European trip ?'s

Following up to Martin

you may well not have contact lenses and more than one mirror,
but I'm not sure how that effects things?

Tim looked at the design, I knew the design. Did you?

Not in the slightest. Did you miss the point?
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
PTravel wrote:

Quite so. However, Cingular's roaming rates are quite high. I keep a
tri-band GSM phone for international travel and just by a SIM card in
whatever country I happen to be visiting. I did just discover, on my
last
trip, that my Verizon CDMA phone works in China, with a semi-reasonable
roaming charge of .69/minute US. It's still a lot cheaper, of course,
to
just buy a SIM for the GSM.

Slightly (geographically) OT -
Do you have any recommendations for Chinese SIMs? A young relative wil be
teaching in China soon - the first month in Beijing, after that, she
doesn't know where she'll be sent. I can provide her with an unlocked
900/1800 phone.

My understanding is that there are two primary service providers in China,
and both are equally good. The question, as I understand it, isn't whose
SIM is best, but where to buy the SIM. Do _not_ buy it at the airport --
you'll be overcharged. There are cellphone stores all over most major
cities, and I've found them to be the best outlet for local SIMs. Prices
for the SIMs vary depending upon the phone number -- numbers with lots of 8s
in them cost considerably more. Numbers with lots of 4s are the cheapest.
In China, 8 is considered an auspicious number because, in Mandarin and
Cantonese, it sounds like the word for rosperity.: 4 sounds like the word
for "death."



Sheila

PTravel wrote:

My understanding is that there are two primary service providers in China,
and both are equally good. The question, as I understand it, isn't whose
SIM is best, but where to buy the SIM. Do _not_ buy it at the airport --
you'll be overcharged. There are cellphone stores all over most major
cities, and I've found them to be the best outlet for local SIMs. Prices
for the SIMs vary depending upon the phone number -- numbers with lots of 8s
in them cost considerably more. Numbers with lots of 4s are the cheapest.
In China, 8 is considered an auspicious number because, in Mandarin and
Cantonese, it sounds like the word for rosperity.: 4 sounds like the word
for "death."

Thank you - I'll pass the information along to her.

Sheila

It may well indeed be 'best' in certain situations; and a reasonable
cost/carry effective compromise in *many* more...

Tim K

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to Tim C.

Which was the point I made earlier in this thread when I said any
pro who
used a p&s (assuming that any did) did so when quality was a
concern.

Surely "... when quality was not a concern." ?

Cue Tim, Martin and eat a Belgian claiming we have "admitted" P&S
is best :-)
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@
this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all,
it's a spamtrap

Buying virtually *any* camera is a compromise over another... P&S is a
more reasonable 'compromise' today (over DSLR) with the new crop of
great P&S's. Too reasonable a compromise to ignore any more, even by a
'pro' for some/most uses IMO.

Tim K

"The Reid" wrote in message
...
Following up to poldy

Still, the portability of point and shoots can't be beat compared to
SLRs.

nobody says otherwise.

Note
The SLR users dont tell the P&S users to swap to SLR.
THE P&S users are desperate to prove thier equipment is not a
compromise.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@
this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all,
it's a spamtrap

The Reid wrote:
Following up to eatinBelgium

here is what I think is acceptable.

OK, quite small images at mid range focal lengths. Impossible to
judge quality at that size.

which ones would look better with a DSLR ?

(the D is irrelevant here, any decent SLR will do, dont get hung
up on digital and number of megapixels, it lenses that matter
most of all).

Anyway, for a start, a simple answer is the ones you couldnt
take! Its probably the simplest way of demonstrating the
difference, heres an image taken at 17mm, note the depth of field
and inclusion of very close objects along with the general
environment and the ability to frame the image precisely.
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/goring01x.htm"

(The TIFF of 100+ MBytes will also give more potential for a good
large print if required.)

you wouldnt be able to take these 12mm shots either:-

"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/shet012.htm"
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/orkney018.htm"

note the very small typical local coltsfoot emphasised in the
foreground in conjunction with the general view.

Probably these things dont interest you? If they don't I
recommend staying with your point and shot. Its probably perfect
for you. I trust this is helpful.

instead of avoiding my question, you could answer like HH !

