Re[2]: Image stabilizers on Pentax

[Alin Flaider]

Alan wrote:

AC> I thought it's the camera sersor which detects the motion and compensates?

  No, there's a gyroscope in the lens that detects the direction and
  amplitude of the motion and commands the shift of an internal lens
  group in the needed direction and amplitude to compensate for the
  movement. 

  It needs however support from the camera part:
- powering;
- signal to know when to start the stabilization sequence (on shutter
  button half presses);
- it needs to send a signal to the camera when / if stabilization
is successful to allow triggering the shutter.
  Nothing overly complicated, the KAF2 mount with its power-zoom
  contacts could support the IS very well with minimal additions in
  the digital protocol.

  Servus,   Alin

Re: Motor drives ME2 and Motor 2

[Alan Chan]

It even protects me from the attrack of wild animals. But of course, there 
will be nothing left for you to photograph except some boring plants.  :-)

regards,
Alan Chan
Amen to that! The noise will turn heads, but I like it, it sounds
so "professional" ;)
_
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: comparison shots

[Brendan]

DROOL!

 --- Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I
said I would post some old vs. new shots of some
> of the classic lenses vs.
> the Limiteds. (Shots of them, not shots by them.
> Some other day.)
> 
> I am not that pleased with mu Optio 330 shots, I
> will re-do them before I
> post the complete set. Meanwhile, here is a shot of
> the MZ-S with black 31mm
> and of the MZ-S with black 77mm next to an LX with
> 85/1.8
> 
> More to come, probably a couple of weeks before I
> can get back to this.
> 
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/IMGP4590MZS77LX85.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/IMGP4597MZS31.jpg
> 
> Stan
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

comparison shots

[Stan Halpin]

I said I would post some old vs. new shots of some of the classic lenses vs.
the Limiteds. (Shots of them, not shots by them. Some other day.)

I am not that pleased with mu Optio 330 shots, I will re-do them before I
post the complete set. Meanwhile, here is a shot of the MZ-S with black 31mm
and of the MZ-S with black 77mm next to an LX with 85/1.8

More to come, probably a couple of weeks before I can get back to this.

http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/IMGP4590MZS77LX85.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/IMGP4597MZS31.jpg

Stan

Re: Happy 4th of July

[Eactivist]

>Lon, your ancestor must have hung out with mine! My mom traces her
>lineage in a direct line back to Miles Standish. :)

>Amita


My father's family directly back to John and Priscilla Alden. "Speak for 
yourself, John."

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  And I've never been a DAR.

RE: Happy 4th of July

[Amita Guha]

Lon, your ancestor must have hung out with mine! My mom traces her
lineage in a direct line back to Miles Standish. :)

Amita

> An ancestor of mine, one William White,
> left England on a ship called the Mayflower
> because, had he stayed, he would have been
> hung.  He was a horse thief.  Your great- 
> great-great-great-great-great-great grandaddy was undoubtably 
> the trial judge.
 

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Eactivist]

>I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down
>and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you.  But if you try to talk to
>them, they'll run.  I figured talking would reassure them because
>predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong.

Interesting. Very few foxes around here. Sometimes, yes, I can jump around 
and wave and the deer won't move, usually when they are laying down pooped. 
Other times if I move, they move. Depends I think how much the see the territory 
as "their" territory and not just a passing through territory. But I am not 
sure about that.

I may say under my breath about a spotted fawn, "Aren't you cute," but it 
never occurred to me to talk to them. Hehehehe.

Marnie aka Doe   Okay, I can nix that one before even trying it. ;-)  Good 
luck with your future shots and good luck to me too. 

Re: Digital Delays?

[Rfsindg]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>  There is a loss in the first jpeg save. How much depends on how much
>  compression you choose. That lost may be acceptable to you, but still it is
>  there.
  
Graywolf,

My experience is like Rob & Cotty's although my camera is just a P&S.  I keep 
1.5 Meg jpgs and don't have much problem with that.  I suppose that I could 
save tiff files, but the memory cards hold 48 high quality jpgs (1.5 Megs) or 8 
tiff's (8 Megs).  I can't afford to buy all those memory sticks for no 
notable increase in quality.

As for jpegs, I don't see a problem with them until you compress them 
further.  The same picture, compressed to the same size, by the same mechanical 
algorithm, should always result in the same file.  So until you do more 
compression, things should stay the same...

Regards,  Bob S.

Re: Digital Delays?

[George Sinos]

My work flow is just about like Cotty's.  I have the "contact sheets", 
negatives and "original" CD's filed, by date, in binders.  A second set of 
CD's is used as an additional backup.  Another copy is on a USB attached 
external hard drive for convenience.

Originally I kept track of this stuff by having a very structured set of 
directories and file naming conventions.  A while back I layered the Ulead 
PhotoImpact Album program on top of this.  That worked fine but assigning 
keywords was cumbersome.  Recently Adobe released a similarly named 
program, Photoshop Album, that has a great timeline feature and tagging 
system and I switched to that. I ran into a bit of a bug and have been 
working with Adobe to figure it out.  Neither Adobe nor Ulead's programs do 
file management very well so I continued to look.

I ran across IMatch from Photools.  So far I'm impressed, and this may be 
the product I end up using in the long term.  It does file management, 
indexing and categorizing very well, and it seems to do a good job of 
handling off line files.  It's intelligently designed, has a scripting 
language and comes with a full set of program documentation as well as 
reference manual.  The author encourages his user community to extend the 
product.  At $50 per user, it seems like a bargain.  Time will tell.  As a 
test I indexed about 3000 on-line images in about 20 minutes.  After about 
an hour of study with the manual I built a set of categories.  I tag each 
image with location, photographer (I keep my family's photos filed with 
mine), date taken, subject, event type, and the names of any recognizable 
people in the photo.  I can categorize about 200 images/hour.

If this program works out, I'll go back to scanning several decades worth 
of slides and the family photo albums that go back to the thirties and forties.

Now given all that as background, and motivation not to save giant tiffs, 
I'll return to the primary topic.

If you save your original in the highest quality jpeg, you're probably not 
going to see the loss.  Any minor artifact will probably get swamped by 
whatever manipulation takes place in the printer driver or video driver 
anyway.  I'm not advocating saving and re-saving in jpeg, just saying that 
if you understand how jpeg works and use it within those limits, it's a 
fine way to save space without any significant loss.

I'm sure the math contradicts my statement, but given the monitors and 
printers available today, I've not been able to see any difference between 
the highest quality jpegs and the monster size tiffs.

I've mentioned several products and have no connection with any of them 
other than that of customer:

Ulead PhotoImpact and PhotoImpact Album are described at http://www.ulead.com
Adobe Photoshop Album is described at http://www.adobe.com
Imatch is described at http://www.photools.com
And, last but not least, I've added several flower photos, most taken as 
grab shots with my Optio S to my gallery at http://georges.smugmug.com  Now 
that little digital cameras all focus so close and make it so easy, we're 
bound to be boring each other to death with bad close ups us flowers such 
as these.

See you later, gs

--

Kodak Elite Extra

[Bill Sawyer]

Does anyone know if Kodak has plans for this film?  It's scarce at both B&H
and Adorama.  I couldn't find anything on the Kodak site stating they had
plans to discontinue or modify it.

Thanks for any replies

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Herb Chong]

just what is the maximum focal length of your zoom?

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "Gregory L. Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:21
Subject: Technical Evaluation


> I'm sure a lot of it is just me.  But I do use an old zoom with a cheap,
> teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.

Re: Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibilityin perspective)

[Caveman]

Alan Chan wrote:
Otherwise, this is just pure talking.
Pom Pom talking.

cheers,
caveman

Re: I made a DX code label!

[Sid Barras]

I printed it onto standard-sized labels (1" x 2.5" or whatever standard
mailing labels are) that are made of adhesive backed foil. They were larger
than the actual size specked in the code - I simply printed the correct size
onto (into?) the label.
The "printed" portion conforms to the black areas of the DX code, and the
unprinted conform to the silver (conductive) areas. I carefully cut out some
scotch tape and covered over the printed areas to make certain they were
non-conductive.
I then took a 400 ISO factory cannister, used it as my guide for placing the
label, and stuck it onto a reloadable cannister.
I think I'm going to try and also DX code the film latitude onto some of the
labels I make for Tri-x that I will use in my PZ 1. If I'm not mistaken,
there was a very interesting thread recently about the fact that the PZ 1 is
one of a very few camera models that acutually made their cameras able to
read this aspect of film and DX codes. What it has stored in its program to
take advantage of this film latitude (which, on Tri-x, I'd say is at least
two stops in overage and one stop in the underage exposure department...)

