Re: DSLR/PC plateau?
On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:01:21AM -0800, Chaso DeChaso wrote: I think the above analysis is overly reliant on the idea of the job as equivalency to 35mm (or Med Format) traditional film photography - equivalency in a variety of ways including not only resolution and such things. One quick example would be when something happens (relatively soon) such as sensors becoming not only way higher in resolution but also much more light-sensitive than film. Among other things, this would allow both digital-only (non optical) zoom and total depth of field. Now how, in the Holy Name of Optics, would one achieve Total Depth of Field just because the medium is digital? Or do you mean something more mundane, that a more light-sensitive medium allows for a smaller aperture than otherwise? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: version 1.1
John Francis said: Pretty much exactly what I predicted would be the best we could hope for, back when the camera was first released. I'm favourably impressed; while it was apparent that these capabilities were technically feasible, I still thought that the hyper manual stop-down metering was too much to expect. I find it interesting that they chose to address M-lens compatibility with new firmware *first*, of all the other potential things they could have done. They could have, say, added flashing red blown highlights, which would seem to be of value to a wider audience. It does seem that they realised that a large number of (potential) *istD owners value their old lenses. For me, the fact that they issued a firmware update at all makes me more confident that they might issue a next one later, maybe adding blown highlight indication then and histogram on instant review then. But I also wanted M-lens compatibility *first* :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l This message was sent using MetroWEB's AirMail service. http://www.metroweb.co.za/ - full access for only R59. Free WebMail, Calendar, Anti-Virus, Anti-Spam, 10 emails Phone Now! 086 11 11 440
Solution to Pentax eyecup loss
On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 11:48:28PM -0500, Stan Halpin wrote: I would like a viewfinder eyecup that stays in place. The solution to this notorious Pentax ailment is simple: Wrap a 5-7mm wide rubber band around the eyecup. This keeps the eyecup in place, and protects the diopter slider from accidental movement (which can cause the dreaded Why can't I manual-focus today? condition). For optimal aesthetics with black cameras, go to an eletronic components shop and ask for a black rubber drive belt as close as possible to the desired size. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Solution to Pentax eyecup loss
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 01:08:40PM -0500, Bill Owens wrote: I used a blue rubber band to match the blue icons on the ist D 8-) That's wrong. You should use a green rubber band to match the green icons. Blue icons are relevant during preview only; it's the green icons that make shooting easier for dummies who keep using their eyecups. I mean, we must be doing something wrong to lose the eyecups; if they were really loose Pentax would've picked it up in QA years ago. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Thanks for the Welcome!
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:43:28AM -0800, Jasmine wrote: One thing I would like to get is a flash-thingy. Are they hard to find? Expensive? (and yes, I said flash-THINGY - I have a fine command of the English language, thank you very much!) You already received a lot of good advice. I would only add that you hold back on buying a flash-thingy until you've got a good grip on taking photographs using only the light that you have available in the scenery. I have an ulterior motive, of course: once you understand natural light, I hope that you would also respect and appreciate it more, making you less likely to want to go and fry the Holy Baloney out of it with a Big Honking Raygun. As you can see, I don't much like the indiscriminate use of flash. Flash is a tool, mostly used as a weapon that makes one look more flashy and professional, and to scare your subjects into blinded submission and approriate awe of one's photographic talents. Some people also use flash as a means of carrying a kind of virtual bubble of boring, head-on, miner's headlamp frontal white lighting around with them, so as to make all there photographs appear to be taken in the same surroundings. And a smaller minority use flash, intelligently and judiciously, as a way to subtly enhance the light or make a photograph possible in a situation where they otherwise would not have been able to take one. But that intelligence and judicion builds on experience of just what possibilities the light that is there offers them, so start there. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Some waaaaay cool photos
On Sun, Jan 04, 2004 at 03:56:09PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: Taken by a robot on Mars! http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rover-images/jan-04-2004/images-1-4-04.html Its mission is to find life, right? They should have send Lewis the robot photographer we discussed a while ago. That robot was designed to seek out life. And it composes its pictures better. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Evening / night photography
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:15:41PM +0200, Naomi van der Lippe wrote: Hi Bob The last photographs I did in the dark (of which one succeeded) I used your everyday Kodak gold and it was 200 ASA. I have heard the higher the speed of the film, the better your chances of taking successful photo's. (Any suggestions are welcome). I'm not Bob but I'll answer anyway. For indoor shots without flash, photos of musicians performing in a dimly lit venue, street scenes etc. higher speed film is recommended, It allows one to still hand-hold the camera in situations where one otherwise could not, allowing for more nimble action photography. For Gauteng Province nighttime street photography, I recommend carrying a tripod or monopod with a heavy cast-iron head, for fending off muggers. Higher speed film is recommended in the dark, even when using flash. Esp. smaller flashed can not illuminate every part of the scene. On a slow film, the background and nooks and crannies might render black, whereas with a faster film the ambient light on the surroundings might be sufficient to also render them visible even if they weren't flash-lit. Personally, though, I detest the reflixive, habitual usage of flash just because it is supposedly dark. Night-time scenery has a light quality all of its own that is different from sunlit scenes and which creates