jforbes

It might have something to do with cameras being much larger than cellphones, and camera manufacturers desiring to have an actually robust connection?

The size difference is negligible on an SLR, and, frankly, I’ve broken so many Micro USB cables that it’s a joke.,

The Kindle Fire is pretty much made for media consumption, be it video (via amazon prime or Netflix), books, play a couple games on it, or light web browsing.

Said monstrosity can often be had for like $130 refurbished.

Zeiss is about the worst place to look for lightweight. Their lenses have incredible build, but are like blocks of metal. Voigtlander/Leica primes are a better bet. But you need a camera to mount them on first.

Maybe you should consider a smaller camera system for everyday use, and bring out the big guns when you need them? A little m4/3 camera with a couple pancake primes would be much easier to tote around. It’s not in the same quality realm, but you can probably have a camera and a few prime lenses with less weight than one fancy lens.

I could totally live with that. Thanks!

I’m going to recommend a Manfrotto 055X ProB.

The trick head is not the most useful thing in the world, but it is probably very handy for macro work.

In the US it is a bit over $150.

That does not include a head, however. I’m assuming you have a tripod head given that you only asked about a tripod? If not, a decent ballhead will tend to run another $80-100US, though you can get a passable one for less. If you really want to do serious macro work, I would strongly recommend a focusing rail. Inexpensive ones in the US are in the $40-60 range, and, of course, the sky is the limit. But it’ll give you much better focus control than just trying to use a normal tripod/ballhead combo.

Don’t waste money on a piece of crap, just get something decent so you don’t need to replace it.

I wouldn’t recommend the Gorillapod.

On a decent sized camera, it’s not exactly what I’d call sturdy.

My laptop is 12.5", but it has a 1366×768 IPS panel…

:)

The main advantage it has over the average WVGA 3.5" panel isn’t pixel density. It’s color/contrast. For example, the OG Droid had a 3.7" WVGA – pixel density on it is just fine. Where it was weak was color/contrast. It just wasn’t as good.

I find LCDs more accurate, but I’ve had OLED based phones for a couple years and a Zune HD for longer, with pentile(Zune HD not pentile, but is low res) displays obviously weak in resolution – but the contrast difference is, in a word, shocking.

I think the bottom line is that there are low PPI displays, where they are obviously crap when used close up (see original iPhone). Then there are the medium PPI displays, which can look pretty good for text and such – they don’t have quite the same appearance of the retina display, or the 720p modern high end phones. But they look fine. The jump to high PPI displays is MUCH smaller than the jump from low to medium.

iPhone 2/3G: 163 PPI

Sony Vaio Z: 168 PPI (typical PC displays are in 90-110 range, this is 1080p 13")

Kindle Fire: 169PPI (Yes, same density as a 13" 1080p screen). Kindle is 167PPI

Medium density displays:

Transformer Pad Infinity – 224
Droid X (4.3" WVGA) – 228

Droid 1/2 – 265
Droid 3 (4" qHD) – 280
Galaxy Note – 285
HTC Touch Pro – Yes, the effing Touch Pro – 286 – 640×480 @ 2.8"

The jump from older generation 480×320 devices to second generation 800×480 devices with somewhat larger screens was enormous. The jump to high density displays was a MUCH smaller leap. If you only ever had an iPhone it would indeed be a huge leap, but for someone with a Droid, again, the biggest improvement was that the display was better. The pixel density is nice but not absolutely necessary.

High DPI devices:

Galaxy Nexus – 316
iPhone 4 – 326
HTC Rezound – 342

If we use the iPhone 2, OG Droid, and iPhone 4 as our standard bearers for comparing pixel density, then see:

Increase from iPhone 2G to OG Droid: 62%
Increase from OG Droid to iPhone 4: 23%

The higher you go, the less each percent matters, too. As you get closer to maximum human visual acuity the differences matter lest. It’s not that it doesn’t stand out compared to a medium DPI device, but it is that it doesn’t stand out like OMGOMGOMG compared to a medium DPI device.

A 50" HDTV is 44PPI by comparison. Of course, that sits across the living room. :P

How are they strange resolutions?

With the original, the screens on the market for phones were 480×360 or whatever.

Then for the iPhone 4 they doubled it. It’s the same aspect ratio. But because of the size of the screen they didn’t need to go to 720p or anything like that. They doubled the pixels rather than making a jump to something else to make it as easy as possible.

They are probably going to maintain a very similar DPI now, so the resolution fits the screen size here.

Just because it’s an unusual resolution for a PC display doesn’t mean it’s odd for a phone. They’re just going from 4:3 to 16:9 with a bigger screen and a similar pixel density.

