The Gadget Show on C5

Ian D J

Ian D J

Michael Fish
Messages
6,217
Name
Ian D J
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm surprised that this hadn't been brought up in here (have spent ages looking around for a similar thread) but thought it might be worth bringing up the fact that tonight's edition of "The Gadget Show" on Channel 5 involves test driving the Nikon D60 and Canon 450D.
If this had already been mentioned before or it's old hat then please disregard this thread. :)
 
Unfortunately they know next to nothing about cameras ;)
 
dfrear said:
Unfortunately they know next to nothing about cameras ;)
Click to expand...


Quite true but always funny to see them making a balls up of it :lol:


Thanks for the heads up Ian.
 
I did wonder when they would cover cameras. I saw one of the guys at Focus back in February!
 
Sadly the style of, and the presenters, are a complete turn off for me. I just cannot watch this show and enjoy it. Besides, do we really expect them to say anything that isn't already out there on the web?
 
They may know nothing about cameras, but Suzzie Perry is on it so I'll probably watch it anyway!

Men eh. We're all so shallow and predictable. When wil we grow up?
 
Well I like it.
 
dfrear said:
Unfortunately they know next to nothing about cameras ;)
Click to expand...

They may know nothing about camera, which is why their evaluation will be aimed at the casual user, rather than the pro. If they were comparing high end camera such as the 1d mk111 and D3, then they would be targeting the wrong end user.
 
They already covered the D60 with their YouTube channel:

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mf6pmJn0pPQ&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Mf6pmJn0pPQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only valid reason for watching the Gadget Show is Susy Perrys' a$$. As for the rest, they are to gadget reviews what top gear is to car reviews, ie useless. Has anyone ever known someone who won any of their phone in comps btw??
 
Whats wrong with top gear? They said the Honda Jazz was the best small car, so they got it right in my book :)!
 
what anoys me about the gadget show is they never test enough of any products. For tonights underwater camera thing, they only tested a Canon 960 & housing and a Sea and Sea camera. What a missed oppurtunity to test these against the Olympus Mju Tough series (especially as they were only in snorkelling depths) or one of the cheapy disposables or Vivitar digi cams. This would have given a good range of prices and really shown if more money equals better pictures.
 
I got to admit I watch the show and for some reason enter the ludicrous competition-that&#8217;s got to be a set up, anyway point is a lot of the tests that the show does is either biased or unfair therefore unreliable.
 
They did a comparison of a massive blown up photo last night the size of a building, they used a digital camera Nikon D700 and Nikon F5 film camera to see which was best digital or film, the D700 won on quality, if you missed it it's on again tonight at 8pm on Fiver channel.
 
tel48 said:
They did a comparison of a massive blown up photo last night the size of a building, they used a digital camera Nikon D700 and Nikon F5 film camera to see which was best digital or film, the D700 won on quality, if you missed it it's on again tonight at 8pm on Fiver channel.
Click to expand...


Yup. I watched that yesterday and was wondering all along, what did they use to blow up the image to such huge sizes? Any idea :thinking:?
 
Argh!! I can't believe The Gadget Show has started again! I ALWAYS miss the first few episodes as I never watch anything else on Channel 5. They used to email updates but it looks like they've stopped that :(
 
Wail said:
Yup. I watched that yesterday and was wondering all along, what did they use to blow up the image to such huge sizes? Any idea :thinking:?
Click to expand...


a mahoooosive printer then stitched the two halfs together
 
liss said:
a mahoooosive printer then stitched the two halfs together
Click to expand...


Yes, thank you. That is how they printed it .. I did see that.

However, I was asking how did they blow-up the picture to such a size? Surely if they just simply printed it on a large printer then then picture would have been too grainy / pixilated? Correct me if I am wrong :shrug:
 
i dont really know

you would think it would be really grainy but they did mention that about the film camera,
but surley it would still be grainy on the digital???
 