a mood all of its own. Using flash (esp. full-frontal camera-mounted flash) destroys the special nighttime ambiance, and replaces it with a deer-caught-in-the-headlights miner's-headlamp-lit quality that can make the most special night-time occasion seem to have occured in some windowless living room at noon. Another crucial tool for night-time photography is fast lenses. I started out using older manual lenses, and to my mind a maximum aperture of f/2.0 is OK, f/1.4 is fast and f/2.8 and slower is getting a bit of dog, because it is a zoom lens. But looking at consumer zooms, a maximum aperture of f/5.6 seems more like the average. Your depth of field will be shallow at a wider-open aperture, but this also fits in with the mood of how we percieve night-time scenes: at night, the world consists of lots of seperately lit islands, we do not perceive both the people close to us and the scenery far away in focus at night, either. My personal thing at the moment is available light shots of dancers on the dance floor at nightclubs. These places are often very dark, the ambient light is not sufficient even at f/1.4 @ 3200 ISO. On the other hand, they have strobe lights going off about every 1/4 second, which one can think of as camera flashlights mounted all over the ceiling that you can't control. So a lot of my recent photopgraphy is done at 3200 ISO at f/1.4 and 1/4 or 1/3 second, handheld (the strobe light freeze the motion). I get a lot of flops this way, were the strobe light did not go off during the exposure and the photo is way too dark, or where the strobe light went off twice at people half four arms and legs each, or where, due to the long exposure, stationary ambient lights like red LED's on a DJ's mixing console totally burn and overexpose. But the point is, even with the flops, that the photos preserve more of the mood and the natural (ahem) light of that scene than everybody else with theire big honking flashbulbs that transform any nightclub to look like somebody's cocktail party in Joe's apartment. More relevant for *you*, nighttime photography might take you into a range of film speeds, or apertures, or shutter lenghts, that feel weird to you. Get used to it. I am thinking of taking photo's of the moon (I purchased a 500 mm lens), subjects in front of the moon with parts of the moon shining through (bare tree branches, etc); This changes things. The moon itself is a sun-lit object, and apparently the same f/16 sunny rules of thumb for daytime exposures work well when shooting the moon itself. That means, thought, that there is a high contrast between the moon and the bare tree branches you are speaking of. Either you will get the texture and craters on the moon in your photo, and the branches black silhouettes; or the moon will be an overexposed white disk with detail in the tree. moving vehicle lights; Depends on how much you want the vehicle lights to streak. Do you want a single car's taillights to streak a short red streak all starting and ending in the same photo, or do you want the entire road to be traced in a filligree of red and white lines? In either case, just set your aperture and shutter so that the lamp-lit surroundings are darker than the midtones (say 1 stop underexposed). Now look at your shutterspeed. Say it is 1s. How far will the average car in your scene move in one second?Enough? Too much? Make your aperture 1 stop smaller and your shutterspeed twice as long (or the opposite), until your shutterspeed feels right. Oh, and don't be afraid to bracket extensively, esp. if this is your first time. the stars when in the
Re: Evening / night photography
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:22:14PM +0200, Naomi van der Lippe wrote: Re the stars photo - I would love to be able to recreate photo's where the shutter stays open for a period of time with the starts creating almost a circle effect. If you actually *want* the starts to streak and circle, I would recommend using a slow film and narrow aperture so that you are forced to have a long exposure. You will need a cable release that clicks in position and keeps the shutter open until you release it, because we are talking about at least a 20min long exposure here. The stars seem to wheel around the poles, so get an astronomy website or Voortrekker scout guide to explain to you how to find the South pole in the sky from the Souther cross. The stars will circle around that, so keep that somewhere in your photo. Also, try and find reciprocity failure information on the film you will be using, with such long exposures. And try and protect the camera from stray light from campfires and such that will occur while you sip your whisky in the desert and wait for the photo to finish. you will leave your camera -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Evening / night photography
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:53:20PM -0500, tom wrote: I think I took this with a pz-1p and 20-35/4, probably shot on Delta 3200 at 1600 at f/4. I would guess from the light trails the shutter speed is about 1/30. I just rested the camera on a ledge, set the camera in AV mode and bracketed. Bright point source lights like this will often make the meter overexpose. http://www.bigdayphoto.com/cityscapes/power_authority_0731.htm I like this shot. It has... power. The weight of the building lends it... authority. No seriously, I like it. :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Evening / night photography
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 01:18:15PM -0500, Christian wrote: - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think Peter covered things pretty well, but here are some examples of night shotsthese were done way back in the day. [snip] Tom Van Veen is no longer allowed to post photos to this list. He's giving me an inferiority complex! [snip] Oh, wait a minute, he is human after all! Don't worry, Thom is not infallible: He misspelt my name wrong. Usually I just let it slide, but with a surname of Dutch origin it is unforgivable that Thom van Vien should get my name wrong. -- ,_ /_) /| / / I e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Photodisks Failing
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:42:50PM -0500, Ann Sanfedele wrote: I think paper and film are a lot easier to care for and handle than discs... I need them to be because I'm such a klutz. Despite having recently embraced an *istD, I must say this for film: One day when I'm old and gray and doddering, no matter what happens, no matter what image file formats are patented or whether the last 50 terrabit Selenium Memory Pin reader in the world gives up the ghost; worst comes to worst, I can always hold my negatives up to the light. And since it is unlikely that technology like magnifying glasses and other lenses will become obsolete, worst will not come to worst. And even if Digital should be replaced by Quantum Imaging, I can at least take a Quantum image of my negative and reverse the colours in PhotoGalaxy. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Photodisks Failing
