Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Herb Chong wrote: > part of the reason film is as cheap as it is is because there are a lot of > rolls of film being manufactured. the number of rolls in 2000 is about 15% Then how can you explain Ilford? A niche manufacturer that produces much lower volumes of a specialist product and charges a competitve rate whilst still making a profit. They don't even use cheap 3rd-world labour. William Robb said they can do it because they have no competition. Poor Kodak; been wasting their time with Tri-X and T-grain (etc) then :-) No-one doubts that the consumer high-street processing end is going downhill fast. I think it was pretty over-saturated anyway. The essentially niche products of B&W, transparency, medium and large-format never went to the high-street in the first place. There is a pro lab just a few hundred yards from my office here in Sheffield, UK (Peak Imaging). They have just done a lot of cosmetic work on their building. They also have staff vacancies. Sound like a company on their last legs to you? Chris
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On 19/7/04, arnie, discombobulated, offered: >The other I went to downtown Manhattan to take some pictures and lo! my >rechargable cr-v3's are dead! so i went into the nearest shop, bought a pack >of AA's, and went on shooting. > >I love Pentax! > >arnie Sorry, I just can't get my head around this notion. So if you had gone downtown to Manhattan with a film camera to tale some pictures, and lo you only had 4 exposures left, presumably you would go into the nearest shop and by some more? Maybe sort of like driving a car - when the fuel gets low, you just go buy some more? Doesn't anyone prepare in this day and age or am I the only one? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
PUG
I've got an entry for PUG all ready to go, but it occurred to me that I'd heard some mumblings about changes in where PUG lives and such. What's the e-mail address to send a PUG entry to? (I can't use the autopug site) DJE
Re: DOF and digital cameras
The linkages would be a bitch, and probably unprotected and fragile. On the plus side it would probably be expensive. Peter Loveday wrote: In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more mature. It would have to "push the pin" for auto-aperture M42 lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with an adapter. Hmm, talking of which, is it that difficult to make an adapter that can push the pin to stop the lens down? Surely the mechanism used on K could be adapted to do so. I suppose there's some physical problem, like the mechanism would intrude too far in to the mirror box or something? Or is it just too expensive / too small a market. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
RE: Horse-fly - Beware!
Of course on *ist D. Pentax made to my knowlegde nothing comparable to the canon macrophoto lenses. Alternatives are Zeiss (Luminar), Leica (Photoar) and Olympus. Regards, Hans. --- "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice shot... but, uhh, you used a Canon?? We don't use Canon here... ;) -el gringo -Original Message- From: Hans Imglueck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: PAW: Horse-fly - Beware! http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2539583 Taken with the Canon 3.5/20 mm Macrophoto on tripod. About 15 shots are stiched together to get that DOF. The image isn't cropped! Comments are welcome! Regards, Hans. _ 23a mail _ 23a mail
RE: DOF and digital cameras
If you could persuade Kodak to make one - they did for Nikon and Canon mounts. But then again, they are 5000 USD +. Who'd pay that much for a FF camera? Not me, anyway. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. juli 2004 01:20 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: DOF and digital cameras what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount support. I don't think it will be that far off. In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more mature. It would have to "push the pin" for auto-aperture M42 lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with an adapter. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
RE DOF and digital cameras
True. I reagerd to DOF, the *ist D is an APS (size) camera. I mean, there are 35mm (full frame) digital cameras out there as well. They have the same DOF as any previously made 35 mm kamera. Conclusion: The differences lie elswhere. Different formats have different DOF. Digital or film - doesn't influence DOF at all. End of story. All the best Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 20. juli 2004 01:02 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: DOF and digital cameras Well it is relevant is so far as the discussion was looking at the merits and demerits of the *istD vis-a-vis a 35mm film system. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:34, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > actually it has nothing to do with digital or film OR FORMAT. > DOF is determined solely by the reproduction ratio of the image size > to the subject size and aperture used. All else is irrelevant. > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:19 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras > > > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any > impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you > could just say: DOF is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller > formats). Everybody and his mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
PAW OOC DOF
Well I thought it was about time for me particularly after the recent threads. Back to practicality, note the extensive out of control depth of field in my PAW image produced using the *ist D and A50/2.8 Macro at f8: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2541857&size=sm (Beware, link contains an unadulterated flower pic) Comments and criticisms welcome of course. 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: *ist D and Power sources
DagT wrote: På 19. jul. 2004 kl. 19.13 skrev DagT: På 19. jul. 2004 kl. 18.56 skrev William Robb: - Original Message - From: "DagT" Subject: Re: *ist D and Power sources Sure, as long as you in fairly civilized areas I agree. But sometimes I go outdoors and stay there for some days and other times I travel to countries were charging is not readily available. In both cases AA batteries are available in any shop I can find, which gives me a nice option. I talked to a D100 owner last week, and he was not very happy with the battery solution it had. Sometimes you just have to look at the digital problems and find that a nice mechanical film camera is the solution. That´s why I keep the LX :-) But what I really would like to see is a rewindable dslr camera. Oooops, sorry about the English I didn´t have a dictionary, it sould be windable - I think... DagT I think either would be correct, since the camera supports both functions...
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Gringo, the rumor on canon/nikon lists is that they are expecting a MF digital solution too. A. On 18 Jul 2004, at 04:05, El Gringo wrote: You're so negative Rob, why is that?? It's scheduled for early 2005, not exactly that far off now is it? A couple other posters provided some interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you complain, and complain. My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some serious success with theirs. So you can count them out of contention for now. As for the other companies, I don't think they can compete with Pentax. The only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL viewfinder. The 645 digital on the other hand has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a nice range of high quality Pentax 645 lenses. This could be THE camera to own if Pentax pulls out all the stops. It's sad that Pentax gave up their 35mm dominance, but, I think it gives them a small advantage now. If they can convince people that 35mm is more for amateurs or specialized pros, and that newer, dedicated MF digital cameras are the choice for any pros whose major concern is image quality and then respectable portability, they will be sitting in a winning position, with very little investment in a dying market, i.e. the 35mm market. While the major 35mm competitors will be left with a shrinking market, and a huge investment in that market. Now, I'm not saying the 35mm market is dying, or going to die, but I think it's looking a bit more and more out of place... The increasing quality and affordability of digital P&S cameras are attacking from the low end, and the increasing affordability, and decreasing size of MF digitals will be attacking it from the high-end. People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm reminded by captain Kirk's quote in the first Star Trek movie: "If you can't win a game by the rules, change the rules of the game." Or something to that effect. Basically, Pentax would have a heck of a time beating Nikon and Canon in 35mm, so what do you do?? You don't beat them at 35mm, you beat them where they have no presence. MF. Think about it, it works, it could be big. IF sensors just get bigger and cheaper as the years go by, why stop at 35mm?? MF could be the future of pro and serious amateur photography. There will always be a place for portable systems, but for those who want the UTMOST quality, MF is the promised land. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 7:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax is Dying? On 17 Jul 2004 at 12:08, El Gringo wrote: And Antonio, people do know things about it, for one, it's supposed to be out in early 2005. For another, the things I've said are straight from the mouth of an executive at Pentax. This bothers me greatly. Sure it would be nice to have a full frame MF digi- solution but the whole concept strikes me as a severe misapplication of funds/development considering how badly their K-format kit is dragging its knuckles. Let alone the fact that by the time Pentax actually delivers such an MF-digi product to market everyone else in contention will already have products to market, we've seen it all before. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: *ist D and Power sources
I disagree. The CR-V3 rechargeables are not the 'optimal' solution at all. An optimal solution would have been for Pentax too release the *ist D with a proprietry Li-ion rechargeable battery simalar to those used in other Pentax digital cameras. Then again, a fuel cell might be nice... Cheers Shaun El Gringo wrote: *Rechargeable* CR-V3's are the optimal solution. Yes they're pricey to get, at about 25 bucks EACH. Thats 150+ once you factor in the chargers, but, they have nearly the lifespan of a CR-V3, and more importantly, they provide FULL POWER even when only half charged... This is not the case with NiMH batteries whose voltage will slowly tail off until they run completely out. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 6:44 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D and Power sources "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 18 Jul 2004 at 15:03, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: BTW, I posted this once before, but I'm not sure if anyone noticed. I "discovered" that the AC Adapter for the MUVO works perfectly with the *istD! I haven't found anywhere that I can buy the AC Adapter that is supposedly available to suit the camera, so one night, I got brave and risked blowing up my camera by plugging the MUVO adapter in. I used it solidly for 4 hours and it worked like a dream! I have used it many times since, with no bad side effects (well, none to my knowledge)... LOL. Dare-devil. I just checked the Muvo PSU, it's rated to provide 5VDC @ 280mA, the camera specification are 6.5VDC therefore you probably won't cause damage but I'm surprised it worked. I'm not. Using the ist-D with 4 NiMH batteries (1.25 Volts each) provides 5 Volts total so we know the camera can operate from that Voltage. Computer-driven portable devices like the ist-D typically use many individual switching power supply chips (they're really tiny now) and don't rely on the raw power supply input for any of their subsystems. As long as the outboard supply can provide sufficient current it should be fine through a wide range of voltages. What's more, since the MUVO power pack is probably itself a switching supply, its failure mode is almost certainly going to be zero volts, rather than full unregulated voltage, like a linear power supply. In all likelihood, if there ever *is* a problem with the MUVO supply, it'll just go into over-temperature or over-current shutdown. No drama (but no power, either!) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: *ist D and Power sources
