MacRumors
Oct 26, 12:48 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Adobe has introduced a competitor to Apple's SoundTrack Pro dubbed SoundBooth (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/soundbooth/).
Try Adobe� Soundbooth™. Soundbooth is a brand new application built in the spirit of Sound Edit 16 and Cool Edit that provides the tools video editors, designers, and others who do not specialize in audio need to accomplish their everyday work such as:
-Editing audio quickly.
-Cleaning up noisy audio.
-Visually identifying and removing unwanted sounds.
-Recording and polishing voiceovers.
-Adding effects and filters.
-Easily creating customized music—without musical expertise.
Similar to Adobe's LightRoom (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060109021315.shtml) application, SoundBooth is beginning its life as a public beta. Adobe is offering the software in Windows and Intel-Mac versions, and Adobe specifically mentions that they will not be offering a PowerPC version of the software.
Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places. By focusing on Apple's future, we have been able to bring this powerful application to the Mac platform much more rapidly, and with a stronger feature set.
Adobe's Intel Mac FAQ (http://www.adobe.com/products/pdfs/intelmacsupport.pdf) still lists many of its popular programs (such as Creative Suite) as being ported to be Universal applications in their next revisions.
SoundBooth should be available in mid-2007. Pricing is to be determined.
[ Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Adobe_Announces_SoundBooth_SoundTrack_Pro_competitor_x86_Only) ]
Adobe has introduced a competitor to Apple's SoundTrack Pro dubbed SoundBooth (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/soundbooth/).
Try Adobe� Soundbooth™. Soundbooth is a brand new application built in the spirit of Sound Edit 16 and Cool Edit that provides the tools video editors, designers, and others who do not specialize in audio need to accomplish their everyday work such as:
-Editing audio quickly.
-Cleaning up noisy audio.
-Visually identifying and removing unwanted sounds.
-Recording and polishing voiceovers.
-Adding effects and filters.
-Easily creating customized music—without musical expertise.
Similar to Adobe's LightRoom (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060109021315.shtml) application, SoundBooth is beginning its life as a public beta. Adobe is offering the software in Windows and Intel-Mac versions, and Adobe specifically mentions that they will not be offering a PowerPC version of the software.
Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places. By focusing on Apple's future, we have been able to bring this powerful application to the Mac platform much more rapidly, and with a stronger feature set.
Adobe's Intel Mac FAQ (http://www.adobe.com/products/pdfs/intelmacsupport.pdf) still lists many of its popular programs (such as Creative Suite) as being ported to be Universal applications in their next revisions.
SoundBooth should be available in mid-2007. Pricing is to be determined.
[ Digg This (http://www.digg.com/apple/Adobe_Announces_SoundBooth_SoundTrack_Pro_competitor_x86_Only) ]
mac1984user
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
Does anyone know if this update fixes the issue of Office depositing some 'recovered files' in the trash upon every boot?
In answer to my own question, I've found out that Office 2011 STILL puts random 'wkresources' files in the trash upon bootup. What's up with that?
In answer to my own question, I've found out that Office 2011 STILL puts random 'wkresources' files in the trash upon bootup. What's up with that?
HexMonkey
Jun 13, 06:40 PM
I've deleted "Old Categories" and everything in it. Thanks for your many hours of work Eraserhead.
I think the next big project might be to reorganise the Guides category by adding appropriate subcategories such as (for example) Mac Hardware Guides, Mac OS X Guides, iPod Guides etc. It's getting quite large as it is, and it might make it easier to find relevant articles.
I think the next big project might be to reorganise the Guides category by adding appropriate subcategories such as (for example) Mac Hardware Guides, Mac OS X Guides, iPod Guides etc. It's getting quite large as it is, and it might make it easier to find relevant articles.
tech4all
Oct 26, 08:29 PM
Nice about the update, although I don't really use the email for .Mac, lol. The storage space issue others seem to have a problem with isn't really a problem for me....at least not yet.
I'd recommend .Mac to anyone who wants to do this kind of stuff. Can you think of a way to do all of the above for < $100/year without being an uber geek who knows all about FTP and WebDAV and POP/SMTP? :D
Very true. I said it before and I'll say it again. With .Mac and iLife '06 (especially iWeb) making a simple website to show photos to your family and friends is simple for practically anyone to use. (great now I'm starting to sound like a commercial :p)
I'd recommend .Mac to anyone who wants to do this kind of stuff. Can you think of a way to do all of the above for < $100/year without being an uber geek who knows all about FTP and WebDAV and POP/SMTP? :D
Very true. I said it before and I'll say it again. With .Mac and iLife '06 (especially iWeb) making a simple website to show photos to your family and friends is simple for practically anyone to use. (great now I'm starting to sound like a commercial :p)
more...