At this pixel density there’s probably not much worth bothering with in terms of worrying about the resolution being a bit different.

I will note, however, than a few iPhone users I know tend to give the small size of their phone as one of the main reasons they like it, often whil e pointing at a small 4" Android device by comparison. Some of these people genuinely want a tiny phone, and they may be dissapointed…

But I think that bigger is better for almost everyone.

Every single TN panel ever washes out with vertical viewing angles.

Wow.

Finally a competitor for the Olympus 14-35mm f/2. Yes, f/2.

It’s a 4/3 lens – not a micro 4/3, but there’s no reason they couldn’t change the mount or you could use an adapter. Of course, that’s $2300 and as big as a Canon 24-70L.

This looks a lot smaller – small enough to use on the small SLR-like bodies, but I wouldn’t want to use it on the smallest P&S style cameras. Medium sized lenses just don’t seem to belong on them.

All in all, it’s nice to see Panasonic adding some variety to the m4/3 stable, but this lens isn’t going to become a staple at that sort of price, except perhaps for video.

That’s probably because in order to have the notch for push in/push out, it is going to look similar to something that is designed for a similar interface. This is entirely a case of form following function.

Win7 isn’t perfect when it comes to notifications, but it is absolutely nothing at all like the bullshit you have to wade through in XP. They appear far less frequently, and dissapear on their own pretty quickly.

Windows 8 takes another step forwards; I’ve got no complaints about the way it handles notifications at all. The bubbles at the bottom right are very rare, and the main means of system notifications is much improved and significantly more subtle.

50mm 1.8
Probably f/2 or so
Probably 1/80-1/100 or so

Try Windows 8. It warns you politely and subtly a few days in advance, and when it does it, it takes 10 seconds.

The most common macro focal lengths used tend to be close to 100mm. This gives you a reasonable distance to your subject – the benefits of which others have gone in to.

The shorter macro lenses (I’d avoid the 30.. yeow) will force you to get closer to your subjects, which is generally, but not always, undesirable. They will give you a somewhat different perspective as a result of the working distance. They will also be easier to handhold, because you can get away with slower shutter speeds.

Most macro lenses are optically excellent, to the point where you probably won’t find any optical concerns with any of them.

What you may want to consider is if you’re going to use it as a non-macro lens sometimes (Some may be manual focus only, and autofocus macro lenses even with an ultrasonic motor have very leisurely focus speeds. Also, your specific subjects may play a part too: with insects, you’re going to want a longer focal length to stay away, but if you’re working inside in a tight area, a longer focal length could become a problem.

All of the lenses should be good, but I’d recommend the Tamron 60/90 and Minolta 100mm over the other options.

Generally, I travel. I do a lot less photography when I’m around home. Locally, the most frequent thing I do is bring my camera along to audubon preservation locations. While they aren’t generally the best places to go for amazing photography, there are birding opportunities, and they often feature very easy targets. Like goslings.

This is from the Philadelphia zoo. I think. It was in an aviary. A bit dark, but there was enough light to get by. Being able to get close to animals with nothing in between you and your subject helps you get a good shot like you wouldn’t beleive. This isn’t going to win creative awards, but it makes a nice print.

The audubon locations are a step more wild than a zoo. It’s more challenging to get a perfect shot at an animal as they are wild, and tend to not want to be near you. But the aforementioned goslings come every year and make a fun, cute, easy target.

That was shot from a plane? Damn. Mine always suck.

I like the color treatment, it works very well.

And, yes. The boat makes the image. I wouldn’t touch it.

Oh yeah – don’t shoot with the lens wide open for stuff like this. It isn’t sharp, you won’t get deep depth of field, and nor will it be narrow enough to isolate subject from background. Shoot it closer to f/8.

Stop abusing the clarity slider in Lightroom (or any equivalent software), it creates garish, distracting halos.

The subject itself (the rock formation) is interesting, but I don’t like the choice of foreground – it is distracting, and doesn’t really add to the image. It also looks like it was shot in the early afternoon.

This may be a location worth revisiting if you can find a better angle in better light.

Having hand tremors isn’t going to cause much motion blur during the day. Just don’t try to handhold anything in low light.

The color cast on this is way off – the image has a hot pink cast. I think you should also try to find a better subject, or as some of the other commenters have noted – play around with it if you’re going to do it. Finding an interesting location and angle for it is going to make it a more interesting shot, but as we see here, it’s just a snap of someone holding a frozen coffee drink.

Remember, you can crop anything for a print, you just have to chop the final picture up in the real world a little bit. :P