Lynx7725

Adding oil to the fire... Aside from the possible IP infringement, what's the big deal about copying of designs? We all know that PRC is not as technologically advanced in the aerospace industry. In order to have even a fighting chance against a probably more technologically superior enemy -- Japan and Taiwan comes to mind immediately -- they need at least 3rd generation fighters. So it's either "buy" or "build". "Buy" is a limited option; the US won't sell, and the Russians are wary. Besides, the Chinese don't trust the Russians -- their relationship is more of "common enemy" than "friendship". There are only a few countries willing to sell weaponry to China that has the necessary technologies, and there's also the dependency issues. So it's "build". More long term potential, but a steeper climb. A shortcut is to reverse engineer existing designs. That's really par for course for any industry, so why so much commentary? Sure it's a bit "dirty" the way they did it, but odds are good that they couldn't have done it "legally" anyway. So the Chinese copied a design. That's not particularly surprising since they'd been doing that for years, just in smaller scale. What they are doing is just ramping up their experience and expertise. A copy now, a modification later, a service-life extension programme... in a decade, if the PRC continues to develop their industry, we could be looking at a serious aerospace manufacturer.

Ahhhhh! Why didn't anyone warn me it's so goddamn hard but yet so goddamn fun!?!? Done up to Chapter 5, got the Durgas but I think I missed something between the Durga and the Shuruba. Durga reminds me of Wolverine/ Lightning Claws, but I honestly prefer the Shuruba ('cept the powerup sequence). Flurry-of-blows with the Shuruba is usually quite effective. Don't quite like the railroad nature of the game but that comes with the territory. At least they don't railroad the way you dismember the enemy. Torture Attacks are fun but unless you are good with the dodge, not so likely to kick off. Died too many times to have good scores. The first runthrough is bound to be like this, the second I'm aiming for an "Easy" run to pick up all the pieces, to see the world at a closer level. But that's waaaay later.

Since I never played DMC, the reference is lost to me, but the game does look very good. Easy enough for a novice to get into but hard to master. Well, if the demo and this blog entry is anything to go by, really easy. The easy mode really is what a Bayonetta movie sequence should be like. Two finger game!

So, finally got around to d/ling the demo. Was a bit turned off initially because I really didn't need another bitchy witchy in my life... Found it to be quite interesting. When it's one-on-one you can definitely take time to drive in the combos, but when it's a melee it becomes more button mashing and dodging. Think it has potential -- does it get better in the real game? Wondering whether should put down the money for it.

Well, I browsed quickly through it, but nothing on it really says you can put say a terabyte HDD on it and it'll work -- just that you can buy your own 120GB and do it, but then again you have to buy the casing already. Since MS doesn't sell the casing separate from the HDD, I really wonder about the point of the tutorial. (I suppose if the HDD dies, you can fix it; or if you buy a spoilt drive cheap and strip the casing out, etc. etc. but still...)

Actually, I either had this toy when I was young or had some access to it, can't remember which. It was a pretty creative design, the way they engineered everything to fit together.

Actually, my first thought was: "if you got the cash to spend on the flight gear, why not up your tech to a full pit?"

FSN anime does have issues, as stated -- It's slow at the start, there're plot points that aren't explained well. But it's still a good story.

Since we're now officially in a pissing match... _________________________________________________________--> I hit here. On topic. I'm currently using a D70 (not a D70s, you whippersnappers! ), with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens, 60mm macro lens, a 18 - 70mm DX, and a 35mm prime. I also have a teleconverter (next to unused), 2x SB600, and a SB-something commander unit (not the SB800). I'm entertaining suggestions to add to the stable, inclusive of a second body. Other relevant information: My primary shooting patterns: I shoot indoors a lot, company events. Very low light (even in the day), so I need high ISO and high speed lens. I also shoot miniatures/ toys a bit. Not true digital macrophotography, but similar techniques. My preference is to shoot from far, using tele -- I'm a stalker, not a paparazzi. I intend to stick with Nikon, so no Canon suggestions please. Also, whatever it is, it has to be CF compatible -- I'm using CF now, not keen to switch medias between 2 bodies. So, suggestions? Would appreciate some rationals too.

Looks good. Thanks for the effort! I think it's worth getting one, but it feels more like a "scratchbuild your old mecha" system, more for scratch builders than players.