The whole affair of making these labels was rather labor-intensive-- but, if
I can refine the process, and get some templates made, I'd be happy to
submit them for anyone's use in the future.

Sid


> From: Joshua Hakin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> 
> Ya, but...  what did you print it onto???
 
> 
> On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Sid Barras wrote:
> 
>> Yep. Found the code online via some thoughtful PDMLers,
>>  (thanks Michael)
>> formatted a label in Appleworks, printed it, and covered the printed
>> areas
>> with scotch tape to make sure they aren't conductive.

Re: TOPDML at Downtown Jazz

[frank theriault]

And we missed you, Brendan!  

-frank

Brendan wrote:

> a damn I mised all that!!!
>
>  --- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote: > A couple of weeks ago, Jeff, Dave Chang-Sang
> and I
> > made it out to
> > Downtown Jazz here in Toronto, to listen to a Django
> > Reinhardt tribute,
> > have a few beers, and to discover to our
> > non-embarrasment that there was
> > no Pentax gear in sight (either with us, or in the
> > rest of the crowd
> > that we could see ).
> >
> > Ah well, we had a couple of beers anyway and enjoyed
> > the music.  Jeff
> > got lots of comments and questions about his Fuji
> > 690, Dave got lots of
> > stares due to (I assume) his big honking Canon 2.8
> > 70-210 (or whatever
> > range it is), and everyone pretty much ignored me
> > with my little Leica
> > CL.  I guess that's the way it's supposed to be,
> > right?  
> >
> > Anyway, I got back contacts the other day, so here's
> > a couple of scans,
> > with the usual caveat that they're very fuzzy, as
> > such scans tend to be:
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=317476
> >
> > cheers,
> > frank
> >
> > --
> > "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" -
> > Henri Cartier-Bresson
> >
> >
> >
>
> __
> Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Gregory L. Hansen]

Eactivist said:

> >I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos.  I
> >take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a
...

> I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom.
> Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get
> 8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a
> better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the
> local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4
> to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and
> let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the
> animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the
> aperture stopped down (up?).

I have a cheap reflex lens, but the cheap zoom plus cheap TC seem to give
brighter, more contrasty pictures.  Which says something about the quality
of that cheap reflex!

>
> Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure,
> just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking
> pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that
> landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals
> don't really cooperate. ;-)

I like to play with the animals, and photography is one way to do it.  For
me, it's more the case that photography is something to do in the woods,
rather than animals being something to do with a camera.  But I have
noticed that they usually don't take directions very well.

>
> And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big
> glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots.

I've feared the same thing.  But I know in some ways I'm self-limited
rather than equipment limited.  I took a photo of a young fox that was
looking over its shoulder at me, and it's incredibly cute.
Composition-wise it's the best fox photo I've taken, except that the weeds
in the foreground are in good focus and the fox is blurred.  I might never
get that pose again in my life.  Oh, well.  Even out of focus, it's still
darn cute.

>
> HTH, but probably not.
>
> Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of "revisit," where they
> can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes
> them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the
> eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know
> all that.

I'm starting to work on the young foxes.  They don't seem especially
alarmed if I keep some distance, but it's completely up to them where
they want to be at a particular time.  When we met, they actually ran up
and sat down to watch me, but they didn't stay long.  For a too-short
while we had this little game where they'd meet me at one end of a brush
pile, run away, and meet me again at the other end.

I've noticed with foxes, though, that sometimes you can jump up and down
and wave your arms, and they'll just watch you.  But if you try to talk to
them, they'll run.  I figured talking would reassure them because
predators try to sneak up on their prey, but I was wrong.

Re: Digital Delays?

[Rob Studdert]

On 6 Jul 2003 at 19:09, T Rittenhouse wrote:

> There is a loss in the first jpeg save. How much depends on how much
> compression you choose. That lost may be acceptable to you, but still it is
> there.

There is no loss as my first archive is the direct JPG output from the camera 
and there is no discernible difference between files saved using TIFF or JPG 
out-puts from my E-10 digicam. Remember that both files are derived from 
interpolation of the bayer pattern sensor output and the jpg files have quite 
low compression.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax

[Gregory L. Hansen]

Graywolf said:

> Is there any reason, really, why image stablization needs to communicate
> with the camera? I would think the whole thing could be built into the lens,
> the camera doesn't need to know that some of the lens elements are moving to
> compensate for vibration.

The only reason I can think of is bulk, but I don't know how bulky it
would have to be.  But if someone came up with an image stabilizing
teleconverter for less than $200, I'd be liable to buy it.  I think I'd
like that more than a specific lens.

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

it sounds to me as though you're making life difficult to start with
because most of the variables can be a factor in the problems you're
having. You need to eliminate as many as possible, get your technique
right at the simple level first, then add variables one at a time,
getting your technique right with each one before you move on to the
next.

Here are some recommendations which might help.

First, use slide film. Use prints later when you've eliminated other
problems. This gets rid of most of the problems you might be having
with the lab, and means you can easily see the first generation image
- you will need to have access to a good projector or a good light box
and lupe. Do some comparisons of the same subject shot at the same
time on slide and print film. This will give you an idea of whether
it's the lab or something else that's a problem.

Next, shoot with a prime lens. This is likely to be of higher optical
quality than the zoom + TC. If you shoot with slides and a prime and
still have problems it's likely to be your camera or something else in
your technique. Use a tripod to shoot some static subjects in
reasonably bright light so you can stop down and use a fairly fast
shutter speed. Stopping down helps to eliminate any problems with
focus; the tripod and fast shutter are to get rid of vibration
problems. If you still have problems sometihng may be wrong with the
camera or lens. Try again with others in combination. If you still
have problems, it's you.

When you're happy that your technique there is right you can try the
zoom without a TC, again in bright conditions with a static subject.
This should give you an idea of degradation caused by the zoom. Then
add the TC to see what difference that makes. Remember to shoot at a
faster shutter speed to compensate for the extra focal length. Also,
use a cable release when the camera is on the tripod - maybe you shake
it a bit when you press the shutter, if you don't already use one.

When / if you're happy with the zoom and TC technique, try some moving
subjects in bright light, then eventually go back into low light. When
you eventually go back to print film buy the highest quality you can
afford and try and find a good lab. Bad labs can really mess up your
photos, but a good one can make them sing.

The other thing, whatever stage you're at, is to try always to be
aware of the frame. Look around it, and try to fill it with your
subject, then you won't have to rescue it with crops and enlargements,
and always check the background. While you're practising your technique
write a checklist of stuff to do, and try to make sure you're doing it.
Becoming aware of the importance of the frame is one of the most important
steps towards making good photographs, in my opinion.

Hope this is some help.

Bob

Sunday, July 6, 2003, 9:21:10 PM, you wrote:

> I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos.  I
> take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a
> crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove
> background I didn't really want.  They always look so much bigger in the
> viewfinder than they do in the prints.  I'm not sure I've done anything
> that's worthy of real enlargement.  But even if it looks okay in the
> 4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy.  So I'm wondering
> how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that
> I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how
> much is just me.

> I'm sure a lot of it is just me.  But I do use an old zoom with a cheap,
> teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.
> I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me
> silly, and now that's going to have to wait.  I'm often sure if my
> focus was off or if the camera was shaking.  I often take photos in bad
> lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure
> was good.  Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor
> exposure?  It seems most obvious in out of focus areas.

> I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it
> as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way.  With a remote
> release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical.
> Or I use it as a monopod.  I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because
> of lighting and telephoto work.  The last was Kodak High Definition, I
> don't know how high definition it really is.  How large should I expect
> the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away?



