RE: New England Vacation
Keith, Frank, Thanks for the tips. I will probably take my Canon G3 anyway which is great for candid/street shots - you can swivel the LCD viewer and use it at waist level. People don't even think/realise that you are taking a photo. I'm happy enough shooting in London with a compact camera - you become just another tourist. I still feel a bit self-conscious wielding an SLR with a big lens in a crowd. I'm also aiming to spend a day in Provincetown (Cape Cod) which I've heard is full of outrageously flamboyant people. I will (hopefully) post some results on my return. Regards, Rob W > -Original Message- > From: keith_w [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 September 2005 19:03 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: New England Vacation > > frank theriault wrote: > > > On 9/18/05, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>Don't know about the New York City advice. It may be heresy to some but > >>I've never liked the place. > > > > > > Well, I know I'm jumping into this thread late, but my first visit to > > NYC was back in July, and it was great! I can't wait until I can get > > back to visit Annsan and do some serious sight-seeing (which I didn't > > do much of when I was there). I only did 1/2 day of street-shooting, > > and it was paradise. > > > > Robert, as for your concern WRT the safety of the *istD in the Big > > Apple, I wouldn't worry about it, especially as one assumes you'll be > > frequenting tourist areas. I carried my Leica (which admittedly > > doesn't look like an impressive camera) all around Manhatten, Brooklyn > > and Jersey City, and no one gave me a second glance. I wouldn't say > > that I went into any "scary" areas, but where I went (at all hours of > > the day and night) was pretty safe. > > > > Now if you had a real camera, like a Canon... > > > > Anyway, have a great time!! Sounds like you'll hit New England at the > > height of leave-turning season. Cool!! > > > > cheers, > > frank > > In my experience, Frank, in both New York and London, nobody gives > ANYone a second glance, no matter WHAT's coming down! > The tourists do, of course ~ but that's why they're there! > For pure magnitude of strange or "different" people, N.Y. is the place, > be it Manhattan, the Bronx, whereever. > > For "wierdos" of all descriptions, do choose London, and the > subterranean tubes thereabout. > A naive and newby tourist might get palpitations, but for the most part, > all are pretty harmless, unless purposefully provoked... > No, I mean the residents, not the tourists! > > I love the streets. I wish I was as comfortable shooting folks as some > on this list are, but I'm not... > Nevertheiess, I try from time to time. > > With my Optio S4 or S5, little problem. > With my Oly C-8080, it's such a beast, I feel *SO* conspicuous! :-) > > keith whaley
RE: *ist DS2 availability
I read in a reputable magazine that it will definitely NOT be available in Europe. > -Original Message- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 September 2005 01:39 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: *ist DS2 availability > > It's on the Pentax USA web site as a new model. > > http://www.pentaximaging.com/products/cameras/digital/digital_slr/index.js > p > > MikeM wrote: > > >I have just been told by C.R.Kennedy, the Pentax distributor, that the > DS2 > >is only for the Japanese market. As a couple of camera shops have told me > I > >can no longer get he DS, it seems I have to either buy the DL or stay > with > >my film *Ist. Is this likely to change in the near future? > > > >Thanks > >Mike > > > > > > > > > > > -- > When you're worried or in doubt, > Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: New England Vacation
Thanks for the info Mark. I will have a rental car so I can get just about anywhere. I was thinking that I would spend a couple of days in Vermont. That's the problem with New England (or anywhere) - you just can't do justice to such a place in a couple of weeks AND have a relaxing break! Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 September 2005 23:29 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: New England Vacation > > "Robert Whitehouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >It's all booked up! > > > >3 days in NYC, 9 days leaf-peeping in N.E., 2 days in Boston. > >Our first ever vacation in USA starts 3rd Oct. > > > >Now - what gear should I take? - Is it safe to tote an ist D around NYC? > - > >or would my battered MX make more sense? > > > >(perhaps better take both just in case). > > > >Any favourite locations/recommendations? > > How will you be traveling? > If you're planning on being mostly in New England, I'd recommend > Burlington, Vermont. Lovely city and well situated for a wide variety of > photo opportunities within easy driving distance. Burlington would make > a good "base" to stay at and from which to take day trips. You can even > get a ferry from Burlington to take you across Lake Champlain to New > York State for a brief trip to the Adirondack mountains. > > Don't know about the New York City advice. It may be heresy to some but > I've never liked the place. > > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com
