RE: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
ALL CAPS MEANS I AM PISSED OFF. If you actually read what is being said in the posts I am replying to you would understand. I dont start these things but people simply refuse to not get personal when they dont have to and they do it FIRST. I just reply in kind. Like calling me elitest schmuck because I use and recommend a much better screen setup even AFTER I told them it cost less than $200 NEW. Thats really not making any sense whatsoever. Its a personal attack to attempt to win a losing argument, plain and simple... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Erickson Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:18 PM To: pdml Subject: The PDML List Demographic and JCO JC, I believe that the PDML list consists of photo enthusiasts with a specific interest in Pentax equipment. I believe that the PDML list consists largely of intelligent, thoughtful participants. I believe that PDML list participants use the list to share information and images with each other. I believe that most PDML list members look for messages that include information, links to galleries, and the odd witty interchange involving Cotty. I believe that most PDML list members do not appreciate ALL CAPS RANTS. I believe that most PDML list members do not appreciate being lectured about what kind of audio, visual, or computer hardware they should own, in particular when the lecture comes in the form of an ALL CAPS RANT. Do you believe that your ALL CAPS RANTS and aggressive message add any value at all to the PDML? IF so, can you explain why without resorting to an ALL CAPS RANT? --Mark -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
NOPE, Your argument is futile because the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory to go with digital/DSLR photography and its WAY WAY less costly than the DSLR and good lenses so what I am arguing is that it's SENSELESS to be into DSLR photography AND not upgrade to current BUT INEXPENSIVE display resolutions to edit and enjoy those high res. DSLR images more easily or with higher quality reproduction The affordability factor is a NON issue because if you can afford the cameras and lenses, you can easily afford a good display monitor setup. I am not saying anyone can afford a good monitor setup, I am saying anymore DSLR system owners can. This is not HDTV, this is digital photography discussion which is far more relavant to the list... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... And as such, encompasses a wide range of people with different needs, budgets, values, experience, and interests. This is starting to remind me of the HDTV thread a while back. Can't you get it through your thick skull that not everyone can afford or even want the best. And what hubris you have telling me what I can afford and can't afford. Were you to know my situation you'd take up a collection for me. Further, I have a recent machine and a monitor capable of generating the higher resolution, but I like the resolution at which I work. It's comfortable for my eyes and style, and I've no need/desire to use a higher resolution right now. Web images are a secondary concern for me. I'm more concerned with prints, which I view in real life. May I quote you? " Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME > DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD > IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ). > YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO > SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS > WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY > TODAY 4/3/07 ! THIS IS A PHOTO GROUP, DUH! > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:43 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of > this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one > camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision > problems; there are people who have more important things to spend > their money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, > sending kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; > students and those working their way through school or just starting > out in life. I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis > count these people. > > Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have > a friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer > her daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should > I discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some > arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: > You're a schmuck. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell > > > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > > those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing > > software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be > > bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware > > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > > using those older lower resolution display setups, > > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. > > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS ON THIS. THE HIGHER YOUR SCREEN RESOLUTION, THE BETTER THE IMAGES LOOK ON THE SCREEN AND THE EASIER IT IS TO EDIT THE IMAGES. SAYING AVID/SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS (THE TYPE THAT WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO PHOTO WEB LIST LIKE THIS LIST) DONT NEED OR CANT/WONT BENEFIT FROM A HIGHER SPEC PC DISPLAY THAN AVERAGE NON DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHER IS THE DUMBEST FRICKIN' THING YOU HAVE EVER POSTED HERE AND YOU HAVE POSTED A WHOLE BUNCH OF DUMB SHIT. WHAT ARE YOU USING, 640X480? HIGHER PC SCREEN RESOLUTION M A T T E R S WITH DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT PRINT EVERYTHING, MOST PEOPLE AT LEAST VIEW EVERTHING HOWEVER AND IF YOU CAN GREATLY IMPROVED THE VIEWING, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SAY IT DOESNT MATTER... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:10 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the > spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one > quick > comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! > it was posted only to a photo group which >> should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER >> atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than >> average spec of computer display for photo viewing >> than "the rest of the internet >> population". > This is the biggest piece of horseshit I've read in a very long time, and in no way can be construed as an honest opinion. Photographers take pictures to have pictures, not to have data files to look at on computer monitors. The computer is a means to an end, and the size of the screen has absolutely nothing in common with the finished product. A number of years ago, the enlarger was the industry tool for making pictures. What the above poster is alluding to would be akin to saying that if you were serious about photography, you would need to have an 8x10 enlarger in the basement to print your 6x7 negatives. If a person wants pictures for his own viewing pleasure, then optimize them for that purpose and leave them oon your hard drive. If you want to post pictures for the enjoyment of others, then stop being an idiot and follow the accepted standards regarding pixel dimensions. 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ). YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY TODAY 4/3/07 ! THIS IS A PHOTO GROUP, DUH! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:43 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision problems; there are people who have more important things to spend their money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, sending kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; students and those working their way through school or just starting out in life. I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis count these people. Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have a friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer her daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should I discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: You're a schmuck. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing > software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be > bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > using those older lower resolution display setups, > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. -- 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: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
IF YOUR'E ANNOYED WITH YOUR SETUP, UPGRADE IT, DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR CRAPPY OLD SPEC. SETUP. PUT THE BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE, O NY O U RE N D. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mark Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mark Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
it's called CONVICTION and strong non-waving opinions which have be formed and ingrained via proven years of experince, not "inflexibility". jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:41 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... On 4/3/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? Surprised? No. It's more a matter that I'm continually amazed how one person can be so single minded and inflexible. Cheers, Dave -- 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: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
HUH? Are you freaking retarded? This group is NOT the same as the general population regarging photo displays/ imaging. This is a PHOTO specific group, and as such should be much more attuned to image quality and should/does have HIGHER than "internet average" displays for PHOTOGRAPHIC PURPOSES. That's like saying a musclecar group drives same type engines in their cars as the general population does. This is NOT elitism, this is a a specific INTEREST in photography which today heavily involves computer displays. And to furthermore dispell this STUPID elitism label, the stuff I am talking about/recommending is very CHEAP, way way cheaper than any DSLRS and good SLR LENSES so how can that be elitism, its intelligence, not elitism, dont confuse the two jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I've tried to stay out of this, but your last comments just rankled me. The PDML is comprised of the same people that comprise the net's general population. People are here from all over the world, come from all socio-economic situations, and for whatever reason have computers ranging from inexpensive with small, low rez screen up to the highest quality newest technology. In fact, at least one regular contributor uses borrowed computers, or whatever he can use while at work. In addition, I know of another PDML member who has had numerous shows, sold many prints, and who has won several photographic contests, who, for reasons of space, uses a 17-inch monitor. You are so full of yourself that the crap was running out of my screen as I read your last message. You are continually alienating people here, even those that have been supportive of you. I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one quick comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, only the people who want me to "dumb way down" my posted photos for them are... I suggest those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware As I stated, the hardware needed to see these photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive today, so it doesnt make sense to continue using those older lower resolution display setups, ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet > Understand YOUR post? No one understands your posts. JCO, you're OBVIOUSLY on a plane much higher than anyone else can EVER achieve. > population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > That's a bit elitist, don't you think? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'll solve all your problems right now. Just add pdml@pdml.net to your kill file. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com "...shut the hell up." -JCO -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ELITEST? - NO F%#ING WAY! This is a photo enthusiast group, it's not elistist to cater to that groups interest. Is just plain STUPID to ruin all the files by making them really small for the general internet population when they are NOT being directed at that population. Go kill yourself,,, jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet > Understand YOUR post? No one understands your posts. JCO, you're OBVIOUSLY on a plane much higher than anyone else can EVER achieve. > population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > That's a bit elitist, don't you think? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'll solve all your problems right now. Just add pdml@pdml.net to your kill file. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com "...shut the hell up." -JCO -- 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: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than average spec of computer display for photo viewing than "the rest of the internet population". This matters jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... David Savage wrote: >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of >the internet using population should be working. Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at all? -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I said this was just a temporary quick and dirty, higher image quality posting to a group, the rest of the internet world doesnt even know it exists. If I was going to do something more permanent or important, I would use multible image size photos and bigger thumbnails,,,This was a just a "stock" photoshop web gallery automatic type deal to make it easier to post a bunch of photos in a hurry... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Suit yourself. All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of the internet using population should be working. Cheers, Dave At 09:30 AM 3/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >Do the math, it aint anywhere near >240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is incorrect...The >screen would have to be only 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel >wide image. I dont know anybody using that size screen or >screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed >image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop >lesson. > >Open a file in PS, this one will do: > ><http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> > >Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: > >Pixel Dimensions >Width: 1200 pixels >Height: 801 pixels > >Document Size: >Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) > >As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for >web images. > >Dave > >At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: > >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but > >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image > >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily > >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. > >jco > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >Of > > >David Savage > >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >Subject: Re: > >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution > >for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If > >I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link > >to a > > >higher resolution file. > > > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's > >print > > >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files > >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > > > >Dave -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
right, so why bother to make them smaller for inadequate systems running low rez displays? I think there is some confusion here, this wasnt/isnt a typical web gallery designed for general population, this was posted for a specific group of people, the Pentax mailing list to be specific, and this group should have, in my opinion a higher spec of computer than average for viewing photos, and should have a greater appreciation than average of image quality that a 1200 pixel image affords vs say 800 or 1024 size images. Whatever, hey they are my photos after all and I am the only one who saw them full size, so I am in a better position to say if the loss at 800 or 1024 was tolerable or not to me. Whatever... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller > like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 > Mp or less? For a web gallery, yes.. Who gives a shit, John? I print them at full res, but the web galleries are designed to fit on ANY monitor (hence 800 pixels on the longest side). There were some cool cars in your gallery but my laptop (free from work; don't tell me to upgrade it) has a max resolution of 1024x768. Honestly, the fact that they are jpegs has degraded the image enough, so again, who gives a shit? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Do the math, it aint anywhere near 240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is incorrect...The screen would have to be only 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel wide image. I dont know anybody using that size screen or screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop lesson. Open a file in PS, this one will do: <http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: Pixel Dimensions Width: 1200 pixels Height: 801 pixels Document Size: Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for web images. Dave At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for >preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I >think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a >higher resolution file. > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > >Dave > >On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller like to 800 > > pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > > > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only > > 1 > > > Mp or less? jco > >-- >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a higher resolution file. And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files which is a bonus for those on slower connections. Dave On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller > like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 > Mp or less? jco -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
If you cant actually rebutt anything the post, I suggest you shut the hell up! These type of "now your in the trash bin, but I cant say why" replies are absolutely USELESS and unethical to boot. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB > photo, there is a huge difference in what you can > see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a > a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do > with full rez. prints which of course are better than > either size web photos. Actually, once you get > down to web size images, the losses in changing > photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large > size images ( near the resolution of the camera > and lenses) there is less loss with similar > reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from > 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail > loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the > reduction in pixel percentage is the same). > jco > > Back to the trash bin for you. Woohoo. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I dont send them to be "easy" for very low spec computers/displays and ruin them in the process. THAT is a waste of time. you guys should be more concerned with image qualiy but apparently you are more concerned other things I dont give a rats ass about...This was a quick and dirty photoshop web gallery, not something I am putting up permanently or commercailly which I would be willing to spend more time for multiple image sizes... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:29 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here > understands > that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to > post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. > > I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger > pics, that can be arranged. Shel, as you know, the bottom line for publishing web images is to make them easily viewable by as many people as possible. This means sticking to a few accepted norms and procedures. The most important one is to ensure that your image can be viewed in full by the majority of viewers. If an image comes up cropped, then the viewer isn't seeing what you intended them to see. If the viewer has to scroll around to see the entire image, then you aren't presenting your images in a manner that does them justice. The bottom line is that if joc wants to bugger up his web presentation and spoil his own pictures in the process, that is his right. You and I may think he is a fool for doing so, I've never thought that shooting oneself in the foot is the smart way to do things, but if it is his way, and it works for him, then it's what he is going to do. I can't be bothered with wasting my time posting pictures to the web that aren't easily viewable, but his time is his to waste however he chooses, and to tell him differently is, as you well know, a total waste of your time as well. 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB photo, there is a huge difference in what you can see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do with full rez. prints which of course are better than either size web photos. Actually, once you get down to web size images, the losses in changing photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large size images ( near the resolution of the camera and lenses) there is less loss with similar reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the reduction in pixel percentage is the same). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here understands that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger pics, that can be arranged. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 4/2/2007 8:07:14 AM > Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller > like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 > Mp or less? jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:34 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and > anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM > > Subject: RE: Web > Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller > > than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded > > even at that resolution, going smaller makes > > it worse, not even to mention having to convert > > them to sRGB for PC usage. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Shel Belinkoff > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: Web Gallery > > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > What hubris ... > > > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. > > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 Mp or less? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM > Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller > than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded > even at that resolution, going smaller makes > it worse, not even to mention having to convert > them to sRGB for PC usage. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Web Gallery > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > What hubris ... > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. -- 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: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
