Re: PAW PESO - Urban Picnic
Oh, I grabbed a few shots, and they knew I was photographing them. The hubby turned around and smiled a moment or two earlier, but I didn't like that shot. There's another in the series I may put up ... glad y'found it enjoyable. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Pat Kong > It looks like Mom caught you in action. Nice weather for a picnic. > > I like the geometric shapes in this photo: the circles at the top, squares in > the baby stroller, and then the brick work at the bottom. > > Pat in SF > > --- Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One of a couple of snaps from this scenario: > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html > > > > K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ...
RE: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:27, Malcolm Smith wrote: > Well, given that no matter how many 'bells and whistles' are added to the > camera and people are still not happy, I'd say it was odds on they will. It > all > seems strange to me as a happy owner of an LX and an *ist D as they are. If > you > want photos that can be enlarged seemingly for ever in size, MF cameras are > cheap enough. But this isn't really about the images captured (or > compatibility > or anything else), it's about having it all and having it now. It might be > about > time that the next generation of cameras were fitted with wheels and you > programme into the camera what pictures you want; that you way you finally > remove the only thing that matters, the photographer...35mm, MF, digital or > disposable; cheap or expensive, the equipment doesn't take the image - you > do. It's about film, not bells and whistles. I want a DSLR that I'm confident will provide me with the equivalent if not better than the quality that I was used to using top end 35mm film bodies and expensive film. The *ist D isn't there yet though I assume that you know that as you appear to still be shooting film. I have MF gear and fridge full of film but boy I'd love to be able to dump it and rely solely upon my digicam, the extra load and managing two image formats and very different capture media is a PITA. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:28, K.Takeshita wrote: > Yes, Pentax has been slow, and that is their most sin. Technically, they > have everything needed to produce a pro level DSLR. > The problem with Pentax, and it probably comes from their size, is that they > are > timid in making a bold move in the market place. But they certainly know where > the money is and they are always there. When the current CEO took over from > the > family, and started changing the mentality a couple of years ago, it coincided > with the rise of the DSLR market and the *istD was the result. It was > partially > true that Pentax was considered dead in the DSLR market, and *istD was a > pleasant surprise. But they still had to feed the rapidly expanding market, > and > the result was Ds. But they still have to squeeze some more money from the > market, hence DL. OK I hear all you say and I can appreciate the company philosophy but how does the 645D fit into it, it's hardly a conservative move. A camera to replace the *ist D six months ago surely wouldn't have been too much of an imposition on the company, far less than launching an MF DSLR I'm guessing? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
Rob Studdert wrote: > It's about film, not bells and whistles. I want a DSLR that > I'm confident will provide me with the equivalent if not > better than the quality that I was used to using top end 35mm > film bodies and expensive film. The *ist D isn't there yet > though I assume that you know that as you appear to still be > shooting film. > > I have MF gear and fridge full of film but boy I'd love to be > able to dump it and rely solely upon my digicam, the extra > load and managing two image formats and very different > capture media is a PITA. I do indeed still use film and thus I have a choice. You have MF for a high quality image capture. What it really comes down to is wanting it all in one package, inconvenient as it is, you already have it, albeit in two different forms of equipment. I expect users of plate cameras longed for what became 35mm and then forever found fault with it. How many posts have there been over the years about Pentax not ever launching a digital camera, then when they do - even with so many backward compatibility features - it's still not enough. Where do you jump in? You have to feel some sympathy to Pentax, as they have taken so much stick from actually producing a DSLR at all, to the length of time behind the others on launching it - even ensuring previous lens models could be used with some limitations. Should they have waited for film quality sensors? Perhaps they should have jumped from cameras altogether. I'm glad they didn't though. If you know before hand what you will be likely to shoot, you can choose what to take (if it's a professional shoot you will already know what they want in the way of negative or digital image); if it's a newsworthy picture which all the tabloids want, they won't give a toss if it's from a 'phone camera or the latest expensive digital if it has the image they can use. It's a pain Rob, but like most things in life it's a compromise. You have a vast amount of talent to make the very best of what you use and that you can't buy. Malcolm
Re: GFM camera clinic
Scott Loveless wrote: Who's going? I am.
Re: Late afternoon walk
Boris Liberman wrote: Hi! From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond: http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/ Pentax isDS Jim, where is it? I mean geographically... What I should say about the pond images themselves is that I would really like to find a place such as this and spend day after day sitting there, probably doing some photography but generally relaxing and meditating... So peaceful, so tranquil. Boris Woburn, MASS., north of Boston. Put "Horn Pond" into Google, see what you get! keith whaley
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway. On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote: fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for instance, every AF camera I have ever tried to us has had its manual focus use compromised by the changes made to the design for the AF to work at all. What cameras would these be (are we talking SLRs here?) and how? A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy. B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big, rather than optimized for smoothness and accuracy by hand. C. Viewfinder image of low magnification. A. I don't understand. But what does it have to do with AF. B. has nothing to do with the body (we were talking about fighting it), so it does not answer the question. Fit a MF lens that you like on it and the AF camera is not compromised. C. What does it have to do with AF. In other words, is there a technical reason why AF tips the balance towards brightness, rather than accuracy and is there a technical reason why AF causes viewfinders to go small. And I won't mention my personal preference on B and C, as it't not what we are talking about here :-) Just trying to learn a thing or two, Kostas
OT: Trip to London next week
I'll be in in London downtown next week from monday to wednesday - flight back on wednesday night. Any suggestions on travelling from Heathrow to Russel Square with all the ... don't know how to put that correctly. If someone from the crowd is around - care to meet? Cheers Adelheid
Re: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is)
What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with the proper head. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is) Got this old Gitzo "Gilux Reporter" at an estate auction not long ago, and I'd like to get an appropriate head for it. Everyone I've talked to so far seems to insist I should get a ball head. But what kind? I'm on a bit of a budget, so the cheaper the better - but I don't want a piece of crap. Top plate is about 2.75" in diameter. Will use heftier 35mm stuff, possibly MF too. Also, is there any source for replacement rubber grips that go on the threaded collars for the legs and center column? http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod1.jpg http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod2.jpg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera? Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote: > Interesting Albano, > but I think the real comparison to be made is with two identical images, one > RAW > and one hi res jpeg and optimize each one. Thanks for posting this. I'd not hesitate to suggest that shooting in RAW virtually always leads to a better image technically. For instance I just stepped outside set my camera up on a tripod, put it in program mode, set my A20/2.8 on infinity and made two shots, one as a jpg and one as RAW. In post processing the RAW image I optimised the exposure and reduced lens CA (I have a library of offsets for my lenses) in the RAW convertor and in PS I sharpened the image, the other image is straight from the camera: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2846.JPG (3.8MB) http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2845.jpg (1.75MB) All the EXIF data should be relatively intact so I won't add any other technical information. Sorry about the subject matter. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
