photo sharing and upload picture albums photo forums search pictures popular photos photography help login
Man-Fai Wong | profile | guestbook | all galleries | recent
Type your message and click Add Comment
It is best to login or register first but you may post as a guest.
Enter an optional name and contact email address. Name
Name Email
help private comment
Man-Fai Wong 23-Oct-2006 21:28
Thanks everyone for all the kind words. My apologies for the very late response.

_Man_
Richard Haas 23-Sep-2006 15:49
could you please contact me. Thanks in advance
Guest 11-Jul-2006 02:50
Man,
I am so impressed with these pictures.

John
41a74dedf1@lpv.lv 19-Apr-2006 09:19
Fabulous site.
Fred Parsons 19-Mar-2005 05:18
MAN: Again thanks for your kind comments about my work. Your work is so outstanding on such a broad range that I dont know where to begin. Sometimes I feel in a rut with just landscape work but I know that it is what I do best so I stick with it. Keep up the grat work so we can all revist it from time to time. Fred
Joe Fisher 16-Feb-2005 19:09
Hi Man,
Wow your photos are incredible!
I read your post at RAWMagick

http://www.rawmagick.us/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1350&sid=04a404ad9bc726c185dad4e246c37cf6

saying "I don't want to spend the $$$ on NC"
I bought Nikon Capture then my D70 was stolen so I don't need the program anymore.
You can have it if you want. I enjoyed your comments about the Christian faith. If there were more people like you the world would be a better place!
Thanks
Joe Fisher
greatdeals81101@hotmail.com
Guest 05-Feb-2005 05:10
Hello,

I enjoyed your resources, dpreview posts, and thank you for sharing so many great candid street shots. I may not be a great photographer, but I've been looking for a lens with just the right perspective. I just wasn't happy with the 50/1.4 I first tried out. Your samples, many others, plenty of reading, and the rebate has helped me choose this lens. I have no doubt that it will live on my camera. I think zooms tend to make me lazy with composition and lighting.

Q: Do you use filters on your 85mm? Please feel free to respond to my dpreview profile address.

Happy Shooting,

skyrunr
Guest 03-Feb-2005 19:25
I found your gallaries while doing some research on a lens purchase.

Simply stated . . . great pictures and very inspirational to a new dslr owner. Not to put down the kit lens, but even those pics look great to me. It just proves its the person behind the camera, not the lens in front of it that can make all the difference in the world.

Looking forward to your future pics and comments on dpreview.
Man-Fai Wong 08-Oct-2004 00:07
LOL, Dennis. Thanks for dropping by. Hope I wasn't being too judgemental over on the DPR forum. I left a reply there for you.

Kind regards,

_Man_
Man-Fai Wong 08-Oct-2004 00:03
Hi, Tom.

To answer some of your questions, here's what I wrote recently for another poster:

http://forums.pbase.com/post?post_id=1689037

And for some more details, you might find this discussion over on DPReview.com to be helpful:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=10571950

And no, I don't use flash in general for street photography. I did use to use bounce flash a lot w/ my G3 for indoor candids of people I know. With a DSLR, you can just rely on the high ISO capability combined w/ a good lens. It won't look as "pretty" or polished as a very well lit shot done w/ optimum settings, but it will be far more natural than direct flash. Bounce flash can look natural too, but of course, it does disturb the scene nonetheless.

_Man_
dennis 07-Oct-2004 08:45
Hi Man,
just thought i'd drop you a line after checking out your profile on DPreview! I don't want to act sneaky after all.

Keep up the good work.

Dennis.
Tom 06-Oct-2004 18:37
Hi Man-Fai Wong, found your site interesting, loved `em all really but interesting ...... how did you take the pics of all the people did you ask them if ok!! or just click away ? lol, just found it great the way you captured `em all also i take it you was`nt using a flash? or was you? be great to hear from you if you did or did not, but hey man ;o) loved `em all glad i found `em
www.pbase.com/gooners
Man-Fai Wong 20-Jul-2004 16:14
Hi, Justin.

You have my deep respect for your noble outlook and purpose in life. And I must apologize again for jumping to the wrong conclusions about you. I sometimes do forget that I need to be less suspicious and more openminded about the people I come across on the net. And as a Christian, I should indeed not be so concerned about other people's intentions, but my own. Indeed, I implied as much in some of my previous replies to you.

As for your perceptions of me, well, I don't think I would want you to think I'm some particularly noble person who is independent/separate from my Christian faith and identity either way. As you say, you are who you are, and I am who I am. And the fact is I'm a very flawed human being, just another sinner, and the only difference of real substance between me and the next guy/gal is whether one is saved from sin or not. Yes, I understand you feel this is all just a state of mind -- and I cannot prove otherwise nor do I think it's possible in any scientific way -- but that is who I am, flaws and all, w/ faith in the Biblical God.

As for photography, yes, I agree to a large degree that it is not the kind of necessity for sustaining life, and yet, I do not agree that must only be a mere pasttime or hobby. Yes, for the large majority of people, that's how it is and perfectly fine. But if one has a deep sense of what the meaning of life *might* be -- whether it is w/in or w/out religion -- then there probably is a real place of serious substance for photography beyond mere pasttime much like other forms of art or even the basic need of language for communication. For most who are truly serious about photography (and art in general), it is more than just taking pretty snapshots, but a form of communication, of expression, etc. To boil it down to something merely for the well-to-do might be simplifying it a bit too much me thinks.

Consider your earlier retort about the desert. I asked the question should he just die then instead of giving the likely imaginary water another try. And you came back w/ what then if he did find water but is still stuck in the desert? Yes, indeed what then? People often ask the "desert island" question in good jest, but if you were stranded on a desert island all by yourself, would being able to survive on the bare necessities found on the island be enough? Would you not want, indeed actually *need*, more than that? Are we really mere animals who do not really need more than just what keeps us physically alive?

As for noble causes vs kneeling before the altar, you are indeed correct. And if my religion only boils down to nothing more than kneeling before the altar, then it is indeed a sad religion and I wish for no part of it. But that is not what Biblical Christianity is. Yes, we kneel and pray and worship our God, but our worship does not only begin Sunday morning and end Sunday noon. It is (or should be) 24/7 in one form or another though we do fall short of that more often than not -- afterall, we are not perfect nor claim to be nor even claim it's possible in this life. As Biblical Christians, our worship *includes* service to the community, to caring for others, etc. etc., and that is why there are also Christian para-church organizations dedicated to serving all parts of the world. Yes, there are many churches who fail to do so, and indeed, I would not claim that our own church has succeeded to any great degree either, but these are things that we do care about. However, just as you would wish to approach all these things (and life in general) on your own terms based on your own beliefs about the meaning of life, we also approach these things on our own terms based on our beliefs. And also in the end, one person cannot do everything, and so while I may do somethings w/ photography or some other skills I have, others in our church will do somethings w/ what they have. And still, different churches also work more or less together as a whole as well as individually. The Bible speaks of all this as the body of Christ w/ many members and great diversity, and right now, you are only conversing w/ one little member of all that.

