Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Leon Altoff]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:37:27 -, Rob Brigham wrote:

>*sigh*
>
>This camera is getting very expensive!
>
>Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
>same value transferred to her private shopping account.
>
>AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
>
>Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
>because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
>the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.

Rob,

You gave her the equivalent in funds for HER shopping.  She is free to
spend that how she wants but as she DEMANDED that, you should have sole
claim to the istD.  Tell her she already has the money for one if she
prefers it to her film camera.

I talked to my wife about digital, but she is happy with her MZ3 and 2
limited lenses (which I borrow from time to time).  I'm happy with my
istD and MZ-S.


 Leon

http://www.bluering.org.au
http://www.bluering.org.au/leon

Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

[Andrew Robinson]

That's about what I thought. I suspect USB2 will be available on more 
computers than Firewire. Going to USB2 will enable the scanner to work 
on more computers.

Andrew

Herb Chong wrote:

my measurements of USB2 and Firewire still give the speed edge to Firewire,
but not by much. doing hard drive backups, it is noticeable.
Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Andrew Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

 

The USB2 interface gives it transfer speeds near firewire but allows it
to attach to any computer with a USB interface.
   



 

Re: VIRUS!

[Brendan]

I wish!

 --- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Brendan" 
> Subject: VIRUS!
> 
> 
> > Sorry to everyone who got those weird messages, my
> > system was attacked by a rather nasty lil bug and
> > norton didn't catch it in time ( 10 min after the
> > infection the update came in ). It's all better
> now
> > and goes to show that even with a firewall, norton
> and
> > preventative measures these things still happen (
> > Murphy it's all your fault! )
> 
> Are you the guy with the webcam girls?
> 
> William Robb
>  

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

Re: Scratches on film

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
Subject: Scratches on film


>
> Hello,
>
> I got a ME Super off ebay the other day. I shot TMAX400 at 800 and had
> it developed at Ilford's (UK). I see quite a few problems (eg a set of
> parallel, horizontal scratches on negs and of course prints; what
> looks like a 1.5cm diameter blotch, of which only the perimeter is
> seen, on negs and prints; and particles of dust or hair in the prints
> but probably not on negatives). I see no repeatable problem in all
> shots, though most have some kind of artifact.
>
> Should I blame the camera or the lab? I have not had problems with
> Ilfords before, it has to be said, but I have not developed that many
> B&Ws.

Kostas;

It's probably the lab.
To be sure, sacrifice a roll of film, and advance it fully through the
camera, then rewind it, leaving the leader out.
Pull the film entirely out of the cassette and inspect it carefully for
scratches.
If the dust specks on the prints are white, it's the lab. If they are black,
the camera is at fault (dust in the camera getting onto the film).
Can you scan the blotch and send me a jpeg?
Thanks

William Robb

Re: VIRUS!

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Brendan" 
Subject: VIRUS!


> Sorry to everyone who got those weird messages, my
> system was attacked by a rather nasty lil bug and
> norton didn't catch it in time ( 10 min after the
> infection the update came in ). It's all better now
> and goes to show that even with a firewall, norton and
> preventative measures these things still happen (
> Murphy it's all your fault! )

Are you the guy with the webcam girls?

William Robb

Re: LXist

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: LXist



> And I've got 3 F3's which is more than enough to qualify as a "burden" of
> F3s!

Ah yes, the F3. The best camera I never liked when I owned one. Absolutely
reliable, tough as nails, perfect exposure accuracy, great viewfinder,
terrible viewfinder information placement.
I sold mine to a fellow photographer close to 15 years ago. He figures he
has put close to a third of a million exposures on it. This is in addition
to the hundred or so thousand I put on it.
It has never failed to work, has never been in for service, and is still
performing perfectly for him.
Pity the LX isn't able to do that.
Pity the F3 uses Nikon lenses.

William Robb

RE: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

[David Madsen]

Technically, USB2 is faster than fire wire (although not by much), but if
you want your USB2 device to operate at its full capacity you must have it
connected to a USB2 port.  The device can be connected to a standard USB
port, but will transfer at standard USB rate.

David Madsen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.davidmadsen.com

-Original Message-
From: Andrew Robinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 8:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners


The USB2 interface gives it transfer speeds near firewire but allows it
to attach to any computer with a USB interface.

Andrew Robinson

Herb Chong wrote:

>it's rated about twice as fast and 16-bit color versus 14-bit.
>
>Herb
>- Original Message -
>From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:08 PM
>Subject: Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners
>
>
>
>
>>Is it me or does it seem that the new Coolscan V is nothing more then the
>>current Coolscan 4000 minus the ability to batch scan via optional
>>
>>
>adapters?
>
>
>>It does appear that it will price lower then the current discounted
>>
>>
>Coolscan
>
>
>>4000.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Long and OT - inkhorn terms ( was Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Stanley Halpin]

Like he said.

Stan

Bob Walkden wrote:

Hi,

Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 10:01:35 AM, you wrote:

 

Going OT here, but always wanted to be sure what the plural of ibis was.
I've heard ibises, ibes, ibii, ibex or just plain ibis etc.. As such I've
resorted to an-apple-two-apples, an-ibis-two-birds..
   

the New Oxford dictionary gives you a choice of one: ibises.

