RE: Re: Images or Photographs
From: Doug Franklin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 14:25:09 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (I can't help but think of early Celts who painted designs on their body with woad before going into battle.) You mean like Seven Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict? :-) TTYL, DougF Shouldn't that be 'Several Species ...' ? (Yes, I'm back from the UK) -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Images or Photographs -- reeeeally long.....
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] . . . I no longer have any cameras or lenses so it's a moot point. I know I've been away for a while; did I miss something? -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Re: Images or Photographs
-Original Message- From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 1:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Images or Photographs Welcome back, John. How was the trip? Far too short - I could easily have used another six weeks! I didn't actually manage to meet up with any of the UK-based PDML members (unless the other MZ-S user I met in the paddock at Goodwood was a list member). This was partly due to a lack of time, and partly due to making tentative plans to meet up at some time on or around September 11th ... Did the MZ-S perform as you'd hoped? As far as I can tell, yes. The final decision awaits taking a look at the last set of slides when I pick them up later today. I still find the user interface much less convenient than that of the PZ-1p. Most of my other complaints have been voiced here before (ergonomics of the manual AF point selection, only being able to use the central AF sensor with manual-focus lenses, too easy to accidentally switch the camera on, etc., etc.) - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: UBERdigicam, some meanderings from Wheatfield Willie
I do have questions, is there a theoretical limit to pixel count/image depth/capture rate using known physics? How does it compare to the theoretical limit for film, on a straight square inch to square inch scale, using as close to comparable parameters as possible? Yes, there is a limit. Pixel count, and film resolution, are both limited by the same factor - the wavelength of the light being recorded. You can't have discrete sensors separated by distances smaller than the wavelength of the light. That puts a lower bound on the size of a pixel, and similarly the size of film grain. Image depth and capture rate (or density ratio and film speed) are interrelated. Again, the theoretical limit is physically based; you can't have a sensor that measures in units smaller than a single photon. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Darth Vader meets Princess Bride is back
Jody ecrit: Welcome back John. One question: Do you have Darth's looks, or Westley's? I very much prefer the latter. I know this was Inigo's line, but Westley (and Cary) are much hotter. I just love the accent too. Jody. See http://www.panix.com/~johnf/ to find out what I look like. As for accents - I just spent six weeks back in the UK, and kept getting told that I hadn't picked up any trace of an American accent in the years I have been over this side of the pond. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: October PUG
David A. Mann spake thusly: I read somewhere that flat panel monitors aren't as good for accurate colour reproduction as CRTs. Modern flat panel displays are the technology of choice for pre- press colour checking. Their performance is far more reproducible between units, they have a wider colour gamut than CRTs, and a far better contrast ratio. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: MZ-S Cost...Hey Pentax.
Aaron muttered: p.s. trick question: I don't have a car. Is this car you don't have automatic or manual? -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Favorite Film Roll Call Results UPDATE 28
Richard Klein asked: If I usually just want to get a picture into my computer for web, email, or other use is there any benefit in using slide film versus print film? It depends. Mostly it depends on your scanner. If all you have is a medium-resolution flatbed scanner (under 600dpi) then your best choice is to scan prints. If you have a high-resolution scanner with a transparency adapter, or if you have a film/negative scanner, you have more options. Negatives have a lower density range than slide films (especially high-saturation slide films like Velvia), so they are easier to scan. They also capture a wider range of intensities, and so you are less likely to have burned-out highlights or featurelesss areas of shadow. But these benefits don't come without drawbacks - the contrast compression results in less midrange detail, and even the best orange mask removal can cause colour aliasing artifacts and/or a slight colour cast at the extreme ends of the intensity range. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Oh the agony!
-Original Message- From: Frank Theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 5:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Oh the agony! Gianfranco Irlanda wrote: It seems we reached 151 LX on the list (if I'm right and the buyer is Tonghang Zhou)... Gianfranco One can only hope... Yes - that was indeed Tonghang Zhou - I recognise the address (I purchased a spare MX winder from him at one time). -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT: Honda Longevity
For real longevity, buy a Volvo. The current record-holder is a Volvo P-18, with 1,690,000 miles. And that was 2 1/2 years ago, so who knows what it reads now. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: OT: Honda Longevity
PAUL STENQUIST added: The previous record holder was a 1958 Mercedes 180D diesel sedan. I was a little surprised to find a Volvo claiming the honours - that Mercedes was the car I expected to find. Guess what Shel drives, by the way ... John Francis wrote: For real longevity, buy a Volvo. The current record-holder is a Volvo P-18, with 1,690,000 miles. And that was 2 1/2 years ago, so who knows what it reads now. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Dear Squid
William Robb answered this query: William, May I ask you to explain what a Dear Squid letter is ?? I'm at a serious loss here ! A rejection letter that leaves you feeling really depressed. William Robb I know what would cheer you up - a nice slice of toast! -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: More UPS Crap I Hate UPS
Here is my bitch list: (list of problems deleted) The main reason I don't use UPS stems from one (long) incident. My wife was returning to the East Coast to attend the wedding of one of the girls from her Girl Scout troop. She had been asked to make the wedding cake. This involved some amount of preliminary preparation, and quite a lot of supplies, equipment, etc. to be shipped across the country to complete the final presentation. We sent the stuff UPS air freight. Or, at least, that's what we paid for. The tracking number indicated that the packages were, in fact, being shipped by surface freight - we could track them in and out of the various depots across the country. We, of course, complained - although we had left several days of slack in the shipping, we didn't have the extra week it would take. UPS claimed they had no way to correct the shipment midway; we'd just have to wait for the package to arrive. They could scan it at each of the remaining waypoints, but they had no way to pull the package out. The shipment eventually arrived at the local main depot around midnight on the Friday - still (just) in time for the Saturday wedding. There wouldn't be time for my wife to do much of the fancy decoration, but at least she'd have the cake topper, the presentation stand, etc. Or she might have done, except for the fact that the truck containg the parcel wasn't scheduled to be unloaded until the following Tuesday. The UPS central customer service number wouldn't give us the phone number of the local depot, so we didn't find out this last detail until far too late. (When someone eventually drove down there and talked to the local manager he was outraged, but by then all the staff had left). To add insult to injury - UPS's idea of appropriate recompense for if not ruining the wedding, at least taking the icing off the cake :-) was to offer to refund us the difference between surface and air shipping. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 429-4427 MyWay.com 444 Castro St. Suite 101,Mt. View, CA 94041 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
Shel Belinkoff asked: Do other quality digital cameras offer FF CCD that can be used with the lenses from their SLRs? No - all current digital SLRs built around 35mm bodies have sensors smaller than full frame. This gives a focal length multiplier for all lenses - somewhere between 1.3 and 1.5 is typical for the most recent modles (more on earlier models). What happens with a telephoto lens - is, for example, a 300mm lens longer or shorter when used with a less than FF CCD? Longer, effectively. The lens produces an image of exactly the same size, but only the central portion of that image falls on the digital sensor. The effect is exactly the same as taking the central portion of a 35mm negative and using that to produce a standard print. The one good thing is that the f-stop remains the same; that 300mm/f2.8, used on the latest bodies, acts like a 400mm/2.8. (Caveat: on some digital bodies there was an absolute maximum aperture limit from the internal camera design, so some lenses can not be used at their full aperture. I don't believe any of the recent bodies suffer from this problem). Also, how does Fuji (?) get 6mp from a CCD that is only rated at 3mp? By interpolation (a less charitable answer would be 'by lying'). Doesn't that screw with quality, especially with larger prints? Yes (according to reviews posted on the digital camera review sites). -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Manual vs. motor
Evan Hanson wrote: Funny you should mention it. I was just reading an interview with Annie Leibovitz (http://fototapeta.art.pl/fti-ale.html) in which she mentions a bonus of motor drives that had never occured to me. If your left eyed; like I am, you dont have to move your face away from the camera to advance the film. Evan That's the primary reason why I have winders for my M-bodies; not only am I left-eyed, I also wear glasses, making it even more difficult to advance the film manually. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS! Part one
Jan van Wijk remarked: I like the idea too, I'd rather have a 4MP K-mount digital SLR for $2000 to $3000 in a few months (or, more realistically, in probably around a year) than the 6MP full-frame for maybe $7000 now ... That's pretty much what I've been saying for the last six months, too. Let's face it - a digital camera becomes obsolete extremely quickly. It's bad enough if a $2000 camera turns into a $2000 paperweight in a few years, but how many of us can write off $7000 in that same time? Perhaps, once the digital camera market matures, we'll see cameras that last a while (perhaps not the 25+ years some of us are getting from out old manual bodies, but at least something in the 5-10 year range). But at present the digital camera bodies aren't quite good enough for that. They're getting good enough to be used for quite a few purposes, but with a digital body you are at best stuck with the level of technology current when the camera was built (and, to be realistic, liable to find things deteriorating as the sensor ages; pixels will fail, and the sensitivity will probably decrease). While some things on manual cameras are limiting (the 1/1000 top end speed of my MX occasionally causes me a few problems) not all of the technology is embedded in the camera; I'm getting better pictures today than I was back in 1976 because I'm able to take advantage of improvements in film emulsions. A digital camera won't be able to take advantage of improvements in sensor technology (and before any one suggests it: user-upgradable digital camera bodies aren't going to be cost effective - by the time you've changed all the expensive stuff like the sensor, memory, processors data paths, you might as well get a whole brand new box to put the pieces in). So until the sensor technology ceases to be the limiting factor in the quality of digital images we can expect to see the cameras continuing to become obsolete at around the current rate. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Pentax Digital NEWS - FULL STORY from AP 27th OCT.