-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Motor drives ME2 and Motor 2

[frank theriault]

I'll second that, Steve!  I don't know which is louder, but hot damn, on
the rare occasions that I use my Winder MX, heads turn!  

cheers,
frank

Steve Larson wrote:

> Amen to that! The noise will turn heads, but I like it, it sounds
> so "professional" ;)
> Steve Larson
> Redondo Beach, California
>

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: TOPDML at Downtown Jazz

[Brendan]

a damn I mised all that!!!

 --- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote: > A couple of weeks ago, Jeff, Dave Chang-Sang
and I
> made it out to
> Downtown Jazz here in Toronto, to listen to a Django
> Reinhardt tribute,
> have a few beers, and to discover to our
> non-embarrasment that there was
> no Pentax gear in sight (either with us, or in the
> rest of the crowd
> that we could see ).
> 
> Ah well, we had a couple of beers anyway and enjoyed
> the music.  Jeff
> got lots of comments and questions about his Fuji
> 690, Dave got lots of
> stares due to (I assume) his big honking Canon 2.8
> 70-210 (or whatever
> range it is), and everyone pretty much ignored me
> with my little Leica
> CL.  I guess that's the way it's supposed to be,
> right?  
> 
> Anyway, I got back contacts the other day, so here's
> a couple of scans,
> with the usual caveat that they're very fuzzy, as
> such scans tend to be:
> 
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=317476
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> --
> "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" -
> Henri Cartier-Bresson
> 
> 
>  

__ 
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

TOPDML at Downtown Jazz

[frank theriault]

A couple of weeks ago, Jeff, Dave Chang-Sang and I made it out to
Downtown Jazz here in Toronto, to listen to a Django Reinhardt tribute,
have a few beers, and to discover to our non-embarrasment that there was
no Pentax gear in sight (either with us, or in the rest of the crowd
that we could see ).

Ah well, we had a couple of beers anyway and enjoyed the music.  Jeff
got lots of comments and questions about his Fuji 690, Dave got lots of
stares due to (I assume) his big honking Canon 2.8 70-210 (or whatever
range it is), and everyone pretty much ignored me with my little Leica
CL.  I guess that's the way it's supposed to be, right?  

Anyway, I got back contacts the other day, so here's a couple of scans,
with the usual caveat that they're very fuzzy, as such scans tend to be:

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=317476

cheers,
frank

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: I made a DX code label!

[Joshua Hakin]

Ya, but...  what did you print it onto???

---
Joshua Hakin
On Saturday, July 5, 2003, at 01:21 PM, Sid Barras wrote:

Yep. Found the code online via some thoughtful PDMLers,
 (thanks Michael)
formatted a label in Appleworks, printed it, and covered the printed 
areas
with scotch tape to make sure they aren't conductive.

Reports on the success of these will be forwarded along after the 
pictures
are taken and developed.
I gotta have surgery on Tuesday so I may be out a couple of weeks.

Sid

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Pentxuser]

Using the high speed film is probably your first mistake. If you are blowing 
this stuff up to 8X10 you are going to begin seeing grain with 400 and 
certainly with 800. Taking pictures of animals is certainly made more difficult with 
a slower film asa 50-or 100. But that's what making wildlife photos is all 
about and why many serious nature photographers use fast lenses. That's not to 
say you can't do it with slower, cheaper zooms. You just have to be very 
careful. Use a 100-speed film. Take off the doubler and work harder on getting 
physically closer to your subject either by finding subjects that are less skittish 
(in parks, or other areas where they are in close contact with people), or 
using some type of blind (your car can work nicely.)  No one said it is easy 
getting good wildlife shots. It's possible with the equipment you own just a 
little harder
Vic 

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Pentxuser]

My vote is the MZ-S with or without the limited lenses..
Vic 


In a message dated 7/6/03 4:14:24 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

>>What about the report someone posted a few years
>>back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film
>>camera that LX owners would want to buy and "carry
>>to the grave"?  Is this the MZ-S?
>
>You have to ask Pal. But we seem to have different answer every week. 
>:-)
>
>regards,
>Alan Chan

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"...

[Eactivist]

>I have enough cash set aside now to buy a 1Ds and a clutch of L lenses but 
I'd 
>much rather be able to buy a Pentax body to suite the great lenses that I 
>already own.

>Rob Studdert


Is that what it's called, a clutch? Like a flock of geese and a school of 
fish? Always wondered.

Thanks!

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  Lusting after getting enough lenses to have a clutch.

Re: Digital Delays?

[Eactivist]

>There is a loss in the first jpeg save. How much depends on how much
>compression you choose. That lost may be acceptable to you, but still it is
>there.

>Ciao,
>Graywolf
>http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

I've done a lot of digital drawing in PaintShop Pro. They have their own 
proprietary file format for fooling around (redrawing, layering, etc.) that has no 
information loss when saved (I think it is compressed very little -- 
Photoshop also has its own proprietary format for exactly the same reasons).  I've 
reloaded saved jpegs to redraw and, well, that simply does not work. Every save 
does degrade the image. Enough so one can actually see it. So if one is smart, 
one uses the PPP file always, for all editing, and only saves a completed 
image as jpeg for web pages and such. And then one never saves it again, never 
resaves it. Just that once.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type:-()

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Very little. It's a Pentax list.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  After reading this list for a few years, I sometimes wonder what 
this list has to do with photography .

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Eactivist]

>This argument can surely now be laid to rest?
>John Coyle
>Brisbane, Australia

Surely you jest. This is PDML!

Marnie aka Doe  Sorry, couldn't resist that, even though I am not part of the 
argument. ;-)

Re: Digital Delays?

[T Rittenhouse]

There is a loss in the first jpeg save. How much depends on how much
compression you choose. That lost may be acceptable to you, but still it is
there.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: Digital Delays?


> On 6 Jul 2003 at 21:56, Cotty wrote:
>
> > I've read how others do it, but this suits my style quite well. So far,
> > everything works well and I'm happy.
>
> I work virtually the same way as Cotty, I archive all images in their
original
> jpg form from the camera so I always have a first generation image to
revert to
> and any subsequent edits are saved as psd. There is no loss using this
method,
> the differential between tiff and jpg output from my digicam when using
minimum
> jpg compression is virtually unmeasurable.
>
> Rob Studdert
> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
> Tel +61-2-9554-4110
> UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
>

Re: Technical Evaluation

[Eactivist]

>I'd like some pointers on evaluating technical aspects of my photos.  I
>take a lot of pictures of animals, and some of them I ask the shop to do a
>crop equivalent to about an 8x10 to get some faux telephoto and remove
>background I didn't really want.  They always look so much bigger in the
>viewfinder than they do in the prints.  I'm not sure I've done anything
>that's worthy of real enlargement.  But even if it looks okay in the
>4x6, the crop always looks kind of blurry and grainy.  So I'm wondering
>how to determine which effects are due to the film, the cheap optics that
>I use, possibly something not quite in focus at the developer, and how
>much is just me.

>I'm sure a lot of it is just me.  But I do use an old zoom with a cheap,
>teleconverter, and I've never had really good optics to play with.
>I'd been planning a new lens for a while until the real world slapped me
>silly, and now that's going to have to wait.  I'm often sure if my
>focus was off or if the camera was shaking.  I often take photos in bad
>lighting but I have some recent ones in good sun, I think the exposure
>was good.  Is grain caused by anything besides the film and poor
>exposure?  It seems most obvious in out of focus areas.

>I try to use a tripod when I can, it's a cheap one but I usually keep it
>as short as it gets, it seems pretty stable that way.  With a remote
>release when I can, but sometimes mobile subjects make that impractical.
>Or I use it as a monopod.  I tend to use faster film, 400 or 800, because
>of lighting and telephoto work.  The last was Kodak High Definition, I
>don't know how high definition it really is.  How large should I expect
>the prints to get before grain becomes obvious from a few inches away?

Okay, some people have already made recommendations about film. I have tried 
both Provia 100 and 400 -- slide film. The 400 looks a lot like the 100, 
actually. And, for deer and other things that tend to freeze when they see one, I 
think a ISO of 100 is enough. For birds and squirrels and other faster moving 
things, 400 at least.

