Small.
Rather than hagin Large, Medium, Small, Even Smaller and Smallest - they
just have L,M and S, but let you toggle how small S is.
-Original Message-
From: max mcrae [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 November 2003 11:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: *istd custom function
Where is the site that will translate the Babblefish result into English?
One never knows if the gist he's extracted is anything like the actual
content.
Cory
- Original Message -
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 6:11 AM
Thank you Robtoo silly really.
- Original Message -
From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, November 15, 2003 12:40 AM
Subject: RE: *istd custom function chart
Small.
Rather than hagin Large, Medium, Small, Even Smaller and Smallest - they
Used Leica gear isn't always expensive. In fact, some equipment is less spendy
than used Pentax gear.
scb
I wish I could get Leica gear for the cost of my Pentax.
It says Nikon will concentrate fully on development of digital and stop
(starting today) further development of film based camera's. I take from
that that they will sell there existing film based cameras, but not
develop anything new. For the Japanese market however they will stop the
sales from
Yikes that's big news. So much for oligopoly.. Whoever the Canon CEO is.. I
say he'll be on the cover of Fortune sometime soon because damn he's doing a
good job- everyone else is scrambling! Syl, you mentioned the idea of Pentax
marrying Nikon- imagine them making Nikkor and Pentax lenses in both
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday
morning.
I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to
find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had
little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that
I've
Simple question this time: is the ME-F an ME Super with add-ons? Do
the add-ons hinder when not using the dedicated AF lens, or can one
forget about them and just bear a bit more weight?
Thanks,
Kostas
You've been gone way too long! If you'd have been here, you'd know that it
was arbitrarily decided that photographs cannot be made with digital
cameras. I won't say who made that decision. They know who they are. VBG
Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL
It is exactly that: A ME Super with an added battery compartment (condition of
which you should check). With MF lenses it has the benefit of focus
confirmation.
Sven
Zitat von Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Simple question this time: is the ME-F an ME Super with add-ons? Do
the
Now, on a completely different note: Does anyone have a great recipe for
beef stew? I've been craving comfort food lately ... wonder why?
shel
Peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Ice cream.
Anytime there is a new technology, there is a learning overhead. And there
also is bound to be some
This is sad. Must mean Nikon is on the ropes.
And, boy, is it happening much faster than I thought it would.
Marnie aka Doe Much faster, even though I thought it might happen fast.
Hi max,
on 15 Nov 03 you wrote in pentax.list:
Ergo, what is this S?
You can choose three image resoultions: L, M and S. L and M are fixed
(L=3008x2008Pixel), but you can choose, which resolution the camera
records in S.
Cheers, Heiko
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote:
3. _maybe_ would have been better if she had been looking at camera. I
I like it as it is, if it makes any difference :-) It's sports, the
ball is more important, the camera does not exist. Very fond of the
hair in front of the eyes and the
On 14 Nov 2003 at 4:47, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to
find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had
little, if anything, to do with photography, at least in the sense that
I've come to know photography
Dario,
Don't take it as a disregard to digital posts bearing hard factual
data. I do appreciate your comparisons between dslrs. I specified
digital rant and expressed my regret for having interesting but
too classic topics silenced by the digital noise. To which I did
contribute
So, a few of us Toronto area types got
together
last weekend at a local brew
pub, to drink beer. Oh yeah, and, to show off some new (to us) equipment.
Dave Brooks, Jeff, Dave Chang-Sang and I were there. Jeff had his new
Bronica 645 rangefinder
On 14 Nov 2003 at 12:11, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Well, it just happened:
Is anyone really that surprised?
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday
morning.
Snip.
I AGREE!!!
Can't help with a beef stew recipe, but can provide one for chili.
Bill
You are correct. We no longer make photographs. We make inkjet prints.
Bill
You've been gone way too long! If you'd have been here, you'd know that
it
was arbitrarily decided that photographs cannot be made with digital
cameras. I won't say who made that decision. They know who they
On 13 Nov 2003 at 23:01, Jose R. Rodriguez wrote:
Peter,
You may also look into replacing the door with a new one; if your existing
one is bent, etc I believe the Pentax Parts Department (1-800-877-0155)
still has them for about $45.00.