One other thing need mentioning. I have been to many car events in my life but hadnt been to one in about 5 or 6 years. What has changed, is that about 2/3 or more of the cars now are restored to BETTER THAN NEW condition. Its unbelievable what they are doing now with the body work and paint. The bodies look like glass they are so smooth. What was excellent 10 yrs ago is now garbage compared to today's top level body work... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:58 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Thanks. Much appreciated. Paul On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:44 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > if you are interested in the prices of '55's, > search the www.barrett-jackson.com website > as it lists the final prices of all cars > sold this year. the values of the cars are > highly dependent on the level of restoration, > whether they are numbers matching, and > of course, the drive train it has. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:05 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Web Gallery > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > Thanks, good news. I may have to sell my '55 if I don't land a job > soon. > Paul On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> I think the one you are talking about went for $73K >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> Paul Stenquist >> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:30 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Web Gallery : >> Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >> >> >> John, >> Do you know what the selling price was for the 56 Chevy BelAir >> Convertible? >> Paul >> On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:24 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont >>> do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your >>> screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, >>> then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing >>> them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. >>> jco >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of >>> John Celio >>> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:04 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson >>> CollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >>> >>> >>> JCO, you may have a large screen or eyes that can handle super-high >>> resolution, but not everyone is so blessed. I, for instance, use my >>> laptop >>> for everything, and it has a 15.4" screen. I don't like having it >>> set >>> to a >>> super-high resolution because that makes text too small to read >>> comfortably. >>> >>> Also, one of the first things I learned regarding webdesign is to >>> set up >>> >>> your site so that the greatest number of people will be able to >>> view it >>> comfortably. Since my website's stats show 1024x768 being the >>> most-often >>> used resolution by my visitors, I design for that resolution. If >>> you >>> really >>> must have larger photos, just spend the time to make smaller >>> versions >>> too. >>> You may consider it a waste of time, but you'll keep a lot more of >>> your >>> visitors if you don't force them to have to scroll around every time >>> they >>> want to look at one of your photos. I only looked at a few of your >>> photos >>> (which were really nice, by the way. I love many of those cars) >>> before >>> I >>> got tired of having to scroll every time and went on to something >>> else. >>> >>> John >>> >>> -- >>> http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
OK, Mr. Photo Critic, I already stated these were simple documentary photos and if you had a freaking clue as to how these events work, you would know that its a miracle I even GOT any photos. There were tons of people strolling the grounds, which means I had to do "grab" shots whenever the crowd thinned or people walked away, the cars were parked very close to each other giving very limited views, and the lighting was horrible in the tents ( virtually no lighting IN the tents, it all streamed in from the edges of the tents, I used flash to fill where I could but I didnt HAVE TIME to get it all balanced in many cases due to the heavy traffic of attendees. ) If you have some photos of the event you would like to show in comparison, I would be glad to see them. I posted these to SHOW THE CARS, not as photographic works of art you fool. Regarding the size, try reducing them to 800 pixels and see if they look the same, they DONT. You lose too much detail, and with these cars the details are what makes them so cool to see. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:11 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: RE: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > What hubris ... > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. > After reading your email and the one from John Celio, I decided I had to go and see what moronity had perpetrated as a display presentation. I have a fairly big desktop, and had to go to display image only to view them, which, given the amateurish nature of the pictures themselves, makes the gallery way more trouble than it is worth. One of my teachers had saying that was along the lines of "if you can't take a good photograph, then make big photographs and perhaps no one will notice how bad they are". This gallery represents that philosophy. I could have been playing Mahjong and gotten more for my time than this. 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
OK, dont respond, but you are not going to get away with the bad eyes comments and me not respond. I have excellent vision and this monitor is truly exceptional for a CRT of it's size. This isnt my sole opinion. Everyone who has seen it makes the same remarks, they cant believe how clear the fine details are INCLUDING fine text, compared to typical CRT monitors. Even when I run test patterns on it, virtually everything looks nearly perfect, including convergence, grayscale, geometry, etc. I cant speak for motion, I dont use it for gaming or video, but even that may be good too. I am not trying to say my monitor is worse/good as/ better than yours, All I am trying to say is, that given a good monitor, 1600x1200 is not only possible, I AM RECOMMENDING IT for photo and general purpose use over 1280x960. The extra resolution and workspace is extremely useful/beautiful. Your comments regarding it cant be done or isnt recommended by the mfgr are not simply not real world (anymore, at least) given really good monitors. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:16 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Hi Jco This turns into one of the communications I don't want to participate in. You must have the eyes of an eagle or a mole. Just a last puzzle for you: What does T in an Eizo's monitor name stand for? I'm back to Pentax topics and will not respond to that thread anymore. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this oneThis monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonC
RE: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded even at that resolution, going smaller makes it worse, not even to mention having to convert them to sRGB for PC usage. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... What hubris ... Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: John Celio > JCO, you may have a large screen or eyes that can handle super-high > resolution, but not everyone is so blessed. I, for instance, use my > laptop > for everything, and it has a 15.4" screen. I don't like having it set > to a > super-high resolution because that makes text too small to read > comfortably. > > Also, one of the first things I learned regarding webdesign is to set > up > > your site so that the greatest number of people will be able to view > it > comfortably. Since my website's stats show 1024x768 being the > most-often > used resolution by my visitors, I design for that resolution. If you > really > must have larger photos, just spend the time to make smaller versions > too. > You may consider it a waste of time, but you'll keep a lot more of your > visitors if you don't force them to have to scroll around every time > they > want to look at one of your photos. I only looked at a few of your > photos > (which were really nice, by the way. I love many of those cars) before > I > got tired of having to scroll every time and went on to something else. -- 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: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I didnt bugger it up, these people want me to optimize it for low spec PC systems which I wont do for quality reasons. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:46 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "John Celio" Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > JCO wrote: >>I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont >> do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your >> screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, >> then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing >> them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. > > Don't you think that's being rather elitist? > > Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are > those > with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? > > If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing > your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very > nice. > HAR! I take it joc can't even do a web presentation without buggering it up? 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: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
if you are interested in the prices of '55's, search the www.barrett-jackson.com website as it lists the final prices of all cars sold this year. the values of the cars are highly dependent on the level of restoration, whether they are numbers matching, and of course, the drive train it has. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 8:05 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Thanks, good news. I may have to sell my '55 if I don't land a job soon. Paul On Apr 2, 2007, at 12:06 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I think the one you are talking about went for $73K > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:30 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Web Gallery : > Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > John, > Do you know what the selling price was for the 56 Chevy BelAir > Convertible? > Paul > On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:24 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont >> do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your >> screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, >> then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing >> them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> John Celio >> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:04 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson >> CollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >> >> >> JCO, you may have a large screen or eyes that can handle super-high >> resolution, but not everyone is so blessed. I, for instance, use my >> laptop >> for everything, and it has a 15.4" screen. I don't like having it >> set >> to a >> super-high resolution because that makes text too small to read >> comfortably. >> >> Also, one of the first things I learned regarding webdesign is to >> set up >> >> your site so that the greatest number of people will be able to >> view it >> comfortably. Since my website's stats show 1024x768 being the >> most-often >> used resolution by my visitors, I design for that resolution. If you >> really >> must have larger photos, just spend the time to make smaller versions >> too. >> You may consider it a waste of time, but you'll keep a lot more of >> your >> visitors if you don't force them to have to scroll around every time >> they >> want to look at one of your photos. I only looked at a few of your >> photos >> (which were really nice, by the way. I love many of those cars) >> before >> I >> got tired of having to scroll every time and went on to something >> else. >> >> John >> >> -- >> http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 > > > -- > 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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
This monitor/card I am using (Dell/Sony P991&radeon) easily does 1600x1200 at 75 Hz progressive. And text is crystal clear and there is no sharpness or flicker problem at 75 Hz which makes it even the slightest bit hard to read text. I must admit that this monitor is WAY better in terms of sharpness and lack of artifacts than any monitor I have ever owned, maybe this is why you think you cant do 1600x1200 on a CRT? I wouldnt have thought possible either UNTIL I saw it with my own eyes. Whoever or whatever told you that you cant go higher than 1280x960 with a 19" or larger CRT is nuts, its not only very possible, it simply blows away 1280x960 in actual usage. Is is perfect? Of course not, but I would NEVER EVER EVER go back to 1280x960 after using 1600x1200 for a short time both photographically, and for basic general workspace reasons. No matter how much you think your 1280x960 work"space" is plenty, the higher 1600x1200 resolution gives you more than 50% more pixels, and this in effect gives you even more than 50% more workspace because most programs have fixed pixel count in overhead. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this oneThis monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I think the one you are talking about went for $73K jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... John, Do you know what the selling price was for the 56 Chevy BelAir Convertible? Paul On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:24 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > John Celio > Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:04 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson > CollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > JCO, you may have a large screen or eyes that can handle super-high > resolution, but not everyone is so blessed. I, for instance, use my > laptop > for everything, and it has a 15.4" screen. I don't like having it set > to a > super-high resolution because that makes text too small to read > comfortably. > > Also, one of the first things I learned regarding webdesign is to > set up > > your site so that the greatest number of people will be able to > view it > comfortably. Since my website's stats show 1024x768 being the > most-often > used resolution by my visitors, I design for that resolution. If you > really > must have larger photos, just spend the time to make smaller versions > too. > You may consider it a waste of time, but you'll keep a lot more of > your > visitors if you don't force them to have to scroll around every time > they > want to look at one of your photos. I only looked at a few of your > photos > (which were really nice, by the way. I love many of those cars) > before > I > got tired of having to scroll every time and went on to something > else. > > John > > -- > http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto > > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson CollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 10:04 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson CollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO, you may have a large screen or eyes that can handle super-high resolution, but not everyone is so blessed. I, for instance, use my laptop for everything, and it has a 15.4" screen. I don't like having it set to a super-high resolution because that makes text too small to read comfortably. Also, one of the first things I learned regarding webdesign is to set up your site so that the greatest number of people will be able to view it comfortably. Since my website's stats show 1024x768 being the most-often used resolution by my visitors, I design for that resolution. If you really must have larger photos, just spend the time to make smaller versions too. You may consider it a waste of time, but you'll keep a lot more of your visitors if you don't force them to have to scroll around every time they want to look at one of your photos. I only looked at a few of your photos (which were really nice, by the way. I love many of those cars) before I got tired of having to scroll every time and went on to something else. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions2007WestPalmBeach...
right, like I said, I didnt want to bother with multiple photo sizes ( i used the simple PS web gallery ) and if I only do one, I always do as large as works on my PC. Sorry it didnt work for you but I strongly recommend you increase your monitor resolution while I am at it. Bigger is better, especially if you a photographer. The higher rez. pc setup also gives you much more workspace to boot! I absolutely love the 1200x1600 setup I have been using for the last couple years with a Sony trinitron hi-scan monitor...I can entirely view 1500 pixel wide images in photoshop no problem... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:14 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions2007WestPalmBeach... Hi jco Even in kiosk mode (F11) I would have to scroll at 12980x960 monitor resolution. I prefer the way Godfrey for example chooses in his galleries to show a smaller image with max 600 pixel height with the option to click on it to enlarge it to it's "full beauty". Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:42 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007WestPalmBeach... Hi, sorry about the larger photos for you, but I didnt want to spend a lot of time with multiple photo sizes and I have always believed in sending largest size that still works on my current computer for quality reasons. I know that using smaller is more compatible but the "lowest common denominator" approach limits quality way too much when only using one size photo. ( I am using 1200x1600 at this time ). Did you try using "F11" function key on the IE browser application? That gives you a slightly larger window for photo viewing... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:48 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007WestPalm Beach... Nice photos JCO but not being able to see a photo full size without scrolling annoyed me too much to watch them all. As much as I like it when people show photos as large as possible, there must be better solutions for the presentation than yours. These Tokina lenses did quite well as far as I can see. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:25 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007 WestPalm Beach... In a message dated 3/31/2007 11:29:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I went to the 2007 West Palm Beach Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auction Event yesterday 3/30/2007. Incredible cars all over the place. Of course I took a bunch of photos. If your into vintage cars, especially American Muscle Cars, Here's a web gallery I made you might want to peek at ( first time I used this feature in Photoshop, not too bad really). Most of the cars sold between $30 and $60 grand on Friday's Auctions... http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/index.htm Tech Info: Camera - Pentax istDS Lenses - Tokina SD 28-70 F3.5/4.5 and Tokina SD 80-200 F2.8 Outdoor ISO 200, Tents ISO 400, Indoor ISO 800 JCO === Aha, I used to have one of these, and now it's a collector's item. BJWPB2007-063.jpg Same colors and everything (power blue/white two-tone convertible 1957 Ford, at least I think it was a Ford). Drove it my last two years to high school, then sold it to a girl friend and it ran for her for about four more years. Brings back fond memories. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.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 -- 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
RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007WestPalm Beach...
Hi, sorry about the larger photos for you, but I didnt want to spend a lot of time with multiple photo sizes and I have always believed in sending largest size that still works on my current computer for quality reasons. I know that using smaller is more compatible but the "lowest common denominator" approach limits quality way too much when only using one size photo. ( I am using 1200x1600 at this time ). Did you try using "F11" function key on the IE browser application? That gives you a slightly larger window for photo viewing... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 5:48 PM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007WestPalm Beach... Nice photos JCO but not being able to see a photo full size without scrolling annoyed me too much to watch them all. As much as I like it when people show photos as large as possible, there must be better solutions for the presentation than yours. These Tokina lenses did quite well as far as I can see. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 6:25 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007 WestPalm Beach... In a message dated 3/31/2007 11:29:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I went to the 2007 West Palm Beach Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auction Event yesterday 3/30/2007. Incredible cars all over the place. Of course I took a bunch of photos. If your into vintage cars, especially American Muscle Cars, Here's a web gallery I made you might want to peek at ( first time I used this feature in Photoshop, not too bad really). Most of the cars sold between $30 and $60 grand on Friday's Auctions... http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/index.htm Tech Info: Camera - Pentax istDS Lenses - Tokina SD 28-70 F3.5/4.5 and Tokina SD 80-200 F2.8 Outdoor ISO 200, Tents ISO 400, Indoor ISO 800 JCO === Aha, I used to have one of these, and now it's a collector's item. BJWPB2007-063.jpg Same colors and everything (power blue/white two-tone convertible 1957 Ford, at least I think it was a Ford). Drove it my last two years to high school, then sold it to a girl friend and it ran for her for about four more years. Brings back fond memories. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007 WestPalm Beach...
that looks like a '56 chevy, not a ford, and in turquoise, not power blue. ( At least it brought back the memories for you!). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 12:25 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007 WestPalm Beach... In a message dated 3/31/2007 11:29:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I went to the 2007 West Palm Beach Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auction Event yesterday 3/30/2007. Incredible cars all over the place. Of course I took a bunch of photos. If your into vintage cars, especially American Muscle Cars, Here's a web gallery I made you might want to peek at ( first time I used this feature in Photoshop, not too bad really). Most of the cars sold between $30 and $60 grand on Friday's Auctions... http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/index.htm Tech Info: Camera - Pentax istDS Lenses - Tokina SD 28-70 F3.5/4.5 and Tokina SD 80-200 F2.8 Outdoor ISO 200, Tents ISO 400, Indoor ISO 800 JCO === Aha, I used to have one of these, and now it's a collector's item. BJWPB2007-063.jpg Same colors and everything (power blue/white two-tone convertible 1957 Ford, at least I think it was a Ford). Drove it my last two years to high school, then sold it to a girl friend and it ran for her for about four more years. Brings back fond memories. Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.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
Web Gallery : Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auctions 2007 West Palm Beach FL.