I've done the same thing, tried wild life photography with a cheap zoom. 
Results are not that good. Though as far as grain goes, you should be able to get 
8x10's with minimal grain. Maybe you need to dump your cheap zoom and get a 
better cheap zoom. The animals around here, again, are often in shade. Just the 
local conditions. I stop down (up?) if needed. Go one stop bigger (say from 4 
to 5.6 ) if the animal is in shade (stop down from what the meter says) and 
let the highlights burn out and crop later. Tripod is not always helpful if the 
animals are moving around a lot. And most TCs fail in deep shade and with the 
aperture stopped down (up?).

Most of my stuff is still cr_p, but I find I am improving a tad. So I figure, 
just practice. Take lots and lots of shots and hope one is a keeper. Taking 
pictures of wild life may be one of the hardest areas of photography. Not that 
landscapes aren't hard, they have their own trickiness. It's just that animals 
don't really cooperate. ;-) 

And I have figured, for myself, somehow someday, I have to get some good big 
glass. I see no way around it for achieving decent shots.

HTH, but probably not.

Also, it is nice if there are animals you can sort of "revisit," where they 
can get used to you coming around at the same times of day and things. Makes 
them less spooked on the whole. Also no sudden moves, don't look them in the 
eye, and turn off the beep on your camera if it has one, but I am sure you know 
all that.

Marnie aka Doe :-) I have concluded, IMHO, anyone attempting to do it without 
top notch equipment is basically nuts. OTOH, no one ever said I was 
completely sane.

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[jcoyle]

Hans, you must have missed at least two messages where I said that my MZ-S
is undamaged and unblemished after falling from a shelf two metres above the
ground onto a (thinly-carpeted) concrete floor and I note that Alan recalls
them too!
One of my grand-daughters later knocked over a table on which it and the PZ
FA28-105 were sitting, causing a small dent in the filter on the lens and
still no other problems.

In the nature of things, the degree of damage caused after impact depends
upon the degree of flexion of the casing, and whether or not any internals
are in direct contact with the impact point.  Also you must take into
account whether the impact force is concentrated at a point or spread over a
larger area - too many variables to focus on simply the type of material
under consideration.
Practical experience surely suggests that plastic (or polycarbonate) is very
resistant to impact damage, but will crack if it runs out of room to flex:
metal will dent but will resist penetration better than other materials, and
is not good at returning to it's original shape.  I would be reasonably
certain that _all_ camera manufacturers have undertaken extensive research
to determine which is the best material to provide:
Economics of manufacture, including supply costs
Ability to be formed into complex shapes
Strength for purpose
Cosmetic characteristics
(not necessarily in that order)

This argument can surely now be laid to rest?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message - 
From: "Hans Imglueck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(


> Heiko wrote:
>
> >ACK. And I'm quite sure that a well made plastics body is as endurable
> >as those modern "metal" bodies.
> >
> >Cheers, Heiko
>
> Hi Heiko,
>
> that's also my opinion. The durability of metal bodies is much
> overestimated and plastic in the same way underestimated. Plastic
> can damp away many shocks whereas metal will trasmit it to
> the underlying electronics. Concerning durability I see no much
> difference between a MX body and a ZX/MZ-5. I got a MX with a bump
> (which is quite common) and has also a MZ5 with
> a crack in the plastic. Both of them are working nicely.
>
> But I am quite sure that if a MZ-S and a MZ5 are falling down to solid
> ground from about 1.5-2.0 meter both of them will be damaged. So
> what is the benefit of magnesium bodies? Or will someone proof to
> me, that his MZ-S will survive such a fall?
>
> Regards, Hans.
>
>
>
>
> _
> 23a mail
>
>

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in"AmericanPhoto"magazine)

[Rob Studdert]

On 6 Jul 2003 at 23:32, Arnold Stark wrote:

> So there are at least 2 of us :-) here on the list How many more are 
> there here?

I have enough cash set aside now to buy a 1Ds and a clutch of L lenses but I'd 
much rather be able to buy a Pentax body to suite the great lenses that I 
already own.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Digital Delays?

[Rob Studdert]

On 6 Jul 2003 at 21:56, Cotty wrote:

> I've read how others do it, but this suits my style quite well. So far,
> everything works well and I'm happy.

I work virtually the same way as Cotty, I archive all images in their original 
jpg form from the camera so I always have a first generation image to revert to 
and any subsequent edits are saved as psd. There is no loss using this method, 
the differential between tiff and jpg output from my digicam when using minimum 
jpg compression is virtually unmeasurable.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

Re: Motor drives ME2 and Motor 2

[Steve Larson]

Amen to that! The noise will turn heads, but I like it, it sounds
so "professional" ;)
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message - 
From: "Alan Chan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Motor drives ME2 and Motor 2


> And the noise alone is well worth the price.  :-)
> 
> regards,
> Alan Chan

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[Herb Chong]

in the US anyway, none of the above is not a choice one is allowed to make.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Ed Matthew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 16:12
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()


> Well, Tom, the politicians are the product of the people who elected them. 
> The image in one's mirror shows one part of the problem.

Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax

[Herb Chong]

it does if you want to save batteries and use it only when needed, also, normally 
draws power from the camera body. otherwise, the lens need batteries.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 15:03
Subject: Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax


> Is there any reason, really, why image stablization needs to communicate
> with the camera? I would think the whole thing could be built into the lens,
> the camera doesn't need to know that some of the lens elements are moving to
> compensate for vibration.

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[Herb Chong]

they don't bother with the lie anymore.

Herb...
- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 15:00
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()


>Politicians, of course,
> are just plain stupid, they think everything can be fixed with a smile and a
> lie.

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[Ed Matthew]

Can you really blame the voters for who's running things?

regards,
frank
Tom didn't refer to the President. He said "politicians". It takes no 
particular knowledge/intellectual application/judgment to blame problems on 
the politicians. Never forget where elected politicians come from.

In answer to your question, blame them or credit them, Yes.

What in hell does this have to do with Pentax? After reading this list for a 
few years, I sometimes wonder what this list has to do with photography .

Ed

_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

Re: Digital Delays?

[Bill Owens]

> I print as and when required, or when I'm in the mood. I try and print as
> much as I can afford - for me, having paper prints to flip through is an
> essential part of photography - digital or otherwise. I never print
> smaller than 11"x 8".  Landscapes I always print larger. All my best work
> is printed, and this is the end of the process as far as I am concerned.
> Everything up until this point has been the creation of the image, and
> the method of storage of the image. The viewing of the print is how I
> look at the photograph.

But according to some around here, it's not a "photograph", it's an "inkjet
print:.
:-)


Bill

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[T Rittenhouse]

Well, we have hit bottom and are on the upswing of the current economic
cycle. Funny thing is marketeers never seem to be able to figure out how
economic cycles affect sales.

Over the decades a lot of companies have gone belly up when all they had to
do was hang in there another year. Back in the days when Japanese companies
tooled up, made a production run, and stocked them in the warehouse to sell
over 5 or more years things tended to continue to be available when the
cycle swung up again, in these days of just in time inventory, they have
destroyed the tooling and gone out of business by the time things get
better. I continue to be bemused that people do not understand economic
cycles even after they have lived through a bunch of them. The down swings
are always precived as something unique. Maybe, that is because marketing
executives tend to be rather young. I mean if the last recession happened
when you were a kid, you probably barely noticed it. Politicians, of course,
are just plain stupid, they think everything can be fixed with a smile and a
lie.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type
:-()


> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film
slr's remaining pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital?
>
> I'll have to look that one up, and get back to y'all (no time right now),
but IIRC, percentage of digital in overall camera sales is increasing very
steadily, and the actual numbers of film
> cameras may be dropping, but higher-end film cams are holding their own -
so far...
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> > Film cameras are more stable, and I really do
> > think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's.
> > There's just not money in them anymore, and the "pro show" cameras are
> > now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most "drool"
> > value.
> >
> > REPLY:
> >
> > But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there
will be a market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised
to see a Nikon F6 with a digital sibling.
> >
> > Pål
>
> --
> "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
>

Re: High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[frank theriault]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sales of high end film slr's remaining 
pretty steady, despite the incursion of digital?