Mark Roberts fumed: I certainly hope you're correct. Right now I'm still *furious* at this latest development. I spent several thousand dollars on equipment this year, largely based on the confidence that the digital SLR was coming and what I bought would be compatible. Gambling on just when the cutting edge of the technology curve will produce real products in the marketplace is a risky business. And it's not just Pentax that have slipped the product schedule (which was never an official Pentax schedule, anyway); Contax are said to be having similar problems with their full-frame sensor. We, the Pentax users, feel this pain more deeply than Canon/Nikon users because we don't have any alternative K-mount digital body to tide us over until the eventual high-end bodies become reality. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: A Week in the Life (long response to everyone)
John Mustarde mentioned: On Mon, 22 Oct 2001 10:18:49 -0700, you wrote: What I'd like to do, and my script is pretty close to doing, is read a directory of jpegs, create an index page of thumbnails, and an individual html page from a template for each one. Can excel do that? Photoshop, Ulead PhotoImpact, and imagENGine will do that. There may be other programs with an Export for Web or similar feature. I'm pretty sure ThumbsPlus has an HTML option, too. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd, Palo Alto,CA 94306 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: Non-Pentax equipment
If your need is so great, fine. Lie to us. We won't know the difference. You will. The question is then, Will it matter to you that you lied to show off your shot? I can't answer this. Only you can. Regards, Bob... My, Shel was right - it *did* get nasty, didn't it? I don't need to lie to you to get my images shown anywhere. But if it matter to you that much, don't worry - I'd be quite happy to have all my images removed from the Pentax gallery. I don't think I'll bother to submit to any future galleries, either. In fact I think I'll just unsubscribe from the PDML. -- John Francis . . . . . . . . . . (650) 565-4427 MyWay.com 1070 Arastradero Rd,Palo Alto, CA 94304-1334 Hello. My name is Darth Vader. I am your Father. Prepare to die. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT:No camera=first Concord siting
This will be my last post on this subject, but let me say I have really enjoyed it, as far as off-topic threads go. To bring it back onto topic, somewhat: A few years ago a SR-71 was supposed to be making a low, slow pass over Moffett Field as part of their airshow. (It wasn't exactly a secret, but it wasn't widely promoted, either). So there I was, nicely set up near the runway, with a long lens. Unfortunately I (and the half a dozen or so other photographers who had set up for the shot) were disappointed; the plane had suffered mechanical problems, and wasn't able to make the show. That was pretty much the last public appearance before the fleet was finally grounded, too, so there's little chance of a repeat. There's a NASA U2 parked at Moffet (at NASA Ames Research Center), alongside a Harrier, an F-104, and a pilotless photo spy drone.
Re: *ist D and the 1 gigabyte card
The ist D supports a 1 gb card, saying it will store 70 RAW files, 56 full resolution tiffs. It will do smaller than full resolution tiffs also, 87 medium resolution (2400x1600) or 512 small (1536x1024). Something seems wrong with those figures. Only 56 full-resolution (6MP) TIFFs, and yet it has room for 512 small (1.5MP) TIFFs? Should that perhaps be 212? It has about 9 configuration of Jpeg, ranging from 244 at the best setting to its software limited 999 images, which is still full resolution, but more compression. The quality of the best quality Jpegs is very good indeed, FWIW. So it should be, if you only get 244 of them on a 1GB card; that's 4MB each! That's about 50% larger than the best-quality JPEGs from the Nikon D-100. It's apparent that Pentax are using less agressive compression settings.
Re: OT: Jpeg Q
Am I remembering right that JPEG format files re-compress each time they are saved? In other words, saving the image on your CF card as a JPEG and then transferring to the PC would be two steps of loss? No. Copying a JPEG file is just like copying any other file - lossless. You could go out of your way, of course, to introduce an extra lossy step by directly uploading the image into an image processing program by using the camera as a TWAIN source, and then saving the image as a JPEG. But that's not how any sane person would do it. In fact you shouldn't use JPEG for any intermediate steps, just so you avoid this double-lossy compression problem. All editing, cropping, colour balancing, etc., etc. should be done on TIFFs or PNGs. Read the initial JPEG from the camera, but never re-save as JPEG (except, possibly, for the final step before posting or emailing the image).
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Boris wrote: BL This is most unusual. My ZX-L for instance, shows aperture value in BL the viewfinder if a lens that has A position is set to some other BL aperture. I thought that it came through electronics, this displayed BL value. Why it is not supported in this case? Aperture is indeed transmitted digitally to the camera by the F/FA lenses, so use of aperture set on the lens would have been perfectly possible with the *istd. But P deliberately invalidated this functionality through software, as it is forcing its users to abandon the aperture ring and sets the premise for a complete switch to the FAJ line. Personally I find this incessant tirade accusing Pentax of deliberate conspiracies is more than a little tiresome. It's not as if you can't continue to use old A, F and FA lenses - it's just that you have to use the aperture control on the camera, not the aperture ring on the lens. You haven't lost any functionality; you've just lost one style of control for getting at that functionality. So they chose not to support an alternative interface. Oh dear, what a shame. Using the body-mounted control, in fact, is in some ways superior to using the aperture ring; with variable-aperture lenses you don't really know what aperture you'll be getting when you use the aperture ring on the lens. Given the presence of a perfectly functional aperture control on the body, why *should* Pentax invest much effort in supporting alternatives? The more complex the hardware or software, the more expensive it is to manufacture, test, and repair, and the more likely it is to break. If the body doesn't need to read aperture settings from the lens then adding a means to do so (be it mechanical for A lenses, or digital for F lenses) is just one more thing that could go wrong. Complaining that the *ist-D makes you use the body-mounted control rather than a lens-mounted control is just petulant whining. When the MZ-S dropped the separate body-mounted aperture control, rather than supporting the PZ-1p style of interface there were expressions of displeasure, but then everybody got on with using the tools that were available. The other big complaint about the *ist-D - that it doesn't support metering with older K lenses - is all about a loss of functionality. In the absence of the mechanical aperture-sensing lever, and assuming that the lens should normally be left at full aperture for composition, etc., there's no way for the metering to be permanently enabled. But it *would* be possible to program some control (the green button? or the AF button?) to stop the lens down to taking aperture, take an instantaneous reading, and display the over/under exposure bars for as long as the control was being pressed.
Re: Very first impressions Ist D
I guess I've used the DOF preview button on my other two bodies more than I knew, miss it here. Camera could very well do this but I don't know how yet. Isn't it the same as the MZ-S? Push the On-Off switch beyond the On position.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I own over a dozen PENTAX KM lenses, all superb. I own 1 (ONE) A type or later lens . . . This represents maybe ONE new lens in the last twenty years? Unless you've bought a whole lot of other stuff, I don't think that's the sort of customer that keeps a company in business. Not that I've been any better - since the Super Program pretty much the only stuff I've bought new has been a couple of bodies, a flash, and two power zoom lenses; one first rate (the 28-105), and one I no longer own (the original 100-300). I've spent far more than that, over the same period, in picking up used equipment. Nice for me, but it doesn't support Pentax. But, there again, I'm not complaining Pentax isn't supporting me. Pentax had already dropped support for the early K-mount lenses some time before the *ist-D was released; send one of those early lenses back to Pentax for repair and it's almost certain to come back marked 'service is no longer provided for this item'. All that being said, though, I feel that the *ist-D could have done a little more in the name of compatibilty. Not by adding the mechanical aperture sensor, perhaps - we'll disagree about whether it's reasonable to require that. But adding stop-down metering in manual mode would be possible without extra hardware. Perhaps, if we're really lucky, we'll see that in a firmware fix.
Re: OT: Problems with Flash Card Reading
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (graywolf) wrote: You may need a powered hub. Often that is the case when there is more than one USB device per controller. Thanks - that's just solved my problem with a Hama USB 2.0 Pocketdrive 6-in-1. I have Windows XP running on an Intel motherboard, and before adding the powered hub, the machine could get as far as seeing the disk drives, but complained of i/o errors on trying to read them. With the powered USB hub, everything just works. Powered hubs are often a good idea if you have high-speed-transfer devices (such as disk drives or scanners), as well as solving problems with fanout.
Re: Old lenses and *ist-D
Hi, John F wrote: I've spent far more than that, over the same period, in picking up used equipment. Nice for me, but it doesn't support Pentax. I disagree. Although indirect, it does support Pentax. Buyers of new equipment would do so at a much(?) lower rate if there was no secondhand market to soak up their cast-offs. There aren't many people like pentax-fan from Japan, with rooms piled to the ceiling. I wondered if somebody would raise this justification. Unfortunately it is based on an unwarranted assumption; that the seller of the used Pentax equipment was using the money to buy more (new) Pentax gear. In many of the cases where I know the reason for sale, that hasn't been the case. In fact two of my most expensive used purchases were one from a photographer who was dumping Pentax and switching to Nikon, and one from an estate sale where the money wasn't being for photographic gear at all. And we've seen several postings, even on this group of Pentax die-hards, of equipment being (reluctantly) offered for sale simply to raise money.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
As I've said before, I think Pentax has plans for electrical contacts (for USM, electronic aperture control, etc.) in places where the aperture simulator is located on the original K mount . . . I'd be very surprised if they used that part of the lens mount for new purposes; it would probably make mounting *all* existing lenses impossible. I think the mechanical aperture sensor was dropped for purely pragmatic reasons; it wasn't necessary - there was already an alternative control on the body which was just as good as the aperture ring (and, in fact, superior in the case of variable-aperture zoom lenses). This meant that all exposure settings were directly made on the body using electronic controls, rather than physical settings. I wouldn't be totally amazed to see a bidirectional remote control that replicated the info display thumbwheels, and talked to the camera using a bluetooth-enabled grip. One thing that argues aginst this scenario, though, is that they've dropped the power zoom contacts from the mount. While I personally won't miss them I'd have thought it might have been something you'd want in an electronic remote. There again, though, that would really need a remote viewfinder to see the framing - not really feasible, even at the pixel count of the LCD display.
Re: M lenses
Another of the things you have to realize here is that most of folks here on this list, or any other photo equipment list for that matter, are nitpickers. One honestly would be hard pressed to tell the quality difference in any non-defective Pentax lens or another in a good 8x10 print. So take the comments on this list with a grain of salt. Most Pentax lenses very between very very good, and fabulous. One or two are only very good, none are crap. I've still got two of the less-favoured M lenses (the 28mm/f2.8, and the 40-80/f2.8-f4). I don't use them much now, but they worked well enough for me in the past. I did get rid of the FA 100-300/f4-f5.6, but even that produced some reasonable shots. Let's face it; a Canon Powershot G1 (or equivalent PS digital) probably has much cheaper glass than almost any lens from a major SLR product line. But I've got some pretty good (even downright impressive) 8x10s from mine, even though it only has a 3.3MP sensor.
Re: Pentax 35-135ish lens?
I got mine from KEH. CW In fact they show three of them right now: 2 As, one F
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
This still comes down to demanding that everybody pay the extra $10 or so, even if this is for functionality they don't want and will never use. No offence, but everyone keeps pulling numbers out of thin air. Sometimes it's ten bucks, sometimes it's twenty, but no one with any authourity has actually come up with a real hard and accurate number for how much extra, overall, this camera would have had to cost with K/M compatability. Since, as JCO pointed out, the camera is already more expensive than a Canon 10D (whatever), and is way more expensive than the Rebel digital (like about 500 bucks), it seems to me that adding even more to the cost of the camera for a dubious benefit wouldn't have been very smart. William Robb No offence taken. I used the $10 figure because it was the lowest one I had seen quoted; other posts have talked about a $20 part, etc. Personally I think the cost would be significantly higher by the time you factor in all the development, testing support costs.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Yeah, this is my problem. I bemoaned the lack of aperture control on the body with the MZ-S because I liked using the TV wheel on the PZ-1p to set the aperture. It's a real pain having to change the lens setting when switching a lens from a PZ-1p (or *ist/*ist-D) to an MZ-S or MX, for example. Fortunately for me I shoot mostly in shutter priority, so that's less of a problem for me when switching between the PZ-1p MZ-S. Actually I find the MZ-S to be a very strange beast. It has some wonderful ergonomic features (the slanted top makes checking the settings very easy, and the choice of rotational direction on the control wheel is great), but it has this strange control dial which just doesn't seem easy to operate; it doesn't spin easily enough for it to be used while I'm looking through the viewfinder. The camera had too many good features (metal chassis; improved AF; vertical shutter release on grip) for me to pass it by, but I'd still rather have had a PZ-2 :-) And, of course, the MZ-S would have been the perfect companion to an MZ-D. Oh, well ... I should find out how much I like the *ist-D fairly soon now; Adorama tell me that they expect to ship it out tomorrow. I can hardly wait. In the meantime: what will the next digital body offer us? Will we see a full-frame sensor? (I doubt it). I doubt we'll see a mechanical aperture sensor, either. Perhaps Pentax will release a digital body akin to the MZ-M; no auto-focus, just a basic digital KA2-mount body. But I expect pretty much everything else from now on to be fly-by-wire. I'd like to see a body woth support for USM and/or IS lenses, too.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
I never got the MZ-S, so I'm going from the PZ series to the *D, which should prove to be an easier transition than if I had. What was it about the MZ-S that made people move from the PZ-1*? Far, *far* better autofocus Extremely rigid metal chassis Battery grip that took AAs (and had a vertical shutter release) Exposure data imprinting PC socket [Anticipation of the MZ-D] In many cases it wasn't a move from the PZ-1; many folks kept both.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Peter Alling wrote: I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use auto-focus don't use digital neither is simple. 2.) If you insist in using a camera that sets exposures that are not guestimates then you have one choice, the LX. Everything else is just that even your best digital is still a guess from a wide open test. 3.) If you think that they didn't have to write special software routines to keep the *ist-D from working with K/M and test them then you're simply naive. Actually I do think that. But I've been in the software business for 23 years and believe me, its not that they wrote special code to do anything. They just didn't write the code to support it. Its alot easier to test when you have less things to test. Maybe your just too jaded. Actually they *did* have to write one piece of code - the piece that checks to see if a pre-A lens is mounted, and won't trip the shutter unless the appropriate Pentax function is set. But that's one small, simple piece of code. Code to support K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written.
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Caterham has improved them a bit. Many more engine options. De Dion rear suspension. Actual seats that slide forward and backward to adjust for different sized drivers. But, they're still pretty basic, elemental things, that go like stink. I'm sure it's anathema to mention them in front of true believers, but if you really want one that goes like stink the Japanese ripoff (often referred to as a Rotus) will run rings round most real 7s.