Pissing match for sure. Canon and Nikon, both have very good tech. There's really not much diff between the two tech-wise -- both tends to extend progressively their technologies, and neither are likely to jump onto a new paradigm in photography (which is great for us, because technology stability = less cost! Imagine having to re-invest in bodies and lens every few years). This is one primary reason why I wrote off Sony or other camera makers -- they neither have the track record nor the strong backing to make long-term maintenance viable. For me, the deal-maker is the UI. I tried both Canon and Nikon, but felt the Canon viewfinder too cluttered for me to take to. Hard to get used to the grip too. Nikon felt better and had easier UI to interpret. (Remember that this is some 6~7 years back, so things might have changed.)

Nah, not much point in doing so now. You should concentrate on being happy with camera first, to learn its quirks (and $deity knows Nikon stuff got quirks.. ). We can get to the technicals once you have some feel of the camera.

So anyone got any of these? A review would help.

Heh. It is really nice, but there are issues with it from a technical perspective. Won't want to spoilt your fun with the new cam though, we'll come back to it in due time.

There's some physics involved too, but eugimon got the gist of it. The bigger the number, the further away the lens can bring objects into focus (infinity doesn't count as all lens can do that...). Of course, typically, the bigger the number, the more glass (or more complicated techniques) is involved, so the more expensive it tends to be. Important thing is not so much what the number is, but how far you want to shoot from the subject. If say you are shooting a baseball game, physically you are restrained from being that close as to be able to use a 35mm, then you need something a wee bit longer. Probably something from 105mm to 200mm, but rarely higher -- most 300+ mm lens are specialist lens used for very long range shooting of small subjects, most of us won't use that capability. My rule of thumbs on a DSLR with crop factor: <35mm -- for wide perspective. Group shots and parorama etc. Tends to be specialist lens, with funky effects like fisheye. 35mm to 70mm -- general purpose "walkabout lens". Some are specialists. Good for short range, portraits and "I was here" shots. Bread-and-butter lens, to be honest. 70mm to 200mm -- general purpose lens, but more for mid to long distance shooting. Concerts, sports, stalking (!), etc. >200mm -- specialist telephoto lens for bird watching, sports, etc. Personally, I believe in fast lens to give me more latitude, so I prefer 2 or 3 lens to cover the range rather than one GP lens. my stable currently has 4 lens, a 18-70mm DX "came with the body" GP lens, a 35mm "walkabout" lens, a 70-200mm "I'm seriously shooting" lens, and a 60mm "I'm never going to use this" macro lens. As you can see, my lens stable covers the GP range which I normally shoot at, so I'm fairly happy there -- though I wish I didn't get certain lens... Main thing is not to get bitten by the glass disease. You don't need that many lens -- just enough. You'll know when it's not enough, when you repeatedly try to get a shot.. and fail. A Portrait is actually an end result, not a process. A 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lens actually takes good portraits, it's just that you have to stand a bit further away. Taking portraits with a short lens takes you closer in to the subject, and has pros and cons -- you get to interact with your subject more, but they also grow more self-conscious. You might also need to cater more for lighting with a short lens, as you are closure and potentially you might end up blocking the light. A long lens let you stand further back, and you can get candid portraits that way as people aren't so aware of the lens. They are two different approaches, with 2 different "feel" in the end result, but both products may be called portraits. It really depends on how the photographer wants to bring out the story in the image.

Oh, and here's a cute app for you nikon lovers.

My understanding is that it's a good lens, and it should function well for you. Be careful about picking up bad habits on the long end though.

It works very well with crop DSLRs -- I should know as I slap that lens on a D70. A full frame lens is compatible with cropped sensor, it's the DX lens line that is not compatible with full frame bodies. Basically, each lens creates an image circle at the distance the sensor (digital or film) is mounted. A full-frame would create an image circle that encompasses the chip, so every element on the chip has light falling on it. A digital sensor however, is typically smaller than the usual image circle size, so it actually utilizes less of the image circle, but provides a "zoom factor" on that area. In Nikon DSLRs, that typically is around 1.5x to 1.6x -- which means the 200mm becomes a 300mm lens, useful and cheap. Full frame isn't expensive on the lens, it's the standard -- it's the DX lens that are cheaper, as they are engineered to have a smaller image circle (and hence not as usuable on a full-frame body). The expense of full frame is on the body, but hey, you got a body already. If it is indeed a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR <-- and the VR is important, then you should give it a try. Check for fungus etc. That lens is very good, I have it and love to use it. Get the specs on it from the dealer (i.e., from the actual lens), then physically examine it; the deal may sound a bit too good to be true, so it is good to err on the side of caution.

