Canon EOS 300D



W. D. Grey wrote:

>> Fine, but what's so hard about focusing on the banana manually instead?
>
> Too much faffing around!

Turning the lens? Takes a split second. I think this just highlights different working methods.
If you do something regularly it becomes second nature. With practice you could probably set the
auto-focus just as quickly as I can manual focus it, but if we used one another's methods we'd
both be slower.

> Paul, you are arguing for the sake of it.

No I'm not. You seem convinced that auto-focus is superior in every way to manual focus. I'm equally
convinced that it isn't. No matter how fast and accurate it may be, you still have to tell it what
you want to focus on (i.e. press some buttons to place a box over a feature in the scene). I can do
that more easily by simply turning the lens and judging it with my eye (which is very good).

I will give the 300D auto-focus the benefit of the doubt and try it, as I've done with the various
automatic features on the G3. The G3 did not impress me. I expect that the 300D will be better,
particularly the auto-focusing, but I still doubt that I will prefer it to manual. I do expect to
use it for some things though.

> You have twisted just about everything away from the thread topic.

You know about thread drift in this newsgroup! Drifting from the 300D to the G3 isn't too bad by
this newsgroup's standards!

> For the sake of other NG readers who must now be thoroughly bored I will make this my last comment
> on the subject.
>
> The photo I sent you was to demonstrate that the autofocus picked out the exact subject . This did
> not entail any focus lock or faffing around.

But you had to press some buttons to choose the focusing point, didn't you? I would find it easier
to simply turn the lens.

> I believe the demonstration was completely successful.

I agree. I'm not disputing that the auto-focus does what you say it does, or that it's very good at
doing what it does. I just prefer to do it myself.

> I'm quite prepared to discuss anything with you but your dogma has put paid to any further NG
> discussion.

My dogma is just my personal preference. I've always done it manually and I like doing it manually.
Others can choose whichever method gives them the best results. I am open-minded enough to give the
auto-focusing a fair trial though, I promise you that.

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
 
"W. D. Grey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Paul Saunders <[email protected]> writes
> >Well I took a bunch of family shots today using program mode, and guess what, over half of the
> >telephoto shots have autofocused on the wall behind the subject, even thought the subject's head
> >was large in the centre of the picture. Stupid bloody machine...
>
> The 300 D has an array of focus points any one of which you can use to set a focus. This means you
> can select a point off centre and the camera will autofocus on it.(By this I 'm not talking about
> focus lock). If you ignore what the camera is focussing on then you may well get the same results
> as you've experienced.
> --
> Bill Grey

I've never seens the 300D auto-focus system before, but it sounds a lot better than what's
on my G5! :)

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ste © wrote:
>
> > ...and something warm to wrap your batteries in too! By the way, how is your G3 battery
> > now Paul?
>
> Seems to be fine. Haven't pushed it to the limits lately though.

Good good.

> > I was at an Awards ceremony last week, and the photographer send in his CD of photos today. He
> > was using a Canon EOS 10D, it just so happened. His images were a tiny bit taller than my G5
> > images, and about a fifth wider, but the quality wasn't noticably better.
>
> You'd see the difference on bigger enlargements, and things like noise would show up more in some
> conditions than others. Apparently the noise at ISO 400 is similar to the noise on the G3 at ISO
> 50, now that's a big advantage.

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.

> Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| W. D. Grey wrote:
|
| > We've never discussed this program - I presume it does the business?
|
| Some swear by it, but I'm not convinced that it's all it's cracked up to be. For certain types of
| photos yes (those with straight lines and sharp edges), but many landscapes don't quite fit the
| bill. I'm not sure that there's much difference between normal interpolation and GF for subtly
| textured images. It's main use is for smaller digital images anyway, you wouldn't need it for film
| scans or for larger digital images. You can happily print up to A4 with your digital cameras so
| unless you buy an A3 printer you really don't need it.

Yes, I'm not that impressed either. It's funny as I was exchanging emails with an photographer who
was creating a photography website, and I commented that his images were quite small (about 300-400
pixels wide), and they also had his name spashed across the middle. He told me the reason for this
is there's some software called Genuine Fractals that can make good prints from images this size, so
he was very worried. :eek:) Not quite! :eek:) There's definitely a lot of hype about this software, though
it's not necessarily justified in my opinion. But hey, just get the free trial and give it a go!

| > Of course we photographers do tend to be hyper critical of things like focus and fine detail
| > whereas the average punter just likes or dislike a picture viewed from a sensible distance.
|
| Yeah.
|
| Paul

Ste
 
ste © wrote:

> He told me the reason for this is there's some software called Genuine Fractals that can make good
> prints from images this size, so he was very worried. :eek:) Not quite! :eek:)

If anyone wants to use Genuine Fractals to print my 750x500 pixel website images at A3+, then be my
guest! You'd have to be half blind to be happy with the result.

