*ist D and slide copying
Hi all. I've just made the adaptor that makes my AutoBellows A appear to be an f1.0 A lens set to A when attached to my *istD. After about 2 minutes setting it all up with an AF360 connected via an off camera cable and adjusting the focus, it took me about 3 minutes to scan 34 slides at 6.1 megapixel RAW format. It then took about 10 minutes to download those from the camera to the computer, but I'll soon have a way around that. What's even better is that I can zoom in on a small section of the slide and still get full resolution. The AF360 and P-TTL gives near perfect exposure from slides out by upto about 1.5 stops either way. Beyond that you start running into limits of what is on the film (though one slide which is about 3 stops under came up quite good with a touch of Photoshop). By the way, am I the only person on this list who attaches bellows to modern autofocus cameras? Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: istD test needs doing.....
What I would like to see is a good continuous tone print from both film and a digital camera to compare. Me thinks I shall have to wait a while on that non-digital print from the digital image though. Hey? Lets compare paintings. I suggest spray paintings are far better than oil paintings done with a brush. After all those brush strokes are real distracting just like photographic grain. Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago. I personally do not prefer the cartoon look of digital, but that is a personal preference and I would prefer tha convience of digital for photography for hire. 2+ years ago I was defending high-end digital on this list and eveyone was telling me I was crazy. Now I find I have to defend film on this list and everyone is telling me I am crazy. Nah, it is you bandwagon riding non-thinking nuts who are crazy . Right now film v. digital is a non-issue. 5 years, who knows? A $1000 6mp is not much competition for a $300 SLR. A 6mp DSLR for $300 is going to hurt film. Lets see, $100 for an MX, $1 for a roll of film, $4 for processing, $70 for a 6mp film scanner (what I paid in the past few months); or $1500 for a *istD. Not too hard to figure with my finances. However if $1500 was a week or two's pay to me I would not hesitate to go the other way. For B&W I still feel film rules and will for a long while. After all traditional art is best done with traditional materials. However if everyone really feels it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, I have a kettle-drum I will trade for an istD. J. C. O'Connell wrote: What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really good lens at a good fstop and really good film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi? I would like to see an exteme crop blowup of the same detailed subject taken with same lens on a rock solid tripod please My hunch is the digital will be far smoother less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the film image, overall probably better looking than 35mm film... JCO
Re: monitor recommendations
- Original Message - From: "John Francis" Subject: Re: monitor recommendations > > > > Seriously though, I would like to get a 21" or larger screen and use the > > Samsung as a second monitor. > > I'll have a 25" plus my old 19" Viewsonic as soon as I can make room for > it. (And the 17" on the scanning system. I've got too many computers). Computers are like film holders. You can never have too many.. William Robb
Re: istD test
- Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" Subject: Re: istD test > not if people can't afford or get access to it. i would like to use the > Hubble telescope for my pictures. Well then, whats the point of benchmarking anything? It seems like a lie to downgrade the benchmark of something and then call it crap. Why don't we just use Kodak 2mp cameras for the benchmark for digital imaging, and HP S10 scanners for the benchmark for scanning? Thats equivalent to what you are recommending for wet prints, after all. William Robb
Re: *ist D
The Canon sells for about 8k the Kodak in Nikon mount is 4k. At 08:19 AM 9/27/03 -0400, you wrote: >Still waiting for a FULL FRAME sensor. Why carry around my 35m lenses only to use the center portion of them? Not only that, my ultra wides, 15,17,20 all become unusuable for what they are supposed to do. >If I'm going use less than full frame, I'd rather carry an integrated (p&s) model with a lens designed for the sensor. Way ligher & cheaper until the full frame models are available J C O According to Outdoor Photographer, there are two full sensor DSLRs out there (okay, I am behind the times, didn't realize it). There are if you are willing to drop $8,000 or more. Marnie aka Doe :-) At the current rate of development, I would guesstimate that means at least 5 years before one can get full framed for around $1,000. I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: *ist D pricing, UK
In case anyone is interested they are being advertised on e-bay with a bin of $1699 US. At 12:25 PM 9/27/03 +0100, you wrote: For UK buyers, the *ist D (body only) is available at Cameraworld for £1199! www.camerworld.co.uk That's about US$1990 at 1.66 exchange rate. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: monitor recommendations
At 07:27 PM 9/27/2003 -0600, you wrote: - Ya, but I have a 17" monitor sitting just slightly above and to the right of it. Are you using the two montors off one PC, in a dual monitor setup? I get by with a 17" Panasonic and a clunker 15" EPS (a brand that seems to have few fans, but it was free...) Working in Photoshop with a dual output video card, I drop the palettes and toolbars onto the 15" at 1024 x 768 and use the 17" at 1280 x 1024 to view the image, and just the image. Works great. The 17" monitor is wired by a KVM switch to the second PC - originally set up to be a backup unit, it now runs the scanner as well. Much smoother multitasking running two boxes. - MCC - Mark Cassino Kalamazoo, MI - Photography: http://www.markcassino.com
OT: Hash marks (was Meow - cat picture)
I took a bunch of film (Pentax MG) from my vacation trip to the local > photo shop, and asked for a set of prints plus a Photo CD so I could put > some online. > Looking closely at the prints, most of them have almost exactly those > background marks, all over it. > > Who can tell me what causes these marks? Keith, does it look like a blocky mosaic? I had problems with a local Wal-Mart's picture CD having a look like blocky mosaic grain. They were using a fairly new Fuji Frontier system. I don't get that effect from other machines including a Frontier used in a high end minilab, so my guess is that they have something set or adjusted wrong. If there is another lab that offers CD's in your area try a roll with them. If you don't get the same results then it's the labs fault. Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: CF card retrieval (was: Re: First use of ist D)
> The G1 actually kinda sucks the hind teat. I don't know - they're not *too* bad. You can get some half- way decent images out of them if you try hard enough. You definitely have to work round the limitations of the camera, though. Not so much a tool as an obstacle ... A lot of their contemporaries, mind you, were a lot worse.
RE: istD test needs doing.....
I'm of the opinion you can't explain this to people. I didn't actually believe or understand it until I'd had a dslr for a month and had looked at a dozen or two 8x10's, 11x14's and 16x20's. People just don't get it unless they see prints. tv > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: istD test needs doing. > > > This was done years ago by people who take pictures, an not > of eye charts, > for a living. They now shoot with DSLRs and don't scan > film. The vast > majoriety of normal people don't examine photographs under > microscopes. At > normal viewing distances, for normal people, digital > pictures cna be made to > look better and sharper because of the lack of grain.. > > BR > > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > What I would like to see is a (scanned) film > vs. digital output of the *istD using a really > good lens at a good fstop and really good > film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. > > >
Re: istD test
not if people can't afford or get access to it. i would like to use the Hubble telescope for my pictures. Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:17 PM Subject: Re: istD test > I just think thatif you are going to benchmark something, it should be with > that technology's actual benchmark.
Re: monitor recommendations
> > Seriously though, I would like to get a 21" or larger screen and use the > Samsung as a second monitor. I'll have a 25" plus my old 19" Viewsonic as soon as I can make room for it. (And the 17" on the scanning system. I've got too many computers).
Re: istD test
six shades of gray are available. i forget the brands but they are listed in the B&H and Adorama catalogs in Shutterbug and hidden somewhere in their web sites. Herb - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: istD test > Quite apart from the general improvements in printers (you > can get double the linear dpi of that olde Epson nowadays) > there are even one or two printers that work with two shades > of black ink. Even better, though, are some third-party > packages which replace the regular three-colour ink cartridges > on some printers with a cartridge containig three shades of grey. > That, together with their own conversion software, are reported > to produce stunning resuts with greyscale images.
Re: istD test needs doing.....
This was done years ago by people who take pictures, an not of eye charts, for a living. They now shoot with DSLRs and don't scan film. The vast majoriety of normal people don't examine photographs under microscopes. At normal viewing distances, for normal people, digital pictures cna be made to look better and sharper because of the lack of grain.. BR From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really good lens at a good fstop and really good film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f.
Re: Getting into studio strobes; what to do with my 120J ?