Ibex is a different animal altogether - a goat, not a bird. The
English plural is 'ibexes'.
You can often treat words denoting animals as mass nouns, particular
when you're eating the animals in question. For instance, you could
serve ibex or ibis to 100 or so of your closest friends. If the
proportions were not miserly this would constitute more than one ibex
or ibis.
The other possibilities you list - ibes, ibii - are just confusion. My
guess is that in normal speech most people would say 'ibises'.
However, if they're writing, or being particularly aware of what they
say, they may make an effort to be 'correct' or to sound educated.
This leads people to make gross mistakes such as 'ibii', 'stati',
'statii' (or recently 'virii'). Relatively few people know Latin, but
are familiar with words like radius/radii, focus/foci from school
mathematics, they use analogy to try and form the plural of similar words,
but often succeed only in failing. This is a hangover from 16th century England
when the use of Latin loan-words was taken to be a sign of social superiority,
and there was a lot of ostentatious use of such words, called 'inkhorn terms'
because of the association of education and inkhorns (ink wells).
In Latin nouns are classified into 5 declensions, and some of the
declensions are further sub-divided into groups. These declensions and
groups reflect the different forms the words take according to their function
in a clause. In particular, the plural forms are different in these declensions.
Typically you can recognise the declension of a noun from the way the
nominative singular ends. So normally a word ending in -a is 1st declension
(plural -ae), -us is 2nd declension (plural -i). The most common 3rd declension
ending is -is, plural -es, but the 3rd declension has several sub-categories.
Confusingly for generations of schoolboys, the nominative singular in
the 4th decelension is -us, like the 2nd declension, but the
nominative plural is also -us, but with a long 'u'.
Virus, focus and radius are 2nd declension, so the Latin nominative
plurals are viri (NOT 'virii'), foci (NOT 'focii') and radii (yes!) respectively.
But status is 4th declension, so the Latin nominative plural is also
status - NOT 'stati' or 'statii'.
Ibis is 3rd declension, group I, feminine. The nominative plural is
ibes.
Ibex and index are (I think) 3rd declension group II, so the nominative
plurals are respectively ibices and indices.
These are all common loan words in English. But remember, we're
speaking English, not Latin. We don't have to conform to Latin
grammar, and indeed in most cases (pun intended) we don't. Latin nouns
have case endings. So if we wanted to talk about something belonging
to several ibises, say their wings, we would say 'alae ibium', 'ibium'
being the genitive plural. We never find that the people who insist on
the 'correct plural' also insist on this equally 'correct' plural. That's
because we speak English, not Latin.
English is very simple in its construction of plurals - add 's' or
'es' to the end of the word, with a small number of exceptions.
English has a long tradition of loan words from other languages, yet
it seems to be only in the Latin and Greek ones - the prestige languages
of centuries past - that some people expect us to conform to their
grammar. I hope the absurdity of this is obvious. Why don't these
people also insist on all the correct case endings, why is it just the
nominative and the plural? Why not the ablative singular, or the
vocative? Why don't they insist on agreement between adjesctives and nouns?
Why don't they insist on the correct forms for other languages we've plundered,
such as Norse, Australian, Algonquin, Basque, Spanish, Inuit and so on?
So, bearing in mind that we speak English, let's use the English
plural forms for these inkhorn terms:
virus - viruses
status - statuses
focus - focuses
ibis - ibises
ibex - ibexes
virus - viruses
index - indexes (I might forgive indices in technical documents)
radius - radiuses (I might forgive radii in mathematics)
Twix - Twixes
People who say things like 'virii', 'statii' etc. are trying to
second-guess Latin grammar without knowing what they're doing. It doesn't
make them look educated. Far from it. Better to stick with the known
quantity of English plurals.
 

Re: LXist

[edwin]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote:

> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "jtainter"
> Subject: LXist
> 
> 
> > Will Robb wrote:
> >
> > 'Plural of LX is LXs.
> > As in, "I have three LXs".'
> >
> > So, Wheatfield, do you have:
> >
> > A flock of LXs?
> > A herd of LXs?
> > A gaggle of LXs?
> > An exaltation of LXs?
> 
> I have three LXs.
> And an *ist D.
> And a couple of ME Supers.
> And a Program Plus.
> And a KM and a K1000.
> And an MZ-5 on loan to a friend.
> I think that's it.
> Oh, and a really ugly MX that I have promised to send to a fellow in New
> Jersey, which I should get in the mail soon.

Could this be set to music?  "...and an MX in a pear tree"

Personally, I've only got 1 LX (can't justify a second one right now) so 
the plurals thing isn't a problem.   Perhaps an "XLence of LXs"?
I've got a "lot" of Spotmatics, which is as good a plural term as any.
I'm trying to find ways to keep it from being a "shelf" of spotmatics.

And I've got 3 F3's which is more than enough to qualify as a "burden" of 
F3s!

DJE

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[edwin]

> > Pentax headquarters seems to have a fascination with combining add letters
> > and numbers. Not using any numbering system or sequential order that I can
> > figure out.
> 
> It was produced first in Pentax's 60th year of existence.  A good
> combination of historical pride and cute name, in my opinion.
> 
> mike

Makes me wonder if we'll see an Asahi Pentax "C"

DJE 

Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #1312

[David Bellwood]

The introduction of the LX marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of
the corporation which ultimately morphed into Asahi Optical/Pentax Corp.
Logical enough, no?
David B

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 5:43 PM
Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #1312


> --
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 03 : Issue 1312
>
> Today's Topics:
>   Re: My *istD cost just went up!   [ "John Francis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: OT: Arrgggh!  [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen  [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   RE: LXist [ "Collin Brendemuehl"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen  [ "Haller, Thomas"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: LXist [ Bob Walkden
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen  [ mike wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   RE: LXist [ "David Madsen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   RE: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..  [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen  [ Tom Ivar Helbekkmo
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: My *istD cost just went up!   [ Mark Roberts
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Eyecup for ist D  [ "Paul Eriksson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: Eyecup for ist D  [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Argh (ist-D status)   [ Stanley Halpin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: Eyecup for ist D  [ "Christian"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: Argh (ist-D status)   [ "Steve Desjardins"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   OT: Sharpening for priniting purpose  [ Ramesh Kumar
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   VIRUS![ Brendan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   RE: LXist [ "Doug Franklin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: OT: Sharpening for priniting pur  [ "Doug Franklin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   RE: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..  [ "Bob Blakely"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Telecaonverter for A*200/2.8  [ "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners  [ "Herb Chong"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: OT: Sharpening for priniting pur  [ "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>   Re: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..  [ "Herb Chong"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: Sharpening for priniting purpose  [ "Herb Chong"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>   Re: Telecaonverter for A*200/2.8  [ "Rob Studdert"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> --
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:23:11 -0500 (EST)
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: My *istD cost just went up!
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > This camera is getting very expensive!
>
> I hear you.  As I remarked to the other half as we wandered out
> of MicroCenter - "it's amazing how much money you have to spend
> so that you can save money on film and printing".  Quite apart
> from the $350 on CF memory there was the new $400 printer (plus
> $100+ in paper and ink).  And she decided this would be a good
> time for her to pick up a new PDA (fortunately only a low-end
> PocketPC).
>
> THen there was the $1000 or so I had to spend on new shelving
> for the A/V equipment, and the time I spent disconnecting all
> the equipment, moving it to the new unit, and reconnecting it.
> (There are 18 connections to the back of the TV, about as many
> to the main AV switcher, and another ten pieces of equipment
> on the rack next to it, not including speakers & switchboxes).
>
> I still haven't got the printer connected up, but dammitall
> I'm going out to take some pictures with the *ist-D today!!
>
> --
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 14:38:51 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: Arrgggh!
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> >Hi,
>
> >Notwithstanding the erudition in other posts, both on and off this
> topic, I must concur with Marnie's header.  Because I am at work and my
> new Jobo processor has arrived at home.
>
> >Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?
>
> >mike
> looking forward to this evening.
>
>
> I've gone into information overload. One of the potential hazards of the
Net
> -- no matter what forum.
>
> I've decided not to worry about the life cycle of the *istD, or any other
> DSLR, my brain will be obsolete before most of them will.
>
> Marnie aka Doe :-)
>
> --
>
> Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:03:01 EST
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
> 

Re: OT: Sharpening for priniting purpose

[Ramesh Kumar]

Thanks for responding.
I am using scanning at 4000dpi using Nikon LS-4000.

