In todays photography world, is it worth buying a piece of equipment of this age/quality. Only because of my income, as a 16 year old its hard to get the 'big bucks' for high end cameras that will produce top end images. I have a 5d mark II but it was been through a lot and is coming towards its final days.   Thanks all!
I've been taking photographs for a while, and have started to think about moving to full-frame. I'm on a very limited budget, but I currently have a good macro lens and am quite willing to buy something like a EF 50mm f/1.8 to start off with. I could possibly stretch my budget as far as a 70-200 f/4 L or 24-105 f/4 L.  Primarily, I'm interested in taking photos of small wildlife like reptiles, amphibians and insects, but I have a healthy interest in landscapes, birds and street photography.   I currently have an EOS 30D, and I love the way the camera handles, especially with the dual control dials. For this reason, I think shooting with a Rebel would be a significant step down.   However, I have seen 5Ds and occasionally 1Ds Mark IIs on ebay for roughly the same price as an EOS 650D. I'm sure these cameras have better IQ than my 30D, since they are pro-level bodies from around the same time, and full-frame besides. The question is, are these cameras now so old that the image quality from them is a substantial step down from current Rebels?   I realise I'll be giving up continuous shooting speed and some amount of low-light performance, and that I'd also need to get an external flash, but besides these, are there any substantial caveats I need to be aware of before I go ahead and take the plunge?
Can't read filenames in save dialog box. Names are too faint I want to click on file to inherit the name for the file being saved. I can't read file names in the dialog box because the color is too faint. This is the same question as   That question does not have an answer but I don't have enough points to interact there so I have to post a new question.    Edited to add screen shots I tried to calibrate the monitor which no effect and did not change the readability of "unavailable" file names. I have added screenshots of previous operating systems to compare: Please tell me how Mojave is not to blame here: Notification that ‘someone might be watching what you browse’ I got a notification on my iPhone. The notification reads     Someone might be watching what you browse. Follow 3 steps to encrypt your web traffic and change your IP address.   What does this mean? Windows 7 SP1 Windows Update stuck checking for updates I installed Windows 7 fresh and installed SP1. Now, when I try to check manually for Windows Updates it just hangs on the Checking for updates screen.    I tried running the tools in , but this did not fix the issue either:  No matter what I do it just hangs on the "Checking for updates..." screen and goes no further. Give us better search-by-score syntax tl;dr: Give the score search operator ability to change between greater than and less than.  I just noticed that searching for score:0 turns up only question with a score equal to 0. Searching for score:1 gives everything with a positive score. (&gt;=1) I can live with these. But here's the big one: score:-1. I would expect it to give all the negatively scored posts - there is a minus sign in there. But it doesn't. It gives all the posts &gt;=-1. Greater than? So, my  is that we get more granular search options for score. For example,  score:1 would show all posts with score == 1 score:1+ would show everything score &gt;= 1 score:0 would show all posts with score == 0 score:-1 would show everything score == -1 score:-1- would show al posts where score &lt;= -1  In short, the operator after the number would show which direction to go with the matching. A minus sign means less than, a plus sign means greater than. No sign means exact. Can it hurt to put my GRE score on my resume? If my score is good and if I'm applying for an MS program in Europe, can it give me any kind of edge? The university I'm applying to requires GRE scores for certain programs but not the one I'm applying for. And if it won't be advantageous, can it hurt my prospects in anyway? Are there massless bosons at scales above electroweak scale? Spontaneous electroweak symmetry breaking (i.e. $SU(2)\times U(1)\to U(1)_{em}$ ) is at scale about 100 Gev. So, for , gauge bosons $Z$ &amp; $W$ have masses about 100 GeV. But before this spontaneous symmetry breaking ( i.e. Energy > 100 GeV) the symmetry $SU(2)\times U(1)$ is not broken, and therefore gauge bosons are massless.  The same thing happens when we go around energy about $10^{16}$ GeV, where we have the Grand Unification between electroweak and strong interactions, in some bigger group ($SU(5)$, $SO(10)$ or others). So theoretically we should find gauge bosons $X$ and $Y$ with masses about $10^{16}$ GeV after GUT symmetry breaks into the Standard Model gauge group $SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)$, and we should find massless X and Y bosons at bigger energies (where GUT isn't broken).  So this is what happened in the early universe: when temperature decreased, spontaneous symmetry breaking happened and firstly $X$ &amp; $Y$ gauge bosons obtained mass and finally $Z$ &amp; $W$ bosons obtained mass.   