hear-say, which certainly grew out of all proportion in the telling, as legends are wont to. Nothing to talk about, thus. > or the mystifyingly amazing Noct-Nikkor. Well, it remains a mystery why it amazes at all. Though Aztec rituals (like ripping out hearts from still living, sacrificial Nikon users) are rumored to have something to do with it. But do we need to go down _that_ road? -Wolfgang >>> I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on >>> my web page, beginning at [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a > "digital SLR system"...;-) Sorry, but a Sony 707 is not a DSLR, by any of the definitions. It has no reflex mirror. I have yet to see an SLR that does not have a even a ground glass screen, since "reflex" refers to the reflex mirror used to reflect the image up to just such a surface. (I have a couple of old Exactas and a Bolsey, and used to have an Exacta II with a waist level finder.) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm "Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message > ... >(I have a couple of old Exactas and a Bolsey, and used to have an Exacta II >with a waist level finder.) Opps hey if we follow the strict rules here you are going off topic as well, interesting but OT nevertheless. Or off topic on off topic gets annulated? hmmm my gf left today and I am totally bored ... Opps off topic as well :) > "Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message >> ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Or off topic on off topic gets annulated? hmmm my gf left today and I am > totally bored ... Opps off topic as well :) Or OT to reply to an already OT post? He said, "but some older film SLRs didn't even offer gg surfaces to view DOF on..." which I've never seen, and if they were reflex cameras, they'd have to have something to project the reflected image upon... SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > Or OT to reply to an already OT post? He said, "but some older film SLRs didn't even offer gg surfaces to view DOF on..." which > I've never seen, and if they were reflex cameras, they'd have to have something to project the reflected image upon... -- > Skip Middleton Then go read up on Nikon's clear screens for the F, F2, and F3, and the Zeiss Contaflex and Contarex 35mm cameras. And also check out "aerial image focusing". None requires something to "reflect the image upon", and that is not necessarily a part of a description of an SLR ("Single Lens Reflex" is what that is...;-). -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) Today, Giovanni Azua made these interesting comments ... > "Skip" <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote in message >> ... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or off topic on off topic gets annulated? hmmm my gf left > today and I am totally bored ... Opps off topic as well :) If everybody just ignored someone who's hawking their wares on some web site, whether it is on- or off-topic, there wouldn't now be this big debate which IS OT. Let it drop, the OP meant no harm to anybody. SignatureHP, aka Jerry > If everybody just ignored someone who's hawking their wares on some > web site, whether it is on- or off-topic, there wouldn't now be > this big debate which IS OT. I had no "wares to hawk". I just offered images for viewing (with no offer to sell them on the pages - though this may change to see what happens...;-). > Let it drop, the OP meant no harm to anybody. Quite correct. I thought some may be interested in seeing these images - and some may be different enough from those usually seen to be of interest (some may require a bit of contemplation to see ;-). Nothing was forcing people to go to the web address... (They are at www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm ) -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) > "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message >>>> I just put up 80 digital images from [camera expletive deleted] on my web page, beginning at >>>> www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm >>> Some very nice photos there, but off-topic for this NG. >> Well, I used a digital camera with an eye-piece finder >> that shows what the lens covers, not a peep-sight (or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> define an SLR...), so one could argue that I do use a >> "digital SLR system"...;-) > Sorry, but a Sony 707 is not a DSLR, by any of the definitions. I didn't say it was...;-) > It has no reflex mirror. I have yet to see an SLR that does not have a even a ground glass screen, since "reflex" refers to the > reflex mirror used to reflect the image up to just such a surface. -- > Skip Middleton Then I guess you have never seen a Zeiss Contaflex or Contarex, let alone the clear screens available for the Nikon F/F2/F3. Aerial image focusing may be a lost "art", but it did exist in some SLRs, even fancy ones (and some had no focusing aids). It seems more reasonable to require of an "SLR" simply that one looks through the taking lens (by whatever means) for focusing and framing (though my post above was intended as "tongue-in-cheek"...;-) as opposed to a secondary framing/focusing system like a rear panel, peep sight, or secondary optical system as with a twin-lens reflex. One can still differentiate among digital SLR types if one wants to (BTW, I did not call the Sony 707 a "dSLR", but it is most certainly both an SLR and a digital camera, and maybe "zSLR does best name its type...). -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) >> "David Ruether" <rpn1@no-junk.cornell.edu> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > but it is most certainly both an SLR and a digital camera, > and maybe "zSLR does best name its type...). In what way is it an "SLR"? It's a compact camera with an electronic eye-level viewfinder that works from the main sensor, it's not a single lens reflex. Someone coined the term "ZLR" to refer to such a design. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> It seems more reasonable to require of an >> "SLR" simply that one looks through the taking lens (***by [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> but it is most certainly both an SLR and a digital camera, >> and maybe "zSLR does best name its type...). > In what way is it an "SLR"? It's a compact camera with an electronic > eye-level viewfinder that works from the main sensor, it's not a single > lens reflex. Someone coined the term "ZLR" to refer to such a design. > --John Ah, I guess the relevant word in the your definition is "reflex" (meaning with mirror), and if so, I must agree with you since the 707 [not small, BTW, and neither is the R-1 - so size has little to do with the definition...;-] has no mirror). Others have other definitions that exclude SLRs with clear viewfinder screens, etc., but, oh well...;-) I take your point. -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether/ (note address change) > I just put up 80 digital images from a Sony 707 on > my web page, beginning at > www.donferrario.com/ruether/digital-photos1.htm Some great photos there, David. Inspiring, thank you. Matt -- www.mattclara.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.