RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) On 21/9/05, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed: >Rather that rereading the old thread, I will just wait until it comes >around >again. Cotty Wrote... In fact why don't we book it in now, so those that don't want to see it again can take a 2 week break? Shall we say End of February? Where can we all go end of Feb that's nice and warm...h. Australia IS very warm in February, and is always nice... Hooroo. Regards, Trevor. Australia
Re: printing papers ...
guess it's time for an Epson 2200 (2400?) or 4000 series printer. If I can't get the bugger rolling smoothly again, I'll go for it (probably a 2200-2400) and would like to hear recommendations on papers that you've used with it too. The only paper I ever use these days is Epson Premium Lustre. It is by far the best paper I've ever used. I use it in both the Epson 9600 and 2200 printers at work. Not that I've used a whole lot of different paper types, mind you. After some experimenting, I found what I liked and stuck with it. 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: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
NICE COMEBACK - too bad it doesnt address the subject matter - BTW, if you think you are making me look retarded, then why are YOU the one trying run from the postions you took on the subject matter with a barage of personal attacks and NO SUBJECT MATTER REBUTALS WHATSOVER?? That's called a "diversion" tactic for losers. I suggest you post a followup clarifying and explaining the validity of those positions IF YOU CAN. I for one would love to see it. I am in the mood for some really good comedy actually,,, JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 2:14 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) > ARE YOU RETARDED are ARE YOU JUST PLAYING DUMB? I'm just seeing how retarded I can make you look, John. I do it because I am a no good lout who likes to make fun of stupid people, steal candy from small children, and torture and mutilate helpless animals. I just can't help myself, I am a product of a small gene pool. My momma wore army boots, too. My work here is done. William Robb
Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) ARE YOU RETARDED are ARE YOU JUST PLAYING DUMB? I'm just seeing how retarded I can make you look, John. I do it because I am a no good lout who likes to make fun of stupid people, steal candy from small children, and torture and mutilate helpless animals. I just can't help myself, I am a product of a small gene pool. My momma wore army boots, too. My work here is done. William Robb
Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) I told you this would happen didn't I??? Sure John, whatever. William Robb
Re: printing papers ...
I've got the 7660. I'm fond of the Moab Entrada papers with it, but be aware that you will get fading on any paper not designed for dye inks. I've yet to get successful prints from the Epson Enhanced Matte or Heavyweight Matte papers, the problem I'm having is the heads scrape the papers at the bottom end. My favourite setup for printing though is my Epson C86 printing Black Only onto Moab Kayenta. Just wish it was 300gsm paper instead of 190. Very cold whites, very rich and warm blacks. I use the Epson ink, although I hear that MIS Eboni is excellent as well (MIS makes a lovely Quadtone inkset for the C86). Note that most of my printing is B&W, although I do some colour. I've had problems with gloss differential with colour printing from the HP's, buut I've mostly printed colour on Glossy Paper, the only time i use colour inks with Matte is for toned B&W. -Adam Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Those of you with the HP 7960 series printer ... Have any of you experimented with other than HP papers? I'm not particularly fond of glossy surface and have been looking for a good matte paper. HP's "matte" surface is more of a semi-matte ... kinda speckly. Epson Enhanced Matte and Heavyweight Matte have a nice flat surface but the HP inks image somewhat warm/yellowish on this paper. I tried some Kodak "medium weight" matte and it has a nice bright, cold white surface and images very neutral, I think I want to get some of the same paper in a heavier weight and see what that looks like. Any others that have been tried? Any of the better papers with this kind of very smooth, very matte surface you like? My old Epson 1270 is beginning to drive me a little batty: it occasionally takes to drooling ink from the heads now and then takes 4-5 head cleaning passes and about ten sheets of paper passed through it to get the crud off all the rollers and print cleanly again. I guess it's time for an Epson 2200 (2400?) or 4000 series printer. If I can't get the bugger rolling smoothly again, I'll go for it (probably a 2200-2400) and would like to hear recommendations on papers that you've used with it too. At least I got 10 prints made today. It's not been fun. Godfrey
RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
Don't you have a GED class to attend? Seriously YOU started with these personal attacks without cause and you refused to read this long thread where all these things were discussed in great detail and from every possible angle ( far more than ever in the past). YOU SHOULD HAVEREAD THE THREAD because you are only putting your foot in your mouth by not knowing what everyone else who did read it knows. if you did you wouldn't be making these silly burning candle at both end arguments you are making. I told you this would happen didn't I??? JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:40 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) >answer the question how > can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY DROPPING AE >ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity issues is fine? Since K/M lenses on their own do not support programmed AE (they lack the all important "A" setting), I don't see any contradiction. If K/M lenses supported programmed AE, and support for that was dropped, we would have a point of discussion. Meanwhile, you try to create contradictions in your own small, obtuse mind, then call others dumb for not playing your stupid little game. Don't you have a swimming pool to take pictures of? William Robb
printing papers ...
Those of you with the HP 7960 series printer ... Have any of you experimented with other than HP papers? I'm not particularly fond of glossy surface and have been looking for a good matte paper. HP's "matte" surface is more of a semi-matte ... kinda speckly. Epson Enhanced Matte and Heavyweight Matte have a nice flat surface but the HP inks image somewhat warm/yellowish on this paper. I tried some Kodak "medium weight" matte and it has a nice bright, cold white surface and images very neutral, I think I want to get some of the same paper in a heavier weight and see what that looks like. Any others that have been tried? Any of the better papers with this kind of very smooth, very matte surface you like? My old Epson 1270 is beginning to drive me a little batty: it occasionally takes to drooling ink from the heads now and then takes 4-5 head cleaning passes and about ten sheets of paper passed through it to get the crud off all the rollers and print cleanly again. I guess it's time for an Epson 2200 (2400?) or 4000 series printer. If I can't get the bugger rolling smoothly again, I'll go for it (probably a 2200-2400) and would like to hear recommendations on papers that you've used with it too. At least I got 10 prints made today. It's not been fun. Godfrey
RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
ARE YOU RETARDED are ARE YOU JUST PLAYING DUMB? because either way you have got to me really dumb to say that since K/M lenses cant do programmed AE (which they don't/cant) , then it makes sense to remove the only AE they do have without cause? That's your postion on the matter? IF it is, you are beyond dumb you are really sick... You have got some major backpeddling or clarifying to do because you have now painted yourself into a corner with your bullheaded stupidity on taking 2 postions that don't agree with each other.. That's called a contradiction. and in this case it's a big one you are pretending doesn't exist. Get real because nobody with half a brain is going ot buy into your BS if you try to argue in opposite directions on the same feature needs and that's exactly what you are doing. JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:40 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) >answer the question how > can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY DROPPING AE >ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity issues is fine? Since K/M lenses on their own do not support programmed AE (they lack the all important "A" setting), I don't see any contradiction. If K/M lenses supported programmed AE, and support for that was dropped, we would have a point of discussion. Meanwhile, you try to create contradictions in your own small, obtuse mind, then call others dumb for not playing your stupid little game. Don't you have a swimming pool to take pictures of? William Robb
Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) answer the question how can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY DROPPING AE ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity issues is fine? Since K/M lenses on their own do not support programmed AE (they lack the all important "A" setting), I don't see any contradiction. If K/M lenses supported programmed AE, and support for that was dropped, we would have a point of discussion. Meanwhile, you try to create contradictions in your own small, obtuse mind, then call others dumb for not playing your stupid little game. Don't you have a swimming pool to take pictures of? William Robb
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Secondly this is totally different than the K/M lenses ( millions of them remember) situation we have been discussing at length because IMAGE STABIZATION was never intended with K/M lenses so it's a NEW BONUS FEATURE you can use or not use if you want to and any "work" like entering a focal length when mounting the lens isnt something you can really complain about. With the K/M AE loss you not only have to do work you didn't have to do before to get some function, you don't even get the original function just metered manual in stop down mode. And to further make this distinction, the K/M lens support is dirt CHEAP essentially free cost whereas IS in a body cant be anywhere near as cheap to implement.. JCO -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 11:21 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) Everyone seems to think that would be difficult. Hows this for an action. It's easy enough to sense a K lens the body. So have a function button, (such as the AF button on the *ist D), that's useless using K/M lenses change function. Press that button and use one of the wheel controls to dial in the focal length. Fairly straight forward. It probably doesn't have to be more accurate than within 10% of the actual focal length. With practice it could be become an automatic thing to do every time you mount a K/M lens. Sure you'd have more problems with zooms but you don't have to use IS, and as someone pointed out there weren't that many Zooms in that range... Mark Roberts wrote: >"P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>Even K and M lenses could be made to work with in camera IS. >> >> > >I suppose, if there were some means of manually entering the lens' >focal length into the camera. Sounds even more cumbersome than pushing >a green button so I doubt it'd go over well... > > > > -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