Again, I humbly apologize for my wronging you in previous exchanges. It is certainly one of many personal flaws that I need to work on, but I do thank God that He saved me as He did in spite of all my flaws and weaknesses and despite His own demand for holiness and justice and hatred (yes, hatred) of sin. Without His salvation, I would indeed still be that guy in the desert wondering if there is any point in trying again in a seemingly meaningless existence. Don't get me wrong. Before I came to the conclusion that I am a sinner that needed outside help (from God), I felt more or less as you do. But I found out that I could not be that person on my own strength w/ what I could see about life, particularly my own. I'm too fatally flawed. I was convicted by my own conscience -- and it was not as though other people had to tell me or preach to me either. Indeed, any true Christian really must have gone through a similar process in one way or another. Without conviction of sin, how would one honestly want salvation? And w/out sin, why would one need salvation?

Anyway, I have probably rambled on far more than you'd like. So I will stop now.

Peace, and kind regards...

_Man_
Guest 20-Jul-2004 10:21
Mr. Wong,
Indeed, I had no further interest of writing to you again had I not seen your apology in your last mail.

First of all, let me say, to remain anonymous is not a crime; I don’t have to reveal to you my identity because, I am what I am, just a person who has honesty, integrity and having been educated and trained in North America. The purpose that I did not reveal to you who I was or what I did was because I did not want you to form any pre-conceived opinions on I wrote. In our past correspondence, I presented openly to you my views on politics, on religion, on philosophy and I never insisted that you must look at them only from my perspective. On the contrary, you presented your views and rebuttals and insisted that I must consider them from your point of view. While pondering to think, you started throwing insults at me, such as “teeny bopper looking for attention”, people who had no intention of paying into the pbase, etc. Obviously you forgot what freedom of speech was all about; we can differ in opinions while we can still coexist and cooperate; that’s how we can enrich our lives. During the initial exchange of mail, I had deep respects for you as an intellectual person as well as modest Christian; for those reasons I kept you on my web instead of deleting you off right away. Now, my perceptions are altogether different.

You asked me more than once what my purpose was and whether I cared. First of all, I can tell you that the world we live in is a difficult one, one that will need all the wisdom, all the education that we have, to overcome its challenges and difficulties. The purpose of my life, I can honestly tell you, is not photography, neither should it be that of yours or anyelse. Photography, as a pastime, is something people of the well-to-do can afford while there are starvation, wars, diseases and human sufferings out there. The PURPOSE of our lives is to CARE for others, to help others who are less privileged, less fortunate. It is not about sharing experience in photography, I can tell you that.

I have no intention of joining the pbase beyond the trial period. It is a great website I must honestly and sincerely submit; I have nothing against it but only my great admirations for its organization, its memberships and their presentations. Meanwhile, I will consider joining more charitable organizations to volunteer my energy, my knowledge, and my resources. That’s where the purpose of life lies, not inside a church, kneeling before the altar.

Good-bye, my friend.
Justin Faith (Justice-in-faith)
Man-Fai Wong 20-Jul-2004 01:14
Justin,

After rereading our exchanges and giving it a little more thought, I do think I owe you an apology and that I had very likely come to the wrong conclusion about your intentions. Discussion of this sort, especially on an internet forum, is often a difficult proposition, and I must admit that I jumped the gun in my conclusions about you -- and perhaps, it really wasn't even necessary to make any such conclusions. I'm only human and certainly do make my fair share (if not more) of mistakes. So I apologize here although it may well be too late -- and you might not see this. I guess I would see about posting this over in your guessbook as well.

As far as trying to prove Christianity, well, I do not believe it can be proven (at least in the sense of a scientific proof) as I suggested early on. We can only offer evidence and reasoning that support our case much like how it would work in a court of law, but not enough to prove it as you would like if I understand correctly. For this "proof" (as in court of law), you might try checking out Josh McDowell's "More than a Carpenter" as a starting point, if you haven't already. Depending on how skeptical you really are, you may very well need to dig much deeper. But do know that in the end, it will all still depend on your faith -- and it is not a tiny bit of faith like we exercise w/ 10 + 10 = 20 or sitting in a chair. The Bible does not tell us we can prove God. Indeed, it tells us that we cannot know God by our own human wisdom alone. If you believe otherwise, then you are already believing in something else fundamentally different.

Peace, and kind regards...

_Man_
Man-Fai Wong 19-Jul-2004 20:41
Justin,

Why don't you at least try to look at things from another perspective beyond your own? Is it so hard to understand that other people have just cause to wonder about your intentions?

Again, you still never answer my very plain question. Do you really care to find out what is the truth in these matters? Can you not see how this does matter to any such discussion?

This is the internet. I cannot not see you face to face, and you have essentially kept everything about you either a secret or expect me to take everything you say at face value. You want me to prove to you scientifically (so to say) about religion and such, but yet, you expect me to just take everything you say w/ faith. Indeed, again, you would not even commit to a reasonable discussion by answering my plain question.

And again, I don't know how you can miss the words. But I repeatedly told you I was not trying to prove to you anything -- indeed, I already said it is a matter of faith, not of scientific proof. Rather, I was merely trying to provide a starting point to more meaningful, reasonable discussion. Afterall, it's completely pointless to go further if we cannot agree to some sort of goal about the discussion and perhaps some ground rules about how to approach it. Surely, as a scientist, you do not aimless try to discover things w/ likely irrelevant methodologies even though many useful results do come from unexpected discoveries. And yet, you wish for me to approach this w/out knowing what your real intentions are or to be able to discuss it beyond standard scientific methods, which were never designed to examine matters of faith to begin with. Indeed, standard scientific methods essentially ignores the possibility of God's existence and place all burden so called "proof" on the believer, which is unrealistic.

Finally, why quote Jesus (or anyone else) on something like that unless you really believe you are so all-knowing as to judge everyone who agreed w/ the protest as you have? If you look carefully, you would realize that Jesus does indeed claim to be at least equal to God, and thus, all-knowing. So when he passed judgement of that sort, it is not as though he did not believe he knew better than everyone else. Yes, you may argue whether he does know or not, but you cannot argue that he at least believes so or else must be some sort of liar or what-not. In either case, I don't believe you'd want to equate yourself to that. But anyway, that's not the whole point of this discussion. I'm not here to argue about who is name-calling and such. You know what my intentions are as I have quite clearly presented them. But you, OTOH, have not clearly presented your intentions.

