 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / July 2004Digital camera for rocket photography???
A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized and was out of work for about 3 months. I've been back at work for a couple months now, and am looking for ways to spend what's left of the severance package :-) What I was looking at then, and still am is the class of cameras refered to a "super zoom" i.e on the order of 10:1 OPTICAL zoom. Last time around the cream of the crop seems to have been the Olympus C-740 over the deal I saw on the C-720. But since then some new stuff has come out. I'm particularly interested in the two optically stabilized cameras, for shooting closeups of the away pads. One is the Panasonic DMC-FZ10 with a 4MP resolution and a whopping 12:1 optical zoom and a matching price. The other contender is the Canon S1-IS which is "only" 3.2MP and 10:1. Any one have any experience or comments on either of these cameras? Or any of the other "super zoom" digicams in the 3-4MP range? It seems that the most critical undocumented spec is shutter lag for pre-focused shots. Too many of the digicams (other than the SLRs) have so much shutter lag that all you'll get in a liftoff shot is smoke trail. Is 0.2 seconds fast enough? That's what steves-digicams says these two models will do. I think I'd have to go to an SLR to do any better. If I'm gonna get one of these in time for NARAM, I have to make a decision in the next few days... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Bob, The pictures on my website have been taken with several different cameras but most of the pictures on any of the launch pages are taken with my new camera. You can get an idea on camera quality there with our new Kodak, allthough most of them have been altered some do decrease their size. . I've got a Kodak Easyshare 6490. 4MP 10x optical zoom. How long the delay is I don't know, I purchased solely for getting liftoff pics because of it's 6 shot burst feature, hold the button down and it takes six shots as quickly as it can over about 1.5 seconds.. Not as fast as a SLR maybe but not bad for a digital. I don't know about the others you're looking at an i'm no camera expert but I'm real happy with this setup.. Jason www.firemanrocketry.com > Bob, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Jason > www.firemanrocketry.com Again I don't know about the new 'super zoom' cameras, but (at low-ish resolutions) I've had good success with (my mum's) trusty Canon Powershot A20, since it has a continuous shooting mode, which at VGA and XGA resolution (not great, but fine for web images) seems to be capable of shooting several frames per second. I've got some good liftoff shots this way. I don't know if maybe one of the 'descendants' of the A20 offers a high-speed high resolution shooting mode now. My 2p's worth. -- Niall Oswald ========= UKRA 1345 L0 EARS 1151 MARS "Gravity assisted pieces of the rocket raining from the sky should be avoided. It is also financially undesirable." -Portland State Aerospace Society If you've not seen the photos on the trailer trash page, check out: http://www.trailertrashaerospace.com/rocket_gallery.htm I suggest you contact them about the camera details, but they're snapping off several frames as it's coming off the pad. I believe he said the body alone was over a grand and in the 5megP range. I would at least first check with magazines to see what minimum they can use, then you'd be able to submit the images. My 3 meg Canon is too slow and it is really aggravating anticipating the 'shot' only to see it disappear. I wish I had waited and moved way up. Joel. phx > Any one have any experience or comments on either of these cameras? Or any > of the other "super zoom" digicams in the 3-4MP range? It seems that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Bob Kaplow NAR # > I suggest you contact them about the camera details, but they're snapping > off several frames as it's coming off the pad. I believe he said the body [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > anticipating the 'shot' only to see it disappear. I wish I had waited and > moved way up. The centerfold in the latest issue of Extreme Rocketry was taken with a Canon EOS digital; I don't remember the exact model, but it's not the Rebel. At least one (possibly more) other photos in that same issue were taken with the same camera; I'll have to flip through what was submitted, to be sure. If money is no object, the Canon EOS SLRs do a FANTASTIC job! -Kevin > If money is no object, the Canon EOS SLRs do a FANTASTIC job! Money is ALWAYS an object. Otherwise I'd be buying an SLR. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > If you've not seen the photos on the trailer trash page, check out: > http://www.trailertrashaerospace.com/rocket_gallery.htm > > I suggest you contact them about the camera details, but they're snapping > off several frames as it's coming off the pad. I believe he said the body > alone was over a grand and in the 5megP range. I would at least first check body only implies SLR and those are a grand or more as you mention just for hte body. You then get to spend several hundred more on a lense. What I'm looking at is less than half the price. > with magazines to see what minimum they can use, then you'd be able to > submit the images. My 3 meg Canon is too slow and it is really aggravating > anticipating the 'shot' only to see it disappear. I wish I had waited and > moved way up. What Canon do you have? If nothing else, I can look up the shutter delay specs on it and than I'll at least have a point where I know it is "too slow"... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Howdy Bob, As you may remember from the last time you asked the question, I've got the C-740 (had it for a year and a few months now) I've been quite happy with it and far as liftoff shots go, when the countdown starts, I press the shutter halfway to focus lock, I hold that till I see an ignitor puff then press it the rest of the way and hold it while tracking the rocket up. (the C-740 will take 3 shots at 1.5 fps) It's a good camera and I expect to keep it for another year or so before replacing it with the latest and greatest. btw, I've seen C-740's sell on ebay for in the low $200's. The XD media is still the most expensive per megabyte. Last time you asked, I said to check out the Fuji S5000 because it was about the same price as the C-740 and had better specs, When my mother asked me which camera she should get for her classroom I had her get one. Well, I borrowed it for a friends wedding and really hated it The buttons were in the wrong place and the pics weren't that great. I can't endorse that one anymore :) As for the Panasonic FZ10, my GF just bought one and I hope to have my hands on it real soon!!! It's not cheap, and as far as IS goes... Will your launches be on sunny days?? if it's sunny out, your shutter speed tends to be so fast, you're not really taking advantage of IS. and for the Canon S1-IS, I can't remember why my GF ruled that one out, but she really did her homework. So I'll ask her why that one didn't make the cut. I took a few hundred pics at LDRS last week, I need to find some time to make an index page then I'll post them all for everyone to see. meanwhile, here are a few links to some pics: Lift off series: http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010127.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010128.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010129.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010133.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010134.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010135.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-afternoon/p1010188.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-afternoon/p1010189.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-afternoon/p1010190.jpg using max zoom: http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010021.jpg misc. cool pics http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-morn/p1010160.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-afternoon/p1010095.jpg http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/fri-afternoon/p1010146.jpg my only rocket of LDRS: http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/sat/p1010001.jpg ah damn, I'd better get going on resizing for the web and putting up a page... Expect to see something posted tonight or tomorrow. -Dan >A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for >lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > As for the Panasonic FZ10, my GF just bought one and I hope to have my > hands on it real soon!!! It's not cheap, and as far as IS goes... Will > your launches be on sunny days?? if it's sunny out, your shutter speed > tends to be so fast, you're not really taking advantage of IS. I doubt we'll fly much interesting in the rain :-) The Image Stabilizer shoud help regardless of the light. Especially with a 12:1 telephoto. Any chance you can get your hands on it in the next week? > and for the Canon S1-IS, I can't remember why my GF ruled that one > out, but she really did her homework. So I'll ask her why that one > didn't make the cut. OK, now I'm confused. I took GF to be GrandFather. But now you say she. OK, maybe it's GirlFriend. If so, can I borrow her for NARAM :-) Buying these electronic gadgets is so agrivating. You KNOW that if you wait 6 months, the price of this item will drop 30%, and there will be something else that is better, faster, and cheaper. The stuff is obsolete before you ever get it out of the box. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html >> As for the Panasonic FZ10, my GF just bought one and I hope to have my >> hands on it real soon!!! It's not cheap, and as far as IS goes... Will [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >shoud help regardless of the light. Especially with a 12:1 telephoto. Any >chance you can get your hands on it in the next week? It'll be in her hands on Thursday, I probably won't be able to touch it for a couple days. >> and for the Canon S1-IS, I can't remember why my GF ruled that one >> out, but she really did her homework. So I'll ask her why that one >> didn't make the cut. > >OK, now I'm confused. I took GF to be GrandFather. But now you say she. OK, >maybe it's GirlFriend. If so, can I borrow her for NARAM :-) HAHAHA She said it'd have to be an auction :) as for selling points of the FZ10 over S1-IS Slightly larger zoom, slightly higher resoloution, manual focus ring (a big plus in my book) >Buying these electronic gadgets is so agrivating. You KNOW that if you wait >6 months, the price of this item will drop 30%, and there will be something >else that is better, faster, and cheaper. The stuff is obsolete before you >ever get it out of the box. The price of my camera has dropped about $200 in the 14 or so months that I've owned it. I'm pretty confident that I've taken $200 worth of pictures from it. (roughly 4000 shots) Look at it like a consumable, it's easier to deal with that way. BTW, If you haven't noticed the post already, my LDRS pics are at: http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/ -Dan > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< >Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf > www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > It'll be in her hands on Thursday, I probably won't be able to touch > it for a couple days. Well, I think I'm going to delay buying the camera for a while. Too many things going on right now and I'd really like to have a chance to play with a new camera BEFORE the trip so I can get the bes tuse out of it. DO let me know what you think of the Lumix, it's still at the top of my list. > BTW, If you haven't noticed the post already, my LDRS pics are at: > http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/ Remind me again what camera you took these with. Was it the Olympus C-740? Lots of shots with blue sky that could have used more zoom. I suppose that's true of just about any in flight shot. But there is one htat really needs the story behind the picture: http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/4/pages/P1010019.htm Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html >Remind me again what camera you took these with. Was it the Olympus C-740? >Lots of shots with blue sky that could have used more zoom. I suppose that's >true of just about any in flight shot. But there is one htat really needs >the story behind the picture: > >http://www.snear.org/LDRS23/4/pages/P1010019.htm Yep, I use the 740, and I'd have to recommend that if looking at the Oly C-7xx series, go ahead and look at the newer models but don't touch anything below the 740. As that's where they brought in a new lens design which was a major improvement. As for lots of blue sky in my shots, it's pretty hard to track a rocket on its way up. (especially with a camera that's less than 4" square) I back off the zoom a bit so i've got a better chance of catching it all the way up. The pros with lenses that extend out 12" have a much easier time in "aiming" at the rocket on the way up. Imagine shooting a gun, with the gun right by your side. Now shoot with the gun at arms length in front of you. Which shot has a better chance of hitting the target? That's why I don't get too close. However, if you're *only* looking for a single liftoff shot, than you put your camera on a tripod, zoom in real close and pray for a fast trigger finger. (even then, there are so many variables, LCO finger delay, type of igniter, type of motor, etc.. It's much like using "the force" to sense when to snap the shot) That "Bat Rocket", I don't know who owns it, but i think it was 3 or 4 D-12's in a marginal cluster arrangement. The shot previous to the one you mentioned looks pretty cool though, no? Just pick a camera you like, buy it, and master it. -Dan > As you may remember from the last time you asked the question, I've > got the C-740 (had it for a year and a few months now) I've been quite I knew someone recommended it, but all those emails were lost in the job shuffle. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Here's an experience that may help with your descision. My daughter got a Sony DSC-P51. While having her bags checked somewhere, a checker dropped it. It seemed ok at the time. Next time she went to use it, it just made noise & wouldn't open the lens shutter. She brought it to me & I found a broken tooth on a plastic gear that should cost a few dollars. Sony wanted almost $200 to fix it. That's about what the camera originally cost. We asked about purchasing the parts. They sent us to their service center. The service center won't just sell the part. I'm not buying any more Sony cameras & suggest others do the same. >A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for >lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Phil, I have a lot of Sony consumer and industrial products. Nice stuff when it works but the warranty and technical support stinks. If it breaks, it's always your fault according to them. My wife is Japanese Canadian and her cousin is the Panasonic distributor for Canada. I get great support plus cousins price. :-) Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto (410) 571-8292 Annapolis > Here's an experience that may help with your descision. > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html IF Sony ever gets it together on customer service, they'll be hard to beat. I have an HP Photosmart 735 that I like a lot. I hope I never have to find out how good their customer service is. I do know that they know what it is (unnlike Sony.) Also, Sony is equally bad with the computer storage products like DAT & AIT. >Phil, > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] >> > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! >http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > I have a lot of Sony consumer and industrial products. Nice stuff when it > works but the warranty and technical support stinks. If it breaks, it's > always your fault according to them. My wife is Japanese Canadian and her > cousin is the Panasonic distributor for Canada. I get great support plus > cousins price. :-) There is a Panasonic depot just a few miles from my house. They used to have an outlet store and service center, but closed them last year. Shame... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > Here's an experience that may help with your descision. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm not buying any more Sony cameras & suggest others do the same. I've had similar issues with SONY. Just as well you didn't spend the money. If there is any one that CAN repair a Sony product, they certainly aren't in the USA. They, along with Chrysler, Tempstar, Seiko, and a handful of other companies are on my CRAPPY SERVICE DO NOT BUY list. Probably Palm too... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html you best bang for the buck for rocketry is the Canon Eos Digital Rebel. Digital SLR (true slr) so lag will be a non issue. 6.3 mp so you have the resolution. the only truly useful resolution is over 10mp (only 2 exist right now and they are both over $6,000.00 so you have to compensate with zoom. the digital rebel will mate with any of the current line of canon AF lens. save up and get a nice 400mm or higher lens or get lucky and get a nice one used. now you have both. High res High Zoom and High performance for a starting price of about a grand. the 3-4mp camera with a 10-12 zoom is only about 30-40% superior to the 6.3 with NO zoom. and you introduce other problems. not being able to control shutter speed (utterly critical for if you can not manually set the shutter speed to 1/1000 or better your pooched most of the time) you add a 3 times zoom to that canon (150mm lens or so) and you are already equal to the 3-4mp with 10x zoom and you have lots of play room IE far superior as soon as you zoom out. with rockets pixels is everything since none of the cameras have totally adequate amounts. the dream setup would be an eos 1ds with a 400mm or higher lens. 11mp plus the killer zoom. problem is that setup would cost about $8,000.00 :-) hence why I do not and will not have it anytime soon no matter how much I drool all over it :-) if you want slight less zoom (6x) but FAR higher resolution and feature set for very low cost go with oddly enough what I have now. Coolpix 5000 - you can get then for $300-$400 nowadays plus $60 for a 2x telephoto adapter making the built in 3x zoom a 6x optical zoom. (they have a 3x adaptor but it does not work properly stay away from it waste of $80+) you can nab that rig with 2x adaptor and a 256meg CF card for well under $500 easily. the nikon 5000 has lousy lag for initial set (ie half press) sometimes over 5 seconds. but once your set and ready to go there is absolutely zero lag. if you have the finger eye coordination it will capture ANYTHING you point it at. this means your preset (focus set to infinity etc..) and ready to full press while they are counting down. when it lifts off you press all the way etc.. Chris Taylor http://www.ekissmyass.com/ > A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for > lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > you best bang for the buck for rocketry is the Canon Eos Digital Rebel. > > Digital SLR (true slr) so lag will be a non issue. > > 6.3 mp so you have the resolution. Canon Digital Rebel, without lens, runs about $900. The new Canon PowerShotPro 1, with 28-200mm lens, runs right about $1k. The lens that they include, IIRC, used to cost almost as much as the camera. Uses the L-series lenses, has an 8 megapixel ccd, and is a very nice SLR. If I were in the market today for another high resolution digital camera this would definitely be in the running for a $1k-range camera. I can recommend steering clear on the Konica/Minolta dImage 7i/7Hi. I use one in a semi-professional setting, and it just isn't sturdy enough for daily rough usage. Mine has been in the shop twice in the 2 years we have had it; once for a bad selector switch ($400 repair, local shop) and once for the main switch and cracked side panel ($250, direct from Minolta). While the camera itself is excellent (and wonderful in a studio setting), and I have no complaints about the color balance, resolution or anything else (the shutter lag time is one of the best around), the poor selection of non-rugged components makes us leave it at home more than we would like. Probably not a great choice for out on a rocket field.  SignatureMike KD7PVT NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ BEMRC - NAR Section #627 NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. <WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot> correct and incorrect. I said a grand (that is with lens) you can buy without lens for $900 ($899) hmmm I am going to have to look into that 8mp. is it a TRUE slr IE through the lens ? or is it that nasty EVF (I guess I will also find out when I research it) anway my primary reason for aiming at the eos is that my end goal is the EOS 1ds and any lenses I buy for the rebel will fit the 1ds. I might have to recpnsider for a SLR that is 8mp for the same price though !! 8mp trumps 6 anyday :-) Chris Taylor http://www.ekissmyass.com/ > > you best bang for the buck for rocketry is the Canon Eos Digital Rebel. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. > <WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot> The Digital Rebel is starting to come down in price. You should be able to buy the kit (with lens) for under $900. The PowerShot Pro looks very nice, but it doesn't appear that the lens is removable, so I can't use my existing EOS system lenses. My existing 75-300mm image stabilizing zoom is very nice for catching rockets and kid's sports and I'd like to keep using it. And consider that the PowerShot has a maximum ISO equivalence of 400 (vs 1600 for the Rebel) the Rebel looks even better. 8MP sounds nice, but 6 isn't bad. >> you best bang for the buck for rocketry is the Canon Eos Digital Rebel. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > digital camera this would definitely be in the running for a $1k-range > camera. SignatureAlex Mericas > you best bang for the buck for rocketry is the Canon Eos Digital Rebel. I agree completely, but that's more than twice what I'm looking to spend. > the 3-4mp camera with a 10-12 zoom is only about 30-40% superior to the 6.3 > with NO zoom. The way I look at it (image size on pixels) a 2MP camera with a 10X zoom is equal to an 8MP camera with a 5X zoom. Right now the extra zoom is less expensive than the compensating pixels. > with rockets pixels is everything since none of the cameras have totally > adequate amounts. See above. > the dream setup would be an eos 1ds with a 400mm or higher lens. 11mp plus > the killer zoom. problem is that setup would cost about $8,000.00 :-) hence > why I do not and will not have it anytime soon no matter how much I drool > all over it :-) And in 2 years it would go for under $1K on ebay... > http://www.ekissmyass.com/ Can you bend over that far :-) Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html then go for the coolpix 5000. under $400 3x zoom then drop $40 to $60 for the 2x adaptor. 6x and 5mp can I bend over that far yes. especially since I am as of this momet 92 pounds lighter than the last time you saw me :-) and still loosing. Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > http://www.ekissmyass.com/ > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > can I bend over that far yes. especially since I am as of this momet 92 > pounds lighter than the last time you saw me :-) and still loosing. Good for you! Looking forward to seeing you in a month. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > can I bend over that far yes. especially since I am as of this momet 92 > pounds lighter than the last time you saw me :-) and still loosing. Congrats on the weight loss. Losing is hard, keeping it off will be harder. Good luck with that too. Randy FYI all the pictures on naramlive.com were taken with my coolpix and WITHOUT the 2x adaptor IE just the 3x built in. Chris Taylor http://www.ekissmyass.com/ I bought the Panasonic FZ10 a few months back and have been extremely happy with it. Along with the very nice Leica lens and optical image stablization, it's pretty responsive on the shutter release and it's got a burst mode that let's you catch four frames per second, so you'll always get a least one good picture. Also what worth noting, is that it is considered to have a "fast" lens with a constant aperture. Very sturdy. A lens hood is include which is great for those sunny days. The only real downsides are finding the FZ10 in stock and especially the accessories. I've only got to use it at one launch, which was overcast, and I forgot about specifying a higher shutter speed. Shoot me an email (drop the '007') and I post a few full res images, links for some galleries that show its capabilities, and a few tips about where to buy and not to buy. Best 4 megapixels around. > A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for > lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for > lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html There is a lot of good advice here. My previous camera, a rather expensive SONY Mavica, had the "ON" switch's lock fail within a month, three times. So I definitely wanted to find somebody who could design an "ON" switch on my next digital camera. If you're visiting Steve's digicams, you're at the right spot. I like to compare the sample photos of that red brick building with the telephone lines. You can see how well or badly each camera handles compressing grass. Some of them do a fairly miserable job. And let's face it, there's often a lot of grass in rocketry photos, it might as well look right. Also, the telephone lines at the outer edges of the sample photos will give you a good idea of the purple fringing with each camera. The FZ10 has a priority mode that you can set for either aperture, shutter speed (up to 1/2000) or full manual. It also has a manual focus mode with a focus assist button, so you can have the focus established well ahead of the countdown . On the other end of the spectrum, it has a continuous autofocus mode as well. Keep in mind that all lens have an optimal f-stop somewhere in the middle range. At either extreme range, the suffer from various abnormalities. With its faster lens and constant aperture, it can let a lot more light in, allowing you to use higher shutter speeds than comparable models. The 12x lens is the equivalent of a 35-420mm lens. At full zoom focus can be a little challenging. Since most digi-cams focus using a contrast based system, the image stabilization can help with getting an accurate focus quicker, regardless of the shutter speed. Stabilization also works in the movie mode. Panasonic is proud of the fact that their camera use all three color channels for luminosity, which they claim increases diagonal details by as much as 50%. That's why the cameras are branded Lumix. Also, you definitely want to budget for having at least a 256 mb memory card because they write, read and transfer to your computer faster. Did my homework before and after buying the camera. Certainly, the more expensive DSLR are superior, for numerous reasons and I would give anything with having to decide between some wonderful models that are out right now. But, if you're strapped with a lower budget like I am, the Panasonic is a great "little" camera. Most owners love them and there are user groups at www.dpreview.com and yahoo. > A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for > lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized Bob, Use Film Use a manual camera read the manual until you understand the following :) set apeture for fastest shutter setting camera can allow, stand where you need to to frame the pad in the lower 1/2 of the frame. focus. release shutter when you here the propellant go whoosh, not when they say "launch" or "zero" look at the gallery on mars-rocketry.com (or my descon entries) especialy last years photos. most are off film (and I havent missed with film) one of the members bought a digital camera and i can get it to work, but the autofocus is a pain (although once set, shutter speed is instant) also, when you know what shutter speed teh camera uses, you can confirm the models speed by measuing the blur (hard to do at 1/500s) > Use Film > Use a manual camera [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > release shutter when you here the propellant go whoosh, not when they > say "launch" or "zero" Exactly what I've done for 3 decades with my old 35mm SLR. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html yeah if you can afford it :-) I had to stop using film because I simply could not AFFORD to use film anymore. when I did the colorado naram in film do you have ANY idea how much money that cost me ? (over $220 for the whole trip JUST in film and developing) that is why I can not do film anymore. if you can afford it ABSOLUTELY stick with film !! its still superior in the realm of quality and being able to "blow up" the image. IF you can afford it. Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > Use Film > > Use a manual camera [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > yeah if you can afford it :-) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > realm of quality and being able to "blow up" the image. IF you can afford > it. Besides, film has been getting consistently better over the years - these days, for example, 100-200 speed is the _low_ end speed range for ordinary color film, and even the 400 and 800 speed stuff is decently crisp: I remember when "High Speed Ektachrome" (125 or 160 speed) was a big deal... and you had to put up with some grain and loss of resolution to get that much. A digital camera will never be any better than its image sensor... in a few years, it will be as obsolete as a PC with a 386 CPU and a 20 meg hard drive. A good film camera is forever, or at least until it dies of some mechanical failure or they stop making film. -dave w The platters from those 20 meg drives are great for motor retension & thrust plates. What do you mean obsolete? 8-) >> yeah if you can afford it :-) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >-dave w > The platters from those 20 meg drives are great for motor retension & > thrust plates. What do you mean obsolete? 8-) I've got some platters form 5 MB drives. They are too big: 14" diameter. In fact I have one sub-MB platter that is one METER in diameter! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html i worked with them but never had the desire to save any. Do you have any drums? >> The platters from those 20 meg drives are great for motor retension & >> thrust plates. What do you mean obsolete? 8-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > i worked with them but never had the desire to save any. Do you have > any drums? Nope. No rod memory. One BYTE of vacuum tube memory. A core board. PDP-1 generation flip-chips. A PDP-11/70 front panel with all the purple and dark pink switches. Two genuine Grace Hopper Nanoseconds. And assorted other stuff. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html I still have a Nanosecond too, from 1983. (a 1 foot peice of wire for the youngsters in the group) Rich K. "Bob Kaplow" <kaplow_r@encompasserve.org.TRABoD> wrote in message Nope. No rod memory. One BYTE of vacuum tube memory. A core board. PDP-1 generation flip-chips. A PDP-11/70 front panel with all the purple and dark pink switches. Two genuine Grace Hopper Nanoseconds. And assorted other stuff. > I still have a Nanosecond too, from 1983. > (a 1 foot peice of wire for the youngsters in the group) A little less than a foot. Got a few stored away. I also have a "packet of picoseconds" that she gave out when she was working for DEC after she (finally) retired from the Navy. It's ground black pepper. SignatureMike KD7PVT NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ BEMRC - NAR Section #627 NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. <WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot> Bob K. wrote: << Two genuine Grace Hopper Nanoseconds. >> What's this referring to?? > Bob K. wrote: > << Two genuine Grace Hopper Nanoseconds. >> > > What's this referring to?? They're pieces of wire about a foot long. (The speed of light and electricity works out quite close a billion feet per second, or 1 foot per nanosecond.) 