>the other image is straight from the camera: Duh Sorry for the misread. If the jpeg was the only image you had, would you do any post camera processing? White point, dark point, hue/saturation, USM? Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jul 22, 2005 7:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera? Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote: > Interesting Albano, > but I think the real comparison to be made is with two identical images, one > RAW > and one hi res jpeg and optimize each one. Thanks for posting this. I'd not hesitate to suggest that shooting in RAW virtually always leads to a better image technically. For instance I just stepped outside set my camera up on a tripod, put it in program mode, set my A20/2.8 on infinity and made two shots, one as a jpg and one as RAW. In post processing the RAW image I optimised the exposure and reduced lens CA (I have a library of offsets for my lenses) in the RAW convertor and in PS I sharpened the image, the other image is straight from the camera: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2846.JPG (3.8MB) http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2845.jpg (1.75MB) All the EXIF data should be relatively intact so I won't add any other technical information. Sorry about the subject matter. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:47:59 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote: A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy. B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big, rather than optimized for smoothness and accuracy by hand. C. Viewfinder image of low magnification. A. I don't understand. But what does it have to do with AF. B. has nothing to do with the body (we were talking about fighting it), so it does not answer the question. Fit a MF lens that you like on it and the AF camera is not compromised. C. What does it have to do with AF. In other words, is there a technical reason why AF tips the balance towards brightness, rather than accuracy and is there a technical reason why AF causes viewfinders to go small. Hi Kostas, Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!) entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification (concentrating the remaining light on a smaller area) this can be compensated. Regarding C: 'history' supports the suggestion that magnification is linked with AF-MF: For MF K-mount bodies, the magnification is between 0,82 and 0,97. For Af it's between 0,70 and 0,82... Hope the above is correct, and helps, -- Regards, Lucas
Re: PAW: Handlebars and a Moustache
On 7/19/05, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Excellent. I really like this one. Great tonal range. Nice composition. > And it's entertaining. What more could one ask for? > Good work. > Paul > On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:36 AM, David Savage wrote: Thanks, Paul, David, Scott and Boris, for looking and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed it. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: A late afternoon walk
On 7/20/05, Jim Hemenway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond: > http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/ > > Pentax isDS > #'s 1 and 3 grab me - lovely, relaxing, idyllic. I'm not so thrilled with #2 - not a bad shot, just doesn't say much to me. The swan pix are, well, swan pix. I love swans, but they're so over-photographed that it's hard to do something new and interesting with them. Overall, though, a nice little gallery. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Features I use and unsubscribing
From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am sorry that so many folks here take a general post to 600 and read as direct critism of themselves. But since that seem to be the way it is I will say no more on the subject. In fact I think I will unsubscribe for a while. graywolf I got bent out of shape and unsubscribed for a while. Guess what? The damned list went on without me and never missed a beat. Grins, Lewis _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: American Dream (The morning after)
On 7/21/05, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Frank. > I haven't the slightest Idea what the story is, but > there's a good possibility it's the residue of a > personal &/or financial failure. > My contrived story is an obvious result of viewing the > tattered half staff flag as mourning a loss. > Had the wind not been holding the flag open, I > probably wouldn't have made the quick U-turn and > bagged the shot. Certainly, the unfurled, tattered flag makes the shot... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, keithw wrote: Their buying of the *istD started out very slowly, but all of a sudden, it seemed that 70% or more of the regulars had them! You what? Where did you find that figure from? Kostas
Re: GFM camera clinic
On 7/21/05, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Who's going? > I wish I could. This would actually be more my thing than the Nature Photography Clinic, but since there's more PDML involvement in the latter, it's that event I choose to attend. Maybe one year I'll be able to afford both... cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Major Enablement.
I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it. After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about. My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were available as a special order out of Japan, much like the A15/3.5 is (was) available. Fine, six weeks and I'll have it, I'm thinking. Then the store calls me and says the rep called Japan to place the order and found that the lens was no longer available. Great sadness. Then the store called me and told me the rep had found one in another reps display sample kit in the USA and would I mind taking a demonstrator (at about 1/3 of new price). There was no hesitation at all on my part. Pentax Canada will be running the lens through their refurbishing department to ensure it is at as close to like new as possible, and I should have it before the end of August. Anyway, thats my story, and I'm sticking to it. William Robb
Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
Kostas, After I bought mine in November 2003, I kept track of all the list members who confessed to buying before the List. :-) A couple of months later my count passed 110, and I gave up on it. Many of the regulars were on my list already then. Jostein Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, keithw wrote: > > > Their buying of the *istD started out very slowly, but all of a sudden, it > > > seemed that 70% or more of the regulars had them! > > You what? Where did you find that figure from? > > Kostas > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Major Enablement.
On 7/22/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it. > After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could > track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about. > My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were > available as a special order out of Japan, much like the A15/3.5 is (was) > available. > Fine, six weeks and I'll have it, I'm thinking. > Then the store calls me and says the rep called Japan to place the order and > found that the lens was no longer available. > Great sadness. > Then the store called me and told me the rep had found one in another reps > display sample kit in the USA and would I mind taking a demonstrator (at > about 1/3 of new price). > There was no hesitation at all on my part. > Pentax Canada will be running the lens through their refurbishing department > to ensure it is at as close to like new as possible, and I should have it > before the end of August. > Anyway, thats my story, and I'm sticking to it. Tres cool! -frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Major Enablement.
Congratulations! Awaiting a "blessed event" is always wrought with anxiety. Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
contest question for club members
We had a recent interclub competition with two other clubs and there were some issues with rules. I'd be interested in how other clubs set up their rules for contests. My questions: what categories do you use? (nature? wildlife? botany? scenic? etc) do you have rules for whether a picture qualifies for a category? for example: do you have rules about wildflowers vs. cultivated flowers? how much of the frame an animal has to occupy to qualify as wildlife? I'll politely ignore all the "contests suck" and "camera clubs suck" replies. I think it's a lot of fun to see others people work and to see how my stuff measures up to theirs. Yes judges are fickle and sometimes their decisions leave me scratching my head but I still enjoy it. Tom Reese
Re: contest question for club members
I asked: > We had a recent interclub competition with two other clubs and there were > some issues with rules. I'd be interested in how other clubs set up their > rules for contests. Please feel free to send me a doc file of your rules if you have one. I'll do the same if you're interested. Tom Reese
Re: PAW PESO - Urban Picnic
Nice catch Shel. Boy, do I remember those days when it was time to feed the kids no matter where. Jim Shel Belinkoff wrote: One of a couple of snaps from this scenario: http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ... Shel
Re: A late afternoon walk
Thank Frank. The first is my favorite as well... but I don't know why except that I like the warm colors. Jim frank theriault wrote: On 7/20/05, Jim Hemenway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond: http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/ Pentax isDS #'s 1 and 3 grab me - lovely, relaxing, idyllic. I'm not so thrilled with #2 - not a bad shot, just doesn't say much to me. The swan pix are, well, swan pix. I love swans, but they're so over-photographed that it's hard to do something new and interesting with them. Overall, though, a nice little gallery. cheers, frank
Re: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is)
Well then... some landscape, some railfan, and whatever else I decide to point a camera at and release the shutter. :) --- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with > the proper head. > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is) > > Got this old Gitzo "Gilux Reporter" at an estate > auction not long ago, and I'd like to get an > appropriate head for it. Everyone I've talked to so > far seems to insist I should get a ball head. But > what > kind? I'm on a bit of a budget, so the cheaper the > better - but I don't want a piece of crap. Top plate > is about 2.75" in diameter. Will use heftier 35mm > stuff, possibly MF too. > > Also, is there any source for replacement rubber > grips > that go on the threaded collars for the legs and > center column? > > http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod1.jpg > http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod2.jpg > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
New Optio 60
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING CURVE " Christian
Re: Major Enablement.
