Re: DA14mm - why so large and heavy?
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > Given that it has the same angle of view as a 21mm full frame lens why is it > so much bigger and heavier than the FA20/2.8? I thought that the idea > behind smaller image circle lenses was so that they could be lighter and > smaller? APS-C sized sensors built into bodies with regular lens mounts (such as the Pentax-K) don't solve the hardest problem of building very wide angle lenses. The rear element of the lens can't get any closer to the sensor/film than it could with a full frame lens. Imagine the cone of light coming into the camera. With a 14mm lens it needs to have a focal point 14mm from the sensor/film. That is just about at the center of the mirror and well behind the last element in the lens. Now remember that the front element has to be large enough to prevent vingetting for this cone of light. With a 14mm lens you get a very wide angle of view, so that element needs to be very large. Put it all together and you end up with a large lens. Compare it to a full frame 14/2.8 lens and you'll see that it is small, light, and cheap. http://www.tamron.com/lenses/prod/14mm.asp shows the Tamron 14/2.8 as weighing 661g and being 89mm long and 87mm in length. The DA 14/2.8 is 420g (about 30% lighter) and only 69mm long and 83mm in diameter. On the other hand you can rejoice that a 50/1.4 (which has the angle of view of a 75/1.4 in 35mm) is so nice and light. alex
Re: Cracked Lens, exposure question, and a PESO
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Jerome Reyes wrote: > Oh, certainly! I know it would have. And yes, I know that such filters are > a whole lot less expensive than new lenses (or front elements). So, yep, > get in line and you can kick me in the butt right after I kick myself > first. Whats worse, is that simply using the hood would have avoided this > accident... but here's the thing: I don't know if it's just my sample or > not, but the hood to the DA 16-45mm simply will not STAY ON. Get them to fix it while they fix the front element of your lens. My DA 16-45 hood has no problem staying in place. alex
Re: 50 or 100 mm
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Anders Hultman wrote: > Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the > difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully > understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions, > but wouldn't "life size" 1:1 magnification become 1:1 regardless? > What difference does it make then? 100mm gives you a longer working distance, but reduced depth of field. The longer working distance can be really helpful when you are trying to get enough light on the subject (so that the camera or your head isn't shading it). Depth of field is always a challenge with macro photography though, so the little increase from a 50 could probably help. The 16-45/4 has a much closer close focusing distance than advertised by Pentax and I haven't found myself desiring a macro lens since picking it up. I also own the Tamron 90/2.5 (MF) and used to use it a lot with my film cameras, but I hardly use it with the *ist D. It is a heavy beast though, and the new D-FA lenses look more reasonable. alex
Re: New lenses from Pentax
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Gonz wrote: > Bruce Dayton wrote: > > I have to say that I consider it great news. Choosing to support full > > frame, aperture ring and on top of that, picking some primes speaks > > very positively. These represent to me that they are looking beyond > > the first time buyer and trying to provide for more serious photogs. > > > > The aperture ring is puzzling. Does this mean that they are going to > make a digital body that supports the old aperture linkage again? I > tend to doubt if they did this to support old bodies, which are all > film. A DSLR with full backwards support would almost imply a super-D, > not a baby-D. Of course they may have also have gotten so much flak for > not making the *istD fully compatible with older lenses that they did an > about face. We've already seen them try to alleviate that with the > firmware fix that gives partial functionality back. These aren't reduced image circle lenses, so they are also useable on Pentax film cameras. Since the MZ-S doesn't have body control of aperture it makes sense to put an aperture ring back onto the lens. I don't think that this changes any of Pentax's plans though. alex
Re: Seriously OT: Canon S60 or Sony V1 ?
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Caveman wrote: > I definitely like the sliding cover method of protecting the lens/camera > in the Oly, so I would like to see it in the digicam. Canon wins, very > nice design for pocketable camera. However, I was attracted by the > "nightshot" feature of the Sony. Now that's really cool, taking pics in > the dark without anyone noticing it (no flash whatsoever, just IR). > However, do you guys think this would be really useful or just a gadget > that would enable wife to take me pics while snoring without waking me > with the flash ? Anyone that found some good uses for IR "nightshots" ? I had a DSC-F717 and DSC-F707 for over two years and hardly used the nightshot feature. The one cool thing is that you can shoot IR photography with it by also using an IR filter, because the camera moves the IR-blocking filter out of the way when you are in nightshot mode. To prevent you from really getting good use of this feature they also prevent it from working in daylight by limiting exposure time to 1/60" of a second or slower and increasing the ISO. This means that you need to use a strong ND filter to get IR pictures during daylight and they are still kinda grainy. If Sony hadn't done that (and I believe they did it because a few years back people were using the nightshot mode of their video cameras to see warm body parts through skin tight swimsuits) their Nightshot-enabled cameras would be superb for IR photography. I will say that I like the design of the Sony cameras with a thumbwheel, and that includes the V1. I find it very easy to operate them in manual and semi-manual modes. If you think you'll use those then I'd give it a second look compared to the S60. alex
Re: MZ50 (or maybe 60) vs MZ5n viewfinder
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, graywolf wrote: > You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's. > You would immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo > for the rest of your life. When I got my MX (just CLA'd) I didn't use the ZX-5n for quite a long time. There were many reasons for this, but the viewfinder was one of them. I still have both, but don't shoot film anymore. However the MX would be the last of my film cameras to be sold. alex
Re: CCD vs. CMOS
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Cotty wrote: > On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered: > >Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS? > > I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into > digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be better > at recreating digitally what was in front of the lens, but required more > battery power. Then I read comparisons between 6MP CCDs and 6 MP CMOSs > and there was little difference. This tipped the balance in favour of > CMOS for me. I have to say that the power consumption on the CMOS > continually amazes me. I put to batteries in and with just picking up the > camera occasionally, no major shooting, just pottering about, I can go > for weeks without recharging. The battery life on the *ist D feels similar to me. I rarely charge it. One big thing about digital SLRs is that the image sensor spends a very little amount of time turned on. This is different from P&S cameras where the users are typically using the CCD and LCD as their viewfinder. Given the tiny amount of itme that the sensor spends turned on I don't think that it makes a huge difference in battery life on our cameras. alex
Re: using C1 DSLR
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Larry Hodgson wrote: > Hi Alex, > You wrote: > > >I use C1DSLR for my conversions. > > >alex > > How do like C1DSLR? Have you compared it to the results from Photoshop? Is > it worth the money? Please give some thoughts on your experience with this > product. It is pretty good. I'm using the $99 version which has some annoying limitations to try and make you buy the $250 version. 1) The batch conversion queue can't have more than 20 images in it at a time. If I convert after reviewing or adjusting each image then this isn't a big problem. 2) You can't easily copy image settings from one image to another. This is one good reason to get the white balance right up front. I don't use Photoshop so I haven't done any comparisons. So far I'm very happy. From inside the tool I can do 90% of the image edits that I ever made (cropping, change contrast/exposure/saturation) from inside it. If I need to work in something else then I export the image to work in Picture Window Pro (my image editor). I think that it is expensive for what it does, but then again it is a tool for a niche market. The current version has some memory leaks and general flakiness, but they claim to be fixing this in the next dot release. It is good enough that I bought it now anyway, because I haven't seen anything better. I do have a comment on Picture Window Pro. I own version 3.0. They just came out with version 3.5 a few months ago. They have deleted all patches that they ever made for 3.0 to force people to upgrade (for $35). I think that this is a terrible business practice and it makes me wonder if I'm going to continue using the product (which is still much cheaper than Photoshop) or if I should find an alternative. I've evaluated 3.5 and don't see any new features that I want, but I would like the patches that they already made for 3.0 and which I had on my old PC. This came up when I moved stuff over to a new laptop. alex
Re: *istD settings
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > In his former life as a egzotic dancer alex wetmore wrote on 23.07.04 17:57: > > If you can afford the storage costs RAW is really the way to go. > > That's not only storage costs, but it is also time spent to convert all > these RAWs with right settings :-) Something a'la digital darkroom work. This doesn't take me any longer than it takes me to review the images anyway. I use the defaults (how the camera shot it) much of the time, and only tweak when necessary. I need to look at the pictures, otherwise there was really no point in shooting them :). I use C1DSLR for my conversions. alex
Re: *istD settings
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Kenneth Waller wrote: > I've had my ist D for a few weeks & like using it. However, I don't > think I'll give up shooting slides any time soon. I've pretty much > kept things simple by going with the default settings. I saw Tan's > post where she talked about the settings for an imasge she posted > and saw that she was shooting with contrats, saturation & sharpness > settings all set to high. > > How many of you *istD shooters are not using these defaults and why? I have been leaving them on the defaults since I'm shooting RAW. All of those things can be changed later easily and with no downsides by using RAW. > Also how many are setting custom white balance and not using the > presets? What's your process when you set the white balance? I use custom white balance sometimes when I'm shooting inside and won't be using raw. I set it off of a white wall (I don't normally carry a grey card around). When I'm using RAW I leave it on auto white balance since this can easily be changed later. If you can afford the storage costs RAW is really the way to go. alex
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, William Robb wrote: > > Sure, as long as you in fairly civilized areas I agree. But > sometimes I > > go outdoors and stay there for some days and other times I travel > to > > countries were charging is not readily available. In both cases AA > > batteries are available in any shop I can find, which gives me a > nice > > option. > > > > I talked to a D100 owner last week, and he was not very happy with > the > > battery solution it had. > > Sometimes you just have to look at the digital problems and find that > a nice mechanical film camera is the solution. A roll of film is about as big and heavy as two CRV3 batteries (or a little lighter, but as bulky, as 44 AA ones). It only takes 36 pictures though, where I can shoot a few hundred to a few thousand on the batteries. A 4gb Microdrive when shooting JPEG is enough for quite a lot of backpacking or bicycle touring time for me. The amount of gear that I'm carrying related to photography has dropped with digital, not increased. On one week bike tours (camping) I'd always end up carrying my MZ-5n, spare batteries, and about 10 rolls of film. Film gets bulky. alex
Re: *ist D and Power sources