On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 12:46:00PM -0600, Chris Brogden wrote: [snip] People argue against digital archiving by bringing up the longevity of glass plates, daguerrotypes, dried beaver skins, etc., Beaver skins? Hah! And if your CD's should fail, could you at least *wear* them in the winter, huh? :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Photodisks Failing
On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 11:11:12AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Jan 2004 at 20:47, Pieter Nagel wrote: And even if Digital should be replaced by Quantum Imaging, I can at least take a Quantum image of my negative and reverse the colours in PhotoGalaxy. However you might not see much. A lot of my dads colour negs from the '60-'70 don't even contain enough data to make a crude BW print these days. Ah, but it is *Quantum* imaging I am talking about... :-) Ok. So I overestimate the average longevity of negatives. So I'm left with saying, er, that it is easier to accidentally delete a digital picture than a frame from a negative, yup, that's the ticket. But honestly, it's actually just that I *like* the physicality of the film medium, despite being a professional computer programmer (or maybe, because of it). Storing an image using a 2D grid of molecules of varying densities feels just so, well, elegant and simple. Maybe because molecules don't crash and have bugs as often. That said, despite knowing that the fast majority of my photography henceforth will be digital. I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of my future film work will be with the LX, due to the OTF metering, of a future foray into medium format. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Solar filter (was Re: Multiple exposure shot over course of the year)
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 07:19:31AM -0500, Herb Chong wrote: did you make it yourself or is it designed for photographic use? i know B+W makes a 20 stop filter, but i don't know if that alone makes it useful for solar work. I think a 20 stop filter would be dangerous to use for solar photgraphy. It might block 20 stops of visible light, but let through enough other wavelengths to fry your eye through the viewfinder. Even if you can't see the sun at all. I would strongly discourage anyone from using any filter for solar photography unless the filter is explicitly designed as a *solar* filter, not just a very dark filter. As to the original question on solar filters without colour casts: I once was given a piece of solar filter that looked just like very thin aluminium foil. It was a sheet of metal manufactured so thin that it became transparent enough for solar viewing. The image through this was noticably whiter than through another Mylar (?) filter, whose image was more muddy and yellow. Unfortunately, I do not remember the make. I suggest you ask at a place that sells telescopes. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Solar filter (was Re: Multiple exposure shot over course of the year)
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:59:14PM +0100, Anders Hultman wrote: My filter is from such a place, but your tip is useful anyway: Thinking about it now, I might find a better filter by looking again. This might be useful: http://www.baader-planetarium.com/sofifolie/details_e.htm -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: AP liked the *ist 35mm best
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 12:32:53PM -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote: I don't think that it is targeted at all those who still have pre 'A' lenses. Those people generally like the LX, MX, SuperProgram era bodies as well as the lenses. This statement doesn't quite make sense to me. It's not just people who own older bodies which are conteporaneous with the older lenses who know of the lense' existance. Even someone whose first Pentax body was a recent MZ-whatever could still see old second hand K lenses on the shelves, buy them, and expect them to work as well in their *istD as they did in their MZ-5 or MZ-S. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: For Sale - 2004 January 1
On Thu, Jan 01, 2004 at 04:33:18PM -0800, Bucky wrote: I have an SMC Pentax-M 50mm 1:1.4 for sale. If anyone on the PDML is interested, you get first shot, otherwise I'll eBay it. H. My favourite lens. If I didn't already have one, I'd have bought it. What? You're *selling* it? What kind of monster *are* you??? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Multiple exposure shot over course of the year
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 09:05:18AM +1000, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Ok, guys, maybe this is the inexperience coming out in me again, BUT, I don't get this photo. Technically, how is it possible? I mean if those shots truly showed the sun, then how did it manage to show it as a perfect little circle with no flare/rays etc? AFAIK, the guy shot one exposure to get the foreground. The rest of the exposures, of the sun. were done with a solar filter, small f-stop and fast shutter, so the light from the foreground scenery as insufficient to exposure the film. Other than that no manipulation was done. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: another istD issue
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 10:27:59AM +, mike wilson wrote: space race apochrypha Americans spend millions of dollars developing a pen that will write in zero gravity. Russians issue cosmonauts with pencils. /space race apochrypha An urban legend. Apparently both countries started off using pencils in space, and both switched to pens because pencils are a hazard; the graphite breaks off, floats about and can short electrical contacts. http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Manual Lens on Pentax ist D
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 12:46:39PM -0500, Christian wrote: Would it work in Av mode? In Av mode the *istD does not stop down the lens, even if you did dail an aperture smaller than wide open. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Multiple exposure shot over course of the year
Here's something cool: a single frame of film shot with 38 multiple exposures during the course of the year: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030320.html It shows loopy-8 course the sun takes over the course of the year. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: OT: Best photography novel?
