DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I used to buy 2x4 lumber that was 2" by 4". Got it directly from the sawmill, rough cut (not planed) and not kiln dried. That was the only way to build things from oak. Green oak would take a nail. Seasoned oak would bend it, or you had to drill a hole first to get the nail in. Once you got the nail into the oak and it had time to season, that nail wasn't going to come out.

Bill_de Loc: US

Where can you get real 3/4 ply? I order some Baltic Birch a couple of years ago with a promise it was "real" 3/4.

--

Bill_de Loc: US

I helped a friend do some renovations on an old building that was built with that kind of wood. At first he wanted to disassemble walls to save the wood. We did, with a pair of reciprocating saws. There was no removing nails.

---

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

Late to the game but the reason that the high ISO looked acceptable could be the bright source.
I would think that a brighter light source would have a much higher signal to noise ration vs a darker subject that is typically used with High ISO's

Take the same camera and snap a picture on a cloudy day and I'm sure you'll see much more noise.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

I have, Blue … but did not notice a noise problem with that camera (Nikon D5300) - in fact, that particular one seems relatively free of noise - regardless of what I shoot, or when. It's proven to be a very reliable camera - which is NOT the case with its slightly older brother - the Nikon D7100 - that one seems to have a lot of excess noise. The D5500 I also have, though - is in, pretty much - the same category as the D5300.

Bipod

Sure, Bill: science is B.S. For example, if I walk outside an it's cold today,
that prooves there's no climate change.

Besides, you can deal with climate change--so it's not a problem. (Nevermind those
people in the New Orleans, the Florida Keys or on living South Sea atols. )

Building a digital camera is a tad more complicated than building a dresser drawers.
It requires something real engineering. So does buying one--if you want to know
what you're getting.

The single frame size and the fact that you could load your favorite film into any
35 mm camera and try it made it very easy to evaluate camera performance.

Based on sales volumes, 35 mm was a lot more successful than digital cameras: more
cameras were sold over many decades. Global digital camera units sales have declined
by over 70% since 2010. You may not be affected by that either, but the industry is--
you are going to hae fewer choices in the future.

If you just buy and use whatever is available as good passive consumer, you'd happily
buy a ticket to take a flight tomorrow on a 737 Max 8. Fortuantely, airliners are regulated--
and not just by US authorities. But cameras are not regulated. They can and will sell you
less than you think you are getting.

Lots of photographers built their own film cameras (esp. large format). In fact,
building a view cameras requires a lot of cabinety (and no electronics).
But I don't know any phographer who has built a digital camera or an ink jet or laser
printer. So what is available off-the-sehfl matters more than ever in the history of
photography.

It's a lot like architecture: Romanseque churches are dark. Then somebody invented
the pointed arch---and and the great gothic cathedrals became possible: soaring
expanses of stained glass. The difference was engineering.

They could have kept building Romaneque churches--it was possible to conduct a
service in one. But we would have never had Chartes Cathedral--or the gothic
revival and the Houses of Parliament. But in the High Middle Ages, they didn't
have wait on Acme Arches Inc. to start selling a pointed arch--each stone mason
just copied a cathedral he saw in another town.

Aspire.