RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
-Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv
RE: *ist D delayed again
-Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] There were no *ist D's for sale Sept. 1, 2003. Whatever verbiage was exchanged was an attempt to define the concept of for sale. Pentax still hasen't moved it into the sales channel. I don't know what a sales channel is. Available is ambiguous. We'll never know when something has shipped from Pentax. The only thing we can easily agree on is when it can be ordered from a major website or when someone can walk into a store and buy it, and I thought we agreed on the former. tv
Re: RE railroads - was Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme:
Dave wrote: you go training, you use nothing but a 135mm and take nothing but details... How about Sunday 28 Sept? (My birthday by the way...) Its mine too. What say all those who were born on Sept 28 take out a 135 and shoot a train/RR shot on said day and post there results.Yes no??? Am I allowed to join in? Mine's the 27th. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: The 300D retailers
Collin R Brendemuehl wrote: Talked to Cord sales today. They're chomping at the bit for it. They know it'll kill the 10D, istD, D100 but they don't care. [etc] A colleague of mine recently spent a week in China on business. While stopping over in Singapore he went looking for a Nikon DSLR (D100, I think) to replace/augment his F4. Apparently his timing was bad... there had just been a photographic show on and all of Singapore was sold out of that model. Plenty of Canon stuff around though, they seemed to be pushing the brand quite strongly there (presumably related to the 300D). It was lucky for me as that meant he was under the GST limit when returning home with my new Palm (Zire 71), so I saved about NZ$70. For some stupid reason I had decided to give it to the mrs as an early birthday present, to help with her genealogical research. Now I want one for myself :( But I guess I can now say that we own a digital camera, even though it is only 640x480... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Flash questions
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, Bojidar Dimitrov wrote: Hello Kostas, I am trying to understand what it will take so as to enable an MZ-5n (or and MZ bar the MZ-S) to do contrast-control-sync flash. Could not find anything on Boj's site or on the Pentax UK/US sites. It's there. Go to the Flashes page and look under General Information. All you need is to connect two F-type flashes somehow (anyhow), and enable contrast-flash on one of them. That's it! One of the two flashes can be the built-in one. Thanks Boj, but what I could/cannot see is information on suitable brackets. Did/does Pentax make any? You also mention in the site that the 360FTZ can do slave flash. Did you mean the 330FTZ or the 360FGZ? Thanks for a most excellent site, Kostas
bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
I am tempted to buy a used Canon 28-135 IS and borrow a Canon but before I do so I wish to hear your opinions whether this is a stupid idea. I have been doing bounce flash indoors a lot using a shoe-mounted flash. I started out with f/5.6 at 1/30 on ISO 800 film rated at 400 or 500, and got nicely illuminated pictures. Ambient light is only 1 or 2 stops below flash light. However, there was once I get blurred images. I wasn't sure whether it was my handshake or people moving, but it is not possible to handhold a 45mm lens at 1/30 and expect sharp results. So I switched to 1/60 last time. There was also not enough depth of field sometimes so I used f/8. My flash can still output that much power. My images came back not very satisfactorily. While the near objects are still nicely illuminated, the far objects are completely dark. I used to get at least some detail off the far objects. As you can see, I am torn between a handholdable shutter speed, depth of field, and ambient lighting. Would an IS lens take the first one out, so that I can use an even slower shutter speed such as 1/15 and capture ambient light while keeping the aperture small for depth of field ? Obviously this can only help my hand shake but not people moving. Or, should I just do it and use 1/15 since the far objects are out of focus and the near objects are mostly illuminated by flash at a speed of around 1/500 ? This might result in a sharp image with a blurry trail, though, if the flash light does not greatly outshine the ambient light, which seems to defeat the original purpose of capturing ambient light using a slow shutter speed. Any comments ? I don't want to go Canon because of IS... I didn't realize there is any use for IS/VR until now.
Anyone recommend a case for my new LX?
Hi Gang, I've been surfing for a case for my LX; an Asahi genuine everready style case that screws into the tripod screw would be my preference, but I think that might be next to impossible to find. I have no experience with any of the zing or other generic one size fits most types. Can anyone recommend a specific 3rd party manufacturer's case for the LX? Sid B
Rules or guidelines
As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Rules or guidelines
Rules? There are no rules! As has often been pointed out, this is an unmoderated list. What passes for accepted practices, more often than not, depends on who is on the field ( as opposed to the bench, bleachers, etc.) and for the most part the e-bay shuffle played here --- when its not nap time --- is just a sham to protect a buyer or two at the expense of a seller.Forget the rules shoot pics. Its much more rewarding... Otis Wright Paul Delcour wrote: As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Rules or guidelines
Hi, a theoretical physicist* called Ralf Stubner used to be a regular here, and once a month he sent out a message containing this: http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html It has fallen into disrepair, but something similar could be quite useful either as a page on pdml.net or pug.komkon.org or elsewhere with links between them. Bob *I don't mean that Ralf was theoretical (I have no evidence either way - perhaps he was a matter of faith). I mean the physics he studied were theoretical. And probably not all of them, just the particular ones. Sunday, September 14, 2003, 12:51:56 PM, you wrote: As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: FS Friday - final call on my 35mm and 645 gear
Lovely! Enjoy... keith Stan Halpin wrote: I am headed to Sweden. A five day meeting, I am arriving three days early, then staying four days after. My first time in that corner of the world... Stan on 9/13/03 10:35 AM, Keith Whaley at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Stan, If you don't mind revealing it -- when are you leaving, and where are you going? Have a great time! Mid-September is a good time for almost all parts of the world! keith whaley * * * Stan Halpin wrote: I have updated my listing of items for sale at: http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/forSaleLists.pdf Most of the 35mm stuff is sold, most of the 645 gear is still available. Make me an offer! Note that the 85/1.8 is under consideration may be spoken for, but at this moment nothing else has a prior hold on it. After about 1800 GMT Sunday, I will be unable to entertain any offers as I won't have the time to close the deal and get everything packed and shipped before I leave for 2 weeks... anything not sold by Sunday goes on eBay later this fall when I have the time to deal with it. Stan
Re: RE railroads - was Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme:
Dave wrote: you go training, you use nothing but a 135mm and take nothing but details... How about Sunday 28 Sept? (My birthday by the way...) Its mine too. What say all those who were born on Sept 28 take out a 135 and shoot a train/RR shot on said day and post there results.Yes no??? Am I allowed to join in? Mine's the 27th. You can use a 105,Dave.lol Dave Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
I don't think anyone disputes her well-honed skills as a cinematographer. Nor is there any dispute that she was one of the top, believing, Nazi propagandists... keith whaley Sid Barras wrote: I thought it would be good to stir up some non-*istD controversy-- And what better person to discuss infamy and fame about than Adolph Hitler's own photographer and cinematographer? She could very well have been the most influential photographer of all time. Her use of camera angles in Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece. Had she not gone into seclusion for so long after the fall of the Nazi regime, she might have given us even more. Regardless, the Nubian pictures, her undersea photography (pursued well into her 9th generation) gave us ample evidence this was not merely a Nazi propagandist... Sid (definitely not a Nazi sympathizer)
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
You're right, Sid, What's not controversial about her is her skill and innovation as a filmaker. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. She claimed never to have been a party member. Claimed that in her later years at least, she didn't subscribe to Nazi politics or policy. Claimed that she never (as was rumoured) had an affair with Hitler, and that she wasn't that close to him. Claimed that her great works, including her personal triumph, Triumph of the Will was not propaganda, but merely (from her point of view) a commission. In her old age she said that she wished she'd never been born. OTOH, she could have denounced the Nazi regime, but she didn't. She could have apologized for (even unwittingly) making propaganda for one of the most evil regimes that this earth has ever seen, but she didn't. She may not have been a party member, but evidence seems to point to the fact that as a young woman she was enamoured of the party, and it's policies, and seemed somewhat eager to become an insider. If that was true, she could have, after the fact, said that she was young, deluded, like many others in her country was fooled by the absolute and intoxicating power that the new party promised, and thereby blinded to the darker elements that we can now see were lurking just under the surface. But she didn't. It has been said that some propagandists of evil regimes, such as Eisenstein in the USSR, weren't vilified like her, and that their works were allowed to be seen as the art that they were, and not dismissed as propaganda. It has been suggested that there was some sort of vendetta against Leni, who never did a film after WWII, as she could never get any sort of funding (and thus was effectively black-listed) - the reason that she could only produce works of still photography. She was an enogma to be sure. She was a great filmaker and photographer to be sure (her still photographs of the '36 Olympics are amazing). I personally think that her personal politics were much more in line with Nazi-ism than she ever let on after the war. Rightly or wrongly, that feeling colours my appreciation for her as an artist. regards, frank Sid Barras wrote: I thought it would be good to stir up some non-*istD controversy-- And what better person to discuss infamy and fame about than Adolph Hitler's own photographer and cinematographer? She could very well have been the most influential photographer of all time. Her use of camera angles in Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece. Had she not gone into seclusion for so long after the fall of the Nazi regime, she might have given us even more. Regardless, the Nubian pictures, her undersea photography (pursued well into her 9th generation) gave us ample evidence this was not merely a Nazi propagandist... Sid (definitely not a Nazi sympathizer) -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Re: Flash Coverage - was Camera size and lens size.
