Re: NO FS this Friday?
I agree. On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific > feature. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> >>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern >>> evaluative >>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high >>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or >>> incompetent is truly bullshit. >> >> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
PAW 3
Philadelphia's been very cold, so I have yet to have a chance to get outside with the K10D, but I visited a friend and his son and took some pictures in his house. http://pugnax.smugmug.com/gallery/2312615/1/128387936 Best, Micah -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? -- > What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS > his earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I > stated that > in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and > he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, > William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens > sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks > like you > have. It would look that way to you because you don't ever look at what people put in front of you. Had you actually looked at the resolution charts I pointed you to in that thread, you would realize that Pentax 6x7 lenses resolve quite a bit lower than the average for medium format. If you look at the better system resolutions, Hasselblad and Rollei come to mind, (in general, these are the systems the professional photographers use), you would find resolution numbers very close to often better than 35mm lens resolutions. I can't help it that you are obdurate to the point of being stupid, though I admit it does make me wonder how you keep breathing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Published...
>I finally got a chance to see a copy of this issue, and I must say I was >very disappointed. Not in Juan's work, but the reproduction didn't do >the photos justice. Very poor quality printing and photographic >reproduction. > Those that can't, publish magazines? Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K10D trailing curtain flash problem with fw 1.01
Basil Vizgin wrote: > But with new fw. behaviour is completely different: preflash, than > flash on leading curtain (!), than (if flash not fully discharged on > leading flash, i.e. still have charge/capacity) flash on trailing > curtain. Naturally, we got a multiexposure... > Tests have been taken at shutter speed near 1 sec with DA lenses. > Can anybody confirm this bug or test trailing curtain behaviour on original > fw? I can confirm this behavior on my K10D with new firmware at speeds from 1/4 to 1.5 sec on an FA lens (FA 1:4-5.6 28-105mm IF). I can't test with the old firmware, obviously, since I don't have it, but I have used trailing curtian sync before and didn't get double exposures. David Bliss -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Sureshot, I Actually Won Something...
Hello Bill, Tuesday, February 6, 2007, 4:43:47 AM, you wrote: > And with a Pentax!! > The Detroit Zoological Society publishes a quarterly glossy for it's 40,000 > plus members called "Habitat." Each issue has a themed photo contest and at > the end of the year they award a grand prize winner for the year. As > camera-types like Zoos, they get several hundred submissions each issue, and > the judging is done by the graphics firm that prepares the magazine. This > year's Grand Prize winner is here: > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5010343 > Bill Sawyer > Livonia, MI Congrats Bill, that's a well deserved win! -- Attila -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Made in England
Paul, > Nice pic of a nice car. It could benefit from a bit of sharpening. In > general, RAW files straigtht from the camera require some sharpening > to achieve optimum image quality. It's not an admission of fault. > It's part of the process. thanks for looking. For me it's sharp enough as is. However if I wanted to make a print out of it, I'd definitely sharpen it a bit to compensate for the loss of sharpness during the printing. OTOH I'm interested to see how sharp is sharp enough for you (and not just for you, everybody is welcome) - please download the full resolution version, play with the sharpen filter and post your settings (I have access to PSE4 & 5, PS CS & CS2, Lightroom beta and GIMP) so I can reproduce it. Thanks. One more thing - how the picture looks on your screen WRT to brightness & color fidelity? I'm still trying to figure out what caused the apparent darkness/muddiness in one of my previous posts (moire/aliasing thread). My guess is either different Gamma setting or some color profile displacement (my camera was set to AdobeRGB back then). Cheers, Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
On 09/02/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. LOL, just the other day I made a series of tests and now I'm more inclined to keep my A20/2.8 and sell my DA16-45 ;-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Made in England
Hi Frits, > Wat is that, a Morris Minor? yep, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_Minor This picture embodies England for me - beautiful classic craftwork parked on the wrong side of the street ;-) in front of a bare brick wall... Cheers, Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Obvious questions: :-) Did you compare them both at 20mm f/4 on same same subject, same conditions, etc.? The A was manual focus, the DA is auto focus. Was focus accurte on bothe and were they focussed on the same spot in the image? Tom C. >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) > >My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So >distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. >Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. >DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > >Jack >--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > > you should be using APS digital term. > > > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > > I would like to here from everyone who > > has any experience on the matter please, > > > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > > to solve the problem if applicable? > > > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of > > William Robb > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > > quality > > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > > designs > > which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have > > a > > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > > in digital because of lens aberations. > > Sorry for the harsh words. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > >Looking for earth-friendly autos? >Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. >http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Thanks, never used that lens. How was it on film in the same central area? I think I will start to make a list of these observations for reference. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > you should be using APS digital term. > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > I would like to here from everyone who > has any experience on the matter please, > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > to solve the problem if applicable? > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of William Robb > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > >> > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > quality > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. > I have a > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > in digital because of lens aberations. > Sorry for the harsh words. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Wireless Flashless Controller?
Hi Jack, On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:19:34 -0800 (PST), Jack Davis wrote: >Downloaded the recent firmware to my K10D. Am now wondering if anyone >knows of a setting wherein the on-board flash acts only as a controller >and doesn't participate in the final flash coverage. Yes, of course ... >Been leafing through the 360 manual and remembering that it was >possible with my 'sold' MZ-S. It is not in the 360 Manual ... It is in the DOC that came with the firmware update. There is a new 'custom setting' in the K10D menu now: [ Flash in Wireless Mode] Setting that to ON makes it Master, OFF is Control only. Regards, JvW -- Jan van Wijk; http://www.dfsee.com/gallery -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Published...
I finally got a chance to see a copy of this issue, and I must say I was very disappointed. Not in Juan's work, but the reproduction didn't do the photos justice. Very poor quality printing and photographic reproduction. Juan Buhler wrote: > Hi all, > > The current issue of the British Black and White Photography magazine > has a nice portfolio article about my photos, written by Mike > Johnston, and including seven of my pictures. There isn't much online, > but here is a link to their site: > > http://www.thegmcgroup.com/item--Black-and-White-Photography--1003BW.html > > Despite any resemblances, that's not me in the cover :) > > > Anyway--thought some of you might want to check it out. All pictures > published were taken with the istD, and it prominently says so next to > each. > > Thanks, > > j > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Anyone use 'The Gimp'?
