Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

Not only am I a Handspring shareholder, but I'm waiting for their Treo 90 (Visor replacement)

http://www.virgin.com/handspring/

... in response to Check out this deal , fly Virgin, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2002

This is a deal?  WTF is this crap....  post something a little less meaningful........

... in response to Re: Check out this deal , fly Virgin, posted by Ryan on May 17, 2002

n/t

... in response to Re: ok...let hear about ur recent trip, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2002

Trip then I might be signing up to go to Tver soon as I want to check out some of Russia but no I have not been anyplace just playing the writing and waiting game.....  Sucks.....

... in response to Since I have no numbers or dates from Ja..., posted by Ryan on May 17, 2002

Ryan,

 All the numbers and dates are on the Group Tour section of the website. We are about one third full in all three cities as I write. I prefer guys to be able to have some three to four months of preparation in order to meet the maximum number of sincere ladies that is possiable during the time they have. We are a little more than four months away from the fall group tour at this time.

... in response to Re: Since I have no numbers or dates fro..., posted by Jack on May 17, 2002

You know you'll get some if I go.

Here's that ditty about the new MSFT upgrades
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/internet/05/17/ms.security.holes.idg/index.html

... in response to Re: Where are the Spring Tour PHOTOS !, posted by wsbill on May 17, 2002

Just received all the photos from Rostick and Galina. I am not so impressed with the quality of the photos from there digital cameras. I usually take most the photos and I have two Nikon 35mm's, big difference in quality of these digital's compared to my Nikon's. In the photos I received, I might be able to add one, at the most two, new photos to the group tour section.

... in response to Just received them, posted by Jack on May 18, 2002

Of hiring a professional photographer.  The guy that did the last April in Kiev knew what he was doing.  And he walked about the place without any fanfare and Rostick and Galina could spend more time with the guests and interacting.

... in response to Just received them, posted by Jack on May 18, 2002

Jack are these the same cameras from last October? Just curious.

... in response to Cameras, posted by MNKenr on May 18, 2002

daaa

... in response to Re: Cameras, posted by Jack on May 18, 2002

Camera.  Ya gotta have some decent pictures if you want us to get excited.

I mean, I know in Kiev you can buy a decent Nikon compact 35mm camera for $50 bucks... I know, I bought one and gave it to my lady friend so that she could take some pictures of her life - friends & family.  I think, I got 5 pictures in that one letter she sent me.

Lessoned learned.

... in response to Re: Re: Cameras, why don't you buy them ..., posted by wsbill on May 18, 2002

WildBill, I don't think you can buy any better camera than Nikon.

I purchased three digital cameras last year for various managers. I think the digital cameras I got were pretty good cameras but digital cameras just do not offer the zoom and close ups, the crystal clear imagine of fast objects or people that, for example, the Nikon offers.

I don't think the flash on these digitals covered the item being photographed if it was more than 10 meters away.

Digital cameras have there place, shooting photo of ladies receiving flowers, close-ups of ladies outside in good lighting, the ability to take many photos and have on your computer an hour later. Maybe my people are still learning how to use these digital cameras. I was hoping for many more good photos.

... in response to Cameras, why don't you buy, posted by Jack on May 18, 2002

Try one of the SLR Type digital cameras.  The Minolta Dimage 5 or 7, some of the Canons or some of the Fuji's.  I have experience with these particular models and can take pictures that equal or come very close to most 35mm SLR cameras.

The Fuji's (4900 or 6900) can be bought quite cheaply.  Their claimed resolution is not their true resolution, but I consider them a bargain.

I used a Canon Power Shot Pro 90 extensively this spring in Utah and it takes very nice shots.  It is quite a bit more expensive then the Fuji's or the Minolta's though.  About the only clear advantage I can see is that it has image stabilization.

... in response to Re: Cameras, why don't you buy, posted by Philb on May 18, 2002

Phil,

  Do they have these digital SLR with several different size lens that you can purchase and interchange, such as a 35mm, 70, 150 or 200mm lenses?

Thanks.

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

Yes you can buy digital cameras with the features you mention but you tend to pay a premium for them.  I bought my son a fuji6900 for graduation.  It has a 6x zoom, a hot shoe to ad an optional flash,  full manual mode, along with full auto.  You can also add optional lenses (fish eye, wide angle, and a telephoto).  This Camera makes 8x 10 inch prints that are undistinguishable from any 35mm camera I have seen.

This Camera would be considered at the lower end of the SLR digitals and costs around 600.00. It is often described as an "entusiasts camera" or an "entry level professional model".

Dan mentions mega pixels web site.  This is an excellent resource for the digital camera enthusiast.  

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

Do the Minolta cameras use the same bayonet mounts as their 35MM SLRs?

The only way I'll change to digital is if I can use all my existing optics. I don't care how many pixels you cram into an inch, you can't match the resolution of film. I can always scan pics if I want them digitalized.

I guess that I enjoy using all my options of focal length, field of view, f-stop vs. shutter speed, depth of field, film speed, indirect flash, etc. to compose my shots.