And you can claim whatever you will whether your scientist background or your photography or whatever assets you have. But it proves nothing since you provide zero evidence of those things. Meanwhile, you can plainly see many evidence for who I am and what I am about. And if you choose to look beyond pbase, you can certainly find out more about me elsewhere since I am not hiding myself behind some cryptic pseudonym, etc. as you seem to do.

Again, I do hope you find what you're really looking for and that it's more than merely being argumentative for the sake of doing so as you seem to do in these discussions.

Peace...

_Man_

PS: Ok. As I look again at your last reply, well, I see that you do finally admit you have "no interest" in these discussions. Why not say so sooner since I clearly asked?

Anyway...
Guest 19-Jul-2004 19:45
I have no interest of continuing any intellectual discussions with you regarding religion, politics nor photography.

To speak of people as pigs is perfectly acceptable according to your christianity. Referring to some people, Jesus once said, "......is just like casting pearls to the swines.....". When I asked you questions, you did not answer them directly, but instead only addressed them arrogantly without proofs. As a western trained scientist, I can only accept the truth only if I were presented facts. This does not mean, by any standard, that I do not keep an open mind. To accept assumptions without proofs or evidence can be disastrous in my field of work. And I certainly cannot accept your replies as gospel truths. I always spoke with true feeling and I never tried to be pretentiously like a hypocrite.

Photography to me, is just a minor hobby or pastime. I probably took pictures with my Rolliflex even before you were born, and probably when my assets exceeded a million dollar you were/are still taking the subway to work. To pay to join the pbase is not a matter of money to me, it is only a matter of purpose or priority in my case.

To say that I took a "little fun w/ all this" again is another example of your presumptuous attitude in life. I like to bid you good-bye and I thank you for having written.

Justin.


Man-Fai Wong 19-Jul-2004 16:24
Justin,

Despite what you may really think, you did call all sorts of people "pig" and "sheep" for supporting the protest w/out knowing much of anything about them. You may not have explicitly called me one, but it is quite clear and plain that's what you meant. And while you want people to think your words are not name-calling, there is a real reason for using such words beyond merely shorthand way of describing people as you claim. It reflects what you really think of people. And really, that's what name-calling is. So if you're going to use such words as you do, don't be so disingenuous about it. Otherwise, say what you really mean, instead of using such derogatory words. Next thing you'll tell me is that there are many "bananas" in America, but you are not name-calling or being a racist or what-not. It may very be unintentional, but that does not mean it's not name-calling or wrong.

As to the words I used, well, I have just cause for using them at all. And yet, I still did leave open the possibility that you are not one of those people, did I not? And really, if you've been around internet forums long enough, you would know that I'm not merely name-calling here -- and if I am totally wrong about you, then I will apologize also.

I have tried to answer your questions honestly and openly w/in reason and in good faith. Yes, I never intended to fully address every little question you raised -- how could I since you ask so many all at once and yet don't seem all that willing to seriously consider the real point of my replies? And I explicitly told you at the very beginning (and also in most other replies) that I was not trying to answer you on the exact terms you set up, which are not all that reasonable especially if I have no idea whether you are serious or not. I gave you plenty of "benefit of the doubt" in my replies, and yet, you never answered my single question of "do you really care?" nor even comment on whether that should matter at all. You also have not addressed any of my answers in any meaningful ways, but constantly side-step my answers and raise new similar questions or run in circles w/ pseudo-philosophical statements that do not necessarily reflect what you really think or care about. I sure hope that's not how you really approach life as that would be very empty and void of meaning.

As w/ the rest of my complaint, your lack of photos on your account on a *photo* website and lack of history around here (beyond merely posting these kinds of messages) plus seemingly not using a real name, etc. etc. are all empirical evidence pointing to what I began to think about you.

Anyway, I hope you at least had a little fun w/ all this. But I do still also hope that you will one day take the matter seriously and look into Christianity for yourself w/ all honesty and sincerity. It is quite obvious that this is about as far as we can go w/ this discussion. You know where I am on the net, so if you ever choose to consider this seriously, you're very welcome to come back and chat again.

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 19-Jul-2004 13:45
Mr. Wong,
I never called you "pig" or "sheep", as you accused me in your first mail for name-calling. Yet, now, you started calling people names - "a teeny bopper looking for attention", a "troll", a non scientist etc. This is a perfect example of how hypocritic christians are. I don't agree that you are a more patient person than Kevin, but perhaps just another "christian" who does not practice what he preaches, one who calls himself a follower of God, one who proclaims "faith", etc.

Whether I will post my photos on the pbase is a matter of my own affairs, and not up to you to tell me. Precisely the case, people who post up substanadard so-called artistic pictures or pictures that would mislead the thinking of others are the ones that waste the resources of this website and the internet in general.

I know you like to tell people what to do or think. That's alright. We all do that. But, let's us do what we preach.

Good bye, my friend, and please do not bother to reply anymore as I don't believe you are a true christian.
Man-Fai Wong 19-Jul-2004 06:15
Hi, Justin.

It is not that I presented "no logical answers" to your questions, but rather, you have chosen to ignore the logic as well as ignore or overlook the point of my replies. Namely, do you really care? But since you do not wish to further this discussion as if you do care, then there is not much point in going further.

And you do not need to "dare" anything. Do not be so disingenuous about this discussion. It all began w/ you trying to tell me to not be a "pig" or a "sheep", and yet, you would wish for me to be just that in your self-proclaimed scientifically sound way of thinking. For all I know, you are not a scientist at all, but perhaps, just a teeny bopper looking for attention. Certainly, you have said nothing to suggest you are who you claim to be. If I were a less patient person, I would just call you a "troll" and delete your posts from my guessbook. Surely, Kevin would've done just that long ago.

Now, assuming you really do not care to know what is the truth, please be on your way and make some photos so that you have something useful and/or meaningful to share w/ us on pbase. As it is now, you're not only wasting my time and your own, but also the resources of this website and the internet in general. And for all I know, you probably have not paid for your pbase account yet either -- and may have zero intention to do so.

Lastly, I hope you do find what you're really looking for, whatever that may be. It's a terrible thing me thinks to be a scientist who doesn't have any real purpose in life, if indeed that is the case.

_Man_
Guest 19-Jul-2004 04:12
Mr. Wong,
I thank you for taking the time to explain things to me, in your own terms. I would not dare to waste your time nor mine since our life time is finite. However, there were still no logical answers to my questions, and for a scientist to accept any imaginery water in the desert, it is like asking him to take himself and his camel to go through your needle's eye.
Justin.
Man-Fai Wong 19-Jul-2004 03:38
Perhaps, but someone else w/ the power might then come along to rescue him out of the desert if he can survive long enough. What would be the alternative if he does not drink? Would it really be better to just die (and it would not be an easy death either)?

