Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Imagine that! :-) I was off list most of the weekend, but your answer is better than what I would have coughed up... Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Given that the D offers considerably more control and better facilities than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C on this. Which is not to knock the deviants.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Not intending to disparage. Though the list knows my views on the marketing approach and time/money invested to produce lower-spec'd D's instead of putting that towards an 'upgrade' model. I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 07:43:58 -0800 The word lesser implies a disparagement. The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the difference upon seeing a print. In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was stupid then... Not much has changed. Godfrey
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate conclusion. I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800 That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. I thought the tool didn't matter as much as the person weilding it? William Robb
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
With comparable tools that's probably true. I guess you have to decide if film is comparable to digital ... I don't think it is - certainly not in some situations - and i think you agree with that POV. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 11/7/2005 1:53:41 PM Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. I thought the tool didn't matter as much as the person weilding it? William Robb
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Got me into trouble though! The DS brigade were not amused. I had to explain that I would happily have bought a DS if one had been available at the time. John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:13:26 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagine that! :-) I was off list most of the weekend, but your answer is better than what I would have coughed up... Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Given that the D offers considerably more control and better facilities than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C on this. Which is not to knock the deviants. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of bw). For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large print. I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result on screen is fair. Both should be printed using the best technique available. John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate conclusion. I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800 That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
I thought I pretty much said that. :-) I agree that if one goes out of the way to blow up the image in a large print, to the point where one can see a difference, they will find it. I was talking more generally... take the same photo in all the same conditions, view it at a common hand-held size, and try to tell the difference. Yes, it was a broad brush. I was more or less expanding on Godfrey's post that one cannot see the difference in images taken between the D variants and various Nikon bodies. I went a step futher. Even if a difference was cosnsistently evident, the quality of the image is subjective. Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:24:21 - This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of bw). For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large print. I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result on screen is fair. Both should be printed using the best technique available. John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate conclusion. I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800 That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Clarification... the difference in images taken between the D variants and the difference in images taken with various Nikon bodies. Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:43:03 -0700 I thought I pretty much said that. :-) I agree that if one goes out of the way to blow up the image in a large print, to the point where one can see a difference, they will find it. I was talking more generally... take the same photo in all the same conditions, view it at a common hand-held size, and try to tell the difference. Yes, it was a broad brush. I was more or less expanding on Godfrey's post that one cannot see the difference in images taken between the D variants and various Nikon bodies. I went a step futher. Even if a difference was cosnsistently evident, the quality of the image is subjective. Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:24:21 - This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of bw). For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large print. I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result on screen is fair. Both should be printed using the best technique available. John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate conclusion. I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800 That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Ah! Now I'm sure we all agree. Ain't that something? John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:49:40 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clarification... the difference in images taken between the D variants and the difference in images taken with various Nikon bodies. Tom C. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:43:03 -0700 I thought I pretty much said that. :-) I agree that if one goes out of the way to blow up the image in a large print, to the point where one can see a difference, they will find it. I was talking more generally... take the same photo in all the same conditions, view it at a common hand-held size, and try to tell the difference. Yes, it was a broad brush. I was more or less expanding on Godfrey's post that one cannot see the difference in images taken between the D variants and various Nikon bodies. I went a step futher. Even if a difference was cosnsistently evident, the quality of the image is subjective. Tom C. From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 22:24:21 - This time I agree with Shel (assuming that he's thinking of bw). For colour, I suspect grain would give the game away on a large print. I'm not sure that scanning a negative and viewing the result on screen is fair. Both should be printed using the best technique available. John On Mon, 07 Nov 2005 21:51:40 -, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was intended to be a VERY broad brush. I simply disbelieve that by the time a given image makes it to print form, given the manipulations involved (including sharpening in the digital world), scanning and printing, exposing and printing, that it would be possible to draw a consistently accurate conclusion. I'm sure at some size one will be able to detect a digital print vs. a wet darkroom variety, but that would only be identifying the process used, not the camera or the lens. I'm absolutely positive it would be impossible to tell which camera was used to take an image when it comes to viewing a digitized version of the image. If I went and shot a roll of film and scanned it, displayed the image, and stated that it was taken with the *ist D, you/anybody would have no recourse but to believe me. Tom C. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:34:50 -0800 That's a statement painted with a very broad brush ...and I disagree with it. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C I would venture to say that no one could see the difference between a print resulting from the *ist D and one taken with the K1000... Tom C. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
From: John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ah! Now I'm sure we all agree. Ain't that something? John Don't look up. ;-) Tom C.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
the only times i have seen this on my *istD, the camera has run low on batteries during the save operation. Herb - Original Message - From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2005 12:16 AM Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. But somehow I am getting one out of about 300 images stored as a zero-byte file. I don't know the particular set of circumstances that have led to this event. My question is, have others experienced this behavior with their *ist-DS, and if so, have you figured out what's causing it?
