Bubba Satori
Mar 28, 08:57 AM
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but it is sad the Mac OS is mentioned after iOS.:(
Be grateful it gets mentioned at all.
In a few years...
Be grateful it gets mentioned at all.
In a few years...
gregdeeg
May 2, 11:36 PM
I just activated my first iPhone (white) a few hours ago on VZW. The clear Incase Snap Case I bought for it a week ahead of time DOES NOT FIT...no matter how hard I try. It seems the white lip is bigger than the black lip, and this is the part the snap case secures to. Anyone else find this?
robbieduncan
Mar 29, 06:51 AM
You are incorrect...
I say "Canon EF Lens" because Canon EF-S Lenses are made specifically for the 1.6x FOVCF DSLR bodies (but still require the same FOVCF to be applied as the standard Canon EF Lenses to get the equivalent focal length comparison).[/I]
This says exactly what I am saying and proves me right, not wrong: the same crop factor is applied to EF-s lenses as EF lenses. So a 50mm EF lens on a crop body produces the same field of view as a 50mm EF-s lens. Thanks for the proof that I am right :)
Edit to add: if we look at the only EF-s prime, the 60mm f/2.8, (for simplicity) it states "Its angle of view is equivalent to a 96mm lens on a 35mm camera" (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293) showing the same 1.6 crop that would would expect for an EF lens is applied.
I say "Canon EF Lens" because Canon EF-S Lenses are made specifically for the 1.6x FOVCF DSLR bodies (but still require the same FOVCF to be applied as the standard Canon EF Lenses to get the equivalent focal length comparison).[/I]
This says exactly what I am saying and proves me right, not wrong: the same crop factor is applied to EF-s lenses as EF lenses. So a 50mm EF lens on a crop body produces the same field of view as a 50mm EF-s lens. Thanks for the proof that I am right :)
Edit to add: if we look at the only EF-s prime, the 60mm f/2.8, (for simplicity) it states "Its angle of view is equivalent to a 96mm lens on a 35mm camera" (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=293) showing the same 1.6 crop that would would expect for an EF lens is applied.
GimmeSlack12
Apr 12, 01:04 PM
Pages and Number are TRASH compared to Word and Excel(especially excel)
(especially excel on Windows)
Sorry, Mac Office blows.
(especially excel on Windows)
Sorry, Mac Office blows.
more...
thatisme
Mar 28, 05:38 PM
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
Thanks for the correction, and good catch.
So, for the OP, the difference between EF-sand EF lenses is that EF-S are lighter and cheaper and are tied to 1.6 sensor cameras. EF is more versatile since they work on all EF mount cameras (including EF-S). They can be very cheap or very expensive(and good) when you get into L series lenses.
There is really no good reason to compare focal length or field of view between the two since construction wise, they are like apples and oranges.
Where it becomes relevant, is when you have an EF lens, and you own different format cameras ( like I do). my 400mm 2.8 L IS lens is a true 400mm on my 5D mark II, and 520mm on my 1D mark IIn (1.3) and 640mm on my old 20D. I don't really care about the EF-S mount since it only applies to one of the 3 camera bodies.
Is not true: a 50mm EF lens and a 50mm EF-s lens will have the same focal length and field of view on a crop camera.
This is not correct.
A EF-s 50 mm lens is 50 mm on a 1.6 camera. A 50mm EF lens on that same camera is similar in image to a 80mm EF-S lens. The reason for the difference comes into play by the amount of the lens the camera is using to record the image and the proximity of the rear element to the camera sensor.
bellis1
Apr 3, 12:08 PM
I'm back to word now and it has grown on me some because of the comments ability, simple thesaurus/dict, and is compatible with reference software. However, it is very slow (almost unbearable) on my stock 256mb ibook. And more importantly it does not handle figures and table nearly as well as Pages. Consequently I do most of my typing in word and then work with my figures and table in pages and include them as a separate PDF. I also have Mellel which is also nice if I just want to write smoothly without any distractions.
And iwork is worth the price just for keynote. However, why doesn't keynote have a way to dim bulleted lists once you have gone over an individual bullet. I am envious of powerpoint only for this feature.
Thanks
And iwork is worth the price just for keynote. However, why doesn't keynote have a way to dim bulleted lists once you have gone over an individual bullet. I am envious of powerpoint only for this feature.
Thanks
more...
revelated
Apr 12, 09:12 PM
So what's fixed?
To me, in Office nothing seemed broken.
In a LOT of people's mind, it's broken until they put support for Exchange 2003/WebDAV back in.
To me, in Office nothing seemed broken.
In a LOT of people's mind, it's broken until they put support for Exchange 2003/WebDAV back in.
nosen
Sep 25, 09:58 AM
how many of us actually care much about aperture...?
me, very much so! :D
According to TUAW:
Aperture 1.5 has a new library system with better support for external storage, DVD's, as well as RAID. This should make a lot of Aperture users happy.
me, very much so! :D
According to TUAW:
Aperture 1.5 has a new library system with better support for external storage, DVD's, as well as RAID. This should make a lot of Aperture users happy.
more...