See? In all this exchange, we still have not come to the point where you answer the single question I posed much earlier. Do you really care about this stuff? Or are you here just to waist my time (and your own as well)? Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad to share and to discuss these things. But at least for me, I'm not doing it just to kill time, but because I *do* believe in the God of the Bible *and* wish to share the Gospel, the *VERY* "good news" of Jesus Christ, w/ whoever care to learn about it. You can say "it's in my blood" so to speak.

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 19-Jul-2004 03:07
Mr. Wong,
And after hearing what you said, the poor guy replied: "So what, after drinking the water, it would still lead me nowhere except in the desert!".........

Justin.
Man-Fai Wong 19-Jul-2004 02:46
Ah! Very true, Justin. And yet, it just could be that you find that real oasis w/ real water that saves you from certain death in such an event. And should you merely ignore all such oases as you seem to see them? Or will you not give it yet another try to see if you might finally be saved?

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 19-Jul-2004 00:23
typo: thirst, not thirt.
Guest 19-Jul-2004 00:22
Mr. Wong,

In our search for the "Truth", or in the course of "believing" we have "Faith", it is just like walking in the desert trying to quench our thirt with imaginery water, even though we keep an open mind............

Justin
Man-Fai Wong 18-Jul-2004 23:08
Hi, Justin.

I understood that sentence just fine -- yes, I figured out the typo.

As to the point itself, the problem is you probably expect to find the answers on your own terms and no one elses'. That's only natural. We all do that. But as a scientist (and presumably one who knows how to think logically), you should also realize that the truth cannot always be found or figured out in expected ways. Indeed, many great scientific discoveries are just that: discoveries, not expected. IMHO, if you only accept truths that can be found or figured out in expected ways, you will still be living in a cold cave trying to keep warm w/out a fire.

While this may be taken out of context, there is a great mathematical (and computer scientific) theorem about proving mathematical truths that you've probably heard before, ie. Goedel's Theorem or Turing's NP-completeness Theorem in Comp Sci. And while one cannot directly apply it to our discussion about faith, it does certainly shed a little light on what truth involves and why we need to keep an open mind about how we arrive at the "truth".

_Man_
Man-Fai Wong 18-Jul-2004 22:41
Hi again, Justin.

You are correct that 10 + 10 = 20. And yet, it seems that you have forgotten (or simply taken for granted) how we arrive at that "fact". If you had ever delved very much into theoretical math, you would know what I mean. For example, math students are typically required to understand how to prove 1 + 1 = 2 and not merely do as you suggested, ie. merely by empirical evidence. As w/ all math, there are underlying assumptions called axioms. And the math only works when we can agree to those axioms for a given mathematical model regardless of whether the model works in real world or not.

So yes, even in your illustration, it required a little faith to accept that 10 + 10 = 20. You did it by counting. But you should know as a scientist that such is empirical evidence that support a well understood and accepted math system, not a proof beyond the shadow of a doubt. Scientific fact is just that. It is merely something observed by the scientist and used to either draw conclusions or establish/support a hypothesis and/or theory and/or scientific law(!). But any good scientist should realize that there are tremendous limits to the scientific approach. So while you can prove quite strongly about 10 + 10 = 20 (or anyone can easily trust a chair to hold oneself, the sun to rise every morning and set every evening in most parts of the world, etc. etc.), that does not mean it didn't take any faith at all or that faith is not an acceptable thing when dealing w/ religion and such. It just means that your faith has not been proven *wrong*, and so, your belief is still "truth".

As for convincing you, as I pointed out, it's not something that can be done by mere intellectual discourse. And certainly, no one should be deluded into thinking a short little post here would go very far to doing that either. Yes, I did offer some simple points to give you a reasonable, yet different, way of approaching the matter, but they are merely a starting point should you care at all. If you do not care, then there would be no point in going further. I would not wish to assume you're just some little child who would simply accept what I said so easily. Would you? No, rather, my post was meant to appeal to your intelligence about the matter and not merely go by what some people say or do or an overly simplistic view of the world, of people, etc.

Remember how this discussion all began? You wanted me to look beyond the photos in my view of the political situation in Hong Kong. Well, while I do not wish to call any atheist a "pig", a "sheep" or a "traitor", I would like to appeal to you to look beyond the cliches and misconceptions about the Christian faith. What you have presented so far in these posts are mostly just cliches and misconceptions about Christianity, namely Biblically grounded Christianity. And yes, you are quite right about much of what's happened in history, but that does not mean that's what Christianity is. Much of that involved false religion, and of course some also involved Christians who went the wrong way.

As I said earlier, we are *ALL* sinners. And becoming a Christian does not automagically change that -- and no Christian does become perfect or completely sinless in this life, in this world, no matter what the Catholic Church (or certain other churches) might say :-) though we should strive to sin less and be more like Christ. If you did look into our faith seriously and studied the Bible, you will also see that it talks about false Christians, indeed, even powerful false leaders who lead many astray. If you look in the Old Testament, you will also find out that God's "chosen people" of Old Testament times (ie. Israel) repeatedly failed to live up to God's standard and more often than not turned away from God and do all sorts of evil. *BUT* if you studied carefully, you will also find that God always preserved a small group of His people who did not fall too far away and usually returned to God and returned to doing what was right. Similar things can be said about the Christian Church as a whole, ie. all the churches combined.

No, we are far from perfect since we're sinners. Indeed, very many Christians have done many bad things in history as you know, but in the end, that's not what the Christian faith is about. It's not about us trying to do good things to redeem ourselves (as most non-believers often assume), but rather, we believe we are redeemed by Jesus Christ in His death and resurrection *alone*, a true gift from God out of His own initiative, love and mercy, something we never deserved. And when we do good deeds, it is because we wish to do what pleases God -- or that's how it should be anyway. Afterall, is it not natural to want to please the one who saves you from certain death and destruction -- assuming that's what not believing means? And of course, God also does demand that we do what is good and right too even though we may still fail Him often due to our weaknesses -- but that is why we need Jesus' perfect sacrifice, which washes away all our sins whether past, present or future. Then one might say, "well, that's cheap grace or bad religion if we can still sin and be cleansed. What's to keep us from continuing in sin as though we never believed?" Well, let's just say for now that a true believer would not wish to continue indefinitely in his/her old sinful ways -- that is a basic part of the Christian faith. We are called to both believe and repent, to claim Jesus as both Savior and Lord. And God's gift is not cheap either. Afterall, it cost Him His ownly Begotten Son -- and in effect, He paid for it w/ His own death.