NO NO NO- you are just being coy. Its well documented that you don't think theres anything wrong with Pentax dropping support of K/M lens functions INCLUDING open aperture AE function but at the same time you are now saying PROGRAM AE is important featue for users. WELL THEN - answer the question how can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY DROPPING AE ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity issues is fine? That makes NO LOGICAL SENSE. In other words your insisting more exposure automation is very important except with K/M lenses then its NOT important - THAT'S THE CONTRADICTION in your "positions". You made the same dumb argument a while back on this, your worse than wrong, you cant even recognize your contridictions when they are even pointed out to you repeatedly! jco -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:15 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) > Here is YOUR STATEMENT that my reply > below was in resonse to: > > 88 > 88 > 888 > WILLIAM ROBB WROTE: > > The most important factor is lens usability for THE MAJORITY of users. > For most users, this means programmed exposure automation and > autofocus, neither of which are supported, or supportable, by K/M > lenses. > > William Robb > 88 > 88 > 88 > > As everyone can see you are contending that for most users PROGRAMMED > EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability > factors, and at the same time you are saying full K/M support isnt > justified. But NO AE is possible at all with these crippled mount > DSLRs with K/M lenses so how can you say PROGRAMMED AE is a most > important lens usablity factor and then at the same time argue that > NO AE AT ALL with K/M lenses without any compatabiliy issues isnt > important loss of lens-camera function? Is that simple enough for > you to see the GROSS contradiction??? And don't even think > about trying to argue that if you cant get PROGRAMMED AE > with a KM lens then there is no point in regular AE so it > can be tossed aside without any real loss of fucntion or "USABILITY" > because the K/M lenses were all designed > for open aperture metering and open aperture AE functions for a reason, > it's a good feature for some situations where you need or want it. > So, you are saying that I am saying: PROGRAMMED > EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability > factors and full K/M support isnt > justified. And somehow there is a contradiction? K/M lenses do not support programmed exposure automation. Period. Where's the contradiction? In what I am saying, not what you are saying I am saying, that is. Shit, this is fun now. William Robb
RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
William Robb wrote: "All low to mid range DSLR buyers are the same demographic, the brand they choose is immaterial" That sentence cant be true because the brand you choose depends on what lenses you may already have if any or many. In case you didn't notice you cant use Canon, Nikon, or Minolta, etc lenses on a PENTAX DSLR. You are the second person to bring up this low to mid range and mid to high range DSLR B.S. It does not apply to PENTAX DSLRS at this time because they don't have a RANGE. they only have one level DSLR model for sale.. So the Pentax DSLR buyer demographic is DIFFERENT than the companies that actually have a range of models... JCO -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:17 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) > If they NEED the features the lens does have YES. Want, John, not need. Two different concepts. > Pentax DSLR buyers and they are not the same demographic > at all.. All low to mid range DSLR buyers are the same demographic, the brand they choose is immaterial. Mid to high end DSLR buyers are, at the moment, a different demographic, and they are not the same demographic as Pentax DSLR buyers. William Robb
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
I believe I found the list in 1996 or 97. I recall in one early post about how I liked the APS format. A lot of people disliked APS. Now all you *D, DS, and DL owners are into the APS format. Jim A. > From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 20:48:34 -0400 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PDML 10th anniversary > Resent-From: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Resent-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:03:13 -0400 > > It was five years ago this December that the server blew up. I think > that was the last straw for the good folks at Pentax. It was during > that month that they began casting about for someone to take over. > After they called me and asked what I thought about it and who would > be a good choice, someone there said, "hey, why don't =you= do it?" > > I downloaded the software and we went live right around Christmas or > New Year's Day. Took me a while to get it stable (Freakin PERL...) > but it seems to be working okay now. > > > On Sep 21, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> >> When did you take over the list, Doug? I joined up just a few months >> before that. >> >> >> -- >> Mark Roberts >
Re: yay...15mm enabled
On 21/9/05, Jim King, discombobulated, unleashed: >Cotty- > >Thanks for the links; your lens looks good at f16, but so does >mine. My issue is the poor performance I see when it is used at >apertures wider than f11. Do you by chance have any shots at larger >apertures? Will do some tests this weekend and report back. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: use of the Green button?
Yep. Scott, used an SMC-Macro-Takumar 50/1.4 yesterday. Works fine! Often use other M-series lens just as well. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 6:01 AM Subject: Re: use of the Green button? Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried screw mount lenses with the *istD/DS? After manually stopping the lens down, does the green button workaround work? On 9/20/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: - Original Message - From: > Hi, > > > > 1. One thing I've wondered about is how fast in real life is the use of > the > Green button?. Once activated to shot being taken - is it a few tenths > of > second prolongation, or is it a second..? By the time your finger is back to the shutter button, the camera is ready. Watch that you don't knock yourself out of metering range with the green button metering method. William Robb -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
In a message dated 9/21/2005 6:38:28 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I was here a bit before that while it was still with Pentax. I want to thank Doug for keeping up this list for almost five years now. And, mostly, putting up with the likes of me. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Personally, I figure Doug is smart. I.E. He actually READS the list rarely. Hehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Peso or 2: Flowers
- Original Message - From: "John Graves" Subject: Peso or 2: Flowers I think I like my ist-DS. Here are the first of my new pictures http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=529887 Comments please. I like the one with the butterfly, but you should try to get closer. You've screwed up the bokeh with unsharp mask. William Robb
Re: PLEASE, buy these lenses!
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: PLEASE, buy these lenses! KEH has both a 43/1.9 and a 77/1.8 in E+ condition. Would someone please buy these before I do some- thing really stupid! Thank You for Your Support, Have you bought them yet? WW
Re: Update on my profile snags
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Update on my profile snags However i order the ibook before this discovery. Its not going back thats for sure.LOL Just stay away from iPhoto. William Robb
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
- Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" Subject: Re: PDML 10th anniversary Geez, I'm trying to remember when I joined - best guess is 1998 sometime. Happy anniversary! I'm petty sure I found the place in the fall of 1998. It's been a good run, I've met a number of people who I now consider friends from this list. Anyone know if Casselbury is still around? William Robb
Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is alive.
- Original Message - From: "Don Sanderson" Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is alive. I won't be able to do much tonite as I have just cleverly managed to break a water pipe INSIDE my bathroom wall. Phooey! Best I did was when I was cutting out a chunk of ceiling tiles in the basement under the kitchen and I cut a hot water pipe with the Sawzall. William Robb
Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant) Here is YOUR STATEMENT that my reply below was in resonse to: 888 WILLIAM ROBB WROTE: The most important factor is lens usability for THE MAJORITY of users. For most users, this means programmed exposure automation and autofocus, neither of which are supported, or supportable, by K/M lenses. William Robb 88 As everyone can see you are contending that for most users PROGRAMMED EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability factors, and at the same time you are saying full K/M support isnt justified. But NO AE is possible at all with these crippled mount DSLRs with K/M lenses so how can you say PROGRAMMED AE is a most important lens usablity factor and then at the same time argue that NO AE AT ALL with K/M lenses without any compatabiliy issues isnt important loss of lens-camera function? Is that simple enough for you to see the GROSS contradiction??? And don't even think about trying to argue that if you cant get PROGRAMMED AE with a KM lens then there is no point in regular AE so it can be tossed aside without any real loss of fucntion or "USABILITY" because the K/M lenses were all designed for open aperture metering and open aperture AE functions for a reason, it's a good feature for some situations where you need or want it. So, you are saying that I am saying: PROGRAMMED EXPOSURE AUTOMATION is one of the most important lens usability factors and full K/M support isnt justified. And somehow there is a contradiction? K/M lenses do not support programmed exposure automation. Period. Where's the contradiction? In what I am saying, not what you are saying I am saying, that is. Shit, this is fun now. William Robb
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) If they NEED the features the lens does have YES. Want, John, not need. Two different concepts. Pentax DSLR buyers and they are not the same demographic at all.. All low to mid range DSLR buyers are the same demographic, the brand they choose is immaterial. Mid to high end DSLR buyers are, at the moment, a different demographic, and they are not the same demographic as Pentax DSLR buyers. William Robb
Peso or 2: Flowers
I think I like my ist-DS. Here are the first of my new pictures http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=529887 Comments please. John G.