I went to the 2007 West Palm Beach Barrett-Jackson Collector Car Auction Event yesterday 3/30/2007. Incredible cars all over the place. Of course I took a bunch of photos. If your into vintage cars, especially American Muscle Cars, Here's a web gallery I made you might want to peek at ( first time I used this feature in Photoshop, not too bad really). Most of the cars sold between $30 and $60 grand on Friday's Auctions... http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/index.htm Tech Info: Camera - Pentax istDS Lenses - Tokina SD 28-70 F3.5/4.5 and Tokina SD 80-200 F2.8 Outdoor ISO 200, Tents ISO 400, Indoor ISO 800 JCO -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: PESO:Tamron SP70-150mm 2.8 on the K10D 3 test shots
The nice part of it all is you can get "KA" type adaptall-2 adapters to maintain autoexposure on the current crop of pentax DSLRS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim King Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 12:30 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: PESO:Tamron SP70-150mm 2.8 on the K10D 3 test shots Markus Maurer wrote on Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:02:55 -0800: > Hi Jim > Are you looking for the soft focus feature or just for a fast > Tamron SP > zoom? I collect Tamron SP Adaptall-2 lenses and already have most of the zooms. I'm quite interested in this specific lens, partly because of its reputation as a very sharp fast conventional optic and also because I'd like to experiment with the progressive variable softening feature (I already have all of the Pentax soft focus lenses). Unfortunately I've never seen one for sale - either it was rare to begin with or those who own one like it too much to sell it! ;<) > The soft focus ring settings 1-3 are nice for full portrait shots > or flower > close-ups with uniform backgrounds. If the background is too busy > the bokeh > with the soft focus ring engaged is harsh and unpleasant . I will > have to > experiment a bit with that feature on the K10D, I last used it on > film and > only liked about 1 out of 10 soft focus shots :-( Thanks for this info. It's consistent with my results using the Pentax soft focus lenses as well. But there are certain images where the spherical aberration (I think that's what it is) of a soft focus lens adds just the right dreamy/foggy look. > The slower non SP 70-150mm 3.5 Tamron is very inexpensive here but > I can't > say anything about it's quality and if it is similar to the SP one. The reports on the regular version are not as good, and of course it's slower. > The same is true for the SP 70-210 3.5/4 zoom lens. Again a heavy > but well > built lens. Yes, I already have this one, as well as the even more highly regarded SP 70-210 f3.5 constant aperture version which I recently found on eBay. The latter is said to be the best MF zoom ever made in this range. I'm looking forward to comparing it with my Pentax A 70-210 f4 when I get the time. It's amazing how inexpensive most of these lenses are - it seems that nobody is interested in MF zooms any more. Ah well - the joys of collecting are even greater when the cost is reasonable. Regards, Jim -- 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: Another PayPal Scam
REAL second chance offer ebay links take you to a new listing of the same item with a new "buy it now" price the same as your previous "losing bid" amount. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:51 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Another PayPal Scam In a message dated 3/29/2007 6:44:29 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr.php?cmd=_login-run Thank you for your patience in this matter. PayPal - Customer Service " Heads up boys and girls Shel == I was debating mentioning this, but since you mentioned that scam... I bid recently, in the last week, on a Pentax K 24mm (lost the auction at the last second). The next day I received what looked like a very official second chance offer, html and all, yellow, etc. Looked like an ebay message. Clicking on the link took me to that len's item page, EXCEPT it still said "You've been outbid." I don't know what a link would look like for a real second chance offer, but I figured that wasn't it. So, just to be sure, I emailed, through ebay's inner message system, the seller and asked him if he had sent it. Nope. I think someone mentioned fake second chance offers before here, so thanks for the warning. Just want to say it was extremely well-done and if I hadn't been sharp I could have been taken. Heads up on that too... Marnie aka Doe ** See what's free at http://www.aol.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: Any possibility of price reduction for K10D?
Future K10D price is very dependent on the DSLR market. If nobody else has a similar camera at a lower price, its less likely to drop, conversely if some new ones come out that are similar at lower prices its more likely to drop. I once saw a business TV show many years ago and the CEO was asked about the prices he would set on his new line of upcoming products, he replied something to the effect, "thats not my choice, I can't control that, that's dependent solely on the market at the time they come out". Never forgot that little tidbit of economics jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:49 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Any possibility of price reduction for K10D? In a message dated 3/28/2007 10:24:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is there any possibilty of a price reduction of K10D? A few of us hoped for one in the 6-7 month period after the product launch. Does anyone see that happening in the next 2-3 months? Thanks, Gaurav === Yeah, I mean, me too. I've been waiting. Now I think the price will only drop significantly when they release the next generation of the K10D. According to that interview that was posted here recently that MIGHT happen before the end of the year. OTOH, don't hold your breath. Marnie aka Doe ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.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: The "Thingy" in the istDS
what about the spotmatics that DID have a hot shoe, the spII spIIA and spF ? I dont recall any hot shoe cutoff switches on those either... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob Sullivan Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 1:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Thingy" in the istDS Peter, I haven't seen any 'cut-out' switches on any of the pre-M series cameras. That includes KX, KM, K2, or ESII, ES, or ElectroSpotmatic. And of course the Spotmatic had no hot shoe. Maybe the cameras inbetween?? Regards, Bob S. On 3/28/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually they they're not saving money. Starting with the M series of > cameras, that I'm aware of at least, (maybe earlier, I seem to > remember something similar on the ESII, but I don't have one available > to look at right now). Pentax incorporated a switch in the hot shoe, > usually on the right side which interrupted power flow to the > electrical contacts when a flash was not mounted. The rational for > this was that a user wouldn't shock themselves when using a flash > attached to the PC connection, which was possible with a number of > cameras IIRC. That switch is missing on the *ist D, which has a PC > connector, (probably the same function is done electronically), and > though it doesn't serve the same function since the Ds doesn't have a > PC connector, the the switch is present on the Ds. The cutout is to > keep from stressing the spring on that switch. > > > mike wilson wrote: > >> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2007/03/27 Tue PM 11:03:32 GMT > >> To: "PDML" > >> Subject: The "Thingy" in the istDS > >> > >> I've been using the istDS for about two years and today I noticed a > >> little thingy in the flash attachment. It looks like it's designed > >> to cover and protect the contacts. That's pretty cool. This is my > >> second DS, and I don't recall this protection cover being on the > >> first camera. Is this a standard item, or maybe an optional piece > >> that was installed by the original owner of my second camera, which > >> I bought used? > >> > >> > > > > Standard fitment in most new cameras of quality. Even my Zenits had > > one. The one for the Z1-p was a most bizarre shape, due to the > > location of the shoe. The DL/2 has cutouts on the locating rails > > (in fact, on one side the rail is almost completely missing) to save > > a farthing's worth of plastic. I think you can get a Leica one made > > in precious metal and set with gemstones. It's an optional extra on > > the Paris Hilton Sex Tape Commemorative model. > > > > > > - > > Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email > > Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam > > > > > > > > > -- > Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw > uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > > > -- > 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
RE: Opinions of DA 40?
Its all relative, F2.8 is very slow for a normal range optic, but its a speed demon for an ultra wide or ultra telephoto. I think the entire point of the 40mm F2.8 lenses are absolute minimum physical size with a reasonble speed. If it was an F2.0 it would defeat it's sole purpose for existance jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Opinions of DA 40?
yes a longer lens itself is more noticable than a shorter lens itself, but it's nowhere near as noticeable as a much closer photographer using a shorter lens! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:50 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Opinions of DA 40? In a message dated 3/28/2007 7:48:31 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I like long lenses for candid unaware people street shots. The further away you are the easier it is to go unnoticed. 40mm would be way too short for me, even on APS format... jco = On, the whole, I agree, but it's a toss up. A longer lens is also a lot more noticeable. Marnie ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.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: Opinions of DA 40?
I like long lenses for candid unaware people street shots. The further away you are the easier it is to go unnoticed. 40mm would be way too short for me, even on APS format... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:40 AM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Opinions of DA 40? Well, I ordered the DA 50-200 from Adorama. It was in stock when I ordered, but they tell me that now it's out, and I'll have to wait. Probably that rebate thing. I'd also like a fast prime. Something for stealth photography, as when I want to do "street photography," i.e. unaware people shots. Something shorter than a long zoom -- less conspicuous. Guess one couldn't get much shorter than the DA 40. Opinions? Focus good? Any focus fall off? CA? Whatever? What would the crop factor on this one be on digital? Come out to about 55mm? TIA, Marnie aka Doe ;-) Course if I do order it, it is bound to go out of stock just when I do. ** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.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: Battery life on K10D
there are many many different types of battery chargers on the market today of widely varying sophistication and automation so I would say that its not quite as simple as that. Many actually stop charging completely when the charge light goes out, so even if you leave it "on" longer you are not getting any more charge. For NIMH batteries, What I have settled on is two rate manually controlled self designed chargers, w/ fast and trickle charge rates. I use the fast/high current value @1/8C with a cutoff timer so I dont overcharge but I can set the total charge time to whatever I need depending on the mA Hour rating of the battery being charged. I then use the trickle charge setting/value @ about 1/40C but don't really do a typical trickle charge (always charging), I only trickle charge mine for only one hour a day via another 24 hour power timer. This method works well and doesnt stress the batteries and I have fully charged batteries always ready to go without leaving them charging all the time or having to keep recharging batteries that self discharged because they were not trickled or full charged recently. The only caveat, and it can be a big one, is that this method really only works well with batteries fully "used up" before fast charging again, if not sure or I know only a little discharge has occured, I just put on trickle for 24 hours continuous rather than use any fast charge to be safe and not overcharge the batteries. Works for me, your mileage may vary of course. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:43 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D On Mar 27, 2007, at 7:10 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > Is this third party charger only for the Pentax K10D accu or does > it work > with other accu brands as well? It's a CTA charger for the NP400 battery: here's a link to it on CompUPlus.com. http://tinyurl.com/38sag3 I usually stick the battery on charge and leave it sit on the power for a while after the charge light goes out. Typically, the charge light goes out when the battery has achieved 85-90% charge on most of these types of chargers. 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: Battery life on K10D
I bet since they are intermittant and are only really just low power dc motors essentially, they would not be much of a factor unless you left them on continously for some reason. Its an estimate, I didnt test those features, the istDS doesnt even have AS to test. I doubt anything else is going to be even close to the full power flash energy consumption. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 10:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D J. C. O'Connell wrote: > Flash is the biggest power hogthe LCD is second place > in that category.. > jco How do you think AF and AS figure in the power consumption scale? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Battery life on K10D
Flash is the biggest power hogthe LCD is second place in that category.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:49 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:30 PM, Markus Maurer wrote: > Hi Godfrey > Maybe the 2 Pentax battereries I have are still too new ? but I got > under > 500 exposures and never saw the battery gauge on the K10D changing > from full > to another state before the batteries shut down. I use review and the > histogram, that must be the power hungry functions. I wonder how much > battery AF uses, andy ideas? No idea about that. Anything that keeps the LCD illuminated or status display illuminated will consume battery power to a greater degree than nearly anything else, however. Perhaps you are not charging the batteries all the way? or have a less than perfect charger? I use a third party charger, from Impact again, rather than the Pentax charger because it plugs directly into the wall and also takes a power connection from the accessory jack in the car. 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: PESO:A24mm+K10D tests
Huh, a slower AF zoom lens was EASIER to focus manually than a faster prime MF lens? I have never found that to be the case EVER in similar comparisons, WHY? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 9:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: PESO:A24mm+K10D tests I did a lot of shooting with the A24/2.8. An excellent lens, one of my favorites, with a good build and very good rendering throughout. A bit of barrel distortion but that never bothered me for the kinds of shooting that I did with it. I sold it after I bought the FA20-35/4 as it proved to have better contrast wide open, was easier to focus manually. 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: Battery life on K10D
FWIW, when I designed a voltage regulator a couple of weeks ago so I could run my istDS off of a 9.6VDC NIMH battery pack, I found the flash is the main power hog, and the LCD is the second most power hog. Not news I guess, but if you want the longest possible life on a single battery charge, these have to be minimized in usage or better yet turned off. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Battery life on K10D I'm getting 800-1200 exposures per charge on a pretty reliable basis with the K10D, using the Pentax supplied battery. The Impact and Konica Minolta batteries I have as well seem to last about the same amount of time. It varies a bit based on what I'm doing ... Normally I have the Review function turned off, but if I'm doing tabletop work I have the review set for maximum and use the Digital Preview with histogram quite a lot. 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: DA14 vs DA 12-24
CA is always worse at greater angles away from the optical axis on any lens. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Davis Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 8:08 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: DA14 vs DA 12-24 Good to have your take, Paul..as always. The 12~24's versatility will be difficult to trump. Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But it's not definitive. The DA 12-24 samples were mine, and they > were hand held. CA is dependent very much on the angle of the light. > > I would be surprised if the DA 14 were not better at 14mm than the DA > > 12-24, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusions based on what you've > read here. > Paul > On Mar 25, 2007, at 7:07 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Thanks, Godfrey. Exactly the sort of information I had in mind. > > Detailed and meaty. Considerate of you to take the time. :) > > > > Jack > > > > P.S.: Pop Photo's review actually included the word "pro" in > > describing > > its build and image quality. MERCY! > > --- Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> On Mar 25, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > >>> Anyone made at least a semi serious side-by-side DA 14 v DA > >> 12-24(at > >>> 14) image comparison? > >>> Godfrey? > >> > >> I recently looked at a couple of DA12-24 RAW demo files. There > >> weren't any that were captures at exactly 14mm. My prior > impressions > >> > >> that it is a good lens but has more CA and more rectilinear > >> distortion than the DA14 does at lens openings and focal lengths > >> which bracket the DA14 were borne out. The f/8 exposures were > >> significant improvements over the f/4 exposures. But I don't own > one > >> > >> so I can't do an exhaustive side-by-side unless someone wants to > loan > >> > >> me one for testing. > >> > >> But those test shots inspired me to do some more exhaustive DA14 > test > >> > >> shots on a variety of targets. My summary: > >> > >> - Some corner/edge light falloff is apparent until about f/5. > >> - Rendering characteristics vary depending upon focus setting and > >> lens opening, most are excellent particularly at f/4.5 and smaller > >> lens openings if working in the very near range. > >> - Corner and edge sharpness are satisfactory wide open but improve > >> greatly when stopped down to f/5-5.6, after which they continue to > >> improve a little but very slowly to f/11 or so. > >> - Much after f/11, diffraction effects begin to intrude on > sharpness. > >> - Flare resistance is excellent even wide open. > >> - There is a small amount of CA, consistent at all lens openings, > >> which can be removed easily in Lightroom or Camera Raw. > >> - It is a demanding lens to focus critically when wide open and > >> focusing near the close-focus limits. At f/5.6 the DoF at normal > >> shooting distances is so great that it covers a multitude of sins, > >> but wide open and at close range you have to have it on the money. > I > >> > >> go to manual focus and use Pentax Magnifier FB 2x for critical > focus. > >> - Using a tripod with this wide a lens is essential to getting the > >> best resolution. Moving to the K10D, the incremental resolution > >> upgrade is most advantageous for this lens and the DA21 Limited. > >> > >> I've had the DA14 since I first bought the DS body and it is one > of > >> my most consistent performers. I've made well over 3000 exposures > >> with it. The more I use it, the more I learn to exploit it, the > more > >> > >> I like it. > >> > >> Compared to the Sigma 14mm f/2.8 and Canon EF14/2.8L that I > tested, > >> the DA14 is a jewel and incredibly inexpensive for its quality. > >> Regards field of view coverage, comparing what I get from it > against > >> > >> my old work done with Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S, Zeiss Biogon 21/3.5, > >> and Leica Elmarit-M 21/2.8 ASPH lenses, it holds its own very > well. > >> It's not quite up to what I could get from the Hasselblad 903SWC's > >> Biogon 38mm f/4.5 ... but then very very few lenses in this class > >> are. > >> > >> BTW: set to Program mode and the MTF line, the camera tends to > keep > >> it at f/5.6 most of the time, which is right in line with my > >> evaluations which indicated best performance between f/4.5 and > f/5.6. > >> > >> Godfrey > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > > > > > > > > > > > __ > > > __ > > Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels in 45,000 > > destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit. > > http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097 > > > > -- > > 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: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
