Re: Question: Should I buy an ist D?
A big Yes. I have a ist D now for 6 months and pondered for maybe two years if I would make the switch, I didn't regret it for a second. I also got a 5400 minolta scanner to digitize my older films and I am not impressed with the scan workflow and scan quality. 6 mp raw was a big surprise for me. I probably will never use color negative or positive film again (b&w could be another story). I now have several bodies as reminders of the past. Toine On 2/21/06, Rick Womer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Folks, > > I've been on the "digital fence" for some time, and > had pretty much decided to buy the ist D successor > when it becomes available. > > I'm getting itchy, though, since it doesn't look as > though the new body will be here by summer. > > In May and June, a niece is getting married, I'm going > to GFM, my son is graduating from high school, and my > wife and I will be traveling in Europe. That's 50 > rolls of Ektachrome right there, i.e. $500 with > processing. > > I'm really not sure how I will feel about the "digital > workflow." It is possible that I will run screaming > back to film. I really like my slides. > > S... I can probably pick up a used ist D for > $700-800, looking at the recent prices on eBay and > KEH. > > Worth it? > > Rick > > __ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > >
Re: D-BG1 grip
Thanks everyone. Now I don't need to guess if it was by design or malfunctioning of the grip.
D-BG1 grip
I finally decided to order a istD grip for my big hands. It definitely is a big improvement both in size and handling. My question is if the on-off switch on the grip should power up the camera? On my grip it doesn't and the controls only work when I switch the camera and the grip on, batteries are inserted in the grip. The manual is not very clear. Toine
Re: Pentax 100-300
I have the F100-300, even at 300 mm is not bad. It shows some CA at 300mm which is easily fixed with adobe camera raw. Price/performance is excellent. A stitch from several shots: http://www.bmt.tue.nl/panorama/Goor_30dec2005/default.htm On 2/19/06, Brian Dipert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's $99.95 right now at B&H. Thoughts on this lens, folks, both in absolute > terms and considering the price? > > == > Brian Dipert > Senior Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Multimedia (audio, displays, 2-D and > 3-D graphics, and still and video imaging), PCs and Peripherals > EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com > My blog: http://www.edn.com/briansbrain > 5000 V Street > Sacramento, CA 95817 > (916) 760-0159, fax (781) 734-8038 > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com > >
Re: Accidental ebay win
It looks almost identical to my 500 mm beroflex, probably uses a Tmount adapter. These lenses are often rebranded, no idea if Beroflex is the original name but Google has lots of hits with beroflex. On 2/12/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I didn't expect to win this, but I don't mind. The lens looks intriguing. > http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7587528629&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSA:AU:11 > > > Googling hasn't come up with anything. Does anyone know who Tasmanex is? > It can't be a live firing exercise in the Tasman sea. > http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=5401 > > D > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc > >
Re: sticky mirror... MX ?
The foam I mentioned is used to dampen the mirror when it's in the up position, during exposure of the film. In this position my MX locks up. On 2/11/06, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, if the foam is removed the mirror won't be positioned correctly for > accurate focus. It must be replaced. > Paul > On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:20 AM, Toine Kuiper wrote: > > > One of my MX bodies also is sticky and I suspect the foam next to the > > focussing screen which dampens the mirror. This foam gets very sticky > > almost liquid after many years and residues are present on the mirror. > > Could it be an option to simply remove this foam? > > > > Toine > > > > On 2/11/06, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Agreed, sit and watch a movie and cock and fire > >> the camera the whole time. > >> Pentax bodies thrive on being used, idle time > >> makes them stiff (like me). ;-) > >> I try to keep a winder on hand so I can "work" > >> a body well before I sell it, keeps problems > >> to a minimum. > >> I have 50-75 Pentax bodies at any given time, > >> it's inevitable that some sit idle for quite > >> a while before getting sold/used. > >> > >> Don > >> > >>> -Original Message- > >>> From: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:45 AM > >>> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>> Subject: Re: sticky mirror... MX ? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Francis Tang wrote: > >>> > >>>> I had the MX serviced three years ago by Pentax Service here in the > >>>> UK. > >>>> Admittedly, since then I've hardly used the camera and it did spend > >>>> most of > >>>> those three years in hot and humid conditions in the Far East. > >>> > >>> > >>> Fire it a bunch of times without film. It may be sticky just from > >>> lack of use. If the mirror doesn't go all the way up, help it gently > >>> through the lens mount with a clean cotton swab. If this doesn't > >>> make it happy, time to go back to service. > >>> > >>> Bob > >>> > >> > >> > > > >
Re: sticky mirror... MX ?
One of my MX bodies also is sticky and I suspect the foam next to the focussing screen which dampens the mirror. This foam gets very sticky almost liquid after many years and residues are present on the mirror. Could it be an option to simply remove this foam? Toine On 2/11/06, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agreed, sit and watch a movie and cock and fire > the camera the whole time. > Pentax bodies thrive on being used, idle time > makes them stiff (like me). ;-) > I try to keep a winder on hand so I can "work" > a body well before I sell it, keeps problems > to a minimum. > I have 50-75 Pentax bodies at any given time, > it's inevitable that some sit idle for quite > a while before getting sold/used. > > Don > > > -Original Message- > > From: Bob Shell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 6:45 AM > > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > > Subject: Re: sticky mirror... MX ? > > > > > > > > On Feb 11, 2006, at 7:18 AM, Francis Tang wrote: > > > > > I had the MX serviced three years ago by Pentax Service here in the > > > UK. > > > Admittedly, since then I've hardly used the camera and it did spend > > > most of > > > those three years in hot and humid conditions in the Far East. > > > > > > Fire it a bunch of times without film. It may be sticky just from > > lack of use. If the mirror doesn't go all the way up, help it gently > > through the lens mount with a clean cotton swab. If this doesn't > > make it happy, time to go back to service. > > > > Bob > > > >
Re: Did I fry my istD?