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
Hi! It was five years ago this December that the server blew up. I think that was the last straw for the good folks at Pentax. It was during that month that they began casting about for someone to take over. After they called me and asked what I thought about it and who would be a good choice, someone there said, "hey, why don't =you= do it?" Fascinating... Then my joining in 2001 (IIRC) was not too long after Pentax let PDML be... Happy anniversary, everyone... Boris (a.k.a. Jar Jar a.k.a. The Youngster)
Re: PAW - "Clouds at Lake Tekapo"
Hi Tim, I know it's been a while, but I've rearranged the heading as part of a general makeover of the PAW pages. I haven't yet decided on standard sizes for the pics. I've been making them a bit bigger lately but it's difficult to satisfy everyone while keeping the file size relatively small for fast downloading. - Dave On Jul 17, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Tim Øsleby wrote: The picture is interesting. I could spend some time looking at it. In fact I did. But I do a comment on your site design. Why don't you have just one title line? "David Mann - Picture A Week" Instead of: "David Mann Picture A Week" With the size you are using now, this would let me look at the whole picture without scrolling or using the F11 function. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy)
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
I have a rather large investment in K mount lenses, and at the moment nowhere else to go. I'm just being realistic. Pentax should be firing their marketing guys. Mark Roberts wrote: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If you're relying on Pentax's marketing department neither avenue is likely to generate appreciable revenue. Well if you're that pessimistic this entire topic is irrelevant to you and you'd better switch brands now. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Everyone seems to think that would be difficult. Hows this for an action. It's easy enough to sense a K lens the body. So have a function button, (such as the AF button on the *ist D), that's useless using K/M lenses change function. Press that button and use one of the wheel controls to dial in the focal length. Fairly straight forward. It probably doesn't have to be more accurate than within 10% of the actual focal length. With practice it could be become an automatic thing to do every time you mount a K/M lens. Sure you'd have more problems with zooms but you don't have to use IS, and as someone pointed out there weren't that many Zooms in that range... Mark Roberts wrote: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Even K and M lenses could be made to work with in camera IS. I suppose, if there were some means of manually entering the lens' focal length into the camera. Sounds even more cumbersome than pushing a green button so I doubt it'd go over well... -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
That's certainly hard to tell by reading what you write. . . On 9/21/05, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> I am not repeating the same argument> over and over
Re: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses
> So now I have two FA* lenses with Power Zoom motors that may never be > exercised again. Am I the only voice crying in the wilderness, or does > someone else out there miss Power Zoom? Well, I have only one "Power Zoom" lens - the FA* 80-200/2.8. I never "power zoomed" it on my LX's, and never "power zoomed" it on my DS. But, it doesn't sit still long enough to ever feel like an orphan... Fred
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Besides, the 24/2 is out of stock at BHPhoto. Again. Adorama doesn't even list it. What's this "available" thing Herb is talking about? On 9/21/05, Tim Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, but Scott said anything goes... :) > > On 9/21/05 18:24, Herb Chong wrote: > > > the 24/2 is available, but you might find its CA too high to be livable. the > > 20/2.8 is the closest you are going to get otherwise. > > > > Herb > > - Original Message - > > From: "Tim Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Pentax Discussion List" > > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:56 PM > > Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? > > > > > >> There are two lenses I'm looking for specifically: > >> > >> - A 180° fisheye; it appears that Nikon is the only vendor with a FE made > >> for the 4/3 sensor. To bad it uses the wrong mount! > >> > >> - A discrete f2 (or faster) lens, 20mm to 24mm focal length > > > > > > > > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Nikon pulled that off really well with their D2(x,h,hs)'s and the F6, which require this info in order to Matrix Meter with AI lenses. It's mildly annoying, but really quick to scroll through, as it remembers the max aperture for the last lens of that length mounted. -Adam Mark Roberts wrote: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Even K and M lenses could be made to work with in camera IS. I suppose, if there were some means of manually entering the lens' focal length into the camera. Sounds even more cumbersome than pushing a green button so I doubt it'd go over well...
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Yeah, but Scott said anything goes... :) On 9/21/05 18:24, Herb Chong wrote: > the 24/2 is available, but you might find its CA too high to be livable. the > 20/2.8 is the closest you are going to get otherwise. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Tim Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pentax Discussion List" > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:56 PM > Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? > > >> There are two lenses I'm looking for specifically: >> >> - A 180° fisheye; it appears that Nikon is the only vendor with a FE made >> for the 4/3 sensor. To bad it uses the wrong mount! >> >> - A discrete f2 (or faster) lens, 20mm to 24mm focal length > > >
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
"P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >If you're relying on Pentax's marketing department neither avenue is >likely to generate appreciable revenue. Well if you're that pessimistic this entire topic is irrelevant to you and you'd better switch brands now. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
"P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Even K and M lenses could be made to work with in camera IS. I suppose, if there were some means of manually entering the lens' focal length into the camera. Sounds even more cumbersome than pushing a green button so I doubt it'd go over well... -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >That's weird. I thought the Amish kept their kids from the world (temptation >and all that, but not wanting them to go AWOL). Obviously movies etc. have >portrayed them inaccurately. The Amish actually allow much *more* technology to be available to their kids. If one of their children gets very ill (and they're prone to all kinds of weird recessive genetic disorders due to their tiny gene pool) they will have no hesitation in getting the latest in state-of-the-art medical treatment. My SO sees them frequently at Children's Hospital here in the 'burgh. Oh and since they don't believe in banks, cheques or credit cards, they pay for these cutting edge medical treatments in cash. No kidding. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: A 20/2.8 on D or DS
Shel, this is reputed to have the same optical formula as the FA 20 f2.8, which I have. Some time back Rob Studdert complained of corner softness at larger apertures on the A. Wheatfield retorted that it is probably as good in the corners as anyone else's 20. I have to say that I don't see corner weakness on mine, even at f2.8, where I use it a lot indoors. Maybe the optical formula of the FA version isn't the same after all. Note, though, that this observation is on digital. If you go to Photodo, you will see that the FA 20 rates higher than the offerings from Nikon, Canon, and Minolta. Only a Zeiss offering (IIRC) rates better, but it costs several times as much. So I believe it is as good as it can be at the price (which is not small for a new one). I also think that the FA version is built just fine. I am very happy with the lens. It is part of my standard kit. Joe
RE: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is alive.
For those who can't see the addy in the post/archive/digest: petitiondonsauction.com Don > -Original Message- > From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:39 PM > To: PDML > Subject: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is alive. > > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Is ready to be used for e-mail regarding the Pentax > "Wish List" project. > It will auto-respond to let you know your post was > recieved. > This will make it easier for me to track responses > as the PDML threads tend to wander of topic > on occasion. > ;-) > > I won't be able to do much tonite as I have just > cleverly managed to break a water pipe INSIDE > my bathroom wall. Phooey! > > Don (The Iowanian, USUALLY competent, > plumber and general idiot.) >
Re: I'm Not Crazy
Doug Brewer wrote: I don't know if that proves you're not crazy. Because I wrote: On Sep 20, 2005, at 8:50 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: Hey, gang, look at these images: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=15110817 Last spring I bought (and returned) an F* 300 f4.5 that had residue on the rear element that looked just like this. The rear of the lens also smelled strongly of mothcake. I suspected that a previous owner had stored the lens near or with mothcake, which outgassed and left a residue. Joe -- Well, I still say I'm not. Joe
Re: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses
No, I have a PZ-1, and a MS-Z and recently gave my (now) daughter-in-law my old PZ-20. I use the power zoom all the time and think it the bee's knees, but most people think its a power hog and not much else. I never have used the functions for zoom tracking on the PZ-1 though. Tried it once and it didn't seem to work all that well. J.W.L. - Original Message - From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 3:02 PM Subject: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses The list has been consumed with passionate debates about "green button wars" and camera engineering, nobody has mentioned a MAJOR lack of support for a key feature that Pentax pioneered! What am I talking about? Power Zoom, of course! It was bad enough when Pentax released their new top-end MZ-S without supporting Image-Size Tracking, Zoom Clip, and Zoom Effect capabilities. Pentax did at least include Power Zoom contacts in the MZ-S so that the power zoom capability in certain FA and FA* zoom lenses didn't completely go to waste. Unfortunately, Pentax has fully abandoned their many FA and FA* power zoom owners with the *ist-D and *ist-Ds. Wouldn't it have been ridiculously easy to include power zoom contacts? So now I have two FA* lenses with Power Zoom motors that may never be exercised again. Am I the only voice crying in the wilderness, or does someone else out there miss Power Zoom?
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
if that is the case, the D200 ought to be the same spec of camera that Pentax should release as the high end body. Herb - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:59 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? RAW buffer does make a difference, I was thinking JPEG. As to pricing, I'm expecting to see the D200 come in with those specs (Apart from buffer, I only expect a 10 RAW buffer), build similar to an F100 and a $2300 MSRP (Streeting at $2k). The 20D is only a $1400 body.
