BH shipping - a rhetorical gripe
Rob's SMH article got me thinking about buying from BH again (really would like that 77mm Ltd for my sister's wedding). I checked with Fletcher's and the price difference is astounding. And more disturbing, the sales droid at Ted's was adamant there was no such thing as a 77mm lens. Hrumpf. But I notice now, they don't ship international to an address other than the credit card billing address. I'm sure they used to. I hate to have them send a $700 lens and have it sitting on my front door while I'm at work. I used to be able to ship it my work address. grrr... D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Re: LX and 360FGZ flash
I used the AF360FGZ on my LX in TTL mode Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 5:14 AM Subject: RE: LX and 360FGZ flash All Pentax flashes designed for AF cameras won't do TTL flash with any pre-SF cameras. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan It's lurker Andy again... grin I have just got a bargain excellent condition LX + A 50/1.4 from a friend of mine for US$340. I have read that it has TTL flash capability. I'm just wondering whether I can use 360FGZ in TTL mode with the LX? I know LX only has the analogue command which means that the Auto zoom feature of the flash is gone. But if I use primes, do I have to adjust the zoom manually or does it read off the lens? _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcommpgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
RE: Batteries for BG-10 (Battery Grip for MZ-S)
Hello list I just got the answer from Danish Pentax importer: Don't use NiCd or NiMH, they said, quoting the english manual (hmmm...). BTW I got my MZ-S + BG-10 in the mail today! U - is this a nice camera. The viewfinder somewhat small, and the trigger very soft and rubber-like. But still VERY nice. Now I just have to get used to the absence of the HYP program-shift, which I have enjoyed very much from the PZ-1/PZ-1p. The MZ-S is bit retro-like, right. I always enjoyed the basic simplicity of my Super A, that works pretty much like the MZ-S - except for the green button (shift to program - shutter-, aperure priority or program) and the hold switch. Best Regards Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. februar 2004 14:39 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Batteries for BG-10 (Battery Grip for MZ-S) Thanks Carlos. Very usefull information. I I'll direct the question to the Pentax importer in Denmark. I have had the same problem with Mezt flashes. After writing the importer, I got a letter saying, I could use rechargeable batteries, ehen using a special battery unit. I was kind of hoping this woul apply for the BG-10 as well. Regards Jens -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Carlos Royo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 15. februar 2004 14:02 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Batteries for BG-10 (Battery Grip for MZ-S) Jens Bladt escribió: Hi Guys I don't seem to have a users guide for the BG-10. PEntax USA does not have it on their download page. Do any of you know if it's possible to use rechargeable batteries (NiCd or NiMH) in the BG-10, without risking to damage the camera? Answers will be truly appreciatet. Hi Jens: The battery pack has a small battery dial, as you know, with two positions, one for AA lithium batteries and other for alkalines. The manual says nothing about NiMH batteries, but it says literally Manganese batteries and rechargeable Ni-Cd batteries cannot be used. But, some people claim to have used the BG-10 with NiMH batteries with no problems. I haven't taken such risk so far, just in case. Carlos Royo - Zaragoza (Aragon), Spain The struggle of people against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting Milan Kundera (La lucha del pueblo contra el poder es la lucha de la memoria contra el olvido)
Re: LX and 360FGZ flash
You can use the AF360FGZ on the LX in TTL mode. A lot of the other features are unavailable. The zoom will have to be done manually regardless of the lens you choose. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Andy Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:53 AM Subject: LX and 360FGZ flash Hi guys, It's lurker Andy again... grin I have just got a bargain excellent condition LX + A 50/1.4 from a friend of mine for US$340. I have read that it has TTL flash capability. I'm just wondering whether I can use 360FGZ in TTL mode with the LX? I know LX only has the analogue command which means that the Auto zoom feature of the flash is gone. But if I use primes, do I have to adjust the zoom manually or does it read off the lens? Cheers Andy
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course. Herb - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:00 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you probably won't. I fall into the latter category because that is what I see happening.
OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
From: William M Kane [EMAIL PROTECTED] Otis, I know this is getting a bit off topic, but I need to step up on the soap box here: Yes, the school system is churning out many students who can't do what is described below, and I will be the first to admit that. However, what you described is not just a matter of learning the three R's . . . it goes well beyond that . . . it is called work ethic. Now a work ethic can be started to be taught in school, but it is one of those things that is reinforced if not totally taught at home. If parents and communities don't stand up and help the school system teach this, the USA will continue on the same trend it's on. We can't stand up at the polls and demand no child left behind, but then turn around the next day and complain that the taxes are too high, and we need to cut school funding. . . . we also can't place total blame on the school systems. Look at the leading countries (academically) cultures and you'll see that the learned behaviors we seek are not taught in toto in the schools. Otis, I hope you do not think I am attempting to flame you. I'm just trying to vent some steam and perhaps share some of my understanding with the general public. IL Bill Our problem is a cascading one and point-directed fixes are only band-aids at best. Yes, children are not learning a good work ethic. Yes, NEA union power is protecting a bad system. Yes, parents are uninvolved. Yes, bad school boards put in poor curriculums. Yes, teachers, even the best ones, began with a bad paradigm for education (Dewey/Mann). There's so much to fix. But throwing money at it has been a major contributor. The cries (whines) are far too familiar. Either its: We're not able to do enough, so give us more money or We're doing a good job so everyone needs a reward. For this their PR gets a gold star. And that should be enough. That's all the kids got. :) CRB
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:29:49 +1300, you wrote: The only question is whether there is, among that number, a photographer who would bother to go through the effort of learning how to do things the hard way, and who would then be able to produce better photographs. IIRC, the wildlife photographer and photo seminar leader Arthur Morris once claimed he never took his Canon off auto exposure, because it nailed the exposure more reliably than his own efforts at manual exposure or exposure compensation. This was a couple of years ago. Maybe he has changed his tune since then. I see he is now selling The Pocket Field Guide to Evaluative Metering. http://www.birdsasart.com/#The%20Pocket%20Field%20Guide%20to%20Evaluative%20Metering Might not be a bad self-improvement project - assess and identify, then commit to writing the metering or compensation for our common photo situations. Sort of like the Kodak film box suggestions, but in more depth, and specific to our own camera(s) and style. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007PMT Imagine my surprise when the istD - and our very own Paul Stenquist - got such nice comments on the Leica forum ;-)) Way to go, Paul. Nice leica, too. shel
Re: Bird Watching
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:29:56 +1100, you wrote: Frank and Butch,I would really appreciate it if you (and anybody else)could have a look at this offering and comment please on my bird watching. www.pbase.com/chennedi/gallery_eyecandy It seems one can't go for a walk in the park these days without one distraction or another.So much for my cappuccino and muffin.(At my age too). Cheers Chris Kennedy I enjoyed your birds very much. I had a somewhat similar bird experience, with perhaps fewer feathers. http://www.photolin.com/john/lspark/lstar1.html -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8
Hi @all, I'm using this lens on my *ist-D as the single standard walkaround-lens, or just adding the FA85 for concert photos. No complaints here! Focusses to 33cm (approx 1 foot) at all focal lenghts, incredibly sharp even wide open - recommended! Weight is only 0,5 kg (~18 oz), filtersize is 67mm - just like the FA24, 85 and 300 :-) Extending barrel design: Yes - but this also means, it's quite small @ 28 mm. I'd rate overall build quality very high - the aperture ring feels much better the the typical Pentax FA plastic ring like on the FA85!!! More like on an old all-metal Takumar! Focus feel is also _very_ nice for an AF-lens ( ~ like F*300/4.5) This zoom made me forget my only fixed focals approach...and was much more affordable than the SMC Pentax FA*28~70/2.8 : Only 399,- EUR here in Europe. You can find some testpics of my sample under http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/ looking for the tamron 28-75 thread, or here: http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewtopic.php?t=5516start=0 (viewing the pics under Netscape 4.7.3 can cause problems there) Testing wasn't scientific, but should give an impression. No samples done on film accordingly to date. Grrtz, Thomas A few years back, I had the Tokina. It was quite good, too. I don't remember it being any sharper than this new Tamron. It was quite a bit heavier and didn't focus nearly as close. No comparison on that front. Given the choice today (I had that choice), I went with the Tamron. -- Best regards, Bruce Saturday, February 14, 2004, 8:47:48 AM, you wrote: RK I am also looking for zoom in 28-70+ f2.8 range. RK I was concentrating on Tokina 28-80 (499usd). RK This Tamrom lens seems to be new model and its lot RK cheaper(319usd) RK Do you know how does Tamron compare with the Tokina in RK optical performance? RK I am not very much worried about build quality. RK Thanks RK Ramesh RK --- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I recently purchased one. Overall, I am quite pleased with it. Build quality is pretty good, not as solid as a Tokina, but feels solid. Weight and size are very reasonable for the specifications. Sharpness is very good - compared it to my FA 50/1.4 and Tamron SP 90/2.8 Macro - not quite as good as either of those, but not far off - very respectable for a zoom. The zoom is smooth and one real plus to me, manual focus is very reasonable. There is enough drag for it to feel good - not as smooth as a true manual focus lens, but much better than the average AF lens. On top of all that, it focuses VERY close at all focal lengths. Given the price, I am most happy with mine. Bruce Friday, February 13, 2004, 11:24:18 PM, you wrote: CW Just wondering if anyone on the list has had any experience with this lens. CW The reviews are very good and was wondering how it might compare with Pentax CW lenses. CW Regards CW Charles Wilson CW (Sydney) RK __ RK Do you Yahoo!? RK Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online. RK http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Thanks Shel. I always enjoy visiting Marc Williams. He has the biggest toy box in town, and he loves cameras. On Feb 16, 2004, at 7:39 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007PMT Imagine my surprise when the istD - and our very own Paul Stenquist - got such nice comments on the Leica forum ;-)) Way to go, Paul. Nice leica, too. shel