Well, it looks like my solution might be to buy some better batteries and a better quality charger. A Quantum rig would cost about $1300 apparently. There are other solutions that are being nutted out, but none of them are as cheap as more batteries and a better charger. Cheers Shaun Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Shaun, if anyone *has* come up with such a solution - I WANT IT! Try using the *istD with the Hitachi microdrive, no battery grip, and see just how long the batteries last! I go through 7 sets per wedding, and usually end up chucking in a set of Duracell's just to "see me through" the tail end... If there was a Quantum pack, or equivalent, I'd be lining up for it... BTW, I posted this once before, but I'm not sure if anyone noticed. I "discovered" that the AC Adapter for the MUVO works perfectly with the *istD! I haven't found anywhere that I can buy the AC Adapter that is supposedly available to suit the camera, so one night, I got brave and risked blowing up my camera by plugging the MUVO adapter in. I used it solidly for 4 hours and it worked like a dream! I have used it many times since, with no bad side effects (well, none to my knowledge)... tan. -Original Message- From: Dr. Shaun Canning [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2004 2:43 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Subject: *ist D and Power sources Hi gang, Here's a question for all the knowledgable *ist D owners out there to ponder. I use 2300 mah Nimh rechargeable batteries in my *ist D and AF360 flash (12 all up - 8 in camera, 4 in flash). While I am reasonably happy with this setup, it is sometimes left wanting. Particulalry when shooting RAW or TIFF images, there is a noticable faster drain on the batteries life than with JPEG (which makes perfect sense with all the extra disk writing etc). The question is: Is anybody using any alternative power sources to power their *ist D? For example, has anyone come up with or come across a 'power pack' that will power the *ist D like a quantum digital power pack (which is not available for the *ist D). Looking forward to some creative answers. Cheers Shaun -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Scanner Test (Revisited)
Thank You Brian and ALL of You! I installed VueScan, and it didn't work. And that's a GOOD thing! It made me change my scanner driver from "CyberView35" to "CyberViewX". The results are now MUCH better. This file was made with PS Elements: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/The%20Cat2.jpg Pardon the big dust blob but what a difference! Look at all them little hairs! I applied a little USM (Thanks to you folks I know what that means/does now). Otherwise it is just as it came from the scanner, sharpness and contrast are very much improved. I have to admit that I never considered the driver as a source of scan quality problems. I should know better, as a computer guy I change video, sound and NIC drivers all the time to get better or more reliable performance. Don (New Tricks for an Old Dog) > -Original Message- > From: Brian Dunn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 10:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Scanner Test > > > > I'm going to go the other way on this. The PF1800 can scan the > full density range of a negative very nicely. Your cat's image > does not have blown highlights. The scanner is successfully > reading the entire density range of the negative. For negatives, > the PF1800 can give nice results within the limits of its > resolution, which are actually quite a bit higher than what a > drug store scan will give you. > > Play with that focusing spacer made from an empty slide. Cut the > edges so the negative itself is not crimped when the slide is > closed onto it. I think on my own empty slide I had to use tape > to make a hinge out of it. Once that was done, the focus of the > negatives was quite a bit improved. > > As for the cat image itself, it looks quite nice on an sRGB > monitor as far as highlights and shadows. It does not blow out > to a solid 255 in the highlights. There may be some noise in the > shadows, but that isn't really the complaint, though. > > If the software is locking up, you may want to look for new > software. Look for 'vuescan' on the Internet. It may support > this scanner by now. You can also try unplugging other USB > gadgets while using the scanner. > > Cat fur may be a good test of scanners and digital cameras. The > fine details of sharp edges at strange angles can cause > interesting digital artifacts to appear. > > > Brian >
Re: K105/2.8
Paul, At the end of the day its gonna be worth what someone wants to pay you for it. If you use ebay it can vary quite a lot depending on who is bidding and how much they want it. The k105/2.8 is indeed very hard to come buy so I guess you would probably get a good price for it if you sold it on ebay rather than privately - certainly more than the $215 I paid for mine. I Imagine it would be very desirable to a collector. Personally I dont find it harsh at all - but it is a different kind of lens compared to the 85mm, more suited to general reportage type photography. The SMCT 85/1.8 seems to go for between $220 and $270 lately for a good copy. Antonio On 18 Jul 2004, at 04:59, Paul Ewins wrote: Let me know if you ever find out, I've got a mint example (with caps and case) that I want to sell. It does seem to be a little rarer than the K85 and K30, but that doesn't mean it is highly desirable. I seem to recall some comments from this list about it being "harsh". Maybe this focal length just went out of fashion. The ST 105/2.8 seem to be dime a dozen, but not the SMCT or SMCP. BTW - what is an SMCT 85/1.8 worth? I've got one with slight wear to the control surfaces, but otherwise exc+ including caps, hood and case. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 6:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: K105/2.8 anybody know what a K105/2.8 in near mint condition is going for lately? I couldn't find any data at ebay. Must be rare. JCO
Re: SMC-FA* 200mm macro
Shaun, Your original email never reached me, hence no reply until now. You just love taunting us don't you? Do you get up in the middle of the night to check how it is? Stroke it? Have a little display cabinet for it? q-: BTW, are the photos that are on pentaxusa.com and such of it with the hood attached? e.g. http://pentaxusa.com/images/products/l_27630.jpg What did you end up paying in AUD all up? I recently got to have a good play with the A* 200/4 macro and was very, very impressed. It had to be wrestled out of my hands at the end of the day. It would be interesting to see how the two stack up, but I suspect that at this level it's really a matter of splitting hairs. Keep us updated on you and your lens's relationship. David Dr. Shaun Canning wrote: Yeah, I 'm thinking about that too... Cheers Shaun John Mustarde wrote: On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 11:30:53 -0500, you wrote: Very happy. Can't wait to get out into the field in the next few days and really test it out. Haven't got a 67mm UV filter on it yet, so it's not going near the great outdoors yet. Don't tempt fate I always believe! Do yourself a favor - buy some insurance for the lens, and leave the filter off. No way would I impair the fabulous optics of this lens by permanently installing a cruddy filter in front of it. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
Same thing here, Rob, although I may keep bodies, that wount sell for a decent (reserve)price. I like them all, but I only use them rarely. I'll keep my MZ-S and my 6x6 equioment (Pentacon Six) for a while... Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) On 17 Jul 2004 at 9:34, Jens Bladt wrote: > Pentax isn't Dying. Film is, increasingly slowly at some stage perhaps, but it's > still going down. As Pentax has/had a pro-market in MF, they have to upgrade > this (Hasselblad and Rollei did) or/and try to dig further into/stay alive in > consumer DSLR/D-P&S markets. So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of film? I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many years and I don't expect the number to ever increase either. 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: PAW - "Caterpillars"
On Jul 18, 2004, at 11:14 PM, Boris Liberman wrote: I think the way it is presented (landscape) is just fine. I kind of have mixed feelings about it. The colors are very natural, very vibrant. The background is quite fine. But, DOF is just a bit too shallow for my taste. I'd really like to see their fangs/jaws and their eating the grass. Knowing that this is macro shot, I think I'd like to see more details, more macro-ness of the shot, so to say. I think I know what you mean... most macros I see are shot with quite a narrow aperture to maximise DOF so I guess that's what we tend to expect to see. When I shoot macro I tend to concentrate solely on the subject rather than a "small scene" so I usually shoot at f/4 or f/5.6 to blur out the background. I like the look and it also makes my job a lot easier as I don't have to worry quite as much about the background (DOF preview is my favourite feature), but having such a narrow DOF means I occasionally have to contort myself to get my plane of focus exactly where I want it. A macro tilt lens would be nice; I think Leica may have made one of those. The only problem with shooting this way is that I've developed a bad habit of shooting macro handheld :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: some shots from the new Air and space Museum
Hi! C> The Smithsonian institution opened a new museum near Dulles C> Airport in Virginia in December last year. My new employer C> (without naming names, it's the largest "online" company in C> "America") had an "All hands" meeting there last night. We C> basically had the place to ourselves for 4 hours (i was there for C> only 2 and shot 100 frames or so). All hands to battle stations C> the scale of the place is amazing. Yes that is a real 707 C> parked next to the Concorde, adjacent to the B29... etc, etc. The C> scary part is that there is room for even more large aircraft. Oh, C> yeah, the space shttle "Enterprise" has its very own space as well C> (it never orbited, by the way, it was used for atmospheric (glider) C> testing and practice). USS Enterprise... U. C> Anyway, here are 18 pictures where I try to convey the scale and uniqueness of the place. Truly unique. Well then, perhaps one day I will get to visit it. Who knows. Thanks for letting us see it, Christian. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PUG submission - jostein's page times out
My sincerest apologies for this situation. This is not the first time my web space provider has extended periods of downtime. Mail to addresses at my domain will not come through either. This was the last drop for me, and I will look into moving the domain to another vendor as soon as I can. Jostein > You can send an e-mail to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please attach the pic and put the information you normally give, like media, > equipment used, comment, name, country, title etc. into the mailbody. > > Thanks > Adelheid > > > > > > > > I am trying to get to Jostein's PUG submission page, but keep getting > > a timeout. Does anyone know if it is working or not? What other > > method should I use to submit? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Bruce > > > >
RE: Pentax is Dying?