Hello jim, Tuesday, February 6, 2007, 12:27:23 PM, you wrote: > As subject says. anyone use this Free app? Sorry for the late answer, I had to change the motherboard in my PC, the chipset on the old one went boo-boo. To answer your question first, I don't use 'The Gimp'. About a year ago, Novell conducted a survey with an interesting result: http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2756049592.html Check out this thread from another list: [Desktop_architects] The reason Adobe does not want to port Photoshop? http://lists.osdl.org/pipermail/desktop_architects/2006-October/thread.html I wonder that no one has mentioned Pixel. It is not free, but you can download the beta, and check it out. Here is the page with the features: http://www.kanzelsberger.com/pixel/?page_id=9 The look and feel is very much like Photoshop, and the upcoming 2.0 version seems promising. The other solution would be to run the real Adobe Photoshop under Linux using emulation. I personally don't like this, but it could be an alternative for some users. I have seen Photoshop 7 running under Linux just fine. There were problems with CS in the past, I haven't checked it lately, maybe things have improved. -- Attila -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SV: K10D and Flash
Yes, isn't it :-) Jens Bladt Nytarkort / Greeting Card: http://www.jensbladt.dk/godtnytaar2007/lydshow.html http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af Godfrey DiGiorgi Sendt: 7. februar 2007 23:39 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: K10D and Flash On Feb 7, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: > BTW: Have you guys noticed, that an SD card will load the images > into a > computer MUCH faster than a CF card? In only a fraction of the > usual time, > actually! Download speed depends upon: - the read speed possible with the cards in question - the IO capabilities of the reader device - the efficiency of the USB or FireWire implementation on the host system I have several multi-format card readers. The same cards, both CF and SD, will transfer at different rates in each of the different readers to the same host computer. It's a complicated world... ;-) G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.29/673 - Release Date: 02/06/2007 17:52 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.17.31/676 - Release Date: 02/08/2007 15:04 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Trying to buy the LightRoom
Why are you still running SP1? SP2 is a security upgrade and costs nothing (other than additional storage space). Your stuff is at risk without it. -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Boris Liberman > Sent: 08 February 2007 14:45 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Trying to buy the LightRoom > > Speaking of upgrades. > > My home PC is running Win XP SP1. Please don't try to convince me it > is not good. Now, LR comes and says - I shall run on SP1, but you > should upgrade to SP2 so that with SP1 you won't get any support from > my team. Bullshit if you ask me. What on earth makes SP2 so much > preferable over SP1 for photo editing??? > > > -- > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Made in England
Most definitely. Eric. On 08/02/07, Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wat is that, a Morris Minor? > > > On Thursday 08 February 2007 00:07, Peter Lacus wrote: > > Hello! > > > > yesterday I finished my first roll of Transcend SD. ;-) It did > > accomodate 378 .PEF + 2 .jpg pictures during almost 3 weeks of shooting. > > This is my favorite picture from the whole lot (~300kB): > > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028926 > >238703324690 > > > > or if you prefer the original size (~1,4MB): > > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028923 > >859291442690 > > > > The latter is straight Camera RAW output (PSE5, default settings, > > sharpening set to zero) saved as maximum (10) quality JPEG, the former > > is just downsampled version of thereof, both are otherwise intact. > > > > SMC Pentax F50/1.7, sRGB, for more info click on 'more info' on the web > > page or see EXIF data. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > Frits Wüthrich -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Made in England
Nice pic of a nice car. It could benefit from a bit of sharpening. In general, RAW files straigtht from the camera require some sharpening to achieve optimum image quality. It's not an admission of fault. It's part of the process. Paul -- Original message -- From: Frits Wüthrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Wat is that, a Morris Minor? > > > On Thursday 08 February 2007 00:07, Peter Lacus wrote: > > Hello! > > > > yesterday I finished my first roll of Transcend SD. ;-) It did > > accomodate 378 .PEF + 2 .jpg pictures during almost 3 weeks of shooting. > > This is my favorite picture from the whole lot (~300kB): > > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028926 > >238703324690 > > > > or if you prefer the original size (~1,4MB): > > > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028923 > >859291442690 > > > > The latter is straight Camera RAW output (PSE5, default settings, > > sharpening set to zero) saved as maximum (10) quality JPEG, the former > > is just downsampled version of thereof, both are otherwise intact. > > > > SMC Pentax F50/1.7, sRGB, for more info click on 'more info' on the web > > page or see EXIF data. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > -- > Frits Wüthrich > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > you should be using APS digital term. > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > I would like to here from everyone who > has any experience on the matter please, > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > to solve the problem if applicable? > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > William Robb > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > >> > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > quality > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > designs > which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have > a > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > in digital because of lens aberations. > Sorry for the harsh words. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
K.Takeshita wrote: > On 2/08/07 12:45 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if >> they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. > > I understand that Fuji has been instigating "return to film" (paraphrasing) > campaign for quite some time. Not really a front line flashy one, but quiet > and persistent one. I read their management interview, betting that, when > digital fever begin to subside, it will be followed by the resurgence of > film. I think they actually believe it (not motivated by film biz promotion > alone). If they are serious about it, and persevere to preserve at least > the minimum film development/production capability, it is admirable. At > least in Japan, many (do not know the proportion) advanced amateurs are > slowly returning to film. I am sure some are very fussy about the image > quality and they prefer film rendition, yet some are sick of too fast a > product cycle of essentially the same thing etc. I am sure they of course > use DSLR as well, but just reflecting on the advantageous parts of film. > Some probably do not like the trend that the photography has turned into a > processing by computer geeks rather than true sense of it, etc etc. Curious > to know exactly what are driving them back to film. > > No, I am not a film advocate, just passing info :-) > > Ken > > From what I'm hearing, LF film sales in particular, and film sales in general bottomed out a couple years ago and have been holding steady or slightly increasing. Processing is still dropping as those shooting film are doing their own processing more and more. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>Bang on! >Tom, you are one of the most rational people in this list! I'm impressed. >Of course most of people here are rational, too :-). > >Ken > I'm having a relatively good day. :-) Tom C. (who saw Blue Man Group last night) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
K10D trailing curtain flash problem with fw 1.01
I got a reports from different peoples that K10D trailing curtain behaviour with internal flash is broken after upgrade to fw. 1.01. As I understand, the correct behaviour of trailing curtain mode is to produce a P-TTL preflash, than open a shutter and make a flash immediately before closing the shutter curtain. But with new fw. behaviour is completely different: preflash, than flash on leading curtain (!), than (if flash not fully discharged on leading flash, i.e. still have charge/capacity) flash on trailing curtain. Naturally, we got a multiexposure... Tests have been taken at shutter speed near 1 sec with DA lenses. Can anybody confirm this bug or test trailing curtain behaviour on original fw? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Tokina 28-70/2.8 ATX
Hey gang. A friend of mine asked me about this lens. She's found one in Nikon mount that she's considering purchasing. It's the older model with 72mm filter threads. I couldn't find much about it via google. Most of the reviews are based on later models with 77mm threads. So I told her I'd ask around. Any opinions? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Tokina 28-70/2.8 ATX
Scott Loveless wrote: > Hey gang. > > A friend of mine asked me about this lens. She's found one in Nikon > mount that she's considering purchasing. It's the older model with > 72mm filter threads. I couldn't find much about it via google. Most > of the reviews are based on later models with 77mm threads. So I told > her I'd ask around. Any opinions? > I've got the 28-70 f2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro in AF Nikon mount (the first AF version), the one she's looking at would likely be newer than the one I have. Good lens, but I'd rather have the Tamron 28-75 (which I miss) -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:39 PM, "Tom C", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ...but to say these OLD lenses are >>> not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are >>> DIFFERENT, not better or worse... > > I can agree with this. It very much depends on shooting conditions, > application, aperture, etc. Are the DA lenses *more* demonstrably > different/better optically when compared to legacy lenses, than two > individual legacy lenses are different from each other (same mfr., > cross-mfr.), when used on APS sensors? > > Pentax wants us to believe both that their DSLRs are capable of producing > great results with old lenses, and that they'll produce great results with > new DA lenses as well. > > It gets down to: > > 1) There's no discernible difference to most people when it comes to looking > at standard sized prints or electronically displayed media. It'd be > interesting to do a street poll and find out just how many people understand > chromatic aberration, noise and sensor size concepts. Want to guess? > > 2) There are likely trade-offs depending on just how the lens is used > between 'digital' and legacy lenses. > > 3) If you have the money and want the newest whiz bang lens, go for it. > Otherwise be happy with what you have or can afford. > > 4) As Tim said, the skill of the photographer will make a larger difference > in photo quality than most lens specifications will. Bang on! Tom, you are one of the most rational people in this list! I'm impressed. Of course most of people here are rational, too :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO: Made in England