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
...and the text confirms one of the real design flaws that this camera has. The set sensitivity is not displayed on the LCD display nor in the finder. As in this case, it happened to me several times that I forgot to reset a higher sensitivity previously used. Sven Zitat von Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007PMT Imagine my surprise when the istD - and our very own Paul Stenquist - got such nice comments on the Leica forum ;-)) Way to go, Paul. Nice leica, too. shel
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
On 16 Feb 2004 at 13:51, keller.schaefer wrote: ...and the text confirms one of the real design flaws that this camera has. The set sensitivity is not displayed on the LCD display nor in the finder. As in this case, it happened to me several times that I forgot to reset a higher sensitivity previously used. Sven, It is a pain but it can be read on the rear LCD by pressing the info button when the camera is not in review mode. Cheers, 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: BH shipping - a rhetorical gripe
Call them, then they probably can arrange it for you. On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 07:47, Derby Chang wrote: Rob's SMH article got me thinking about buying from BH again (really would like that 77mm Ltd for my sister's wedding). I checked with Fletcher's and the price difference is astounding. And more disturbing, the sales droid at Ted's was adamant there was no such thing as a 77mm lens. Hrumpf. But I notice now, they don't ship international to an address other than the credit card billing address. I'm sure they used to. I hate to have them send a $700 lens and have it sitting on my front door while I'm at work. I used to be able to ship it my work address. grrr... D -- Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Showing *istD to a Canon 1d Pro
Hi Paul, nice story! Would you mind if I quoted this on a german digitalphoto forum? ( http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewforum.php?f=2 ) Thomas This morning I got together with one of the more successful part-time pros in my area. He shoots with the Canon 10 megapixel camera (is it called 1D), a pair of Leica M7s, and one of the 6x7 rangefinders. All his 35mm glass is top of the line Leitz and Canon. Aside from the fact that we're old buddies, he wanted to see the *ist D. I brought my 35mm kit along, and let him try the camera. He immediately fell in love with its size, layout and feel. He couldn't believe how compact it is. He asked me which lens in my box was the sharpest. I handed him the K 85/1.8, and he shot a few frames wide open and one or two stopped down to 5.6 or so. He has the new PhotoShop CS plug in, so he converted the RAWs in PS (which blew me away -- great software), and showed me how to use some of the controls. He wanted to show me how nicely it corrects Chromatic Aberration -- but there was none. Zero, zip. He was very surprised to see that the lens had performed that well. He was also quite impressed with the bokeh. He resed one *ist D file up to 140 meg, 16 bit, and it looked great on the monitor at 100%. He's thinking he might pick up an *ist D and a couple of lenses as a travel camera. Score a PR win for Pentax. Paul
RE: LX and 360FGZ flash
Thank you all, Christian, that's more or less what I thought. I'm going to do some tests with an incident light meter to see whether it works properly. Cheers Andy -Original Message- From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: LX and 360FGZ flash You can use the AF360FGZ on the LX in TTL mode. A lot of the other features are unavailable. The zoom will have to be done manually regardless of the lens you choose. Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Andy Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 3:53 AM Subject: LX and 360FGZ flash Hi guys, It's lurker Andy again... grin I have just got a bargain excellent condition LX + A 50/1.4 from a friend of mine for US$340. I have read that it has TTL flash capability. I'm just wondering whether I can use 360FGZ in TTL mode with the LX? I know LX only has the analogue command which means that the Auto zoom feature of the flash is gone. But if I use primes, do I have to adjust the zoom manually or does it read off the lens? Cheers Andy
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
An aisde: Stylistically, I think that use of font and color in an article is ridiculous. It's a piece of prose, not a deodorant ad. Steve the Teacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/14/04 08:14PM http://www.cameraquest.com/photog.htm A not so tongue-in-cheek commentary by Stephen Gandy
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will still do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get instamatics can now buy a Rebel. Most of us learn when to turn off the automation. I have found that I trust AE but have increasingly gone to MF. When I do use AF, it's because the camera is faster than me and I have a better chance of getting the shot. And, of course, the argument in the article is dumb. To really make the point, you should compare yourself with a comparable photographer form 35 years ago, not one of the great masters. Of course, for some of us, that comparable photographer would be ourselves. ;-) Oddly enough, I do agree with one point, however. The only real level of automation I enjoy would be AV preferred for film cameras. For digital, I would add iso and white balance. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Showing *istD to a Canon 1d Pro
Please feel free to quote me wherever you wish. paul Th. Stach wrote: Hi Paul, nice story! Would you mind if I quoted this on a german digitalphoto forum? ( http://forum.digitalfotonetz.de/viewforum.php?f=2 ) Thomas This morning I got together with one of the more successful part-time pros in my area. He shoots with the Canon 10 megapixel camera (is it called 1D), a pair of Leica M7s, and one of the 6x7 rangefinders. All his 35mm glass is top of the line Leitz and Canon. Aside from the fact that we're old buddies, he wanted to see the *ist D. I brought my 35mm kit along, and let him try the camera. He immediately fell in love with its size, layout and feel. He couldn't believe how compact it is. He asked me which lens in my box was the sharpest. I handed him the K 85/1.8, and he shot a few frames wide open and one or two stopped down to 5.6 or so. He has the new PhotoShop CS plug in, so he converted the RAWs in PS (which blew me away -- great software), and showed me how to use some of the controls. He wanted to show me how nicely it corrects Chromatic Aberration -- but there was none. Zero, zip. He was very surprised to see that the lens had performed that well. He was also quite impressed with the bokeh. He resed one *ist D file up to 140 meg, 16 bit, and it looked great on the monitor at 100%. He's thinking he might pick up an *ist D and a couple of lenses as a travel camera. Score a PR win for Pentax. Paul
Re: LX envy
Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: William Robb wrote: Because within 5 years you won't be able to get film for it? I saw some rotten devil sending his girlfriend into the local camera shop to get film for his Optio 550. Girlfriend? Are you sure it wasn't his 18-year-old mistress? ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: BH shipping - a rhetorical gripe
Rhetorical or not I have to mention that when I was shopping for a camera body, I walked into Ted's and another sales droid replied to do you stock the mz 5n? with you should get a C*non- honestly. Pentax is crap. All the pros use C*non. How's that for subtle.. I wouldn't have been surprised if he told some lil ol lady your grandkid's in little league? What you really need is a 600 f4.. Rainier's isn't much better. Photocontinental can be just as bad, but the trick's in avoiding the i'm working here because mcdonald's hasn't replied yet droids and getting a droid supervisor who'll have slightly better insight for about 5 sentences before giving a droidling the evil eye for unsuccessfully diverting customers away from him. BH gets a bit fussy with international credit card orders and address verification and stuff, but I don't think the lens will sit at your front door while you're at work. I recently bought a pair of binoculars from centre.net.au, and they shipped it by courier- I wasn't in at the time but the courier left a card in the mailbox and dropped it off at the PO for me to collect later.. You might want to check though.. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2004 4:47 PM Subject: BH shipping - a rhetorical gripe Rob's SMH article got me thinking about buying from BH again (really would like that 77mm Ltd for my sister's wedding). I checked with Fletcher's and the price difference is astounding. And more disturbing, the sales droid at Ted's was adamant there was no such thing as a 77mm lens. Hrumpf. But I notice now, they don't ship international to an address other than the credit card billing address. I'm sure they used to. I hate to have them send a $700 lens and have it sitting on my front door while I'm at work. I used to be able to ship it my work address. grrr... D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~derbyc
Re;Bird Watching
Yea Verily John ,It is truly the way to go. Regards Chris K
BH shipping
Fritz,If you get it shipped via UPS you can arrang e to pick it up at Mascot or arrange a time with them,or if you have it sent via US mail(hence Australia Post)they will leave a card in your Post Box advising you of a pick up time at your local Post Office. Regards Chris K
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: AW: LX envy
Real pretty is a black 43mm Ltd on a black MX ;-)) Even prettier is a black 43mm Ltd mounted on a black Leica ;-) Mark Roberts wrote: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Pretty is a 43mm Limited on an MX!
