RE: What make a camera a pro camera?
Hmmm... I guess I spent hundreds of words saying just that! Well done, Jerry! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jerry in Houston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 02:06 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: What make a camera a pro camera? The photographer. IMHO. Jerry in Houston
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I'm really happy with my Sigma AF APO 300mm f4 Macro. I use it on the ist D all the time. Because it focuses close 1:3 I can shoot a full-frame shot of a butterfly in one instant and quickly catch a bird wading in the lake the next moment. Really great lens especially with the 1.4x TC, I've never used the 2x TC but suspect that is also excellent. Was European lens of the year when introduced, no longer available new, great shame. Mine's definitely not for sale BTW :) John -- Original Message --- From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:46:28 -0500 Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Amita Guha wrote on 11/16/2004, 8:50 PM: Failing that, can anyone recommend a good third-party lens? I just want a reasonably fast lens that I can hike with and that has some nice contrast. An f/4.5 would be fine. Amita; I'm really happy with my Sigma AF APO 300mm f4 Macro. I use it on the ist D all the time. Because it focuses close 1:3 I can shoot a full-frame shot of a butterfly in one instant and quickly catch a bird wading in the lake the next moment. See http://www.skofteland.net for examples. All the Bird gallery was shot with the Sigma, some with the 2x or 1.4x Sigma EX TCs. The lion and water lilies were also shot with the Sigma. The Sigma also has a tripod collar which I think adds to it's usefulness. Just make sure you get the AF APO Macro version of the Sigma. The MF versions were not so good. -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Rumor of DA 50-200
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Frantisek wrote: KK With TTL, constant aperture is not that big a thing if you can take For many, it is. It makes it impossible to shoot in manual mode in lower light, as much good the metering can be, I had much better results when I simply dialed exposure for the environment I was in. And you can't hold exposure lock then zoom a little bit more or less. You can go to Av or Manual, if you are setting the aperture from the body. The obvious exception is the apertures not possible with the selected FL. Kostas
Re: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2004/11/16 Tue PM 11:53:18 GMT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 My first real computer (as opposed to the toy just mentioned) was a Radio Shack TRS-80 model III circa 1980 or so. It had 2 360mb 5-1/4in floppy 360Kb - unless you had a special 8-) mike - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: 20x30 from 6MP?
- Original Message - From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2.54 cm but it'll take a while for you to see this most likely. LOL PDML would be the only reason to bother, though...:-) Jostein
Re: Re[2]: *ist-DS english manual
Alin Flaider wrote on 17.11.04 8:49: The bargraph is extremely useful in the viewfinder as an intuitive way of assessing the exposure range of the scene (in manual mode, coupled with spot meter). I really don't see its place on the back LCD as it doesn't sport live preview anyway. Well, but that's still better that no bargraph at all, that's not far away from VF after all. But you are right that it most useful when found inside VF. It is very useful for checking background exposure value when working with flash - actually it automatically appears when working with flash on Nikon DSLRs - I found it very useful for balancing available and flash light. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: Fw: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
Would have been interesting to see a similar comparison betweeen different digicams. Some local Canon enthusiasts maintain that Canon's CMOS chips have a larger dynamic range than CCDs. Jostein - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:42 AM Subject: Re: Fw: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image William Robb mused: This guy seems to think digital has a longer dynamic range than film, and has the charts to back it up. Granted, his print fil is not the one I would have chosen as the longest range one, but his results are interesting, none the less. William Robb All he's shown is that one particular digital camera (with a 12-bit sensor) can capture as much (or more) dynamic range as a 12-bit scanner can read from film. Somehow that doesn't really seem too surprising. - Original Message - From: Brian Subject: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
Re: What make a camera a pro camera?
I think that's the most intelligble definition of pro camera I've ever seen, Jens. :-) We've been through this on PDML a lot of times, sometimes even diverging into a flame war over it, which was too bad. The definition begs the question what constitutes a professional photographer, but I seriously don't think that's the relevant question. I think what's relevant is what people *in general* think of as a professional photographer. I asked some of my non-photographing colleagues at work this question a while back, over lunch. A recently married woman mentioned her wedding photographer first, and then went on to the photojournalists covering the invasion of Iraq. She remembered the case of the photographer who was caught combining two pics from the same scene. As the discussion around the table rose, a consensus emerged on press photographers being the most prominent examples of a professional photographer. In their mind, this class included both PJs, sports photographers, papparazzies and general news photographers. The portrait photographers came second, and someone threw in a word for nature photographers and photo artists towards the end as an afterthought. In general, I think this demonstrates that people have a short memory and tend to associate professional photographer with their last encounter with any photographer who makes a living from pictures. Since most people read newspapers and watch sports events on TV, that's what sticks in their minds. Jostein - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyway, when a manufacturor manages to meet the demands of professinal photgrapher, this camera becomes a pro camera.
Re: SD card speed question (Was: *ist-DS english manual)
From: Girts [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am now wondering about SD cards and their speeds. Should I get a high speed one or is the camera processing speed the bottleneck? For example: Sandisk 512 MB Secure Digital Ultra II (SDSDH-512-901) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00016L0VQ/ Price: $69.88 For that price I can get 2 times larger but slower card: SanDisk SDSDB-1024-A10 Secure Digital 1GB http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001A06GW Price: $76.89 Has anybody any experience with SDs and their speeds? In my experience, size beats speed every time. 8-) mike - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
All that space/waiting for that stupid agent to trigger
My digital camera is a Canon A30. A modest 1.1 MP. With a 128Meg card the remaining frame counter says 367. That's a lot of shots. So I got 2 of the 512s via PDML last week. Put one it. Now it says 999. Shoot a picture. It still says 999. I could shoot for years and never fill that things. Now to get Domino to trigger that silly agent. I'd like the DS, but not at $900. Used Nikon 5000 outfits sell for $300 to $500, depending on the accessories included. I know. Sell all the LF/darkroom stuff and buy a digital that'll only be practical for 3-5 years. And I'll need a new printer as well. And a DLT to make reliable backups. There goes my credit card. Maybe I'll force the agent to run. But it needs to run on it's own. That's the only way to verify the system. Slow morning, but full day. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Re: SD card speed question (Was: *ist-DS english manual)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2004/11/17 Wed AM 11:06:39 GMT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SD card speed question (Was: *ist-DS english manual) From: Girts [EMAIL PROTECTED] I am now wondering about SD cards and their speeds. Should I get a high speed one or is the camera processing speed the bottleneck? For example: Sandisk 512 MB Secure Digital Ultra II (SDSDH-512-901) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00016L0VQ/ Price: $69.88 For that price I can get 2 times larger but slower card: SanDisk SDSDB-1024-A10 Secure Digital 1GB http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001A06GW Price: $76.89 Has anybody any experience with SDs and their speeds? In my experience, size beats speed every time. 8-) But then I'm not a PJ or sports photographer 8-)) - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Hope I'm not breaking some auction disclosure rule here, but have a look at this one: http://cgi.ebay.nl/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemcategory=30070item=3852615056rd=1ssPageName=WD2V , a fast (f/2.8) Tamron with adapt-all mount and novoflex focusing grip. Might be an interesting option; fast enough to add a teleconverter if needed. I do agree with others who mentioned a 300 mm is rather short for bird photography. It might suffice if you limit yourself to birds without shyness issues (gulls are great), or have access to a good hide. But on hiking trips with a major serendipity factor I find that I basically constantly have to leave my 1.7 x converter on my novoflex 600 mm in order to get half-decent shots. But then again I mainly do birds of prey, which tend to stay as far away as possible. Z. At 07:15 17/11/04, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 8:50 PM Subject: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime I had a chance to shoot some birds on Cape Cod last week, and - surprise! - my old Sigma 70-300mm was just as crappy at bird shots as it was the last time I tried it. ;) So I decided to come home and just run down to BH and buy the FA 300mm f/4.5. But now I can't find it on the website at all. It's not even listed as backordered; it's just not there. Does anyone know if this lens is being discontinued? And if it is, does anyone have one they'd like to sell me? :) Failing that, can anyone recommend a good third-party lens? I just want a reasonably fast lens that I can hike with and that has some nice contrast. An f/4.5 would be fine. Does anyone know what the deal is with Pentax? There are a couple of other lenses I'm interested in that aren't available. Are they slowing down production or shifting everything over to consumer digicams? Amita --
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, The Diabolical Dr Z wrote: Hope I'm not breaking some auction disclosure rule here, but have a look at this one: Just out of curiosity, on what exactly are you basing your hopes? Kostas
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On the misguided guess we might not have a disclosure rule? Oops, apologies, hope you weren't intending on bidding on that. I should go stand in the corner and read some list FAQs. Z. Just out of curiosity, on what exactly are you basing your hopes? Kostas
my first computer (was Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954)
As requested by Graywolf The first several #1 Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 1, 16K, Level II BASIC. #2 Netronics ELF-II, RCA 1802, 256 static ram. #3 Osborne I, blue-gray model, 64K, 2 SS/SD 90K floppies. Where I learn C and started a new career. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: my first computer (was Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954)
A few of my choice computers: 1. Texas Instruments TI-99/4A. Christmas present in 1982. 2. Original IBM PC, 512k of RAM (woah!), two DS/DD floppies, CGA monitor (we even ran Windows 1.0 on it at one point) 3. ATT 3B2/300. 30 megs of HD, 2 megs of RAM. First unix box I ever adminned. A friend of mine still has an original Altair in his basement, and recently sold Microsoft's first product. BASIC for it, on eBay. Got a good bit of cash for a pair of ROM chips. -Mat
RE: OT - Strange eBay listing.
Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. regards, Anthony Farr
RE: my first computer (was Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954)
I used zilog 80 based computers with CP/M at work but didn't own one. I had a commodore64 in the very early 80's, used it for a while, lost interest and much later went to a 286 PC in late 80's. If I recall correctly, my first hard drive was 10 Mb and that was a good one! I now have single image files larger than that! I have used 286, 486, PII, and now Athon XP based machines. Went thru several versions of DOS, Win3.1, skipped 95, then 98, now XP. Somehow I don't think this is unique. JCO -Original Message- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:40 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: my first computer (was Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954) As requested by Graywolf The first several #1 Radio Shack TRS-80 Model 1, 16K, Level II BASIC. #2 Netronics ELF-II, RCA 1802, 256 static ram. #3 Osborne I, blue-gray model, 64K, 2 SS/SD 90K floppies. Where I learn C and started a new career. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I agree. My FA* 300/4.5 is maybe even a bit sharper than the FA* 200/2.8. I haven't tested it; it's more of a feeling. The scenes just sort of jump out of the viewfinder at me. What, kind of 3D effect, oh n :) John -- Original Message --- From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:54:40 -0500 Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:49:03 +1300, David Mann wrote: That's a shame as the F* and FA* 300mm f/4.5 lenses are fantastic. I'd recommend looking around a bit to try and find one. Sorry but you can't have mine :) I agree. My FA* 300/4.5 is maybe even a bit sharper than the FA* 200/2.8. I haven't tested it; it's more of a feeling. The scenes just sort of jump out of the viewfinder at me. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ --- End of Original Message ---
Re: Fw: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
Wondered if someone would catch that. No one on the Internet seems to want to do apple to apple comparisons. e.g. Digital print vs. chemical print. It is always digital image to converted to digital from analog image. Now I wounder what his results would have been if he had projected the digital image and the slide up on a 60x60 inch screen? To be truly fair the projectors should cost about the same (GRIN). Did anyone notice that he did a little PS'ing of the digital as well? All this kind of stuff proves is you can prove just about anything you want to if you set up the tests to favor your point. However, in the real world both processes work pretty well, it just depends on how good the technician doing the print is at his job. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Francis wrote: William Robb mused: This guy seems to think digital has a longer dynamic range than film, and has the charts to back it up. Granted, his print fil is not the one I would have chosen as the longest range one, but his results are interesting, none the less. William Robb All he's shown is that one particular digital camera (with a 12-bit sensor) can capture as much (or more) dynamic range as a 12-bit scanner can read from film. Somehow that doesn't really seem too surprising. - Original Message - From: Brian Subject: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dynamicrange2/
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
In 1961 my college Math professor, John Kemeny, had us work on a main frame with punch cards. He was trying to develop a new computer language that could be used by non-scientist types. Of course, what he came up with was called Basic, originally copyrighted by Dartmouth College, and the first computer language many of us learned. Dan M
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
F 300/4.5 has a removable tripod mount. I really enjoy this lens. It or the FA should be around used. - Original Message - From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:50 PM Subject: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime I had a chance to shoot some birds on Cape Cod last week, and - surprise! - my old Sigma 70-300mm was just as crappy at bird shots as it was the last time I tried it. ;) So I decided to come home and just run down to BH and buy the FA 300mm f/4.5. But now I can't find it on the website at all. It's not even listed as backordered; it's just not there. Does anyone know if this lens is being discontinued? And if it is, does anyone have one they'd like to sell me? :) Failing that, can anyone recommend a good third-party lens? I just want a reasonably fast lens that I can hike with and that has some nice contrast. An f/4.5 would be fine. Does anyone know what the deal is with Pentax? There are a couple of other lenses I'm interested in that aren't available. Are they slowing down production or shifting everything over to consumer digicams? Amita
Re: Very wierd 28mm on the ist D
Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put a cheap Vivitar 28/2.8 MF M type lens on the D this morning to see what the results would be. Though it's certainly not a sharp lens the results weren't as bad as I expected. Here's the wierd part: 1.) No matter what I focused on, the lighting, or how carefully I steadied the camera I NEVER GOT an in focus indicator on the D! 2.) The D's shutter WOULD FIRE no matter how in/out of focus the subject was OR where the focus mode switch on the D was set! Sounds as if this lens has an anodized surface on its mount or something else is preventing any of the electrical contacts on the camera from detecting the presence of the lens. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
Yeah! How soon we forget. Actually I think the were 320kb, Tandy was rather conservative. I was a member of the Dearborn (Michigan) TRS Computer Club for awhile. The guy who wrote Multidos was also a member. We had a sales rep for a clone that was twice as fast as the TRS-80 come in and show off his new toy. The Multidos guy challenged him to a test to see just how much faster the clone was. Only he did not mention that he had an optimized basic compiler that he wrote himself on his machine. Anyway the BASIC program ran about 5 times as fast on the TRS-80 as it did on the clone which had twice the clock speed. Which of course meant his compiler (interpreters, actually in these cases) was about 10 times as fast as Billy Gate's (Microsoft) version. All of which proves the money does not go to the guy with the best product. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2004/11/16 Tue PM 11:53:18 GMT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 My first real computer (as opposed to the toy just mentioned) was a Radio Shack TRS-80 model III circa 1980 or so. It had 2 360mb 5-1/4in floppy 360Kb - unless you had a special 8-) mike - Email provided by http://www.ntlhome.com/
Re: Bye Bye Contact Sheets (was RE: Robert Frank - New York Bus, 1958 )
Interesting. The removable media industry seems to be on the brink of a serious downturn. I oversee the corporate IT efforts for the (small) company I work for, and recently my network admin and I agreed to dispense with our expensive tape backup system and switch to a removable hard drive array. It'll save us big bucks every year in media costs and give us a significant performance boost at the same time. Cool! Tim On 11/16/04 22:47, Sam Jost wrote: I use external drives for backup, too. Good things, cheaper than DAT cartridges, faster and easier to use. But I'll never again buy Maxtor, had too much trouble with them, like with Fujitsu. Sam - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:11 AM Subject: Re: Bye Bye Contact Sheets (was RE: Robert Frank - New York Bus, 1958 ) The external drive is the way to go, IMO. You get a lot of flexibility. When I was at my lab last, Kevin, the PS expert, was scanning hundreds of slides for a client, who just brought his Maxtor to the shop and had Kevin dump the pics onto. Another friend uses his external for business and financial records. Backs everything up to the drive and stores the drive off site. The Maxtor is a pretty good choice from what I've heard. I'm probably going to get a Seagate SATA drive (to match my internals) or one of the newer drives that run off the new Firewire 800mb/sec port. Take a look at this: http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?pid=10025 Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/16/2004 6:57:02 PM Subject: Re: Bye Bye Contact Sheets (was RE: Robert Frank - New York Bus, 1958 ) Very true, Shel. I consider each CF card download to be a contact sheet. A one gig card downloads as 72 RAW images, a half gig card downloads as 36 RAW images. My hard drive is full of dated and categorized contact sheets. The best are backed up on CDs. Eventually, I hope to back up everything on a second drive as well. (Costco was selling 160 gig Maxtors for $89.00 last weekend.) I almost bought one, but they were internals, and I'm not sure they would mount correctly in my dual 1.25 G4. But I plan on adding quite a few more external drives. Eventually, I'd like to save everything in triplicate.