Thanks
Ramesh
--- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 360 dpi images should print well. However, the
> sharpness of the prints
> will depend on the accuracy of the scanner. On your
> monitor you should
> be able to see relatively good sharpness at 100%. If
> you don't, your
> prints won't be snappy. What resolution are you
> scanning at?. I
> assume.it must be 4000 dpi if you're able to get 360
> dpi prints at 11 x
> 15. Are you using a film scanner or a flatbed? Is
> the resolution native
> or interpolated? There are a lot of factors involved
> here. If something
> isn't right, your prints will be mush.
> Paul
> 
> Ramesh Kumar wrote:
> > 
> > I does not have any experience in printing. Just
> > started printing using friends Canon printer. I
> have
> > already printed 3 photos of 11x15 size(2 marco and
> 1
> > landscape). Macro prints looks sharper and
> landscape
> > ones are not equally sharp. I do not have any
> problem
> > in getting colors right, thanks to Colovision
> vision
> > spyder.
> > 
> > My questions are
> > 
> > 1) Using Adobe, is it possible to tell how sharp
> the
> > prints are going to be?
> > 
> > 2) Is there a relation between sharpness seen on
> the
> > monitor to sharpness seen on the print?
> > Ex: To get a print that looks SHARP on print,
> should
> > it appear VERY SHARP on monitor?
> > 
> > If there are any books pls suggest.
> > 
> > Technical details:
> > All are 35mm. I am using 360dpi for printing. Most
> of
> > my photos are taken using macro lenses(even the
> > landscapes:-) ) and film is Velvia & Kodak E200.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > Ramesh
> > 
> > __
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
> design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> 


__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

Re: OT: Sharpening for priniting purpose

[Eactivist]

>2) Is there a relation between sharpness seen on the
monitor to sharpness seen on the print? 
Ex: To get a print that looks SHARP on print, should
it appear VERY SHARP on monitor?

Pretty much, but not always. Probably Herb can answer this better than I. But 
if it's a sharp pic it should look sharp on the monitor. However, I have 
found the reverse situation is not always true -- some pics that look fairly sharp 
on the monitor come out not as sharp when printed. But then I rarely look at 
them at 100% on the monitor, which is the way to really double check.

I use unsharpen mask very discretely. When you resize an image, where there 
is some kind of resampling, then usually you need to sharpen. The downsizing 
aliased lines, softening them. For that, sometimes the built in sharpening 
selection is enough. For really fine tuning the unsharpen mask is better, but 
sometimes it's a bit tricky. 

Otherwise I try to unsharpen or sharpen rarely. It tends to add artifacts, 
unless one does it carefully. Or if the picture is just a lot blurrier than I'd 
like, then I'll try it.

Anyway, that has been my experience.

Marnie aka Doe  IMHO, software can't really add sharpness that the pic lacked 
in the first place, it can only sort of ape sharpness.

Re: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..

[Ryan Lee]

Esperanto anyone?

Cheers,
Ryan
PS. You guys should lighten up..jeez. I figure the recent spate of 'witty',
pedantic acrimony on this topic is due to the fact everyone desperately
needs some fella to waltz in and say Canon beats Pentax *ss.


From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> Cotty, Bob is right. Noah may be remembered for his dictionary, but hidden
> in the dictionary was a highly political and moral agenda, one of which
was
> to separate American English from England's English.
>
> Herb

> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> > The word is arrogance. Read a short biography of Noah Webster. I used to
> > have one years ago, but it was lost during one of my many moves.
> >
> > If I am ignorant, well, there I am. You must be very smart, I am sure,
but
> > not a very helpful fellow.
> >
> > > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > On 29/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
> > >
> > > >We write words such as "center", "theater", etc. as we
> > > >do in an attempt to remove the effects of England's national
> > > dyslexia from
> > > >our vocabulary.
> > >
> > > Bob, your pride is matched only by your ignorance.

Re: OT: Sharpening for priniting purpose

[Paul Stenquist]

360 dpi images should print well. However, the sharpness of the prints
will depend on the accuracy of the scanner. On your monitor you should
be able to see relatively good sharpness at 100%. If you don't, your
prints won't be snappy. What resolution are you scanning at?. I
assume.it must be 4000 dpi if you're able to get 360 dpi prints at 11 x
15. Are you using a film scanner or a flatbed? Is the resolution native
or interpolated? There are a lot of factors involved here. If something
isn't right, your prints will be mush.
Paul

Ramesh Kumar wrote:
> 
> I does not have any experience in printing. Just
> started printing using friends Canon printer. I have
> already printed 3 photos of 11x15 size(2 marco and 1
> landscape). Macro prints looks sharper and landscape
> ones are not equally sharp. I do not have any problem
> in getting colors right, thanks to Colovision vision
> spyder.
> 
> My questions are
> 
> 1) Using Adobe, is it possible to tell how sharp the
> prints are going to be?
> 
> 2) Is there a relation between sharpness seen on the
> monitor to sharpness seen on the print?
> Ex: To get a print that looks SHARP on print, should
> it appear VERY SHARP on monitor?
> 
> If there are any books pls suggest.
> 
> Technical details:
> All are 35mm. I am using 360dpi for printing. Most of
> my photos are taken using macro lenses(even the
> landscapes:-) ) and film is Velvia & Kodak E200.
> 
> Thanks
> Ramesh
> 
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

RE: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..

[Cotty]

On 29/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>We write words such as "center", "theater", etc. as we
>do in an attempt to remove the effects of England's national dyslexia from
>our vocabulary.

Bob, your pride is matched only by your ignorance.




Cheers,
  Tctoy


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

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[mike wilson]

Hi,

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> >You must have missed the following sentence from my post: "I think of LX as
> an abbreviation, not as a word, even though it is really the Latin numeral for
> 60."
> 
> >Bob
> 
> As good an explanation as any I can think for why they named it the LX -- 60.
> Pentax headquarters seems to have a fascination with combining add letters
> and numbers. Not using any numbering system or sequential order that I can
> figure out.

It was produced first in Pentax's 60th year of existence.  A good
combination of historical pride and cute name, in my opinion.

mike

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> As good an explanation as any I can think for why they named it the
> LX -- 60.  Pentax headquarters seems to have a fascination with
> combining add letters and numbers. Not using any numbering system or
> sequential order that I can figure out.

It's not so hard to figure out in this case.  The LX was released in
the year of Pentax's 60th anniversary -- hence the choice of name.

-tih
-- 
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no  T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

Re: LXist

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 7:06:44 PM, you wrote:

> Will Robb wrote:

> 'Plural of LX is LXs.
> As in, "I have three LXs".'

> So, Wheatfield, do you have:

> A flock of LXs?
> A herd of LXs?
> A gaggle of LXs?
> An exaltation of LXs?

> Grammarians on the list, please help.

3 of them must be a Trinity... or a triumph. A non-specific collection
must an exposure, or glory. Or perhaps Xstasy.

Maybe, to keep up with the new Pentax naming standards, and to avoid
further confusion, we should say 'I have a trinity of LX*'.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Eactivist]

>You must have missed the following sentence from my post: "I think of LX as
an abbreviation, not as a word, even though it is really the Latin numeral for
60."

>Bob

As good an explanation as any I can think for why they named it the LX -- 60. 
Pentax headquarters seems to have a fascination with combining add letters 
and numbers. Not using any numbering system or sequential order that I can 
figure out.

