Re: CF v SD Cards
What's everyone using to unzip this file 'cause I'm having no luck, either here or at work. On 8/27/06, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made some quick and dirty comparisons between my DA16-45/4, A20/2.8 and A24/2.8 on Friday, the DA isn't as bad as I recalled but it does have some strange characteristics that I'm at odds with. Sharpness wise the DA seems a pretty competent performer however it does also exhibit purple/green CA which on the skyline is a lot more noticeable than either of the primes at any aperture (though the A24 exhibits some red/green CA). The DA also exhibits a strange tendency to stretch the corners of the frame far more than the fixed lenses (the fixed lenses do tend towards some barrel distortion but not significantly). In any case since I have little spare time at the moment I've made the test image files available as full res jpgs in a 24MB zip file at: http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip Many thanks for the web space Peter. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Mac OS X's Finder-based unzipping (by double-clicking the .zip archive) didn't work (probably a permissions/output destination issue), but opening a Terminal window and using 'unzip' with parameters to inflate the files into a directory named DAZoomTest on the UNIX command line worked fine. Godfrey On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:14 AM, David Savage wrote: What's everyone using to unzip this file 'cause I'm having no luck, either here or at work. http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
you've got a bad sample. that simple, end of story. 16-45 records as much as the sensor can capture. best, mishka On 8/24/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, You'd have to compare this shot to one made with another lens. I do have a similar shot made with a prime - I think the K35/2.0 or the A 50/1.4 - and the difference in detail and tonal quality - especially tonal quality - is quite obvious. I'll see if I can find that shot - it wasn't on the web page that I looked at. So, while it shows an example of what I consider to be fine detail, it doesn't show and compare the quality of the detail that can be had with other lenses, therefore my earlier comment that the lens doesn't do that well rendering fine detail. However - and bear in mind that this is something I just use as a guide - the amount of sharpening necessary to get a good web result was consistently greater than with any of my other lenses. While i know that's often dependent on subject and lighting, I was consistently using 80% plus to get a good result with the 16-45, while with my other lenses, with the exception of the K18/3.5, I usually sharpen at between 40% and 55%, and in some instances even less. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html, yes? Thanks for reposting it, but this comes with your comment of lacking fine detail, as opposed to something that shows it. I am none the wiser, but I understand you no longer have the lens, so can't ask for a reshoot to understand what I am missing. The quest continues :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Thanks Godfrey. The unzip function in XP x64 wouldn't work my version of WinZip turned out to be too old. Downloading the latest version got it though. Dave At 10:40 PM 28/08/2006, you wrote: Mac OS X's Finder-based unzipping (by double-clicking the .zip archive) didn't work (probably a permissions/output destination issue), but opening a Terminal window and using 'unzip' with parameters to inflate the files into a directory named DAZoomTest on the UNIX command line worked fine. Godfrey On Aug 28, 2006, at 3:14 AM, David Savage wrote: What's everyone using to unzip this file 'cause I'm having no luck, either here or at work. http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 29/08/06, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've got a bad sample. that simple, end of story. 16-45 records as much as the sensor can capture. Too much group de-centering maybe? LOL -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
HAR! Perhaps. On Aug 28, 2006, at 9:19 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: On 29/08/06, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: you've got a bad sample. that simple, end of story. 16-45 records as much as the sensor can capture. Too much group de-centering maybe? LOL -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 24/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Excellent. look forward to seeing the results. I'll have to see how much displacement my barrel shows when I have time. I know there is some. The 12-24, on the other hand, doesn't extend very far and shows virtually no movement. It's apparently a completely different design. I made some quick and dirty comparisons between my DA16-45/4, A20/2.8 and A24/2.8 on Friday, the DA isn't as bad as I recalled but it does have some strange characteristics that I'm at odds with. Sharpness wise the DA seems a pretty competent performer however it does also exhibit purple/green CA which on the skyline is a lot more noticeable than either of the primes at any aperture (though the A24 exhibits some red/green CA). The DA also exhibits a strange tendency to stretch the corners of the frame far more than the fixed lenses (the fixed lenses do tend towards some barrel distortion but not significantly). In any case since I have little spare time at the moment I've made the test image files available as full res jpgs in a 24MB zip file at: http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip Many thanks for the web space Peter. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Thanks. much appreciated. I made some quick and dirty comparisons between my DA16-45/4, A20/2.8 and A24/2.8 on Friday, the DA isn't as bad as I recalled but it does have some strange characteristics that I'm at odds with. Sharpness wise the DA seems a pretty competent performer however it does also exhibit purple/green CA which on the skyline is a lot more noticeable than either of the primes at any aperture (though the A24 exhibits some red/green CA). The DA also exhibits a strange tendency to stretch the corners of the frame far more than the fixed lenses (the fixed lenses do tend towards some barrel distortion but not significantly). In any case since I have little spare time at the moment I've made the test image files available as full res jpgs in a 24MB zip file at: http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip Many thanks for the web space Peter. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Thanks much for taking the time to do this. Haven't had time to look yet, but I certainly will. I've downloaded the files. Paul Rob wrote: I made some quick and dirty comparisons between my DA16-45/4, A20/2.8 and A24/2.8 on Friday, the DA isn't as bad as I recalled but it does have some strange characteristics that I'm at odds with. Sharpness wise the DA seems a pretty competent performer however it does also exhibit purple/green CA which on the skyline is a lot more noticeable than either of the primes at any aperture (though the A24 exhibits some red/green CA). The DA also exhibits a strange tendency to stretch the corners of the frame far more than the fixed lenses (the fixed lenses do tend towards some barrel distortion but not significantly). In any case since I have little spare time at the moment I've made the test image files available as full res jpgs in a 24MB zip file at: http://home.exetel.com.au/loveday/DAZoomTest.zip Many thanks for the web space Peter. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