Nice. and 1/3 the cost? a steal! A lens I always lusted after... 2nd only to a FA* 600/4. Christian - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:28 AM Subject: Major Enablement. > I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it. > After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could > track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about. > My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were > available as a special order out of Japan, much like the A15/3.5 is (was) > available. > Fine, six weeks and I'll have it, I'm thinking. > Then the store calls me and says the rep called Japan to place the order and > found that the lens was no longer available. > Great sadness. > Then the store called me and told me the rep had found one in another reps > display sample kit in the USA and would I mind taking a demonstrator (at > about 1/3 of new price). > There was no hesitation at all on my part. > Pentax Canada will be running the lens through their refurbishing department > to ensure it is at as close to like new as possible, and I should have it > before the end of August. > Anyway, thats my story, and I'm sticking to it. > > William Robb > >
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote: Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!) entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification (concentrating the remaining light on a smaller area) this can be compensated. Regarding C: 'history' supports the suggestion that magnification is linked with AF-MF: For MF K-mount bodies, the magnification is between 0,82 and 0,97. For Af it's between 0,70 and 0,82... Hope the above is correct, and helps, Thanks. First one looks good. I cannot see tradeoff with accuracy, but OK. C as you put it is nothing to do with AF and technical decisions, just cost-cutting. Kostas
Re: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is)
I like ball heads for general purpose use like this. I have two: a pro-quality Kirk BH-1 fitted with a Really Right Stuff lever action quick release clamp ... superb head, able to handle loads up to 13-14lbs but quite expensive at $350+. The other is a Manfrotto 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead, which is reasonably priced at $105 or so, will handle a 5-6 load nicely, and is very fast operating in the field. I like the 322RC2 as it provides a nice, big grip with which to help place the camera where you want it, and the camera mount can be arranged on three mounting points for different needs too. It's got a good, simple quick release system too. Godfrey On Jul 22, 2005, at 6:29 AM, Jon M wrote: Well then... some landscape, some railfan, and whatever else I decide to point a camera at and release the shutter. :) --- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with the proper head. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is) Got this old Gitzo "Gilux Reporter" at an estate auction not long ago, and I'd like to get an appropriate head for it. Everyone I've talked to so far seems to insist I should get a ball head. But what kind? I'm on a bit of a budget, so the cheaper the better - but I don't want a piece of crap. Top plate is about 2.75" in diameter. Will use heftier 35mm stuff, possibly MF too. Also, is there any source for replacement rubber grips that go on the threaded collars for the legs and center column? http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod1.jpg http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod2.jpg __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Re: contest question for club members
Tom, Virginia Beach Photo Club Competition Rules: http://www.vbpc.org/publications/comprules2005.pdf I've only participated once, and can't say that I've read the rules... but perhaps they'll be helpful. - jerome _ Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes, Ph.D. Norfolk State University, Math Dept. http://exposedfilm.net
Re: New Optio 60
To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at useful ISO settings however. and the projected price? $200. not bad at all. Christian weird responding to myself... - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: New Optio 60 > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp > > "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING > CURVE " > > Christian >
Re: Major Enablement.
William Robb wrote: I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it. After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about. My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were available as a special order out of Japan, much like the A15/3.5 is (was) available. Fine, six weeks and I'll have it, I'm thinking. Then the store calls me and says the rep called Japan to place the order and found that the lens was no longer available. Great sadness. Then the store called me and told me the rep had found one in another reps display sample kit in the USA and would I mind taking a demonstrator (at about 1/3 of new price). There was no hesitation at all on my part. Pentax Canada will be running the lens through their refurbishing department to ensure it is at as close to like new as possible, and I should have it before the end of August. Anyway, thats my story, and I'm sticking to it. William Robb You'd better, since you now have to pay for it! ;-) Congratulations! I'll bet that becomes a favorite... keith whaley
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote: Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!) entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification (concentrating the remaining light on a smaller area) this can be compensated. Regarding C: 'history' supports the suggestion that magnification is linked with AF-MF: For MF K-mount bodies, the magnification is between 0,82 and 0,97. For Af it's between 0,70 and 0,82... Hope the above is correct, and helps, Thanks. First one looks good. I cannot see tradeoff with accuracy, but There could be a tradeoff if 'accurate' screens are by nature dimmer. I don't know enough of the workings of matte-screens to judge whether that's true. OK. C as you put it is nothing to do with AF and technical decisions, just cost-cutting. Could be. But if that were true I find it odd that the most expensive AF body only reaches the values of the cheapest MF bodies. I would expect more overlap. I think a lot of the 'lost brightness' is regained by reducing magnification, not by making the screen brighter. If that's true, Graywolf has a point if he says AF isn't just a feature you can turn off... -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote: Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!) entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification (concentrating the remaining light on a smaller area) this can be compensated. Regarding C: 'history' supports the suggestion that magnification is linked with AF-MF: For MF K-mount bodies, the magnification is between 0,82 and 0,97. For Af it's between 0,70 and 0,82... Hope the above is correct, and helps, Thanks. First one looks good. I cannot see tradeoff with accuracy, but There could be a tradeoff if 'accurate' screens are by nature dimmer. I don't know enough of the workings of matte-screens to judge whether that's true. OK. C as you put it is nothing to do with AF and technical decisions, just cost-cutting. Could be. But if that were true I find it odd that the most expensive AF body only reaches the values of the cheapest MF bodies. I would expect more overlap. I think a lot of the 'lost brightness' is regained by reducing magnification, not by making the screen brighter. If that's true, Graywolf has a point if he says AF isn't just a feature you can turn off... Errr, of course you are right, and you had already stated that smaller is easier to be brighter. Kostas
Re: Major Enablement.
Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Congratulations! >Awaiting a "blessed event" is always wrought with >anxiety. How true! Each time I've purchased expensive Pentax glass (FA*80-200/2.8, FA*28-70/2.8, 31 Ltd) I've stressed out over "can I really afford this now?" and "is it really worth this much money?" but each time I've so much more impressed with the lens than I expected to be that the "buyer's remorse" passed very quickly. :) >From what I hear of the 200 macro, I don't expect any disappointment. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
Jostein wrote: Kostas, After I bought mine in November 2003, I kept track of all the list members who confessed to buying before the List. :-) A couple of months later my count passed 110, and I gave up on it. Many of the regulars were on my list already then. ... and I bought mine after that!