Doctor Q
Apr 12, 01:24 PM
When I check for updates in outlook it tells me 'no updates available' ... oh well, downloading it now directly from the webpage linked in the article.Perhaps it doesn't detect the update unless you use Outlook. Some MS Office users, like me, don't even install Outlook, and Check for Updates didn't show it for me either.
Moving from Outlook is a good think no matter what. The databases used stinks. It chokes at about a million records and sooner or later, it will slow down, become lazy and before you know it... done. Corrupted... just like a US politician. :D
I find that it corrupts the database when it reaches 2GB in storage, no matter how many messages are involved.
Moving from Outlook is a good think no matter what. The databases used stinks. It chokes at about a million records and sooner or later, it will slow down, become lazy and before you know it... done. Corrupted... just like a US politician. :D
I find that it corrupts the database when it reaches 2GB in storage, no matter how many messages are involved.
Gus
Jul 14, 02:02 AM
See this post:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=27709
Regards,
Gus
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?threadid=27709
Regards,
Gus
more...
9Speed
May 2, 08:32 PM
I can most definitely believe this.
I've personally witnessed the rather dramatic decline in Apple quality control over the last year.
It's unlike ever before and very discouraging.
Give me a break... I've heard this claim over and over and over and over for more years than I care to admit. It's as if there was once upon a time Apple released perfect products without any glitches whatsoever, but now everything they release is plagued with problems.
It's a fact... nearly every product line Apple has ever released has had its hiccups, whether it's overheating computers, faulty logic boards, problems with displays, adhesives etc etc.
You haven't witnessed any sort of dramatic decline in Apple's QC... you just like to believe that you have.
I've personally witnessed the rather dramatic decline in Apple quality control over the last year.
It's unlike ever before and very discouraging.
Give me a break... I've heard this claim over and over and over and over for more years than I care to admit. It's as if there was once upon a time Apple released perfect products without any glitches whatsoever, but now everything they release is plagued with problems.
It's a fact... nearly every product line Apple has ever released has had its hiccups, whether it's overheating computers, faulty logic boards, problems with displays, adhesives etc etc.
You haven't witnessed any sort of dramatic decline in Apple's QC... you just like to believe that you have.
SAdProZ
Mar 22, 03:06 PM
cool. but isn't your keyboard a 49 key keyboard?
haha. woops. :cool:
...here's a link to Musician's Friend 49-Key Keyboard Gig-Bag ($20) (http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/fg=41/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/545127/)
haha. woops. :cool:
...here's a link to Musician's Friend 49-Key Keyboard Gig-Bag ($20) (http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/fg=41/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/545127/)
more...
BRLawyer
Sep 27, 04:07 PM
I just hope Apple have fixed a lot of ridiculous little problems with Cocoa and the Task Switcher, etc. that they introduced with 10.4.7. I'm tired of quitting one application in Task Switcher and seeing another application's name in the menu bar while it's quitting.
Yep, this happens with me too...nothing grave but annoying..
Yep, this happens with me too...nothing grave but annoying..
Icaras
Apr 24, 06:19 PM
I'm saying that's my personal opinion. I know it's capable of playing games, but many people are disappointed about something that no one knows except maybe Apple or Intel.
Really? So if I buy a MBA, using your logic above, then one of the reasons I bought it was because it could play games. This is your opinion, your view of why some people buy a MBA. Just like what I said in my previous post was purely my personal opinion. Not dictation of anything. I'm sure many people agree with you and some that don't.
That's you. I simply stated how I personally use my computer. It's different for everybody. Not everybody is like me or you. Not everyone is a musician or creative artist. Of course, the backlit keyboard is a welcome addition. I never said anything against that.
That was the point of my post. I was trying to point out that different people will have different uses of a computer and have different skill levels. I was merely pointing out examples of the uses of a backlit kb (creative artists, users not as proficient in keyboarding) and the different audiences (gamers, portable users, media) that bought into an MBA.
Yea, I didn't mean to imply that users bought it generally because of gaming, but that it was just one reason that many users (certainly not all) did happen to buy it for. I myself didn't buy the Air for gaming purposes, though I found myself pleasantly surprised when squeezing in a game or two of Left 4 Dead on it. :)
And you explicitly said, and I quote you:
if you want to play games, then don't bother with the Air.
