Canon EOS 300D



> There's actually plenty of green veg in the diet, but since they're low in calories they don't
> contribute much overall, but there's enough there to get all the health benefits from them.
> Atkins' points out that compared to the average American diet, most people will find themselves
> eating *more* vegetables on the Atkins diet.

That's certainly been my experience - I'm up to around a kilo per day of green veg atm :)

...snip...

> But I speak as someone who's always fried my bacon in butter. ;-)

Doesn't everyone do that ? :) (Actually I've been using olive oil recently which is very nice when
you get used to it).

--
Boo
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| >> that at full size 1MP = roughly 3 meg (for a 24 bit image, double for a 48 bit).
| >
| > I've just took a few shots in my poorly lit bedroom, just as a test. A Large Superfine JPEG was
| > 1.77mb (smaller than the average shot, due to low light I guess), and the same shot taken as a
| > RAW file was
| > 4.42mb. I converted the RAW file into a 16bit/ch TIF and this was
| > 28.9mb, whilst converting the RAW file into 8bit/ch TIF was 14.4mb.
|
| Yep, 1MP = roughly 3 meg.

Hey, you're talking to yourself here, as that "1MP = roughly 3 meg" comment was from you! :eek:)

| >> My new scanner produces 120 meg images at 48 bit, that's 60 meg at 24 bits. So that's 20MP
| >> images. ;-)
| >
| > Now you're just showing off!
|
| Well if you've got it, why not flaunt it?

Definitely! ;o)

| >> Good old film eh?
| >
| > <lost for words> ;o)
|
| Well photographers have been using the stuff for 150 years, so it can't be *that* bad, and in
| spite of my new found infatuation with digital, film still produces better images on the whole (in
| terms of resolution anyway) than I can yet produce with digital.
|
| It remains to be seen how well a 6MP digital will compare with 35mm film. *IF* (and that's a big
| if) it's true that the 11MP 1Ds produces images of superior quality to medium format (and Michael
| Reichmann and Zeus seem convinced that it does), then mathematically, a 6MP digital image should
| be at least comparable to 35mm, even if I can produce a 20MP scan of a 35mm image. It will be very
| interesting to compare the difference when I do get a 6MP camera.

As your friend Bill has just bought a 300D, why don't you take some comparitive shots next time you
go out with him? Set up a tripod and and test the 300D v G3 v film camera. The results should be
interesting!

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Out of interest, what is your height and weight?
|
| 5ft 6.5ins - small frame.
|
| Current low weight 150 pounds (10 stone 10 pounds)

...there's nothing worse in life than skinny people who claim to be fat! Aren't you people called
anorexics? (just kidding!)

I'm 5 foot 9.75 inches tall (don't forget the three quarters), and about 15-16 stone. I daren't
weight myself right now because I've gone like a balloon over the past 3 years, from 11 stone to 16
at my fattest over the past few months! :-(

| > Are you keeping records of these as you stick to the Atkins diet?
|
| Height no, weight yes. The weight graph is interesting, it tends to fluctuate 1-3 pounds daily,
| probably depending on how much food is in me at the time I weight myself. I try to weigh myself at
| the same time each day, when I wake up, but some nights I may eat a lot before going to bed and
| others not.

I used to weigh myself every morning because I knew that this would be my lightest time of the day -
it's relative, so any time of day is fine, so long as it's the same time each day. But as far as I
was concerned, the lighter the better! :eek:) At my most fanatical, I set up an Access database that
had a table containing a list of foods I ate with their nutritional information in, and another
table that contained what I ate in the day, and the weight of it. I used this to keep track of how
much I was eating, and I aimed for about 1500 - 2000 calories a day I think. Nothing worse than
weighing food to make you feel like a weirdo! ;o)

| I started a new diet and exercise regime back in June, when I was 161 pounds, and I hit 150 pounds
| a few days ago, so that's 11 pounds in just over 5 months (after early progress I slipped back
| into some bad eating habits in the last couple of months, whereupon my weight loss pretty much
| stopped, although I haven't regained any weight). This morning I was 153 pounds but that's just
| because I've been binging in the last couple of days so that's only temporary because I've got
| more food in me than usual now.
|
| Why have I been binging you ask?
|
| Tomorrow I start Atkins.