OTOH, I wonder if one does a straight translation from Japanese to English of 
some numbers what they come out as? 

Or maybe they just take something like scrabble tiles (also tiles with 
numbers), shake 'em in a cup and pour them out.

Marnie aka Doe ;-)  Which is also as good explanation as any.

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Haller, Thomas]

Hi Bob!

>> "...plural, as in, "Yes, LXen are well respected cameras, except for
their
>> low-light metering characteristics."
>>
> "That should be, "...especially for their low-light metering 
> characteristics."
>
If you read the other grammatical examples, I think you'll see the light
(pun intentional. :-) Or at least I hope so.

- THaller

RE: LXist

[Collin Brendemuehl]

>From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>
>A murder of LXs? (Black like crows.) 
>An arsenal of LXs? (You shoot them. I particularly like this one.) 
>
>Also... 
>A battery of lenses? (Some are large enough to look like 
>small cannon.) 
>A constellation of flashes, lights? 
>
>A can of film? (Ammo comes in cans.) 
>
>Regards, 
>Bob... 
>
>> From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>> 
>> Will Robb wrote: 
>> 
>> 'Plural of LX is LXs. 
>> As in, "I have three LXs".' 
>> 
>> So, Wheatfield, do you have: 
>> 
>> A flock of LXs? 
>> A herd of LXs? 
>> A gaggle of LXs? 
>> An exaltation of LXs? 
>> 
>> Grammarians on the list, please help. 


I think the correct expression would be no 's' at the end.
"Bill has too many LX."

And "too many" might also be suitable for group designation.


But ...
for beer drinkers:  A keg of LX.
on Spring break  :  An orgy of LX.



CRB

:)

Re: OT: Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!

[Eactivist]

>Hi,

>Notwithstanding the erudition in other posts, both on and off this
topic, I must concur with Marnie's header.  Because I am at work and my
new Jobo processor has arrived at home.

>Doesn't this constitute cruel and unusual punishment?

>mike
looking forward to this evening.


I've gone into information overload. One of the potential hazards of the Net 
-- no matter what forum.

I've decided not to worry about the life cycle of the *istD, or any other 
DSLR, my brain will be obsolete before most of them will.

Marnie aka Doe :-)

Re: LXist

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Joe asked:
> A flock of LXs?
> A herd of LXs?
> A gaggle of LXs?
> An exaltation of LXs?
> 
> Grammarians on the list, please help.

A clique of LXs/LXen.

-- Glenn

RE: LXist

[Bob Blakely]

A murder of LXs? (Black like crows.)
An arsenal of LXs? (You shoot them. I particularly like this one.)

Also...
A battery of lenses? (Some are large enough to look like small cannon.)
A constellation of flashes, lights?

A can of film? (Ammo comes in cans.)

Regards,
Bob...

> From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Will Robb wrote:
> 
> 'Plural of LX is LXs.
> As in, "I have three LXs".'
> 
> So, Wheatfield, do you have:
> 
> A flock of LXs?
> A herd of LXs?
> A gaggle of LXs?
> An exaltation of LXs?
> 
> Grammarians on the list, please help.

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[John Francis]

> 
> *sigh*
> 
> This camera is getting very expensive!

I hear you.  As I remarked to the other half as we wandered out
of MicroCenter - "it's amazing how much money you have to spend
so that you can save money on film and printing".  Quite apart
from the $350 on CF memory there was the new $400 printer (plus
$100+ in paper and ink).  And she decided this would be a good
time for her to pick up a new PDA (fortunately only a low-end
PocketPC).

THen there was the $1000 or so I had to spend on new shelving
for the A/V equipment, and the time I spent disconnecting all
the equipment, moving it to the new unit, and reconnecting it.
(There are 18 connections to the back of the TV, about as many
to the main AV switcher, and another ten pieces of equipment
on the rack next to it, not including speakers & switchboxes).

I still haven't got the printer connected up, but dammitall
I'm going out to take some pictures with the *ist-D today!!

Re: LXist

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "jtainter"
Subject: LXist


> Will Robb wrote:
>
> 'Plural of LX is LXs.
> As in, "I have three LXs".'
>
> So, Wheatfield, do you have:
>
> A flock of LXs?
> A herd of LXs?
> A gaggle of LXs?
> An exaltation of LXs?

I have three LXs.
And an *ist D.
And a couple of ME Supers.
And a Program Plus.
And a KM and a K1000.
And an MZ-5 on loan to a friend.
I think that's it.
Oh, and a really ugly MX that I have promised to send to a fellow in New
Jersey, which I should get in the mail soon.

William Robb

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[wendy beard]

- Original Message -
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> *sigh*
> 
> This camera is getting very expensive!
> 
> Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
> same value transferred to her private shopping account.
> 
> AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
> 
> Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
> because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
> the kids!  
-- 

I should think so too!!!

MEN! 

W.
--
wendy beard
ottawa, canada
http://www.beard-redfern.com

Re: LXist

[Doug Brewer]

At 02:06 PM 10/29/03, throwing caution to the wind, jtainter wrote:

Will Robb wrote:

'Plural of LX is LXs.
As in, "I have three LXs".'
So, Wheatfield, do you have:

A flock of LXs?
A herd of LXs?
A gaggle of LXs?
An exaltation of LXs?
Grammarians on the list, please help.

Joe
a coven

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Lukasz Kacperczyk]

> *sigh*
>
> This camera is getting very expensive!
>
> [...]

> I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up costing
> me!

Well, yes and no :-) Imagine what you'd have to do to bribe the missus to
justify the cost of a 1Ds... Spooky :-)

Regards,
Lukasz

  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
===
 www.fotopolis.pl
===
 internetowy magazyn o fotografii

LXist

[jtainter]

Will Robb wrote:

'Plural of LX is LXs.
As in, "I have three LXs".'

So, Wheatfield, do you have:

A flock of LXs?
A herd of LXs?
A gaggle of LXs?
An exaltation of LXs?

Grammarians on the list, please help.

Joe

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[John Francis]

> 
> what do you ask for when you go into ComputerWorld to buy several
> small handheld pointing devices equipped with 2 or 3 eyes and
> connected to your computer by a thin grey tail?

Mousen

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Rfsindg]

Rob,
I think the cost was already committed when you got the wife and family.
At least that's what I tell myself. 
Regards,  Bob S.


[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> *sigh*
> 
> This camera is getting very expensive!
> 
> Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
> same value transferred to her private shopping account.
> 
> AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
> 
> Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
> because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
> the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.
> 
> I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna 
> end up costing
> me!

RE: LXen/ Ibis/ Inkhorn/Pentax..