... in response to Re: Cameras,, posted by Rags on May 19, 2002

Rags I'm with you on this. With so many years experience with the old reliable 35mm you get to know what your camera can and cannot do. The biggest problem I had with these new digitals when they first came out was that you were so limited in what you could photograph. You had one lens that seemed somewhat limited in the distance it could photo ( like between 10 and 50mm). I always thought someday the technology would so that you could replace the lenses on the new digital cameras and you would have the same flexibility as with the current 35mm.

I enjoy photography but couldn't convience myself to go digital, so I thought I would buy several for my younger managers thinking this younger geeration would master there digital cameras. Hasn't happen yet. So what I have learned by this recent trip is that if I cannot be there to take photos, then I will hire a professional photographer.

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

SLR technology with interchangeable lenses is still at the very high-end of digital photography, hence, the prices are quite high in contrast to the mainstream production units.

I tend to like the Canon PowerShot G2 as an all-around great unit, but it is all very subjective.

BTW - you can find some terrific reviews and detailed information on MegaPixel digital cameras at this website: http://www.megapixel.net/html/issueindex.html

- Dan

... in response to Maybe the Olympus Camedia E-10, But . . ..., posted by Dan on May 19, 2002

a telephoto... Though I don't use the telephoto much.

the fish eye rocks..  

35mm is doomed.  It's like - Poloraid or the vinyl record.
Even medium format is under pressure, as there are digital backs for the Fuji and Blads.

... in response to Re: I've got a fisheye lense for my Niko..., posted by wsbill on May 19, 2002

WildBill, you been smoking that wacky weed on the back 40??

I don't think I would say that 35mm is doomed, and there is a BIG difference between 35mm and Poloraid.

Until the new digital wave can equal the overall performance and flexability of todays 35mm, there will always be 35mm. It may happen someday, but not anytime soon.

Your digital will certaintly have some distint advantages over my 35mm Nikons, mostly related to downloading onto computers and never having to develope film, but I think my cameras with various lenses will surpass the overall quality of photos taken with your camera, especially when we talk about shooting items that are 5 feet away and 200 yards away. I think your digital will not come close to the details on the subject matter at 200 yards as compared to a quality 35mm.

... in response to I've got a fisheye lense for my Nikon 95..., posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

It already has to some degree. The problem is that to get the quality you want, you have to buy digital cameras in the over $2000 range. In a few years, there will be digital cameras with the capability to automatically take clear pictures in any light conditions with much higher quality than you can get with film. 35mm film is a high density storage media but the new memory cards for cameras are already starting to surpass that. Imagine being able to take clear pictures indoors under flourescent lighting and then be able to step outside in either night or day and take clear pictures without having to adjust the camera in any way. The new technology will be able to adjust different lighted backgrounds and shade conditions while bringing all your subjects into view automatically. Exposure won't be an issue anymore because the newer digital CCD's will be able to pick up the faintest light at a high rate of speed. This technology has been used by the military for years. As a matter of fact, glare will be eliminated real time because of the digital processing capabilities of the camera. The camera will be able to take a picture that is clearer than what you can see with your own eyes.

-blm

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

While currently all forms of digital photography have vastly improved,  both low end and the high end---I doubt it will surpass the quality of the 35mm film negative.  However,  they are great at some applications at both ends of the spectrum.  Surpassing????...I doubt that.  Both image capture systems are really just different tools for the photographer to exploit.  Digital image capture cameras have a long way to go to rival the quality and the "look" of 35mm film,  whether in the home market or in the movie theatre.  Just in the resolution arena....digital lags far behind in acquiring an image to match 35mm film.

... in response to Not in our lifetime....my best guess, posted by tim360z on May 20, 2002

Created with a digital video (DV) camera, you can cut and past the scenes together.  It's way, way, way easier than messing with film and a negative.

Now bear in mind, those still cameras in some of the newer DV cameras produce horrible still photos, must be less than 1 megapixel cameras. (very blur'ed) on the computer screen but in that little video camera window it doesn't look so bad. ya right.

... in response to Re: I guess that's why most motion pictu..., posted by wsbill on May 20, 2002

with a DV camera.  DV's are used for video-assist on Arriflex and Panavision cameras.  Thereby giving a basic, low resolution playback of the scene in reatime,  without the need for awaiting dailies the next day.  Digital manipulation (ie: cut & paste)of a film acquired image maintains great resolution of the film image---like 4K. Anyway DV's are fine,  another tool to work with having some great benefits as well as drawbacks.  Today only animated or lower budget "films" use DV as an origination format,  to the best of my knowledge and thus I have no idea where you get the info that most motion pictures are shot on DV...thats incorrect. Dv's are fine and fun and cute and the consumer can download to their home computer easily and play with the image ALMOST like mags and Hollywood have been doing for years.  It would be a very good choice for ones travel to Russia.

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

Unless you change the optics (lens) you can't change your field of view for a set focal length. Without f-stop exposure control you are without the ability to pick your field of focus. Auto exposure and auto focus have a place and time (snapshots), but to properly compose some situations you need to adjust your optics beyond the set and forget mode available on digital cameras. For instance you can take a perfect, crystal clear shot of a fast moving train or waterfall but that does not impart the sense of motion that a larger aperture/longer exposure shot will give you. Sometimes you want the main image clearer with a slightly softer background and sometimes you want the opposite. Your choices of composition are very limited with the "automatic" controls that I have seen on digital cameras (that I can afford). Maybe someday...