Paul Ewins wrote: If I used a 105mm lens with one of the cheap flashes with a fixed 35mm coverage then most of the power of the flash would be used illuminating things outside the actual photo! Which might not be that wrong. When zooming the flash one gaines a longer reach fot illumination - that's usually a very good thing. But when you take image indoors, usually there is enough power at the wide flash coverage to illuminate the subject and additionally the light that goes outside of the frame bounces of walls, ceiling etc. and helps to light things in a bit less harsh way. That's mine 0,02PLN to confuse things a bit :-) Maciej
Re: Rules or guidelines
A good answer, Bob. It's been a little while since i've seen the link referred to. It is useful for old timers to review once in a while, as well... g keith whaley Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, a theoretical physicist* called Ralf Stubner used to be a regular here, and once a month he sent out a message containing this: http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html It has fallen into disrepair, but something similar could be quite useful either as a page on pdml.net or pug.komkon.org or elsewhere with links between them. Bob *I don't mean that Ralf was theoretical (I have no evidence either way - perhaps he was a matter of faith). I mean the physics he studied were theoretical. And probably not all of them, just the particular ones. Sunday, September 14, 2003, 12:51:56 PM, you wrote: As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
Well said, Frank. keith whaley frank theriault wrote: You're right, Sid, What's not controversial about her is her skill and innovation as a filmaker. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. She claimed never to have been a party member. Claimed that in her later years at least, she didn't subscribe to Nazi politics or policy. Claimed that she never (as was rumoured) had an affair with Hitler, and that she wasn't that close to him. Claimed that her great works, including her personal triumph, Triumph of the Will was not propaganda, but merely (from her point of view) a commission. In her old age she said that she wished she'd never been born. OTOH, she could have denounced the Nazi regime, but she didn't. She could have apologized for (even unwittingly) making propaganda for one of the most evil regimes that this earth has ever seen, but she didn't. She may not have been a party member, but evidence seems to point to the fact that as a young woman she was enamoured of the party, and it's policies, and seemed somewhat eager to become an insider. If that was true, she could have, after the fact, said that she was young, deluded, like many others in her country was fooled by the absolute and intoxicating power that the new party promised, and thereby blinded to the darker elements that we can now see were lurking just under the surface. But she didn't. It has been said that some propagandists of evil regimes, such as Eisenstein in the USSR, weren't vilified like her, and that their works were allowed to be seen as the art that they were, and not dismissed as propaganda. It has been suggested that there was some sort of vendetta against Leni, who never did a film after WWII, as she could never get any sort of funding (and thus was effectively black-listed) - the reason that she could only produce works of still photography. She was an enogma to be sure. She was a great filmaker and photographer to be sure (her still photographs of the '36 Olympics are amazing). I personally think that her personal politics were much more in line with Nazi-ism than she ever let on after the war. Rightly or wrongly, that feeling colours my appreciation for her as an artist. regards, frank Sid Barras wrote: I thought it would be good to stir up some non-*istD controversy-- And what better person to discuss infamy and fame about than Adolph Hitler's own photographer and cinematographer? She could very well have been the most influential photographer of all time. Her use of camera angles in Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece. Had she not gone into seclusion for so long after the fall of the Nazi regime, she might have given us even more. Regardless, the Nubian pictures, her undersea photography (pursued well into her 9th generation) gave us ample evidence this was not merely a Nazi propagandist... Sid (definitely not a Nazi sympathizer) -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Free film
Claim a roll of Kodak: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/wrt/campaigns/ GC00094/entry.jhtml Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: Tele-converter, Pentax, Pentax or Vivitar, at wich price?
Hans Beumer wrote: With that vivitar macro converter, do you get a double focus-mechanisme, (one on the lens, and one on the converter) or just focus on the lens? I suggest that you pre-focus the lens and set the vivitar extension so they give you the magnification that you want and then do your focusing by moving the camera toward and away from the subject. It's much less frustrating that way. In my experience, trying to focus the camera and hold it steady at the same time when your depth of field is only a quarter inch is an exercise in futility. I recommend a macro focusing rail mounted on a tripod if you're going to get serious about macro photography.
Re: Free film
It's for UK residents only... :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 13:37:52 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Free film Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:38:02 -0400 GC00094/entry.jhtml
Re: Free film
Yeah, Cotty, The days of the Empire are long over... vbg cheers, frank Paul Delcour wrote: It's for UK residents only... :-) Paul Delcour -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Re: *ist D delayed again
It looks to me like Tom won the bet. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 9:45 PM Subject: RE: *ist D delayed again This is a tricky one! I was gonna stay out, but I am fascinated to see where this goes... The *ist D was actually being sold on sept 1 - dealers were selling it, even if they could not supply it yet. Of course I get your point though. In your mind you seem to be saying that you were agreeing to a deal over whether the camera would be 'available to ship' on that date. However looking at the archive, the 'legal' aspect of the bet (if you can call it legal) possibly supports both of you: You are right, Tom did say Ok, we'll say shipped to a dealer somewhere by 9/1/03. However you never replied to that email, and you in fact replied Deal! Of course, now you've guaranteed that I have to stick around till then. Are you sure you wanted to do this? to his later (arguably revised) offer of Ok, the bet is that Pentax will have a digital slr for sale by 9/1/03. For sale means it's listed on a major camera retailer's web site. If you win, you get my FA 100/3.5. If I win, I get your Program Plus. Deal? which is quite clear in what it defines. There is no doubt in my mind that you have no claim on Tom's lens because it is your problem if you didn't realise what you were agreeing to after he spelled it out. However, whether your contention that his definition of for sale is unreasonable has any merit is not for me to decide. I guess ultimately it may depend on how charitable Tom feels... -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 September 2003 18:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D delayed again There were no *ist D's for sale Sept. 1, 2003. Whatever verbiage was exchanged was an attempt to define the concept of for sale. Pentax still hasen't moved it into the sales channel. It ain't soup yet and it didn't make the date. BR From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] No. I was planning to go through my sent mail to figure when things were said, but it's the busy time for me right now... tv
Re: Free film
On the other hand, as the Royal Mail still forwards my mail to the Netherlands, I will request it. Thanks Cotty! Frits On Sun, 2003-09-14 at 14:36, frank theriault wrote: Yeah, Cotty, The days of the Empire are long over... vbg cheers, frank Paul Delcour wrote: It's for UK residents only... :-) Paul Delcour -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus -- Frits Wuthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rules or guidelines
As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Hi paul, As Otis says, there are no rules. Look at it this way - if there are no rules, then all you can do is hypthesize in your own mind, by taking particular events to a probable conclusion (you following this??) thus: Scenario 1: You decide that, as this is an unmoderated list, you want to continue posting eBay auctions at your discretion. Well that's fine and dandy. Unfortunately, what will happen then is that it's highly likely that someone else will chip in and ask you to stop, which of course, being an unmoderated list, is quite likely. Then you will find a few others chipping in with reasons why it's not a bad thing, until the argument becomes very polarised, and 2 camps develop. This is not good. Eventually a flame war will develop, and one or two, possibly several people will unsubscribe (and the rest of us will sit back and breathe a sigh of relief that it's over, and carry on regardless ;-) and it will die down. Scenario 2: You decide that, as you quite like Pentax gear, and quite like discussing it on an email list, you won't post about eBay auctions willy nilly - eg as a matter of course - and keep those happy who have in themselves decided to object, even though there is absolutely no basis for there objections *on an unmoderated list*. Hence, discussions stay civil, and most folk are happy. There is no flame war about eBay auctions, and things stay nice and quiet. Scenario 3: You decide you don't like either of the above, and unsubscribe. *** When I first joined the list, the exact same thing happened to me, and at first I could not understand why anyone would object. Oh but I was young (er) and naive in those days. Someone bollocked me - maybe even Uncle Bill - and I think I pointed out the helpful nature of my postings regarding this eBay auction or that eBay auction. But then a strange thing happened to me. It was called 'enablement'. I started watching some auctions because I wanted to buy some lenses after reading about other people's experiences here on the PDML. I found that, as I was watching an auction, I turned from a kind, placid individual into some sort of financial whizz-kid, enduring a white- knuckle ride as the seconds ticked down to the close of the auction. The very last thing I wanted was somebody posting about it here of all places! And I realised what Bill and the others were concerned about. I can see both sides - the internet (and especially email lists like this one) are primarily about communicating with your fellow (wo)man and wanting to be helpful. That's what everyone does here. Yet buying and selling gear - what most of us do at some time - means we would perhaps not want to be *too* helpful sometimes. It really is a dilemma. I figured that the benefits of staying quiet, outweighed the disadvantage of upsetting members. But even so, there are no rules, it just sorta comes naturally. Like gowing down to a small pub - the regulars' names are not plastered on their chairs, but by God if you sit in one, you might as well drink in a small dark room! Kindest regards, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Flash for SF-10. was: Re: Camera size and lens size.