RE: SD card speed question (Was: *ist-DS english manual)
The Sandisk Ultra II 512Mb SD is a lot faster than a standard card in my 43WR. The camera is almost instantly ready for use again even at the highest file size. The same doesn't appear to be true for the *istD Nick -Original Message- From: Girts[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 17/11/04 00:32:16 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SD card speed question (Was: *ist-DS english manual) mw Greetings. I think we have another lister from there? Yes, at least one more member from Latvia that I know of. I am now wondering about SD cards and their speeds. Should I get a high speed one or is the camera processing speed the bottleneck? For example: Sandisk 512 MB Secure Digital Ultra II (SDSDH-512-901) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00016L0VQ/ Price: $69.88 For that price I can get 2 times larger but slower card: SanDisk SDSDB-1024-A10 Secure Digital 1GB http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0001A06GW Price: $76.89 Has anybody any experience with SDs and their speeds? Best regards, Girts
Re: Very wierd 28mm on the ist D
Don, The lens mount doesn't ground the AF pin on the body mount (the closest from the AF shaft). Servus, Alin Don wrote: DS I put a cheap Vivitar 28/2.8 MF M type lens on the D this DS morning to see what the results would be. DS Though it's certainly not a sharp lens the results weren't DS as bad as I expected. DS Here's the wierd part: DS 1.) No matter what I focused on, the lighting, or how carefully DS I steadied the camera I NEVER GOT an in focus indicator DS on the D! DS 2.) The D's shutter WOULD FIRE no matter how in/out of DS focus the subject was OR where the focus mode switch DS on the D was set! DS Though this lens is certainly not a keeper, it apperars DS normal as far as being a standard KM mount and seems DS to be sharp/contrasty enough to activate the in focus light. DS My usual experience with WA lenses on the D is that they DS will indicate in focus even when they're not. DS And the part about the shutter firing even when out of DS focus in AF-S or AF-C mode is really strange. DS I've tried matrix, spot and selective focus point, DS doesn't matter! DS Anyone else ever seen this? DS Only lens I've tried that behaves this way. DS Here's a sample from the 28: DS http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/Turtle.jpg DS Don
GOT IT! Was_ Very wierd 28mm on the ist D
This lens has a plastic/composite mount. It doesn't short *any* of the contacts on the D's lens mount. The D doesn't even know it has a lens mounted! This appears to be normal behavior when there is no lens. (I verified this by taping over the contacts on an FA lens, same result.) Oh well, maybe this will save somebody else some confusion in the future. ;-) And, I just missed the garbage truck *again* playing with this silly thing! :-( Don -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:48 AM To: PDML Subject: Very wierd 28mm on the ist D I put a cheap Vivitar 28/2.8 MF M type lens on the D this morning to see what the results would be. Though it's certainly not a sharp lens the results weren't as bad as I expected. Here's the wierd part: 1.) No matter what I focused on, the lighting, or how carefully I steadied the camera I NEVER GOT an in focus indicator on the D! 2.) The D's shutter WOULD FIRE no matter how in/out of focus the subject was OR where the focus mode switch on the D was set! Though this lens is certainly not a keeper, it apperars normal as far as being a standard KM mount and seems to be sharp/contrasty enough to activate the in focus light. My usual experience with WA lenses on the D is that they will indicate in focus even when they're not. And the part about the shutter firing even when out of focus in AF-S or AF-C mode is really strange. I've tried matrix, spot and selective focus point, doesn't matter! Anyone else ever seen this? Only lens I've tried that behaves this way. Here's a sample from the 28: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/Turtle.jpg Don
RE: Very wierd 28mm on the ist D
Thanks Alin, I was sitting her after I sent the original e-mail and seeing what was different about this lens. Took awhile but I finally realised it's the plastic mount. The poor D doesn't even know it has a lens. Same effect if I put tape over the mount on an FA lens. I sent another post to say I figured it out but it's not there yet. Thnx Again Don -Original Message- From: Alin Flaider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 8:06 AM To: Don Sanderson Subject: Re: Very wierd 28mm on the ist D Don, The lens mount doesn't ground the AF pin on the body mount (the closest from the AF shaft). Servus, Alin Don wrote: DS I put a cheap Vivitar 28/2.8 MF M type lens on the D this DS morning to see what the results would be. DS Though it's certainly not a sharp lens the results weren't DS as bad as I expected. DS Here's the wierd part: DS 1.) No matter what I focused on, the lighting, or how carefully DS I steadied the camera I NEVER GOT an in focus indicator DS on the D! DS 2.) The D's shutter WOULD FIRE no matter how in/out of DS focus the subject was OR where the focus mode switch DS on the D was set! DS Though this lens is certainly not a keeper, it apperars DS normal as far as being a standard KM mount and seems DS to be sharp/contrasty enough to activate the in focus light. DS My usual experience with WA lenses on the D is that they DS will indicate in focus even when they're not. DS And the part about the shutter firing even when out of DS focus in AF-S or AF-C mode is really strange. DS I've tried matrix, spot and selective focus point, DS doesn't matter! DS Anyone else ever seen this? DS Only lens I've tried that behaves this way. DS Here's a sample from the 28: DS http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/Turtle.jpg DS Don
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:49:03 +1300, David Mann wrote: I agree. My FA* 300/4.5 is maybe even a bit sharper than the FA* 200/2.8. I haven't tested it; it's more of a feeling. The scenes just sort of jump out of the viewfinder at me. Makes one wonder how the FA* 300/4.5 compares to the FA* 300/2.8. Makes me wonder a lot if I want the 2.8 or the 4.5 lens, comparing the prices. Sam
Re[3]: *ist-DS english manual
Just to point that absence of the dedicated AF button can be supplanted by programming the OK button to act as focussing button. The same button can also be set to suspend AF while manually focussing (with lenses sporting quick shift focus). Servus, Alin
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:49:03 +1300, David Mann wrote: That's a shame as the F* and FA* 300mm f/4.5 lenses are fantastic. I'd recommend looking around a bit to try and find one. Sorry but you can't have mine :) I agree. My FA* 300/4.5 is maybe even a bit sharper than the FA* 200/2.8. I haven't tested it; it's more of a feeling. The scenes just sort of jump out of the viewfinder at me. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Very wierd 28mm on the ist D
I put a cheap Vivitar 28/2.8 MF M type lens on the D this morning to see what the results would be. Though it's certainly not a sharp lens the results weren't as bad as I expected. Here's the wierd part: 1.) No matter what I focused on, the lighting, or how carefully I steadied the camera I NEVER GOT an in focus indicator on the D! 2.) The D's shutter WOULD FIRE no matter how in/out of focus the subject was OR where the focus mode switch on the D was set! Though this lens is certainly not a keeper, it apperars normal as far as being a standard KM mount and seems to be sharp/contrasty enough to activate the in focus light. My usual experience with WA lenses on the D is that they will indicate in focus even when they're not. And the part about the shutter firing even when out of focus in AF-S or AF-C mode is really strange. I've tried matrix, spot and selective focus point, doesn't matter! Anyone else ever seen this? Only lens I've tried that behaves this way. Here's a sample from the 28: http://www.donsauction.com/PDML/Turtle.jpg Don
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
1963 - Intro to Numerical Control - UW-Madison. Card punch, card reader, IBM 1620 (50K housed in two boxes each the size of your dining room table), no tape drives, all punch card output. Programmed in ForGo, a combination or Fortran and Gotran. Stand in line waiting for your job to run, run the cards through the card reader/printer and get *Program not accepted, line xx, line xx*, search for/correct the syntax error, re-punch the cards and run the whole process again. Aahh, those were the days of *manly* computing. g Paul - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 William Robb mused: When I was in grade 8, which would have been 1970, I guess, the university installed a punch card terminal in my high school and all of a sudden, we had a computer science program. We did our little programs in basic, and the bundles of cards were sent off to be run through the computer. The next day, we got back tractor feed sheets of our work. Grade 9 we graduated to Fortran. Beat you by around five years; I got to use a Stantec Zebra on a summer Numerical Methods, Statistics Computing course. We didn't use no wimpy high-level languages - programming was in autocode. It's amazing what you can do if nobody tells you that it's supposed to be difficult :-) By 1970 I was using an Atlas and a 360/44, amongst other systems.