Re: yay...15mm enabled
There's a lot of light fall off in most ultra wide angle lenses. The sensor will be adding under exposure effects when that happens as well. Jim King wrote: Mischa- I wondered about the DOF too, but I see the same results with scenes where the entire image is at the same distance from the lens.. Look at the edges and the upper right corner, which at the same distance as the wall. The image at f5.6 is really fuzzy and low in contrast in that area, while the image at f11 is pretty good. Regards, Jim -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: DS batteries
my Duracells are acting like regular NiMH batteries ought to. the off-brand batteries have fared worse, with one set refusing to hold a charge now, and another pretty close to that. Herb... - Original Message - From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:18 PM Subject: Re: DS batteries Remember last time we were discussing batteries, when I mentioned that the set of Energiser 2500s in my camera were still indicating full charge, even though they were last charged at the end of July? Well, I *still* haven't recharged them, and they still show full. I hink it's safe to say that their self-discharge rate is quite low.
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
RAW buffer does make a difference, I was thinking JPEG. As to pricing, I'm expecting to see the D200 come in with those specs (Apart from buffer, I only expect a 10 RAW buffer), build similar to an F100 and a $2300 MSRP (Streeting at $2k). The 20D is only a $1400 body. -Adam Herb Chong wrote: Paul wants a 20 shot buffer in RAW at 5fps, more or less what i want. the 20D doesn't have a 20 frame buffer when shooting RAW, it's 6. the DSC-R1 uses a Sony sensor, so they can undercut everyone on retail price. i can see $2.5-3K, but only if it is missing a lot of physical ruggedness. Herb - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:45 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? Probably not. Apart from the resolution, that's a 20D. And the new 10MP 1.7x crop Sony DSC-R1 coming in at $999 argues that the resolution is in the pricerange.
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
The only SLR mechanical bits the DSLRs lack is the film transport. There's still a traditional shutter, mechanical aperture stopdown and all the other mechanical bits unrelated to the film transport. -Adam Mishka wrote: or $50K, if it were to be made a few years ago. DSLR (unblike SLR) is electronic, which means, it's $50 + sensor cost + mark up. mishka On 9/21/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: unfortunately, i think you have just spec'd a $4K camera, ignoring the noise requirement. Herb
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
i think the noise requirement is going to be the most expensive to meet. Herb - Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:46 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? Perhaps by today's prices. I expect it will be a 2k camera before long.
RE: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Hey Scott, you keepin' track of these? Sounds like everyone wants to submit a wishlist, maybe I can convert them to petitioners. ;-) Don (The wet plumber) > -Original Message- > From: Scott Loveless [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:25 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? > > > Howdy gang! > > After spending about four lifetimes following the recent spew about > non-A lens support, I started to think about what I would really WANT > in a digital camera. (This has nothing to do with the possible > petition to Pentax.) Just for kicks (and a bit of flame-free fun) I'd > like to know what you would WANT if you could have your DSLR your way. > Throw caution to the wind. Don't even consider what is feasible or > marketable. Just let us know what your dream digital camera looks > like. > > Here's mine: > I wanna be able to select ISO and shutter speed with knobs. > It should support an available line of manual focus lenses. K-mount > (un-crippled) is good. Screw mount or M-mount would be cool, too. > I don't need auto focus, auto aperture, or auto anything. > Monochrome sensor. Something in the 4 to 6 MP range is good. > Metal chassis. Metal body. > RAW and JPEG. > PC sync. > No built-in flash. > Less than $1500 US. > > > Things I don't need, but could live with: > Hot shoe. > Picture modes. > > Features I would like, but could live without: > In-camera DNG support. > > That's about it. > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman >
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Paul wants a 20 shot buffer in RAW at 5fps, more or less what i want. the 20D doesn't have a 20 frame buffer when shooting RAW, it's 6. the DSC-R1 uses a Sony sensor, so they can undercut everyone on retail price. i can see $2.5-3K, but only if it is missing a lot of physical ruggedness. Herb - Original Message - From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 9:45 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? Probably not. Apart from the resolution, that's a 20D. And the new 10MP 1.7x crop Sony DSC-R1 coming in at $999 argues that the resolution is in the pricerange.
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Perhaps by today's prices. I expect it will be a 2k camera before long. On Sep 21, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Herb Chong wrote: unfortunately, i think you have just spec'd a $4K camera, ignoring the noise requirement. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? I want relatively high resolution, 12 megapixels or so. I want low noise at speeds up to 1600. If that can be accomplished with an APS sensor, fine. I want five frames per second and a buffer large enough for 20 shots. $2000. Controls just like the *ist D would be perfect.
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Probably not. Apart from the resolution, that's a 20D. And the new 10MP 1.7x crop Sony DSC-R1 coming in at $999 argues that the resolution is in the pricerange. In fact, he's pretty much nailed the expected specs and pricing of the supposed Nikon D200. My wishlist: In-body IS 3fps to 20 JPEG frames/10 RAW frames. CF support or CF+SD support with better write speed, ideally 7-8MB/sec DNG support or better compression in RAW RAW+JPEG, with B&W JEPG support (Preferably with selectable colour filters a la 20D) Full K/M support (A man can dream) beefier AF motor. Something akin to a Nikon F100's motor. Support for in-lens AF motors (Leading to USM, Pentax lacks this, Nikon, Canon, Sigma and Konica Minolta all offer this) ISO and WB settings via buttons so that selection doesn't force you to drop out of shooting mode. ISO listed in VF LCD 100% 0.95x pentaprism viewfinder -Adam Herb Chong wrote: unfortunately, i think you have just spec'd a $4K camera, ignoring the noise requirement. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? I want relatively high resolution, 12 megapixels or so. I want low noise at speeds up to 1600. If that can be accomplished with an APS sensor, fine. I want five frames per second and a buffer large enough for 20 shots. $2000. Controls just like the *ist D would be perfect.
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
or $50K, if it were to be made a few years ago. DSLR (unblike SLR) is electronic, which means, it's $50 + sensor cost + mark up. mishka On 9/21/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > unfortunately, i think you have just spec'd a $4K camera, ignoring the noise > requirement. > > Herb
Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm
no wonder -- they had every concievable bit of technology built in F5 already... mishka On 9/20/05, Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A Nikon sponsored pro has told me that the F6 is the last Nikon film camera... > > Kenneth Waller >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is alive.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Is ready to be used for e-mail regarding the Pentax "Wish List" project. It will auto-respond to let you know your post was recieved. This will make it easier for me to track responses as the PDML threads tend to wander of topic on occasion. ;-) I won't be able to do much tonite as I have just cleverly managed to break a water pipe INSIDE my bathroom wall. Phooey! Don (The Iowanian, USUALLY competent, plumber and general idiot.)
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
I was here a bit before that while it was still with Pentax. I want to thank Doug for keeping up this list for almost five years now. And, mostly, putting up with the likes of me. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Doug Brewer wrote: It was five years ago this December that the server blew up. I think that was the last straw for the good folks at Pentax. It was during that month that they began casting about for someone to take over. After they called me and asked what I thought about it and who would be a good choice, someone there said, "hey, why don't =you= do it?" I downloaded the software and we went live right around Christmas or New Year's Day. Took me a while to get it stable (Freakin PERL...) but it seems to be working okay now. On Sep 21, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: When did you take over the list, Doug? I joined up just a few months before that. -- Mark Roberts
Re: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses
i never found it useful except to impress the Nikon and Canon owners. Herb - Original Message - From: "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax-discuss" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:02 PM Subject: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses So now I have two FA* lenses with Power Zoom motors that may never be exercised again. Am I the only voice crying in the wilderness, or does someone else out there miss Power Zoom?
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
the 24/2 is available, but you might find its CA too high to be livable. the 20/2.8 is the closest you are going to get otherwise. Herb - Original Message - From: "Tim Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discussion List" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 4:56 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? There are two lenses I'm looking for specifically: - A 180° fisheye; it appears that Nikon is the only vendor with a FE made for the 4/3 sensor. To bad it uses the wrong mount! - A discrete f2 (or faster) lens, 20mm to 24mm focal length
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
unfortunately, i think you have just spec'd a $4K camera, ignoring the noise requirement. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera? I want relatively high resolution, 12 megapixels or so. I want low noise at speeds up to 1600. If that can be accomplished with an APS sensor, fine. I want five frames per second and a buffer large enough for 20 shots. $2000. Controls just like the *ist D would be perfect.
Re: Interior photography and the *istD
i have read that the distortion and sharpness of the 10.5 leaves much to be desired. it's not a true fisheye in the sense that it's got distortions that cheaper panorama stitching software can't deal with. so i have read. Herb - Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 2:53 PM Subject: Re: Interior photography and the *istD Thanks for all the wonderful replies. Should this sort of work actually come my way, I'll consider the D or DS and the DA14 very seriously. Of course, Nikon has this nifty 10.5mm lens.
