Re: PAW - Little Londoner
If I understand your directions correctly, you're talking about Green Park. Walk through it and you appear on Piccadilly, close to the Ritz (Hotel that is, not Camera). Peter - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:56 AM Subject: PAW - Little Londoner Hi! If you stand so that the Buckingham palace is on you back and go left, you enter a part... What would be its name? Never mind - my mind is often working in a very peculiar ways... Here is a PAW photo for you to look at. As usual in this case, I am particularly interested about what you have to say on the b/w conversion. This time I used Channel Mixer + Hue/Saturation layers technique... http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=214695 Boris
Re: Optio S5z?
I much prefer to use the LCD on most of these small digicams rather than the tiny little optical tunnel viewfinders, when I use anything at all. (much of the time, I just end up aiming them and then checking to see that I framed what I wanted after the fact.) Now a friend has a Ricoh Caplio GX fitted with its wide converter and a masked off Cosina/Voigtländer 15mm optical viewfinder fitted in the accessory/hotshoe over the lens. It's quite a wonderful rig and works like a charm, a great, dedicated 5Mpixel wide shooter. :-) Godfrey
Re: Optio S5z?
I see this as a self fulfilling prophecy. Put a squinty lousy optical finder on a camera and few people will use it. Since so few people use it put cheaper even worse finder on the next model. After a few iterations of this, no one is using the optical viewfinder, so obviously no optical viewfinder is necessary. Eh, I don't know, the viewfinders in the small cameras aren't really that bad. They just seem small, like the cameras they're built into. I doubt there's a way to build larger ones. I've never had a problem using viewfinders (even with my glasses) in current digital P&S cameras, though I admit I'd never use one when I can use the screen instead. Anyway, according to market research I was able to read a year or so ago, the majority of P&S camera owners stopped using viewfinders as soon as they figured out what that little screen on the back of their camera was for. It's really about convenience, as far as the consumer is concerned, and the camera manufacturers have picked up on that. They're probably happy to get rid of viewfinders, since removing those small moving parts that no one uses probably increases their profit margin and reduces their rate of defective units. And with the way the market has been going lately, most camera makers could really use the extra profit. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: hot/dead pixels -Mark Roberts website program
Is this program to be trusted? How about a link for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about? John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
PAW - Little Londoner
Hi! If you stand so that the Buckingham palace is on you back and go left, you enter a part... What would be its name? Never mind - my mind is often working in a very peculiar ways... Here is a PAW photo for you to look at. As usual in this case, I am particularly interested about what you have to say on the b/w conversion. This time I used Channel Mixer + Hue/Saturation layers technique... http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=214695 Boris
Re: PESO
Hi! Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the FA20-35. Blimey! Boris
Re: PESO -- (another) Beast
Hi! Found (by my wife) in my back yard today ... http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_photo.html?c_photo=32644654 Any ideas what this is ? (ist D, 16-45 @ f4 1/500) [ferengi voice] feemale [end ferengi voice] Nice DOF control ;-). Boris
Re: PESO: My Precocious Granddaughter
Hi! Thanks Shel. It's the DA 16-45 @ 28mm focal length. The stop is f8, the shutter is 1/30th. I had the Sigma 500 Super flash mounted with the omnibounce reflector that splits the light between the reflector and the ceiling 20/80. So the main light is overhead with fill coming from the camera and some backlight from the doorwall window behind Grace. The ratio of fill to overhead is close to minus one stop in practice because the reflector is much closer here than the ceiling. It's shot RAW, converted with only small increase in temperature, a slight reduction in exposure and increase in brightness and contrast. I sharpened it in the converter (due to sheer laziness) to 65 and converted it to a 144 meg 16-bit tiff. I cropped it to remove extra space in the left of frame and cloned out a toy that was on the floor behind Grace. I saved a 45 meg 8-bit file for printing, then resized it in PhotoShop (Binary Sharper) for the web. I added a bit of USM to the web image (90%, 1 pixel, threshold 11). I'll probably clone out some of the background if I make a print. Thanks for the lesson. Boris
Re: PESO: My Precocious Granddaughter
Hi! My granddaughter is now eleven months old, and she is, of course, reading. I started her out on the New York Times, because I think it will be a plus in terms of vocabulary development. I did tell her to beware the liberal bias. She answered, "You don't have to tell me, Grandpa." That's my girl . Here she is with the Sunday magazine. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3698379&size=lg Paul, you did remind of me of very intensive reading sessions Galia used to have with her books. It is good though that some of them were printed on plastic. Did you discuss Honda cars after she was done with political news column? ;-) You were crawling beside here, weren't you? ;-) Boris
Re: PESO :Ocean Lasndescape
Hi! Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the FA20-35. And here is the URL: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 John, if you permit. You probably went to 20 mm wide end of the zoom. And so a part of you, I suspect a head, in the frame - the bottom left corner. I don't think it is really necessary to have a shade of a head of a photographer in the landscape shot ;-). Otherwise, the colors are nice indeed. Did you use polar filter? Boris
Re: PAW - "Red"
Hi! A PUG theme waiting to happen. Interesting photo, Dave. I like the patterns and geometries. I fear that it suffers being so small for the computer. There's probably lots of texture and detail in there that we're missing. I bet it'd look great as a nice big print. Darn it, I agree with Frank... ;-). Also I am sorry to mention the frame, but the white-black-gray formation distracts from the play of lights and shadows this time... Boris
Re: PESO: Sprint!
Hi! *Caution, yet another bike photo* How can one protect oneself in such a case ? I wanted to post a "proper" PAW, but my photo lab closed for the long weekend, and I can't get to the lab weekdays these days due to my longer working hours at my new job. Oh well. Those of use who are digital do not suffer this kind of fate... The framing isn't what I'd like it to be (I wish more of the finish line were in the photo, and I wish there was more space in front of the sprinters (but that's the edge of the frame right there), and I wish the riders were sharper, but overall, I don't mind this one at all: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699749&size=lg I have just one gripe about this - the champion is behind... ;-) You know, just with the bit of a white patch in front of the sprinters, this photo does come together. It is very good. It would be superb if you moved your camera just a bit to the left. However I should mention that I cannot produce anything even remotely close to this. So it should give you enough grains of salt with which to read the above comment. Boris
Re: PESO (s) Wheel Veal & Freek out
Hi! Well I spent yesterday visiting friends and exploring the Woodstock Fair. The oldest agriculture fair in the United States. I brought my *ist-D and came away with a fare number of images. I don't think these are too bad so let my present Wheel, Veal and Freekout. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_wheel.html http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_veal.html http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_freekout.html All were shot with the smc-P FA 28-200 AL [IF] Interesting to see Pentax super-zoom lens in action. P.J., tell me, do you tend to shoot on either widest or longest focal lengths of your zoom lens? It seems to me you do. Just one thing to note, it's interesting that amusements today would have been considered cruel and unusual punishment, or maybe outright torture a couple of hundred years ago... What will be considered an amusement in one hundred years from now then? Can we extrapolate? Boris
Re: PESO - Night Fire
Hi! A wildfire started yesterday not too far from home (about 20 miles). This shot is about a 50% crop, taken with the *istD and the FA 31mm f/1.8 LTD. ISO 400, at f/2.8, 13 seconds in bulb mode. Comments welcome. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3697717 Tom, I see some night fire, but I don't see any night extinguishers... ;-). Very nicely done. A question, if you don't mind. Why did you use bulb mode if *istD has shutter speeds as slow as 30 secs? Boris
Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
LOL ... they're easier to see if I double the size of the image on my screen, even at this low resolution. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:30 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Look for two little black dots and a sparkle. (Hint: They're ON the flower.) ;-) Don -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:08 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please It's a nice shot, Don, but I think I'll need a larger version to see the bugs and raindrop. ;-) Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Here's a typical wide open shot with the FA50/1.7. http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/fa50.htm Can't see them too well on the web version but it got the two little bugs and the raindrop nicely. Good enough for me! ;-)
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
Ah, that makes sense. The f/2.8 version of these lenses, not the f/4. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 7:47 PM, Herb Chong wrote: they are referring to the A* 300/2.8. Herb... - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter).
Synchronocity was: PUG Themes?
I understand your point Bob and don't have strong feelings either way. The only leaning I have is that the 'day' of the equinox makes the reason for doing it, in some sort of astronomically romantic day. I guess we could have a PDML Day on whatever day we wished. I would volunteer to post the photos on a separate site from the PUG. I'm working in my own site, so this could give me some practice. Tom C. From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: Subject: RE: PUG Themes? Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 00:25:43 +0100 If it's not tied to the specific time of the equinox, ie it's a single day, then why bring the equinox and GMT into it at all? Why not just nominate a day that's convenient for everybody, such as a Saturday or Sunday when most people are not at work? I would suggest something like Saturday 24 September, 0:00-23:59.999... whatever the local time happens to be -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 September 2005 22:32 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: PUG Themes? > > Makes sense. Maybe we should all do it unofficially? 12 > hours either side of the equinox GMT? > > Who's all for it? Let's hear it? Yay, Nay? >
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
>> That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X >> both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins. > if the A* 300/4 is the same optical formula as the M* 300/4, neither L > extender can possibly attach. i have both L extenders and a couple of the > compatible lenses. you seem to mean the 2X-S instead. Indeed! Good grief! I ~should~ have said the A 2X-S !!! Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the correction, Herb. Fred
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
they are referring to the A* 300/2.8. Herb... - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter).
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
if the A* 300/4 is the same optical formula as the M* 300/4, neither L extender can possibly attach. i have both L extenders and a couple of the compatible lenses. you seem to mean the 2X-S instead. Herb - Original Message - From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "P. J. Alling" Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:33 PM Subject: Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins.