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
Well, whaddya know? That's the real company name, not a nickname. It was originally derived from Rotary+Lotus; the original cars were mostly rotary-engined. They ended up with three variants using Mazda engines (including one with twin turbos!), and some pretty frightening conventional engines (the GM 5.6L V8 or the Buick lightweight 3.8L V8), as well as somewhat tamer (and more sensible) options. Both those big V8s are popular with the after-market car tuners; with no trouble at all you can have well over 300HP under your right foot. Even with improved suspension and much wider and stickier rubber than the original, that's one heck of a lot of power in a car that light. And that's by no means the limit. I'm pretty certain that the Buick engine is the one used in the Grand National, which means that it can be turbocharged in addition to all the other little tweaks. I don't even want to think about what sort of power you could end up with if you really tried. Certainly well over 500HP. What are they REALLY called, then? keith John Francis wrote: Caterham has improved them a bit. Many more engine options. De Dion rear suspension. Actual seats that slide forward and backward to adjust for different sized drivers. But, they're still pretty basic, elemental things, that go like stink. I'm sure it's anathema to mention them in front of true believers, but if you really want one that goes like stink the Japanese ripoff (often referred to as a Rotus) will run rings round most real 7s.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I'm sure that the market for SLRs of any kind is pretty small, and getting smaller every year. The 35mm SLR was successful against the cameras of the day because it was smaller, lighter, and cheaper. The picture quality wasn't as good, but it was good enough. And the SLR design was ideal for interchangeable-lens systems. Today the digital point-and-shoots are smaller and lighter than the SLR-based designs. The picture quality is certainly good enough for most users, and the optical quality of all but the cheapest models is impressive. Look at what you can get from Sony or Nikon for $500-$600. Very few people will need the extra flexibility of an interchangeable-lens system when you can get cameras that fit in your pocket with 8x or 10x zoom. Sure, there will continue to be a small market for SLRs, both film and digital. But even there it looks as though the digital market is moving to smaller, lighter models; both Canon and Pentax are introducing smaller, lighter lenses for the smaller sensors. In the perpetual tradeoff between quality and convenience the arguments for stopping at the 35mm-sized SLR are decreasing. I hear you, but have to wonder. Will the current crop of 25 year olds ever move to a digital SLR? They don't know anything about film qualities. When they need to replace that old 5 megapixel Sony, will it be another point-n-shoot with 15 megapixels? I don't know how long it will be before digital completely superceeds 35mm film cameras. I am paying attention to what the publishers are doing. When I hear that they want digital, I get uncomfortable. When digital is good enough for their higher quality uses, 35mm film becomes a hobby item. Bob S. From: Alin Flaider [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob, I am aware of the omnipresence of digital ps over the pond. Last autumn in NY I could hardly spot a SLR elsewhere than at BH, while digicams were all over the place. I also agree the demand for digicams is even far from reaching the peak. My point is that DSLRs still appeal to those who want image quality, speed, versatility, etc. and it's likely that current owners of film SLRs will get a DSLR as soon as it enters their affordable area for the very same reasons they purchased the film SLR in the very beginning. Of course some that inherited or got accidentally in the SLR will be perfectly happy with digi-toys, but I suspect an important segment won't settle for less than a DSLR. Then the potential DSLR market amounts to what? - even for Pentax users base the figure must be in the millions. It would be foolishly for Pentax to ignore it. _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I remember those days. Those big heavy ugly DSLRs which were not designed for the general public, but press photographers only. Even so, few were using them. I guess it depends where you looked. In my experience as soon as the D1 came out you could hardly find an F5 in the media centre at motorsports events, and Nikon even made a few inroads into Canon territory. Then as soon as Canon came out with digitals, most of the EOS-1 bodies vanished. The big agencies will have one guy shooting Velvia on one body, digital on the other, and three guys each with two or three digital bodies. I'd estimate that digital has something like 80% of the market now.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Perhaps I have a different way to approach the digital products. The 1st thing I check is the picture quality. If they aren't good, I don't care. Why bother to produce a 5MP model when the images are(sic) that good anyway? Have you checked the Canon PowerShot G1/2/3/4/5? The Olympus 30x0 series? The image quality of each of those that I've tested seems perfectly adequate for any situation where I'd consider using a 35mm camera without using flash. I haven't looked at the Nikon CoolPix 5700 in detail, but a preliminary look at the images my neighbour has prodiced on his suggest that it is a contender. I wouldn't take a PS digital if I wanted to end up with 24x16 prints, but I've seen some pretty good 8x10s produced using only a 3MP camera.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Not really. The other side of the grey card you carry for reflected light metering is a white card that can be used for white balance.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
What I am worrying is that good quality processing might become harder and harder to find in the near future. Alan Chan Near Future be blowed. In two years I've had to find a new place to get my slides processed twice because the lab I was using closed down, and one of the two labs that offered high-end enlargements from negatives is gone. I've also observed that at a big sporting event there's far less chance that you'll find a local lab offering pick-up and drop-off service for E6. Fortunately I've found a small independent one-hour lab operated by a guy who treats my film as if it were his own, and who takes good care of his equipment, but it's not the dip-and-dunk I could get two years ago.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
What is the exposure accuracy requirement of a digital sensor as compared to film? Well, just like slide film, you really don't want to overexpose; blow out the highlights and there's nothing you can do about it. Underexposure introduces noise (pretty much as can be seen by looking at shots where the ISO rating has been turned up). Not as much noise as push processing introduces, though.
Re: WTB in the future: 300mm f/2.8
Vic is right. IMO there can only be 2 possible reasons for buying a 300mm 2.8 lens: 1. You need the extra stop over a much cheaper f/4 lens, notably for sport or (say) rock concerts or whatever (where flash may not be appropriate)... ... or if you plan to use it with a TC occasionally. or 2. Like me, you're a lens whore! Let's face it, a 300 2.8 says 'get a load of this you damn photo-rabble, hell I can barely zip it up in the mornings!' ;-) Sometimes that's a useful message to send, too. There have been several occasions where I've been grabbing a few quick shots to put up on the web, mostly with a digital PS. It's a lot easier to get past the trolls on the barriers if you wave a big lens at them.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
I can't see spending $1500 for a six megapixel camera. In two or three years it will be a paperweight. No. In two or three years it will still produce 6MP images. That's more than enough for most purposes; it's a full-frame 8x10 print at 300ppi. Unless you're shooting on a tripod, at optimal lens aperture, 6MP isn't going to be the weak link. I'm still using a three-year-old digital point-and-shoot that only has a paltry 3.3MP, and a lens that isn't anywhere near as good as my Pentax glass. I'm not ready to consign it to life as a paperweight just yet, though. And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change from $20 for a single roll (though there are discounts for quantity). I'll shoot more than 100 rolls over a three-year period; using a digital body instead means I'll actually be spending less.
Re: which focusing screen for PZ-1?
Guarav asked I am quite used to the split-image and matte (?) screen of the ME-Super. Are there such screens for PZ-1? Beattie Intenscreen has made such a screen for the PZ-1. I think I bought mine from BH. Jost one word of caution; the Beattie screens can cause the in-camera metering to read too high, resulting in slightly underexposed images.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Here's my little theory about WB - you don't need to worry about it. What have print labs been doing for years? Working with a media that is stuck on daylight balance but shot in a multitude of conditions. If you're making prints, find an expert printer and let him do his job. Yep. I must admit I was more than a little amused to see folks taking digs at the digital bodies because there was a white-balance control. It's a lot easier to tweak a control dial than it is to swap multiple compensation filters on the front of lenses. So, of course, film users jyst don't bother; they rely on the printer (or the scanner) to fix it.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Man, you are getting your stuff from the wrong place then! Even in 'rip-off Britain' Provia+Dev+Mount costs me about half that - even for a single. The last time I was back in the UK I found that, much to my surprise, many 35mm roll film costs (and, often, prices for developing services) were rather lower than in the USA. Out here Provia-100F costs $4:50 or so for a single roll (and over twice that if you want the higher speed of 400F). Process and mount from anywhere that I trust can be anything from $10-$13 [quantity 1]. I'm not even sure I could find a much better deal; most of the cheap bulk processors don't even touch slide film (not that I'd let them; I've worked in one of those places - if I wanted my slides scratched I'd do it myself). I can get $7:50 - $8:00 per roll if I look around. But then I've got to add in shipping costs , which gets me back up over $10:00/roll. And in any case I much prefer to deal with in- house processors; not only is there rather less chance of the film getting lost in the mail, it's a lot easier to explain just what you are not happy about when you're talking to a live human being across a counter, and can *show* them the problem. Even at $10/roll, though, you only need to use one roll a week for a *ist-D to pay for itself in three years. And, as others have noted, you end up shooting a lot more with digital anyway because the incremental cost is nil; you don't need to end up with too many shots you would otherwise have passed by before you are convinced that the outlay on the digital was worth it. -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 04:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Has Pentax missed again? And, of course, in three years it's not that hard for even a $1500 camera to pay for itself; my normal film is Provia 100F. Processed and mounted I don't get all that much change from $20 for a single roll (though there are discounts for quantity). I'll shoot more than 100 rolls over a three-year period; using a digital body instead means I'll actually be spending less.
Re: which focusing screen for PZ-1?
Guarav asked I am quite used to the split-image and matte (?) screen of the ME-Super. Are there such screens for PZ-1? Beattie Intenscreen has made such a screen for the PZ-1. I think I bought mine from BH. Jost one word of caution; the Beattie screens can cause the in-camera metering to read too high, resulting in slightly underexposed images. Didn't have that effect in my PZ-1 at all. It's not much; I believe it's around 1/3 stop in centre-weighted (and who knows what using multi-segment metering). If you're using print film you'll never notice the difference. Even on slide film (with far less latitude) you won't usually have a problem, simply because erring on the side of underexposure with slides is a lot better than going in the other direction. These figures are for the PZ-1p screens; I don't know if the PZ-1 differs.
Re: Memory cards and batteries for the ist D?
A lot of people get excited about CF speed, but I really don't think it is too big of a deal unless you plan on shooting sports or other things were timing is critical. The buffer on the *ist D is pretty big and I've never filled it in normal shooting...only when I was holding the shutter button down to see how quickly I could fill it. The money that you would spend on a fast 512mb card will often get you a slow 1gb CF card and I'd rather have the space than the speed. Plus, as I've noted before, the correlation between card speed rating and speed of image transfer isn't straightforward - from observations of other photographer with various Nikon Canon digital SLRs sometimes a 'high speed' card actually performs worse than lower-rated cards when used in a particular camera model. When the dpReview for the *ist-D comes out it's likely that several CF cards will be tested. Check there first if you are concerned. I've got a couple of MicroDrives on order because they were cheap - $200. They're not as fast as the fastest CF cards, but should be OK.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens. Simple question, tricky answer. First of all: there's no requirement for the aperture response of any K lens to be the same as a different lens; all that is required is that the lens stop down to the aperture selected on the aperture ring when the mechanism is actuated (within a given maximum angle of travel). In practice most of the K (and M) lenses seem to share the same basic mechanism, so the response is somewhat uniform across the range. But there could well be a small number of lenses that behave differently. There was also no requirement that the lens actuation mechanism had to be at exactly the same place on the lens mount, as long as it was capable of stopping the lens all the way down within the permitted angle of operation. Again most K and M lenses do seem to be the same. Only with the introduction of the A lenses was there any requirement for a systematic uniform response across the range. A bodies do not use bang-bang push-it-to-the-limit diaphragm controls; in program or shutter-priority modes they position the diaphragm control lever to intermediate positions, and expect any A lens to stop down to the same f stop (if possible) for a given position of the control lever. The response curve that the A mount specified was not the same as the empirically-observed behaviour of the K lenses; the A mount required the same angle of travel to change the aperture by one stop from any aperture. This is not how the K lenses behaved, but it did greatly simplify the actuating mechanism in the A-enabled bodies. It also allowed more precise control of smaller apertures; half the travel of the actuating lever on the K lenses was spent on the first two clickstops down from full aperture, and so on. If the A lenses had followed this pattern it would have been very hard to accurately control the smaller apertures. With the design chosen more of the range of actuation is available at the higher-numbered f-stops, and any error (due to misalignment, etc.) will be uniform across the whole range of apertures. Now I've actually done the calculations, it appears to me that the actuating lever of an A body in automatic mode does *not* move far enough to stop down a typical K lens to the right position at any aperture except wide open and stopped all the way down, so trying to fool the *ist-D into thinking that an old K lens is, in fact, an A lens on the A setting will result in overexposure.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
OK, now we're getting to the part where my analysis has to be spot on. Shooting motorsports, I'm not going to have time to review in camera. Not something you want to do, in any case, with large heavy objects whizzing by at 200mph. Not that I haven't seen people doing that; sitting on the Jersey barrier, back to traffic, paying no attention. [Have you heard the term for that activity? It's known as 'chimping'; folks staring at their camera dispay anf going Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!] It sounds like I'm really going to need to have a laptop along for dumps from the CF (or whatever) cards. day on film. See below I can easily do 250+ shots a day on film. [ . . . ] I'll probably shoot more on digital since the incremental cost is so low . I've shot more than 250 frames during a single on-track session. For the cost of a couple of GB of CF memory you can get this: http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=detailssid=10463894873648587sku=ICDSDFT That's a 30GB hard drive, 3.5 LCD review screen, built in CF reader. No assistant needed, and a lot easier to carry around the circuit. With that, and a couple of 512Mb CF cards, you'd be able to shoot all you want in raw mode; just change the 'film' every 35 frames, and dump one to the hard drive while you're shooting the next. The only reasons I haven't got one of these myself is that I usually have my laptop with me in the media room for posting the images as soon as I can, and that as I shoot in daylight almost all the time I expect the white balance presets to be good enough. And one other thing - with the laptop I can make sure I've burned the images to CD before I delete them from the CF card - I'm paranoid, but I never like having a single point of failure for something as evanescent as digital images.
Re: Take this simple test
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 09:57:50 +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: Will this high speed shooting be out of doors? If so set the white balance to a fixed value and get it right all the time instead. It will, and if a fixed value or the presets is close enough for this usage, that sounds great (can you tell I don't know jack about the whole digicam operation thing? :-). The main times I would need to do something different would be in the garages and the dusk/night portions of the Petit le Mans. Occasionally some other shots, too, but they'd be under much less stressful circumstances. Think of it like this; if you'd shoot daylight-compensated slide film, and reckon that the colours would be close enough, then just leave the white balance set on daylight. That's probably what I'd use for night shots at Road Atlanta, too: you *want* those yellow headlights to look yellow, and the blue/white ones to look blue. Your flash is daylight, too (assuming you'll be using some flash for side shots). For night shots in the garage, though, you might want to use something different if there are a lot of fluorescent lights about.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
At 01:41 AM 10/14/03, you wrote: Given the above info, is there any way that the back of a K mount lens could be modified to let the *ist D fire using stop down metering in similar modes? snip I suspect that more people would complain about the loss of full- aperture focussing than currently complain about loss of metering. Not that what I think matters; Pentax had to choose one, and they chose to keep full aperture for a brighter viewfinder. This is the silliest thing I've yet heard in this argument. You get a brighter viewfinder when focusing and composing by leaving the lens aperture at maximum. Then stop down set your shutter speed, (Just like an old Spotmatic), or let the camera set it and take the picture. Exactly my point. You'd be back to that mode of operation. Apparently most camera manufactures feel that their customers don't like working like that - everybody seems to feel that full-aperture composition and focussing, with the lens only stopping down while the picture was being taken, was a desirable feature. If it isn't a desirable feature, then why has practically every camera made since the Spotmatic F (and not just from Pentax) worked that way? And if it *is* a desirable feature, then why do you seem to believe that nobody would complain if that ability were removed?
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
John, have you got a web site? Fast cars fast cars fast cars fast cars *~* I get my track access from motorsport.com, so most of my stuff goes there. I've got a few older shots up at my home page http://www.panix.com/~johnf/, and I've recently been given some space on a system operated by a friend of mine where I can put up a larger selection (just try and keep it under 10GB..) once I find the time to select the images (right after I set up the new home computer and copy over the old images, scan that pile of boxes of slides, ...) Shooting motortsports isn't my day job; it's just what I do on some weekends. My primary focus (ha ha) is the Champ Car series; I cover most of the events on the West coast. Last year I also took my vacation around three races in Ohio, Wisconcin, and Montreal, ending up at nine of the races in 2002. This year I've cut back again, although I did get over to the UK for Brands Hatch. One reason I've not done as much this year is that not having a DSLR has been a distinct disadvantage, so I've let the guys with the D1s provide coverage.
Re: feature for digital camera
one feature i would like to see in a digital camera is a portrait mode that would rotate the orientation of the sensor in the camera without rotating the camera. Why? It's an extra mechanical thing that could go wrong, and one which affects the most critical element in the camera - the accurate positioning of the sensor. Not to mention the fact that you'd also have to change the viewfinder, making it a lot harder to put all the additional displays within your field of view. I got quite a surprise when I used a Canon EOS-10d a few months ago; when I copied the files onto my computer (using the same software I already had there for my Canon G1 - full marks, Canon!) it automatically produced a second copy of all my portrait shots, rotated to the correct orientation. Apparently the body has an orientation sensor.
Re: Does exposed film travel?
I am on holiday in Greece and have shot 2 Kodak T-MAX 400 (@800, if it makes any difference). I would like to develop them in my favourite lab (Ilfords in the UK) but I am worried about X-ray machines and metal-detector arches etc. Do you see any problem? Would you fly with them back to your origin? Where would you put them, in the x-ray machine for hand-luggage, in your pocket through the arch, or in the luggage you kiss goodbye (perhaps forever) at the check-in desk? Or would you post them home? I always keep exposed film (and unexposed film, come to that) in my carry-on baggage, and request hand inspection. In the USA that's an entitlement (although explaining that to tired, underpaid inspectors at an airport can earn you a trip to the special inspection line). In the UK it's only done for film at 800 or faster. Your T-MAX counts, becuse it's being developed as if it were 800 speed, but you might not be able to convince the security folks of that). I don't know what the rules are in Greece. You won't be allowed to keep them in your pocket; the metal in the cassette is enough to trigger the walk-through detectors. The one place you do *not* want your film is in checked baggage. The latest generation of X-Ray machines have variable gain, and the operator can crank it way up if he sees a suspicious shape. I made the mistake, once, of leaving partially-exposed films in my cameras, and remembered just after the camera case was checked in (one drawback of a big lens; you can't take it as carry-on). Fortunately luck was smiling on me that day, and my Provia 400F came through the experience unscathed.
Re: correct exposure
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I stand by my reply. His post makes no sense. You cant really do studio strobes at weddings and receptions. His teachers must be the stupid jerks. Actually, a stupid jerk is someone who does all his formals with a little ttl flash on camera. I'd suggest that a stupid jerk is one who believes, no matter how much evidence to the contrary is presented, that his own way of doing things is the only way that anyone with any intelligence could possible consider.
Hand-holding 300/2.8
I knew I had an example somewhere! This is a shot I took at Goodwood a couple of years ago. http://www.panix.com/~johnf/temp/airshow.jpg I was using an MZ-S with the A* 300/f2.8, quite probably with the AF 1.7 adapter. I started off trying to use a monopod, but soon gave that up. I believe I was using Provia 400F, judging by the (too fast) shutter speed; I could do with a little more prop blurring. This is slightly cropped (about 2/3 of the full-frame width).
Gretag Macbeth colo(u)r checker
It's been a good day for finding things: I also found the scans I made to compare two film scanners. So if anyone has been wondering what a checker looks like: http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/chart.html (Now you can see why I switched to the LS30, can't you?) The colours of each square are very carefully controlled, and the RGB values (in several colour spaces) are included with the chart.