[Bob Blakely]

Well, in English as it is spoken and written here in the States, we create
or modify words at the drop of a hat. (Yes, I am aware that many in the
British Isles claim that English hasn't been spoken here for years. I don't
care.) That's why we write words such as "color", "humor", etc. as we do. It
was an attempt by Daniel Webster to remove useless vowels from the language.
He shouldn't have stopped with the "Us". "Dead" should be "ded". The "a" is
entirely unnecessary! We write words such as "center", "theater", etc. as we
do in an attempt to remove the effects of England's national dyslexia from
our vocabulary. Being that we (on this side of the pond) make up words as we
like, LXen as a reference to a large population of LX cameras is perfectly
acceptable. Since this is a word associated with a profession, it's
acceptance can be accelerated if many/most in the photographic profession
decide to use it. Writers of dictionaries usually accept the common jargon
of a profession or trade as valid.

Har!

Regards,
Bob...

> From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Very impressive Bob. I'll give you an A for that choice answer :) I'm
> probably going to print it out for a few rereads too, because somewhere
> around 'declensions' I started seeing pretty colours. I'll
> endeavour to get
> it in though, so that your efforts won't have gone to waste, plus the fact
> that back in the once upon a time (some say still) the guy who made other
> people see pretty colours was pretty popular.
>
> Anyhow, yep I know what an Ibex is, I think that one was in there
> in jest. I
> thought Ibii had a decent shot, given a-platypus-two-platypi (I think).
> About ibes.. sounds almost plausible, but sounds a bit too technical or
> scientific to be popularly adopted even if it was actually right.
> I suppose
> if one of them was called an Iboose, then two of them would indeed be
> Ibeese, but let's just leave that one alone.
>
> To bring some kind of topical integrity back into the thread, I always
> thought the way Pentax names their cameras seems a bit arbitrary. Like if
> one wanted to pick up an old body, just judging by the names, you couldn't
> really tell which one beat which. You could say that about the MZ series
> too, like the uninitiated could be forgiven for thinking that an
> MZ-7 is the
> beefed up version of the mediocre MZ-6, which was an incredible
> improvement
> from the primitive MZ-3. It doesn't show much ambition (counting down)
> because even if they did make an MZ-2 and an MZ-1, and perhaps
> even the cool
> MZ-0, what's next? And another thing (that we've all talked about before,
> what kind of stupid name is *ist? I reckon it was coined by a Gen-Xer who
> figured he/she was being contemporary (while cleverly selling the idea by
> talking about * lenses and tradition!), while not realising that it would
> hinder the reflex Gen-Z (or whichever generation they're at now)
> activity of
> sourcing information via search engines. I just did a global
> search on Yahoo
> (AU) for *ist and as expected, the first 10 results don't smell
> Pentax, and
> I'm guessing the next few don't either.
>
> If any Pentax Corp lurker is around reading this, here's a recommendation
> for you to pass on to management. Here we've got a decent sized
> focus group,
> very eager, very helpful, *very* useful. Sponsor/subsidise i.e fix us up
> with some of your beautiful equipment, and we'll show you what you need to
> do to get up there to play wiv the big boys ;)
>
 - Original Message -
> From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 10:01:35 AM, you wrote:
> >
> > > Going OT here, but always wanted to be sure what the plural
> of ibis was.
> > > I've heard ibises, ibes, ibii, ibex or just plain ibis etc.. As such
> I've
> > > resorted to an-apple-two-apples, an-ibis-two-birds..
> >
> > the New Oxford dictionary gives you a choice of one: ibises.
> >
> > Ibex is a different animal altogether - a goat, not a bird. The
> > English plural is 'ibexes'.
> >
> > You can often treat words denoting animals as mass nouns, particular
> > when you're eating the animals in question. For instance, you could
> > serve ibex or ibis to 100 or so of your closest friends. If the
> > proportions were not miserly this would constitute more than one ibex
> > or ibis.
> >
> > The other possibilities you list - ibes, ibii - are just confusion. My
> > guess is that in normal speech most people would say 'ibises'.
> > However, if they're writing, or being particularly aware of what they
> > say, they may make an effort to be 'correct' or to sound educated.
> > This leads people to make gross mistakes such as 'ibii', 'stati',
> > 'statii' (or recently 'virii'). Relatively few people know Latin, but
> > are familiar with words like radius/radii, focus/foci from school
> > mathematics, they use analogy to try and form the plural of
> similar words,
> > but often succeed only in failing. This is a hangover from 16th centur

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Tonghang Zhou]

I see the politics of budget negotiation at work here.  With
so much training you're getting, you can be the next governor
of California :-)

Tonghang.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Rob Brigham wrote:

> Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
> same value transferred to her private shopping account.
>
> AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
>
> Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
...

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Bob Blakely]

I cannot be responsible for your strange ways of thinking.

> From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 1:32:29 PM, you wrote:
> 
> > Roman numerals are not abbreviations. V is not "short" for anything in
> > Latin.
> 
> You must have missed the following sentence from my post: "I 
> think of LX as
> an abbreviation, not as a word, even though it is really the 
> Latin numeral for
> 60."
> 
> Bob
> 

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Bob Blakely]

That should be, "...especially for their low-light metering
characteristics."

> From: Haller, Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> plural, as in, "Yes, LXen are well respected cameras, except for their
> low-light metering characteristics."

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Cesar Matamoros II]

If I remember correctly there was a discussion here about the plural form of
LX.  I paid close attention being that I think I had four at the time.

The general consensus came out to be LXen.  I think it was due to the sound
of it.

When not in constant use my LXen reside in their own Pentax bag with all
pertinent LX-specific accessories.

With five LXen, two snake-skinned,

Cesar
Panama City, Florida

-- -Original Message-
-- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:40 PM
-- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Subject: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
--
--
-- Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term
-- LXen when referring
-- to their LX in plural. I must be slow but I can't for the
-- life of me figure it
-- out. LXes yes, it sounds right but LXen throws me every time.
-- vic
--

Re: 5 Mpixel price breakthough

[Leonard Paris]

One of the really big reasons is the ability to catch "the decisive moment" 
with the DSLR.  So far, point and shoots do not have that ability.  The time 
delay between shutter button press and actual capture in the P&S makes it 
much more difficult to capture that decisive moment.

Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax discuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 5 Mpixel price breakthough
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:47:08 -0600 (CST)
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:

> I just saw on TV that gateway has a 5Mpixel
> digital P&S for $249.99
>
> I think 35mm film's days are really numbered.
>
> Why does a DSLR cost $1250.00 more WITHOUT
> a lens???
Apples and Oranges.  Why does a pro SLR cost so much more than a film
point-and-shoot?  The sensor size is the same (35mm film), right?
Much of the answer is the LENS part.
I think it's interesting that Canon is using a big print apparently made
from the 300D DSLR as a sales technique.  It looks like Cibachrome or
something, which is a bit of a cheat in and of itself.
However, it's rather like using a picture taken by a pro on Fuji Velvia
with some $1500 lens on a Canon film Rebel and saying "look, this camera
takes great pictures"!
DJE

_
Never get a busy signal because you are always connected  with high-speed 
Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers.  
https://broadband.msn.com

Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

[Butch Black]

I thought that the 5000 not the V was faster and 16 bit.

Butch

Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.

