Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 September 16

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 16

Buying a digital camera

I am looking into buying a digital camera. I want one for general use, recreational picture taking, no hard core photography. What are some good features to look for/what is available? I'm looking to spend a couple hundred dollars tops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.53.182 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Decide what you're gonna use it for: snapshots? indoors? landscape? sports? wild life? fashion statement? For most purposes megapixels aren't very important, a 6MP DSLR will smoke a 12MP point and shoot any day; If you want to shoot sports or wild life you might want one with a long zoom, like one with 10x optical zoom with the longest 35mm equivalent zoom to be 200mm+ and with vibration reduction or image stabiliser or similar technology; Indoors you might want to find one that has good wide angle and large aperture (f/2.8 - f/3.5) with preferably a pop-up flash (so you can add a bounce card to create bounced flash); For landscape, forget about point and shoots or even DSLR and go get yourself some medium format gear; For fashion statement, that's something I have no idea about and I can't help you here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 02:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Medium format gear?? You must have missed the last part of the question: "I'm looking to spend a couple hundred dollars tops." I don't think you can get reasonable "medium format gear" for less than a few thousand. I agree with the other recommendations though. Megapixels don't matter; optical (not digital) zoom, image stabilization, and maximum lens aperture do. —Keenan Pepper 04:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh if you need medium format gear you probably wouldn't be asking here. --antilived^{T | C | G} 04:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, the biggest problem for non-specialised photography is light sensitivity. At least, for indoor photography. Flash often gives very ugly effects, with hard shadows and a limited range (anything beyond 5 m or so is dark). A strong flash that can be pointed at the ceiling (or bounced off some reflector, as Antilived suggests), would probably be the best solution because the other two options are expensive; a big sensor, as is only (?) found in SLRs, or a big and/or very clear (Zeiss?) lens. But do try to get a big aperture (low f-number). Unless you won't do much indoor photography. Note, though, that photographing with a big aperture gives less depth of field, ie, you can only get objects at a certain distance sharp (worse, the closer it is). But a blurry background is not as bad as an underexposed background. It can even be used to good effect, as the photos in the article show. DirkvdM 08:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea and also look for an easy to use interface, such as one that has RGB histogram, buttons for WB, ISO and a bright, high resolution screen. --antilived^{T | C | G} 09:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

www.dpreview.com provide indepth reviews of cameras and is a good place to look. I would say that for general non-hardcore photography all you need is a Point & Shoot camera. The Fujifilm Finepix range is very good in this field, being compact, good quality and decent value. Above all go for quality over 'gadgetry' and go for useability over 'stylishness'. If you can try go to some stores and hold ones you are interested in your hands, you'll soon get a feel for how ergonomic (is that the right word?) they are. ny156uk 10:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Another good site is www.steves-digicams.com. DirkvdM 17:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to derail, but an issue I've had with my relatively-cheap digital camera (I think it is a Canon Digital ELF or something like that) is that things near the edge of the frame sometimes get distorted. People's heads, for example, if too close to the edge of the frame, will get a "pulled" look — stretched out. Is this a factor of this type of camera, my particular settings, general lens issues, etc.? Easy correction? Just curious, while we're on the topic. --24.147.86.187 13:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you're getting barrel distortion. Try not to take things like portrait shots at the extreme ends of the zoom range, if you go for a mid-zoom (yes, position your body, don't just rely on the zoom) you'll minimise this and get an overall better shot. --jjron 08:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I had what I suspect were about the same requirements you do. I made a list of them, went to a Micro Center, and reeled them off to a clerk. He handed me a Canon PowerShot A510 and said "Buy this", and I did (for about $200), and I've been very happy with it. --Steve Summit (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that you tell the shopkeeper you don't know what's available, so they can sell you whatever they like, such as a camera that they want to get rid of. It's better to get advise from people who don't have a financial interest in what you buy. I suppose the makers of stevesdigicams and dpreview get their testcameras for free because producers can not afford to not have their camera featured on the site. So you get a much more complete overview than you could ever get at a shop. A disadvantage is that you can't handle the camera, but you can make a selection there and then try those cameras in a shop and decide for yourself. DirkvdM 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, but: I wasn't trying to tell the OP to go to a store to listen to a salesman. I was giving him my recommendation -- and I don't have any financial interest in what he buys at all! --Steve Summit (talk) 06:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I know different people may have different brand biases, but after having dealt with a signficant number of these consumer digicams over the years through work and private use, I now always answer this question the same way. Figure how much you want to spend, and go out and buy the Canon that fits that price (allowing for batteries, recharger and memory card if they're not included or you don't already have them). If you're worried about making a fashion statement, want an extra compact size, and don't mind spending a bit more, look at the Canon Digital IXUS. I've never had anyone tell me I've given them a bum steer, but have had many go back and buy Canon again when it's time to update. (No, I have no vested interest in Canon and am not a salesman). --jjron 08:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I would have said the same thing but suggested Nikon instead of Canon ;-). In any case, I'd play with a bunch of cameras and make sure that the user interface on the camera I purchased allowed me to rapidly set up all the features I wanted to use. There's nothing worse than fiddling with buttons while your subject disappears from view. I'd also make sure that the camera could easily download its pictures to whatever computer/printer/etc. I planned to use. Battery life, storage capacity, and a flexible (capable, fast, wide range) optical zoom lens are also important to me.