Abulia
Sep 29, 02:33 PM
Safari feels "snappier." :D
JAT
Apr 13, 12:23 AM
Why would customers be preferring the Verizon iPad? The (factory unlocked) GSM iPad can be used in nearly every country, and domestically AT&T has faster 3G service if I recall correctly. Although Verizon has better voice and better coverage, I can't see people in metropolitan areas actually being better off with the CDMA iPad. Since the iPad data payment can't be tied to a pre-existing AT&T or Verizon cell phone plan, I just don't see much advantage to getting a Verizon iPad unless you live in an area without AT&T service. Thoughts?
Well, I can get 22% off a Verizon plan, that sort of thing might matter. Although, I don't want a 3G iPad, so....no matter to me.
One point I would like to make is that for normal surfing the speed difference really doesn't matter much. My ViPhone is about as fast for average webpages as my 30x faster home internet. Math: I regularly get 33Mbps or more at home (got 37 just now), testing with speedtest.net, still haven't broken 1Mbps on V 3G in various places around town.
But I digress...it hardly matters because webpages are simple text. You all can measure your di...er...downloads all you want, but loading a couple text files takes almost no throughput. Video streaming and action gaming are different, of course, but those are not the most common uses of a smartphone or iPad.
I could measure the difference in speed to load a page, say this page of this forum, and it would be obviously faster at home. But it's still only seconds, maybe fractions of seconds. I read fast, but not so fast that 2 seconds or so can change my life. For most people, this is the reality that makes it not matter.* No, I'm not going to choose 3G for Netflix vs my home internet. But then, 90" screen is better for TV than 3.5", anyway.
The only usage of my iPhone so far where I've truly noticed the slower speed is app downloading. Which is not a major part of my life. If it's massive-upgrade-day for my apps, I'll wait til I'm on wifi at home to download them.
* Also, crap DNS speed really throws many people for surfing, anyway. The internet's dirty little secret. I wonder how many millions don't realize they could be faster by typing a couple digits into setup.
Well, I can get 22% off a Verizon plan, that sort of thing might matter. Although, I don't want a 3G iPad, so....no matter to me.
One point I would like to make is that for normal surfing the speed difference really doesn't matter much. My ViPhone is about as fast for average webpages as my 30x faster home internet. Math: I regularly get 33Mbps or more at home (got 37 just now), testing with speedtest.net, still haven't broken 1Mbps on V 3G in various places around town.
But I digress...it hardly matters because webpages are simple text. You all can measure your di...er...downloads all you want, but loading a couple text files takes almost no throughput. Video streaming and action gaming are different, of course, but those are not the most common uses of a smartphone or iPad.
I could measure the difference in speed to load a page, say this page of this forum, and it would be obviously faster at home. But it's still only seconds, maybe fractions of seconds. I read fast, but not so fast that 2 seconds or so can change my life. For most people, this is the reality that makes it not matter.* No, I'm not going to choose 3G for Netflix vs my home internet. But then, 90" screen is better for TV than 3.5", anyway.
The only usage of my iPhone so far where I've truly noticed the slower speed is app downloading. Which is not a major part of my life. If it's massive-upgrade-day for my apps, I'll wait til I'm on wifi at home to download them.
* Also, crap DNS speed really throws many people for surfing, anyway. The internet's dirty little secret. I wonder how many millions don't realize they could be faster by typing a couple digits into setup.
more...
likemyorbs
Mar 30, 07:55 PM
Why do you live there? It sounds an awful lot like you are blaming someone else for the poor choices you've made.
Since the other thread was closed, i decided to reply to your ignorance in this thread. I hope you realize how ignorant you sound. Who the hell are you to judge my choices and decide i've made poor choices? Do you know my circumstances? No. Maybe i live in my parents house, maybe i don't go to a university but a community college instead. No dorms at community colleges. I live 20 minutes away from it. By your logic nobody should ever live in the suburbs. What an idiotic remark. :rolleyes:
Since the other thread was closed, i decided to reply to your ignorance in this thread. I hope you realize how ignorant you sound. Who the hell are you to judge my choices and decide i've made poor choices? Do you know my circumstances? No. Maybe i live in my parents house, maybe i don't go to a university but a community college instead. No dorms at community colleges. I live 20 minutes away from it. By your logic nobody should ever live in the suburbs. What an idiotic remark. :rolleyes:
HyperZboy
Mar 26, 09:08 AM
really? which printer or camera uses it? It should be marked with the patent number if it does.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
Doubtful. A judge already said they don't infringe.
First off Kodak doesn't even have to use its patents necessarily to sue, but clearly they have over the years since they've been making digital cameras and printers for quite some time. If you want to check each an every Kodak product for patent numbers, knock yourself out! :D
As for your second point, see the Macrumors UPDATE.
That initial ruling is being re-examined.
I still think Apple should just buy Kodak and start collecting the royalties from the other companies that have already made deals with Kodak, but it looks Apple's legal strategy is to drag this out until Kodak goes under.
more...
ThunderSkunk
Apr 5, 08:03 PM
There it is!
And you guys thought I was nuts for suggesting it.
And you guys thought I was nuts for suggesting it.