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Godfrey, perhaps lesser wasn't meant to imply disparagment. I wonder if lower-spec'd could be used instead, or whether perhaps disparagement would again be inferred? I'm trying unsuccessfully to come up with a term that can cover different, with fewer big-shot features but not inferior ... I would argue for fewer pro-oriented features. A lot of the advantages of of DS[2] could be construed as not necessarily important to pro users (bigger screen, USB2 on-camera, etc)... I presume pros would be concerned with the picture quality (identical) and the ability to use high-end peripherals (flashes, grips, etc). The only one I can think of that's contrary would be the larger buffer on the DS... that's just because it's a newer generation. Whatever... I grow weary of this line of questioning... :) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
This is all such a pile of dog doo. Pros in one field use different cameras and want or require different features than pros in another field. Gary Winogrand had no need for flash or autofocus or shooting modes or any of that stuff. David Hurn, a Magnum photographer, chose a low-end Canon for one of his cameras and an old Rollieflex 6x6 as another for a project he was working on (interesting how he chose the camera for the project, not as his only pro camera). A photojournalist may need features and specs that a fashion photographer wouldn't. The world has gone digital, but a few weeks ago I was watching a shoot for the cover of a local magazine. The pro was using an old manual Hasselblad - he liked the size, weight, handling, and results he got from it. No desire or need for a digital back or a digital workflow. He sure had some neat lights though. A client of mine who does advertising and product photography uses both film and digital, cameras from an old 'blad to some new, high tech digi stuff to 4x5 film . There are a number of pros on one of the other mailing lists I subscribe to who use mostly manual cameras as well as digital. Some, for a good portion of their work find that film works best, others, who do a different type of photography, move easily between film and digital, and others have moved to digital and sold all their film gear. Anyway, speaking only for myself, this pro-v-amateur, better-v-lesser crap is getting tiresome. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss I would argue for fewer pro-oriented features. A lot of the advantages of of DS[2] could be construed as not necessarily important to pro users (bigger screen, USB2 on-camera, etc)... I presume pros would be concerned with the picture quality (identical) and the ability to use high-end peripherals (flashes, grips, etc). The only one I can think of that's contrary would be the larger buffer on the DS... that's just because it's a newer generation. Whatever... I grow weary of this line of questioning... :)
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
How do you have time to subscribe to other mailing lists... (I do agree with the rest of your post however). Shel Belinkoff wrote: This is all such a pile of dog doo. Pros in one field use different cameras and want or require different features than pros in another field. Gary Winogrand had no need for flash or autofocus or shooting modes or any of that stuff. David Hurn, a Magnum photographer, chose a low-end Canon for one of his cameras and an old Rollieflex 6x6 as another for a project he was working on (interesting how he chose the camera for the project, not as his only pro camera). A photojournalist may need features and specs that a fashion photographer wouldn't. The world has gone digital, but a few weeks ago I was watching a shoot for the cover of a local magazine. The pro was using an old manual Hasselblad - he liked the size, weight, handling, and results he got from it. No desire or need for a digital back or a digital workflow. He sure had some neat lights though. A client of mine who does advertising and product photography uses both film and digital, cameras from an old 'blad to some new, high tech digi stuff to 4x5 film . There are a number of pros on one of the other mailing lists I subscribe to who use mostly manual cameras as well as digital. Some, for a good portion of their work find that film works best, others, who do a different type of photography, move easily between film and digital, and others have moved to digital and sold all their film gear. Anyway, speaking only for myself, this pro-v-amateur, better-v-lesser crap is getting tiresome. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss I would argue for fewer pro-oriented features. A lot of the advantages of of DS[2] could be construed as not necessarily important to pro users (bigger screen, USB2 on-camera, etc)... I presume pros would be concerned with the picture quality (identical) and the ability to use high-end peripherals (flashes, grips, etc). The only one I can think of that's contrary would be the larger buffer on the DS... that's just because it's a newer generation. Whatever... I grow weary of this line of questioning... :) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Shel, it's only you and Godfrey that are making a meal out of this. :-) We all know that all the bodies produce identical results, and many D owners would have bought a DS if they had been around at the time. I certainly would have done (given the price differential). The only reason I bought a second D rather than a DS was that by that time the price was the same (here in the UK), and I didn't want to have to grapple with two different systems. Technically, Tom was right, but practically, who cares? I was shooting fireworks tonight, and was wishing I had the buffer of the DS. John On Sat, 05 Nov 2005 16:42:34 -, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is all such a pile of dog doo. Pros in one field use different cameras and want or require different features than pros in another field. Gary Winogrand had no need for flash or autofocus or shooting modes or any of that stuff. David Hurn, a Magnum photographer, chose a low-end Canon for one of his cameras and an old Rollieflex 6x6 as another for a project he was working on (interesting how he chose the camera for the project, not as his only pro camera). A photojournalist may need features and specs that a fashion photographer wouldn't. The world has gone digital, but a few weeks ago I was watching a shoot for the cover of a local magazine. The pro was using an old manual Hasselblad - he liked the size, weight, handling, and results he got from it. No desire or need for a digital back or a digital workflow. He sure had some neat lights though. A client of mine who does advertising and product photography uses both film and digital, cameras from an old 'blad to some new, high tech digi stuff to 4x5 film . There are a number of pros on one of the other mailing lists I subscribe to who use mostly manual cameras as well as digital. Some, for a good portion of their work find that film works best, others, who do a different type of photography, move easily between film and digital, and others have moved to digital and sold all their film gear. Anyway, speaking only for myself, this pro-v-amateur, better-v-lesser crap is getting tiresome. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Cory Papenfuss I would argue for fewer pro-oriented features. A lot of the advantages of of DS[2] could be construed as not necessarily important to pro users (bigger screen, USB2 on-camera, etc)... I presume pros would be concerned with the picture quality (identical) and the ability to use high-end peripherals (flashes, grips, etc). The only one I can think of that's contrary would be the larger buffer on the DS... that's just because it's a newer generation. Whatever... I grow weary of this line of questioning... :) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 5, 2005, at 2:42 PM, John Forbes wrote: Shel, it's only you and Godfrey that are making a meal out of this. :-) Tastes good when served on toast? I offered my opinion and am done with it. Godfrey
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
There are some who might consider the DS and the DS2 to be the equal of the D, and perhaps in some ways superior. Why do you say that the other D cameras are less camera than the D? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are less camera than the D.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are
less camera than the D.
'D{eviants)'. I like it :-)
But you won't get away saying they are lesser cameras than the D.
Rob.
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/161 - Release Date: 03/11/2005
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Given that the D offers considerably more control and better facilities
than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C on this.
Which is not to knock the deviants.
John
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:48:59 -, Rob Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are
less camera than the D.
'D{eviants)'. I like it :-)
But you won't get away saying they are lesser cameras than the D.
Rob.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Lesser build, no AF-C in all modes, no commander flash, no battery grip, no PC Sync, most settings via menu rather than direct controls, no analogue meter readout. You gain a bigger buffer (on the DS/DS2 only), bigger LCD, spot white balance and a slightly higher flash sync. They are less camera than the D, but the DS/DS2 especially are more than enough camera for most. -Adam Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are some who might consider the DS and the DS2 to be the equal of the D, and perhaps in some ways superior. Why do you say that the other D cameras are less camera than the D? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Tom C The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are less camera than the D.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
I'd like to add a few with my own personal weighting/opinions
added. YMMV.