The real question right now is "do you really care?" Or are you just being argumentative? :-) And if you claim to care, are you really going to check out Christianity seriously and do some investigating much like you would w/ a good scientific research and putting a "good faith" effort into the matter? Afterall, as a scientist, you want a thorough investigation of the matter before you are willing to consider putting some faith in it. OTOH, as a scientist -- if you're really a good one, don't you owe it to yourself to investigate more deeply into such an important matter (as the meaning of life and similar things) than just merely assenting to common cliches and misconceptions that the average atheist, who is *not* a scientist (or philosopher or some other particularly intelligent sort), stick to? Or are you really so much smarter or have done so much more homework on the subject than many giant thinkers and scientists, who either believe in the Christian God or are at least agnostic, ie. believe in a God or creative force, but not necessarily the God of the Bible? Are you prepared to say you know better than people like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and many others? Don't be too sure until you've looked seriously and honestly at the matter.

When I was in high school (and cared not about religion), an English teacher once quoted for us a proverb. "Hey, rooster! Don't be so proud. Your mother was just an egg shell." Well, it went something like that anyway though I might have a word or two wrong -- but you probably understand the saying anyway. The point is we should not be too proud about who we are (and what we know and all that). We may think we have the answers -- or enough of them -- but that may not be true. And if there are many other greater people who are less sure or may even believe the opposite way, shouldn't we give things a better, more serious look? But of course, that's assuming one cares to know at all.

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 18-Jul-2004 20:41
typo in my last paragraph; it should read:

So far, I still have no ansers, and I "believe" in "good faith" that I would NEVER will.
Guest 18-Jul-2004 20:21
Hi Mr. Wong,
Your last mail indeed has not been convincing enough to change my view on religion. If a person says 10 plus 10 is 20, I don't think it is correct to say that a believer of this is a matter of having "faith" and that a non-believer is one who has an absence of "faith". To me, as a trained scientist, I would still take 10 candies, for instance, add another 10 candies together, and start counting again to see if the product is indeed 20 candies. Anything other than that is a matter of assumption only.

As an atheist, I feel the questions in my previous mail had not been completely addressed, sorry to say. When I was a kid, I ask the teacher why did people go to church on Sundays. The teacher said, to serve God. Then I asked,"If God was so infinitely powerful why would He need people to serve him, sir?". To that there is no answer. In Europe, the tour guide said that in the old days, churches were very powerful, they spied on peasants because peasants went to the priests for confessions and the churches knew all the gossips and so on, who slept with whom, who cheated and who evaded taxes, etc; then the churches collaborated with kings and emperors and gained control of the country. For illustration, the guide cited the creation of the Holy Roman Empire and any king who did not get the blessing from the Pope would not be a true king. My queries now is, were those Popes and priests really serving God or themselves who lived like gods?

On television these days, we often heard that church ministers defaulted church goers millions of dollars, priest abused children and women, etc. My question here is, how can we ever have faith ?

I do not claim I know everything, but I do question everything. I have been questioning everybody including myself, "What is the meaning of life?" So far, I still have no answer, and I "believe" in "good faith" that I would ever will. For this reason, I call myself: "Just-in-faith".

My deepest respects and best regards to you, Sir.
Justin Faith.
Man-Fai Wong 18-Jul-2004 17:40
Hi, Justin.

I once believed more or less as you do, so that's nothing foreign to me. Also, I have little doubt that this exchange will do little to convince you otherwise. As far as I can tell, a change of one's views and perspective almost never happens by mere intellectual discourse. It involves real experiences that for us to reconsider our positions, to re-examine ourselves and our outlook on life, the world, etc. I could present many reasons for giving God and specifically the Christian faith a good hard look, instead of merely blurbing a handful of cynical assumptions, but I can see that won't really help much.

I would say this. Consider that your position is really just based on certain assumptions of what God *has* to be in order for Him to be real. But if God is really God, then couldn't He easily be what you don't already assume He must be in order to be real? If God is simply what I once thought He had to be when I was still a non-believer, then He is indeed a weak god like all the other gods out there and not deserving my worship and trust. See. We must remember that we are finite beings and full of faults and weaknesses even if we do not believe we are all sinners -- there is not a single person on earth who can honestly claim otherwise. And if God is indeed the infinite God of the Bible, then He easily transcends and defies much of what we used to assume are true. And you know what? The Bible does tell us that also. Now, whether you have any desire to seriously consider the Biblical God as true or not is up to you (as I mentioned earlier). But if one has zero desire to really find out, then there is nothing anyone else can do to convince him/her. And this is true whether we're talking religion, philosophy or most any other thing in life.

One other thing. Not everyone who claims to be a believer is a real believer. And not everyone who claims to know anything really knows it either. So while there are many who claim one thing or another about God, religion, politics, life in general, etc., that does not mean they really know it. If some who appear to be Christian (to you), say something about God, that does not mean that's what the Bible really says or what Christians really believe. That's why one needs to look more carefully and not just take everyone's word for it. For example, your tour guide explained something about some cathedrals, and you assumed it's true *AND* that it represents something about the Christian faith. But this notion while possibly true of the cathedral builders is not true about what Biblically grounded Christians believe. If you ever read much of the Bible, you will see a little story about the Tower of Babel and how this kind of thinking *might* even be completely opposed to true Christian beliefs. And about all the flaws and imperfections of the world, well, it'd take a long time to explain (and I have no idea if you really even truly want to hear :-) ), but suffice it to say that God has His own plan and His own ways that are not easy for us to understand nor can we hope to understand it fully (at least not in our present state as very imperfect people). And it's really not so hard to see that even if one does not believe God -- I don't know any atheists who can honestly claim they understand everything either.

In the end, it is all about faith, even if you're an atheist. Atheists *believe* there is no God. It is just an assumption. Yes, it is a very reasonable assumption, but still just an assumption nonetheless, one made w/ faith. For us who do believe in God, it is also faith and can also be a very reasonable one also, but still faith nonetheless. Nothing, whether believing in God or not, is proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. It all requires a certain amount of faith. Even your *belief* that man reached the Moon and all that requires a little faith. And one exercises faith all the time in every part of our lives, including little things like sitting in a chair (w/ the assumption that it will hold oneself).

