Dolly

Έτσι είναι, αν και απο όσο βλέπω, διαβάζω κλπ, οι DX μηχανές είναι προς το sweet spot, με 12-14 mega.

Οι FX έχουν και άλλο τράτο.

Και να συμπληρώσω πως έφαγες ήδη μια κάρτα, σταμάτα σε παρακαλώ την ειρωνεία γιατί θα σου δείξω και εγώ μετά τον Κωστάκη πως οι κάρτες πολλαπλασιάζονται.

Ρε μλκ μην κάνεις πως δεν καταλαβαίνεις

Το 1.1 το είπα σαν 1920.1080(1280), και το 3.1 σαν 5760.1080(1280).

Και προφανώς θα είναι stretched έτσι.

Θές να το πώς αλλιώς για να το καταλάβεις μαμώ το πρωινό σου?

Πάς από 16/9(10), σε 48/9(10).

Χάπι νάου?

Είπαμε πρώιμη τεχνολογία!

ρε, οκ, δεν θα είναι κανένα εκτός αν έχει γραφτεί για να κάνει τέτοιο scaling!

μην ξεχνάς πως απο 1.1 πας σε 3.1 απο λόγο πλευρών, κάποια θα φαίνονται καλά, κάποια "παράξενα".

όπως και να έχει είναι ένα βήμα το "μάτι-άπειρο".

έτσι είναι κούκλες, για να ΜΗΝ σου δώσει πρέπει να το παίξεις σε 6 οθόνες 3-3.

Ναι, και είναι και πιο ακριβός, πάει κοντά 550 νομίζω.

Αλλά το 11-16 είναι λίγο θέμα για πολλούς.

Η Tokina δεν έχει και τον 11-19 φ2.8?

EDIT

11-16 είναι σόρρυ.

5870|XP Pro|10.1 ¨ολα κομπλέ 1ο boot, μετά το reset συνουσιαστικε ο Δίας... πάμε για safe mode, unistall και πάλι απο την αρχή...

όπως έχουμε ξαναπεί, το CF/SLI δεν δίνει μόνο στα max fps αλλά και στα MIN.

Aν έχεις πχ, 60 καρέ μέσο όρο, και min 22 τότε σε κάποιες φάσεις θα σου σπάσει το παιχνίδι.

Αν με SLI/CF πας στα 110 μέσο όρο, μπορεί να μην δείς διαφορά απο τα 60, αλλά τα min θα είναι πχ 50, και τότε δεν θα δείς ΚΑΝΕΝΑ σπάσιμο ποτέ.

Αφού τα βρήκατε οι 2 ψηλοί, θα έρθω για φωτογράφος στον γάμο σας!

Που είδες τις τσάντες Ζανή? όνομα, διεύθυνση?

feet per second καλά το είπε.

πολλά όπλα αναφέρουνε feet αντί για meters.

Paintball απο ~15 μέτρα μου ράγισε φίλτρο UV Hoya εμένα πάντος...

Σκεφτομουν να αγορασω εναν Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4 @~80 ευρω μαζι με εναν adaptor M42 απο ebay.

Αξιζει?

Νομίζω για αυτό το έλεγε Ζανή

Πέτρο 1 στις 1000 λέει για τομ 70-300 που απο όσο κατάλαβα τον έχει ήδη ξεγραμμένο.

Τον all around του θέλει να αλλάξει.

Δημήτρη, απο όσο ξέρω και εγώ για τον Τάμρον θα σου έλεγα, αλλά ΔΕΝ έχω παίξει μάζί του, μόνο ότι έχω διαβάσει.

Ο Νίκος (NTG) είναι σίγουρα μεγαλύτερο ειδικό βάρος για να σου πεί.

Μια χαρά σε βρίσκω!

Δοκίμασε και τα πανάκια

Τα πανάκια του ΄Βούδα για μένα είναι μονόδρομος Sir μου... τα έχεις δει?

Νικον γιατί δεν έχεις...

Αν και οι Sigma/Tamron είναι για τα πάντα!