Bill wrote: Pentax SF10 WR I have no idea if the AF360FGZ is compatable with that camera or not. At WR some point, Pentax went with full digital flash to camera communication, so According to the 360FGZ manual it is. It sports all modes except for high speed sync and wireless control, just as the MZ/Z series. The only problem appears to be the SF camera in manual mode showing the selected time on the external display, while in fact it's forced to sync speed or lower. Servus, Alin
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Bo-Ming, You might want to try the contrast control function with one 360FGZ wireless unit, if you need that uniform lighting in depth. Also, I don't know what camera you are using, but note that MZ-S and later bodies do a much better job of flash metering with their P-TTL mode. Former MZ/Z either overexposed the foreground or underexposed the background, depending on the subject position in the frame. Finally, I doubt the IS will make any difference at f45 and above 1/15. It just won't compensate for the people movements. You might as well try a tripod setup to judge the outcome. Servus, Alin Bo-Ming wrote: BMT I am tempted to buy a used Canon 28-135 IS and borrow a Canon but before BMT I do so I wish to hear your opinions whether this is a stupid idea. BMT I have been doing bounce flash indoors a lot using a shoe-mounted flash. BMT I started out with f/5.6 at 1/30 on ISO 800 film rated at 400 or 500, BMT and got nicely illuminated pictures. Ambient light is only 1 or 2 stops BMT below flash light. However, there was once I get blurred images. I BMT wasn't sure whether it was my handshake or people moving, but it is not BMT possible to handhold a 45mm lens at 1/30 and expect sharp results. So I BMT switched to 1/60 last time. There was also not enough depth of field BMT sometimes so I used f/8. My flash can still output that much power. My BMT images came back not very satisfactorily. While the near objects are BMT still nicely illuminated, the far objects are completely dark. I used to BMT get at least some detail off the far objects. BMT As you can see, I am torn between a handholdable shutter speed, depth of BMT field, and ambient lighting. Would an IS lens take the first one out, so BMT that I can use an even slower shutter speed such as 1/15 and capture BMT ambient light while keeping the aperture small for depth of field ? BMT Obviously this can only help my hand shake but not people moving. BMT Or, should I just do it and use 1/15 since the far objects are out of BMT focus and the near objects are mostly illuminated by flash at a speed of BMT around 1/500 ? This might result in a sharp image with a blurry trail, BMT though, if the flash light does not greatly outshine the ambient light, BMT which seems to defeat the original purpose of capturing ambient light BMT using a slow shutter speed. BMT Any comments ? I don't want to go Canon because of IS... I didn't BMT realize there is any use for IS/VR until now.
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
tv, I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which you took those two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. IL Bill tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced trailing, and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique too. tv -Original Message- From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ? tv, I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which you took those two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. IL Bill tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
Hi Frank, that's exactly my point of view! Best Regards Rolf Frank wrote: You're right, Sid, What's not controversial about her is her skill and innovation as a filmaker. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. She claimed never to have been a party member. Claimed that in her later years at least, she didn't subscribe to Nazi politics or policy. Claimed that she never (as was rumoured) had an affair with Hitler, and that she wasn't that close to him. Claimed that her great works, including her personal triumph, Triumph of the Will was not propaganda, but merely (from her point of view) a commission. In her old age she said that she wished she'd never been born. OTOH, she could have denounced the Nazi regime, but she didn't. She could have apologized for (even unwittingly) making propaganda for one of the most evil regimes that this earth has ever seen, but she didn't. She may not have been a party member, but evidence seems to point to the fact that as a young woman she was enamoured of the party, and it's policies, and seemed somewhat eager to become an insider. If that was true, she could have, after the fact, said that she was young, deluded, like many others in her country was fooled by the absolute and intoxicating power that the new party promised, and thereby blinded to the darker elements that we can now see were lurking just under the surface. But she didn't. It has been said that some propagandists of evil regimes, such as Eisenstein in the USSR, weren't vilified like her, and that their works were allowed to be seen as the art that they were, and not dismissed as propaganda. It has been suggested that there was some sort of vendetta against Leni, who never did a film after WWII, as she could never get any sort of funding (and thus was effectively black-listed) - the reason that she could only produce works of still photography. She was an enogma to be sure. She was a great filmaker and photographer to be sure (her still photographs of the '36 Olympics are amazing). I personally think that her personal politics were much more in line with Nazi-ism than she ever let on after the war. Rightly or wrongly, that feeling colours my appreciation for her as an artist. regards, frank
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
She was an enogma to be sure. She was a great filmaker and photographer to be sure (her still photographs of the '36 Olympics are amazing). I personally think that her personal politics were much more in line with Nazi-ism than she ever let on after the war. Rightly or wrongly, that feeling colours my appreciation for her as an artist. regards, frank I'd always heard she was not a Nazi. Whatever. I am very glad she made Triumph of the Will, it was only by viewing it in a college film class (many long years ago) that I came close to understanding the charisma that that funny little man Hitler had. Also, even though it was in German, she managed to convey the national joint insanity that German -- the fervor of nationalism led astray -- went through. Without seeing it, I am not sure I would ever have gotten it. Marnie aka Doe
Re: *ist D delay
Then maybe the Pentax reps won't look like a collection of Maytag repair men. BR From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] What's new. Pentax USA has been saying that for months. I figure the delay will not go past October's end since that's the Javit's Show.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
In this part of the world that is taking an order. A sale is a transaction that results in the exchange of good/services for something of value. BR From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] The *ist D was actually being sold on sept 1 - dealers were selling it, even if they could not supply it yet.
Re: RE railroads - was Re: Pentax Users Gallery - theme: professional
Its mine too. What say all those who were born on Sept 28 take out a 135 and shoot a train/RR shot on said day and post there results.Yes no??? Dave Weird. My birthday is the 29th. Unfortunately there are few trains around here. Marnie aka Doe :-) Which is besides the point because I don't have a 135, although I do have a zoom in that range.
Re: Rules or guidelines
Good thoughts. By the way, I'm pushed for time today, but did I miss the e-bay prohibitions in this document :-\ . Have a great day. Otis Wright. Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, a theoretical physicist* called Ralf Stubner used to be a regular here, and once a month he sent out a message containing this: http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html It has fallen into disrepair, but something similar could be quite useful either as a page on pdml.net or pug.komkon.org or elsewhere with links between them. Bob *I don't mean that Ralf was theoretical (I have no evidence either way - perhaps he was a matter of faith). I mean the physics he studied were theoretical. And probably not all of them, just the particular ones. Sunday, September 14, 2003, 12:51:56 PM, you wrote: As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Just a Pentax thought... :-) Paul Delcour
Re: Rules or guidelines
Seems sensible. Time for me to head back to the bleachers. Enjoy. Otis Wright Cotty wrote: As someone who is (or was) new to this list and who was shown some of the ropes of this list, I think it would be a fine idea if some guidelines were published to avoid having a repeat of what happened to me. No doubt during the years more unwritten guidelines have developed. Just as many lists have rules, why not have a set of guidelines. It won't harm anyone, but will guide members through to fine postings. Hi paul, As Otis says, there are no rules. Look at it this way - if there are no rules, then all you can do is hypthesize in your own mind, by taking particular events to a probable conclusion (you following this??) thus: Scenario 1: You decide that, as this is an unmoderated list, you want to continue posting eBay auctions at your discretion. Well that's fine and dandy. Unfortunately, what will happen then is that it's highly likely that someone else will chip in and ask you to stop, which of course, being an unmoderated list, is quite likely. Then you will find a few others chipping in with reasons why it's not a bad thing, until the argument becomes very polarised, and 2 camps develop. This is not good. Eventually a flame war will develop, and one or two, possibly several people will unsubscribe (and the rest of us will sit back and breathe a sigh of relief that it's over, and carry on regardless ;-) and it will die down. Scenario 2: You decide that, as you quite like Pentax gear, and quite like discussing it on an email list, you won't post about eBay auctions willy nilly - eg as a matter of course - and keep those happy who have in themselves decided to object, even though there is absolutely no basis for there objections *on an unmoderated list*. Hence, discussions stay civil, and most folk are happy. There is no flame war about eBay auctions, and things stay nice and quiet. Scenario 3: You decide you don't like either of the above, and unsubscribe. *** When I first joined the list, the exact same thing happened to me, and at first I could not understand why anyone would object. Oh but I was young (er) and naive in those days. Someone bollocked me - maybe even Uncle Bill - and I think I pointed out the helpful nature of my postings regarding this eBay auction or that eBay auction. But then a strange thing happened to me. It was called 'enablement'. I started watching some auctions because I wanted to buy some lenses after reading about other people's experiences here on the PDML. I found that, as I was watching an auction, I turned from a kind, placid individual into some sort of financial whizz-kid, enduring a white- knuckle ride as the seconds ticked down to the close of the auction. The very last thing I wanted was somebody posting about it here of all places! And I realised what Bill and the others were concerned about. I can see both sides - the internet (and especially email lists like this one) are primarily about communicating with your fellow (wo)man and wanting to be helpful. That's what everyone does here. Yet buying and selling gear - what most of us do at some time - means we would perhaps not want to be *too* helpful sometimes. It really is a dilemma. I figured that the benefits of staying quiet, outweighed the disadvantage of upsetting members. But even so, there are no rules, it just sorta comes naturally. Like gowing down to a small pub - the regulars' names are not plastered on their chairs, but by God if you sit in one, you might as well drink in a small dark room! Kindest regards, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Rules or guidelines
Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, a theoretical physicist* called Ralf Stubner used to be a regular here, and once a month he sent out a message containing this: http://www.tfkp.physik.uni-erlangen.de/~ralf/photo/PDML/Welcome.html If this was expanded a little to mention the general consensus ban on posting ebay auctions (and the reason behind it, not wanting to compete with others on PDML) and also the discouragement of political discussion that can lead to flame wars -- I think it would be nice to post it somewhere for newbies. Would have helped me. Marnie aka Doe As long as the revised guidelines don't also ban run-on sentences. ;-) Actually it would be good if it also included some links to some major Pentax pages, for people who want to look up lenses, etc.