I don't know how else to interpret that. Unless of course you demand higher performance on newer games, then yea I would be inclined to agree with you. But I seem to read all the time on this forum that many users do in fact game on the Air and enjoy it. So why shouldn't they?
Really? So if I buy a MBA, using your logic above, then one of the reasons I bought it was because it could play games. This is your opinion, your view of why some people buy a MBA. Just like what I said in my previous post was purely my personal opinion. Not dictation of anything. I'm sure many people agree with you and some that don't.
That's you. I simply stated how I personally use my computer. It's different for everybody. Not everybody is like me or you. Not everyone is a musician or creative artist. Of course, the backlit keyboard is a welcome addition. I never said anything against that.
That was the point of my post. I was trying to point out that different people will have different uses of a computer and have different skill levels. I was merely pointing out examples of the uses of a backlit kb (creative artists, users not as proficient in keyboarding) and the different audiences (gamers, portable users, media) that bought into an MBA.
Yea, I didn't mean to imply that users bought it generally because of gaming, but that it was just one reason that many users (certainly not all) did happen to buy it for. I myself didn't buy the Air for gaming purposes, though I found myself pleasantly surprised when squeezing in a game or two of Left 4 Dead on it. :)
And you explicitly said, and I quote you:
if you want to play games, then don't bother with the Air.
I don't know how else to interpret that. Unless of course you demand higher performance on newer games, then yea I would be inclined to agree with you. But I seem to read all the time on this forum that many users do in fact game on the Air and enjoy it. So why shouldn't they?
more...
logandzwon
Feb 25, 07:58 AM
It looks to me they ARE basically killing server...
From what I see they are migrating the server features they've built in the past into an optional module for the base OS. (like Ubuntu vs Ubuntu Server, server is just additional software.)
From what I see they are migrating the server features they've built in the past into an optional module for the base OS. (like Ubuntu vs Ubuntu Server, server is just additional software.)
dcv
Sep 13, 12:40 PM
You got to wear knickers?!
I knew the nurses prepping me for my op's fancied me!
LOL
yeah as i said - HUGE - bigger than Bridget Jones pants, one-size fits all sort of thing
but still, glad to have been wearing those rather than going commando, given that they were going to be flinging my leg around during surgery... ;)
I knew the nurses prepping me for my op's fancied me!
LOL
yeah as i said - HUGE - bigger than Bridget Jones pants, one-size fits all sort of thing
but still, glad to have been wearing those rather than going commando, given that they were going to be flinging my leg around during surgery... ;)
more...
slb
Sep 1, 12:07 PM
I am amazed to recently discover Mac owners pay more on average to keep the most current OS running on their box, even though OS X is cheaper (by about $70) than comparative Windows releases.
Spending $400 on Vista Ultimate Edition makes up the difference. :) Although the operative phrase here is "most current OS running on their box"--the most current Windows is six years old, so if people want to complain that it costs more money to keep up with modern OS updates than it does to have no major OS updates at all for over half a decade, that's not exactly something I consider a negative.
Spending $400 on Vista Ultimate Edition makes up the difference. :) Although the operative phrase here is "most current OS running on their box"--the most current Windows is six years old, so if people want to complain that it costs more money to keep up with modern OS updates than it does to have no major OS updates at all for over half a decade, that's not exactly something I consider a negative.
Amazing Iceman
Nov 18, 07:48 AM
I think this kid is great, I hope he puts up the good fight!
Even if he wins, all his profit will be absorbed by his lawyer. :(
All that hard work for nothing. :mad:
Even if he wins, all his profit will be absorbed by his lawyer. :(
All that hard work for nothing. :mad:
more...
kainjow
Apr 24, 03:51 PM
Might try look in /Users/you/Library/Preferences/ for any Illustrator files and try moving them to the side.
generik
Oct 12, 09:05 AM
NO? cos that would make it a MBP
Not really, the MBP has tons of other wonderful features that makes it pro. Such as the fact that it runs OSX, has backlit keyboard, and also the 34 express card slot that 1 or 2 people use.
Not really, the MBP has tons of other wonderful features that makes it pro. Such as the fact that it runs OSX, has backlit keyboard, and also the 34 express card slot that 1 or 2 people use.
more...
wildcardd
Jun 14, 02:35 PM
Quieter...I like the sound of that ;)
MacCoaster
Sep 22, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by avkills
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
Ok, so Intel has the Itanium, well they have the Itanium2 I guess if you want to get super current, so what! The Itanium is based on a brand new design that looks good on paper, but Intel will be the first to admit it has not performed as good as they hoped.