like any other lens, its probably normal to be very slightly softer wide open, which is what I see based on those two photos. I doubt those very few scratch marks are making the difference... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 4:20 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm So it does, William. I'm not sure if this is normal or caused by the scratches, though. Regards Jens Bladt 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 William Robb Sendt: 24. marts 2007 03:36 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: SMC-K 4/45-125mm - Original Message - From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm > Better link: > http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/431886590/ > > Looks like it's just not quite as sharp wide open. William Robb -- 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: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
hi, since scratches usually appear on the first exposed surface, you can roughly calculate the aperture they are out of the optical path by measuring the diameter of the center section of the first surface that excludes the scratches and use the whole first surface diameter and do a simple ratio. i.e. if the center section of the first element that has all scratches excluded is one half the diameter of the entire front surface, then the aperture where the scratches are out of the optical path would be ~ two stops down. ( F8 on a maximum aperture F4 lens like the K45-125/4 ). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 8:17 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm I'm not sure when the scratches get out of the optical path. The difference between F4 and F8 can be examined here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157600018006181/show/ I don'tsee any problems, that could be asigned to the scatches for sure. Regards Jens Bladt 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 23. marts 2007 22:16 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Minor scratches will not do what you are suggesting. I my experience, when scratches become significant the cause an OVERALL loss of contrast/sharpness .eg. flare, due to stray rays, but specific halos/glows? Never seen that. What is happening in the shadow areas of your images? Are you getting visible flaring? Does stopping down to the point of getting those scratches out of the optical path change the "glowing" any or make it go away? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Thanks for looking JCOC. It seems like a very nice lens. It has to turned A LOT in order to focus, actually the smallest exchange rate I have ever seem on a Pentax lens. Also the focusing is very smooth, thus accurate. Only down side is the rather long closest distance - appr. 4 feet. I've seen some "glow" around white letters on black background (the shots of my AF280T flash), which could possibly be caused by the scratches on the front element (like vaseline at the edges of a filter - David Hamilton-like)o - just guessing, of course. I got this one for 40 USD at ebay - the near MINT ones seem to go for 150-200 USD. It may be a great portrat lens - 45-125 seems tobe perfect for portraits. Also F.4 all the way through the focal range is convenient for studio work. We'll see :-) Jens Bladt 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 23. marts 2007 18:00 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm those scratches dont look like they would affect anything. you might want to consider filling in any large ones with black, but like I said, I bet they are small enough to not cause any visible difference. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Done some test shots with the Pentax lens, which was in the mail today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157600018006181/show/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinf
RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
Minor scratches will not do what you are suggesting. I my experience, when scratches become significant the cause an OVERALL loss of contrast/sharpness .eg. flare, due to stray rays, but specific halos/glows? Never seen that. What is happening in the shadow areas of your images? Are you getting visible flaring? Does stopping down to the point of getting those scratches out of the optical path change the "glowing" any or make it go away? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 5:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Thanks for looking JCOC. It seems like a very nice lens. It has to turned A LOT in order to focus, actually the smallest exchange rate I have ever seem on a Pentax lens. Also the focusing is very smooth, thus accurate. Only down side is the rather long closest distance - appr. 4 feet. I've seen some "glow" around white letters on black background (the shots of my AF280T flash), which could possibly be caused by the scratches on the front element (like vaseline at the edges of a filter - David Hamilton-like)o - just guessing, of course. I got this one for 40 USD at ebay - the near MINT ones seem to go for 150-200 USD. It may be a great portrat lens - 45-125 seems tobe perfect for portraits. Also F.4 all the way through the focal range is convenient for studio work. We'll see :-) Jens Bladt 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 J. C. O'Connell Sendt: 23. marts 2007 18:00 Til: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Emne: RE: SMC-K 4/45-125mm those scratches dont look like they would affect anything. you might want to consider filling in any large ones with black, but like I said, I bet they are small enough to not cause any visible difference. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Done some test shots with the Pentax lens, which was in the mail today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157600018006181/show/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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: SMC-K 4/45-125mm
those scratches dont look like they would affect anything. you might want to consider filling in any large ones with black, but like I said, I bet they are small enough to not cause any visible difference. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jens Bladt Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 12:48 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: SMC-K 4/45-125mm Done some test shots with the Pentax lens, which was in the mail today: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bladt/sets/72157600018006181/show/ Regards Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 03/22/2007 07:44 -- 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: Metering Takumar lenses
Image review method is fine for me on istDS, because of the zoom playback feature. I find when I go to 12X max zoom (144x area), it's already at the limit of the camera/lenses resolution so evaluation of ANY photo can be done if you have the time. I didnt mean just trying to evaluate the whole photo at 1X on the tiny LCD, yes, that is useless, except for rough composition. I do use the 12x playback zoom alot, mostly to verify focus/sharpness in selected areas for DOF issues. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 1:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Metering Takumar lenses My point was that the histogram is a very useful tool to check the exposure, but could be even better in some circumstances if it had the option of being a log histogram. Using the image review with the kind of images I suggested is pretty much useless. There's often not large enough chunks of bright subject to accurately determine the exposure. Also, the whole night-vision problem is a *huge* deal maintaining night vision is pretty much impossible if one is critially looking an a bright backlit LCD. -Cory On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > In those type cases the histogram would be ignored of course, What I > am talking about is good exposures AS SEEN USING IMAGE REVIEW after > you take the test photos. Not the histrograms exclusively. In any > case, any histogram always has to be evaluated based on the particular > photo itself. There is no one universal "correct" histogram for all > photos. In summmary, I still say that at those really low light > levels, the best/most accurate > way to get the correct or desired exposures is to actually > evaluate them by taking test shots and using the image review, > not by using an external meter. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Cory Papenfuss > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:33 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Metering Takumar lenses > > > On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> If you are out of the meter's range, you can still >> use the camera, just shoot manually at apertures >> you want to use and adjust the shutter speed until >> you get a good histogram/review image on the LCD. >> At really low light levels its going to be the only way >> to ensure accurate exposures. >> jco >> > ... except when taking mostly dark images with a small fraction of > very white ones (think moon or stars). If the histogram would have the > option of being logarithmic, it would be a useful tool for this type of > photo as well. > > -Cory > > -- > > ** > ** > * > * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA > * > * Electrical Engineering > * > * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University > * > > * > > > -- * * 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: Metering Takumar lenses
In those type cases the histogram would be ignored of course, What I am talking about is good exposures AS SEEN USING IMAGE REVIEW after you take the test photos. Not the histrograms exclusively. In any case, any histogram always has to be evaluated based on the particular photo itself. There is no one universal "correct" histogram for all photos. In summmary, I still say that at those really low light levels, the best/most accurate way to get the correct or desired exposures is to actually evaluate them by taking test shots and using the image review, not by using an external meter. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Metering Takumar lenses On Tue, 20 Mar 2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > If you are out of the meter's range, you can still > use the camera, just shoot manually at apertures > you want to use and adjust the shutter speed until > you get a good histogram/review image on the LCD. > At really low light levels its going to be the only way > to ensure accurate exposures. > jco > ... except when taking mostly dark images with a small fraction of very white ones (think moon or stars). If the histogram would have the option of being logarithmic, it would be a useful tool for this type of photo as well. -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: Lens suggestions
I know at least some Sears lenses were made by Mamiya/Sekor but those ones I know of were M42. Can't say for PK. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Lens suggestions > I almost wonder if I can just forego the 85mm altogether. I love my > 85mm on my EOS1D, but it's FOV on that camera is like a 100mm lens on > a 35mm camera. And back when I was shooting Pentax I had a 28/2.8, a > 50/2 and a Sears 135/2.8. And I'll tell you what, that Sears lens was > one of the sharpest lenses I think I've ever owned. I think I paid $5 > for it back when there was a KEH store in Dallas. > > So maybe I will just forego an 85mm? > If you want pretty good quality for less money, take a look at the Jupier-9, 85mm/2.0. Completely manual and Russian-built... quite solid and heavy. Very nice bokeh with something like 20 aperture blades and a good soft-ish image wide-open. http://m42.povlab.org/lens_detail.php?lid=89 BTW, I too have a Sears 135/2.8. Very nice lens... wish I knew who made it for Sears. -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: Lens suggestions
well shutter speeds and apertures in finder are the best features over a K1000 which is why I listed them first. I use them everytime I changed either. Those features are not something I would never ever use, they are something I would never ever NOT use. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Wright Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Lens suggestions I love the k1000. If it came in black I would get one in an instant and never look back. I thought about a KX for quite some time. But I never /ever/ use those extra features (except maybe the aperture/shutter readouts in VF). On 3/20/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX except > for size. The K1000 is like a stripped KX, you would not want that > unless you couldnt afford or find a clean KX as the KX has everything > the K1000 has and much more goodies like shutter speeds and apertures > in finder, mirrorlock, and DOF preview. KX is essentially the same > size as a spotty or K1000, which is larger than a MX though. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Scott Loveless > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:32 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Lens suggestions > > > Hey, Nick. The MX has 5 LEDs on the right side of the viewfinder. I, > too, prefer a needle, but the LEDs work very well for low light and > when you might have a dark filter on the lens. The LEDs suck butt in > bright sun. In addition to the MX I also have a K1000. It's a bit > bigger than the MX, but with the meter needle I think it compliments > the MX nicely. > > I also have an M85/2. Not a bad little lens at all. I posted this > photo well over a year ago to a mixed response. It's the only one I > have online right now that I can definitely say was taken with the > M85/2. Hand held, mid-afternoon, probably HP5+, but I'd have to dig > out the negs to be sure. > http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=332 > > HTH. > > On 3/20/07, Nick Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I should've specified that these will be going on film bodies with > > absolutely no thought whatsoever to using them on a digital. > > > > I need to ask about bodies sometime soon too. I'd really like to get > > an MX, but I don't know if I can live with only having the three > > LEDs for an exposure meter. Is there something the size of an MX > > (that is fully mechanical) that has a needle in the viewfinder > > meter? > > > > On 3/20/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My answers (others may vary) > > > > > > 1.) The m28 f2.0 doesn't have a sterling reputation, in fact most > > > of > > > > the older Pentax 28mm lenses don't have such good reps, except for > > > the [K] 28mm f3.5. (I wouldn't know at that focal length I can > > > put up with f2.8, and besides I have the "rare" [K] 30mm. Yea, > > > yea, yea, too much information). > > > > > > 2.) For over all quality the A 85mm f1.4 is supposed to be the > > > best. > > > > (I couldn't justify the price myself). The M 85mm f2.0 is small, > > > about the same size as a 50mm normal, relatively fast, and > > > moderately sharp, (very sharp after f5.6), and not nearly as > > > expensive used as any other Pentax 85). It gives a nice ~135mm > > > AOV, > > > > (well 127mm actually), on an APS digital and makes pleasing > > > portraits on 35mm film. > > > > > > 3.) The 85 f1.4 became available often enough, every few weeks on > > > e-bay, when I was paying attention. Just be prepared to trade > > > your first born for one. > > > > > > You don't mention which body, or if it's film or digital you'll be > > > using, just remember that the M lenses don't communicate with the > > > body and you'll need to use stop down metering on any Pentax > > > digital, and it won't work at all on a *ist Film camera, (I assume > > > that with these lenses in mind you're not going to be using one of > > > the real bottom feeding cameras). > > > > > > Nick Wright wrote: > > > > So I'm starting to think a little more seriously about putting > > > > together the Pentax kit. I'm all about the available light so > > > > I'm looking at large aperture primes and would like to a
RE: Lens suggestions
And secondly, you CAN get a KX in black too, which you can't in a K1000. I have a stone mint black KX (among other KX's) which is a very pretty camera indeed. Like I said, I dont think a K1000 offers ANYTHING a KX can't give you other than lowered price and lowered feature setA K1000 is nothing more than a stripped KX. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Wright Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Lens suggestions I love the k1000. If it came in black I would get one in an instant and never look back. I thought about a KX for quite some time. But I never /ever/ use those extra features (except maybe the aperture/shutter readouts in VF). On 3/20/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX except > for size. The K1000 is like a stripped KX, you would not want that > unless you couldnt afford or find a clean KX as the KX has everything > the K1000 has and much more goodies like shutter speeds and apertures > in finder, mirrorlock, and DOF preview. KX is essentially the same > size as a spotty or K1000, which is larger than a MX though. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Scott Loveless > Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:32 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Lens suggestions > > > Hey, Nick. The MX has 5 LEDs on the right side of the viewfinder. I, > too, prefer a needle, but the LEDs work very well for low light and > when you might have a dark filter on the lens. The LEDs suck butt in > bright sun. In addition to the MX I also have a K1000. It's a bit > bigger than the MX, but with the meter needle I think it compliments > the MX nicely. > > I also have an M85/2. Not a bad little lens at all. I posted this > photo well over a year ago to a mixed response. It's the only one I > have online right now that I can definitely say was taken with the > M85/2. Hand held, mid-afternoon, probably HP5+, but I'd have to dig > out the negs to be sure. > http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=332 > > HTH. > > On 3/20/07, Nick Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I should've specified that these will be going on film bodies with > > absolutely no thought whatsoever to using them on a digital. > > > > I need to ask about bodies sometime soon too. I'd really like to get > > an MX, but I don't know if I can live with only having the three > > LEDs for an exposure meter. Is there something the size of an MX > > (that is fully mechanical) that has a needle in the viewfinder > > meter? > > > > On 3/20/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My answers (others may vary) > > > > > > 1.) The m28 f2.0 doesn't have a sterling reputation, in fact most > > > of > > > > the older Pentax 28mm lenses don't have such good reps, except for > > > the [K] 28mm f3.5. (I wouldn't know at that focal length I can > > > put up with f2.8, and besides I have the "rare" [K] 30mm. Yea, > > > yea, yea, too much information). > > > > > > 2.) For over all quality the A 85mm f1.4 is supposed to be the > > > best. > > > > (I couldn't justify the price myself). The M 85mm f2.0 is small, > > > about the same size as a 50mm normal, relatively fast, and > > > moderately sharp, (very sharp after f5.6), and not nearly as > > > expensive used as any other Pentax 85). It gives a nice ~135mm > > > AOV, > > > > (well 127mm actually), on an APS digital and makes pleasing > > > portraits on 35mm film. > > > > > > 3.) The 85 f1.4 became available often enough, every few weeks on > > > e-bay, when I was paying attention. Just be prepared to trade > > > your first born for one. > > > > > > You don't mention which body, or if it's film or digital you'll be > > > using, just remember that the M lenses don't communicate with the > > > body and you'll need to use stop down metering on any Pentax > > > digital, and it won't work at all on a *ist Film camera, (I assume > > > that with these lenses in mind you're not going to be using one of > > > the real bottom feeding cameras). > > > > > > Nick Wright wrote: > > > > So I'm starting to think a little more seriously about putting > > > > together the Pentax kit. I'm all ab
