It is a good night to put my camera through the paces in my local village.
Yeah I would describe it as a village and Stalkers probably know where I live by now…
Plot twist: The next companion is a normal girl/boy who only dies once in their lifetime and has no remarkable back story but he thinks they’re wonderful because they are human and the Doctor needs reminding that you don’t need to be a mystery to be remarkable.
so basically we want Donna back
Everyone hated Adric.
Hello everyone, my name is Alice Haas. The purpose of this page is to help me pay for my upcoming male-to-female (MTF) sex reassignment surgery (SRS), a.k.a. gender confirmation surgery, (incorrectly) gender reassignment surgery, or if you speak Japanese, (physical sex conformity surgery). I plan to be going to Dr. Saran in Thailand for my surgery. I would prefer not to go to Thailand, but the need and urgency for treatment means that I wouldn’t have the privilege to have my surgery performed in the United States. $13,000 would be enough to cover the surgical fees, plane tickets, and hotel costs required to have this surgery performed.
See this awesome woman right here? She needs help. I know money is tight nowadays, but even if you reblog/signal boost the hell out of this, maybe, just maybe, we can get her the money she needs to make her life easier. So, please. Signal boost!!!!!!
Now is basically the worst possible time for me financially but I can’t begin to understand how it’d feel to be in her position. Not to mention if you say she’s awesome, she must be awesome, so I will happily signal boost! (If I remember when I have money I’ll donate something, but my memory is terrible.)
Just some more test photos. I managed to get the colour how I like it but I’m still fine-tuning the camera; note some shots are blurry.
Top left (the Gallus 2000, or in English, the Chicken 2000!) is a macro shot. Top right (1966-ish Datsun Bluebird) is low-light at about 3200 ISO. It still blurred. My bad, I had the shutter set to auto instead of something that won’t blur.
Middle left (Australian magpies) is misframed because the optical viewfinder shows about 120% of the image, meaning if you try to frame it how you see it, you’ll get a vastly different result. Middle right (tree roots) is an afterthought from a much better shot that blurred.
Bottom left (strange doll and tin monkey) is a very low light test; they were hardly visible to the naked eye. This one’s at 3200 ISO I think; 12800 ISO actually blurred! Bottom right (side of the house) is using the spirit level and attempted to be lined up using rule of third but that completely failed me.
Basically, every one of these shots is good ‘but’. So…I need to test more! I’ve been using an Eye-Fi which is okay but IMO it’s mostly a waste of money; unless you do a lot of editing or travel where free Internet is accessible (or don’t mind uploading 5MB photos via your phone or other hotspot) then don’t bother. It’s decent for travel but…just buy heaps of regular cards, I think. I think I’ll go buy a regular SD card tomorrow…
EDIT: I tagged this with the model camera and I’ll probably get a few hits since this camera’s in hot demand so I’ll briefly tell you what I think, though this isn’t a review and if you’re looking at this you’re probably already sold on it. You know it’s a fixed length, you know that’s not for everybody, but it’s probably for you. I suggest you look at the Nikon A and the Ricoh GR which is coming out as well for similar products in the same price range.
The X100S I guess is both a street photographer’s camera, and a substitute for a 35mm lens on a DSLR. My main camera is a Canon EOS 5D mark II, and while this isn’t as good, the difference is negligible and in some ways it’s better (the 5Dm2 is a bit old so the low light performance isn’t as good).
The main difference between this camera and a 35mm lens on a full frame body, unless you’re a pixel peeper, is this is an independent unit. You can leave a 70-200mm lens on your DSLR’s body or something like that. The battery life is separate. But most distinctly, the interface is distinct, unless your main workhorse is a Fuji. Like I said, I’m finding the optical viewfinder a bit of getting used to, and the electronic viewfinder is headache-inducing - good in short bursts, good at night. Remember what you see through the optical viewfinder is not through-the-lens so it’s not going to be exactly straight, nor in focus.
The menus have a reputation for being cumbersome but I didn’t have a problem with that. The cumbersome part is knowing where to tweak first. Don’t expect it to be perfect off-the-bat.
I’ve heard some compare it to a rangefinder and that’s really only true in shape, size and displaced viewfinder. I just don’t see the similarity. Maybe it’s the future of rangefinders in that it’s a successor of sorts. Maybe your results will be similar. But it doesn’t have that same level of interaction…what you have is a professional DSLR in a point-and-shoot’s body. Point being not to glorify rangefinders but to show that this is a completely different beast.
Should you buy one? If it appeals to you, then I would think yes. It’s fairly straightforward to figure out if you’ll use it or not. Of course, the first thing I did when I got mine was went outside and saw an unusual bird, and I immediately missed my zoom lens; my bad for not taking a second camera - but food for thought!