RE: PESO - Just a Couple
Lovely shot Boris. Is this "duo-toned" in PS? Everything is amazingly sharp except perhaps the guys face - I'm not sure how/why this should be - probably just an illusion. Auto or manual focus? Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 18 September 2005 19:49 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: PESO - Just a Couple > > Hi! > > http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=217985 > > Yet another of my London photos... I think they actually weren't > *exactly* aware that I was taking a photo of them... It is because when > I nodded thanking them - they looked positively surprised... > > Please have your say - honest and brutal ;-). > > Boris
New England Vacation
It's all booked up! 3 days in NYC, 9 days leaf-peeping in N.E., 2 days in Boston. Our first ever vacation in USA starts 3rd Oct. Now - what gear should I take? - Is it safe to tote an ist D around NYC? - or would my battered MX make more sense? (perhaps better take both just in case). Any favourite locations/recommendations? Rob W
RE: Starting to play with RAW
Godfrey, Paul, Many thanks for the advice - This has given me a good starting point. It is all very well people saying that using Raw mode gives better control of the final image - but if you don't know what you are doing at the conversion stage (like me!) then using the in-camera software is probably going to yield better results. Anyway - I now feel better equipped to have a go. Thanks again Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 15 September 2005 15:37 > To: PDML > Subject: Re: Starting to play with RAW > > I usually adjust Shadow (black point clipping) last and very > minimally in the RAW conversion phase of image editing. The reason is > that setting the clipping point eliminates data in the RAW > conversion, and I feel I have finer control of black point in RGB > post processing. > > Godfrey > > On Sep 15, 2005, at 3:37 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > > > I don't see brightness or shadow in your workflow. You should set > > shadow to eliminate low end clipping or to extend shadows as > > required right after setting exposure. You should set brightness > > next to correct any problems in the midtones that may have > > developed if you had to change exposure to pull back or push up the > > highlights. After these have been set, adjust contrast to gain an > > appropriate amount of tonal separation throughout the image. Fix > > dust bunnies and sharpen can come after conversion, although when > > I'm in a hurry, I sometimes apply sharpening in the conversion > > stage. You just have to be careful. If you shoot tiff, you won't > > have anywhere near the control of the tonal values that I've > > touched on here.
RE: Starting to play with RAW
I'm also just discovering the benefits of RAW and trying to work out the best workflow. I have a couple of questions. 1) What advantages does RAW offer over TIFF? (I can load TIFF straight into PS without converting). 2) Is there a "best" sequence for processing RAW images (one that minimises info loss) e.g. this is what I currently do - is there a better sequence? - Set white balance - Set colour space - Correct exposure - Set contrast - Set saturation - Fix any dust bunnies etc. - Do sharpening Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 14 September 2005 02:39 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Starting to play with RAW > > i think so. i used to use it for batch conversions because i didn't need > super high quality for the component images of a panorama. however, my > stitching program PhotoVista 3.5, is now improved to the point where it > matters, and PS CS2 does background batch conversion really easily, so i > don't need to manually open and save each image anymore. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Fred" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 12:35 PM > Subject: Re: Starting to play with RAW > > > > Is the Pentax software so crummy for RAW converting that it is worth > using > > something else?