Re: yay...15mm enabled
Bruce and Mishka- According to the lens barrel DOF markings, everything between 3 feet and infinity should be in focus at f5.6. The DOF at 15mm is tremendous! Even so, I'm not complaining so much about the left side of the image, but the right side, where the corner is at about the same distance as the brick wall but is still quite blurred. Nevertheless, when daylight returns I'll shoot a larger wall from the same distance to check this out. Thanks very much for your interest and comments. Regards, Jim
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
at least: full frame sensor 12MP full K/M compatibility intercahngeable screens IS in the body N (N>5) RAW buffer nice to have: open source firmware auto sensor cleaning wifi mishka
Re: PPI for Printing
Epson printer drivers are addressable only to 360 ppi. HP printer drivers can be set to 600ppi, but don't recommend it for photographic work. Herb - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 1:42 PM Subject: Re: PPI for Printing In my experience, any output density over 360 ppi does not produce any noticeable improvement, and between 200 and 360 ppi the improvements are very fine *with digital capture images*. For larger scale prints, I've gone as low as 150ppi with excellent results ... obviously lower resolution if looked at up close, but fine for viewing distances of 3-5 feet which are typical for a framed picture 16x20 with 10x16 inch image area (the result of printing to 11x17 paper with .5 inch borders for handling).
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
It was five years ago this December that the server blew up. I think that was the last straw for the good folks at Pentax. It was during that month that they began casting about for someone to take over. After they called me and asked what I thought about it and who would be a good choice, someone there said, "hey, why don't =you= do it?" I downloaded the software and we went live right around Christmas or New Year's Day. Took me a while to get it stable (Freakin PERL...) but it seems to be working okay now. On Sep 21, 2005, at 2:26 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: When did you take over the list, Doug? I joined up just a few months before that. -- Mark Roberts
Re: yay...15mm enabled
Sure seems like you need to shoot a flat parallel surface to check the corners. You can't test very well for corner sharpness when the corner is not in the same plane of focus. Naturally the f11 shot is going to look better because it has greater DOF. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 5:50:42 PM, you wrote: M> on the screen, the brick walls on both shots seem about equally sharp M> to me, except the bricks on the foreground @5.6. can it be a dof effect? M> best, M> mishka M> On 9/21/05, Jim King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Cotty- >> >> Thanks for the links; your lens looks good at f16, but so does >> mine. My issue is the poor performance I see when it is used at >> apertures wider than f11. Do you by chance have any shots at larger >> apertures? >> >> Here are two shots (full size) of the proverbial brick wall, one at >> f5.6 (one stop down to give the lens a little slack) and one at f11. >> The one at f5.6 is terrible in the corners, while the one at f11 is a >> lot better. Do you think the one at f5.6 is representative of how >> this lens should perform? >> >> Thanks in advance; any comments from others welcome as well. >> >> (at f5.6) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615906 >> (at f11) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615910 >> >> Regards, Jim >> >>
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
summer'02, when Brotherhood was all the rage. happy anniversary! mishka
Re: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses
This is funny. One of the things that sets the better fixed lens digicams apart from the crappy ones is the availability of a manually controlled zoom on the lens... ;-) Godfrey
Re: yay...15mm enabled
Mischa- I wondered about the DOF too, but I see the same results with scenes where the entire image is at the same distance from the lens.. Look at the edges and the upper right corner, which at the same distance as the wall. The image at f5.6 is really fuzzy and low in contrast in that area, while the image at f11 is pretty good. Regards, Jim
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
you are a little on the high end of average. http://www.pmai.org/pressrelease/releases.asp?id=28386 Herb - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax Discuss" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:37 AM Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) As a business decision for Pentax, K/M non support is probably not a bad one, they sold me another half dozen new lenses. I may not be a typical user , but I suspect I am not all that atypical either.
Re: PESO -- The Littlest Moped.
A light hearted photo to cheer me up after all that heavy 'discussion'. Thanks for the post. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 4:59:23 PM, you wrote: PJA> Damn, I missed the deadline for the PUG again this month. Oh well, I PJA> really didn't have anything good that matched the PJA> theme anyway, so I guess I'll post another PESO. Sometimes it helps to PJA> add a little text, sometimes not. PJA> So without further ado: PJA> The Littlest Moped. PJA> http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_tlmp.html PJA> Technical Info: PJA> Pentax *ist-D ISO 400 @ 1/60sec PJA> smc Pentax 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF] @ 50mm f4.5 PJA> As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. PJA> Discretion being the better part of valor, the littlest moped decided to PJA> hide in the bushes until the Harley gang passed by.
Re: yay...15mm enabled
on the screen, the brick walls on both shots seem about equally sharp to me, except the bricks on the foreground @5.6. can it be a dof effect? best, mishka On 9/21/05, Jim King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cotty- > > Thanks for the links; your lens looks good at f16, but so does > mine. My issue is the poor performance I see when it is used at > apertures wider than f11. Do you by chance have any shots at larger > apertures? > > Here are two shots (full size) of the proverbial brick wall, one at > f5.6 (one stop down to give the lens a little slack) and one at f11. > The one at f5.6 is terrible in the corners, while the one at f11 is a > lot better. Do you think the one at f5.6 is representative of how > this lens should perform? > > Thanks in advance; any comments from others welcome as well. > > (at f5.6) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615906 > (at f11) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615910 > > Regards, Jim > >
RE: JCO is right, so ...
If youre not reading the posts then you don't know what been discussed and your assumption that no convincing has occurred is incorrect. Because I have made a convicing argument for my contention and there isnt really any debate left. This isnt two schools of thought caught in an endless whirlpool of disagreement. I think thread is just about done for now so that should make you happy if that's more important to you than learning about important pentax customers support issues. And you don't learn anthing by ignoring threads like this one. It was pretty good.. JCO -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:40 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: JCO is right, so ... JCO may well be right, as may all the others who are contributing to these tiresome threads: may I suggest that you take them off-line, since I then won't have to delete an average 100 no-interest messages a day, and it seems you will never convince one another anyway? John Coyle Brisbane, Australia
Re: yay...15mm enabled
Cotty- Thanks for the links; your lens looks good at f16, but so does mine. My issue is the poor performance I see when it is used at apertures wider than f11. Do you by chance have any shots at larger apertures? Here are two shots (full size) of the proverbial brick wall, one at f5.6 (one stop down to give the lens a little slack) and one at f11. The one at f5.6 is terrible in the corners, while the one at f11 is a lot better. Do you think the one at f5.6 is representative of how this lens should perform? Thanks in advance; any comments from others welcome as well. (at f5.6) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615906 (at f11) http://www.pbase.com/jamesk8752/image/49615910 Regards, Jim
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
Bob W., Some would argue that George Bush's brain has no contents, Bill Clinton doesn't have a conscience, and Osama never wrote a book of drinking songs. Does this mean we can all argue politics and terrorism on the list? Let me stand up here just to the right of my friend 'Attilla the Hun'. Bob S. On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 17:23:44 US/Eastern, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 21/9/05, Bob W, discombobulated, > unleashed: > > > > >And next time we have a religious argument, nobody's allowed to join in > > >until they've read the whole of the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, the > > >Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon and the Kebre Negest in their original > > >languages. Similarly, there's to be no discussion of Monty Python if you > > >didn't watch every episode when it was first broadcast in the 1960s, > > >nothing > > >about single malts unless you've drunk at least one bottle of each malt > > >from > > >each distillery in Scotland and Ireland. And there's to be no talk about > > >rabid republicans or vapid liberals or scary terrorists until you've all > > >memorised the entire contents of George Bush's brain, Bill Clintons > > >conscience and Osama's book of drinking songs. > > > > > >Graywolf, stick that in the FAQ! > > Great reply Bob. > However i can do the Python one,(i did start waking up near the end of the > 60's)just not > all the > others.LOL > > Dave > > >
Re: PLEASE, buy these lenses!
From: "Don Sanderson": > KEH has both a 43/1.9 and a 77/1.8 in E+ condition. > Would someone please buy these before I do some- > thing really stupid! > > Thank You for Your Support, Sorry, I'm holding out for black. They're in excellent plus condition. You know that means that they're actually like new. Don't worry. They won't last long. Someone will scarf them up and then you won't have to worry about them anymore. You'll spend all your time kicking yourself for being a coward and not jumping all over them instead. Seriously, KEH has them new in stock for not a whole lot (10%) more than the KEH price. Tom Reese
Re: PPI for Printing
But do the upsize interpolation in the RAW conversion process. If you have to do it later, use Bicubic Smoother. Paul On Sep 21, 2005, at 5:40 PM, Cotty wrote: On 21/9/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: So, what ppi do you use for what size/type prints? If all I can get are small prints using the recommended ppi from the digi, well, that's an unhappy circumstance. But it seems that many of you are getting larger than 6x9 prints from the DSLR. Shel, bump your pics up in Photoshop. 300 dpi at 11X8. You'd be very surprised, go on - I dare you! 'Interpolation' is *not* a dirty word ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: For Cotty
william sawyer wrote: I apologize, Rick, but I'm not familiar with tinyurl.com, nor how to use it. Bill Sawyer Livonia, MI Dead simple. Click on this site address: http://tinyurl.com/ keith whaley -Original Message- From: Rick Womer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 8:52 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: For Cotty Could you use tinyurl.com for this please? The Post web site gives me an error message before I can paste in the whole URL. Rick --- william sawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Thought some might be interested in this op/ed from the Washington Post. I hope it comes though all right... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901 297.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns Bill Sawyer Livonia, MI
Re: PLEASE, buy these lenses!