RE: Lens suggestions
If you have to have a needle, the KX is the closest to an MX except for size. The K1000 is like a stripped KX, you would not want that unless you couldnt afford or find a clean KX as the KX has everything the K1000 has and much more goodies like shutter speeds and apertures in finder, mirrorlock, and DOF preview. KX is essentially the same size as a spotty or K1000, which is larger than a MX though. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Lens suggestions Hey, Nick. The MX has 5 LEDs on the right side of the viewfinder. I, too, prefer a needle, but the LEDs work very well for low light and when you might have a dark filter on the lens. The LEDs suck butt in bright sun. In addition to the MX I also have a K1000. It's a bit bigger than the MX, but with the meter needle I think it compliments the MX nicely. I also have an M85/2. Not a bad little lens at all. I posted this photo well over a year ago to a mixed response. It's the only one I have online right now that I can definitely say was taken with the M85/2. Hand held, mid-afternoon, probably HP5+, but I'd have to dig out the negs to be sure. http://twosixteen.com/gallery/index.php?id=332 HTH. On 3/20/07, Nick Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I should've specified that these will be going on film bodies with > absolutely no thought whatsoever to using them on a digital. > > I need to ask about bodies sometime soon too. I'd really like to get > an MX, but I don't know if I can live with only having the three LEDs > for an exposure meter. Is there something the size of an MX (that is > fully mechanical) that has a needle in the viewfinder meter? > > On 3/20/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My answers (others may vary) > > > > 1.) The m28 f2.0 doesn't have a sterling reputation, in fact most of > > the older Pentax 28mm lenses don't have such good reps, except for > > the [K] 28mm f3.5. (I wouldn't know at that focal length I can put > > up with f2.8, and besides I have the "rare" [K] 30mm. Yea, yea, > > yea, too much information). > > > > 2.) For over all quality the A 85mm f1.4 is supposed to be the best. > > (I couldn't justify the price myself). The M 85mm f2.0 is small, > > about the same size as a 50mm normal, relatively fast, and > > moderately sharp, (very sharp after f5.6), and not nearly as > > expensive used as any other Pentax 85). It gives a nice ~135mm AOV, > > (well 127mm actually), on an APS digital and makes pleasing > > portraits on 35mm film. > > > > 3.) The 85 f1.4 became available often enough, every few weeks on > > e-bay, when I was paying attention. Just be prepared to trade your > > first born for one. > > > > You don't mention which body, or if it's film or digital you'll be > > using, just remember that the M lenses don't communicate with the > > body and you'll need to use stop down metering on any Pentax > > digital, and it won't work at all on a *ist Film camera, (I assume > > that with these lenses in mind you're not going to be using one of > > the real bottom feeding cameras). > > > > Nick Wright wrote: > > > So I'm starting to think a little more seriously about putting > > > together the Pentax kit. I'm all about the available light so I'm > > > looking at large aperture primes and would like to ask y'all's > > > opinions about them. > > > > > > Specifically I'm looking at the M28mm f/2, M50mm f/1.4, and either > > > the A85mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/2. Pros, cons? > > > > > > And in regards to the 85/1.4, how often do those come available > > > for sale? > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw > > uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > -- > ~Nick Wright > http://blog.phojonick.com/ > http://www.phojonick.com/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Lens suggestions
I agree pre-A series lenses are much harder to work with than those A-series and leter, especially if you are in a hurry, with the current Pentax DSLR lineup. The "green button fix" is a kludge at best compared to what the Pre-A lenses are capable of doing. This is why I belive Pentax needs to produce a DSLR body, even if its only the top line model, that FULLY SUPPORTS K/M lens features via an aperture cam sensor. I do not feel the "total solution or better solution" is to buy a bunch of A or later lenses because they are not the same if you prefer manual focus and there are many pre-A lenses that have no later series equivs in terms of form, fit, and function... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:53 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Lens suggestions On Mar 20, 2007, at 10:21 AM, Nick Wright wrote: > So I'm starting to think a little more seriously about putting > together the Pentax kit. I'm all about the available light so I'm > looking at large aperture primes and would like to ask y'all's > opinions about them. > > Specifically I'm looking at the M28mm f/2, M50mm f/1.4, and either the > A85mm f/1.4 or the 85mm f/2. Pros, cons? Personally I find working with pre-A series lenses too much of a change from working with more recent series lenses, and feel it constrains the features of the K10D too much for my liking. It loses all the exposure modes other than Manual, unless Av mode with wide open aperture is what you tend to do all the time, etc. And the K10D's semi-automatic metering mode for the pre-A lenses has some known fallibilities ... nothing terribly serious, but it does take a different methodology to get the best from it. There are times when it proves just fine to do so, but these lenses would not be the basis of my "essential" working lens kit. - The M28/2 ... my favorite "use it all the time" focal length, I wish they'd get on with it and produce a DA28/2 Limited. I had the A28/2.8 first, sold it when I obtained the FA20-35/4 AL as it covered the focal length better, and added the FA28/2.8 AL. I'd love a high quality f/2 lens in this focal length that allowed me full access to the K10D's features. - My impression from having used both M and A (and later) series 50/1.4s is that the 50mm f/1.4 lenses were greatly improved (particularly wide open) from the A-series onwards. - I had the M85/2 and it was a fine lens (as long as you used a good deep hood to prevent flare). I replaced it with the FA77 Limited, which is better, and then replaced that with the DA70/2.4 Limited, which suits me even better as the shorter focal length and smaller/ lighter form factor do more for me than the extra .6 stop in speed. My current lens kit of "essential" lenses is all primes: DA14/2.8 ED, DA21/3.2 Limited, FA28/2.8 AL, FA43/1.9 Limited, DA70/2.4 Limited Adequately fast for anything I've needed for low light with ISO 800. The right focal lengths for my use with the K10D, all excellent performers, and all except the DA14 are light and compact. They allow me to use all the features of the K10D as appropriate. 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: Metering Takumar lenses
I dont think that will be as accurate as just taking photos and adjusting the shutter speed until the camera actually records the best exposures. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hamilton Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Metering Takumar lenses Thanks, everyone. Sometimes I just need to think aloud! This limitation also might be a good excuse to use my handheld lightmeter. Mike On 3/19/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are out of the meter's range, you can still > use the camera, just shoot manually at apertures > you want to use and adjust the shutter speed until > you get a good histogram/review image on the LCD. > At really low light levels its going to be the only way > to ensure accurate exposures. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mike Hamilton > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:30 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Metering Takumar lenses > > > I really don't want to stir up any huge debates here; I would simply > like some help in getting this right. > > I recently came into possession of two Takumar lenses. Both are f/4 > at maximum aperture. I'm really having a hard time with metering; > both seem to meter only at f/4, even if I stop down the lens. > > I'll describe what I am doing: > > 1. Lens (takumar 50mm f/4 macro) is set so that the red "MAN" is > showing (that's manual mode, right?) 2. Camera has had the option for > aperture ring use turned on. 3. Mode switch is in Manual. 4. Camera > mounted on tripod. 5. Location is indoors with constant lighting. > > Now here are my results: > (f/4): 1/10 sec > (f/8): 1/5 sec > (f/16): 1/5 sec > (f/22): 1/5 sec > > What's happening here? > > I tried a similar test with the Takumar 200mm f/4 and the meter > reading would not change even when i moved the aperture from 4 to 22. > > Assistance is much appreciated. > > -- > > Cheers, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > MichaelHamilton.ca > > -- > 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 > -- Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MichaelHamilton.ca -- 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: Metering Takumar lenses
If you are out of the meter's range, you can still use the camera, just shoot manually at apertures you want to use and adjust the shutter speed until you get a good histogram/review image on the LCD. At really low light levels its going to be the only way to ensure accurate exposures. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hamilton Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Metering Takumar lenses I really don't want to stir up any huge debates here; I would simply like some help in getting this right. I recently came into possession of two Takumar lenses. Both are f/4 at maximum aperture. I'm really having a hard time with metering; both seem to meter only at f/4, even if I stop down the lens. I'll describe what I am doing: 1. Lens (takumar 50mm f/4 macro) is set so that the red "MAN" is showing (that's manual mode, right?) 2. Camera has had the option for aperture ring use turned on. 3. Mode switch is in Manual. 4. Camera mounted on tripod. 5. Location is indoors with constant lighting. Now here are my results: (f/4): 1/10 sec (f/8): 1/5 sec (f/16): 1/5 sec (f/22): 1/5 sec What's happening here? I tried a similar test with the Takumar 200mm f/4 and the meter reading would not change even when i moved the aperture from 4 to 22. Assistance is much appreciated. -- Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MichaelHamilton.ca -- 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: Windows shell extension to view thumbnails from PEFs
I think due to the nature and size of the RAW data files, no matter what software you use to view thumbnails is going to take a considerable amount of time to read and convert them. This is why RAW+JPEG may be a good practice when shooting, use the jpegs just for fast browsing. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thibouille Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 10:00 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Windows shell extension to view thumbnails from PEFs On my system it seems to freeze for a couple seconds when updating thumbnails. Annoying but a very welcome software, for sure. 2007/3/17, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > There's a post in the dpreview forums linking to a web page > > > http://www.idfoxx.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=18662&sid=6bbf1ecbb3a940a7 > 90f1363fecfe0730 > > announcing a Windows Shell Extension that lets the standard Windows > file browser know how to extract thumbnails from .PEFs (and from a > plethora of other file types, including DNGs). > > If you would like to see thumbnails from your Pentax RAW files it > might be worth giving this a try. I haven't tried it myself yet, but > there are several favourable reviews in the discussion thread at the > above link. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- 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: Macro Lenses
The thing he said that people are contending against is : >> Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the >> subject to the size of the format. Nothing else he posted was incorrect but this part was. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses - Original Message - From: "Mishka" Subject: Re: Macro Lenses > incorrect. a 1:1 reproduction of an object 10mmx10mm is 10mmx10mm > regardless whether it is on a sensor, a piece of film or a wall. > > size of the format does not enter the equation. Actually, what Godfrey is saying is correct. You might want to try rereading his post. William Robb > On 3/15/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject >> area. > ... >> So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm >> subject area. >> >> etc >> >> The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film >> is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was >> attempting to show. >> -- 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: Macro Lenses
no, you specifically gave the magnifacation calcualtion as the size of the subject to the size of the format which is WRONG, its the size of the subject to the size of the subject's lens image, changing formats does not change this, and changing from APS to 35mm to Medium format or whatever, has no effect on the magnifcation calculation, format is not a factor, $ should not be considered...If you meant to say something else, you didnt. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 12:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses The format is irrelevant to magnification. I was giving an example. If you understood what I said, you'd understand that it was the same thing ... said another way: - The size of the DSLR format is 16x24. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax DSLR will image a 16x24mm subject area. - The size of the 35mm format is 24x36. If the magnification is 1:1, the size of the subject and the size of the format will be the same. So at 1:1 magnification, a Pentax 35mm SLR will image a 24x36mm subject area. etc The key thing is that the number of pixels or the density of the film is irrelevant to magnification, which is what the example was attempting to show. G On Mar 15, 2007, at 3:16 AM, Mishka wrote: > absolutely correct. > > mishka > > On 3/15/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any >> photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to >> the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC >> "FORMAT" IS >> NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or >> calculation ! >> ! ! >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Macro Lenses >> >> >> Mishka, >> >> Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the >> subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a >> 16x24mm area. >> >> G >> >> On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: >> >>> magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. how do you >>> measure it? suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels >>> and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images >>> made >> >>> on them? >>> >>> best, >>> mishka >>> >>> On 3/14/07, John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 >>>> as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and >>>> whether you >>>> require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- 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: The DA 50~200
Don't forget about the K45-125/4 thread, it's excellent from end to end on APS digital. Regarding the focal range, this post evolved from someone who SPECIFICALLY stated they wanted 70-210 and CONSTANT aperture to which the DA 50-200 does not meet the requirement. I think you are mistaken to say that a new DA5-200 is "far more value" than any used 70-210 lens because there were many many different 70-210 lenses over the years, some of them are excellent and very inexpensive, and if and when Pentax goes FF, you could use them FF, you cant with the DA lens which is slower and variable aperture too, both negatives compared to the many fixed F4.0 or faster 70/80-200/210 lenses that were made over the years jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Henk Terhell Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:07 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The DA 50~200 If on digital, a new DA 50-200 is far more value for your money, I think, than any used 70-210 lens. Also my AF 80-320 appears to be very soft on digital (and I never liked it for film either). I use the DA 50-200 now a lot at the wide range not covered by a 70-210 or 80-320 lens. The only other AF zoom I have in the 50-70 range is a FA 28-70/4 but, how much I liked this lens for film, is for me now a bit disappointing on digital. Henk > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: 15 March, 2007 12:29 AM > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: The DA 50~200 > > > if the 70-210/4.0 A lens, which is no longer avail new, > sells for "nearly" the price, (LESS) than the new 50-200, > the 50-200 is NOT a "far less expensive lens" than the > 70-210/A lens, it not even less expensive at all than the > 70-210/A, it's MORE expensive. > > jco > > -- 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: Macro Lenses
NOPE, magnification in macro or actually any photo, macro or otherwise, is the ratio of the actual object size to the lens image size of that actual object, PHOTOGRAPHIC "FORMAT" IS NOT A FACTOR WHATSOEVER in the magnification expression or calculation ! ! ! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 1:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Mishka, Magnification in macro work means the ratio of the size of the subject to the size of the format. 1:1 on a Pentax DSLR images a 16x24mm area. G On Mar 14, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Mishka wrote: > magnification on a digital sensor is a moot point anyway. > how do you measure it? > suppose you have 24x36mm (FF) sensors: one is 2x2 pixels > and one is 20MP. does it make any sense to compare 1:1 mag images made > on them? > > best, > mishka > > On 3/14/07, John Whittingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or >> 1:2 as the >> case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether >> you >> require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. -- 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: The DA 50~200