> There's definitely a lot of hype about this software, though it's not necessarily justified in my
> opinion.

It certainly does some good things, but I don't think it's as great as it's cracked up to be. Some
people are making ridiculous claims about it. It may improve an image a small amount over normal
interpolation, but it isn't magic. The improvement is small, not large.

To my surprise one person told me that it was great for sharpening an image! I didn't understand
what he meant at first but I realised later. When enlarging an image with lots of straight lines
(particularly diagonal ones) they tend to come out quite soft (stepped, pixellated) but with GF they
retain their sharpness. So it doesn't make straight lines sharper, but it does prevent them getting
softer with enlargement.

I tried using it to enlarge a picture of some boats, the effect on the masts was quite impressive,
but it made no improvement to detail in the water.

Try it on something with lots of straight lines and sharp edges, perhaps buildings or cars.

Paul
--
The October Project 2003 - Updated
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]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > He told me the reason for this is there's some software called Genuine Fractals that can make
| > good prints from images this size, so he was very worried. :eek:) Not quite! :eek:)
|
| If anyone wants to use Genuine Fractals to print my 750x500 pixel website images at A3+, then be
| my guest! You'd have to be half blind to be happy with the result.

I agree! :)

| > There's definitely a lot of hype about this software, though it's not necessarily justified in
| > my opinion.
|
| It certainly does some good things, but I don't think it's as great as it's cracked up to be. Some
| people are making ridiculous claims about it. It may improve an image a small amount over normal
| interpolation, but it isn't magic. The improvement is small, not large.

Yes, I'm not blown away by it either.

| To my surprise one person told me that it was great for sharpening an image! I didn't understand
| what he meant at first but I realised later. When enlarging an image with lots of straight lines
| (particularly diagonal ones) they tend to come out quite soft (stepped, pixellated) but with GF
| they retain their sharpness. So it doesn't make straight lines sharper, but it does prevent them
| getting softer with enlargement.

I've not tried it on architectural images yet, so will see if this is so in my tests.

| I tried using it to enlarge a picture of some boats, the effect on the masts was quite impressive,
| but it made no improvement to detail in the water.
|
| Try it on something with lots of straight lines and sharp edges, perhaps buildings or cars.

I will do and see what the results are like.

| Paul

Ste
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> ste © wrote:
>
> > I can normally tell if something is automatically focused corrently or not, although there are
> > times when it's tricky to get lock on small objects with obstacles between them.
>
> Well I took a bunch of family shots today using program mode, and guess what, over half of the
> telephoto shots have autofocused on the wall behind the subject, even thought the subject's head
> was large in the centre of the picture. Stupid bloody machine...

That's strange, as indoor people shots are normally perfect for me! My problems with the focusing
normally comes in dull conditions, or when I'm trying to photograph a bird that's in a tree (with
lots of twigs and branches hanging around it).

Was the room well-lit where you took your photos?

Do you half-press the shutter button to lock the focusing and exposure whilst aligning the central
square on the LCD with your subject's faces? Did this square glow green when you half pressed the
shutter? (signalling that you got a good lock on *something*) Or did it glow yellow?

How do you manual focus then Paul, if you can't tell from the LCD if something is sharp or not? Did
you know that after you've pressed the shutter half-way, you can press the Manual Focus (MF) button
to lock the focusing, or to adjust it manually if needed? But this requires some sort of judging the
sharpness from the LCD.

When taking people shots using an automatic mode, I tend to use the Portrait mode. Never used the P
mode, as that's for inexperienced professionals who don't know what they're doing! :) Out of
interest though, why did you use the P mode for? I thought you used Manual mode for all your shots?