Atlant 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've got an Ixus too (the old 400MP), and I can indeed recommend it. (Although that doesn't mean all Canons are good.) Actually, all my Wikimedia photos are taken with that Ixus. One warning: it fits in a breast pocket, but if you keep it there while on a hike, sweat might get into it and ruin the display, which makes operation very difficult - I speak from experience. :( My second digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix 5400, and what I liked a lot about that is the swiveling display. It opens new avenues in photography that you'll hate to miss once you've gotten used to it. Actually, I wonder why is the display still attached to cameras? Why not an eyepiece (glasses or something) that communicates with the camera wirelessly?

Oh yeah and concerning batteries, that is also a widely discussed issue. Some prefer the smaller proprietary type, as opposed to the rechargeable AA batteries. I prefer the latter because they're cheaper and if you loose them on a holiday, you can easily buy a new set, even a non-rechargeable set for emergencies (but don't use those normally, because they run dry very fast and will cost you a bundle in the end). What type memory card is relatively unimportant. Even if you already one, because compared to the price of the camera, a 1 GB card (which should be more than plenty) doesn't cost much anymore. DirkvdM 17:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A wireless display (with a separate power supply unit, enclosure, and transmitting and receiving radios) would be much more expensive,albeit nice to have. The bandwidth required for good viewfinder "action" would be impressive as well, maybe beyond the capability of current Bluetooth and Wibree implementations (depending on how much power you're willing to spend on image compression/decompression). And the slower ZigBee protocols would be right out. A display attached by a cable would be much more practical.

Atlant 18:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Martin PBM5 Seaplanes

While attached to VP-50, Feb 1954 - May 1957 I heard a "Sea Story" that has often come to mind and would like to know if it is just that "a sea story" or did it really happen.

The tail goes that a Navy PBM was flying across the southwest when it developed, I think an engine problem. It was believed that the problem was severe enough that it was useless to try getting to a large body of water, so he pilot elected to land, on the sandy desert.

The landing was successful and did no damage to the aircraft.

The engine problem was repaired and the aircraft later made a successful takeoff and flew to its original destination. 13:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)72.161.75.46 (email address removed)

This (a little less than halfway down the page) may be the incident? I'm not surprised that a flying boat could make a successful landing in the desert, btw; even in a landplane, it's preferable to make a forced landing on soft or uneven surface with the wheels up. FiggyBee 13:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I've removed your email address so it doesn't get picked up by spam robots. FiggyBee 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The sitiuation you are discribing is nearly identical to that of the plot of the old verson of the movie flight of the phoenix. I have no idea wether that was based of of a true story. 03:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC) I cant seem to sign this 03:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that it involves a forced landing in the desert, I fail to see how this is anything like the Flight of the Phoenix... FiggyBee 03:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