Not really, because the current secondary market has at least some 70-210/A lenses available (nearly 100% USED) but there are hardly ANY 50-200/DA available except for NEW at a price higher than the 70-210/As are selling for. Your argument might make sense in the future but for right now the 50-200DA lenses are certainly not "far less expensive" to actually aquire than the 70-210A lenses are. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:35 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 Since the 70-210 sells USED for nearly the NEW cost of a DA 50-200, the DA's used cost is likewise much lower than the 70-210 A. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > if the 70-210/4.0 A lens, which is no longer avail new, > sells for "nearly" the price, (LESS) than the new 50-200, > the 50-200 is NOT a "far less expensive lens" than the 70-210/A lens, > it not even less expensive at all than the 70-210/A, it's MORE > expensive. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:13 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 > > > The SMC-A 70-210 f4 typically sells used for nearly the price of a new > 50-200 DA, the latter is a far less expensive lens, and pretty much a > match in performance (apart from the variable aperture). > > -Adam > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> why not? those lenses were never expensive >> and a APS version would be less costly to >> make than a FF version of same quality or >> better quality for same cost of the FF version. >> jco >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Thibouille >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >> >> >> yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL >> >> 2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> Jeez, you would think they could at least do >>> F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have >>> done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. >>> jco >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of Bruce Dayton >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >>> >>> >>> I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build >>> quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good >>> for > >>> the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for >>> the > >>> price point, but build quality is consumer level. >>> >>> -- >>> Bruce >>> >>> >>> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: >>> >>> SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed >>> SB> more >>> >>> SB> to a price point than the highest quality image? For those who >>> SB> use the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, >>> SB> seem to be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you >>> SB> who don't often comment on such things? >>> >>> >>> SB> Shel >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: The DA 50~200
if the 70-210/4.0 A lens, which is no longer avail new, sells for "nearly" the price, (LESS) than the new 50-200, the 50-200 is NOT a "far less expensive lens" than the 70-210/A lens, it not even less expensive at all than the 70-210/A, it's MORE expensive. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 The SMC-A 70-210 f4 typically sells used for nearly the price of a new 50-200 DA, the latter is a far less expensive lens, and pretty much a match in performance (apart from the variable aperture). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > why not? those lenses were never expensive > and a APS version would be less costly to > make than a FF version of same quality or > better quality for same cost of the FF version. > jco > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Thibouille > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 > > > yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL > > 2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Jeez, you would think they could at least do >> F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have >> done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. >> jco >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of Bruce Dayton >> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >> >> >> I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build >> quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for >> the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for the >> price point, but build quality is consumer level. >> >> -- >> Bruce >> >> >> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: >> >> SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed >> SB> more >> >> SB> to a price point than the highest quality image? For those who >> SB> use the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, >> SB> seem to be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you >> SB> who don't often comment on such things? >> >> >> SB> Shel >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Enablement: smc-Takumar 50mm f/4 macro w/ extension tubes
the beginning of the decline in build quality started with the very late "SMC" takmars (not to be confused with the earlier, "Super-Multi-Coated" takumars. IMHO, the "Super-Multi-Coated" takumars were the pinnacle of Pentax's lens production in terms of build quality. By the time they switched to K mount, they were aleady a notch down from their best in that regard, as these were essentially the same as the later, degraded, "SMC" taks jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilko Bulte Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:04 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Enablement: smc-Takumar 50mm f/4 macro w/ extension tubes On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 04:31:05PM -0600, Mike Hamilton wrote.. > All I can say is "wow". This is my first Takumar, and I'm simply > amazed at the build quality of this lens. It (and the extension To a certain extent: the older the nicer the build quality. I have some pre-Spotmatic M42 Takumars here, and they are *so* beautifully built.. And they are like new, after all these years that have gone by since they left the factory. Wilko -- 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: Enablement: smc-Takumar 50mm f/4 macro w/ extension tubes
Welcome to the world of Pentax's pinnacle of lens series production. Now you know why I want a true M42 DSLR. To use those classics! BTW, this is a superb performance lens in the macro range, but nothing special at infinity, dont judge it by that jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Hamilton Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 6:31 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Enablement: smc-Takumar 50mm f/4 macro w/ extension tubes All I can say is "wow". This is my first Takumar, and I'm simply amazed at the build quality of this lens. It (and the extension tubes) are in like new condition. Nary a scratch on the body or glass. Even the cases are in like new condition! I've sold my Sigma 70-300 zoom to pay for this, and I am infinitely happy that I did. I was never happy with that lens - the zoom ring was too stiff, the auto focus was noisy and couldn't focus very well, and the manual focus was too loose. All I can do now is wait for the screwmount adapter to arrive from Mr. Celio! I can't wait. -- Cheers, [EMAIL PROTECTED] MichaelHamilton.ca -- 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: Macro Lenses
I say there is more requirements than just a possible high magnification to a TRUE macro lens. Its got to be optimized for those high mags to be a true macro in my opinion, not just a "BTW, heres some high mag settings on the focus rings for you to play with" type deal jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 7:15 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Traditionally "Macro" started at 1:2. lots of lenses that were only close focusing 1:4 were labeled as macro however. Christian wrote: > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. >> > > I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount > lenses, > however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the > *ist D. > > >> Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not >> going to give you the same overall image quality >> as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make >> matters worse. >> > > The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon > doesn't say "macro" on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. > > >> When I say general purpose, its NOT my specific purpose >> or your specific purpose, its GENERAL PURPOSE >> (all around MACRO usage) where a macro lens would >> give better results than a NON MACRO >> lens would. I don't agree than 90-105mm and longer >> is a good general purpose macro lens focal length for APS. >> >> The original poster did not specify a specific >> usage so that is why I recommended a good general >> purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens. >> > > And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar > Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a > longer working distance is a better choice. > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- 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: Macro Lenses
of course 1:1 or 1:2 is achieved at same distances, but the whole point of that paragraph of my post is you dont need 1:1 or 1:2 to get same photo as you would with 35mm, you only need 1:1.5 or 1:3 so your working distance is longer by approx 50% for same type of photo (same object/framing), this is the very reason why a 50mm lens on APS is good for general purpose macro, it gives a better working distance than was possible with FF 35mm format, yet still gives a reasonably normal AOV. yes for some weird technical reason you might still want 1:1 on APS as you did on FF 35mm film, but its not real world and since digital is not an actual negative and isnt something you could actually measure and analyze like you could a real neg, I really dont think there would be much need to have an actual 1:1 vs a 1:1.5 digital for example even for technical reasons. Real world is going to be 99%+ an actual scene or object with same framing/AOV is needed, NOT same image magnification needed. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:42 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:58:01 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote > Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l. > ON APS gives much better working distances > than it did on on 35mm FF format for same > subject framing. This is because you dont > have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill the > frame on APS as you did on FF 35mm. But you still have to be at the same distance to achieve 1:1 or 1:2 as the case may be, fact! Again depends on the subject matter and whether you require a particular ratio for scientific or technical reasons. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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: Macro Lenses
because nearly all lenses over 135mm f.l. for the 35mm/aps format are since the 1960's to keep the bulk down, even many so called "macros", & some of them are even pseudo-zoom telephotos. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 16:48:35 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote > Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not > going to perform as well as non-telephoto > dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason > why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format > because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos... > jco What makes you think the Sigma 300/4 APO is a telephoto lens 8) John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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: The DA 50~200
why not? those lenses were never expensive and a APS version would be less costly to make than a FF version of same quality or better quality for same cost of the FF version. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thibouille Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:09 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 yeah and sell it for the price they sell this 50-200 ? LOL 2007/3/14, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Jeez, you would think they could at least do > F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have > done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. > jco > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Bruce Dayton > Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 > > > I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build > quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for > the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for the > price point, but build quality is consumer level. > > -- > Bruce > > > Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: > > SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed > SB> more > > SB> to a price point than the highest quality image? For those who > SB> use the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, > SB> seem to be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you > SB> who don't often comment on such things? > > > SB> Shel > > > > > -- > 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 > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- 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: Macro Lenses
there are at least two, possibly three Tamron SP 90mm macros for pentax. I have the F2.5 version with 55mm filter threads in adaptall2 and yes, it's really really good. Works fine with both ES M42 mount or PKA mount. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 5:10 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Ditto. Simply superb lens. If it was an f2 it would be perfect (I could replace my 85 with it then) but without that it still is one of the best lenses I've owned. -Adam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I love the Tamron 90 SP Macro. > > Marnie aka Doe > > ** AOL now offers > free > email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at > http://www.aol.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: The DA 50~200
there have been many many FF 70/80-200/210 mm F4.0 constant aperture PK lenses over the years, Pentax and 3rd party. Won't one of these work for you or do you need the "A" mode or AF specifically? Even so, there have been a many of those too I would think. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 Unfortunately, I see nothing on the roadmap that quite fills what I am looking for. The 50-135/2.8 is faster and constant, but doesn't have the reach. It is a lens that I will probably get and be quite useful for wedding stuff, however. The 60-250/4 is a possible one - I really need to see the size/weight to decide on that one. Again, just a little more reach perhaps - I currently have the Sigma 100-300/4 EX and use it quite a bit for sports stuff, but it is larger than I would want to carry around. It sits on a monopod. I suspect the Pentax could be similar size. So I am looking for something between these two. More like a 70-200 ish constant F4 - that would have a little more reach than the 50-135 and not be as bulky and heavy as the 60-250. I think for people who are not going to use the lens too much, the DA 50-200 that is available now is probably just fine. Then you can live with the speed/build compromise. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 1:05:37 PM, you wrote: SB> Hi Bruce, SB> Is there something on the "roadmap" that you think may be a better SB> alternative - constant aperture, better quality, perhaps smaller, SB> lighter? What about the 60-250? SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Date: 3/14/2007 11:41:21 AM >> Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 >> >> I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build >> quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for >> the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for >> the price point, but build quality is consumer level. >> >> -- >> Bruce >> >> >> Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: >> >> SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed >> SB> more SB> to a >> SB> price point than the highest quality image? For those who use >> SB> the SB> lens, >> SB> are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, seem to be >> SB> quite SB> happy >> SB> with theirs, but what about those of you who don't often comment >> SB> on SB> such >> SB> things? >> >> >> SB> Shel >> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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
RE: Macro Lenses
Just because a lens is marked MACRO doesnt mean its a true MACRO lens. Telephoto lenses are not going to be as good as non telephoto lenses at same optical and build quality. I think there is some misunderstanding or disagreement on what a true macro lens is. IMHO, its a lens OPTIMIZED for higher magnications with minimum geometric distortion. Lenses that are just marked macro or can do high magnifications but are not optimized for those higher magnifications are NOT true macro lenses IMHO. Regarding working distances, the 50mm f.l. ON APS gives much better working distances than it did on on 35mm FF format for same subject framing. This is because you dont have to get as close (or need as high a magnification) to fill the frame on APS as you did on FF 35mm. I really like the 50mm F.L. MACRO on APS. I have longer macro lenses too, a 90mm Macro, and a 135mm Macro, but on APS I actually have wished for a 35mm macro instead recently which I don't have. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. I never said that. My original recommendations were for K-mount lenses, however. The Sigma I owned was in K-mount and used very nicely on the *ist D. > Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not > going to give you the same overall image quality > as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make > matters worse. The sigma IS a MACRO lens (it says so on the lens itself). The Canon doesn't say "macro" on it but at 1:3 is considered a macro lens. > > When I say general purpose, its NOT my specific purpose > or your specific purpose, its GENERAL PURPOSE > (all around MACRO usage) where a macro lens would > give better results than a NON MACRO > lens would. I don't agree than 90-105mm and longer > is a good general purpose macro lens focal length for APS. > > The original poster did not specify a specific > usage so that is why I recommended a good general > purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens. And for the same reasons I recommended a SMC-A 100/2.8 (or vivitar Series 1 105/2.5). I think the ability to go 1:1 without tubes and a longer working distance is a better choice. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: The DA 50~200
Jeez, you would think they could at least do F4 constant in the reduced APS format like they have done in the past on FF 35mm format many times. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dayton Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The DA 50~200 I have resisted buying it so far. I would prefer a better build quality and a faster (constant) lens. It appears to be very good for the price. My take is optical quality is better than expected for the price point, but build quality is consumer level. -- Bruce Wednesday, March 14, 2007, 9:09:54 AM, you wrote: SB> Is the 50-200 supposed to be a "consumer" zoom - i.e., designed more SB> to a price point than the highest quality image? For those who use SB> the lens, are you pleased with it. Paul, and a few others, seem to SB> be quite happy with theirs, but what about those of you who don't SB> often comment on such things? SB> Shel -- 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: Macro Lenses
Is this a telephoto lens? If so its not going to perform as well as non-telephoto dedicated macro lenses. Just another reason why 50mm may be a better choice on APS format because the 50mm macro lenses are not telephotos... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Whittingham Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 15:25:44 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote > I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. > Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not > going to give you the same overall image quality > as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make > matters worse. The Sigma 300/4 APO is, you don't experiment enough John. John The information transmitted is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you have received an email in error please notify Carmel College on [EMAIL PROTECTED] then delete all copies of it from your systems. Although Carmel College scans incoming and outgoing emails and email attachments for viruses we cannot guarantee a communication to be free of all viruses nor accept any responsibility for viruses. Although Carmel College monitors incoming and outgoing emails for inappropriate content, the college cannot be held responsible for the views or expressions of the author. The views expressed may not necessarily be those of Carmel College and Carmel College cannot be held responsible for any loss or injury resulting from the contents of a message. -- 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: Macro Lenses