If you do get it open I suspect that the door
The problem is that the ME-F eats batteries like peanuts.
Ciao,
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 1:51 PM
Subject: ME-F vs ME Super
Simple question this time: is the ME-F an ME Super with
On 13 Nov 2003 at 21:57, David Madsen wrote:
Pentax lenses are very under appreciated.
Not by most of the suckers on this list (me included). Like Bob I've owned
Contax and still own Leica and great Pentax glass and it's pretty difficult
differentiate between film shot using them without
IMHO, Nikon is not on the ropes. Although it's sooner than I expected, I
basically made the call two days ago right here on the list when I stated
that manufacturers weren't temporarily neglecting film, they were abandoning
it.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Hi Marnie,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is sad. Must mean Nikon is on the ropes.
Why would you assume that? Do you mean you believe that they might be in
dire financial straights?
Or am I just totally insensitive to the photography market?
Nikon is simply but loudly saying We're devoting
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
The problem is that the ME-F eats batteries like peanuts.
Even without using the AF? Any ideas why?
Thanks,
Kostas
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave does this for money. The idea is to shoot at latge apertures with
shallow DOF to separate the subject from the background. Zone focusing
means
And that's getting a lot harder to do with all of these small aperture
wide-angle zooms. Ugh!
LOL
A few years ago I showed some prints to a couple of Leica aficionados. The
photos were made with a Super Takumar 50mm 1.4. The Leica people knew I was a
Leica user. Every one of them commented on how great the Leica glass was.
shel
Like Bob I've owned
Contax and still own Leica and
Ooooh ... Ooooh I got an f4.5 lens. It's 3x better than an f1.4 And I
don't even have to focus it LOL
Seriously, Len, you're right on the money. It's getting more difficult for
the average photographer to get that separation of the main subject from
the background. It's true to an extent even
keith whaley wrote:
Why would you assume that? Do you mean you believe that they might be in
dire financial straights?
Keith, I may have misread the article, but it seemed it was saying that
number of film camera sales was way below what Nikon expected.
That says to me -- let's say Nikon is
I think that all the major manufacturers, with the possible exception of
Minolta (are they a major manufacturer anymore?) have probably made the same
decision, just Nikon has made if official.
Bill
And, boy, is it happening much faster than I thought it would.
Me too! And, to have a major
Well, given the other thread, I guess we know the fate of the F6 (flim
version, anyway.)
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/13/03 08:54PM
- Original
I think Pentax will be using the APS for a few years. I don't think the
FF sensor will be a big market for a while, and it just doesn't make
sense for Pentax to try to win over those people. They simply can't
compete head to head with Canon.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/2003/1113_e_03.htm
Nikon says it ain't so
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 5:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
Well, it just
keith whaley wrote:
Nikon has been heavily immersed in and committed to the business of
providing cameras and equipment for professional photographers for
scores of years, and I'm certain that if anyone at all has their finger
on the pulse of professional photography, it is Nikon.
That they are
Some years ago I bought one secondhand for my wife, to replace her ME Super
and adding the focus confirmation bonus (so much valued by her due to
eyesight problems). It ended up with my wife asking me to get back her ME
Super because she couldn't afford to change batteries almost each time she
had
With the Kodak and now Nikon (others?) announcements, one would think
all cos. with high volume low margin film-based products (lines) would
be under pressure from the investment community to justify further
expenditure (operations) in thse areas. With this pressure and public
disclosure
At 07:47 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday
Snip
Okay, everyone, listen up. Shel only wants us to talk about what Shel is
interested in. Before you send a post to the list, please send it to Shel
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
The entire industry is abandoning film, including the film companies.
William Robb
Okay.
But it's still happening rather rapidly, isn't it?
The world is moving much faster
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:44 AM
Subject: Re: Nikon to stop selling film cameras in Japan...
The entire industry is abandoning film,
including the film companies.
William Robb
How long will
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking
RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of
the processing on the camera. Most means not all.
If you've not already tried it, grab a few different cameras that use RAW,
take the same shot
OK:
So they only deny they will stop selling film compact cameras in Japan.
