Snow!

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by Paul Saunders, Feb 25, 2004.



  1. > Really?

    Yep. Canon estimate 600 shots at 20 degrees on a full charge, 450 at 0 degrees.

    I haven't taken it to the limit yet, but my G3 had the same battery and that never ran out on a day
    trip, often taking up to 80 photos in a day, sometimes in very cold weather. It did run out on the
    expedition weekend though, but it was very cold and I made the mistake of leaving the batter in the
    camera when I wasn't using it. Also I spent a lot of time taking long night exposures and I think
    that's a battery eater. Also I spent a bit of time looking at the photos and showing them to others,
    big mistake.

    > What is the mAh rating? Seems from a quick google that it is less than 1500mAh.

    Not sure of the significance of that compared to AA batteries. Many people have said that AA
    batteries don't last long at all in digital cameras. I read an article recently where I guy spent
    two weeks in the Himalayas and only used three of these batteries.

    > Can it power your GPS and head torch too if you want?

    No.

    > Perhaps not that expensive either:
    >
    > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3800376687
    >
    > Get Jessops to price match that from £55!

    Don't know about ebay but I've heard you can get third party batteries much cheaper than Canon's
    own brand.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  2. stemc © wrote:

    >> What for? They were snaps. ;-)
    >
    > Why snaps, because you thought they were crap? ;-)

    No, because I put the camera on program mode, pointed it and pressed the shutter release. Virtually
    no creative thought involved, other than composition, which was hardly inspired, I just pointed it
    at the car and at the sky.

    If I'd wanted to take photographs I would have set up my tripod, taken test shots, set shutter speed
    and aperture manually etc.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  3. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | > Never said it would be a problem, but I wouldn't want my registration number on the web.
    |
    | But what would anyone want to do with that information?
    |
    | > Haven't you see Police, Camera, Action or similar programmes, they often blur the registration
    | > numbers.
    |
    | But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.

    Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?

    | > Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    |
    | But why?

    Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  4. Gordon wrote:

    >>> How much does it weigh, and what is the hop-tickle zoom range?
    >>
    >> Around 900g all in, zoom equivalent to 29-88mm.
    >
    > Ta.

    And of course, being an SLR, you can buy extra lenses for it.

    If you really are serious you can pick up a 70-300mm zoom quite moderately priced (I think Sigma do
    a decent one for less than £200), which would be equivalent to 112-480mm, a pretty cool focal length
    for shooting birds.

    And you can use fast film speeds up to ISO 1600 for hand held shooting. Even at ISO 400 there's
    virtually zero noise.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  5. stemc © wrote:

    > On my website, I used to retouch all the number plates so nobody could see them. To be honest, I'm
    > not totally sure why I did this, other than because I was a sheep and following what other people
    > had done! :) www.sm9.co.uk/cars.htm

    It seems to be mostly to do with legal issues and television conventions. I doubt it matters on the
    internet. I mean how many people saw that photo I posted? Half a dozen or so? Big deal.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  6. Phil Cook

    Phil Cook Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:59:13 -0000, Paul Saunders wrote:

    >
    >> Really?
    >
    >Yep. Canon estimate 600 shots at 20 degrees on a full charge, 450 at 0 degrees.
    >
    >I haven't taken it to the limit yet, but my G3 had the same battery and that never ran out on a day
    >trip, often taking up to 80 photos in a day, sometimes in very cold weather. It did run out on the
    >expedition weekend though, but it was very cold and I made the mistake of leaving the batter in the
    >camera when I wasn't using it. Also I spent a lot of time taking long night exposures and I think
    >that's a battery eater. Also I spent a bit of time looking at the photos and showing them to
    >others, big mistake.

    Yep it is so tempting just to look at the pics. Keep the thing off if you want your
    batteries to last.
    >
    >> What is the mAh rating? Seems from a quick google that it is less than 1500mAh.
    >
    >Not sure of the significance of that compared to AA batteries. Many people have said that AA
    >batteries don't last long at all in digital cameras.

    AA alkalines go flat pretty quickly far better with NiMh

    > I read an article recently where I guy spent two weeks in the Himalayas and only used three of
    > these batteries.

    He kept the review LCD off.
    >
    >> Can it power your GPS and head torch too if you want?
    >
    >No.

    The same battery is used by lots of different cameras but with differing outer cases :-(
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"
     
  7. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | >> What for? They were snaps. ;-)
    | >
    | > Why snaps, because you thought they were crap? ;-)
    |
    | No, because I put the camera on program mode, pointed it and pressed the shutter release.
    | Virtually no creative thought involved, other than composition, which was hardly inspired, I just
    | pointed it at the car and at the sky.
    |
    | If I'd wanted to take photographs I would have set up my tripod, taken test shots, set shutter
    | speed and aperture manually etc.