I simply meant the Itanium family, including both the original Itanium and the current Intamium 2.
Sun, IBM and SGI have had 64bit processors way before Intel. So if you say the Itanium is ok for the high-end consumer, then It's safe to say that a Sun Ultra10 or a SGI Octane would also be a high-end consumer machine.
Sure, okay. Compare the prices. The Itanium solution is much cheaper.
What makes you so sure that a 16 processor G4 machine would not perform, because of the bus speed. What about super high-end servers like the CM5 or the Cray T3D. I seriously doubt those machines have 500Mhz bus speeds, or DDR memory. I know for a fact that the CM5 had dedicated memory for each processor node, and each node had 2 vector units. If you want, I can find out specifics from my brother, who has actually programmed code for it, when he worked at Las Alamos. Whether a 16 processor G4 machine is relevant or not, it could be built and if built right, would be very fast.
Very irrevelant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the G4 wasn't designed to be run in anything more than a dual configuration.
So the .NET family is limited to 32 processors huh....Weak, very weak. You can say what you want, UNIX still scales better than Windows, no matter what the flavor.
Windows isn't designed nor targeted at customers with more than 32 processors. If anyone wanted a 2048-way server, they'd either custom build it and load UNIX on it or have some large corporation develop the computer. It's a lot cheaper clustering 32 high-availablity servers than buying that one 2048-way server. Duh, Windows isn't scalable. It was NEVER designed primarily to be used on 2048-way supercomputers. That's way out of Microsoft's scope and market.
In my opinion, Microsoft is beginning to die a slow painful death. Everyone is tired of their ************ and half-assed attempts of secure computing. Everyone always complains that Macs are not open enough, well I think the opposite is true. Apple embraces open standards and even invents and shares them when none exist, while Microsoft shuns and sometimes even steals others work, in a attempt to push their own proprietary formats and stifle progress.
Funny that Microsoft pushed the ever-so-slow W3C to standardize further dynamic HTML/etc. technologies to become standard. Of course, W3C can't keep current to allow people to innovate in the web presentation standards. Microsoft is even pushing XML very hard with .NET Web Services. And yes, Macs are closed. Not in software, but in hardware. Maybe you were confused by the definition of Macs being closed. The older Macintosh hardware is so proprietary it's not funny. Recent Macs adopt technology that had been in PCs before, except FireWire of course, because Apple invented that. But the hardware is still proprietary. I don't see that we are able to take off-the-shelf high quality components and build our own PowerPC computers then slap Mac OS X on it. Also, Microsoft indeed is "against" open source, and yet they maintain a "shared source" implementation of .NET for FreeBSD. In fact, it's a very well done implementation -- not that most-feeble-possible-implementation that we thought could possible be.
I find it funny that Intel invented USB, but it was Apple that took the leap of faith and pushed it into the mainstream. Apple, in my opinion is the only company thinking "outside the box" and in the end, they will win because of it.
-mark
Maybe it was Apple and Microsoft (Windows 98) who popularized USB, but you've got to realize this. PCs have had USB a few years before Apple. It wasn't until iMac/Windows 98 (note, same year: 1998) that USB got popular.
knome
Sep 29, 02:35 PM
I just tested a PPC version of halo in time demo and i noticed a 8.31fps boost. Not to signifigant but its progress.
EDIT: i just tried the UB version time demo and there was absoultly no improvement. Going to double check it with cinebench.
EDIT: i just tried the UB version time demo and there was absoultly no improvement. Going to double check it with cinebench.
BigBeast
Apr 26, 07:58 PM
Probably because you can actually buy devices with USB 3.0, and at a reasonable price.
I think Thunderbolt is a great idea, and it would be super on the MacBook Air (personally I'd love to see a Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter), which is why I named it in the above list, but USB 3.0 is much more widespread and so the peripherals are cheaper.
Compare it to FireWire 800 devices: It would have been great to have an external drive with that connection but I never bought one because in the end it was too much of a price difference. It's a lot easier to put up with USB 2 speeds if it costs 40% less than FW800.
I hope Apple and intel will push Thunderbolt agressively and won't let it become a niche port like the way FW800 ended up. So yes, I do think there is a high risk of it becoming the next firewire.