-hh wrote:
eatinBelgium wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zzzzz/

here is what I think is acceptable.
which ones would look better with a DSLR ?

As previously discussed:


5 from 13 in the Madeira group (38%):
-- DSC00165, DSC00156, DSC00153, DSC00126, DSC00150


4 from the 8 in the Martinique group (50%):
-- 105-0547_IMG, 105-0525_IMG, 105-0524_IMG, 105-0571_IMG


...that's 43% overall that would have IMO looked better with the proper
equipment (ie, a dSLR).


Please note that I didn't count those photos that had compositional
errors against the equipment. For example, DSC00197. It has the dog's
tail cut out of the frame, but a wider lens isn't needed because
there's plenty of empty space on the other side: the tail would have
easily been kept in frame had it not been for the classical 'center
focus' composition error. This is always a judgement call, and how I'm
applying it here is if looks like a recomposition could be done without
requiring the photographer to move (reposition), its a human error that
shouldn't be counted against the equipment.


-hh

thankyou for an honest answer, Reidy take note !!

The Reid wrote:

possibly, or was it parallax error from the non TTL viewfinder?

Not possible: the Madeira photo's were reportedly taken with a Sony
Cybershot T7, which lacks an optical viewfinder.

Even if it had been taken with the other reported camera, a Canon Ixus
300, while it does has an optical viewfinder, geometrically, its
located in the wrong place for the observed effect: its in the "1
o'clock" position relative to the lens, so if there was parallax, this
location would have resulted in a vertical parallax error that
geometrically would have been roughly 2x greater than the observed
horizontal error. Since we saw "lots" of horizontal and no vertical,
it effectively could not have come from this camera (personally, I'm
not aware of any cameras that have ever had a viewfinder that was to
the side only ... ie with perfect horizontal allignment).


Belgique might not be at fault here?

No, for the reasons I've detailed above, it can only have been human
error only.

Perhaps he does need a SLR?

IMO, he probably would have made the same mistake with an SLR, although
I do see some lattitude: one might suggest that the "tunnel vision"
from an SLR's optical finder would have made him pay better attention
and thus, detect the tail truncation and do something about it.
However, since this aspect of human design interface is probabilitic
and not deterministic, a simple Yes/No answer is not possible.


-hh

eatinBelgium wrote:
-hh wrote:
...that's 43% overall that would have IMO looked better with the proper
equipment (ie, a dSLR).

thankyou for an honest answer, ...


FWIW, here's something else for you to consider:

What do you consider to be an acceptable yield for your photographic
efforts? IE, is it 50% good shots is okay to you? Or 25%? 10%? 5%?

The reason I ask is because on your one set, your highest ID# is
DSC_00196 and the lowest is DSC_00118, which means that you took at
least 79 images. From this, you have 13 "keepers" which you've
uploaded to flicker. Similarly, on the other, you have -0516 to -0574,
which is at least 59 images shot for your 8 "keepers" on flicker.
These two sets sum is 138+ images to get 21 keepers, which is no better
than a 15% yield.

But since I would have thrown out an additional 9 of these 21 keepers
due to equipment shortcomings, this could have resulted in only 12
keepers from 138, which would be an effective yield of no better than
9%.

Do you consider 9% to be an acceptable yield for your photographic
efforts?

If not, what would you contemplate doing about it? Afterall, this
means that you're wasting your time over 90% of the time.

FWIW, this is merely another way of looking at the question of what we
do and why: there is no "right" answer. For example, conciously
choosing to become less critical about what you choose to define as a
"good photograph" is actually an option....YMMV on if it is an
acceptable one to you.


-hh


PS: Finally move this old page over to my current domain...enjoy:

http://www.huntzinger.com/photo/euro990709.html

Maybe he figured he shouldn't post all the nicely composed and exposed
girl friend shots...g

Seriously; you publicly display 90% of your shots; therefore justify
'superior' DSLR images by the same frame count math? Let alone the
shots you think may have public interest vs. a family birthday party
with you as paparazzi?

Tim K

"-hh" wrote in message
oups.com...

But since I would have thrown out an additional 9 of these 21 keepers
due to equipment shortcomings, this could have resulted in only 12
keepers from 138, which would be an effective yield of no better than
9%.

Do you consider 9% to be an acceptable yield for your photographic
efforts?