Re: 20x30 from 6MP?
Ah metric, (well not really since it was never actually part of the metric system, and this version is more properly a decimal system), time, the French revolution, tried to institute a 10 hour day with a 100 metric minutes per. hour. Didn't take, proving there are things even the French wouldn't stand for. David Mann wrote: Yeah the rest of the world works on metric time :) Cheers, - Dave On Nov 17, 2004, at 1:24 PM, Peter J. Alling wrote: 2.54 cm but it'll take a while for you to see this most likely. Jostein wrote: Gee, this post used more than 36 hours to come back through the list... -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, The Diabolical Dr Z wrote: Hope I'm not breaking some auction disclosure rule here, but have a look at this one: Just out of curiosity, on what exactly are you basing your hopes? Kostas Wishfull thinking... -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
Yep, it really built mussels and character lugging those boxes of cards around. Paul Sorenson wrote: 1963 - Intro to Numerical Control - UW-Madison. Card punch, card reader, IBM 1620 (50K housed in two boxes each the size of your dining room table), no tape drives, all punch card output. Programmed in ForGo, a combination or Fortran and Gotran. Stand in line waiting for your job to run, run the cards through the card reader/printer and get *Program not accepted, line xx, line xx*, search for/correct the syntax error, re-punch the cards and run the whole process again. Aahh, those were the days of *manly* computing. g Paul - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 William Robb mused: When I was in grade 8, which would have been 1970, I guess, the university installed a punch card terminal in my high school and all of a sudden, we had a computer science program. We did our little programs in basic, and the bundles of cards were sent off to be run through the computer. The next day, we got back tractor feed sheets of our work. Grade 9 we graduated to Fortran. Beat you by around five years; I got to use a Stantec Zebra on a summer Numerical Methods, Statistics Computing course. We didn't use no wimpy high-level languages - programming was in autocode. It's amazing what you can do if nobody tells you that it's supposed to be difficult :-) By 1970 I was using an Atlas and a 360/44, amongst other systems. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: PAW PESO - Air Mail
A technique I never thought of Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 1:20:28 AM, Shel wrote: ... I wondered how the postman would deliver the mail to it, and, in my mind, I worked out an elaborate system whereby the box could be raised and lowered. LOL No need - those airmail envelopes are very easy to fold into paper airplanes. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: OT - Strange eBay listing.
Check out the bidders, and there notes. Jonathan -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: OT - Strange eBay listing. Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. regards, Anthony Farr
FA135 /2.8 opinions
Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
That should be muscles, not seafood. Damn spell checker. Peter J. Alling wrote: Yep, it really built mussels and character lugging those boxes of cards around. Paul Sorenson wrote: 1963 - Intro to Numerical Control - UW-Madison. Card punch, card reader, IBM 1620 (50K housed in two boxes each the size of your dining room table), no tape drives, all punch card output. Programmed in ForGo, a combination or Fortran and Gotran. Stand in line waiting for your job to run, run the cards through the card reader/printer and get *Program not accepted, line xx, line xx*, search for/correct the syntax error, re-punch the cards and run the whole process again. Aahh, those were the days of *manly* computing. g Paul - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 William Robb mused: When I was in grade 8, which would have been 1970, I guess, the university installed a punch card terminal in my high school and all of a sudden, we had a computer science program. We did our little programs in basic, and the bundles of cards were sent off to be run through the computer. The next day, we got back tractor feed sheets of our work. Grade 9 we graduated to Fortran. Beat you by around five years; I got to use a Stantec Zebra on a summer Numerical Methods, Statistics Computing course. We didn't use no wimpy high-level languages - programming was in autocode. It's amazing what you can do if nobody tells you that it's supposed to be difficult :-) By 1970 I was using an Atlas and a 360/44, amongst other systems. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: FA135 /2.8 opinions
Seems to be well liked but has not great focus feel. If that's important I'd wait. OTOH you could get a nice manual focus 135. Like the K135 f2.5 and the FA 135 f2.8 for autofocus. (Just helping you along with your enablement). Margus Männik wrote: Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Ds software?
On 16/11/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: If you've got photoshop, why not use the built-in browser (assuming ps7 or ps cs)? File Browser rules! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Fw: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image
On 17/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Wondered if someone would catch that. No one on the Internet seems to want to do apple to apple comparisons. Only trying to avoid the flames ;-) Good to see your better. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Pixel Puzzlement
I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? What I mean is this. If there's an image that has a resolution of 72ppi, typical for web presentation, and another image, from a scanned version of the same source, of 4000ppi, are the pixels in each image the same size? It doesn't seem possible, since if 72 pixels make up an inch each individual pixel would seem to be larger than if there were 4000 pixels in the same space. But then, if an image has more pixels per inch than another image, why is the image larger. Example: one scans a photo @ 100ppi and again @ 1000ppi, the 1000ppi scan has greater dimensions, but, it seems to me, it's just crammed more pixels into the same space, and the dimensions should be the same, right? Shel
Re: What make a camera a pro camera?
On 16/11/04, Larry Cook, discombobulated, unleashed: I was reading through some posts on one of the Pentax forums that I follow and ran across a remark about Pentax not making any Pro cameras. At the time I thought to myself, OK, I'm not a pro, so what? I like what I have, a *istD, so what the hey?!? Then I began thinking (always a problem when you aren't used to doing a thing...) about it and I found myself wondering, What makes a camera a Pro camera? Is it the construction? Particular features? The lenses? Accessories? The people that use them? The mythos associated with a camera? The price? The label the manufacturer applies? So, how does one distinguish a pro camera from a non-pro camera? The amount the camera charges for its services I was working outside a court this morning, filming for TV news (former high ranking police officer charged with scores of indecent images of children on his computer). There were 2 stills photographers there, both had Canon 10Ds with battery grips, flashes and 70-200 zooms, one a Sigma, one a Canon. They were getting paid for their pics, both by national daily newspapers. The cameras are both middle spec gear, not what I would call 'pro-spec'. At the weekend I shoot pics that I do not get paid for and I use a 1D, which is considered a pro spec camera. Go figure. A camera is 'pro' if it makes money for its user. To what extent the manufacturer of that camera supports its users will help determine if said users get paid for taking their pictures, or not. .02, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
FS/WTB: Pentax KX
WTB: Pentax KX ** I'm looking for one with everything working properly. No dings or dents desired, but normal wear is acceptable. Black is always beautiful, but does cost more. Brassing is acceptable and I think really adds character. ** MX/Winder @ a reasoanble price also acceptable. Let me know what you've got. I'd be willing to pay: $90 for a KX. A little more for black. $120 for a MX/Winder. A little more for black. Pictures always appreciated. FS: Pentax KX $65 + shpg. ** Good points: Shutter meter are great. Never an issue. MLU DOF preview both work properly. Shutter lock works correctly. Weak points: Self timer is out/stuck. No problem. I never used 'em. (Who does with any frequency?) Mirror is slightly off. This means that focus distance is off. Just glue a piece of paper to the bumper and it's in position. For bright light it's no problem at all. There's enough DOF to cover it. A great starter camera. PayPal. Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: FA135 /2.8 opinions
Hi, not great focus feel - what does it mean? If it means too easy movement with no proper fixation, I can probably live with that. When using MF, I keep my left hand always at focus ring with one finger clamping the ring. Or it's just not smooth (feels something like cheap zooms) ? However, I would very interested to hear about optical quality... BR, Margus (why, oh why, doesn't our dealer have it on stock :[ Otherwise I could just go and take it for testing) Peter J. Alling wrote: Seems to be well liked but has not great focus feel. If that's important I'd wait. OTOH you could get a nice manual focus 135. Like the K135 f2.5 and the FA 135 f2.8 for autofocus. (Just helping you along with your enablement). Margus Männik wrote: Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia
Re: Pixel Puzzlement