Origin
Sep 19, 04:28 PM
You can't boot XP from CD on a Mac. You can't you can't you can't. The Mac boots using EFI, which XP doesn't support.
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
YES YOU CAN OF COURSE, I did NOT used Bootcamp application to install my MacPro Under XP, just put the CD and go ;)
You need to use Boot Camp to install it, as legacy BIOS emulation has to be loaded specifically for XP.
YES YOU CAN OF COURSE, I did NOT used Bootcamp application to install my MacPro Under XP, just put the CD and go ;)
more...
iKnowMr.Jobs
Mar 13, 03:10 PM
My iphone 4 with 4.3 got it right this morning. My aunts 3g with 4.2 didn't and my brother's 3gs with something between 4.0.1 & 4.2 didn't get it right either. I think 4.3 has something to do with it changing automatically.
KeithPratt
Mar 28, 06:27 AM
NTSC video is 720x480 whether it's 4:3 or 16:9, it just uses a Pixel Aspect Ratio to squeeze or stretch it on playout to 640x480 (4:3) or 854x480 (16:9).
Stick with 720x480 (until it's time to output for the web, at which point a square PAR is sensible). In Streamclip you can specify the aspect ratio but I'm not sure whether this ends up as a tag in the transcoded video or not...
Stick with 720x480 (until it's time to output for the web, at which point a square PAR is sensible). In Streamclip you can specify the aspect ratio but I'm not sure whether this ends up as a tag in the transcoded video or not...
more...
notjustjay
May 5, 03:45 PM
Where did they say in the website that you need to buy antivirus software?
And did they compare the build quality or just specs?
It doesn't say it. It does say "sold separately" under the Mac category. If it were truly honest advertising, it should either say "freely available" or even "not necessary".
And did they compare the build quality or just specs?
It doesn't say it. It does say "sold separately" under the Mac category. If it were truly honest advertising, it should either say "freely available" or even "not necessary".
Chundles
Sep 27, 10:47 AM
No, no, no! Don't you know, after 10.4.9 Apple has run out of numbers! It'd have to be 10.5.0!
:D
Couldn't resist...sorry!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
You're right, whatever will they doooooo??????
Insert InvisiText� Disclaimer that I know 10.4.10 does not equal 10.5.0 here.
:D
Couldn't resist...sorry!
:eek: :eek: :eek:
You're right, whatever will they doooooo??????
Insert InvisiText� Disclaimer that I know 10.4.10 does not equal 10.5.0 here.
fourthtunz
Sep 14, 03:13 PM
It seems like alot of the folks posting on this thread haven't tried the new Macs with osX.2. I'll admit 3 weeks ago the arguements posted above may have been valid, and thats not to say that apple doesn't have to come out with faster stuff to keep up with pcs but right now the Mac is very fast and a good deal.
$1899 for a dual 867 with a dvd burner and the software is pretty close to a similar pc and the included software is a real deal.
The new Hardware is a real improvement too. 2 optical bays and 4 ide drive bays with included raid software, if you haven't installed anything in the new Macs, believe me this is the best!
I use my Macs fulltime in my audio/video studio and for me it doesn't get any better than this!
Yes Macs initially cost more but the new speed/productivity boost quickly makes up of the slight difference.
So buy an emac if you need a cheap computer, maybe not as fast as the cheap pc but more portable!
Peace
Daniel
$1899 for a dual 867 with a dvd burner and the software is pretty close to a similar pc and the included software is a real deal.
The new Hardware is a real improvement too. 2 optical bays and 4 ide drive bays with included raid software, if you haven't installed anything in the new Macs, believe me this is the best!
I use my Macs fulltime in my audio/video studio and for me it doesn't get any better than this!
Yes Macs initially cost more but the new speed/productivity boost quickly makes up of the slight difference.
So buy an emac if you need a cheap computer, maybe not as fast as the cheap pc but more portable!
Peace
Daniel
Steve Jobless
Oct 9, 05:06 PM
maybe if target dropped their pricing they wouldnt have this problem
Telecacher
Aug 19, 05:12 PM
Wasn't working earlier, but just started working here in Los Angeles.
Frosties
Nov 6, 05:13 AM
Say no to rfid! We already use phones to pay for tickets on parking spaces, trains, buses and so on. There is no need to add more identity to these transactions. It is already in use and works just fine without rfid.
iowamensan
Mar 19, 08:04 PM
I miss the days when I could order an 8 pack of eMacs for our school for $4995. That comes out to less than $625 each. Now the cheapest computer I can get from Apple is $899 for the 20" iMac, (maybe $825 if I buy 25 or so and sweet talk my account rep). That's like a $5000-7000 difference for a lab of 25. Not small peanuts by any means when it comes to school budgets.
This $20 discount is a kick in the nuts from Apple. They'll still charge us 29 bucks for each stupid dongle and make that right back. (cue Clark Griswold rant)
This $20 discount is a kick in the nuts from Apple. They'll still charge us 29 bucks for each stupid dongle and make that right back. (cue Clark Griswold rant)
sunfast
Oct 20, 03:39 AM
I'll be there about 1745 having hurried straight from work. Are they likely to sell out?
0 comments:
Post a Comment