    I knew you were going to say that, I was just provoking you Paul. If you see a smiley or a wink
    after I say something, just remember this! ;-)

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  8. stemc © wrote:

    >> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    >
    > Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?

    If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal person
    be persecuted?

    It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but not in
    other cases. How many TV programmes feature cars driving along? How many blur the number plates?

    >>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    >>
    >> But why?
    >
    > Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.

    But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use is that to most people? How
    many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to, and why would they want
    to anyway?

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  9. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:34:24 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?

    Because (alleged) criminals are sometimes the subject of court cases, which might be jeopardised if
    evidence were made public in advance.
     
  10. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | Gordon wrote:
    |
    | >>> How much does it weigh, and what is the hop-tickle zoom range?
    | >>
    | >> Around 900g all in, zoom equivalent to 29-88mm.
    | >
    | > Ta.
    |
    | And of course, being an SLR, you can buy extra lenses for it.
    |
    | If you really are serious you can pick up a 70-300mm zoom quite moderately priced (I think Sigma
    | do a decent one for less than £200), which would be equivalent to 112-480mm, a pretty cool focal
    | length for shooting birds.

    I'll get one, one day... :)

    | And you can use fast film speeds up to ISO 1600 for hand held shooting. Even at ISO 400 there's
    | virtually zero noise.

    Excellent.

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  11. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | > On my website, I used to retouch all the number plates so nobody could see them. To be honest,
    | > I'm not totally sure why I did this, other than because I was a sheep and following what other
    | > people had done! :) www.sm9.co.uk/cars.htm
    |
    | It seems to be mostly to do with legal issues and television conventions. I doubt it matters on
    | the internet.

    It's all the same, no matter what medium is used. If it's an issue for television, then surely it's
    the same for the Internet. Don't lose sleep about it though, I promise I won't tell your
    neighbours! ;-)

    | I mean how many people saw that photo I posted? Half a dozen or so? Big deal.

    No big deal, but big enough of a deal to put doubts in your mind, and you did edit the photo.

    In my job, I've been dealing with other companies about images we hold in our image library, and
    they are all very knit-picky about what they want, the permissions we have, the release forms we
    have, etc. I was talking to one lady today, and she wanted an image that showed 'multi-cultural
    community involvement within a park,' though preferably without people in it!!! Duhhhh!!! :)

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  12. Phil Cook wrote:

    > Yep it is so tempting just to look at the pics. Keep the thing off if you want your batteries
    > to last.

    I won't make that mistake again.

    >> I read an article recently where I guy spent two weeks in the Himalayas and only used three of
    >> these batteries.
    >
    > He kept the review LCD off.

    I know, but in less extreme circumstances (say a week in Snowdonia) I doubt it would be so critical.
    Two or three batteries should be sufficient.

    The 300D seems a lot less wasteful of battery power than the G3. With the G3 the LCD was on all the
    time, I used it for composing my shots, but since the 300D is an SLR the LCD stays off until you
    take a picture, so that saves a lot of battery power.

    I set the review time to infinite (although it isn't really because the camera automatically powers
    off after a minute of disuse) so that I can check the histogram after taking each picture, but that
    can usually be done in a second or two whereupon I half press the shutter to switch the dispay off.

    With the G3, if I spent 10 minutes taking 5 photos, the LCD would be on for 10 minutes. With the
    300D, it may be on for no more than 10 seconds, unless I really wanted to study the pics or the
    histogram closely, so it's far more efficient.

    The G3 also consumed power when zooming in and out, whereas the 300D is zoomed manually.

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  13. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Paul Saunders" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | stemc © wrote:
    |
    | >> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    | >
    | > Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    |
    | If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal
    | person be persecuted?

    Just a protection of privacy. If it was my car with my number plate, I'd tell you to take it down.
    Who else wants their car and number plate on the web?

    | It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but not
    | in other cases.

    I've seen it in newspapers for celebrities. They're not criminals.

    | How many TV programmes feature cars driving along? How many blur the number plates?

    Wait there a second, let me just grab those statistics out of my top drawer...

    ...sorry, I must have mislaid them.

    | >>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    | >>
    | >> But why?
    | >
    | > Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.
    |
    | But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use is that to most people? How
    | many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to, and why would they want
    | to anyway?

    Well, you can't take a photo of a person's face without a model release form. You need building
    release form for some buildings. Local people might recognise the number plate and recognise the
    number plate, and that neighbour might not want themselves associated with your website.

    | Paul

    Ste
     
  14. Stemc ©

    Stemc © Guest

    "Simon Caldwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    | On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:34:24 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    |
    | >
    | >Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    |
    | Because (alleged) criminals are sometimes the subject of court cases, which might be jeopardised
    | if evidence were made public in advance.

    But as Paul says, "How many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to"?

