Yvan256
Jul 15, 06:23 PM
So, apart from all the discussions about exFAT and all... am I the only one who wish the SD reader was in the front?
They could have made a black plastic strip the same thickness and width as the optical drive, meaning two long black strips in the front of the Mac mini instead of one, and put the reader on the far right of the second strip, just like the infrared receptor is at the right of the CD/DVD slot.
Or even better, design some kind of CD/DVD slot with an SD reader built-in.
I also wish Apple would be able to get the same slot-loading mini-CD/DVD capability as the Nintendo Wii.
They could have made a black plastic strip the same thickness and width as the optical drive, meaning two long black strips in the front of the Mac mini instead of one, and put the reader on the far right of the second strip, just like the infrared receptor is at the right of the CD/DVD slot.
Or even better, design some kind of CD/DVD slot with an SD reader built-in.
I also wish Apple would be able to get the same slot-loading mini-CD/DVD capability as the Nintendo Wii.
thatisme
Mar 29, 08:20 AM
Yup. So the EF-s lens is providing a field of view of 16-35.2mm in full-frame, 35mm equivalent. So is effected by the 1.6 crop. Which is what I've been saying all along.
Yep. so you are now using the term Equivalent, not actual, which is not what you have been arguing, but I have.... Actual focal length is 10-22 in EFS. Effective in 35mm terms is 16-32mm.
OK. So, with your logic, take that Equivalent in Full Frame EF 16-35.2mm lens and put it back on your 7D, and your FOV changes again, and your Image changes. It will be using the center of the lens's elements, in effect "cropping" your image tighter, which now gives you an effective focal length of 56.32 mm on the long end, not the 22mm as your argument would dictate.
As stated before, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. You have to have a standard frame of reference which is a 35mm sensor size.
Yep. so you are now using the term Equivalent, not actual, which is not what you have been arguing, but I have.... Actual focal length is 10-22 in EFS. Effective in 35mm terms is 16-32mm.
OK. So, with your logic, take that Equivalent in Full Frame EF 16-35.2mm lens and put it back on your 7D, and your FOV changes again, and your Image changes. It will be using the center of the lens's elements, in effect "cropping" your image tighter, which now gives you an effective focal length of 56.32 mm on the long end, not the 22mm as your argument would dictate.
As stated before, you are comparing Apples to Oranges. You have to have a standard frame of reference which is a 35mm sensor size.
nixd2001
Sep 22, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by P-Worm
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
Continuing this brief diversion...
I've seen no attempt to quantitively factor quality into all these price comparisions that get thrown around. The build quality on my shiny doors is better than the build quality on any PC I've personally seen since a really nice Intel (yes, Intel) built PC from about '93.
If there's a desire to compare simply on price, then you might as well use a random number generator - it's too much Apple and Oranges.
I remember the storm caused a few years ago when a number of the UK PC manufacturers admitted that a 5% - 10% failure rate was the rates they operated on. I've just witnessed 3 motherboards out of about 15 go "phut" at work - due to design defects rather than going out of warranty as well. So should I conclude that they're good value for money because they are cheaper?
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
Continuing this brief diversion...
I've seen no attempt to quantitively factor quality into all these price comparisions that get thrown around. The build quality on my shiny doors is better than the build quality on any PC I've personally seen since a really nice Intel (yes, Intel) built PC from about '93.
If there's a desire to compare simply on price, then you might as well use a random number generator - it's too much Apple and Oranges.
I remember the storm caused a few years ago when a number of the UK PC manufacturers admitted that a 5% - 10% failure rate was the rates they operated on. I've just witnessed 3 motherboards out of about 15 go "phut" at work - due to design defects rather than going out of warranty as well. So should I conclude that they're good value for money because they are cheaper?
str1f3
Dec 27, 09:39 PM
I believe the Consumerist will be more than willing to hype incorrect information it has received from an uninformed rep if it means increased site traffic, especially if it furthers the aim of hyping up a theme that's en vogue right now. It's a blog with a business interests and it receives revenue based on traffic, and that means it, like any other blog with business interests, has an agenda to pursue.
So like every other "news" source on the internet, I take what I read with a grain of salt.
Surely you must have proof of them using sensationalism (such as TechCrunch) rather than siding with the telcos who consistently lie and overcharge for services like SMS? As far as I know The Consumerist has been around for years blogging about consumers rights and unlike AT&T who Astroturfs against net neutrality.
So like every other "news" source on the internet, I take what I read with a grain of salt.
Surely you must have proof of them using sensationalism (such as TechCrunch) rather than siding with the telcos who consistently lie and overcharge for services like SMS? As far as I know The Consumerist has been around for years blogging about consumers rights and unlike AT&T who Astroturfs against net neutrality.
more...
NoSmokingBandit
Jun 23, 02:22 PM
That doesnt make it a lie, you still get the first month for $1.
leekohler
Apr 23, 09:28 AM
No- he's a jerk.
more...
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:34 PM
My question though is how is this any different then having multiple TVs on your cable account? You can only watch TV on your account when your in your own home and on your own WiFi. Time warner took some pretty big steps to make sure you can't "steal" cable... It is a pretty secure app.
I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..
Well TECHNICALLY Time Warner and Comcast (my provider) have tiny fine print in their service docs that say you have to report "additional outlets" to them and are subject to monthly fee.... now clearly I'm not going to call them and tell them I have a 15" tv plugged in in the second bedroom so they can charge me $4.95 more per month, but it is within their rights to do so, it's just another shady tactic they use. There's only 1 of me in the house, so how can I be using the content on more than 1 TV at the same time? LOL
It's like software... TECHNICALLY you buy a license.. you can use it on as many computers as you want for personal use, just not simultaneously... so one license is fine if you have a desktop and laptop. The line blurs with things like operating systems where you might have the desktop and laptop on, but only using one at a time... so there's grey area...
Either way, this sh%t is bananas!
I am just wondering why Viacom and others are bitching? Its just like going in the other room and watching it on the other TV... Doesn't allow you to watch TV away from home..
Well TECHNICALLY Time Warner and Comcast (my provider) have tiny fine print in their service docs that say you have to report "additional outlets" to them and are subject to monthly fee.... now clearly I'm not going to call them and tell them I have a 15" tv plugged in in the second bedroom so they can charge me $4.95 more per month, but it is within their rights to do so, it's just another shady tactic they use. There's only 1 of me in the house, so how can I be using the content on more than 1 TV at the same time? LOL
It's like software... TECHNICALLY you buy a license.. you can use it on as many computers as you want for personal use, just not simultaneously... so one license is fine if you have a desktop and laptop. The line blurs with things like operating systems where you might have the desktop and laptop on, but only using one at a time... so there's grey area...
Either way, this sh%t is bananas!
citizenzen
Apr 7, 08:00 PM
50 billion out of a budget of what? A trillion and a bit?
I could remove 25% of your body weight and make you slim and sexy.
On the other hand, I could remove less than 2% of your body weight and render you a useless, comatose, vegetable.
It's not a matter of how much is cut as it is what is cut.
I could remove 25% of your body weight and make you slim and sexy.
On the other hand, I could remove less than 2% of your body weight and render you a useless, comatose, vegetable.
It's not a matter of how much is cut as it is what is cut.
more...
Huntn
Mar 11, 12:46 PM
Anyone think this is a good idea for a thread? If so...
I'm putting down an engineered floor in my bedroom, was at the local Home Depot hardware store and found a 3 piece Dasco Pro Pry Bar Set (http://findnsave.miamiherald.com/Product/3050919). It's well made, very functional for working with trim and prying up carpet strips, reasonably priced, and marked as Made in the USA! :)
I'm putting down an engineered floor in my bedroom, was at the local Home Depot hardware store and found a 3 piece Dasco Pro Pry Bar Set (http://findnsave.miamiherald.com/Product/3050919). It's well made, very functional for working with trim and prying up carpet strips, reasonably priced, and marked as Made in the USA! :)
adamfilip
Sep 25, 09:57 AM
More then you think!
more...
0815
Apr 25, 01:18 PM
don't have those Amazon placeholders a pretty bad reliability index?
Anyway ... I think for things like an OS there will always be the need for some kind of external medium (e.g. if you install from scratch - e.g. harddrive died and you need to install a new OS) ... but USB stick would be a nice alternative to DVD (I'm not using my DVD drive for anything and might want to skip it in the next update if there is an option to get a second drive instead of DVD)
Anyway ... I think for things like an OS there will always be the need for some kind of external medium (e.g. if you install from scratch - e.g. harddrive died and you need to install a new OS) ... but USB stick would be a nice alternative to DVD (I'm not using my DVD drive for anything and might want to skip it in the next update if there is an option to get a second drive instead of DVD)
iJohnHenry
Apr 13, 05:35 PM
So how do you guys feel about me saying, that if can, I like to support Black owned businesses, because there aren't that many.
I have no problem with that. :confused:
I wonder why I often see signs like this in stores ...
It doesn't say "for any reason", because that may be contrary to local laws.
There can be many valid reasons for refusing service to some people.
I have no problem with that. :confused:
I wonder why I often see signs like this in stores ...
It doesn't say "for any reason", because that may be contrary to local laws.
There can be many valid reasons for refusing service to some people.
more...
likemyorbs
Apr 12, 02:54 PM
But at the other extreme, I'm sure we all agree it is entirely unacceptable to deny somebody a job, say, because of their ethnicity. This would be ultimately harming them for it; and when we harm others by practising our opinions against them, we breach a fundamental tenet of Western society.
Of course it is unacceptable, and for this reason it is already illegal. ;)
Of course it is unacceptable, and for this reason it is already illegal. ;)
PopCulture
Jan 13, 02:27 PM
This application kinda scares me. I don't want everyone knowing where I'm at. I'll pass.
more...
baryon
Mar 13, 11:59 AM
You'd think you can trust a device as advanced as the iPhone with something as simple as time :D
Cappy
Sep 20, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by avkills
Microsoft has not beat Apple as far as a 64bit consumer OS goes. Name one consumer chip that is 64bit. Thank you. Carry on.
And your point is? There really isn't a need for 64bit cpu's let alone OS's for most consumers. AMD is essentially responsible for putting the pressure on the industry to move toward 64bit as soon as it is.
For consumers a 64bit cpu and OS is nothing more than bragging rights...at least for a few years.
Originally posted by avkills
Also, I think NT is limited to 4 processors unless they have updated that recently. Clustering is not the same as a multi-processor machine. Unix scales better than NT, just deal with it. Apple could easily make a rack server that had 16 processors, with a kick arse OpenGL card and teach SGI a lesson. They don't have the market for that though...yet!
-mark
I'm not sure where you get your info but keep dreaming. You fail to mention what cpu's they would use. I don't think your going to see current G4's in 16 processor servers ever. It's just not designed to do it. That's not to say it cannot be done...just that it would be a waste of manpower and money to do it and not be very efficient at it no matter the market.
Microsoft has not beat Apple as far as a 64bit consumer OS goes. Name one consumer chip that is 64bit. Thank you. Carry on.
And your point is? There really isn't a need for 64bit cpu's let alone OS's for most consumers. AMD is essentially responsible for putting the pressure on the industry to move toward 64bit as soon as it is.
For consumers a 64bit cpu and OS is nothing more than bragging rights...at least for a few years.
Originally posted by avkills
Also, I think NT is limited to 4 processors unless they have updated that recently. Clustering is not the same as a multi-processor machine. Unix scales better than NT, just deal with it. Apple could easily make a rack server that had 16 processors, with a kick arse OpenGL card and teach SGI a lesson. They don't have the market for that though...yet!
-mark
I'm not sure where you get your info but keep dreaming. You fail to mention what cpu's they would use. I don't think your going to see current G4's in 16 processor servers ever. It's just not designed to do it. That's not to say it cannot be done...just that it would be a waste of manpower and money to do it and not be very efficient at it no matter the market.
more...
bigjnyc
Apr 12, 02:13 PM
Pages and Numbers are much easier to use, and far nicer to look at than Office. If I don't need the horsepower I prefer iWork. If I do need the horsepower I have Office 2003 running on a late 2009 mini that is Windows 7 only. Office 2003 works great with W7, and it's not all blue looking like some of the newer versions.
As usual Windows runs MS software much better than Mac OS does.
They made Mac OS office very similar to the windows counterpart in the 2011 version. Granted its not 100% the same but the gap between office 2011 on mac and office 2011 on windows is very tiny now.
As usual Windows runs MS software much better than Mac OS does.
They made Mac OS office very similar to the windows counterpart in the 2011 version. Granted its not 100% the same but the gap between office 2011 on mac and office 2011 on windows is very tiny now.
thatisme
Mar 29, 12:37 PM
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx
go down to COMPARED ..
now roll over the images.. if you tell me that that 55-250 shot is a 1.6 crop and the 70-X shots are very different you DO live on another plant (the 55-250 shot was manualy zoomed to match the 70-X shot hence the SLIGHT difference in focal length).. I am assuming same camera..as the review is about the lens and the FoV is too close to be recreated beteen full frame and crop.
you are twisting things nicely around now..
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
Thatisme:
It is kind of funny how you try to wiggle yourself out of this though...
We (a buddy and me here, pro photographer but you would dismiss this anyway as him not knowing either, are having a great time with your "knowledge" and your way of going from the 200mm debacle to IMAGE... and no, the image will still not be different between an EF-s and an EF lens at the same focal length on the same body.
End of story..if you are so sure.. why don't YOU prove ME wrong? you posted 1 picture of a modified 5d, which wasnt even yours. there is no 10mm on full frame (hence the vigneting) so you would have to shoot that 52 with the 10-22 at 22mm and then use a full frame 22 milimeter lens and compare it, because you ARE arguing, at least now, that the image will be different. It won't except for the vignetting.. re-read your own statements from before and watch how you ended up now on the "image" :)
Don't worry, by Monday I will prove it to you but why don't you prove me wrong before?.. I dare you.
EF-s lens and EF (or DX and FX for me) at the same focal length on the same camera, same f stop, same shutter speed... Exif data intact.
To the OP: I have to apologize for this and this is the last post related to Thats me from my side:
To answer your question: EF-s is cheaper as stated before the mess and is targeted specifically for the crop sensor bodies. You CAN fit both EF-s and EF on a crop sensor body and you will get the same image. EF lenses are just made for full frame as also stated before.
sorry for the mess.
With your link provided, I agree there is a slight difference there, but as you said, you ASSUME that it was with the same camera.... That would be my assumption as well, however, that example hardly makes your case, as the 70mm had to be manually dialed in... a small change has a big effect at long distances.... just saying... Show it using a prime (can't) or at the long end of the lens where there is no room for error or adjustment (200mm example). Eliminate all variables.
So, quit your arguing and prove it with a real world example with your gear. I don't own any EF-S lenses anymore, so let's get that in the great wide open, so I can't run this comparison for you. There is a fundamental reason for that, which gets more to the point of the OP... Image quality is flat out crap as compared with Canon's L glass, which just so happens to be only in the EF mount. Right, wrong or somewhere in-between, this discussion has no bearing for me, since I will never own another EF-S lens anyway. To that point, I won't ever own a 1.6 crop camera again either, for what it's worth.
I have no further interest in this discussion, so have fun. Enjoy.
go down to COMPARED ..
now roll over the images.. if you tell me that that 55-250 shot is a 1.6 crop and the 70-X shots are very different you DO live on another plant (the 55-250 shot was manualy zoomed to match the 70-X shot hence the SLIGHT difference in focal length).. I am assuming same camera..as the review is about the lens and the FoV is too close to be recreated beteen full frame and crop.
you are twisting things nicely around now..
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
Thatisme:
It is kind of funny how you try to wiggle yourself out of this though...
We (a buddy and me here, pro photographer but you would dismiss this anyway as him not knowing either, are having a great time with your "knowledge" and your way of going from the 200mm debacle to IMAGE... and no, the image will still not be different between an EF-s and an EF lens at the same focal length on the same body.
End of story..if you are so sure.. why don't YOU prove ME wrong? you posted 1 picture of a modified 5d, which wasnt even yours. there is no 10mm on full frame (hence the vigneting) so you would have to shoot that 52 with the 10-22 at 22mm and then use a full frame 22 milimeter lens and compare it, because you ARE arguing, at least now, that the image will be different. It won't except for the vignetting.. re-read your own statements from before and watch how you ended up now on the "image" :)
Don't worry, by Monday I will prove it to you but why don't you prove me wrong before?.. I dare you.
EF-s lens and EF (or DX and FX for me) at the same focal length on the same camera, same f stop, same shutter speed... Exif data intact.
To the OP: I have to apologize for this and this is the last post related to Thats me from my side:
To answer your question: EF-s is cheaper as stated before the mess and is targeted specifically for the crop sensor bodies. You CAN fit both EF-s and EF on a crop sensor body and you will get the same image. EF lenses are just made for full frame as also stated before.
sorry for the mess.
With your link provided, I agree there is a slight difference there, but as you said, you ASSUME that it was with the same camera.... That would be my assumption as well, however, that example hardly makes your case, as the 70mm had to be manually dialed in... a small change has a big effect at long distances.... just saying... Show it using a prime (can't) or at the long end of the lens where there is no room for error or adjustment (200mm example). Eliminate all variables.
So, quit your arguing and prove it with a real world example with your gear. I don't own any EF-S lenses anymore, so let's get that in the great wide open, so I can't run this comparison for you. There is a fundamental reason for that, which gets more to the point of the OP... Image quality is flat out crap as compared with Canon's L glass, which just so happens to be only in the EF mount. Right, wrong or somewhere in-between, this discussion has no bearing for me, since I will never own another EF-S lens anyway. To that point, I won't ever own a 1.6 crop camera again either, for what it's worth.
I have no further interest in this discussion, so have fun. Enjoy.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 08:23 AM
How about if we just spend less and not raise more taxes?
And cut what?
And cut what?
extraextra
Oct 26, 04:45 PM
I'm interested in the program, but I can't use it on my Powerbook, uggghhh. Damn you Adobe!
flosseR
Mar 29, 09:31 AM
thatisme....give up.. you are trying in vain to recover from a grave mistake..
effectively you HAVE argued wrong:
Originally Posted by thatisme
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF
This WILL in fact create the eEXACT same image... It does not matter what focal length it is, the SENSOR will create the image.. the only difference is that the EFs lens has a smaller image circle.. NOTHING ELSE changes!!! absolutely NOTHING. I don't get what your problem is.. the mm amount on the lens is what matters... if you only get a 1.6x crop out of the resulting image in comparison to a full 35mm frame has no relevance to the lens.
THE MILLIMETER OF THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
end of story.
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6.
end of this meaningless discussion now.. geez
effectively you HAVE argued wrong:
Originally Posted by thatisme
YOU WILL GET DIFFERENT IMAGES IF YOU USE A 200mm EF Lens on a 7D (APS-C) and a 200mm EF-S lens on that same camera due to the FOVCF
This WILL in fact create the eEXACT same image... It does not matter what focal length it is, the SENSOR will create the image.. the only difference is that the EFs lens has a smaller image circle.. NOTHING ELSE changes!!! absolutely NOTHING. I don't get what your problem is.. the mm amount on the lens is what matters... if you only get a 1.6x crop out of the resulting image in comparison to a full 35mm frame has no relevance to the lens.
THE MILLIMETER OF THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
end of story.
A canon 55-200 EF-s and a 70-200L lens at 200mm on a canon 7D will produce the exact same image...the same as if you would mount both lenses on a full frame body and crop the image by 1.6.
end of this meaningless discussion now.. geez
iBlue
Dec 23, 07:47 AM
Again I find myself repeating what I've said already, but that's no more time than you and your man have arguing your point.
I think you should review the thread because I'm pretty sure you've been a lot more verbose about it than e and I combined.
Have a nice day! :)
I think you should review the thread because I'm pretty sure you've been a lot more verbose about it than e and I combined.
Have a nice day! :)
Blocko
Nov 18, 02:07 PM
Apple should sue for $1 million, give him $2 million, then hire him.
JDDavis
Mar 10, 08:47 PM
Apologies for not coming back earlier, and thank you for your suggestions and comments. I agree a pocket watch would look good. Less contrast but nicer photo. However, it's a moot point as I'm fresh out of pocket watches at the moment! :) I've been waiting for some sun and me being here to reshoot it. Had to do it from the other side as it was 2 pm before the opportunity arose and maybe the background isn't as good, also tried a lower viewpoint this time.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8238/contrast2.jpg
I liked the first one much better. The angle and the background just don't work for me on this one. I think you were headed in the right direction on the first one though.
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/8238/contrast2.jpg
I liked the first one much better. The angle and the background just don't work for me on this one. I think you were headed in the right direction on the first one though.