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Cotty wrote: C Rob, I bet you are soo relieved you didn't cave in to the Sigma C DSLR a while back ;-) The *ist D is a little cutey. Yes, a nice box but still a box around the sensor. And the cutey thing in Sigma is that Foveon sensor, something I wish to see in a Pentax too at some point in the future. Hopefully the agreement between Foveon and Sigma expires soon and the X3 sensors proliferates. It's best thing that happened in the imaging industry since the colour film. I agree. I was lucky enough to attend a technical presentation on the Foveon sensor shortly before the Sigma camera was released (they had cameras there, but the model number was obscured). It's quite a stunning sensor, even allowing for the fact that the presentation was obviously designed to show off the Foveon technology in the best possible light. Unfortunately the presenter (and chief Foveon technologist, I believe) tends to rather overstate his case. Instead of merely claiming that their sensor is comparable to the performance of 35mm film, he instead wants you to believe that it out-performs medium format cameras as well. The end result, of course, (apart from embarrassing some of his other techies, who were also photographers) is that there is a temptation to ignore the whole set of claims because of this obvious exaggeration. That's a mistake, but it's all too easy a mistake to make.
Re: Old lenses, *istD, and the Pentax Mad Scientists
UPDATE: The basic mod is pretty simple -- changing M to A. And you don't have to modify anyting. 1) set the lens to the minimum aperture. f22, etc. 2) short the A pin to the body or lens. Use a piece of foil or 32 awg wire. Without the lens information pins you'll not get matrix metering but you will get automatic modes of operation. Unfortunately you will get automatically wrongly-exposed images. The aperture actuator is designed for an A lens, and will *not* stop a K or M lens down to the correct setting; theresponse of the mechanisms is different. My calculations haven't been confirmed yet, but I believe the error will always be to over-expose (which is bad for digital). It will be by less than a stop at wide apertures, but the error will increase as the lens is asked to stop down further. The maximum exposure error depends critically on the exact motion, which I haven't measured, but looks like well over two stops.
Re: *ist-D ad claimed to be sexistic
Anders posted: In last week's issue of Resumé, the Swedish weekly magazine for the advertizing business, there is a full page article where a long list of female photographers accuse Pentax of being sexistic in their adverts for the new *ist-D. They make clear that because of this ad, they will not buy this camera -- or any Pentax equipment. Three reactions: 1. Pentax actually ran an ad somewhere for something other than a ps? Wow! 2. I'm sure it's quite easy for all these people to declare they're not going to buy Pentax equipment. How many were at all likely to, anyway? 3. Sad -- not a good time to get bad press. And a fourth reaction: The complaint is just as bad as the original ad - possibly even worse. A long list of *female* photographers? Why is there this assumption that only females might find the advertisement offensive, or that only the opinion of female photographers is worth reporting? If they're complaining about sexism they need to clean up their own act.
Re: *ist-D ad claimed to be sexistic
John Francis: The complaint is just as bad as the original ad - possibly even worse. A long list of *female* photographers? Why is there this assumption that only females might find the advertisement offensive, or that only the opinion of female photographers is worth reporting? The photographers that have written and signed the article all happen to be women. I see no assumption that only women might find the advertisement offensive, though. No-one has said that only the opinion of female photographers is worth reporting, either. This particular group of female photographers submitted their opinion to the magazine, and it published the letter, that's all. I would still suggest that a group of individuals who all happen to be female is using that as their primary selection criterion, not the fact that they are all photographers. The ad is tacky and tasteless - I'm not trying to defend it. But I don't share the opinion that the protesters are photographers first, and just coincidentally *happen* to be women. Mind you, I'm still disappointed that *anyone* could be stupid enough to run this ad in Sweden. I visited Sweden for six months in 1974. Before I went I spent a couple of weeks in the USA getting training. This was in the heyday of the Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution, so I got quite a lot of news coverage of the ratification process. The US was busy slapping itself on the back, and congratulating itself on jusy how enlightened it was. Then I got to Sweden. Equality didn't seem to be something you needed to talk about - it was just accepted as a way of life. Perhaps 40% of the working population were women (even the welders at the shipyard). Paternity leave for childcare of newborn infants was normal - a couple of the male programmers I worked with took leave in the time that I was there, as well as one of the females.
Re: *ist-D compact flash benchmarks and recommendations
I'm shopping around for new compact flash memory cards for my *ist-D and noticed that Rob Galbraith has now posted benchmarks for the *ist-D: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=6007-6432 Can anyone with an *ist-D using any of the cards verify the reported numbers? Are there any other benchmarks and guides I should be looking at? The reviewer notes that although Pentax supports Lexar's Write Acceleration technology, the benchmark results for Lexar's WA-enabled cards didn't show any significant increase over non-WA cards. Should I still be optimistic and buy Lexar WA-enabled cards? I guess that depends on how much more they cost, and whether the speed of upload to the computer is important to you. Personally I was pleased to see how well the MicroDrives perform.
Re: *ist D and BIG Glass
Wish I had that setup anyway! There's several folks on this list with the 600/f4; I don't know if any of them are getting an *ist-D. When mine gets here I'll be using it with a long lens, too. Not quite as wide, but the 250-600/f5.6 is still quite a nice lens. I also plan on trying the 1.7AF adapter with the A* 300 (and also the 200)
Re: New to the list
you are kidding, right? i am almost envisioning a large, mostly empty highway from Boston to NYC ( i guess that should count for major towns, eh? ). The Atlantic corridor is not representative of the US as a whole. But the point is that since the Eisenhower administration created the Interstate Highway System (designed for an average road speed of 80Mph) travel by road for long distances has been a reasonable low-cost option in the USA. Try travelling along the A6 in the UK sometime. That's one of the original major road routes in the UK (hence the single-digit number). For quite a lot of it's length it is a two-lane road (not two lanes each way; two lanes in total) with no overtaking. Get stuck behind a slow-moving vehicle and you'll be sitting there for miles.
Re: We need a theme song!
Electric Light Orchestra, by any chance? Egad, am I dating myself! And no, I didn't look it up! Doesn't matter, as I don't recall anything they did. Think that's dating yourself? I know what they were called before they changed their name to Electric Light Orchestra, and can name several of their song titles.
Re: New to the list
Well, I'm sure I'll be corrected by someone in the Mother Country if I'm wrong, but I think there are several express trains and a controlled access highway between London and Glascow, so that the travel time, either by train or car, is the same as it is between Montreal and Toronto. I don't think it's as much about time, as it is about us North Americans being used to larger distances. London to Glascow is the length of Britain. Montreal to Toronto is a about 1/10th Canada from coast to coast. Oh, quite. You can fit the UK inside California with room to spare. (That's another 400 mile reference trip - Los Angeles to San Francisco) But you can't really compare Canada to the UK for transport, anyway. For a start Canada has been called a country three thousand miles long and twenty miles wide. That's a bit of an exaggeration, but it's hard to have a route between large towns that doesn't use the main East-West transport corridor.
Re: *ist 35mm
*The Marvelous Toy recorded by Peter, Paul Mary ... amongst others, including Val Doonican John Denver. And, of course, the guy who wrote it: Tom Paxton. For an on-topic reference, see my May 01 PUG entry: http://pug.komkon.org/01may/paxton.html
Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete in less than a year. You reckon? What's going to obsolete it, then? And even if Pentax *do* come out with a new model (which I don't believe will happen) what's going to be wrong with the *ist-D?
Re: Vs: Old lenses, *istD, and the Pentax Mad Scientists
Raimo Korhonen wrote: Hi! MZ-S prints exposure data on the film between the sprocket holes - easy to retrieve. All the best! Raimo [B]etween the sprocket holes? I measure that width at about 2.8 mm. How does one put ANY info in that small a space? In teeny-weeny letters. Rather like this:- +-++-++-++-++-++-++-+ | | NO.| | nnn| |ISO | |100 | || || | +-++-++-++-++-++-++-+ That's on Frame 0. It shows roll number and ISO (and a couple of other minor details). Then on each frame there's the following information:- +-++-++-++-++-++-++-+ | | Tv | | * | | 250| |f2.8| |-0.3| || | +-++-++-++-++-++-++-+ Where the * is one of the three metering patterns, and the last slot has AEB if bracketing was in use.
Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
På mandag, 20. oktober 2003, kl. 18:40, skrev John Francis: Nothing new here - it's just the normal semiconductor technology progression. Yep, that was what I was saying in the lines you omitted in you response. We´ve been discussing this for months :-) It would have been hard for me to include your comments in my post, as my post was in reply to greywolf, not a response to your posting.
Re: Still need help!