Also, you could have used the tips on the website I gave you the link to:
http://www.marcjutras.com/ehyperfocal.html Then you could have combined Manual mode with in-focus
images! ;)

> > I've never had a problem with the exposures though, and most of what I've read tells me that
> > others have no problems either, but they say to watch out for certain conditions which can fool
> > the camera, such as snow,
>
> Sky, etc.
>
> Paul

Ste
 
ste © wrote:

> I've never seens the 300D auto-focus system before, but it sounds a lot better than what's on
> my G5! :)

I visited Bill last night and I had the opportunity to play with the 300D. The auto-focus system is
indeed more impressive than the puny one on the G series. One thing I liked was that when it
autofocuses a red light flashes inside some of the seven squares to indicate which ones were used to
determine the focus. It isn't always the ones you expect. Clearly there's some sort of picture
recognition being used to determine which points are probably the most important. I was impressed
that it didn't base the focusing on a single point, but multiple points. The focusing is also a lot
quicker than on the G3.

As for the lenses, Bill's new 28-135mm Canon zoom is very nicely constructed with a good solid feel.
Not only can it be switched between MF and AF, but interestingly the lens can be focused manually
whilst in the AF position. This is not true of the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera, which can
only be turned manually when in the MF position. The focusing ring on that lens is really pretty
pathetic, it doesn't seem to be designed for manual focusing.

The focusing "throw" of the 18-55mm lens is very short, so it doesn't need to be turned much. This
makes it harder to focus manually because the precise focusing point is very narrow. The 28-135mm
lens has a much longer throw, thus making it far easier to focus manually. Focusing this lens
manually felt much more like the lenses that I'm used to, whereas the 18-55mm doesn't feel very good
for manual focusing. I may well buy the Sigma 18-50mm instead, which looks to have a much better
focusing ring.

What impressed me most though, was the 300D's A-DEP mode, something I'd heard about but hadn't
tried. It's an aperture priority semi-automatic mode which sets the *hyperfocal* distance between
the nearest and furthest auto-focus points and chooses the correct aperture to ensure that
everything between those two points is in focus. If it's not possible to get everything between
those two points in focus then the aperture flashes to warn you. The recommended advice if that
happens is to move further back or use a wider focal length.

I experimented with this feature and found it to work very well, focusing on the edge of the table a
few inches in front of me and the fridge in the kitchen in the background. I even managed to take a
reasonably sharp handheld picture at roughly 1 second thanks to the Image Stabilisation feature in
the lens (and my rock solid hand holding technique of course!).

For the A-DEP mode to work properly you must ensure that the nearest and furthest points in the
scene (that you want to be in focus) are covered by two of the focusing squares. This may require
setting the focus first, locking it (half holding the shutter down) then recomposing the picture.
Not terribly convenient when using a tripod, but not too much hassle if you have a quick release
tripod mount.

The manual specifically says that auto-focus lock doesn't work in the A-DEP mode, which seemed
completely irrational to me, but when I tried it, it *did* work. Of course, keeping the shutter half
depressed isn't convenient if you have to remount it on a tripod, but one way around this would be
to set the focus distance and aperture using A-DEP mode, then switch the lens to MF mode. That would
leave the lens focused at the same distance, preventing refocusing when taking the picture. You
could even switch modes, provided you ensure that you use the same (or a smaller) aperture.

Although this mode wouldn't be necessary for most of my shots, it would be *extremely* useful for
certain shots, specifically wide angle shots with a very close foreground, or long telephoto shots
where two objects at different distances both need to be in focus. This is one intelligent use of
auto-focus that I'm very pleased about and look forward to using.

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
 
"Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| ste © wrote:
|
| > I've never seens the 300D auto-focus system before, but it sounds a lot better than what's on my
| > G5! :)
|
| I visited Bill last night and I had the opportunity to play with the 300D. The auto-focus system
| is indeed more impressive than the puny one on the G series. One thing I liked was that when it
| autofocuses a red light flashes inside some of the seven squares to indicate which ones were used
| to determine the focus. It isn't always the ones you expect. Clearly there's some sort of picture
| recognition being used to determine which points are probably the most important. I was impressed
| that it didn't base the focusing on a single point, but multiple points. The focusing is also a
| lot quicker than on the G3.

I'd have to see it to fully understand, but it does sound very good from what you and Bill have
said! I've been telling my girlfriend that I'm going to buy a D-SLR late next year, but as we're
supposed to be saving for a deposit on our own house, she tells me I'm not. We'll see! ;-)

| As for the lenses, Bill's new 28-135mm Canon zoom is very nicely constructed with a good solid
| feel. Not only can it be switched between MF and AF, but interestingly the lens can be focused
| manually whilst in the AF position. This is not true of the 18-55mm lens that came with the
| camera, which can only be turned manually when in the MF position. The focusing ring on that lens
| is really pretty pathetic, it doesn't seem to be designed for manual focusing.