Wat is that, a Morris Minor? On Thursday 08 February 2007 00:07, Peter Lacus wrote: > Hello! > > yesterday I finished my first roll of Transcend SD. ;-) It did > accomodate 378 .PEF + 2 .jpg pictures during almost 3 weeks of shooting. > This is my favorite picture from the whole lot (~300kB): > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028926 >238703324690 > > or if you prefer the original size (~1,4MB): > > http://picasaweb.google.com/placus/Pentax/photo?authkey=3N71J2CknRo#5028923 >859291442690 > > The latter is straight Camera RAW output (PSE5, default settings, > sharpening set to zero) saved as maximum (10) quality JPEG, the former > is just downsampled version of thereof, both are otherwise intact. > > SMC Pentax F50/1.7, sRGB, for more info click on 'more info' on the web > page or see EXIF data. > > Cheers, > > Peter -- Frits Wüthrich -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS his earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I stated that in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks like you have. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic > aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy > equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some > data on the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" > phrase is certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little > sceptical, the same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. > It sounds good but > tells me nothing substantial. Not that I've seen yet. I have a few samples of both older lenses and newer in similar focl lengths, but I can't be bothered with doing formal tests at this point. My impression is that the DA lenses that I own are doing a better job of rendering images to the sensor than the older ones in similar focal lengths. > > It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards > lens compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally > optimized" lenses as being especially desirable or preferrable to all > those compatible lenses, > which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing > sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of > the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot > when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Many years ago, I shot Nikon 35mm and Pentax 6x7. One of the selling points that I took into account when I switched 35mm sytems was the ability to mount my 6x7 glass onto Pentax 35mm cameras. Unfortunately, I found that the 6x7 glass didn't render images to the smaller film format as well as I would have liked, so I ended up buying glass optimized for the 35mm film format. We are in a similar situation now with digital. It is a different format with different lens quality requirements. That we can use older lenses is nice, but, like being able to mount a 6x7 lens onto an LX, there are compromises involved in doing so. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:41 PM, "William Robb", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). > > We use Pentax, we are superior. I of course emphatically have to agree with that! Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Wrong again, your confusing digital term when you should be using APS digital term. This brings up a VERY important issue and I would like to here from everyone who has any experience on the matter please, WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem with like WR states here? (and on which dslr camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get to solve the problem if applicable? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have a few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable in digital because of lens aberations. Sorry for the harsh words. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
NOPE- I stand by what I stated fully. I say that the some of the FF lenses, even really old ones, will be able to create higher quality images than even the very best DA/APS systems, on a good FF digital K mount body! Yes, some lenses will have issues with perpendicularity (most noticably wide angles or lenses with nodal points close the sensor, but definately not all). Coatings, APO, and other "feature sets" will not be able to overcome the difference the larger format will make. And some of the older lenses ARE APO and already had excellent coatings anyway. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:14 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi > will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good > FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over 30 years old ) > on a good FF camera in terms of sheer image quality. This is what I > have been talking about in the thread. With DA/APS you have format > limitations that cannot match what is possible with really good, even > OLD FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax > FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider > them for what they are, LENSES, they can create > a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once > the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage > of this capability. > > jco > You're not correct here. There *ARE* featuers of newer lenses that make them better than old ones: - Better coatings - Potential APO in the formulation - Optimized to project the image onto the sensor perpendicularly... not at an angle. Film was much more tolerant of angle of incidence than are sensors. Non-optical ways they're "better:" - A superset of features can be arguably called a way that it's "better." (AF, auto-aperture, MTF transmission info, etc) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Pogue debunks the megapixel myth. Somewhat
On 8/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: >David Pogue's column in today's NY Times takes on the megapixel >controversy. He conducted tests in an effort to show that an increase in >megapixels doesn't necessarily yield better results. The column is aimed >at consumers and the heavy emphasis on megapixels in P&S marketing. His >first test was with a 13 megapixel camera. He doesn't specify which one. >He took a shot of a toddler, then downsized it to 8 megapixels and 5 >megapixels in PhotoShop. he then had 16 x24 prints made. They were >digital C prints, printed on a Durst Lambda at 400 dpi. He displayed the >prints in Union Square and asked volunteers to try to determine which >was which: lo-res, medium-res and hi-res. One of twelve viewers got it >right. He published the results on his blog and received a number of >angry letters that claimed the results invalid because the lo-res images >were derived from the hi-res by downsizing, rather than being shot lo- >res. So he devised another test. He reasoned, quite correctly in my >opinion, th >at he couldn't use different cameras, because the results would be >skewed by other factors. A Canon pro came up with another method. He >suggested using a Caonon 1DS 16.7 megapixel camera to take the picture >and effectively reducing megapixels by zooming out and cropping. Pogue >agreed and they repeated the test. They produced three shots at >different focal lengths and cropped two of them to 10 and 7 megapixels >respectively. The longest focal length image was kept at 16.7 >megapixels. Again they made three 16 x 24 prints on the Durst Lambda. >This time they displayed them in a library and had 50 people evaluate >them. Only three could differentiate the various resolutions. Pogue >ackowledges the value of higher resolution for cropping and understands >that on a large sensor it can be a plus. But his point is that with tiny >P&S sensors, 5 megapixels may well yield results equal to or better than >8 megapixels. But we knew that. One has to wonder how many experienced >photographers would be a >ble to differentiate between the three prints? I guess we'll never know. Interesting, but doesn't this come back to what i was saying about the limiting factor being the resolution of the printer? -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:18 PM, "Tom C", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It makes a weird sort of marketing sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Difficult to quantify it. But here is one thing I know (and believe). In my other hobby, the difference in the level of sophistication of equipment used is more pronounced than in the case of camera/lens (which is more subtle). But everybody knows that the difference in skill level of people who use it always outplays the difference in equipment used. Nevertheless, people keep spending lots of money for more expensive equipment just to eliminate the factor of perceived difference in equipment. In photography, only those pixel peeper can tell much of difference in decent equipment, be it lens or camera (there certainly are obvious dogs), and become too obsessed with it to the point to forget the joy of appreciating the printed products which is the basic of photography. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Eagle and Fox Fighting
Not mine. Some not very well composed, yet interesting photos, of an eagle and fox competing for a carcass. http://blog.kingsoutdoorworld.com/2007/02/06/eagle-and-fox-the-rest-of-the-photos/ Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Thats what I have already posted about a dozen times! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:26 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? -- Original message -- From: Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > it's not the additional features that make the new lenses better on the current Pentax DSLRs. It's the fact that the optics were designed to optimize image quality on the smaller image area. They can produce higher quality images than the lenses that were designed for full frame. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: What's wrong with my geranium?