Re: The Spottie F's Lenscap Meter Switch
SL might be my favorite, has BEST finder... I unserstand it is because there is no needle that enters the field, or is the finder optically different? but theres no DOF switch for non pentax lenses without the A/M switch. The well-regarded EBC-Fujinon and the also well-regarded Mamiya SX (that later became Rolleinar lenses) don't have the switch. Do you know other brand series? SPF... finder isnt as contrasty as the SP SPII. finder has some weird reflections that arent there in the earlier models.. Interesting, I had not noticed. SPII... the stupid FP/X sync switch for the hotshoe. I lost a film because of that, a long time ago, but I still remember my bewildered reactions when I saw the film and when I discovered the explanation... SP... has the sticky meter switch hitch. If I encounter this, is there an easy cure? For metered/AE, I would like the ESII, but with the battery of the ES... The ugly one at the front? Why? Too many hard to place L44-S76 for the ESII? Andre --
RE: Tele-converter, Pentax, Pentax or Vivitar, at wich price?
I actually just would like to use the tele converter function, since I've got a A 100mm/4 macro-lens. So the macro-function is just an extra. greetings, Hans B. -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Tom Reese [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: zondag 14 september 2003 15:03 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: RE: Tele-converter, Pentax, Pentax or Vivitar, at wich price? Hans Beumer wrote: With that vivitar macro converter, do you get a double focus-mechanisme, (one on the lens, and one on the converter) or just focus on the lens? I suggest that you pre-focus the lens and set the vivitar extension so they give you the magnification that you want and then do your focusing by moving the camera toward and away from the subject. It's much less frustrating that way. In my experience, trying to focus the camera and hold it steady at the same time when your depth of field is only a quarter inch is an exercise in futility. I recommend a macro focusing rail mounted on a tripod if you're going to get serious about macro photography.
Re: Rules or guidelines
I find my level of tolerance towards others is in proportion to the amount of dust and noise emanating from the bloody quarry next door. Last week I even shouted at my little dog when she asked to go downstairs to pee; she can come up alone, but has to be carried down. The more trivial the annoyance the more I seem to react these days. I accused you, GW, of being anti-British for a remark about newspapers -- last week I think. I've been told that as one ages one either becomes more tolerant, or less tolerant of disturbances to one's mental equilibrium. Mine seems to go up and down like a Yo-Yo. I think most of you will understand this weakness. All these posts have come about as a results of someone thoughtlessly posting eBay listings. We have discussed this matter Ad Nauseam (for years) and the majority of the members think it's bad manners. Why don't we just leave it at that? I've been trying for a long time to get one particular Pentax item. I'll keep trying but don't promise not to be peeved if someone spoils my chances by posting the eBay link. By the way my website has had 6000+ hits since the middle of July when I put up 'The Cement Company from HELL' pages. There was a surge when the Finnish pages appeared and another when the German version was posted (thanks to A H Fricke and our own Heiko). I'd like to thank all of those who emailed the links and if you haven't done this and have the time to do so -- I'd be very grateful. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: July 31, 2003 - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 8:05 PM Subject: Re: Rules or guidelines Well, put Bob, and Cotty. What it comes down to is we are all friends here. If you have a friend who doesn't want to hear about some controversial topic, what do you do? I usually don't mention it around him. It is simply called being polite. At the same time, I think many of us (me near the top of the list) could work a little at being more polite about how we ask someone to be polite to us. And on the other hand we could all be a little less sensitive to perceived criticism. But we all have to realize that everyone on the list is human and therefore not perfect. PEACE. Bob Walkden wrote: Hi, Sunday, September 14, 2003, 4:24:30 PM, you wrote: If this was expanded a little to mention the general consensus ban on posting ebay auctions (and the reason behind it, not wanting to compete with others on PDML) and also the discouragement of political discussion that can lead to flame wars -- I think it would be nice to post it somewhere for newbies. Would have helped me. well, 'ban' is a provocative word to a wet liberal like me g. Cotty suggested the word 'guidelines', which is much better, I think. Somebody would need to amend and host the amended version of the guidelines. This is a listmeister kind of thing, I think. If Listmeister Doug, and Pugmeister Adelheid were happy to include a link to it on their respective sites it would be easy enough for people to see when they joined the PDML, or looked at the PUG, and easy to point to from email. Similarly, it might be worthwhile for Doug to configure the system so that it adds a link to the guidelines to every message. However, this may all be a case of using bulldozer to move a pebble. In most cases, as we've seen, it just takes a word to the wise. It's been a while since anybody really behaved badly, and the kind of people who have caused a lot of trouble in the past are not likely to be persuaded by mere guidelines. Hang'em and flog'em, I say. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
Hi, Tom, I mostly agree with you, except I don't think my commentary was political in any way. But, as far as guilt by association, one must consider who she apparently associated with. The higher up and more influential the persons she associated with, the more she's liable to be thought of as some sort of a player with that group. And, yes, the passage of time should temper our willingness to forgive, look the other way, whatever. But, a wrong is always a wrong. It doesn't become more right with time. An apology along with an admission of responsibility would have been nice, though. regards, frank graywolf wrote: Interesting political commentary, Frank. However, I do not subscribe to evil by association especially more than a half century after the fact. May she rest in peace. frank theriault wrote: You're right, Sid, What's not controversial about her is her skill and innovation as a filmaker. Beyond that, I don't know what to think. She claimed never to have been a party member. Claimed that in her later years at least, she didn't subscribe to Nazi politics or policy. Claimed that she never (as was rumoured) had an affair with Hitler, and that she wasn't that close to him. Claimed that her great works, including her personal triumph, Triumph of the Will was not propaganda, but merely (from her point of view) a commission. In her old age she said that she wished she'd never been born. OTOH, she could have denounced the Nazi regime, but she didn't. She could have apologized for (even unwittingly) making propaganda for one of the most evil regimes that this earth has ever seen, but she didn't. She may not have been a party member, but evidence seems to point to the fact that as a young woman she was enamoured of the party, and it's policies, and seemed somewhat eager to become an insider. If that was true, she could have, after the fact, said that she was young, deluded, like many others in her country was fooled by the absolute and intoxicating power that the new party promised, and thereby blinded to the darker elements that we can now see were lurking just under the surface. But she didn't. It has been said that some propagandists of evil regimes, such as Eisenstein in the USSR, weren't vilified like her, and that their works were allowed to be seen as the art that they were, and not dismissed as propaganda. It has been suggested that there was some sort of vendetta against Leni, who never did a film after WWII, as she could never get any sort of funding (and thus was effectively black-listed) - the reason that she could only produce works of still photography. She was an enogma to be sure. She was a great filmaker and photographer to be sure (her still photographs of the '36 Olympics are amazing). I personally think that her personal politics were much more in line with Nazi-ism than she ever let on after the war. Rightly or wrongly, that feeling colours my appreciation for her as an artist. regards, frank Sid Barras wrote: I thought it would be good to stir up some non-*istD controversy-- And what better person to discuss infamy and fame about than Adolph Hitler's own photographer and cinematographer? She could very well have been the most influential photographer of all time. Her use of camera angles in Triumph of the Will is a masterpiece. Had she not gone into seclusion for so long after the fall of the Nazi regime, she might have given us even more. Regardless, the Nubian pictures, her undersea photography (pursued well into her 9th generation) gave us ample evidence this was not merely a Nazi propagandist... Sid (definitely not a Nazi sympathizer) -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
*ist D impressions
Hi all, it looks like I do not have permission to post any sample images from the *ist D. Not until I get a real retail body. Still, I can assure you that the camera is very nice and ergonomic, and seems to be worth the wait. The JPGs look good, with a very light blue tint. The JPGs are somewhat larger than those from the Canon 10D, but are very fine. The *ist D and 10D perform very similarly at ISO 1600, that is, digital noise is controled quite well. The *ist D is somewhat louder (mirror slap and shutter sound), and with a lower FPS rate. Because of the larger files, its buffer fills up faster, and it takes longer to write it to the CF card. I have the numbers, and I will put up a more comprehensive repost soon. The *ist D viewfinder shows a somewhat larger image than that of the 10D. Under bright conditions, the images are equally bright, but under darker conditions (room lit up by a 100W lamp) the 10D shows a brighter and smoother viewfinder image. The *ist D has nicer and larger viewfinder information-symbols. Battery life seems to be better with the 10D, but it is difficult to compare over such a short time. The *ist D needed one full 4 AA alcalines set whereas the 10D showed full charge the entire time. It may be that the alcalines were old or not very good. I also tested the FAJ 18-35 but have not yet evaluated the results. Expect first complete texts on the KMP on Wednesday... Cheers, Boz -- _\\|//_ Imagination is more important than knowledge... 0(` O-O ')0 A. Einstein ===ooO=(_)=Ooo=== Bojidar D. Dimitrov author and editor, Pentax K-Mount web page [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kmp.BDimitrov.de/ = __ __
Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced trailing, and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique too. Ah, don't need no high tech equipment to do that! Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg (I've posted a link to this picture before and people commented on the awfulness of the clothing. Take it from me, not only was this the 1970s but these were high school students choosing the outfits! You should be very glad the photo is on Ilford HP-5 so you can't see the colors!) -Original Message- From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which you took those two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. IL Bill tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
*ist D sample images
Hi all, Amazing butterfly pics with FA*200/2.8 http://www2u.biglobe.ne.jp/~ikephoto/index.htm Cheers, Ken
Re: Rules or guidelines
I periodically think, why don't I volunteer to do something like that? Then I realize this list has gone on for years as one of the nicest ones on the net with out such. In many ways written rules (whether the are called FAQ or guidelines)limit a list. This list is constantly evolving, it has changed quite a bit in the time I have been on it. That makes for a dynamic lively list. Restricting those changes as written rules eventually makes for a dead list. Sure people come and go, but almost no one stays. This list started as a Pentax USA list, their legal department advised them to get rid of it for liability reasons. Doug Brewer volunteer to take it over and run it as a list independent of Pentax. That happened very shortly after I began frequenting the list. So instead of a list where people talk about Pentax equipment it has evolved into a list where people who like Pentax equipment talk to each other. There is a really big difference in the two concepts. All one really has to do is pay attention. No one seems to be posting about Ebay auctions, why is that? No one said anything until it became obvious that the person didn't have a clue. I can not think of any other list on the internet where that would have happened, most of them would have had 15 people jump down his throat with both combat boots the first time he did it. We kind of waited until it became clear he wasn't going to figure it out for himself. Other lists would have bounced him off immediately. And by the way, most of the unwritten rules on this list have been arrived at by consensous, they were discussed and people generally agreed to abide by them. They were not just imposed by Doug or something. He only removes someone because of bouncing e-mail, or some other technical problem. For what it is worth here are the unwanted topics in decreasing order of unanimity, as I remember them: *Flame wars *Ebay listings, unless you are the seller. *Guns *Religion *Politics Not a long list at all. Also, I think the major no guns person is no longer on the list. We liked him a lot therefore his desire held more weight than most; so guns should probably be at the bottom of the list now, or lumped into politics. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I belong to two unmoderated newsgroups that have extensive newbie FAQs and the urls are posted on a regular basis to the newsgroups (each has a volunteer that does that). Most people, if they know what the etiquette is -- etiquette that has evolved over time; etiquette that was never voted on and is not enforced -- will abide by it. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: Tele-converter, Pentax, Pentax or Vivitar, at wich price?
Hello Hans , if you haven't got one, I could sell a Pentax T6-2x to you. I found that in reality I do not take pictures with more than 200mm so I am not in need for it any more. Please email me oof the list. Best regards Bernd ---original massage- From: Hans Beumer Subject: RE: Tele-converter, Pentax, Pentax or Vivitar, at wich price? Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 08:34:57 -0700 I actually just would like to use the tele converter function, since I've got a A 100mm/4 macro-lens. So the macro-function is just an extra. greetings, Hans B.
Re: Lens resolution
It is the old 1 over a + b + c type thing. The overall resolutions is going to be less than the lowest resolution of all the things imvolved. Lens, film, chemistry, paper, scanner, whatever. It can not be any better than the worse thing in the line up. --- Anders Hultman wrote: Bob Blakely: I've seen people here talk about the resolution of lenses. I fully understand the physics behind resolution of both digital image sensors and film, but what really is resolution when talking about lenses? Lens resolution is defined as the number of resolution target lines per millimeter that can be discerned in the film. Discerned means that the individual lines from the target can be seen, however slight and fuzzy. Where the lines cannot be discerned, a (theoretically) 50% gray is observed. The lines are black and the spaces between parallel lines are white and of the same width as the lines. To me, this sounds like this would be a property of the film, not a property of the lens? I mean, with higher definition film, a film with finer grain or whatever, it would be possible to show more detail, wouldn't it? Or is it really the lens itself that blurs the lines? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what Barnack used on the first Leica. The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory results. All the rest is gobbly-dee-gook made up by photography writer's over the years. Anders Hultman wrote: Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
Anders Hultman wrote: Keith Whaley: Very simply stated, [...] Simple, huh? g Kinda simple... I've long known that 50mm is considered normal or standard but not really why that was so. It's because it matches the film size, then? Closely matches, anyhow. The best fit is, of course, 43mm. And the power figure is a multiplication factor compared to this standard lens. Yes. But doesn't the magnification depend on the subject distance? anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ The technical explanation or answer to that specific question goes beyond my capability to explain. I will say that whatever your subject size is, as recorded on the film using a 43mm lens, if you take the very same photo (distance of camera to subject remaining the same) with an 86mm lens, the image size on the film would be doubled, effectively providing a 2X magnification effect. As you maay have noticed, those odd lens sizes are rarely provided for in the real world, but you do have 50mm and 100mm lenses, etc., making it a little easier on multiplication calculations. Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal. True. The historical reason behind why 35mm film normal lens has become 50mm instead of staying at 43mm (or 45mm) is out there somewhere, but I can't retrieve it from my crowded gray cells! Someone here will know and help us out! You can still find cameras with 43mm lenses, so the practice is not dead, just not often followed anymore. keith whaley
Re: OT: Leni Reifenstahl: A giant passes away
I am very glad she made Triumph of the Will, it was only by viewing it in a college film class (many long years ago) that I came close to understanding the charisma that that funny little man Hitler had. Also, even though it was in German, she managed to convey the national joint insanity that German -- the fervor of nationalism led astray -- went through. Without seeing it, I am not sure I would ever have gotten it. Well said, Marnie - I think that expresses my own viewpoint far better than I could have done. There *is* an attraction in such spectacles, and the only way those of us not present can understand that on an emotional (as opposed to rational) level is from second-hand experience. Ask yourself this - would the film be any less stirring were it made by an openly avowed Nazi? By someone who fought the Nazis? By a neutral outsider? That film is an incredible work, and I am glad that it was made. As to the use to which the film was put; that's the recurring problem of the photojournalist. Each photographer must make his own choices about that. But once you accept a commission, you should carry it out to the best of your ability. One last analogy: At the end of Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick has included an incredibly beautiful sequence of one of the most horrendous creations of man - nuclear explosions. Yet it would be hard to reason from this that Kubrick was pro-bomb.
RE: Camera size and lens size.
Dont think i agree. The focal length of the normal lens it what gives a normal perspective, not compressed like a tele or stretched like a wide angle. yes, I know focal length doesnt affect perspective directly, but it does indirectly... JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 3:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size. 50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what Barnack used on the first Leica. The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory results. All the rest is gobbly-dee-gook made up by photography writer's over the years. Anders Hultman wrote: Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
graywolf wrote: 50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what Barnack used on the first Leica. Quite possibly true. Old Oskar did a lot of good things for miniaturizing photography. The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory results. Where does this little tidbit of info come from? I'd like to read the history on that contention myself. All the rest is gobbly-dee-gook made up by photography writer's over the years. ; ^) You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' and especially 'IMMHO,' Señor Graywolf. keith whaley Anders Hultman wrote: Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
J. C. O'Connell wrote, quoting Graywolf, who wrote: 50mm is the normal lens for 135 cameras simply because that is what Barnack used on the first Leica. The real reason something approximating the diaagonal of the the negative was originally chosen as the normal lens was simply because that was the cheapest lens that would give satisfactory results. All the rest is gobbly-dee-gook made up by photography writer's over the years. Dont think i agree. The focal length of the normal lens it what gives a normal perspective, not compressed like a tele or stretched like a wide angle. I have read it postulated (meaning the author's opinion) that 50mm gives the best feeling of the subject being a 'natural' size. yes, I know focal length doesnt affect perspective directly, but it does indirectly... JCO keith whaley
RE: Camera size and lens size.