Oh well, the included lens was quite cheap for what it was, so like you've said before, they've got
to save money somewhere.

| The focusing "throw" of the 18-55mm lens is very short, so it doesn't need to be turned much. This
| makes it harder to focus manually because the precise focusing point is very narrow. The 28-135mm
| lens has a much longer throw, thus making it far easier to focus manually. Focusing this lens
| manually felt much more like the lenses that I'm used to, whereas the 18-55mm doesn't feel very
| good for manual focusing. I may well buy the Sigma 18-50mm instead, which looks to have a much
| better focusing ring.

Wouldn't the Sigma have less quality that the Canon, even in the final image?

| What impressed me most though, was the 300D's A-DEP mode, something I'd heard about but hadn't
| tried. It's an aperture priority semi-automatic mode which sets the *hyperfocal* distance between
| the nearest and furthest auto-focus points and chooses the correct aperture to ensure that
| everything between those two points is in focus. If it's not possible to get everything between
| those two points in focus then the aperture flashes to warn you. The recommended advice if that
| happens is to move further back or use a wider focal length.

This sounds like another one of those great modes that I'm missing out on!

| I experimented with this feature and found it to work very well, focusing on the edge of the table
| a few inches in front of me and the fridge in the kitchen in the background. I even managed to
| take a reasonably sharp handheld picture at roughly 1 second thanks to the Image Stabilisation
| feature in the lens (and my rock solid hand holding technique of course!).

Of course, your rock solid technique of course! ;-) I've read about wildlife photographers using
long IS lenses, excellent, but expensive from what I've seen! :-(

| For the A-DEP mode to work properly you must ensure that the nearest and furthest points in the
| scene (that you want to be in focus) are covered by two of the focusing squares. This may require
| setting the focus first, locking it (half holding the shutter down) then recomposing the picture.
| Not terribly convenient when using a tripod, but not too much hassle if you have a quick release
| tripod mount.
|
| The manual specifically says that auto-focus lock doesn't work in the A-DEP mode, which seemed
| completely irrational to me, but when I tried it, it *did* work. Of course, keeping the shutter
| half depressed isn't convenient if you have to remount it on a tripod, but one way around this
| would be to set the focus distance and aperture using A-DEP mode, then switch the lens to MF mode.
| That would leave the lens focused at the same distance, preventing refocusing when taking the
| picture. You could even switch modes, provided you ensure that you use the same (or a smaller)
| aperture.
|
| Although this mode wouldn't be necessary for most of my shots, it would be *extremely* useful for
| certain shots, specifically wide angle shots with a very close foreground, or long telephoto shots
| where two objects at different distances both need to be in focus. This is one intelligent use of
| auto-focus that I'm very pleased about and look forward to using.

This all sounds great! And there's me thinking that the only difference between the G5 and D300 was
interchangeable lenses and better quality! ;-)

| Paul

Ste
 
Reid wrote:

> I eat because I enjoy it, doubt I've ever been what is really "hungry".

I have, on a few occasions. I've run out of food on backpacking trips a couple of times. Of course
this is not hunger in the true "starvation" sense, but it was definitely true hunger. It's amazing
how fast you can eat when you're really hungry.

>> I've made myself dessert after a meal because I still felt hungry, became distracted by something
>> else, and when I'd finished doing it I no longer felt like eating it.
>
> never eat dessert.

I rarely ever either. In fact, what I referred to as dessert probably wasn't strictly speaking
dessert, it was probably just more food.

> I already avoid sugar except in alcohol. Protein and fats are my favourites.

I love protein. Fats are okay. Still having trouble cutting out sugar, although my chocolate
cravings seem to have gone.

>> Exercise is hard work? Don't exercise then. Just do things that you enjoy, like hill walking,
>
> Right. I'm off to the Bexley fells :)

:)

> Are you writing a self improvement guide?

No, but why not? Can't hurt to think positively.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
ste © wrote:

> Except that this link might have been useful for your Christmas photos?
> http://www.marcjutras.com/ehyperfocal.html

Not really. The advice sounds good but he insists that "You must use a focal lenght of 7.2mm (full
zoom out) for this to work. If you zoom in, your DOF will shrink dramatically."