Re: FA 20~35
The FA 28-200. The focus action is very good. To bad the lens isn't as nice optically, still it's very good on the *ist-D. Shel Belinkoff wrote: What was the first? Shel [Original Message] From: P. J. Alling Subject: Re: FA 20~35 It's well built, especially for a lens that has a plastic lens barrel. It has the second best manual focus feel that I've experienced on an autofocus lens -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: FA 20~35
Hi Leon, the smaller size and zoom range of the 20~35 currently is of greater interest than the greater size/weight/range of the 16~45. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Leon Altoff > Subject: Re: FA 20~35 > > Shel, > > If you are only going to use it on the digital bodies you might like to > consider the 16-45 instead. I have both and have not used the 20-35 > since I stopped using the MZ-S.
Re: FA 20~35
Hi David ... Nice overview. Thanks! Shel > [Original Message] > From: David Oswald > Subject: Re: FA 20~35 > > I had the FA20-35 from 1999 through the near present (2005). I really > liked the lens. On film, I found it to be extremely sharp, with smooth > bokeh, and generally excellent qualities. Particularly surprising is > its very low level of barrol and/or pincushion distortion even at the > wide end. It seems to present a fairly 'flat' view of the world around > it, even at 20mm. > > When I bought my *ist-DS, it became my most-used "standard" lens for a > time. But I ultimately found myself swapping it out with the 50mm f/1.4 > and 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 very frequently because its zoom range isn't all > that broad. I also kind of yearned for a lens that could give me at > least the a field of view equivilant to that provided by a 24mm lens on > a film SLR, on my DSLR. With the 20-35 as my only true wide-angle lens, > I just couldn't get wide enough on the 'DS. > > So I sold it and bought a lens with a little broader zoom range: the > respectable DA16-45 f/4. I like the 16-45 because it will get me down > to a pretty wide angle field of view, as well as in to the not-so-tight > portrait focal lengths. But this choice did involve comprimise. > > The positives about the 16-45: > * Wide angle field of view (equivilant FOV of a 24mm lens used in > 35mm format). > * Moderate telephoto. > * Broader zoom range than the 20-35 = less lens swapping. > * Very sharp, great contrast, flare control, and low CA. > * Excellent build quality. > * Smooth zoom and focusing rings. Focus shift feature! > > The negatives of the 16-45: > * It's just a little too big. > * It has slightly more barrol distortion at 20mm than the 20-35... > but not much. > * It's heavier than the 20-35. > * Some don't like its reverse-zoom design. I don't mind. > * It isn't designed for 35mm film cameras, and will vingette on a > 35mm camera if zoomed wider than about 20 or 22mm. This is not an issue > on DSLR's. > > > The positives of the 20-35: > * Fairly compact. > * Very sharp, low distortion, etc. > * Light weight. > * Smooth focus and zoom. > * Moderately wide to normal zoom range. > * Designed for film, plus works for digital. > > The negatives of the 20-35: > * Not wide enough; you'll need a new ultrawide. > * Not telephoto enough; only zooms to "standard" focal lengths when > mounted on a DSLR. > > > The fact is, I find myself swapping lenses less with the 16-45, and I'm > equally satisfied with its image quality as compared to the 20-35. But > I miss the size and weight of the 20-35, and though I haven't shot film > since going digital, I kind of wish I had a film ultrawide just for the > sake of having one. (silly, I know).
RE: On films
You can also check this lab out if you like: http://www.dr5.com/ I've not used them myself but they claim to be able to make slides out of all sorts of BW films. Regards, Gautam > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 4:13 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: On films > > > Good to know.:-) > > On a side note: > I just completed my first ever Scala roll and the only lab in > Canada, after today, is no > longer > developing Scala. > They have links to two USA labs in CA and FL,but alas my email > have yet to be anwered to > see if > they'll x border shop. > If they will not, anyone willing to assist if i need to do a > third part ship in.Color > Reflections in > FL, PA, and LV and Motion photo in CA. > > All expenses will be covered. > > Dave > > Dave > > > > > I was buying film from my favoured on-line outlet. I noticed the > > following: > > > > - Fuji has a new 1600 they call Super G; they still have Superia 800, > >which may mean that, unexpectedly, they have a new formula. > > > > - Kodak now has a product called Elite; should be a rebadged Supra. > > > > - Kodak (UK at least) has discontinued High Definition; never tried it > >myself. > > > > - I am trying a KM formula they call VX Super and which goes 100-200 > >ISO only. > > > > - I can still buy Superia, Centuria Super and Tri-X (all 400 ISO). > > > > Kostas > > > > > > >
Re: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:37 AM Subject: Re: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 2005/09/05 Mon AM 11:15:37 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) Having spent much time in both California and the upper midwest, I have to say that the accents are indistinguishable to me. I think this is due in part to the fact that a large number -- perhaps a majority -- of southern Californians emigrated from the industrial cities of the midwest. On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's > the true > pure non-accent. > J.W.L. A British comedian, whose specialism was mimicry, was trying to break into the American market. He had a run of shows in (I think) Las Vegas. After one, he was approached by a couple of ladies of a certain age. In their Georgian voices, they told him that they enjoyed his show but wondered if he managed to shrug it off and speak in his normal, unaccented voice afterwards. In his best Georgian mimic, he told them that it was extremely easy and he had no problem doing it at all. They were astonished at his ability to speak without an accent, just like themselves. On the other hand, few Brits can manage a really good John Wayne. :-) J.W.L. > > Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie > father-in-law would surely have said. > > J > === > No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. > > Hollywood and TV. > > Nyah, nyah. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) > - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: FA 20~35
What was the first? Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling > Subject: Re: FA 20~35 > > It's well built, especially for a lens that has a plastic lens barrel. > It has the second best manual focus feel that I've > experienced on an autofocus lens
Re: PESO
Cool. A polar bear in a blizzard, eating an ice cream. Imagination is a wonderful thing Dave On 9/5/05, John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the > FA20-35. > > John Graves > >
Re: Pentax vs. Nikon
>From my experience, - most of the sales people at Ritz Camera stores are very little educated in what they are selling. They had a "crash course" of marketing keywords and sales pitch. The level of knoweldge is comparable or even worse than that of people selling electronics at BestBuy, Circuit City, etc here in the US. It's that type of people who, when being asked about audio system power, respond: "It's very loud!". To be fair: once in a while, I see knowledgeable and even helpful people at stores of each of the aforementioned chains. Igor Scott Loveless wrote: > A few days ago I stopped by the local shopping mall (I hate shopping > malls) because I needed to get a Needle Point Precision Lubricator at > Radio Shack. I wandered into the Ritz Camera store just to see what > they stock these days. To my surprise they had a DS, a Nikon D50, and > a Canon Rebel XT in their display case. I asked the lady behind the > counter if I could take a look at the DS and D50. The exchange went > something like this: > > Me: Can I see the DS and the D50? > > Sales Lady: The what? > > Me: The DS and the D50? > > Her: What's a DS? > > Me: The Pentax SLR you have in your case. > > Her: Oh, OK. > > She handed me both cameras. Both had an 18-55/3.5-5.6 attached. > > Sales Girl: No one's ever asked me for the DS. Most people want the > XT or the D50. > > Me: Yeah, I don't do Canon. > > Her: I think you'll like the Nikon better. It has more features and > accessories are easier to find. Pentax is more of a niche > manufacturer. You really can't get many accessories for it. > > Me: The viewfinder in the Pentax is bit nicer. Does the D50 have a > prism or a mirror? > > Warm body behind the counter: All SLRs have mirrors. > > Me: I'm not talking about the mirror that flips up when you press the > shutter release. What's underneath this big bump on the top of the > camera. > > Warm body: Uhh. The Nikon has a Nikkor lens. The Nikkor lens is > better than the Pentax. > > Me: Really? Why's that? > > Her: Better images. And it's built better. > > Me: The mount on the Pentax lens is metal. The Nikon is plastic. > > Dip shit: Have you seen the Rebel XT. You might like that one better. > > At this point I chuckled and walked out. The conversation was a quite > a bit longer, but I'm sure you get the picture. I still am not sure > why she was so insistent on steering me away from the Pentax. All > three kits were roughly the same price. > > The lubricator from Radio Shack is really cool, though. Highly > recommended for those of you who work on your own cameras. >
Re: Optio
Dario Bonazza wrote: Jim, All those with a 0 at the end of their names use 2 x AA batteries (Optio 30, 50, 60 and Optio S30, S40, S45, S50, S55, S60). But not the 550.
UPS Again
I have a package from KEH that arrived in Albuquerque on Friday. The scheduled delivery day is next Wednesday. Let's see if they try to deliver it tomorrow (which they could), or just sit on it for a day. Joe
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
I did not fully see the quality of Pentax primes until I tried them on my *ist D. For some reason they seem sharper on the APS-C sensor than they ever did on film. Joe
Re: Southwest suggestions
P.J., I am pretty sure this is the one that you see all the nice pictures of, the famous sand/wind eroded formations. I went through it last year. I think this is the one she was interested in, mentioning slot canyons as she did. There are two parts that are not connected, but fairly close to one another. Off of the same access road, I believe. I do not know if it is proper to say they are in Page, AZ, but if not in it proper, they are right near it. Like I said, can't be more than 5 miles or so from the dam, but I am just doing this from memory. A little south and east of the dam, I think. Dave P.J. Ailling said: I'm fairly sure that there's more than one Antelope Valley... __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
Yes it is true that we try to make new words instead of using foreign ones. It isn't forbidden to use foreign words, but if you do, it shows your ignorance (as people who know what they're talking about generally use the Icelandic word). Anyway, as weird as we Icelanders are, it shouldn't be necessary to make up new stuff. Thrainn On Monday 05 September 2005 04:53, Jens Bladt wrote: > Thanks for the update. But it's still true that you tend to make new > Icelandic words, rather than using foreign ones, like software. I guess we > do too - we simply say "program" in stead of "software" or "application". > Regars > > Jens Bladt > Arkitekt MAA > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: Thrainn Vigfusson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 5. september 2005 02:47 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) > > > I live in Iceland and use foreign words all the time.I even use the word > for software andit's nothing like "machine spirit". I guess that if you > tried to translate it, it would be something more like "mind ware". > Can I please have some of whatever you're drinking? Or your friends are > drinking? > > Thrainn > > > In Iceland it's forbidden to use foreign words. They make new Icelandic > > words all the time. For example software is called "Maskinånd" - meaning > > "machine spirit". This is supposed to prevent this small language from > > disappearing.
hot/dead pixels -Mark Roberts website program
Hi, I downloaded the program to check for hot pixels from Mark Roberts site and found that my new *ist DS has no hot or dead pixels. I thought I might have a problems as I noticed some white spots on a few pictures that do not seem to belong there. Two questions: 1. For those of you familiar with this program, how does it pick-up dead pixels? How does examining a completely dark tif file tell the program where dead pixels are located? Dead pixels would make a black dot, right? 2. Does the camera behave differently when the sensor is exposed to light that it might make white dots under high illumination when it otherwise would not under lower illumination? 3. Is it common for the sensor to not have any problems with hot or dead pixels? I thought there might be a few at least. Is this program to be trusted? Sorry, but a digital newbie. Thanks Dave __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
RE: PUG Themes?