Sorry for the lateness of this reply. I am a fan of Photogenic, and I know they make an inexpensive, low power monolight system, but the name of it eludes me at the moment. For camera flash units, you can get brackets that mount to a light stand, and hold the flash in a shoe, and clamp either an umbrella or soft box seperately, so there is no strain put on the flash. I have an 800ws box and cable set with 4 heads. It is lots of power for 35mm, adequate for medium format (for large groups I will use 400 iso film), and can be used for large format portraits, but it isn't quite enough power to do it well. Another power pack would help. Generally, hair lights are snooted down so they don't shine directly into the lens, which can cause flare. I like to put a grid in behind the snoot. I find the added texture it puts into the hair to be nice. I think you are correct about 400ws being enough for a mono light for general purposes based on my own experience. You can do a lot with one mono light for a main, and a reflector for fill, and you never have to worry about your fill ratio being to strong. A camera type flash mounted above the subject with a cardboard flag to keep light off the camera lens works fine as a hair light. William Robb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 3:24 PM Subject: Getting into studio strobes; what to do with my 120J ? > Hi fellow Pentax users, > > I have been studying online how to work with studio > lighting, and I rented a 400ws monolight over the > weekend to try things out. My girlfriend, as always, > was the real photographer, but now she can > concentrate with her photography with my full > support in lighting. She borrowed a digital camera > to immediately see the effects. We rented a hotel > room to do portraits for a couple who's just got > married, and some glamour/lingerie for another lady. > We used these friends as guinea pigs for our > experiments. > > I have a bunch of hot shoe flashes, the top of which > was a 120J TTL. That day I just pointed that to the > roof at 1/16 power, and it wasn't doing anything but > trigger the real strobe. I have a small Vivitar 4600 > bare bulb flash with built-in slave. I was expecting > it could serve as background light or fill light or > whatever, but it was a total failure for the 4600. I > just didn't have the proper reflector to use it > effectively. > > The 120J has about 150ws already. I was thinking, > maybe I could do something to use it as a hairlight, > a background light or a fill light. But what do I > need in order to make that happen ? First I need a > stand, but how do I put a shoe mount flash on a > light stand ? As a side note I also do music and is > there some stands out there which can hold both > microphones and lights. Well forget that if it is a > stupid idea. > > I guess I would need honeycomb or barn doors for > hair light... The 120J has a norman type reflector. > And then I would need a slave trigger for it. Am I > missing anything ? > > I didn't rent a softbox, but is the weight of a soft > box supported by the strobe or by the stand ? Sorry > for such a stupid question but I am still a > beginner. The 120J won't be able to hold anything heavy. > > Throughout that day I seldom use the flash I rented > past 1/2 power and I've heard there was a rule of > thumb to buy twice the power as you need so 400ws > seems to be just right. We are getting apertures > like f/22 with ISO 100 film but my girlfriend says > she likes that and sometimes we use medium format > which requires a smaller f-stop. I want to limit my > investment to one monolight at this time because I > want to master one light, and plus the 120J I > already have at the most (2 lights) before I acquire > more gear. Any recommendations on good/inexpensive > monolights are greatly appreciated. (For 1-2 people > portraits and glamour.) > > Any other tips ? Thanks in advance. > -- > Bo-Ming Tong > > >
Re: istD test
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:00 PM Subject: RE: istD test > My proposal was so that it could be seen on a webpage > and is relavent for those of us who use digital printing > techniques. Not many people are doing color without > digital today. Some claim its even better than "wet" > (color, not B&W) if you use the best scanners, printers, > and papersI'm getting great color via digital printing > of film but the BW is not even close to wet, at least > on my system. I think the problem is the printer (Epson 1280). > With only one shade of black ink, it has to do too much > dither, and it aint accurate It's just not an accurate test though. Those who claim it scanning is better than wet printing have never seen a fine quality wet print. The thing is, pretty much anyone with a computer and an editing program can churn out work that is better than a machine print, and this is the benchmark people use. I just think thatif you are going to benchmark something, it should be with that technology's actual benchmark. William Robb
Re: istD test
- Original Message - From: "Doug Franklin" Subject: Re: istD test > On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:39:36 -0600, William Robb wrote: > > > [...] Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is > > the fault of the scanning process, not the film. [...] > > Would you mind expanding on that? Anything I can do to make my > scanning process better is a Good Thing. Are there specific mistakes > that you think people make, or what? This is a purely non technical, based on observation, not measurement. Bear this in mind. What I see in scanned negative to print vs optically printed negatives is that the scanner seems to see film grain much better than photo paper. I suspect that it is because most scanners are point source, while optical printers are mostly diffused source. My Epson 2450 shows less of this than my old HP S10 did, and the Epson is a diffused source, the HP is a point source, so this seems to bear out in the real world to some extent, anyway. I don't know enough about the science of scanning to know if there is a way around it or not. I suspect diffusion scanning, such as what the Epson does is the best way around it, but I am also prepared to be corrected on this. My way around it is to not scan my film, but I am in a somewhat unique position. I am a very good darkroom technician, and I have access to an excellent wet colour darkroom that will allow me to print up to 4x5 negs if I want to, and I have my own black and white darkroom that allows me to print up to 4x5 negatives. Ultimately, I think going full digital is the answer, if you have to print digitally. William Robb
Re: istD test
> > I'm getting great color via digital printing > of film but the BW is not even close to wet, at least > on my system. I think the problem is the printer (Epson 1280). > With only one shade of black ink, it has to do too much > dither, and it aint accurate That's definitely the weak point in your system. That's an old printer (a contemporary of the 700 series), and there were always criticisms of the dithering software in the Epson printer drivers. Quite apart from the general improvements in printers (you can get double the linear dpi of that olde Epson nowadays) there are even one or two printers that work with two shades of black ink. Even better, though, are some third-party packages which replace the regular three-colour ink cartridges on some printers with a cartridge containig three shades of grey. That, together with their own conversion software, are reported to produce stunning resuts with greyscale images.
Re: grip for Ist D
- Original Message - From: Subject: grip for Ist D > There was a post with a link to a photo o the new grip but that link isn't > right anymore... > What's the part # and can it be viewed anywhere currently? http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/1733.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/1734.jpg Pentax's part # on the grip is 39556 Thats an LX for the purpose of comparing size. Sorry for the poor quality, but the shots were taken with a Canon. William Robb
Re: *ist D
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *ist D > I know that, but even with the digital nasties > my 11"by 17" inkjets are remarkable using 4X5 > scanned film compared to MF or 35mm. > > I recently bought an 8X10 camera just for contact > printing. The results are incredible. Now I > know why some fanatics go even bigger, 11X14 > and 16X20. The contact prints must be phenomenal! You have taken a route that I would have liked to, but lifes little realities always seemed to get in the way of. A few years back, I had the pleasure of printing some 8x10 negatives from the provincial archives of some of the Indian chiefs who signed treaties with the Canadian government (Just sign here to sell your soul, then sit over there and have what is left stolen by our camera). Anyway, even with the old turn of the century nitrate plates, the quality from the negaites was fantastic. Enlarging takes a lot of the 3 dimensionality away from the resulting print, but you don't realize it until you see a contact from a large negative. William Robb
Re: grip for Ist D
- Original Message - From: Subject: grip for Ist D > There was a post with a link to a photo o the new grip but that link isn't > right anymore... > What's the part # and can it be viewed anywhere currently? Give me a half hour and I will post something for you. The old G1 isn't finished yet, I guess. William Robb
Re: istD test
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:39:36 -0600, William Robb wrote: > [...] Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is > the fault of the scanning process, not the film. [...] Would you mind expanding on that? Anything I can do to make my scanning process better is a Good Thing. Are there specific mistakes that you think people make, or what? TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: istD test
My proposal was so that it could be seen on a webpage and is relavent for those of us who use digital printing techniques. Not many people are doing color without digital today. Some claim its even better than "wet" (color, not B&W) if you use the best scanners, printers, and papersI'm getting great color via digital printing of film but the BW is not even close to wet, at least on my system. I think the problem is the printer (Epson 1280). With only one shade of black ink, it has to do too much dither, and it aint accurate JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: istD test - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: istD test needs doing. > What I would like to see is a (scanned) film > vs. digital output of the *istD using a really > good lens at a good fstop and really good > film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. > > A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi? > > I would like to see an exteme crop blowup > of the same detailed subject taken with > same lens on a rock solid tripod please > > My hunch is the digital will be far smoother > less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the > film image, overall probably better looking > than 35mm film... Why are you insisting on testing a scanner vs a camera? If you want to do the test, get a high end custom print made from a good quality 35mm negative, and compare that to a print made from the digtal camera, using the output of your choice. Ctein, a technician of some renown has found that prints made optically on photo paper look better than film scans done at 4800 dpi. Specifically, the film scans are grainier and less sharp than prints made on Kodak Supra paper. The pro boys that I know here have done exactly that, though not with formal tests, just by shooting pictures and comparing, and have dumped their medium format cameras in favour of the 6mp digitals. These are wedding shooters though, which is not a high resolution game, by any means. I still think only weiners are intent on proving this sort of stuff. The rest of us just go out and take pictures, and if we find something that works better than what we are doing now, we go with it if possible. Personally, I think the photo lab industry is going to force people into digital cameras, slowly but surely, by reducing services and quality from film. I am already seing it where I am. The new machine we got scans 35mm film at something like 2000 x 3000 pixels, and prints at 320dpi. This is fine for a 5x7 with some cropping, or a 6x9 with no cropping, not so good for larger print sizes, and it shows. This says nothing about poor bit depth, and rather harsh flesh tones because of it, unfortunate in a business that is dependant on making people look good. I won't have my films printed on the thing, but we still have an optical printer, so for now I have the option. At some point, our optical printer will be replaced, most likely by another digital printer. Scanning technology is not especially compatable with film. Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is the fault of the scanning process, not the film. This is why I think JCO's proposed test is stacked in favour of digital, though at the same time, I suspect the digital may well win the test no matter how it is done. William Robb
Re: grip for Ist D
nevermind. Found it. CW - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:37 PM Subject: grip for Ist D > There was a post with a link to a photo o the new grip but that link isn't > right anymore... > What's the part # and can it be viewed anywhere currently? > > Cory > waiting on the UPS dude. > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003 > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003
Re: Silly ist-D!
That $1699 should get you the camera, some batteries, AND a couple CF cards. Ask me how I know :) Cory Waters - Original Message - From: "Matt Bevers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 10:38 PM Subject: Re: Silly ist-D! > On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 10:27 PM, Christian Skofteland > wrote: > > > I've never owned an AF SLR and I knew it would be odd to adjust to all > > the > > buttons and dials (I come from LXen and MXen). But after 100 or so > > images > > it would take a plastic surgeon to remove the silly grin from my face. > > 8^] > > > > I was actually wondering if we would see more people making a DSLR > their first AF slr. I wasn't planning on getting an AF model any time > soon, but now I'm thinking I might not get one at all until I can > afford a digial one. As far as I'm concerned, for what I do AF isn't > compelling in and of itself, AF + digital, however > > > Matt (wishing he would win the lottery, I only want $1699 - that isn't > too much to ask is it?) > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003
Re: istD test
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: istD test needs doing. > What I would like to see is a (scanned) film > vs. digital output of the *istD using a really > good lens at a good fstop and really good > film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f. > > A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi? > > I would like to see an exteme crop blowup > of the same detailed subject taken with > same lens on a rock solid tripod please > > My hunch is the digital will be far smoother > less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the > film image, overall probably better looking > than 35mm film... Why are you insisting on testing a scanner vs a camera? If you want to do the test, get a high end custom print made from a good quality 35mm negative, and compare that to a print made from the digtal camera, using the output of your choice. Ctein, a technician of some renown has found that prints made optically on photo paper look better than film scans done at 4800 dpi. Specifically, the film scans are grainier and less sharp than prints made on Kodak Supra paper. The pro boys that I know here have done exactly that, though not with formal tests, just by shooting pictures and comparing, and have dumped their medium format cameras in favour of the 6mp digitals. These are wedding shooters though, which is not a high resolution game, by any means. I still think only weiners are intent on proving this sort of stuff. The rest of us just go out and take pictures, and if we find something that works better than what we are doing now, we go with it if possible. Personally, I think the photo lab industry is going to force people into digital cameras, slowly but surely, by reducing services and quality from film. I am already seing it where I am. The new machine we got scans 35mm film at something like 2000 x 3000 pixels, and prints at 320dpi. This is fine for a 5x7 with some cropping, or a 6x9 with no cropping, not so good for larger print sizes, and it shows. This says nothing about poor bit depth, and rather harsh flesh tones because of it, unfortunate in a business that is dependant on making people look good. I won't have my films printed on the thing, but we still have an optical printer, so for now I have the option. At some point, our optical printer will be replaced, most likely by another digital printer. Scanning technology is not especially compatable with film. Much of the grain artifacts that people complain about is the fault of the scanning process, not the film. This is why I think JCO's proposed test is stacked in favour of digital, though at the same time, I suspect the digital may well win the test no matter how it is done. William Robb
Re: Silly ist-D!