Good luck with the diet! I've got a friend who has lost several stone over the past few years (from
18 stone plus to about 13 stone) doing an Atkins type diet, only it's slightly different. Instead of
cutting down on all carbohydrates, he just excludes simple carbohydrates. There's a few other things
too, and he claims it's healthier than the typical 'fry-up' Atkins stereotype diet. All his friends
are on it too and they've all lost weight. Why don't I go on this diet myself you may be thinking?
...how could I live without potatoes! ;o)

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > That Rik Waller was just a tw@t! :eek:)
|
| You noticed? He did a good job of winding up the fitness instructor though, didn't he?

He just came across as a spoilt brat, very annoying! I don't know why he came on the show if he was
too lazy to do anything. For the publicity I assume.

| > You burn calories even when you sleep! Slow walking raises your heartbeat from its resting
| > level, so you're burning more calories, and thus doing exercise. It might not be *much*
| > exercise, but exercise nonetheless.
|
| True.

I hope you're not agreeing with something I've said here! ;o)

| > Also, low intensity exercise (ie, slow walking) burns a higher percentage of calories than high
| > intensity exercise does (ie, sprinting). High intensity exercise creates a higher percentage of
| > muscle instead. I think there's a balance between fat burning and muscle building, and don't
| > confuse percentages with actual amounts.
|
| No, easy to do that. I noticed that higher intensity exercise burns more carbs and less fat, so
| lower intensity seems the better option, but you actually burn just as much fat at higher
| intensity. It's just that you burn even more carbs with it. The catch though, is that you can't
| keep up high intensity exercise for very long, whereas you can keep up low intensity exercise all
| day, so provided you have the time to spare, you will burn a lot more fat with low intensity
| exercise simply because you can do it for so much longer.

Yes, and I just get bored doing low intensity stuff for long periods. I preferred speed walking in
the past, as it was also less strain on the knees than jogging.

| Also, muscles burn calories, so merely having larger muscles will burn more calories, even when
| you're sitting in front of the computer.

Well I've got plenty of muscles, but they're just hidden under all that fat, I assume... :eek:)

| Paul

Ste
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>, ste © <[email protected]> writes
| >| Now then lads whilst it is possible that some walkers are interested
in
| >| photography, don't you think the foregoing would have been better dealt with by e-mail ?
| >
| >I never thought of that! :) Oh well, you've got my email address Paul!
;)
|
| Thanks for indulging a grumpy old bugger in Glais.:)
| --
| Bill Grey

Don't thank me, it's Paul's turn to reply next (if he can be bothered replying), so you should thank
him if he replies by *email* instead! ;)

Ste
 
Sorry to mess up the threading, but I can't post this reply correctly. Does anyone else get this
"Can't post message, line 3 too long" error? I get this occasionally and no matter how much I edit
the message I can't get the damn things to post. Anyone know what causes this?

ste wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the G5 is as good as the EOS 10D or 300D, but by
> comparing some real-life shots, it's quite interesting. I've found that the G5 isn't *that bad.*
> Let me know if you want me to email you the samples.

Depends what you mean by real life samples. Are these comparative images? If they're taken in the
best conditions then there probably isn't that much difference. I think you'd see more difference in
bad conditions, when low light forces you to change to a higher film speed for example.

What are the samples?