If it's not tied to the specific time of the equinox, ie it's a single day, then why bring the equinox and GMT into it at all? Why not just nominate a day that's convenient for everybody, such as a Saturday or Sunday when most people are not at work? I would suggest something like Saturday 24 September, 0:00-23:59.999... whatever the local time happens to be -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 September 2005 22:32 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: PUG Themes? > > Makes sense. Maybe we should all do it unofficially? 12 > hours either side of the equinox GMT? > > Who's all for it? Let's hear it? Yay, Nay? >
Re: On films
Good to know.:-) On a side note: I just completed my first ever Scala roll and the only lab in Canada, after today, is no longer developing Scala. They have links to two USA labs in CA and FL,but alas my email have yet to be anwered to see if they'll x border shop. If they will not, anyone willing to assist if i need to do a third part ship in.Color Reflections in FL, PA, and LV and Motion photo in CA. All expenses will be covered. Dave Dave > > I was buying film from my favoured on-line outlet. I noticed the > following: > > - Fuji has a new 1600 they call Super G; they still have Superia 800, >which may mean that, unexpectedly, they have a new formula. > > - Kodak now has a product called Elite; should be a rebadged Supra. > > - Kodak (UK at least) has discontinued High Definition; never tried it >myself. > > - I am trying a KM formula they call VX Super and which goes 100-200 >ISO only. > > - I can still buy Superia, Centuria Super and Tri-X (all 400 ISO). > > Kostas >
Re: Southwest suggestions
Marnie aka Doe; Yep, can't be more than 5 miles or so. It is in a desert area though. It doesn't look like much from the top, but when you go in it, wow, unbelievable. The colors really pop depending on what time of the day you are in there. I think early morning is suppose to be the best although I was in there in June (last year) around 2 pm and it was pretty nice then as well. There are two different slots - upper and lower -one is longer than the other - both are challenging - climbing skills would be helpful. There is a charge - I think our kids got in for free (after we talked to the guides for a time) and it must have been about $25 or so for the permit. Worthwhile, IMNSHO. We didn't have a guide past taking us to the entrance and no Jeep, just a rent a car. Lake Powell itself is very nice - such a deep blue next to the reddish stones - very vibrant color contrast. We toured the inside of the dam, on top of which you can get some neat snaps.We found a lodge that had a giant water trampoline and kayaks on lake Powell that my kids enjoyed immensely. Looking back at my photos, some other nice places: Red Rock Canyon - Birdseye Trail. this is right near Bryce, very easy to overlook, but you can climb straight up some beautiful cliffs and take some very nice pictures being right on top of the formations. Personally, Bryce was a bit of a letdown, but we were very tired by this point and did not have time to really see it properly. Lenox Crater, AZ. Wow, black cinders and ancient craters! Very strange to see old lava flows in the middle of Arizona. One super tough climb if you want to take it, many easier ones. Amazing contrast with the rest of the state. Not to mention the Petrified forest, (the Badlands are nearby this is also very nice, not the Badlands of South Dakota) and all the old pueblos you can shake a stick at (liked Tuzigoot a bit more than some of the others). Being a native of Ohio, well, we just don't see things like this everyday. I do not know if we have any list members who actually live in that area, but maybe they could add a few comments. If you are looking at AZ, I know the terrain is very different in the south verses the north. Much cooler in the north Has to do with elevation, I believe. To me, the area around Sedona and to the north of it are very different from the rest of the state. Phoenix and Tuscon, in comparison, are pits of fire. Dave Marnie aka Doe said: So Antelope Valley is near Glen Canyon? (I was thinking it was somewhere else entirely). It's one thing I haven't seen. I am taking a trip to the Southwest next spring to check out possible cities to move to. Maybe I can take a small detour for some photography. Where exactly is it? Thanks. It looks totally cool (from some photographs I've seen.) Does one need a jeep? Does one need to hire a guide? Marnie aka Doe __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
Look for two little black dots and a sparkle. (Hint: They're ON the flower.) ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 5:08 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please > > > It's a nice shot, Don, but I think I'll need a larger version to see > the bugs and raindrop. ;-) > > Godfrey > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: > > > Here's a typical wide open shot with the FA50/1.7. > > > > http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/fa50.htm > > > > Can't see them too well on the web version but it > > got the two little bugs and the raindrop nicely. > > Good enough for me! ;-) >
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
Apparently there are more A*300mm lenses in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in Pentax documentation. Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The Pentax documentation is available from this page: http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens-- smc_A-Rear_Converter_1.4x_L/reqID--3106/subsection-- Digital_35mm_converters_adapters or http://tinyurl.com/9l3h8 Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, or the lenses they're referring to are not the lenses you're thinking of. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:02 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: As far as I can tell neither the A 1.4 or 2X L converters will work safely on either A* or M* 300 f4 lenses. Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are the relevant pages from Boz's site: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A2X-L.html http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A1.4X-L.html and my Photo of the rear view of the M*300 f4.0. The A* is exactly the same. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/SMCP_M(Star)300mm_f4.0_Rear.jpg The rear element of these 300's sits just about at the same plane as the lens mount. Fred wrote: Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter). That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins. Fred -- 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: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
On 5/9/05, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: > butter, bitter, batter, better, matter, fatter mad as a hatter ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax vs. Nikon
At Ritz you will always be pushed towards Nikon. The company has some kind of deal with Nikon and gets more money when they sell Nikons. Both Nikon and Canon do have a bigger spiff than Pentax, but I do not know if any of that goes to the salesperson at Ritz stores, it does at most independently owned stores, but chains are notorious for insisting that all spiffs go to the company as discounts. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- P. J. Alling wrote: Canon and Nikon are probably giving bigger commissions than Pentax. If the sales clerk is getting a piece of the action she'll steer you to one of them. If not her manager has told her to steer you to Canon or Nikon. Most places where the staff are paid on commission won't tell you that's how they are paid, they usually have a policy against it, (except Radio Shack). Scott Loveless wrote: A few days ago I stopped by the local shopping mall (I hate shopping malls) because I needed to get a Needle Point Precision Lubricator at Radio Shack. I wandered into the Ritz Camera store just to see what they stock these days. To my surprise they had a DS, a Nikon D50, and a Canon Rebel XT in their display case. I asked the lady behind the counter if I could take a look at the DS and D50. The exchange went something like this: Me: Can I see the DS and the D50? Sales Lady: The what? Me: The DS and the D50? Her: What's a DS? Me: The Pentax SLR you have in your case. Her: Oh, OK. She handed me both cameras. Both had an 18-55/3.5-5.6 attached. Sales Girl: No one's ever asked me for the DS. Most people want the XT or the D50. Me: Yeah, I don't do Canon. Her: I think you'll like the Nikon better. It has more features and accessories are easier to find. Pentax is more of a niche manufacturer. You really can't get many accessories for it. Me: The viewfinder in the Pentax is bit nicer. Does the D50 have a prism or a mirror? Warm body behind the counter: All SLRs have mirrors. Me: I'm not talking about the mirror that flips up when you press the shutter release. What's underneath this big bump on the top of the camera. Warm body: Uhh. The Nikon has a Nikkor lens. The Nikkor lens is better than the Pentax. Me: Really? Why's that? Her: Better images. And it's built better. Me: The mount on the Pentax lens is metal. The Nikon is plastic. Dip shit: Have you seen the Rebel XT. You might like that one better. At this point I chuckled and walked out. The conversation was a quite a bit longer, but I'm sure you get the picture. I still am not sure why she was so insistent on steering me away from the Pentax. All three kits were roughly the same price. The lubricator from Radio Shack is really cool, though. Highly recommended for those of you who work on your own cameras. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: OT: Digital High Key
In a message dated 9/5/2005 2:58:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Marnie, High-Key, normal, and Low-Key respectively refer to the tonal range of the print. High-Key is a print with very little dark area. Normal is, of course, a print with a full tonal range. and Low-Key is a print with very little light area. Properly done there should be some shadow detail in a high-key print (usually the eyes in high-key portraits), and some high-lights in a low-key print (again usually the catch-lights in the eyes in the case of portraits. So properly the prints really do have a full tonal range but the high-lights predominate in a high-key print, and the shadows predominate in a low-key print. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- === Thanks, graywolf. In a photography class I took once (yeah, that one) one of the students shot children in what I suppose was a high key manner. Not all the time, but some of the time. It often made for a very striking portrait. Nice to learn new terms, especially for things I've already seen. Marnie :-)
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
Graywolf wrote: I have read that "educated mid-western english", and "upper-class british english" (I assume not- the TV and movie, "I, say, what?" stuff) are the only unaccented english dialects. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- There is no such thing as unaccented English, if you think about it. A dialect is something different again; kind of a local variant of language, using different words for some things. Paul Stenquist wrote: Having spent much time in both California and the upper midwest, I have to say that the accents are indistinguishable to me. I think this is due in part to the fact that a large number -- perhaps a majority -- of southern Californians emigrated from the industrial cities of the midwest. On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true pure non-accent. J.W.L. Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie father-in-law would surely have said. J === No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. Hollywood and TV. Nyah, nyah. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
> -Original Message- > From: Graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I have read that "educated mid-western english", and > "upper-class british english" (I assume not- the TV and > movie, "I, say, what?" stuff) are the only unaccented english > dialects. > whatever you read that in deserves to be thrown into the mid-Atlantic. The whole idea of any unaccented natural language is complete nonsense. As far as your examples go, it would mean that 'educated mid-western' (or network English) and 'upper-class British English' (more properly, RP) were indistinguishable. You can discover that this is not the case by listening to the news on CNN and BBC World. Or have someone from each region or class say the following words: butter, bitter, batter, better, matter, fatter. You will notice very distinct differences in the 't' and 'r' sounds. These are only the most obvious differences (the 'o' in 'obvious' would also be very different). -- Cheers, Bob
Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
It's a nice shot, Don, but I think I'll need a larger version to see the bugs and raindrop. ;-) Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:32 PM, Don Sanderson wrote: Here's a typical wide open shot with the FA50/1.7. http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/fa50.htm Can't see them too well on the web version but it got the two little bugs and the raindrop nicely. Good enough for me! ;-)
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
The Pentax documentation is available from this page: http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/product_details/camera_lens-- smc_A-Rear_Converter_1.4x_L/reqID--3106/subsection-- Digital_35mm_converters_adapters or http://tinyurl.com/9l3h8 Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, or the lenses they're referring to are not the lenses you're thinking of. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 3:02 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: As far as I can tell neither the A 1.4 or 2X L converters will work safely on either A* or M* 300 f4 lenses. Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are the relevant pages from Boz's site: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A2X-L.html http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A1.4X-L.html and my Photo of the rear view of the M*300 f4.0. The A* is exactly the same. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/SMCP_M(Star)300mm_f4.0_Rear.jpg The rear element of these 300's sits just about at the same plane as the lens mount. Fred wrote: Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter). That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins. Fred -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Optio S5z?