As if I didn't know that! The point was that I specifically wanted to use a long zoom...

"Use your feet to zoom in or out." he says.

...in order to exploit the unique perspective characteristics of a telephoto lens.

Suggesting that I move in order to zoom completely misses the point of lens perspective. Amateurs
are often criticised for lazy use of the zoom (zooming instead of moving) but if you combine zooming
and moving you have tremendous control over perspective.

Besides, in an overcrowded Christmas situation, moving wasn't an option. I'd have lost my seat!

> Maybe you're just thinking of landscapes then?

Me? Only thinking of landscapes? Where did you get that idea? ;-)

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
ste © wrote:

>> Well I took a bunch of family shots today using program mode, and guess what, over half of the
>> telephoto shots have autofocused on the wall behind the subject, even thought the subject's head
>> was large in the centre of the picture. Stupid bloody machine...

> Was the room well-lit where you took your photos?

Sort of, different light sources all over the place.

> Do you half-press the shutter button to lock the focusing and exposure whilst aligning the central
> square on the LCD with your subject's faces?

Yes.

> Did this square glow green when you half pressed the shutter? (signalling that you got a good lock
> on *something*) Or did it glow yellow?

No such colours on the G3.

> How do you manual focus then Paul, if you can't tell from the LCD if something is sharp or not?

I usually just focus on infinity, that works best for most landscapes
IMO.

> Did you know that after you've pressed the shutter half-way, you can press the Manual Focus (MF)
> button to lock the focusing, or to adjust it manually if needed?

Well I presume you need to be in auto-focus mode for that to work, so no, I didn't. Did you know
that in manual focus mode you can lock the focus onto something by pressing a button (can't remember
the name of it offhand since I don't have the camera anymore)?

> But this requires some sort of judging the sharpness from the LCD.

There is a magnification window when setting the manual focus, have you used that? It's not great
but it's better than not using it.

If all else fails you can estimate the distance and set the focus using the distance scale.

> When taking people shots using an automatic mode, I tend to use the Portrait mode. Never used
> the P mode, as that's for inexperienced professionals who don't know what they're doing! :)
> Out of interest though, why did you use the P mode for? I thought you used Manual mode for all
> your shots?

Portrait mode specifically uses the widest aperture. P mode is a more intelligent kind of auto
(allows you to decide whether to use flash or not, amongst other things, I don't know too much about
it). I use manual mode for all my "serious" shots, not family snaps at Christmas.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 13:36:39 -0000, Paul Saunders
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I already avoid sugar except in alcohol. Protein and fats are my favourites.
>
> I love protein. Fats are okay. Still having trouble cutting out sugar, although my chocolate
> cravings seem to have gone.

DR (Diet Report):

Nine weeks of Atkins now, and I am just beginning to find a cup of tea without sugar in it
reasonably acceptable. I have lost 24 lb now, have had no side effects or loss in energy. Continue
to play squash twice a week, and am now getting around the court a damn sight quicker than when I
had the equivalent of a dozen bags of sugar around my waist.

Never restricted myself to a diet before, but I'm very glad that I tried the Atkins diet.

Pat

--
Pat Bennett www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk
 
John Laird wrote:

>> Yeah, brainwash her! Alter her pathways! They're quite malleable when they're young.
>
> <splutter> No offence, but do you have much experience with women ?

:)

> No, hang on, do you have *any* experience with women ?! Even when there is an appearance of
> "altered pathways" (lovely term), it is just that, an appearance. There is no reality.

Actually it's not just women, I think this malleability applies to all humans at a youngish
age. When we are first born into the world it makes no sense to us, so we have to learn how it
works. Young humans are very impressionable, and for the first decade and a half we are at the
mercy of parents and teachers who try their best to impose their view of the world, and their
values, onto us.

Once we reach late teenhood, young adulthood however, we gain the freedom to explore the world on
our own terms. This is a time of exploration and adventure, and although we've already gained a
lot of psychological baggage by this time, there's still a strong urge to try new and different
things, and we are still quite impressionable. Choices made at this critical juncture in life can
often determine the direction of the rest of our lives, and other people can often influence
those choices.

Like when a friend introduced me to photography and persuaded me to buy a camera...

After this period of exploration and experimentation, most people make definite decisions about what
they like and what they don't like and proceed to settle down into a psychological rut. Strong
habits are formed and over the years people become more obstinate and less likely to change. A few
people retain an open mind as they grow older, but most do not.