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Oh, how I feel your pain ... I'm no istd expert, far from it, but I do believe there's a way to see the setting. Maybe some with more expertise in such matter will chime in (John or Rob seem to have a good handle on this). But I also have to laugh a bit at this complaint ... it seems that many people want the camera to do even the simplest things for them. It wasn't that long ago that we had to remember our setting as nothing appeared in the viewfinder or in little windows on the camera body. Then the viewfinders became cluttered with lots of information, and now it's expected that small TV screens be included with the new cameras, where all sorts of information can be viewed. I suppose it's progress ... keller.schaefer wrote: ...and the text confirms one of the real design flaws that this camera has. The set sensitivity is not displayed on the LCD display nor in the finder. As in this case, it happened to me several times that I forgot to reset a higher sensitivity previously used. Sven Zitat von Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007PMT
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Every digital camera I've seen requires the pushing of a button to view some setting or change some function or feature set. I suppose it depends on what's important to a particular user which are a pain and which aren't. Rob Studdert wrote: It is a pain but it can be read on the rear LCD by pressing the info button when the camera is not in review mode.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
In part, just my point. There's no longer any need to learn anything for some people. The newer cameras feed right into that mindset. ergo, one needn't know anything about photography, light, exposure, dof, etc., to make a photograph these days. Of course, that's not true of anyone on this list, who are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras, and have spent a reasonable time learning the fundamentals. Herb Chong wrote: no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I think the folks that would have done well 30-50 years ago will still do well with automatic cameras, whereas folks that used to get instamatics can now buy a Rebel. The reason those folks did well 30-50 years ago was because they were given no choice. They either had to learn something, or fail. Now, they can (and do) just go out and buy the wunderplastic and on the surface, appear to succeed. Don't underestimate the desire of people to take the easy way out, it is very strong in most people. Read Bill Kane's rant from one of the other threads that is ongoing. People who used to buy instamatics can still buy cheap as dirt cameras that, surprisingly enough, take even worse pictures than what the instamatics were taking 30-50 years ago. Progress is a wonderful thing. William Robb
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
- Original Message - From: keller.schaefer Subject: Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net ...and the text confirms one of the real design flaws that this camera has. The set sensitivity is not displayed on the LCD display nor in the finder. As in this case, it happened to me several times that I forgot to reset a higher sensitivity previously used. Gee, we have another thread going right now that relates to this. Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? William Robb
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net Oh, how I feel your pain ... I'm no istd expert, far from it, but I do believe there's a way to see the setting. Maybe some with more expertise in such matter will chime in (John or Rob seem to have a good handle on this). But I also have to laugh a bit at this complaint ... it seems that many people want the camera to do even the simplest things for them. It wasn't that long ago that we had to remember our setting as nothing appeared in the viewfinder or in little windows on the camera body. Then the viewfinders became cluttered with lots of information, and now it's expected that small TV screens be included with the new cameras, where all sorts of information can be viewed. I suppose it's progress ... Maybe I just have really low expectations, or perhaps I am easily impressed, I don't know. The lack of instant review histograms doesn't bother me. I've already pushed one button to turn on the stupid little screen, pushing another seems like a small effort. Nor does the lack of instantly available ISO. I can turn a dial as easily as pushing a button. By the time Pentax had everything possible on the LCD to keep everyone happy, there would be so much clutter you wouldn't be able to find what you wanted anyway. I laugh a lot at this sort of complaint. William Robb
Re: AW: LX envy
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very pretty. It's probably just because I'm so used to seeing pancakes on MXen, but somehow it just doesn't look right on the *istD. I could probably get used to it if I tried, though g Pretty is a 43mm Limited on an MX! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
On 16 Feb 2004 at 6:59, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Oh, how I feel your pain ... I'm no istd expert, far from it, but I do believe there's a way to see the setting. Maybe some with more expertise in such matter will chime in (John or Rob seem to have a good handle on this). But I also have to laugh a bit at this complaint ... it seems that many people want the camera to do even the simplest things for them. It wasn't that long ago that we had to remember our setting as nothing appeared in the viewfinder or in little windows on the camera body. Well my Leicas either have a film type reminder dial on the door or an ISO selector, my Pentax cameras have a window to the film canister or slot for the end of the film packet and an ISO dial to quickly gaze on. I'm constantly changing the effective ISO when shooting digital and I'd appreciate an always visible ISO reminder display. The only options to check at the moment are operational kludges. Cheers, 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: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Exactly the point: there's only so much information that can fit easily on those little screens, and only so much information a operator can easily and quickly absorb. So, Pentax decided that this feature or that function would be accessed or viewed in a different manner. Going to another camera, the maker may have chosen other information to be absent from the screen, based on what they perceived was important. I recall a Canon user saying that she was disappointed because she couldn't get reruns of Gilligan's Island on her 10D. William Robb wrote: By the time Pentax had everything possible on the LCD to keep everyone happy, there would be so much clutter you wouldn't be able to find what you wanted anyway. I laugh a lot at this sort of complaint.
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
I actually kind of like the fact that I have to turn the knob to see the ISO on my *ist D. I forgot to do it Sunday with my friend from the Leica forum because I wasn't shooting, I was showing him the camera. When I shoot, the ISO is the first thing I consider. Turning the know to see what I set last time out helps make it a conscious decision. For me, it would be easier to forget to consider this important number if no action was required. In any case, it's certainly no incumberance. Paul William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net Oh, how I feel your pain ... I'm no istd expert, far from it, but I do believe there's a way to see the setting. Maybe some with more expertise in such matter will chime in (John or Rob seem to have a good handle on this). But I also have to laugh a bit at this complaint ... it seems that many people want the camera to do even the simplest things for them. It wasn't that long ago that we had to remember our setting as nothing appeared in the viewfinder or in little windows on the camera body. Then the viewfinders became cluttered with lots of information, and now it's expected that small TV screens be included with the new cameras, where all sorts of information can be viewed. I suppose it's progress ... Maybe I just have really low expectations, or perhaps I am easily impressed, I don't know. The lack of instant review histograms doesn't bother me. I've already pushed one button to turn on the stupid little screen, pushing another seems like a small effort. Nor does the lack of instantly available ISO. I can turn a dial as easily as pushing a button. By the time Pentax had everything possible on the LCD to keep everyone happy, there would be so much clutter you wouldn't be able to find what you wanted anyway. I laugh a lot at this sort of complaint. William Robb
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Do you actually use that thing ... iac, you have to remember to change it manually. We shoot differently, I suppose. I rarely change my iso settings. Rob Studdert wrote: Well my Leicas either have a film type reminder dial on the door or an ISO selector, my Pentax cameras have a window to the film canister or slot for the end of the film packet and an ISO dial to quickly gaze on. I'm constantly changing the effective ISO when shooting digital and I'd appreciate an always visible ISO reminder display. The only options to check at the moment are operational kludges.