RE: contest question for club members
I will send you our club competition rules off list by attachment.They seem to work well. the e-mail will come from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lewis From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Subject: contest question for club members Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:02:42 -0400 We had a recent interclub competition with two other clubs and there were some issues with rules. I'd be interested in how other clubs set up their rules for contests. My questions: what categories do you use? (nature? wildlife? botany? scenic? etc) do you have rules for whether a picture qualifies for a category? for example: do you have rules about wildflowers vs. cultivated flowers? how much of the frame an animal has to occupy to qualify as wildlife? I'll politely ignore all the "contests suck" and "camera clubs suck" replies. I think it's a lot of fun to see others people work and to see how my stuff measures up to theirs. Yes judges are fickle and sometimes their decisions leave me scratching my head but I still enjoy it. Tom Reese _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: New Optio 60
Christian wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING CURVE " Christian Looks like something I'll want to buy for my kids and borrow from time to time. :-)
Re: New Optio 60
- Original Message - From: "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:48 AM Subject: Re: New Optio 60 > Christian wrote: > > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp > > > >"PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING > >CURVE " > Looks like something I'll want to buy for my kids and borrow from time > to time. :-) I was thinking the same thing :-) Christian
Re: New Optio 60
Christian, The Optio 50 seems also interesting, 5Mp, rechargeable batteries, optical viewfinder, ...and very cheap. But, from what I have read, the camera is a very poor performer. Besides, I have seen clones of it with other names like the STARBLITZ SD 545, same camera, different name. I am afraid that the Optio 60 will be something like this. Regards, Jaume --- Christian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish > size, uses AAs and this > one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a > worry for noise at > useful ISO settings however. > > and the projected price? $200. not bad at all. > > Christian > weird responding to myself... > > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:42 AM > Subject: New Optio 60 > > > > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp > > > > "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH > RESOLUTION, LOW > LEARNING > > CURVE " > > > > Christian > > > > __ Renovamos el Correo Yahoo! Nuevos servicios, más seguridad http://correo.yahoo.es
Re: New Optio 60
Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce Dial" Shel > [Original Message] >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp >"PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW > LEARNING CURVE "
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
(Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store photographs is just plain stupid. Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do a lot better? This reverence for the holly 8 bits byte has been pushed too far. Joaquim On Thu, 2005-07-21 at 22:30, Albano Garcia wrote: > Hi gang, > I always shoot in RAW, and appreciate the benefits, > but today I was surprised to find how capable is this > format. > I shot this photo, the left version is the way the > capera exposed it. If it were a JPG, no hope to > restore detail in the upper side, and in fact I > thought the detail was burned out, but I moved the > esposure slider to -3 in PS CS converter and full > detail of river was there, simply amazing (at least > for me): > http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar/rawcap.jpg > > Regards > > > Albano Garcia > Photography & Graphic Design > http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar > http://www.flaneur.albanogarcia.com.ar > > > > > > > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > >
Re: New Optio 60
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:02 AM Subject: Re: New Optio 60 > Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps > the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce > Dial" > > Shel Almost what Pentax are doing with DSLRs :-) Christian Flame retardant suit: ON
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
- Original Message - From: "Joaquim Carvalho" Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW (Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store photographs is just plain stupid. Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do a lot better? This reverence for the holly 8 bits byte has been pushed too far. Maybe talk to the printer manufacturers You want a print, it's gonna be an 8 bit output. William Robb
Re: New Optio 60
- Original Message - From: "Christian" Subject: Re: New Optio 60 To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at useful ISO settings however. and the projected price? $200. not bad at all. Noise won't be an issue for it's target market. They have done the right thing with the "simple" mode. It should do well for them. William Robb
Re: New Optio 60
Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:48 AM Subject: Re: New Optio 60 Christian wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING CURVE " Looks like something I'll want to buy for my kids and borrow from time to time. :-) I was thinking the same thing :-) Christian You're gonna buy one for Eleanor's kids? Wow. That's very nice of you.
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 22 Jul 2005 at 16:11, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: > (Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store > photographs is just plain stupid. > Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs > do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do a lot > better? > This reverence for the holly 8 bits byte has been pushed too far. Simply because neither your video adaptor or any current printer can deal with image files of greater than 8 bits/colour channel. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Most and least-used features--WAS: The Nine Second Difference
Thanks for that. I've always wondered if I was the only one who found the DOF feature totally useless for actually checking the DOF. (hence I never used it). I can see that it could be quire usefull for previewing the backgrounds tho. dk On 7/21/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I could never get excited about DOF review, because my eyes would > >accommodate so well (I guess) I found it hard to tell where the > >demarcation was between IN and OUT of focus. > >Of course, there is no such sharp line, but...using the lens > >aperture-closing feature to determine if something was not quite in > >focus, well, it just never worked for me. > > > >I use my viewfinder's split image or microprism to obtain focus, and > >estimate what will be in acceptable focus front and rear based on the > >lens aperture ring data, at any given setting. > > I'd note that I (and several other posters, apparently) almost never use > DOF preview for judging the depth of field. I use it to judge how out of > focus the background is, to look for distracting hotspots and to check > for lens flare that appears only at the specific aperture setting I'm > using. > > Despite being called "depth of field preview", the one thing I *don't* I > use this feature for is previewing the depth of field! > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > >
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway. On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote: fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for instance, every AF camera I have ever tried to us has had its manual focus use compromised by the changes made to the design for the AF to work at all. What cameras would these be (are we talking SLRs here?) and how? A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy. B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big, rather than optimized for smoothness and accuracy by hand. C. Viewfinder image of low magnification. A. I don't understand. But what does it have to do with AF. B. has nothing to do with the body (we were talking about fighting it), so it does not answer the question. Fit a MF lens that you like on it and the AF camera is not compromised. C. What does it have to do with AF. In other words, is there a technical reason why AF tips the balance towards brightness, rather than accuracy and is there a technical reason why AF causes viewfinders to go small. Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but still cost rules). And I won't mention my personal preference on B and C, as it't not what we are talking about here :-) Just trying to learn a thing or two, Kostas -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: New Optio 60
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce Dial" Shel, Had you ever before considered the Espio, film APS cameras or other P&Ss? If no, why are you bothering with these? Kostas
Re: New Optio 60
Why a sigh? This seems like a nice camera for a lot of people who just want to take pictures. Hopefully, it will sell well enough to help fund development of our next DSLR :-). Seriously, I bought my daughter a Canon Espio 4 megapixel camera to take with her when she studied in France this summer. She knows practically nothing about photography and doesn't have time to learn at the moment. I loaded it up with a 1 gig flash card, set it to high quality jpeg, idiot mode. She came back with hundreds of great photos. It was the perfect camera for her. This new Optio looks like it might be the perfect camera for a lot of people. Paul > Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps > the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce > Dial" > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp > > >"PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW > > LEARNING CURVE " > >
For Sale Friday
Hi! Having planned my major enablement, I also have planned a disablement of sorts... Or should I say potential enablement for others... Here for sale: 1. SMCP M 50/1.4. It has interesting problem. Aperture does not close tighter than f/16. That is, you click but you see no change in size of the iris opening... I hope it can be fixed easily. Or the lens can be used as it is... 2. Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5... Yes, the one that many hold in a very low esteem, but I don't ;-). 3. Vivitar 2x Macro Focusing tele-converter. Preserves KA mount. 4. Minolta MD Adaptall 2 mount. 5. Pentax M42 Adaptall mount. It has this pin that enables open aperture metering, I believe. 6. Russian portrait lens Tair 11 a (in M42) 135/2.8... Nothing really fancy, but for sale nonetheless... The terms are simple: 1. PayPal... I have accepted Western Union money transfer couple of times but prefer PayPal... 2. Upon receiving of an item, you get one week to test/inspect/play with it. If for any reason you don't want to keep it, I get full refund. Please notice, that I never sent any money through WA, though I believe it to be possible. You will however have to ship it back to me and that sum of money you get to loose. 3. I ship everywhere. To ship registered air mail with local postal authority costs about $5-$10 depending on size and weight... To ship with EMS is of course more... Naturally, I will charge only actual shipping costs... Generally I don't see it a problem if I ship it to your first and then you transfer the exact amount of money which includes precise cost of shipping. 4. Naturally, further description and photos will be available upon your request... If there is anything you'd like, please contact me off-list... Thanks. Boris
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. I find the preaching here to be sometimes funny, sometimes quite sick. Frantisek
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:44, Kenneth Waller wrote: > If the jpeg was the only image you had, would you do any post camera > processing? > White point, dark point, hue/saturation, USM? I might try getting back some of the lost highlight information using the shadows/highlight tool but the histogram of the in camera jpg is pretty saturated at the white end and extends in the black. So Id gain little by altering the black or white points, the image could benefit from a little more saturation but that would change a little after a gamma tweaks too. I may apply a little USM as I always have my in camera processing set for minimum sharpness and lowest contrast, I might make an attempt to remedy the CA first though. All in all I would spend far less time post processing a RAW file. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Major Enablement.
Hi! I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it. After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about. My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were available as a special order out of Japan, much like the A15/3.5 is (was) available. Fine, six weeks and I'll have it, I'm thinking. Then the store calls me and says the rep called Japan to place the order and found that the lens was no longer available. Great sadness. Then the store called me and told me the rep had found one in another reps display sample kit in the USA and would I mind taking a demonstrator (at about 1/3 of new price). There was no hesitation at all on my part. Pentax Canada will be running the lens through their refurbishing department to ensure it is at as close to like new as possible, and I should have it before the end of August. Anyway, thats my story, and I'm sticking to it. Great... Now, anyone willing to outmajor Mr Robb here? ;-) Congratulations Bill... Seems you have good relationship with Pentax Canada... Boris
Re: Major Enablement.
- Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" Subject: Re: Major Enablement. Congratulations Bill... Seems you have good relationship with Pentax Canada... They like me, thats for sure. William Robb
Re: New Optio 60
I'm not bothering with these. I don't even know what an Espio is. Have you ever heard of humor? sarcasm? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kostas Kavoussanakis > > Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps > > the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce > > Dial" > > Shel, > > Had you ever before considered the Espio, film APS cameras or other > P&Ss? If no, why are you bothering with these? > > Kostas
Re: New Optio 60
You'll get used to it. Christian wrote: To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at useful ISO settings however. and the projected price? $200. not bad at all. Christian weird responding to myself... - Original Message - From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:42 AM Subject: New Optio 60 http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp "PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING CURVE " Christian -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: New Optio 60
"Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this >one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at >useful ISO settings however. > >and the projected price? $200. not bad at all. Indeed! I think I know what my SO is going to be getting for xmas this year :) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PAW PESO - Urban Picnic
Nice catch. Shel Belinkoff wrote: One of a couple of snaps from this scenario: http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ... Shel -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: New Optio 60
C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of "simple mode." You've become a real "old fart" of late ;-)) taking things much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light hearted and loose. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Why a sigh? This seems like a nice camera for a lot of people who just want to take pictures. Hopefully, it will sell well enough to help fund development of our next DSLR :-). Seriously, I bought my daughter a Canon Espio 4 megapixel camera to take with her when she studied in France this summer. She knows practically nothing about photography and doesn't have time to learn at the moment. I loaded it up with a 1 gig flash card, set it to high quality jpeg, idiot mode. She came back with hundreds of great photos. It was the perfect camera for her. This new Optio looks like it might be the perfect camera for a lot of people. > Paul > > > > Just another toy camera I see it has a "Simple Mode." Perhaps > > the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a "Dunce > > Dial"
Re: New Optio 60
> C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of > "simple mode." You've become a real "old fart" of late ;-)) taking things > much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light > hearted and loose. That's right. There's only room enough for 20 or so grumpy old farts on this list and we're already way over that. Tom Reese
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
Kenneth Waller wrote: Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera? Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote: Interesting Albano, but I think the real comparison to be made is with two identical images, one RAW and one hi res jpeg and optimize each one. Thanks for posting this. I'd not hesitate to suggest that shooting in RAW virtually always leads to a better image technically. For instance I just stepped outside set my camera up on a tripod, put it in program mode, set my A20/2.8 on infinity and made two shots, one as a jpg and one as RAW. In post processing the RAW image I optimised the exposure and reduced lens CA (I have a library of offsets for my lenses) in the RAW convertor and in PS I sharpened the image, the other image is straight from the camera: http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2846.JPG (3.8MB) http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2845.jpg (1.75MB) All the EXIF data should be relatively intact so I won't add any other technical information. Sorry about the subject matter. Cheers, Rob Studdert To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone... keith whaley
Re: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, keithw wrote: Their buying of the *istD started out very slowly, but all of a sudden, it seemed that 70% or more of the regulars had them! You what? Where did you find that figure from? Kostas Like the largest bulk of any published statistical data, it came RAW, right from my head, almost unbidden. ;-) In other words, just MY observations. I pay a fair amount of attention to what the regular contributors have to say, and do with their photography. I'm on this list to learn. I have not a clue as to what the other 95% of the total population of this list do, as they rarely come online. But, of those I read each and every day, I did notice that short of an initial "wait and see" attitude on most of the visible members, soon the enablement started... It was amusing to see those most reticent to succumb to Pentax' first offering of a DSLR, finally give in. And to listen to the pleased comments after they did. keith whaley
Re: American Dream (Shel)
Thanks, Shel, I'll make future photos PAW messages. Hadn't considered it and should have. An image may send a message or convey meaning without the help of the photographer's prose. As you said, it's not unlike the old radio expression; "theater of the mind". Actually a photo need not have a point, let alone a message. It will carry a level of significance to the photog who chose to record it who, in most cases, be able to identify their motive. Agreed? Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 22 Jul 2005 at 8:48, keithw wrote: > To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is > overall more pleasing. > > I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone... Hi Keith, IMGP2846.JPG is straight out of the camera. Have a look at the colour of the sky the CA at the edges of the frame and the detail lost in most areas of near full or full saturation. On my monitor both images offer similar detail in the shadow areas but in every other way I find the jpg generated using the post processed RAW file (IMGP2845.jpg) is superior. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
On 22 Jul 2005 at 10:23, Malcolm Smith wrote: > I do indeed still use film and thus I have a choice. You have MF for a high > quality image capture. What it really comes down to is wanting it all in one > package, inconvenient as it is, you already have it, albeit in two different > forms of equipment. I guess the very bottom line for me is that it isn't just inconvenient, it's getting difficult and becoming limiting having to tote and juggle two systems, plus quality film and processing is now a significant cost. My frustration is compounded by the fact that I'm sure that it's possible to replace my MF system with a suitably spec'd digital body that utilizes 35mm lenses and by the fact that at least one other manufacturer makes such a body. Unfortunately my lens kit with which I'm very happy isn't compatible. > I expect users of plate cameras longed for what became 35mm and then forever > found fault with it. How many posts have there been over the years about > Pentax > not ever launching a digital camera, then when they do - even with so many > backward compatibility features - it's still not enough. Where do you jump in? > You have to feel some sympathy to Pentax, as they have taken so much stick > from > actually producing a DSLR at all, to the length of time behind the others on > launching it - even ensuring previous lens models could be used with some > limitations. Should they have waited for film quality sensors? Perhaps they > should have jumped from cameras altogether. I'm glad they didn't though. This has been discussed more than a few times before, Pentax had every opportunity to offer full backwards compatibility but elected not to, they also cried wolf. I've been loyal to Pentax for many years and I feel they are letting me down > If you know before hand what you will be likely to shoot, you can choose > what to take (if it's a professional shoot you will already know what they > want in the way of negative or digital image); if it's a newsworthy picture > which all the tabloids want, they won't give a toss if it's from a 'phone > camera > or the latest expensive digital if it has the image they can use. My shots are mainly for me and I'm hard to please, much more so than most commercial clients I expect. > It's a pain Rob, but like most things in life it's a compromise. You have a > vast > amount of talent to make the very best of what you use and that you can't buy. Point granted and I do accept the compromises and I don't want to sound like I'm whining (no comments) but it's just difficult having to watch other manufacturers delivering products that consistently set the standards and Pentax users being fed little but vague promises. And then, to top it off, having to bear the tireless supportive claims of Pentax users who accept the status quo that insist on reinforcing to the rest of us that Pentax are going the right way about their business. If they were I'd be happier I guess? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:13, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 22 Jul 2005 at 16:11, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: > > > (Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store > > photographs is just plain stupid. > > Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs > > do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do a lot > > better? > > This reverence for the holly 8 bits byte has been pushed too far. > > Simply because neither your video adaptor or any current printer can deal > with > image files of greater than 8 bits/colour channel. Yes but those are bad excuses: - there are 12 bits DVI screens - for printing the conversion from 8 bits RGB to 8 bits CMYK is worse than from 12 bits RGB - on both 8 bit screens and printers the software could do dithering to show more than 256 levels per channel - in a few years time these limitations will probably change but people will be stuck with their 8 bits old pictures
Re: Features I use and unsubscribing
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:17, Lewis Matthew wrote: > I got bent out of shape and unsubscribed for a while. Guess what? The damned > list went on without me and never missed a beat. It's good to bail for a bit, you'll be rid of me for a moth or more soon, I hope that Graywolf comes back refreshed and rearing to go from his break. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: New Optio 60
HAR! > > C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of > > "simple mode." You've become a real "old fart" of late ;-)) taking things > > much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light > > hearted and loose. > > That's right. There's only room enough for 20 or so grumpy old farts on this > list and we're already way over that. > > Tom Reese > >
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
Rob Studdert wrote: On 22 Jul 2005 at 8:48, keithw wrote: To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone... Hi Keith, IMGP2846.JPG is straight out of the camera. Have a look at the colour of the sky the CA at the edges of the frame and the detail lost in most areas of near full or full saturation. On my monitor both images offer similar detail in the shadow areas but in every other way I find the jpg generated using the post processed RAW file (IMGP2845.jpg) is superior. Cheers, Rob Studdert As usual, once I knew what to look for, I agree with you. I missed the CA in 2846 before, as I wasn't specifically looking for it. Overall, 2845 is cleaner... Thanks, keith
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera > doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only > for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the > LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for > focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no > technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for > that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but > still cost rules). There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain.