This is what the viewfinder looks like. I’ve seen similar overlays on camcorders or even old cameras but they’re always just projections of LCD digits. This is much more complex.
I’ve heard this camera compared to a rangefinder and…so far I don’t see it. It’s nothing like one. But that is not definite, not is it a bad thing. It’s just a thing. Rangefinder cameras are slow anyway…
Is this camera any good?
I don’t know yet. I just used default settings and took a walk around the yard, which isn’t very stimulating, and got this.
That first shot has poor white balance and focus because I don’t understand either system on this camera yet, not because I suck - though it has got a built-in spirit level thing! That’s really, really useful. I was going to buy a spirit level on Monday, actually. Forgot. Didn’t know one was integrated.
Top shot is a rusted-out 1970s Holden Panelvan’s interior, second is a 1982 Datsun/Nissan Pulsar, for the curious.
None of these shots impress me but that’s my fault I suspect. The subjects don’t impress me either. Plus, I think I need to tweak the colour balance because it’s way too muted. As it stands, a phone could do this. But again, I’m not at all used to the camera - the built-in leveller confuses me as I don’t know if I’m framing using the LCD or the viewfinder!
The viewfinder is amazing, by the way. Hybrid optical. It overlays info on it.
I need to go potty, I need to eat, but I have to wait for the courier who will probably show up in this next hour.
I have a small handful of actors/celebrities that I find quite aesthetically attractive and that I appreciate as actors very much, but it’s always in a “I must watch everything you have ever been in and if you are in tight clothing or topless that’s a plus” way, but never in a “If you weren’t famous and completely unattainable I would totally date you” way, and definitely not in a “I would throw myself on the ground and beg you to take me right now” sort of way.
On the other hand, I’ve been realizing lately that I have trouble recognizing crushes even with people I know and have some difficulty differentiating between strong platonic friendship feelings and romantic feelings, and how I feel towards a handful of actors I follow closely may be qualified by some as a “celebrity crush” even if I don’t consider it to be. (that was a terribly structured sentence)
I have a great big I-would-likely-date-you-if-not-for-celebrity-and-age-difference crush on Rachel Maddow, but she’s my first one.
I haven’t reblogged either of these yet and they’re both great replies. They all are but I think it’s going to get crazy if I reblog all of them, haha.
So far you’re the first one I’ve had from an ace who does have one, though I don’t think you’re in the minority. I just find the whole thing very odd and interesting!
I’m sure by this point my non-ace followers are probably getting a bit peeved but honestly, no regrets.
I’m ace and I’ve never had a celebrity crush either. But my friend, who I suspect to be ace, has had plenty of celebrity crushes.
You are? I did not know that. Wow, awesome! (Hope it’s not a secret and by replying like this I’m making it public…)
I’m seeming to get a few replies and so far, yeah, it seems like everyone replying doesn’t have celebrity crushes, though they have varying degrees of aesthetic attraction, and I know there’s plenty of aces that do have celebrity crushes. And they’re absolutely aces, no doubt about it.
I just find it very curious…especially when I see another ace who does have a celebrity crush or three and I think “But I don’t feel like that, what does that make me?” - doesn’t make me anything. It’s just a thing. But I think drawing attention to it might help people in a minute way.
I’ve been wondering this for a few weeks now and I’ve been trying to think of a way to ask…
Celebrity crushes. How many aces don’t have any?
I mean I know plenty that do, but it seems to be a very ace thing that you just don’t understand it; you have favourite actors but you certainly don’t feel anything for them other than appreciation for their skills or understanding they’re nice. I just don’t have any emotional connection with them, and certainly even if they’re physically attractive, so what?
And again, I don’t mean to offend anyone who is ace and does have a crush on an actor/actress. That’s cool and I’m not saying that makes you a grey-a or anything; I think it’s great. I just find this nuance of asexuality fascinating. I’ve never had one yet somehow I just accept that almost everybody else does. It doesn’t affect my quality of life and if anything it makes me more boring!
I identify as gray and I’ve never had a celebrity crush. There are a handful of actors (men and women) who I find incredibly aesthetically attractive, but I’m not at all interested in details of their personal lives or anything. I didn’t really find guys aesthetically attractive until high school… Late bloomer much? Haha!
Yeah, I completely agree with that. Celebrities/actors/actresses, like all people, can be aesthetically attractive. That’s how I would see it personally.
I guess I just find it curious that even though even allosexuals could not have any celebrity crushes and such too, it seems a stronger phenomena in the ace community (including grey-a’s and demis of course). And I do know celibate aces who have very strong crushes (by my standards!) on celebrities so it’s not mutually exclusive to anything - which is why I find it fascinating. I guess none of us are black and white and grey - we’re a complex picture, not a shade. As are people in general, of course!