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net I recall a Canon user saying that she was disappointed because she couldn't get reruns of Gilligan's Island on her 10D. I'm disappointed because I can't get pictures of Gillian Anderson on my *ist D William Robb
Re: LX envy
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I have both I Motor LX the Winder LX, the and the winder is quieter than the motor. (I've never heard a Motor MX). Notice I said, the LX shutter was more noticeable, based on my experience the LX is really no louder, it may even be quieter in absolute decibels, the pitch is just unfortunate. You know when you're at the movies and there's a sequence in the film where a photographer is snapping away - say at some function or other - and there's an off-camera sound of a still camera motor drive? Sometimes they sound crap and sometimes they're too slow or too fast etc. If you could hear the most perfect sound of a film still camera motor drive, it would be the motor drive for the Pentax MX! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: DA 14/2.8 photos
On 15/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Once again in C
int main()
{
int i;
for ( i=0; i = 1; i++ )
printf( Never trust the spell checker!!! );
return(0);
}
At 03:39 AM 2/14/04, you wrote:
On 13/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Heard a roomer at a local photo shop this afternoon, Pentax be plannin'
to announce a 8mp digital SLR later this year, but as is often the case
you should take this with a boulder of salt, I know I did.
This guy pay weekly or monthly?
LOL. That soak hey Peat. I don't rust them eye there.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: LX envy
I see the MZ-S is very quiet! Probably the best of the lot. I only say probably because my short term memory doesn't allow me to keep all those sounds in memory. The MX is definitely quieter than the LX, by my ear, and that Nikon! Loud! keith Rob Studdert wrote: On 15 Feb 2004 at 18:39, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Rarely use winders at all ... never said anything about the MX winder being louder/softer than the LX winder. And it may not be a fair comparison to compare a winder to a motor drive. Love the way you mix up all these various elements, Peter. I find the LX less noisy than the MX but not by much. A couple of years ago I made recordings of my cameras at the same relative distance and recording levels for comparison. See http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/Camera_Sounds.zip 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
Did i make a boo boo
Just finished a roll of Kodak Portra 100T,which i thought was their version of the C41 based BW films. Bill i think i need more coffee than you today.LOL I have realized the mistake and did a quick look at the film on Kodaks website.It states it is for tungsten light,interiors etc. I shot this as BW themes out door in sunny snowy conditions. Am i screwed here. Dave(waiting for response before delivery to lab)Brooks BTW as an after though,i did do 1 of 2 things i wanted to yesterday,I looked at the D2H (love it)but did not have a chance on the *istD. May be next weekend
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Shel ... I shot a roll of BW in the PZ-1 yesterday,not a cloud in the sky and my main subject were trees against the blinding white snow. I could not tell what the inside was doing,my glasses were blacked right out by the brightness.I just set the camera on the hand meter and shot.I;'ll see how i did Wednesday when i develop it.LOL Dave(snow blind)Brooks One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
This topic comes up from time to time on the list, and there always seems to be polarization between people who say you can learn the fundamentals on a wunderplastic camera and those who say that you probably won't. I fall into the latter category because that is what I see happening. But that's not the dichotomy. I'm sure most here would agree with you that many (possibly even most) purchasers of SLRs use them as larger point-and-shoot cameras, quite often never even removing the 28-80 zoom that comes in the kit. So the only benefit they get is, perhaps, a slightly better lens (and even that is debatable). The question is whether these users would, if given a manual camera, ever bother to learn how to use it. I believe most of them would just not use the camera because it was perceived as too complicated (three whole things to screw up). Many of those who did use it would just set it on 1/30 at f5.6, because that seems to work most of the time. THere are three sorts of people who use camera. One group who regard the image as art, one group who see a challenge in getting the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment. Both of these groups are represented here. But in the real world the largest group by far are those for whom neither the technical skills nor the artistic vision are important - what they want is a memento. (Some folks here refer to these as 'snapshooters'). Lamenting that a snapshooter has never learned the photographic skills is like lamenting that your pig has never learned to sing.
Re: Did i make a boo boo
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:41 AM Subject: Did i make a boo boo Just finished a roll of Kodak Portra 100T,which i thought was their version of the C41 based BW films. Bill i think i need more coffee than you today.LOL I have realized the mistake and did a quick look at the film on Kodaks website.It states it is for tungsten light,interiors etc. I shot this as BW themes out door in sunny snowy conditions. Am i screwed here. Dave(waiting for response before delivery to lab)Brooks Get it processed, and either adjust the colour in photoshop (I recall a plug in that allows for colour filter emulation, perhaps it is on Mark Robert's website), or just desaturate it and fix the levels. It may look a bit odd, but you never know, you might start a fad. William Robb
PUG deadline - when?
Hi! When is the current's month's submission deadline? 20th? some time later? earlier? Please unconfuse me. Thanks. Boris
Re: PUG deadline - when?