Thanks John, but that's the way it's set and still no thumbs or photos. Try emptying the Internet cache (Tools/Internet Options/General, then click on Delete files... in the Temporary Internet Files. If that doesn't work then toggle all the settings mentioned below, exit from IE, restart it, go back in and set them as John C. suggested. - Original Message - From: John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 20, 2003 6:06 PM Subject: Re: Still need help! Bill, try: Open Internet Explorer Click on Tools/Internet Options Click on the 'Advanced' tab Scroll down to the option 'Show image download placeholders' - check this OFF Down one to 'Show pictures' - check this ON. Down one to 'Smart image dithering' - check this ON. That should do it! HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:02 AM Subject: Still need help! I still cannot get the photos to show on the PUG. When I go to the page, I get the names of the contributors, but no photos. Can anyone help? I'm running XP home edition. Bill
Re: SMC-A lens and *istD use
There is also a thing called hyper something or other. The word hyper scared me off, and I still don't know what hyper whatever does. Probably my favourite feature (also found on the PZ-1p). If you put the camera in HyperProgram mode then it starts off in full-program point-and-shoot mode. Turn the front finger-wheel to select a shutter speed and the camera will automatically switch to Shutter Priority, maintaining the shutter speed you selected. Turn the rear thumb-wheel instead to select an aperture value and the camera will switch to Aperture Priority mode. Whenever you explicitly choose a setting (shutter speed or aperture) the camera keeps that value, and adjusts the other setting to expose the image properly (according to the current metering mode). And if you want to go back to full program mode just push the button marked with the little green dot. On the PZ-1p, but not on the *ist-D as far as I can see, there's also a HyperManual mode. It's basically metered manual, except that whenever you push the green button the camera will adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture (or both; which to change is a user-selectable preference) to whatever the metering system says for correct exposure. If you don't like the combination the camera chooses then simply push the ML button to lock the exposure and adjust either the shutter speed or the aperture; the camera will adjust the other one to maintain the same exposure value.
Re: SMC-A lens and *istD use
On Tuesday, Oct 21, 2003, at 10:59 America/New_York, alex wetmore wrote: The *ist D does Hypermanual too and it works exactly in this manner. Yup. Because parts of it operate so similarly to my PZ-1p, I can pretty much use the *ist-D out-of-the-box without having to read the manual. I expected the *ist-D to behave just as my PZ-1p does. But since Adorama lied to me when they said it would ship almost two weeks ago, I still don't have my *ist-D. As a result I only had the Pentax documentation, which makes no mention of HyperManual.
Re: SMC-A lens and *istD use
John, thank for the explanation. What you are describing is what I call Program Shift (I come from a simpler era). It is a form of program shift, although not the usual one. On the Canons, for example, using Program Shift will simply bias the camera away from the default program line so that it uses a faster (or slower) shutter speed. The camera will still change both shutter speed and aperture if the lighting changes. In the Pentax HyperProgram mode (really two modes) the value explicitly selected by the user is sacrosanct. There are times when I'd like a more traditional Program Shift, (basically a rapid-access fine-grained control to switch between a spectrum of green modes; Action program, DOF program, ...), but most of the time I find the HyperProgram mode far more useful. The big drawback of a traditional Program Shift is that, just like any full-program mode, the camera can change it's mind between the time you preview the readings in the viewfinder and the time the shutter fires a fraction of a second later.
Re: Sell me your useless film cameras
well, i suppose, for printing uncropped images at 8x10, 6M of RGB pixels is as goot as it gets. but i don't now any digicam capable of that. yet. Not yet. The Foveon sensor in the Sigma XD-9 is only 3MP 6MP digicam has exactly 2M of pixels of each color Not even that. It's usually 1.5M R B, 3M G
Re: Sell me your useless film cameras
What I meant is that it should be spec.ed at the number of independent |full color| output pixels I'm sorry, but you're several years too late with this argument. The pixel count on all digital cameras (with the exception of BW cameras and one one other case mentioned below) is the count of independent sensors. So the 6MP *ist-D (and D100, D10, ...) Have 6M sensors; 3M Green, 1.5M Red, 1.5M Blue. The missing values at each sensor site are interpolated from the surrounding sensors. While this isn't as good as 6M independent full RGB values (such as you would get from a film scanner) it's actually quite a bit better than a 1.5MP full-RGB scan; the human eye is far more sensitive to changes in luminance than to changes in chroma (a fact which is used to good effect both in TV transmission and in image compression algorithms). As the sensor array does sample the luminance at each receptor site detail resolution comes closer to that from a 6MP image. Note that this marketing hype extends even to the Foveon sensors, which *do* measure R,G and B at each sensor site. There are 3.4M sensor sites on the Foveon X3 sensor, yet it gets called a 10.2MP device. This is an even worse exaggeration because there are not 10.2M spatially independant sites sampling the luminance. The very worst marketing claims, though, come from (?some of?) the Fuji FinePix cameras. In those the Bayer array is rotated by 45 degrees, thus: * G * R * B * G * Not only do these cameras interpolate the missing components at the R/G/B sites; they also perform an extra interpolation step to get values at the * sites, doubling the number of pixels that are claimed for a given number of sensors.
Re: Wildlife Photographer of the Year
The shot of the beetle drinking dew is, of course, much better on the wall than on a screen. There's still no substitute for a real exhibition! I assumed this to be the case. While I expect to disagree with the final placing quite often (I much prefer the jackrabbit to the pelican, as just one example) there are a few images that just don't look all that impressive on a small screen; in some cases it's all but impossible to see just what it's a photograph *of*.
Re: NorCal PDML Meet Pictures
I finally have some pictures from the Northern California PDML Meet up. http://members.aol.com/doepage2/PDML/ Some people pixs, more scenery pixs, and a humorous (to me, anyway) accompanying little story. Nothing fantastic photograph-wise, but some passable. A little better than passable! I think my favourite is the rolling waves shot. As to the attempted enablement: you *had* mentioned you wanted to try an MX. I didn't even show you the PZ-1p, did I? I had one of those in the car, too! *I've had this problem before and I have not yet figured out how to solve it. Elements (1) seems to create jpegs that AOL cannot read or something. Is it creating progressive jpegs? Many viewers have problems with these. (I don't know elements, but it should be an option somewhere in the JPEG stuff)
Re: *ist D shutter delay?
One thing which make shutter lag bad on PS cameras is that the CCD in them is always live, updating the LCD. When it is time to take the picture they need to turn off the CCD for a short amount of time to let it clear it's registers and go completely black. I don't think this can be the reason. A CCD sensor is quite capable of resetting itself, capturing an image, and reading it out tens of times a second (if that weren't the case, CCD video cameras wouldn't work). The delay seems to come in the auto-focus (and exposure) calculations. With my digital PS all the shutter lag comes from that phase. If I pre-focus by half-depressing the release I can then finish the exposure by pressing the trigger whenever I choose, with no noticeable delay. But the LCD display is still live during this time (I sometimes use it to frame the shot).
Re: Hypermanual
It looks like I have a lot of reading to do. I just bought my friend's PZ-1P. From the initial inspection it appears to be a robust, capable camera. It is. For many things it's the most capable automatic camera that Pentax offer. As a recent thread discussed the MZ-S can surpass it in some areas, but quite a lot of MZ-S owners have held on to their PZ-1p as well
Re: *ist D shutter delay?
Thanks everyone that replied to this post so quickly! They were very positive answers since I had heard that the earlier Canons also suffered from shutter lag. Which earlier Canons would this be? I've never heard any complaints of shutter lag from Canon DSLR users, and I hang out with a lot of them. All the DSLR designs I know of use the auto-focus and metering logic of comparable film-based bodies (and, in fact, often share more than that).
Re: NorCal PDML Meet Pictures
The MZ/S really IS that good, huh, John? Maybe we need to arrange a mini-PDML meet. You're going to be up in Boulder Creek; Thomas is in Santa Cruz; I'm in south San Jose. You could try the MZ-S and/or the PZ-1p. Or even the *ist-D, if I'm prepared to take my hands off it ... I could probably tempt you with a couple of lenses, too, if you like longer glass; I don't have much in the wide-angle field.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
The refresh rate is 60Hz. I don't know if that's high or low. That's low. Minimum specs for workplace monitors in some parts of the EU is 72hz. I have my home monitor set to 85Hz. 60Hz with a low-persistence phosphor will cause flicker. Even worse is if you are using the system in a workspace that is lit by fluorescent lights; the flicker of the lights and the flicker of the monitor combine to make things very unpleasant. If your monitor and display card can handle a higher refresh rate, try it - you'll thank yourself for it later.
Re: It's arrived!
The microdrives aren't here yet, but I've got a 256M CF card stolen from my Canon PS (it can live with 128M). Yeah - I'll bet that the Canon PS won't be seeing a lot of use over the next few days... ;-) You think? But it's got the 256MB card back, anyway; the microdrives turned up a couple of hours later, courtesy of UPS. It *is* tricky getting the microdrives out, but by no means impossible. Regular CF cards are a little easier to manipulate, but not that much.
Re: *ist D shutter delay?