- Lesser build,
Still better than brand-C by a long shot. -D *larger* which could be a
detriment to some.
-no AF-C in all modes,
Most of my lenses are MF so it doesn't matter.
-no commander flash,
Built a long-cable shutter release
-no battery grip,
Irrelevant for me.
-no PC Sync,
Irrelevant for me.
-most settings via menu rather than direct controls,
This is the biggest advantage to the -D IMO.
no analogue meter readout.
? You mean pretend analog with sliding scale inside the viewfinder? My
friend's Canon Rebel XT has that and I prefer the +-EV in the -DS display.
- You gain a bigger buffer (on the DS/DS2 only),
- bigger LCD,
Even on the non-2 models?
- spot white balance
Shooting RAW almost eliminates white balance concerns
and a slightly higher flash sync.
neglibibly faster.
They are less camera than the D, but the DS/DS2 especially are more than
enough camera for most.
I'll add a few:
- DS has less stupid RAW files than D. Still uncompressed, but at least
packed so size is 10 megs as opposed to 15.
- D only has USB1, D{S,L,S2} has USB2.
- D has TTL for built-in flash on non-A lenses
- D has CF, D{S,L,S2} has SD. largely irrelevant but important for some.
- D has higher MTBF-rated shutter.
- D has less sharp JPEG rendering.
Again... these are tainted with my personal preferences. YMMV.
What really bothers me is that many of these issues could be fixed with a
firmware update. Marketing prevails and engineering loses, however.
-Cory
--
*
* Cory Papenfuss*
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Interspersed.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I'd like to add a few with my own personal weighting/opinions
added. YMMV.
- Lesser build,
Still better than brand-C by a long shot. -D *larger* which could be
a detriment to some.
True.
-no AF-C in all modes,
Most of my lenses are MF so it doesn't matter.
It's something the competition has, and the DS/DS2 don't.
-no commander flash,
Built a long-cable shutter release
You misunderstand me. The D's flash can function as a wireless commander
(Commands wireless flashes but doesn't add to the exposure) the others
cannot. Major flash feature if you shoot with multiple flashes. Notable
'Pro' feature
-no battery grip,
Irrelevant for me.
Big deal for me, as well as the extra battery life. Big advantage if you
shoot a lot in 'Portrait' orientation
-no PC Sync,
Irrelevant for me.
Major 'Pro' feature. I use this on a regular basis actually.
-most settings via menu rather than direct controls,
This is the biggest advantage to the -D IMO.
no analogue meter readout.
? You mean pretend analog with sliding scale inside the
viewfinder? My friend's Canon Rebel XT has that and I prefer the +-EV
in the -DS display.
Yes, much faster than EV readouts for me.
- You gain a bigger buffer (on the DS/DS2 only),
- bigger LCD,
Even on the non-2 models?
Yep, D is 1.8, DS is 2, DL and DS2 are 2.5
- spot white balance Shooting RAW almost eliminates white balance
concerns
Yes, but spot white balance is a major win when shooting JPEG, and most
will shoot JPEG at some point.
and a slightly higher flash sync.
neglibibly faster.
They are less camera than the D, but the DS/DS2 especially are more
than enough camera for most.
I'll add a few:
- DS has less stupid RAW files than D. Still uncompressed, but at
least packed so size is 10 megs as opposed to 15.
- D only has USB1, D{S,L,S2} has USB2.
- D has TTL for built-in flash on non-A lenses
- D has CF, D{S,L,S2} has SD. largely irrelevant but important for some.
- D has higher MTBF-rated shutter.
- D has less sharp JPEG rendering.
Again... these are tainted with my personal preferences. YMMV.
What really bothers me is that many of these issues could be fixed
with a firmware update. Marketing prevails and engineering loses,
however.