Hi! When is the current's month's submission deadline? 20th? some time later? earlier? Please unconfuse me. Thanks. Boris 18th this month i believe Dave
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
No 'ergo' about it. Even if you accept Herb's claim that the number of people interested in learning is falling (rather than just being swamped by the increase in numbers of people without much motivation) there's still no proof of a causal relationship - just a correlation. Perhaps people got dumber (or less interested) for other reasons, but instead of giving up photography entirely they just leave the camera on automatic. In the absence of proper double-blind studies all we have is people forcing their own interpretation on questionable statistics - soapbox oratory rather than hard science. ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do? As for singing pigs, well, I'd like to suggest Ricky Jay's book, Learned Pigs and Fireproof Women LOL John Francis wrote: THere are three sorts of people who use camera. One group who regard the image as art, one group who see a challenge in getting the best possible capture of a particular scene or moment. Both of these groups are represented here. But in the real world the largest group by far are those for whom neither the technical skills nor the artistic vision are important - what they want is a memento. (Some folks here refer to these as 'snapshooters'). Lamenting that a snapshooter has never learned the photographic skills is like lamenting that your pig has never learned to sing.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I still fail to see something here, don't I? Well, yes, but not surprising. Sure we join camera clubs, or internet chat groups such as this, but all we are doing is re-enforcing what we do, and what we know. I have had experience in this that most people haven't had. I have, for the past 2 decades, been on the front lines, so to speak, of the photo processing industry. The mini lab took me from my nice factory job to actually having to deal directly with customers as part of the job. Most of the people on this list, and I am sure everywhere, communicate with people who share their interests, and generally ignore those who do not. I don't have that luxury. I get to communicate with people who know what they are doing, or want to learn on this list and at the various camera clubs and professional organizations that I take part in, but I also have to deal with a completely different group of people as part of my employment. You mentioned how easy it is to operate most other consumer devises. You mentioned cars. I submit that if you checked to see how many people per day in the world are killed or maimed by automobiles, you might change your mind about how easy they are to operate. For an easy to use product, a lot of damage is caused by operator incompetance. I think a good parallel can be drawn from the automobile to the camera. I read somewhere, a while back, I think it was Car and Driver Magazine, that every time a new safety device has been introduced to the automobile, the rate of car accidents has increased, and the rate of injuries has increased as well. This dates right back to the late 1950's and the introduction of the seat belt to independant suspension, radial tires, 5 MPH bumbers, anti lock brakes and air bags. This seems odd. The car is safer, yet it causes more harm. In cameras, I have noted much the same thing. As they add more features to make them work better, faster, easier, more bad photographs get churned out. More of the photographic equivalent of the car wreck, if you like. Technology is both a blessing and a curse, you see. While making it easier to do something by building in a knowledge base of sorts, the product doesn't require the user to know anything, or to really pay much attention to what they are doing. We see it every day, on the freeways and streets. People talking on cell phones while drinking coffee, and trying to navigate a couple of thousand pounds of steel and plastic down the road. Apparently, using a cell phone while driving causes a person to be impaired, very similar to driving while drunk. And we wonder why there are so many car accidents? I have 2 cars. One is power everything, and sits quite high off the ground. The other is a small econobox, with manual everything. Interestingly, I can use my cell phone while driving my 4x4 truck easily. I tried once while driving the Toyota Tercel, and decided quite quickly that I was begging disaster by doing so. Having to think about shifting gears, and having to keep both hands free to operate the vehicle causes me to have to pay attention to what I am doing, and forces me to be a better driver. Using an auto everthing camera doesn't force the user to think so much about what they are doing. You don't have to spend any time looking through the viewfinder setting light meter readings or focussing. You don't even have to look through the viewfinder, in fact. If you are brave, you can set the self timer, throw the camera in the air, and get a perfectly exposed and focused picture. A lot of what I process in a day looks like this is just what the user has done too. Obviously no thought has gone into the composition, exposures are all over the place, and often, the camera has automatically focused on something other than the subject. But it's my fault, the camera is automatic, and they just pushed the button, therefore someone else must have screwed up. Since it wasn't the photographer, it must have been the lab. It doesn't occur to the bulk of them to consider that the technology they bought into and trust so thoroughly has face planted itself, and they get rather angry and defensive when it is pointed out to them that we just process the crap, they are the ones that put whatever junk images they get onto the film. Digital is even worse. We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat like greedy kittens. They are bringing files in that are too small to print, are too over compressed to print without artifacts, have imbedded profiles that my machine doesn't recognize, and have been over sharpened, over saturated and badly exposed. What do you tell a person that has 128 files on an 8mb card that he wants prints from? What do you tell a person who has saved his files as 256 colour gifs? What do you tell a person who has his
Re: Did i make a boo boo
- Original Message - Bill Said: Get it processed, and either adjust the colour in photoshop (I recall a plug in that allows for colour filter emulation, perhaps it is on Mark Robert's website), or just desaturate it and fix the levels. It may look a bit odd, but you never know, you might start a fad. William Robb Last time i started a fad,is when i convinced the Beatles to take a vacation in India,and look were that went. LOL Going in after lunch. Dave
Re: Did i make a boo boo
Just go ahead and process it, see what the results are like ... you can probably fix it in Photoshop in any case. Lots of ways to correct the color cast problems. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished a roll of Kodak Portra 100T,which i thought was their version of the C41 based BW films.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Ah now, the *real* question is whether or not the availability of smarter cameras increases or decreases the number of people who want to learn how to become good photographers. :-) S Herb Chong wrote: no. people who don't want to learn won't. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: LX envy
Cotty wrote: On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I have both I Motor LX the Winder LX, the and the winder is quieter than the motor. (I've never heard a Motor MX). Notice I said, the LX shutter was more noticeable, based on my experience the LX is really no louder, it may even be quieter in absolute decibels, the pitch is just unfortunate. You know when you're at the movies and there's a sequence in the film where a photographer is snapping away - say at some function or other - and there's an off-camera sound of a still camera motor drive? Sometimes they sound crap and sometimes they're too slow or too fast etc. If you could hear the most perfect sound of a film still camera motor drive, it would be the motor drive for the Pentax MX! Okay, Cotty, send me your recording of that, please. . . g keith Cheers, Cotty
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D. Because with a K or M lens, it's exactly that: a manual camera with a center weighted meter. You turn your aperture wheel the old fashioned way, by hand. You push a button to stop down and get your shutter speed (kind of like a spotmatic on that count). The camera will change the speed for you (okay, so that's one concession to modernity), but you can pick another shutter speed with a wheel, just as you would on that spotmatic, an MX or an M3. The wheel just happens to be in a different place, and it doesn't have numbers on it. Finally, you focus or refocus and shoot. You can leave the camera set on manual all the time if you use only the classic glass. Hell, you can leave it on manual with new glass as well and just chuck the instruction book g. And of course you don't HAVE TO use the meter, you can just guesstimate shutter speed and ap if so inclined. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: Boris ... Of course, to a point, everyone is right in this discussion. I was actually being a little facetious when I made the comment about everyone here being ... dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. While that may be true for many people who actively participate in these discussions, there are, I know, quite a number of people on this list who do not have such dedication. Quite a few have said at one time or another that, for them, good enough is good enough. And for those people it's quite possible that these smarter cameras do have a dumbing effect. I'll let you in on a little secret: the reason I prefer manual cameras is because I'm lazy. I know that if I had a camera with too much automation, I'd rely on it more than I'd like. At least in my case, Bill Robb's correct ... it's easy to fall into poor habits. So I have to make myself think. And when I don't, the quality of my work suffers. I cannot believe that I am unique in this regard. I'm also too lazy to sit down and read a 200 page manual that tells me how to do what I already know electronically, through menus and interfaces and print outs and with directions given to me by flashing lights and the occasional beeping voice of a camera that thinks I should do it its way. One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel Boris Liberman wrote: Shel, you're right, up to the point. I really cannot judge it like Bill Robb can as I have no such experience like his. It is a matter of offer and demand. I doubt that more than 1% of people who buy PS (now digi PS) cameras would ever use it for anything but family album snap shooting. They might be photogs by dictionary definition of a word, but I don't think you referred to them. It is enough for them to feel very good for themselves just because they had this little nifty gadget with them at the time when their grandchild jumped three stairs down for the first time. I have two PS cameras, one of which is on indefinitely long loan to a former classmate whose only wish is to take snaps of his son. And Fuji Discovery 38-90 is ideal for the given demand. As you said however, the people on this list and similar folk are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. None of them will not be made dumber by a smarter camera. Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. As Bill Robb mentioned, and as has been mentioned on other threads, it appears that average level of average shooter gets lower. It probably *should* be the case, because photography becomes more and more accessible, more and more automatic, more and more for the dumb. But let them be. It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I? Boris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that you're a leader and an innovator ... To which lens are you referring? John Francis wrote: Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: Did i make a boo boo