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 10:27 PM, Christian Skofteland wrote: I've never owned an AF SLR and I knew it would be odd to adjust to all the buttons and dials (I come from LXen and MXen). But after 100 or so images it would take a plastic surgeon to remove the silly grin from my face. 8^] I was actually wondering if we would see more people making a DSLR their first AF slr. I wasn't planning on getting an AF model any time soon, but now I'm thinking I might not get one at all until I can afford a digial one. As far as I'm concerned, for what I do AF isn't compelling in and of itself, AF + digital, however Matt (wishing he would win the lottery, I only want $1699 - that isn't too much to ask is it?)
grip for Ist D
There was a post with a link to a photo o the new grip but that link isn't right anymore... What's the part # and can it be viewed anywhere currently? Cory waiting on the UPS dude. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003
RE: *ist D
no reason I cant critique pentax products in relation to non pentax products which in the case of large format are at a higher level technically which pentax should aspire to reach even if they dont sell LF JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 5:41 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *ist D > Again, I never said LF could do everything, it can't. Gee, most every post you have made in the past several months belies this statement. Since no one (other than you, certainly not me) has to my knowledge ever said that small format anything is in the same technical quality range as digital, I do wonder why you insist on making such bombastic posts about a topic which, on the surface, has no interest to you. Since this is a Pentax list, and Pentax doesn't support large format, you are off topic. William Robb
Re: CF card retrieval (was: Re: First use of ist D)
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:51:37 +0100, Cotty wrote: >On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >>> The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it >is in. >Once the door is opened, how is the card extracted? Is there a small >button to push that manually ejects the card a few mm so that fingers can >pull it the rest of the way? Or is it finger retrieval only?? I just checked on mine, the button pushes the card out slightly and you then use your fingers. I have no problem with it, but I have small fingers, someone with large fingers could have problems. As I only have one card and no separate card reader as yet, it's not a problem for now. Eventually I will have 2 512meg cards and 30 gig X-drive I can carry around. Look at http://www.powerinnumbers.com.au/default.asp?mode=products§ion=xdrive2 for info on the drive - I think it's neat. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re: First use of ist D
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: First use of ist D > The camera doesnt record the exposure information in the RAW file? I don't shoot in RAW, since I have no interest in image quality. If I did, I wouldn't be shooting with a piddly little digital camera in the first place. William Robb
Re: *ist D
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *ist D > Again, I never said LF could do everything, it can't. Gee, most every post you have made in the past several months belies this statement. Since no one (other than you, certainly not me) has to my knowledge ever said that small format anything is in the same technical quality range as digital, I do wonder why you insist on making such bombastic posts about a topic which, on the surface, has no interest to you. Since this is a Pentax list, and Pentax doesn't support large format, you are off topic. William Robb
RE: Photo shops on canada (pentax in Spain)
Cotty, I need help, I think that Reflecta, the Pentax importer for spain became fools think that the list price for a MZ-S camera is more or less 1300 EURO and for a FGZ 360 400 euro. Do you think it is possible??? After this is not strange that Pentax is not selling well here in spain don't you think??? -Mensaje original- De: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: sábado, 27 de septiembre de 2003 23:07 Para: pentax list Asunto: RV: Photo shops on canada On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hi everybody, I am Emilio Puga, from Mallorca Island in Spain. First of >all I want to congratulate you for your enthusiasm and the interest you >put on this very special brand. >Ok, let?s go with my question, well, here in spain we've got serious >problems with pentax importer, not only avaibility but also PRICES of >the equipment, one example IstD is priced in Canada and USA at 1440 euro >(equivalent) and here in Spain buying it in a distributor (price for >pros only) they are asking near 1950 euro for the body only, do you >think it is a loyal importer?? I THINK THEY DON'T WANT TO SELL PENTAX >EQUIPMENT. Now I have the opportunity of buying it in Canada, because a >friend of mine is going there on a business trip, but he will not have >so much time to expend on my "gift" then I will have to give him a >concrete address for buying the camera and a concrete price, I have >talked with Chris Brogden, but I am not sure if my friend will be able >of going to chris shop, >Can you tell me some stores In Canada?? Preferably if they have web page >and I can do a Pre order, I think he Is going to Toronto and Vancouver. >Thanks everybody for your help >PDta. I'm so shy because if I don?t find a good price on IStD I will be >buying a Eos 10D, Cue Frankie! Welcome to the list Emilio. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *ist D
Oh, Geez! There goes Cotty, stirring the pot again. ROTFL!! -knarf Cotty wrote: > LOL. Oh JCO, with the greatest of respect, you're a perfect candidate for > a DSLR. You'd love it ;-) > > Cheers, > Cotty > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > _ > Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
My ticket to GFM
Well what with all these boring *ist D threads littering the place up, us large format types (I'm talking bellies here) need something tougher to chew on... I've sold my both my CL+40mm and Tokina lens. That means that I can now afford an air ticket (coach, unfortunately) and (ta-daaa) car hire for GFM'04. Better - the CL buyer is paying ca$h and so I can divert that straight to the travel agent instead of losing it in the bank account swamp. Things are lookin up :-) Oh yeah, I haven't ordered my *ist D yet. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *ist D
Yes, the lack of grain in digital emulates what you get in large format film, and i like that, but there is no real detail like what you get in large format film in 6 megapixels. Im used to more like 100 megapixel from 4X5 film and 8X10 is more like 400 megapixels of course...Megalpixels in DSLR still have a L O N G way to go to match large format, hell they are barely reaching 35mm at his point in terms of sharpness. J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 4:56 PM To: pentax list Subject: RE: *ist D On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Wrong, the increased resolution of large format brings the >viewer much closer the original scene, no blurring out >of the fine details and annoying grain artifacts to ruin >the experienceI like large high resolution prints, so sue me. LOL. Oh JCO, with the greatest of respect, you're a perfect candidate for a DSLR. You'd love it ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RV: Photo shops on canada
On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Hi everybody, I am Emilio Puga, from Mallorca Island in Spain. First of >all I want to congratulate you for your enthusiasm and the interest you >put on this very special brand. >Ok, let?s go with my question, well, here in spain we've got serious >problems with pentax importer, not only avaibility but also PRICES of >the equipment, one example IstD is priced in Canada and USA at 1440 euro >(equivalent) and here in Spain buying it in a distributor (price for >pros only) they are asking near 1950 euro for the body only, do you >think it is a loyal importer?? I THINK THEY DON'T WANT TO SELL PENTAX >EQUIPMENT. Now I have the opportunity of buying it in Canada, because a >friend of mine is going there on a business trip, but he will not have >so much time to expend on my "gift" then I will have to give him a >concrete address for buying the camera and a concrete price, I have >talked with Chris Brogden, but I am not sure if my friend will be able >of going to chris shop, >Can you tell me some stores In Canada?? Preferably if they have web page >and I can do a Pre order, I think he Is going to Toronto and Vancouver. >Thanks everybody for your help >PDta. I'm so shy because if I don?t find a good price on IStD I will be >buying a Eos 10D, Cue Frankie! Welcome to the list Emilio. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Travels with Stan: Scandanavian edition
On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Ok guys, I go away for a few days and you proceed to blow out of the >water my notion of being the first on the block with an ist-D. I am here >in Aland with Lasse, (his computer is from the last Ice Age, recently >recovered from a receding glacier) we strung some cable so that he could >get a net connection, get the PDML list up and what do I see but a stream >of messages about the D! > >I do have my Optio with me but cannot upload any shots of Lasse etc as he >has no USB connector. Need to get this man into the 21st century! > >Anders - Monday night? > >By the way, it is cold and rainy, there seems to be nothing to do but go >drink. > >Later... > >Stan > >Not much to add really, except that, as some of you already know, Stan is >just as nice a guy as you already might have gathered from his postings. >Oh yeah, I took him on a guided tour of the city - on foot - in the rain >earlier today. >Oh yeah, he already impressed me with his MZ-S kit of several quality >lenses ans well with his Optio 330RS. >Tried to sell him my Pentax 28-200, but no go. Don't understand why though... > >Later, >Lasse Hi Guys, For my sake, don't ask where Stan comes from, Lasse. have a great time you guys Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *ist D
On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Wrong, the increased resolution of large format brings the >viewer much closer the original scene, no blurring out >of the fine details and annoying grain artifacts to ruin >the experienceI like large high resolution prints, so sue me. LOL. Oh JCO, with the greatest of respect, you're a perfect candidate for a DSLR. You'd love it ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: First use of ist D
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 08:42:53 -0600, William Robb wrote: >> I see 4 pictures to kack a buffer a problem in some of myhorse work, but >not >> all of it. I usually "burst" 6-7 in a row when doing reining. > >I was shooting at full resolution too and largest jpeg size as well. I >suspect I could cut that back to the next level down and get more images >befor the buffer fills. >I will try it later and report back. >I recall the shutter speeds were a bit slow, but I NEVER record this stuff. >I can't be filling my mind with useless junk. William, The *istD records EVERYTHING about the picture you take. You need to use the Pentax Photo Browser to see it all once you download it from the camera - you can see it all in the camera by pressing the info button twice when previewing the picture (one press gives you a histogram). Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon
Re Photo shops on canada
-Mensaje original- De: Emilio Puga [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: sábado, 27 de septiembre de 2003 22:53 Para: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Asunto: RE: RV: Photo shops on canada Thanks Frank, I Hill give this info to my friend and look what he can do. -Mensaje original- De: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviado el: sábado, 27 de septiembre de 2003 22:16 Para: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Asunto: Re: RV: Photo shops on canada Hi, Emilio, I think the largest store (or one of them) in Toronto is Henry's, at 119 Church Street, right at the corner of Queen Street, downtown. http://www.henrys.com/ There's also Vistek. They're about a mile or two east of Henry's, on Queen Street between Parliament and River. I can't give you their url, because their site freezes my old computer every time. If you Google Vistek's, though, you'll find it. I know they sell Pentax, but they don't usually have much in their display case. Aden Camera, Yonge Street, between Dundas and Gerrard: http://www.adencamera.com/ Look at that, they have the *ist D on special right on their front page!! Their price comes in at 1638 Euros with the 18-35 lens. Downtown Camera is on Queen Street East, right around the corner from Henry's (south side of Queen, just west of Church). http://www.downtowncamera.com/ Those are the major outlets here in downtown Toronto. Maybe one of the suburban boys can help out with stores outside of downtown, but I'm sure your friend will be downtown anyway. Hope this helps. cheers, frank Emilio Puga wrote: > Hi everybody, I am Emilio Puga, from Mallorca Island in Spain. First of > all I want to congratulate you for your enthusiasm and the interest you > put on this very special brand. > Ok, let´s go with my question, well, here in spain weve got serious > problems with pentax importer, not only avaibility but also PRICES of > the equipment, one example IstD is priced in Canada and USA at 1440 euro > (equivalent) and here in Spain buying it in a distributor (price for > pros only) they are asking near 1950 euro for the body only, do you > think it is a loyal importer?? I THINK THEY DONT WANT TO SELL PENTAX > EQUIPMENT. Now I have the opportunity of buying it in Canada, because a > friend of mine is going there on a business trip, but he will not have > so much time to expend on my gift then I will have to give him a > concrete address for buying the camera and a concrete price, I have > talked with Chris Brogden, but I am not sure if my friend will be able > of going to chris shop, > Can you tell me some stores In Canada?? Preferably if they have web page > and I can do a Pre order, I think he Is going to Toronto and Vancouver. > Thanks everybody for your help > PDta. Im so shy because if I don´t find a good price on IStD I will be > buying a Eos 10D, -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Meow - cat picture