Take heart Don, you're not saving that much on the 77 ltd, B&H photo has the black one for $689. though it is out of stock. The 31 Ltd in black too. Don Sanderson wrote: KEH has both a 43/1.9 and a 77/1.8 in E+ condition. Would someone please buy these before I do some- thing really stupid! Thank You for Your Support, Don -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Pentax future WAS: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request))
I thought it was a digital bet, but you would know best. Glad to see you got to keep the parts in question. Regards, Bob S. On 9/21/05, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William wrote: > > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Bob Sullivan wrote: > > > > > >> No, I think John Mustarde (Texdance) would be much more interesting. > > >> Did'nt he have a bet with Pal that involved nailing some private parts > > >> to a tree if a Pentax digital SLR camera wasn't delivered by a certain > > >> date? Bob S. > > > > > > Who won? > > > > Pretty sure John did. By the time the istD came out, it was WAY overdue. > > > > I won. And it wasn't about a DSLR but the LX 2000. I was within 2 weeks of > its release date which is good enough in my book > > Pål > > > > > >
Re: its digital only....
one of my favourites...sexy huh!!! Feroze Not many Ferrari cars here either but I did see an Aston Martin on the way to work today. 87 XJS huh?...quickly finds a photo online... Yep, she'd love it. CW
Re: its digital only....
my MZs will soon be sitting on a shelf next my K1000 so that I can show any children I may have in the future how hard it was to take photo's, "imagine I had to actually point the camera at the subject and press a lot of buttons" in my days. :) Don Sanderson wrote: Actually you have the perfect compliment of items for the D, DS, DS-2. The Pentax 360 flash works like a charm with them, and other than maybe a bit wider lens than 28 and something between the 50 and the 100, you're all set. Probably a lot better lenses than what I've heard the cheaper "kit" Canons are too. Maybe keep one of the MZ-S as backup and sell the other to help finance a D? Still getting pretty good prices for nice MZ-S's on eekBay. Don -Original Message- From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:28 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: its digital only Nikon support in SA, never heard of it, they probally never heard of after sales support themselves. Wouldn't say its for my bread and butter though, 90% of my income comes from graphic design, so I cannot invest a great deal into equipment. I only have 2 MZS's a 28, 50, 100 and a 28-105 left, a 360 flash, bellows, a 1.7 adapter and some filters. I figure I can get by with a decent body and zoom and a metz flash. Not quite sure I want to get rid of the Pentax gear though. I've seen many with dual systems and it dosn't seem so hard, except maybe on the pocket... It just seems that with canon I wouldn't really be stuck for choices... Feroze Don Sanderson wrote: Feroze, I'm a lover of both film and Pentax, as you can tell from my posts here. However, if I had to make the decision you now do it would be quite simple. For commercial use, such as you require, Canon digital would be my choice. The reasons being stability, innovation, and most importantly, support for the future. All of the pros I've spoken to carry Canon, some ventured into Nikon at some point and found support after the sale lacking. Perhaps in other parts of the country/world the situation is different but in the Midwest US Canon is the ruler. As for Pentax, wonderful, but not for a pro who puts food on the table with their gear. IMHO of course. Don (Feeling like a traitor, but honest.) -Original Message- From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:49 PM To: pdml Subject: its digital only I have just been informed that by Pentax South Africa as of this month will no longer import any film SLR's. They want us to start pushing digital only. They will also no longer bring anymore fuji film in (fuji & pentax are imported by the same people) Kodak SA has no film for sale and Konica will no longer import or supply us with unpackaged film (retail packs are available, at a cost). They also might be phasing out the import and supply of the chemicals needed to develop film. Agfa will still supply chems cause it's the same stuff we use to develop litho positives, but at a price... So at the start of the wedding season (with about 200 weddings to go before march 2006) we have enough film for about 2 months. I have weddings booked for until December 16. I actually wanna sit down with my partners to see if its even worth it keeping a pentax camera or should we change over to nikon/canon. Whats the use of owning a ferrari if you can't fill petrol in it. Interesting desisions. I wonder if the nikon list is quieter :) I have no idea which way to go...for those who did some pointers would really be appreciated. Thanks Feroze
RE: PESO -- The Littlest Moped.
Cute Peter. The tagline made me laugh, a good thing. Thanks. Don > -Original Message- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:59 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: PESO -- The Littlest Moped. > > > Damn, I missed the deadline for the PUG again this month. Oh well, I > really didn't have anything good that matched the > theme anyway, so I guess I'll post another PESO. Sometimes it helps to > add a little text, sometimes not. > > So without further ado: > > The Littlest Moped. > > http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_tlmp.html > > Technical Info: > > Pentax *ist-D ISO 400 @ 1/60sec > smc Pentax 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF] @ 50mm f4.5 > > As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. > > > Discretion being the better part of valor, the littlest moped decided to > hide in the bushes until the Harley gang passed by. > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout). >
Re: PDML 10th anniversary
Don't know exactly when I started lurking. We didn't have an active PUG gallery, it was on hiatus for a while. Somebody started an alternative, I sent a squirrel at a snow feeder, and the PUG gallery was restarted. Pentax still sponsored the list. Roberto Bugaro (sp) was here from central america and Valentin from Romania. ...Bob Walkden(sp), Fred Wasti, Doug, and Bill Robb too. Of course we had 'The Who', who was a curse and Malfud who I learned to respect. Either of the last two were champions at flame wars. Overall this has been a pleasant list where the folks seemed to work at getting along and not having lots of petty squabbles. I hope it stays as such. Think of it as your corner pub and treat the fellow customers accordingly. Regards, Bob S. (formerly known as [EMAIL PROTECTED]) On 9/21/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Geez, I'm trying to remember when I joined - best guess is 1998 > sometime. Happy anniversary! > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 1:50:27 AM, you wrote: > > bcin> Relative new commer,having found the list when i > bcin> discovered search engines in realy 2001. > > bcin> Great list,great advice. > > bcin> Beats the hell out of the nikon board.lol > > bcin> Dave > > bcin> > Pål wrote: > >> > >> "I made my first post on this forum 18/8-95. Then it was just started... > >> I think I'm the "oldest surviving" member... > >> Time flies..." > >> > >> > >> You're close, Pål. I began surviving The List on the first of that same > >> month - I popped a Dom Perignon and smashed an M 40~80 for my 10th List > >> anniversary! > >> > >> Happy Anniversary To Ya!!! > >> > >> - JM > >> > >> > > > > > > > >
PLEASE, buy these lenses!
KEH has both a 43/1.9 and a 77/1.8 in E+ condition. Would someone please buy these before I do some- thing really stupid! Thank You for Your Support, Don
Re: its digital only....
not silly at all, but feedback from Pentax SA is that they will concentrate only the didgicam market only. They are reducing their stock of lenses, and will not import anymore. Pentax SA seems to be heading towards a consumer market only and it appears that they are following a trend set in Japan, not the most rosy outlook for my situation. Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Feroze, Maybe this is a silly question, but why not get an *istD? If you are already using Pentax and like it. I've been using two of them for 2 years shooting weddings, portraits and events.