RE: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert)
The rules used to be even simpler; Two teams turn up for match, then Australia win. We have just re-written the rule book ! > -Original Message- > From: Bob Sullivan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 September 2005 00:11 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Ashes (was: Rob Studdert) > > Saw some of the cricket match last week in the UK. > I could not fathom the game, but everyone was excited, > especially after N.Ireland spoiled the football. > So who won? > Regards, Bob S. > > On 9/12/05, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dahhh, you're all jealous cos the Ashes are as good as gone ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > > _ > > > > > >
RE: PDML Long term Archive
Well - I can probably/possibly handle the conversion (I work for an ISP - I will speak with the guys in the email dept.!) If you could zip up your old folders I will try to FTP it over ? Thanks Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 September 2005 22:50 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive > > Email might be a problem. I think it would probably exceed my > provider's limits. But FTP would probably be an option. I dont have > any idea how big it would be zipped however. Its in netscape mail > format, so I don't know how easy it would be to convert it to other > formats. One other note is that its in pieces. I keep the current > stuff in one chunk that I use daily, then the older stuff is kept in > another folder for searching/reference. > > rg > > > Robert Whitehouse wrote: > > Any idea how big your archive might be if zipped? - might it be emailed? > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: 12 September 2005 20:35 > >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive > >> > >>I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways, > >>but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or > >>maybe even earlier than that. > >> > >>rg > >> > >> > >>Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> > >>>I thought it went back quite a ways. Someone here (Gonz?) recently > >> > >>pulled > >> > >>>up a post from 2001. > >>> > >>>Shel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>[Original Message] > >>>>From: Robert Whitehouse > >>> > >>> > >>>>Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on > >>>>mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >
RE: PESO - Dimples X 2
Lovely shots Bruce. I see that you did this at ISO 800 - but not a hint of noise - do you find that using Capture One LE helps with this? I've done some window lit portraits at ISO 800 but shadows look noisy. Perhaps I am underexposing? Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 September 2005 20:16 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: PESO - Dimples X 2 > > This morning my daughter was watching the muppets on TV. I was > sitting there and looked over at her and noticed how nice the side > light from the far window was on her. I told her not to move and went > and got my camera. Of course, as I walked back into the room, she had > jumped down and got the dog. So I had to put her back in position. > > These two shots were of her own posing, more or less. Although taken > very close together, they each have a very different feel to them. > > Pentax *istD, FA 50/1.4, handheld > ISO 800, 1/45 sec @ f/2.0 > Converted from Raw using Capture One LE > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2229.htm > http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_2230.htm > > Comments welcome > > -- > Bruce
RE: PDML Long term Archive
Any idea how big your archive might be if zipped? - might it be emailed? > -Original Message- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 September 2005 20:35 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PDML Long term Archive > > I have my own personal archive in my mailer that goes back quite a ways, > but I know there are some old timers here that go back to like 98 or > maybe even earlier than that. > > rg > > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > I thought it went back quite a ways. Someone here (Gonz?) recently > pulled > > up a post from 2001. > > > > Shel > > > > > >>[Original Message] > >>From: Robert Whitehouse > > > > > >>Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on > >>mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks. > > > > > >
RE: PDML Long term Archive
Perhaps doing something wrong but I can't seem to find anything older than May '05 ? > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 September 2005 18:09 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: PDML Long term Archive > > I thought it went back quite a ways. Someone here (Gonz?) recently pulled > up a post from 2001. > > Shel > > > [Original Message] > > From: Robert Whitehouse > > > > > Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on > > mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks.
PDML Long term Archive
Is there a decent archive for PDML? - I know about the one on mail-archive.com but this only seems to go back a few weeks. It is surely a terrible waste if all the wonderful pearls of wisdom dispensed here over the years are not available in a searchable archive. Rob W
RE: Pentax SMC F 35-135 f3.5-4.5