Paul
--
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Robert Hill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > W. D. Grey wrote:
| >
| > > Well as you may know you can select the resolution you
| want and it
| > > ranges from small fine or coarse through medium fine or
| coarse to
| > > large fine or coarse then you can also save in Raw mode.
| Mine were in
| > > large "smooth" mode which is a jpg file. At least that
| was the file
| > > size when I saved it in PS.
| >
| > Ah, well if you saved it as a jpeg in PS, then that may
| explain it. You
| > have a habit of saving at quality 12, don't you Bill? At
| that quality
| > there is virtually no quality lost at all in a jpeg, so
| the file size is
| > practically as big as if it weren't compressed at all.
| >
| > If you set the quality to maximum in PS (after changing it
| to something
| > else) it will set the quality to 10, not 12. I think the
| reason for
| > scaling the quality to 12 instead of the usual 10 (or
| 100), is because
| > the very highest quality settings are not necessary. The
| difference
| > between 10 and 12 is so small that it's practically
| impossible to see
| > it, but the file size is very different. PS used to have
| the max
| > quality set to 8 (when they scaled it to 10), but I think
| they've
| > changed it because people who want the best quality
| naturally tend to
| > set it to 10. I really think that 12 is probably
| unnecessary Bill.
| >
| > Paul
| > --
| > The October Project 2003 http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html http://www.wilderness-
| > wales.co.uk http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
| >
| > Interesting stuff, I was wondering abt the 18mb file. But
| can a 3-4mb image, taken on a 6mp camera, increase to 18mb via PS?
|
| Robert

As a TIF file, it could get that big. A test on another one of my 5 megapixel images showed this:

Original Large Superfine Jpeg = 3.84mb Open above image in Photoshop, and Save As Jpeg at 12/12
Quality = 5.63mb Open original image and Save As Uncompressed Tif = 14.4mb

No editing was done in between any of these saves.

Ste
 
ste © wrote:

> ...there's nothing worse in life than skinny people who claim to be fat! Aren't you people called
> anorexics? (just kidding!)

If I'm still obsessing about losing weight when I'm 9.5 stone, then feel free to call me anorexic.
Besides, I never claimed to be fat, merely overweight, and not by much either, so it shouldn't be
too hard to get rid of it (in theory at least).

> I'm 5 foot 9.75 inches tall (don't forget the three quarters), and about 15-16 stone. I daren't
> weight myself right now because...

...you're suffering from Rik Waller delusion.

> I've gone like a balloon over the past 3 years, from 11 stone to 16 at my fattest over the past
> few months! :-(

Hmm... You didn't look that fat in your photo.

> I used to weigh myself every morning because I knew that this would be my lightest time of the day
> - it's relative, so any time of day is fine, so long as it's the same time each day.

Not really. You want to find out how much you weigh, not how much you weight plus the three course
meal you've just eaten. Your true weight is without food and drink inside you. Of couse there's
always going to be some, but you can at least weigh yourself when there's as little as possible in
there, that will give you the truest estimate of your weight.

> At my most fanatical, I set up an Access database that had a table containing a list of foods I
> ate with their nutritional information in, and another table that contained what I ate in the day,
> and the weight of it. I used this to keep track of how much I was eating, and I aimed for about
> 1500 - 2000 calories a day I think. Nothing worse than weighing food to make you feel like a
> weirdo! ;o)

Now that is fanatical.

>> Tomorrow I start Atkins.

Well maybe the day after... It seems I bought a disallowed cheese - cottage cheese, so I'll have to
eat that first. Cottage cheese is very low fat, so ironically it's relatively high in carbs. So I
just took the opportunity to eat another apple and blackcurrant ****... :)

> Good luck with the diet! I've got a friend who has lost several stone over the past few years
> (from 18 stone plus to about 13 stone) doing an Atkins type diet, only it's slightly different.
> Instead of cutting down on all carbohydrates, he just excludes simple carbohydrates.

That's practically Atkins, no sugar, no refined flour etc. A major thing to consider is foods with a
high glycemic index, like potatoes, they quickly turn to sugar in the blood, so such foods should be
excluded too.

> There's a few other things too, and he claims it's healthier than the typical 'fry-up' Atkins
> stereotype diet.

See, there's another misconception about Atkins. Although you can have fry-ups on Atkins, they're
not compulsory and you certainly don't have to live on them. Most of the recipes in the Atkins book
are not fry ups, many combine some sort of protein with salad vegetables, so you might have fish
plus salad, and maybe a little cheese on the side.

> All his friends are on it too and they've all lost weight. Why don't I go on this diet myself you
> may be thinking? ...how could I live without potatoes! ;o)

That's my big problem too, I love potatoes.