What's a Cotty? Did he convert to Canonism? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. juli 2004 09:34 Til: pentax list Emne: Re: Pentax is Dying? On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated, offered: >> > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? >> >> That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus >> and the 14mm build. >> >> Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) > >If they do that and replace the FA lenses with DA or something of their ilk >I'll definitely do a Cotty. You'd be joining a growing line of PDMLers, sigh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: 35mm Scanning Prices?
the base level of quality worth my time is $1 per scan at 3kx2k. if i require quality, it costs me $20 per scan. that is why it was trivial to justify spending $2K on a scanner 35mm film scanner. it took 6 months to pay for itself in scanning my slides. at the costs you are quoting, you will be lucky to get scans of your slides/negatives without them being destroyed in the process. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 12:15 PM Subject: RE: 35mm Scanning Prices? > I do indeed... > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, July 17, 2004 11:02 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: 35mm Scanning Prices? > > > > > > For $5.15/hr you expect knowledge "AND" experience?
Re: PAW - "Caterpillars"
On Jul 19, 2004, at 12:49 AM, Billy Abbott wrote: My main problem would be finding a room which this would match the colour scheme for :) Last week I had purchased some matting card in a colour called "sauterne" - it's quite a light pastel green colour. That suited this pic perfectly. I used a light wood for the frame. Not sure about the optimum wall colour. To be honest I have no idea what I'm going to do with this pic now, nor the 6 others I have sitting in the spare room. I've been giving thought to selling them. - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: PAW:Waiting to go on.
Hi! bcin> http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/brothers.JPG bcin> My first attempt at fill flash and night skies.Just a bit of bcin> levels and a touch of the fill flash plug in on the sax players bcin> face in Elements and i think i got it ok. Flash was at 45 degree bcin> and a bounce card(the Cotty bouncy thingy)manual and around 1/60 bcin> or so. bcin> This is the Nuraw Blooze,friends of mine.(yes i have some.lol) bcin> This was taken at the 200 year family reunion July 2. Playing music at sunset... I wish I could hear it ... Most enjoyable, even just to view it like this. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I really don't think film will die anytime soon. I pretty much agree >with Graywolf's predictions that the big players will leave and the >smaller ones will see their business go up. All processing will become >in your basement or by mail. As a smaller and more expensive market, >however, film will probably last a very long time. That's pretty much the way I see it. As long as Ilford stays in business and keeps making 120 film I'll be happy! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: I've been promoted! (On eBay)
Don Sanderson wrote: > Now that I'm a member of the PDML I'm sure I can count on > y'all to buy all my stuff promptly at the BIN price, right? I don't like to alarm you, but joining the PDML *and* looking at eBay, will normally result in you becoming a power buyer. Malcolm
Re: silver UV filters
Hi, > Can anyone point me to a place where I can get 49mm silver mount > filters? Doesn't really have to be Pentax I suppose (tho that would be > ideal). Leica have filters with silver mounts, though they're expensive. I'm fairly sure that B+W do as well. I would investigate these at all the usual shops. -- Cheers, Bob
updated web site
I've updated my web site with pictures from my recent trip to Glacier for those who wish to visit. http://tripodman.smugmug.com/ Larry from Prescott
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Maybe, not even more expensive. Maybe less. Norm Baugher wrote: News flash - even if the big boys stop making film, as long as there is demand, someone will meet it. There will always (and are) companies that specialize in "twilight markets" and no, the cost will not be 20x more expensive, more expensive yes, but not 20x. And I also don't give a damn, what will happen will happen and there's not a thing we can do about it (except speculate, which seems to be a hobby for some people). Norm Otis Wright wrote: Market, maybe. You might want to thing about the fact that this is a mature industry with large plants working on small per unit margins. Plants wear out. As the volume drops, I suspect it will be very difficult to obtain the funds that are needed to keep the factory form the "banker" who has alternate options with better return. Soon, if not already, requests and plans for significant investment will the naturally tainted and for sure, quite thoroughly question. When these large plants go stop making film, the quantum impact in the marketplace is likely to a rather quick significant adjustment that has is to a large extent independent of the shape of the damned curve. Just my two cents..
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
No it doesn't in fact the cost/production curve on film is probably U shaped. (For all you I/O economists out there, and you can just try to prove me wrong). O:-) Chris Stoddart wrote: On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Herb Chong wrote: ink and paper won't because at least the same number of people using it will continue using it. not true with film, as those on this list who work on the processing end of it are telling us all the time. So why can't there be fewer manufactuers still producing film? Why can't film production be scaled down profitably? Why does it have to die if Kodak or Fuji suddenly stop making it? Is EVERYONE in the world going to go digital in the next decade or perhaps just William's first-world high-street consumers? Chris
RE: Pentax is Dying?