Re: Theory of Equivalency
A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong in their assessments ... I'm not saying Mishka is right or wrong ... the comment just reminded me of the mistaken identifications. A few people have made comments to indicate that they thought they knew which pic was the digi, but didn't identify the image, so it's unknown if they were correct in their assessment. http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/2818.html Shel > [Original Message] > From: Mishka > digital lens seems to eliminate the bystanders from the frame. > very cool (and useful) feature (unless you are doing street photography...) > > best, > mishka > > On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Yep. That was predictable. Virtually the same perspective. More DOF from the 18 and digital. But also less edge distortion and better edge sharpness. Of course the lack of white balance control renders the film image a bit murky, so it's a little tough to compare in some respects. (Not to mention that they're itty-bitty web images.)
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't understand the cost savings in making a smaller viewfinder. John Francis wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but still cost rules). There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Theory of Equivalency
Has there really been much disagreement? Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was from the digital. Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this has also been attributed to over-sharpening). On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:45:53AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with > the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong in their > assessments ... > > I'm not saying Mishka is right or wrong ... the comment just reminded me of > the mistaken identifications. A few people have made comments to indicate > that they thought they knew which pic was the digi, but didn't identify the > image, so it's unknown if they were correct in their assessment. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/2818.html > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Mishka > > > digital lens seems to eliminate the bystanders from the frame. > > very cool (and useful) feature (unless you are doing street > photography...) > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Yep. That was predictable. Virtually the same perspective. More DOF > from the 18 and digital. But also less edge distortion and better edge > sharpness. Of course the lack of white balance control renders the film > image a bit murky, so it's a little tough to compare in some respects. (Not > to mention that they're itty-bitty web images.) >
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 22 Jul 2005 at 17:10, Joaquim Carvalho wrote: > Yes but those are bad excuses: > - there are 12 bits DVI screens > - for printing the conversion from 8 bits RGB to 8 bits CMYK is worse > than from 12 bits RGB > - on both 8 bit screens and printers the software could do dithering to > show more than 256 levels per channel > - in a few years time these limitations will probably change but people > will be stuck with their 8 bits old pictures Bad excuses? I have a Windows screen driver that allows 10 bits per pixel (10Bit GigaColour) it's fun to talk about but since virtually all Windows applications (including PS) generate 24 bits pixel for display output it's pretty pointless. And whether 12 bits per colour channel would make make an appreciable visible difference given the dynamics of current display technology is arguable (given the relatively low contrast ratios of even the best TFT displays). I'd be happy to read some practical reviews. RAW camera data may be 12 bits per colour channel but the interpolated file can be delivered at 8 or 16 bits/CC and in a variety of colour spaces. Colour space conversions are in 16 bit/CC precision as far as I'm aware (at least since PS 7 though I'm happy to be proved wrong) and in any case all my photo prints are straight RGB so I don't need to engage in potentially lossy CMYK conversions. Generally dither is only beneficial in print systems without the capability to modulate pixel density. Dither is pointless if it only serves to reduce the print sharpness and acutance. RGB direct to photo paper print systems would not benefit from dither so they don't use it, ink jet print systems can benefit and their drivers generally employ dither of some form. Surprise. Any photographer who currently wishes to ensure that their archived digital images are able to take full advantage of future printing technologies need only save them in an image format which can support 16 bit per colour channel wide gamut colour space. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror makes any significant contribution to eventual image size. On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't > understand the cost savings in > making a smaller viewfinder. > > John Francis wrote: > > >On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > > > >>Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > >> > >>Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera > >>doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only > >>for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the > >>LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for > >>focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no > >>technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for > >>that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but > >>still cost rules). > >> > >> > > > >There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless > >you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the > >smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). > > > >The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot > >of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To > >get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had > >to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to > >move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
Rob Studdert wrote: > I guess the very bottom line for me is that it isn't just > inconvenient, it's getting difficult and becoming limiting > having to tote and juggle two systems, plus quality film and > processing is now a significant cost. My frustration is > compounded by the fact that I'm sure that it's possible to > replace my MF system with a suitably spec'd digital body that > utilizes 35mm lenses and by the fact that at least one other > manufacturer makes such a body. Unfortunately my lens kit > with which I'm very happy isn't compatible. This is of course a very different matter. If you really have to carry two sets of equipment most times and you have loads invested, there really isn't a cheap answer. If the processing costs are becoming restrictive, a one off cost must look attractive. Until you come to pay for it of course. That isn't amusing at all. > This has been discussed more than a few times before, Pentax > had every opportunity to offer full backwards compatibility > but elected not to, they also cried wolf. I've been loyal to > Pentax for many years and I feel they are letting me down And they could have elected on no compatibility. I can live with it and you're not happy. Fair enough! > My shots are mainly for me and I'm hard to please, much more > so than most commercial clients I expect. Fully understood - which doesn't make the problem above easier to solve. > > It's a pain Rob, but like most things in life it's a > compromise. You > > have a vast amount of talent to make the very best of what > you use and that you can't buy. > > Point granted and I do accept the compromises and I don't > want to sound like I'm whining (no comments) but it's just > difficult having to watch other manufacturers delivering > products that consistently set the standards and Pentax users > being fed little but vague promises. And then, to top it off, > having to bear the tireless supportive claims of Pentax users > who accept the status quo that insist on reinforcing to the > rest of us that Pentax are going the right way about their > business. If they were I'd be happier I guess? It is a Pentax list after all! What they have on offer and I currently own and use is certainly up to my immediate and short term future needs and what they don't offer now, they probably did once and I can acquire it second-hand. I can also live with my current film processing costs. You on the other hand pretty much know exactly what you want and how it should be achieved and film isn't part of your future. If there is one manufacturer who can meet those needs, I'd really seriously consider the change. Long term it's a winner for you. Malcolm
Re: Theory of Equivalency
Hi John ... let's just say, for the moment, that a number of people have been wrong. I don't know if there's been "much" disagreement, since a number of people never stated specifically which they thought was which. Shel > [Original Message] > From: John Francis > Has there really been much disagreement? > > Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > from the digital. > > Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > has also been attributed to over-sharpening). > > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:45:53AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with > > the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong in their > > assessments ... > > > > I'm not saying Mishka is right or wrong ... the comment just reminded me of > > the mistaken identifications. A few people have made comments to indicate > > that they thought they knew which pic was the digi, but didn't identify the > > image, so it's unknown if they were correct in their assessment. > > > > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/2818.html > > > > Shel > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Mishka > > > > > digital lens seems to eliminate the bystanders from the frame. > > > very cool (and useful) feature (unless you are doing street > > photography...) > > > > > > best, > > > mishka > > > > > > On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > Yep. That was predictable. Virtually the same perspective. More DOF > > from the 18 and digital. But also less edge distortion and better edge > > sharpness. Of course the lack of white balance control renders the film > > image a bit murky, so it's a little tough to compare in some respects. (Not > > to mention that they're itty-bitty web images.) > >
Re: Theory of Equivalency
On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote: > > Has there really been much disagreement? > > Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > from the digital. > > Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > has also been attributed to over-sharpening). Ahh, but the top image is from the DSLR according to the EXIF data. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Any dutch list members?