Thanks for the information. If it's a common problem I will recheck the voltage and happily reconnect the metz flash. On 2/9/06, Leon Altoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Toine, > > This is actually a common problem with the *istD. They brought out a > revised board which should stop the problem happening again. > > If you want to be sure about the Metz get a volt meter and measure the > voltage across the terminals when the flash is charged. If it is around > 6volts that is fine if it is in the hundreds than I wouldn't use it. > > Leon > > http://www.bluering.org.au > http://www.bluering.org.au/leon > > > Toine Kuiper wrote: > > Today my istD was repaired by Pentax. The flash charging circuit board > > was replaced. It was repaired very nicely by Pentax. > > The internal flash died and caused some short circuit (the battery > > indicator showed zero and everything stop working) > > Now I'm wondering if I fried my D with a Metz CL1??? I don't dare > > connecting it again. The specs and measured voltage are ok I think. > > > > > > > >
Did I fry my istD?
Today my istD was repaired by Pentax. The flash charging circuit board was replaced. It was repaired very nicely by Pentax. The internal flash died and caused some short circuit (the battery indicator showed zero and everything stop working) Now I'm wondering if I fried my D with a Metz CL1??? I don't dare connecting it again. The specs and measured voltage are ok I think.
Re: mirror/cat lenses
I have an old (20 years) russian MTO-500, F100-300 and an old 500mm Beroflex. The F100-300 is the best (it has some CA which can be removed with adobe raw). The beroflex is not that bad and very cheap, price/performance maybe unbeatable :) my old MTO is the worst. It's not very sharp and the bokeh is like any other mirror (rings). Focusing is very difficult. The more recent 500 and 1000 should be better. On 2/6/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Most of the shorter, inexpensive lenses in this class aren't worth > the money. Some of the Russian 500 and 1000mm lenses are good deals, > but I haven't kept up with them enough to know which. > > I'd say that even the much-maligned Pentax F100-300/4.5-5.6 that I > bought for less than $85 used would be a better performer. Stop it > down two-three stops and it returns a surprisingly nice image, even > with a 2x teleconverter, eg:
Re: blue fringing
I never use sharpening in the raw conversion. I will try masking before sharpening. Thanks for the tip. On 2/5/06, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5 Feb 2006 at 14:18, William Robb wrote: > > > How much sharpening are you applying to the image? > > Oh yes I forgot about that too, I use no sharpening at the point of RAW > conversion and I always mask areas of saturation before applying sharpening in > post processing, bloom is far less of a problem using this MO. > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
Re: blue fringing
Pictures taken in autumn and winter with many trees against a blue sky result in a slight blue haze in the tree line. It's ugly. On 2/5/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Toine Kuiper wrote: > > > Anyway, I don't like blue fringes on my Pentax horizons and trees. > > Do you find that this is something you notice in practical > applications, or is it just upon close examination of the files? > > -Aaron > >
Re: blue fringing
- The problem is not the lens. Chromatic aberration is different. I have many lenses which I used on analog and I never saw this. - It must be something after the lens. - The Sony DSC-R1 is virtually free of blue fringing and uses CMOS. Suspects are CCD chips or the anti alias filter. From what I understand the anti alias filter scatters the image from the lens with microscopic lenses. Maybe these micro lenses have chromatic aberration or something else. I don't know, maybe Sony finally solved it. What I do know is that the DSC-R1 doesn't show this and all CCD camera's suffer from blue fringing and all companies never mention it. Anyway, I don't like blue fringes on my Pentax horizons and trees. On 2/5/06, Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, Toine Kuiper wrote: > > > The blue fringing is everywhere in the image (left right and center). > > Only on high contrast transitions. I also suspect the antlialias > > filter like DagT mentioned. > > So why did you conclude that it's the CCD technology to blame and CMOS > would be the solution? Don't they have antialias filters? > > Kostas > >
Re: blue fringing
The blue fringing is everywhere in the image (left right and center). Only on high contrast transitions. I also suspect the antlialias filter like DagT mentioned. A tree branch has blue fringing on all sides. On 2/5/06, Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is the blue fringe all around the image or on one > side only. > > Don >
blue fringing
After looking at some shots from the new Sony DSC-R1 the complete absence of blue/purple fringing is shocking. Why do I see blue fringing with all my lenses on high contrast borders (like trees against a bright sky). Chromatic aberration is different and can be corrected with Adobe RAW. Is the CCD to blame? I really hope Pentax or Samsung inserts a CMOS in de D2. Regards
Re: OT: Tokina RMC 17/3.5
I have used this lens for many years. I have always enjoyed it (stopped down to f8 or f11) on the MX. It's almost as good as the 16-45 on the istD. On 2/4/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I picked up this lens in the Fall. With film it's really pretty mediocre. > But with the DS it's a really outstanding performer. Surprizing. > They show up as e-fodder for about $100 on occasion. > Recommended. > > Collin > > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > >
Re: PESO: (Panorama Ever So Often)
I totally disagree with John and Shel. I love creating panorama's and converting them to webversions or big (framed) prints. This is photography and not the latest technological snapshot gadget for geeks. And yes it's technical challenging like photography used to be (or should be). If you like to try, install and maybe flame the latest panorama plugins (like qtvr, shockwave, java, SPiV): http://360.leende.net. On 2/1/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with Shel - it's technology for its own sake. And not only > that - it's not even all that good from a technological standpoint. > >