Hermann Hesse (Demian)

Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See

[Leonard Paris]

I think that some fine tuning of the firmware n the *ist D will take care of 
the minor discrepancies between it and the Canon D10.  I do like the ability 
to use the larger Adobe RGBcolor space in the *ist D.  I own a Canon D30, 
D60, and a Powershhot G5 in addition to my *ist D.  I'm pretty happy with 
the *ist D.  Great build quality and great results, so far.

Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:36:29 -0600 (CST)
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Or maybe it means the sensor Pentax is using is not quite as good as 
Canon's.
> I tend to think one cannot draw any conclusions yet.

There is some evidence that the Canon sensor is a bit better, or Canon's
handling of it is better.  It's a more developed technology than the
sensor in the *istD/D100.
However, I do think that some of the problem is not the lenses but what
digital post-processing does to the images from the lenses.  I don't
recall there being a great lamenting of chromatic aberration in Pentax
lenses back when Fujichrome Velvia was king.  I KNOW that some truly
great Nikon lenses exhibit problems on Nikon digitals that they did not on
film, and the Kodak N14 is almost legendary for inducing funky performance
on very fine lenses.
Try comparing the *istD to the Canon D30, which was Canon's first digital
camera.  That sort of points out how far Canon has come, and how good
the *istD is for a first DSLR.
DJE

_
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected?  Get a FREE computer virus scan 
online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

Re: istD review - finally

[Leonard Paris]

Absolutely!  I use one on my AF500FTZ almost all the time.

Len
---
* There's no place like 127.0.0.1

btw: is Stofen omnibounce available for AF500FTZ?
I've built myself one from an empty polypropylene shampoo bottle...looks
weird, works remarkably well also with 14mm or fisheye (on film too)!
If somebody wants to see - anyone with a little webspace :-)?
Thomas

_
Fretting that your Hotmail account may expire because you forgot to sign in 
enough? Get Hotmail Extra Storage today!   
http://join.msn.com/?PAGE=features/es

RE: My *istD cost just went up!

[Rob Brigham]

I have plumped for the Canon A70 - it uses AA batts and CF cards, so
sits quite sensibly with the *istD and she can keep a pack of lithiums
or even alkalines in the car in case she runs out of charge when out.
Got a pretty cheap price too, and handy that it is Xmas soon - I can
combine it with that.  Just gotta keep her off my *istD till then!

> -Original Message-
> From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> My solution was to "donate" the Optio S to her.
> 
> Bill
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:37 AM
> Subject: My *istD cost just went up!
> 
> 
> > *sigh*
> > 
> > This camera is getting very expensive!
> > 
> > Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer 
> with the 
> > same value transferred to her private shopping account.
> > 
> > AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
> > 
> > Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own, 
> > because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for 
> > photographing the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.
> > 
> > I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up 
> > costing me!
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 1:32:29 PM, you wrote:

> Roman numerals are not abbreviations. V is not "short" for anything in
> Latin.

You must have missed the following sentence from my post: "I think of LX as
an abbreviation, not as a word, even though it is really the Latin numeral for
60."

Bob


>> Hi,
>>
>> Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 4:40:11 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term LXen when
> referring
>> > to their LX in plural. I must be slow but I can't for the life of me
> figure it
>> > out. LXes yes, it sounds right but LXen throws me every time.
>> > vic
>>
>> I've always assumed it's from a German way of forming plurals. How it
>> became established I don't know. Perhaps it's because some English
>> words ending in -x still form the plural that way. This is because Old
>> English, like German, had several different ways of forming plurals,
>> on of which is to add '-en' - child/children, tunge/tungan
>> (tongue/tongues). The language has become simplified over the years. One
>> way in which people learn to use an unfamiliar term is by analogy,
>> for example children learn dog/dogs etc. and by analogy say man/mans,
>> mouse/mouses etc. until they learn the correct forms. I think 'LXen'
>> is an analogy with words ending in -x, like ox/oxen. However, I can't
>> think of any more examples, so perhaps it's more of an analogy with
>> German, where affing -n or -en is still common.
>>
>> Personally I think the plural should be LXs - not LXes or LX's
>> (especially not LX's!) - because that is the normal way of doing it
>> for abbreviations. I think of LX as an abbreviation, not as a word,
>> even though it is really the Latin numeral for 60. If it was a word
>> then LXes might be ok, as it is for 'foxes' and 'indexes'. Misguided
>> people who think the plural of 'index' is 'indices' might prefer to call
>> their LXs 'Lices'.

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 2:37:52 PM, you wrote:

> This is archived somewhere. We actually had a fairly lengthy thread on
> what name we wanted to use for plural LX.

> We just liked the way LXen sounded.

> Cesar, do you remember this?

shouldn't that be

Hoc meminis, Caesar? 

-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Dag T]

You known you are really lucky.  Imagine the cost if you had bought the 
1Ds...

I´ve found the cheapest solution of them all:  I´ve bought a CF card.  
I can borrow a lot of unused cameras, and if their owners want them 
back I can just replace their card and take my own pictures with me.

DagT

På onsdag, 29. oktober 2003, kl. 16:37, skrev Rob Brigham:

*sigh*

This camera is getting very expensive!

Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
same value transferred to her private shopping account.
AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.

Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.
I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up costing
me!

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Bill Owens]

My solution was to "donate" the Optio S to her.

Bill

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:37 AM
Subject: My *istD cost just went up!


> *sigh*
> 
> This camera is getting very expensive!
> 
> Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
> same value transferred to her private shopping account.
> 
> AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
> 
> Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
> because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
> the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.
> 
> I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up costing
> me!
> 
> 

Re: istD review - focus points

[Len Paris]

All of the multi-point AF cameras do this.  None of them 
are able to read our minds to find out what AF point to 
use.
Therefore, I use the central spot Only, and set the custom 
functions so that I can focus with the button on the back 
of the camera. Since I am a people shooter, I focus on the 
eyes then recompose, then press the shutter button.  Works 
for me but your mileage may vary.

Len
---
 * There's no place like 127.0.0.1
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 09:12:23 -0700
 "David Madsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most multi-point auto focus cameras pick the closest 
subject to focus on.
This function is geared toward the total amateur point 
and shoot
photographer who shoots mostly his or her friends and 
family in front of
historic buildings, scenery and other vacation favorites 
and usually uses
"stand in front of that thing" as their only 
compositional rule.  You are
all correct, this function is not for you.  The thinking 
photographer will
want to decide for himself/herself what the camera should 
focus on.

David Madsen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.davidmadsen.com

Len Paris
---
 *There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Len Paris]

Let that be a lesson to you!  I, too, have to make similar 
concessions in order to be "enabled".  I don't think that 
we are in the minority in this way.

Len
---
 * There's no place like 127.0.0.1
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 15:37:27 -
 "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*sigh*

This camera is getting very expensive!

Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury 
officer with the
same value transferred to her private shopping account.

AND promise the same amount in the home improvements 
budget.

Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera 
of her own,
because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for 
photographing
the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.

I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna 
end up costing
me!