Hi Pal, I'm Dutch, but about Yachts I only know that it is jacht in Dutch:-) Jos > -Oorspronkelijk bericht- > Van: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Verzonden: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:06 PM > Aan: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Onderwerp: Any dutch list members? > > > A shot in the dark > Are there any Dutch list members who have some knowledge of the > dutch used yacht market? > > > > Pål >
RE: Pentax Profits Fall 42%
My $0.02: I might consider spending $2500-3000 (by today's USD) but I can safely say that I would not spend $5000-6000 on any DSLR, big sensor or not. So a really high end, expensive Med format DSLR is of no use to me. What I would like are the current D/DS features with a somewhat bigger sensor and some better frmware (as discussed elsewhere, the exposure can be flaky) and maybe a more waterproof body. To be honest, though, I'd be just as happy with a slightly less flaky version of the DS and would spend the extra money on lenses. This is just me, of course.
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
I'll admit optics I'm not so good with. I'd hardly try to grind my own lenses but manufacturing I know quite a bit about and optics isn't even half the problem. John Francis wrote: I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror makes any significant contribution to eventual image size. On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't understand the cost savings in making a smaller viewfinder. John Francis wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but still cost rules). There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Theory of Equivalency
It's also named 18mm.jpg (I should have looked), Shel's film scanner certainly produces a cleaner image than mine does. Rob Studdert wrote: On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote: Has there really been much disagreement? Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was from the digital. Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this has also been attributed to over-sharpening). Ahh, but the top image is from the DSLR according to the EXIF data. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Theory of Equivalency
Unless somebody made a horrific mistake on the digital white balance, the yellow image has to be from the film camera. I thought that was a given. Paul > A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with > the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong in their > assessments ... > > I'm not saying Mishka is right or wrong ... the comment just reminded me of > the mistaken identifications. A few people have made comments to indicate > that they thought they knew which pic was the digi, but didn't identify the > image, so it's unknown if they were correct in their assessment. > > http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/2818.html > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Mishka > > > digital lens seems to eliminate the bystanders from the frame. > > very cool (and useful) feature (unless you are doing street > photography...) > > > > best, > > mishka > > > > On 7/21/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Yep. That was predictable. Virtually the same perspective. More DOF > from the 18 and digital. But also less edge distortion and better edge > sharpness. Of course the lack of white balance control renders the film > image a bit murky, so it's a little tough to compare in some respects. (Not > to mention that they're itty-bitty web images.) > >
Re: Theory of Equivalency
Hi Shel, If you truly wanted we guess which is which, you had to remove exif metadata from the pics and use pic names not giving hints :-) Dario - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: Re: Theory of Equivalency Hi John ... let's just say, for the moment, that a number of people have been wrong. I don't know if there's been "much" disagreement, since a number of people never stated specifically which they thought was which. Shel
Re: Theory of Equivalency
Hmm. I thought the two JPEG filenames, one "18mm.jpg" and the other "28mm.jpg" were clear indicators of which camera took what image. But I checked anyway... Given the fact that the EXIF info on the 18mm.jpg image clearly states that it was made with a Pentax *ist DS set to Manual exposure mode, CW Averaging meter, ISO 400 @ 1/4 second, and no aperture or lens information listed, I think it's a reasonable deduction that this image is the DS and the one labeled "28mm.jpg" which contains no EXIF information is the film camera. Since there is no aperture information provided with the DS EXIF info and the focus distance is not provided, any accurate calculation of DoF for either image is impossible. I cannot by eye see any significant difference in DoF ... neither image seems particularly sharp, and both captures' post-processing to this size display reduce image quality to the point where it is impossible to judge. Plus there are differences in response curve between film and sensor, how the capture was rendered, and quality of the two lenses to confuse the DoF issue. --- However, the purpose of the example was to demonstrate differences in field of view and that is clearly seen. Two results: - The two images were taken from two slightly different positions. - The *ist DS sensor format has slightly different proportions compared to the 35mm film format. Thus the field of view of the two images is *slightly* different. However, perspective is identical and overall field of view differs by only an insignificant increment. This can be seen clearly in the following composite image: http://homepage.mac.com/godders/shel-fov-example.jpg I took both images and reduced them to grayscale, the exchanged pixel color on the 18mm.jpg image for Red and on the 28mm.jpg image for Green. I then expanded the image canvas, duplicated the Green image and pasted the Red image in twice as well. Aligning two layers at a time (upper aligned on the foreground chair, lower aligned on the background display case), we see how the format proportions differ, how the eyepoint was slightly different, and how the perspective is identical. It would take a more rigorously defined test setup to evaluate DoF differences properly. Thanks for posting the examples, Shel! Godfrey
Re: Theory of Equivalency
If, as Rod says, the top image is from the DSLR, either someone doesn't know what they're doing with that DSLR or they're having a bit of fun at our expense. It's quite obvious that one can achieve accurate white balance with a DSLR with very little difficulty and that film would tend to be off color in tungsten light. > On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote: > > > > > Has there really been much disagreement? > > > > Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top > > photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was > > from the digital. > > > > Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of > > the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being > > used in lighting conditions it wasn't designed for), and > > the better perceived DOF of the lower image (although this > > has also been attributed to over-sharpening). > > Ahh, but the top image is from the DSLR according to the EXIF data. > > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >
Re: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is)
Does this include moving subjects? My personal out fit includes several heads depending on what I'm shooting. Static subjects get taken with a Bogen Mini Gear head that allows precise adjustment in three axis, obviously not for moving targets. For moving subjects I have a Kirk ball head for use with all but the biggest lens. For large lenses, a gimballed head is the only way to fly. I use a Kirk King Cobra. -Original Message- From: Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jul 22, 2005 9:29 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is) Well then... some landscape, some railfan, and whatever else I decide to point a camera at and release the shutter. :) --- Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with > the proper head. > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: Jon M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is) > > Got this old Gitzo "Gilux Reporter" at an estate > auction not long ago, and I'd like to get an > appropriate head for it. Everyone I've talked to so > far seems to insist I should get a ball head. But > what > kind? I'm on a bit of a budget, so the cheaper the > better - but I don't want a piece of crap. Top plate > is about 2.75" in diameter. Will use heftier 35mm > stuff, possibly MF too. > > Also, is there any source for replacement rubber > grips > that go on the threaded collars for the legs and > center column? > > http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod1.jpg > http://jon.beigetower.org/photography/tripod/gitzotripod2.jpg > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > PeoplePC Online > A better way to Internet > http://www.peoplepc.com > > Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
