Was that the first version Nexus 7? I had the refreshed version and it was my favourite bit of tech ever. I ran it for about 5 years until the screen and battery both died. I loved that thing.

Manual is great to learn about what’s happening and why. Remember though, that once you have a good grasp of the technical aspects, you can then use that to make the camera do the work for you.

Canon cameras are particularly good at this, as they have a unique way of controlling the relationships between parts of those aspects. See the /v settings on the mode dial.

Once you have the camera doing stuff for you it starts to get out of the way and your mind becomes free of those distractions. Your photos will improve as a result.

As mentioned in other comments, you can use a more appropriate aperture here because f14 is too small and you’ll suffer from diffraction as a result.

The reason it’s a problem, is similar to when you squint your eyes. The light gets spread more than is ideal and the image will have reduced sharpness.

Ideally, you should try not to go beyond f11, as that’s usually where most lenses will start to become effected.

It’s worth noting that despite this, if you need a small aperture then don’t be afraid to use it. The reduction in sharpness won’t really notice until you get to larger print sizes, such as 1 x 1.5 metres.

Even then, it’s much better to have a great photo without ultimate sharpness, than a super sharp photo that’s boring or just bad. If you have the time, such as with non moving subjects, none of these things should happen. If your subject is moving, things get complicated quickly.

Sorry to go on a bit, I just wanted to bring some context and info to the subject of diffraction, as it’s an important one, but once you know the whys and wherefores it’s easy be aware of and incorporate into your workflow.

A friendly warning, please be careful when suggesting the rule of 3rds, especially to the less experienced. It’s greatly misunderstood and as a result it generally causes confusion and boring photos.

Please see the article in this Lemmy post, about this and composition generally.

Thanks.

No 0-60, you would die trying. Even 40 mi/h is over ambitious. Clearly, the 2CV was spawned by Satan to destroy our will to live. I see no other reason for that many sales.

There were so many better options that I can’t even grant you a nod in this direction.

Nil points, yellow card, etc.

If memory serves, I think at least some versions of the Allegro had reasonably comfy seats. I’m afraid that can’t be said of the 2CV.

Also, the use of a “double skin” body, dropped by almost every manufacturer a decade or so before the Allegro, is really just another amusing tidbit we can taunt it with.

There absolutely nothing even faintly comic about the 2CV, it is an abhorrence at every level.

But I’ll grant you, the Allegro is definitely in the top 10.

The Citroen 2CV.

There are many cars that have something worse; three wheeled things, Tesla design, the Renault dash mounted gearstick, etc.

But there is no other “modern” car which so significantly fails in every way as the 2CV.

It has nothing that could be described as performance or ride or comfort. There is nothing about it that can be called practical or stylish. It has zero properties that any sane person could find desirable in a car.

It’s so bad that even the Trabant has less to damn it, and that really is terrible.

I think the best evidence that the 2CV is man’s biggest failure, should you really need any, is that you are more likely to see them in the country they were made, repurposed as a chicken coop.

If that’s not the ultimate failure, I don’t know what is.

I don’t know about anyone else here, but I don’t want to hear about his latest stunts and I particularly don’t want to have to see his mug.

Can we keep anything to do with him away from here and leave it in the political communities please?

Your explanation reveals a misunderstanding of the terms, both of science and atheism.

If I may, could I suggest you would be better served by learning about what science is, and also, particularly in this case, just asking atheists what they think and what they mean by the terms they use.

This isn’t a put down, I genuinely think you would be better served by doing so.

I wish you well.

Cargo cult atheism

Could you expand further on this? It’s not a term I’m familiar with.

That’s a strange film. I watched it at the cinema when released and enjoyed the visuals, but it seemed like the story was purposely simplified to a wild west love yarn so that the audience would have to focus on the visuals. There’s so little to distract from the “cutting edge” CGI, any depth to the plot or characters would be detrimental to the six fucking years he spent making it.

Which I can understand as it does achieve that. And I didn’t hate it, mainly because it did look amazing and I wasn’t distracted from that. But I’ve never watched it again and wouldn’t want to.

Weird.