-Cory
I actually missed a few. D has HyperProgram (Shiftable program), 4
program lines(Normal, fast, DoF and MTF) and HyperManual.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Please be specific, John. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: John Forbes Given that the D offers considerably more control and better facilities than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C on this. From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are less camera than the D.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
-no commander flash, Built a long-cable shutter release You misunderstand me. The D's flash can function as a wireless commander (Commands wireless flashes but doesn't add to the exposure) the others cannot. Major flash feature if you shoot with multiple flashes. Notable 'Pro' feature My bad. Yes, I can see how this would be useful for complex flash arrangements. Dumber slaves controlled by the (included) built-in. no analogue meter readout. ? You mean pretend analog with sliding scale inside the viewfinder? My friend's Canon Rebel XT has that and I prefer the +-EV in the -DS display. Yes, much faster than EV readouts for me. Different strokes Probably more a matter of what you're used to. - bigger LCD, Even on the non-2 models? Yep, D is 1.8, DS is 2, DL and DS2 are 2.5 The DS is a *HUGE* improvement to the Canon POS on the Rebel XT. The DL/DS2 is even better. Stunning when I saw it in the store a week or so ago. - spot white balance Shooting RAW almost eliminates white balance concerns Yes, but spot white balance is a major win when shooting JPEG, and most will shoot JPEG at some point. I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument Sorry... what was I talking about? :) I actually missed a few. D has HyperProgram (Shiftable program), 4 program lines(Normal, fast, DoF and MTF) and HyperManual. I'll bet I'm just blissfully ignorant of these other modes. Chances are if I knew what they were and/or if my camera had them, I'd use them and be happier. The single wheel and idiosyncracies of the P/Av/Tv/M with K/M lenses are a bit annoying at times. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss* * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * *
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
The word lesser implies a disparagement.
The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder
quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking
at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's
additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the
difference upon seeing a print.
In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And
people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was
stupid then... Not much has changed.
Godfrey
On Nov 4, 2005, at 4:14 AM, John Forbes wrote:
Given that the D offers considerably more control and better
facilities than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C
on this.
Which is not to knock the deviants.
'D{eviants)'. I like it :-)
But you won't get away saying they are lesser cameras than the D.
The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D
(eviants) are less camera than the D.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Cory Papenfuss wrote: --SNIP-- - spot white balance Shooting RAW almost eliminates white balance concerns Yes, but spot white balance is a major win when shooting JPEG, and most will shoot JPEG at some point. I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument I will not get into another JPEG vs. RAW argument Sorry... what was I talking about? :) I shoot RAW myself (In part, because I don't think of white balance, since it's not a film thing), but I see the value of spot White Balance. I actually missed a few. D has HyperProgram (Shiftable program), 4 program lines(Normal, fast, DoF and MTF) and HyperManual. I'll bet I'm just blissfully ignorant of these other modes. Chances are if I knew what they were and/or if my camera had them, I'd use them and be happier. The single wheel and idiosyncracies of the P/Av/Tv/M with K/M lenses are a bit annoying at times. -Cory You use HyperManual with K/M lenses, as the DS/DL/DS2 offer Tv HyperManual with those lenses. With A lenses, the D can set Tv, Av or both (full program) with one press of the Green Button. HyperProgram allows shiftable program in P mode (Essentially shifts into either Av or Tv depending which wheel you use to shift the program, Green button Resets). The program lines just changes Program Mode exposure bias, Normal is the regular, Hi-Speed biases to high shutter speeds, DoF biases to small aperture and MTF biases towards the sharpest apertures based on info from the lens (MTF requires an FA or DA lens IIRC, as those are the only ones which can communicate MTF data). -Adam
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Well said, G ... pretty much my sentiments as well, although, it might be
pointed out that, in some respects, the DS and DS2 offer more in some areas
than the D. ;-))
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 11/4/2005 7:45:28 AM
Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
The word lesser implies a disparagement.
The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder
quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking
at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's
additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the
difference upon seeing a print.
In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And
people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was
stupid then... Not much has changed.
Godfrey
On Nov 4, 2005, at 4:14 AM, John Forbes wrote:
Given that the D offers considerably more control and better
facilities than the deviants, I have to say that I'm with Tom C
on this.
Which is not to knock the deviants.