On 8/2/07, Kenneth Waller, discombobulated, unleashed: >>> It's Dead Jim. > >It ain't dead, its just resting. Look, he's nailed it to the pot. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Pogue debunks the megapixel myth. Somewhat
You're probably right, Cotty. But I think the Durst Lambda is reasonably high res. I imagine that what Pogue means is that the files were sized at 400 DPI for printing. I suspect the printer prints at much higher res than that. But it is a laser printer that's designed for pro labs. I don't know how it compares to the best inkjets in terms of detail and resolution. Perhaps Wheatfield knows. Paul -- Original message -- From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 8/2/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: > > >David Pogue's column in today's NY Times takes on the megapixel > >controversy. He conducted tests in an effort to show that an increase in > >megapixels doesn't necessarily yield better results. The column is aimed > >at consumers and the heavy emphasis on megapixels in P&S marketing. His > >first test was with a 13 megapixel camera. He doesn't specify which one. > >He took a shot of a toddler, then downsized it to 8 megapixels and 5 > >megapixels in PhotoShop. he then had 16 x24 prints made. They were > >digital C prints, printed on a Durst Lambda at 400 dpi. He displayed the > >prints in Union Square and asked volunteers to try to determine which > >was which: lo-res, medium-res and hi-res. One of twelve viewers got it > >right. He published the results on his blog and received a number of > >angry letters that claimed the results invalid because the lo-res images > >were derived from the hi-res by downsizing, rather than being shot lo- > >res. So he devised another test. He reasoned, quite correctly in my > >opinion, th > >at he couldn't use different cameras, because the results would be > >skewed by other factors. A Canon pro came up with another method. He > >suggested using a Caonon 1DS 16.7 megapixel camera to take the picture > >and effectively reducing megapixels by zooming out and cropping. Pogue > >agreed and they repeated the test. They produced three shots at > >different focal lengths and cropped two of them to 10 and 7 megapixels > >respectively. The longest focal length image was kept at 16.7 > >megapixels. Again they made three 16 x 24 prints on the Durst Lambda. > >This time they displayed them in a library and had 50 people evaluate > >them. Only three could differentiate the various resolutions. Pogue > >ackowledges the value of higher resolution for cropping and understands > >that on a large sensor it can be a plus. But his point is that with tiny > >P&S sensors, 5 megapixels may well yield results equal to or better than > >8 megapixels. But we knew that. One has to wonder how many experienced > >photographers would be a > >ble to differentiate between the three prints? I guess we'll never know. > > Interesting, but doesn't this come back to what i was saying about the > limiting factor being the resolution of the printer? > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic > aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy > equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some data on > the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" phrase is > certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little sceptical, > the > same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. It sounds good > but > tells me nothing substantial. Not that I've seen yet. I have a few samples of both older lenses and newer in similar focl lengths, but I can't be bothered with doing formal tests at this point. My impression is that the DA lenses that I own are doing a better job of rendering images to the sensor than the older ones in similar focal lengths. > > It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards lens > compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally optimized" > lenses > as being especially desirable or preferrable to all those compatible > lenses, > which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing > sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of > the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot > when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Many years ago, I shot Nikon 35mm and Pentax 6x7. One of the selling points that I took into account when I switched 35mm sytems was the ability to mount my 6x7 glass onto Pentax 35mm cameras. Unfortunately, I found that the 6x7 glass didn't render images to the smaller film format as well as I would have liked, so I ended up buying glass optimized for the 35mm film format. We are in a similar situation now with digital. It is a different format with different lens quality requirements. That we can use older lenses is nice, but, like being able to mount a 6x7 lens onto an LX, there are compromises involved in doing so. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> > > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. > >Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? > >William Robb > That must have been after you started whimping out then? ;-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/8/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Loveless" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. > > Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? > Damn. I'll try again later. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
How many times do I have to post it? Optimizing for digital and optimizing for format size are two different things, and I dont believe that the differences you are seeing in some of the DA lenses vs FF lenses of the same focal lengths are due to digital optimization, they are due to Format optimization. (DA lenses, designed to cover only 2/3 the angle or 45% of the area of a FF sensor, can be made to perform slightly better ONLY ON THAT SMALL AREA, then a lens which has to cover it all. Digital optimization will become more of an issue for SOME FF lenses when the FF sensor is used, but for now, the limited angle of coverage being used with FF lenses on APS cameras is not bringing digital optimization much into play IMHO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Screw you, I know more about what I was talking > about and what I posted than you do. Nice that you think so. Dag, Godfrey and myself all seem to have experienced something that disagrees with you regarding film optimized lenses though. Pentax and the other lens manufacturers seem to think lenses need to be optimized for digital as well. I suppose you are saying screw you to their optical engineers too? You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do on this subject. Continue blowing hard though, you definitely know more about doing that than I do. William Robb -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: What's wrong with my geranium?
Cotty wrote: > On 8/2/07, Kenneth Waller, discombobulated, unleashed: > It's Dead Jim. >> It ain't dead, its just resting. > > Look, he's nailed it to the pot. > It's just pining for the spring! (lovely petals) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Pogue debunks the megapixel myth. Somewhat
On 2/08/07 2:32 PM, "Cotty", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting, but doesn't this come back to what i was saying about the > limiting factor being the resolution of the printer? True, if you print it yourself. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
-- Original message -- From: Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > it's not the additional features that make the new lenses better on the current Pentax DSLRs. It's the fact that the optics were designed to optimize image quality on the smaller image area. They can produce higher quality images than the lenses that were designed for full frame. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO--On My Way to Work: Tree in Cemetery
Thanks for all the comments. I agree, this merits further play. My next chance will be Monday. Of course, the snow is already gone... Rick --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:31 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > > > This tree has fascinated me since I first saw it a > few > > months ago. This morning, after the closest thing > > Philly has had to a snowstorm this winter, I took > a > > detour on my walk to work to see what it looked > like. > > > > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5568647 > > > > ist D, DA 16-45, f/4 @ 1/3000, RAW, cropping and > minor > > adjustments in ACR and PE4. > > > > The question is: Why is my DOF so damned good even > at > > f/4? I wanted to blur the background, but it > wouldn't > > cooperate. > > Interesting tree. I don't find this particular photo > of it all that > compelling, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go > back and work with > it. In various types of light and from different > perspectives, I can > imaging it being mysterious and fascinating. > > Regards the DoF question, there's no technical data > regards focus > distance and focal length you used so it's hard to > respond. Say > you're at 10' distance and FL = 20mm, which looks > likely ... DoF at f/ > 4 for that setting is 19 feet, 3.8' in front and > 15.4' in back. And > in a small, web-resolution rendering, sharpness > falloff in the > distance is going to be subtle. So it's hard to get > much distance > blur at those settings. > > DoFMaster is your friend ... > http://www.dofmaster.com/ > > Godfrey > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have a few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable in digital because of lens aberations. Sorry for the harsh words. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "K.Takeshita" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). We use Pentax, we are superior. WW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
JCO wrote: > > ...but to say these OLD lenses are > > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > > DIFFERENT, not better or worse... I can agree with this. It very much depends on shooting conditions, application, aperture, etc. Are the DA lenses *more* demonstrably different/better optically when compared to legacy lenses, than two individual legacy lenses are different from each other (same mfr., cross-mfr.), when used on APS sensors? Pentax wants us to believe both that their DSLRs are capable of producing great results with old lenses, and that they'll produce great results with new DA lenses as well. It gets down to: 1) There's no discernible difference to most people when it comes to looking at standard sized prints or electronically displayed media. It'd be interesting to do a street poll and find out just how many people understand chromatic aberration, noise and sensor size concepts. Want to guess? 2) There are likely trade-offs depending on just how the lens is used between 'digital' and legacy lenses. 3) If you have the money and want the newest whiz bang lens, go for it. Otherwise be happy with what you have or can afford. 4) As Tim said, the skill of the photographer will make a larger difference in photo quality than most lens specifications will. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Wireless Flashless Controller?
Downloaded the recent firmware to my K10D. Am now wondering if anyone knows of a setting wherein the on-board flash acts only as a controller and doesn't participate in the final flash coverage. Been leafing through the 360 manual and remembering that it was possible with my 'sold' MZ-S. Thanks, Jack __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
> What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 08/02/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's > >technology, at the very least. > > > >Scott Loveless > > Fujak? > > Tom C. Kojak? :) Eric. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:07 PM, "Tim Øsleby", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) Isn't it? :-). One day, they say oh it's just a tool and another day, excluding all but their own equipment and how they choose. Viewing from an armchair, its not at all consistent. What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Hey! I didn't know you were a Hokie! Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh >> words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. >> > > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. > > William Robb > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality photographs than are possible with older lenses. -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Not completely, if you dont have the right focal length lens ( proper angle of view ) for a given scene, you cant get full control of the composition. Either you have to use zooms or a bunch of primes if you want to maintain best image quality for a given composition (POV). This is why I seriously doubt that anyone can really be getting best possible image quality all the time with only a few lenses, unless they are limiting their composition possibilities to those few angles of view that they have at thier disposal. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Composition trumps all. :-) > At least is is actually completely separate from equipment. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed >to >complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy >photographer. I take umbrage with that. > >William Robb > Understood. I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some data on the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" phrase is certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little sceptical, the same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. It sounds good but tells me nothing substantial. It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards lens compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally optimized" lenses as being especially desirable or preferrable to all those compatible lenses, which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing sense, but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of the newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot when projected on an APS sized sensor. I'm not arguing they don't have other desirable features. It's not that I'm a disbeliever, it's just that I know it's in a camera/lens company's best interest to sell more lenses. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
> All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi > will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good > FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over > 30 years old ) on a good FF camera in terms of sheer > image quality. This is what I have been talking about > in the thread. With DA/APS you have format limitations > that cannot match what is possible with really good, even OLD > FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax > FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider > them for what they are, LENSES, they can create > a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once > the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage > of this capability. > > jco > You're not correct here. There *ARE* featuers of newer lenses that make them better than old ones: - Better coatings - Potential APO in the formulation - Optimized to project the image onto the sensor perpendicularly... not at an angle. Film was much more tolerant of angle of incidence than are sensors. Non-optical ways they're "better:" - A superset of features can be arguably called a way that it's "better." (AF, auto-aperture, MTF transmission info, etc) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
NO lenses are as good on DSLR as they are on best film because DSLRS still dont have the resolution of the highest resolution films. This is most likely a limitation of your APS DSLR, not your lenses. I say most likely because your making an assumption that these lenses do not image as good on you DSLR because of digital sensor issues, when its most like due to format size and sensor resolution issues. You would have to wait for a good FF pentax body and compare your 135mm lens to a 90mm DA lens or your 100mm lens to a 66mm DA lens and then compared which is better to be sure which is better wouldnt you? And you last statement is totally backwards/wrong. On a ff sensor, MORE ( more than twice as much ) of the FF lens image is used, so the fixed abberations of the lenses become LESS noticable, not more noticable. (The exception to this would be any lens which actally has sensor related issues vs. film, but I havent seen or heard any hard data on that yet, as we dont have the Pentax FF bodies to make the quick comparisons possible). APS makes normal lens abberations ( not film vs. sensor related stuff ) more noticable because you only use a small portion of the FF lens image on a APS body which is like "zooming in" on the flaws. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DagT Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Just a small comment: My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. DagT Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" > lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, > the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture > to say, they just work > better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had a full > frame camera that matched what the full frame lenses can do and were > designed for, you would reverse which ones you are calling superb and > which ones you are calling not performing as well. I dont > think its fair or show's much understanding > to describe them that way when you are using > DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses > which are optimized for FF but not using > them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure > there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point > but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming > well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body > that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to > replace >> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >> expense > >> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >> performance of newer varieties. > > It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I > depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want > the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I > paid for. > > When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a > bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I > used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold > them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I > took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job > for my work. > > I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely > hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three > superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old > lenses which don't perform quite as well. > > G > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I'm not calling anybody lazy or incompetent. But I can't help thinking that you Godfrey, who are a skilled photographer, are able to easily work around most the limitations in the older lenses. You are able to focus accurately without AF. You are able to learn your lenses to the point where you know where their peak performance is. You are able to expose properly on your own without fancy metering. I'm not half as skilled as you are. I probably never will be. But I know one thing. It is not the quality of the old lenses I have and use (BTW, it is not many) that is the main limitation in my photography. No, that's me, and me alone. This said. I can see myself gradually building two lens kits. One for everyday photography, built up with mainly new DA lenses. And one, with old lenses for more specialised tasks. Macro is one example. I don't think I need AF and the other sophisticated features for macro work. But that's me. You think in other directions, and I'm totally ok with that. What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >> >> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >> > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? > The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness > due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or incompetent is truly bullshit. All these things can add up to improved picture quality when exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I think you are confusing some of the DA lenses doing a better job of rendering images vs FF lenses on DSLRs with doing a better job of rendering images vs FF lenses on APS DSLRs. I will say it again, I believe that some, possibly most prime FF Pentax lenses, can and will give a better result on FF DSLRS than the BEST DA lenses on APS DSLRS, once a good FF DSLR body is available to fully utilize what FF lenses were designed to do. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:17 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? -- So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator error/incompetence/laziness. -Cory If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment purchase you are a fool. Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying decision, but it isn't the only part. In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do a better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. Isn't that what's important? When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have done), you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are talking about pissing into the wind. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. > > -Cory > > If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment purchase > you > are a fool. > Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying decision, > but it isn't the only part. > In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do a > better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. > Isn't that what's important? > When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of > equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and > when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have done), > you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. > Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are talking > about pissing into the wind. > > Regards > William Robb > I'm perfectly willing to be labeled a fool for choosing equipment purchases based on the best performance I can obtain for the dollar. After all, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it as well as I. As I said initially, I'm willing to pay 10% for 90% the performance some of the newer lenses perform better on the DSLRS, some don't, ALL are more expensive. That means I can afford 10x as much gear as I would otherwise be able to. Your preening aside, you have yet to explain which new features of these newer lenses provide better resultant image quality. As much as I'd love to engage in a pissing match here, I'll leave that (inevitable) conclusion to JCO. -Cory "Pissing into the wind" -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over 30 years old ) on a good FF camera in terms of sheer image quality. This is what I have been talking about in the thread. With DA/APS you have format limitations that cannot match what is possible with really good, even OLD FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider them for what they are, LENSES, they can create a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage of this capability. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >> >> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >> > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? > The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness > due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or incompetent is truly bullshit. All these things can add up to improved picture quality when exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>> >> My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh >> words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. >> > > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. > > William Robb > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality photographs than are possible with older lenses. -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: combat photography
>> This one (for the ford Ka) runs it pretty close for bad taste: >> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTCf2Z50ohU >> > Thanks, John. I needed that. First time I laughed out loud all day. > I'd seen that before, but I'd forgotten how funny it was... and I *like* cats... :) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Homestead
In a message dated 2/8/2007 10:05:41 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Nice capture. Reminds me of buildings I've seen in Bodie, Ca, & The Grand Tetons Wyoming. Kenneth Waller == Thanks, Ken. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
What is wrong with your brain?, this post was directed at someone who claimed it made sense to buy all new lenses for their PENTAX DSLR for image quality reasons. It does NOT, IMHO. If you are going to have to buy all new lenses for your DSLR, for image quality issues, ( look up the word IF ) then it really doenst make any sense to go with PENTAX body or make. Canon is better if you are really concerned about maximum image quality from your DSLR system AND you are going to have to buy all new lenses anyway. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:06 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > If I had to buy all new lenses for any DSLR, > I wouldnt buy a pentax DSLR. The main advantage > of buying a Pentax DSLR is if you already have > a bunch of Pentax Lenses. If you dont or have > to, or need to buy all new ones, I would go with canon > as they have more bodies/lenses to choose from and > higher level DSLR bodies with FF if wanted or needed... Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you buy all new lenses for your (obsolete) DSLR? Do you feel compelled to buy a new lens set so that you can take pictures with your (obsolete) DSLR? If you don't then your own actions fly in the face of your point here, and renders it moot. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Long-delayed GFM shots
On 2/8/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Featherstone wrote: > > >Or even Firewire-SCSI converters, though they are also more expensive > :-( > > http://www.synchrotech.com/product-1394/firewire-uscsi-conv_01.html > > Under $80.00! I'm gonna get one! > > OK everyone going to GFM: You'll be able to shoot medium format B&W for > the "digital" photo contest! > When I first looked at your photos yesterday I thought "Why did he crop all of them?" I just realized a few minutes ago that I was shooting 6x6, not you. <\Make myself look like an idiot> I should have kept your damn film and entered myself this year. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO--On My Way to Work: Tree in Cemetery
On Feb 7, 2007, at 6:31 PM, Rick Womer wrote: > This tree has fascinated me since I first saw it a few > months ago. This morning, after the closest thing > Philly has had to a snowstorm this winter, I took a > detour on my walk to work to see what it looked like. > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5568647 > > ist D, DA 16-45, f/4 @ 1/3000, RAW, cropping and minor > adjustments in ACR and PE4. > > The question is: Why is my DOF so damned good even at > f/4? I wanted to blur the background, but it wouldn't > cooperate. Interesting tree. I don't find this particular photo of it all that compelling, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't go back and work with it. In various types of light and from different perspectives, I can imaging it being mysterious and fascinating. Regards the DoF question, there's no technical data regards focus distance and focal length you used so it's hard to respond. Say you're at 10' distance and FL = 20mm, which looks likely ... DoF at f/ 4 for that setting is 19 feet, 3.8' in front and 15.4' in back. And in a small, web-resolution rendering, sharpness falloff in the distance is going to be subtle. So it's hard to get much distance blur at those settings. DoFMaster is your friend ... http://www.dofmaster.com/ Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > It's a cost/benefit ratio for me. I'm personally OK with having a little more manual fiddly to deal with, because I know I didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for all of the lenses. As I said before, if you're trying to make money using the camera, there's a whole different set of priorities. > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > The only parts of this list that intrinsically affect image quality are improved flare control and better image resolution. The rest are features that provide a greater level of automation. The argument wasn't that these other features are irrelevant or useless, but rather that they have nothing to do with image quality. > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > Yes they can help, but shouldn't be considered necessary. In particular, WRT the topic of image quality (the ultimate requirement of a lens IMO), old lenses should not be summarily discounted. If one personally values the convenience of more modern features enough to pay for them, great. They shouldn't belittle those who don't. > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > One undeniable advantage: cost. All others are a matter of personal preference. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at > > least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, > > but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. > > > > Kodak's amateur film is all being made in China now. Given the Chinese track > record regarding copyright/patent infringement, you can bet that lucky already > has access to Kodak's emulsion formulations. > Lucky makes some black and white under their own name. I've never used it, but quite a few folks think it has some characteristics of older Tri-X. There are rumors that Kodak leaked/sold/traded some of the old formulas to them. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific feature. Paul -- Original message -- From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Quoting Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at > least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, > but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. > Kodak's amateur film is all being made in China now. Given the Chinese track record regarding copyright/patent infringement, you can bet that lucky already has access to Kodak's emulsion formulations. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
OT: Pogue debunks the megapixel myth. Somewhat
David Pogue's column in today's NY Times takes on the megapixel controversy. He conducted tests in an effort to show that an increase in megapixels doesn't necessarily yield better results. The column is aimed at consumers and the heavy emphasis on megapixels in P&S marketing. His first test was with a 13 megapixel camera. He doesn't specify which one. He took a shot of a toddler, then downsized it to 8 megapixels and 5 megapixels in PhotoShop. he then had 16 x24 prints made. They were digital C prints, printed on a Durst Lambda at 400 dpi. He displayed the prints in Union Square and asked volunteers to try to determine which was which: lo-res, medium-res and hi-res. One of twelve viewers got it right. He published the results on his blog and received a number of angry letters that claimed the results invalid because the lo-res images were derived from the hi-res by downsizing, rather than being shot lo-res. So he devised another test. He reasoned, quite correctly in my opinion, th at he couldn't use different cameras, because the results would be skewed by other factors. A Canon pro came up with another method. He suggested using a Caonon 1DS 16.7 megapixel camera to take the picture and effectively reducing megapixels by zooming out and cropping. Pogue agreed and they repeated the test. They produced three shots at different focal lengths and cropped two of them to 10 and 7 megapixels respectively. The longest focal length image was kept at 16.7 megapixels. Again they made three 16 x 24 prints on the Durst Lambda. This time they displayed them in a library and had 50 people evaluate them. Only three could differentiate the various resolutions. Pogue ackowledges the value of higher resolution for cropping and understands that on a large sensor it can be a plus. But his point is that with tiny P&S sensors, 5 megapixels may well yield results equal to or better than 8 megapixels. But we knew that. One has to wonder how many experienced photographers would be a ble to differentiate between the three prints? I guess we'll never know. Paul -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/08/07 12:45 PM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if > they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. I understand that Fuji has been instigating "return to film" (paraphrasing) campaign for quite some time. Not really a front line flashy one, but quiet and persistent one. I read their management interview, betting that, when digital fever begin to subside, it will be followed by the resurgence of film. I think they actually believe it (not motivated by film biz promotion alone). If they are serious about it, and persevere to preserve at least the minimum film development/production capability, it is admirable. At least in Japan, many (do not know the proportion) advanced amateurs are slowly returning to film. I am sure some are very fussy about the image quality and they prefer film rendition, yet some are sick of too fast a product cycle of essentially the same thing etc. I am sure they of course use DSLR as well, but just reflecting on the advantageous parts of film. Some probably do not like the trend that the photography has turned into a processing by computer geeks rather than true sense of it, etc etc. Curious to know exactly what are driving them back to film. No, I am not a film advocate, just passing info :-) Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Screw you, I know more about what I was talking > about and what I posted than you do. Nice that you think so. Dag, Godfrey and myself all seem to have experienced something that disagrees with you regarding film optimized lenses though. Pentax and the other lens manufacturers seem to think lenses need to be optimized for digital as well. I suppose you are saying screw you to their optical engineers too? You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do on this subject. Continue blowing hard though, you definitely know more about doing that than I do. William Robb -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Long-delayed GFM shots
On 2/8/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Featherstone wrote: > > >On 08/02/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> What you really want (assuming your laptop supports it, of course) is > >> a cardbus card. These are, naturally, more expensive :-(. They look > >> just like a PCMCIA card (except for a gold stripe). I can't remember > >> when laptop manufacturers started putting cardbus-compatible slots in > >> machines, but it was at least five years ago. > > > >Or even Firewire-SCSI converters, though they are also more expensive > :-( > > I wouldn't buy a Cardbus-SCSI converter, because that's too much to > spend for a few grins at GFM! But I might be interested in a > FireWire-SCSI converter becaue I could also use it on my desktop > machine and get rid of my SCSI card. Who wants what as far as developer goes? I brought HC-110 last year. If you're shooting slower film I could grab some Ilfosol. D-76, Rodinal? Anyone got a portable darkroom tent? We could set up an enlarger and make prints! -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Rumour has it that Forte's factory may have been sold. But it seriously > needed an upgrade (they were running pre-WW2 equipment). > > Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if > they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. It doesn't matter if they want to sell it. What matters is closing the deal. I doubt the imbeciles in Rochester can pull it off. They'll figure out an elaborate way to botch the whole thing. Besides, when it comes to dealing with other companies, Kodak doesn't have the shiniest record. They seem to be good at acquiring other companies and then running their products into the ground. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Long-delayed GFM shots
Eric Featherstone wrote: >Or even Firewire-SCSI converters, though they are also more expensive :-( http://www.synchrotech.com/product-1394/firewire-uscsi-conv_01.html Under $80.00! I'm gonna get one! OK everyone going to GFM: You'll be able to shoot medium format B&W for the "digital" photo contest! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Screw you, I know more about what I was talking about and what I posted than you do. when I was talking about the imaging capability IN THIS THREAD, of course I was referring to optical qualities of FF(legacy? - not my term) lenses on APS/Future FF digital vs DA lenses on APS digital which are format related issues. The feature sets have nothing to do with this optical issues. There are already FF lenses with the same feature sets as DA lenses anyway. My comments were not limted to pre-AF lenses, I was referring to ALL FF lenses in comparison to DA lenses on each of the APS/FF formats. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:56 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Long-delayed GFM shots
Eric Featherstone wrote: >On 08/02/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What you really want (assuming your laptop supports it, of course) is >> a cardbus card. These are, naturally, more expensive :-(. They look >> just like a PCMCIA card (except for a gold stripe). I can't remember >> when laptop manufacturers started putting cardbus-compatible slots in >> machines, but it was at least five years ago. > >Or even Firewire-SCSI converters, though they are also more expensive :-( I wouldn't buy a Cardbus-SCSI converter, because that's too much to spend for a few grins at GFM! But I might be interested in a FireWire-SCSI converter becaue I could also use it on my desktop machine and get rid of my SCSI card. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Homestead
In a message dated 2/8/2007 8:44:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: He might have made more money if his house had three other sides. Sorry, feebel humor atttempt. I like the shot and the conversion. Good detail in the logs and window. Dave = Thanks, Dave. Marnie aka Doe :-) On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the side of a house my great grandfather built in 1858. He came from > Scotland to California for the California Gold Rush. He did end up making a > good bit of money -- with a cattle ranch. :-) > > When I went up to northern Northern California to visit Scott Valley where > my father grew up, I went around and looked at historical sites, especially > sites related to my family. Most all I had seen before, but when I was much > younger so it was good to revisit them. > > The ranch is still there, owned by two doctor brothers as a tax write-off. > They, very nicely, have preserved all the old buildings. > > It wasn't very big, about 10x10' or 10x15' with a low roof. A larger house > was built much later. It snows up there in the winter, sometimes a lot. They > would have lived crowded into this little cabin in heavy snow. > > > I wasn't using a tripod, and I think it's just semi-interesting, but the B&W > conversion seems okay. > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/homestead.htm > > Comments welcome. > > > Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Homestead
In a message dated 2/8/2007 9:13:59 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the side of a house my great grandfather built in 1858. He > came from > Scotland to California for the California Gold Rush. He did end up > making a > good bit of money -- with a cattle ranch. :-) > ... > > I wasn't using a tripod, and I think it's just semi-interesting, > but the B&W > conversion seems okay. > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/homestead.htm It's a good photo, with interesting composition and textures. I think it might be nicer if printed down a little deeper: the rendering on my screen seems a bit on the hot/light side. Godfrey = Could be, had to use shadows/highlights to lighten the deep shadow at the top. May have done it too much. I will play with it. Thanks for the input, Godfrey. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Loveless wrote: > > > I really expected Kodak to be the last man standing. I wasn't very clear. What I meant to say was that I expected to Kodak to hold on to the film business to the bitter end. > > > You must be referring to a different "Kodak" than the one I've been > observing for the past 20 years or so! I'm surprised they've survived > this long, given their management. > > If Kodak wasn't planning on selling off their film division(s) before, > they'd better be now because the rumor alone is going to decrease the > value of anything associated with the word "film". They need to sell > ASAP while they still can. > > My bets: Fuji to take the motion picture stuff. Most other stuff to be > split off every which way. Except Kodachrome, which will die a quiet > death. I agree somewhat. Kodachrome will die. Who would really want to take that off their hands? Fuji and others could probably make use of Kodak's film technology. But my real guess is that Kodak will blow it and all of their film products will die along with them. I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to be able to buy Tri-X (even if it's Fuji or Ilford Tri-X) for the next decade or two. Something I hadn't thought of earlier is that Lucky may end up with at least some of it. Not sure if that would be good for product quality, but if they get the emulsion right it wouldn't be all bad. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Composition trumps all. :-) > At least is is actually completely separate from equipment. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: War Photographer
On 2/7/07, Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The look kinda like ammo cans, but they're very small. They fit 6 or > 8 35mm cassettes side by side. Once the kids are in bed I'll grab a > still from the movie so everyone can see what I'm trying to describe. > I couldn't get a screen shot. Every time I tried the picture just blacked out. I'm guessing some sort of DRM is coming into play here. I'll keep looking. Anyone have Nachtwey's email address? -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment >purchase you >are a fool. Did anyone say that? >Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying >decision, >but it isn't the only part. >In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do >a >better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. >Isn't that what's important? It certainly could be. >When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of >equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and >when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have >done), >you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. >Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are >talking >about pissing into the wind. > >Regards >William Robb Bill, I respectfully disagree with you here. Your achievements have nothing to do with whether someone else knows what they're talking about. My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: What's wrong with my geranium?