Now, I ask: have I understood this correctly? In other words, if we make experiments at energy above the electroweak scale (100 GeV) we are where $SU(2)\times U(1)$ isn't broken and then we should (experimentally) find $SU(2)$ and $U(1)$ massless gauge bosons, i.e. $W^1$, $W^2$, $W^3$ and $B$ with zero mass? But this is strange, because if I remember well in LHC we have just make experiments at energy about 1 TeV, but we haven't discovered any massless gauge bosons. Lebesgue integration: $f = g$ a.e. $ \Rightarrow \int_\Omega f = \int_\Omega g$ Let $f,g : \Omega \subseteq \mathbb R^n \rightarrow [0,+\infty]$ be measurable functions with $f(x) = g(x)$ a.e. . Then I have to show that $\int_\Omega  f = \int_\Omega g$.  I may not assume that $\int_\Omega (f+g) = \int_\Omega f + \int_\Omega g$.   This task is from Tao Proposition 19.2.6. Why does the C++ map type argument require an empty constructor when using []? Detecting outliers using standard deviations Following my question , I am wondering if there are strong views for or against the use of standard deviation to detect outliers (e.g. any datapoint that is more than 2 standard deviation is an outlier).  I know this is dependent on the context of the study, for instance a data point, 48kg, will certainly be an outlier in a study of babies' weight but not in a study of adults' weight.  Outliers are the result of a number of factors such as data entry mistakes. In my case, these processes are robust.   I guess the question I am asking is: Is using standard deviation a sound method for detecting outliers? What if my State / Country doesn't have a Ubuntu LoCo Team? How can I start one? I know what an Ubuntu Team is and , but what can users do if their area doesn't have a LoCo team? Dini's Theorem - Proof. I'd like to prove the following:  If $f_j$ are continuous functions on a compact set $K$, and $f_{1}(x) \leq f_{2}(x) \leq \dots$ for all $x \in K$, and the $f_j$ converge pointwise to a continuous function $f$ on $K$ then in fact the $f_j$ converge uniformly to $f$ on $K$.  Attempt:  Let $g_{j}(x) = f(x) - f_{j}(x)$ for all $j$. Then, since $f_j \rightarrow f$ pointwise, we see $g_j \rightarrow 0$ pointwise.  Now, let $\varepsilon &gt; 0$ . And examine { $x \in K : g_{j}(x) &lt; \varepsilon$ }.  I've been told that the next step should be to  show that { $x \in K : g_{j}(x) &lt; \varepsilon$ } is equal to the intersection of $K$ with some open set $U_j$. But I'm not certain why this is true?   Advice? Insight? Prove that $B[x] \cap B[x^{-1}]$ is integral over $B$ Do you know any open source tool to automatically align images, similar to the auto align feature in Photoshop? How to pass Unicode characters as JSP/Servlet request.getParameter? I have a Google Apps for your domain account for my domain which we will call DomainA  I have since replaced that domain with DomainB which is set up in the Google Apps account as an alias.   Since I want to let DomainA expire at some point in the future, I would like to change my primary domain to DomainB in my Google Apps account with DomainA as an alias.   How can I do this? Consider the sum of $n$ uniform distributions on $[0,1]$, or $Z_n$. Why does the cusp in the PDF of $Z_n$ disappear for $n \geq 3$? I've been wondering about this one for a while; I find it a little weird how abruptly it happens. Basically, why do we need just three uniforms for $Z_n$ to smooth out like it does? And why does the smoothing-out happen so relatively quickly?  $Z_2$:     $Z_3$:    (images shamelessly stolen from John D. Cook's blog: )  Why doesn't it take, say, four uniforms? Or five? Or...? Minimize absolute values of errors instead of squares The  was deleted last night by the Community user.    Normally, I wouldn't see an issue with this, but for this particular deletion, I can see three issues:   We try not to delete good content There are multiple upvoted answers We often use previous answers on Meta (as well as badly asked questions) to form the precedent (and to use as duplicates) when users ask questions like this in the future   On a personal note, I find it easier to link to one of my previous answers whenever possible.  This seems like a bug with the deletion algorithm, , the deletion algorithm should never delete questions with upvoted answers.  I'm going to go ahead and undelete it, but I'm bringing this up in case there was either:    A policy change A bug   So is it either of the above or something else? Fixed buffers and interior buffers are not working for a polygon that contains a hole I'm following the online qgis manual available on qgis website. I'm doing the step 21.11.3. ().   To make it simple : I have a raster converted to vector, so now it is a polygon (several polygons). I'm doing an interior buffer exactly how it is described in the manual. I didn't obtain the same result. I can see the interior buffer just in some polygons, not in all of them ->    The interior buffers appear just for those polygons, that don't contain a hole. I use qgis 2.18.3.  This is how i created the interior buffer ->    In green you see the input layer : suitable_terrain, in blue the output layer, the interior buffer.   It is not a problem of a projection. I use WGS84 UTM Zone 34S where the units are in meters. I did also the Check validity and i obtain the same result. NSString instance reports its class as NSCFString My objective here is really simple -- I'm trying to set an NSString to some test data, then return the class, which should be NSString. Here's my code:  NSString* stringer = [NSString stringWithFormat: @"Test"]; NSLog(@"%@", [stringer class]);   The log says that the class is NSCFString, not NSString. What's going on here?