Re: PPI for Printing
Try up-sizing them in Photoshop, the new "Bicubic, Smoother" seems to work about as well as the expensive add ons do. For inkjet prints I find anything over 200ppi works fine, below that I see a loss of quality. I have not had any outsourced prints done so can not address that issue. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Whenever I have prints made on the Lightjet or the Frontier, I use 300ppi to 330ppi or so for the resolution (is that the term?) which gives me a nice, big, richly detailed print from scanned negatives. Using the same resolution with the DS results in a much smaller print size, on the order of 6x9. The lab people around here recommend the greater ppi for quality work. I've also heard that 240ppi is acceptable, although that it's used more for inkjet prints. So, what ppi do you use for what size/type prints? If all I can get are small prints using the recommended ppi from the digi, well, that's an unhappy circumstance. But it seems that many of you are getting larger than 6x9 prints from the DSLR. Shel "Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
Re: DS batteries
I have noticed that you don't get a lot of warning with them when they decide to go however. John Francis wrote: Remember last time we were discussing batteries, when I mentioned that the set of Energiser 2500s in my camera were still indicating full charge, even though they were last charged at the end of July? Well, I *still* haven't recharged them, and they still show full. I hink it's safe to say that their self-discharge rate is quite low. On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 07:00:32PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote: i've found that cheaper batteries may have the capacity (no way to tell without measuring), but they can have a much higher self-discharge rate and can also last far fewer charge cycles. Radio Shack sells RCRV-3 chargers with a single battery and batteries separately. however i am tempted, having a charger that handles only one battery at a time is a drawback when the camera requires a pair. Herb - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:17 AM Subject: DS batteries So on my way out there's the battery rack with the 4-pack 2500Mah NiMh for $9.98 and a charger for the same price. So I made the purchase. It takes 8 1/2 hours to fully charge but the DS runs great on 'em. They're worth the look, esp. at about the same price as the 2100Mah units. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
i bought the *istD knowing that at only 6MP, it could not possibly the camera i would stay with, but it would be an adequate 2 year stepping stone to the upgrade from it which i expected i could live with for a long time. 6MP is a lot better than film bigots give it credit for, but until DSLRs hit the 15MP range, there is still a lot to be gained by putting more quality megapixels onto the sensor. in addition to megapixels, the *istD isn't capable of taking some of the kinds of pictures i am trying to do now. back in the manual focus days, it didn't matter whose brand of camera you used, it was the photographers skill that made the only difference. well nowadays, that's not true anymore. standards for acceptable content have gone way up and skill alone might get some shots, but skill and good assistive technology will get enough shots to be competitive. i expected that Pentax would announce a lower range body and then a higher range body, just like they announced with film cameras. every other vendor started down that path, some with formal announcements before they even had a single body out. there is a good reason that everyone else did, because that is how you cover your user base and make money. Cotty summed it up best. there are some who need the high end camera and can justify it. its job is to attract attention, satisfy the high end pros, and break even on costs. the mid range body is where you sell a lot and make your most money, because its profit margin is highest, to upgraders from your entry level and catch the switchers from other brands. the entry level is where you sell a lot but make very little money, just about everyone who buys is price sensitive and new to your equipment. in fact, the entry level body might even be a loss leader, because it generates lens sales. my pile of Pentax lenses are tools, but there are enough of them to be very expensive tools. the lenses themselves are excellent because i have sold the stuff that i didn't think was good enough, and are fully able to take the kinds of pictures that i aim for. what's missing is a body that can actually do it. Pentax has had the technology for a long time now and has done nothing with it. piles of advanced patents don't do much good if they never make it into products. Herb... - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 7:40 AM Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Well, if the *istD dont satisfy your need, why did you buy it in the first place? Face it, you probably shouldn't have bought Pentax in the first place. It happens to many of us, like my experience with Bronica. If I were you I'd use the Pentax for the pictures I'd always used it for (it must have been useful for something) and continue doing so until it falls apart, and I'd bought something else to take the other pictures.
PESO -- The Littlest Moped.
Damn, I missed the deadline for the PUG again this month. Oh well, I really didn't have anything good that matched the theme anyway, so I guess I'll post another PESO. Sometimes it helps to add a little text, sometimes not. So without further ado: The Littlest Moped. http://www.mindspring.com/~webster26/PESO_--_tlmp.html Technical Info: Pentax *ist-D ISO 400 @ 1/60sec smc Pentax 28-200mm f3.8~5.6AL[IF] @ 50mm f4.5 As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. Discretion being the better part of valor, the littlest moped decided to hide in the bushes until the Harley gang passed by. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: its digital only....
- Original Message - From: "Feroze" ...not much ferrari's around, most of the guys around here drive bmw'sbut if something comes up you'll be the first on the list. You wife would want the '87 XJS by any chance... Not many Ferrari cars here either but I did see an Aston Martin on the way to work today. 87 XJS huh?...quickly finds a photo online... Yep, she'd love it. CW -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/107 - Release Date: 9/20/2005
RE: Proposition and a Vote_ WAS_Petition to Pentax?
Thanks Dario, I was thinking less than 12 "wishes" but that will depend on the variety and quantity of responses. I very much like the "in the last 5 years" part. Those who bought before will do so again, IF the product meets their needs and desires. Seeing money go to Sigma and other competitors might open their eyes a bit too. So far, unfortunately, I'm not being overwhelmed with participants, but we'll see. ;-) Don > -Original Message- > From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:15 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Proposition and a Vote_ WAS_Petition to Pentax? > > > Some improvements to my previous rules: > > 1) Anyone wishing to contribute will send Don a list of up to 12 wishes. > 2) If a given wish is very important to you, you can list it 2 or 3 times > (no more > than that!), If you do that, you only have 7 o 8 other wishes left in your > list, which in no case can exceed a total of 12 wishes. > 3) The poor wishlist manager (aka Don) will group the votes by request. > 4) The first 12 ranked wishes (among the many received) will be > the official > list to send Pentax. > > BTW, in the last 5 years I bought new: > > MZ-3, > MZ-S, > *istD > FA 43mm Limited > DA 16-45mm > Sigma 70-210/2.8 (because the FA* was too expensive) > Sigma EF500 DG Super flash (because the Pentax flash units > available at that > time didn't fit my needs) > Optio 330 > Optio 555 (after presenting my sister the 330 :-) > > + countless used stuff (exclusively Pentax). > > Dario >
Re: Purple Fringing
Hi, there is a PS action from Epaperpress (the guy who made PTLens plugin) which works similarly, and Helicon Filter (another plugin/editing suite) has a control for it too. It works by searching for contrasty edges, doing colour selection and desaturating the colour. Sometimes it helps, sometimes not. Adding an edge mask to the way Godfrey quoted could perhaps help too. >From my experience, I think it's both sensor and lens issue. And exagerrated by the digital sensor/processing. It could show up on film, but not so much. Good light! fra
RE: its digital only....
Actually you have the perfect compliment of items for the D, DS, DS-2. The Pentax 360 flash works like a charm with them, and other than maybe a bit wider lens than 28 and something between the 50 and the 100, you're all set. Probably a lot better lenses than what I've heard the cheaper "kit" Canons are too. Maybe keep one of the MZ-S as backup and sell the other to help finance a D? Still getting pretty good prices for nice MZ-S's on eekBay. Don > -Original Message- > From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:28 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: its digital only > > > Nikon support in SA, never heard of it, they probally never heard of > after sales support themselves. > > Wouldn't say its for my bread and butter though, 90% of my income comes > from graphic design, > so I cannot invest a great deal into equipment. I only have 2 MZS's a > 28, 50, 100 and a 28-105 > left, a 360 flash, bellows, a 1.7 adapter and some filters. I figure I > can get by with a decent body > and zoom and a metz flash. Not quite sure I want to get rid of the > Pentax gear though. I've seen > many with dual systems and it dosn't seem so hard, except maybe on the > pocket... > > It just seems that with canon I wouldn't really be stuck for choices... > > Feroze > > > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > >Feroze, > > > >I'm a lover of both film and Pentax, as you can tell from my posts here. > >However, if I had to make the decision you now do it would be > quite simple. > >For commercial use, such as you require, Canon digital would be > my choice. > >The reasons being stability, innovation, and most importantly, support > >for the future. > >All of the pros I've spoken to carry Canon, some ventured into Nikon at > >some point and found support after the sale lacking. > >Perhaps in other parts of the country/world the situation is different > >but in the Midwest US Canon is the ruler. > >As for Pentax, wonderful, but not for a pro who puts food on the table > >with their gear. > > > >IMHO of course. > >Don (Feeling like a traitor, but honest.) > > > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:49 PM > >>To: pdml > >>Subject: its digital only > >> > >> > >>I have just been informed that by Pentax South Africa as of this month > >>will no longer import any film SLR's. > >>They want us to start pushing digital only. They will also no longer > >>bring anymore fuji film in (fuji & pentax are imported > >>by the same people) Kodak SA has no film for sale and Konica will no > >>longer import or supply us with unpackaged > >>film (retail packs are available, at a cost). They also might > be phasing > >>out the import and supply of the chemicals needed > >>to develop film. Agfa will still supply chems cause it's the same stuff > >>we use to develop litho positives, but at a price... > >> > >>So at the start of the wedding season (with about 200 weddings to go > >>before march 2006) we have enough film for about > >>2 months. I have weddings booked for until December 16. > >> > >>I actually wanna sit down with my partners to see if its even worth it > >>keeping a pentax camera or should we change over to nikon/canon. > >>Whats the use of owning a ferrari if you can't fill petrol in it. > >>Interesting desisions. I wonder if the nikon list is quieter :) > >> > >>I have no idea which way to go...for those who did some pointers would > >>really be appreciated. > >> > >>Thanks > >>Feroze > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: Orphaned Power Zoom Lenses
Power zoom was an interesting concept but I never used it as much as I thought I would. Can't say I miss it on the DS Cheers, Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia Quoting "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Rick Womer wrote: > > >When I got my PZ-1 with two power zoom lenses, I > >thought it was pretty nifty and used it for a couple > >of years. Then I turned it off, and never used it > >again. The zoom size tracking never worked well, and > >the "zoom clip" and "zoom effect" features struck me > >as frippery. > > > I bought a power zoom lens shortly after getting my PZ-1. Still > have > both the camera and the lens. Still use both. Never figured out how > to > use the zoom size tracking or the zoom clip or the zoom effect. > >
Re: green button wars (again)
Sorry, your 5 minutes is up! Cheers, Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Not. > > On 9/21/05, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Did > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Brian > > > > + > > Brian Walters > > Western Sydney, Australia > > > > > > Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Posting what? You haven't posted anything! > > > > > > On 9/20/05, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Well, can't resist posting this: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Scott Loveless > http://www.twosixteen.com > > -- > "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman > >
Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
In a message dated 9/21/2005 12:10:18 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And there's to be no talk about rabid republicans or vapid liberals or scary terrorists until you've all memorised the entire contents of George Bush's brain, Bill Clintons conscience and Osama's book of drinking songs. Graywolf, stick that in the FAQ! Bob Well, at least that last part would only take 15 minutes. Marnie aka Doe :-) OTOH, I may be overestimating.