On 17 Jul 2004 at 21:05, El Gringo wrote: Sorry if this is old news but only came though a moment ago: > You're so negative Rob, why is that?? I guess I'm just older and wiser than yourself, give it time, you'll get there, just don't be impatient :-) > It's scheduled for early 2005, not > exactly that far off now is it? It's just not needed and will find no place in the market but for a few die hards. > A couple other posters provided some > interesting ideas as to what Pentax might actually be making. People want a > "pro" solution, Pentax discusses said solution, and then people like you > complain, and complain. It's not a solution to a problem. A wanted solution is a 35mm FF sensor which offers higher absolute resolution, this will put anyone with a practical perspective off the idea of an MF digi. > My prediction is that neither Nikon or Canon will come > out with a full frame MF format digital camera body unless Pentax has some > serious success with theirs. I predict they they will both still retain viable businesses which is what will count to them. > The > only MF camera that is interesting to me at all outside of Pentax's offerings is > the Mamiya 7. If there was a digital version of that camera with a digital > viewfinder I would sell all my camera equipment in a heartbeat and buy that. I predict that you will never see such a beast from Mamiya, not based on their Mamiya 7 or lenses for that system in any case. > Two things keep people from buying the 7 though, MF rolls are too cumbersome for > action photography, and the viewfinder is not convenient at all. In fact, I > simply don't do the type of shooting where I can afford to not have a TTL > viewfinder. The Mamiya 7 was not designed with action photography in mind, nor close focus or hand held low light or precision focus with fast lenses. > People talk about FF sensors having advantages, well, > what about MF sensors?? Wouldn't every 35mm shooter love to have MF quality > with the same features and portability of 35mm systems?? I would. And that > could happen with Pentax's new 645 digital... I'm not interested in any less than FF solutions in any case and likely not 645 solutions at all, the lenses are too cumbersome and limited for me. 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: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I don't think film will completely die (I know it's another apples and oranges comparison, but weren't printed books supposed to be going away too?), but I'd have to agree that from the manufacturers' point of view it's all about money--through planned obsolescence. It burns them up that people like my father have been using the same camera (Honeywell/Pentax HA1) for their entire lives and can still take pictures that rival the quality of much of what they're selling decades later. Automatic flash, auto-focus and the like not only catered to a lazy public, they added complexity, reducing reliability, so that even if the consumer isn't convinced that he/she needs the features of the latest model, the one they have will break sooner or later. Digital allows them to speed the process up. And even when the quality of digital pics meets or exceeds that of film, people will still need to buy new cameras because LCD screens will stop working, today's memory cards will become unavailable as they are replaced by new technology (and no, flash memory does not last forever), USB will become obsolete so that today's digital cameras become useless, etc. It's a dream come true for the manufacturers. They've been able to take a mature market and put it on the same frantic cycle as the computer industry. Digital will become the dominant form of photography, but as long as there is still someone making film, my father's HA1 will still be taking pictures long after the last *istD is tossed into a landfill. Malcolm Smith wrote: William Robb wrote: This list is driven by and for enthusiasts. That's why there isn't much traffic on it for point and shoot camera discussion, be it film or digital. We are not representative of real world demographics. I work in this industry. I am seeing a trend developing. That really is the point here, we 35mm SLR and MF film users are in a minority of the minority. The average point and shoot casual camera user wants the same thing as he had with his 35mm film equivalent of yesteryear. The modern generation want pictures they can share on the internet. Your modern manufacturer has sold as many P&S film cameras that they are ever likely too, so they want to sell something else - P&S digitals. A newer market, plus add ons for selling printers and inks and paper.The general public are easily persuaded by crafty constant advertising campaigns and will follow the latest trend - heck, I bet a few film stars promoting the benefits of attaching a bird bath to your backside advertised well enough would create a demand! Manufacturers are clever enough to note that professionals using digital cameras, are easy to advertise on the back of, but whilst the sports photographer with fifteen thousand dollars worth of body and lenses capturing the moment and sending for immediate publication is justifiable use of the technology, Mr & Mrs Average really have no more speed need than 1 hour process - if they need that much speed. The game is not about which is better - it's about what you can sell, mainly to people who have no issue over quality differences between film and digital anyway - assuming they even care. Malcolm
Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
- Original Message - From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" Subject: RE: OT: DOF and digital cameras > You know what? This is all way over my head! I am so not smart enough to > understand any of this - so, as I said in my initial post - I'm just going > to keep on using my DOF preview and the LCD to compose to get the DOF that I > need/want. > > Sheesh, my mind is so boggled right now. I need chocolate... I'm with you on this one. My theory is that if I want more depth of field I stop down, if I want less I open up the aperture. If I want still more depth of field, I stop down further, or less, I open up even more. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > Related to this thread, I read that most digitally captured images are never > printed, just used for web posting and email, The number I was told is something like 2% of digital images are printed. William Robb
RE: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Excellent article! But now MY brain hurts! :-( Don > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:25 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:15, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > Rob, this is because the greater enlargment needed for the same > print size > > from the smaller sensor also enlarges the CoC correct? > > I haven't got the time to get into too much dialogue at the > moment however if > you have some spare time do check out the following link, it's a > good article > on the subject: > > http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ > > 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: OT: DOF and digital cameras
On 19 Jul 2004 at 21:27, graywolf wrote: > RIGHT, can't do too wrong that way. If you are consistently getting not enough > DOF from the scale, close down a stop from what it says. If you are getting too > much DOF open up a stop. That is called being pragmatic. Theory is all well and > good, but whatever works for you is even better. LOL, I think this it what I've been preaching all along. It works for me. 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: Missing a LOT of posts!
On 19 Jul 2004 at 21:19, graywolf wrote: > I seem to be getting a lot of that lately. Strangely Thunderbird will say it is > downloading 33 messages, and then only 27 will show up. Maybe my ISP has a new > spam filter running (I am getting way less spam than before) and it is eating > regular messages as well. I received a whole swag of messages today, some were a couple of days old, my local latency is very low so I assume that they are getting stuck somewhere. 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: OT: DOF and digital cameras
RIGHT, can't do too wrong that way. If you are consistently getting not enough DOF from the scale, close down a stop from what it says. If you are getting too much DOF open up a stop. That is called being pragmatic. Theory is all well and good, but whatever works for you is even better. -- Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: You know what? This is all way over my head! I am so not smart enough to understand any of this - so, as I said in my initial post - I'm just going to keep on using my DOF preview and the LCD to compose to get the DOF that I -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: OT: DOF and digital cameras
On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:15, Don Sanderson wrote: > Rob, this is because the greater enlargment needed for the same print size > from the smaller sensor also enlarges the CoC correct? I haven't got the time to get into too much dialogue at the moment however if you have some spare time do check out the following link, it's a good article on the subject: http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/ 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: DOF and digital cameras
I hereby refuse to get into this one again, and again, and again... GRIN! -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:08, Don Sanderson wrote: Having said what I did in my post below I guess I'm agreeing with 4 things at once: 1.) DOF is dependent on image size to subject size ratio, and aperture. 2.) That the final "working image" is dependent on FL, Distance and Format. Smaller formats have a greater apparent DOF simply because they require a shorter FL, at the same distance, to achieve the final "working image". Of course this assumes the aperture is constant. 3.) Of course the smaller the "working image" the more enlargement is needed to acheive the same size final image. I carefully didn't mention what media was used, this is agreement #4: Doesn't matter what the media is, just how good its resolving power is. More and Finer Grains or More and Smaller Pixels, who cares as long as it works better! IOW DOF scales just serve as a rudimentary guide. 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 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Missing a LOT of posts!
I seem to be getting a lot of that lately. Strangely Thunderbird will say it is downloading 33 messages, and then only 27 will show up. Maybe my ISP has a new spam filter running (I am getting way less spam than before) and it is eating regular messages as well. -- Don Sanderson wrote: In the pastI've had a few posts not get to the list and a few from others I didn't get. But tonite I've read at least 15 responses that made no sense because I never got the post they were responding to. Is this a sporadic thing?, is there something I can do differently? Obviously others got the posts, since they responded. My ISP is me so I know nothing is being filtered or blocked. It's like reading a book with whole pages missing! Don -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: OT: DOF and digital cameras
You know what? This is all way over my head! I am so not smart enough to understand any of this - so, as I said in my initial post - I'm just going to keep on using my DOF preview and the LCD to compose to get the DOF that I need/want. Sheesh, my mind is so boggled right now. I need chocolate... tan. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2004 11:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras On 19 Jul 2004 at 18:48, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Okay, my brain has had a hard day, so I'm going to try to simplify the > discussion: > > In lieu of my 50 mm., the "normal" lens on my *ist D is the FA 31. > Unless someone can tell me clearly why not, I am treating the DOF scale > on the FA 31 as still in effect. > > Right or wrong? It solely depends upon what you deem as an appropriate CoC for your type of shooting/printing. However if the scale was printed by the manufacturer based on an APS sized sensor they would likely have used a smaller CoC for the calculations. Remember it's a guide not a rule. http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm 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: DOF and digital cameras