However,
they're not denying a stop to the development of new film cameras.
However, I supposed we were not discussing the precise nature of what make
and kind of equipment is going to be discontinued and when. I suspect
More to the original point --
if one want the magnification of a 135 format 300/2.8
on a format 2/3 its size
one should purchase a 200/2.8.
It's that easy.
Collin
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 15:27:59 +0100 (CET)
From: Jan van Wijk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Good point Collin,
One other thing I never see
It's not completely finished yet (so far only nature underwater and
sports have any images; and sports is only auto racing currently) and
it's a bit slow since it's hosted from home over ADSL but I thought I'd
solicit some comments from the PDML.
http://www.xian.us/
Please let me know what you
Ah yes, Pentax should sell the camera at a loss. A couple of hundred dollars a
camera is nothing to worry about. After all they can make it up in film sales.
--
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more
aggressively. Canon may have stolen the
Nice photos, but i'm not a pro.
only one thing, to speed up your site, you can create some thumbnails and show
them instead of resized original. so when it shows all the photo in a
category, you don't have to load *every* photo, even unwanted ones
This will save your band, and your visitors
- Original Message -
From: danilo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nice photos, but i'm not a pro.
Thanks!
You don't have to be a pro to have an opinion...
only one thing, to speed up your site, you can create some thumbnails and
show
them instead of resized original.
That appears to be a bit of mis-reporting.
Nikon says they are getting out of the COMPACT film camera business not
the film SLR business.
They also reported a significant profit over the same quarter last year.
The newspaper (Nihon Keizai Shimbun) said Nikon will halt all
development of 35mm
Well, yes I would.
For one thing I see a lot of stuff that says Pentax on it in my doctor's
examining rooms. Pentax does not just make cameras, I doubt that cameras are
their main income. However I doubt that Pentax is big enough for one section of
the company to subsidise another. In some
Hey Doug,
You circumvented the approval process. You do not set a good example for the
other list members. You will be visited by the Standards and Practices
Police later in the day. Are you still living in your van? Still parked
near the school yard?
Are there really humor impaired people
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
Unless you use RAW. RAW bypasses most of the processing on the camera
and allows you to do the processing on your PC.
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking
RAW file than a Nikon or a
Hi,
I think the first page should show a picture from each category. This
should persuade us that it's worth the effort to click on the links
and look at the next page. Content, now should be your motto.
The pictures on the index pages look quite nice, but the thumbnails
are far too big. People
Here's a report in english:
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/daily44.html
I guess you *can* make a few bucks with digital.
--
Thomas Van Veen Photography
www.thomasvanveen.com
301-758-3085
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think it means that BH owners/employees keep track of
what's going on
(and who participates) most photography mailing lists.
It's an impressive
catalog, isn't it?
Len
Yes. I had to put it down
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 07:10:53 -0800
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different
looking
RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses
most of
the processing on the camera. Most means not all.
If you've not
Nice photos, but i'm not a pro.
Thanks!
You don't have to be a pro to have an opinion...
oh and I really love those artichokes ;)
I'm joking, but really I like them much.
bye
danilo.
I also note that the news article was talking about consumer film cameras (PS),
not all film cameras (SLR's).
--
Mark Stringer wrote:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/2003/1113_e_03.htm
Nikon says it ain't so
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well accept people as they
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Well, it just happened:
Is anyone really that surprised?
With the declining figures of film-based sales, I see it becoming
increasingly difficult for manufacturers to justify coming up with any
new film-based hardware
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
You are correct. We no longer make photographs. We make inkjet prints.
Bill
Oh boy. Uncle Bill, I can see we're going to have a *very* long night sat
outside PDML Central next June
:-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People,
And that, indeed, was my rant and the whole point of my post.
I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies
of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from
Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file
formats, and so on, has rather
Well, I don't own ANY of those cameras, but it's not been hard to grab one
of each to see how they perform. True, I live in an area where such
cameras abound - in fact, many can be found just lying about on the
ground, or growing in the shrubbery ...
Boris Liberman wrote:
I must say that his
I usually toss out catalogs - but not this one. It makes a nice reference
guide for digital equipment.
Jim A.