Ok, but why then 50mm and not 43mm? My parents sometimes say when we talk about cameras that in their times 45mm was considered normal. .True. The historical reason behind why 35mm film normal lens has .become 50mm instead of staying at 43mm (or 45mm) is out there somewhere, .but I can't retrieve it from my crowded gray cells! .Someone here will know and help us out! .You can still find cameras with 43mm lenses, so the practice is not .dead, just not often followed anymore. I think the reason they went to 58/55/50 was that these focal lengths typically gave a FINDER magnification of 1 (100%). If they used a 43mm lens on an SLR, the image is smaller than %100 on most SLRs. FWIW, Using 43.27mm as normal yeilds a 85mm as very close to 2X and 135 as fairly close to 3X. JCO
RE: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no commitment has been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but could be a legal commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy something on ebay or any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world you are in - its all the same. -Original Message- From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 September 2003 15:50 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984 In this part of the world that is taking an order. A sale is a transaction that results in the exchange of good/services for something of value. BR From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] The *ist D was actually being sold on sept 1 - dealers were selling it, even if they could not supply it yet.
Re: Rules or guidelines
On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Pentax users who really know the rim from the hat as we say in Holland. LOL. Love it. Can I use that? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Rules or guidelines
On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Well, put Bob, and Cotty. What it comes down to is we are all friends here. If you have a friend who doesn't want to hear about some controversial topic, what do you do? I usually don't mention it around him. It is simply called being polite. At the same time, I think many of us (me near the top of the list) could work a little at being more polite about how we ask someone to be polite to us. And on the other hand we could all be a little less sensitive to perceived criticism. But we all have to realize that everyone on the list is human and therefore not perfect. PEACE. Bob, I suppose he's not too bad, this Greywolf chap, eh? I'll let him buy me a drink I suppose... LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #988
On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I find my level of tolerance towards others is in proportion to the amount of dust and noise emanating from the bloody quarry next door. Last week I even shouted at my little dog when she asked to go downstairs to pee; she can come up alone, but has to be carried down. Jumping Jehosaphat. Don, you've really got a talking dog? Keep him alive until I get there - all your troubles will soon be over! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
Hi, Sunday, September 14, 2003, 8:52:45 PM, you wrote: Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no commitment has been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but could be a legal commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy something on ebay or any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world you are in - its all the same. this is not the case in the UK. The Inland Revenue has the notion of a 'tax point'. This is the date when the seller becomes liable for tax on the goods sold. It is normally the date when the goods are exchanged. For mail-order sales that means the date when the seller despatches the goods. Ordering something doesn't constitute a sale. This is also true from the charging point-of-view. The seller will debit your account only after the goods are despatched, not before. However, when you placed your order the card will have been authorised and your 'open to spend' figure reduced, awaiting confirmation of the sale, or some time for it to lapse. I suspect, but don't actually know, that this would also be the date when a change of legal ownership is established. As far as I know (having been in charge of financial systems for the .co.uk part of a US dot.com) the same rules hold throughout Europe and the USA. They may vary in other countries. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #988
Hi, Sunday, September 14, 2003, 9:14:24 PM, you wrote: On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I find my level of tolerance towards others is in proportion to the amount of dust and noise emanating from the bloody quarry next door. Last week I even shouted at my little dog when she asked to go downstairs to pee; she can come up alone, but has to be carried down. Jumping Jehosaphat. Don, you've really got a talking dog? Keep him alive until I get there - all your troubles will soon be over! Dogs can't talk, you idiot! She sends him an email. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lens resolution
På søndag, 14. september 2003, kl. 18:49, skrev Anders Hultman: Bob Blakely: I've seen people here talk about the resolution of lenses. I fully understand the physics behind resolution of both digital image sensors and film, but what really is resolution when talking about lenses? Lens resolution is defined as the number of resolution target lines per millimeter that can be discerned in the film. Discerned means that the individual lines from the target can be seen, however slight and fuzzy. Where the lines cannot be discerned, a (theoretically) 50% gray is observed. The lines are black and the spaces between parallel lines are white and of the same width as the lines. To me, this sounds like this would be a property of the film, not a property of the lens? I mean, with higher definition film, a film with finer grain or whatever, it would be possible to show more detail, wouldn't it? Or is it really the lens itself that blurs the lines? With a good film, the lens sets the limit, especially when using small apertures. DagT
Re: Rules or guidelines
Sure. I don't know what the equivalent is in the English language. There must be something. It's a general expression, not made up by me. :-) Paul Delcour From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 21:05:03 +0100 To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Rules or guidelines Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 16:05:11 -0400 On 14/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Pentax users who really know the rim from the hat as we say in Holland. LOL. Love it. Can I use that? :-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Camera size and lens size.
A lot of other things affect that perspective. The focal length of the lens has something to do with it but not as much as most folk think. To give an idea, if you take a 35mm photo with a 100mm lens and make a 5x7.5 print and view the print at 10 inches then the perspective you see is exactly the same as you saw before you took the photo standing where you were. Notice all the things involved in that sentence. No the reason is that a cheap 3 or 4 element lens covers approximately a angle of 45 degrees which give you a circle of coverage approximately equal to the diagonal of the film, and also a focal length approximately equal to the diagonal of the film. It was simple economics like so many other things that folk try to subscribe some arcane meaning to. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Dont think i agree. The focal length of the normal lens it what gives a normal perspective, not compressed like a tele or stretched like a wide angle. yes, I know focal length doesnt affect perspective directly, but it does indirectly... -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been written over the years about many things because they sounded good, then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal length has little to do with perspective. Can you prove tha ecomonics has little to do with what lens comes standard on your camera? g Keith Whaley wrote: ; ^) You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' and especially 'IMMHO,' Señor Graywolf. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
-Original Message- From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 September 2003 21:18 To: Rob Brigham Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984 Hi, Sunday, September 14, 2003, 8:52:45 PM, you wrote: Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no commitment has been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but could be a legal commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy something on ebay or any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world you are in - its all the same. this is not the case in the UK. The Inland Revenue has the notion of a 'tax point'. This is the date when the seller becomes liable for tax on the goods sold. It is normally the date when the goods are exchanged. For mail-order sales that means the date when the seller despatches the goods. Ordering something doesn't constitute a sale. Not making myself out to be a tax lawyer here, but I think that is wrong. We, and any other company I know gets taxed based on when the invoice is raised - it is not connected to despatch in any way. It just happens than many mail order companies don't charge you until despatch. However, many of the camera retailers are at least charging deposits for the istD now - and the money is being taken immediately. Perhaps this area is a little more grey, admittedly. This is also true from the charging point-of-view. The seller will debit your account only after the goods are despatched, not before. However, when you placed your order the card will have been authorised and your 'open to spend' figure reduced, awaiting confirmation of the sale, or some time for it to lapse. Erm, no! I have NEVER seen a seller who doesn't take payment before goods are despatched. What if payment cannot be met? Authorisation does not GUARANTEE payment. Fair enough, they may try to leave it as late as possiblye prior to despatch, but they wont ever release the goods until payment has been made. I suspect, but don't actually know, that this would also be the date when a change of legal ownership is established. That one is even more tricky... Boden (www.boden.co.uk) sell clothes with a 3 month return for refund and it doesn't matter why policy. Their terms state that the transfer of ownership doesn't take place until after that period! Not sure if it would ever stand up, but pretty weird sounding eh? As far as I know (having been in charge of financial systems for the .co.uk part of a US dot.com) the same rules hold throughout Europe and the USA. They may vary in other countries. My experience is similar, so I don't quite understand how your opinions are reached... As I said, I am not a tax awyer though, but my experience was pretty clear cut up till now.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
I hesistate to wade into this, but what the hell... I don't think it's that simple, Rob. Yes, if you pay for an item that you have not yet received, a transaction of some sort has occurred. You can sell your rights to that camera (to continue with the *ist D analogy) even if you don't have the camera in hand. Since there's an Latin legal maxim, nemo dat non quod habet, no man can sell what he doesn't own, and since you can sell your rights to that camera, you've obviously acquired something, even though it's not yet a camera. People actually sell their rights to something that they do not yet have possession of all the time. It's common in real estate to sell agreements of purchase and sale, during periods of a hot market. It's called flipping property. That being said. although once you've paid for your *ist D you have rights, and some sort of transaction has occurrred, we certainly can't say that the transaction has been completed, can we? What about the warranty? Would you want to say that it starts running when you paid the money, or when you received the camera? What if the boatload of *ist D's headed for the New World sinks. Could either Pentax or the store to which you paid the money say, sorry, you're camera went down with the ship. The risk was yours, as the transaction has been completed; you lose! No, the risk of such loss is upon the vendor, because the transaction hasn't been completed. I guess what I'm saying is that the transaction of the sale is not complete untill ~all consideration~ flows both ways, between buyer and seller. Until then, it's a sale still in progress. Looking at it that way, no *ist D has been sold to date - at least not outside of Japan, where someone on this list says a camera store that is out of stock says that they've sold some. regards, frank Rob Brigham wrote: Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no commitment has been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but could be a legal commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy something on ebay or any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world you are in - its all the same. -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
OT: message for Mike Wilson
Hi Mike, Seeing as you'll eventually read this on the web archives, I figure it's a good way to catch you, as I keep getting rejections from your Citysun email account, like this: A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and then it chicks the email back at me. This has happened loads of times and i keep meaning to do something about it. There, I did. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: OT: FocusFixer new version
At 04:43 PM 9/13/2003 -0400, you wrote: BTW, someone who works at Fixer Labs reads PDML since they had a good laugh at Mark Cassino's complaint that his computer blew up because he ran their filter. they promise that it won't happen again, at least until he gets a new computer. Har! It wasn't a complaint about Focus Fixer - if anything it dusted off a faulty power supply while it was still under warranty. I went back and checked out the new version, and registed it. My only reservation about the older version is that it would crash when I tried it on a larger file. (I'm currently working on a pano that is made from three 4000 dpi 35mm scans stitched together - and that proved too much for the old version, it would crash with an error message. The new version handles it quite well - and in under 10 minutes...) - MCC - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI - Photography: http://www.markcassino.com
Re: Camera size and lens size.