Your results are going to be very blue. That might be nice in the snow. But probably not. You can try scanning the negs and converting them to grayscale in PhotoShop. You might end up with decent results that way. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished a roll of Kodak Portra 100T,which i thought was their version of the C41 based BW films. Bill i think i need more coffee than you today.LOL I have realized the mistake and did a quick look at the film on Kodaks website.It states it is for tungsten light,interiors etc. I shot this as BW themes out door in sunny snowy conditions. Am i screwed here. Dave(waiting for response before delivery to lab)Brooks BTW as an after though,i did do 1 of 2 things i wanted to yesterday,I looked at the D2H (love it)but did not have a chance on the *istD. May be next weekend
Re: Did i make a boo boo
Hi, Dave. The Portra 100T balances beautifully for tungsten lights, but it's not bad for outdoor shots. The lab will likely try to colour correct it as much as they can, and in my experience you can come very close. If you envisioned the shots as BW, it may be interesting to have one set printed in colour and one printed as BW. chris On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just finished a roll of Kodak Portra 100T,which i thought was their version of the C41 based BW films. I have realized the mistake and did a quick look at the film on Kodaks website.It states it is for tungsten light,interiors etc. I shot this as BW themes out door in sunny snowy conditions. Am i screwed here. Dave(waiting for response before delivery to lab)Brooks
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hmmm very interesting As you may gather from all the questions I've asked about the camera, it does interest me. The idea of a manual DSLR sounds great. Having used a digicam for a year or so, I've come to enjoy the instant gratification of being able to sit down and immediately work on making prints. And I did like the size and feel of the camera when I played around with John's. Thanks, Paul ... BTW, can I turn off all the flashing lights LOL Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D. Because with a K or M lens, it's exactly that: a manual camera with a center weighted meter. You turn your aperture wheel the old fashioned way, by hand. You push a button to stop down and get your shutter speed (kind of like a spotmatic on that count). The camera will change the speed for you (okay, so that's one concession to modernity), but you can pick another shutter speed with a wheel, just as you would on that spotmatic, an MX or an M3. The wheel just happens to be in a different place, and it doesn't have numbers on it. Finally, you focus or refocus and shoot. You can leave the camera set on manual all the time if you use only the classic glass. Hell, you can leave it on manual with new glass as well and just chuck the instruction book g. And of course you don't HAVE TO use the meter, you can just guesstimate shutter speed and ap if so inclined. Paul
istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? shel Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Or maybe.. dumber cameras make for fewer (brighter) photogs. :-P I like to the auto features. I run auto when it gets or should get me the results I want. I run manual when auto isn't going to cut it. Some days I run auto most of the day, some days the camera just stays in manual. Depends on the environment, subject, and the desired result. Otis Belinkoff wrote: ergo, smarter cameras make dumber photogs. Herb Chong wrote: all that tells me is that the number of people who really do want to learn is falling. there is too much temptation to turn on the meter or AF and let it do everything for you, even in a photo course.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Boris ... Of course, to a point, everyone is right in this discussion. I was actually being a little facetious when I made the comment about everyone here being ... dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. While that may be true for many people who actively participate in these discussions, there are, I know, quite a number of people on this list who do not have such dedication. Quite a few have said at one time or another that, for them, good enough is good enough. And for those people it's quite possible that these smarter cameras do have a dumbing effect. I'll let you in on a little secret: the reason I prefer manual cameras is because I'm lazy. I know that if I had a camera with too much automation, I'd rely on it more than I'd like. At least in my case, Bill Robb's correct ... it's easy to fall into poor habits. So I have to make myself think. And when I don't, the quality of my work suffers. I cannot believe that I am unique in this regard. I'm also too lazy to sit down and read a 200 page manual that tells me how to do what I already know electronically, through menus and interfaces and print outs and with directions given to me by flashing lights and the occasional beeping voice of a camera that thinks I should do it its way. One of the things I HATE about many new cameras is the lights that flash when the camera program says I'm using the camera at too slow a shutter speed. Well, off to get some tea ... shel Boris Liberman wrote: Shel, you're right, up to the point. I really cannot judge it like Bill Robb can as I have no such experience like his. It is a matter of offer and demand. I doubt that more than 1% of people who buy PS (now digi PS) cameras would ever use it for anything but family album snap shooting. They might be photogs by dictionary definition of a word, but I don't think you referred to them. It is enough for them to feel very good for themselves just because they had this little nifty gadget with them at the time when their grandchild jumped three stairs down for the first time. I have two PS cameras, one of which is on indefinitely long loan to a former classmate whose only wish is to take snaps of his son. And Fuji Discovery 38-90 is ideal for the given demand. As you said however, the people on this list and similar folk are all dedicated to getting the best results from their cameras. None of them will not be made dumber by a smarter camera. Now, take all several dozens folks here who bought *istD. Obviously, the *istD is the *smartest* camera Pentax produced so far. Will it make them dumber? I doubt so very much. As Bill Robb mentioned, and as has been mentioned on other threads, it appears that average level of average shooter gets lower. It probably *should* be the case, because photography becomes more and more accessible, more and more automatic, more and more for the dumb. But let them be. It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I? Boris
February PUG feedback
I am slowly making my way through this months PUG. Comments in no particular order: Good Morning! by Amita Guha, This is very vibrant and would no doubt be gleaming in the sun were the theme not wet. It seems just the slightest bit tilted to me. I had no idea what the name of the truck might be. Mt Lassen Meadow by Steve Larson Very serene. The lush vegetation gives no clue that it is August and that grasses tend to be yellow-brown by that time of year in semi-arrid California. Two Rivers by Erin Dayton When I first saw this photo, I thought that something had spilled into the river. However, you've explained quite clearly what this phenomenon was. What a neat shot. A Watery Post by Keneth Waller These watery posts remind me of pillars of a wharf or pier. What are they? Frozen Pond by David J Brooks David, you can design a nature calendar for me anytime. =) Fountain by Bruce Dayton Bruce, I've only seen the temple from the highway, but are those palm trees? The silkiness of the water fountain reminds me of a bridal veil. Wally! by Christian Skofteland Interesting science goes on down in the Great Barrier Reef. Looks like a great trip. Bathtime by Kevin Thornsberry These 2 little ones are the picture (pun intended) of innocence at this moment. In another 30 seconds, they could be splashing the photographer. Machiado and Sartre by Frank Theriault What a pleasant way to pass a little quiet time. Reading or photographing. Hot Water by Cotty Neat freeze shot. Too bad still photography means we aren't privy to the sounds of the drops evaporating. Everyday Miracle by Simon King Welcome to the world little one. I don't blame Dad for being distracted. I'm sure Dad will have many other opportunities to catch you making faces for the camera. Spider by Alan Chan Alan, this shot is a little to up close and personal for me. I didn't realize that spiders could be quite so gruesome! E. Pat in SF
Re: Did i make a boo boo
Hi, Dave. The Portra 100T balances beautifully for tungsten lights, but it's not bad for outdoor shots. The lab will likely try to colour correct it as much as they can, and in my experience you can come very close. If you envisioned the shots as BW, it may be interesting to have one set printed in colour and one printed as BW. chris Hi Chris. This was one of the rolls you throw in with the 6x7.-) Do all i have to do is ask them to print them out on BW paper??Sounds to simply.vbg Dave
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. alex
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, you can't blame the camera for this. A smart photographer (no insult intended for your father) would have learnt the limitations of their gear. yes, I agree. I wasn't moaning about automation, I was giving a counterexample to this claim: And, to repeat, by the time one bought a ttl metering SLR, they probably knew what they were doing anyway. But did they know what the meter was doing? Someone who knew what he was doing, as far as estimating exposure was concerned, was actually hindered by not understanding the automation, which had been oversold. If anybody had troubled to explain to him how reflected light meters work I'm sure he'd have been fine. But if you don't know what you have to learn, you're a bit stuck! -- Cheers, Bob
Re: PUG deadline - when?
Deadlines are the 20th each month. Jostein - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:55 PM Subject: PUG deadline - when? Hi! When is the current's month's submission deadline? 20th? some time later? earlier? Please unconfuse me. Thanks. Boris
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
The DA 16-45. With the current pricing incentives a *ist-D + 16-45 outfit can be purchased for somewhere around $1500, I believe. But John, that doesn't make you dumb. It shows clearly that you're a leader and an innovator ... To which lens are you referring? John Francis wrote: Sometimes I wonder if paying $1700 for a camera that can now be bought for less than that (*with* a $400 lens included) is proof of dumbness. (Especially, in my case, because the first time I'll use it for real will be a month from now when the race season starts). I expected a price drop - but not that much, or that fast. Oh well.