And BTW, before anyone wishes to call me nuts or illogical, one should really understand how logic works and also take note that many great scientists and thinkers in past and present are Christians (and believers of certain other religions too). Indeed, there aren't quite that many such people who are complete atheists. Many are agnostic for sure, but that's because they know better than to dismiss God knowing that they cannot do so w/out exercising faith. Indeed, I would argue that the atheist is actually the illogical one if he/she dismisses the possibility of God w/out understanding he/she is doing it on faith. :-)

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 18-Jul-2004 15:48
Hi Mr. Wong,
Thank you for writing again. No, I don't believe in heaven and hell which are imaginations of carrot and stick; they are only states of the mind. Was Virgin Mary born with sin too? Why didn't God creat a perfect Adam and a perfect Eve in the first place? Why did God create mosquitoes, cockroaches, locusts, etc? Don't tell me He wanted to create a food chain! Why did God create heads of states who would order bombs to be dropped onto other countries to kill men, women and children? Don't tell me He wanted other people to be free. Ask if a dead soldier wanted to sacrifice his life so that others can live. He probably would tell you he had no choice because he was called to war. We are not born as sinners, or selfish persons, sorry to say. Only the environment in which we live make us sin and selfish. When I was travelling in Europe, one tour guide told us that the purpose of building tall cathedrals was for people to get close to God on Sundays so that their voices and songs could be heard. For crying loud, if I were God I would rather not to be bothered on Sunday to listen to all the grievances, repentance of people; I would rather sleep in and have some peace, or kick myself for having created such an imperfect human race!
Regards,
Justin
Man-Fai Wong 18-Jul-2004 13:05
Hi, Justin.

Yes, I do believe in heaven and hell -- afterall, I'm a Biblically grounded Christian (as I said earlier). Whether you believe it or not is up to you. It's a personal matter and not a mere matter of intellectual debate either -- it's a matter of both conviction of the heart and the mind. And while I can share the Christian faith w/ others, I cannot force anyone to believe nor should I. As to the particular matter of being born w/ sin, well, I have never known a single baby who is not born selfish -- yes, that may sound harsh, and I do love babies, but we are all indeed born selfish and need to learn to become less selfish (and some never learn at all).

Anyway, I wish you well and hope your photographic journey will be a good one. And yes, I do also hope that you might one day see things differently as I have. :-)

Peace, and kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 17-Jul-2004 15:27
Mr.Wong,
I thank you for allowing me the benefit of seeing things from your perspective again. I will leave all the world politics behind now and devote my time to photography and other matters again.
I still cannot convince myself that we are born with sin. And whether we have sin or no sin in our body, we all die one day anyway. Then what? Please don't tell me that there is heaven and hell and all that, which as far as I am concerned, are all our imaginations postulated to guide us to search for the true meaning of life.

Justin
Man-Fai Wong 17-Jul-2004 10:58
Hi again, Justin.

Ha ha. Yes, you are technically correct that not every man *was* born sinful, but at least if you believe the Bible, Jesus is the one and only man who was born w/out sin *and* remained w/out sin -- and He is not merely man either, but the Son of God and is God -- He is both God and man. Jesus was not born of a man either, but of the Spirit *through* the virgin Mary. Adam and Eve were the only other humans who were ever w/out sin, but Adam's fall brought all people who descended from him into sin -- and Jesus does not descend from Adam.

And yes, it's a fundamental Biblical principle that all humans, except Jesus, are sinners by nature. We sin because we are sinners, not the other way around. And that's why we *all* need to be redeemed from sin through Jesus.

As for your take on America and democracy (or lack thereof), well, sounds like you misunderstand what democracy is or how America works or even how any government can possibly work. First of all, not everyone here believes in the war in Middle East or the detention of Cubans, and certainly extremely few are ok about that whole fiasco w/ the Iraqi POWs. Secondly, the voice of the people *is* being heard here, but of course, the system cannot possibly work that fast. Still, government leaders are being held accountable, which would not happen in China. Sure, President Bush may just escape this whole fiasco w/ Iraq for the moment, but we shall see if that's still true come Election Day in a few months.

As for your points about China/HK/Taiwan and China becoming more democratic, etc, well, I do agree for the most part. And I don't expect mainland China to become 100% democratic overnight either. It will take time for sure, and it does seem to be heading in the right direction and has made huge improvements over the last 15-20 years. I have co-workers from mainland and talk about changes in mainland quite often. Still, this doesn't mean that Hong Kong should go backwards in its integration back into China. IMHO, they really should both move forward in parallel until they both come to the point of convergence.

FWIW, when I look at those photos, I am not suggesting that Hong Kong should break free from China to become its own country like Taiwan tried to do. My impression was that Hong Kong people more or less want things to stay about the same w/ perhaps a little more democracy and certain maintain free speech and such. I don't doubt that some of those protestors actually do want to break free just like Taiwan, but I doubt all of them feel that way. If that's not the case, well, then I guess I will disagree w/ them. I certainly do wish to see one unified, democratic China some day, and hope that it will surpass what the USA is today in every respect -- yes, the USA is itself far from perfect though the system does work for the most part (but definitely not always).

Kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 17-Jul-2004 08:26
Hi Mr. Wong,
I cannot agree with your saying that man is corrupt and sinful by nature. Jesus, who was born as a man, was never corrupt nor sinful. I don't think you were either. And I don't believe America, who claimed to be democratic, is truly democratic. Just look at the wars in the Middle East, the abusive treatment of prisoners, the detention of people in Cuba. I don't want to go on and on, or I would be branded as a terrorist or communist.
I agree that the politics in HongKong/China/Taiwan is very complicated and I wouldn't ever claim that I fully understand it all. But, I would rather see one China instead of three different separate countries of HongKong, China, and Taiwan. I agree that there are corruptions in China, but tell me one country in the world that does not have corruption at high places. We are not living in a perfect world. The disputes, obviously there are lots, among HongKong-China-Taiwan are matters of internal affairs and should never be interfered by foreign powers even if requested by some to do so. I don't think we should always look back at what had happened during the cultural revolution (by the way, I don't agree with all the ugly things happening there), nor should we always dwell on how poorly the black people had been treated before the American civil war or before Dr. Martin Luther King's freedom march. We have to be constructive and look forward to building a better world.
PRC (People Republic of China) only took over the country some 55 years ago (1949) from a land plagued by foreign invasions, famines, absolute poverty and destitute. China has a large population to look after; we simply cannot expect to see China turned 100% democratic overnight. This does not mean that China is not becoming democratic, it only means China needs time to become so.
I thank you for allowing me the benefit of learning from your points of view.

Justin.
Man-Fai Wong 17-Jul-2004 03:41
Justin,

Yes, you are correct that the photos can mislead as that's always the case just as w/ any kind of presentation, even ones that claim to present facts w/ full sincerety. The fact is we are all biased because we all have our own perspective on things.