Αρα ίδια με την παλιά μου την 50άρα η φάση, απλά εγώ δεν είχα το Η1 (3200) για ευνόητους λόγους...

Πάντος στο auto θα μπορείς να θέσεις το MaxISO to use, οπότε να μην σε σκοτώνει.

Πάρτε και μια παράθεση απο τον thom για τον θορυβο της D60.

The D60 produces decent noise results under pretty severe conditions (including my usual mixed lighting with low intensity torture test). At ISOs up through 400 you'd have to be really good at pixel peeping to see any differences. At ISO 800, some minimal luminance noise shows up. At ISO 1600 that luminance noise is probably visible to most people at 100% view, and a bit of chroma noise starts to appear. Amazingly, the D60 still does better than the D80 in the noise department while using the same sensor, apparently due to improvements in the noise reduction function--the level of detail is slightly lower at ISO 1600 on the D60 than it is on the D80. Overall, ISO 100 to 1600 produced very usable images. ISO HI-1 (3200) is not usable, in my opinion. You lose color saturation, acuity (due to noise at edges), and the chroma (color) aspect of the noise is now highly visible.

My general recommendation is don't be afraid to set Auto ISO to a max of 800 and shoot away. If you really need ISO 1600, set it manually and use it for the session you need it for, then revert to your normal ISO or Auto ISO to 800.

As I indicated in earlier reviews, I'm getting more leery of "number oriented" assessments of image quality properties like noise. That's because I have seen too many examples where an actual image from a camera with a "higher noise number" actually looks better than the supposedly superior camera. Put another way: raw noise numbers don't tell you a lot, which is why I've stopped publishing large tables of them. Since a lot of newcomers are probably reading this due to the low-end appeal of the D60, I need to elaborate.

The way we measure noise is by looking at large patches of the same color and looking at (adjacent) pixel value differences. In theory, the pixels all ought to be the same value, since adjacent pixels are reproductions from the same patch of color under the same lighting. Even on the best camera there is some minor pixel-to-pixel variation, though it may not always be visible to the naked eye, as the difference can be very small. The variations, however, can be in many forms. First, they can simply be overall intensity variations ("luminance noise"). Luminance noise tends to look a bit like film grain did: a pebbly texture is imparted on the image. Second, they can be color variations, which we call "chroma noise." Chroma noise has a very artificial look, almost as if a pointalist painter was at work dappling each pixel with a different color paint (unfortunately, unlike Serat and the other pointalists, chroma noise always comes in the same colors, not ones selected to impart an artistic or visual effect). Third, noise can have a "size." Two adjacent pixels may be the same but the third is different; or three adjacent ones are the same but the fourth is different. In JPEG files, such noise sizing can be variable and is usually due to camera's de-mosaic (image rendering) routine and JPEG encoding crudity, and further to any interaction between those. Nikon's cameras tend to fairly free of size variations. Fourth, noise can have a pattern. Indeed, digital cameras have pixels aligned in rows and columns while film had overlapping and random grain patterns. If there's an electronics frequency-related issue to the noise production (e.g. jitter in the analog-to-digital conversion circuitry), patterns easily appear in noise samples of digital cameras. The D60 noise doesn't really seem to have much pattern to it. Fifth, noise can and does interact with detail production, and noise reduction techniques can produce anything from watercolor-type effects (vagueness) on detail to what I simply call "mush." Nikon's in-camera noise reduction is slightly destructive of edge detail, and unlike the higher end cameras, you can't adjust how much noise reduction it will do. I could go on, but you get the idea: noise is a variety of deviations from the desired data.

And some of those deviations are more visible and disturbing to our eyes than others. Take luminance and color noise, for example. Color noise is easily seen while luminance noise generally isn't (unless it has a pattern ;~). Indeed, color noise is a dead giveaway for "digital" images, as there is really no corresponding problem in analog (film) recording. Bad color noise is disturbing visually because a block of color suddenly has impurities of prime colors (red, green, blue) in it.