From: Leonard Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 08:16:38 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: BH Digital Catalogue
Resent-From: [EMAIL
Let's compromise!
Let's say their film camera department was on the ropes! g
keith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
keith whaley wrote:
Why would you assume that? Do you mean you believe that they might be in
dire financial straights?
Keith, I may have misread the article, but it seemed it was
Well, ain't THAT A kick in the pants!
More media reports that got it wrong. . .
keith whaley
Mark Stringer wrote:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/2003/1113_e_03.htm
Nikon says it ain't so
-Original Message-
From: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday,
BW will keep a long, long time in a freezer. Color is not as stable and
deteriates slightly even when frozen. Also one will probably always be able to
get the chemicals to develop BW even if one ends up having to mix up ones own
developers. I am not so sure about E6 processing. And to be honest
Yes, I understand Lexus is bringing out a new Digital coupe next year. (g)
--
William Robb wrote:
We have been trained over the past couple of decades to recognize the word
digital as being somehow different and superior.
William Robb
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well
One other thing I never see mentioned is that the size and weight
reduction for these 'APS' size lenses will be (much) less for
teles than it might be for Wide-angles.
A 300mm f/2.8 will have a front-lens of just over 100mm by definition!
Not much weight or size to be saved in my opinion ...
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking
RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax. RAW, in your own words, bypasses most of
the processing on the camera. Most means not all.
No. A *ist-D will produce just about the same RAW image as a Nikon D-100,
as far as the
The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd.
Yep. I got one of those. I don't know why, exactly; I don't do
studio work. I think it's because I ordered a pelican case from BH.
But it was interesting to flip through, at any rate. And if I hadn't
just purchased a Fellowes
BRAVO, BRAVO!
--
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Yep, I'm in a mood to rant a little ... and it ain't even Sunday
morning.
I've been back on the list for a short while, and am (almost) stunned to
find so many messages about digital imaging. The messages I've read had
little, if anything, to do with
-Original Message-
From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd.
Yep. I got one of those. I don't know why, exactly; I don't do
studio work. I think it's because I ordered a pelican case
from BH.
But it was
Wait a minute. Do we know that Shel is a real photographer?
Shel, have you ever used a Speed Graphic?
Real photographers use Speed Graphics. I do not want to have to say this
again. IS THAT CLEAR?
ditto: Doug's PS.
--
Doug Brewer wrote:
At 07:47 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Shel
By the way, Shel, I didn't know you hated cat pictures. :)
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
[Shel enjoys his Leica] What a lovely experience ...
I could focus wherever I pleased (even where there was nothing to focus
upon!), not where some sensor told me to;
Oddly enough, you can do this with a *ist-D, too.
I decided if the focus was
correct or not, not some sensor that glows
BRAVO, BRAVO!
[Shel's rant deleted]
You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
I really like the irony here.
Unfortunately, all they usually do is put a little notice in the editorial, or
letters to the editor page. Never makes up for it. Some serious editorial
photographers put a penalty clause ($$$) in their contract to cover such events,
after all, Dave, at this point the credit is more valuable to
At 11:06 AM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, tom wrote:
The really imopressive catalog is the *lighting* book. Omigawd.
tv
Yeah, that's a fun book.
Doug snoots... Brewer
I hope you are right - but the 24-90 mm is very good indeed.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 14. marraskuuta 2003 20:31
According to the December issue of Shutterbug, Kodak has announced that
it will no longer produce slide projectors, and will stop servicing
those already produced in 8 or 9 years.
Can slide film be far behind?
This is a shock for me. I give a lot of presentations with slides. I am
accustomed
This lens is in lovely excellent condition, with hardly any exterior
wear and beautiful glass. It's a constant f/4 and covers the very
useful 24-50mm focal length. It feels fairly rugged for an autofocus
lens, as it has more metal and heft than most consumer FA series
zooms. It takes a 58mm
I'm having a hard time swallowing the fact that film will be disappearing
any time soon. I'm also having a hard time understanding that even film PS
will disappear either. Throw away cameras that probably require the same
processing are also very hot items for the occasional family photoshoot.