Having said all that, that does not mean everyone who agrees w/ the protest, the slogans and such are wrong or mere pigs and sheep or traitors. The political situation in Hong Kong is a complicated one for sure. And I wouldn't claim to know everything or what's best for everyone even if I am still living there and deeply involved in politics and government. I've been living in the USA for ~27 years now, and I wouldn't claim to know what's best for everyone here either. Indeed, I do find political involvement to be almost pointless most of the time -- not completely pointless, but almost, and not all times -- in large part because of my own views and convictions about God and man (as a Biblically grounded Christian). And that is here in the USA where we do hold elections for all parts of the government, except the courts where judges are appointed by those we elect (so chosen by representation).

What I do believe strongly is that man is corrupt and sinful by nature. We are all born that way. And because of that, it is generally best to not have just a few people control everything for indefinite amount of time. Even the most well intentioned people can become corrupted enough to lead a country astray. That's why I (as well as the founding fathers of the USA) believe democracy is the best way to go and a government that allows for many checks and balances is a good one. Yes, one can argue that the USA government has its own weaknesses and flaws, but I would much rather have that than one that can easily go terribly astray w/ not much hope of return just because of a few leaders.

Now, you ask why people didn't protest likewise against the British government? That's a complicated one, and I'm sure part of the reason involves people's resentment of the communist way and what happened during the original communist takeover in China and the whole Cultural Revolution. People were not given a choice at that time, and everyone who showed even an inkling of opposition was punished and forced to convert their views -- and of course, there were plenty of book burnings, etc. I myself have had relatives who suffered under all that. That's why there was so much fear of the takeover back in the 80's and then again in the 90's. Lots of native HK-ers fled HK or at least gained citizenship elsewhere during those 15+ years. Heck, it was so rampant that even the HK TV shows and movies tried to convince people not to immigrate elsewhere.

Sure, I doubt that things will ever get as bad as it did back during the Cultural Revolution given China's direction and changes over the last 15 years, but it is always better to play it safe and have as much democracy as possible to help prevent bad things from happening. Really, what is wrong w/ having democracy? What is wrong w/ making sure people's voices will be heard and that government leaders can't just do whatever they wish? Is there something the mainland government should be so worried about? No, except that the leaders may fear losing control and power or having their corruption be revealed very publicly -- yes, I know about all the bribery and such that goes on in the mainland for example. So their fear has essentially nothing to do w/ the well-being of the people. Really.

BTW, I watched the film Hero by Zhang Yi-Mou. Nice piece of propaganda for the PRC government, no? :-) OTOH, maybe his intentions were subversive enough for those of us who never looked at Emperor Chin as a truly good emperor, but just ruthless, power hungry and perhaps a little mad even though he was certainly a great emperor along the lines of Napolean or Gheghis Khan or Julius Caesar.

Traitors? Nope. Just people who disagree w/ the communist government. Last I checked, we native HK-ers (and most southern Chinese) are still Han people long before there was a communist government in China. Sure, China has never really had democracy, but was it really that good in most centuries when China was ruled by all sorts of mad, power hungry, corrupt emperors and/or provincial governors, etc.? What's so different between the PRC government and most of those dynasties of old? Well, I'd agree it's probably better than most of the past right now, but why stop there and what's to prevent it from going bad if left unchecked? Why not continue to move forward for something better? History teaches us that there were some good emperors -- and the same goes for many other countries (just look at Israel in the Bible for instance) -- but sooner or later, things always go terribly bad in such dictatorships. But as far as we know, democracy generally has worked and have not gone badly like dictatorships and such. So why not push for democracy?

BTW, there are also plenty of Americans who regularly lobby for more freedom (or rather less restriction on existing freedoms) and speak up against the USA government. Should they be branded as traitors merely then? Interestingly, some would indeed call them traitors, especially back 40-60 years ago when the right-wing leaders placed all sorts of people on trial for being communists(!) (or merely agreeing w/ certain socialist and/or communist ideas). And if democracy didn't win out here, perhaps, the USA would be a lot like the PRC, except we'd have extreme right-wing leaders bullying everyone into submission, instead of extreme left-wing leaders trying to suppress people who want their voices heard.

Kind regards,

_Man_
Guest 17-Jul-2004 01:13
Resend after correction of typo.

Hi Mr. Wong,
I appreciate your response to my note. I cannot use artistic pictures to convince you of my feeling about the July HK Protest because the two are unrelated. Wisemanfu's comments to Kevin were not directed to his work, which was excellent I am sure, but to alert viewers that pictures could mis-lead them to form biased opinions, as shown by the comments left behind by some of the viewers, like in your case.

Pigs are low intelligent animals and sheep are animals that follow others without thinking. It was all a matter of figure of speech and not name calling session as you suggested. Those protesters in the pictures demanded "Power to People" etc. Tell me, what "Power"? Why didn't these people protest to Britain prior to 1997 to demand a general voting of a governor of their choice, like what they do now, before the governor was sent from Britain to rule Hong Kong? Where were you in those years? Please also tell me what do these people understand by "Democracy"?

Respectfully,
Justin
Man-Fai Wong 16-Jul-2004 01:02
Hi, Justin.

I do wish that Kevin did not delete Wisemanfu's original comment(s) so I could get his side of it. As for all these words about "pigs and sheeps" and "traitors" and such, they are all just name calling and don't prove anything. The photos are undeniable even though it's certainly possible to skew things w/ them as you suggest. If you (and Wisemanfu) really want to prove something on these forums, I would suggest doing it w/ photos, not mere words, or at least offer links to some reasonably reliable info sources. Also, it would help your creditability (and Wisemanfu's) to actually use your Pbase accounts for photography in general rather than just to post these kinds of comments. At least w/ Kevin, I have actually seen some of his other works in the past (not just now w/ that protest gallery) and have had a little contact w/ him in a different camera/photography forum, so he's not a complete stranger to me.

Finally, I am from Hong Kong myself (as you must know after reading my comment on his gallery), and while I have not been good about keeping up w/ HK events, I am aware enough to know that there is at least some truth to what is being presented -- and certainly, there's not much reason for me to trust/believe or take sides in favor of the PRC government on these matters just because someone says so. Yes, the truth is usually somewhere in between what two sides will claim, and so, I'm open to listening to both sides, but you will have to present a better argument than just calling people names, if you wish to convince me of anything.

Regards,

_Man_
Guest 15-Jul-2004 08:44
I gallery I was referring to is: http://www.pbase.com/littlebabylon/protest04

Gustin
Guest 15-Jul-2004 08:21
It is sad to read your comments left for Kevin re 01 July HK Protest. It is also sad to see such a large number of pigs and sheep misguided by a few traitors who wanted to topple HongKong and to embarrass China. You should read the comments written by Wisemanfu in Kevin's guestbook. I completely agree with what he said there.
Man-Fai Wong 31-May-2004 19:19
Hi, Jen.

Thanks for the kind words and dropping by.