They were both grainy as hell - but the D700 was clearly less so an better in other respects too

My query was what did they scan the film neg with, as surely that'd have a massive (potentially) part to play too, and there was no mention of that

DD
 
DD,

Absolutely, whatever scanner they used and whatever extrapolation application used too must have had an impact on the end result.

I would like to know what methods they've applied.
 
Still - it raises an important point, and one which probably deserves its own thread..

For ages, we've been looking for digital cameras to mature to the point where most folks agree they 'match' film quality.

With the D700, D3 and 1D3, haven't we now reached that magical point where most agree that digital 'beats' film?
 
1D3 :thinking: .. what's that?
 
danbroad said:
*snip
For ages, we've been looking for digital cameras to mature to the point where most folks agree they 'match' film quality.

*snip
haven't we now reached that magical point where most agree that digital 'beats' film?
Click to expand...

Four years ago I was taking photos of my sons football team with a Casio QV-R40 P&S then printing them out (7x5) on a Epson R200.

I'd take the shots on the Sunday & hand them out at the Tuesday practice session, people used to ask me where I'd got them developed so quickly & were very surprised when I explained "Digital".

I don't know if Digital beats Film but most people can't tell the difference even on my A3 sized prints :)
 
I agree entirely that for convenience and features, the digital age has film knocked into a cocked hat for years now.

My point, which I probably made badly, is that even among those professionals who "could" tell the difference, who swore blind they'd never go digital because of a perceived lack of ultimate image quality... is their concensus that digital images are now come of age?
 
danbroad said:
You know, that Canon thingy. takes pictures... forgotten its full title, sorry!

Hold on.... the 1Ds mark III.. that's it!
Click to expand...


Got me scared there for a moment! Thought Nikon had released a new body and I didn't catch it!
 
Digital will never match film - not for quality, convenience, speed or any other qualitative quality. But simply because there is no EMOTION with digital.

I have shot all digital for about 3 years now - and I MISS the messing about, the hours wasted on a lightbox and all the other totally inconvenient factors about it, like having to drive to a lab and get the E6 done, then sitting and going through the frames to select the ones for use......all that work which can now be done on the hoof.

It is such a shame. It is the same as the difference between email and a letter dropping through the door onto the mat - or better a cheque to pay in.

The electronic format of anything is just so souless - more efficient doesn't necessarily mean bnetter. It also needs to feed the heart.

Imagine if I had to write this on paper, put it in an envelope, post it in a post box, hope it got selected for publication in a magazine......and then you would wait until next month before you could read it..........this instant communication takes away all that expectation.

Terrible isn't it.
 
Lensflare said:
Digital will never match film - not for quality, convenience, speed or any other qualitative quality. But simply because there is no EMOTION with digital.

I have shot all digital for about 3 years now - and I MISS the messing about, the hours wasted on a lightbox and all the other totally inconvenient factors about it, like having to drive to a lab and get the E6 done, then sitting and going through the frames to select the ones for use......all that work which can now be done on the hoof.

It is such a shame. It is the same as the difference between email and a letter dropping through the door onto the mat - or better a cheque to pay in.

The electronic format of anything is just so souless - more efficient doesn't necessarily mean bnetter. It also needs to feed the heart.

Imagine if I had to write this on paper, put it in an envelope, post it in a post box, hope it got selected for publication in a magazine......and then you would wait until next month before you could read it..........this instant communication takes away all that expectation.

Terrible isn't it.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you shoot, but it must be terribly boring!!

I feel the (personal) emotion in my images comes from actually capturing them...the camera is a tool and that is it. Capturing one of those intimate moments with people, or wildlife, or that exact second where the colours in an evenings sunset are perfect, is always going to come before all the faffing around with film or digital processing.

Is the lack of expectation in talking face to face also disappointing?? Or do you record your conversation onto tape, and post it to your loved ones? :p
 
Wail said:
whatever extrapolation application used too must have had an impact on the end result.I would like to know what methods they've applied.
Click to expand...

Yes me to, in fact if someone in the know could explain this it could be very helpful in the future, maybe something like this deserves a separate thread...Anyone ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top