I see this as a self fulfilling prophecy. Put a squinty lousy optical finder on a camera and few people will use it. Since so few people use it put cheaper even worse finder on the next model. After a few iterations of this, no one is using the optical viewfinder, so obviously no optical viewfinder is necessary. John Celio wrote: I've been considering the Optio S5z for a while now, but I am not quite sure how usefull the LCD monitor is outdoors in sunny weather. Any comments out there? It's not bad. LCDs have been improving incrementally over the years, but I'm not sure how much better they can get as far as viewability in bright sunlight conditions. I tried the S5z once outside the shop I work at, and could see the screen well enough to compose the photo. What you should do is find a shop that has it and will let you take it outside (we let customers do this, as long as a salesperson goes with them) so you can see for yourself. The reason Pentax and other companies are eliminating optical viewfinders on their point-and-shoot cameras is because market research shows the vast majority of P&S users rarely (if ever) use them. Even outdoors. So by removing something no one uses, they're able to both streamline their cameras and, more importantly, lower their production costs. In my opinion, optical viewfinders on digital point-and-shoot cameras will disappear almost completely within five years. John Celio ...is not a market analyst, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement." -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: FA 20~35
I had the FA20-35 from 1999 through the near present (2005). I really liked the lens. On film, I found it to be extremely sharp, with smooth bokeh, and generally excellent qualities. Particularly surprising is its very low level of barrol and/or pincushion distortion even at the wide end. It seems to present a fairly 'flat' view of the world around it, even at 20mm. When I bought my *ist-DS, it became my most-used "standard" lens for a time. But I ultimately found myself swapping it out with the 50mm f/1.4 and 28-105 f/3.2-4.5 very frequently because its zoom range isn't all that broad. I also kind of yearned for a lens that could give me at least the a field of view equivilant to that provided by a 24mm lens on a film SLR, on my DSLR. With the 20-35 as my only true wide-angle lens, I just couldn't get wide enough on the 'DS. So I sold it and bought a lens with a little broader zoom range: the respectable DA16-45 f/4. I like the 16-45 because it will get me down to a pretty wide angle field of view, as well as in to the not-so-tight portrait focal lengths. But this choice did involve comprimise. The positives about the 16-45: * Wide angle field of view (equivilant FOV of a 24mm lens used in 35mm format). * Moderate telephoto. * Broader zoom range than the 20-35 = less lens swapping. * Very sharp, great contrast, flare control, and low CA. * Excellent build quality. * Smooth zoom and focusing rings. Focus shift feature! The negatives of the 16-45: * It's just a little too big. * It has slightly more barrol distortion at 20mm than the 20-35... but not much. * It's heavier than the 20-35. * Some don't like its reverse-zoom design. I don't mind. * It isn't designed for 35mm film cameras, and will vingette on a 35mm camera if zoomed wider than about 20 or 22mm. This is not an issue on DSLR's. The positives of the 20-35: * Fairly compact. * Very sharp, low distortion, etc. * Light weight. * Smooth focus and zoom. * Moderately wide to normal zoom range. * Designed for film, plus works for digital. The negatives of the 20-35: * Not wide enough; you'll need a new ultrawide. * Not telephoto enough; only zooms to "standard" focal lengths when mounted on a DSLR. The fact is, I find myself swapping lenses less with the 16-45, and I'm equally satisfied with its image quality as compared to the 20-35. But I miss the size and weight of the 20-35, and though I haven't shot film since going digital, I kind of wish I had a film ultrawide just for the sake of having one. (silly, I know). Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Gang ... Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much), I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens here on the list. Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could examine for a bit? Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else? Shel
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
In and of themselves they are accented dialects... It's amazing what people will write, and editors will pass. Graywolf wrote: I have read that "educated mid-western english", and "upper-class british english" (I assume not- the TV and movie, "I, say, what?" stuff) are the only unaccented english dialects. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Paul Stenquist wrote: Having spent much time in both California and the upper midwest, I have to say that the accents are indistinguishable to me. I think this is due in part to the fact that a large number -- perhaps a majority -- of southern Californians emigrated from the industrial cities of the midwest. On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true pure non-accent. J.W.L. Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie father-in-law would surely have said. J === No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. Hollywood and TV. Nyah, nyah. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
As far as I can tell neither the A 1.4 or 2X L converters will work safely on either A* or M* 300 f4 lenses. Since a picture is worth a thousand words here are the relevant pages from Boz's site: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A2X-L.html http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/teleconverters/A1.4X-L.html and my Photo of the rear view of the M*300 f4.0. The A* is exactly the same. http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/SMCP_M(Star)300mm_f4.0_Rear.jpg The rear element of these 300's sits just about at the same plane as the lens mount. Fred wrote: Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter). That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins. Fred -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: OT: Digital High Key
Hi, Marnie, High-Key, normal, and Low-Key respectively refer to the tonal range of the print. High-Key is a print with very little dark area. Normal is, of course, a print with a full tonal range. and Low-Key is a print with very little light area. Properly done there should be some shadow detail in a high-key print (usually the eyes in high-key portraits), and some high-lights in a low-key print (again usually the catch-lights in the eyes in the case of portraits. So properly the prints really do have a full tonal range but the high-lights predominate in a high-key print, and the shadows predominate in a low-key print. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/4/2005 2:04:39 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does anyone have any experience making High Key photographs using a digital camera? Regards Jens Bladt = What does High Key mean? TIA, Marnie aka Doe (Never afraid to admit when I don't know/understand something.) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: GESO: Opera at the Town Hall Square
I have noticed that too. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Jens Bladt wrote: BTW: I've noticed about performers, especially the very professional ones. They can quickly spot a camera in the crowd (thousands of spectators were there) and will in fact start posing and acting up. They have learned to really value any publicity :-) Regards Jens Bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. september 2005 06:36 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: GESO: Opera at the Town Hall Square Hi! Thanks, Boris. I guess what you mean is, it's a bit unusual to get rather nice concert shots with such a slow combo? Indeed. Well, I really should get the 2.8/200mm or the 2.8/80-200mm. I know. But I don't have that kind of money available right now. Once more I agree ;-). Please look at these shot, made with the same combo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/39921897/in/set-877712/ Cool shots. Can you tell us what was the aperture? I have another reasonably cheap alternative to 2.8/200 et al. Tamron 90/2.5 Macro (manual focus) goes only to 1:2. There is a special doubler matched to this lens. With the doubler you get 1:1 macro factor and it becomes 180/5. I realize it is not 2.8/200 but it is probably 1/5 or even less of the price. I got mine for about $120. Boris -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
I have read that "educated mid-western english", and "upper-class british english" (I assume not- the TV and movie, "I, say, what?" stuff) are the only unaccented english dialects. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Paul Stenquist wrote: Having spent much time in both California and the upper midwest, I have to say that the accents are indistinguishable to me. I think this is due in part to the fact that a large number -- perhaps a majority -- of southern Californians emigrated from the industrial cities of the midwest. On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:12 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true pure non-accent. J.W.L. Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie father-in-law would surely have said. J === No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. Hollywood and TV. Nyah, nyah. Marnie aka Doe ;-) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
> Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you > to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that > matter). That is correct. I However, I've found that the A 2X-L and the T6-2X both work well on the Pentax M*/A* 300/4 twins. Fred
RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
Here's a typical wide open shot with the FA50/1.7. http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/fa50.htm Can't see them too well on the web version but it got the two little bugs and the raindrop nicely. Good enough for me! ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:35 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please > > > Don, > Took a few M50 shots @ f/1.4 and, as promised, am > putting up one here. This shot using focusing > indicator light. Also, shot one each; back and front > focus. Missed back focus a smidge. > Tripod, MZ-S, self timer/MLU, Fuji 100 Superia, > shutter 1/6000. Walgreen's CD. > I wish I could upload a larger file, but I'm surprised > at resolution. I did nothing with the image but crop > to 8x10 dimensions. > > Jack > > http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=88 > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
On Sep 5, 2005, at 2:03 PM, Graywolf wrote: ... So it seems there is quite abit of variation in M50/1.4 lenses (none of these showed any sign of damage). ... Doesn't seem surprising. Optical bench lens testing brand new Nikkor 50mm, 105mm, etc lenses 20 some years ago showed a goodly variation, moreso with the larger apertures. We'd get a dozen, test them, pick the three best, send the rest back. The optical performance varied by a significant amount wide open, considering the purpose of recording science data. Not enough to render them unusable for general pictorial photography, though. Godfrey
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
But what are you trying to compare, Bob? Evenness of illumination, resolution, contrast ... what? A gray card will only show you evenness of illumination. At f/2.8, it's a toss up between the two 50mm lenses to predict which will do better, although at copystand distances I'd put my bets on the dedicated macro lens. A D-FA50 macro lens is designed to be best at flat-field imaging, stopped down to f/8-f/32, in the near-focusing range. An A50/1.4 is designed for general pictorial use at wide apertures, and will not perform at its best at copystand distances. Comparing a DA40 and a M40 pancake makes more sense as they are both designed to do the same job of general pictorial work. Unfortunately, the only lens I've got of the above four is an A50/1.4. I can shoot a gray card for you, but I doubt that it's going to tell you very much. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:52 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: What I would be interested in, then, is D-FA50 Macro wide open and the A50/1.4 at the lowest common stop, or the DA40 and the SMC 40 at the lowest common stop. Regards, Bob... -- -- By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are no "digital" prime lenses between 20 and 35mm. Pentax lenses designed for digital SLRs, to date, include: DA14 DA16-45 DA18-55 DA40 DA50-200 D-FA50 Macro D-FA100 Macro If I get a chance to set up my copystand and lighting, I'll make a gray card exposure with the A24/2.8 or FA35/2, but I doubt very much that you'll see anything different compared to making the same exposure on a 35mm film negative and then cropping the negative to the 16x24 sensor format dimensions. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Yes. Also, if one of you digital dudes would shoot a gray card frame edge to frame edge with one of your digital primes (say between 20 and 35 mm or so) and one of your film primes of *equal* focal length, I would be interested in comparing light fall off at the corners. Tripod mount camera on centerline wit perpendicular from the center of the gray card. Light gray card evenly with two side lights placed on each side of the camera and such that there is no equal angle reflection from the light to the card to the lens. No flash. Just like you were photocopying art.
RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
Looks great Jack, your M50 likes you! I went out for a while this morning with the FA50/1.7. So far I'm very pleased with the results, it'll become my standard 50 on the D and the 5n. I really don't use a 50 very much anymore and when I do I don't want to have to wonder if I'll get focus right. The FA and I seem to get along pretty good so far. Thanks! Don > -Original Message- > From: Jack Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:35 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please > > > Don, > Took a few M50 shots @ f/1.4 and, as promised, am > putting up one here. This shot using focusing > indicator light. Also, shot one each; back and front > focus. Missed back focus a smidge. > Tripod, MZ-S, self timer/MLU, Fuji 100 Superia, > shutter 1/6000. Walgreen's CD. > I wish I could upload a larger file, but I'm surprised > at resolution. I did nothing with the image but crop > to 8x10 dimensions. > > Jack > > http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=88 > > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >
Re: Am I an Ignorant Klutz ....
I is a fact of life that one of the ways manufactures save money these days is by letting the customer do final testing. Sorry you got caught out by it, Shel. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks to everyone who offered suggestions and help trying to solve the problem with the new DS. Much appreciated Shel -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
Re: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
Some years back, some of you may remember, I threw some m50/1.4 against a brick wall (tested). I used a tape measure and focused via the scale on the lens. I did that because at f/1.4 the narrow depth of focus exacerbates any errors in the mirror-groundglass v. lens to film paths. In those tests the ME Super I was using focused pretty close, but not exactly at about 8 feet (off enough to affect sharpness at f/1.4 but not at f/2.0 if I remember correctly). The interesting thing was one lens, the one I was unhappy with, would not get a sharp slide @ f/1.4 no matter how you focused it. Not exactly true because I found with some experimenting that it focused at about a 15 degree angle (that is by turning the tripod mounted camera about 15 degrees to the left the wall came into focus). However all the lenses focused normally from f/2.0 down. I still do not understand how that was possible, but kind of suspect it was caused be an element being slightly cocked in its mount. Of the other two m50/1.4 one was OK, and one was very sharp (all three were acceptable from f/2.0 down). So it seems there is quite abit of variation in M50/1.4 lenses (none of these showed any sign of damage). However, as I have mentioned before, these lenses are mostly 25+ years old and we have no idea what they have been through. I found less sample to sample variation in the m50/1.7 lenses. The one I kept however was super sharp at f/1.7 even at close focus distances. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/90 - Release Date: 9/5/2005
On films
I was buying film from my favoured on-line outlet. I noticed the following: - Fuji has a new 1600 they call Super G; they still have Superia 800, which may mean that, unexpectedly, they have a new formula. - Kodak now has a product called Elite; should be a rebadged Supra. - Kodak (UK at least) has discontinued High Definition; never tried it myself. - I am trying a KM formula they call VX Super and which goes 100-200 ISO only. - I can still buy Superia, Centuria Super and Tri-X (all 400 ISO). Kostas
Re: FA 20~35
Shel, If you are only going to use it on the digital bodies you might like to consider the 16-45 instead. I have both and have not used the 20-35 since I stopped using the MZ-S. At 20mm (and up) the 16-45 covers the entire 35 mm film area. Leon http://www.bluering.org.au http://www.bluering.org.au/leon Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Gang ... Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much), I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens here on the list. Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could examine for a bit? Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else? Shel
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
What I would be interested in, then, is D-FA50 Macro wide open and the A50/1.4 at the lowest common stop, or the DA40 and the SMC 40 at the lowest common stop. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> There are no "digital" prime lenses between 20 and 35mm. Pentax lenses designed for digital SLRs, to date, include: DA14 DA16-45 DA18-55 DA40 DA50-200 D-FA50 Macro D-FA100 Macro If I get a chance to set up my copystand and lighting, I'll make a gray card exposure with the A24/2.8 or FA35/2, but I doubt very much that you'll see anything different compared to making the same exposure on a 35mm film negative and then cropping the negative to the 16x24 sensor format dimensions. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Yes. Also, if one of you digital dudes would shoot a gray card frame edge to frame edge with one of your digital primes (say between 20 and 35 mm or so) and one of your film primes of *equal* focal length, I would be interested in comparing light fall off at the corners. Tripod mount camera on centerline wit perpendicular from the center of the gray card. Light gray card evenly with two side lights placed on each side of the camera and such that there is no equal angle reflection from the light to the card to the lens. No flash. Just like you were photocopying art.
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 9:15 PM Subject: RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) Lasse. In English Jimmy is pronounced Djimmy or Gimmy. I have honestly very rarely heard Sweeds pronounce this with a D or G. Yes, you are probably right. But then we're talking about how Swedes pronounce the English "j", which I guess also was your intention. My reply was regarding a general statement that Swedes "can't say "j" or "Jack" - they say iack and Immy! Immy Hendix, and iack ionson." Whenever I in Swedish say "Jack", I don't say "Iack". There is a difference, although sometimes subtle, and Swedes will be able to perceive it and generally be able to pronounce it differently. (I might add that comparison may be difficult because the Swedish language won't allow for these two letters to be interchangeable in any original Swedish words. (There simply is no Swedish word "Iack"). It may also be that if a "j" is followed by certain (tonlösa) letters, the "j" will be pronounced like an "i".) Anyway, I found your comment interesting, since I'm also into linguistics. I don't recall having observed the "j" vs "i" phenomena much, although I must have dealt with it when studying phonetics a long time ago. I've been "tasting" various ways of pronouncing "j"- and "i"-words during the day and I might look it up a bit closer somewhere. (Btw. Has the Swedish language turned some of the Danish "i":s into "j":s in common words? I seem to recall this being the case in comparison to Norwegian (and Icelandic?). (Gosh, are we defectors? :-) ) I used to watch Sweedish televison a lot :-) I grew up on Bornholm and until the late sixties we could only recieve Sweedish television. Not the (only) Danish chanel. I occationally till watch Sweedish TV which is often excellent. Well I can't take much credit for that, I guess :-) (although I did work as a TV-reporter at TV-Aktuellt and at Öst-Nytt some fifteen + years ago). Anyway, I always though that Sweden, Denmark, Norway and maybe Iceland, as well as the Faeroes and the Aland Islands should establish a closer politcal/administrative/cultural relationship than is the case - The United States of Scandinavia. This would provide the public service television with better funding. As a compromise I suggest that we all adopt Swedish as the only language of the union. Lasse > Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. september 2005 19:50 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) Just in case it didn't get across - my comments to Jens were meant to be a bit tounge in cheek. Among us Scandinavians we often engage in friendly teasing of each other's way of speaking, based on the fact that our languages are similar enough to be regarded as variations of one and the same "Scandinavian language". In order for us non-Danish to be able to speak Danish, all we have to do is put a potato in our mouth and start speaking - and hear, hear - perfect and beautiful Danish! :-) Lasse From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:01 AM Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:31 AM Subject: RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) We did this a long time ago. Photographer is fotograf in Denmark. Photography is Fotografi. The Norwegians are even better - they spell everything just like it's pronounced. In Iceland it's forbidden to use foreign words. They make new Icelandic words all the time. For example software is called "Maskinånd" - meaning "machine spirit". This is supposed to prevent this small language from disappearing. The Sweeds can't say "J" or "Jack" - they say iack and Immy! Immy Hendix, and iack ionson. No, that's not true. "j" is a consonant and "i" is a vowel in Swedish too. We distinctly pronounce "j" and "i" differently. Obviously some Danes find it difficult to hear this subtle difference... Moreover, regarding Iack Ionson it's the other way around - a Swede would tend to pronounce such an initiial "i" like a (Swedish) "j" - "Jack Jonson" (in Swedish pronunciation). And btw. "Jimmy Hendrix" is more known as "Jimi Hendrix" (not "Imi Hendrix"). :-) Lasse
RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, comment Please
Don, Took a few M50 shots @ f/1.4 and, as promised, am putting up one here. This shot using focusing indicator light. Also, shot one each; back and front focus. Missed back focus a smidge. Tripod, MZ-S, self timer/MLU, Fuji 100 Superia, shutter 1/6000. Walgreen's CD. I wish I could upload a larger file, but I'm surprised at resolution. I did nothing with the image but crop to 8x10 dimensions. Jack http://photolightimages.com/aspupload/detail.asp?ID=88 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
I'm only reporting what the Pentax manual says, PJ. I've never had any of these lenses nor any of the "L" converters. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:12 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter).