D30. Lotta guys said you couldn't shoot action with it. I will admit that most of the D30 users I know did switch to D60s as soon as the new model came out. But several people did manage to shoot action with the D30 quite succesfully. I assume the same sort of tricks that let me use a PowerShot PS work with the D30 as well.
Re: Fascinating - a must read!
I'd disagree with a lot of the opinions expressed in this thread. But in this post I won't talk about digital in the pro market. Digital penetration of the mass market isn't because of agressive marketing; it's because digital is a better product, *when judged by the criteria that are important to the consumer*. Film is inconvenient for many reasons. You have to take it to a store to have it processed; a roll of film is too long for it all to be used up on a single occasion; you can be caught without film. Digital solves all those problems, and adds the immediacy that made polaroid cameras so popular. You can take three or four pictures, then see them within minutes. Image quality was always good enough for display on the TV, or for emailng a shot of the new grandchild to the folks back home. With almost all photo printers, you don't even need a computer; if you want a hard-copy print to send to a relative who is still in the pre-computer stone age you can have one in a matter of a few minutes. And the current crop of 6x4 (or smaller) printers are compact enough to fit just about anywhere. But what about long-time image storage? Well, what about it? I'm sure my mother-in-law isn't the only person who throws away the negatives and just keeps a handful of prints for a while. Photography isn't an archive medium for the masses - it's all about the moment. Filing negatives just isn't important. People don't buy digital cameras because they are gullible dupes of the marketers, or because they are ignorantly aping the professional photographers thay see (when was the last time you saw a pro using a Sony? An Olympus?). They buy a digital PS because it is the right tool for the job.
Re: Re[2]: A3 printer recommends please
The latest round of HP's (6 color) are much better than people give them credit for. I got a chance to see the latest HP photo printers this week; HP were partial underwriters of a Computer History Museum event, and sent along some HP 945 digital cameras, some of their 6x4 printers, and one 7900 series printer. I believe that's an 8-colour printer. I took along a CF card with an 2910x2400 JPEG on it, and printed off a borderless 8.5x11 sample that looks pretty good to me. Unfortunately, though, they don't seem to offer a unit that can handle larger paper sizes, and I'm looking for that capability. I wasn't all that impressed with the 945 camera, either. The preview screen freezes while the camera is focussing, which is very distracting. It appears to underexpose when using flash (despite HP touting the fill-flash ability of the camera). ob.relevance: I'm not sure if HP are still using Pentax glass. There was no indication on the lens as to who manufactured it.
Re: What do the photo labs print with?
This one time, at band camp, tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Photo labs do every kind of printing. What are you talking about? What type of printing machines do they use? dye sublimation or other? Other, usually. They don't use printers - they use light-sensitive photographic paper, enlargers, and chemicals, just as people have been doing for decades.
Re: Digital issues
My (presently) biggest gripe with digital imaging is the cost. For a process that is not significantly better, except in immediacy of results, I am expected to pay a very significant premium? No, thank you. I can do almost the same thing by buying a film scanner for about 1/5th of the price. Not really. You can get decent results from a dedicated film scanner at around half the price of a *ist-D/D100/10D (or something quite close to the price of a 300D), but the cheaper units are usually just flatbed scanners with transparency adapters, which don't work as well. Then, of course, there's the sheer tedium of doing the scanning. You can get film scanners with bulk feed magazines, of course, but those cost about as much as a DSLR. By the time you've scanned a couple of hundred frames you'll welcome anything to relieve you of this task. Next problem; dust. Unless you live in a semiconductor manufacturing plant, there's going to be dust on your slides. Cleaning up dust spots is yet another tedious chore. You can get semi-automated software and hardware to help with this task, but this too is not without drawbacks. And, finally, cost. I'm sure that many of the DSLR purchasers here shoot enough that using the *ist-D will end up being cheaper than the cost of film and processing over the next couple of years. If you only shoot one roll a month, and if you are prepared to let WalMart or CostCo scratch your negatives, then a DSLR isn't cost effective. Shoot an average of more than a roll a week, though, using slide film, and take the film to a local pro or semi-pro lab, and the costs mount.
Re: On how *istD handles.
I wish the Av wheel was on the front of the camera to be operated by the index finger with the Tv wheel on the back, operated by the thumb. Hmm. So that would be at least eight different variations; Av or Tv on the front wheel, plus choice of direction for each of the two controls. I think I understand why Pentax decided to stick with just one configuration.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #1290
Mailwasher is my choice. Same sort of thing, but it lets you 'bounce' spam - those sending spam messages think it never reached you. Not true, usually. The normal result of mailwasher (or other post- delivery anti-spam tools) is that the poor innocent third party whose mail identity is being spoofed in the envelope data finds that his mailbox fills up with spam bounces and rejection messages. The best thing to do with spam is to silently discard it. In the vanishingly remote case that you can actually determine a valid email address for the sender the chances that anyone actually reads any bounce messages sent to that address is basically zero.
Re: *istD output?
OK, I've read through the last few digests and learned all about how the *istD feels, who would like which knobs in different places and so. Don't you guys take pictures with those things? Naah - why would we do that? Actually my other half has me fairly busy this weekend, so I can't get out and play with the toy today. And on Friday several work-related items kept me busier than I had hoped. U've managed to take a few shots just to get the feel of it, but nothing I'd care to show to anybody else. It doesn't help that I'm currently without my two main walking-around lenses, either - the 28-105 and my recently-accquired 80-320 are both in at the repairers getting minor items fixed (the 28-105 is misaligned, and the chip in the 80-320 appears to be non-functional). Thanks to Adoram not shipping when they told me they would I missed what I had hoped would be the first test shoot at the local Renaissance Faire. I'll see if I can find time to take a quick patrol around the local neighbourhood and see if anyone has a good Halloween display set up.
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
1. It's good that those with some discretionary funds buy early, They partially finance the better camera everyone else will buy in 3-5 years That already happened, of course. The original DSLRS (such as the Kodak) were horrendously expensive - I believe the high-end model was $25,000 Then came the second generation, exemplified by the Nikon D1. Cheaper, because much of the development cost was born by those earlier cameras. Now we're into the third generation, with street prices around $1500. (And, apparently, just at the start of the sub-$1000 fourth generation). It's just that different folks jump onto the train at different times. 2. One interesting point is that many have indicated that they shoot a lot more with a DSLR. This skews the you must shoot a roll a week to justify it economically argument. Quite. That's why I didn't buy a $5,000 digital camera outfit, but am prepared to pay 1/3 of that amount. I calculated my payback cost based on the film processing costs measured over the previous two years, and the *ist-D is justifiable. I'm sure I'll shoot more frames than I would have done on film, but that's not the basis I calculated with. 3. I'd like a full frame sensor if it has the same pixel density as the current APS sensor. You would then still have the magnification effect with telephotos, just that you could achieve it by cropping. That's what the current full-frame sensors in the Canon 1Ds Kodak 14N are.
Re: A3 printer recommends please
After much to-and-froing, my own Canon/Epson/HP decision finally got resolved in favour of HP. It's only six-colour (not their latest eight-ink unit), but the biggest difference there would be if I did a lot of black-and-white printing. The single biggest factor was my fear of printheads clogging if the unit sits unused for a month. At least on the HP all I need to do is replace the ink cartridge (and if I know that the printer isn't going to be used for a while I can take the cartridges out and store them in a ziploc bag). I also like the fact that HP seem to have standardized on one regular set of print cartridges for all their various models, so if I get a smaller printer as well as the wide-format I would only have to have one set of ink cartridges in use at any time. The Epson would be my primary choice for print lifetime, but it's twice the cost of the HP ($799 instead of $399). That difference buys me quite a few reprints.
Re: Av Wheel Wanted....
All, I was doing some still-life and macro shooting with my MZ-S this morning with a couple of big lenses. I wanted to do some aperture bracketing to experiment with different depths of field, and I caught myself wishing that my MZ-S had an aperture wheel! So perhaps hou should consider picking up a PZ-1? Cheaper that a *ist-D...
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ... That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem. It doesn't mean that it's an inherent problem if you use CCD sensors. As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. There may be other reasons (cost, power, ...) not to incorporate this capability in a sensor designed to be used in a DSLR. But inasmuch as there are proofs-by-example that it's possible, your assertion that it can't be done seems to be on shaky ground
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote: As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. On the other hand, CCD TV cameras are just 0.3 Mpix so it may be that a larger sensor takes longer to read data from. HDTV cameras are up to 2Mpix, full-frame at 30 or 60Hz. For a more down-to-earth example the Canon PowerShot cameras (from the 3.3Mp G1 to the 5Mp G5) have effectively no shutter lag if pre-focussed, and have a live LCD display at all times. If a 5Mp point-and-shoot can do it, I have a hard time believing it would be impossible on a DSLR.
Re: Cinema projection - WAS - Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
You score 8½ for intellectual snobbery g Infamy! Infamy! They've all got it in for me! Kenneth Williams (RIP), Carry on Caesar, IIRC.