'D{eviants)'. I like it :-)
But you won't get away saying they are lesser cameras than the D.
The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D
(eviants) are less camera than the D.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The word lesser implies a disparagement. The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the difference upon seeing a print. In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was stupid then... Not much has changed. Godfrey, perhaps lesser wasn't meant to imply disparagment. I wonder if lower-spec'd could be used instead, or whether perhaps disparagement would again be inferred? I'm trying unsuccessfully to come up with a term that can cover different, with fewer big-shot features but not inferior ... ERN
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 9:10 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote: The word lesser implies a disparagement. The DS/DS2 bodies offers the same image quality and viewfinder quality as the D. They have fewer features. But to a person looking at the results, and who doesn't need/want/care about the D's additional features, they have advantages. No one can tell the difference upon seeing a print. In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was stupid then... Not much has changed. Godfrey, perhaps lesser wasn't meant to imply disparagment. It doesn't matter whether it was intended or not. The expression is what it is, and carries the connotation. I wonder if lower-spec'd could be used instead, or whether perhaps disparagement would again be inferred? I'm trying unsuccessfully to come up with a term that can cover different, with fewer big-shot features but not inferior ... Less-featured or lower-spec'ed both work, but it's awkward to put this complex idea into a single adjective. What you intend is more easily suggested in a phrase like the mid-range/lower-end D(eviant) S or whatever. :-) Godfrey
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
- Original Message - From: Godfrey DiGiorgi Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. In the olden days, the same was true of a Nikon FM vs a Nikon F3. And people often disparaged the FM as being a lesser camera too. It was stupid then... Not much has changed. I owned both at the same time. The FM was a nice little camera, but definitely, it was the lesser camera to the F3. William Robb
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Sorry that after starting this thread I didn't chime in again until now. Here is what's happening: After a day of shooting I start reviewing some of the images I've taken in the camera's viewer. One shot (out of hundreds) will show as not readable, or something like that. When I plug the SD card directly into my computer, I find that there has been a filename created (imgp4432.jpg, for example), but it has a zero-byte length; no data stored. This has happened at least once on all three of my cards. Two of my cards are SanDisk. One is Dane-Electric. Two are 1gb, one is 512mb. So there seems to be no common thread among the cards. As I mentioned before, I do sometimes turn the camera off immediately after snapping a shot. Others have mentioned that the card access light does continue flickering after turning the camera off, while saving images. I confirm this. I have no doubt that when I turn the camera off it continues saving images... at least most of the time. But somehow I am getting one out of about 300 images stored as a zero-byte file. I don't know the particular set of circumstances that have led to this event. My question is, have others experienced this behavior with their *ist-DS, and if so, have you figured out what's causing it? Dave
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 9:16 PM, David Oswald wrote: ... But somehow I am getting one out of about 300 images stored as a zero-byte file. I don't know the particular set of circumstances that have led to this event. My question is, have others experienced this behavior with their *ist-DS, and if so, have you figured out what's causing it? Never seen it. Godfrey
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS? No, not here. Fred
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 3, 2005, at 2:02, David Oswald wrote: I review a few of the day's shots on the camera's viewscreen. One shot will come up as Image cannot be displayed (or something like that). When I look at it on my computer, I find that particular image is just a filename, but the file itself is zero bytes long. [snip!] Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS? I'll get this when the batteries are nearly exhausted (RCR-V3s). Their voltage never sags enough to show that they are waning (battery indicator stays on full) but they lack the amperage. My clue will be that I'll either take a shot and not get my preview, or I'll push the shutter button and nothing happens. -Charles -- Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org
RE: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Hi David, I've not experienced that problem. However, I rarely turn the camera off. I'm not used to doing that, so it's left on and shuts down by itself after some predetermined amount of time. I do this because, as I said, I'm not used to turning cameras on and off, but also because I want the camera to be more ready for shooting. I don't have to remember to turn it on when I want to make a few shots. Perhaps not turning the camera off would be a solution. You really don't want to ruin an important or meaningful shot. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Oswald Over the last couple of months, on three occasions I've experienced the following: I review a few of the day's shots on the camera's viewscreen. One shot will come up as Image cannot be displayed (or something like that). When I look at it on my computer, I find that particular image is just a filename, but the file itself is zero bytes long. [...] I think what I'm doing is shutting the camera off by flicking its on-off switch to the off position too quickly after snapping a shot. I don't know how I developed that wierd habbit, but I think it is somehow related. Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS?