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Hello Alex, What might be considered the next best implementation of raw convertor? I don't want to spend the money on Photoshop CS just yet. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, February 16, 2004, 10:51:50 AM, you wrote: aw On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? aw Yes. aw TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though aw (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs aw 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. aw You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to aw have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax aw photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. aw alex
istD Justification: Puppy Pic
I sometimes have need to take photos of my client's pets, and the digicam is super for that. The only problem is that the shutter lag sometimes makes it difficult to grab certain shots, especially when things are moving fast. The istD may be a solution. Here's one of my puppy pics should anyone care to look. Made with the Sony DSC-S85 4mp camera. http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/beau.html (250K progressive JPG, 500 x 700 pixels)
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing, I now have a small utility that will extract the image bits from a RAW file and perform only the simplest Bayer interpolation. (No sharpening - you have to do all that yourself). I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Re: Did i make a boo boo
It's worth a try. I've never printed colour negs as BW myself, but I've had several customers who did it and were happy with the results. chris On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, Dave. The Portra 100T balances beautifully for tungsten lights, but it's not bad for outdoor shots. The lab will likely try to colour correct it as much as they can, and in my experience you can come very close. If you envisioned the shots as BW, it may be interesting to have one set printed in colour and one printed as BW. chris Hi Chris. This was one of the rolls you throw in with the 6x7.-) Do all i have to do is ask them to print them out on BW paper??Sounds to simply.vbg Dave
Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Hi, Toast exposure compensation? my toaster has a button marked 'bagels'. A light comes on when you press it. I did some experiments. A bagel was placed inside the cold toaster. The toaster was switched on and the 'bagels' button was activated manually. Time passed. The toasted bagel was expelled from the toaster. The experimentalist noted the state and condition of the bagel in respect of tone, crispiness and mouth appeal. The toaster was allowed to cool over a period of 24 Earth hours. The experiment was repeated with a second bagel from the same pack. In the intervening period the bagel had been sealed in a plastic bag and tied with a twisty wire thing. The experimenter's subjective freshness assessment suggested that no significant freshness deterioration had occurred over the 24-hour period. On this occasion the 'bagels' button was not pressed. In the fullness of time the 2nd bagel was extoasterated. The experimenter noted the state and condition of the 2nd bagel in respect of the same qualities as the 1st. No difference was detected. As a control the experiment was repeated several times with bakery products of different religious persuasions and national origins, including Turkish pitta bread, Indian naan bread, French croissants and English bloomers. In none of these experiments was the 'bagels' button seen to make a difference. Conclusion: The 'bagels' button is a device for informing bakers via wireless internet connections when people are toasting bagels. This helps with their just-in-time replenishment baking. As such it is of no direct benefit to the bagel consumer. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: OT: Cosina/Epson Digital Bessa RF
frank theriault wrote: Hi, Keith, As someone already pointed out, he was talking $6K for the Leica which is still years away (if ever). The DigiBessa will be much less. Oh yeah. . . I suspected as much. Leica prices are always out of line, even if their cameras are not built by them anymore! I've got a small fund building up that is my camera and equipment fund. A separate checking account, sort of like a savings account. If I sell a camera, or get some extra money not slated for something specific, it goes into the separate account. Whatever. They'll both be out of my price league anyway, so it's all quite abstract to me. g As I'm not in the market for such a camera, me too! g I'm having enough trouble scraping together enough cash to get my Leica out of the shop for a fairly cheap repair. Hopefully this pay period... Which Leica is it? I may have read it before, but disremember. . . I still like film - haven't figured that out yet - still working on it... vbg Hah! I do still have a Leica film camera, a C-1. . . I'm going to be selling that one too. It's just about brand new. I've had it for almost a year, but only taken it on one photographic trip. Results okay, but not Leica quality! I bought it thinking it might be a real Leica. It isn't. the body has been built by Matsushita and Panasonic. All the settings are electronic, and you have to view their settings in a very small window in the top plate, approximately 1/2 x 3/4, and with my old eyes, it's a strain seeing those small letters and numbers. Automatic everything. Now, if it were a CL-1, I might keep it! g But it isn't. Anyhow, I expect it to sell for roughly half of what I'm trying to sell my LX for. Sure hope I get some bites on that LX. Nothing yet. . . cheers, frank Take care of yourself. Winter's barely begun up there! g keith
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Hello John, With that utility, sharpening, color correction and what else would be typical to be done? What is your normal workflow with this utility? Thanks, Bruce Monday, February 16, 2004, 11:34:07 AM, you wrote: JF For those who want to eliminate most in-camera processing, JF I now have a small utility that will extract the image bits JF from a RAW file and perform only the simplest Bayer interpolation. JF (No sharpening - you have to do all that yourself). I hear you ... thks! alex wetmore wrote: Yes. TIFF files have already gone through processing on the camera though (bayer processing and reduced to 8bits). They are also larger (17m vs 13m). You really want to use RAW if you don't want to use JPEG. You don't need to use Photoshop CS to process RAW, it just seems to have the best implementation of it right now. You can use the Pentax photo lab to convert RAW to 16-bit TIFF and process that in Photoshop. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right?
Re: PUG deadline - when?
At 11:27 AM 2/16/2004, Jostein wrote: Deadlines are the 20th each month. For March PUG, the website says deadline is Feb. 18th. (http://pug.komkon.org/general/themes.html) Is this an anomaly? Pat in SF
Re: Did i make a boo boo
It's worth a try. I've never printed colour negs as BW myself, but I've had several customers who did it and were happy with the results. chris Just took the roll in.I told the girl what i had done(she laughed)and when i mentioned a BW contact,she said no problem.She wants to see what it looks like too.:-) I'll get it back around 4pm Tuesday Dave
Re: istD Justification: Puppy Pic
Nice shot Shel. Yes the shutter lag on these types is a LOT slower than a DSLR.It would come in very handy for work like that. BTW some of my best customers at horse shows spend all afternoon taking pictures of their kids with PS digitals,then come and buy a picture from me,as they cannot stop the action properly. Go PS's LOL Dave I sometimes have need to take photos of my client's pets, and the digicam is super for that. The only problem is that the shutter lag sometimes makes it difficult to grab certain shots, especially when things are moving fast. The istD may be a solution. Here's one of my puppy pics should anyone care to look. Made with the Sony DSC-S85 4mp camera. http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/beau.html (250K progressive JPG, 500 x 700 pixels)
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
You've confused technician/camera operator with photographer. Photographers make visually compelling images. Many full time working photographers just have enough technical knowledge to get what they want. (Many of them don't even have that and hire assistants/camera operators to handle the technical details). I know first hand of photographers that still do things all manual and it's not because they think that manual is better, but because they aren't interested or are intimidated by modern auto cameras. So, if you think that getting a properly exposed, in focus image recorded makes you a great photographer, it doesn't; it makes you a competent technician. BR From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah now, the *real* question is whether or not the availability of smarter cameras increases or decreases the number of people who want to learn how to become good photographers. :-)
Re: February PUG feedback
I am slowly making my way through this months PUG. Comments in no particular order: Frozen Pond by David J Brooks David, you can design a nature calendar for me anytime. =) Pat in SF Thanks very much Pat. Actually i made a calendar for the farm this year,maybe a nature one should be next.:-) The shots of the farm were the ones that won me over to Reala colour film for the 6x7.It seems to have the colours i like. Dave
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I had a customer last week bring me her fifth blank film in a row. I guess she didn't learn anything from the first 4, and probably didn't learn anything from the most recent one either. It's sad, because I know she drives a car. You know when you drive down to the food supermarket, and negotiate the zillions of people bumping and banging around with there food shopping trolleys, thoughtlessly leaving them at odd angles so you can't get past, taking the skin off your ankles when they run into you, and basically being completely ignorant of what's going on around them? Point: they all have a car in the car park. That really frightens me. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: We have an entire society now that trusts technology, sees newer better, faster as a good thing, and is sucking on the digital teat like greedy kittens. Oh boy, is that a keeper. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: ebruary PUG feedback
On 16/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Hot Water by Cotty Neat freeze shot. Too bad still photography means we aren't privy to the sounds of the drops evaporating. Thanks Amita. And I thought it was pretty so-so. There ya go! BTW that plate was on max, and the sound of the droplets exploding was actually frightening. Well, I'm easily scared :-) Thanks. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: istD questions (was Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?)