nope, the 50mm's AOV I am talking is much closer to "normal" than the very narrow AOV the longer lenses give which is sometimes reffered to as a "telephoto compression effect" because the POV is very far away relative to the subject size. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 3:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more "normal" AOV ) from > a different, closer point of view than the really > long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more > distant POVs. Sounds like a specialist kind of purpose (kinda like what you called my specialist purpose of LIMITING AOV or photographing very small objects). -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
I thought we were talking Pentax/Pentax mount lenses. Using regular (non high mag optimized) lenses for macro work is not going to give you the same overall image quality as true macro lenses, and TCs will only make matters worse. When I say general purpose, its NOT my specific purpose or your specific purpose, its GENERAL PURPOSE (all around MACRO usage) where a macro lens would give better results than a NON MACRO lens would. I don't agree than 90-105mm and longer is a good general purpose macro lens focal length for APS. The original poster did not specify a specific usage so that is why I recommended a good general purpose MACRO focal length on APS , like the 50mm SMC-A MACRO lens. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:41 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > But the topis was a ONE > LENS macro setup, and for only one > lens those long lenses are too long > for general purpose macro IMHO. And that's your opinion which does not match MY opinion for MY one lens macro kit. > What make 300mm and 500mm true macro > lenses are you using? I have never > heard of any for 35mm/APS unless > you are just using regular lenses > with extensions. The 300mm is a Canon 300mm F4 L IS and it focuses to ~4ft for 1:3 magnification which is just about perfect for large butterflies (even better with a 1.4x TC). The Sigma APO 300mm F4 AF MACRO lens I had before had very similar characteristics. I know at least one guy that uses the 500mm with a 1.4x TC and 25mm extension for butterflies. I have not tried mine in this way. My point is that 50mm is not long COMPARED to 300mm or 500mm. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
yes, a WIDER AOV , (much more "normal" AOV ) from a different, closer point of view than the really long macro's extremely narrow AOV from more distant POVs. The shorter than super long Macro lens usage is essentially very different and used for same reasons as non macro lenses. This is why for non macro usage 50mm lenses are considered "normal" / "general purpose" and 90-105mm lenses are NOT. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 2:46 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general, > its very limited to only smaller objects at > higher. I am talking about doing everything you > can do with a macro lens thats better than > using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all. > jco I CAN do more than just smaller objects with a 100mm macro lens. Can you describe a "general" use that a 100mm can't do and a 50mm can? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
nearly all zooms will have some geometry problems that true prime macros dont, and with a zoom its even HARDER to remove the geometry distortion in digital post processing than a prime non-macro lens discussed earlier. I would never recommend zooms for macro unless you dont want the best quality. The extra lens elements in a zoom increase flare too. Its not just about sharpness, the flare and geometry issues matter too. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 1:13 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses Walter Hamler wrote: >Thanks for all the various inputs on the Macro question. You all gave me a >lot to think about. >I just talked to the folks at B&H, and they would have had to order the AF >version of the Phoenix 100mm f/3.5 macro (same lens as the Pentax 100 f/3.5 >that is discontinued), BUT, they have the MF version in stock. So, for >125.00 shipped, it is on its way. If for some reason I am unhappy with it, I >can probably sell for pretty close to that price and continue the quest. >However, having seen results on the lens posted on the web I think I will >like it. >So, the flowers and bugs on GFM are on my list!! For shooting macro at GFM you don't really need to bring any lens at all: You can usually borrow whatever you need :) Personally, since I do the majority of my macro shooting in the field, I love using a zoom because it lets me, well, zoom; no futzing around with moving the tripod forward an inch or two or three, etc. (Yes, I know about macro focusing rails, but I'm trying to carry *less* gear, not more.) My old Vivitar 70-210 Series 1 goes to 1:2.5 by itself and around 1:1 with a 2-element achromatic diopter lens. Not as sharp as my Pentax F100/2.8 macro, but I usually end up shooting at small apertures where diffraction is the main limit on sharpness. -- 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: Macro Lenses
Nope, 50mm is never short on APS, its already way past "normal" even at infinity and at 1:1, its three times the lenght of a normal lens at infinity. "short" lenses by my defintion would havet be wide or at least normal length and on APS 50mm is NOT. Regarding using longer lenses, I am not saying they are not useful for some things, but the topis was a ONE LENS macro setup, and for only one lens those long lenses are too long for general purpose macro IMHO. What make 300mm and 500mm true macro lenses are you using? I have never heard of any for 35mm/APS unless you are just using regular lenses with extensions. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:37 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > they dont allow "better control of the background" > when you WANT some more background do they? Thats > what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. Of course, I agree with that. I use wide angles a lot for flower macros. > It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And > even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS > anyway) I have a 500mm and use a 300mm for butterfly closeups. 50mm is short. :-) > you can control > background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed. Of course. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
NOPE, dont agree, your purpose is not general, its very limited to only smaller objects at higher. I am talking about doing everything you can do with a macro lens thats better than using a regular lens. I do pretty much it all. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:33 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I would rather have only a 50mm > for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by > general purpose MACRO. And I would rather have only a 100mm macro for APS-sized digital for my "general" purpose macro. So really it is personal preference based on what subject you "generally" shoot. I shoot bugs, so I like the 100mm for working distance. The trade-off is that I need to back up to shoot larger objects. You like the closer working distance of a 50mm, your trade-off is that you have to get really close to smaller subjects. Everything in photography is a compromise. You make your choices based on what you need it for the most and use it as best you can for "other" subjects. So my point, is that you are not right in your assessment that 50mm is better for "general" macro and at the same time I am not right that 100mm is better for "general" macro. Each is right for our purposes. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
When I say general macro, I mean to cover most macro situations as best as possible with only one lens. The longer lenses are great for isolating a VERY TINY subject and the longer working distance but they are just as bad for having to get TOO far away for larger objects, using at lower maginications, and are impossible to do wider angles when you want to get more of the background or surroundings in the frame, albeit out of focus to some extent. Also depending on your "studio", and "tabletop" the really long lenses can force you to have to back up too far and into a wall. Like I said, if you can use multiple lenses are you much better off, but if you cant I would rather have only a 50mm for APS than a 90-105mm. Thats what I mean by general purpose MACRO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:14 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, > (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good > to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just > like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only > the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the > scale. It all depends on your subject and how much magnification you want. Case: I like shooting bugs at 1:1. 50mm 1:2 macro is not gonna get me there and the working distance is WAY to short. Therefore as my only macro lens, a ~100mm 1:1 lens makes sense because of the greater working distance. Even a 150-180-200mm 1:1 would be good for the extra working distance. Bugs fly away, 50mm lenses don't have enough working distance. > 50mm on APS is > nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never > or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so > popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what > would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 > puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the > longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there > at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, > one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and > go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you > go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. your "general" one lens macro kit is "general" for what? Flowers? ok fine 50mm is great. But my "general" one lens macro kit is for bugs so 100mm is what I need. All I'm saying is that primary subject matter is more important in selecting the lens than your criteria about APS vs 35mm frame sizes. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
they dont allow "better control of the background" when you WANT some more background do they? Thats what shorter lenses are for in a lot of cases. It is not always desired to have the extreme telephoto effect. And even with the shorter lenses (50mm is NOT short in macro range on APS anyway) you can control background somewhat with DOF/aperture if needed. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:16 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses John Whittingham wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2007 19:44:27 -0400, J. C. O'Connell wrote >> I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, >> (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good >> to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just >> like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want >> only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end >> of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm >> 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, >> but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, >> then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what >> would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 >> puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the >> longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there >> at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, >> one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and >> go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you >> go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. >> jco > > Depends more on the subject matter IMHO, for repro work or working in > a > controlled environment the 50mm on film or 35mm on digital is fine. I find > for living subjects, insects, plants and the like the longer lenses have a > distinct advantage, allowing more distance betwen the photog and subject. I > have the M 50/4 and used it for copy work and slide copying with bellows, but > I use the Sigma EX 105/2.8 for all other subject with film or digital and > much prefer it. I forgot to mention too that the longer focal lengths allow better control of the background due to the narrow angle of view which is a benefit for insect macros to avoid distracting background elements. -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.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
RE: Macro Lenses
I have used macros from 50mm to 180mm on 35mm format, (33mm to 120 on APS equiv.) and I find that its good to have multiple focal lengths just like normal photography, but just like normal photography, if you only have one lens, you dont want only the long end of the scale and a 90-105mm on APS is the long end of the scale. 50mm on APS is nearly IDEAL single macro lens (75mm 35mm format equiv which was never or rarely made). To each his own, but if 50-60 and 90-105mm were so popular for MACRO in 35mm format, then 33.3mm and 60-70mm is what would be equiv on APS and a 50mm lens like the 50mm SMC-A F2.8 puts you firmly in that popular range, leaning towards the longer end, whilst a 90-105mm lens puts you way out there at 135-150mm equiv which is too long imho for a general purpose, one lens Macro lens kit. I would recommend a 50mm to start with and go with a longer lens only as a two lens macro kit, and if you go with three lenses, find a 35mm macro lens if you can. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian Walters Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Macro Lenses I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do is "close" rather than "true macro" and I find the extra distance with the 90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I want it with the 50. Cheers Brian ++ Brian Walters Western Sydney Australia Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend > a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others > are too > long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast > manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the > SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are > a little too hard to focus at 50mm. I have one ( SAM-A 50mm F2.8, > I > actually > bought it for APS digital years ago before I even got > APS digital because the price was right, and it works > quite nicely on the istDS and I would imagine even > better on a K10D as its so sharp in the macro range. > > I cant stress the 50mm strongly enough over 90-105mm if > you only want one macro lens for APS. I often find > even the 50mm too long, I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro > for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Walter Hamler > Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:43 PM > To: pdml@pdml.net > Subject: Macro Lenses > > > I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest > Pentax AF, > for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some > 100mm > f/4 > in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma > 90mm > > f/2.8 A . > Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? > > Walt -- Click for free info on human resource careers and make $150K/ year http://tags.bluebottle.com/fc/CAaCMPJdTD3YSriLIIQEtXsC7xg5FB94/ -- 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: Macro Lenses
I think thats a bad recommendation, fast 50mm normal lenses do not perform anywhere even close (no pun) as Macro lenses in the high magnificaion ranges under say 1:10. They are optimized for infinity and speed, not closeup, and as such, dont do a very good job closeup with tubes. Many "regular" lenses have close focus limits built into the lens for a good reason, the reason is the performance of the lens goes to crapola when focussed closer. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses - Original Message - From: "Brian Walters" Subject: RE: Macro Lenses >I guess it depends on how close Walt wants to get. A lot of what I do >is >"close" rather than "true macro" and I find the extra distance with the >90mm Tamron on the *ist DS is more workable than with my 50mm Macro >Takumar. I often use flash and find that I can't get the light where I >want it with the 50. I have macro lenses of 50mm, 100mm and 200mm. I had thought that the 50 would get more use with the smaller format, but in fact, I haven't used it yet on the digital. I am finding the A100/2.8 to be a gorgeous macro lens on the DSLR, and have chosen it or the FA200/4 macro every time over the 50mm. Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension tubes, it will probably serve you better as general purpose equipemnt than a slow 50mm macro lens. 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: Macro Lenses
I dont think pentax made any m42 lenses other than f1.4 IIRC. There were many other focal lengths and the 55mm was made in F1.8 but a Pentax 50mm F1.7 M42 lens? Never heard of that jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Tainter Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:37 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. - The 50 F1.7 started out as an M42 lens. I had it with my old H2 (H3?). Then it was produced in K mount through, I believe, 1977. Anyway, it is reputed to have a flatter field at close focusing and to be better for copy work than the contemporaneous 50/1.4. Joe -- 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: Macro Lenses
In my experience, none of the fast 50mm normal lenses are geometrically as linear when compared to 50mm dedicated macro lenses. this can be important at times and no matter what f-stop you shoot at it wont go away. Nowadays though you CAN correct a lot of that distortion stuff in post processing but if you dont want to bother with it at all and you do a lot of macro than a true macro is the way to go for better geometry and saved labor. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 8:37 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Macro Lenses It has been said here quite a few times that the 50/1.7 is a better macro lens, but I don't think there was a 1.7 past the M or A series. That said, I could never tell the difference between the M50/1.4 and the M50/1.7 when used with xtension tubes and when the lenses were used stopped down to 5.8 or smaller apertures. I don't ever recall using either lens at anything wider than 5.6 Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb > Frankly, if you want a 50mm macro, > get a 50/1.4 and a set of extension > tubes, it will probably serve you better > as general purpose equipemnt than a > slow 50mm macro lens. -- 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: Macro Lenses
If you are going to shoot APS digital I would recommend a 50mm over any 90-105mm Macros for a sole macro lens, those others are too long for general purpose macro IMHO. I would go with a fast manual focus 50mm, which really limits you to the SMC-A 50mm F2.8 because the F4 models, while good, are a little too hard to focus at 50mm. I have one ( SAM-A 50mm F2.8, I actually bought it for APS digital years ago before I even got APS digital because the price was right, and it works quite nicely on the istDS and I would imagine even better on a K10D as its so sharp in the macro range. I cant stress the 50mm strongly enough over 90-105mm if you only want one macro lens for APS. I often find even the 50mm too long, I would like a 35mm 2.8 Macro for APS too but I dont know of any out there yet. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Walter Hamler Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 5:43 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Macro Lenses I need a macro lens. Don't want to spend the bucks for the latest Pentax AF, for that matter I think I would prefer a MF version. KEH has some 100mm f/4 in different versions, one being an A model. They also have a Sigma 90mm f/2.8 A . Anyone know anything about these or others that I need to consider? Walt -- 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: Pentax and Foveon?
