----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:42 PM Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #567
------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 567 Today's Topics: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, [ Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Brucey's theory on practice (Re: Dig [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Change Bags [ "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, [ "=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=FCdiger_Neumann?= ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Sharpness and contrast needed [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, [ Albano Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: I Am Pissed! [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: I Am Pissed! [ "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back [ frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:11:26 -0400 From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit according to the Photo Marketing Association, SLR sales held steady, total film camera sales dropped 31%, and compact digital camera sales were up by 25%. people who buy Leica's or medium format and larger represent such a miniscule portion of the market that what they do or don't do is nearly irrelevant to affecting trends. many of the warzone pictures and video from Iraq were in fact done with digital cameras with satellite radios and solar chargers. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 14:56 Subject: SV: Leica R9/R8 digital back > At the momnet, the only futuristic thing about digital photograohy is a > "new" point & shoot market - people who didn't like P&S cameras buy diggies > because it's easy, cheap to use and you can redo or delete bad shots at > once - and it HIP - and of course PJ's like it. They are in ahurry all the > time. When the digies reach 20-40 MP and much better battery economy, > storing abilities etc. then you have "the digital future" comming. Untill > then Leicas are still very durable and reliable cameras and the lenses are > superb. Who would want to be in a thunderstorm, in a war zone or on a > mountain for days with just a diggie, batteries, flash cards and a portable > CD writer, a car battery and lot of CD's? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:32:33 -0500 From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > >You regularly make snide and derisive comments about anything having >to do with digital. Personally, I find your attitude annoying, and >your opinions ignorant. > >tv I have found that an application of Preparation Delete removes the PITA he causes. Best, Ed _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:40:18 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "It's in the spec sheet!" "I don't have to look at anything to know what you see!" BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > . In this case, it is the theory of image sampling and reconstruction. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 21:41:18 +0200 From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, 450 now in the shops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit That claim is unsubstantiated. There's nothing on TIPA's homepages about this year's awards. http://www.tipa.com Cheers, Jostein Fredag, 27 juni 2003, skrev du: >Hallo >there is a text from Pentax Swiss (use altavista translator) > >http://digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1680 > >regards >Rüdiger > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:45:43 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit It's the theory on the base of which digital cameras are designed. Of course, you may deny it. What about denying gravity laws too. Did you ever jump out from a building roof ? Come on, it's just some specs, you will actually fly ? Maybe some 6 months practice period would bring you to some conclusion ? Although judging from your posts I suspect you actually did it and landed on your head each time. cheers, caveman Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > "It's in the spec sheet!" "I don't have to look at anything to know what > you see!" > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> . In this case, it is the theory of image sampling and reconstruction. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:00:31 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Theory is only useful and valid, if it explains or predicts what is observed in the real, physical, tangible world. It does not determine what is observed. Theory is nothing more than a model of reality, not reality itself. Since you only have knowledge of theory, you have no idea if what you say makes any true sense at all. BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> . In this case, it is the theory of image sampling and reconstruction. > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:03:18 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit They would have had a much harder time finding a photographer that was in Iraq that shot only film. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >the July issue of Pop Photo has an article from a warzone photographer that shot only digital. > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:05:41 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You design digital cameras? What are your credentials? BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It's the theory on the base of which digital cameras are designed. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:05:24 -0400 From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > -----Original Message----- > From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > tom wrote: > >>-----Original Message----- > > [tirade deleted] > > > You regularly make snide and derisive comments about > anything having > > to do with digital. > > Or maybe it's just you that take them like that. Har! > > Before I post something, I make sure I have some arguments to base > myself on. In this case, it is the theory of image sampling and > reconstruction. Here is what stands behind my affirmation: > So in other words the answer is "no", you have little or no experience with medium format, little or no experience with digital slrs, little or no experience with making prints of various sizes, and you haven't seen competently made prints from a DSLR? Basically your experience is as a 35mm hobbyist who shoots and projects slides, and a student of sampling theory? For years, we've been reading posts on this list and other as to how it's mathematically impossible that digital will ever equal film, or this theory proves that digital sucks, or a full frame sensor is impossible, or digital might be ok once we have 100 meg sensors, or whatever. It's theoretical bullshit. Unless you've seen and compared prints that you know have been competently made, you're just talking out of your ass. tv ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:10:40 -0400 From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit my point exactly. Herb..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 16:03 Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > They would have had a much harder time finding a photographer that was > in Iraq that shot only film. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >the July issue of Pop Photo has an article from a warzone photographer that shot only digital. > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:12:57 -0400 From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Change Bags Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Blackout material designed for the job: http://www.novadarkroom.com/accessories.htm#anchor905360 Too bad there ain't no picture of the tent. Nova sure makes a lot of neat stuff noone else think there is a Market for, including their US importer. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:12:41 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Theory is only useful and valid, if it explains or predicts what is > observed in the real, physical, tangible world. The mentioned theory does it quite well. Digital cameras work, photoshop works, your computer screen works, all known examples are working according to the theory. > Theory is nothing more than a model of reality, not > reality itself. True (except some branches of mathematics that deal with things that have no observable/verifiable correspondent in reality). In this particular case, the model is a very good one, and allows to design things that work in reality too. > Since you only have knowledge of theory, you have no > idea if what you say makes any true sense at all. What exactly makes you think that I have absolutely no practical experience with anything. cheers, caveman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:20:10 +0200 From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?R=FCdiger_Neumann?=" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, 450 now in the shops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hallo, I think it will be right, as the news is in a news letter from Pentax Swiss. regards Rüdiger Von: Jostein < >That claim is unsubstantiated. >There's nothing on TIPA's homepages about this year's awards. >http://www.tipa.com > >Cheers, >Jostein > >Fredag, 27 juni 2003, skrev du: > >>Hallo >>there is a text from Pentax Swiss (use altavista translator) >> >>http://digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1680 >> >>regards >>Rüdiger >> > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:25:43 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sure Tom, whatever you say. You have some practical evidence that a certain theory is not any good. How about writing a paper about it, in the IEEE Transactions on Image Processing Journal. You could get some prize, and become famous for years to come. If you get it past the reviewing committee, published and unscathed by peers for 6 months, I'll eat my left foot. Cooked before detaching. Otherwise just accept it as is. cheers, caveman tom wrote: > For years, we've been reading posts on this list and other as to how > it's mathematically impossible that digital will ever equal film, or > this theory proves that digital sucks, or a full frame sensor is > impossible, or digital might be ok once we have 100 meg sensors, or > whatever. It's theoretical bullshit. Unless you've seen and compared > prints that you know have been competently made, you're just talking > out of your ass. > > tv > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:28:12 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Where did you read that ? I suggest you use a hardhat for the next round of jumpings. cheers, caveman Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > You design digital cameras? What are your credentials? > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> It's the theory on the base of which digital cameras are designed. > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:48:10 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Brucey's theory on practice (Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's the theory on the base of which digital cameras are designed. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Where did you read that ? I suggest you use a hardhat for the next > round of jumpings. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:47:44 -0400 From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >For years, we've been reading posts on this list and other as to how >it's mathematically impossible that digital will ever equal film, or >this theory proves that digital sucks, or a full frame sensor is >impossible, or digital might be ok once we have 100 meg sensors, or >whatever. It's theoretical bullshit. Unless you've seen and compared >prints that you know have been competently made, you're just talking >out of your ass. Yep. Still, somehow such rectal ventriloquism remains popular. I'm mystified. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:46:48 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sampling theory doesn't make digital cameras work. It might predict something about the quality of the image that comes out of one. All I ever see are statements made that relate to resolution which is only one part of image quality. So far, the only strong correlation that I've seen is that very experienced, knowledgeable film photographers, who have gone to digital, like digital more than people who don't know anything but theory which may, or may not apply. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Digital cameras work, ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:56:24 -0400 From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Although almost all the photos to come out of the war in Iraq were probably digital, I wonder how many photographers had (mechanical) film cameras in their bags as backups. There was a lot of talk about the possible use of high energy EMP bombs that would destroy sensitive electronic equipment. We know now (or at least we're pretty sure!) that these weren't used, but if they had been they would have fried journalist's electronic cameras (film and digital) as much as Iraqi computer systems. I'd bet a lot of photographer's had an FM2 or something "just in case". -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:59:11 -0400 From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit I wrote: >Yep. Still, somehow such rectal ventriloquism remains popular. I'm >mystified. It just occurred to me how well this works in with Ed Matthew's "Preparation Delete" comment! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:02:57 -0400 From: Caveman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Sampling theory doesn't make digital cameras work. Why do you turn it the other way round. Let me repeat: digital cameras work, and don't conflict with the mentioned theory. More than that, it's exactly that theory that's used, amongst others, in designing them. > It might predict > something about the quality of the image that comes out of one. All I > ever see are statements made that relate to resolution which is only one > part of image quality. This was about image reconstruction from samples, what the theory says about it, and how you can do some simple checking of it. If Tom had any other intention than trying to insult me, he could probably enlighten you on the differences between prints made from same film frame, on same paper, with same lens and same processing, using diffusion vs. collimated head, and also with "critical" focus vs. out of focus lens adjustments. > So far, the only strong correlation that I've seen is that very > experienced, knowledgeable film photographers, who have gone to digital, > like digital more than people who don't know anything but theory which > may, or may not apply. This does not conflict with the mentioned theory in any way. It's about adequacy of a certain workflow to certain situations. The digital one fits very well for some purposes. cheers, caveman ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:05:36 -0700 From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sharpness and contrast needed Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >once there where: >Agfa Ultra: ISO50/18° >Kodak Ektar ISO25/15° > >How would these ones compare? Reala is definitely sharper than Ultra 50 which is discontinued. I have found Ektar 25 & 100 aren't that saturated, but they are sharp. I didn't compare them to Reala however. But I think you cannot find a finer grain film than Ektar 25. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:03:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Albano Garcia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist is TIPA camera of the Year, 450 now in the shops Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii What was the prize? Amazingly-Feauterd-Flimsy-Plastic-Piece-of-Sh..? Regards Albano --- Rüdiger_Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > I think it will be right, as the news is in a news > letter from Pentax Swiss. > regards > Rüdiger > > > Von: Jostein < > > >That claim is unsubstantiated. > >There's nothing on TIPA's homepages about this > year's awards. > >http://www.tipa.com > > > >Cheers, > >Jostein > > > >Fredag, 27 juni 2003, skrev du: > > > >>Hallo > >>there is a text from Pentax Swiss (use altavista > translator) > >> > >>http://digitalfotonetz.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1680 > >> > >>regards > >>Rüdiger > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ===== Albano Garcia "El Pibe Asahi" __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:11:43 -0400 From: Bruce Rubenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There was Charlie Rose show (PBS) a few weeks ago with 4 or 5 photographers who were in Iraq. At one point the discussion got onto equipment and they all shot digital and multiple digital backups. At this point they are as familiar with the durability of the digital gear as they were with film gear, and wouldn't appear to think they need a film back up. I think that a high energy EMP bomb would have them concerned about thing other than cameras. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Although almost all the photos to come out of the war in Iraq were >probably digital, I wonder how many photographers had (mechanical) film >cameras in their bags as backups. There was a lot of talk about the >possible use of high energy EMP bombs that would destroy sensitive >electronic equipment. We know now (or at least we're pretty sure!) that >these weren't used, but if they had been they would have fried >journalist's electronic cameras (film and digital) as much as Iraqi >computer systems. I'd bet a lot of photographer's had an FM2 or >something "just in case". > > > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 22:17:36 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: Digital vs. film again (was Re: I Am Pissed!) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Guys >It's not digital OR film. Like it's not train OR car OR ship OR busses.... >It's film AND CCD's. Nothing's odd about that. Each media has it's >advantages. Use the media that fits each situation and assignment the best. >Isn't that quite obvious? >Jens Jens, shhhh! This has the makings of a superb war here. Digital! Digital! Digital! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:21:52 -0400 From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit the guy in the Pop Photo article was much more worried about dust-related failures than anything. one of his three digital bodies died (cause not stated), and one of his solar chargers (from overheating). apparently, he took a stock Mac Powerbook too and not a ruggedized one. Herb..... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 17:11 Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > There was Charlie Rose show (PBS) a few weeks ago with 4 or 5 > photographers who were in Iraq. At one point the discussion got onto > equipment and they all shot digital and multiple digital backups. At > this point they are as familiar with the durability of the digital gear > as they were with film gear, and wouldn't appear to think they need a > film back up. > I think that a high energy EMP bomb would have them concerned about > thing other than cameras. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:17:32 -0400 From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit the guy in the article didn't, and he had a Mac Powerbook along too. Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 16:56 Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > Although almost all the photos to come out of the war in Iraq were > probably digital, I wonder how many photographers had (mechanical) film > cameras in their bags as backups. There was a lot of talk about the > possible use of high energy EMP bombs that would destroy sensitive > electronic equipment. We know now (or at least we're pretty sure!) that > these weren't used, but if they had been they would have fried > journalist's electronic cameras (film and digital) as much as Iraqi > computer systems. I'd bet a lot of photographer's had an FM2 or > something "just in case". > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:24:58 -0700 From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I Am Pissed! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >There is a difference: we've all had labs screw up film, >so you are not as "unique" as TV or Alan. I can assure you that it is not cool to be unique. :-) regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 14:27:29 -0700 From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I Am Pissed! Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed >You might where you live but we generally pay twice the price of most US >pro >labs and still get screwed. The choice is a lot more limited in Australia than in the US, or even in Canada. regards, Alan Chan _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:24:09 -0400 From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit With Lcica, $10,000 worth of lenses isn't all that many lenses... cheers, frank Jens Bladt wrote: > Hi Aren't you forgetting, that the body may be the least of the total > investment - I mean if you have like 10.000$ woth of lenses etc. matching > this body and mount? > Jens > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Mike Ignatiev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 26. juni 2003 15:18 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > > buy a better back ($4500) without having to change your SLR ($1000)? > is it me or does it sound like "buy a better camera without having to change > neck-strap"? > > mishka > > > From: "whickersworld" > > Subject: Re: Leica R9/R8 digital back > > > > I think you've completely overlooked the enormous > > benefit of using a digital back with a film SLR. > > That is, when the digital technology improves, you > > can buy a better back without having to change your > > SLR. -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 Issue #567 *********************************************