On 19 Jul 2004 at 20:08, Don Sanderson wrote: > Having said what I did in my post below I guess I'm agreeing with 4 things > at once: > 1.) DOF is dependent on image size to subject size ratio, and aperture. > > 2.) That the final "working image" is dependent on FL, Distance and Format. > Smaller formats have a greater apparent DOF simply because they require a > shorter FL, at the same distance, to achieve the final "working image". Of > course this assumes the aperture is constant. > > 3.) Of course the smaller the "working image" the more enlargement is needed to > acheive the same size final image. > > I carefully didn't mention what media was used, this is agreement #4: > Doesn't matter what the media is, just how good its resolving power is. > More and Finer Grains or More and Smaller Pixels, who cares as long as it > works better! IOW DOF scales just serve as a rudimentary guide. 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: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Rob, this is because the greater enlargment needed for the same print size from the smaller sensor also enlarges the CoC correct? Don > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 8:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > On 19 Jul 2004 at 18:48, Joseph Tainter wrote: > > > Okay, my brain has had a hard day, so I'm going to try to simplify the > > discussion: > > > > In lieu of my 50 mm., the "normal" lens on my *ist D is the FA 31. > > Unless someone can tell me clearly why not, I am treating the DOF scale > > on the FA 31 as still in effect. > > > > Right or wrong? > > It solely depends upon what you deem as an appropriate CoC for > your type of > shooting/printing. However if the scale was printed by the > manufacturer based > on an APS sized sensor they would likely have used a smaller CoC for the > calculations. Remember it's a guide not a rule. > > http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/dof.htm > > > 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: DOF and digital cameras
Having said what I did in my post below I guess I'm agreeing with 4 things at once: 1.) DOF is dependent on image size to subject size ratio, and aperture. 2.) That the final "working image" is dependent on FL, Distance and Format. Smaller formats have a greater apparent DOF simply because they require a shorter FL, at the same distance, to achieve the final "working image". Of course this assumes the aperture is constant. 3.) Of course the smaller the "working image" the more enlargement is needed to acheive the same size final image. I carefully didn't mention what media was used, this is agreement #4: Doesn't matter what the media is, just how good its resolving power is. More and Finer Grains or More and Smaller Pixels, who cares as long as it works better! Don > -Original Message- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras > > > Tanya, that 50mm lens is still a 50mm, not a 75. You're just using a piece > out of the middle of the full frame. > Thats why the image is that of a 75 and the DOF that of a 50. > I've been playing with a piece of frosted glass taped into ME super film > chamber. > I drew the APS size fram in the middle of it, really helps > understand what's > going on. > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: Tanya Mayer Photography [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:37 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras > > > > > > I have to say that I agree with Antonio and Jens on this one, as I often > > shoot wide open (f1.7, 2.5 or 2.8, depending on the lens), > specifically to > > decrease the depth of field. Unfortunately, the extra depth of > field for > > me, sucks majorly. > > > > However, I don't feel that you need to be rude to prove your > > point, Antonio. > > And I've said that before to you (remember, *I* am the "ugly" one)... > > > > On the other hand, you guys are all so pedantic! Why argue > over something > > so trivial? > > > > Simply compose your shot, use the DOF preview, if its not enough > > DOF for you > > then stop down a bit, if its too much, then open up. Simple, problem > > solved. I don't need to know all the technical ins and outs of > > stuff, there > > is a reason that cameras came out with DOF preview. So long as > I get the > > result that I need, it is irrelevant to me how/why it happened. > (Sorry if > > that offends, I'm just not very technically inclined). > > > > See, I KNOW that using the *istD increases DOF, however, we all > know that > > DOF decreases with longer focal lengths. So, if I have a 50mm lens on a > > film camera, and a 50mm lens on an APS sized sensor, effectively > > turning it > > into a 75mm lens, then wouldn't that meant that there would be > LESS DOF on > > the digital camera? For some reason, that is obviously NOT the case, so > > that's about where my techno attention span ends. I'll just > keep shooting > > and remembering that for some reason, opening up to f4.5 would be > > like f2.5 > > (or whatever), if I were shooting film. AND I'll just keep using my DOF > > preview/lcd screen to make sure that I am happy with the results. > > > > btw, Rob, I read like two paragraphs of that page you linked to > before it > > almost put me to sleep! har! sorry, i just hate anything mathematical or > > requiring too much analysis... Yeah, I know, I'm such a girl! > > > > ;-) > > > > tan. > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2004 9:08 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras > > > > > > Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my > > earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await > > afordable full frame digital. > > > > A. > > > > > > On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > > > > > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > > > film. > > > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > > > on DOF. > > > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > > > DOF > > > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). > Everybody and his > > > mother knows that! > > > > > > Jens Bladt > > > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > > > > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > > > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > > > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > > > > > > > Huh? > > > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > > > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > > > > > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > > > with > > >> this issue. > > >> > > >> "I expected th
RE: DOF and digital cameras
I have to say that I agree with Antonio and Jens on this one, as I often shoot wide open (f1.7, 2.5 or 2.8, depending on the lens), specifically to decrease the depth of field. Unfortunately, the extra depth of field for me, sucks majorly. However, I don't feel that you need to be rude to prove your point, Antonio. And I've said that before to you (remember, *I* am the "ugly" one)... On the other hand, you guys are all so pedantic! Why argue over something so trivial? Simply compose your shot, use the DOF preview, if its not enough DOF for you then stop down a bit, if its too much, then open up. Simple, problem solved. I don't need to know all the technical ins and outs of stuff, there is a reason that cameras came out with DOF preview. So long as I get the result that I need, it is irrelevant to me how/why it happened. (Sorry if that offends, I'm just not very technically inclined). See, I KNOW that using the *istD increases DOF, however, we all know that DOF decreases with longer focal lengths. So, if I have a 50mm lens on a film camera, and a 50mm lens on an APS sized sensor, effectively turning it into a 75mm lens, then wouldn't that meant that there would be LESS DOF on the digital camera? For some reason, that is obviously NOT the case, so that's about where my techno attention span ends. I'll just keep shooting and remembering that for some reason, opening up to f4.5 would be like f2.5 (or whatever), if I were shooting film. AND I'll just keep using my DOF preview/lcd screen to make sure that I am happy with the results. btw, Rob, I read like two paragraphs of that page you linked to before it almost put me to sleep! har! sorry, i just hate anything mathematical or requiring too much analysis... Yeah, I know, I'm such a girl! ;-) tan. -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, 20 July 2004 9:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
Re: I've been promoted! (On eBay)
Yea, tell me about it. Malcolm Smith wrote: Don Sanderson wrote: Now that I'm a member of the PDML I'm sure I can count on y'all to buy all my stuff promptly at the BIN price, right? I don't like to alarm you, but joining the PDML *and* looking at eBay, will normally result in you becoming a power buyer. Malcolm
Re: Film vs. Digital(long)
most 3rd world countries can't afford cameras, let alone processing. they are so low as to be invisible. it's 2nd world countries that will have a decent share for about one or two decades. Kodak hopes that those countries will stablize at about 20% of what they had for their worldwide best year in 2000. IOW, Kodak's best case scenario is that total worldwide film sales will stop shrinking when it reaches about 40% of the 2000 figures and stay that way for at least a decade. Herb... - Original Message - From: "David Miers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:27 PM Subject: RE: Film vs. Digital(long) > What I don't recall being mentioned is 3rd world countries. I doubt anyone > there will be switching to digital anytime soon. How much of the market > share do they hold? Obviously a small amount probably. However I agree > with the theory that if there is a market, there will be a supply. Maybe it > won't be Fuji or Kodak, but someone will see an opportunity and carry the > torch.
Re: Apology for............
Thanks Tim Best regards, John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:45:56 -0700 Subject: Re: Apology for > John, I for one don't think you should apologize. In fact, I'd like > to thank you since I wouldn't have seen the listing otherwise. > > Those of you who feel differently about John's posting need to wake > up: The days of cheap, undiscovered eBay listings on good stuff is > ancient history. > > t > > On 7/19/04 14:05, John Whittingham wrote: > > > ...posting someome elses eBay auction item on the list this morning. > > I understand it is not the done thing, just trying to help, it won't happen > > again. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > John > > > > John Whittingham > > > > Technician > > > > > > --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
but it is correct to say that digital is outselling film, as of 2003. number of cameras manufactured by Japanese manufacturers in 2003 was slightly higher than film cameras. in 2004, the manufacturing ratio is forecast to be 8 to 5 in favor of digital and increasing at least for a couple more years. since Japanese manufacturers account for about 85% of all cameras made in the world, that's what's going to happen. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Steve Jolly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:05 PM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > No, he said that use of digital cameras was rising, and use of film > cameras was falling. That's not the same as "film outnumbers digital".
RE: DOF and digital cameras
On 19 Jul 2004 at 19:19, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount > support. I don't think it will be that far off. Unfortunately a camera of that spec while offering the advantage of FF AOV would provide a lower spatial resolution than the current *ist D, I'd like to see 14MP minimum. 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
New 70-210 F:4.0 SMC Pentax-A! (Works on Film or Digi, Really!)
After reading the comments of all of you on the list I decided I just had to try one! It arrived today in beautiful condition. Very Nice! If what I see thru the viewfinder is representitive of what I'll get on film (oops! I meant "in images") , I'm thrilled. Don (My favorite media is anything that allows me to take nice photos)
Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
On 20 Jul 2004 at 1:04, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > By all means, please do (or at least back up your assertion with some > form of evidence...) Seriously I really don't have to, I was just being facetious. I've made enough images to know how the camera controls affect the outcome. 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: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Agfa has been trying to sell the film division for about 5 years. no-one is remotely interested. Herb... - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:50 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > Ilford has done very well by concentrating soley on their niche > market and not branching out. > And by being lucky enough to not have much competition world wide.
Re: DOF and digital cameras
On 20 Jul 2004 at 1:07, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my > earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await > afordable full frame digital. So do I but only so that I can make full use of the full image circle projected by my images. 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: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I should add : after developing the film, I scan and print digitally for color. I still do BW all wet style. JCO -Original Message- From: John C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? But don't forget, you can do C-41 at home for less than any photofinisher charges and it is nearly just as easy as B&W. I do all my large & meduim format C-41 processing myself now and it is really easy and inexpensive. The chemistry I use is only 3 steps with only the first step being time and temp critical and allows for 85 deg f processing which is very easy to achieve. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? i suggest you read some of the public access documents here http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/information/default.htm. the days of widely accessible film processing in North America are numbered. this is from the people in the industry itself who see no choice but to follow where the consumers lead. since Bill lives in an area that is less affluent than the one you live in, he is actually behind the times since fewer of his customers can afford digital cameras. in Japan, digital cameras have approached saturation and either this year or next, most digital camera sales will be replacing an older digital camera. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jerry Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > From what I see, Mr. Robb, you live outside of the USA, and I'd > suggest that what you are seeing and experiencing is relative to your > market and those in similar situations.
RE: DOF and digital cameras
what I want is FF DSLR, 10 Mpixel, Focusing Screen, and full K-mount support. I don't think it will be that far off. In the long run I would love a FF M42 DSLR. I do not think it is out of the question either once the DSLR market gets more mature. It would have to "push the pin" for auto-aperture M42 lenses though or it would make no sense over a K body with an adapter. JCO -Original Message- From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DOF and digital cameras Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or > film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact > on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: > DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras > > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > William Robb > > - Original Message - > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > > >> Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with >> this issue. >> >> "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly >> greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. >> What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." >> >> Full article at: >> >> http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ >> >> > > > >
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
wishful thinking. read the photofinishing industry's own reports on the health of the industry. they say go digital or die. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jerry Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:21 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > William and others on this list are a small part, almost a microcosm, of > the industry, and do not reflect, except by wishful thinking, the overall > market for film, paper, and the photographic process in general.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
part of the reason film is as cheap as it is is because there are a lot of rolls of film being manufactured. the number of rolls in 2000 is about 15% higher than the number of rolls made now, and the rate of falloff shows every sign of continuing if not increasing. the only growth markets Fuji and Kodak foresee right now is in India, SE Asia, and China. everywhere else is planned for a steep dropoff with total world-wide sales shrinking significantly even with high growth in these areas. as Kodak found out the hard way in 2003, dropoff is much faster than it anticipated. Fuji was more pessimistic than Kodak and turned out to be more accurate. Herb - Original Message - From: "Chris Stoddart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > So why can't there be fewer manufactuers still producing film? Why can't > film production be scaled down profitably? Why does it have to die if > Kodak or Fuji suddenly stop making it? Is EVERYONE in the world going to > go digital in the next decade or perhaps just William's first-world > high-street consumers?
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
But don't forget, you can do C-41 at home for less than any photofinisher charges and it is nearly just as easy as B&W. I do all my large & meduim format C-41 processing myself now and it is really easy and inexpensive. The chemistry I use is only 3 steps with only the first step being time and temp critical and allows for 85 deg f processing which is very easy to achieve. JCO -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? i suggest you read some of the public access documents here http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/information/default.htm. the days of widely accessible film processing in North America are numbered. this is from the people in the industry itself who see no choice but to follow where the consumers lead. since Bill lives in an area that is less affluent than the one you live in, he is actually behind the times since fewer of his customers can afford digital cameras. in Japan, digital cameras have approached saturation and either this year or next, most digital camera sales will be replacing an older digital camera. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jerry Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > From what I see, Mr. Robb, you live outside of the USA, and I'd > suggest that what you are seeing and experiencing is relative to your > market and those in similar situations.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 19 Jul 2004 at 14:43, Tom Reese wrote: > You'll have to pry my MZ-S from my cold dead hands. I sent mine to its new owner yesterday (with no remorse whatsoever), still got 2 LXen, maybe they'll be promoted to my display cabinet in short time. 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: DOF and digital cameras
Finally someone got it. That is precisely what I was refering to in my earlier posts, 35mm SLR vs APS digital (*istD). I eagerly await afordable full frame digital. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:19, Jens Bladt wrote: Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: DOF is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his mother knows that! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with this issue. "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." Full article at: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
i suggest you read some of the public access documents here http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/information/default.htm. the days of widely accessible film processing in North America are numbered. this is from the people in the industry itself who see no choice but to follow where the consumers lead. since Bill lives in an area that is less affluent than the one you live in, he is actually behind the times since fewer of his customers can afford digital cameras. in Japan, digital cameras have approached saturation and either this year or next, most digital camera sales will be replacing an older digital camera. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jerry Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 1:25 AM Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > From what I see, Mr. Robb, you live outside of the USA, and I'd suggest > that what you are seeing and experiencing is relative to your market and > those in similar situations.
Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
By all means, please do (or at least back up your assertion with some form of evidence...) A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:43, Rob Studdert wrote: On 19 Jul 2004 at 22:44, Antonio Aparicio wrote: "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." Full article at: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ Note carefully the formats of the cameras to which the article refers. The difference between DOF when switching between 35mm ff and *ist D is negligible. I can publish a short web based paper about it if that will make my view more valid for you. 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: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Really, so why do you keep insisting that the DOF on an *istD is the same as on a 35mm film body? A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 23:54, William Robb wrote: Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with this issue. "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." Full article at: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/
Re: DOF and digital cameras
Well it is relevant is so far as the discussion was looking at the merits and demerits of the *istD vis-a-vis a 35mm film system. A. On 20 Jul 2004, at 00:34, J. C. O'Connell wrote: actually it has nothing to do with digital or film OR FORMAT. DOF is determined solely by the reproduction ratio of the image size to the subject size and aperture used. All else is irrelevant. JCO -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: DOF is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his mother knows that! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with this issue. "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." Full article at: http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/
Re: A WOW :and photo tip question
Dave, You're welcome. I think you should look for info on setting the white balance, but I can't be too specific as I don't have experience with a DSLR (yet). Jim www.jcolwell.ca
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
On 18 Jul 2004 at 17:29, Amita Guha wrote: > Very true. It brought my husband back to SLR photography. He went > through 3 digital P&Ss before buying a ZX-50, because he missed having > that level of control. Problem is, he hated scanning the prints. Then > the 300D came out, months before the *istD. He pounced on it and hasn't > looked back (although I think he actually covets the *istD. :) Exactly the observation I made. 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: Apology for............
