DaveS

Lightroom 5 update 5.2 has been released, and is downloadable now. Dave

I guess its all down the personal choice of the end-user Richard, but manufacturers may well force one 'one camera two modes' upon us. In the meantime, my preference is as stated in the 'post' above. Plus the fact my video camera has a 240Gb HDD, and I don't think that capacity Compact Flash card exists yet, although I stand to be corrected. Dave

Not for me they won't. I have a very good Sony HD video camera (cost me £1000, when I bought it, although prices have come down), but I see it as a totally separate entity to my DSLR. The video cam is marginally smaller than my 7D. The video camera with its internal hard-drive, although it can capture stills, is only ever used for video, and then almost exclusively for holidays. I also enjoy video editing, for which I use Sony Vegas. My DSLR, although having the capability to capture video, is only ever used for still photography, which to me, is what it was primarily designed to do. When I bought it, I tested it's video function to make sure that it worked, and it has been used in this mode since. Which do I prefer, still or video photography, with a doubt, it has to be still photography with the DSLR. The family however, prefer to look at the videos. So, I enjoy both modes, but prefer to use the video camera for video work only, and the DSLR for still photography only. I cannot see my view on this changing, unless its forced upon me by manufacturers. Dave

I agree that the information, and more, is all available on the web, but do I enjoy reading a good technical book (I don't read story books), or magazine from the comfort of an armchair (or out in the garden on a relaxer chair in the summer), as opposed the staring at a screen. Each to his/her own I say, and if you prefer to read from the web, then why not. One thing that is apparent from this 'thread', is that that magazine and newspaper publishers, are not going to be getting many customers from TIPF members Dave

I think its a fairly accurate summary to say that, in the publishing, graphic design, and computer aided design (CAD) world, the Mac reigns supreme. However, the business world in general (Offices, Banks, etc, etc), is dominated by Windows based PCs. I would say that IMO, Macs are of better build quality than PCs. There was a time when I would build my own PCs, from component parts (motherboard, hdd, psu, memory etc) to my own spec/requirements, and it was also cheaper to do this. However, it became cheaper to buy 'off the shelf' than build, so I stopped building, and bought. Dave

Computers!!, we didn't even have calculators when I was at school Even when I was at College, we used Log Tables and Slide Rules. By the time I was in my last year at college, calculators had arrived, but were still quite expensive, and they certainly weren't allowed in the exam room. The first computer in our household was the Sinclair ZX81, then the Sinclair ZX Spectum with colour output, whoopee!!. Now the place is running alive with computers, two in the study, one in the observatory, a laptop, and the wife has a Samsung Tablet, and yes, the do all get used. I used a Mac for a while when I was at work, but the company made a global changeover to PCs, and I have to say that I was never that fond of the Mac. Having said that, it was a few years ago now, and technology have moved on at an incredible pace since then. BTW, my little boy is now 45, and my little girl 43 Dave

Although I subscribe to two astronomy magazines, I don't as yet, subscribe to any photo mags. However, I do buy a copy of Photoplus (Canon Edition) each month, and sometimes a copy of Amateur Photographer, if something in the content is of interest to me Dave

Annie, I've not used them myself, but have read a number of good reports for Hahnel batteries. The LP-E5 equivalent is the Hahnel HL-E5. £15 from WEX, and probably cheaper elswhere. Dave

IPA, no not the beer (lol), but Iso-propyl Alcohol is great for cleaning greasy finger marks etc from both electrical contacts and lenses. Undiluted for electrical contacts, and diluted to about 25% strength with de-ionised water for optics. I use this to clean the optics on my telescopes. Never have to clean my camera lenses, as they are all fitted with a UV filter from new, but I do clean the filter glass with it. You should be able to get it from your local chemist, and if not stocked, they can get it for you. Dave

No real reason Annie, another than that particular battery has developed fault, in which case there's now't you can do with it. You could check that the contacts are ok, and clean, but that's about all really. I have always found that genuine Canon batteries, last for years, at least the LR6 as used in the DSLRs do. Not so with the Sony batteries, as used in my Sony Cybershot compact, they only seem to last a couple of years at most. Albeit they still work, but don't run for long. Dave

20 seconds of stardom Dave

Well deserving of the accolade John Dave

Hi Paul, and welcome from a relative newcomer to the forum. A nice bunch of people here. Bugs eh!, you get along just fine with Mr 'bugmeister' Dave

It has already travelled abroad with me two or three times, and has been quite useful. As I said, it is quite light, and with expensive 'kit' sitting on top of it, I don't take any chances of it being knocked or blown over. At just 30cm long (closed), and weighing just 720g, I can slip it into a suitcase without Mrs S noticing However, I usually put in the hand-baggage. Dave

The nice thing about that one Colin, is that its full height, and given the brand name, quite a reasonable price too. The only limitation I can see, is that its load capacity is quoted as 1.5kg, which means that my 7D and a big lens would exceed that. Mind you, the stated 1.5kg is probably quite conservative. Dave