Len Paris
---
 *There's no place like 127.0.0.1

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[brooksdj]

   LOL
Thats why i bought the D1and 80-200 f 2.8.The home secretary wont go near it.

:-)

Dave> *sigh*
> 
> This camera is getting very expensive!
> 
> Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
> same value transferred to her private shopping account.
> 
> AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.
> 
> Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
> because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
> the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.
> 
> I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up costing
> me!
> 

RE: istD review - focus points

[David Madsen]

Most multi-point auto focus cameras pick the closest subject to focus on.
This function is geared toward the total amateur point and shoot
photographer who shoots mostly his or her friends and family in front of
historic buildings, scenery and other vacation favorites and usually uses
"stand in front of that thing" as their only compositional rule.  You are
all correct, this function is not for you.  The thinking photographer will
want to decide for himself/herself what the camera should focus on.

David Madsen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.davidmadsen.com

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Haller, Thomas]

No, no, no, you got it all wrong! :-)

LXen is just the third-person plural for LX. 

When referring to particular LX items you say, "I have one LX with my name
engraved on the lens." or, "I have two LXs with snake skin shutter
curtains." or even, "Those gold-plated LXs on his table are under-priced at
$10,000 each."

But when referring to the population of LX cameras, you use the third-person
plural, as in, "Yes, LXen are well respected cameras, except for their
low-light metering characteristics."

It's just that simple! (tm) :-)

- THaller

RE: istD review - focus points

[Haller, Thomas]

I (using a C*n*n 10D) use only the center focus-point, with the camera set
to only use the center point. I do as you say, move the focus sensor over
what I want to focus on, focus, then recompose. 

Even in the manual it says the camera will focus on whatever is closest when
I have the multi-point system on, which is almost _never_ what I would want.
I can't even imagine how hat would be very useful, except for person
standing in front of a mountain range, but even then we like to have some
foreground objects for perspective and WHOOPS there goes the camera focusing
on a limb that blew in front of the lens! Or a leaf that happens to be
closer than the blossom, or...

And lately, I have been able to see well enough in the tiny viewfinder image
to do manual focusing, which I seemed unable to accomplish when I first
started using the camera. I may go back to exclusive manual focus, except
for perhaps for moving objects...

Anyway, I only use the center focus point when I use auto-focus and have
found no use in my photography for the other ones, nor any "auto-choice"
system I've been exposed to (pun intentional).

- THaller

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[tom]

It was a few years ago.

tv

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:33 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen
> 
> 
> Thanks Tom I must have missed that discussion. 
> Vic 
> 
> 
> This is archived somewhere. We actually had a fairly 
> lengthy thread on
> what name we wanted to use for plural LX.
> 
> We just liked the way LXen sounded.
> 
> Cesar, do you remember this?
> 
> 
> 

Re: My *istD cost just went up!

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

on 29.10.03 16:37, Rob Brigham at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> This camera is getting very expensive!
Terrible story Rob! I am with you these difficult days! Unfortunately I'll
have to do similar things as you to get AF140C ring flash ;-)

-- 
Best Regards
Sylwek

My *istD cost just went up!

[Rob Brigham]

*sigh*

This camera is getting very expensive!

Not only did I have to bribe the household treasury officer with the
same value transferred to her private shopping account.

AND promise the same amount in the home improvements budget.

Now I am also going to have to buy her a digital camera of her own,
because she wants to keep taking the *istD in the day for photographing
the kids!  She wont use her own film compact anymore.

I could have got a 1Ds for the money this thing is gonna end up costing
me!

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Pentxuser]

Ah now that makes sense..
Thanks guys...
Vic 

Since some men in the group seem to treat their cameras
better than their women (and may even find them more attractive) ...

Was it not akin to fox/vixen?

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Christian Skofteland]

a vixen is a female fox not plural.  a male fox is a dog fox.

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "Collin Brendemuehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:13 AM
Subject: RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen


> 
> Since some men in the group seem to treat their cameras
> better than their women (and may even find them more attractive) ...
> 
> Was it not akin to fox/vixen?
> 
> :)
> 

RE: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Pentxuser]

Thanks Tom I must have missed that discussion. 
Vic 


This is archived somewhere. We actually had a fairly lengthy thread on
what name we wanted to use for plural LX.

We just liked the way LXen sounded.

Cesar, do you remember this?

Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

[Andrew Robinson]

The USB2 interface gives it transfer speeds near firewire but allows it 
to attach to any computer with a USB interface.

Andrew Robinson

Herb Chong wrote:

it's rated about twice as fast and 16-bit color versus 14-bit.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

 

Is it me or does it seem that the new Coolscan V is nothing more then the
current Coolscan 4000 minus the ability to batch scan via optional
   

adapters?
 

It does appear that it will price lower then the current discounted
   

Coolscan
 

4000.
   



 

Re: DSLR Enablement needed.

[Christian Skofteland]

I got mine for US$1550 and thought it was a deal  Buy it if you can!

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I questioned it as well.  He claims that's 10% over his cost, which he
will give
> to his best customer. . .
>
> arnie wrote:
>
> > $1375??
> >
> > where is this?
> >
> > at that price i would run, not walk, to nj.
> >
> > arnie
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > > I visited my favorite local camera store here in Central New Jersey,
USA,
> > > last night.  They finally received the long-pomised *istd, and called
me
> > to
> > > let me know.
> > >
> > > I really liked the feel and operation of the camera.  The price, $1375
for
> > > body only, didn't seem out of line.  Still I hesitate.
> > > Decision, decisions.

Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners

[Herb Chong]

it's rated about twice as fast and 16-bit color versus 14-bit.

Herb
- Original Message - 
From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: OT- Nikon announces new scanners


> Is it me or does it seem that the new Coolscan V is nothing more then the
> current Coolscan 4000 minus the ability to batch scan via optional
adapters?
> It does appear that it will price lower then the current discounted
Coolscan
> 4000.

OT: Arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhhh!

[Eactivist]

>True, but it's still misleading.  While colour may be recorded at 10
million distinct photosites, luminence is only recorded at 3.3 million.
In the end you get an image whose quality is somewhere in between 3.3 and
10MP.  It's certainly better than 3.3MP cameras, but it's not capturing
luminence at 10 million distinct sites.

>chris

Sheesh, not that long ago I was a newbie and I still consider myself a 
novice. And reading this list and getting new terminology and camera mechanics down 
was sometimes a pain. Not the reading the list part, the absorbing/struggling 
with learning new stuff part (which I am still doing, of course).

Now we're into digital and a whole bunch of new buzz words, technology, and 
other new things to learn.

And I still haven't finished learning the basic film photography stuff.

Arrrgghhh!

Marnie aka Doe :-)  This was just a little vent -- feel free to ignore -- as 
I run screaming from the room my computer sits in. (Nothing personal, chris.)

Re: Vic's New Website

[Eactivist]

>Hi guys, threw some images up on a new website. Much better viewing than my 
old (very slow one)
If you're looking for something to do, check 'em out here
http://groups.msn.com/TheSpiritofNature/shoebox.msnw

Definitely faster loading. You just keep getting better all the time, Vic. 