    Don't want a debate about it though, it just started from a remark... :)

    Ste
     
  15. Chris Street

    Chris Street Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:38:25 -0000, "Paul Saunders"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >stemc © wrote:
    >
    >>> But they're usually criminals aren't they? So they want to protect their identity.
    >>
    >> Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    >
    >If someone has broken the law they might be unfairly persecuted by others. Why would a normal
    >person be persecuted?
    >
    >It seems standard to blur faces and number plates and suchlike in programmes about crime, but not
    >in other cases. How many TV programmes feature cars driving along? How many blur the number plates?

    Channel 5 have taken to blurring out everything on the weird car program that they run. The most
    pointless one I saw was the blurring and removal of the name on a Royal mail van, and the BP name
    and logo on a petrol station - how *obvious* are both those!

    >
    >>>> Or have you seen photos of people's cars in newspapers? Same here.
    >>>
    >>> But why?
    >>
    >> Not always, but when I have seen it, it's probably for the same reason as above.
    >
    >But what reason exactly? So you can read the number plate? What use is that to most people?

    Dunno but when I find the cretin in London whose cloned mine I'll ram eighty nine congestion charge
    tickets up his arse.

    > How many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to,

    Anyone who sends £2:50 to DVLA at Swansea.....:)

    > and why would they want to anyway?
    >
    >Paul

    --
    79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
    looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
     
  16. Gordon wrote:

    > It would be fine for the birds which have been attracted to my garden since I started feeding them
    > meal worms and wax worms, but I wonder if I'd carry it very often on walks?

    It's bigger and bulkier than a digital compact, but it's a very nice camera.

    > I just weighed the 2800z at 400g with 4 AA cells fitted.

    > I suppose as my walking is fairly modest these days (8 miles last Thursday), I could carry a
    > 1kg camera,

    The camera itself is only 691g without the lens, but including the battery, flash card and strap.
    The supplied lens weighs just 184g. Total 886g (the weight I gave you earlier included a tripod
    release base).

    > but a large lens.........??

    You haven't been keeping up with lens design have you? The Canon 70-300 zoom that a friend has lent
    me is rather long, but made of plastic it's surprisingly light for it's size, just 523g.

    The Sigma zoom that I mentioned is about the same, at 530g, but quite compact.
    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/70_300_ams2.htm

    But there's an even lighter, smaller model if you prefer, a 100-300mm, only 4 inches long and weighs
    410g. The quality of this lens is not so good though.
    http://www.sigmaphoto.com/html/pages/100_300_dl.htm

    On the other hand, if you have money to burn, why not splash out on Canon's new 70-300mm zoom. It's
    so small you'd never think it was a telephoto lens, and it has image stabilisation, great for those
    hand held shots.

    "It is likely to appeal to professional photojournalists and serious advanced amateurs with a need
    to contain the size and weight of equipment carried."

    Sounds like an ideal backpacking lens! Unfortunately they're asking $1300 for it, so that's probably
    the same in pounds, so I doubt I'll be buying one for a while yet... :-(
    http://www.letsgodigital.be/en/news/articles/story_780.html

    As for the camera, the final review has just been posted at dpreview;
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  17. stemc © wrote:

    >> It seems to be mostly to do with legal issues and television conventions. I doubt it matters on
    >> the internet.
    >
    > It's all the same, no matter what medium is used. If it's an issue for television, then surely
    > it's the same for the Internet.

    Yeah, but on TV 10 million people can all see it at the same instant. My website hasn't yet had a
    tenth that many visitors in nearly 5 years!

    > Don't lose sleep about it though, I promise I won't tell your neighbours! ;-)

    It doesn't belong to a neighbour.

    > In my job, I've been dealing with other companies about images we hold in our image library, and
    > they are all very knit-picky about what they want, the permissions we have, the release forms we
    > have, etc.

    Yeah, because there's money involved. There's no money involved in posting a snap on a
    personal website.

    > I was talking to one lady today, and she wanted an image that showed 'multi-cultural community
    > involvement within a park,' though preferably without people in it!!! Duhhhh!!! :)

    Well that sounds like an interesting job!

    Paul
    --
    http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
    http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk
    http://www.photosig.com/go/users/userphotos?id=118749
     
  18. Chris Street

    Chris Street Guest

    On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 21:47:50 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >"Simon Caldwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >| On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:34:24 -0000, "stemc ©" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >|
    >| >
    >| >Protect a criminals identity? So why not protect a normal person's identity?
    >|
    >| Because (alleged) criminals are sometimes the subject of court cases, which might be jeopardised
    >| if evidence were made public in advance.
    >
    >But as Paul says, "How many people are in a position to check who that number plate belongs to"?

    Everyone who can be bothered to send £2:50 to DVLA.

    >
    >Don't want a debate about it though, it just started from a remark... :)
    >
    >Ste
    >

    --
    79.84% of all statistics are made up on the spot. The other 42% are made up later on. In Warwick -
    looking at flat fields and that includes the castle.
     
Loading...