graywolf wrote: So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been written over the years about many things because they sounded good, then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal length has little to do with perspective. Actually, it never occurred to me that it particularly mattered, so I never committed any of that to memory, subject to recall for proving a rarely broached point... I trained as an artist, and perspective was portraying what was, either as accurately as possible, or taking whatever liberties I wished. Can you prove tha ecomonics has little to do with what lens comes standard on your camera? g No. I would assume it had some pertinence, tho'. These days, for some arcane reason economics rules almost everything. I do NOT think the manufacturer's choice between providing a 43mm lens and a 50mm lens as a standard lens was or is purely or even mostly economically driven, however. To say that simply because a 4 element lens is cheap it drove the choice by the manufacturer, and they chose cheap over lens coverage, as you intimated, is out of the pale. That means patently incorrect, by the way. In my most humble opinion, of course, as always... Keith Whaley wrote: ; ^) You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' and especially 'IMMHO,' Señor Graywolf. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: Lens resolution
NOT TRUE, Even the best 35mm film is only about 200 lp/mm. Even using an excellent lens of 200 lp/mm results in a film/lens combination of only 100 lp/mm. The film DOES affect the result, even the best films JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Dag T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 4:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Lens resolution På søndag, 14. september 2003, kl. 18:49, skrev Anders Hultman: Bob Blakely: I've seen people here talk about the resolution of lenses. I fully understand the physics behind resolution of both digital image sensors and film, but what really is resolution when talking about lenses? Lens resolution is defined as the number of resolution target lines per millimeter that can be discerned in the film. Discerned means that the individual lines from the target can be seen, however slight and fuzzy. Where the lines cannot be discerned, a (theoretically) 50% gray is observed. The lines are black and the spaces between parallel lines are white and of the same width as the lines. To me, this sounds like this would be a property of the film, not a property of the lens? I mean, with higher definition film, a film with finer grain or whatever, it would be possible to show more detail, wouldn't it? Or is it really the lens itself that blurs the lines? With a good film, the lens sets the limit, especially when using small apertures. DagT
RE: Camera size and lens size.
They used 58mm first, then 55, now 50 because it made the finder 1:1 like I said before. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 6:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Camera size and lens size. graywolf wrote: So did all those other guys. My experience is that many things have been written over the years about many things because they sounded good, then repeated over and over without thought. I can prove that focal length has little to do with perspective. Actually, it never occurred to me that it particularly mattered, so I never committed any of that to memory, subject to recall for proving a rarely broached point... I trained as an artist, and perspective was portraying what was, either as accurately as possible, or taking whatever liberties I wished. Can you prove tha ecomonics has little to do with what lens comes standard on your camera? g No. I would assume it had some pertinence, tho'. These days, for some arcane reason economics rules almost everything. I do NOT think the manufacturer's choice between providing a 43mm lens and a 50mm lens as a standard lens was or is purely or even mostly economically driven, however. To say that simply because a 4 element lens is cheap it drove the choice by the manufacturer, and they chose cheap over lens coverage, as you intimated, is out of the pale. That means patently incorrect, by the way. In my most humble opinion, of course, as always... Keith Whaley wrote: ; ^) You left out a few words like 'probably' and 'possibly' or 'presumably,' and especially 'IMMHO,' Señor Graywolf. -- --graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com
RE: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
I knew I shoulda stayed out of this! Yeah, I realised it was a complex issue - although I never thought through just how complex! I'm gonna defer on this one if I may - it has been interesting so far but I don't wanna debate it to death. You certainly have some valid points, although if I wanted to be pedantic and wanted to carry on the debate then I could pick on some of the idividual examples you make - that doesn't change the validity of the general principle you point out. I guess the problem is that the definition of sale depends on whether you are talking from a right of ownership, tax or whatever other point of view. All this doesn't change the fact that Bruce actually agreed to a clear definition of what the bet meant by 'for sale'. Rob BTW: at least one ist-D has been sold outside of Japan - I can personally vouch for that! It was one of 2 bought from a shop in Japan a few days ago... ha -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 September 2003 22:53 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984 I hesistate to wade into this, but what the hell... I don't think it's that simple, Rob. Yes, if you pay for an item that you have not yet received, a transaction of some sort has occurred. You can sell your rights to that camera (to continue with the *ist D analogy) even if you don't have the camera in hand. Since there's an Latin legal maxim, nemo dat non quod habet, no man can sell what he doesn't own, and since you can sell your rights to that camera, you've obviously acquired something, even though it's not yet a camera. People actually sell their rights to something that they do not yet have possession of all the time. It's common in real estate to sell agreements of purchase and sale, during periods of a hot market. It's called flipping property. That being said. although once you've paid for your *ist D you have rights, and some sort of transaction has occurrred, we certainly can't say that the transaction has been completed, can we? What about the warranty? Would you want to say that it starts running when you paid the money, or when you received the camera? What if the boatload of *ist D's headed for the New World sinks. Could either Pentax or the store to which you paid the money say, sorry, you're camera went down with the ship. The risk was yours, as the transaction has been completed; you lose! No, the risk of such loss is upon the vendor, because the transaction hasn't been completed. I guess what I'm saying is that the transaction of the sale is not complete untill ~all consideration~ flows both ways, between buyer and seller. Until then, it's a sale still in progress. Looking at it that way, no *ist D has been sold to date - at least not outside of Japan, where someone on this list says a camera store that is out of stock says that they've sold some. regards, frank Rob Brigham wrote: Yep, and the sales these dealers are making WILL result in the exchange of goods/services. It is an order only if no commitment has been made, once this has been done (usually financial, but could be a legal commitment) it is a sale - ask the IRS. If you buy something on ebay or any other way, the sale is made when you send the cash, not when you receive the goods. Doesn't matter what part of the world you are in - its all the same. -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus
Production model *ist D
I got to handle a production model *ist D for awhile this afternoon. I can verify with certainty that M lenses will work fine in manual mode using a hand held meter. The diaphragm definitely stopped down when the shutter release was pressed with the lens set at f8. I would assume that the same would hold true for an A lens. I also was able to examine the FAJ 18-35. Seems to be basically an entry level zoom without an aperture ring. I also inserted a 256 Mb CF card to check capacity. The camera LCD showed 14 exposures available in RAW mode, 16 available in TIFF and 51 available in low compression JPG. Also, this weekend, Pentax USA is moving from Englewood, CO to Golden, CO, home of Coors beer. Hopefully this move won't affect delivery of *ist D's Bill
RE: Production model *ist D-CORRECTION
The third sentence here should read I would assume that the same would hold true for a K lens. Bill -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 7:46 PM To: PDML Subject: Production model *ist D I got to handle a production model *ist D for awhile this afternoon. I can verify with certainty that M lenses will work fine in manual mode using a hand held meter. The diaphragm definitely stopped down when the shutter release was pressed with the lens set at f8. I would assume that the same would hold true for an A lens. I also was able to examine the FAJ 18-35. Seems to be basically an entry level zoom without an aperture ring. I also inserted a 256 Mb CF card to check capacity. The camera LCD showed 14 exposures available in RAW mode, 16 available in TIFF and 51 available in low compression JPG. Also, this weekend, Pentax USA is moving from Englewood, CO to Golden, CO, home of Coors beer. Hopefully this move won't affect delivery of *ist D's Bill
RE: Camera size and lens size.
In addition, 50+ mm lenses would mount with the rear element in front of the moving mirror without the need for retro focus optical designs. Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 15:46:47 -0400 From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think the reason they went to 58/55/50 was that these focal lengths typically gave a FINDER magnification of 1 (100%). If they used a 43mm lens on an SLR, the image is smaller than %100 on most SLRs. FWIW, Using 43.27mm as normal yeilds a 85mm as very close to 2X and 135 as fairly close to 3X. JCO
OT: lower prices
FA50/2.8 Macro New In Box, all papers, etc. $250. Or give me a good trade offer. Ricoh CR-5 with 35-70 zoom $30 Works fine. Great user. I just don't need it any more. Collin
Re: Camera size and lens size.