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, DagT wrote: > Some non-Pentax people have been praising the AA compatibility of the > *istD as a great advantage with the camera. It is a major selling point for me. On vacations I don't want to carry one charger per device. Having more devices that can use a common AA charger is a big benefit. On recent long vacations I've brought: * laptop - proprietary charger * digital camera - proprietary charger (no more with the *ist D) * GPS - AA * iPod - proprietary charger * cell phone - proprietary charger * flashlight/bicycle headlight - AA This makes for a massive mess of cables. One less recharger is a big benefit (and would be even bigger if I switched to a MP3 player that used AA... I figure I have little choice with the cell phone or laptop). alex
RE: *ist D and Power sources
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > Alex, are you using Auto focus? Flash? I am amazed that you can get so > much! I assume that if you say 270, then you are shooting RAW? (As I do, > and I can get 282 exposures) What the heck am I doing wrong?!?!? I use auto focus, but I don't use the flash. Are you using the RTF? I would guess that for weddings you use an external flash, and this shouldn't have much, if any, additional drain on the batteries in the body. 270 was a guess, I didn't have my *ist D in front of me and didn't remember exactly how many raw photos fit on the 4gb microdrive. I am shooting RAW. > One thing though, is that I will often delete in field, so I guess for every > time I fill the card with 282 exposures, you could probably add another 100 > that I've already deleted. Obviously, that would drain the batteries too... I expect that I could shoot and delete another 100 pictures without changing the batteries. I usually shoot and delete about 30-50 pictures in the field, but not 100. I've never actually had the batteries die in this camera, I've just changed them after long days of shooting figuring that they might die if I keep going. alex
RE: *ist D and Power sources
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: > Shaun, if anyone *has* come up with such a solution - I WANT IT! Try using > the *istD with the Hitachi microdrive, no battery grip, and see just how > long the batteries last! I use this setup and have no problem with filling up the drive (about 270 exposures) on a single set of AA batteries. I am using 2200mah AA NiMH cells, nothing too fancy. alex
why i haven't switched to canon
http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs-istd.jpg On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 lens (the largest one that I own). The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. I don't know who is going to keep the small SLRs alive though if Pentax doesn't do it. The Olympus E-1 is also quite large and Minolta seems to be releasing D-SLRs even more slowly than Pentax. alex
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > >there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your > >frustration. > > Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses? Pentax usually isn't full of surprises. We heard about the DA lenses 4-6 months before they were released, and the new Baby-D was announced almost 6 months before it will be released (with rumors coming much earlier). They've been eliminating or having on backorder many more FA lenses than the number of DA lenses that they have announced. It would be really nice to see a roadmap of what is coming, along the lines of the one that Olympus released after the E-1 came out. alex
Re: PAW: New Macro Test
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > What's interesting is that you can actually make out the hexagonal > pattern in the bokeh. BTW, these flowers are EVERYWHERE in Rockbridge > county right now. They are lilies and this is the time of year for them. I shot this one on a hike two weeks ago: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3507.jpg http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3701.jpg Focus is off in the second one. I past the same flower in the hike twice and was drawn to it both times. *ist D, f8.0, 1/500", ISO 400 *ist D, f5.6, 1/125", ISO 400 alex
Re: Pentax is Dying?
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Reese wrote: > demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right) I think this might actually be the case for some of the popular lenses. I ordered my FA 35/2 in Feb or March and it showed up in April. During that time everyone showed it as backordered. It was still shown as backordered when it finally arrived from Adorama. I expect that the *ist D is causing people to change their lens lineup. It has for me. Before purchasing the *ist D I didn't own any of the lenses except for my 50/1.7 that I now carry on a regular basis. The 35/2 is a pretty obvious normal lens choice for the *ist D (28/2.8 is another, but a stop slower). I'm making the wild guess that most of the 35/2s which are being sold now, and forcing them into backordered status, are being used on the *ist D. alex
Re: OT:The PDML is Dying
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Joseph Tainter wrote: > It happens, I suspect, anytime Pentax goes too long with a new product > for us to ponder, query each other about, and debate the merits of. We just got the DA 14/2.8 and the new Optio MX and there are rumors about the new digital SLR coming in the fall. All of these have been active products recently. alex
RE: civil discourse (was Re: PAW: Temptation of Eve, the three shot series)
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I second that, Tom. > I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are > children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause > others to feel embarrassed. There was plenty of warning on these images. I was curious to see them, but first read the messages while I was at work. I went to look at them from home, but they had already been removed by then. PAWs should be allowed to display anything which is legal to display. If the content might offend some folks then there should be a warning saying that. Among a group of friends who often forward things to each other we just put a small tag "not worksafe" before links which wouldn't be appropriate to have on your display in most companies. alex
Re: PAW/PESO, Assateague pony #1
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jostein wrote: > I like the C1 converter very much. Unlike the Photoshop CS converter, you > can work with curves and levels directly at the conversion, and there are > eyedropper tools for setting blackpoint and whitepoint. In all the images I > have played with so far except one, it took less time to achieve a good > result with the C1 than with PSCS. The PRO version has a steep price, > though. If I buy it, I will have to consider one of the lighter versions. I bought the $99 version (I think it is called LE). It works pretty well and gives me most of what I wanted from PRO and SE. The main annoyances: * can't copy settings from one image to another * you can't batch up more than 20 images at a time to convert Both are annoying, but neither feature is worth $150 to me (the cost to upgrade to SE). alex
Re: FA 28-70 f4
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Robert Woerner wrote: > Good price for new. B&H was selling them for that a couple of years or so > ago new. Don't know about Samys reputation as far as "add on" pricing. > Beware. Based on my recent experiences (elements in two of these lenses delaminating from each other) I don't think I would buy another one. If this is a time problem (which I expect that it is) then a new one isn't going to be less likely to have the problem than a used one. alex
RE: PAW: Lyle Lovett
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Amita Guha wrote: > > Had friends over for watching Fireworks -- > > I'm getting to like shooting digital (borrowed > > friends) scary, eh? > > :) I got excellent firewroks shots near my apt. with the istD. I don't > think I'll ever shoot them with film again. It was great not having to > change rolls in the dark! I'll post some soon. I shot some the other day: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-04/ I'm actually kinda bored shooting fireworks now and don't think that I'll bother again next year. This is my favorite of the ones from this year: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-04/reduced/IMGP3833.jpg It isn't the most exciting set of fireworks, but I like that you can see the city lights around the lake. This is the best fireworks photo that I've taken with digital, even thought it was shot through window glass (and you can see some reflections from the multi-pane glass): http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/newyears2001/reduced/fireworks.jpg And a bunch from last year: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/ Some of the contact sheet ones (generated by a special mode in my old DSC-F717) are kinda fun: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/reduced/july4-03%20063.jpg http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/july4-03/reduced/july4-03%20061.jpg I agree that digital is the way to go for shooting fireworks. alex
Re: *ist D Metering Issue
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Tom C wrote: > I thought that in Hyper Program mode that the camera would only allow > shutter/aperture values that resulted in a 'proper' exposure. In the first email you said: > > > All were taken within a 60 second time span. All were taken > > > with multi-seg metering and Shutter Speed Priority AE mode. That is not HyperProgram, that is Shutter Priority (Tv). In Tv or Av mode the camera will allow you to hang yourself. In Tv it will use the shutter speed that you told it, and only adjust the aperture. If the lens can't be stopped down enough then you'll get this over exposure. alex
Re: PAW
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, John Mustarde wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote: > Very good shots, there were enough photo ops on this one hike to last > a month of Sundays. I enjoyed browsing this paw as much as any in the > past year. But you left me wanting for info - who are the folks, and > why only one coloring book. They are the friends who I went hiking with. Kathy is on the left, Christine (my wife) was on the right. Why only one coloring book? Not sure, they only picked up one. That was while we were getting breakfast before the hike. I'm glad that you enjoyed the photos. alex
PAW
These are from a hike on Noble Knob near Mt Ranier that I took on Saturday July 3rd, 2004. Shot with the *ist D and DA 16-45/4 (I also carried my FA 35/2 and M 135/3.5 that day, but never used those). I like the texture in this one a lot: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3665.jpg There are a lot of landscape/scenic shots there, but I think that this is my favorite of them: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3679.jpg I also like this one, because it was a better indication of the weather for most of the hike, and the wildflowers were a big part of the hike and are front and center: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/reduced/IMGP3521.jpg The whole gallery is here, but I really need to cull some more images (shot 200, down to 87, would like to be down to 25 or less) to make it more browsable: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/noble-knob/ alex
Re: What % AF? (was Af speed of the *ist D)
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I think it is important to remember that, AF or MF, it's still an SLR. > If you use AF and everything you want looks nice and sharp, then you > won't do better with MF. I use MF for since I like to do macro, and > like the MF feel of the A lenses. (I'm actually going to get the A50 > 2.8 macro as a "walking around macro lens). I think the ideal system > would AF and then you could tweak it without a clutch, i.e., just tunr > the ring. I think some systesm works like this. That is how the clutch on the DA 16-45/4 works. You can leave the camera in auto focus and manual focus at any time. alex
Re: Just to be sure.. About DAs
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Thibs wrote: > These lens (DA ones) are really only usable on the IST-D right? > Or are these like some Sigma/Tamron, optimized for digital but you can still > use them for 24x36 ? > > I just hope Pentax will make Fas with the new focus mechanism of the DAs DA lenses have a reduced image circle. The 16-45 appears to be usable from somewhere around 24 to 28mm on my ZX-5n. I haven't run film through it to see when the vingetting actually disappears. alex
RE: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > no way, > the primes? > 24 > 28 > 35 > 40 > 50 > 55 > 85 > 105 > 135 > 200 > 300 I assumed that one was carrying a selection of the primes in a set of increments, not everything. I don't see any reason to carry 35, 40, 50, and 55. 35 and 55 maybe. Likewise for 24, 28. Or 105, 135. >From that selection I would probably take: 24, 35, 50, 105, 200, 300 or maybe just: 28, 50, 85, 135, 200 I've done many trips just carrying a 24 and a 50 and that has worked well for me. alex
Re: What's the best zoom(s) for M42?