>http://users.rcn.com/annsan/kittensonscreen.jpg >it won me a few bucks back in 1979 >(of course I took it with a Pentax (KX) >annsan Great pic! And I don't even particular LIKE cats. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: *ist D
>I disagree, if you go for ultra high resolution (~20Mp??) full frame 35mm and today's "Big Glass" (not really that big atually except for the fast long lenses), you can ELIMINATE medium format. I see no reason why todays 35mm format and lenses cannot BEAT what is being acheived in medium format with film today >Of course if they can develop ~100Mp? medium format, then they could eliminate todays large format?? hehe >J.C. O'Connell Well, I admit I hadn't thought of that -- eliminating medium format. When you come right down to it, yeah, digital isn't really limited to film formats. And why should it be? It's a different medium. Very good point. I'm not even that long at photography, and here I was making the common, easy to all into, mistake -- imposing a previous medium standards on a new medium. Marnie aka Doe
Re: RV: Photo shops on canada
Hi, Emilio, I think the largest store (or one of them) in Toronto is Henry's, at 119 Church Street, right at the corner of Queen Street, downtown. http://www.henrys.com/ There's also Vistek. They're about a mile or two east of Henry's, on Queen Street between Parliament and River. I can't give you their url, because their site freezes my old computer every time. If you Google Vistek's, though, you'll find it. I know they sell Pentax, but they don't usually have much in their display case. Aden Camera, Yonge Street, between Dundas and Gerrard: http://www.adencamera.com/ Look at that, they have the *ist D on special right on their front page!! Their price comes in at 1638 Euros with the 18-35 lens. Downtown Camera is on Queen Street East, right around the corner from Henry's (south side of Queen, just west of Church). http://www.downtowncamera.com/ Those are the major outlets here in downtown Toronto. Maybe one of the suburban boys can help out with stores outside of downtown, but I'm sure your friend will be downtown anyway. Hope this helps. cheers, frank Emilio Puga wrote: > Hi everybody, I am Emilio Puga, from Mallorca Island in Spain. First of > all I want to congratulate you for your enthusiasm and the interest you > put on this very special brand. > Ok, let´s go with my question, well, here in spain weve got serious > problems with pentax importer, not only avaibility but also PRICES of > the equipment, one example IstD is priced in Canada and USA at 1440 euro > (equivalent) and here in Spain buying it in a distributor (price for > pros only) they are asking near 1950 euro for the body only, do you > think it is a loyal importer?? I THINK THEY DONT WANT TO SELL PENTAX > EQUIPMENT. Now I have the opportunity of buying it in Canada, because a > friend of mine is going there on a business trip, but he will not have > so much time to expend on my gift then I will have to give him a > concrete address for buying the camera and a concrete price, I have > talked with Chris Brogden, but I am not sure if my friend will be able > of going to chris shop, > Can you tell me some stores In Canada?? Preferably if they have web page > and I can do a Pre order, I think he Is going to Toronto and Vancouver. > Thanks everybody for your help > PDta. Im so shy because if I don´t find a good price on IStD I will be > buying a Eos 10D, -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: First use of ist D
> > > Thanks for this information. Last week I had the oppertunity to hold a > > digital 3MP P&S, and I was very dissapointed about the lag in time > > between pressing the button and finally after a very long time making > > the photograph. How is the *ist D in this respect, is it comparable > > with my PZ-1? The terrible shutter lag in most consumer P&S digitals is being spent in the auto-focus and exposure calculation. You can prove this (if the camera supports it) by half-pressing the shutter. All the calculations will be done, and the camera will be ready to capture the image as soon as you press the shutter the rest of the way down. On my Canon PowerShot G1 I can even run off a sequence of images at around 1.5 fps as long as I never let the shutter release come back above the halfway point. Pentax film SLRs have to do exactly the same calculations as the *ist-D, and have to focus the image using the identical methods. I would be very surprised if the *ist-D was noticeably slower than the MZ-S or PZ-1p. I have been told that some of the cheaper AF bodies use a smaller motor, and so have slightly slower AF speed. I have no first-hand experience of this, but have found both the PZ-1p and MZ-S quite capable of focussing even the heaviest Pentax FA glass. In fact I'd expect the *ist-D to offer a significant improvement for somebody used to a PZ-1; one problem with the PZ autofocus system is that it sometimes gets lost, guesses the wrong way to go, and has to hunt all the way to the focus extreme and back before locking in on the image. The MZ-S is much better, and very rarely does this. That, plus the use of cross-sensors in the *ist-D, should outdo the PZ-1.
Schneider finally in K mount
Hi everybody, Some here know that I shot architecture pictures a lot. One of my main lens in 135 format for this purpose is the Schneider-Kreuznach PC Super Angulon 28/2.8. A wonderful lens, its only flaw being... to be in Nikon mount (bought used that way). Well, a couple of days ago I eventually decided to place an order for the K mount ring; the Italian importer had it immediately available, it seems, as this morning it was at the shop already. Now I can happily use it on either Nikon or Pentax bodies by interchanging its mount (six screws and that's all). Drawback of this nice situation is the price of the piece... almost half (180 euro, around $200...) of what I paid for the complete lens in N mount. Not that bad, though, thinking that the lens costs - new - around 2000 euro (without mount!)... Ciao, Gianfranco = __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: monitor recommendations
> > On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >Samsung SyncMaster 955df. > >19". > >.20 dot pitch. > >Supports an embarassingly large screen resolution (1920x1200) > > Stone the crows, Bill. Do you find that a few rows of cars park up behind > you asking for popcorn??? That's some monitor. I'll have two please. It's only a 19" monitor, so it's not *that* demanding on real estate. I'm still trying to clear off space on my desk to find room for the 25" monster I have sitting out in the garage. Even worse is the fact that it refuses to stoop to 640x480, so I have to have another monitor there for use at boot time. That 1920x1200 resolution is nice - that's what you need for HDTV images (1080i is 1920x1080, I believe). With a .20 dot pitch it should be usable, too - 1600 x 1200 is acceptable with a .25 spacing.
RV: Photo shops on canada
Hi everybody, I am Emilio Puga, from Mallorca Island in Spain. First of all I want to congratulate you for your enthusiasm and the interest you put on this very special brand. Ok, let´s go with my question, well, here in spain weve got serious problems with pentax importer, not only avaibility but also PRICES of the equipment, one example IstD is priced in Canada and USA at 1440 euro (equivalent) and here in Spain buying it in a distributor (price for pros only) they are asking near 1950 euro for the body only, do you think it is a loyal importer?? I THINK THEY DONT WANT TO SELL PENTAX EQUIPMENT. Now I have the opportunity of buying it in Canada, because a friend of mine is going there on a business trip, but he will not have so much time to expend on my gift then I will have to give him a concrete address for buying the camera and a concrete price, I have talked with Chris Brogden, but I am not sure if my friend will be able of going to chris shop, Can you tell me some stores In Canada?? Preferably if they have web page and I can do a Pre order, I think he Is going to Toronto and Vancouver. Thanks everybody for your help PDta. Im so shy because if I don´t find a good price on IStD I will be buying a Eos 10D,
Re: Meow - cat picture
That's a great shot, Ann! I had a cat that announced his wish to enter and exit the house exactly the way those two kittens are. Needless to say, we went through a lot of screens, and had lots of bugs in the house near the end of each screen-cycle. As far as the dog-lovers/cat-haters go, screw 'em. We had to put up with Wheatfield's "Dogs doing unnatural things at dog rallies (or whatever those competitions are called)" digi-captures earlier today, so you're just giving the list balance is all... cheers, frank Ann Sanfedele wrote: > I actually got a request to post this - so you dog > lovers must forgive me. > I'm linking just to the jpg file - but it is the > shot I've already got a bid on on ebay. > > http://users.rcn.com/annsan/kittensonscreen.jpg > > it won me a few bucks back in 1979 > > (of course I took it with a Pentax (KX) > > annsan -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: Meow - cat picture
Okay! Fine shot, Ann... Being a cat person, I appreciate how lucky getting precisely that pose must be... A serendipity is, it displays a 'fault' I'd have trouble describing, but here's proof it's not just me. See all the faint patches, made up of very light horizontal hash marks, like tiny claw scratches? I took a bunch of film (Pentax MG) from my vacation trip to the local photo shop, and asked for a set of prints plus a Photo CD so I could put some online. Looking closely at the prints, most of them have almost exactly those background marks, all over it. Who can tell me what causes these marks? Sort of odd to see it in two so disparate places! keith whaley Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > I actually got a request to post this - so you dog > lovers must forgive me. > I'm linking just to the jpg file - but it is the > shot I've already got a bid on on ebay. > > http://users.rcn.com/annsan/kittensonscreen.jpg > > it won me a few bucks back in 1979 > > (of course I took it with a Pentax (KX) > > annsan
digibuck savings plan
I'm saving them up and can foresee my very own *istD around Christmas. And ... @ an estate sale today I picked up a box of a thousand+ slides and 8mm home movies. Lots of Disneyland and many of Korea & Japan in 1952! Kodachrome! (We missed by 1 minute an old Canon rangefinder from the 50s. Drat, drat, and double-drat.) Anyway, the slides will be sorted & on eBay & NGs tomorrow. Today, the M100/2.8 is on the block. Excellent all around except for a filter ring dent. A significant dent but not a destructive one. Won't accept filters but could be repaired, perhaps by calling Pentax for the barrel part. Optics & mechanical operation are fine. $90. Sekonic L308B-II $100 Collin
Re: *ist D
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 02:09 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Kodak has a 16 Mp sensor for 645 cameras now but it is only 36X36mm which is only 50% bigger than full frame 35mm and it costs $16K at this point for just a back, no camera. The back with the largest sensor is now the Sinarback 54. Uses a 22MP Kodak sensor that measures 36.7mm x 49mm. Makes 5440 x 4080 pixel images. http://www.sinarbron.com/sb54.html http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1031334330.html --jc
RE: *ist D
I disagree, if you go for ultra high resolution (~20Mp??) full frame 35mm and today's "Big Glass" (not really that big atually except for the fast long lenses), you can ELIMINATE medium format. I see no reason why todays 35mm format and lenses cannot BEAT what is being acheived in medium format with film today Of course if they can develop ~100Mp? medium format, then they could eliminate todays large format?? hehe J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 2:43 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D >Just a thought. The Pentax 645 is not much bigger/heavier then a top line "pro" 35mm SLR. Could Pentax possibly be planning to keep the APS sized sensor for the 35mm camera based DSLR and come out with a full 645 frame DSLR in the 1 Ds price range. Pentax does have the advantage over N&C as they are the only one with a MF lineup. Just a thought >Butch I agree. I think that is extremely likely. Don't know what the market share is for MF, but Pentax is definitely a leader (or the leader) in that arena. So it's logical they would want to build on their MF reputation re digital. I also think it extremely likely that AP (sized) sensors will remain the norm for the lower priced (relative term here) DSLRs for a long, long time. For one thing, lots of people like the increased "magnification" that it gives big glass. Since that has become an advantage in many people's eyes (and camera companies can issue *new* wide angle lenses designed specifically for DSLRs), it would seem to me to be something they would hesitate to give up completely. Or give up very soon. But I suspect the former. Marnie aka Doe
Re: OT: monitor recommendations
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 01:28 PM, Frantisek Vlcek wrote: the most recognised brands in graphic arts are Eizo and even more Barco. They are the very best but at the very best price :( The Barco models even had automatic selfcalibration. BTW, on the monitor it doesn't pay to save money, it's the device that will be with you the longest from the whole computer, if it's good from the start. I've heard good things said about the Sony Artisan, so you might want to take a look at it. I can't afford one yet. :-) In general, I think the CRTs that come with a hood are worth taking a look at but you may want to keep a second "general-purpose" display around for non-color critical use so you don't wear out the expensive, hooded display. --jc
Re: *ist D shipping UPS
JC wisely advised: - Original Message - > > btw, if you're near New York City, UPS Ground shipping is usually > overnight to/from NYC. > > --jc You know, I knew that. Already, the *ist D has caused me to make unrational decisions. Ah well, it's only money after all.