I'll have to look that one up, and get back to y'all (no time right now), but IIRC, 
percentage of digital in overall camera sales is increasing very steadily, and the 
actual numbers of film
cameras may be dropping, but higher-end film cams are holding their own - so far...

cheers,
frank

Pål Jensen wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
> Film cameras are more stable, and I really do
> think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's.
> There's just not money in them anymore, and the "pro show" cameras are
> now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most "drool"
> value.
>
> REPLY:
>
> But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there will be a 
> market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nikon F6 
> with a digital sibling.
>
> Pål

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

[Pål Jensen]

I wrote:

> Without compatibility games you had to use the D10 with FD lenses, but most likely 
> Canon would have been out of slr >manufacturing without "compatibility games". So 
> would Nikon. Or Minolta.


REPLY:

Let me just add that without "compatibility games" (what a stupid term!) there would 
be no K or M lenses the *istD could be incompatible with. Talk about contradiction!

Pål

High-end film bodies (WAS: Re: *ist D was not production type :-()

[Pål Jensen]

Steve wrote:

Film cameras are more stable, and I really do
think e are going to see very few really new nigh end film SLR's. 
There's just not money in them anymore, and the "pro show" cameras are
now digital, so its' the 1Ds and not the F5 that has the most "drool"
value. 


REPLY:

But they need a platform for DSLR. Also high-end ones. Providing there will be a 
market for high-end film cameras at all, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Nikon F6 
with a digital sibling.

Pål

Lenses without aperture rings (WAS: Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective)

[Pål Jensen]

Alin wrote:

Unless you know something you don't intend to disclose, I'm afraid
  you are plainly wrong. The best the rest of us can expect is
  FAJ Star lenses


REPLY:

According to sources that know these things intimately there will be no FAJ* lenses. 
FA-J is Pentax entry level lens series (FA Junior). They say the *ists and the FA-J 
are strictly entry level and that Pentax have to built in the features the targeted 
audience require, old lens compatibility isn't among those, at a very competitive 
price.  According to the same sources this is nothing to worry about and that the 
"good stuff" will come in fall. No, I don't know what the good stuff means but there 
is at least two lenses apart from a coming FA-J telephoto zoom. I know there are at 
least two as it was refered to as "lenses". It could just as well be 5, 10 or 20 for 
all I know. 
The aperture ring confuse entry level users and many users think they have a faulty 
camera when it is just the aperture that is accidentally set at F.22; for Nikon 
accidentally not set at F:22! And yes, the *istD will overwhelmingly be bought by 
people doing point and shoot. 
No camera manufacturer of modern AF gear cater for users of more 20 year old lenses. 
Neither Nikon or Canon or Minolta do. And Pentax have even less such users. 20 years 
is an eternity in marketing. If Pentax will continue K/M compatibility they will do it 
on products placed above the *ist's. 

As for lenses without aperture rings, as opposed to FA-J lenses, there exist a weather 
sealed lens series without aperture rings. This was intended for the Z-1, which was 
also originally a weather proofed design. But Pentax balked out. This series is still 
around but so far it hasn't been released and it is uncertain if it ever will. It is 
also unclear to me if these lenses uses USM. In fact, some of the FA* lenses are 
derived from this yet ureleased lens program. This incudes the FA* 24/2, FA* 85/1.4 
and the FA* 80-200/2.8. The reason these lenses have inner focusing mechanism was 
originally to ease a weather proofed design. These FA* lenses indicate that it was 
intended as a high-end lens series. 

I don't know whether the various FA lenses (except the FA-J's) are going to be 
expanded or continued. heres always the ghost of KAF3. Whether such lenses will be 
introduced and whether they will form a break in compatibility is anyones guess at 
present. What I've been told, though, is that it is premature to draw any conclusion 
from the *ist's as they are compromised entry level cameras.  

As far as the fact that the *ist's set aperture from the body; this is no worse than 
on any Canon EOS body where you cannot set aperture from the lens. I prefer aperture 
rings but suspect that most prefer one way or the other. Therefore it may make sense 
to make one solution or the other for camera thats going to comptete mainly on 
price/performance. The *ist'd should please Z-1 owners many complaining about the fact 
that the MZ-S cannot set the aperture (manually) from the body. 



Pål

Re: Image stabilizers on Pentax

[Pål Jensen]

> - Original Message - 
> From: "Matti Etelapera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 3:42 PM
> Subject: Image stabilizers on Pentax
> 
> 
> > From the Minolta users group:
> > 
> > " But, just in case you didn't know, a UK magazine ("Outdoor Photography")
> > quotes Sigma as saying that the new 80-400mm F4/F5.6 Optical Stabilised
> > lens will be made available in both Minolta AF and Pentax mounts later
> > this year. Canon and Nikon Mount versions should be available this month."
> > 
> > Wonder if the release on K-bayonnet has something to do with the rumored 
> > new KAF3 mount with IS capabilities?



Anyone knows what happened to this one? False rumor? Reality?

Pål

Re: Answers to Graywolf's mini-quiz

[Eactivist]

>So? Are you an old fart? Or, a whippersnapper?

>Ciao,
>Graywolf
>http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

Insufficient information. 

It depends, like everything else. :-) In my case, I am both. I am actually an 
old fart, who also happens to be a whippersnapper when it comes to 
photography.

Gotcha!

Marnie aka Doe  Hehehehe.

Re: Digital Delays?

[Bill Owens]

This is why I save the jpegs that come out of the Otio S as tiff.  This way,
I've lost little or none from the original, and still am able to make
changes later.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Delays?


> Well, take that jpeg and save it as another jpeg, then take that new jpeg
> and save it as another, do it about five times. Now get back to me on how
> jpegs are just fine.
>
> Each time your image is saved as a jpeg data is lost. How much data
depends
> on how much it is compressed. To me and others this kind of defeats the
> purpose of digital images, which is you can make multiple generations
> without losing data.
>
> If you are never going to manipulate (edit) that jpeg it will stay as good
> as it starts out, but that first copy is not as good as the raw file or a
> tiff would be, though it may be acceptable for your use, if you don't mind
> your 6 mp camera giving you 4 mp images.
>
> This is not said from theory (though theory says the same thing), it is
> partical experience.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Digital Delays?
>
>
> > I've noticed the same thing on scans.  A good quality JPEG
> > is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
> > a lot smaller.  I archive in JPEG.
> >
> > Cotty wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
> > > printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the
difference.
> >
>
>
>

Answers to Graywolf's mini-quiz

[T Rittenhouse]

- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 1. How big is an f-stop?

Insufficient information.
You need to know which f-stop, and the focal length of the lens?

> 2. How fast does your shutter open and close when set to 125?

Insufficient information.
What type of shutter (leaf, or focal plane), how fast the leafs or curtains
move, etc?

> 3. What f-stop do you have to use to have everything from 8 feet to
infinity
> sharp in your photography?

Insufficent information.
What is the focal lenth of the lens, what is the magnification of the final
image.

> 4. What f-stop do you need to get proper exposure with a #5 clear flash
bulb
> at 7 feet?

Insuffient information.
What is the film speed, what shutter speed?

> 5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure?

+1 to -3 stops, aproximately on a bell curve, so there is a much higher
incidence of accuracy in the middle of the curve.


So? Are you an old fart? Or, a whippersnapper?

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto

Re: Tom's test - was: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Eactivist]

>Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and 
the >shutter to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse 
of the shutter >speed anyway.  So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter 
to 1/500.

>From there, you adjust according, depending on conditions, shadows, etc.-  
open a >stop if it's hazy, a couple of stops for light, high cloud, another 
stop for overcast, >etc.

>Problem is, that especially in larger cities areas near industrial zones, 
due to the
>more or less permanent haze caused by pollution, it's more like "sunny 11" 
these >days.

>Anyway, Marnie, the point of this post is to more or less correct you, 
insofar as the
>shutter speed is based on the ISO, not ~always~ at 1/125 as you indicated.

>cheers,
>frank


Definitely a C-. I simply refuse to get a D.

Thx.

Yeah, I rarely use f16. And luckily I don't really NEED to know this stuff to 
take good pictures. I do set the aperture and shutter speed manually, but I 
rely heavily on the light meter and go from there.

Marnie aka Doe :-)  Although I'd heard of "sunny 16" naturally. 

Re: Digital Delays?

[T Rittenhouse]

Practical experience, not partical experience. Why is it that I can only see
mistakes like that after I post the comment?

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Delays?