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Sid Barras wrote: > Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC > tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the > screwmount afficanados, I ask the question: > The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom > lenses for M42. My requirements would be two or three good quality zoom > lenses in screw mount to cover the 28 (or 24 if I'm really fortunate) > to 300 or so zoom lenses. It wouldn't have to be one of those 28-300 > mega zooms like the tamron K mount I've got. It could be two three or > four even lenses that together would cover that range. 4 zooms covering that range in K mount would be about as heavy as the primes covering that range, if not heavier. alex
Re: some shots from the new Air and space Museum
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jim Apilado wrote: > Thanks for these shots. What an awesome building. The Boeing 307 > Stratoliner, I believe, crashed into Elliott Bay in Seattle, WA a couple of > years ago. It had been restored and was flying back to D.C. They were able > to repair the restoration and flew it back. I've got to see this museum. There is a similar museum in Seattle too, the Boeing museum. It isn't quite as spectacular sounding, but it does have an SR71 on display. alex
RE: Re:Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Because today good cameras are based on very sophisticated technology - > AF-systems, Data Processing, Imaging-/Sensor Technology - as well as high > quality lens design/lens making. Pentax may survive as a lens maker - if it > can find corporate lens buyers. As a camera maker, Pentax may survive in P&S > market - not in the high-end camera market. Mediocre does not do the trick > anymore. Perhaps history has already proven this? Doesn't Pentax build these systems for other companies currently? For instance I thought that Nikon licensed AF technology from Pentax. alex
Re: The public and Pentax
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Jim Apilado wrote: > Konica and Minolta merged. Could Pentax merge with another company that has > more name recognition, like Nikon? That might improve the stature of both > companies. Konica's SLR line has been dead for years or decades. If that happened I expect that Pentax mount cameras and lenses would stop being supported and Nikon would buy them for their facilities and patents. alex
Re: wouldn't it be nice
Every file format produced by the Pentax *ist D can be rotated losslessly. Whatever orientation a sensor produces could always be considered a best guess, and you could re-rotate it as you prefer afterwords. alex On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Herb Chong wrote: > what happens when you use the remote release or the cable release. there are > times when i tilt the camera at an angle such that the framing has nothing > to do with up or down as detected by any sensor or position of the shutter > release. > > Herb... > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 11:43 AM > Subject: Re: wouldn't it be nice > > > > I think it could be done on the ist-D in a firmware upgrade. I figure if > the camera could "know" when the vertical release is used on the D-BG1 then > it could easily "mark" those images for rotation in whatever browser you are > using. > > >
Re:Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote: > I have my sensors confused. I knew Sony made a 8 meg sensor, but > I was thinking of the canon sensor. Yes, I know it is an evil word, but in > a year I would be surprised if that canon 8 meg sensor isn't in a camera at > the 10D price point. The rumors that I've read are a 1.3x crop factor 8mp sensor in the Canon 10D mk 2 for $2200 list, about $1900 street, coming out around Photokina (or whatever the sept show is). > This is what makes Canon so tempting. I can replace > my wife's 35mm canon A2 with the 10D and start to get a few high quality > lenses. When the 8 meg sensor comes into a camera I can afford, then I > could buy it, having already procured the lenses for my wife. This is what > is so frustrating about Pentax. There is no pentax path of this kind. Ah, > and before you say why not just buy the *istD for the wife, she would look > at me like I had three heads if I tried to get her to shoot with it. Even > though she loves the output of my LX, she knows. and loves, the EOS system > (you know, turn the dial to the running guy so she can shoot a tennis match.) > This is where Pentax has, and is continuing, to miss the boat. How many of > us who love to shoot with Pentax gear jump ship because either the product > we want isn't available or we don't have faith that they will ever produce > the product we need until 1 to 2 years after it has been produced by other > manufacturers? Pentax is a small company (as far as camera equipment goes, I know that they are large in other businesses) with little pro support to fund developing all of those goodies. If you aspire to high end products then I don't think that they are really the right choice right now. On the other hand I'd be waiting forever for Canon or Nikon to make a body the size of the *ist D which took AA batteries. I've used the D30, 10D, and 300D and they are all nice cameras, but not for me. THe 300D is about the same weight, but doesn't have the same build. alex
Re: Selling Pentax 35mm gear (WAS RE: Beautiful SF1n kit, Voigtlander Perkeo 120 folder)
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote: > I am wrestling with that same question, although it sounds as if > you have far more gear then me. My largest investment is in a single > lens. Since the *istD works with A* lenses, I do not expect them to > depreciate considerably. The value of my LX I expect to drop like a rock, > if it hasn't already. > The questions become, do I buy an *istD, do I sell all my 35mm gear and buy > a cannon 10D, do I sell my 35mm gear and buy a 645 or 67? If I thought the > *istD was going to evolve into yearly updates with either bigger sensor > size or greater megapixel sensors I would not consider anything else. With > all the talk of a babyD I would be surprised to see anything above the > *istD (even if it was only the Sony 8 megapixel sensor slapped in) for a > couple of years. I'm not aware of any suitable Sony 8mp sensor for the *ist D. Have they started making an APS sized one? The 8mp sensor used in the Sony F828, Canon Pro1, and other cameras is a tiny 8.8x6.6mm and won't work for a digital SLR. I'd have been more tempted to switch brands if other brands made cameras which had the same usability features as the *ist D. I like the AA batteries, small size and weight, and high quality images. I'd probably consider switching if the image quality wasn't up to par, but all of the 6mp cameras, including the *ist D, are very good. I see no reason to pick anything else. alex
RE: First smc-DA14/2.8 impressions
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > That's right. Works great for my SONY. I hardly ever think of the "missing" > viewfinder anymore. It works great - and even enlarges the image center for > manual focusing. One of my favorite things about switching from the Sony DSC-F717 to my *ist D is that I finally get an optical viewfinder again. The Sony viewfinder is good for what it is, but manual focusing (even with the zoomed center) was much harder for me than focussing the *ist D is. The Sony viewfinder also wasn't very useful in low light (but neither was the camera, since the max ISO was 800 and that was very noisy). I do miss the waist angle finder function of the DSC-F717 though. That was very handy for many types of shots. alex
Re: DA16-45 underexposure very disappointing
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Mark Stringer wrote: > Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: > "The 16-45 is told to underexpose one stop." > > I am very disappointed in my DA16-45 which I bought with my istD. I > cannot count on it to produce useable photos. My first outing was > to see my daughter at an equestrian event on a bright day. > Everything is washed out, even close ups of my daughters face. > > Is there a fix for this? Is Pentax acknowledging this? I do not > want to have to make additional settings to cope with this problem. > I would like to trade it in for a DA14. Anyone else notice this > problem? I have compared it to other lens and it is obvious. What metering mode are you using? What is your contrast setting? Are you shooting raw? What exposure program are you using? There is a learning curve with exposure on digital SLRs unless you are coming from a slide background. There is a lot less exposure latitude on them than when shooting negative film. With RAW you do get some extra latitude, but blown out highlights tend to remain blown out. On a bright very high contrast day the scene dynamic range is almost definately going to be larger than what the sensor can capture. If skin tone is important than you are going to need to meter for that, but you'll give up a little shadow detail in exchange. Shooting on low contrast (which captures the widest dynamic range possible) or using RAW so that you can tweak it later provide the best flexibility. I haven't noticed any differences in metering with my DA 16-45/4 compared to any of my other lenses. I haven't done a back to back comparison though. If I get a chance I'll do this with my FA 35/2 and A 24/2.8 since they are the two other lenses that I own in this focal length range. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty, > poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses > don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a > well-looked after, as-new, example I think you may be pleasantly surprised. Since the lens in question hasn't been made in 15 years the chances of finding a like new speciman is low. I don't like the manual focus feel on the F lenses that I've tried. All have been consumer grade zooms, but this seems to be one too, so I'm not expecting much. A DA version of this lens could be made smaller, and the build quality of the DA 16-45 is better than any F lens that I've used and many of the FA lenses. I like the Quick Focus Clutch mechanism too. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built > quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some > Sigma lenses do. In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about 5 years. The contact cement between two elements fails, leaving you with a low contrast and not very sharp 28-70/4. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > alex wetmore wrote: > > I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than > > the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the > > length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, > > and I think that is feasable. > > What about the F35-135/3.5-4.5? Admittedly it doesn't meet your first > requirement as it is a bit bigger than the DA 16-45/4. However it is well > built with a solid feel, has a 58mm filter, is reasonably fast and is > perhaps an ideal companion for the DA 16-45/4. On the *istD it is an > effective 52-202 so that both lenses together cover a range approximately > equivalent in 35mm terms to 24-200. It isn't made anymore and I'm usually not very happy with the build of F lenses. On the other hand it is cheap, so I'm picking one up from KEH to try it out. This lens was last made in 1989, and it seems like zoom optics have come a long way since then. Does it have a rotating front element? alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote: > I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective > evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't > want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable > results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their results > seem to match my experience so far). Photodo just measures sharpness. A lot of list members seem to cherish Pentax lenses for the harder to quantify qualities such as smooth bokeh and good contrast. Photodo doesn't measure these things, so their numbers might not be so important if that is what you are looking for. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > I wrote: > > > > > > How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same > as > > > a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! > > alex wetmore wrote: > > > > Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. > > > > I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller > > lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their > > current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. > > How about splitting the difference and having a f3.4 version - best of both > worlds! Lighter, cheaper, more compact than a f2.8 and only 1/2 stop > slower - but still 1/2 stop faster than a f4! It really depends on the size and weight. The DA 16-45/4 is large. I can give them that, because it is a very sharp lens and I understand that it is difficult to build sharp and high quality wide angle optics for SLRs due to the mirror getting in the way. I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind, and I think that is feasable. Compact size and weight are more important to me than lens speed, especially since the *ist D is pretty noise free up to ISO 800 and still very usable at ISO 1600. Compact size and weight, and quality are also more important for me than a lens which extends all the way to 200mm. alex
Re: FA* 80-200/2.8 discontinued?