Meow - cat picture
I actually got a request to post this - so you dog lovers must forgive me. I'm linking just to the jpg file - but it is the shot I've already got a bid on on ebay. http://users.rcn.com/annsan/kittensonscreen.jpg it won me a few bucks back in 1979 (of course I took it with a Pentax (KX) annsan
Re: *ist D
>Just a thought. The Pentax 645 is not much bigger/heavier then a top line "pro" 35mm SLR. Could Pentax possibly be planning to keep the APS sized sensor for the 35mm camera based DSLR and come out with a full 645 frame DSLR in the 1 Ds price range. Pentax does have the advantage over N&C as they are the only one with a MF lineup. Just a thought >Butch I agree. I think that is extremely likely. Don't know what the market share is for MF, but Pentax is definitely a leader (or the leader) in that arena. So it's logical they would want to build on their MF reputation re digital. I also think it extremely likely that AP (sized) sensors will remain the norm for the lower priced (relative term here) DSLRs for a long, long time. For one thing, lots of people like the increased "magnification" that it gives big glass. Since that has become an advantage in many people's eyes (and camera companies can issue *new* wide angle lenses designed specifically for DSLRs), it would seem to me to be something they would hesitate to give up completely. Or give up very soon. But I suspect the former. Marnie aka Doe
Re: *ist D
On 27/9/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >Are you saying that tools can't be religiions? Just curious... > >-frank > >William (Digital Boy) Robb wrote: > >> The camera is a tool, not a religion. Crikey, why is that when it breaks I blaspheme like the devil himself! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *ist D
It's possible but I would think they would need to learn/do full frame 35mm before jumping to 645. Kodak has a 16 Mp sensor for 645 cameras now but it is only 36X36mm which is only 50% bigger than full frame 35mm and it costs $16K at this point for just a back, no camera. Not sure if pentax wants to jump into the $16K market yet... J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Butch Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:46 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *ist D Pentax will probably HAVE TO follow the Nikon/canon model of aps then > > full size digital sensors in SLRs to stay competitive. > >So... how many Nikon and Canon DSLRs are there with a full >frame sensor? I can only think of one, the Canon 1Ds, though Kodak makes >one based on a Nikon body. Those sell for about 3 times the price of the >D100/10D/*istD, so I'm not sure why Pentax will need to offer a similar >camera to compete. Just a thought. The Pentax 645 is not much bigger/heavier then a top line "pro" 35mm SLR. Could Pentax possibly be planning to keep the APS sized sensor for the 35mm camera based DSLR and come out with a full 645 frame DSLR in the 1 Ds price range. Pentax does have the advantage over N&C as they are the only one with a MF lineup. Just a thought Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Travels with Stan: Scandanavian edition
Ok guys, I go away for a few days and you proceed to blow out of the water my notion of being the first on the block with an ist-D. I am here in Aland with Lasse, (his computer is from the last Ice Age, recently recovered from a receding glacier) we strung some cable so that he could get a net connection, get the PDML list up and what do I see but a stream of messages about the D! I do have my Optio with me but cannot upload any shots of Lasse etc as he has no USB connector. Need to get this man into the 21st century! Anders - Monday night? By the way, it is cold and rainy, there seems to be nothing to do but go drink. Later... Stan Not much to add really, except that, as some of you already know, Stan is just as nice a guy as you already might have gathered from his postings. Oh yeah, I took him on a guided tour of the city - on foot - in the rain earlier today. Oh yeah, he already impressed me with his MZ-S kit of several quality lenses ans well with his Optio 330RS. Tried to sell him my Pentax 28-200, but no go. Don't understand why though... Later, Lasse
RE: *ist D
Pentax will probably HAVE TO follow the Nikon/canon model of aps then > > full size digital sensors in SLRs to stay competitive. > >So... how many Nikon and Canon DSLRs are there with a full >frame sensor? I can only think of one, the Canon 1Ds, though Kodak makes >one based on a Nikon body. Those sell for about 3 times the price of the >D100/10D/*istD, so I'm not sure why Pentax will need to offer a similar >camera to compete. Just a thought. The Pentax 645 is not much bigger/heavier then a top line "pro" 35mm SLR. Could Pentax possibly be planning to keep the APS sized sensor for the 35mm camera based DSLR and come out with a full 645 frame DSLR in the 1 Ds price range. Pentax does have the advantage over N&C as they are the only one with a MF lineup. Just a thought Butch Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. Hermann Hesse (Demian)
RE: *ist D
> > I have become a large format junkie and have no > interest in a tiny 6Mp sensor for serious photography > whatsoever. I want more than that and a full frame > sensor. I can wait. I have a lot of top quality > FULL FRAME lenses & I want to use their entire > image, especially on the wide angles... > > If you are only a 35mm shooter, > than a 6Mp DSLR is an quality improvement, if you shoot > 4X5 and 8X10 it is NOT. You have also become incredibly narrow minded (or were you always that way?). I am also a large format shooter, as well as medium format, 35mm, and now, it seems, a digital SLR user. 8 If being unsatisfied with low quality of 35mm makes me "narrow-minded", then I'm guilty as charged. Ditto for the fact that I'm "elitist" if I hold the opinion that some people are smarter than others.. I can assure you that the bottom line in photography is not lppm (or lpm, lets not get into that again), or MTF, or whatever else people use to fool themselves into thinking they are getting something better. Photography is about going from something we can only see to something we can hold in our hands. Nothing more. Wrong, the increased resolution of large format brings the viewer much closer the original scene, no blurring out of the fine details and annoying grain artifacts to ruin the experienceI like large high resolution prints, so sue me. The camera is a tool, not a religion. Film is just film, large format is just one way of shooting. You equate large format to the Holy Grail. I used to do that as well, some 20 years ago when I discovered 4x5. I grew up a little more, and I got past it. What you call "growing up", I call selling out for lower cost and/or convenience. The smaller formats are best for some things but there are many things where large format wins hands down no contest. To shoot anything less in those situations is a huge compromise for reasons that are really not justified. 4X5 is not really that expensive and or cumbersome as many would believe 888 The large format camera, as much as I like the results, and as much as I like shooting with it, is only one way of doing things. Of course, if that is all you do, thats fine. I prefer to not limit myself though. 88 Your assumptions are not wise. I use smaller than LF when LF wont work, but in most cases OF WHAT I LIKE TO DO, LF will work and it works better than the smaller formats. 888 A lot of the large format guys I know like to use 8x10 lenses on their 4x5 cameras. Apparently, using only the center of the image circle gives sharper pictures. Never once did I hear any of them bemoan the fact that they were wasting image circle. As a matter of fact, in 30 years of active photography, this is the first time I have seen anyone try to dismiss a format with such a specious justification. 888 Wrong again, given two lenses of exact same optical design and build tolerances, the one with the shorter focal length will be sharper for a number of reasons. Also, lenses with smaller image circles for a given focal length can actually yield better resolution across the field than one designed for larger image circle. This is why you don't use a wide angle 8X10 lens for 4X5 normal photography. Yes, some people do use some of their 8X10 lenses for 4X5 but it isn't for performance reasons, it is generally to save money/weight or in situation where 4X5 only lenses don't exist like the very long lenses in LF. The other point about using less than full frame sensor with high quality 35mm lenses is the stupidity of carrying around tons of lenses all way bulkier than they have to be for the small sensor. If the magnification factor is greater than 1.41 on the DSLR, and it is on most of the non-full frame models, MORE THAN HALF the lenses image is cropped off and never recorded. With quality lenses this is wasteful and degrades image quality because you have to use shorter lenses and "spread out" a portion of their resolving power across the scene. Degrades quality if the lenses are really good to begin with. 88 Anyway, I am off to have fun with my new tool. Probably taking pictures that would be impossible to take with 4x5, since I would be using 4x5 to take pictures with if that was my mood. L8R
Re: First use of ist D
On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:58:29 -0400, graywolf wrote: > I would expect the RAW mode to give that fastest buffer access. After > all, all photos come off the sensor in that mode, then are converted to > what ever you have the camera set to save them as. JPEGs will give you a > lot more images on the card, and maybe in the buffer, but they should be > slower than RAW until the buffer fills up. RAW might save to the card > faster also as there is no conversion going on. It depends on the bandwidth between the components. It might be that the larger amount of data to transfer in RAW mode outweighs the processing time to convert to JPEG. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT: monitor recommendations
Hi, the most recognised brands in graphic arts are Eizo and even more Barco. They are the very best but at the very best price :( The Barco models even had automatic selfcalibration. BTW, on the monitor it doesn't pay to save money, it's the device that will be with you the longest from the whole computer, if it's good from the start. Best regards, Frantisek Vlcek
Re: Portrait Lens Question
From: Chris Brogden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> How do you account for the fact that p&s digital cameras can still blur the background for some portrait shots? With focal lengths around 7-12mm or so, pretty much everything should be in focus, shouldn't it? Hmmm, okay, I am a camera/photography ignoramus, but I remember hearing in class or reading somewhere that P&S are preset for a certain focusing distance. Like about 15 feet or something like that (maybe less, maybe 10). Regardless of where your subject actually is. Wouldn't that have something to do with it? Marnie aka Doe Probably not, probably way off base. ;-)
Re: First use of ist D
> These three are shot into the sun with the 18-35 in whatever the thing > defaulted to out of the box. The files are from 5mb tiffs. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0005small.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0006small.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0007small.jpg > Looks to me like decent flare control, especially for a relatively inexpensive lens. Bill