Personally I'd prefer both but I don't see it happening in the next MBA, not until intel integrates it in their chipset.
USB 3 is more widespread than Thunderbolt (since nothing is yet on the market for TB) but saying "much more" is a bit of a misnomer. USB 2.0 is WIDESPREAD. USB 3.0 has actually shown a very slow uptake by computer and peripheral manufacturers.
You can't compare FW 800 to TB. Here's why: FW 800 while a better IO, was only slightly better than USB 2. Therefore, with the added cost of FW 800 and the minimal increase in performance over USB 2, FW wasn't going to flourish.
However, comparing USB 3 to TB is like comparing VHS to Blu-ray. TB is REMARKABLY faster than USB 3. Couple that with the fact that TB allows for simutaneous transfer in BOTH DIRECTIONS at consistently close to theoretical speeds of 10 Gb/s. USB however as always, fluctuates in speed and almost NEVER reaches close to theoretical speeds and is only one way transfer. TB can daisy chain up to FOUR 1080p HD streams simultaneously (if I recall correctly) while I don't think USB 3 can do even 1.
Add this to the fact that Intel WANTS this tech to reach mass adoption and will make the tech available at cheap prices, it's a no brainer that TB WILL be adopted. Even IF TB ended up being a $20 or so royalty like FW, it so easily outclasses USB 3 that I would readily pay for it.
So like I said in my first post, why have USB 3 on a list before TB? Why have USB 3 at all? TB is where it's at.
I think Thunderbolt is a great idea, and it would be super on the MacBook Air (personally I'd love to see a Thunderbolt Gigabit Ethernet adapter), which is why I named it in the above list, but USB 3.0 is much more widespread and so the peripherals are cheaper.
Compare it to FireWire 800 devices: It would have been great to have an external drive with that connection but I never bought one because in the end it was too much of a price difference. It's a lot easier to put up with USB 2 speeds if it costs 40% less than FW800.
I hope Apple and intel will push Thunderbolt agressively and won't let it become a niche port like the way FW800 ended up. So yes, I do think there is a high risk of it becoming the next firewire.
Personally I'd prefer both but I don't see it happening in the next MBA, not until intel integrates it in their chipset.
USB 3 is more widespread than Thunderbolt (since nothing is yet on the market for TB) but saying "much more" is a bit of a misnomer. USB 2.0 is WIDESPREAD. USB 3.0 has actually shown a very slow uptake by computer and peripheral manufacturers.
You can't compare FW 800 to TB. Here's why: FW 800 while a better IO, was only slightly better than USB 2. Therefore, with the added cost of FW 800 and the minimal increase in performance over USB 2, FW wasn't going to flourish.
However, comparing USB 3 to TB is like comparing VHS to Blu-ray. TB is REMARKABLY faster than USB 3. Couple that with the fact that TB allows for simutaneous transfer in BOTH DIRECTIONS at consistently close to theoretical speeds of 10 Gb/s. USB however as always, fluctuates in speed and almost NEVER reaches close to theoretical speeds and is only one way transfer. TB can daisy chain up to FOUR 1080p HD streams simultaneously (if I recall correctly) while I don't think USB 3 can do even 1.
Add this to the fact that Intel WANTS this tech to reach mass adoption and will make the tech available at cheap prices, it's a no brainer that TB WILL be adopted. Even IF TB ended up being a $20 or so royalty like FW, it so easily outclasses USB 3 that I would readily pay for it.
So like I said in my first post, why have USB 3 on a list before TB? Why have USB 3 at all? TB is where it's at.
thatisme
Mar 29, 09:41 AM
THE MILLIMETER OF THE ACTUAL FOCAL LENGTH ARE ALWAYS THE SAME!
end of story.
Which is what I said all along....
Thatisme, maybe Canon can help clear up your confusion. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/ef-s_and_field_of_view.do
did you read it? it is exactly what I have been saying all along.
end of story.
Which is what I said all along....
Thatisme, maybe Canon can help clear up your confusion. http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/ef-s_and_field_of_view.do
did you read it? it is exactly what I have been saying all along.
adroit
May 2, 10:58 PM
Ba-bye Canada :'(
redeye be
Feb 9, 11:20 AM
My current host has taken down my site (where the widget is hosted). The attachement thing here on MR is not working apparently so you'll have to wait .
I'll probably be up again next week, sorry.
I'll probably be up again next week, sorry.
DARKJ3DI
Jun 18, 04:54 PM
now if only the card slot was not on the back...
0 comments:
Post a Comment