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
There are no "digital" prime lenses between 20 and 35mm. Pentax lenses designed for digital SLRs, to date, include: DA14 DA16-45 DA18-55 DA40 DA50-200 D-FA50 Macro D-FA100 Macro If I get a chance to set up my copystand and lighting, I'll make a gray card exposure with the A24/2.8 or FA35/2, but I doubt very much that you'll see anything different compared to making the same exposure on a 35mm film negative and then cropping the negative to the 16x24 sensor format dimensions. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 12:56 PM, Bob Blakely wrote: Yes. Also, if one of you digital dudes would shoot a gray card frame edge to frame edge with one of your digital primes (say between 20 and 35 mm or so) and one of your film primes of *equal* focal length, I would be interested in comparing light fall off at the corners. Tripod mount camera on centerline wit perpendicular from the center of the gray card. Light gray card evenly with two side lights placed on each side of the camera and such that there is no equal angle reflection from the light to the card to the lens. No flash. Just like you were photocopying art.
Re: Southwest suggestions
I'm fairly sure that there's more than one Antelope Valley... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/5/2005 9:52:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell, AZ - and Antelope canyon (the slot canyons, both upper and lower) must be experienced. The slot canyons can get as tight as about 2-3 feet across. Take a swim too. [snip] Dave === So Antelope Valley is near Glen Canyon? (I was thinking it was somewhere else entirely). It's one thing I haven't seen. I am taking a trip to the Southwest next spring to check out possible cities to move to. Maybe I can take a small detour for some photography. Where exactly is it? Thanks. It looks totally cool (from some photographs I've seen.) Does one need a jeep? Does one need to hire a guide? Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
Interesting, since I don't think the protruding elements will allow you to mount the L converter on a A*300 f4.0, (or on the M*300 for that matter). Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering if anyone has used the Pentax A2XL Tele on Sigma lenses. I now Christian suggested to use the Sigma APO EX 1.4 with my Sigma 300 F4, but i have to ask.:-) I'll also include the A1.4 XL in that quiry. I also noticed on the web site there is an S version of both. Is the L version the "better" one. Do you have AF if you use M lenses.?? At the Pentax USA website, there's a manual for the converters which describes their compatibility. The S models are usable with almost all Pentax lenses, the L models are specifically designed to be used with A* 300, A*400, A*600, F*600, F*250-600, A*1200 and A*200 ED Macro lenses. The Ls are designed to solve vignetting problems with these lenses that the S models will demonstrate. The "Rear Converter -A" series provides lens information contacts but no autofocus function. Godfrey -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: FA 20~35
It's well built, especially for a lens that has a plastic lens barrel. It has the second best manual focus feel that I've experienced on an autofocus lens, and the zoom ring is very well damped and smooth. The optical results are excellent on either film or digital. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Gang ... Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much), I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens here on the list. Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could examine for a bit? Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else? Shel -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
Yes. Also, if one of you digital dudes would shoot a gray card frame edge to frame edge with one of your digital primes (say between 20 and 35 mm or so) and one of your film primes of *equal* focal length, I would be interested in comparing light fall off at the corners. Tripod mount camera on centerline wit perpendicular from the center of the gray card. Light gray card evenly with two side lights placed on each side of the camera and such that there is no equal angle reflection from the light to the card to the lens. No flash. Just like you were photocopying art. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi all. I am curious to ask, for those who have had a lot of experience using your favorite ol' 35mm film lenses on APS digital bodies (D & DS), which specific lenses seem to be "just as good" (or perhaps "even better") in digital use? And, conversely, which lenses seem to be "not as good" in digital use? Please note that I am asking primarily about ~optical~ differences, although some of you might have other characteristics to mention, too. (And, obviously, there are across-the-board differences in "apparent FL" due to the APS "cropping", and differences in metering, especially for K and M lenses, etc.) I ask as a DS "newbie", who has tried a few film lenses out, but who has not noticed much in the way of differences (yet), but who has not examined carefully looking for 'em yet either. Fred
Re: Optio
Jim, All those with a 0 at the end of their names use 2 x AA batteries (Optio 30, 50, 60 and Optio S30, S40, S45, S50, S55, S60). The first figure in their names tells the megapixel count. Specs here: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Pentax/ Dario - Original Message - From: "Jim Apilado" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Group" Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:29 AM Subject: Optio Hi, I would like to upgrade from my Optio 230 to a Pentax digital with more megabytes. The camera has to be powered by AA batteries. I understand that most P&S digitals use proprietary batteries. Does Pentax still have cameras using only AA batteries for power? Thanks in advance. Jim A.
RE: PESO -- (another) Beast
My wife was very brave - I managed to get her to hold the stick out in front of her (at arms length) while I took some shots. > -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 September 2005 15:17 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PESO -- (another) Beast > > On 9/4/05, Robert Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Found (by my wife) in my back yard today ... > > > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_photo.html?c_photo=32644654 > > > > Any ideas what this is ? > > > > (ist D, 16-45 @ f4 1/500) > > > > It's a hell of a cool photo, that's what it is! > > > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: PESO: My Precocious Granddaughter
Thanks Shel. It's the DA 16-45 @ 28mm focal length. The stop is f8, the shutter is 1/30th. I had the Sigma 500 Super flash mounted with the omnibounce reflector that splits the light between the reflector and the ceiling 20/80. So the main light is overhead with fill coming from the camera and some backlight from the doorwall window behind Grace. The ratio of fill to overhead is close to minus one stop in practice because the reflector is much closer here than the ceiling. It's shot RAW, converted with only small increase in temperature, a slight reduction in exposure and increase in brightness and contrast. I sharpened it in the converter (due to sheer laziness) to 65 and converted it to a 144 meg 16-bit tiff. I cropped it to remove extra space in the left of frame and cloned out a toy that was on the floor behind Grace. I saved a 45 meg 8-bit file for printing, then resized it in PhotoShop (Binary Sharper) for the web. I added a bit of USM to the web image (90%, 1 pixel, threshold 11). I'll probably clone out some of the background if I make a print. Paul On Sep 5, 2005, at 11:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Paul ... I like this shot quite a bit, even if you are attempting to teach your granddaughter conservative ways. Now, how did you manage to get the newsprint so sharp. What shutter speed did you use? What lens did you use? Aperture? Is it more a matter of you being very steady in holding the camera, or was it more the quality of the lens and the shooting parameters that contribute to the sharpness? Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3698379&size=lg
Re: PESO :Ocean Landscape
Jack, I just didn't understand what your expression was trying to characterize: it seemed to be saying something about the nature of displaying a photo on a flatscreen LCD display vs a CRT display. Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:02 AM, Jack Davis wrote: Godfrey, It's difficult to verbally identify an individual's visual anomaly. My sole attempt is to describe it is an appearance of edge "crumbling" or "glitter". Your "brittleness" adjective is well taken with respect to this image. I think I implied my reluctance to have gone quite so far as was done, but, as stated, am fine with it. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Nice shot. It is slightly oversharpened. This is a common problem with high frequency images that have many small edges in them. The resulting effect is one of "brittleness" in the fine textures. I'm not sure what Jack is referring to with regard to "flat screens emphasizing edge pixelation". Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: John, It just has more snap than is usually seen. I appreciate your reasoning and I would have approached that level as well. The presentation is always the shooter's choice. I like the 'look' on my monitor. What few flat screens I've seen, seem to emphasize edge pixelation which may explain some sharpening criticisms. Jack --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jack Davis wrote: John, Nice depth and texture! What was the extent of Photoshopping? Jack --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the FA20-35. And here is the URL: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 Sorry John Graves -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Jack, I expanded the range slightly using levels, unsharp mask at 80,.5.1 and resized it with bicubic sharper for the web. I wanted to retain all the detail I could in those rock faces. Is that too much, or not enough. I am a not a beginner which makes me slightly dangerous. Sort of like a 5 year old with a knife in his hand. The ocean is at my back and the crevass you see goes down about 15 feet. I am still trying to figure out how to take a picture of that. Thank you for the remarks John G. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Film Lenses on Digital