Re: monitor recommendations
Samsung SyncMaster 955df. 19". .20 dot pitch. Supports an embarassingly large screen resolution (1920x1200) William Robb - Original Message - From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:03 AM Subject: OT: monitor recommendations > My husband is in the market for a new CRT monitor. He needs one that is > really good for editing photos and he's not ready to make the jump to > LCD yet. Anyone out there have a CRT that they love? > > Thanks, > Amita > > >
Re: OT: monitor recommendations
"Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My husband is in the market for a new CRT monitor. He needs one that is > really good for editing photos and he's not ready to make the jump to > LCD yet. Anyone out there have a CRT that they love? Take a look at the big ones from Eizo. I have a beautiful 21" flat screen at work -- best monitor I've ever used. -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway www.eunet.no T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901
OT: monitor recommendations
My husband is in the market for a new CRT monitor. He needs one that is really good for editing photos and he's not ready to make the jump to LCD yet. Anyone out there have a CRT that they love? Thanks, Amita
Re: First use of ist D
- Original Message - From: "Frits Wuthrich" Subject: Re: First use of ist D > Thanks for this information. Last week I had the oppertunity to hold a > digital 3MP P&S, and I was very dissapointed about the lag in time > between pressing the button and finally after a very long time making > the photograph. How is the *ist D in this respect, is it comparable > with my PZ-1? > Never used a PZ of any kind. However, it is faster than my MZ-5. With the AF off, it is as fast, as far as I could tell, as my LX, except the LX will shoot a continous burst of 36 exposures in about 10 seconds. This seems to shoot at about 2 FPS, and only for a few frames at full resolution. OTOH, the resolution can be dropped to a 3mp equivalent, still enough information for a good 8x10, and this should improve the number of frames in the burst significantly. William Robb
Re: First use of ist D
- Original Message - From: "KT Takeshita" Subject: Re: First use of ist D > On 03.9.27 1:13 AM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in. > > This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like > > this. > > This is also a general griping in Japan. > Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told that > Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made. > Meantime, they (Pentax) apparently made a band aid solution for now. Put > sticking tape on both sides of CF with approx. 1cm left out and stick them > together. This will work as a bellow to pull the card out, and it won't > interfere with the door closure. Thanks Ken, thats a great idea. I don't download via the camera, I have a USB2 reader attached to my computer, so the card is removed every time I want to download. William Robb
RE: *ist D
Yeah, I guess I did know that since it's only a 38 mm equivalent on the E-10. So much for idle speculation. . . >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 09/27/03 10:25AM >>> On 27 Sep 2003 at 10:15, Steve Desjardins wrote: > While I'm here, I did note the other day that the my E-10 has a 9-36 mm > zoom. Although this lens is attached, it's hardly a P&S style lens and > I assume it could be made removable (aside from just braking it off). I > lens like this could make the WA folks happy, yes? The problem is that the actual angle of view is not what you'd expect given the FL as the sensor is so small. The E-10 at the 9mm setting isn't wider than the LX with the 31mm. Big chunk of glass for the speed too. 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: First use of ist D
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: First use of ist D > Thanks for the info Bill. Very kind of you. > > I think Pentax's iso 800 seems to have less noise than my D1 at 800. Were they shot > at relativly slow shutter speeds,the dog has motion blur were the box and person > look fine. > I see 4 pictures to kack a buffer a problem in some of myhorse work, but not > all of it. I usually "burst" 6-7 in a row when doing reining. I was shooting at full resolution too and largest jpeg size as well. I suspect I could cut that back to the next level down and get more images befor the buffer fills. I will try it later and report back. I recall the shutter speeds were a bit slow, but I NEVER record this stuff. I can't be filling my mind with useless junk. All I cared about was that AF was fast enough, and the shutter lag was more like my LX than anything else I have used. It's a pretty responsive camera. When you push the button, it takes the picture. It doesn't piss around about it. This is a good thing, since responsiveness is what small cameras are all about. They have to offer something to get us away from the big guns. William Robb
Re: First use of ist D
- Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" Subject: Re: First use of ist D > "This is also a general griping in Japan. > Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told > that > Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made." > > Maybe they'll market a special pair of forceps with "Pentax" on the > side. Probably only available in chrome in the US . . . Har. I'd get a patent on that idea if I were you. William Robb
Re: First use of ist D memory card problems
On 27 Sep 2003 at 17:28, Dr E D F Williams wrote: > Maybe this is an East/West thing? Now someone will bring up Sumo > wrestlers I suppose. Not quite but every Leica R8 body I have seen that was bought used from SE Asia seemed not to have been used, it doesn't surprise me as even my average sized hand can't get around one. Pentax camera bodies however... Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *ist D
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: *ist D . > > I have become a large format junkie and have no > interest in a tiny 6Mp sensor for serious photography > whatsoever. I want more than that and a full frame > sensor. I can wait. I have a lot of top quality > FULL FRAME lenses & I want to use their entire > image, especially on the wide angles... > > If you are only a 35mm shooter, > than a 6Mp DSLR is an quality improvement, if you shoot > 4X5 and 8X10 it is NOT. You have also become incredibly narrow minded (or were you always that way?). I am also a large format shooter, as well as medium format, 35mm, and now, it seems, a digital SLR user. I can assure you that the bottom line in photography is not lppm (or lpm, lets not get into that again), or MTF, or whatever else people use to fool themselves into thinking they are getting something better. Photography is about going from something we can only see to something we can hold in our hands. Nothing more. The camera is a tool, not a religion. Film is just film, large format is just one way of shooting. You equate large format to the Holy Grail. I used to do that as well, some 20 years ago when I discovered 4x5. I grew up a little more, and I got past it. The large format camera, as much as I like the results, and as much as I like shooting with it, is only one way of doing things. Of course, if that is all you do, thats fine. I prefer to not limit myself though. A lot of the large format guys I know like to use 8x10 lenses on their 4x5 cameras. Apparently, using only the center of the image circle gives sharper pictures. Never once did I hear any of them bemoan the fact that they were wasting image circle. As a matter of fact, in 30 years of active photography, this is the first time I have seen anyone try to dismiss a format with such a specious justification. Anyway, I am off to have fun with my new tool. Probably taking pictures that would be impossible to take with 4x5, since I would be using 4x5 to take pictures with if that was my mood. L8R William (Digital Boy) Robb
Re: First use of ist D memory card problems
On the few occasions I have been in contact with Japanese engineers (who were installing Jeol Electron Microscopes) I noticed that they (3 of them) all had small hands. They were actually quite small people now I come to think about it. Perhaps they don't have trouble with the card? Some folk have fingers like pork sausages and while they are excellent for some purposes they don't get into small places too easily. Please no ribaldry today. Maybe this is an East/West thing? Now someone will bring up Sumo wrestlers I suppose. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages "The Cement Company from HELL!" Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 5:19 PM Subject: Re: First use of ist D > "This is also a general griping in Japan. > Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told > that > Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made." > > Maybe they'll market a special pair of forceps with "Pentax" on the > side. Probably only available in chrome in the US . . . > > > Steven Desjardins > Department of Chemistry > Washington and Lee University > Lexington, VA 24450 > (540) 458-8873 > FAX: (540) 458-8878 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
RE: *ist D
On 27 Sep 2003 at 10:15, Steve Desjardins wrote: > While I'm here, I did note the other day that the my E-10 has a 9-36 mm > zoom. Although this lens is attached, it's hardly a P&S style lens and > I assume it could be made removable (aside from just braking it off). I > lens like this could make the WA folks happy, yes? The problem is that the actual angle of view is not what you'd expect given the FL as the sensor is so small. The E-10 at the 9mm setting isn't wider than the LX with the 31mm. Big chunk of glass for the speed too. 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: First use of ist D
"This is also a general griping in Japan. Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told that Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made." Maybe they'll market a special pair of forceps with "Pentax" on the side. Probably only available in chrome in the US . . . Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: *ist D
I don't know how likely this is, but one scenario is that if it takes long enough for the full 35mm sensors to come down in price the APS sensor might actually hang around long enough to be standard. It can probably go up more MP wise, and it will always be cheaper than the larger sensor. It can take all of the old 35 mm lenses (as long as they have an "A" setting 8^O) and many folks who use them find the quality acceptable. After all, we currently have 35 mm and MF film cameras now. The only real drawback is the lack of ultra wide angles, and the can fix some of that with new digital only lenses. And the ability to use smaller tele's is a real advantage for those who use them., not to mention the better DOF. I would still bet that Pentax will come with a full frame sensor DSLR, but the possibility does exist that the full frame sensor becomes the less popular option, like MF or even LF today. After all, this is what Oly is banking on. (I talking about sales, not resolution BTW.) In this regard, pros will use what they can get away with and amateurs will use what they can afford. While I'm here, I did note the other day that the my E-10 has a 9-36 mm zoom. Although this lens is attached, it's hardly a P&S style lens and I assume it could be made removable (aside from just braking it off). I lens like this could make the WA folks happy, yes? Steve (the Speculative)
RE: Monopod recommendation?