Oh, I believe you. I've tested it grossly for myself. Somewhere in there is the true lifesize viewfinder image. But, certainly one choice must stick out as being the most accurate choice, no? Let's see. 58mm. Yeah, that will work. 'Some time later' someone said, Nope, 55mm is really better. More lifelike. We have all this expensive instrumentation to prove it! Yet later, it's Nope. Not quite. 50mm is definitely it. Change all of them to 50mm. Final answer? Yes, final answer. keith g J. C. O'Connell wrote: They used 58mm first, then 55, now 50 because it made the finder 1:1 like I said before. JCO
Re: Lens resolution
J. C. O'Connell wrote: NOT TRUE, Even the best 35mm film is only about 200 lp/mm. Even using an excellent lens of 200 lp/mm results in a film/lens combination of only 100 lp/mm. Huh? Two times excellent equals only 1/2 of excellent? In the first place, where, pray tell, would you GET this so-called excellent lens, capable of resolving 200 line pairs per mm? I know of no consumer level lens capable of that level of resolution. Understand, JC, I'm not calling you out. I really want to know! The film DOES affect the result, even the best films JCO Of course, you're right. I agree, but the question remains. If you can find a film that consistently delivers a resolution of 200 lp/mm, what are you going to use to impress an image on a frame or two? No, I mean a lens available to the average photographer? Even a rich professional photographer? keith whaley
Re: Lens resolution
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Lens resolution NOT TRUE, Even the best 35mm film is only about 200 lp/mm. Even using an excellent lens of 200 lp/mm results in a film/lens combination of only 100 lp/mm. The only problem with this is that the only way to get that kind of resolution off either a film or lens is to photograph a resolution target. In the real world, the best lenses and film are closer to 50 lp/mm. I think right now, good film and good lenses are pretty closely matched resolution wise, film may actually have an edge, so to speak. William Robb
First Ad
Saw the first ad in Portland, OR featuring the *istD. It's 1699.95 and the dealer, Advance Camera, is taking $100 deposits on orders. Right above the picture of the D is one featuring the Can EOS Digital Rebel. $899, body, and $999 with the 18-55 lens. Now if I were a 35mm slr user eager to get a dslr it might be difficult to go with the *ist D at that price. And there's no sales tax in Oregon so $999 is just that. Jim A.
Re: Lens resolution
On 14 Sep 2003 at 16:58, Keith Whaley wrote: Huh? Two times excellent equals only 1/2 of excellent? In the first place, where, pray tell, would you GET this so-called excellent lens, capable of resolving 200 line pairs per mm? I know of no consumer level lens capable of that level of resolution. Understand, JC, I'm not calling you out. I really want to know! Check the following site: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html 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: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #984
Hi, Sunday, September 14, 2003, 10:52:51 PM, you wrote: This is also true from the charging point-of-view. The seller will debit your account only after the goods are despatched, not before. However, when you placed your order the card will have been authorised and your 'open to spend' figure reduced, awaiting confirmation of the sale, or some time for it to lapse. Erm, no! I have NEVER seen a seller who doesn't take payment before goods are despatched. What if payment cannot be met? Authorisation does not GUARANTEE payment. Fair enough, they may try to leave it as late as possiblye prior to despatch, but they wont ever release the goods until payment has been made. Credit and debit card transactions are transactions with several parts. If we ignore mail-order for the moment and do something like a supermarket, here's what happens. You take the goods to the till, and give them your card to pay with. Normally the till software will dial the card issuer and get an auth code for the amount specified. That authorisation is in effect for a certain period of time - some days, usually. The merchant can make use of it quite a long time after the amount was authorised. The credit card company has flagged that amount of money as reserved and, in essence, unavailable to you, because they're expecting a later settlement request from the merchant. You can't touch that money until the 'unsettled authorisation' period has elapsed, even though your account hasn't been debited. Later, normally overnight, the merchant will get all this stuff out of the tills and send a settlement file to the card issuer. By this time you're long gone, you legally own the goods, and you've probably eaten them all. But the merchant hasn't had any money yet. What it has is a guarantee that the card issuer will pay that money. It's then the card issuer's job to get the money off you. When the card issuer receives the settlement file it will debit your account, provided the authorisation has not lapsed, and you'll see that on your next bill. In the case of mail-order, if the thing you want is on back-order then the merchant will get the authorisation from your card, but they won't do the settlement until they've sent the goods to you. The delay in getting the goods may, and often does, mean the authorisation has lapsed by the time they arrive in the warehose. In this case the merchant will get a 2nd authorisation, using the original transaction number, on the off-chance that you've still got enough credit left. This is true often enough to be a viable way of doing business. If you don't have enough credit, then, depending on what deal the card issuer and the merchant have done, they may still authorise the charge, or they may still debit your account when the settlement file comes through. You might then query the charge, in which case the card issuer will make a chargeback against the merchant, which means they will withhold that amount when they settle up. It is now up to the merchant to try and recover the money directly from you. If you're old enough, cast your mind back to the days when they handled credit card transactions with paper vouchers and those imprinting things - still used when the tills go down, or the authorisation server falls over. They work in precisely the same way, only the delays are even longer and there's more chance of them getting lost and you not getting charged. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Lens resolution
J. C. O'Connell wrote: NOT TRUE, Even the best 35mm film is only about 200 lp/mm. Even using an excellent lens of 200 lp/mm results in a film/lens combination of only 100 lp/mm. Huh? Two times excellent equals only 1/2 of excellent? In the first place, where, pray tell, would you GET this so-called excellent lens, capable of resolving 200 line pairs per mm? I know of no consumer level lens capable of that level of resolution. Understand, JC, I'm not calling you out. I really want to know! The film DOES affect the result, even the best films JCO Of course, you're right. I agree, but the question remains. If you can find a film that consistently delivers a resolution of 200 lp/mm, what are you going to use to impress an image on a frame or two? No, I mean a lens available to the average photographer? Even a rich professional photographer? keith whaley The only problem with this is that the only way to get that kind of resolution off either a film or lens is to photograph a resolution target. In the real world, the best lenses and film are closer to 50 lp/mm. I think right now, good film and good lenses are pretty closely matched resolution wise, film may actually have an edge, so to speak. William Robb 8 There are lenses capable of several hundred lp/mm but this is measured with an aerial image and 1000:1 contrast target. You also need to use a single wavelength of light and special fast lenses (stopping down reduces resolution). The film with 200lp/mm resolution is TMAX 100, technical pan is even better. I have heard of a few lens/film combinations reaching 100 lp/mm so it is possible. I think it was some of the 90/100mm macros on tech pan. Of course the easist solution to get true high resolution photographs is to use LARGE FORMAT. With 35mm you are in an endless pursuit of mediocrity... JCO
RE: Rules or guidelines
On Monday, 15 September 2003 1:49 AM Don said I even shouted at my little dog when she asked to go downstairs to pee [...snipped] Wow, you have a talking dog! You should move to Vegas! :-) Simon
Re: Lens resolution
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Lens resolution There are lenses capable of several hundred lp/mm but this is measured with an aerial image and 1000:1 contrast target. You also need to use a single wavelength of light and special fast lenses (stopping down reduces resolution). This bears no resemblance to real world photography. The film with 200lp/mm resolution is TMAX 100, technical pan is even better. T-Max 100 is 63 l/mm (not lppm) at what is considered real world subject contrast. I know you are correct about Tech Pan, but the numbers are hard to get as Kodak doesn't like to publish them. I have heard of a few lens/film combinations reaching 100 lp/mm so it is possible. I think it was some of the 90/100mm macros on tech pan. It's possible, I just don't think it likely outside of a laboratory setting. Of course the easist solution to get true high resolution photographs is to use LARGE FORMAT. With 35mm you are in an endless pursuit of mediocrity... Agreed. William Robb
RE: bounce flash + image stabilization = ?
I found it was a really useful way of trying to convey movement in the first steps of my son... http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/walking.htm Sometimes I miss the fact that he needed to be held like that - at least you know where he was. Now he's off like a shot... [*Nudity warning*] http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/pages/prebath.htm :-) Simon PS - Mark, great shot mark. -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, 15 September 2003 2:07 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: bounce flash + image stabilization = ? tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ambient exposure set manually at 1/8 sec and f/4.5 at approx. 26mm. Flash bounced off ceiling to expose foreground subjects properly. The flash froze the subjects, but the long shutter speed introduced trailing, and opened up and blurred the background. I don't think I was consciously trying to move the camera, but that's a fun technique too. Ah, don't need no high tech equipment to do that! Come with us now back to those thrilling days of yesteryear - specifically my high school Jr. Prom. I used the technique Tom describes above with a K1000, K55/2.0 and cheap Vivitar flash and got this: http://www.robertstech.com/temp/7b900101.jpg (I've posted a link to this picture before and people commented on the awfulness of the clothing. Take it from me, not only was this the 1970s but these were high school students choosing the outfits! You should be very glad the photo is on Ilford HP-5 so you can't see the colors!) -Original Message- From: William Kane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I'd be interested in knowing the technique with which you took those two photos. I can't figure it out with my own sloth-like brain. IL Bill tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-418.htm Where did that highlight come from on the guy of right hand side? He was wearing funny glasses. Actually, it's a Damned Exit Sign, bane of wedding photographers everywhere. Try this one: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/brooks/after/brooks-417.htm tv -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