Re: its digital only....
Hello Feroze, Maybe this is a silly question, but why not get an *istD? If you are already using Pentax and like it. I've been using two of them for 2 years shooting weddings, portraits and events. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, September 21, 2005, 4:28:11 PM, you wrote: F> Nikon support in SA, never heard of it, they probally never heard of F> after sales support themselves. F> Wouldn't say its for my bread and butter though, 90% of my income comes F> from graphic design, F> so I cannot invest a great deal into equipment. I only have 2 MZS's a F> 28, 50, 100 and a 28-105 F> left, a 360 flash, bellows, a 1.7 adapter and some filters. I figure I F> can get by with a decent body F> and zoom and a metz flash. Not quite sure I want to get rid of the F> Pentax gear though. I've seen F> many with dual systems and it dosn't seem so hard, except maybe on the F> pocket... F> It just seems that with canon I wouldn't really be stuck for choices... F> Feroze F> Don Sanderson wrote: >>Feroze, >> >>I'm a lover of both film and Pentax, as you can tell from my posts here. >>However, if I had to make the decision you now do it would be quite simple. >>For commercial use, such as you require, Canon digital would be my choice. >>The reasons being stability, innovation, and most importantly, support >>for the future. >>All of the pros I've spoken to carry Canon, some ventured into Nikon at >>some point and found support after the sale lacking. >>Perhaps in other parts of the country/world the situation is different >>but in the Midwest US Canon is the ruler. >>As for Pentax, wonderful, but not for a pro who puts food on the table >>with their gear. >> >>IMHO of course. >>Don (Feeling like a traitor, but honest.) >> >> >> >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Feroze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:49 PM >>>To: pdml >>>Subject: its digital only >>> >>> >>>I have just been informed that by Pentax South Africa as of this month >>>will no longer import any film SLR's. >>>They want us to start pushing digital only. They will also no longer >>>bring anymore fuji film in (fuji & pentax are imported >>>by the same people) Kodak SA has no film for sale and Konica will no >>>longer import or supply us with unpackaged >>>film (retail packs are available, at a cost). They also might be phasing >>>out the import and supply of the chemicals needed >>>to develop film. Agfa will still supply chems cause it's the same stuff >>>we use to develop litho positives, but at a price... >>> >>>So at the start of the wedding season (with about 200 weddings to go >>>before march 2006) we have enough film for about >>>2 months. I have weddings booked for until December 16. >>> >>>I actually wanna sit down with my partners to see if its even worth it >>>keeping a pentax camera or should we change over to nikon/canon. >>>Whats the use of owning a ferrari if you can't fill petrol in it. >>>Interesting desisions. I wonder if the nikon list is quieter :) >>> >>>I have no idea which way to go...for those who did some pointers would >>>really be appreciated. >>> >>>Thanks >>>Feroze >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >>
Re: PPI for Printing
Shel, I haven't read any other responses yet, but I am getting very good quality prints by resizing the image to 15cm x 10cm, at 720 dpi in Photoshop. I calculate this will give me a 30x20 at 360 dpi if I need it.The prints are then made either at home or by the lab and, at home, I set the printer to it's best photo-quality on Premium photo paper: I have produced A4 size prints with this method of very high quality - check with Ryan Lee! I also made three CD's of family snaps recently, using the same methods, and all were printed without problems by the local 1-hour shop, admittedly only to 15x10, but were very satisfactory. I think it's worth remembering that the ppi factor is the printer resolution, and has little to do with the image resolution - dpi. Whatever the dpi, the printer will normally use 200-300 dpi for good to high quality prints. HTH John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 3:04 AM Subject: PPI for Printing Whenever I have prints made on the Lightjet or the Frontier, I use 300ppi to 330ppi or so for the resolution (is that the term?) which gives me a nice, big, richly detailed print from scanned negatives. Using the same resolution with the DS results in a much smaller print size, on the order of 6x9. The lab people around here recommend the greater ppi for quality work. I've also heard that 240ppi is acceptable, although that it's used more for inkjet prints. So, what ppi do you use for what size/type prints? If all I can get are small prints using the recommended ppi from the digi, well, that's an unhappy circumstance. But it seems that many of you are getting larger than 6x9 prints from the DSLR. Shel "Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
Re: Irrelevant Poll: What do you WANT in a digital camera?
Hmm.. wish list: twice the linear resolution of my D, so 24Mpix, but I'd settle for 12Mpix auto image rotation display of ISO setting 20 frame buffer RAW 5 or more fps until buffer full warp speed CF card write custom EXIF annotation filter removal option for B&W images direct removable screens open source firmware 1/250 flash sync iso 25-3200 auto hot pixel removal rg Scott Loveless wrote: Howdy gang! After spending about four lifetimes following the recent spew about non-A lens support, I started to think about what I would really WANT in a digital camera. (This has nothing to do with the possible petition to Pentax.) Just for kicks (and a bit of flame-free fun) I'd like to know what you would WANT if you could have your DSLR your way. Throw caution to the wind. Don't even consider what is feasible or marketable. Just let us know what your dream digital camera looks like. Here's mine: I wanna be able to select ISO and shutter speed with knobs. It should support an available line of manual focus lenses. K-mount (un-crippled) is good. Screw mount or M-mount would be cool, too. I don't need auto focus, auto aperture, or auto anything. Monochrome sensor. Something in the 4 to 6 MP range is good. Metal chassis. Metal body. RAW and JPEG. PC sync. No built-in flash. Less than $1500 US. Things I don't need, but could live with: Hot shoe. Picture modes. Features I would like, but could live without: In-camera DNG support. That's about it. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
Re: its digital only....
Cory, The largest current users of film are street photographers. They come from the lowest income bracket and literally stand on street corners taking snaps for sale of passerbys. They still bring in a huge chunk of the businessand they are now starting to go digital. These are guys who live in shacks with no running water or electricty and have to pay someone to charge their phones and batteries up. The market for film is dying here. ...not much ferrari's around, most of the guys around here drive bmw'sbut if something comes up you'll be the first on the list. You wife would want the '87 XJS by any chance... Feroze cbwaters wrote: Feroz, It seems like just the right time to take your savings and begin import business. I mean, there must be profit still to be made from the sales of film in South Africa. And if you would kindly send me the titles, I'll gladly take all the petrol-less Ferraris you care to give me. I'll even pay for shipping. My wife wants an old Jaguar saloon car. She's told me many times that it need not run, just so she can have it in the garage and sit in it when she needs a bit of peace. Cory - Original Message - From: "Feroze" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 6:48 PM Subject: its digital only I have just been informed that by Pentax South Africa as of this month will no longer import any film SLR's. They want us to start pushing digital only. They will also no longer bring anymore fuji film in (fuji & pentax are imported by the same people) Kodak SA has no film for sale and Konica will no longer import or supply us with unpackaged film (retail packs are available, at a cost). They also might be phasing out the import and supply of the chemicals needed to develop film. Agfa will still supply chems cause it's the same stuff we use to develop litho positives, but at a price... So at the start of the wedding season (with about 200 weddings to go before march 2006) we have enough film for about 2 months. I have weddings booked for until December 16. I actually wanna sit down with my partners to see if its even worth it keeping a pentax camera or should we change over to nikon/canon. Whats the use of owning a ferrari if you can't fill petrol in it. Interesting desisions. I wonder if the nikon list is quieter :) I have no idea which way to go...for those who did some pointers would really be appreciated. Thanks Feroze
Re: green button wars (again)
As I've already explained to Cotty.Can't!! Cheers, Brian + Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Yes you can. > > Kenneth Waller > > > On 9/20/05, Brian Walters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Well, can't resist posting this: > >> > >> > >> http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/sketch.htm