Regarding the noise, yes, many pics do exhibit noise, but that's largely because I often shoot in low lighting w/ high ISO's -- many are 800-1600. I don't personally mind the noise level when high ISO's are needed (and I do occasionally add grain intentionally). Yeah, some could've been lower noise if I just made them at better times of the day and/or w/ tripod, eg. some flower shots at ISO400 or so, but oh well. :-)

Thanks again.

Kind regards,

_Man_

PS: I looked at some pics again, and I think you might be refering to some shadow noise even in shots made at ISO200. Yeah, the D70 does have some shadow noise, but much of what's visible in my shots were probably increased by the way I shoot and the postprocessing I do. For one thing, some of the "noise" might actually be JPEG artifacts from the low quality (700-800KB) JPEGs I use for web resized display -- I shoot RAW+JPEG -- and the postprocessing I do will generally make noise and such artifacts more visible. I do often like the grittier, high contrast look and haven't felt it to be too much so far. I'm sure less noisy results can be achieved if one prefers, eg. using the RAW files, shooting w/ more contrasty lens and/or more contrasty light when high contrast is desired. The Sigma lens does tend to lend a warm, yellow cast and softens contrast as a result -- and my contrast enhancement postprocessing probably made the little bit of shadow noise visible. Hope this helps.
jen 31-May-2004 01:23
hi man

just stopped by, really like the pple pics! :) good job!
i was lookin' at your gallery coz i was thinkin' of buying the d70.

it seems that there is quite a lot of noise in the pictures?
is that deliberate or does the camera have that tendency?

thanks
jen
http://bigbluesky.typepad.com/let_there_be_light
Man-Fai Wong 05-May-2004 16:10
Hi, Tim.

I'm no authority on lenses (nor most things photographic), but the 85mm f/1.8D works very well for me. Yes, it's certainly much better than the kit lens for low light around that focal length range. However, it's not quite correct to compare them in such a general way. For one thing, you need to use a faster shutter speed at that focal length range when shooting handheld. If you can get a shot at close range (or wide view) and still get a desirable composition, you won't need fast shutter speeds at the wide end of the kit lens where it can open wide to f/3.5. See these low light wideangle handheld shots for examples:

http://www.pbase.com/image/28330826

http://www.pbase.com/image/27967411

IIRC, the first was ~1/30s at ISO1600 and the 2nd was ~1/20s at ISO200, but at the effective 27mm focal length (35mm equiv), those are fine shutter speeds me thinks.

Yes, the 85mm f/1.8 is 2 stops faster than the kit lens at the latter's wide end, but you also need ~2 stops faster shutter speed w/ the 85mm focal length. So it really depends on what you're trying to do. It's good to have both me thinks and swap depending on the shot you want or the situation you're in. Oh, also, the bokeh on the 85mm f/1.8 is not as smooth/rounded as the kit lens, and you can see this in some of my night shots w/ the 85mm f/1.8. Of course, you would get more OOF blur w/ the larger aperture, especially since the kit lens is only f/4.5 from normal to tele end. Finally, you also need to realize that opening the lens very wide will mean very shallow DoF at close ranges like head shot portraits and might not be completely desirable for studio-style portraits or the like.

As for the 85mm f/1.4, I did not give it much consideration because I cannot justify the cost. If you have the $$$ to spend, it's probably worthwhile. It has smoother/rounder bokeh than the 85mm f/1.8 and seems to be sharper w/ better contrast at large apertures than the 85mm f/1.8 from comparisons I've seen posted on DPR's Nikon forums. However, Ron Reznick, who is one of the recognized authorities on the forums, also feels that the 85mm f/1.8 is better for shooting longer distance subjects and/or w/ smaller apertures. He feels that they should be used for different purposes and that both are worth owning. :-)

Basically, Ron thinks that the 85mm f/1.4 is better for head shot portraits and the like while 85mm f/1.8 is better for longer range shots. Also, for low light in general, the 85mm f/1.4 should of course be better -- and it seems many of the veteran Nikon owners (ie. not D70 newbies) do feel it's worth it. If you do a search on DPR forums, you should find plenty of posts comparing these two lenses. The extra 2/3 stop would probably help quite a bit in low light since it can mean getting a shot or not at all or getting a higher quality shot in general. I would probably get it if I could justify the cost, but as it is, I've spent way more than I had ever intended when I first bought my Canon G3 less than a year ago. :-)

Hope this helps some.

Kind regards,

_Man_
Tim Bergeron 05-May-2004 06:53
I wwas directed to your site through some links from your 85mm 1.8 lens pics. I wanted to get your reactions from that lens and ask if you considered the 1.4... I also wanted to ask how well it works in low light compared to the D70 kit lens.

Tim Bergeron

http://potd.timbergeron.com
maria jaime 09-Apr-2004 14:31
Those are some beautiful pictures you took of our Debbie Harry. Please email me at cptata@aol.com. I'm interested in purchasing some of the pics. thanks, Maria
Rich 21-Feb-2004 02:57
Man,

Great work! Like your eye. I was in NYC .. in the middle of TS when the lights went out.
What an experience! I had a G2 wiyth me. Just bought an S400.

Keep it up!

Rich
Man-Fai Wong 21-Dec-2003 12:13
Hi, Gerald.

Sorry for this late reply. I didn't realize I received a message till now -- my first one(!). :-)

Anyway, I believe you asked this on DPR -- probably since I didn't reply. :-)

I really don't know about the quality of the camcorder's digital stills since I never use it for stills, which is why I went w/ the ZR40 for minimum stills capability but same video quality as the highest end model at the time (ZR55MC?). My guess is that it will not be as good as the G2's quality even when comparing at the same res w/ same exposure settings, etc. The camcorder is optimized for video, not stills, so I don't see how it can compete w/ the G2's optimized-for-stills quality. For one thing, most video cams use interlaced CCDs, not progressive. And anyway, 1024x768 res is rather low for print use and would only give you ~170ppi for a 4x6 print -- that ppi figure is ok for an enlargement since you generally won't look too closely, but rather low for a 4x6.

Hope this helps some.

_Man_
Gerald Daly 12-Dec-2003 17:33
Thanks for all your help on the dpreview site. You are a good teacher and given me many insights. I have a question regarding the Canon AR65MC Camcorder. I thought it was inapproriate to post this at dpreview. It says that it takes digital photos at resolution 1024X768 size and that it does has a compression setting at "superfine." If I put my Canon G2 on resolution M2 (1024x768) and Superfine and shoot a photo and print it. Will that image look like the one I will get from the Canon AR65MC Camcorder? While I am getting that camcorder for my daughter, I was wondering how I could tell the quality of the images.

Sure wish I could find a site like dpreview for camcorders....

Gerald Daly
daly@dalygraphics.com