A pixel is as large as you print it. For me an image got pixels. And depending on the size I'm showing it at I'll get different ppi ppi=pixel/size I don't care at all about ppi. When I order a print I order a specific size, and no matter what ppi values I got in my image I'll get that size. Same with showing on monitor - I'll just show the picture at some specific size and don't care about ppi. Most image editing programs work well with this attitude - if they offer a ppi setting they mostly just store the value you enter and don't do anything with it. The only exception I know about is Photoshop which annoyed me mightily by resizing my picture when I changed the ppi setting. But since most use PS I met a lot of people who change ppi settings for resizing pictures. Very confusing way to resize a picture in my book, but hey, thats just me. ah well, enough disgression. About your second example, the same picture scanned with 1000ppi instead of 100ppi will have lots more (10^2) pixels, and if you print both at the same size the 1000ppi-pixels will be smaller. Just more pixel crammed into the same space, as you yourself already noted, yes. Sam - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:09 PM Subject: Pixel Puzzlement I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? What I mean is this. If there's an image that has a resolution of 72ppi, typical for web presentation, and another image, from a scanned version of the same source, of 4000ppi, are the pixels in each image the same size? It doesn't seem possible, since if 72 pixels make up an inch each individual pixel would seem to be larger than if there were 4000 pixels in the same space. But then, if an image has more pixels per inch than another image, why is the image larger. Example: one scans a photo @ 100ppi and again @ 1000ppi, the 1000ppi scan has greater dimensions, but, it seems to me, it's just crammed more pixels into the same space, and the dimensions should be the same, right? Shel
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
Anthony Farr wrote: Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. Stranger things have happened. If it is honoured, the shipping insurance will have to be revised. 8-) mike
RE: Pixel Puzzlement
A pixel has no dimensions, it is just a piece of data. It is given dimension by the output device whether that be printer, monitor or whatever. A pixel displayed on a monitor at 72dpi is very large indeed compared to the same pixel printed on a 1200dpi printer at 1200ppi. Note that ppi refers to a desired output size and dpi refers to the *capability of an output device such as printer or monitor. A decent photo quality print would be at least 300ppi, printed on a printer capable of at least 1200dpi. 2008x3008 pixels does not in any way refer to image size, it simply states that there are 6,040,064 picture elements in the image. How many ppi this is sized to or how many dpi it is displayed at is dependent on the software/hardware used. (Clear as mud?) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Pixel Puzzlement I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? What I mean is this. If there's an image that has a resolution of 72ppi, typical for web presentation, and another image, from a scanned version of the same source, of 4000ppi, are the pixels in each image the same size? It doesn't seem possible, since if 72 pixels make up an inch each individual pixel would seem to be larger than if there were 4000 pixels in the same space. But then, if an image has more pixels per inch than another image, why is the image larger. Example: one scans a photo @ 100ppi and again @ 1000ppi, the 1000ppi scan has greater dimensions, but, it seems to me, it's just crammed more pixels into the same space, and the dimensions should be the same, right? Shel
Re: Pixel Puzzlement
The issue is the definition of terms. Pixel may at times mean the display characteristic and at other times mean the sensor characteristic. There may even be more that I'm not aware of. It should always be understood in its immediate context as it is a very broad term. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.' Adam Smith Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: Pixel Puzzlement
I have read at www.shortcources.com that a pixel (in an image) does not have a size - it's a code in a computer, not a real physical thing. I believe that's what you are saying as well. How big it's seen depends on the ppi-resolution - how you print or see it on a screen. But that's not quite true: On the camera sensor the photdiodes (pixels) really have a size. In a * ist D 3008 pixels is sitting on an app. 24mm wide sensor. This means the original size of a pixel is something like 24mm/3008 = 0,008 mm. So, the resolution is close to 3200 ppi (pixel pr. inch) :-) Every time you enlarge the image, the ppi will fall (provided there's no interpolation). Making the printer do the job, just means that the printer/printer driver does the interpolation to make the image fit the sheet of paper at a chosen ppi. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Sam Jost [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 18:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pixel Puzzlement A pixel is as large as you print it. For me an image got pixels. And depending on the size I'm showing it at I'll get different ppi ppi=pixel/size I don't care at all about ppi. When I order a print I order a specific size, and no matter what ppi values I got in my image I'll get that size. Same with showing on monitor - I'll just show the picture at some specific size and don't care about ppi. Most image editing programs work well with this attitude - if they offer a ppi setting they mostly just store the value you enter and don't do anything with it. The only exception I know about is Photoshop which annoyed me mightily by resizing my picture when I changed the ppi setting. But since most use PS I met a lot of people who change ppi settings for resizing pictures. Very confusing way to resize a picture in my book, but hey, thats just me. ah well, enough disgression. About your second example, the same picture scanned with 1000ppi instead of 100ppi will have lots more (10^2) pixels, and if you print both at the same size the 1000ppi-pixels will be smaller. Just more pixel crammed into the same space, as you yourself already noted, yes. Sam - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 6:09 PM Subject: Pixel Puzzlement I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? What I mean is this. If there's an image that has a resolution of 72ppi, typical for web presentation, and another image, from a scanned version of the same source, of 4000ppi, are the pixels in each image the same size? It doesn't seem possible, since if 72 pixels make up an inch each individual pixel would seem to be larger than if there were 4000 pixels in the same space. But then, if an image has more pixels per inch than another image, why is the image larger. Example: one scans a photo @ 100ppi and again @ 1000ppi, the 1000ppi scan has greater dimensions, but, it seems to me, it's just crammed more pixels into the same space, and the dimensions should be the same, right? Shel
Re: FA135 /2.8 opinions
A little bit of all of that. Focus ring wobbles a bit, is very easy to turn, (not well damped enough, though still better damped than my SMCP-F 70-210 zoom which I use all the time). I've only played with one, haven't actually compared the results to other lenses, but the results are supposed to be very, very good. Sharp good contrast and of course the usual SMC flare control. Margus Männik wrote: Hi, not great focus feel - what does it mean? If it means too easy movement with no proper fixation, I can probably live with that. When using MF, I keep my left hand always at focus ring with one finger clamping the ring. Or it's just not smooth (feels something like cheap zooms) ? However, I would very interested to hear about optical quality... BR, Margus (why, oh why, doesn't our dealer have it on stock :[ Otherwise I could just go and take it for testing) Peter J. Alling wrote: Seems to be well liked but has not great focus feel. If that's important I'd wait. OTOH you could get a nice manual focus 135. Like the K135 f2.5 and the FA 135 f2.8 for autofocus. (Just helping you along with your enablement). Margus Männik wrote: Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Try KEH or Adorama too. Or Amazon.com I can also recommend the SMC M* 4.0/300mm. It's manual focus of cource. Used with the Pentax F 1.7x AF adapter, it becomes a AF 510mm. Truely a nice combo. Sometimes a Sigma or a Tamron 300mm can be spotted at ebay or elsewhere. About Pentax. Yes, sometimes it seems like that's the case. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 02:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime I had a chance to shoot some birds on Cape Cod last week, and - surprise! - my old Sigma 70-300mm was just as crappy at bird shots as it was the last time I tried it. ;) So I decided to come home and just run down to BH and buy the FA 300mm f/4.5. But now I can't find it on the website at all. It's not even listed as backordered; it's just not there. Does anyone know if this lens is being discontinued? And if it is, does anyone have one they'd like to sell me? :) Failing that, can anyone recommend a good third-party lens? I just want a reasonably fast lens that I can hike with and that has some nice contrast. An f/4.5 would be fine. Does anyone know what the deal is with Pentax? There are a couple of other lenses I'm interested in that aren't available. Are they slowing down production or shifting everything over to consumer digicams? Amita
Re: my first computer (was Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954)
As requested by Graywolf First was a Commador Vic 20 Second a used 8086 with 20 MEG HD and a 5 1/4 drive. Third was a 386 clone with 8 meg ram 3 1/2 and 5 1/4 drives Newest is a MDG PIII with 40 Gig HD 256 Ram CD rom Dave
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
Hi, Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: I think you should expect everything connected with it to be 'in the highest'. http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. there are plenty of people out there stupid enough to bid very high without demanding proof that it actually is the Virgin Mary, and not some other miracle-working virgin who looks just like her and likes to manifest herself in stale pizzas. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Amita -- I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. -- Stephen Moore Jens Bladt wrote: I can also recommend the SMC M* 4.0/300mm. It's manual focus of cource. Used with the Pentax F 1.7x AF adapter, it becomes a AF 510mm. Truely a nice combo.