As far as processing capabilities go it's amazing what a good photo lab can do above and beyond what is available through todays computer programs (once you scan and digitalize them).

... in response to Re: Digital will surpass all 35mm in a f..., posted by Rags on May 19, 2002

spot-metering, shutter adjustment, playing with the f-stop really doesn't encompass much ~ except for establishing your depth of field...That's what I love about spot metering.  

but if you want special effects - photoshop can adjust photo faster than you can take the picture.  Ya just gotta learn how to use photoshop.

Photoshop can correct a poor photo also and mend a scratched one.

The vast majority of publishing photographers are using the highend Nikon, Canon, Oly's digital camera.  Because it's faster and cheaper.

Sports Illustrated uses to create blured backgrounds for photos with depth of field problems.  It's so easy to edit out.

But I hear what your saying about you 35mm.  It's still alot of fun working a photos.

I think what happen I got tired of wearing D-76, stopbath and fixer when I was developing my prints and film.

... in response to Digital will surpass all 35mm in a few y..., posted by BarryM on May 19, 2002

I am sure you are correct, but it's not here today. And when it does get here it will probably take a year or so for the technology to get fine tuned.  I was very excited when this new digital photography came about, I was hoping for these improvements that you are talking about also. But todays digital is not quite equal to 35mm.

Hey BarryM, what the he11 you doing writing me if you are me?

... in response to Cameras,, posted by Jack on May 19, 2002

detactable lenses.

Check this website out for anything you ever wanted to know about digital cameras.

http://www.dpreview.com

... in response to Re: I think Nikon D1 and Canon my have a..., posted by wsbill on May 19, 2002

Thanks Bill. You satisfied MY curiosity! I checked out the reviews on Minolta's top of the line digital SLR and now I am certain that I am going to stick with my trusty
(old fashioned) film camera.

For one thing, I don't have months to study the manuals or haul them around for reference each time I get in a different situation. And if that many people spent over $1,500 for something and then had the courage to admit that they made a mistake, I want no part of it.

... in response to Re: Cameras, why don't you buy, posted by Philb on May 18, 2002

nt

... in response to Cameras, why don't you buy, posted by Jack on May 18, 2002

it's the size of the compact flash memory card.  If your getting lousy pictures, what you have to do is don't compress the photos.

I've had my Nikon 950 for atleast 2 years now and the first thing I did was buy a larger CF card.

If their photos they are shooting are only capturing 50k worth of photo I can guarantee that's where you problems are coming from.  That's too small.  All of those photos I have take were from my digital camera.

Your right on about the speed of the cameras in low light situations.  That's why you "TURN OFF THE 'FLASH' and shoot the picture without the flash... yea.

Have Rostick try this out the next time he is at a disco and of course fwd the pictures to us, for critical viewing - of course.

This will solve some problems for those posted shots in low light, but for the folks that are dancing (fast moving) well, that's where you've got to shoot that picture with your 35mm with a big flash.

Depending on how many pictures Rostick takes, I think a CF card no larger than 48MB would be ok and would be really cheap in price, probably less than $30.

Where as if you a guy getting ready to make his first trip to Ukraine/Russia.  Buy a Nikon 995 and get a CF card 128MB or larger.  I've got a 160MB Lexar 8x card, and I've yet to fully max it out with 700 pictures,, I think last June I shot close to 575 pictures, which were photos of all sorts of things.  Buildings, statues, girls, city streets, more girls and ladies too.

... in response to Re: I know what the problem is..., posted by wsbill on May 18, 2002

Is have Rostick, Galina and whomever else has a digicamera to go out once a week and take some photos of whatever they wanted to.

And then post those photos online.  So that every week, guys would go to that website and check out the current photos.... ok, ok, once a month.  Go shoot people, places and things.  And then, pick from those photos their best pictures.

This would be a neat idea if you wanted people to frequent a website more often.  Everybody likes to look at pictures, right.

We'd prefer these not to be point and click, nothing staged.
This way they could prefect those photos skills and we could get a taste of life of Ukraine.

... in response to Re:  You know what would be cool to do....., posted by wsbill on May 18, 2002

Follow this link: http://www.kremenchuk.org/index-en.htm - and you can see a fresh photo of the city of Kremenchug, Ukraine (Olya's hometown) every day. Additionally, the archives often reveal places of interest - especially to someone who has 'roots' there.

FWIW

- Dan

... in response to Already in Place . . ., posted by Dan on May 19, 2002

Wow, that really makes me want to jump on a plane and go. I'll be sure NOT to show this one to my wife :) This must be difficult for Olya to see on a daily basis.

It would be nice to take the photos down to a more personal level like inside cafes and shops. What the heck, go into some flats and dachas.

... in response to Great site!, posted by Rags on May 19, 2002

Now if they could expand on it and go have a website in Kiev, Odessa, the Crimea area, etc....