John, I for one don't think you should apologize. In fact, I'd like to thank you since I wouldn't have seen the listing otherwise. Those of you who feel differently about John's posting need to wake up: The days of cheap, undiscovered eBay listings on good stuff is ancient history. t On 7/19/04 14:05, John Whittingham wrote: > ...posting someome elses eBay auction item on the list this morning. > I understand it is not the done thing, just trying to help, it won't happen > again. > > Sincerely, > > John > > John Whittingham > > Technician > > >
Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
On 19 Jul 2004 at 22:44, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly > greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. > What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." > > Full article at: > > http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ Note carefully the formats of the cameras to which the article refers. The difference between DOF when switching between 35mm ff and *ist D is negligible. I can publish a short web based paper about it if that will make my view more valid for you. 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: Junkers (2nd try)
OK, I've got takers for the winders and the MX. The K2 is the only other thing on my list that I really expect anybody to have interest in, but you never know... DJE
Re: Film vs Digita
> On 19/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: > > >Here is a bit of a poll: How many of the folks on this list who have > >been into photography as a serious hobby for 5-10 or more years, and > >for whom it still is a serious hobby have 100% abandoned film? OK, I've been a serious photographer since 1985 and a professional since 1993. I'd still consider myself a serious hobbyist when I'm off duty, although I probably shoot less personal stuff than most of you all. I currently shoot digital when I am shooting high volume or high speed work (action, studio work with models, etc) and when I am shooting casually (take a camera to the party, etc). Both are places I used to shoot B&W for cost and convenience reasons, even if I'd have preferred color. Digital gives me a greater cost advantage in high-volume, low-success-ratio situations, plus it's color. Now that I've lost my darkroom (the paper is all digital, and no regrets there) B&W is a lot less convenient and more expensive. BUT, I haven't abandoned film 100%. I still shoot film when I am shooting slowly and deliberately. I use film for lens testing, and for bumming around stuff where I don't want the bulk or risk of a DSLR kit. Obviously I still shoot film in my nifty film cameras, of which I have far too many. The Spotmatic F, KX, and Nikkormat EL have a charm and feel that the latest Canon and Nikon DSLRs just don't. I'm shooting mostly 50 and 100 speed film, B&W or fujichrome, plus the occasional roll of TMY 400 for casual work (I've got dozens left over from when the paper shot film). I'd consider medium format, but I have no way of appreciating the quality of a bigger negative (no darkroom, no MF scanner, no MF projector, etc). Given the way I'm now working with film, MF seems otherwise to make sense. > (cotty?) >I don't miss film, I don't miss my darkroom...the only thing I miss is my >FA 85/1.4 I do miss printing B&W film. I don't print much of my work in any medium right now because it's so much cheaper to enjoy on the computer. I don't miss shooting or scanning color negative film. I HATED color negative film. I miss my Nikon F5, which I still own but have virtually no use for. I miss my fast wides and ultrawides, which digital crops into uselessness and screwmount doesn't have at all. I miss my 85 and 105, too. Nobody has yet made a fast 58,60,or 70mm especially for DSLRs. Given my collection of fine 85s and 105s, I'll be shooting certain kinds of work on film for a while yet! DJE
RE: DOF and digital cameras
actually it has nothing to do with digital or film OR FORMAT. DOF is determined solely by the reproduction ratio of the image size to the subject size and aperture used. All else is irrelevant. JCO -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: DOF and digital cameras Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: DOF is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his mother knows that! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with > this issue. > > "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly > greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. > What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." > > Full article at: > > http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ > >
Re: DOF and digital cameras
Really? It's a function of the focal length of the lens (for a given aperture). Smaller format = shorter focal length "normal" lens = greater depth of field. Digital cameras (and APS cameras) are smaller format than 35mm. Regards, Bob... From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or film. > I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact on DOF. > It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: DOF > is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his > mother knows that! > > Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Huh? > I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. > > From: "Antonio Aparicio" > > > Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling > with > > this issue. > > > > "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be > significantly > > greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows > that. > > What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." > > > > Full article at: > > > > http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> > >> Here is a bit of a poll: How many of the folks on this list who have >> been into photography as a serious hobby for 5-10 or more years, and >> for whom it still is a serious hobby have 100% abandoned film? > >Still using film. 100% film for weddings. Transparency films for stereo slides and slides in general. I like to use my Optio 230 to create stereo cards. Jim A.
RE: DOF and digital cameras
Not true. The difference has absolutely nothing to do with digital or film. I se no reason at all why the recording media should have any impact on DOF. It's simply because of the format. That's all. So, you could just say: DOF is greater for APS cameras (or just smaller formats). Everybody and his mother knows that! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 19. juli 2004 23:55 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with > this issue. > > "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly > greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. > What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." > > Full article at: > > http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ > >
Re: Pentax is Dying?
Once again I must ask, Why. It makes more sense to put the FF sensor in a 35mm size body, maybe with a dual lens mount 645 and K mount but the 35mm lenses have a major advantage in resolution. DagT wrote: På 16. jul. 2004 kl. 22.48 skrev Alan Chan: there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your frustration. Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? That would be nice, a set of DA prime lenses with the Quick shift focus and the 14mm build. Let´s face it, the FF sensor is for the 645 :-) DagT
Re: Waiting to go on.
Cotty wrote: On 17/7/04, Tanya Mayer Photography, discombobulated, offered: A certain old, pommie bald guy wrote: "She's not *that* young, so I guess that just makes her a thing. Cheers, Cotty oh boy am I gonna pay for that" Oh, boy, will you ever! You wait 'til I see you on MSN Messenger next time - I have *just* the smiley for you! BUT, I'll be "gentle" with you, after all, we do know that it is only the old age dementia, and maybe the effects of a few too many UV rays seeping through your naked cranium talking there... oh, and I may not be *that* young Mr Cottrell, but I'll *always* be younger than you! lol. tan. *who doesn't mind being a "thing" if it is preceeded by "sexy" and "young" or even "cute", would suffice - hehe.* :-P I like pain :-) Obviously... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: DOF and digital cameras
Huh? I am pretty sure I have a handle on depth of field. William Robb - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] OT: DOF and digital cameras > Primarily for William Robb, but usefull for anyone else grapling with > this issue. > > "I expected the depth of field in digital cameras to be significantly > greater than that in 35 mm models. Everybody and his mother knows that. > What I didn't expect, is how large the difference is." > > Full article at: > > http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/dof/ > >
RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
You can choose to look at forced at home processing and optical printing as a blessing or curse. The reality is you'll get better images. If you like to machine gun through film using high speed film drives, well I doubt it's for you. If you really think about each shot before squeezing it off, you might be surprised. From the amount of images and size of the storage drives that the digital folks here seem to need to deal with, I'm thinking film would be too expensive and probably already is. > > Not an encouraging prospect for those who would like to continue working > with film. . . > > Steve Desjardins wrote: > > >I really don't think film will die anytime soon. I pretty much agree > >with Graywolf's predictions that the big players will leave and the > >smaller ones will see their business go up. All processing will become > >in your basement or by mail. As a smaller and more expensive market, > >however, film will probably last a very long time. > > > > > >
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, graywolf wrote: > Here is a bit of a poll: How many of the folks on this list who have > been into photography as a serious hobby for 5-10 or more years, and > for whom it still is a serious hobby have 100% abandoned film? Not me. In fact in the last 12 months I shot more film than I ever have before. And yes, I do use digital too - it just doesn't do eveything I want. Chris
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Not an encouraging prospect for those who would like to continue working with film. . . Steve Desjardins wrote: I really don't think film will die anytime soon. I pretty much agree with Graywolf's predictions that the big players will leave and the smaller ones will see their business go up. All processing will become in your basement or by mail. As a smaller and more expensive market, however, film will probably last a very long time.
Re: *ist D and Power sources
AA was SO smart! Cory A Pentax person extolling the virtues of AA over some goofy proprietary battery that will cost an arm and leg to replace and won't be available in three years... - Original Message - From: "DagT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:23 AM Subject: Re: *ist D and Power sources > > På 19. jul. 2004 kl. 15.11 skrev Kenneth Waller: > > > On 7/19 Shaun Canning wrote: > > > > "An optimal solution would have been for Pentax too release the *ist > > D with a proprietry Li-ion rechargeable battery simalar to those used > > in > > other Pentax digital cameras" > > > > Then we would have another PDML thread about those darn expensive > > Pentax Li-ion rechargeable batteries > > & why didn't Pentax do something else battery wise. > > > > Kenneth Waller > > That´s´true. > > Some non-Pentax people have been praising the AA compatibility of the > *istD as a great advantage with the camera. > > DagT > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/18/2004
Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
I have the 1800 with the capability to scan a whole roll. It was a big mistake. Unless they figured out how to do it for the 3650, I'd advise against. CW - Original Message - From: "Paul Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 9:44 AM Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > Thanks, Lon. > > My main reason for the 3650 was wanting to start a whole roll scan and leave > it to work, but it sounds like that isn't a real good idea. Will probably > go with the Minolta and have a couple hundred $ to put to work somewhere > else. > > Paul > - Original Message - > From: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 5:19 AM > Subject: Re: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited)) > > > > AFAIK, the PF3650 is a PF3600 with ICE, GEM, etc. > > So it should be similar to mine, with more goodies. > > I'm happy with the 3600, but have not used a marque > > brand scanner. Results I get seem quite comparable > > to results I've seen on the net (snippets of actual > > scans, not lopped-down resized JPEGS). > > > > Strong points seem to be fast scan times (if you > > use firewire) and the software (I've never had the > > hangups that other people report, but I keep the > > computer it is attached to lean and clean). > > > > Weak points: if you try to scan an entire roll, you > > face two problems. One is that a whole lot of that > > roll flops around outside the scanner for quite a while, > > collecting dust like flypaper attracts bugs. Another > > is that there is usually a frame registration problem, > > so that at some point about 10 to 15 frames in, everything > > gets shifted. Finally, I've not seen good results from > > chrome film with lots of dark; a DMax problem. There can > > be some butt-ugly noise. I tested the DMAX by shooting > > one roll of Reala and one of K-64 on night-time fireworks; > > the results made me stop using chrome film. > > > > If you confine yourself to scanning 4- to 6-frame > > strips typically delivered by a lab, the frame shift > > problems are minimal to non-existant. > > > > Documentation hoovers, but as I understand it, that's > > typicaly of any digital product these days. > > > > All in all, I feel absolutely no need to "upgrade". > > My guess is, as long as you get used to a PIE and > > digital work flow in general, and stick with BW or > > color neg film, you'd feel the same. If the only > > reason you would purchase the PIE is because of > > the "whole roll at once" feature, I doubt you > > would use that feature often. And if you want to > > scan slide film, the Minolta would probably be the > > better choice. > > > > -Lon > > > > > > Paul Sorenson wrote: > > > Lon - > > > > > > How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner? I was seriously > > > considering the PF3650, but have been warned away from it by several > > > sources, favoring the Minolta Scan Dual IV. I'm most intrigued by the > > > 3650's capability of batch scanning a complete roll. > > > > > > Paul > > > > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.720 / Virus Database: 476 - Release Date: 7/18/2004
RE: Pentax is Dying?
