By my math, only about 3 or 4 parts need to be realistic... the rest can look like a MechWarrior and we'd be okay with it.
Cuz someone already beat me to the new SMBC all about cave paintings...
"Also," added Flynn, "we beat him within inches of his life and he'll never walk again without a limp, so we're willing to call it even."
I still like her music, but she is definitely not an act worth paying to see live. Hope for her sake her album sales are threw the roof.
I am actually quite impressed by the resilience of that washing machine. I also now know that I should decline the free takeaway service when I buy my next washing machine. No way I am letting them have all the fun.
For some reason, I am really jealous of that corn.
Who let them in the Mercury Lounge?
There were recent test results that suggest that, but it is far from confirmed. So for the time being, we're running with the whole 'speed of light is the limit' theory. And our grandkids will make fun of us for believing in such crazy stuff the way engineers centuries ago thought the forces of traveling faster than 100mph would crush our bodies.
If she really thinks that her fans pay to go see her simply perform her album live, her touring career is dead before it started.
It's quite hard, actually.
You'd be shooting at a 5 inch target - At a distance of 6 feet away, simply aiming 2 degrees off target (either as a result of kickback or motion or the fact these guys aren't sharpshooters) will put the bullet 2-3 inches off-target by the time it travels 6 feet. It's a 50-50 shot under shooting-range conditions, near impossible when you are moving, the target is moving, and you have to shoot without time to line up the sights on the gun.
I see a lot comments about how the cops should have incapacitated him by shooting him in the knee or something. Even point blank, firing at a flailing limb on a moving target (while the cop himself was moving to keep pace) is not a guaranteed shot to stop an attack. If the threat warrants the use of your gun, you aim for the biggest, easiest to hit part and stop the threat. The results are sordid, but I can't fault the cop based on what we can see. And we can't see a lot.
That second cop who also decides to fire five rounds... that's a little more of a gray area (but the attacker IS still on his feet after five shots to the chest.... wtf?!)
Just to be clear... we can still throw slurs and GIFs at one another though, right?
This camera is amazing. And there is no way I can justify spending the money for it as a hobbyist. So instead I will find some small niggling detail I don't like about it and blow it out of proportion...
I can't believe they don't offer a 24mm wide angle! Dealbreaker!
Also, I'm sure the autofocus blows like the award-winning, critically acclaimed, constantly sold out X100! Another failure of a camera!
I was hoping for a full-frame mirrorless with an EVF and 24-160mm f1.8-3.5 kit zoom for $650. Anything less is a travesty.
There's a lot of mathy stuff involved that I don't fully understand... but basically... the f-stop on your camera is a fraction relative to how much light is coming through the lens. f-stop = focal length/aperture diameter. So a smaller aperture on a bigger lens/sensor can possibly let in more light.
The S100 has a 24mm equivalent zoom on a 35mm camera, but the actual focal length is 5.2mm. So at f2, its aperture is open 2.6mm.
This G1X at 28mm equivalent is actually 15.1mm focal length, so at f2.8 the aperture is open 5.4mm.
And then there's a whole bunch of math about focal distance vs focal length and circles of confusion thats all beyond my photography misunderstanding, but there is a great explanation here: [www.cambridgeincolour.com]
Agreed. Someone in the Canon engineering team deserves a raise for figuring out how to fit all that in a true compact.
Because the sensor is over 4x bigger - giving much much better image quality, dynamic range, and depth of field. f2.8 on a 1.5" sensor is going to give you more control over bokeh than f2.0 on a 1/1.7" sensor. At the wide and at least... that advantage will drop off as you zoom.
I would have loved to see it start at 24mm f2.0, but it's a crazy feet of engineering that they managed to fit that sensor and lens into a compact in the first place, i think going and wider or faster would have pushed the limits of compactness and expense.
I hope more manufacturers follow Canon down this path. I'd much prefer something like this with a giant sensor and limited (but sufficient) lens in a super compact body than the current mirrorless trend of tiny bodies with gigantic bulky (expensive) lenses sticking out of them.
1.5" sensor is some weird new sensor size that would be somewhat gigantic with a 112mm equiv. zoom lens on it. 1/1.5" sensor is a complicated way of saying 2/3" sensor, which is what most of the 'enthusiast compact" cameras have been upgrading to. If I were a betting man, I would wager this is actually a 2/3" sensor.
Fuji's X100 has gotten rave reviews pairing the APS with a fixed 35mm for $1200. If the lens is any good, adding a zoom capability to that for less $ seems like an improvement.
No, its not a filter... its really what they call the Aperture Priority mode on the camera... it has dedicated PASM modes, but by default the camera is in its 'New Shooter-Friendly Mode' which gives everything cutesy names.
I'm a sucker for wide angles - I was kinda hoping it was going to be 16mm (24mm equiv) like the sony lenses... only faster and on a camera system that doesnt call the aperture 'Background Defocus Mode'