> Okay, I tried Bruce Dayton's monopod on recent NorCal PDML > outing. I won't > say I was SOLD, but I was intrigued. I think, being a woman > with less upper body > strength than some males, a monopod might suit me more than a > tripod. I think what matters more is what you're going to use it for. I am a small woman too. I have two tripods and a monopod. My workhorse tripod is a Slik 444-Sport, which is a travel tripod that weighs 4lbs. They don't make it anymore but I think they have something comparable. I've carried it on quite a few hikes without too much of a problem. I either carry it over my shoulder or by its carrying strap. This summer I decided it was finally time to get a monopod so my setup time would be shorter. I was worried that it wouldn't be stable enough. Turns out the thing is perfect for shooting sporting events in close quarters because you don't have three legs sticking out, and it's easy to rotate quickly with it. I kept one hand on the body of the camera and one hand on the barrel of the zoom and I was set. I got the Bogen / Manfrotto 3006B for $35.50 at Adorama. It's in 4-sections and it weighs a pound. However, I still keep my tripods for shooting at night, and because I need one for my large 400mm lens. (And because I like to shoot birds and I think a tripod is better for that). My next 'pod purchase will be a walking stick with a tripod screw under the grip. Eastern Mountain Sports carries an no-frills one for around $40. Amita
Re: *ist D
>Still waiting for a FULL FRAME sensor. Why carry around my 35m lenses only to use the center portion of them? Not only that, my ultra wides, 15,17,20 all become unusuable for what they are supposed to do. >If I'm going use less than full frame, I'd rather carry an integrated (p&s) model with a lens designed for the sensor. Way ligher & cheaper until the full frame models are available J C O According to Outdoor Photographer, there are two full sensor DSLRs out there (okay, I am behind the times, didn't realize it). There are if you are willing to drop $8,000 or more. Marnie aka Doe :-) At the current rate of development, I would guesstimate that means at least 5 years before one can get full framed for around $1,000.
Re: OT: Monopod recommendation?
Hmmm... That's interesting. I wouldn't have thought that lower body weight would dictate whether handheld works as well or almost as well as a monopod. In fact, I'd have thought that lower body weight would make it ~harder~ to handhold. I guess it depends what one wants the monopod for. It certainly won't replace a tripod. I find mine very useful, although I only take it out maybe twice a year. That's because I rarely use long lenses Certainly for macro, or architectural, or situations where the camera must be kept perfectly still, a monopod won't do. But for action shots, or telephoto shots at slower speeds in situations a tripod would be unpractical, monopods are better than handheld for me. That being said, I have a Manfrotto 479B with a generic head. The pod's are almost always on sale for around $50 or $60 Cdn around here. And the head only cost me $10 Cdn - I bought it just so I could tilt the cam for vertical shots, and because it puts the viewfinder exactly at eye level with the sections completely extended. Mine is a 3 section 'pod - there's a 4 section, but I don't need mine any smaller when collapsed, and I figured that 3 sections would be a bit stiffer. The model above mine has fatter tubing, which would make it stiffer (it's the model that I've seen several pros using at sporting events), but for the price, I figured the 479 would do fine, and it has. I most recently used my pod at the airshow here in Toronto, and I have the colour prints back from that - I should scan a few and post 'em. They didn't turn out too bad. Just a few thoughts... cheers, frank Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Marnie, I am also fairly slight and found the monopod gave me no better results than > > tight body posture. I had a tendancy to lean on it too much and had a hard time > keeping it > level. I found using a light small tripod as a chest pod (welll.. um.. not right > on the chest...) > worked better for me. I like bean bags for steadiness when one can find something > to place it on. > Sounds like you mean you want for the long walks or hikes. A benbo was my favorite > field > tripod - just find some burly guy to carry it for you :) > > annsan (who should be asleep by now) -- "What a senseless waste of human life" -The Customer in Monty Python's Cheese Shop sketch
Re: First use of ist D
On 03.9.27 1:13 AM, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in. > This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like > this. This is also a general griping in Japan. Somebody complained it to the service centre in Japan and was told that Pentax is addressing it but not sure when the revision would be made. Meantime, they (Pentax) apparently made a band aid solution for now. Put sticking tape on both sides of CF with approx. 1cm left out and stick them together. This will work as a bellow to pull the card out, and it won't interfere with the door closure. There was a report about using a microdrive and it was too tight to get it out, and needed to bring it to a service centre. Cheers, Ken
Re: Amateur Photographer *ist D review - precis
Hi Cotty, on 27 Sep 03 you wrote in pentax.list: >Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive >Pentax *ist D: Thanks a lot! Very nice article. I'm quite sure that you will handle a *istD as soon as you can get one into your fingers. I'm looking forward to your comparison to the D60 ;-)) Cheers, Heiko
*ist D pricing, UK
For UK buyers, the *ist D (body only) is available at Cameraworld for £1199! www.camerworld.co.uk That's about US$1990 at 1.66 exchange rate. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Senior moment
There's someone here on the list that photographs and prints horse shows, but due to a senior moment can't remember who. I'm considering doing something similar with a local hot air balloon company and am looking for info. Please give drop me a line off list. Thanks, Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: First use of ist D
Thanks for the info Bill. Very kind of you. I think Pentax's iso 800 seems to have less noise than my D1 at 800. Were they shot at relativly slow shutter speeds,the dog has motion blur were the box and person look fine. I see 4 pictures to kack a buffer a problem in some of myhorse work, but not all of it. I usually "burst" 6-7 in a row when doing reining. Battery hog,bad.:-) Good to hear the grip makes it nicer feeling. I have only shot the D1 in jpg,fine, mode and can get 90-95 depending on recorded info,so i cannot comment on the number of raw and tiffs that you mentioned. So its true then,the M and K mounts dont offer meter on the camera and thats why you did the rotate thingy. Thanks again Bill Dave(200 f 4 should be here Monday) Brooks > Just thought I would share the fun. > > The first 4 pictures are at a dog demo we did tonight. > A bit of action for Dave. They were shot with the 77mm in dummy mode, set to > ISO 800. > I was shooting in jpeg mode, ending up with 1 mb 2000x3000 pixel files. > The camera would shoot 4 of these and then kack until the buffer was > emptied, I wasn't counting, but it took several seconds. > > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0024.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0025.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0026.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0027.jpg > > These three are shot into the sun with the 18-35 in whatever the thing > defaulted to out of the box. The files are from 5mb tiffs. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0005small.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0006small.jpg > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0007small.jpg > > This is shot from my car window while my wife was spending money at > Wal-Mart, douwnsized , from a 2000x3000 pixel jpeg. > This one shows a couple of hot pixels. > I am told it is pretty normal to get a few on a ccd. > > http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0092small.jpg > > This camera is WAY COOL. > > Even the chrome 77 looks good on it. > The A 50mm f/1.2 is great on it, interestingly enough. > > So, what do I like about it so far? > It is quite a heavy instrument with the battery pack on, but .lighter than > an LX with the winder attached > It is not large, heightwise, it is close to the same as an LX with a winder, > its a little narrower, but more bulbous, and is somewhat fatter. This is > with the battery pack on. With the pack off, it is positively tiny, and > quite light, somewhat lighter than an LX, though this was without batteries > in the built in chamber. > > The built in battery compartment is almost a third of the camera. It takes 2 > CR2V lithioids, if you choose to go that route. > > It is quite easy to use, the control layout surprised me by being easy to > figure out, and the camera is quite easy to use. > I managed to lock it up a once, where it just became totally unresponsive. > Shutting it off and popping the battery door open, then closed seemed to > cure the problem though. I expect I managed to do something that caused it > to crash. > > For those who want to shoot in highest quality mode, I would advice that you > buy lots of memory, either off camera storage or cards. > Probably both. > A 256mb card will hold 16 RAW files, or 14 highest quality tiffs. > > It is ready to go about 1 second after the power is turned on. > > An interesting feature is on the battery grip. It has a set of basic > operation controls on it, mimicking the body placement of the on/off/dof > switch, shtter button and control wheels. It even has an AE lock under the > thumbwheel. > This makes for cool vertical operation, since the camera is not at all > comrotable to hold vertically and be using the body controls with the grip > on. > > The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in. > This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like > this. > > It is a battery pig. I just killed the first set of batteries. I have 100 > saved files, and probably about 50 nuked ones as well as significant > playtime to show for it. > I am using Ni-MH AA cells in it. > > The auto focus is very quick, and seems to work quite well in dim light. It > makes a somewhat high pitched, but very business like noise when actuated. > > The business of using the pre A series lenses is as bad as I thought it > would be. The camera can be left in program mode and the lens can be > partially rotated off. The exposure will be relatively correct (I won't go > near defining what correct really is) at any given aperture. > Note this method is really not overly handy, and not really feasable at all > with tripod mounted lenses. > At least I don't think so, anyway. > You certainly can't do production shooting in this fashion, anyway. > > Thats all for now folks, gotta sleep. > > William Robb > > > > >
Amateur Photographer *ist D review - precis
Okay digital dabblers, here's what AP has to say about the diminutive Pentax *ist D: The review is by Chris Gatcum and I hope the snippets of verbatim text here will act as an impetus to go and buy the magazine (where available) instead of providing AP with ammunition for breach of copyright. I claim UK News Access, and attribute accordingly. Generally the review is very positive, with plenty of glowing tributes and acknowledgements. The lack of noise on images was singled out for special praise, especially at higher ISO settings, as was general build quality and handling. Backward lens compatibility is noted although it is acknowledged that pre-1984 lenses may not work properly'. The autofocus was also highly praised, as well as the exposure system - with one notable exception. On occasion the reviewer encountered underexposure by up to 2/3 of a stop on random images. The apparent fault was duplicated on a second *ist D body, so it is thought to be a small bug? Another gripe was the position of some of the buttons on the rear of the body. The reviewer admits that this is down to personal preference and no adverse effects on camera handling were encountered. The review starts with a 'is it too little too late, or better late than never' question, and ends on: "...there is little fault with the *ist D. When it comes to answering the question of whether this camera is 'too little, too late', the answer is a resounding 'No'. Pentax may have been guilty of dragging its heels when it has come to producing a D-SLR, but the end product - the *ist D - is certainly worth the wait." ** Just going back into the review, some highlights: "By far the biggest boon to *ist D users, however, is the inclusion of a PC sync socket, something that is absent from the 35mm *ist. This opens the camera up to a host of studio and other off-camera flash- lighting sources, and certainly gives the *ist D a more professional spec." "...Mirror lock-up is an occasionally seen feature that will particularly appeal to still-life and landscape photographers. Howeverit is disappointing that there is not a standard cable-release socket as well. Instead, we have to invest in the optional remote release..." "...the multiple-exposure facility offered by the *ist D and this is something seen on very few other digital SLRs. It is possible to set this to capture between two and nine images on a single 'frame' ." "...Instead of plastic, Pentax has provided the *ist D with a purposeful stainless-steel shell, producing a camera that definitely feels like a high-end SLR should." "...The maximum amount you can zoom in [on the rear LCD] is a whopping 12x. This means that you are seeing one in every five pixels that make up your images, allowing you to accurately check your focus in even the smallest areas. When you want to know that everything is correct, this is definitely what you need." "...What you might not want or need so much are the tardy recording times.Shooting a TIFF file results in a 25 second delay while the image records to your card.." "...Overall the *ist D is a very nice camera to use." "...Noise - or a lack of it - is an area where the *ist D excels. At the minimum ISO 200 setting it is barely noticeablewhen you use the *ist D's custom function to squeeze an effective sensitivity of ISO 3200 out of the sensor that the camera really shines.the coarseness is not as extreme as it can be with other cameras at comparative ISO settingsthe noise is not too dissimilar in terms of its appearance to the grain of a 35mm film rated at the same speed (Fuji Press 800 pushed two stops, for example)..." "...Occasionally...the camera has provided us with a result...that ...is...underexposed...The underexposure, while not disastrous, is annoying - especially as it appears to happen randomly." "...the centreweighted and spot-metering patterns on the *ist D prove reliable and consistent, so there is always the option to switch to one of these..." [summary] "As this is Pentax's first production model digital SLR, I have to take my hat off to the company. Aside from one or two wrinkles that could possibly do with being ironed out, Pentax has produced a remarkably good camera...the *ist D is certainly worth the wait..." AP rating - 89% * AP Editor Gary Coward-Williams writes in his leader column: "Just when you think that the battle for dominance in the digital SLR market is essentially a two-horse race, Pentax has fought back with a very strong offering in the form of its new, but bizarrely named, *ist D. If I were a Pentax owner I would either be overjoyed to discover that I can use my optics with a product from the manufacturer of my choice, or I would be angry that impatience got the better of me and I had already bought something that has meant a costly re-think with optics. Either way, after a false start a year or so ago, it is good to know that a company so pivotal to the SLR camera in its earl
Re: *ist D
we've been down this road before. if sharpness/resolution were the only measure of quality, nothing less than 20x24 glass plates would be acceptable. Herb - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 1:50 AM Subject: RE: *ist D > I have become a large format junkie and have no > interest in a tiny 6Mp sensor for serious photography > whatsoever. I want more than that and a full frame > sensor. I can wait. I have a lot of top quality > FULL FRAME lenses & I want to use their entire > image, especially on the wide angles...