Silly to respond to your own mail, but forgot to mention that KEH
price on the grip is $165. That brings the total to $1903. Great
deal for someone!
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Friday, November 14, 2003, 10:59:36 AM, you wrote:
BD Seeing how it is Friday, it seemed like a good day to list a
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I know I'll be cobbling together my own replacement for Photo Laboratory.
Perhaps a couple of other list posters will join me in this effort, too;
interested parties might like to contact me off-list to discuss the
project (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]).
Er,
It's a waste of time to start this thread cuz she's gonna delete it anyway.
It's quiet in here.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 12:07:57 -0700, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Would a list member who owns this flash and either the *ist, *isd D, or
MZ-S perform the following experiment for all of us?
Set the flash on the camera, ready to fire. Set the metering to center
weighted and press the shutter release.
Hello Christian,
Lean towards the *ist D - still have a couple of zooms for the ZX-10
and the flashes for my 67 stuff. Could also get the 67-35mm adapter
and use some of my 67 glass.
But want to check the D100 Nikon also. Even though Canon is the
leader, I just can't get excited about their
Dunno, Doug, but to me, for the past several decades, a loogy was
something of substance, not just a little spittle.
Yuk!
keith whaley
* * *
Doug Brewer wrote:
At 01:35 PM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote:
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
They are actually
Ooops...
Sorry, Dave. You know me and those new fangled auto-focus cameras. As I
have no need for them (trans: can't afford one, and I'm happy with MF - I
know if I ever really tried AF, I'd be hooked), I don't really pay attention
to what's what.
I kind of thought that it wasn't an SF 1.
We're all ignoring you, Cotty.
Just like a little kid, always trying to get our attention...
vbg
cheers,
frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course, we can talk behind her back because she will delete the
thread. ;)
Bruce
Friday, November 14, 2003, 11:35:58 AM, you wrote:
C It's a waste of time to start this thread cuz she's gonna delete it anyway.
C It's quiet in here.
C Cheers,
C Cotty
C
Twice, but they're so close together that I can only tell by looking through
the viewfinder. With the lens off A, there's only one flash.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 2:07 PM
Subject: AF
Doug Brewer wrote:
At 01:35 PM 11/14/03, throwing caution to the wind, Cotty wrote:
On 14/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
They are actually withdrawing the compact film camera range not the
SLR range.
That makes more sense.
Hard to imagine them just dropping SLRs like
Shel's back.
vbg
-frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I feel like Mike Johnston
Date: Fri, 14 Nov
- Original Message -
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But want to check the D100 Nikon also.
N!!! The viewfinder is crap!
If I go the Nikon route, I would have to buy it all. The D100 would
have to be pretty compelling to win over the *ist D. Also, viewfinder
is
Hi,
I was going to suggest you join Magnum, and let them look after this
sort of thing g.
But then I remembered that they have similar problems. Philip Jones
Griffiths told a story about it at a talk I went to once.
After Francis Ford Coppola had eventually finished 'Apocalypse Now!'
it was
Bill,
Will we get to sample some of this chili of yours at GFM? Chili and beer
and camping! Hoo Haa!
Makes me think of the campfire scene from Blazing Saddles...
vbg
cheers,
frank
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert
I'm wondering more about trade-offs than advantages.
There's some real losses with digital.
For instance, CD-R media is showing itself non-durable,
with some media only retaining data for a couple of years.
Indexing systems are sparce, mostly inadequate.
(I'm going to purchase a laptop this next
This is not an improvement. I understand that Kodak must transition to
digital along with everyone else, but some parts of that transition may
be going to quickly. Was Kodak losing money on slide projectors? It
seems to me that there will be demand for them for some time, if only
for luddites
Hey, Tiger,
Welcome back. Nice to hear from you, and glad you're happy with the
Starkist D. I don't have one, or any other digital cam, but the concensus
around here seems to be that it's good value for the bucks. Unfortunately
it ain't the cheapest out there, but it seems worth the money.
Oh yes, it's getting to be a tradition. Made with Campbell's tomato soup,
hamburger, kidney beans, onion and chili powder.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:10 PM
Subject: Re Bills Chili-was: I feel
1 - 100 of 167 matches
Mail list logo