Hi Manuel, Thanks for the link - great photos. I "tested" this lens against a Pentax AF 28-90 and it came out a lot sharper. (tested = took a few shots in my back yard !) I'm now looking forward for some opportunities to use it. Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Manuel Magalhães [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 September 2005 15:35 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: Pentax SMC F 35-135 f3.5-4.5 > > Hi Rob, > I bought one two months ago. I have all this primes (24 f/2, 50A f/1.4, 85 > FA* f/1.4 and a 200 FA* > f/2.8) but I was feeling the need of a all round zoom. Believe me, the F > 35-135 is the one. > Here you can see a couple of shots taken with it. > http://www.flickr.com/photos/manumag_photos/ > > Manuel > -Mensagem original- > De: Robert Whitehouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Enviada: domingo, 11 de Setembro de 2005 13:00 > Para: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Assunto: Pentax SMC F 35-135 f3.5-4.5 > > Hi All, > > I picked up one of these on eBay recently. It wasn't particularly cheap > but > I thought that it would work nicely in combination with my 16-45 DA and my > ist D for trips. > > I haven't really had chance to do much with it yet but it seems fairly > sharp > in comparison with other zooms. > > The only gripes are; > > 1) It is horrible to focus manually (tiny focus ring) > 2) It does not focus very closely except in "macro" mode at 135mm. > > Does anybody else have one of these? - any opinions/experiences? > > Thanks, > > Rob W
Pentax SMC F 35-135 f3.5-4.5
Hi All, I picked up one of these on eBay recently. It wasn't particularly cheap but I thought that it would work nicely in combination with my 16-45 DA and my ist D for trips. I haven't really had chance to do much with it yet but it seems fairly sharp in comparison with other zooms. The only gripes are; 1) It is horrible to focus manually (tiny focus ring) 2) It does not focus very closely except in "macro" mode at 135mm. Does anybody else have one of these? - any opinions/experiences? Thanks, Rob W
RE: RawShooter problems
I've just downloaded (and registered) - we'll see what happens in 15 days ! Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 10 September 2005 15:18 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: RawShooter problems > > Tim Øsleby wrote: > > >Don just said: > > > > > > > >>RawShooter Essentials IS free. > >>As far as I can see it's still Pixmantecs > >>only RawShooter product. > >> > >> > > > >Thats what I thought at first. > > > >I Did a bit more research on the subject. The licence agreement says > this: > > > >"4. TERM. If the Software that was distributed to you was labeled as a > Trial > >version, the license granted under this EULA commences upon the > installation > >of the Software and is effective for the longer of fifteen > >(15) days following the date you install the Software or twenty (20) > product > >launches (the "Trial Period"). Trial version Software may include > software > >code intended to disable their functionality after the expiration of the > >Trial Period." Blabla > >And the download _is_ labelled as Trial. > > > >The FAQ pages sais this: > >"Is RSE really free? > >When will I have to pay? > >When does the trial version end? > >What is the catch? > >Yes, RSE is completely free. This is not a trial version, but a complete > >application that we are offering to you for free. There is no catch, no > >hidden adgenda, and no time limitation. You must supply your real email > >address in order to secure the free download, and when you run the > program > >it will connect to the web to register the program if it has not been > >registered. If you are not connected to the web, then this will produce a > >"nag screen" as it attempts to register each time that it is run. Also, > as a > >provision of you running RSE for free, you are giving permission to send > >appropriate newsletters or similar type mail to you to make you aware of > >Pixmantec news and information. If you do not want to receive these > mails, > >please do no run our free software." > > > >More FAQ at > >http://mystic.vertexhost.com/%7Ektlaerke/forum/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/ > 626 > >3/an/faq/page/0#6263 > > > >As I read these two texts, they say opposite things. They contradict > (hope > >thats the correct word). > >This simple minded Norwegian understands nooothing, I repeat, nthing. > > > >Why doesn't the program start? Do I face a strange bug, or isn't the > program > >free after all? > > > > > >Tim > >Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > >Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > >(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > > > > > The first part is legal boilerplate, so they don't have to write a new > EULA for each piece of software. Basicly, it states that if the software > is labelled 'Trial Version' you can use it for 15 days or 20 launches. > > The Second states that RawShooter Essentials is free, but you need to > register and they will spam you. This means that the provision in the > EULA does not apply. > > -Adam
RE: [OT]First compact digicam with APS sized CMOS...
> > But value for money and system-expandability makes the DSLR the choice > hands > down. > > Christian I'm not so sure - the compact format has some advantages; 1- Lens/body/sensor are fixed and so can be perfectly optimised for each other - better quality. 2- No dust bunnies 3- Composition using large LCD - (I have a Canon G3 and never use the view finder !) 4 - Everything you need in one piece of kit - much better than lugging a bag full of lenses I think that this format will eventually dominate - SLRs will become very specialist (like MF today). This camera has just about everything that I need in one piece of kit. Rob W
RE: setting white balance with studio flashes with istD