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote: > Steve Desjardins wrote: > > I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly > > superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a > > lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow > > zooms might be a good paln with in-camera IS. > > How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same as > a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that! Me too. I'd take an f4 version too. I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower than pro, smaller lenses for Pentax. I think that this would fit in well with their current direction. That probably means that they won't do it. alex
Re: Any compact digitals with wide-angle lenses?
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Chaso DeChaso wrote: > Are there any compact digital point-and-shoots that > have a wide-angle lens? It seems most are around > 35-to-something or 38-to-something, equivalent. How compact? Nikon's 5000 had a 28mm equivelent lens. I don't know what the followup model is called (5400 maybe?), but I think it has the same lens. I haven't found any pocketable digital compacts with a 28mm wide angle lens since my old (and sadly now dead) Canon Powershot from many years ago. That was a 1.3mp camera though and very limited compared to modern models. alex
RE: SMC K 2.8/24mm
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I don't know which Pentax bodies, that will not work with K and M lenses, > Alex??? They will allow "work", but many won't meter properly. Sorry, I don't know the models of the exact film cameras which this is true for. When I bought my MZ-5n it was true of the MZ-50. I think it is true of the *ist. I don't know anything about the other current film cameras like the MZ-60. The *ist D will meter with a workaround that makes it less convinent to work with compared to an A lens. I own a *ist D and will still buy K/M lenses when they are a good deal and not in a length that I plan to use a lot, but if there is a widely available A alternative for about the same amount of money I would get the A lens. alex
RE: SMC K 2.8/24mm
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Andy Chang wrote: > I have this lens and I think I paid around USD160 for it second hand > Great lens, worth every penny for it! I believe that the A 24/2.8 has the same optics. Since most Pentax bodies no longer work with pre-A lenses as well as post-A lenses I would suggest holding out for the A version over the K version. Pricing on these can really vary. I bought my sample from KEH 5 years ago for about $300. In the meantime I've seen them from $100 to $300 with most prices between $200 and $300. alex
Re: A-lenses aperture indication
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Both my PZ-1 and my ZX-5n will show the aperture setting in the > viewfinder if the aperture ring on an autofocus lens is set to other > than A. AF lenses are different than the A lenses. The AF lenses have an extra contact which digitally communicates the current aperture, focal length, and MTF. alex
Re: IS in Pentax *istD (was Re: canon vs pentax)
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Nick Clark wrote: > Is there any reason IS couldn't be implemented in software? You > could produce a 5MP image from a 6MP sensor by using the extra > pixels to shift the image. You'd need to measure the movement of > the camera, which could be done using a sensor of some sort in the > body, or could conceivably be done by measuring the movement of the > image on the CCD. This could mean that IS could be added to the > *istD by a firmware upgrade. > > This is all speculation, and I could be talking rubbish. > > Any comments? You would need a match faster CCD which operated in video mode, and software which lined everything back up frame by frame. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the > time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes > and a couple of Sigma primes. Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to begin with there isn't much to complain about when it does go. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > From: alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > > > Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have > one > > > in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for > > > spares otherwise. > > > > http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/msg185702.html > > is my original message, which explains it all. > > > > alex > > Just out of curiosity were the two lenses made in Japan? My original sample was. The other one is boxed up and ready to mail, so I can't tell. I think that it was though. Here is a photo of the damage: http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/lens-ghost.jpg The one that I'm sending back is only about half as bad, but constrast and resolution are still reduced. alex
Re: *istD Raw Converter
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Dalal wrote: > I haven't really been playing close attention to the discussion on > converting RAW files from the *istD. The little bit I have read has given me > the impression that people aren't totally pleased with the Pentax converter > and have been happier with the Photoshop CS converter. Has anyone tried the > C1 RAW Workflow Software featured on the http://www.rawworkflow.com/ > website? The website indicates that it supports RAW files from the *istD. > The LE version is $99. Just lookin' for a little feedback about this piece > of software. I've been playing with it. When it works it works well. It has a tendency to crash pretty easily and it also leaks a lot of memory. The only support is through the forums on rawworkflow.com, and no one is answering my queries about crashes, even though I provided pretty good repro steps. If they fix these problems I'll happily plop down my $99 (expensive, but cheaper than Photoshop CS and I can keep using my preferred Picture Window Pro). alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have one > in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for > spares otherwise. http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/msg185702.html is my original message, which explains it all. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Robert & Leigh Woerner wrote: > I doubt the manual focus feel is any different on the SMC version. Does the > 28-70 f4.0 fare better in this area? I couldn't find the Takumar-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 that I own this morning to compare. I remember it being really really loose though. The SMC-FA 28-70/4 has the worst manual focus feel of any of my FA lenses (35/2, 50/1.7 are the other two) but it is at least usable. I got the Takumar-F thrown in with a ME Super that I bought many years ago and the manual focus was nearly unusable on that camera because it was so loose. The DA 16-45/4 has the best manual focus feel of any of my autofocus lenses, but I've never used an FA* lens. alex
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Stan Halpin wrote: > The FA 20-35/4.0 won't give you the same reach as the 28-70, even on > the *ist-D, , but it is a nice lens. Worth looking at. I already own the 16-45/4.0, so I'm looking for something longer. I find the 16-45 to be my normal every day lens, and liked the 28-70 as a slightly longer lens for events (weddings, etc). I don't shoot people that often, so the 28-70/4.0 didn't get tons of use, but it got enough to justify replacing it. alex
Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
Some folks might remember that I discovered two elements of my FA 28-70/4 were coming apart, making it unusable. I picked up a replacement on eBay and found that it is in the early stages of the same problem. It is being mailed back to the seller. Sadly there don't seem to be any great replacements to consider. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di XR seems to be highly regarded and is very small for a lens of that length, but is more than twice the weight (510g vs 240g) and a lot more expensive. The 24-90/3.5-4.5 seems like a reasonable compromise, but they are still pretty expensive. Any other suggestions? This will be for a *ist D. It won't get tons of use but I find this focal length to be fairly useful for certain types of events. Is the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 any good? The only other moderately fast lens in this range seems to be the Sigma 28-70/2.8-4. At $119 (bhphoto) I can't really imagine that it is very good. Comments? From photographyreview.com it sounds like there is a lot of distortion at the wide end. alex
Re: Camera backpack with drawers
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Amita Guha wrote:
> Does anyone remember who made a camera backpack with front-loading lens
> drawers? I'm not talking about the Lowepro Trim Trekker. The interior
> was yellow. I thought it was Domke but I think I was wrong.
>
> Amita, still in search of the perfect camera backpack
What do you mean by front loading lens drawers?
It sounds like you could be talking about one of the smaller Crumpler
backpacks. They have the camera area in the bottom, and I believe
that they are front loaded. I have a larger Crumpler backpack ("Brian's
Hottub" is the model) and like it a lot, but you do need to take it
off to get to the lenses.