Re: *ist D
På lørdag, 27. september 2003, kl. 08:18, John Francis: The last several decades of technology improvement say that you're wrong. We're not at the level of counting individual photons yet, so sensors can get smaller without quality loss. Actually we are. A cooled CCD often has noise levels in the low single digit photon counts. That's sensors being used in astrophotography, at an equivalent ISO rating far higher than the 200 (or even 3200) of today's DSLRs. We'll get there eventually, but we've got quite a way to go. Noise is very temperature dependent, and the quantum efficiency of the detector sets another limit. You could of course use hydrogen cooling and let the evaporated hydrogen drive fuel cells in stead of batteries, but... The only other alternative is cascading diodes, but they´d be too large for sensor matrixes and use high voltages, so we´re still in the sci-fi domain :-) DagT
Amteur Photographer *ist D review - first impression
Just picked up the rag...leafing through...looks goodvery favourable review2 small gripes, button locations and 1 in 20 or 30 shots underexposingwill read and precis soon Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: First use of ist D
Thanks for this information. Last week I had the oppertunity to hold a digital 3MP P&S, and I was very dissapointed about the lag in time between pressing the button and finally after a very long time making the photograph. How is the *ist D in this respect, is it comparable with my PZ-1? Frits William Robb wrote: Just thought I would share the fun. The first 4 pictures are at a dog demo we did tonight. A bit of action for Dave. They were shot with the 77mm in dummy mode, set to ISO 800. I was shooting in jpeg mode, ending up with 1 mb 2000x3000 pixel files. The camera would shoot 4 of these and then kack until the buffer was emptied, I wasn't counting, but it took several seconds. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0024.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0025.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0026.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0027.jpg These three are shot into the sun with the 18-35 in whatever the thing defaulted to out of the box. The files are from 5mb tiffs. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0005small.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0006small.jpg http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0007small.jpg This is shot from my car window while my wife was spending money at Wal-Mart, douwnsized , from a 2000x3000 pixel jpeg. This one shows a couple of hot pixels. I am told it is pretty normal to get a few on a ccd. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/temp/IMGP0092small.jpg This camera is WAY COOL. Even the chrome 77 looks good on it. The A 50mm f/1.2 is great on it, interestingly enough. So, what do I like about it so far? It is quite a heavy instrument with the battery pack on, but .lighter than an LX with the winder attached It is not large, heightwise, it is close to the same as an LX with a winder, its a little narrower, but more bulbous, and is somewhat fatter. This is with the battery pack on. With the pack off, it is positively tiny, and quite light, somewhat lighter than an LX, though this was without batteries in the built in chamber. The built in battery compartment is almost a third of the camera. It takes 2 CR2V lithioids, if you choose to go that route. It is quite easy to use, the control layout surprised me by being easy to figure out, and the camera is quite easy to use. I managed to lock it up a once, where it just became totally unresponsive. Shutting it off and popping the battery door open, then closed seemed to cure the problem though. I expect I managed to do something that caused it to crash. For those who want to shoot in highest quality mode, I would advice that you buy lots of memory, either off camera storage or cards. Probably both. A 256mb card will hold 16 RAW files, or 14 highest quality tiffs. It is ready to go about 1 second after the power is turned on. An interesting feature is on the battery grip. It has a set of basic operation controls on it, mimicking the body placement of the on/off/dof switch, shtter button and control wheels. It even has an AE lock under the thumbwheel. This makes for cool vertical operation, since the camera is not at all comrotable to hold vertically and be using the body controls with the grip on. The flash card is almost impossible to remove without forceps once it is in. This is frightfully bad design, and shouldn't have made it to market like this. It is a battery pig. I just killed the first set of batteries. I have 100 saved files, and probably about 50 nuked ones as well as significant playtime to show for it. I am using Ni-MH AA cells in it. The auto focus is very quick, and seems to work quite well in dim light. It makes a somewhat high pitched, but very business like noise when actuated. The business of using the pre A series lenses is as bad as I thought it would be. The camera can be left in program mode and the lens can be partially rotated off. The exposure will be relatively correct (I won't go near defining what correct really is) at any given aperture. Note this method is really not overly handy, and not really feasable at all with tripod mounted lenses. At least I don't think so, anyway. You certainly can't do production shooting in this fashion, anyway. Thats all for now folks, gotta sleep. William Robb
Re: *ist D
It depends on the source of the noise. We could cool the sensors with liquid nitrogen or a Peltier device, making the camera a wee bit larger. I don't use funny faces in my messages ... but pause here for some hilarity. By the way a real Bonanza of photomicrographic equipment has come into my hot little hands. An automatic camera 35mm, 6x9 and 4x5 from Wild. A Reichert (without motorised camera) but with auto exposure and a Zeiss manual set for 4x5 and Polaroid with exposure meter. All work perfectly and the Wild automatic microscope camera is unused. This thing cost about $15.000 new the last time I saw a price; they still sell for about $5000 used. Anybody interested? I need cash for a *ist D. I also have a load of sub-stage condensers for the older Leitz compound microscopes - I think one of our members has such an instrument. I also have a Leitz phototube that might solve some of his problems! I also have a new Copal shutter, without lens, on a black aluminium board. And more. Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages "The Cement Company from HELL!" Updated: August 15, 2003 - Original Message - From: "Dag T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2003 9:57 AM Subject: Re: *ist D > > På lørdag, 27. september 2003, kl. 06:09, skrev Chris Brogden: > > >> Eventually, the only way to effectively increase pixel count will be > >> to > >> make sensor larger. Otherwise the pixels get too small and become > >> insensitive/noisy... > > > > At one point in time, it seemed that the only way to make computers > > more > > powerful was to radically increase the size. But, strangely enough, > > they > > keep getting smaller and more powerful. I'd be surprised if the > > light-gathering/processing abilities of current sensors doesn't improve > > dramatically in the future without the need to go with larger sensors. > > > I would, as it would require substantial revisions of both quantum > mechanics and the understanding of the wave nature of light. Both are > fairly well documented through the last centuries. > > The production of micro processors have not reached such fundamental > limits, yet. One reason is that they may use shorter wavelengths in > the production, down towards x-rays. We can´t start taking pictures in > the ultra violet spectrum just to increase the resolution :-) > > DagT > >
Re: contax/yashica bayonet mount --> k mount ?
Hi, Saturday, September 27, 2003, 7:39:34 AM, you wrote: > Hi everybody, > the prices are dropping for used Carl Zeiss lenses for Contax/Yashica > bayonet mount. Some of these lenses do have no Pentax equivalents which > makes them rather interesting to me, e.g. the Planars 100/f2 and 135/f2 > or the Distagons 18/f4, 35/f1.4. Thus I have one question: Can the mount > of such Zeiss bayonet mount lens be modified in such a way that such > lens can be applied to k-mount cameras like the LX (without using an > adapter that increases the distance from lens to body)? > Any help wuld be appriciated! Rob Studdert, Shel and I had a discussion along similar lines a couple of years ago, although I don't think we came to any conclusions. One thing we did consider was doing it the other way round. Instead of butchering the very expensive Carl Zeiss lenses, butcher a cheap Pentax body, like an MG or similar, and fit the lens to that. If it works then do the same thing to the body of your preference, such as an LX. That doesn't address what you're talking about, because you wouldn't be able to use the Pentax lenses on the Pentax body, but the CZ lenses are really superb, and would be a good match for a camera like the LX. Contax don't have anything like it, as far as I know. -- Cheers, Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