On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Fred wrote: I am curious to ask, for those who have had a lot of experience using your favorite ol' 35mm film lenses on APS digital bodies (D & DS), which specific lenses seem to be "just as good" (or perhaps "even better") in digital use? And, conversely, which lenses seem to be "not as good" in digital use? Please note that I am asking primarily about ~optical~ differences, although some of you might have other characteristics to mention, too. (And, obviously, there are across-the-board differences in "apparent FL" due to the APS "cropping", and differences in metering, especially for K and M lenses, etc.) ... I never worked with Pentax lenses with their film cameras before so I can only comment on what I see from the perspective of having purchased a bunch of both old and new Pentax lenses in the past six months, used exclusively on the DS body. 1) They all seem to work pretty darn well. 2) It's useful to get your head oriented into the smaller format digital sensor by reciting the mantra: "35 is Normal!" Become one with the format. That way you can forget about crop factors and other such things. ;-) 3) Of the new lenses I bought and sold (DA16-45 and FA31), the primary reason for selling them was that I found them too bulky and heavy, clumsy in use, for my taste. There was nothing wrong with their optical performance. 4) Of the used lenses I acquired, the A50/1.4, M85/2 and A24/2.8 are my favored manual focus lenses, the F50/1.7 and F35-70/3.5-4.5 are favorites in the AF range. 5) I'm buying "new replacements", one at a time. Some notes: - The FA20-35 and FA35/2 pretty much supplant the need for the A24. - I see no sensible replacement in new glass for the M85/2 other than the FA77/1.8 Limited, which I'm a little reluctant to spend the money on. This focal length range is a bit on the long side for my photography, in general. - I will replace the A50/1.4 and F50/1.7 with an FA50/1.4 if I can discover that the FA50/1.4 is a better focusing lens on AF than the F50/1.7 is. - The FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL is a good replacement for the F35-70, but I like the latter's close focusing capability too. - The A50/2.8 Macro works very well and is all I need in dedicated macro lens stuff. I've used it along with both the M85 and FA135 on extension tubes too, with excellent results. - The F100-300 is longer than I usually use, is quite soft wide- open, and is somewhat bulky. I might consider a DA50-200 replacement, and it will most likely be a better performer. But I use that long a lens pretty rarely. The FA135/2.8 IF is usually as long as I need, and I can always fit the Rear Converter 2x-S for a bit more reach on those rare occasions when I'm wanting more. I'm extremely pleased with the Pentax DS and lenses I've acquired this year. It replaces the Nikon FM/FE2/F3-T and the dozen or so Nikkor AI-S lenses i used for two decades, a difficult accomplishment as those bodies and lenses were truly excellent in every way, fit me so well. Godfrey
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:26:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true pure non-accent. J.W.L. Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie father-in-law would surely have said. J === No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. Hollywood and TV. Nyah, nyah. Marnie aka Doe ;-) Kaleefornean. (as the Governator says...) Igor = I wonder how hard he's had to work not to lose his accent. Marnie aka Doe :-) Accents are awfully hard to lose, even when you want to. (I should know.) ERNR
Re: [Fwd:]NYTimes Article on Early color images
John Celio wrote: Interesting article in the NYTimes today about an exhibition at the Library of Congress. The exhibit involves color images from the late 1930s forward. A link to some of these images-as well as others- is below. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html Wow! This is some really cool stuff! Thanks for passing this along. (: John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement." I found the mention by someone [EMAIL PROTECTED] on the Leica users list. It is interesting John G.
Re: PESO -- (another) Beast
Tobacco hornworm. Common on tomato plants in the garden. I like the shot! Christian - Original Message - From: "Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: PESO -- (another) Beast > > Found (by my wife) in my back yard today ... > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_photo.html?c_photo=32644654 > > Any ideas what this is ? > > (ist D, 16-45 @ f4 1/500) > > > > >
RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
Lasse. In English Jimmy is pronounced Djimmy or Gimmy. I have honestly very rarely heard Sweeds pronounce this with a D or G. I used to watch Sweedish televison a lot :-) I grew up on Bornholm and until the late sixties we could only recieve Sweedish television. Not the (only) Danish chanel. I occationally till watch Sweedish TV which is often excellent. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. september 2005 19:50 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) Just in case it didn't get across - my comments to Jens were meant to be a bit tounge in cheek. Among us Scandinavians we often engage in friendly teasing of each other's way of speaking, based on the fact that our languages are similar enough to be regarded as variations of one and the same "Scandinavian language". In order for us non-Danish to be able to speak Danish, all we have to do is put a potato in our mouth and start speaking - and hear, hear - perfect and beautiful Danish! :-) Lasse From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:01 AM Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:31 AM > Subject: RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) > > >> We did this a long time ago. Photographer is fotograf in Denmark. >> Photography is Fotografi. >> The Norwegians are even better - they spell everything just like it's >> pronounced. >> In Iceland it's forbidden to use foreign words. They make new Icelandic >> words all the time. For example software is called "Maskinånd" - meaning >> "machine spirit". This is supposed to prevent this small language from >> disappearing. > > >> The Sweeds can't say "J" or "Jack" - they say iack and Immy! Immy Hendix, >> and iack ionson. > > No, that's not true. > "j" is a consonant and "i" is a vowel in Swedish too. > We distinctly pronounce "j" and "i" differently. > Obviously some Danes find it difficult to hear this subtle difference... > > Moreover, regarding Iack Ionson it's the other way around - a Swede would > tend to pronounce such an initiial "i" like a (Swedish) "j" - "Jack > Jonson" (in Swedish pronunciation). > > And btw. "Jimmy Hendrix" is more known as "Jimi Hendrix" (not "Imi > Hendrix"). :-) > > Lasse
RE: PESO :Ocean Lasndescape
Jens, Which "D"? Thanks! Jack --- Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is really nice, John. Great colours, sharpness > and the "crisp" stone > comes through very well. On my well balanced monitor > (Eye-One Match) it > looks just about perfect. > BTW: I just peeked intoo FotoMagazine September > issue. This DSLR is Rated on > 3rd place - above the Nikon D70s. > > Jens Bladt > Arkitekt MAA > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -Oprindelig meddelelse- > Fra: John Graves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 5. september 2005 15:17 > Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Emne: PESO :Ocean Lasndescape > > > Here is the best picture I took to check out my new > DS. Lens was the > FA20-35. > > And here is the URL: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 > > Sorry > > John Graves > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - > Release Date: 9/2/2005 > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: PESO: My Precocious Granddaughter
What a sweet little thing - and very well photographed. Very clear and pleasing photograph, inspite of the flash light. My granddaughter will be 2 years next week. I'll shot a lot pictures, I guess... I love using this camera too. Regards Jens Bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. september 2005 04:05 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PESO: My Precocious Granddaughter My granddaughter is now eleven months old, and she is, of course, reading. I started her out on the New York Times, because I think it will be a plus in terms of vocabulary development. I did tell her to beware the liberal bias. She answered, "You don't have to tell me, Grandpa." That's my girl . Here she is with the Sunday magazine. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3698379&size=lg Paul
RE: PESO :Ocean Lasndescape
This is really nice, John. Great colours, sharpness and the "crisp" stone comes through very well. On my well balanced monitor (Eye-One Match) it looks just about perfect. BTW: I just peeked intoo FotoMagazine September issue. This DSLR is Rated on 3rd place - above the Nikon D70s. Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: John Graves [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 5. september 2005 15:17 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: PESO :Ocean Lasndescape Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the FA20-35. And here is the URL: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 Sorry John Graves -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
In a message dated 9/5/2005 10:26:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true > pure non-accent. > J.W.L. > > Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie > father-in-law would surely have said. > > J > === > No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. > > Hollywood and TV. > > Nyah, nyah. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) > Kaleefornean. (as the Governator says...) Igor = I wonder how hard he's had to work not to lose his accent. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Film Lenses on Digital
Hi all. I am curious to ask, for those who have had a lot of experience using your favorite ol' 35mm film lenses on APS digital bodies (D & DS), which specific lenses seem to be "just as good" (or perhaps "even better") in digital use? And, conversely, which lenses seem to be "not as good" in digital use? Please note that I am asking primarily about ~optical~ differences, although some of you might have other characteristics to mention, too. (And, obviously, there are across-the-board differences in "apparent FL" due to the APS "cropping", and differences in metering, especially for K and M lenses, etc.) I ask as a DS "newbie", who has tried a few film lenses out, but who has not noticed much in the way of differences (yet), but who has not examined carefully looking for 'em yet either. Fred
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
Just in case it didn't get across - my comments to Jens were meant to be a bit tounge in cheek. Among us Scandinavians we often engage in friendly teasing of each other's way of speaking, based on the fact that our languages are similar enough to be regarded as variations of one and the same "Scandinavian language". In order for us non-Danish to be able to speak Danish, all we have to do is put a potato in our mouth and start speaking - and hear, hear - perfect and beautiful Danish! :-) Lasse From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 3:01 AM Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 12:31 AM Subject: RE: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) We did this a long time ago. Photographer is fotograf in Denmark. Photography is Fotografi. The Norwegians are even better - they spell everything just like it's pronounced. In Iceland it's forbidden to use foreign words. They make new Icelandic words all the time. For example software is called "Maskinånd" - meaning "machine spirit". This is supposed to prevent this small language from disappearing. The Sweeds can't say "J" or "Jack" - they say iack and Immy! Immy Hendix, and iack ionson. No, that's not true. "j" is a consonant and "i" is a vowel in Swedish too. We distinctly pronounce "j" and "i" differently. Obviously some Danes find it difficult to hear this subtle difference... Moreover, regarding Iack Ionson it's the other way around - a Swede would tend to pronounce such an initiial "i" like a (Swedish) "j" - "Jack Jonson" (in Swedish pronunciation). And btw. "Jimmy Hendrix" is more known as "Jimi Hendrix" (not "Imi Hendrix"). :-) Lasse
Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...)