> Well, take that jpeg and save it as another jpeg, then take that new jpeg
> and save it as another, do it about five times. Now get back to me on how
> jpegs are just fine.
>
> Each time your image is saved as a jpeg data is lost. How much data
depends
> on how much it is compressed. To me and others this kind of defeats the
> purpose of digital images, which is you can make multiple generations
> without losing data.
>
> If you are never going to manipulate (edit) that jpeg it will stay as good
> as it starts out, but that first copy is not as good as the raw file or a
> tiff would be, though it may be acceptable for your use, if you don't mind
> your 6 mp camera giving you 4 mp images.
>
> This is not said from theory (though theory says the same thing), it is
> partical experience.
>
> Ciao,
> Graywolf
> http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Digital Delays?
>
>
> > I've noticed the same thing on scans.  A good quality JPEG
> > is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
> > a lot smaller.  I archive in JPEG.
> >
> > Cotty wrote, in part:
> > >
> > > A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
> > > printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the
difference.
> >
>
>

Re: The New Marketplace

[T Rittenhouse]

Current B&H Photo prices are S9 $1499, 10D $1499, D100 $1699. The S2 is
still well over $2K. By Christmas what will they be? And what will the price
of the Whatever-ist D actually be? The proposed price is already too high. I
really do wonder what the manufactures margin on these things are (seller's
is about 10%, which is why local is about the same as reliable mail order).

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 5:19 AM
Subject: Re: The New Marketplace


> >Because this Christmas when you go shopping for a
> >DSLR for a gift there will be 2 prices for the enthusiast.
> >Only two at this point.  Pentax & Canon.
>
> Sigma DSLR is still cheaper than both

Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder

[T Rittenhouse]

Can't we just see Frank weaving his track bike (no brakes, no freewheel)
through downtown Toronto's rush hour traffic with his laptop open on the
handlebars pounding the keys as he composes yet another of his often amusing
messages to the list? Wearing his bunny ears, of cours!

ROTFLMAO!
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder


> I'm too poor to do wireless, I have no girlfriend, and I'm a bike
> messenger...
>
> 'N'uff said!  
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> Alin Flaider wrote:
>
> >   How many of you check the pdml wireless, during work or when
> >   speaking at phone to the girl friend? I must confess I have
> >   committed all the above sins; still I haven't felt the urge to
> >   read the pdml during actual shooting. There's still hope. ;o)
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/yourmoney/06WIRE.html?th
> >
> >   Servus,   Alin
>
> --
> "I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
>
>

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)

[T Rittenhouse]

If I had a theory about limited lenses, it would be that they were intended
for the Japanese market only. The Japs make lots of things they do not
export. Funny how they can't sell enough world wide to be profitable to
manufacture (according to some PDMLers), but it is profitable to sell them
locally.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 3:50 AM
Subject: RE: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"AmericanPhoto"magazine)


> The Limited line was perhaps paying attention to some of us old K-mount
> users, who love metal barrels, very high optically standards, good looks,
> lasting quality. The *ist's are for the next generation, who want features
> and specs and lifestyle products. A year or two ago, PDML'ers were
actually
> talking about an LX upgrade or a rangefinder for the LDT lenses.
> Jens
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse-
> Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:37
> Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Emne: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
> "AmericanPhoto"magazine)
>
>
> I have a very unpleasant personal theory about this.
>
> Alan Chan wrote:
> >> I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where
> >> they
> >> fit into the entry level customer base.
> >
> >
> > This same question has been rasied when the 43Ltd was 1st introduced.
> > Clearly Pentax tried to mount it on the MZ-5 & MZ-3, but even the most
> > navie person knew they did not belong to each other. At least one can
> > say Z-1p & FA* lenses were advance amateurs' toys, but Limited lenses
> > for MZ-5/3 (don't forget MZ-S came at much latter stage, and they even
> > failed to match the colour correctly in most countries)?
> >
> > regards,
> > Alan Chan
> >
> > _
> > The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> >
> >
>
>

Re: Digital Delays?

[Matt Bevers]

The problem with archiving in JPEG is that you will actually lose 
quality each time you re-save the file.  Not only does this make sense 
in theory given the compression algorithm, but I've actually seen it 
happen.  It's not huge but it's there.  Now I use compressed TIFF for 
archiving, although I'm considering switching to PNG.  PNG is lossless 
and file sizes are comparable to compressed TIFFs, but don't rely on a 
proprietary compression algorithm so some believe there is a greater 
chance you'll actually be able to read your files 20 years from now.  
Only problem is that it takes an extra conversion step since most 
scanner software (and most DSLRs) don't support direct saving 
of/conversion to PNG.  Like I said, I'm considering switching formats, 
I just haven't done it yet.

-Matt

On Sunday, July 6, 2003, at 07:08 AM, Lon Williamson wrote:

I've noticed the same thing on scans.  A good quality JPEG
is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
a lot smaller.  I archive in JPEG.
Cotty wrote, in part:
A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the 
difference.

Re: Digital Delays?

[T Rittenhouse]

Well, take that jpeg and save it as another jpeg, then take that new jpeg
and save it as another, do it about five times. Now get back to me on how
jpegs are just fine.

Each time your image is saved as a jpeg data is lost. How much data depends
on how much it is compressed. To me and others this kind of defeats the
purpose of digital images, which is you can make multiple generations
without losing data.

If you are never going to manipulate (edit) that jpeg it will stay as good
as it starts out, but that first copy is not as good as the raw file or a
tiff would be, though it may be acceptable for your use, if you don't mind
your 6 mp camera giving you 4 mp images.

This is not said from theory (though theory says the same thing), it is
partical experience.

Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto


- Original Message -
From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 7:08 AM
Subject: Re: Digital Delays?


> I've noticed the same thing on scans.  A good quality JPEG
> is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
> a lot smaller.  I archive in JPEG.
>
> Cotty wrote, in part:
> >
> > A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
> > printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the difference.
>

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto" magazine)

[Caveman]

Alin Flaider wrote:
 The best the rest of us can expect is
  FAJ Star lenses.
Since these zooms start at f 1:5.6 ... and you would want to use them 
one stop down at least... why not make them fixed aperture at f 1:8 ... 
No aperture mechanism at all ! Imagine the savings !!!

Also, fixed focus wouldn't be bad either, lots of savings too, and it 
would be the fastest and most silent focusing method on the market !!!

cheers,
caveman

Re: Self Made Soft Lens

[Boris Liberman]

Hi!

I have to fight real hard very strong urge to admit that this typo was 
actually planted here as an easter egg of sorts . Still you 
definitely got me on this one. I've already fixed the wording...

Thanks a bunch!

Boris

On Sun, 6 Jul 2003 06:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
 Gianfranco Irlanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi!

Some time ago I published a web page with instructions as to
how to
make one (subj ). I wonder whether there were anyone who
tried to
follow these instructions and whether they've succeeded.

Please respond off list if you're such a person.
Hi Boris,

I'm not that person, but I did check your web page and found the
following statement:
'Obviously none of the people above will not be held responsible
if you damage your lens beyond any possibility of repair.'
Which, logically, means that the people above WILL actually be
held responsible...
:-)
Gianfranco 



=

__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder

[frank theriault]

I'm too poor to do wireless, I have no girlfriend, and I'm a bike
messenger...

'N'uff said!  

cheers,
frank

Alin Flaider wrote:

>   How many of you check the pdml wireless, during work or when
>   speaking at phone to the girl friend? I must confess I have
>   committed all the above sins; still I haven't felt the urge to
>   read the pdml during actual shooting. There's still hope. ;o)
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/yourmoney/06WIRE.html?th
>
>   Servus,   Alin

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re[2]: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "American Photo" magazine)

[Alin Flaider]

Pål wrote:

PJ> The FA-J lenses are for those cheap ones who don't want to pay for
PJ> aperture rings they don't know how to use.

  You seem to forget the *ist d effectively forbids the use of
  aperture ring, so along this *ist line it looks likely the Pentax
  won't manufacture lenses with aperture rings anymore. Unless they
  do announce publicly a future high end body that makes use of
  lens aperture rings and inherently is compatible with K/M lenses,
  there is no reason we should expect the FA line to be continued.