I dont agree you get "full" luminance information from every bayer pixel be cause they are all limited wavelength (red, green, or blue, only ) & depending on the image wavelength distribution you will not get full luminance resolution, these wavelengths have to be summed to get the true luminance, and once summed, its at a lower resoution than the "rated" bayer resolution. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Lacus Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:45 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? Hello John, > why have you trucate edited my comments to make > them out context? I was just commenting that > in terms of resolution, a 3Mp true color sensor > is more resolution than 10Mp bayer type sensor which > is really only 2.5Mp true color upconverted/interpolated > back up to a "fake" full color 10Mp., that's all. I don't think they were out of context but I'm sorry if you felt it that way. As I understand it you were comparing the resolution of "3Mp true color sensor" to that of "12Mp Bayer sensor". I just think it's probably not entirely fair comparison because IMHO with Bayer sensor you are getting full resolution luminance information, it's just colour information what is incomplete and needs to be interpolated. I'm with John Francis on this one (3Mp Foveon =~ 6Mp Bayer) or I may even prefer 6Mp Bayer over 3Mp Foveon (depending on subject). Cheers, Peter -- 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: Pentax and Foveon?
Oh yeah, to get full luminance information from any "X" megapixel sensor, all the individual pixels have to be wideband monochrome, (no bayer filtering). I think kodak actually made one like this at one time, I would love one, if it was cheap and much higher resolution than a same Mp color bayer one and I dont see why not. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Lacus Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:45 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? Hello John, > why have you trucate edited my comments to make > them out context? I was just commenting that > in terms of resolution, a 3Mp true color sensor > is more resolution than 10Mp bayer type sensor which > is really only 2.5Mp true color upconverted/interpolated > back up to a "fake" full color 10Mp., that's all. I don't think they were out of context but I'm sorry if you felt it that way. As I understand it you were comparing the resolution of "3Mp true color sensor" to that of "12Mp Bayer sensor". I just think it's probably not entirely fair comparison because IMHO with Bayer sensor you are getting full resolution luminance information, it's just colour information what is incomplete and needs to be interpolated. I'm with John Francis on this one (3Mp Foveon =~ 6Mp Bayer) or I may even prefer 6Mp Bayer over 3Mp Foveon (depending on subject). Cheers, Peter -- 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: Pentax and Foveon?
I think you guy dont fully understand bayer and foveon type senosr differences or you wouldnt be floating numbers for a 3Mp foveon same as 6Mp or "9 Mp at most" bayer. 3Mp true color pixels like on the foveon, would need 12Mp bayer pixels for the same true color resolution. Reason is simple, it takes 4 bayer pixels to create on true color pixel like each pixel of the foveon type sensor features. The bayer sensors are really only 1/4 the color resolution of the rating (6Mp is really 1.5MP true color, 10Mp is really only 2.5Mp true color, etc.) and what they do is cheat/upconvert the smaller color image X4 to get the color output the same number of pixels as the real monochrome number of pixels the bayer camera has. Thie is why when you look at any bayer sensor image at 100% it looks soft compared to higher resolution images ( from medium or large format cameras, etc. ) which are downsized to that same resolution. the image upconversion is somewhat of a scam really because they never really disclose that the outputted image on a bayer sensor camera has been interpolated/ upsized instead of being a true color resolution. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 7:19 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? On Mar 9, 2007, at 4:03 PM, John Francis wrote: > My impression (based on seeing the best Foveon could provide) is that > the 3MP Sigma produced results roughly comparable to those from a 6MP > Bayer Sensor. That's the impression I get from talking with John Bean, who has a lot of experience with the Sigma DSLR as well as a Pentax *ist DS and Olympus E-1. He stopped using the Sigma in favor of the Pentax as the Pentax has far cleaner noise characteristics at elevated ISO settings, but the Sigma's rendering qualities at low ISOs was excellent, judging by looking at his photographs. 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: Pentax and Foveon?
why have you trucate edited my comments to make them out context? I was just commenting that in terms of resolution, a 3Mp true color sensor is more resolution than 10Mp bayer type sensor which is really only 2.5Mp true color upconverted/interpolated back up to a "fake" full color 10Mp., that's all. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Peter Lacus Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? > bayer for you to be interested? Even a 3Mp true color foveon is approx > same as 12mp bayer, which is better why do you think so, John? Cheers, Peter -- 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: Pentax and Foveon?
It would have to be at least the equiv of a 24Mp bayer for you to be interested? Even a 3Mp true color foveon is approx same as 12mp bayer, which is better than pentax's best at this point... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:40 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 12:07:25PM -0500, Mark Erickson wrote: > Rumors are surfacing that Foveon sensors may show up in non Sigma > DSLRs in > the next six months or so. Foveon's design escapes resolution issues that > are intrinsic to Bayer pattern color sensors. I don't see why Pentax has to > stick with Sony forever. Wouldn't it be cool if Pentax tied up with Foveon > for their next DSLR sensor? > > --Mark Not unless they come up with a sensor with more than 3M photosites. If they have 6M 3-colour photosites I'd be interested, though. -- 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: Pentax and Foveon?
I do not think that Pentax or anyone else would have any problem selling a top line camera with a Foveon sensor that has better image quality than a Bayer to potential buyers because the Mp spec is lower. That type of customer already knows that difference in these specification in the first place. Secondly, I dont see why Foveon doesnt just lie/deceive about their Mp like everyone else does. All other DSLRS/ digicams are using phony numbers anyway (they count monochrome pixels as the Mp and have lower resolution interpolated color outputs at same number), why not them too? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Thibouille Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax and Foveon? IMO Foveon has a problem: marketing number. Only those who know that megapixels isn't the only thing will consider such a sensor. Most poeple will notice it is not 10Mpix and will reject it pretty quickly. Sigma tries to be different than others using Foveon and it is a good thing from Sigma I beleive but the "big ones" (and wannabe) won't get into this (I hope they'd do this but I don't think so). 2007/3/9, Mark Erickson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Rumors are surfacing that Foveon sensors may show up in non Sigma > DSLRs in the next six months or so. Foveon's design escapes > resolution issues that are intrinsic to Bayer pattern color sensors. > I don't see why Pentax has to stick with Sony forever. Wouldn't it be > cool if Pentax tied up with Foveon for their next DSLR sensor? > > --Mark > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- 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: Prettiest/Ugliest Pentax Equipment (was RE: New Sony)
The prettiest camera pentax ever made by far was the first spotmatic in black (without the ugly hot shoe every camera since about '75 now has). The damn thing ought to be in a museum of fine art for it's sculpture. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:12 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Prettiest/Ugliest Pentax Equipment (was RE: New Sony) Hi Thibouille I share your taste with the SFX series but to be fair, these ugly bodies have served me very well over the last years. Maybe it was it's look and size and weight that made them unwanted and available very cheap second hand. But the SFXn has some "inner qualities". If we talk about ugliness, I strongly vote for the F-series lenses, I really hate how they look and feel. The most beautiful lenses must be some of the M42 Takumar series, I vote for the SMC 85mm 1.8! greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Thibouille Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:03 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: New Sony No way Ken, not a Z1P. I wouldn't call it a pretty camera but noway is it ugly. I'd vote for A3000 or SFX, not sure. We should make a poll: prettiest and ugliest Pentax camera :) 2007/3/9, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 3/08/07 6:43 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You are not the only one who thinks so, of course. Why do you think others > > won't think that way? What's wrong in chatting about the shape or anything > > else. > > BTW, the "ugliest" camera I encountered so far (at the time) was PZ-1p > but it gave me what I wanted and I loved it. Even though we joke > around what looks to be an old style pentaprism in steroid of Sony's > mockup, I am sure anyone in this list would pick it up if it offers > what he wants. So, please.. :-). > > Ken > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- 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
RE: Sigma DP1
a smaller focussing screen will NOT be dimmer/ "fainter" just because its smaller. It would only become dimmer/"fainter" for a given lens speed if it is magnified more to match a larger screen visually. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dario Bonazza Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Sigma DP1 In this case, all else is NOT being held equal. FourThirds viewfinder is smaller and/or fainter due to smaller sensor size. Once again the faster lens just compensates for that handicap, no gain. Dario - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:11 AM Subject: RE: Sigma DP1 > Even if all else is being held equal due to other factors, a faster > lens is still better than a slower lens in terms of viewfinder > brightness because your eyes > always have the same sensitivity even if the crappy 4/3 sensor doesnt... > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Boris Liberman > Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:01 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Sigma DP1 > > > I understand... > > However at minimal ISO the noise is about as good as regular APS > cameras, right? Then, for this case only, the f/2 zoom would be > beneficial, isn't it? > > Boris > > > Dario Bonazza wrote: >> Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> It's pretty simple. The 4/3rds cameras are noisy at moderate ISO's. >>> 400 on a 4/3rds body is as noisy as 800-1600 on a larger sensor. So >>> you > need >>> faster lenses to be able to shoot in the same light with similar > amounts >>> of noise. Thus the f2 zooms get you no real boost in speed, since > they >>> only make up for the lower ISO necessary due to the noisy sensor. >> >> My thought exactly. >> >> Dario >> > > > -- > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: funky composition
Well if I had shot this on 4x5 all that might be possible, but this is only a 6MP dslr image so the extreme cropping wont work, just not enough resolution to maintain reasonable image quality to do that. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Franklin Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: funky composition J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I know what you mean, there is a lot going on, > but the pool itself is cool as are the umbrellas, > the sunbathers, the lone guy in the shade, the bar, etc, its just all > together the elements add up to a really funky composition dont they? Yeah, but I think the "sub-photos" might be "better" when isolated from that shot. For example, statue-backed-by-pool and tight-on-the-umbrellas. In fact, this scene and the subscenes might lend themselves to a somewhat different presentation, like some sort of collage of the overall and the specific. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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
