Nice bit of Pachelbel's canon in D Major in there as well.

What Canon did you buy? I recently sold off a bunch of telescope stuff and beefed up a Canon kit.

I still have a Canon PowerShot 1000s that my dad/father/pa used as the first family digital camera. I rarely take pictures so it is OK for me.

This video shows incorrectly how light passes through the lens, which it disappointing considering the subject.

As far as age, Nikon, Pentax, and Leica are all older. Canon's first camera was the 'Kwanon,’ a rip off of a Leica design of the time. Their greatest early success was in mass producing units cheaply with the AE1.

Since making a name for themselves in manufacturing cameras, the electronics company makes at least as much money from printers and photocopiers as it does from cameras, if not more.

*commercial

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Just bought my frist Canon DSLR last week. Interesting - as Canon is more than 70 years old, you might guess correctly that they made products for the Imperial Japanese military during WWII

<nerd> Are these movies considered to be canon?</nerd>

The Canon 1Dx can do 14fps.

So many Debbie Downers. Must be a new hipster thing to rip on new Star Trek, kinda like every SNL vid/thread has some boorish dolt who has to tell everyone that they haven't watched SNL for years because it hasn't been funny since the 70s.

Well... I've been a fan of all the Star Trek series (including "Enterprise") and movies since TOS, and this looks awesome. I used to record the audio of TOS on my Realistic cassette recorder when I was 6-7 years old, and I can still irritate the hell out of anybody in the room by speaking the lines of an entire episode before the actors do. LOVE Star Trek. The first movie established that the timeline is different now. Storywise, prior Star Trek canon is largely moot. Get over it.

You don't want to go see it? Don't. Easy peasy. Anyhoo, you probably all meant to click on this vid.

Thought you might like this
http://www.canon.com/news/2013/mar04e.html

@chingalera

I'm impressed with your ability to craft an elegant response when you choose to. However, many of your arguments can be cast on yourself in the exact same way. From your argument that, 'it depends on your experience,' perhaps you live in an armpit down in texas where all the police treat everyone terribly, and you can certainly go online and find examples from all over the world which self-support your idea that all law enforcement is bad. However, I have lived in a college town area in the midwest all of my life, and I have found the local law enforcement to be extremely helpful and amicable. Most of my friends are not white, and I do hear an occasional bad story, though on the whole, we have far more good stories than bad.

We indeed have our own constructs, but your assessment that 'all law enforcement is corrupt' is an example of everything you hate about law enforcement which you exhibit yourself. When I first read your statement, '...profiling, unprovoked aggression, and general douche-baggery from the hind-brained, alpha-or-wannabe-alpha victims of abuse and racism...' I was legitimately confused about whether you were talking about those in law enforcement or not. Consider your opening statement, 'up voted for all the times I have personally told cops to go fuck themselves. Some reacted as expected or were otherwise prone without my attitude, and the others took it very well....and those that did not, simply, dicks,' You seem to be exhibiting all of the behaviors that you personally detest, and seem to be describing it as a social experiment. You don't have to stretch the imagination too far to see why people are thinking of you as 'whiny' or 'not a good person.' Unless your goal is to troll for responses so that you can blow off your canon about law enforcement corruption, don't be surprised when people continue to think lowly of you.

rough Youtube translation:
"name of God the Merciful .. Just a short film .. filming and directed: (Meso - photo) .. Assistant director: (ar5meds) CAM (Canon - 7D) .. Lenses used [17.50] .. [70-200] .. [10-20] all thanks to the staff .. + (Alastaaaz) watch the fun"

Tags for this video have been changed from 'canon in d, pachelbel, music box, vihart' to 'canon in d, pachelbel, music box, vihart, vi hart' - edited by messenger

A bunch of Apple crap and Canon camera gear would have been fine, but it was far from the cart.

Vincent Laforet
"In 2008, Laforet directed "Reverie", the first widely available short film shot with the Canon 5D Mark II camera. The video has been cited by proposers of the use of DSLR cameras in digital cinematography[3] and has been heralded as one of the films that launched the HDSLR movement "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Laforet

Every paragraph you write to me lately is simply stringing the same three ad homs together in a different order (you are a dogmatist, you dont understand science, you dont engage with critical thinking).

They're not ad homs. They're what I see. They're substantiated by fact. "Crackhead" would be an ad hom because I have no reason to believe that you are addicted to illegal narcotics. But it's empirically true that religious canon is dogma and you believe religious canon, that you repeatedly speak in non-scientific ways, and that you jump to convenient conclusions as part of your argument style rather than investigating the claims you're making.

You say you've inquired about my views. I don't remember that happening, except when you were baiting me into a certain admission that you had a prepared answer for. But then you didn't listen to my response to your answer, at least not in an open-minded and critical way. You regularly claim to have the answer. It's only when forced into a corner based on the fact that you're human and fallible that you ever admit you technically could be wrong. You just proved it again, BTW. "Your PoV is apparently blah blah blah." There's all sorts of possible PoVs that I could have, but dogmatically believing in everything a scientist says couldn't be one of them. As a scientific person, that's not a possible position for me to hold. You haven't accepted that you have lost credibility due to your lack of scientific understanding. You never ask how your understanding is wrong. If you wanted to learn, there's all sorts you could learn, but you retreat into playing the victim. If you've got nothing left, you claim you're being attacked. I'm arguing against you, and then honestly explaining why I'm not putting in any more effort; I'm not attacking. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. I'm telling you mine, my opinions about you, what those opinions are based on and what they entail for the limit of where I'm willing to go in our conversations.

I may or may not understand the basics of your current argument about uniformitariansim, and so forth, but I sure understand the basics of scientific thought, and that comes first. I can read a book or watch a lecture and learn about uniformitariansim, but when I come back, you still won't understand how to talk scientifically. That's why I'm not going to bother talking to you about science except to hear your reasons for claiming something in modern science is pseudoscience (If I were dogmatic about science, I wouldn't even ask you), and if I think your argument is strong enough, I'll get interested and maybe learn something. I have learned some things, but none that overturn the science you claim it does. The fact that you think you have presented enough information to overturn anything in science shows how little you understand science.

So, you wanna be openly curious about my religious views, I'm here for you. I'll talk about that as long as you want. You want to have a real conversation about science? You have to accept that you don't understand what science is first. Are you humble enough to admit you might not understand it? As always, curious, open-minded and willing to be surprised.