186000 mi/sec x 5280 ft/mi = 982080000 ft/sec -dave w > Bob K. wrote: > << Two genuine Grace Hopper Nanoseconds. >> > > What's this referring to?? Adm. Grace Hopper used to tell people not to waste a nanosecond when programming. When she gave talks she handed out short lengths of wire (just under a foot) to illustrate what a nanosecond meant; how far electricity traveled in that amount of time. The microsecond was a coil of wire 984 feet long. After she retired from the Navy for the second time (at age 80) and went to work for Digital Equipment Corporation, goingaround the country giving talks. I had the privilege of meeting her twice, and have the nanoseconds to prove it! (She also handed out 'picoseconds'...packets of black pepper). Overall, a *real* neat lady: http://www.hopper.navy.mil/grace/grace.htm (see also http://www.hopper.navy.mil/Page.htm) http://wayne.home.texas.net/~wayne/grace1.html SignatureMike KD7PVT NAR #70953 - Sr/HPR Level-1 ~ BEMRC - NAR Section #627 NO Junk Email, please! Real email to: amphoto [at] blarg [dot] net. <WANTED: Experienced Kamikaze Pilot> I have some of those. from 8 inches to over 2ft HD platters. nice to hang on the wall or play frisbee with those that you do not like. here catch this. zing ! Chris Taylor http://www.ekissmyass.com/ > > The platters from those 20 meg drives are great for motor retension & > > thrust plates. What do you mean obsolete? 8-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > I have some of those. from 8 inches to over 2ft HD platters. I know a guy that makes wall clocks out of them. > I know a guy that makes wall clocks out of them. I used to do that. Normally with platters that had a head crash. Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." > > yeah if you can afford it :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -dave w And those discount CDs that cost us nothing after the rebate, will eventually fail, and we'll be left with nothing but memories. >>>yeah if you can afford it :-) >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > And those discount CDs that cost us nothing after the rebate, will > eventually fail, and we'll be left with nothing but memories. Yeah that's really the truth on CD's they just aren't as long lasting as some would like to believe. I have floppies dying all around me but every once in a while a CD gives up the ghost to and I have an Oh sh.t moment. Most say 5 years is a good estimate of their life. The magazine disks are really awful and aren't even readable in many cdroms unless they are truly variable speed drives. that is the biggest farce in existance. Cameras NEVER become more obsolete than when they are created. the only reason your 35mm is not "obsolete" is that you can not afford to buy the upgrade (medium and large format camera's) a 1.3mp camera will print a PERFECTLY acceptable normal family shot at 4x6 1 year from now it will make the same equally good 4x6 100 years from now it will still capture and print the same equally good 4x6 it only becomes obsolete because YOU bought the wrong camera OR the camera you WANTED did not exist yet. simple as that. YOU obsolete the camera NOT the other way around. you say wait I can not print nice 8x10 from that 1.3mp. so what. you could not print nice 8x10's from that camera from day one. it was NEVER an ability that camera had. so YOUR desires of it have "changed" to be those that are outside of its abilities. not the other way around. it was obsolete the moment you bought it. it never "goes" obsolete. my coolpix 5000 will never go obsolete for rocketry shooting. it was obsolete for this task the moment nikon made it. I got it because it was a compromise on price. it takes the same pictures today as it did 2 years ago when I got it. discount CD's I use the cheapest money can buy and I triplicate everything. HD master and DUAL optical disk backups stored in seperate locations in the house. (I lost 2000 pictures once so I am uber anal about protecting them now) if any one copy fails I restore from one of the other backups to restore the backups to 3 again. the probability of all 3 of my backups failing as far less than the likey hood ofyou trashing your negatives :-) and my copies will NEVER degrade. period. hey will make as perfect a copy in 100 years as they will today. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > A digital camera will never be any better than its image sensor... in a few years, > > it will be as obsolete as a PC with a 386 CPU and a 20 meg hard drive. A good film [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And those discount CDs that cost us nothing after the rebate, will > eventually fail, and we'll be left with nothing but memories. > you say wait I can not > print nice 8x10 from that 1.3mp. so what. you could not print nice 8x10's > from that camera from day one. it was NEVER an ability that camera had. so > YOUR desires of it have "changed" to be those that are outside of its > abilities. not the other way around. Right. But it would never be any better than that. If they make better a film next year I don't have to get different hardware, I just buy the new kind... and at any time, I have a choice of characteristics that does not necessarily exist in any given digital camera. -dave w >Right. But it would never be any better than that. If they make better a >film next year I don't have to get different hardware, You did for Advantix...<g> Eldred Signaturehttp://www.umich.edu/~epickett Screamers League IICC League GPLRank -6.0 MoGPL rank +267.80 Ch.Rank +52.58 MoC +741.71 Hist. +82.34 MoH:na N2k3 rank:in progress Slayer Spektera lvl 72 assassin Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro US East and if you want to UPGRADE in film say goto 120 film. you will have to change equipment. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > >Right. But it would never be any better than that. If they make better a > >film next year I don't have to get different hardware, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Slayer Spectral_K lvl 38 Necro > US East not if they change the film. in this case your comparison is still flawed. digital technology is fundimentally changing. so you can not migrate the old to the new etc.. you CAN move the film. I have used the same CF cards in my last 4 Digital Camera's if they change the film itself (such as APS or going to 120 film etc..) you then DO need to change hardware. the only reason you do not change hardware is because 35mm is "good enough" and therfore there is no logical reason to change it (as can be seen by teh failure of APS) digital however has NOT matured. it has NOT reached the overall status of "good enough" so they keep changing it as the technology evolved. you are comparing an immature technology with a VERY VERY mature technology. I am comparing a mature technology with the idea of what will BE a mature technology in a few years (its almost there now with sub $1,000.00 8mp cameras) comparing digital to film is almost like comparing apples to oranges. with that in mind you have to compare them properly or any data you get is meaningless. and your characteristics are fine. if your willing to PAY for it (cost of film and developing) the nice thing about digital is that once you have the hardware taking pictures costs for all intents and purposes absolutely NOTHING. the Memory Cards are reusable. the batteries are rechargeable. the external storage to archive the pictures is SO low per picture (and I include it in the initial hardware purchase) do the math. a 120gig hard drive is about $80 an enclosure is about $30 do the math on how many pictures that drive can hold !! its phenominal. its more pictures than many of you have taken in your entire lifetimes !! also archive to CD or DVD. do the math. 20cents a pop for CD's 85 cents a pop for DVD. you can take and look at your pictures for NOTHING once you have the base hardware. yes it costs to print (less than film prints in most cases) but you do not HAVE to print and you only need to print what you want. you think I printed all 900 pictures I took at naram last year ? with film I would HAVE to have printed all of them. what would that have cost ? lets use CHEAP film NASTY cheap film. $3 a roll. $2 if I get it onsale cheap. 24 images per roll. developing.$6 $7 for double prints if I get lucky and they have a sale at walmart. so lets use $10 per roll of film for film and develope (plus or minus a $1) in "rolls of 24" I took about 37.5 rolls of film last year (actually its closer to 100 images but lets use 900 for now) at $10 a set do the math. $375 in film and developing. and that does not include the work of getting these scanned into the computer for my uses OR the added cost of having the developer burn them to CD for me etc.. (not sure how much that is) at TODAY'S pricing that is about what the camera will cost you. ($350-$375 for a coolpix 5000) Our family went to murtle beach in august of that year as well. I took almost 1500 pictures. so another $625 the 2 trips combined that is coincidentally $1000.00 or enough to buy a Canon Digital Rebel. a 120gig hard drive and a 256meg memory card. (ok a wee more once you add tax or shipping) so if I had purchased a Digital rebel on July 20th it would have completely paid for itself by the end of august of last year. if your money tight but can afford a slight large outlay at teh beginning Digital is King. the only downside is resale value. they have none :-) (well compared to what they cost new) but if the camera you get is "good enough" then it will remain good enough for the rest of its life in your hands. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > you say wait I can not > > print nice 8x10 from that 1.3mp. so what. you could not print nice 8x10's [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -dave w > that is the biggest farce in existance. > > Cameras NEVER become more obsolete than when they are created. Kodak 'disc' camera. Joel. phx what are you replying to ? clearly not the out of context quote you took from me. I will await what the point of your reply was (btw I still have and use a kodak disc camera I have 2 peices of film left for it :-) I collect camera's Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > Kodak 'disc' camera. > > Joel. phx > what are you replying to ? clearly not the out of context quote you took > from me. Out of context?? Did you NOT write this? Here is -YOUR- exact text: "that is the biggest farce in existance. Cameras NEVER become more obsolete than when they are created." Your whole argument below that was based on the camera still being 'usable'. Film is no longer available for disc camera. Film is necessary for the camera to be usable, therefore it is more obsolete than when it was created. Cameras DO become more obsolete than when they are created. Really, you weren't able to get that? Joel. phx > I will await what the point of your reply was (btw I still have and use a > kodak disc camera I have 2 peices of film left for it :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > Joel. phx a.. No longer in use: an obsolete word. a.. Outmoded in design, style, or construction the word obsolete is HEAVILY abused. ANY digicam can "still" be used today. there is no digital camera in existance that can not still be used if it still functions. #2 is the critical part I think. Design regarding resolution. since the resolution was not ideal to begin with IE comparable to 35mm it was obsoletely from the beginning. is THAT getting through to you yet ? Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > what are you replying to ? clearly not the out of context quote you took > > from me. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > > > Joel. phx Somehow, I just knew this thread would devolve into silliness :-) A rock, a chisel, and a hammer never become more obsolete than the day you bought them! :-) And if you chisel fast enough and spit enough paint, the image is better than analog AND digital. Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 > Somehow, I just knew this thread would devolve into silliness :-) Or establishes stupidity of some posters for all eternity. > A rock, a chisel, and a hammer never become more obsolete than the day > you bought them! :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv yes its semantics but its important. when you buy a product that DOES NOT MEET YOUR USAGE REQUIREMENTS. how can you legitimately say a year later that NOW it is obsolete. it was obsolete the day you bought it. there are plenty of tasks for which a rock is a perfectly usable tool (say in a slingshot) and plenty for a chisel (I still have a set FYI) 35mm is already obsolete. it was obsolete a LONG TIME AGO. even 120film puts 35mm to completel shame lets not even get into large format. (we are talking resolution are we not) but wait you say why do they still make it then ? because for most average people its "good enough" they still make vga cameras too even though we have as high as 16mp now. go figure Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Somehow, I just knew this thread would devolve into silliness :-) > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 Don't forget, Betamax was technically better than VHS. Who cares. Marketing rules. > yes its semantics but its important. > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >> Dwayne Surdu-Miller >> SAROS #1 > Don't forget, Betamax was technically better than VHS. Who cares. Me. I've still got mine... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > Don't forget, Betamax was technically better than VHS. Who cares. > > Me. I've still got mine... But you also have a PDP-1. > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! > http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv There are many flavours of obsolescence. From a usage standpoint, if its an old camera and is still useable, it's not obsolete until it becomes unusable or not practically repairable. From a technology standpoint, a camera is usually obsolete when it hits the market. From a practical standpoint, a camera becomes obsolete when it no longer meets the needs of the user or application... though it might not be obsolete it it meets the needs of another user or application. From a resell standpoint, a camera becomes obsolete when it can no longer be sold for the seller's purposes, whether those purposes are to make a profit, to break even, or just to get rid of it. 35mm cameras are still selling very well in all price categories. Film is readily available and development services are prolific. With respect to the broad category of obsolescence, the statement (not the utterer of the statement, necessarily) that 35mm cameras are obsolete is quite narrow-minded and, for most people, outrageously silly. In fact, when CD's and DVD's are unavailable in, say, five to ten years, because they've been replaced by newer and better storage media (witness the 8-track, elcaset, cassette, LP, BetaMax, VHS, worm drive, removable-platter hard drives, drums, various ROM cartridges, GROM, laser disk) and the equipment required to support them aren't so easy to find any more, 35mm film will probably still be very popular. Why? Because 35mm film is comparatively cheap for most casual users. You buy a camera for $5 to $10, film for a few dollars more, take pictures, take pay a few dollars more to get them developed, and you have great pictures. Each step is quite inexpensive and quite convenient. So far, digital cameras aren't quite as readily accessible. From a purist standpoint, these things probably aren't relevant. But question is, is a purist standpoint relevant? Or is it just silly? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 P.S. Hey Chris, how are things with Nano Rocketry? I'd finally tried playing around with MicroMaxx stuff and I find it really intriguing. Am I a bit too late, or are developments looking up? Dwayne Surdu-Miller SAROS #1 money money money. I simply could not afford it. I still have hopes of one day doing something with it. my biggest hope my Eye in the SKy flopped because I can not affordably find the camera's anymore in quantity :-( Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > P.S. Hey Chris, how are things with Nano Rocketry? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Dwayne Surdu-Miller > SAROS #1 Below > There are many flavours of obsolescence. > > From a usage standpoint, if its an old camera and is still useable, > it's not obsolete until it becomes unusable or not practically repairable. at that point its not obsolete its broken :-) > From a technology standpoint, a camera is usually obsolete when it hits > the market. true but in reality I consider that an abuse of the word IE see my responce on the fun 320 > From a practical standpoint, a camera becomes obsolete when it no > longer meets the needs of the user or application... though it might not > be obsolete it it meets the needs of another user or application. EXACTLY !! so its not the "camera" that is obsolete its the end users wants and desires of it. when you can make a statement like the above where the word changes from user to user then its clear the word should not be applied to the object but to the person. obsolete is just a heavily over used word. > From a resell standpoint, a camera becomes obsolete when it can no > longer be sold for the seller's purposes, whether those purposes are to > make a profit, to break even, or just to get rid of it. illogical definiton when applying to digital camera's since you can not break even 1 week after you bought it. > 35mm cameras are still selling very well in all price categories. Film > is readily available and development services are prolific. With > respect to the broad category of obsolescence, the statement (not the > utterer of the statement, necessarily) that 35mm cameras are obsolete is > quite narrow-minded and, for most people, outrageously silly. but if we use the implied definitions being bandied around (that resolution etc.. determines obsolescence) then YES 35mm is obsolete. I made the statement to SHOW how silly it was. to make a point. there are plenty of film technologies far in advance of 35mm but it has reached the "good enough" point and has been standardized. economies of scale have taken over. > In fact, when CD's and DVD's are unavailable in, say, five to ten years, > because they've been replaced by newer and better storage media (witness > the 8-track, elcaset, cassette, LP, BetaMax, VHS, worm drive, > removable-platter hard drives, drums, various ROM cartridges, GROM, > laser disk) and the equipment required to support them aren't so easy to > find any more, 35mm film will probably still be very popular. only because those were "immature" technologies. they had not matured to the "good enough" stage nor been standardized. CD is. it will be here for quite some time. it cheap easy affordable and standardized. only one thing will change that. NOT a newer technology but company and individual desires to wrangle more CONTROL over people use of them (IE Digital Rights Management) these greedy people may FORCE the market to abandon a format bu simply not making it available. hopefully they will fail. this is what is happening with HDTV. its being "forced" on society. (FCC mandate that all switch to Digital by 2006) its a upgrade that most people have no real need for (it is nice though) but will have no choice but to switch even though most are perfectly happy with what they have now. > Why? Because 35mm film is comparatively cheap for most casual users. > You buy a camera for $5 to $10, film for a few dollars more, take > pictures, take pay a few dollars more to get them developed, and you > have great pictures. Each step is quite inexpensive and quite > convenient. So far, digital cameras aren't quite as readily accessible. you can buy a cd burner for $20 on sale (commonly at computer shows) even expensive stores have them for $40 and under. CD are the epitomy of cheap. normal going rate is $30 for 100 of them. onsale $20 for 100 CD format MAY go obsolete as out hunger for file size (quality features etc..) go up. DVD dual layer is the end product of that. 9gig on one little optical disc. OPTICAL DISC is here to stay. its not going anywhere anytime soon. short of greedy people with DRM signs in there eyes doing something goofy I will likely stillbe using a optical disc in 50 years. and that drive will likely still be able to read all my old CDR's there is no reason it won't > From a purist standpoint, these things probably aren't relevant. But > question is, is a purist standpoint relevant? > > Or is it just silly? Silly usually :-) Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > that is the biggest farce in existance. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > YOUR desires of it have "changed" to be those that are outside of its > abilities. not the other way around. Show me any digital camera under $1000 that will take the abuse my $150 SLR has taken in its 35 years. The absolute worst I ever did to my SLR was to take it to NARAM-20 at the late Mile Square park in California. It must have cost me about $30 to have all the dirt removed from the innards. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html I have a polaroid fun320 camera that I crashed at over 200mph from 800ft and it still works to this day and many more "crashes" including water landings. is that good enough ? the pictures suck but it meets your requirements and if you can find the they go for under $20 a pop. how much you wanna bet I can trash your SLR in 5 minutes if I wanted to. lets drop it in the nose cone of a rocket from 800feet and see if it still works afterwards. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Show me any digital camera under $1000 that will take the abuse my $150 SLR > has taken in its 35 years. The absolute worst I ever did to my SLR was to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > I have a polaroid fun320 camera that I crashed at over 200mph from 800ft and > it still works to this day and many more "crashes" including water landings. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lets drop it in the nose cone of a rocket from 800feet and see if it still > works afterwards. Nose weight on the Grrrrrr? :) btw, major congrats on the weight loss! Ted 'blames the brew' Novak TRA#5512 >>Show me any digital camera under $1000 that will take the abuse my $150 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" nah. the grr would not hit 200mph aiming down with a downdraft and with full thrust going :-) thanks Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Nose weight on the Grrrrrr? > > :) > > btw, major congrats on the weight loss! > how much you wanna bet I can trash your SLR in 5 minutes if I wanted to. > lets drop it in the nose cone of a rocket from 800feet and see if it still > works afterwards. Right after you do it with your precious Nikon... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html I have dropped my Nikon onto concrete from 4+ feet. CRINGED and watched my life flash before my eyes each time. thankfully it has survived unscathed. from the rocket. hell no. point is you tried to make a point of durability in relation to obsolescence. I simply pointed out how DURABLE my crappy little fun 320 is. IE I was showing your original comment had NO real point of value. Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > how much you wanna bet I can trash your SLR in 5 minutes if I wanted to. > > lets drop it in the nose cone of a rocket from 800feet and see if it still [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Chris Taylor Jr wrote: << if you can afford it ABSOLUTELY stick with film !! its still superior in the realm of quality and being able to "blow up" the image. >> I wonder if Chris realizes that he's just admitted to the advantage of analog over digital? :) only because digital is not there yet. once digital hits 15-20mp (8-10 for the average user) analog will die. at 20mp digital will surpass the maximum resolution possible on consumer grade 35mm film. it is not an advantage of digital over analog its an advantage of a certain resolution digital over a certain resolution analog. completely different discussions. in under 10 years digital photography will far surpass 35mm film in possible quality. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Chris Taylor Jr wrote: > << if you can afford it ABSOLUTELY stick with film !! its still superior in the > realm of quality and being able to "blow up" the image. >> > > I wonder if Chris realizes that he's just admitted to the advantage of analog > over digital? :) >only because digital is not there yet. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Chris Taylor Cool! So in ten years we will all have good cheap disposable 20MP digital cameras available. Outa sight man. Alan > Cool! So in ten years we will all have good cheap disposable 20MP > digital cameras available. Outa sight man. The solution is obvious, wait 10 years. In the mean time I have an obsolete (or soon to be) Elan IIe coupled with a 75-300MM Image Stabilizing zoom. It is paid for. It works. I feel so 90's. and what makes it obsolete ? it will take as good a picture as any brand new 35mm out today. oh you meant your wants and needs have gone obsolete. that you now desire MORE than it can offer seeing as how it has not changed since you got it. it still does exactly what it did then today. Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > Cool! So in ten years we will all have good cheap disposable 20MP > > digital cameras available. Outa sight man. > > The solution is obvious, wait 10 years. In the mean time I have an > obsolete (or soon to be) Elan IIe coupled with a 75-300MM Image > Stabilizing zoom. It is paid for. It works. I feel so 90's. > and what makes it obsolete ? "[adj] old; no longer in use or valid or fashionable; "obsolete words"; "an obsolete locomotive"; "outdated equipment"; "superannuated laws"; "out-of-date ideas" " Just because you do not like the definition of a word that does not make it's use incorrect. Joel. phx > it will take as good a picture as any brand new 35mm out today. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Chris Taylor I like the definition just fine. I have a Fun 320 polaroid camera. I use it quite often. it is not outdated in fact it the only peice of equipment that can even do the job assigned to it. so it is obsolete ? and if so HOW ? its currently in use. its still valid. Fashionable does not apply to integrated circuits last time I checked. its not outdated since its the ONLY unit that does its required job. and superannuated laws does not apply to the best of my knowledge and the idea is certaintly not out of date. it does not meet a single point if your or my definiton. so again is it obsolete and if you say yes justify it with a definition that fits it since it does not meet the one you supplied. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > and what makes it obsolete ? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > Chris Taylor Actually yes. although I hope this fetish out society has with "disposable" is gone by then. once we have 20mp digital technology will "level out" since that will be MORE than good enough for almost ANY consumers usage. although it MIGHT continue onwards. sice higher resolution can replace otherwise very expensive zoom lens. probably less than 10 years too. that was a VERY conservative estimate seeing as how they have 11, 14 and 16mp resolutions today. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Cool! So in ten years we will all have good cheap disposable 20MP > digital cameras available. Outa sight man. > > Alan > Actually yes. although I hope this fetish out society has with "disposable" > is gone by then. > > once we have 20mp digital technology will "level out" since that will be > MORE than good enough for almost ANY consumers usage. Once we have cars that can easily go the speed limit... Once we have computers with 60 gig hard drives... Once we have cell phones that stay active for xx hours... Once we have an airplane that will... Chris, Technology will ALWAYS raise the benchmark of what a "normal" consumer "needs". steve how so. we have film technology FAR IN ADVANCE of 35mm yet its not obsolete according to you. explain that Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > Actually yes. although I hope this fetish out society has with "disposable" > > is gone by then. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > steve My point exactely. 20 years ago, I was fortunate to have a choice of 100, 200, or 400 film. 100 and 200 were "high quality", while the 400 was grainy. But 400 was the only one I could use to get a decent picture of BigFoot in the Kingdome (both obsolete by the way). Now with the advent of technology, I find 400 film to be of very high quality and wouldn't go back to the old stuff because TODAY it is obsolete. steve > how so. > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > > > steve > My point exactely. 20 years ago, I was fortunate to have a choice of 100, 200, or 400 > film. 100 and 200 were "high quality", while the 400 was grainy. But 400 was the only one > I could use to get a decent picture of BigFoot in the Kingdome (both obsolete by the way). > Now with the advent of technology, I find 400 film to be of very high quality and wouldn't > go back to the old stuff because TODAY it is obsolete. Actually you could get Kodak 35mm 1000 print film as far back as 1974. Didn't want to pay for it but it was available. Randy ?? film is a perishable. it can not go obsolete. it simply ceases to exist ? that is like saying a "nail" can somehow become obsolete. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > My point exactely. 20 years ago, I was fortunate to have a choice of 100, 200, or 400 > film. 100 and 200 were "high quality", while the 400 was grainy. But 400 was the only one [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > steve Yes, Chris, I'm glad we agree on this subject. The square nails the pioneers used in rustic cabins were made of some pretty weak steel. I think they were hand forged as well. Now, those nails are obsolete and have been replaced by new, better nails. steve > ?? film is a perishable. it can not go obsolete. it simply ceases to exist ? > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > steve so your saying we no longer use nails. so your saying when I see that 50ft long 8ft high eisle of nails at home depot that its an illusion ? ok OH you meant the STEEL used to make those nails is obsolete. is that what you meant ? Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > Yes, Chris, I'm glad we agree on this subject. The square nails the pioneers used in > rustic cabins were made of some pretty weak steel. I think they were hand forged as well. > Now, those nails are obsolete and have been replaced by new, better nails. > > steve > so your saying we no longer use nails. so your saying when I see that 50ft > long 8ft high eisle of nails at home depot that its an illusion ? > > ok > > OH you meant the STEEL used to make those nails is obsolete. I think what he's saying is that the square nails are obsolete. Pretty much all of the nails you see at Home Depot are round... -dave w > is that what you meant ? > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > steve > I think what he's saying is that the square nails are obsolete. > Pretty much all of the nails you see at Home Depot are round... So the square nails are obsolete. The square nails that have a fixed number of sides; the digital nails, are obsolete. But the nails with the nice analog curved surface are still good... Oh, the humanity! Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet http://roci.indyrockets.org "X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded." Except that they have a finite fixed number of atoms. Ohhh how digital Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > But the nails with the nice analog curved surface are still good... > > Oh, the humanity! > > Mario Perdue > NAR #22012 Sr. L2 > Except that they have a finite fixed number of atoms. Ohhh how digital > > Chris Taylor > http://www.zodiacreview.com/ Are you sure about that? > > Except that they have a finite fixed number of atoms. Ohhh how digital > > > > Chris Taylor > > http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > Are you sure about that? Don't listen to Dave G. - he says things like that to all the boys! -dave w as sure as any normal current scientist is Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > Except that they have a finite fixed number of atoms. Ohhh how digital > > > > Chris Taylor > > http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > Are you sure about that? > as sure as any normal current scientist is > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >>Are you sure about that? You forgot about atomic decay. when an atom decays it has one less. its still a finite number at any one point in time. so no I did not forgot nor even need to recall. > You forgot about atomic decay. >when an atom decays it has one less. its still a finite number at any one >point in time. > >so no I did not forgot nor even need to recall. If I recall correctly (Oh, yeah -- I do, thanks to the magic of cut and paste!), your initial statement regarding the number of atoms in a nail was: "Except that they have a finite fixed number of atoms." So, while I am with you on the "finite" thing, it's the "fixed" bit that was being argued. - Rick "Reading Is Fundamental" Dickinson Signature"I am saying nothing overly intelligent new or novel." -- Chris Taylor THIS is a proper USE of the phrase. your arguing semantics. pointlessly. you can not measure IN motion you can only measure STILL when you measure you are measuring a small sliver of time a "freeze frame" hence one of the problem with measure both speed and direction of subatomic particles etc.. etc.. etc.. with that definition in mind it stands to reason and is in fact perfectly corect to say FIXED is the proper word. since if you gonna COUNT he atoms you got to "freeze" the moment to do it and at that frozen moment in time there are IN FACT a FINITE and FIXED number of atoms in any given object in this universe. at the next MOMENT its a DIFFERENT measurement so if the number is different then it does not matter. at that NEW moment the number once again still FINITE AND FIXED so AGAIN when you get right down to it EVERYTHING is digital you are NOT stupid so I assume your doing this just to rile me up ?? Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > >when an atom decays it has one less. its still a finite number at any one > >point in time. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "I am saying nothing overly intelligent new or novel." > -- Chris Taylor >THIS is a proper USE of the phrase. You seem to be channelling Robert E. McElwaine. Next, I expect you to end your messages by saying that "UN-altered REPRODUCTION and DISSEMINATION of this IMPORTANT Information is ENCOURAGED." >your arguing semantics. pointlessly. My arguing semantics _what_? Speak in complete sentences, please. Alternatively, learn to differentiate between homophones, and make at least *some* effort to capitalize the first words in your sentences. >you can not measure IN motion you can only measure STILL when you measure >you are measuring a small sliver of time a "freeze frame" Ok.... >hence one of the problem with measure both speed and direction of subatomic >particles etc.. etc.. etc.. Heisenberg had a bit more to say about quantum physics than just that, but you're obviously acquinted with at least the "Cliff Notes" version of his uncertainty principle, so I'll let it go at that. >with that definition in mind it stands to reason and is in fact perfectly >corect to say FIXED is the proper word. since if you gonna COUNT he atoms [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >then it does not matter. at that NEW moment the number once again still >FINITE AND FIXED I think you're right about one thing: I am arguing semantics. But, as per Webster's 1913 dictionary, semantics is defined: Sem`an´tics n. sing. 1. the study of the meanings of words and of the sense development of words; - formerly called semasiology. 2. a doctrine and philosophical approach to language and its relationship to thought and behavior, developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879-1950), which holds that the capacity to express ideas and thereby improve one's interaction with others and one's environment is enhanced by training in the more critical use of words and other symbols; - also called general semantics. 3. the meanings of words as they are used to achieve an effect; especially, the multiple meanings of words or the multiplicity of words having the same meaning; - used in referring to the confusion that can be caused (intentionally or unintentionally) by multiple meanings; as, there's no real difference, it's only a matter of semantics. I'm referring, specifically, to definition 2. Cogent expression of one's ideas, concepts, thoughts and arguments is a prerequisite, in my opinion, of any intelligent conversation. It's duecedly difficult to carry on any sort of discussion with someone who ex-post-facto changes the standard meanings of words, like Humpty Dumpty on the other side of the looking-glass. You made a claim that the number of atoms in a nail was a "finite fixed number of atoms". The word "fixed", when used to refer to a quantity, means that the quantity is a constant, unchanging number over a significant period of time. All quantities are unchanging over zero time -- there's no reason to call them fixed if you are referring to a zero time interval. Your use of the word "fixed" implied that you were talking about a quantity that didn't change over time. Trying to backtrack and revise and cover yourself by saying you meant that any one measurement would result in a fixed count is just silly, and smacks of disingenuousness. >so AGAIN when you get right down to it EVERYTHING is digital <giggle> >you are NOT stupid so I assume your doing this just to rile me up ?? Chris, you seem like a nice guy, and I look forward to meeting you some time. I love your "Nano Rockets", and I would love to see you get the Grrrrr to fly, someday. But, you say some of the silliest damned things at times, and do so in such a distinctive "style", that I can't help but leap into the fray and try to talk some sense into the conversation, if not into you, specifically. I hope you take my comments as the good-natured ribbing they are intended to be. I don't mean to insult anyone, and I don't mean to get anyone "riled up". But, it's entertaining, sometimes, to poke a bit of fun at people when their arguments devolve rapidly into incoherent babblings. I've just noticed that yours tend to go that way fairly rapidly fairly often.... Cheers, - Rick "Sarcastic bystander" Dickinson Signature"I am saying nothing overly intelligent new or novel." -- Chris Taylor > You seem to be channelling Robert E. McElwaine. ROFL!!!!!! Stop it! You're killing me! : ) Randy Mario wrote: << The square nails that have a fixed number of sides; the digital nails, are obsolete. But the nails with the nice analog curved surface are still good... >> LOL!! not all. many are square. I believe they are masonry nails ?? will have to go look. point is for all intents and purposes a nail is a nail. it s headed stake you drive into something to secure it. a "tent stake" is an oversized nail :-) etc.. etc.. now what IS obsolete is the formula of steel used (etc..) to make those nails. I just think obsolete is a heavily abused word. it tends to be used improperly. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > so your saying we no longer use nails. so your saying when I see that 50ft > > long 8ft high eisle of nails at home depot that its an illusion ? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > > > > steve I thought the NAR safety code made nails obsolete. Zack Lau W1VT are you saying "STEEL" is obsolete! get a grip... > so your saying we no longer use nails. so your saying when I see that 50ft > long 8ft high eisle of nails at home depot that its an illusion ? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > steve > are you saying "STEEL" is obsolete! > > get a grip... You just told Chris Taylor to get a grip. Are you delusional? Oh, wait. You are Steve Bloom. You ARE delusional. > > so your saying we no longer use nails. so your saying when I see that 50ft > > long 8ft high eisle of nails at home depot that its an illusion ? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > > > steve SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv actually I was quite clear. in fact I am not going to repeat myself I will quote my own post "OH you meant the STEEL used to make those nails is obsolete" just in case your too dimwited to figure it out let me clarify FURTHER "used to make those nails" in case your still too much of a moron to figure this out STEEL is like cooking. its a RECIPE STEEL is not an ELEMENT. it is made of multiple elements. how you MIX THEM and COOK THEM (recipie) is what is obsolete. Steel from 100 years ago is NOT the same as STEEL today. the recipie has changed. the OLD recipies go obsolete as we develop better one and the old ones no longer serve a viable purpose. IS that clear enough for you ? let me know when YOU have a "grip" on this Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > are you saying "STEEL" is obsolete! > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > steve According to Chris Taylor Jr <nospam@nerys.com>: > Steel from 100 years ago is NOT the same as STEEL today. the recipie has > changed. the OLD recipies go obsolete as we develop better one and the old > ones no longer serve a viable purpose. Heh. Apropos nothing in particular, blacksmiths are having a heck of a time trying to obtain "the good stuff" (for artwork, historical versimilatude etc). Apparently _nobody_ has made wrought iron in decades. For the most part blacksmiths have to make do with hot rolled - which isn't the same thing at all. Or scavenge wrought iron from old barrels or wheel rims. SignatureChris Lewis, Una confibula non set est It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them. > actually I was quite clear. in fact I am not going to repeat myself >I will quote my own post THIS, is why I read rmr. Gotta love it. ; ) Randy > Now, those nails are obsolete and have been replaced by new, better nails. Inclined plane, anyone? ; ) Randy According to default <undeliverable@mail.com>: > > Actually yes. although I hope this fetish out society has with "disposable" > > is gone by then. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Once we have an airplane that will... "One these computers is capable of meeting the complete computational needs of the USA" (some obscure US govt official in the early 60's, regarding one of the very early IBM 360 mainframes). Nowadays, you have more compute power in your wristwatch. [And I used to think that a 5 _megabyte_ drive was _huge_...] SignatureChris Lewis, Una confibula non set est It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them. computers have not reached the "good enough" stage yet. Film Camera's have. what exactly was the point ? Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > "One these computers is capable of meeting the complete computational > needs of the USA" (some obscure US govt official in the early 60's, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris Lewis, Una confibula non set est > It's not just anyone who gets a Starship Cruiser class named after them. > in under 10 years digital photography will far surpass 35mm film in possible > quality. Can any one still use a 10 year old digital camera? I mean is the software that came with one that far back still usable on something like XP? For that matter can one get parts and repair service for a 10 year old digital camera? I have no doubt that I can still get repair service for my 35 year old SLR. I can walk into a camera shop today and buy a new zoom lense that will fit it. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > camera? I have no doubt that I can still get repair service for my 35 year > old SLR. But would you want to? My daughter enrolled in High School Photo Journalism last year. My first reaction was to give her my old Olympus OM-10, a GREAT SLR for a budding photographer. It hasn't been used in almost 10-12 years and the mirror sometimes hangs so I brought it into a shop for repair. I don't remember the exact quote, but is was around $150 for a complete overhaul. We spent a little more (just a little) and got her a brand new Canon Rebel that accepts the same lenses my Elan does. Now that's she's on Yearbook staff that really paid off since she can borrow my 75-300MM zoom or my 28-135mm tele (slightly better than the lens on her camera). If she had stuck with the OM-10 all she would have had was a 50mm fixed (arguably better glass). Granted the OM-10 was never a great camera. Perhaps if I had an OM-1 I would have spent the money to fix it. Even so, comparing my Elan IIe (with eye controlled focus!) to my OM is like comparing my Honda Pilot to my first Honda, a Civic 1200. that is ONLY because the technology has "matured" and been HEAVILY "standardized" digital is NOT mature yet and has not been standardized. show me a film camera from before things were standardized and mature and please by all means try to legitimately make the same claim. I have many film camers that should they break I am screwed as finding parts would be near impossible. you can not have a 10 year old digicam since I do not think any of the more common models can BE ten years old yet. if we use the LCD as the guys (IE count units with a color lcd) the oldest one possible is the Casio QV-10 (I have this unit BTW and it still works fine) it is not ten years old yet (7 or 8 tops) I will let you know in 3 years if it still works. parts ? $10-$20 on ebay. Chris Taylor http://www.nerys.com/ > > in under 10 years digital photography will far surpass 35mm film in possible > > quality. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > if you can afford it ABSOLUTELY stick with > film !! its still superior in the realm of > quality and being able to "blow up" the > image. That's because it's analog <vbg> Doug (ducking) > yeah if you can afford it :-) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > realm of quality and being able to "blow up" the image. IF you can afford > it. But Chris, it's ANALOG, not DIGITAL! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html analog is a myth. when you get right down to it everything is digital anyway :-) Chris Taylor http://www.ekissmyass.com/ > But Chris, it's ANALOG, not DIGITAL! > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > yeah if you can afford it :-) > > I had to stop using film because I simply could not AFFORD to use film > anymore. Chris, time to start a new hobby, developing your own film :) I agree, film processing is expensive, but I really like the freedom of a manual camera. If I could get one of those digital backs I would. before I think of doing much else with my life, I gotta get me a place to own. someplace that can have a magazine, a giant shop to keep the lil' lady from grumbling, and observatory/tracking station, ham shack, and (i guess) darkroom SignatureTater President of MARS Club (NAR #660) www.mars-rocketry.com KC9ESF NAR #79654 L1 AMA #747769 EAA #703312 remove spam spelled backwards to reply that is why I want the EOS 1ds its a manual camera basically with a 11mp full size (35mm size) CMOS sensor. its the perfect replacement for film. it will take ANY picture ANY consumer level 35mm can and do it cheaper. I just wish I could afford it :-) Chris Taylor http://www.zodiacreview.com/ > > yeah if you can afford it :-) > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > EAA #703312 > remove spam spelled backwards to reply > A while back I posted a question about buying a digital camera not for > lofting, but for rocket photography from the ground. Then I got downsized [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html Hi Bob, I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered the camera yet, third time should be the charm. http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/lau_040724_01.htm http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/lau_040724_01.htm > I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > the camera yet, third time should be the charm. > > http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/lau_040724_01.htm Are these zoomed way in? Using the stabilizer? Since I've decided to wait a while before buying, keep me informed of your impressions of the camera. Or buy a better one next spring and sell me the used one cheap :-) Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html >>I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered >>the camera yet, third time should be the charm. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > impressions of the camera. Or buy a better one next spring and sell me the > used one cheap :-) It'll be obsolete by then! > >>I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > >>the camera yet, third time should be the charm. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It'll be obsolete by then! It's already obsolete. Last wee, Panasonic released a new round of cameras. The FZ20, FZ15 and FZ3. The FZ20 and FZ15 are superior to my camera for rocketry photos and the FZ15 retail for $100 less . > It's already obsolete. Last wee, Panasonic released a new round of > cameras. The FZ20, FZ15 and FZ3. The FZ20 and FZ15 are superior to my > camera for rocketry photos and the FZ15 retail for $100 less . Wow! Procrastination pays off again! Funny, I didn't find anything about them onthe Panasonic web site, but a search got plenty of hits. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > >>I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > >>the camera yet, third time should be the charm. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It'll be obsolete by then! And it there's one thing I could change about Apple computers it would be the feel of the keyboard. "Last week". > > >>I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > > >>the camera yet, third time should be the charm. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And it there's one thing I could change about Apple computers it would > be the feel of the keyboard. "Last week". You can get an adapter to put a true blue IBM keyboard on them. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com My articles valuable? Donate http://tinyurl.com/2hmgv > > > >>I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > > > >>the camera yet, third time should be the charm. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > You can get an adapter to put a true blue IBM keyboard on them. Sigh, no, I might discover that I'm actually a bad proof reader. Better to have a scapegoat. >> > And it there's one thing I could change about Apple computers it would >> > be the feel of the keyboard. "Last week". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Sigh, no, I might discover that I'm actually a bad proof reader. >Better to have a scapegoat. The keyboard on my PC is actualy [d][i][g][i][t][a][l]. > The keyboard on my PC is actualy [d][i][g][i][t][a][l]. Needless to say, I have several of those... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html > > I've posted a few new photos with the Panasonic FZ10. Haven't mastered > > the camera yet, third time should be the charm. > > > > http://www.skypirate.net/rocketry/lau_040724_01.htm > > Are these zoomed way in? In most cases no, I was leaving a lot of margin on these images and cropped them. Rarely uses half the available zoom. IMO the image does get a bit soft the more you zoom in. The most zoom was on that cluster rocket on page two and the rocket with the blue and white parachute. The one of the rocketeer loading the minimum diameter rocket on pad one (page 6), was taken from the launch control area and there's a fair amount of zoom there. I'll see if I can review the EXIF data and give you some precise info. Using the stabilizer? Yes. > Since I've decided to wait a while before buying, keep me informed of your > impressions of the camera. Will do. If I could change one thing about the camera it would be having immediate access to changing the ISO setting. Right now, it's on the second page of a menu and takes 5 or 6 button clicks to get to. Or buy a better one next spring and sell me the > used one cheap :-) > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html |
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
|
©2012 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.