As I like to travel to 'foreign parts', or even around the UK, there have been many times when I wished I had a tripod with me. I have a very sturdy Slik Pro 500DX, but you wouldn't want to be carrying it around with you, and it would eat into the 20kg aircraft luggage allowance. So I looked at what 'travel tripods' there were, without a hefty price tag. I eventually decided on, and bought the Cullman Nanomax 200T, which I have found ideal for taking on my travels. It weighs just 720g (My Slik Pro 500dx weighs 2.5kg), is only 30cm long when closed, and has a load carrying capacity of 2kg. When extended its only 84cm tall, so you have to be prepared to stoop a bit when using it, but this is a small inconvenience compared to not having a tripod with you. I weighed my heaviest combination of camera and lens, and this came to 1.7kg, so within the load capacity of the Cullman tripod. With the camera and lens attached to the Ball Head of the tripod, there was no tendency to 'creep', even with the 300mm zoom lens attached, and the camera angled up or down. It is very light, as its supposed to be, and as such its is essential to use a remote shutter release, to avoid camera shake. I would not be happy leaving the tripod unattended in windy conditions, as being very much top-heavy with the camera on top, I would be concerned that it could topple over. However, that's not how I would want to use it, but as a very portable tripod, that will fit easily into hand-luggage or gadget bag, it provides me with the facility to use long exposures with long focal lengths, and night shots. Providing you accept it limitations, then for the £35 it cost me, its good value for money, nicely made, and an excellent travel companion. Dave

Oh, I almost forgot to say that: I hope that even at 71, I have a few more 'clicks' left in my 'shutter' to enjoy my hobbies, grandchildren, and your company here. Dave

"Why isn't TIPF attracting new members" I believe that Phil has now answered this question When I decided to register with this forum, I tried multiple times, using the registration procedure provided, but this failed every time. I was just about to give up, when I noticed the option to register via Google, used this, and it worked fine. However, if I didn't have a Google account, I would not have been able to register. I don't do things like 'Twitter' and 'Facbook' etc. 'Twitter' being another means of registering with this forum. Phil wasn't aware of the problem, until I made him aware of it via a PM, and as you can see, Phil has now addressed the problem, and removed the obstacle to people registering. I have no doubt that problem turned away people looking to join TIPF. It almost turned me away, albeit I'm now left with the feeling that some of you wish it had, but I'll get over it Thanks to all that responded to this 'thread', it shows that in your own way, you have a vested interest in this forum. Dave

Hi Phil Yep, that all makes sense now, and I can understand what you were trying to achieve. Spammers do tend to use the e-mail addresses that you refer to. Unfortunately, so do a lot of genuine applicants, and of course banning these e-mails may well have cost you good members, especially if as you say, they found using the contact form, just in order to register, a chore. I don't use my personal e-mail address for any forum registration (not even my own), but use a secondary one, albeit still an @btinternet.com address. But the registration procedure wouldn't accept that either. As I told you, my co-admin and myself personally vet every new registration, and it has proved 100% effective in keeping the forum free of 'spam' for over 4 years now. The downside is of course, that its a bit of a chore. I'm sure that a lot of forum members (any forum), don't realise what's involved in running and maintaining a forum. Dave

What an excellent 'post' Denis. You raise some VERY valid and constructive points. On my forum, we have an 'Early Learners' section aimed precisely at what you are suggesting. Here, new and inexperienced members can 'post' their images, without feeling that they are competing with the more experienced members. Not that the more experienced members would see it that way, even if the new members posted in the general section of the 'board'. Nobody is going to 'look down their nose' at the work of the novice, and if they did, then they would certainly have no place on my forum, nor this one I'm sure. When guests/visitors to my forum arrive at the 'Welcome Guest' page (registered member don't see this page), where we explain what the forum is all about, one paragraph reads: "We welcome astro-imagers at all levels, whether experienced of beginner, and all of our members are of equal status, with none of the usual 'ranking structure' based on 'Post Count' Perhaps something along these lines would take away the potential fear of being 'out of their depth' that a potential member may have. Its all about creating the right image (no pun intended ), one of a forum that is as welcoming to novice photographers, as it is experts, and here TIPF could come across as 'the friendly forum', which of course we know it is. Dave

Beth, 'new blood' refers to new members, both young, in the middle, and old. Nice 'post' though. Dave

Thank you Richard, a logical reply to my question BTW, last night I went along to a local photography club, to see what they were all about. There I met a lady, also there on a first visit, who had bought her first DSLR and wanting to learn more about using it. I suggested that she had a look at TIPF, as I believe she would benefit from it. I gave her the details, and hopefully she will join us. Dave

"what am I trying to get at" Ok, I'll try to explain this as best I can. I see other photography forums attracting new members, and I'm not talking about the 'trolls', barrack room lawyers, and the 'Twitter Brigade', but ordinary and genuinely interested photographers, both young and old. Some of these forums are as well managed and friendly as this one, e.g. http://www.eos-magazine-forum.com/forum.php, and they attract new members, and without growing to an uncomfortable number of active members. The 'bear pit' photography forums also attract new members, the decent ones only staying long enough to find out the unsavoury side of the forum. Then there is TIPF, which as soon as I saw what it was all about, read some of the posts, and formed an opinion of it members, I thought "this is a nice place to be", and joined. If you do a web search for UK based photography forums, TIPF is quickly found, so its not a case of it being obscure. So, my observation was/is, a nice forum, well managed, but just not attracting 'new blood', but why? From this, it lead to an inference that I was suggesting that it would, or should, become a monster forum, instead of just trying to answer the perfectly straight forward question I posed. I like the forum, I contribute to its activity, and I help to support it financially, so why should this be misconstrued as me suggesting something that I'm not. Dave

Thank you for that Fuji, it reinforces the point I've been trying to make since I started this 'thread'. That's exactly what this forum is As such it should be seen as very attractive, but it just isn't attracting 'young, and not so young, new blood. Your response is very well thought out, and I can relate to all of what you say Dave

I don't see that you have Colin, albeit you do at least try and address the question. My forum is about as remote from Twittter, Facbook, and Flicks cultures, as it is possible to be, and yet our youngest member is 16 years old, with membership at every age right through to 'old gits' like me, and beyond. Dave