Thinking realistically though, I've never had a real weight problem during my life, and I don't need
to lose that much, so once I've lost it I daresay I could start eating some potatoes here and there,
so long as I don't overdo it. The key is to consume the calories with exercise, so potatoes and
hillwalking would go well together I think. Athletes are allowed more carbs anyway.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I bought an independent make - a Lowepro. It's just a case to carry and protect the camera. I have
> to take the camera out to remove the battery or the card.
>
> It does the job for me.

Quite ... my old Penatx SLR has a Pentax holster-style case which you just take the camera out to
use. That works fine. The Canon case is actually screwed into the camera which is a bit irritating
when you can't do things like change batteries and card without taking the thing apart.

Carol
 
ste © wrote:

> Hey, you're talking to yourself here, as that "1MP = roughly 3 meg" comment was from you! :eek:)

I know, I was just confirming that from the numbers you just gave me.

> As your friend Bill has just bought a 300D, why don't you take some comparitive shots next time
> you go out with him?

Already done that! Unfortunately I didn't take enough care and the 300D shot was out of focus!
(Manual focusing with polariser interfering with it, the lens turns as you focus throwing the
polariser out of alignment, then turning the polariser alters the focus. Aaargh!!!)

> Set up a tripod and and test the 300D v G3 v film camera. The results should be interesting!

Yes, next time we'll do it properly. All cameras on a tripod, same focal length, no polariser, all
focused on infinity.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Sorry to mess up the threading, but I can't post this reply correctly. Does anyone else get this
| "Can't post message, line 3 too long" error? I get this occasionally and no matter how much I edit
| the message I can't get the damn things to post. Anyone know what causes this?

Sorry, never had this problem so can't help. A quick search on Google groups doesn't bring up much
either, apart from some others having the same problem in some religious newsgroup! Have you tried
using a different news account? Or tried copying and pasting your text into a new post?

| ste wrote:
|
| > Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that the G5 is as good as the EOS 10D or 300D, but by
| > comparing some real-life shots, it's quite interesting. I've found that the G5 isn't *that bad.*
| > Let me know if you want me to email you the samples.
|
| Depends what you mean by real life samples. Are these comparative images? If they're taken in the
| best conditions then there probably isn't that much difference. I think you'd see more difference
| in bad conditions, when low light forces you to change to a higher film speed for example.

They are both indoor shots taken in fairly low light, at an Awards ceremony in a sports hall. Both
taken from a similar position on the balcony, at a similar zoom.

| What are the samples?

Just two similar images, see above.

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| Robert Hill wrote:
|
| >> Interesting stuff, I was wondering abt the 18mb file. But
| > can a 3-4mb image, taken on a 6mp camera, increase to 18mb via PS?
|
| Well I've just tried it and apparently not, nowhere near it in fact. In my case, I just tried an
| image which was 11.6 meg as an uncompressed bitmap, and at jpeg quality 12 it saved as 3.7 meg.
|
| Bill must have saved his file in BMP, TIFF or PSD format for it to have been that large.
|
| It may still be worth pointing out that if you load a jpeg into PS, there's no point saving it at
| a higher quality than it was to begin with, so if the new save is larger than the original file
| size you haven't gained any quality. You can't put back any quality that was lost when the image
| was first saved as a jpeg (when the photo was taken in the camera) you're just saving the
| compression artefacts at a higher quality.
|
| Paul

If I was saving JPEG's, I'd always save on the highest quality setting, otherwise, the image is
degrading each time, no matter what it was before. But to be honest, if I was editing photos, I'd
always save them as TIF or PSD files. I only used to save as JPEG's for the web or for emailing
photos, or for uploading photos to photobox.co.uk (they would only accept JPEG's). But now I've got
my 2100, I don't need to use photobox.co.uk except for the largest of prints (> A3+).

Ste
 
"Carol Haynes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected]...
| > I bought an independent make - a Lowepro. It's just a case to carry and protect the camera. I
| > have to take the camera out to remove the battery or the card.
| >
| > It does the job for me.
|
| Quite ... my old Penatx SLR has a Pentax holster-style case which you just take the camera out to
| use. That works fine. The Canon case is actually screwed into the camera which is a bit irritating
| when you can't do things like change batteries and card without taking the thing apart.
|
| Carol

I've got a Lowepro Nova 1 AW case for my Canon G5 and accessories. It's fits everything in I want,
and is recommended to all G3/G5/compact users. Though I'm not sure how it would work with the larger
DSLR's, but photos are available on request, and it does hold a lot.

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > Hey, you're talking to yourself here, as that "1MP = roughly 3 meg" comment was from you! :eek:)
|
| I know, I was just confirming that from the numbers you just gave me.

Okay, at least I know you're not mad!

| > As your friend Bill has just bought a 300D, why don't you take some comparitive shots next time
| > you go out with him?
|
| Already done that! Unfortunately I didn't take enough care and the 300D shot was out of focus!
| (Manual focusing with polariser interfering with it, the lens turns as you focus throwing the
| polariser out of alignment, then turning the polariser alters the focus. Aaargh!!!)

Well, if you'd relied on good old automatic focusing, you wouldn't have had any probems... :p

| > Set up a tripod and and test the 300D v G3 v film camera. The results should be interesting!
|
| Yes, next time we'll do it properly. All cameras on a tripod, same focal length, no polariser, all
| focused on infinity.

Sounds like a date! Give Bill a call! ;o)

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > ...there's nothing worse in life than skinny people who claim to be fat! Aren't you people
| > called anorexics? (just kidding!)
|
| If I'm still obsessing about losing weight when I'm 9.5 stone, then feel free to call me anorexic.
| Besides, I never claimed to be fat, merely overweight, and not by much either, so it shouldn't be
| too hard to get rid of it (in theory at least).

I know, I was just kidding. ...fatty! :p

| > I'm 5 foot 9.75 inches tall (don't forget the three quarters), and about 15-16 stone. I daren't
| > weight myself right now because...
|
| ...you're suffering from Rik Waller delusion.

Nahh, I'm just a lard @rse! :eek:)

| > I've gone like a balloon over the past 3 years, from 11 stone to 16 at my fattest over the past
| > few months! :-(
|
| Hmm... You didn't look that fat in your photo.

Did I send you the naked photo or the one where I was fully dressed and out walking in Malham? ;o)

| > I used to weigh myself every morning because I knew that this would be my lightest time of the
| > day - it's relative, so any time of day is fine, so long as it's the same time each day.
|
| Not really. You want to find out how much you weigh, not how much you weight plus the three course
| meal you've just eaten. Your true weight is without food and drink inside you. Of couse there's
| always going to be some, but you can at least weigh yourself when there's as little as possible in
| there, that will give you the truest estimate of your weight.

...Which is first thing in the morning! But my comments about getting weighed at any time of day
were related to finding out the weight lost/gained during a diet - as long it was the same time of
day (assuming regular eating and drinking habits), then this would show the weight lost or gained.

| > At my most fanatical, I set up an Access database that had a table containing a list of foods I
| > ate with their nutritional information in, and another table that contained what I ate in the
| > day, and the weight of it. I used this to keep track of how much I was eating, and I aimed for
| > about 1500 - 2000 calories a day I think. Nothing worse than weighing food to make you feel like
| > a weirdo! ;o)
|
| Now that is fanatical.

...but I haven't bought any books yet! ;o)

| >> Tomorrow I start Atkins.
|
| Well maybe the day after... It seems I bought a disallowed cheese - cottage cheese, so I'll have
| to eat that first. Cottage cheese is very low fat, so ironically it's relatively high in carbs. So
| I just took the opportunity to eat another apple and blackcurrant ****... :)

I had the same problem when I was going to start my friends version of the Atkins diet - there was
always some chips or white barm cakes in the cupboard, so it was never thr right time. There's
always one excuse or another for me when diets are concerned, and there's always tomorrow...

| > Good luck with the diet! I've got a friend who has lost several stone over the past few years
| > (from 18 stone plus to about 13 stone) doing an Atkins type diet, only it's slightly different.
| > Instead of cutting down on all carbohydrates, he just excludes simple carbohydrates.
|
| That's practically Atkins, no sugar, no refined flour etc. A major thing to consider is foods with
| a high glycemic index, like potatoes, they quickly turn to sugar in the blood, so such foods
| should be excluded too.