This is the Crumpler model that I was thinking of:
http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/the_formal_lounge.html
This is what I have:
http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/brians_hot_tub.html
alex
Re: baby-D wish/expect list
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > -at least 4MP. I'd expect the same 6MP sony sensor as the *istD. If > there's a better sensor availible Pentax would be wise to upgrade the > *istD with it and put the cheap, well-understood sony one in the baby. > Nobody seems to be jumping on the Foveon sensor. > I'd expect image quality to be at least *istD quality. Hopefully, > experience will make it better as the *istD is arguably the worst > of the DSLRs in image sharpness. The sharpness is all software. It is the same sensor as the D100 and I think the D70. Too much sharpness makes it hard to do processing later on (and it increases noise), too little and people complain. > -easily accessible manual exposure and metering. In the name of > user-friendliness the current baby DSLRs are a bit weak here. I wouldn't > be surprised if Pentax is too, on the theory that the average $900 DSLR > buyer won't want manual anything. I expect that it will have the *ist (not *ist D) controls. One control wheel instead of two. > -at least as much old-lens compatability as the *istD. I'm not sure > that metering a $900 camera with a handheld meter because I have a > screwmount or K lens on it would be acceptable. I expect that it won't have the "Green button" solution that the *ist D has for metering with K/M lenses. > -reasonable ISO range. Assuming the standard Sony sensor, I'd expect > about the same as the *istD has, perhaps less at the top end. I've got > no need for ISO 50 or 100 unless they are coupled with higher quality > as they are in film. I wouldn't be too surprised if they dropped ISO 3200 just as Canon did in the D-Rebel. > -something new cosmetically, such as a new color or the slanted top > of the MZ-S. Pentax is still a leader in such things. Consider > that Hasselblads now come in primary colors--why not DSLRs? > Nikons are resolutely black, and the Canon 300D has hijacked that Pentax > chrome/titanium color. Maybe gold-tone? Ugh, I hope not. The color of the 300D makes it look really cheap. I like the *ist D black. I was fine with the MZ-5n silver/black. > -An upgraded *istD at the same time. Pentax COULD still do something > aggressive and improve it's "$1500" price-point DSLR to be superior > in some noticeable way to its Nikon, Canon, and Sigma rivals. > I'd expect Nikon to get there first, now that the D70 has basically > taken over from the D100 (Nikon D70/D100 > Canon 300D/10D, in terms > of relative quality of siblings). Realistically, the baby-D is going > to have to be quite cheap or pretty competitive with the *istD to > make it competitive with the D70. I'd expect Pentax brand-loyalty > to be a less-important factor in baby-D sales than *istD sales. Common sense would say that the *ist D would need to be rev'd pretty quickly since it isn't that much more expensive (25%) and on paper will probably have many of the same features. On the other hand Canon still seems to be selling the 10D and has waited a while to rev it even though the same is true for the 10D and 300D. I think Pentax is stuck with what Sony or other companies are doing for APS sized DSLR sensors. I haven't read of anything being available better than the 6mp sensor being used now. alex
Re: tan is a dickhead...
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Am I missing something? Aren't USB cables, well ... universal? There are > four cables here, two that came with different card readers, one that came > with a USB hard drive, one that came with the Sony digicam ... oh, and > another from some strange purchase ... and they all work interchangeably. > Does the Pentax have a unique cable? There are two types of mini-USB connectors. One that about 90% of devices use, and one that about 10% of devices use. Guess which one Pentax went with? The common one is small and flat. The uncommon one is small and round. alex
Re: Zenitar 16/2.0 on istD, other istD questions
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > Alex, you are wrng as Dpreview is. *istD has buffer for 6 frames no matter > if RAW or JPEG. One thing is nowhere mentioned - you have to turn noise > reduction off, as it apparently reserves some buffer space for image > processing. After all N.R. is useless during fast continuos shooting so > you loose nothing. And the number of frames in one burst is independent > from card speed as Dario suggested. I didn't know that about the NR. Thanks for the information. The number of frames in one burst doesn't depend on the card speed, but the recovery time for the next frame does. That is the timing that the dpreview article covers in good detail. alex
RE: *istD in the (battle)field
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote: > I really like how you caught that shockwave in flame. I've never seen > that before. A friend and I were curious about this picture. Was it taken with a flash? It looks like a preflash caught the mortar and then a long exposure caught some of the flames erupting from it. Is that accurate? It is a very impressive shot. alex
RE: a few DSC-F717 pictures
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I'm glad I'n not the only one with a F717. > Your shots are very nice. I like your butterfly the best. It's brilliant. > Perfect focus/DOF. I believe digital is better for close-ups (greater DOF > due to smaller format) than landscapes, where resolution is often crusial. I agree. Digital cameras are great for macro and closeup work. > Actually I'm a little afraid to get disappointed with the *ist D (should I > ever get one) - it's just one more MP at the cost of 300% of that of the > SONY. www.dpreview says it's the best resolution they have seen yet on a 5MP > camera. They even compare the image quality with that of the Olympus E-1! AS > I have said before, I can'ot believe Pentax hasn't made a digital camera > like this (all-in-one). It would porbably be a great success. What makes the *ist D a wonderful upgrade is the higher ISO of the camera. I can shoot in much lower light with much less noise than I ever could with the F717. The F717 has about three stops more noise than the *ist D (ie, ISO 100 on the F717 is about as noisy as ISO 800 on the *ist D). This is really cool for handheld available light photography. The low noise as ISO 200 and 400 is also amazing. That butterfly shot took a lot of post processing to make a decent 13x19 print of, mostly due to distracting noise. I think that it would have been a lot easier if it had been shot at ISO 200 on the *ist D. That shot was made at ISO 100 on the F717 and there is still a lot of noise. alex
PAW: a few DSC-F717 pictures
After the conversation on the DSC-F717 I thought I would do a PAW with a few of my favorite photographs from that camera: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/christchurch/botanical-gardens/reduced-800/butterfly-in-field.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/3d6zr http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/kaikoura/reduced/DSC00308.JPG http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/westcoast-hoki-to-fox/reduced/DSC00486.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/2kmym http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/hiking/carbon-river-7-14-02/reduced/DSC01571.JPG or http://tinyurl.com/2v52r alex
RE: Take a wild guess
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Thanks for you reactions, all. > You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it > away. > The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax. > The correct exposure values are > Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec > Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec > > I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, > but this difference was aparentlly too small. The CCD on the Sony DSC-F717 is 8.8x6.6mm. You need to adjust the f-stop much more to compensate for DOF (I think you'll need to compensate about 3 stops, but I haven't played with the DOF calculator for a F717 in a long time). > I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid > 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. The DSC-F717 is a great camera. It has more noise than a DSLR due to the tiny little CCD, but on the other hand it is pretty inexpensive. It has less noise than most P&S cameras which use even smaller CCDs. You get a sharp and fast F2-F2.4 lens with a good zoom range (38-190mm equivelent). The UI is pretty good too and I found it easy to use in aperture priority mode. I think that Sony has gone downhill with the F828. Trying to stick another 3 million sensors in that same 8.8x6.6mm space didn't do them any favors. I don't regret selling my DSC-F717 to purchase the *ist D, but I'm glad that I was able to own one (and the earlier F707) for over two years before the *ist D was released. The F7x7 cameras held their value well too and I was able to sell my DSC-F717 for $650us after purchasing it (originally a DSC-F707) 2 weeks after it was released for $800us (plus $100 for a 2 year extended warranty). I was able to upgrade for free because I had an extended warranty and my DSC-F707 was one of the early models with flash issues. alex
Re: Take a wild guess
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > I took the same photograph twice: > One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 > ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot > with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > > Which one was made with a PENTAX? > > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html Sony > http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html Pentax Sony pushes the blue and this is noticable in the color of the blue post in the background. f8 on a DSC-F717 also has a much greater depth of field than f8 on a 35mm camera and you can see this in the background. Finally the exposure on the Pentax scan is a little off and having owned a Sony DSC-F717 and an Epson scanner I think that the scanner is more likely to give you incorrect exposure than the camera. If anything the camera overexposes and it has borderline done that hear (no detail in the boat deck). alex
Re: Trip report
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 23 May 2004 at 22:22, Christian Skofteland wrote: > > Funny how you didn't seem too impressed by the *ist D when I was there in > > October but now you seem very enthusiastic about it! > > Still not that pleased with the camera, more so the medium. It's doing the job > however I am still shitty about the AOV limitations. I only had enough > room for my 20/2.8 in my travel pack so I was somewhat limited in quite a few > instances, hopefully the multi-image shots will stitch OK. It should be pretty easy to make room by removing your longest lens. For instance if you used to carry something like: 28, 50, 85, 135, 200 now you can carry something like 20, 28, 50, 85, 135 I don't like that the *ist D forced me to rethink some of my lens collection because of the new AOV, but it hasn't changed too much what I carry. The people who get hurt the most are those who liked to carry two lenses, 28-70 and 70-200. With the *ist D you get 16-45 but nothing to fill in the long end. Hopefully a DA 40-160 or 35-135 or something like that is coming. alex
Re: Truncated links (was Re: eBay Listings)
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Doug Franklin wrote: > On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:34:16 +0200, Anders Hultman wrote: > > >Sorry if the link truncatees. I can't set my page width any higher. > > > > A handy tip is to place long links between < and > marks. Several > > e-mail programs then will recognize that it's one continuing URL even > > if it's broken over two or more lines. > > Something else you can try is turning off word wrap in the sending > email program. Most email programs will line break when receiving as > needed, and often they will recognize the full URL within the > "un-line-broken" message coming in and maintain them when word wrapping > the message for display. > > Honestly, I don't think that any of the approaches we've discussed will > work all of the time, and some of them will work better or worse with > different email agent software. one approach which always works is to use tinyurl. http://www.tinyurl.com It will take any long URL and make another URL for it that is about 15 characters long. It is trivial to use and works great. alex
