[geeks] FS: Behringer V-Amp 2 guitar amp/effects system

[wa2egp at att.net]

> I'm afraid I've never been impressed with Sony digital cameras, 
> particularly the Mavicas. This idea of Sony's of writing directly to 
> first a floppy disk, now a CD-R, makes for very big, bulky, awkward 
> cameras. Plus they tend to provide only an LCD-panel viewfinder instead 
> of a proper eye-level viewfinder, so *then* you've got a big, bulky, 
> heavy camera that you have to hold a foot away to be able to see the 
> viewfinder, so you can't lock your elbows.... 

The one I have has a "viewfinder" but it is just a screen.  It does 
allow you to hold the camera li.ke an SLR.  I don't mind the "bulky"
camera.....I've got big bulky hands!  Remember the Will Smith line
from the first MIB when he gets a "gun" ;->

> (A lot of their early digital cameras had interlaced camcorder CCDs, 
> too, which tended to produce photos that looked like shit. I don't 
> know if they're still doing this. I hope not.) 
> 
> I have an Olympus D-500L right now, but I've been lusting after a Canon 
> Powershot Pro90 IS. 

That one is nice too.

> > The only 
> > reson I went partially digital (still have the film unit) is that I have 
> > greater control since I don't do darkroom anymore and other reasons: 
> > "Dear, did you pick up that Fuji film for me?" 
> > "No, I got the Polaroid instead...it was cheaper." 
> > "(Grrrr.........)" And, of course, the pictures sucked. 
> 
> I went digital because: 
> - I didn't have to carry film around, 
> - I didn't have to worry about whether my film was too cold or too warm 
> or too old or the wrong speed or the wrong color balance, 
> - I didn't have to wait while I sent my film off for development in 
> order to find out if the shot came out, 
> - I didn't have to find a scanner after I got the prints back if there 
> were any I wanted to use online, 
> - I never had to go through the frustration of carefully setting up a 
> difficult shot with an unconventional exposure, only to find that the 
> automatic print exposure system on the photo lab's totally-automated 
> processing machine screwed up the prints because it tried to print 
> every frame as though they were family snapshots at Timmy's birthday 
> party. 

Those are valid points, but if you are a good photographer it's not
"I hope it comes out" but "It damn well better come out!" ;->
Scanners are a pain at times.  The photoshop automated machine can
be beaten two ways: on the instructions on the envelope just tell them
to turn the automatic adjustments off.  If they can't, find somewhere 
else for developing you film or use a 18% gray card on the first frame.
An old trick but it still works.
If I want high resolution and damn good color, I still use film.  Quick 
and dirty snapshots, digital.
> It was also nice to be able to shoot 80 or 90 frames, then take 20 
> seconds to swap memory cards (including the time to retrieve a fresh 
> card from the camera case), instead of having to take a couple of 
> minutes to rewind and load a new roll of film every 24 frames or so. 
> 
> I sold my 35mm camera to someone who'd actually use it, after realizing 
> that I couldn't remember how many years it had been since I last put a 
> roll of film through it. 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ========== Fight Back! It may not be just YOUR life at risk. ========== 
> alaric at caerllewys.net : phil-stracchino at earthlink.net : phil at novylen.net 
> phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek 
> 2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold) 
> Linux Now! ...Friends don't let friends use Microsoft. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> GEEKS: http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks