http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Need a new camera - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32f873581906831f?hl=en
* Evading parking tickets - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/42a5ea644e061d72?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need a new camera
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32f873581906831f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 9:54 pm
From: The Real Bev
BigDog1 wrote:
> On Nov 15, 4:08 pm, The Real Bev <bashley101+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Newer is always better :-) but I recently read somewhere that 8
>> megapixels is just about the useful limit -- anything bigger actually
>> degrades the image for some forgotten reason.
>
> Hmmmm - never heard that. 8 megapixels is certainly more than the
> average point and shoot digital camera user will ever need. In fact
> anything more than 3 or 4 megapixels is overkill in most cases (but
> don't try to find a new 4 megapixel camera anywhere). That's more
> than enough for 4x6 "snapshots", or the occasional minimally cropped
> 5x7 or 8x10 enlargement. And for viewing on the computer, cell phone
> cameras have enough resolution.
Well, my 640x480 is pretty inadequate, but it's good enough for
convincing somebody that if he keys your car you'll have a record of his
face and license plate. Other 'record' shots too...
> My Canon 40D has a resolution of slightly more than 10 megapixels. I
> can assure you there is no degradation of those images. Quite the
> contrary. I've cropped to as little as 20% of the original image, and
> made tack sharp 8x10 enlargements.
Can't remember where I read it or the details. Ergo, worthless.
> The problem most people run into is the size of the files high
> megapixel cameras produce. My Canon produces 3 to 5 MB jpegs, and 15
> - 20 MB RAW files when set at maximum resolution. It takes pretty
> robust hardware and software to efficiently deal with files that
> size, An older computer with minimum memory and a small hard drive
> would be overwhelmed.
Raw files are overkill in my case. I took 200K shots with my Coolpix
800 for 6 years and was perfectly satisfied except for the 2x zoom,
inadequate flash and slow write-speed (hence the 200K shots).
> I certainly agree that we're printing far less than we used to - and
> that's good on many levels.. But I still print quite a bit. My wife
> can't show off the photos of our grandchildren when she goes to lunch
> with her friends, if they're all on the computer at home. And of
> course I've still got to keep track of many file boxes full of slides,
> negatives, contact sheets and enlargements from 30+ years photography
> before I went digital.
I've scanned the best of the 35mm and 2.25^2 slides (I'm really happy
with my Canon scanner, even if it is windows-only) and have a big box of
prints to do... and another big box of 8x10 b&w to do... one of these
days... As long as I keep them all on multiple HDs I figure I'm way
better off than with paper.
I've got a box of b&w prints from the 1920s -- friends and relatives of
my grandmother, I guess. My mom didn't know who those people were or
where they lived. I see stuff like that at estate sales too. Depressing.
--
Cheers, Bev
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Self Test for Paranoia: You know you have it when you can't
think of anything that's your own fault.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 11:01 pm
From: no-spam@sonic.net (Fake ID)
In article <gfmtvl$o4t$1@aioe.org>, OhioGuy <none@none.net> wrote:
>
>> No offense intended, but you surely need more practice with the camera
>
> You're probably right - I've never messed with most of the settings.
> My current problem is that I'm so far away from the squirrel in
>question that the max optical zoom still has him way, WAY too small in
>the resulting pictures, so I have to engage the digital zoom to even get
>it close to the necessary size.
Proving that necessity is the mother of stupidity I've done telephoto by
shooting through my binoculars. With a POS 3MP P&S camera and cheap but
big 20x80s the shots can pass for ones taken with the native optical
zoom. An adaptor like for a spotting scope would make things easier.
It would be really nice with the camera would do manual focus.
m
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Evading parking tickets
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/42a5ea644e061d72?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Nov 15 2008 10:46 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <pOITk.3488$Wd1.2829@newsfe06.iad>, The Real Bev wrote:
>DanG wrote:
>
>> It is really sad you feel this way. YOU broke the law. YOU are
>> not carrying your fair share of the taxes everyone else pays (I
>> see license plate fees as a type of tax). And yet, you feel you
>> have the right to do it wrong and threaten damage and destruction
>> in retribution.
>
>Look at it another way: Who among us ever voted to install parking
>meters or limit parking? I'd like to get rid of the 2-hour limit in
>front of my house; there's no reason for anybody but us residents to
>park there, and it's a monumental nuisance to us.
Most residential streets in high-parking-demand areas of Philadelphia
don't have meters, but have signs saying 2 hour limit except for people
who have residential parking permits of the particular number of the area
in question. The car has to have address that its registration is based
on in the area for its particular number residential parking permit.
For example, if you live on a high parking demand block in University
City, and your car is registered there, you can get a permit with the
appropriate number (I forget what that number is - maybe 2 or 3)). With
that permit, you can park anywhere with no time limit on any unmetered
block with signs indicating time limit without that particular number
permit - that is, most residential blocks in University City with time
limit. Anyone who does not live there is subject to a 2 hour limit 8 AM
to 8 PM or whatever except for Sundays and legal holidays.
Any resiential block in Philadelphia with parking meters (it appears to
me there are a few, but only few) are for those without cars or for those
well heeled enough to have their own parking garage spaces rented or
owned.
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment