[OFB Cafe] Photographers?

[Peter Hollings]

My work involves some photography for which I use a D60. It has a 
self-cleaning feature that I really didn't understand until you 
commented on the dust problem. It runs when you "boot" the camera and 
when you shut it down. I believe that it vibrates the sensor to dislodge 
any dust. Personally, I also have a Coolpix 4500.  This has a rather 
unusual feature in that the camera body is split in two and the two 
halves can be rotated. So, for example, you can rotate the LCD and lens 
to be both facing oneself and take a self portrait. I like the D60's 
vibration reduction feature. It makes a huge difference effectively 
giving several  more stops in ambient light situations. Also, the color 
sorrection seems better than in the older Coolpix.


Peter Hollings

PS: Anyone here run MythTV? On a Dragon?

dep wrote:
> said Timothy Butler:
> | > d-200s. got 'em because they would use my existing nikkor lenses.
> |
> | 	Nice. What's the difference between the D200s and the D200?
>
> nothing. i have two of 'em. i use my existing nikkors -- 105 f1.8, 85 f2, 
> 500 mirror reflex nikkor (which is a 750 f8 using the tiny sensor!) -- 
> fairly rarely. i typically use the 12-24 and the 18-200. digital slrs have 
> a far greater risk from dust than film ones do. first, any speck of dust 
> is half again as big; second, film had a kind of self-cleaning aspect. if 
> there were a speck of dust that landed on the focal plane, it would move 
> along when the film was advanced. with digital, it sits there, picture 
> after picture. so the 12-24 pretty much always sits on one body and, all 
> else equal, the 18-200 on the other. the fewer times i have the lens off, 
> the less likelihood of contamination getting in.
>
> | 	Quite true too. Digital does take some of the challenge away. Of
> | course, it provides challenge in that one can try many things and seek
> | difficult subjects that might have previously been avoided due to cost.
>
> i still have a hard time thinking of digital photography as photography, 
> and an even harder time thinking of it as art. there was such a zen to 
> chemical photography.
>