The Last Magician by Janette Turner Hospital has as one of its main characters a photographer named Charlie Chang, the last magician of the book's title. As I remember the book, Chang's photography obsessively spirals around something hidden in his the main character's past, thereby finally illuminating it. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Dynamic Range
On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 07:35:16PM -0500, Herb Chong wrote: did you shoot in RAW? if you did, you could convert to TIFF with exposure compensation of -1 and gotten more out of the *istD. that's how the camera works and one of the reasons why i shoot RAW unless i have no choice. it gives me one more stop to play with before the highlights saturate. Yes, I did, I always do. If I wasn't shooting RAW, the highlights would have saturated at 255, and not at 4095, as I said. I'm not sure whether RAW actually gives you one more stop of dynamic range/sensor acceptance range. That might be an impression created by the Pentax software, which I do not use (I use Linux, dcraw, cinepaint, and gimp 1.3). It is plausible that, when shooting JPG, that the JPG is derived from the entire dynamic range of the RAW (i.e. RAW 0 - 4095 is mapped to JPG 0 - 255) - but of course there are less gradations of tonality inbetween in the JPEG. I think the black point and the white point of the JPEG are chosen based on a combination of thumbsuck, heuristics, the shape of your histogram, and your contrast setting, and it need not be true that there is an extra stop available either below the black or above the white of your JPEG. Sometimes, but not always. However, even in those cases, should you choose to only use the rightmost 2/3 range of your exposure, you can do that with RAW and it's finer gradation of tonality, without posterisation. How does the RAW - JPEG conversion of the Pentax software compare to what happens in-camera? If it is similar, I could do some experiments to see exactly how the dynamic range of the RAW and the JPEG relate. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Japanese FAQ on *ist D
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 07:26:33PM +0100, Frits Wüthrich wrote: From the website below: The RCR-V3 charge pond does not use, with respect to voltage characteristic, the male is completed. the male is completed.: I am not so sure I understand this. I guess it either means Buy a Pentax and enjoy status and sex appeal, or The protrutriding battery pin is the positive terminal. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Japanese FAQ on *ist D
On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 09:04:26PM +0200, Pieter Nagel wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2003 at 07:26:33PM +0100, Frits Wüthrich wrote: From the website below: The RCR-V3 charge pond does not use, with respect to voltage characteristic, the male is completed. the male is completed.: I am not so sure I understand this. I guess it either means Buy a Pentax and enjoy status and sex appeal, or The protrutriding battery pin is the positive terminal. Er, I meant protruding. Although I must admit, protrude-riding has potential as a new word. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD crashed like Windoze!
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 09:43:05PM -0600, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Pieter Nagel Subject: *istD crashed like Windoze! In the end I had to take out the batteries and reinsert to wake it up. I've had that happen twice so far, also when reviewing files. Maybe there's a pattern to this. In my case I was shooting a burst of long exposure shots with noise reduction, until the buffer was full, then pressed the review button, waited quite a while for the hourglass to disapear, and then pressed left. The camera froze on me after displaying the previous picture, one of the burst of pictures that the camera was still processing when I pressed the review button the first time. Related in any way to what happened in your case? So, when's the new firmware coming out? :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Re[2]: Santa Pics
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 12:05:37PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My question still stands: Is it better to slightly underexpose on the DSLR? -- Best regards, Bruce I think so Bruce.You have a better chance to fixup an underexposed than over,or so i've been told by those in the know. A dissenting voice: http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: Re[2]: Santa Picsy
On Fri, Dec 19, 2003 at 07:20:42PM -0500, Herb Chong wrote: you don't understand the assertion nor the article. they are saying the same thing. don't overexpose in digital. The article says: get as close as you can to overexposing, cause that is good, but don't burn out the highlights, cause that is very bad. Other people in this thread said; burning out the highlights is very bad, so stay as far away as you can from the highlights, and rather underexpose to avoid burning them. Is that a fair summary? And they are not saying the same thing? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: OT:Inkjet printer recommendations
On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:39:10AM -0500, Herb Chong wrote: newer Epson printers track the amount of ink in the cartridge in the cartridge itself. Actually the cartridges don't really sense how much ink is really there. They just have a simple counter that gets decreased proportionate to how much ink the printer thinks its using. Of course, Epson would rather have the cartridge show empty when there's some ink left, instead of running out of ink when it shows some ink left. Less nasty surprises for the user that way (and more regular ink purchases, too...) One can buy resetters that reset the cartridges to showing full, which allows one to print until they are *really* empty - but one still doesn't know when it will *really* run empty. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
On Tue, Dec 16, 2003 at 06:27:38PM -0600, William Robb wrote: From: Pieter Nagel Oh, I wasn't hoping to get any more quality out of the tiny APS sensor with 2/3 faked colour. I presume you have an ist D? If so, you know how wrong this statement is. I did not mean that as a slur on the istD specifically, I was referring to the difference between film current CCD's in general. Specifically, I was referring to the fact that each pixel of the CCD has a red, green or blue filter and can detect only one of the three, the other two need to be interpolated, ergo. 2/3 faked colour. I do not ascribe mystical properties to digital imaging algorithms just because digital is supposedly always better than analog. Therefore, even though I concede that the interpolation of the colours might in practice work fine, I do not for any moment believe that the interpolation algorithm can always end up with the colour value the pixel would have had if it had been able to sense the other two colours. Yes, I have an istD, and I am quite happy with the colour - although I must add that I have only had it for a few days now. But I can't help wondering (as a theoretical curiosity) how much better the colour rendition would be if each pixel could sense red, green and blue simultaneously. Users of a Foveon chip could comment. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 10:11:19AM -0800, Bruce Dayton wrote: One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side. When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each pixel is only one color. Just because, at the output side, printers need to dither dots on paper to create colors, does not mean that any penalties you paid at the input side are irrelevant. It's like saying printing enlargements magnifies grain anyway, so there's not so much benefit in using finer-grained film over coarse-grained film as you'd think. Dithering means the printer has to make compromises to try and reach the colour you want at a point. If you add uncertainty about *which* colour it should try to reach into the mix (like with an interpolated Bayer-matrix CCD), things get worse. I believe digital mini-labs do this. So in fact, the color doesn't have to be faked as much as it has to be patterned. The downside to this is that certain patterns (especially man-made) could come out looking wrong. The natural random nature of film grain tends to hide this rather than accentuate it. Film, with its pixels all a mix of random sizes and shapes, distributed randomly, even over and behind each other, has a huge advantage over digital due to this. I don't think the naively religious digital crowd realizes this. Sometimes I hear of someones who scans a negative, sees (they think) the first film grain, and then concludes that any higher resolution scan of the film is therefore fruitless. They don't seem to realize there's smaller grains yet to be resolved, after the first big one's they thought you saw. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 04:52:13PM -0700, John Mustarde wrote: On Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:16:56 +0200, you wrote: snip ... then concludes that any higher resolution scan of the film is therefore fruitless. They don't seem to realize there's smaller grains yet to be resolved, after the first big one's they thought you saw. Wow. More grain. Just what I wanted. Can't wait to resolve right down to the atoms. Bet film has more atoms than digital, too. This is what I find fascinating - the idea that the grain is an absolutely irrelevant detail divorced from the image, when in fact the grains are the one and only embodiment of the image. It is the fact that that large film grain is actually a cluster of smaller grains, or not, which adds finer tonal information. It's not the grains themselves I want to see; just the finer shades of gray they embody. The atoms are the image; up to a reasonable point. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 01:36:51PM -0500, graywolf wrote: Everything else the same, a larger format give better quality. The question is, if you need that quality why are you using a small format camera in the first place. If you don't, why worry about it. Oh, I wasn't hoping to get any more quality out of the tiny APS sensor with 2/3 faked colour. I was just amusing myself with the theory, trying to come up with as many contributing factors as possible. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
On Mon, Dec 15, 2003 at 09:41:18AM +1000, Rob Studdert wrote: No, you are simply looking at a cropped area of the image projected by any lens. What effect does this have on the look of the lens, other than the apparent change of focal length? Astigmatism and distortion are worse towards the edges of the image. but the CCD excludes the edges of the sensor. So on the one hand it would seem that lenses may perform better. On the other hand, the resulting image must be magnified even more to do the same size print, so the lesser distortion at the edges of the CCD may end up looking as bad after magnification. This is a re-delurk, after about a year of-list that also coincided with a photography hiatus I intend to end. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
*istD hot pixels at 3200 ISO
I checked out a *istD on Saturday. I took a photo with the lenscap on and a fast shutterspeed, and it had 3 hot pixels at ISO 3200, none at 200. Another *istD had 2 or 3 hot pixels at ISO 1600. Am I just unlucky, or do I have naïve expectations about digital cameras, or am I a walking source of electromagnetic interference? Do any of the *istD owners on this list have a flawless CCD? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l
RE: DSLR Pricing (was: RE: Today's rant: Alright, already
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:06, Cotty wrote: Pieter, you got a coffee table?? Does it have nice strong legs?? I used to have one, until it broke. I've been contacted by certain other camera manufacturers and we decided to make 35mm cameras more attractive to rich young men by introducing the icon of a supine nude next to the traditional tulip, mountain and running man on the exposure dial. The marketing campaign is: when she sees you cannon, she'll pose. To field test this combination, I've invited a lot of tulips, running men and supine nudes to lie on my coffee table while photographing them. My coffee table simply gave in under the weight. Coinciding with the release of this camera, Fuji will announce the extension of the venerable Velvia, Superia and Provia lines with the new Fuji Pornia slide film, featuring enhanced skintone and pink sensitivity. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax and the joyful absence of exposure modes
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 23:03, Mishka wrote: there're tons of other variables in play: the duration of exposure, the depth of field, and so on, and on, and on. that's why there're all those nd filters, multiple exposures, and so on. I think you misread my original message: I wrote that I was deliberately ignoring tons of other variables, like these. Variables like fascination with a certain subject and preference for a certain type of film are chosen in one's head. There's no camera knob for any of them. However, the moment it actually comes to lifting the camera to one's eyes and taking the photo, shutter speed and aperture are, for me, the major remaining artistic choices I have to make where the camera interface comes to play. For choosing where to point the camera and how to frame the subject I use my muscles, not camera knobs. So, my point was: the pentax modeless interface nicely focusses one's attention, when dealing with the camera, one two of the major variables where the camera actually is relevant - and those variables are few, compared to the vastness of psychological variables. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S appearance handling vs. PZ-1p (was: MZ-S built quality)
On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 22:56, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote: Well, that's if a camera is primarily an object of contemplation or perception, rather than something to be handled. There's an interesting article by DA Norman, author of The Design of Everyday Things at http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/Emotion-and-design.html. He argues that attractive things work beter. (This from an author who used to be accused of elevating function of aesthetics). Basically, one's emotional state has a huge impact on how one uses a tool. If one is stressed, one focusses better, but also less likely to be creative, and more likely to trip over idiosyncracies in the interface. If one is in a good mood, one is more creative in one's use of the tool, and more likely to forgive their ideosyncracies. Quotable quote: Wash and polish your car: doesn't it drive better? The point, for me? Liking the feel of a camera, PS-1p or MZ-S, may be just as important an interface feature as, say, shutter lag and placement. But we all knew that already :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Next Pentax Flagship Camera?