RE: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
Hi David ... I just ran a quick test making three RAW exposures with the istDS, and shutting the camera down while the image was being processed. Shutting off the camera had no effect whatsoever. The camera kept writing the image in all cases, and then shut itself off completely. All three pix came out fine. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: David Oswald Over the last couple of months, on three occasions I've experienced the following: I review a few of the day's shots on the camera's viewscreen. One shot will come up as Image cannot be displayed (or something like that). When I look at it on my computer, I find that particular image is just a filename, but the file itself is zero bytes long. [...] I think what I'm doing is shutting the camera off by flicking its on-off switch to the off position too quickly after snapping a shot. I don't know how I developed that wierd habbit, but I think it is somehow related. Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS?
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
From: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think what I'm doing is shutting the camera off by flicking its on-off switch to the off position too quickly after snapping a shot. I don't know how I developed that wierd habbit, but I think it is somehow related. Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS? I also seem to have the same habit, the horror on realising what I had done only lasted a couple of seconds, then I noticed the red 'write' light stayed on, it continued writing the file(s) as if nothing had happened, then switched itself off. This is on the D and it doesn't cause a problem. Rob.
RE: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On 3 Nov 2005 at 12:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi David ... I just ran a quick test making three RAW exposures with the istDS, and shutting the camera down while the image was being processed. Shutting off the camera had no effect whatsoever. The camera kept writing the image in all cases, and then shut itself off completely. All three pix came out fine. One time I took off on a short trip away but forgot my battery charger, so unlike I normally do I though that I'd power the camera down between shooting sessions. I found that the *ist D can be turned off whilst it's writing to the card but it's not energy conservative to do so because the rear LCD wakes up to display an hourglass whilst it continues to write the file. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
The DS displays an hourglass as well ... Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Rob Studdert One time I took off on a short trip away but forgot my battery charger, so unlike I normally do I though that I'd power the camera down between shooting sessions. I found that the *ist D can be turned off whilst it's writing to the card but it's not energy conservative to do so because the rear LCD wakes up to display an hourglass whilst it continues to write the file.
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 3, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Fred wrote: Has anyone else experienced this behavior on their *ist-DS? No, not here. My LX did that to me the other day. Two black frames in the middle of the roll. I know the ISO setting is a little dirty, and I had it on automatic... - Dave
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
- Original Message - From: David Mann Subject: Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally. My LX did that to me the other day. Two black frames in the middle of the roll. I know the ISO setting is a little dirty, and I had it on automatic... All three of my LX do this. I've gotten into the habit of exercising both the ISO dial and the aperture follower on a regular basis. William Robb
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
On Nov 4, 2005, at 5:06 PM, William Robb wrote: All three of my LX do this. I've gotten into the habit of exercising both the ISO dial and the aperture follower on a regular basis. I've been doing this with the ISO dial, but not regularly enough it seems. I usually only bother when I see the light meter go bonkers. It won't help that I had some 400 film* in it, for probably the first time ever. OTOH I have been thinking about buying a DSLR, but that means getting my head around all the different ist-D variants and figuring out why I don't want any of them. * The film in question was a roll of long-expired Sensia which I was intending to have cross-processed, until I stupidly started taking good photos with it. Age had not treated it well (it'd been stored at room temperature) - the colours were noticeably shifted and it seems to have lost sensitivity. I have two more rolls and I'm definitely crossing those to see what happens. - Dave
Re: *ist-DS saving zero-byte files occasionally.
LOL... At this point you might as well wait and see what Pentax comes up with next. If it's any kind of improvement to the D, good. The problem now is the D is almost 2 years old, and the D(eviants) are less camera than the D. Tom C. OTOH I have been thinking about buying a DSLR, but that means getting my head around all the different ist-D variants and figuring out why I don't want any of them.