Yes, it will save as jpeg (three quality levels), tiff, or RAW. I've been saving as raw, using the Pentax software to convert to tiff without any tweaks. Then I do the final in PhotoShop 6. I'm going to upgrde to CS when I can, because it has a great RAW converter that allows resizing at the RAW stage and features a lot of other nice tools. But you can get by without it. I have the CS upgrade, but I need a clean copy of PS7. My PS6 is a site license version, which is not upgradeable. Paul Shel Belinkoff wrote: The only thing about moving to the istd is that I'd probably want/need to upgrade Photoshop to CS ... and that might mean investing more $$ into additional computer resources. I'm not a JPEG shooter when I want the highest quality, so it would be RAW or TIFF for me, I suppose. The istd does use TIFF, right? shel Paul Stenquist wrote: Hi Shel, Given your preference for manual cameras (which I share btw), I'm sure you would love the *ist D.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
you see the emperor's new clothes. the fact that the average photographer these days knows less about photography isn't making their pictures worse and arguably could be improving them. Herb... - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? It is the same with everything - with stereos, with cars, with computers, with everything. I can press just one button on my scanner and it will scan. I can plug and unplug stuff from my PC and it will not bluescreen at me. Why not? For some of the things, you'd like to be able to turn auto wunder button off, and thankfully you can. For some other things you chose not to. I still fail to see something here, don't I?
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
- Original Message - From: graywolf Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Of course, I do own a stethoscope, so if anyone needs their gallbladder removed... Wow, between your stethoscope and my pointy hockey stick, we could set up a medical parctice. William Robb
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability? Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 1:00 PM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? I'd suggest that there are a lot of snapshooters on this list. There are about 600 list members, but only a handful that frequently participate in discussions/arguments. What kind of photography do those other 500 or so people do?
Re: PUG deadline - when?
- Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] I put that in when I was doing the gallery. I found I really needed 10 days to get the thing set up. I know. I was just having a bit of tongue in my cheek. *ouch* The AutoPug is set up to accept entries until the 20th in all months. Adelheid has made the preparation procedure a lot more automated now. Cheers, Jostein
Re: OT: Cosina/Epson Digital Bessa RF
Hi, If it's true (and I am inclined to believe it, judging from Leica's reaction of confirming a development of M digital rangefinder), this would be just this and the last year's best news! I really like my old M Leica (although I _do_ use it for shooting, you can judge at http://fotof.wz.cz some reportage photography I did with it), the rangefinder view is for the documentary I do much nicer than a SLR. It might even mean I could use a cheap 8MP small sensor digicam for all low-iso flashed studio shots, while using the Leica or Bessa digital for available night. I really disliked the recent digitals for available night, not because of noise (which is getting better and better), but because of their abysmal viewfinders (Pentax being the only and notable exception). Just try framing and squinting at small details with a DSLR with real 0.4-0.5 magnification! Especially with lenses like very slow 15-30/3.5-4.5 Sigma which are the only thing you have got if you want wide (again, Pentax goes the right direction with half-frame 14/2.8!). I always felt that Leicas and Pentaxes complemented nicely, both being cameras that were essentially niche (not in the gold period of Spotmatics), but very user-friendly. That said I didn't like the direction Pentax headed in the 90s and their apparent lack of direction afterwards. Now, with digital, it seems they are going the right way again - very user-friendly, no-nonsense cameras with good user interface AND good viewfinder. Leica plays a similar role for me. Unfortunately, now I am out of Pentax (partly because their lack of apparent direction in AF then, partly now, because the IstD price is way too high here). That might change in May when we get into the European Union, as I might buy the IstD quite cheaper in Germany or elsewhere and not pay the exorbitant tax and import duties here. Anyway, a digital Leica is a good move for me. I like old cameras, but need (and sometimes want) to use digital. Now it seems Nikon is losing their direction (their D70 consumer digicam can't use their very recent DX flashes, you must buy I-ttl flashes for it...), they are in similar position Canon was in the 80s. Minolta is dead to me (their new Maxxum sure looks nice, but no availability of good glass locally), and Canon is too expensive. Perhaps I will wait for the Bessa :) ? Or something new Pentax. I will see if they manage to hold their new direction. I really dislike the rapid changes in technology now. Just imagine it! Using lenses from the 30s on a digital camera! Good light, Frantisek Vlcek
16-45/4 in stock anywhere in the US?
I have an order placed with Adorama, but it sounds like the DA 16-45/4 lens is still 3 weeks out. I have a trip to Vancouver coming up in early March and would love to have the lens before that trip. Does anyone in the US have this lens in stock? I'm also looking for a FA 35/2. alex
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
LOL Bob W wrote: Conclusion: The 'bagels' button is a device for informing bakers via wireless internet connections when people are toasting bagels. This helps with their just-in-time replenishment baking. As such it is of no direct benefit to the bagel consumer. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm. Herb Chong wrote: since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability?
Re: Do smarter toasters make better bagels? (Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
Bill Owens wrote: I'll try and duplicate this experiment to confirm the hypothesis. However, the bagel button on my toasting device appears to turn off one side of each of the containers which hold the bagel for toasting. I assume that if my experiment confirms yours, we must have all the results published in a scientific publication to make it official. Here's one variation, alledgedly a mix of real life and, well...: Do smarter bombs make dumber terrorists? Read this first: http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JFN4ZRQAAAVDHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/20/wbin120.xmlsSheet=/news/2001/11/20/ixhome.html And then this: http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html Enjoy. :-) Jostein
Is Street Photography Dead?
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Tfz A brief discussion of this idea found on the LensWork forum on Photo.net
Re: OT Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
The change should have been $84.00+ but I was given $64.00+ shortchanged by $20.00. Bringing this to the attention of the cashier, I was told the amount of change I received was correct. That's what the computer in the register said. I asked her to do the math, to subtract $85.00 from $100.00. She looked at me like I was from outer space, and insisted that the computer was right. I gave the clerk a ten dollar bill for an $8.59 purchase. She placed 3.50 change in my hand. I said, sorry, too much change, and tried to hand it all back to her, but she figured feverishly for a couple of minutes and proudly added another dollar to the pile in my hand. I was a little embarrassed for her, but still feeling honest I said sorry too much change I think it should be a buck forty-one total and again tried to hand her the money back. The clerk went back to figuring with furrowed brow, hearing the crowd in line start a murderous murmur, and after much figuring and the people in line about to kill me she added *another* dollar to the growing pile in my hand. Hearing the train wreck of killer customers about to happen I smiled, closed my hand and put the six bucks or so in my pocket, said Perfect, thanks and left the building. Ethics question: if I had tried one more time to get the right change, would it have been suicidal, considering the angry mob in line behind me? -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs?
IOW, since you got to decide what constitutes photographic ability. Herb... - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 6:27 PM Subject: Re: Do Smarter Cameras make Dumber Photogs? Since a week ago Thurday at 7:45pm. Herb Chong wrote: since when does ability or interest in participating in a photography mailing list have any correlation to photograpahic ability?
Re: istD Comments on Leica Photo.net
Hum..? And my Graphic is supposed to be complicated? -- William Robb wrote: The ist D has 21 discreet controls required for operation, some of which are multi function, depending on what menu or other button you have actuated at the same time. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Trivia
Spike TV has been running a Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Special all afternoon here. I noted with interest the equipment being used, although for the most part they did not focus on that and you had to catch a glimpse here or there. I was surprised to here numerous mentions of the use of film, running out of film etc. You could also here the auto advances on the cameras running, assuming that the sound effect crew wasn't generating this. I could also hear the difference between the medium format cameras and the 35 mm ones though. One particular item of interest was about a photographer that did not use any fancy equipment at all, but rather a simple PS 35mm from what I could deduce. He claimed problems with eyesight and focusing, thus it was much easier for him to concentrate on good photography with a simple camera. Some of the models thought he was joking and wondered if he would be able to do the job properly with that equipment. Evidently he and it did since he was hired by Sports Illustrated. Spike TV is not the most reliable source of info in my opinion, but I found it interesting. No I didn't catch the name of the photog. But it does make ya wonder if maybe, just maybe a good percentage of those on this list are addicted photo equipment nuts. Ok, I confess, yup I am :). Ok now give me my new toy...NOW! Dave