The primary cost savings in the design of an SLR viewfinder has to do with the size of the prism and the accuracy which which it has to be assembled. A 100% coverage viewfinder prism for 35mm format is large and expensive, and has to be assembled extremely accurately or it reflects an image which is not what will be captured. The usual cost savings technique is to use a smaller prism and only cover 85-96% of the format total area ... this reduces immediately the size and cost of the prism, and reduces manufacturing cost further as it doesn't have to be assembled quite as accurately. Format coverage has little to do with viewfinder optical magnification and eyepoint. Those are optical considerations based upon both marketing and engineering requirements. There is a small effect on total brightness from reducing coverage a few percentage points, but it is mostly insignificant. Efficiency of the prism itself, and of the mirror and focusing screen, influence brightness significantly. Mirrors with semi-silvered components to support focusing and metering cost somewhere in the 0.2-0.3 EV range on light transmission. The focusing screen design and supporting optics count for a tremendous amount ... generally more than the semisilvered mirror. Generally speaking, EV deltas of less than 0.6-1.0 EV are difficult to recognize by eye. Screen design can account for 1 to 1.5 EV changes in apparent brightness. Magnification again has only a little to do with it... So I tend to side with John Francis' thinking on this: it was the inclusion into the viewfinder of ancillary information (aperture, metering indicators, shutter speed, etc) that reduced viewfinder magnification in more recent cameras and not a direct result of AF. The manufacturers added this information starting in the mid-1970s as a result of customer demand for more informative displays. Godfrey On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:34 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I'll admit optics I'm not so good with. I'd hardly try to grind my own lenses but manufacturing I know quite a bit about and optics isn't even half the problem. John Francis wrote: I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror makes any significant contribution to eventual image size. On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't understand the cost savings in making a smaller viewfinder. John Francis wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but still cost rules). There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had to give. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout). -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
FS: LX body, SMC-M 50/1.4, AF200T flash
LX body: some brassing around the strap lugs, also engraved name below advance lever and to the right of viewfinder (at least it is neatly done). Works well. Probably KEH Bargain. Also comes with grip, original manual. $225 shipped CONUS If I sell the LX, then I will sell the following too: SMC-M 50/1.4 Again, this is engraved (neatly), you can see the engaving when the focus is racked out. KEH Bargain $45 shipped CONUS. AF200T flashBought from KEH, in EX+ condition, $25 shipped CONUS. Thanks, Aaron Bransky
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
illagementus non carborundum (sp?) or something like that (don't let the bastards wear you down) Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Jul 22, 2005 11:19 AM To: Joaquim Carvalho Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. I find the preaching here to be sometimes funny, sometimes quite sick. Frantisek PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
RE: Trip to London next week
Hi, Take the Piccadilly Line to Hyde Park Corner, or take the Heathrow Express to Paddington, then get a taxi to Russell Square. I'm likely to be too tied up at work to get away for any PDMLing, I'm afraid. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 July 2005 11:57 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: OT: Trip to London next week > > I'll be in in London downtown next week from monday to > wednesday - flight back on wednesday night. > Any suggestions on travelling from Heathrow to Russel Square > with all the ... don't know how to put that correctly. > If someone from the crowd is around - care to meet? > > Cheers > Adelheid > > > > > > >
Re: Features I use (formerly the Nine Second Difference)
John Francis wrote: On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote: Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only for aiming and composition in AF, that's why it's brighter, (though the LX with a modern screen is also brighter and is very good for focusing). Their importance in focusing is minimized. There is no technical reason why a viewfinder needs to be smaller, the reason for that is cost. (Well sensor size has something to do with it as well but still cost rules). Not really. See below. There's no cost saving in making the viefinder image smaller (unless you go really cheap, and substitute a pentamirror, in which case the smaller image size compensates for the additional light losses). Oh dear... here I go again! What additional light losses? A front surface mirror, like pentamirror surfaces almost MUST be, loses no light at all from simple reflection. Does it? Any medium, be it air or glass, has a refractive index, and as a result thereof, impedes the light transmission. No? Just wondering... The reason viewfinder images got smaller is because there was a lot of additional information being displayed as well as the image. To get all that stuff inside a comfortable viewing angle something had to give. Precisely so. Increasing the viewing angle wasn't an option; having to move your eye around to see all the viewfinder information is a pain. Right. There are always compromises, aren't there. Depends on what's the most important to you. keith
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
>the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. Keith, I agree, but as far as I can tell, one of the images has had no post camera processing. A somewhat one sided comparison. Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW Kenneth Waller wrote: > Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera? > > Kenneth Waller > > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW > > On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote: > > >>Interesting Albano, >>but I think the real comparison to be made is with two identical images, one >>RAW >>and one hi res jpeg and optimize each one. Thanks for posting this. > I'd not hesitate to suggest that shooting in RAW virtually always leads to a > better image technically. For instance I just stepped outside set my camera > up > on a tripod, put it in program mode, set my A20/2.8 on infinity and made two > shots, one as a jpg and one as RAW. In post processing the RAW image I > optimised the exposure and reduced lens CA (I have a library of offsets for > my > lenses) in the RAW convertor and in PS I sharpened the image, the other image > is straight from the camera: > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2846.JPG (3.8MB) > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio/temp/IMGP2845.jpg (1.75MB) > > All the EXIF data should be relatively intact so I won't add any other > technical information. Sorry about the subject matter. > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is overall more pleasing. I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone... keith whaley PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >illagementus non carborundum (sp?) > >or something like that > >(don't let the bastards wear you down) 8-) Ken, were you the one at GFM who showed me a beautiful portfolio book from Light Impressions? I want to get one but can't seem to find it (to any degree of certainty) on their web page. Know what they called it or what page of their site it's on? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Goin' to Ohio
Gonna raise me a crop of dental floss! Oh wait, that's Montana. Never mind. Well, dental floss or no, I'm off to the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course to shoot the AMA Superbike races. Updates if time allows during the weekend. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 17:03, Rob Studdert wrote: > ... > whether 12 bits per colour channel would make make an appreciable visible > difference given the dynamics of current display technology is arguable > (given > the relatively low contrast ratios of even the best TFT displays). I'd be > happy > to read some practical reviews. Just look at the dark areas of a DVD movie (The Matrix is a good choice), you'll clearly see that 256 levels are not enough. These 256 levels are not evenly distributed across the brightness range, after gamma correction there are very few levels in the dark range. 12 bits would be 4 times better and probably OK > Generally dither is only beneficial in print systems without the capability > to > modulate pixel density. Dither is pointless if it only serves to reduce the > print sharpness and acutance. RGB direct to photo paper print systems would > not > benefit from dither so they don't use it, ink jet print systems can benefit > and > their drivers generally employ dither of some form. Surprise. Dithering generates extra perceived levels at the expense of added (temporal or spacial) noise. RGB to photo paper systems do temporal dithering (that obviously is not visible on paper), this could be done to 10 or 12 bits values at no expense. Printer drivers do a lot of dithering and could do it a bit more to achieve more than 256 levels. Rough dithering, like for getting 256 levels out of 2, is very visible; more subtle dithering like for getting 4096 levels out of 256 is hardly visible as you're mixing colors that are already quite similar. > Any photographer who currently wishes to ensure that their archived digital > images are able to take full advantage of future printing technologies need > only save them in an image format which can support 16 bit per colour channel > wide gamut colour space. Yes. The problem is that the (time, complexity and money) expense from using RAW is not acceptable for many people. There should be a compressed 16 bits image format both in our cameras and in every piece of software, something as universal and easy to use as jpg. A floating point format like the one used in Film Gimp (now called CinePaint http://cinepaint.sourceforge.net/) would be even better. Play a bit with it, you'll be amazed: open one of your photographs; convert it to floating point; reduce contrast to almost 0 until everything looks like a single shade of gray; save it to disk and close it; open it again; increase contrast; you get your old image back without any visible loss. Joaquim
