This a lengthy reply so be warned <g> >Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 13:11:25 -0700 >Subject: Re: no more slide projectors? >From: Steve Kidd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> I take only colour slides, of railways. >> Was given a Canon G2 digital last Christmas, as a gift. >> The camera which is basically a point and shoot with upgrades, is nice, >> however for me who prefers colour slides, not my preference. > >It's far more than a point and shoot. It does everything that any 35 mm SLR >does, with two exceptions. > >One, it does not have interchangeable lenses - however, the 35-105 =9F2 lens >it does have is the most useful range. Agreed, for the most part entirely suitable for 3/4 of the images. > >Two, its only a 4MP camera, so 20x24 enlargements aren't likely. (However, >suberb projections should be.) Yep, that too, tend to shoot for the finest settings, largest image size One other thing too Steve, there is a shutter delay, even when shooting manual. Photographing moving railway trains can be a bugger,,, and attempting to judge exactly where and when the camera is going to photograph the image. Yes the image may be manipulated by PhotoShop or simialr; however I prefer the "first shoot gets the shot " school of thinking, which is why made the point and shoot comment. >Referring to any of these mid to high range prosumer cameras as a point and >shoot is just pure snobbery. Well then I am a snob: have been called much worse both to my face and on news lists, welcome to the club... I received this as a gift, it has proven to be most interesting as a mid-range device for me; a stauch past user of most formats from 8"x10" using swings and tilts, to 2.25" square with Mamia TLR's to 135mm cameras from Pentax to Nikon and then back to Pentax. Canon as a company has to me always been the johnny come lately in the Canadian market; saw my first Canon back in 1969 when a friend with Uncle Sam's Canoe club purchased his gear in Subic Bay. At that point I was using Nikon gear, Canon never made the grade, with me; until I received the G2. >Well, there's several options. >One: you could go out and buy half a dozen projectors, which should last you >for many years into the future. >Two: Just because Kodak is ceasing manufacture, doesn't mean everyone is. >You could look on this as a chance to move up in lens quality and purchase >a Leica projector. > Well having worked in the educational field first as an AV technician, then getting my degree and becoming a techcnologist, then assistant co- ordinator for one of the school boards 'in Metro Toronto leaving under a cloud in 1990, have used all manner of Kodak slide projectors. They do wear out, they can be rebuilt, however the newer projectors, to me just somehow don't seem to make the grade. I do use an old Ektagraphic which I purchased in 1992, it still functions was rebuilt two years ago, has a good non-Kodak after market lens. The Leica is expensive however one may only hope they'll continue producing their product. >First, speaking as someone whose income is partly based on stock >photography, I have to ask why you would be projecting your original >transparencies? A total of 30 seconds time in a slide projector is all it >takes to show visible degradation in the slide. Am aware of the time of 30 seconds... however at one time many of the colour slides I have now were viewed maybe once or two in monthly slides hows with friends. That rarely happens these days; am in the process of recataloguing images take over the last forty years; some on Ansco have faded, remember Perutz? Some on that as well as early Agfa. The balancer on KII, K25, K64 and more recently on Fuji Provia 100F I now shoot maybe three rolls of 36 exposure slide film a month, if that. Although last weekend, there were detours on CN through downtown Toronto (35 mileswest of here) due to bridge work on Canadian Pacific; shot five rolls of K64 which is the most of any film shot in the last three months. My throwaway ratio is roughly keep one, dump 8.... Most of the time thet Canon G2 has received the workout. >But in more direct answer to your question, I think you may be getting >things confused - or perhaps I'm misunderstanding your wording. > >Powerpoint is presentation software. It has no effect on the quality of >image. However, the video projector certainly does, and since you referred >to a prehistoric computer, Prehistoric here to mean a non-Macintosh computer with a Microsoft software operating system and related. > no doubt the projector was of similar vintage Yes it was, one of the first of the smaller breed... And I can well remember those monstrous ceiling mounted three gun projection units that were real fun to program and get "just right" to show videos in darkened halls. These days the video projectors are both physically and cost wise small in comparison. > >Then you haven't seen an image from a high-end scanner. Like anything in >photography, the quality of anything in the light path of an image has a >direct effect on the quality of the viewed image. I would suggest the Nikon >Coolscan as being the best of the midrange models. Any specific model Steve? Any one which works better with say the 9.2 Apple operating system? >But to return to digital cameras here, a good digital camera (which you >have) is by far the best, low cost way to get images to the big screen. You >immediately cut out steps in the workflow which can lower image quality >unless you have the best (read expensive) equipment. In 1991, sold all of my Nikon gear about a year later; mostly to help put bread on the table. For a year no camera other than an old Spotmatic, then picked up a used Pentax K1000 for <C$100.00 at a pawn shop c/w 50mm lens, then acquired a used medium range tele and then a used 28mm wide-angle then another K1000 for the print films... The first K1000 was overhauled late 1995, the second one died a horrible death by dropping from a distance; the first K1000 then died about six months ago. Stayed with Pentax, purchased a 6N with appropriate zoom lenses; figuring if and when Pentax finally release their SLR digital at least the lenses would be compatible, keeping in mind the differences between film and digital. >> So are there options to PowerPoint? My own gut feeling is anything from >> Microsoft is garbage; hence I stay well away from anything of MS; > >I know it's rude to be so blunt, and I apologize, but your gut feeling is >wrong. There are certainly many reasons to stay away from MS, but their Mac >software is of good quality. PowerPoint is a good example. The reason it >caught on so well is its ease of use. Well in my own obviously made visible by your blunt however true comments, in my small narrow minded world the iBook is used for writings, word processing, and latterly for tidying up images using PhotoShop 7 and these are usually from the G2. Have printed some images on my colour printer Epson 760 although have seen some done on a high-scale printer and they are great, scaringly great! Don't forget, if you go back in this list archives I am the one who managed by hook and crook to destroy the software and latterly the hardware of the replacement for my iMac 350 Mhz machine, in my case the eMac. Figured all the extra software for OSX could be removed and I made a mess of things... Still tend to feel if the software is there and I am not using same, it should be removed. Guess am still of the old school where a 5 meg hard drive was large and one had to make sure to keep ity empty for the important items. I ended up purchasing an iBook, selling the eMac back to the dealer for $1000.00;one of the last Apple machines with both 9.2 and OSX; I still have extreme difficulty getting my brain around OSX; aside that it keeps changing its spots...Jaguar, Panther; given its roaming nature maybe call it alley cat? That noted, until such time as Apple figures OSX is they way to go and they leave the software alone for awhile, then maybe I'll change, but am in no rush to do so. Went through all these changes with Microsoft, my background being DOS; everything after Windows 3.11 to me is problematical... Still have an old 386 here with DOS 6.2 which I use for applications that the iBook can't or won't handle... >But I have a feeling that you probably don't want all the bells and whistles >of the presentation software. Very true, a basic program is all I require... you've given me some things to think about... -- The iMac List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | - Epson Stylus Color 580 Printers - new at $69 | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> iMac List info: <http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/imac-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/> --------------------------------------------------------------- >The Think Different Store http://www.ThinkDifferentStore.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