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
FS: 4x5 back for Kodak 2D 8x10
I don't need it, so it can be yours! The mechanism is in great shape. Just add ground glass. (Cheap via Midwest Photo http://www.mpex.com) $50 + shpg. PayPal. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'We're over it. We've moved on. We're just fine. The election was days ago. Days ago. Much has happened since then. We've practically forgotten about it here in our rush to enter into new activities, new frontiers, new projects. I am now the chairman of a national campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians.' -- Garrison Keillor Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I have never given the weight/lack of tripod collar a second thought - even with an AF adapter mounted. Then again, I exclusivly use it with Pentax cameras with a METAL bayonet (which luckily applies to most of them). I have used it on the Super A, PZ-1, MZ-S and *ist D. I have had no problems, and I have got a lot of very nice and very sharp, high definition photographs. The M*4/300mm is one of my most used lenses. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Stephen Moore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 20:20 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Amita -- I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. -- Stephen Moore Jens Bladt wrote: I can also recommend the SMC M* 4.0/300mm. It's manual focus of cource. Used with the Pentax F 1.7x AF adapter, it becomes a AF 510mm. Truely a nice combo.
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I was not particularly thrilled with the A*300/4.0 that I had. I found it to be a little soft, although a few people suggested that I was using it to photograph objects that were too close for optimal performance. Like to work close to my subjects, and rarely, if ever, did I use the lens out to infinity. However, the A*200/2.8 seems to handle closer objects with greater sharpness and somewhat better definition. To be clear, no scientific tests were rendered. I just looked at the photographic results over a period of a year or so, with prints ranging in size from 5x7 to 20x24. In the end I sold the 300 as it didn't get much use and the results it provided weren't stellar enough to keep it for the small amount of use it got. I don't use the A*200/2.8 all that much either, but I still have it. Had I known then what I know now, I'd have purchased an A*300/2.8 instead. I do think the M* and A* 300/4.0 lenses are a reasonable value, but from what I've been reading the later model with the tripod collar may be a better choice. Shel [Original Message] From: Stephen Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/17/2004 11:24:37 AM Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Amita -- I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. -- Stephen Moore Jens Bladt wrote: I can also recommend the SMC M* 4.0/300mm. It's manual focus of cource. Used with the Pentax F 1.7x AF adapter, it becomes a AF 510mm. Truely a nice combo.
Re: FA135 /2.8 opinions
Hi, I got the FA 135 2.8, I'm actually quite happy with the focusing as I play it with one or two fingers only. I find it quite valuable when working close to small birds (really close) as its faster than the old manual focus lenses. I think its a great performer also creating sellable pictures with nice rendition and high contrast. Cheers, Ronald Margus Männik wrote: Hi, not great focus feel - what does it mean? If it means too easy movement with no proper fixation, I can probably live with that. When using MF, I keep my left hand always at focus ring with one finger clamping the ring. Or it's just not smooth (feels something like cheap zooms) ? However, I would very interested to hear about optical quality... BR, Margus (why, oh why, doesn't our dealer have it on stock :[ Otherwise I could just go and take it for testing) Peter J. Alling wrote: Seems to be well liked but has not great focus feel. If that's important I'd wait. OTOH you could get a nice manual focus 135. Like the K135 f2.5 and the FA 135 f2.8 for autofocus. (Just helping you along with your enablement). Margus Männik wrote: Hi all, I' m searching for a good mid-tele prime for my Z-1p. Until today I was about to get FA100/2,8 Macro - I've tested it once before and sort of liked it. Excellent sharpness, solid build. But today I somewhy started to think about FA 135 and can't quit... same max. aperture, a bit longer, internal focussing (good!), ability to focus from 0.7m (not macro lens, but seems impressive for normal tele). For macro works I could probably wait a bit more and get new D-FA 100mm (I like THIS manual focussing ring A LOT!). What do you think about this lens? How good/bad is it wide open? Has anyone tried it with macro ring or add-on lens, maybe I could forget about special macro lens at all? BR, Margus Tallinn, Estonia
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
This is a neat rig too. I'll buy one for my 400 one of these days. http://www.adorama.com/BG3420.html Don -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Bob, I have one of these with the wooden knob that unscrews to reveal a 1/4-20 thread: http://store.yahoo.com/stoneypoint/polmonexvyok.html It's my main monopod with the addition of a small ballhead. The company offers it with the V yoke too. The yoke is also available by itself and screws to a 1/4-20 stud. Don -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
How about some dedicated long-lens-holder like this one: http://www.manfrotto.com/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=103itemid=354 Sam - Original Message - From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 9:35 PM Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: MB /frame size
Guess I don't have enough to do:) I agree. Sam
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
Doug Franklin skrev: On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 08:23:13 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: This may produce a few grins: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/54-computer.jpg Actually, that looks to me like a mock up of a submarine's dive control station, circa 1954. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ You are right, I have seen the two main pictures that are used to make this collage in a computer newspaper (ComputerSweden) here in Sweden. Best regards, -- J.B Joergen Blomgren e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] home: user.tninet.se/~soy123d __ /___ /\ | There was a point to this story, | \ / / / | but it has temporarily escaped the cronicler's mind. | \ \ \/ / / | Last sentence in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish | \ \ \/ / | Part Four of Five In the Trilogy|\ \ / | The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams | \_\/
Re: Photo competitions list
KW Yes, I think this is the key, I will add a small note that folks should KW read the contest conditions before entry. Hi Kevin, good idea. BTW, does Pentax sponsor any competitions? Like Canon and Nikon do. There is a nikon one with deadline end of this year, it's (fortunately) open to all photographs on 35mm and or smaller digital. Unfortunately the prize might be just Nikon photo equipmment ;-( I can add it to the list. Good light! fra
Re: Cropping
BB This is my take on cropping. I also corrected the color and straightened BB the sagging wall a bit. BB http://image20.webshots.com/20/7/81/60/218178160cFFVjR_ph.jpg BB This is my first time using this site, so I hope the link works ok BB Butch Hi Butch, I missed the original thread, whose image is it? Yours? Interesting scene. Good light! fra
Re: MB /frame size
Yes JAck, naturally. It's not the MB, that counts, but the ppi, and colour depth, file format and compression. Take a look at http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/index.htm Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 21:56 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: MB /frame size If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: MB /frame size
Jack... I hesitate to get sucked into the quagmire of scanning, but if you scan a 35mm neg and get a resulting file of 100MB (!), you're using a scan resolution of 3,500 ppi, which, IIRC, is approaching the maximum information density of consumer 35mm color print films. Scanning a 6x6 neg at the same ppi should yield a 410MB file with considerably more information. I'm sure someone will correct me if my math is off. BTW, this is an interesting treatment on the subject of the various formats and the maximum data they can provide. Caveat emptor. http://www.oprit.rug.nl/otten/Comparison.html Tim On 11/17/04 12:56, Jack Davis wrote: If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: PAW - Haifa
Like the shot, Boris. For those who complained about the browser resize, it's actually in the source code: the function resizeOuterTo is included and sets the window to 80% of the screen size and 840 pixels wide. Web Aperture should be made aware that there could be objections to this sort of code inclusion! It can be overcome by clicking the restore button and then maximising, however. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 2:08 PM Subject: PAW - Haifa Hi! For those of you who ponder your possible visit to Israel. http://www.webaperture.com/gallery/photos/51507 I admit that I do love my *istD. -- Boris mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MB /frame size
If a 6x6cm frame is scanned at 100MB and a 35mm frame is scanned at 100MB, will the 35mm frame relinquish a greater share of its information than will the 6x6? IOW, in order to achieve an equal scan saturation, would it be necessary to scan the 6x6 at 360MB? (6x6 area =3.6 times that of the 35) Guess I don't have enough to do:) Jack __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Photo competitions list