I've just alluded to two of the five types of noise the D60 could have. So how does it do on all five? Excellent, Very Good, Excellent, Excellent, and Very Good, actually. At high sharpening settings and low JPEG qualities, the noise size issue starts to just inch into visibility, but otherwise I'd say the D60 is visually non-disturbing in its noise tendencies. So let's put that assertion to the visual test. I've been using the gym I play basketball in as my test lab for low-light, high-ISO, weird light color images in reviews for awhile now, so I'll step out of the game for a moment and take a few shots for us to look at.

Here's actual pixels at ISO 1600 with noise reduction off and all other settings at default (yes, it's a bit soft, probably because VR was set to Active and shouldn't have been; but that doesn't change the noise and contrast handling things we're really looking for here). There's evidence of noise everywhere, though most of it is not colored and looks somewhat like film grain. You can see some color noise starting to apear (note the net, which should be plain white), but it's not objectionable enough to worry about--in prints you're not going to see that, though you might note some color drift. For example, the ball is appearing a little more orange than it actually is, mostly due to color noise. Also, colors are starting to block up. The rim is a darker tone that it actually is. Many of these things you can do something about. Turning on noise reduction reduces the color noise well, for example. I'd also consider adjusting Tone Compensation and Color Mode. Finally, since colors tend to darken, I'd watch exposure. This image is ever so slightly underexposed, something that the Nikon matrix meters all seem to do consistently in this gym. [if you're asking why I use defaults and automation--other than turning off noise reduction--rather than optimizing settings in these examples, it's because I'm trying to show what is near worst case.]

At ISO 3200 (HI-1) note that a number of things have happened. First, noise is much more visible an dnow definitely has color patterns in it that make the image very "digital." Colors have shifted (I've changed nothing on the camera other than ISO). We're losing color in the ball and rim. This image, however, is about the worst one I could make with the D60 in my gym. Frankly, I was a little surprised that is wasn't worse. So let's run it through Nik Define (noise removal), Nik Sharpener, and fix the white level and see what happens:

Not bad. We've got the usual painterly look at the pixel level that happens when you run both noise reduction and sharpening at strong levels, but remember we're looking at what would be a 2.3" by 2.3" patch of a much larger print. On my monitor, these images appear about three times bigger than that. Again, doing some things prior to shooting would improve this even more (use noise reduction in camera, don't let the camera underexpose any, pick better Image Optimization settings).

Let me put all this another way: most users can use ISO 100 to 1600 (and therefore the Auto ISO function, certainly set to ISO 800 max) with relative impunity. The two things that would restrict you are: (1) the slightly reduced dynamic range and slightly visible color noise at ISO 1600 means that you really don't want to use high ISO values for things like high contrast scenes, such as outdoor scenics in bright light; and (2) you probably want to avoid high sharpening and contrast settings at high ISO values if you're going to print large.

Δεν έχει in between stops ρε?

200-400-800-1600 πάει?

Πριν την 90άρα είχα D50.

Μέχρι 400 ΙΣΟ ήταν μια χαρα σχετικά, στο 800 ήθελε πολύ προσεκτικές ρυθμήσεις για να μην έχεις θέμα, και γενικά το απέφευγα.

Νομίζω πως D40/D60, ειδικά στο 800άρι, πρέπει να έχουν αρκετά, αν όχι ΠΟΛΥ καλό αποτέλεσμα σχετικά εύκολα.

Τον Ken btw να τον παίρνετε with a pinch of salt τα γραφόμμενα του. είναι πολύ φαντασμένος, και κατά 99% χρησιμοποιεί ρυθμήσεις για τις μηχανές του διαφορετικές απο τον average joe, (saturation, κλπ).

Αν θέλετε για NIKON να δείτε τι συμβαίνει και να διαβάσετε φοβερά και εμπεριστατωμένα reviews κοιτάξτε στην σελίδα του Thom Hogan. ( www.bythom.com )

Αν έχετε ώρα διαβάστε και τα articles, how to, Κλπ που έχει αξίζουν και με το παραπάνω.

Αέρα???

Μεγειές EDIT "λολ ήμουν στον κόσμο μου" EDIT και καλά αποτελέσματα! αν και για αυτά δεν έχει κανείς άγχος!