PJ> Such lenses are popular among Nikon a Canon entry level buyers.
PJ> The rest of us aren't affected by FA-J lenses.

  Unless you know something you don't intend to disclose, I'm afraid
  you are plainly wrong. The best the rest of us can expect is
  FAJ Star lenses.
 
  Servus, Alin

Re: The New Marketplace

[frank theriault]

Hi, Collin,

Please put me on your Christmas list.  Please!  

cheers,
frank

collinb wrote:

> Because this Christmas when you go shopping for a
> DSLR for a gift 

> --

"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re:Tom's test - was: *ist D was not production type :-(

[frank theriault]

Sunny 16 says that for a bright sunny day, you set the aperture at f16, and the shutter
to the speed nearest the ISO rating of the film - or the inverse of the shutter speed
anyway.  So if you use 400 ISO film, you set the shutter to 1/500.

>From there, you adjust according, depending on conditions, shadows, etc.-  open a stop
if it's hazy, a couple of stops for light, high cloud, another stop for overcast, etc.

Problem is, that especially in larger cities areas near industrial zones, due to the
more or less permanent haze caused by pollution, it's more like "sunny 11" these days.

Anyway, Marnie, the point of this post is to more or less correct you, insofar as the
shutter speed is based on the ISO, not ~always~ at 1/125 as you indicated.

cheers,
frank

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>
>
> >5. How accurate is the Sunny-16 rule for exposure.
>
> With the shutter speed set to 1/125, usually right on on sunny days. However,
> despite all that, I rarely use f16. Supposedly on sunny days, it will make
> middle tones the 18% middle gray that a light meters use as its basis. 
>

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: Self Made Soft Lens

[Gianfranco Irlanda]

Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Some time ago I published a web page with instructions as to
how to
> make one (subj ). I wonder whether there were anyone who
tried to
> follow these instructions and whether they've succeeded.
> 
> Please respond off list if you're such a person.

Hi Boris,

I'm not that person, but I did check your web page and found the
following statement:

'Obviously none of the people above will not be held responsible
if you damage your lens beyond any possibility of repair.'

Which, logically, means that the people above WILL actually be
held responsible...
:-)

Gianfranco 



=


__
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[frank theriault]

There's a dirty joke in there somewhere!  

-frank

Lon Williamson wrote:

>  The
> actual size of the hole is something I'm uninterested in.
>

--
"I don't believe in God, but I do believe in pi" - Henri Cartier-Bresson

Re: OT: Online compulsive disorder

[Ken Archer]

It's been a long time since my wife let me talk to my girl friend on the 
phone so, no, I guess I haven't checked my pdml messages while talking 
to my girl friend lately.

On Sunday 06 July 2003 12:22 pm, Alin Flaider wrote:
>   How many of you check the pdml wireless, during work or when
>   speaking at phone to the girl friend? I must confess I have
>   committed all the above sins; still I haven't felt the urge to
>   read the pdml during actual shooting. There's still hope. ;o)
-- 
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
"Business Is Going To The Dogs"

OT: Online compulsive disorder

[Alin Flaider]

  How many of you check the pdml wireless, during work or when
  speaking at phone to the girl friend? I must confess I have
  committed all the above sins; still I haven't felt the urge to
  read the pdml during actual shooting. There's still hope. ;o)
  
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/business/yourmoney/06WIRE.html?th

  Servus,   Alin

Re: Paypal article

[Ken Archer]

PayPal is just like my computer.  When something goes wrong, I find the 
cause usually has its hands on my keyboard.  And quite frankly after 
about 400 transactions through PayPal, I haven't had any problems with 
my computer or PayPal in a long, long time.

On Sunday 06 July 2003 03:45 am, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
> I am using PayPal at present but have heard more bad things about
> them, when things go wrong, than good.

-- 
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
"Business Is Going To The Dogs"

SV: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Jens Bladt]

Probably a MZ-S with and Limited's!
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 13:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(


What about the report someone posted a few years
back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film
camera that LX owners would want to buy and "carry
to the grave"?  Is this the MZ-S?

Alan Chan wrote:
>> If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I
>> think the best we can get is a Mg alloy  *ist with (maybe) and aperture
>> simulator.
> 
> 
> Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors?
> 
> regards,
> Alan Chan
> 
> _
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> 
> 

*ist is about latitude

[Jens Bladt]

Hi
The Name?
I have pictures showing the new Pentaxes in life size (they are small!). So
I'm looking at them from time to time. I was thinking about the funny name
yesterday (did you iu guys come up with the explanation...?)
In the computer world * means The Joker. You search for *.tif when you don't
know the right name.
So, * can mean anything; you name it: Hobbyist, Lobbyist, Liberalist,
Socialist, Copyist, Optimist, Pacifist, Philatelist... what ever passion or
mission you may have, this is the camera for you! The *ist is not the centre
of your attention or activities, but a simply a helping hand in doing what
you do. Like a pocket-knife or a pen. Not bad, eh?

This actually goes quite well with Pål's interpretations (knowledge?) of the
Pentax Company policies - and the  markets, that the *ist cameras are
targeting.
It's all about latitude.

Not an attempt to create the ultimate SLR's that pro's will buy and amateurs
will "copy" (like Leitz, Kyocera, Hasselblad and perhaps, to some extend,
Nikon and Canon). (Pentax have tried, but didn't really seriously make it).
It's about selling millions of "Volkswagens", "Brownies" etc. (I recall
having seen adds saying something like: Don't forget you Pentax (Pentax
meaning camera)!. Kodak did that years ago. Pentax was a leader in the P&S
market sometime in the 90'ies - before P&S went digital.

So friends, stop whining. If you want the ultimate SLR, Pentax is not the
brand for you. If you want a helping hand, *ist may very well be (or trying
to be).
All the best
Dedicated, passionate hobby-ist


Some people think this world is the best of possible worlds. What do you
think?
Please check out my website: http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Lon Williamson]

What about the report someone posted a few years
back that the new Pentax CEO said about a new film
camera that LX owners would want to buy and "carry
to the grave"?  Is this the MZ-S?
Alan Chan wrote:
If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I
think the best we can get is a Mg alloy  *ist with (maybe) and aperture
simulator.


Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors?

regards,
Alan Chan
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Motor drives ME2 and Motor 2

[Lon Williamson]

The Motor A has significantly better interaction with the SuperProgram.
For example, you can shoot with the camera's release, and film advance
still occurs.  The Motor A is smart enough to deal with a combination
of manual and motor advance, as well.  It's a nice unit, and worth
the extra dollars compared to the ME2 winder, IMHO.
Derby Chang wrote:
Idle question. I know the Super A can take the winder for the ME super 
(ME2 winder).

Am I right in saying it doesn't work the other way - the Motor A is not 
compatible with the ME super? What extra features are on the Motor A 
that causes the incompatibility?

(Excellent PUG this month too...well done all)

D

Re: Prestige for Pentax, at last!

[Lon Williamson]

This reminds me of a hardware engineer I knew years ago
who bought a "Rat Shack" - Radio Shack - audio equalizer.
He was so _ashamed_ of that name on the front panel that
he removed it.  Your scheme could be interpreted in this
light.  Grin.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Okay guys, I have finally figured out a way to raise the Pentax brand to
the level of N, and C, and yes, even Leica. I have to confess that I've
been hanging around on the Leica Photonet forum a bit. I did buy some
LTM gear, and I kind of like to hear what the Leicaphiles like and don't
like. Well, in brief, I've found that most Leica owners are very
impressed with the fact that they actually own a Leica. And they've gone
to great lengths to construct some suitable signs of exactly how
desirable Leicas are. For example, LEICA OWNERS TAPE OVER THE BRAND NAME
AND THE HEINIOUS TELL-TALE RED DOT THAT IDENTIFIES THEIR CAMERA. No
smile, no . I'm not kidding. They do it. I guess they believe that
an easily identified Leica will soon be ripped from their grasp by a
jealous N, or C or Pentax photographer. (Well, it might be, but the tape
isn't going to fool me .) But I suspect it's just another
Leicophile pretension. And my god, some Leica shooters have so many of
them they must have to carry another bag just to drag them along.
   So there you have it. All we have to do in order to gain true
prestige in the camra world is to tape over the Pentax branding on all
of our cameras. If we assume that they're so good that we can't afford
to let the plebe know what we're carrying, we'll be on our way home.
Tape over your Pentax branding, and do it today. It's the road to salvation.
   By the way, I still like my 50 year old iiif. Hey, you can't judge a
camera by the people who  use it. Anyway, the truly pretensious
Leicophiles have long ago given up on the old screw mount versions.

Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)

[Lon Williamson]

Pom Pom Pal?  Whatta nickname.  Fits, too.
Nobody has been as persistant on photo net
or rec.photo as Pal.  Good for him.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - 
From: "Caveman"
Subject: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"AmericanPhoto"magazine)




Since when did Pentax appoint you as their spokesman ?


Perhaps he looks so good waving pom poms that they had to do it.

William Robb

Re: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Lon Williamson]

If you use a flash bracket to elevate your flash, the shadow
goes down and straight behind the subject.  Minimal shadow.
Flat lighting, though.  OTOH, using the bracket is about as
good as you can do for a 1-flash, wander-around situation like
a wedding reception.  I stand by my previous statement.
Don't want to make a war out of it, though.
Jens Bladt wrote:
Hi Lon
The wall will catch the shadow from the subject. Use bounced flash (off the
cieling or a wall or a door or whatever) or totally off camera. Make sure
the shadow hits the wall outside the "frame" - keep great distance to the
wall.
I tend to agree with Alan!
Jens
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juli 2003 15:07
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(
This has not been my experience if you use a longer lens and
keep your subject reasonably close to a wall.  I like to
use a 135 prime in-doors for such shots.  It always sucks
if you're using something like a 50mm and there is no close
background you'll get a subject surrounded by black every
time
Alan Chan wrote:


Auto exposure with flash indoor, sucks everytime.

regards,
Alan Chan
_
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

Re: Digital Delays?

[Lon Williamson]

I've noticed the same thing on scans.  A good quality JPEG
is virtually indistinguishable from a TIFF, and a heck of
a lot smaller.  I archive in JPEG.
Cotty wrote, in part:
A 2.5 MB jpeg / a larger RAW file / a massive MF digital file = all
printed on an inkjet at 300 dpi - I defy anyone to tell the difference.

Re: The New Marketplace

[Cotty]

>Because this Christmas when you go shopping for a
>DSLR for a gift there will be 2 prices for the enthusiast.
>Only two at this point.  Pentax & Canon.

Sigma DSLR is still cheaper than both




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

RE: The New Marketplace

[Alan Chan]

People give me funny looks when they realize I'm not "wearing" an AF
lens...(only got two)! Tomorrow (or maybe allready) people give me funny
looks when they realize my camera is not a diggie! I would buy one thoug -
but it must be SLR, prefereably a Pentax (K and M lens campatible or not).
Since Pentax is so unpopular, I might just fool people that my Z-1p was 
actually a DSLR.  :-)

Hell, I own 15.000$ worth of equipment (25 years of buying stuff). I would
spend 10 K more if I could, but then I wouldn't have enuogh money left
for pictures!
No such problem with digital. You don't even need extra memory stick or 
labtop. Just shoot & erase (mind you it is different from shooting SLR 
without film because you actualy took those pictures, just that you decided 
to erase them).  :-)

regards,
Alan Chan
_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

RE: Prestige for Pentax, at last!

[Alan Chan]

That's why they changed the name last year?

regards,
Alan Chan
Asha(i)med Pentax...?
_
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

RE: The New Marketplace

[Jens Bladt]

Me too...
Problem is we (I) can't really afford it. And/but I love my old (K,M) stuff
as long as it works fine.
People give me funny looks when they realize I'm not "wearing" an AF
lens...(only got two)! Tomorrow (or maybe allready) people give me funny
looks when they realize my camera is not a diggie! I would buy one thoug -
but it must be SLR, prefereably a Pentax (K and M lens campatible or not).

Hell, I own 15.000$ worth of equipment (25 years of buying stuff). I would
spend 10 K more if I could, but then I wouldn't have enuogh money left
for pictures!
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 09:51
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: The New Marketplace


On 5 Jul 2003 at 13:51, Alan Chan wrote:

> >If you agree with Pål, it's about consumer needs. If you disagree, it's
> >whining.
>
> Who am I? A person who spent & whined.

A sucker like a few others here, me included.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: Prestige for Pentax, at last!

[Jens Bladt]

Asha(i)med Pentax...?




>We are doomed, Paul
>They'll simply assume that we are ashamed of using
>Pentax, that's a fact... ;-)

Damn! I was about to say that...

regards,
Alan Chan

_
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

RE: An explanation of Bokeh

[Jens Bladt]

Great Link, Rüdiger!
I actually also like the way filmgrain behaves in usharp parts of a
photograph. It's even visible in scanned negatives. I don't know what that's
like in digital phographs, though (since I only shoot digital at work).
All the best
Jens

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Rüdiger Neumann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 5. juli 2003 20:45
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: An explanation of Bokeh


Hallo
At
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understandi
ng-mtf.shtml
is an artikel about MFT.
In this artikel is an interesting part which gives an explanation about a
good bokeh, I have never heart of it.
Her it is:

One of the areas of image quality that MTF can help determine is bokeh. This
is a Japanese word used to describe the manner in which a lens reproduces
the out of focus areas of an image. Some lenses are harsh in this regard,
while others produce a much more pleasing out of focus image. This is where
the meridonial and sagital lines come in, and as you'll recall are
represented by the dotted and dashed lines. The closer these lines are to
each other the more pleasing the bokeh of the lens. Fascinating, huh?

Regards
Rüdiger

Re: The New Marketplace

[Rob Studdert]

On 5 Jul 2003 at 13:51, Alan Chan wrote:

> >If you agree with Pål, it's about consumer needs. If you disagree, it's
> >whining.
> 
> Who am I? A person who spent & whined.

A sucker like a few others here, me included.

Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)  +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998

RE: *ist D was not production type :-(

[Jens Bladt]

Hi
Brilliant idea. Untill then, I'll might start saving for a MZ-S! (I happen
to think it's beautiful too!

-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:50
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: *ist D was not production type :-(


Alan Chan wrote:
>> If Pentax does come out with another film SLR, I
>> think the best we can get is a Mg alloy  *ist with (maybe) and aperture
>> simulator.
>
>
> Or just an MZ-S with 11 AF sensors?
>

9, and an 1/4000 sec shutter. Imagine the savings in battery life..

cheers,
caveman ;-)

RE: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in "AmericanPhoto"magazine)

[Jens Bladt]

The Limited line was perhaps paying attention to some of us old K-mount
users, who love metal barrels, very high optically standards, good looks,
lasting quality. The *ist's are for the next generation, who want features
and specs and lifestyle products. A year or two ago, PDML'ers were actually
talking about an LX upgrade or a rangefinder for the LDT lenses.
Jens


-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 6. juli 2003 02:37
Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Emne: Re: Lens compatibility in perspective (WAS: Re: D-ist blurb in
"AmericanPhoto"magazine)


I have a very unpleasant personal theory about this.

Alan Chan wrote:
>> I do have to wonder about those expensive FA and LTD lenses, and where
>> they
>> fit into the entry level customer base.
>
>
> This same question has been rasied when the 43Ltd was 1st introduced.
> Clearly Pentax tried to mount it on the MZ-5 & MZ-3, but even the most
> navie person knew they did not belong to each other. At least one can
> say Z-1p & FA* lenses were advance amateurs' toys, but Limited lenses
> for MZ-5/3 (don't forget MZ-S came at much latter stage, and they even
> failed to match the colour correctly in most countries)?
>
> regards,
> Alan Chan
>
> _
> The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>

Sunpak PT1D PT2D difference ?

[David Mann]

Bo-Ming Tong asked:

> Does anyone know what is the difference between these two Pentax flash
> modules ? Thanks.

I did have a Sunpak catalog here but I don't know where it is.

I'm pretty sure that the PT1D is a "Pentax-dedicated" module; the body 
will show a "flash ready" symbol in the viewfinder.  TTL flash control is 
not supported.

I have a PT2D on one of my flashes.  This adaptor allows full TTL 
functionality.

Hopefully someone will confirm the above.

Cheers,


- Dave

http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/