I have tried this today and can confirm my earlier mail. - Manual WB setting works with Studio flash - Built in "flash" WB gives identical setting - Modelling lamps (at least mine) are very different temp. (much warmer) Hope this helps Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Colin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 September 2005 16:24 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: setting white balance with studio flashes with istD > > > I'm shooting a dinner/dance on Saturday night (9hrs GMT) I'm using a set > of portable studio flashes and would like to set the white balance > manually to the lights. > > I've read the instructions with the istD for setting white balance > manually and it says on P142 step 3: > > fill the viewfinder completely with white or gray paper under the > desired lighting of setting the white balance. > > step 4: > > Hold down the manual white balance button and press the shutter release > button. > > Added as a memo is the note; No image is recorded when the shutter > release button is pressed to record white balance. > > My questions are: > > Will depressing the shutter release button fire a set of studio flashes, > lighting the whitepaper with the desired lighting? > > If the shutter release doesn't fire the flashes will using the modelling > lights do? > > I don't have access to the studio lights I will be using until I have to > shuot a dinner/dance on Saturday night (Perth time). > > Any thoughts would be appreciated. > > Cheers > > Colin
RE: PESO - The Bridge
> -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 07 September 2005 00:36 > To: Shel Belinkoff > Subject: Re: PESO - The Bridge > > > The full shots in this series are here. Clicking on the 'Next' link > will cycle you through them. These are all at proof stage right now. > The couple has not finalized anything yet. > > http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/Bullock/bullock_0106.htm > > -- > Bruce > Lovely shots Bruce. I have a friend at work who has asked me to shoot his wedding next spring. He knows that I'm not a pro but I hope and expect that I can get a few decent shots. Anyway - I'm really interested in you shots and have been thorough most of the proofs. With one exception, serial 192, they are all well executed and some are great. Would you answer a couple of questions ? 1. did you use any fill-flash on the bridge shots ? 2. What settings do you use for contrast/sharpness etc. 3. Did the dress cause any exposure problems (did you use compensation ?) Thanks Rob W
RE: setting white balance with studio flashes with istD
I just tried manually setting the white balance with the pop-up flash - this worked fine, I'm fairly confident that this process will also work with studio flash - I will give this a try tomorrow in my studio and let you know. Anyway - I think that flash colour temperature doesn't vary a lot - so you ought to be able to use the built-in "flash" white balance setting. Using the modelling lights will be a bit risky - Even IF the correct bulbs are fitted. My 2c. Rob W > -Original Message- > From: Colin Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 06 September 2005 16:24 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: setting white balance with studio flashes with istD > > > I'm shooting a dinner/dance on Saturday night (9hrs GMT) I'm using a set > of portable studio flashes and would like to set the white balance > manually to the lights. > > I've read the instructions with the istD for setting white balance > manually and it says on P142 step 3: > > fill the viewfinder completely with white or gray paper under the > desired lighting of setting the white balance. > > step 4: > > Hold down the manual white balance button and press the shutter release > button. > > Added as a memo is the note; No image is recorded when the shutter > release button is pressed to record white balance. > > My questions are: > > Will depressing the shutter release button fire a set of studio flashes, > lighting the whitepaper with the desired lighting? > > If the shutter release doesn't fire the flashes will using the modelling > lights do? > > I don't have access to the studio lights I will be using until I have to > shuot a dinner/dance on Saturday night (Perth time). > > Any thoughts would be appreciated. > > Cheers > > Colin
RE: PESO -- (another) Beast
My wife was very brave - I managed to get her to hold the stick out in front of her (at arms length) while I took some shots. > -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 September 2005 15:17 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: PESO -- (another) Beast > > On 9/4/05, Robert Whitehouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Found (by my wife) in my back yard today ... > > > > http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_photo.html?c_photo=32644654 > > > > Any ideas what this is ? > > > > (ist D, 16-45 @ f4 1/500) > > > > It's a hell of a cool photo, that's what it is! > > > > cheers, > frank > > -- > "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: PESO -- (another) Beast
> > > Looks like a woman in a vest, mate. Bit out of focus though. Better get > the > > council to come and get rid of it. > > > > The thing on the twig is an alien, but you're probably dead by now, so > you > > won't be reading this. > > > > -- > > Cheers, > > Bob > Update. Have put the beast in a jam jar and donated it to the small boy who lives next door - he was very thrilled. Council wouldn't take the other - I don't have the right coloured bin ;-) RobW
PESO -- (another) Beast
Found (by my wife) in my back yard today ... http://www.photobox.co.uk/album/album_photo.html?c_photo=32644654 Any ideas what this is ? (ist D, 16-45 @ f4 1/500)
RE: GESO: Statue Park, Budapest
> In a message dated 8/31/2005 10:50:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Just for the sake of posting something different. Statues are not > really my thing, but this was kind of interesting. Take it as a set of > tourist pics: > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbuhler/sets/858094/ > > istD, FA16-45 for most of them. Skies overly dramatized in PS, on purpose. > Superb ! I'm interested to know what you did in PS - my guess - create a duplicate layer, select the sky and tweak brightness/contrast ? Rob W
RE: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please
Don, I also own an "M" 50/1.4 and an "A" 50/1.4. I found that they are both just about un-usable at f1.4 and I wouldn't try unless I am desperate. However, by the time you get to f2.8 they are both fine and at f4.0 they are the sharpest lenses that I have - I know that I can get great results with portraits at f4.0 to f5.6 on both film and digital. Rob W -Original Message- From: Don Sanderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 03 September 2005 02:44 To: PDML Subject: A50/1.4 versus M50/1.4, Comment Please Here is a quick comparison of the "Wide Open" performance of my like new SMCP-A50/1.4 and one of my rather dusty SMCP-M50/1.4 lenses. Both at 1.4, both focused on the mailbox using the in focus indicator, shots within a couple of minutes of each other. Shot just before dusk in indirect light. On the ist-D. JPEG straight from camera, no post processing. Any idea what could be wrong with A? It looks and acts perfect but the image quality below 5.6 hoovers! By 5.6 they're about equal, at 8 and smaller the A wins. :-( http://www.donsauction.com/pdml/A_vs_M.htm Don
RE: Fixing a cheap MX
I have a beat-up MX that I use for just the same purpose. My kit bag usually contains an *istD for colour/general and an MX loaded with B&W film. Strange combination but it works for me. Keep plugging away with eBay - I'm sure that you will find a decent MX body for around $100 if you are patient. I paid $35 for mine on eBay. It was being sold as "spares or repair" but I have found it to be perfectly usable. Rob W -Original Message- From: Powell Hargrave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 31 August 2005 04:37 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Fixing a cheap MX I've decided I want an MX to be able to mount my growing collection of K mount lenses on if at some time I need/desire to shoot some film. An MX because it small, simple and will work without batteries. It likely will not see much use so do not want to spend much on the camera. So I've been watching eBay and find prices for even real beaters, one which looked like a bus had run over it, go for over $100. The only ones fitting into my desired price range are broken. Usually stuck mirror/shutter, or dead light meter. So if anyone is an experienced MX doctor can you tell me if some particular variety of these non working MXs would be fixable by a competent but inexperienced mechanic. I have looked at the service manual and done a few not too successful searches on fixing the MX. But without the camera to tear apart it is hard to judge the fix ability. I guess the other option is to blow the budget on an expensive black investment camera and hope I can use it occasionally and still keep it in museum condition. Can't seem to find a nice one, or a functional beater, that no one else wants to bid on. Suggestions - comments? Powell
RE: *ist D discontinued ?
>> As an interesting aside - while looking around I had a look at the Canon EOS >> 350D and was sorely tempted (despite being a Pentax fan). However the dealer >> (who sells both Canon & Pentax) advised me that the Pentax ist D and (DS) >> were "much better quality" than the Canon 350D which had been "built to a >> budget" (but was being sold at similar price). > > An honest dealer. Will wonders never cease? Name and shame, Bob. :-) There ya go ... http://www.bristolcameras.co.uk/stores.htm
RE: *ist D discontinued ?
Well, I have now found a UK dealer who has a few left at a reasonable price so I am about to place an order for my *ist D. Now I've just got to decide which lens ! As an interesting aside - while looking around I had a look at the Canon EOS 350D and was sorely tempted (despite being a Pentax fan). However the dealer (who sells both Canon & Pentax) advised me that the Pentax ist D and (DS) were "much better quality" than the Canon 350D which had been "built to a budget" (but was being sold at similar price). BobW -Original Message- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 June 2005 15:29 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: *ist D discontinued ? It is. So who cares if they still make it. I hope mine will last until a new metal frame Pentax body hits the shelves. Hopefully inclduding a very fast processing and writing speed as well as flash compensation options :-) Perhaps upgradeable exposure curves (avoiding burned out high lights). I heard that the D70 has a similar option. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. juni 2005 13:39 Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Emne: Re: *ist D discontinued ? I asked Pentax Netherlands about this in Sept 2004, and it was confirmed 'in between the lines' so to say. You could still buy a new *ist D. Apparently that is still the case. On Saturday 11 June 2005 19:10, Robert Whitehouse wrote: FJW> This is my *ist post (sorry !) to this group so apologies if this is an old FJW> thread. FJW> FJW> Having spent the last few weeks deliberating over purchase *istD vs *istDS FJW> (same price now in UK) I decide to buy *ist D. Rang camera shop to order and FJW> was told; FJW> FJW> "Sorry *ist D is now discontinued by Pentax and we will not be getting any FJW> more." FJW> FJW> Is this a well known truth ? FJW> FJW> BobW FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
*ist D discontinued ?
This is my *ist post (sorry !) to this group so apologies if this is an old thread. Having spent the last few weeks deliberating over purchase *istD vs *istDS (same price now in UK) I decide to buy *ist D. Rang camera shop to order and was told; "Sorry *ist D is now discontinued by Pentax and we will not be getting any more." Is this a well known truth ? BobW