Really like Raccoon, Bobcat, B&W Wolves, and Church (BTW, I think you spelled 
the church label wrong). The composition of B&W Wolves is great -- I presume 
that is a composite.

Looking good, keep it up!

Marnie aka Doe 

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

Bob Walkden wrote:
> Personally I think the plural should be LXs - not LXes or LX's

Elsewhere I commented that "LXes" looks wrong to me and
"LXen" doesn't.  Figured I should amend that to say that
"LXs" also doesn't look wrong to me, for the same reason
you gave (that "LX", whether it is one or not, _looks_
like an abbreviation).

> Misguided
> people who think the plural of 'index' is 'indices' might prefer to call
> their LXs 'Lices'.

"Misguided"?  "Indices" *is* correct for more than one index.
(So is "indexes".)  My _Webster's_ doesn't distinguish between
the two, but I've noticed that there does seem to be some 
gradual divergence of the two, at least in the US, where in
some contexts (multiple look-things-up tables in a book)
"indices" sounds old and stuffy, but in others (multiple
statistical indicators) "indexes" sounds wrong.  I don't
think usage has diverged quite far enough for either of
those to _be_ wrong, but I get the impression that there's
a slow movement in that direction.

-- Glenn

PS:  For real fun, there's the problem of what to say when
you have more than one mongoose.  "Mongeese" is tempting,
but so is "polygoose".  :-P

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[D. Glenn Arthur Jr.]

> Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term LXen when referring 
> to their LX in plural. 

Can't really speak for everyone, but my _guess_ is that 
"hackish" plurals have crept into the list's memeset.
Hackers (in the older sense of the word, not the 
"security-crackers and kids who use 1eet 5p34k" sense)
often like to a) apply obscure and/or obsolete plurals
based on a word's language of origin even when those
are no longer in common use, and b) deliberately misapply
those same endings to words which _sound_like_ the ones
that actually take foreign plurals.

Hence, since the plural of "ox" is "oxen", the plural
of "Vax" is "Vaxen" (natural and expected to the hackish
ear) and occasionally the plural of "box" is "boxen" 
(deliberately silly but by no means unfamiliar or strange).  
"LXen" sounds like the same thing to me.

I could, of course, be wrong about the reason for "LXen".

> LXes yes, it sounds right but LXen throws me every time. 

There's the funny thing -- even though I can't recall
ever having said "LXen", it looks right to my eye and
sounds almost-right aloud.  OTOH, for me, "cherubs" 
looks just a little off 'cause I expect to see "cherubim", 
"Unixes" for different flavours of Unix looks very wrong 
(I expect to read "Unices" or a longer phrase that avoids 
constructing a plural of "Unix"), "data" is plural, and
various Greek- and Latin-derived words need "-ai", "-ae",
"-i", "-a", or "-oi" plurals even when my dictionary
tries to reassure me that an English "-s" or "-es" is
considered acceptable.

For me, "LXes" sounds right but looks wrong.  But I'd
never really thought about it carefully until this moment.

-- Glenn

PS:  Yes, yes, if I saw two cars bearing the Lexus badge
in a parking lot, I'd want to describe them as "Lexi".

PPS:  For more clue regarding hackish use of language,
the front-matter and appendices of _The_New_Hacker's_Dictionary_
would be quite useful.  Entire text available online, too.

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Ryan Lee]

Going OT here, but always wanted to be sure what the plural of ibis was.
I've heard ibises, ibes, ibii, ibex or just plain ibis etc.. As such I've
resorted to an-apple-two-apples, an-ibis-two-birds..

:),
Ryan in Brisbane (Ibisland)

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Bob Walkden]

Hi,

Wednesday, October 29, 2003, 4:40:11 AM, you wrote:

> Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term LXen when referring 
> to their LX in plural. I must be slow but I can't for the life of me figure it 
> out. LXes yes, it sounds right but LXen throws me every time. 
> vic

I've always assumed it's from a German way of forming plurals. How it
became established I don't know. Perhaps it's because some English
words ending in -x still form the plural that way. This is because Old
English, like German, had several different ways of forming plurals,
on of which is to add '-en' - child/children, tunge/tungan
(tongue/tongues). The language has become simplified over the years. One
way in which people learn to use an unfamiliar term is by analogy,
for example children learn dog/dogs etc. and by analogy say man/mans,
mouse/mouses etc. until they learn the correct forms. I think 'LXen'
is an analogy with words ending in -x, like ox/oxen. However, I can't
think of any more examples, so perhaps it's more of an analogy with
German, where affing -n or -en is still common.

Personally I think the plural should be LXs - not LXes or LX's
(especially not LX's!) - because that is the normal way of doing it
for abbreviations. I think of LX as an abbreviation, not as a word,
even though it is really the Latin numeral for 60. If it was a word
then LXes might be ok, as it is for 'foxes' and 'indexes'. Misguided
people who think the plural of 'index' is 'indices' might prefer to call
their LXs 'Lices'.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bobmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Tests of chromatic aberrations with *istD

[Sylwester Pietrzyk]

on 28.10.03 17:27, Jostein at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I don't know how much this lens vary between samples, but I have tried two
> of these lenses, and they are both the same.
I've been looking closely at other images from 100/2.8 macro. And indeed,
chromatic abberations were obvious in some situations, but in some very
similar they weren't visible at all. All of these were made in high contrast
situations with some blown-up whites and dark background. What's more I have
noticed chromatic aberrations from FA 35/2 and to the less extent from FA
24-90. I think it was just unavoidable :-( I think these kind of aberrations
will be less or more visible with all of the current lenses, The only way to
completely avoid it, is to pay special attention on exposure (no blown-up
areas) or wait for dedicated DA lenses. Or buy Olympus E-1, where both body
(CCD) and lenses were designed to completely cooperate with each other.
Zuiko Digital lenses are said to have no chromatic aberrations. and other
distortions are corrected in body (they transfer complete information about
distortions of particular lens to camera).

-- 
Best Regards
Sylwek

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term LXen when
> referring to their LX in plural.

For what it's worth, this has happened in computer circles as well.
There's this classic computer architecture called the VAX, and it's
tradition to speak of those machines plurally as VAXen.  It is
believed to be extrapolated from "ox - oxen", possibly with the word
"vixen" adding the extra bit of association needed to make it stick.

See , and note how
the usage has begot "box - boxen".  Hackers love playing with language.

With "LX - LXen", it might be as simple as someone who's into both
computers and photography starting to use it, and others liking it and
copying the usage.

-tih
-- 
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway
www.eunet.no  T: +47-22092958 M: +47-93013940 F: +47-22092901

Re: Ok I finally got to ask why LXen

[Thomas Stach]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> 
> Ok I finally have to ask why everyone here uses the term LXen when referring
> to their LX in plural. I must be slow but I can't for the life of me figure it
> out. LXes yes, it sounds right but LXen throws me every time.
> vic

Hehe,
sounds like derived from German grammar... ;-)

Thomas