In that movie (and it's recent remake) they completely cannibalised the original plane to make a new one using the wings and one of the engines). But lots of military "seaplanes" of the era were really amphibious planes with both wheels and floats. It's not so much of a stretch to imagine landing on floats and taking off again on wheels. SteveBaker 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Photo from iPod to computer

This is more a cry for help. I have an iPod and alot of photos on it. How do I copy my photos from my iPod to my computer? Do I use a software and if yes, which? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.172.228 (talk) 17:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that with the iPod-USB cord you can simply plug the device into your computer and access it as an external hard drive. No special software required, just navigate to My Computer and into the iPod itself. Plasticup ^T/C 17:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. How'd you get the photos on the iPod in the first place? (They don't take photos by themselves, right?) --24.147.86.187 18:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It may not be as simple as just plugging it in. It depends how the photos were put on the iPod, for example directly using it as an external drive, or using iTunes. If it was done as an external drive it's as easy as Plasticup said. But if you can see them on the iPod itself, then it was probably done through iTunes, which makes it a bit trickier to get them off. ITunes may also have optimised them, which means you won't have them at full res (unless whoever put them on there specified this to be done). To find them on the iPod connect it, browse to it through My Computer (assuming you're on Windows), ensure you are viewing hidden files, and then try to hunt them down through the folder structure. It probably won't be that obvious, and as I said they are likely to be relatively low res. --jjron 08:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling all New Yorkers!

Does anyone know which building it is to the left of the Empire State building in this photo? I'm talking about the sleek, shiny one. Thanks! Aviad2001 21:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a significant or important building. It might be a new co-op. I'll see if I can find anything else. --Nricardo 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The user that uploaded that photo is an active editor, you may be able to get the quickest answer by just asking him. Dismas|^(talk) 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's the building on 5th Ave., one door south of 33rd and 32nd Sts. on the East side of the Ave. It's a new co-op. Google Map 330 5th Ave. (not sure if that's the address of the building itself), and pan around until you see the building with some constructiony stuff out front. That's it. --Nricardo 10:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Aviad2001 23:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How does UK & England School Year/Grade System Compare to US

If someone is in Year 9 In UK or England What grade would they be in if the went to school in the us? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickfran (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Compare the tables at Educational stages. Year 9 in England would appear to correlate to 8th grade in the US. FiggyBee 22:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what Americans call kindergarten, Brits call Year 1, so they have years 1-13 rather than K-12. (Britons' "kindergarten" is American "preschool.") -- Mwalcoff 01:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "kindergarten" is an American term that is very rarely used in this country. It's usually referred to as "nursery school". 80.254.147.52 12:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's more like a German term :) --85.233.20.194 15:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The above answers relate mostly to the public sector of education in the UK, which generally uses these Years, but in some places the names of the forms are still the traditional ones, leading up to sixth form, so are out of sync with the numbers of the 'Years'. Most British independent schools don't use the Year numbers and simply keep to the traditional form system. Xn4 05:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Plus, when I was at school in UK (at a not-private^* grammar school), we spent our final two years in school in 'sixth year' classes - called 'Lower Sixth' and 'Upper Sixth'. You studied for O-levels in forms 1 through 5 and (optionally) A-levels in the two sixth years before heading off to university.

*The other ikky nomenclature problem is that in the UK, a 'public' school means the exact opposite of what it means in the USA. In the US, a public school is government run and free for everyone - in the UK "public school" is what Americans call a "private school" where you have to pay fees. This hurts my brain! The reason is a historical one - dating back before there were free government-provided schools in the UK. In those days, fee-paying schools were 'public schools' if the general public could enroll their children to go there (paying through the nose for the privilege) or 'private' if they were only there for a particular group of people (such as members of a particular extended family or something). Worse still, the UK term for a fee-paying school is sometimes 'Independent school' - which also clashes with the US 'Independent school district' (ISD) - meaning...yep...a government run school district (albeit run by a small town or city rather than the state or federal government).

SteveBaker 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)