I'm simply saying that it's much easier to make suggestions to young people than to older people.
Brainwash may have been a little too strong a term! ;-)

> I love women, but I barely understand them, and certainly have never tamed one. I doubt I
> am unique.

I would not suggest trying to tame one, but you can make suggestions to try new things. If young
enough and open minded enough, who knows? But you have to take the opportunity before they get too
set in their ways. Same applies to men.

One thing I've often wondered about. Why do you see so many young female walkers and backpackers but
very few older ones? It seems that men are most likely to continue these activities into later life,
but not women? Can't they hack it? Too tough for them? Or are they too easily seduced into a life of
laziness in front of the TV? :) (Duck and run...)

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
> Nine weeks of Atkins now, and I am just beginning to find a cup of tea without sugar in it
> reasonably acceptable.

I've found "Splenda" sweetners to be a good substitute. They're based on sucralose which is supposed
to be a de-calorified sugar (don't ask me how that's done). They have a taste that's very close to
sugar with none of the bitter taste that saccharine has and are reputed to be without any of the ill-
effects that are attributed to aspartamine.

--
Boo
 
Pat Bennett wrote:

> Nine weeks of Atkins now, and I am just beginning to find a cup of tea without sugar in it
> reasonably acceptable. I have lost 24 lb now, have had no side effects or loss in energy. Continue
> to play squash twice a week, and am now getting around the court a damn sight quicker than when I
> had the equivalent of a dozen bags of sugar around my waist.
>
> Never restricted myself to a diet before, but I'm very glad that I tried the Atkins diet.

Excellent! Well done. Glad to hear that it's working for you.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Boo <Boo@spam_me_no_spam.net> wrote:

>> Nine weeks of Atkins now, and I am just beginning to find a cup of tea without sugar in it
>> reasonably acceptable.
>
> I've found "Splenda" sweetners to be a good substitute. They're based on sucralose which is
> supposed to be a de-calorified sugar (don't ask me how that's done). They have a taste that's very
> close to sugar with none of the bitter taste that saccharine has and are reputed to be without any
> of the ill-effects that are attributed to aspartamine.

Thanks Boo, I'll have a look at that. However, I'm not bothered about calories - it's
carbohydrates that I've got to limit, and sugars of whatever kind are carbohydrates. Also, long
term I've got to lose my sweet tooth, and I am beginning to win on that front - having sweet tea
again could be a setback!

Pat

--
Pat Bennett www.cheshirewildlife.co.uk
 
Pat Bennett wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:36:01 +0000, Boo <Boo@spam_me_no_spam.net> wrote:
>
>>> Nine weeks of Atkins now, and I am just beginning to find a cup of tea without sugar in it
>>> reasonably acceptable.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks Boo, I'll have a look at that. However, I'm not bothered about calories - it's
> carbohydrates that I've got to limit, and sugars of whatever kind are carbohydrates. Also, long
> term I've got to lose my sweet tooth, and I am beginning to win on that front - having sweet tea
> again could be a setback!
>
> Pat
>

I'm following the Carbohydrate Addicts diet which helps regulate blood sugar as well as the
metabolism. Sugar is sugar in my case whether it's regular sugar, Equal, Splendra, etc. I have a
carbohydrate once a day with equal portions of protein and vegetables and a green salad. I find that
when I crave sweets (not in tea!) a small slice of cheese or a bit of meat will take care of it.

Katherine
 
Pat Bennett wrote:

> Also, long term I've got to lose my sweet tooth, and I am beginning to win on that front - having
> sweet tea again could be a setback!

Funnily enough, I have a sweet tooth but I can't stand sugar in tea, never have been able to (nor
milk either).

Originally tea was meant to be drunk on it's own, it was the Brits who started adding milk to it,
apperently because they were unable to make good quality china (crappy British china would crack if
you poured boiling water into it, so they put some milk in first to prevent that happening).

I'm guessing that tea with milk tasted so foul that they started adding sugar to make it more
palatable! ;-)

Have you ever tried some proper teas, like Earl Grey, Lapsang Souchong, Chai, Darjeeling and so on?
Check out the Twinings range of teas in the supermarket, many of those are not meant to be mixed
with milk and sugar. Might help to get you off it.

Paul
--
Calendars for 2004
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk/cal/cal.html
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back