Re: OT : Camera Fanny Pack (GFM)
On Thu, 20 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Anyone use one that they like? And why? I have a LowePro Offtrail that I like. It has two lens pouches which can hold one or two lenses each (you can stack two shorter primes into one). The main bag easily fits any Pentax SLR. The only thing that it needs is a little pocket in the lid for batteries or memory cards. My bag was made for film cameras, so it does have two elastic loops in the main pocket that will hold a roll of film each. http://www.lowepro.com/pages/series/trekking/oftrail1.htm Without the lens pouches attached it is a good size for carrying around in a daypack or a bicycle handlebar or saddle bag to provide extra camera protection. My Off Trail is almost 10 years old and holding up very well. alex
Re: OT: Refrigerator Organization and Use
Okay, so you all want fridge pictures. For some reason I actually have an assortment of these: This is my beer fridge from right after I added two taps to it: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/fridge-closed.jpg It now has two more and a drip tray. This is what it looks like when open: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/fridge-open.jpg It can hold 4 soda kegs, a CO2 canister, and about 30 12oz bottles of beer and a smaller number of 22oz bottles. I brew my own beer (and ginger beer soda) and that is what fills the kegs. In this picture of my brewing you can see the outside of my normal fridge on the right: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/IMGP2221.JPG That brewing session made a wonderful porter. I think I'll have some when I get home. --- Recently a friend asked me to take pictures of his fridge and condo. He took the time to turn his loft into a collection of homemade art (mostly using found objects from the kitchen) and puzzles. Ignore the terrible white balance, I took these snapshots for him the day before leaving on a trip and never went back through to correct it (I do have the images in RAW). I strongly doubt that these pictures are what anyone had in mind when asking for fridge pictures... http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/brian/4-14-2004/ alex
Re: Future Practicality of Film
On Tue, 18 May 2004, graywolf wrote: > As I have mentioned before, I used to do a lot of event photography. > If that is your thing then you can almost not afford not to go > digital. However, strange as it may be, 80+% of the folks on this > list seem to be landscape/nature photographers. Why in the world > would you even want a digital camera? In fact, why would you use > 35mm? I'm also an amateur. Digital really reduces the feedback loop and has helped me become a better photographer and has made it much cheaper to experiment. I enjoy making my own prints and don't have the space for a darkroom. Digital gives me close to the equivelent without needing the space. I say close because I haven't been happy with the digital B&W solutions that I've seen (starting with the cameras, I really want a *ist D with no color filter). I enjoy nature/landscape photography, but I don't make huge prints. 6mp is more than enough resolution. I probably wouldn't carry MF or LF stuff with me anyway because that is more equipment to carry while backpacking. alex
Re: Future Practicality of Film
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Mark Cassino wrote: > No matter what digital camera you purchase, a better one will be coming > along. Today's 6 megapixel DSLR's a nice, but digital will only get better > and, if other digital revolutions can be used as a guide, they will get a > LOT better a LOT faster. If a few years, our *ist-D's will look like silly > toys. There will be better D-SLRs in 5 years, but the *ist D will still be capable of making great 8x10 and 13x19 prints. It'll be great when these things are $200 on eBay. alex
Re: Word on New Digitals?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, William M Kane wrote: > You're right about it being the better choice, but this is difficult > for me to explain to her. The Canon comes with a lens for 999, while > the Pentax is 1300 with the lens counting the rebates. The Canon comes with a pretty cheap lens though. If she compared it with a good lens the difference would be much less. B&H sells the Canon 17-40/4 lens for $650 after rebate. The 300D is $900. That is $1550 in total, or $1300 for the Pentax *ist D with a similar quality lens (although the Pentax goes wider and longer) and better quality body. Batteries for the *ist D are much cheaper too. alex
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Cotty wrote: > So anyway, looks like the MZ-S will be the last ever Pentax film SLR. * ist (not the *ist D) came out after the MZ-S by a couple of years, didn't it? alex
Re: Anyone still using WIndows ME?
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the > merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly > virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere > PRECISELY because of the design of that OS. To date there have been > Zero, thats right a 0 viruses on Mac OSX for example. They are plenty of published exploits for OS/X (google for "exploit os/x" if you want to see them). OS/X is largely built on top of FreeBSD which also has had it's fair share of exploits. No one has written a virus for it because it just isn't a very common platform. It wouldn't be hard to write a worm or virus which used the known exploits in FreeBSD (or the default services that install with it) but that hasn't been done yet either because it is even less common than OS/X. You do get additional security by using these less popular platforms, but in a odd catch-22 any additional use of them makes it more likely that they will be targetted by security vulnerabilities. I don't know what any of this has to do with pentax cameras. My *ist D doesn't run Windows, OS/X, or Linux to my knowledge. alex
Re: Seattle camera shops. Was: Washington State trip
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Cycad wrote: > The business part of my trip is at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Centre, and I > assume I'll be staying nearby. Can you tell me which of these camera stores > will be within walking distance? Glazer's and Optechs are within walking distance. Jim's would require taking the bus into the U District. This is pretty easy. http://transit.metrokc.gov has a tool which will find you the best route from one address to another. Kenmore Camera is about 15 miles away and would require a longer bus ride. Ballard Camera has a good selection of used Pentax glass and is a pretty short bus ride away (about 20 minutes). alex
Re: Automatic Sensitivity Setting on *ist D
On Sat, 15 May 2004, Peter Loveday wrote: > Actually, my Canon S45 digicam has this "Custom" mode (the G3/G5 etc have > more than 1 I think), which is also on the mode-dial. "What a great > feature" I thought to start, I set it up so that mode was flash-disabled, > ISO 400 (high as it goes), etc thinking I'd use it for low-light where I > don't want to be setting off a flash (like a gallery, or whatever). > Unfortunately being on the mode dial meant I had to choose P/Tv/Av/M also, I > could not switch this and still use the custom settings, rendering the > feature useless to my mind. The Pentax *ist D has 3 custom modes. You can program different settings for each one and change between them very quickly (a couple of button presses). I haven't experimented to see if these change things like the flash mode, or only the custom function settings. I think that the *ist D raises the ISO until the camera can be used handheld when you have it in the auto-adjust ISO mode. alex
Re: Quick DA question...
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Timothy Sherburne wrote: > The advertised focal length of Pentax's DA zoom is 16mm to 45mm. Am I > correct to assume that the lengths reflect the 1.5x "conversion"? In other > words, I wouldn't end up with a 24-68 when paired with a *istD. The advertised focal length is the true focal length of the lens, ie 16-45. When you put this lens onto the *ist D you get the same field of view as a 24-67.5mm lens on a 35mm camera. alex
Re: kit selection
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Butch Black wrote: > I have gotten to that point where my camera bag has gotten too heavy. So I'm > thinking of downsizing what I carry when I'm not shooting something > specific. My current lineup: Z-1p, K1000, K 28/3.5, K 35/3.5, M 50/1.4, A > 50/1.7, M 50/2.0, M 100/4.0 macro, M 135/3.5, M 200/4.0, FA* 300/4.5, set of > extension tubes, 50mm tube for M 100/4.0, small Vivitar flash. > > I'm thinking of breaking it down to 2 bags. The main bag would be the Z-1p, > 35, 50/1.4, 135, 300, and the flash. The #2 bag would be the rest minus the > m 50/2.0. Obviously if I'm shooting something that another lens would be > useful I can put it in. Any suggestions to selection? Or any other > suggestions. I pick my lenses based on what I expect to be shooting that day. With the *ist D I'm often just taking the 16-45/4 and either the 35/2 or 50/1.4 with me. Do you need to have a rigid defination of what goes into each bag, or can you just select the lenses depending on what you expect to be shooting? alex
RE: Pentax High End DSLR
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Rob Brigham wrote: > If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a > significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour > for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of > compression issues but the ability to adjust exposure and white balance > etc after the event asnd recover detail which would otherwise be lost in > the highlights or shadows. That is a huge advantage. I continue to shoot RAW, even though I'm using Pentax Photo Lab for the conversions. At some point there will be a better alternative, and I can go back and reprocess those images which require reprocessing. I'm much happier shooting without worrying about getting the color balance correct. Being able to tweak the exposure has been very helpful in a few cases too. alex
Re: OT - Sigma announce new 2.8 zoom
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > on 5/12/04 5:26 PM, alex wetmore at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Someone still needs to make a 40-160/4 lens to pair up with the > > 16-45/4 so that only 2 lenses can be carried to cover a wide range of > > useful focal lengths. > I would prefere something like 65-200/4 to obtain 100-300/4 equiv. - > something that I miss in current Pentax lineup. A 70-210/4 lenses are pretty easy to find on the used market. There are plenty of other 70-2xx lenses available, but not many are fixed aperture in the moderate size/price range. Pentax and the after market companies seem to jump from fixed 2.8 focal lenses which are expensive and heavy to cheaply made consumer lenses that are two stops slower. It would be nice to have something in between. alex
RE: OT - Sigma announce new 2.8 zoom
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Shawn K. wrote: > Thats a strange focal length. Nice that its a cosntant 2.8 though, could be > good. 24-60mm is probably what they could acheive while keeping the lens small. It isn't a bad focal length, 35mm equivelent wide angle is pretty useful for most situations. I could see picking one of these up as a replacement for the 28-70/4 for some situtations. Someone still needs to make a 40-160/4 lens to pair up with the 16-45/4 so that only 2 lenses can be carried to cover a wide range of useful focal lengths. alex
Re: Photokina rumour mill has started...