Kevin, just got this in my email. Maybe something for your list? Haven't checked up on possible ripoffs, and the previous communications was a similar letter from them a year ago...:-) Cheers, Jostein -- Dear photographer, naturalist, mountaineer: As you must already know from our previous communications, the period for the presentation of slides in order to take part in the special 2004 edition of our mountain and nature slide competition will expire on December 10th. Many photographers from all over the world have already sent us their slides in order to be able to take part in the said competition. If you haven't done so yet, you are still in time to opt for any of the prizes we shall be handing out this year: a first prize (the traditional prize) for mountain, flora, fauna, sport, landscape, etc. images; and a special prize for slides on rock climbing and the world of verticality. Nevertheless, you may obtain information on prizes, competition rules, application form, image gallery, records, itinerant exhibition, etc. at www.memorialmarialuisa.com, and we shall be at your disposal to clarify any query you may have, both concerning the competition and the exhibition. Remember that you have until December 10th (postmark date), but it is better not to leave things to the last minute. You may send either original slides or quality duplicates. In either case, even if they are awarded prizes, they will be returned to you. Thank you for your attention and possible participation. We would also be grateful if you could forward this invitation to any people or associations you know that may be interested in mountain and nature photography. Kind Regards. We have sent you this message even though you have not requested it. If you do not wish to receive this message concerning future editions, please reply and indicate Remove in the subject field. We apologise for any inconvenience caused. __ _ Certamen Internacional de Diapositivas de Montaña MEMORIAL MARIA LUISA Apartado de Correos, 19 - 33530 Infiesto (Principado de Asturias) - Spain Tel- 985710350 - 985226850 - 985244165 - Fax 985710653 www.memorialmarialuisa.com/ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Rumor of DA 50-200
KK You can go to Av or Manual, if you are setting the aperture from the KK body. The obvious exception is the apertures not possible with the KK selected FL. Which for my style is the usuality, not an exception. But I will be getting a fixed aperture wide zoom ASAP. I hope the Tokina will come quickly with the ATX 4/12-24 digital zoom. I usually use exposure lock set to shutter release button and AF set to back button. That way, I can lock exposure with spotmeter or centerw. and keep it half-pressed to keep it and AF independently on that with my thumb. If I want to zoom, I would have to remeter the scene with a variable aperture zoom. But as I wrote, YMMV :) Good light! fra
Re: All that space/waiting for that stupid agent to trigger
stream of unconciousness? CW also wants the F*300 lens - Original Message - From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:48 AM Subject: All that space/waiting for that stupid agent to trigger My digital camera is a Canon A30. A modest 1.1 MP. With a 128Meg card the remaining frame counter says 367. That's a lot of shots. So I got 2 of the 512s via PDML last week. Put one it. Now it says 999. Shoot a picture. It still says 999. I could shoot for years and never fill that things. Now to get Domino to trigger that silly agent. I'd like the DS, but not at $900. Used Nikon 5000 outfits sell for $300 to $500, depending on the accessories included. I know. Sell all the LF/darkroom stuff and buy a digital that'll only be practical for 3-5 years. And I'll need a new printer as well. And a DLT to make reliable backups. There goes my credit card. Maybe I'll force the agent to run. But it needs to run on it's own. That's the only way to verify the system. Slow morning, but full day. Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.797 / Virus Database: 541 - Release Date: 11/16/2004
Re: Optimized Windows XP Digital Imaging system
HC slower processors. a PCI-Express video card makes a big difference, as does Hi Herb, does a newer graphic card make any difference in 2D imaging? I mean, for only photographic work? In my limited understanding, it helps in only scrolling the image around, or not? Thanks Good light! fra
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Bob, I have one of these with the wooden knob that unscrews to reveal a 1/4-20 thread: http://store.yahoo.com/stoneypoint/polmonexvyok.html It's my main monopod with the addition of a small ballhead. The company offers it with the V yoke too. The yoke is also available by itself and screws to a 1/4-20 stud. Don -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Since I alraedy own the monopod head, it would be wuite easy to make this myself from this and a flach bracket/rail, a strap and a piece of wood or plasic. It wold cost me app. 3 USD :-) Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 17. november 2004 21:54 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime This is a neat rig too. I'll buy one for my 400 one of these days. http://www.adorama.com/BG3420.html Don -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime Hi, I concur on the M*300/4 as a very nice hand-holdable long lens. I use it a lot at the races. My only gripe is that it's a heavy lens with no tripod collar, meaning I pretty much *have* to hand-hold. Puting that much unsupported weight on the camera's lens mount scares me a wee bit, and it does tend to be twitchy on light- and medium-duty tripods. I once saw, but haven't been able to retrace, a V-shaped device that fits on top of a tripod. You can put a beanbag in the V, and rest a long lens on it apparently quite securely. I always thought it would be a very useful little thing when I had my A* 300/4. -- Cheers, Bob
Kodak UK Job Losses Confirmed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4020849.stm Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On 17/11/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: This is a neat rig too. I'll buy one for my 400 one of these days. http://www.adorama.com/BG3420.html My God, bondage gear for your camera! What next? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Amita, Contact me off line if your interested in the A 400/5.6 or A 300/4. I know where you can find one at Paul's price. Regards, Bob S. On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:03:04 -0500, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know it's not exactly what you're looking for, but the A 400/5.6 is a very fine lens, and it's usually priced quite reasonably at around $450. You can find one on ebay, and they show up occasionally on KEH. I find that I need at least a 400 for bird shots in most locations, even with the *istD. Paul On Nov 16, 2004, at 8:50 PM, Amita Guha wrote: I had a chance to shoot some birds on Cape Cod last week, and - surprise! - my old Sigma 70-300mm was just as crappy at bird shots as it was the last time I tried it. ;) So I decided to come home and just run down to BH and buy the FA 300mm f/4.5. But now I can't find it on the website at all. It's not even listed as backordered; it's just not there. Does anyone know if this lens is being discontinued? And if it is, does anyone have one they'd like to sell me? :) Failing that, can anyone recommend a good third-party lens? I just want a reasonably fast lens that I can hike with and that has some nice contrast. An f/4.5 would be fine. Does anyone know what the deal is with Pentax? There are a couple of other lenses I'm interested in that aren't available. Are they slowing down production or shifting everything over to consumer digicams? Amita
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
1963, the days of manly computing! At the end of the semester, all the card punches would be busy. You would spend hours in a room with 20 card punches banging away, waiting for your program to come back. Then...You'd have to wait for access to a card punch machine to correct your syntax errors, before you could resubmit the deck to the input clerk! Lots of bad coffee from the coffee machine and candy bars. The early time-sharing networks were much faster/better for running and debugging, but they got extremely flaky at crunch time daily. They would send out desperate broadcast messages for 'somebody to please get off !' Sometimes they stayed up and sometimes they crashed. 10 years later, I ended up working for a company that still ran ordering and billing on a Univac III. I've got a memory board somewhere with magnetic donuts on it. Each donut was a bit Hundreds of them were organized in rows on the board, each donut threaded with a horizontal wire and a vertical wire. Energize one vertical and one horizontal, and that bit changed from 0 to 1. My worst story was the EE grad student teaching my introductory computer course. One of the EE undergrads pointed out that he had spent a year assembling a computer board the size of a classroom blackboard - full of transistors. Early integrated circuits came out and he was 'toast'. In the time it took light to move across his 20 foot board, the IC had the answer. We're just a bunch of 'girly men' today! Regards, Bob S. On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 07:40:59 -0600, Paul Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1963 - Intro to Numerical Control - UW-Madison. Card punch, card reader, IBM 1620 (50K housed in two boxes each the size of your dining room table), no tape drives, all punch card output. Programmed in ForGo, a combination or Fortran and Gotran. Stand in line waiting for your job to run, run the cards through the card reader/printer and get *Program not accepted, line xx, line xx*, search for/correct the syntax error, re-punch the cards and run the whole process again. Aahh, those were the days of *manly* computing. g Paul - Original Message - From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 11:17 PM Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 William Robb mused: When I was in grade 8, which would have been 1970, I guess, the university installed a punch card terminal in my high school and all of a sudden, we had a computer science program. We did our little programs in basic, and the bundles of cards were sent off to be run through the computer. The next day, we got back tractor feed sheets of our work. Grade 9 we graduated to Fortran. Beat you by around five years; I got to use a Stantec Zebra on a summer Numerical Methods, Statistics Computing course. We didn't use no wimpy high-level languages - programming was in autocode. It's amazing what you can do if nobody tells you that it's supposed to be difficult :-) By 1970 I was using an Atlas and a 360/44, amongst other systems.