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 23:50, Cameron Hood wrote: If I had a digital camera, it could all be archived for easy retrieval on CD alphabetically, by date, by scene, by subject, or all of the above, instantly, and repeatably. Archivability is the major reason why I'm still shooting film. I don't do photography for a living, so every photograph I shoot for myself. I want to be able to look back over my life and development as photographer even when I'm 90 years old in a rocking chair. With film I know I can at least look at the negatives with a loupe, if enlarging and scanning is no longer available in future. I have computer diaries from 1995 which are lost to me because the CD-R is no longer readable. I'm a computer geek, but I prefer the tangibility of film over digital, for now. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: South African Pentaxers: are you also struggling to get Pentax goods?
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 15:06, MZ3_fella _ wrote: I'm really surprised that you've had trouble getting products - the S.A distributor, ISO PHOTO has twice won the Pentax Distributor of the Year Award, based largely on astounding market shares. The are doing very well at pushing point-and-shoot cameras through minilabs, apparently. Its the more professional dealers and gear that seem to be neglected. Anyway, having complained publically, I should publically state that I finally got an order for five eyecups placed yesterday, much to the surprise of the dealer who phoned and thought it would be a demonstration of how impossible it is to get anything out of ISO Photo. Maybe I'll be drowned in eyecups soon, if ISO Photo suddenly woke up and starts processing all my attempts to get eyecups last year. In that case, maybe it'll be me that ends up mailing eyecups to PUGers in need, instead of the other way around :-) Next month's article: pictures on my website on how to fix Pentax eyecups so that they do not get lost in the first place? Lets hope. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: South African Pentaxers: are you also struggling to get Pentax goods?
On Tue, 2002-08-13 at 21:58, Glen O'Neal wrote: It seems to me with all our friends on the PDML, one of us should be able to order anything you need and ship it to you. Wow, thank you. I will keep that in mind if I don't manage. But my goals are more long-term: I want to shake some sense into the local distributors. I've been trying to order a 77/1.8 for over a year, but am reluctant to sink money into my Pentax gear if I can't even depend on them for replacement parts. Imgine going to various camera shops every month for a year, asking them: Have you got my eyecups yet? Nope, the rep says Pentax forgot to order them again. Oh. Any price on a 77/1.8 yet Nope, the distributors never phoned back. The guy I spoke to last didn't even know such a thing existed Oh. Did you get that Pentax camera case for that dentist yet? Nope. No response from Pentax the past two years. Sheesh! Every night I tuck my cameras in bed as if they're orphans in an orphanage, or refugees or something :-) -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: South African Pentaxers: are you also struggling to get Pentax goods?
On Wed, 2002-08-14 at 00:44, Rob Studdert wrote: It used to be quite similar here in Oz, it's not so bad now though, but there are still a few big gaps, keep going hard at the retailers and if you have no joy call the distributors yourself and make waves there. It the *distributors* that are the problem! Every single authorised Pentax retailer in my region complains that the sole distributor fails to supply them with stock! -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l http://www.nagel.co.za - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Pentax and the amateur market (WAS: PMA News)
On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 01:54:12PM +0100, P?l Audun Jensen wrote: Jow wrote: They have captured the amature market through the mz series like no other company has. But that's in Australia (and reportedly South Africa). I can confirm about the MZ series in South Africa. For The past few years I've noticed that a lot of SLR shooters I meet up with use MZ cameras, MZ-30 and such, I think. To such an extent, that I sometimes wondered why PDMLers keep moaning that the rest of the world is all Canon and Nikon. My informal sample is limited to bands and music festivals, though. But then we are a weird country. Electrolux's slogan over here *is* Nothing sucks like Electrolux, for example. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Am I Really a Dinosaur?