Uhm, do you guys live on the forums or something? :lol: So many replies... Here's my rule of thumb for the various scenarios: Miniature/ toy shoots -- prime or decent small zoom. You'll also need a remote, a tripod, and depending how crazy you go, a lighting system. Miniature/ toy shoots are more about planning and you have most of the situation under heavy control, so you don't need to have great glass to work it... just a LOT of patience and fiddling. Indoor shoots -- quick prime, but most likely small zoom with a good flash. The flash is more critical, because the situations won't be under your control and the lighting would probably suck. A 35mm prime would probably be ok but less versatile. Sports shoots -- good tele, maybe tele-zoom. Sports tend to be done in good weather, so lighting is less of an issue. Given your description, and the time frame implied as to when your child would be gaming, I'll suggest a mid-range zoom, something wide on the short end and a mid range zoom in the long end. Certainly no more than a 105mm on the long, since you will end up paying a lot for longer. The mid-range would have ample things for you to learn about, so it serves as a good starting point. The other thing I'll suggest you get is a remote flash. The SB-600 is a good starting point, and is powerful enough for most of your purposes. (And no, the on-board flash cannot compare...) A decent tripod also, no need for the ball head etc. yet, just go for a solid model first. You'll hate the weight, but having a stable platform capable of holding the weight of the camera and lens is more important. Lastly, a remote shutter release. These would be cheap. anime52k8: Agreed that the 28-135mm do work (otherwise Nikkor won't sell it... ) but it won't really work for me (I shoot short or long, rarely in-between... 'sides, my 70-200 can cover some of the in-between). That said, I don't quite like it as a starting lens -- most beginners don't get the long end business well, and tend to use the short end more, so they end up paying for range that they might not want to use in the future. I do heartily agree on using 2 or 3 lens instead of hoping for an all singing and dancing lens.. A good mid level zoom for convenience, then best to specialize. However, my shoulder loves generalist lens. eugimon: Sad to say, I also find UV more as a "protective device" then a filter. My environments don't have that long to shoot, so the UV factor's not that big. I'll still recommend having a UV filter though, since they do protect against random knocks and sprays.. better the filter than the lens.

Internal vs. External is not a big issue -- the only time it really makes a difference is when your working distances are so small that the extrusion matters (the Nikkor 60mm Macro is a prime example of this). Other than this, a lot of the difference is really about convenience, which can be catered for with your SOP with the lens. IF/ EF can be a deciding factor when it gets down to a lens, but it shouldn't be that high on your list. I would like to ask what do you expect to shoot? A 35mm on a digital body (with crop factor) is roughly equivalent to a 50mm normal, which makes it ideal for a walkabout lens. (A 50mm on a digital makes to 75mm, which isn't that great.) It can be a starting point, but that depends on what your intended subjects are. An issue I have specifically with the 35mm f/1.8 is that (IIRC) it's a DX lens. But let's put it one side for now... I won't really recommend the 24-120mm as a starter. It translate to a 36mm to 180mm lens on a digital body -- the short end is not quite short enough, the long end not quite long enough, so it suffers from being in a range easily covered by other lens. 36mm isn't a "natural" feel, and a lot of times you want wider, to capture a wider field of vision while being close in. There is also this issue with the f/3.5 to f/5.6, constraining the long end (IMO quite a bit). The 18-105mm is a decent place to start though. The digital 27mm-155mm isn't quite ideal, but the short end is wide enough and the long end is good for medium range work. It's a convenience lens, good to learn some habits on, and it's flexible enough to be a walkabout lens. Pity about the DX, but it does help to bring costs down. eugimon's suggestion of the 18-200mm also has merits, but to be perfectly honest, I started with a 18-70mm, and that's a great range to start learning from. Telephotos have a different skillset to learn (breath control/ posture becomes much more important, for one), which you might not want to bring into the picture yet.

A bit late to the party, but... You'll need to think carefully about this. All three of these are DX lens, which is fine if you stick with digital bodies -- specifically, digital bodies with a crop factor. On full frame bodies (film and higher end digitals), these are significantly less useful, as their smaller circle of image means there are certain ranges which would not be useable (as the non-imaged portion will show up black). Again, if you stick with the semi-pro Nikons DX would be nice -- I don't think Nikon would move away from the 1.5 ~ 1.6 crop factor -- but full frame digitals had been the vogue lately, and these things do tend to propagate downwards. If you seriously get the photography bug and upgrade in the distant future, then you might end up stuck with a piece of glass that is less useful.

I think the term is "flaming, flaming wreckage"...

Uh, that's what I did. Worse, the stub was left inside the mount. Had to drill it out...

I agree. Once it's broken, there's really nothing to stop you from doing it more often. If you're just a bit careful, it won't drop the arm off. And yes, my box launchers had their pins broken off already. Those mounting points are very tight, you have been warned.

Yup, not funny at all.