Yes, he said it was more or less Atkins, but with the few adjustments. But it works for him and all
his friends and work colleagues, and it doesn't sound as extreme as what I've heard about the Atkins
diet. I can find out more info on what he does if you're interested, just let me know.

| > There's a few other things too, and he claims it's healthier than the typical 'fry-up' Atkins
| > stereotype diet.
|
| See, there's another misconception about Atkins. Although you can have fry-ups on Atkins, they're
| not compulsory and you certainly don't have to live on them. Most of the recipes in the Atkins
| book are not fry ups, many combine some sort of protein with salad vegetables, so you might have
| fish plus salad, and maybe a little cheese on the side.

Atkins probably came up with those wild headlines himself, just to sell books! Which fat person
wouldn't want to go on a diet where they could eat all the fry-ups they wanted! ;o)

| > All his friends are on it too and they've all lost weight. Why don't I go on this diet myself
| > you may be thinking? ...how could I live without potatoes! ;o)
|
| That's my big problem too, I love potatoes.

Every meal I have seems to have a potatoe product of some kind.

| Thinking realistically though, I've never had a real weight problem during my life, and I don't
| need to lose that much, so once I've lost it I daresay I could start eating some potatoes here and
| there, so long as I don't overdo it. The key is to consume the calories with exercise, so potatoes
| and hillwalking would go well together I think. Athletes are allowed more carbs anyway.

Yes, you could use the diet to get back on track, then be sensible from there on. I've got quite a
bit more than you to lose though, so I need to be a bit more patient.

| Paul

Ste
 
W. D. Grey wrote:

>> Bill must have saved his file in BMP, TIFF or PSD format for it to have been that large.
>
> At the expense of repeating myself, I took the photo in the 300 D at "Large-fine" setting then
> opened the file in PS. When I saved the file, PS set the quality to high (10/12) and the file size
> was then 18Mb.

Maybe you're confusing the size of the save file with the size of the image reported in Photoshop?
When a jpeg is opened in Photoshop it will report the full uncompressed size, it's only compressed
in the file, not when opened.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
ste © wrote:

> If I was saving JPEG's, I'd always save on the highest quality setting, otherwise, the image is
> degrading each time, no matter what it was before. But to be honest, if I was editing photos, I'd
> always save them as TIF or PSD files.

I use jpegs for convenience and small file size, not for printing.

> I only used to save as JPEG's for the web or for emailing photos, or for uploading photos to
> photobox.co.uk (they would only accept JPEG's). But now I've got my 2100, I don't need to use
> photobox.co.uk except for the largest of prints (> A3+).

I don't think you really need to go much bigger than A3+. In fact, I don't think you can go much
bigger with only 5MP, not without the image appearing softer. But then again, larger images are
meant to be viewed from a greater distance.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/october/october.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Carol Haynes
> <[email protected]> writes
> >. The Canon case is actually screwed into the camera which is a bit irritating when you can't do
things
> >like change batteries and card without taking the thing apart.
>
> AIUI this is an old fashioned idea - reminiscent of the old "Every Ready" case where the case was
> attached to the camera via the tripod bush.
>

That's right. I can understand the idea because the case (if fitted permanently) has to be aligned
so that controls are always available. I just think they could have designed it so that all
sockets/panels/connectors were accessible too without the hassle.

Carol
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
| >Already done that! Unfortunately I didn't take enough care and the 300D shot was out of focus!
| >(Manual focusing with polariser interfering with it, the lens turns as you focus throwing the
| >polariser out of alignment, then turning the polariser alters the focus. Aaargh!!!)
|
| Yes a pity that! The shots I took on auto focus are fine.

Good old auto focus! :eek:)

| Here's a shot taken from the bridge at Llandeilo of the houses on the hill leading into the
| village. This has been compressed to a file size of about 80kb
|
| http://www.graigroad.demon.co.uk/llandeilo.htm

That looks like a good location for a traffic trail night shot.

| Nice to have some sunshine in amongst the horrible weather lately.
| --
| Bill Grey

Ste