On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 12:54:41PM -, Frits J. W?thrich wrote: 100 lines per millimetre is 25.4 x 100 is 2540 lines per inch. Is it OK to say that this could be translated to 2540 ppi, or do I miss something here? 100 lines per millimetre refers too 100 lines high density *and* the gaps of low density inbetween. So you need to sample 200 lines per millimetre to capture both the lines and the gaps inbetween. This is not enough. Imagine the image you are trying to scan is offset exactly half a line with the CCD, so that each of the scanner pixels sees exacyly half a black and half a white line. You would scan a sheet of perfect gray. All the detail would be lost. So you need to sample at at least 400 lines per millimetre to get all the detail. This is a well-known aspect of sampling theory - you need to sample at twice the frequency of the signal you want to capture. This is why audio CD's sample sound at 44KHz - the highest pitch the human ear can hear is about 22KHz. That means we need to scan at 10160 ppi to capture all the detail from an ideal fine-grained negative that resolves 100 lines per mm. Still this is not the end. This far we assumed that film grain is regular and rectangular, like pixels. It isn't. Film grains come in various shapes and sizes. And they are laid out in a random pattern, not a regular grid. Whether this means that we have to scan at an even higher resolution than 10160 ppi I do not know. I do know that the mismatch between a rectangular grid of even-sized CCD elements and a random array of variable-sized film grains can yield a nasty phenomenon called grain aliasing at around 2900 dpi, and that scanning at a higher resolution is the only cure. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: PUG: beyond cameras
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, John Mustarde wrote: On Tue, 4 Sep 2001 15:11:05 +0200 (SAST), you wrote: With all the local brouha about what constitutes a Pentax users, I began wondering why this list is photography-centric? Pentax makes more than just cameras after all? Troll, troll, troll. But a good troll. Actually not a troll. I've honestly been curious about the non-camera activities of Pentax, and hoped to elicit some discussion from people who have experience using, say, Pentax surveying equipment. BTW, any idea how the fungus got in your endoscope? Been using a N autoclave to sterilise it too long. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Manual focus feel of 77 1.8 Limited?
I'm strongly considering to get myself a 77 1.8 ltd. I would appreciate some info on it, since local Pentax didn't even seem to know it existed before I started asking about it. One crucial aspect to me, other than its availability in black :-) is: what does it feel like to manual focus? How does its MF compare to, say, a 50mm 1.4? How big is the throw on the focus ring? How well is it damped? Does the front rotate as you focus or not? And since I do a lot of low-light high-contrast stage shots: how effective is its' built-in hood? How far does the hood project before the front element? Is it circular or one of those cutesy tulip shaped ones that are totally inappropriate to primes? There are none in the country, so I'll have to have it imported and I'd hate to inconvenience them by returning it due to design flaws I could have found out about here. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
RE: painted Pentax
On Sat, 18 Aug 2001, Paul M. Provencher wrote: I have two black cars, prefer my black suits, and don't own anything but black shoes. It's a personal preference. Which is why I wish they'd bring out black Ltd lenses instead. A black MZ-S and black 77 1.8 Ltd would be my ideal tools for shooting Gothic bands and people in dark Gothic clubs. As someone said earlier, the silver lenses scare off the wildlife... -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S, and other ramblings with a rantat the very end.
On Wed, 18 Jul 2001, Jaros³aw Brzeziñski wrote: cameras that come in the way of your photographic view. If you own an old all-manual camera, you need to focus on technics: how to get focusing and metering right, instead of zeroing-in on your subject. With modern cameras you concentrate on the vision and let the device compute the distance and exposure. The distance and the exposure is dependent on your vision. Is it the distance to the highlight in the girl's eye or to the cigar in the tycoon's mouth that your vision demands of the device to compute? Do you want the device to compute the exposure for the trashcan in the shadow or the exposure for the sunlit cracks of wall paint? With all-automatic cameras, you are forever unsure whether the device's heuristics are in synch of your vision, and therefore are perpetually worrying about technicalities all the MORE. Working manually, you simply say what you mean. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Help to an IR-newbie?
Jostein Oksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 5. When I handle the film in the darkroom; is the emulsion sensitive to body heat, eg. from my hands when reeling up the film on a spool? Only if your hands are on fire. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: A clue to the flash-impaired?
On Tue, 3 Jul 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've been using my ZX-M for about six months. On a recent vacation I took some photos in extreme, almost overhead, sunlight. I did what I could when composing to try and get the sun behind me, but... let's just say the photos are less than what I'd hoped for. Lots of shadows on the subjects' faces... some of them are very underexposed as well (the landscape looks great, though!). I don't think you need to use flash at all. Camera-mounted flash can make photos look dull and flat. Natural light is more interesting. It sounds as if the landscape in your photos was significantly brighter than your subjects, and dominated the scene, thereby dominating your lightmeters average reading. You could using over exposure compensation - effectively telling the camera I want the scene brighter than *you* think it should be, because I know these small darker shapes here are more important than the average landscape, dammit! One thing flash *will* remove is the shadows that strong overhead light casts on faces from noses, eyebrows and other protrubrances. But often there are other, more interesting ways to get rid of those. Hve them stand near a bright, reflecting wall. Under trees that diffuse the sunlight. etc. PS: I don't know where the sun must be behind the photographer rule comes from, but I think its junk. It makes people squint. It gives flat light. Try having the sunlight come in from an angle, to the side. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S gripes
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Pål Jensen wrote: Mark wrote: Absolutely. Seeing an LED bargraph go up for overexposure and down for underexposure just plain makes sense. But the point wasn't if it makes sense isolated. But whether it makes sense in conjunction with its control dial which goes left right. For me at least, theres no logic direction for a left/right wheel in order to make, say, the scale go up. Since one can reach the wheel from the front and back of the camera, turing it left from the back side is the same as turning it right from the front, and vice versa. So there would be confusion with a left/right exposure display too. If you turn the wheel left/right, either one or the other sides of the wheel is going down. Choose a side which feels more important to you and then if its up/down doesn't coincide with the exposure up/down, use the Pentax functions to reverse the direction you need to turn the dial so it makes sense to you. Personally, I prefer a vertical lightmeter display. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: seeking advice on shooting a live music show in a bar.