Re: Kodak UK Job Losses Confirmed
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 22:56:35 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/4020849.stm Cheers, Cotty Do you think it's 'cause of that newfangled digital stuff? -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I assume that you are aware, as we all are, that you are the only one here that would have thought of that! (I'm a bit jealous) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:05 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime On 17/11/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: This is a neat rig too. I'll buy one for my 400 one of these days. http://www.adorama.com/BG3420.html My God, bondage gear for your camera! What next? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
Jens, that's nothing! The first PC I used was a Tandy Model III, with 4KB of memory and a tape drive for storage. The first one I bought for a company was an HP 86A, using a 64KB 51/4 inch external disk as persistent storage, and a green screen monitor. Memory was a whole 128k, in plug-in modules. Later expanded that with an external 4MB hard disk, which plugged in to an external slot. All coupled to a daisy-wheel printer for high quality but b---y noisy output at about 1 page per 1.5 minutes! These young'uns don't know they're born! (Not you, Jens!) John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:40 AM Subject: RE: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 At work, some of my predecessors actually made the demografic projections using a computer, using a printer as a the monitor. Computers like this was used in DK in the late seventies and early eighties. It wasn't rally a home computer - more like a terminal connected to a mainframe at a central data-facility. Until 1990 I too made the projections using a terminal, but now with a monitor screen. Since then we have udsed what we now know as a PC. I wonder what the next version may look like - a cell phone perhaps - or a wrist watch - or pehaps a fluid in a bottle ??? By the way. My first PC was 60 MB harddrive at a retail price of 6000 USD! And it's really not that long time ago :-) This money would buy me 10 or 20 PC's with 80 GB harddrives and 3 GH processors. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. november 2004 17:23 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 This may produce a few grins: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/54-computer.jpg Shel
Re: Pentax - Vivitar zoom comparison
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:24:08 -0500, Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Frank's just too big a target when he puts it that way... I'm not a target, I'm a straight man. Ed McMahon to Johnny Carson. Paul Schaffer to David Letterman. William B. William to Sammy Maudlin (anyone rememer what comedy show from about 20 years ago that sketch is from?). I put the line out there for the specific purpose of letting someone make a joke off it. Mark bit, as well he should have. You'd have bit, had you seen it first... vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
I was ignoring him, in the hopes that he would go away and flog himself. Don Sanderson wrote: I assume that you are aware, as we all are, that you are the only one here that would have thought of that! (I'm a bit jealous) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:05 PM To: pentax list Subject: Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime On 17/11/04, Don Sanderson, discombobulated, unleashed: This is a neat rig too. I'll buy one for my 400 one of these days. http://www.adorama.com/BG3420.html My God, bondage gear for your camera! What next? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:44:25 +, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Stranger things have happened. If it is honoured, the shipping insurance will have to be revised. 8-) $69,000 is a small price to pay for eternal salvation. What I want to know is why is this guy selling? Did he make a second Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese and no longer needs the first? Maybe he made a Virgin Mary French Toast or something? I also don't understand how he preserved it if he made the one up for auction 10 years ago. OTOH, maybe the fact that it hasn't rotted is proof that it is indeed what he claims it to be. Hmmm... cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
HAR! You'se guys are all wimps, and have fallen victim to planned obsolescence. I still use a scribe to record my impotant data, which is then sent to a stone carver and chisled into granite tablets for archival backup. The tablets are then stored in subterranean caverns. http://www.scribeyourdata.com Shel [Original Message] From: John Coyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jens, that's nothing! The first PC I used was a Tandy Model III, with 4KB of memory and a tape drive for storage. The first one I bought for a company was an HP 86A, using a 64KB 51/4 inch external disk as persistent storage, and a green screen monitor. Memory was a whole 128k, in plug-in modules. Later expanded that with an external 4MB hard disk, which plugged in to an external slot. All coupled to a daisy-wheel printer for high quality but b---y noisy output at about 1 page per 1.5 minutes! These young'uns don't know they're born! (Not you, Jens!) John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 7:40 AM Subject: RE: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 At work, some of my predecessors actually made the demografic projections using a computer, using a printer as a the monitor. Computers like this was used in DK in the late seventies and early eighties. It wasn't rally a home computer - more like a terminal connected to a mainframe at a central data-facility. Until 1990 I too made the projections using a terminal, but now with a monitor screen. Since then we have udsed what we now know as a PC. I wonder what the next version may look like - a cell phone perhaps - or a wrist watch - or pehaps a fluid in a bottle ??? By the way. My first PC was 60 MB harddrive at a retail price of 6000 USD! And it's really not that long time ago :-) This money would buy me 10 or 20 PC's with 80 GB harddrives and 3 GH processors. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 16. november 2004 17:23 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 This may produce a few grins: http://home.earthlink.net/~my-pics/54-computer.jpg Shel
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:14:44 -0600, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assume that you are aware, as we all are, that you are the only one here that would have thought of that! (I'm a bit jealous) ;-) You guys are just sick. You should buy that Virgin Mary Grilled Cheese on eBay. You'll all need it when you're burning in the Fires of Hell. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:17:15 +0100 (CET), Sam Jost wrote: Makes one wonder how the FA* 300/4.5 compares to the FA* 300/2.8. Unless I hit the lottery, or some kind soul donates one to me, I'll never know. I can race for a couple of seasons for what the f/2.8 costs. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: Pixel Puzzlement
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:09:20 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? A pixel in a file is dimensionless. The dimensions of a rendered pixel are defined by the rendering surface and the rendering algorithm. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
I had heard that eBay had removed the auction prior to it's completion because it failed to meet the rules. IL Bill On Nov 17, 2004, at 8:50 AM, Anthony Farr wrote: Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Pixel Puzzlement
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 18:48:26 -0500, Doug Franklin wrote: On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 09:09:20 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been pondering this perplexing pixel problem for a while, and thought that someone here may have the answer: How large is a pixel? A pixel in a file is dimensionless. The dimensions of a rendered pixel are defined by the rendering surface and the rendering algorithm. And the dimensions of a sensed pixel are defined by the sensory surface. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: MB /frame size
Thanks Sam for allowing me to reply to Tim on your email. Tim, I appreciate the info info and link. I suppose that embedded somewhere in that link is my answer, but a couple clarifications..if I may and I'll go away. Did you arrive at 3,500 ppi by multiplying 35mm by 100mb? Coincidence? How did you arrive at 410 for the 6x6? In the case sited, if I want equivilent information when ordering scans, the 6x6 should be specified as 410MB? That's it. I'll be content with your answer sans quaqmire. Jack --- Sam Jost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Guess I don't have enough to do:) I agree. Sam __ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: Home Computer Prediction From 1954 HAR! You'se guys are all wimps, and have fallen victim to planned obsolescence. I still use a scribe to record my impotant data, which is then sent to a stone carver and chisled into granite tablets for archival backup. The tablets are then stored in subterranean caverns. Real men don't admit to impotant anything, data or otherwise. You've been in California for too long. WW
RE: seeking recommendations for a good 300mm prime
Where all did you get on the Cape? Did you have fun? It must be quite stark and empty this time of year (at least compared to summer). Yes, we had a great time, thanks. It was unusually cold for this time of year, but I brought flannel-lined jeans and turtlenecks, so I was fine. You gotta love LL Bean. :) We were staying a mile from an ocean-side beach, so we got up at 5 AM our first morning there to shoot the sunrise, only it was cloudy, so we didn't get to see the sun actually rise. But we did get to see snow on the dunes, which was pretty cool. We both got some nice shots of that. We hiked a couple of trails, and I actually built up the muscles in my legs from lugging my gear around! I had a great time using the blue/yellow filter. Shooting at the wedding went better than I would have thought. It was funny because before the wedding ceremony started, Nate and I and the official photographer and her assistant were all doing flash test shots in the church. I still have a lot to learn about flash photography, but I'm starting to get a feel for what my gear can do. I deleted a lot of wedding shots, but there are also a number that I'm happy with. I'm hoping to post them soon. The wedding photographer was shooting digital; some sort of Fuji Finepix that takes Nikkor lenses. She was staying at the BB where we were staying, and we ran into her during breakfast. She and her assistant chatted with us for an hour. She was awfully nice and was generous with her knowledge. Doesn't that big Irish Catholic family with the huge estate near Hyannis make a ruckus when they're out playing touch football? g LOL! We actually didn't get anywhere near Hyannis. We almost had to go there to get our car serviced, but we were able to put that off, thankfully. Amita
Re: OT - Strange eBay listing.
I ate the virgin mary grilled cheese sandwich. It was sacrelicious. David Illinois Bill wrote: I had heard that eBay had removed the auction prior to it's completion because it failed to meet the rules. IL Bill On Nov 17, 2004, at 8:50 AM, Anthony Farr wrote: Follow up to this thread from several days ago. This could just be the highest bid ever made on eBay: http://tinyurl.com/5wcky OTOH it's not likely to be honoured. regards, Anthony Farr