On Tue, 11 May 2004, JA wrote: > 1. Swiveling LCD screen (for those self portraits, or low shooting angles) Why? There is no live preview on the screen (this is a D-SLR, not a point and shoot). alex
Re: Photomagazin Test
On Tue, 11 May 2004, jtainter wrote: > Cesar, this is just my inference from the number of people who have > bought one, then complained on the list about something not working > right. Just a few minutes ago, Steve complained about his spot > autofocus not working properly. The observation is merely my > impression, but I have not had this impression from list discussions > of any other body. My first *ist D had some stuck (hot) pixels. Since I bought this camera the first day that it was available here in Seattle I didn't think I would find much about problems with it online. So I searched the D100 forums on dpreview since I knew that it used the same CCD. I found plenty of reports of stuck and hot pixels on the D100. I don't think that the *ist D has any more or fewer problems than anything else from the quick browsing that I've done. alex
Re: PAW: moon
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Peter J. Alling wrote: > Not "as sharp as I would have hoped." indeed. This appears to be a very > sharp photo. You can see a full resolution version at http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/moon/moon-bluesky-large.jpg It appears to me that the telescope was slightly out of focus. It could also have been a limitation of the telescope or a result of atmospheric disruptions. I haven't tried printing this yet, but I don't think that it is sharp enough for doing that. It is a good enough photo to have whetted my appetite though, and I look forward to trying more astrophotography. A friend (who was also there) has a 1200mm f4 Newtonian telescope which is very bright and sharp. We can't get the focal plane of the camera close enough to get good focus with prime focus photography, but we are working on possible solutions for that problem. That telescope would be fast enough for us to do some deeper space objects and should make focussing easier too. alex
RE: PAW: moon
I hope to try that too. I don't think that the *ist D is the right camera for it though (longer exposures will have more noise). A lot of the coolest deep space astrophotography is being done with dedicated cameras that can have proper cooling for the CCD. Many of these are actually hacked from cheap webcams. None of my friends have telescopes with equatorial mounts which also makes such photography more difficult. You'll get streaks instead of steady images without one. We set up at a city park (Greenlake, Seattle, WA) yesterday. The viewing was quite good, but I'm sure that it would be even better if we got outside of the city lights. alex On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Tom C wrote: > Cool shot Alex! > > It's always been my aspirations to get into astrophotography, especially > deep space objects. > > Tom C. > > > > > > From: alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: PAW: moon > Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:10:09 -0700 (PDT) > > Last night I got together with some friends and their telescopes. > I brought along my *ist D. > > This was shot with a 1540mm f11 telescope (Orion Starmax or something) > and the *ist D in prime focus (telescope acting as the primary lens). > ISO 200, 1/10". > > http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/moon/moon-bluesky.jpg > > No real processing except for contrast adjustment, cropping, and a > little sharpening. > > Focusing through the telescope was very difficult, so this isn't as > sharp as I would have hoped. It gives us more reasons to try again. > This is a nice little telescope for photography though, as it has > T-threads right on the eyepiece mount, was reasonably priced, and very > compact. > > alex > > _ > Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN > Premium! > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/mlb&pgmarket=en-us/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/ > >
PAW: moon
Last night I got together with some friends and their telescopes. I brought along my *ist D. This was shot with a 1540mm f11 telescope (Orion Starmax or something) and the *ist D in prime focus (telescope acting as the primary lens). ISO 200, 1/10". http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/moon/moon-bluesky.jpg No real processing except for contrast adjustment, cropping, and a little sharpening. Focusing through the telescope was very difficult, so this isn't as sharp as I would have hoped. It gives us more reasons to try again. This is a nice little telescope for photography though, as it has T-threads right on the eyepiece mount, was reasonably priced, and very compact. alex
RE: CD-R lifetimes disputed
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Markus Maurer wrote: > Beside professional SCSI RAID Array's I do not consider IDE Raids with cheap > onboard or PCI controllers or software RAIDS as useful and would not > recommend it to any customer doing serious business and depending on it's > data. This is a sweeping statement. There are good IDE RAID controllers, they just aren't the software-based ones that come on motherboard chipsets or in cheap Promise cards. 3Ware makes good hardware IDE RAID controllers which you can often pick up for a good price on eBay. They use IDE drives, but have the same basic functionality as many SCSI RAID controllers. alex
Re: OT: New Gadgets, New Toys (Photo/CF Storage)
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I am looking into storage for my DSLR, so I can off-load pictures from a > flash card in the field, wipe the card, and start over. I am realizing that > shooting with a DSLR I will be shooting tons more photos than before and need a way > to increase my storage capacity. A bit of extra money will be coming my way > shortly. However, not enough for me to want to get a laptop. > > So, so far this looks like a fairly good idea: > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/BE6FY7/qid=1082646806/sr=1-2 > /ref=sr_1_2_etk-electronics/002-9840715-2164845?v=glance&s=electronics&n=17228 > 2 This link goes to a GMini 120. There are many many similar gadgets. I would recommend doing a search on dpreview's (http://www.dpreview.com) storage forum for any device that you are considering. I'll probably pick up a GMini 220 at some point. They have somewhat mixed reviews though. Specifically the battery is not field replacable, which really limits how many times you can use it on a trip unless you have access to AC power. Currently I'm using a 4g Microdrive and I expect this to keep me going through the summer. They are $200 if you buy a Creative Labs MuVo2 and remove the drive. I bought my MuVo2 from J&R Music World. They are backordered everywhere, but J&R got me the unit in about two weeks which wasn't too bad. With the 4gb Microdrive you get about 280 RAW pictures or 990+ L*** JPEGs on the Pentax *ist D. alex
Re: Cropping or resizing 35mm and *istD images
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Butch Black wrote: > Alex wrote: > > It would be really nice if 8x12 inkjet photo paper was more widely > available. I like this school of thought, but purchasing 13x19 paper > and chopping it up just to make 8x12 prints isn't much fun. > > > I agree. You do realize that you can easily nest 2 8X12's on one sheet of > 13x19 paper. Yes, that is why I picked it instead of 11x17. Cutting up paper is still no fun compared to just using an off the shelf solution. These days I usually do full-bleed 8.5x11 prints because they only require minor cropping from 2:3 or 3:4 and don't require trimming the paper. A sheet of 13x19 paper costs a lot more than a sheet of 8.5x11 paper. alex
Re: Studio lights on a zero budget
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > Primo: As mentioned earlier, my idea is to exchange the UV tubes > for regular fluorescent tubes, or tubes best suited for photography. > At the back of this unit it reads: "Philips Type HP 3127F. 240w 6 > x TLK 40w/09." The tubes themselves carry the designation "TLK > 40w/09". In a lamp shop they only carry 18w tubes, and the man said > he didn't know about any stronger tubes by this dimension (ca 58 cm, > a bit less than two feet). My understanding, or assumption, is that > the "sockets" onto which the tubes are fitted, simply feeds the > tubes regular voltage, and that putting 18w tubes in their places , > simply will produce 6x18w, in a similar way you can exchange regular > tubes or bulbs. Would the type designation cited above, change > anything? Like this solarium for unknown reasons to me, somehow > require these specified tubes and no others? Or do you think I can > safely exchange these tubes as planned? Typically you can't use a different wattage bulb than the one that the ballast is designed for. If you open up the light you'll find the ballast (a black metal box about 8cm wide, 6cm high, 20cm long) that has a sticker on top saying what types of bulbs it will work with. If the sockets are the normal ones used for T8 or T12 bulbs and are placed for a standard bulb length then you should easily be able to retrofit another ballast which works with different bulbs. I thought about your project yesterday when I saw such a lamp (with regular flourescent bulbs) being used at a photography shoot at work. alex
Re: A RAW question...