>> It's Dead Jim. It ain't dead, its just resting. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Boris Liberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: What's wrong with my geranium? > ROTFLMAO > > P. J. Alling wrote: >> >> It's Dead Jim. >> >> >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >>> Do you think maybe it's not getting enough water? >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5568636&size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Homestead
Nice capture. Reminds me of buildings I've seen in Bodie, Ca, & The Grand Tetons Wyoming. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: PESO - Homestead > This is the side of a house my great grandfather built in 1858. He came > from > Scotland to California for the California Gold Rush. He did end up making > a > good bit of money -- with a cattle ranch. :-) > > When I went up to northern Northern California to visit Scott Valley > where > my father grew up, I went around and looked at historical sites, > especially > sites related to my family. Most all I had seen before, but when I was > much > younger so it was good to revisit them. > > The ranch is still there, owned by two doctor brothers as a tax > write-off. > They, very nicely, have preserved all the old buildings. > > It wasn't very big, about 10x10' or 10x15' with a low roof. A larger > house > was built much later. It snows up there in the winter, sometimes a lot. > They > would have lived crowded into this little cabin in heavy snow. > > > I wasn't using a tripod, and I think it's just semi-interesting, but the > B&W > conversion seems okay. > > http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/homestead.htm > > Comments welcome. > > > Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Bill, I respectfully disagree with you here. Your achievements have nothing > to do with whether someone else knows what they're talking about. True, but they at least give my opinions some credibility > > My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh > words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy photographer. I take umbrage with that. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Long-delayed GFM shots
On 08/02/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:50:07PM +, Eric Featherstone wrote: > > On 08/02/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Eric Featherstone wrote: > > > > > > >On 08/02/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> If I can get a SCSI card for my laptop I could bring the Minolta Scan > > > >> Multi! > > > > > > > >Something like one of these should do it: > > > >http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?sofocus=bs&sbrftog=1&from=R10&satitle=usb+scsi+%28converter%2Cadapter%29 > > > >or tinyurl > > > >http://tinyurl.com/23kkcf > > > > > > > >Maybe there are PCMCIA SCSI cards out there too? > > > > > > There are. I found a couple of them on eBay, too. > > > I may have to get one just for GFM. > > > > Cool, I'd guess they shoould be better, for not having the bottleneck > > of USB1.1 in the way. > > A vanilla PCMCIA card will still be a pretty bad bottleneck; I'm not > sure what their maximum transfer rate is, but it isn't all that great. A good point. I did a little googling, PCMCIA is 16MB/s (16bits @ 8MHz - the old ISA standard) so should be fast enough for FastSCSI. Cardbus is [EMAIL PROTECTED] so easily fast enough. > What you really want (assuming your laptop supports it, of course) is > a cardbus card. These are, naturally, more expensive :-(. They look > just like a PCMCIA card (except for a gold stripe). I can't remember > when laptop manufacturers started putting cardbus-compatible slots in > machines, but it was at least five years ago. Or even Firewire-SCSI converters, though they are also more expensive :-( Eric. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: A 400/2.8 and A70-210/4
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:22:23PM -0500, Jim King wrote: > > Thanks (I think) for the post, Igor. I've been looking for a copy of > this monster in reasonably good condition and at a reasonable price > for my collection of A and A* primes. I pulled the trigger and > ordered it from Adorama today. Isn't this list useful? It was the PDML that told me about a 250-600. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: combat photography
On 2/8/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:32:14AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 2/7/2007 9:11:47 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Try the Polo then... > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1aVSXvcV3M > > > > William Robb > > > > = > > That has got to be one of the worst commercials, ever. > > > > Like in really, really, really bad taste. > > > > Marnie aka Doe But strangely funny. > > > This one (for the ford Ka) runs it pretty close for bad taste: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTCf2Z50ohU > Thanks, John. I needed that. First time I laughed out loud all day. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PESO - Homestead
In a message dated 2/8/2007 9:19:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The one near Yreka is, also, a Scott Valley. It's well up north, not far from the small town of Fort Jones. === Fort Jones is IN Scott Valley. Yup, that's the one. Marnie aka Doe :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Scott Loveless wrote: > On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece >> >> http://tinyurl.com/373zmj >> > > So who's down and out so far? Agfa and Forte? Anyone else? I really > expected Kodak to be the last man standing. > > This could be good or bad. With any luck the old men in the white > tower in Rochester will sell off the film division. Hopefully to a > company who has an interest in making film products. I'd like to > think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's technology, > at the very least. > > My instinct tells me that Kodak doesn't have a clue, though, and will > probably just shut it down. > > Either way, this makes what's left of the film market a bit less > competitive. The few players remaining may have a better chance of > surviving it longer. > Rumour has it that Forte's factory may have been sold. But it seriously needed an upgrade (they were running pre-WW2 equipment). Kodak wants to sell its film line, not shut it down. I suspect that if they sell it, the film unit will outlast Kodak proper. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Just a small comment: My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. DagT Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" > lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, > the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture > to say, they just work > better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had > a full frame camera that matched what the full > frame lenses can do and were designed for, you would reverse which > ones you are calling superb and which ones > you are calling not performing as well. I dont > think its fair or show's much understanding > to describe them that way when you are using > DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses > which are optimized for FF but not using > them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure > there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point > but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming > well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body > that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to > replace >> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >> expense > >> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >> performance of newer varieties. > > It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I > depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want > the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I > paid for. > > When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a > bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I > used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold > them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I > took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job > for my work. > > I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely > hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three > superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old > lenses which don't perform quite as well. > > G > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
Scott Loveless wrote: > I really expected Kodak to be the last man standing. You must be referring to a different "Kodak" than the one I've been observing for the past 20 years or so! I'm surprised they've survived this long, given their management. If Kodak wasn't planning on selling off their film division(s) before, they'd better be now because the rumor alone is going to decrease the value of anything associated with the word "film". They need to sell ASAP while they still can. My bets: Fuji to take the motion picture stuff. Most other stuff to be split off every which way. Except Kodachrome, which will die a quiet death. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Kodak May Get Out of Film Sooner
On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >On 2/8/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > >http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/373zmj > > > > > > >I'd like to >think that Fuji or Ilford may have an interest in Kodak's > >technology, > >at the very least. > > > >Scott Loveless > > Fujak? > Kojiford. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