Yes, I do know what it is. In space it can be a phenomenon, essentially however, all a gravity lens does is bend light, the same way glass would, except, without diffusion, without any kind of degradation. Just a fun thing I was hoping would capture someone's imagination, but I forget about the idiots in the world all to often... Thanks for reminding me. -el gringo -Original Message- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 12:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? El Gringo wrote: > Maybe a thousand years from now, > science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity generator, > then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe cameras > in the future will focus with perfectly formed gravity lenses... > LOL. Do you even know what a gravity lens is?
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
What's a barista stand? I guess if I knew what a "barista" was, I'd have it solved... keith whaley Tom C wrote: I'm considering opening my own barista stand on the state highway near home. I suspect I would have little problem showing a before-tax profit of 1000 USD/day Mon. - Fri. Tom C.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 19/7/04, David Miers, discombobulated, offered: >If Pentax goes under, most your major investment is in lenses anyways right? >Never fear, someone, somewhere will make you an adaptor to put it on a >different brand camera. You rang? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I know many constructiion electricians, who will only work on new construction. It's cleaner, there are no "surprises" and they don't have to search out mistakes by others. A good trade indeed! keith whaley William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Bill, we understand your worry. Your job is on the line. The last thing I am worried about is my job. It has become so bloody frustrating that I could walk away from it tomorrow with no regrets. Something to think about though, there are still blacksmiths out there, still making a living. Seriously, I am considering the trades. All the kids want a university degree and a desk job. However, no one is going into the trades any more, and everyone is screaming for skilled journeymen. Of all the jobs I have done on my renovation, I enjoyed the electrical the most. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I have a good friend who is a blacksmith. It is not an easy way to make a living these days. He does wonderful sculpture in metal, but what sells are custom made iron railings for expensive new homes. (I have another friend who is a glass blower, however, and he is doing very well these days.) - Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Bill, we understand your worry. Your job is on the line. Something to think about though, there are still blacksmiths out there, still making a living.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 19/7/04, Christian, discombobulated, offered: >At the risk of being bashed again me. > >Christian Sorta like Chr*ist D ? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
The fine grain BW films like Tmax 100 and Tech pans look signifigantly better even scanned than Grayscale converted scanned color films. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 2:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to start > everything at some point don't you? > > Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling > ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have burned > your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, with 35mm > film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one > just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than APS > 6MP Digital for that application If they are scanning film for output, it doesn't matter. Want black and white? Convert the colour image. Unless you are printing in a darkroom, there isn't much advantage to shooting black and white, and some significant disadvantages. William Robb
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On 19/7/04, graywolf, discombobulated, offered: >They still don't have AA rechargables on the market over there, Cotty? You >should have picked some up while you were here in the US. HAR! I had 2 sets of 4 NiMHs on me for use in the flash, mate. > >For perspective! If Cotty had needed to replace the battery in his Canon >while >at GFM he could have ran over to Ashville (2+ hour round trip), if one of the >*istD users need to replace his batteries he could have gotten them in >the gift >shop (20 feet from the auditorium or cafeteria) 1/4 mile from PDML Central. >Hum..? I wonder if they had D cells for my Graflite flash? Flashbulbs..? The point is, I don't need to replace them. I brought 3 proprietary batteries plus the charger to GFM. I didn't need the charger. Photography is partly about being prepared, no? If you go out with a film camera and one roll of film, then you either know what you are doing or you do not. If you go out with a digital camera and not enough batteries, ditto. So what you are saying is that the gift shop is for those who don't know what they are doing? HAR! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I'm considering opening my own barista stand on the state highway near home. I suspect I would have little problem showing a before-tax profit of 1000 USD/day Mon. - Fri. Tom C. From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:05:52 -0600 - Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > Bill, we understand your worry. Your job is on the line. The last thing I am worried about is my job. It has become so bloody frustrating that I could walk away from it tomorrow with no regrets. > > Something to think about though, there are still blacksmiths out there, still > making a living. Seriously, I am considering the trades. All the kids want a university degree and a desk job. However, no one is going into the trades any more, and everyone is screaming for skilled journeymen. Of all the jobs I have done on my renovation, I enjoyed the electrical the most. William Robb
Re: July Pug comments: Part oneish
- Original Message - > From: brooksdj > > -Wendy Beard Relaxing in the Pyreness > Very nice and relaxing shot, Wendy. I like how the green hill blend into the white > mountain tops. > Thank you Dave. Oddly enough, the person on the hill is also called Dave :-). The hill in question is actually Col D'Aubisque at a height of 1709m. Topically, this col was part of the Tour de France in 2002 wendy beard ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
I see, so that according to you new spin is meant to mean that as things stand now more people are using film than digital, but that "more people are using digital than before and less are using film than before" - wow. I spent 4 years at a top English University and I would never have guessed that from your previous statement. A. On 19 Jul 2004, at 07:38, William Robb wrote: Wish what you like, But daily, there are more people using digital cameras, and fewer using film.
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Well English happens to be my first language so you are in luck. Nice to see you expand on what you said to include the meaning you intended. As it was before it distinctly looked like you were saying that digital outnumbred film in your part of the world. "a. On 19 Jul 2004, at 18:17, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Antonio Aparicio" Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Whats to re-read. You say that film outnumbers digital in your part of the world, I say that film outnumbers digital in my part of the world. Not exactly rocket science. Or was I supposed to read your post backwards or something to find the hidden meaningÇ Sorry, I forget that English isn't the first language of many of the people on the list. What I said is that every day, more people are using digital (than the day before), and fewer are using film (than the day before), not that more people are using digital than film. I am pretty sure that film use is still greater than digital, but those numbers are shifting inexorably towards digital, and away from film. I will try to be clearer in the future. William Robb Wish what you like, But daily, there are more people using digital cameras, and fewer using film.
Re: PAW: Horse-fly - Beware!
Hi! HI> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2539583 HI> Taken with the Canon 3.5/20 mm Macrophoto on tripod. About HI> 15 shots are stiched together to get that DOF. The image HI> isn't cropped! Comments are welcome! Hans, you seem to be getting more and more stitches and smaller and smaller subjects... It is pretty damn amazing. Boris ([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > With all due respect, Bill, you are in the mass consumer film market. I don't > believe anyone thinks that that is a viable business, long term. > I'm in the mass consumer market because the pro lab I worked for closed for lack of work, and the black and white business I opened afterwards became unviable. Aging enthusiasts are not going to keep film manufacturing viable. William Robb
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to > start everything at some point don't you? > > Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling > ALL your film bodies and saying "never use film again" you have > burned your bridges and limited your creative possiblities. To me, > with 35mm film cameras so cheap now, it is worth having at least one > just for fine grain BW because the results are still better than > APS 6MP Digital for that application If they are scanning film for output, it doesn't matter. Want black and white? Convert the colour image. Unless you are printing in a darkroom, there isn't much advantage to shooting black and white, and some significant disadvantages. William Robb
Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
- Original Message - From: "graywolf" Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > Bill, we understand your worry. Your job is on the line. The last thing I am worried about is my job. It has become so bloody frustrating that I could walk away from it tomorrow with no regrets. > > Something to think about though, there are still blacksmiths out there, still > making a living. Seriously, I am considering the trades. All the kids want a university degree and a desk job. However, no one is going into the trades any more, and everyone is screaming for skilled journeymen. Of all the jobs I have done on my renovation, I enjoyed the electrical the most. William Robb
Re: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Film is Dying? (was Pentax is Dying?) > READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan > full frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm > film is capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near > as sharp. JC, you're flogging a dead horse. If what they wanted was ultimate resolution, they wouldn't be shooting 35mm film, much less digital anything. I agree with you about tech pan though. It is a pretty amazing emulsion. William Robb