On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Hernán Mouro wrote: Pieter Nagel wrote: 2) Spot meter. Read the light of the musicians skin... 2a) Does this apply to portraits in general? I would say so - the people are the focus of the shot - unless your goal is to get all the detail of the black stitching in their dark clothes and don't care that the faces are overexposed to the heavens. 2b) So I measure the light of the musicians skin and just shoot? Is skin lighter than middle grey? My gut feel goes with Aaron's, that caucasian skin is roughly one stop brighter than middle grey. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: seeking advice on shooting a live music show in a bar.
On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This may sound a really silly few questions, but I've never seen a monopod. I realise it has one leg, but how do you hold it steady? And when is it better than a tripod? Is it as steady as a tripod? What does it look like? You provide the support that is missing from the other two legs. You hold it as steady as you can, but it is never steadier than a tripod. You can easily get a steady shot with a monopod at about 1/15, maybe 1/8. But by that time it's already too slow: if you're shooting musicians, you get motion blur from their antics on stage. So the regions where a tripod is more stable than a monopod (the world of exposures slower than 1/15) is totally useless when shooting action anyway, and therefore a tripod never gets to realize is advantages over a monopod in those situations, and you're much better of with a lighter, less cumbersome support anyway. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: What happened... to PDML and PUG?
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001, [iso-8859-1] Eduardo Carone Costa Júnior wrote: Perhaps I'm just getting a little nervous. It seems that, the more I learn about photography, the worse my photos get... Had anyone felt like this before? I find that with all forms of creativity. What happens is that your ambitions and conceptions of what you *could* do grow faster than your abilities do. You are actually getting better and better, but your standards are growing faster yet. It's a sign of growth. If your abilities catch up with your ambition, you've stagnated. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: seeking advice on shooting a live music show in a bar.
I've been shooting a lot of bands lately. Here's my advice: 1) Try to check out the bar's stage lighting before the event. In general, stages tend to be darker than one expects, so use faster film and shorter, faster lenses. Stage lights tend to create more contrast than illumination. 2) Spot meter. Read the light of the musicians skin and work from that. Don't rely too much on an average reading since the scene is likely to be contrasty, as I said. If you expose for an average reading, the musicians under the lights will be overexposed. 3) If the lights are fairly static, it works to take a few good ambient readings of the subjects before all the action starts, and just stick, and concentrate on getting the decisive moment. With light from the top, the light reflecting from the musician's faces should be more or less the same from different angles, although the average reading will vary wildly. 4) Monopod is good. Tripod is likely to be useless. 5) You may need to reconcile yourself too larger apertures than you are used to. 6) Mike stands are evil. Once you start shooting the band, you'll see what I mean. Watch the musicians for manerisms which you can learn to anticipate. Musicians often step back from the mike stand during specific parts of a song, like musical interludes, giving you a clear shot. You will see many such photographical opportunities repeat themselves in coincidence with the song structure. 7) Don't drop the camera from your eyes in between songs. Lots of photographic opportunities then. Remember, you're photographing their show, not making an audio recording. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Check out the Pentax Japan site...slight change...
On Sat, 12 May 2001, [iso-8859-1] Hernán Mouro wrote: PS: in the specifications page I found: Shutter: Electronic control type traversing line mosquito Lu plane shutter That feature was requested by African safari photographers. It's a special mode in which you hang the camera, with mirror locked up, back open, and lens detached from the roof of your tent at night. The camera continuously recharges the flash and the buzzing sound attracts mosquitoes. If the musquito flies in from the lens flange side, a modification of the predictive autofocus system estimates when the mosquito will traverse the shutter plane, at which point the shutter closes - chop! Like a guilotine. It only reduces the risk of malaria by 0.75%, but hey, that's something. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Cokin filters
On Tue, 27 Mar 2001, Bob Blakely wrote: Cokin filters suck canal water. Compared to even a cheap, screw in glass filter, they are sharpness reducing, contrast destroying, dispersion generating flair intensifiers. Flair intensifying? So all the glamour photographers use Cokin, then? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Best shot you _know_ you missed (WAS: What do you shoot)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why can't the camera be designed to lock the shutter if the film breaks? That way, it's not up to you to notice the Error display. DOES the shutter lock? If so, that would make me feel much better about moving to a modern camera. When my MZ5n detected misloaded film, it not only locked the shutter, the viewfinder indications refused to light as if it were off instead of on. The moment you lift that camera to your eyes you know something is wrong. -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: MZ-S - PZ1-p successor?
On Tue, 13 Mar 2001, John Francis wrote: That's wrong. The second (small) p in PZ-1p stands for 'panoramic'. That's one of the features that differentiates the PZ-1p from the PZ-1. So what does the small n in MZ-5n stand for? The two big differences between MZ-5 and MZ-5n are panorama mode and DOF preview, and neither conjure up anython vaguely N-ish in my head. MZ-5 "new"? -- ,_ /_) /| / / i e t e r/ |/ a g e l - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