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: EuroEnglish (Was: Same lenses ...) > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > In a message dated 9/4/2005 9:06:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Upper midwest American, the language of Reagan and Cronkite, that's the true > pure non-accent. > J.W.L. > > Injecting a smiley there, because it's a troll for sure as my Geordie > father-in-law would surely have said. > > J > === > No, the true non-accent accent is Californian. > > Hollywood and TV. > > Nyah, nyah. > > Marnie aka Doe ;-) > Kaleefornean. (as the Governator says...) Igor
Re: Southwest suggestions
On 5/9/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: > Does one need a jeep? One always needs a Jeep ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Southwest suggestions
In a message dated 9/5/2005 9:52:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2. Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell, AZ - and Antelope canyon (the slot canyons, both upper and lower) must be experienced. The slot canyons can get as tight as about 2-3 feet across. Take a swim too. [snip] Dave === So Antelope Valley is near Glen Canyon? (I was thinking it was somewhere else entirely). It's one thing I haven't seen. I am taking a trip to the Southwest next spring to check out possible cities to move to. Maybe I can take a small detour for some photography. Where exactly is it? Thanks. It looks totally cool (from some photographs I've seen.) Does one need a jeep? Does one need to hire a guide? Marnie aka Doe
Re: PESO :Ocean Landscape
Godfrey, It's difficult to verbally identify an individual's visual anomaly. My sole attempt is to describe it is an appearance of edge "crumbling" or "glitter". Your "brittleness" adjective is well taken with respect to this image. I think I implied my reluctance to have gone quite so far as was done, but, as stated, am fine with it. Jack --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice shot. > > It is slightly oversharpened. This is a common > problem with high > frequency images that have many small edges in them. > The resulting > effect is one of "brittleness" in the fine textures. > > I'm not sure what Jack is referring to with regard > to "flat screens > emphasizing edge pixelation". > > Godfrey > > > On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > John, > > It just has more snap than is usually seen. I > > appreciate your reasoning and I would have > approached > > that level as well. The presentation is always the > > shooter's choice. > > I like the 'look' on my monitor. > > What few flat screens I've seen, seem to emphasize > > edge pixelation which may explain some sharpening > > criticisms. > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Jack Davis wrote: > >> > >> > >>> John, > >>> Nice depth and texture! > >>> What was the extent of Photoshopping? > >>> > >>> Jack > >>> > >>> --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > Here is the best picture I took to check out my > > >> new > >> > DS. Lens was the > FA20-35. > > And here is the URL: > > >> > >> > >>> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 > >>> > > Sorry > > John Graves > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 > - > Release Date: 9/2/2005 > > > > > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > __ > >> > >>> Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina > >>> > >> relief effort. > >> > >>> http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> Jack, > >> I expanded the range slightly using levels, > unsharp > >> mask at 80,.5.1 and > >> resized it with bicubic sharper for the web. I > >> wanted to retain all the > >> detail I could in those rock faces. Is that too > >> much, or not enough. I > >> am a not a beginner which makes me slightly > >> dangerous. Sort of like a 5 > >> year old with a knife in his hand. > >> > >> The ocean is at my back and the crevass you see > goes > >> down about 15 > >> feet. I am still trying to figure out how to > take > >> a picture of that. > >> > >> Thank you for the remarks > >> > >> John G. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > __ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Southwest suggestions
Wow, I have some other suggestions besides Mesa Verde. Doing this from memory and in no particular order: 1. Great Sand Dunes CO- Gotta see this, especially beautiful near dusk. Be careful if changing lenses! 2. Glen Canyon Dam/Lake Powell, AZ - and Antelope canyon (the slot canyons, both upper and lower) must be experienced. The slot canyons can get as tight as about 2-3 feet across. Take a swim too. 3. Sedona, AZ - nice stores and scenics and Slide Rock (a natural water slide, especially fun for the kids, and gorgeous too). 4. Zion National Park, AZ - You can spend a couple days here, easily. 5. Garden of the Gods, CO - nice compact formations, paved. 6. Moab UT, Arches - The stunning arches and desert. 7. Bear Lake/Nymph Lake/ Dream Lake CO. Beautiful hike near Estes CO, up along cascades of water, Lakes are all near each other. 8. Silverton, CO. Take the train ride from Durango. Amazing views down sharp cliffs. Easy to get pictures of the train and engine if you sit near the back. 9. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, AZ. Well, if you like cactus, this place has about all varities. Nice car ride up through the rough terrain. Pretty darn close to the Mexico/US border. Dave __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
RE: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's
I think the newish DA 50(or is it 55) to 200 variable ap. zoom might be ok for her. Its in her price range. I know several on the list have it, just wondering if that would be a good lens for someone who just uses a camera for basic photography,garden shots and her cats.:-) Would you say its a good all purpose, but nothing fancy lens. -- Dave, in my tests, this is probably Pentax's best consumer telezoom since the SMC F 70-210 came out in 1987. If the focal length is right for her shooting Joe
Re: FA 20~35
Shel, when I shot film, I consistently found that my favorite photos came from this lens. Recently when I was shooting film again (B&W), I found myself using it a lot. It seems to be built well enough. As Godfrey said, everything on it feels sturdy, smooth, and easy. Joe
Re: FA 20~35
I'll certainly have mine with me and can loan it to you for a bit. This is one of my most used lenses now. I wish I'd had it when I was in the UK in May/June. It's a well made lens, albeit light-weight. I find the feel of the zoom and focusing rings near perfect. The only thing I don't like about it, as delivered, is that the supplied Pentax hood is somewhat bulky but that's to be expected as it is a hood for 35mm format. I replaced it with a generic 58mm metal lens hood from B&H (Kalt brand) that makes it much slimmer (and it does not vignette on the DS). Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Gang ... Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much), I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens here on the list. Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could examine for a bit? Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else? Shel
Re: Optio S40 ???
3. If you can't find the WR, then the Optio WP is the next best thing. Smaller, more zoom, better screen, faster performance, and is even more rugged and waterproof than the WR. And lens quality? It seemed just as good as the WR. We make 12"x18" prints from every camera we get in, and if I recall correctly, the WP performed very well. John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: PESO :Ocean Landscape
Nice shot. It is slightly oversharpened. This is a common problem with high frequency images that have many small edges in them. The resulting effect is one of "brittleness" in the fine textures. I'm not sure what Jack is referring to with regard to "flat screens emphasizing edge pixelation". Godfrey On Sep 5, 2005, at 8:38 AM, Jack Davis wrote: John, It just has more snap than is usually seen. I appreciate your reasoning and I would have approached that level as well. The presentation is always the shooter's choice. I like the 'look' on my monitor. What few flat screens I've seen, seem to emphasize edge pixelation which may explain some sharpening criticisms. Jack --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jack Davis wrote: John, Nice depth and texture! What was the extent of Photoshopping? Jack --- John Graves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Here is the best picture I took to check out my new DS. Lens was the FA20-35. And here is the URL: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3699834 Sorry John Graves -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.18/89 - Release Date: 9/2/2005 __ Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort. http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/ Jack, I expanded the range slightly using levels, unsharp mask at 80,.5.1 and resized it with bicubic sharper for the web. I wanted to retain all the detail I could in those rock faces. Is that too much, or not enough. I am a not a beginner which makes me slightly dangerous. Sort of like a 5 year old with a knife in his hand. The ocean is at my back and the crevass you see goes down about 15 feet. I am still trying to figure out how to take a picture of that. Thank you for the remarks John G. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: [Fwd:]
Interesting article in the NYTimes today about an exhibition at the Library of Congress. The exhibit involves color images from the late 1930s forward. A link to some of these images-as well as others- is below. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/fsowhome.html Wow! This is some really cool stuff! Thanks for passing this along. (: John Celio -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
Re: Pentax TC's on Sigma Tele's & DA 50-200 question
On Sep 5, 2005, at 1:10 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just wondering if anyone has used the Pentax A2XL Tele on Sigma lenses. I now Christian suggested to use the Sigma APO EX 1.4 with my Sigma 300 F4, but i have to ask.:-) I'll also include the A1.4 XL in that quiry. I also noticed on the web site there is an S version of both. Is the L version the "better" one. Do you have AF if you use M lenses.?? At the Pentax USA website, there's a manual for the converters which describes their compatibility. The S models are usable with almost all Pentax lenses, the L models are specifically designed to be used with A* 300, A*400, A*600, F*600, F*250-600, A*1200 and A*200 ED Macro lenses. The Ls are designed to solve vignetting problems with these lenses that the S models will demonstrate. The "Rear Converter -A" series provides lens information contacts but no autofocus function. Godfrey
FA 20~35
Hi Gang ... Having used John Celio's FAJ 18~35 yesterday, and having found the focal range to be very nice (reminds me a bit of the M24~35 that I like so much), I'm thinking that I might want to get one after the replacement DS arrives and I've had some time to use it. This seems to be a well regarded lens here on the list. Does anyone who is planning to attend the Pentax Pixel Party, or the Anti Pixel Party, have one of these puppies (Godfrey, Juan?) that I could examine for a bit? Any comments on the build quality and construction from anyone else? Shel
Re: Optio S5z?
I've been considering the Optio S5z for a while now, but I am not quite sure how usefull the LCD monitor is outdoors in sunny weather. Any comments out there? It's not bad. LCDs have been improving incrementally over the years, but I'm not sure how much better they can get as far as viewability in bright sunlight conditions. I tried the S5z once outside the shop I work at, and could see the screen well enough to compose the photo. What you should do is find a shop that has it and will let you take it outside (we let customers do this, as long as a salesperson goes with them) so you can see for yourself. The reason Pentax and other companies are eliminating optical viewfinders on their point-and-shoot cameras is because market research shows the vast majority of P&S users rarely (if ever) use them. Even outdoors. So by removing something no one uses, they're able to both streamline their cameras and, more importantly, lower their production costs. In my opinion, optical viewfinders on digital point-and-shoot cameras will disappear almost completely within five years. John Celio ...is not a market analyst, but did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night... -- http://www.neovenator.com AIM: Neopifex "Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a statement."
