Well, my current digital camera started acting up (viewfinder's off). Not urgent, but I figure that by the time I get around to replacing it, prices will come down and ... my fingers are crossed.
These girls have the most beautiful dresses. And so do I -- how about that?
Kaylee ,'Shindig'
Buffistechnology 2: You Made Her So She Growls?
Got a question about technology? Ask it here. Discussion of hardware, software, TiVos, multi-region DVDs, Windows, Macs, LINUX, hand-helds, iPods, anything tech related. Better than any helpdesk!
§ ita § - Jun 17, 2005 4:26:51 am PDT #3429 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
sumi - Jun 17, 2005 7:30:35 am PDT #3430 of 10003
Art Crawl!!!
I've got a stereo question.
Currently, I have my turntable, speakers and discman hooked up to my dad's Denon pre-amp.
Before, I had them hooked up to my yamaha receiver.
My problem with that is that my sound from my turntable to my speakers was disappearing. My tuner no longer worked, but my discman, which I played in CD direct was fine.
Now, I have no tuner, my turntable works but when I play cds they seem to come from only one channel or the other. (This was happening when I had it set up before.)
Should I be able to hook my receiver up to the pre-amp? And could my sound problem actually be that my speaker wire is frelled? (The speaker that is getting sound was the left channel; I switched things around and now the speaker that is getting sound is the right channel.)
Thanks!
sumi - Jun 17, 2005 8:30:43 am PDT #3431 of 10003
Art Crawl!!!
I would like to be able to listen to my records AND my cds see.
I have now re-hooked up my old receiver so that I can listen to cds. And through cd direct sound is coming from both speakers.
Argh. This is just so complicated.
tommyrot - Jun 17, 2005 8:34:49 am PDT #3432 of 10003
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
A reveiew of the new digital SLR from Nikon: [link]
$750 without a lens. $900 with. They say this is a "professional" camera.
§ ita § - Jun 17, 2005 8:37:11 am PDT #3433 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
I was trying to read this review of the D50, but they used the word "evanescence" and I just can't stop rolling my eyes.
I may just be out of camera-review-reading practice.
Steph L. - Jun 17, 2005 8:49:33 am PDT #3434 of 10003
I look more rad than Lutheranism
I'm impressed with you digital-SLR-having (or -wanting) people. I'm just excited to be getting a new digital point-and-shoot with enough megapixels to make the prints look like, well, prints. Probably the Nikon 5600.
§ ita § - Jun 17, 2005 8:50:42 am PDT #3435 of 10003
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
My lust just kicked up a gear when I froogled the D70 -- which can mean many things -- lots of crooks selling crap online, or the D50 will drop very low in price, or that I should just buy a D70 right now.
I should relax.
Sue - Jun 17, 2005 8:51:38 am PDT #3436 of 10003
hip deep in pie
I stand behind the rationalization that a better camera will making my mediocre photography skills better. Any great picture I have taken has been an accident, or a surprise to me.
Rob - Jun 17, 2005 8:57:36 am PDT #3437 of 10003
lots of crooks selling crap online
In the digital camera biz, it usually means this. I use B&H Photo and Video as a yardstick; if someone is underselling them by a large amount it's probably too good to be true.
amych - Jun 17, 2005 8:57:39 am PDT #3438 of 10003
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
I have a friend with a D70. It's extremely tasty.