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, danilo wrote: > Alle 10:06, martedì 6 aprile 2004, Kevin Thornsberry ha scritto: > > OK. Thanks. > > > > My notebook has 2 PCMCIA slots and USB 1.1. I probably should be asking > > which of those two is faster. > > PCMCIA should be faster, there are PCMCIA card with FireWire / USB 2.0 ports > on them, so PCMCIA must be AT LEAST fast as an USB 2.0 port (420MB/s IIRC) There are two forms of PC Card slots, both of which use the same physical slot. PCMCIA cards are based on the old 16-bit ISA bus (long since retired in desktop PCs) and this is what PCMCIA/CompactFlash readers are usually based on. Cardbus is a 32-bit slot equivelent to a PCI card and those are much more performant. There are Cardbus CompactFlash readers that are as fast as a firewire reader, but they'll cost you much more than a PCMCIA one (about $50 instead of $15). I believe that Delkin makes/sells these in the US. The PC Card Firewire/USB 2.0 cards are Cardbus based, not PCMCIA. alex
Re: Q: Studio lights on a zero budget
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote: > Today I ran into a second hand Philips "UV-A" fluorescent light > unit. I seems to be one of those tanning machines. > > What made me interested in it, was 1) the wheeled type of metal > construction (a simple one) which allows you to conveniently move it > about, 2) Six 40w (totalling 240W) fluorescent tubes fitted into a > box, mirrored to direct the light out of it; 3) the fact that there > seems to be levers to adjust the light power; 4) the fact that this > box fairly easily could be lowered or raised or turned into various > angles to direct the light in desired directions; 5) the assumption > that maybe some sort of simple reflector screen probably could be > fitted to it instead of the lights; 6) the price of some $15 US; > > Now the fluorescent tubes fitted to it are ones aimed at tanning. > (They are UV-lights, right?) There was a warning sign about using it > (carefully read the manual before using etc) - I guess there is a > risk about getting burned or maybe your eyes might get hurt etc. If the ballast is not compatible with other types of bulbs then it is really easy to change the ballast. It sounds like those are standard 48" 40W ballasts though, and a normal shop bulb will probably work. > Right or wrong I thought these tubes may be interchangeable with other types of > tubes which might be more useful for photographing purposes. > I was thinking that this whole thing may come handy for home studio use, for > producing light maybe in portrait shooting or table top shooting, or to be used for > reflectors. > I am well familiar with how film reads fluorescent light. It probably reads high quality bulbs better. Flourescent bulbs have something called the CRI (color rendering index), where closer to 100 is closer to how our eyes see sunlight. I don't know how well they do with colors for film. Typical flourescent bulbs have a very low CRI, but there are high quality bulbs available with 92 CRI or better. Regular flourescent bulbs have spikes at wavelengths of red, green, and blue to make something which looks sort of white. The high CRI bulbs put out a much more even mix of wavelengths. You'll find the most information on the net about flourescent bulbs by reading about aquariums. That is how I learned about them. alex
Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote: > . . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15 RAW files? RAW files are 13mb. 13 * 15 = 195mb. alex
Re: New *ist D review - Imaging Resource
On 31 Mar 2004, Frits [ISO-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote: > I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D > connected to a PC. > This is what I did: > I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB > cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash card to a > folder on a drive of my PC. > That took about 3 minutes and 30 seconds. > Then I removed the flash card and put it in a USB2 6 in 1 card reader, > and now using the same 15 images to copy to the same drive in another > folder, I found a time of 1 minute and 2 seconds. So the reader was 3.5 > times faster. > I have the firmware version 1.11 on my *ist D. Having a USB 2.0 port in the camera doesn't mean that the camera is going to be as fast as a USB 2.0 reader. In particular the chipset for managing the compact flash card might not be as fast as reading as a USB 2.0 reader would be. Your test shows that the camera did about 0.92mbps over the USB cable. That is faster than most USB 1.1 readers, but I think still slower than the USB 1.1 available bandwidth (1.1mbps, but I don't know how much overhead is taken up by the system). If you have a USB 1.1 hub and plug in a USB 2.0 device you should get a popup from Windows XP which tells you that it woudl be faster to use a USB 2.0 high speed port. I haven't seen this popup with my *ist D, and used to see it all the time with my DSC-F717, so I think that the camera is USB 1.1. alex
Re: New firmware 1.11 for *ist D
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Bill Owens wrote: > With my M100/4.0, when pressing the green button while in manual, the > shutter speed is set for the proper exposure at the f stop you have > selected. It's not like shooting with a Spotmatic. What I meant by "it is like shooting with a Spotmatic" is that you take a meter reading in a seperate step from the rest of preparing for a shot. On a Spotmatic you turn on the meter which stops down the lens and then you do needle matching. On the *ist D you press the green button which stops down the lens and picks a shutter speed for you. alex
Re: New firmware 1.11 for *ist D
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rob Studdert wrote: > On 17 Mar 2004 at 15:25, Bill Owens wrote: > > I swear mine didn't until I reinstalled 1.11 > > OK mine works, I forgot that it only works in the "M" position (or did I?), my > apologies. It only works in the M position. There is really no meaningful way for it to work in any other position. In Tv the camera can't adjust the aperture, so I don't know what it would do. It isn't true Av because it only meters while stopped down and not continuously. I guess they could have made it work this way, but I don't think that it would be much better: * In Av pressing the green button sets the shutter speed to have the right exposure. Exposure compensation is used to adjust it. This is how M works now. * In M the green button updates the meter reading, but doesn't change the shutter speed. This would be really annoying to use. You would press the green button, see that it was off by a few stops, adjust the shutter or aperture to compensate, then press the green button again. Maybe it would be right, maybe the light changed a bit and now it is half a stop off. Repeat. K/M lenses only work in M mode. It is like shooting with a Spotmatic all over again. I like it. alex
Re: why buy *istD
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > * They like the small size > > It's got competition there, if perhaps not equally-featured competition. > I can also understand the desire for small size. My girlfriend really > likes the *istD because it fits her hands well. I have a bit of trouble > handling the thing, although the makes-it-heavier grip might help. What competition do we have for a small D-SLR with a high build quality? There is nothing as small as the *ist D. The 300D is the closest and is not in the same category of camera. I like the small size because it makes it easier for me to carry the camera more often. I shoot most of my photographs while hiking (backpacking) or on vacation. In both cases I don't want to be carrying around a 3lb body with a large collection of glass. I bought my ZX-5n in 1995 largely because it was compact and I could carry it and a couple of lenses in a small amount of space (I also really liked the classic UI). The *ist D is not as compact, but it is the closest thing that I can get now. > > I expect that if you ask most members of this list why they bought > > a Pentax SLR in the first place that those would be two common answers. > > The other is probably the quality of lenses. > > IMHO Pentax has NOTHING on the other guys here, although it may > well give you better quality for the same price and have more > useful gradations in price/quality (Canon seems to have no "middle level" > lenses). The middle level lenses are a huge advantage when you are going for smaller. I'd much rather have a constant f4 zoom of high quality than a constant f2.8 zoom that weighs 2-3x as much. I like that Pentax makes mid-level lenses which are high quality but not necessarily super fast. The 28-70/4, 16-45/4, and 24-90/3.5-4.5 are all good examples of this in modern zooms. The 50/1.7, 24/2.8, 35/2, and 135/3.5 that I own are good examples in primes. > > I personally wouldn't a Canon tomorrow if all of my gear was stolen. > > The cameras and lenses are big and I don't like their UI. > > I'll tolerate big, expensive gear if it gives me capabilities that I need > and cannot get elsewhere. Not all Canon gear is big and heavy either, > although perhaps all of it worth owning is. Again, it sounds like we shoot in different situtations. If I shot in a studio or carried all of my gear in a car then I would have different preferences. I typically am carrying my gear by hand (or occasionally by bicycle) and size and weight are very big concerns. alex
Re: no fate but what we make
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 1- *ist D new with APS C 8 Meg Pix (The Sony with 4th color) The Sony 8mp sensor that is used in the DSC-F828 is much much smaller than APS-C. It is 8.8mm by 6.6mm. Did Sony announce a 8mp APS-C sized sensor? alex
Re: no fate but what we make
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote: > On Mar 16, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Steve Desjardins wrote: > > I think the 6MP APS senors will be with us for quite a while. > > I think they will last about as long as did the 64K computers with the > sub 1 megahertz processors. Note that the biggest influence in faster processor speeds has been the ability to place more transistors into the same physical area. This has allowed chips to have more transistors or a smaller die size, the former often makes them faster, and the latter makes them cheaper. FF sensors require bigger chips. Chip costs go up exponentially with size. alex
Re: no fate but what we make
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Perhaps more people would buy it WITH compatability. I'd love to see the > sales figures for the *istD, because I don't get the impression it is > a runaway hit outside this list. I don't see what the *istD has to > offer a first-time buyer that the Canon and Nikon DSLRs don't, other > than a K-mount. By the end of this week both Nikon and Canon will have > cheaper options, too. People who never owned a Pentax camera before on dpreview seem to be buying the *ist D for a couple of reasons: * They like the user interface and look and feel * They like the small size I expect that if you ask most members of this list why they bought a Pentax SLR in the first place that those would be two common answers. The other is probably the quality of lenses. I don't think that the *ist D is selling as well as the Canon 300D, but it also costs more and comes from a less well known (today) brand. > Why should the user buy Pentax unless it either has features that > others don't (which it does, in some ways) or he already has some > Pentax gear that he'd like to use? I tell first-time SLR buyers > to get a Canon because I honestly feel that starting from scratch > it is the best thing to do. I tell people to buy what they are comfortable with. I personally wouldn't a Canon tomorrow if all of my gear was stolen. The cameras and lenses are big and I don't like their UI. I didn't own many of the lenses that I now carry around before buying the *ist D. I knew that this would probably be the case before buying the camera and did consider the other systems. My existing lens collection isn't what kept with me with Pentax, the size and UI of their cameras is what kept me. alex