The archives are accessible Shel [Original Message] From: keith_w Ya know, I've thrown away a *ton* of CF v SD Cards messages, because I foolishly thought we were still talking about memory cards. I don't currently have any interest at all in memory cards, so I tossed 'em out! It really would be nice if somebody would change the Subject line a little more often, because I do enjoy reading about lens tests, new camera offerings, and all the other numerous topics that invariably creep in... I'll bet I missed a *lot* of informative messages that would have been very interesting. I know. My fault... keith whaley Shel Belinkoff wrote: FWIW, I've been real pleased with the performance of the A50/1.4 on the istDS, and would probably feel the same for the FA version as well. A 75mm/1.4 - so to speak - is very nice. Leica offered a 75/1.4 for the Leica M - very spendy! I traded an old ME Super for the A lens. I think I got the better deal. However, Like Rob, I do think some of the newer DA lenses are over rated, at least the few that I tried. I'm not saying they're crap, but they were a little disappointing based on comments I read here and elsewhere. I think my feelings about the 16-45 have been noted more than once. I did like the 14/2.8 that I tried, although I didn't have a chance to really put it through its paces and use it as much as the 16-45. I'd love to try the 12-24 and the new 21mm. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To add to this, I would bet you'll be seeing some very good DA primes down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for 35mm movie cameras, so it's not brain surgery. And Pentax hasn't forgotten how to make glass. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
John Francis wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:05:57PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. Let's face it - she's as credible as hell. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. In the CD player as I type - Rawlinson End on Disc 3 of the Bonzo Dog 'Cornology' boxed set. Lined up to follow: Sir Henry at Rawlinson End - the complete BBC Radio One broadcasts from the John Peel sessions. Have you heard the Sir Henry at N'Didi's Kraal CD? You probably aren't allowed to over there. Some po-faced, arbiter of taste git would declare it far too unPC, thereby completely missing the point. I don't bother with any not allowed to rubbish. For a start, CDs aren't region-coded, so a CD shipped from the UK plays just fine here. And of course there's BBC7 for downloading lots of great audio stuff, and several other sources for the rather more obscure material. As for DVDs - most of the cheap DVD players are only manufactured in one model, so all you need to know is the magic command sequence and you can play any DVD you like (most will also convert PAL to NTSC). I can sit here and watch such gems as Flash Gordon, Rock Follies or The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin, even though none of them has been released in the USA (Flash Gordon was released in Brazil, so it is possible to get a version that will play in US DVD players) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
What about 16-45 vs cheap 18-55? Is the upgrade even worth it? 2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least). On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only wishful thinking I dunno. Anyway I agree with you on that point ! 2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The archives are accessible Shel [Original Message] From: keith_w Ya know, I've thrown away a *ton* of CF v SD Cards messages, because I foolishly thought we were still talking about memory cards. I don't currently have any interest at all in memory cards, so I tossed 'em out! It really would be nice if somebody would change the Subject line a little more often, because I do enjoy reading about lens tests, new camera offerings, and all the other numerous topics that invariably creep in... I'll bet I missed a *lot* of informative messages that would have been very interesting. I know. My fault... keith whaley Shel Belinkoff wrote: FWIW, I've been real pleased with the performance of the A50/1.4 on the istDS, and would probably feel the same for the FA version as well. A 75mm/1.4 - so to speak - is very nice. Leica offered a 75/1.4 for the Leica M - very spendy! I traded an old ME Super for the A lens. I think I got the better deal. However, Like Rob, I do think some of the newer DA lenses are over rated, at least the few that I tried. I'm not saying they're crap, but they were a little disappointing based on comments I read here and elsewhere. I think my feelings about the 16-45 have been noted more than once. I did like the 14/2.8 that I tried, although I didn't have a chance to really put it through its paces and use it as much as the 16-45. I'd love to try the 12-24 and the new 21mm. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To add to this, I would bet you'll be seeing some very good DA primes down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for 35mm movie cameras, so it's not brain surgery. And Pentax hasn't forgotten how to make glass. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Mmm since now Pentax used only one sensor in all their DSLRs. I think it would be interseting to compare e.g. 16-45 on a K100D (ist-D to get an even bigger diference) against a 16-45 on a K10D. What part exactly of the final image is influenced by the sensor? Maybe our current ratings will chane a bit? Or not at all? I'm very curious ! -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 23/8/06, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: Cotty is using a SMC P 15mm f3.5 on his Canon with a 1.3 crop. From what I've seen his results are very very good. Maybe he could borrow a D5 somewhere and make a report. I'll keep that in mind and report back when I can. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 24/08/06, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mmm since now Pentax used only one sensor in all their DSLRs. I think it would be interseting to compare e.g. 16-45 on a K100D (ist-D to get an even bigger diference) against a 16-45 on a K10D. What part exactly of the final image is influenced by the sensor? Maybe our current ratings will chane a bit? Or not at all? I'm very curious ! I'm pretty sure some lenses will go up in users rating and others down as the resolution of the 6MP sensor is far below that of a great lens. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - that the lens is over rated. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I only used the 18-55 for a few hours, and wasn't as familiar with the camera at that time, so a real comparison wasn't/couldn't be made. However, based on the results and from what I remember of them, I'd say the 16-45 was superior in just about every way, however, I think the 18-55 is better than many regard it to be. A very good-great kit lens, a fine travel if the result you're after are smaller-sized prints (8x10 or so), good for portraits, family snaps. I like the way it handles a little better than the 16-45. Quite worth the money, IMO, especially when bought as part of the kit. The extra reach at the long end may be useful for some situations. If I were to buy one or the other separately, I'd buy the 16-45. Shel [Original Message] From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] What about 16-45 vs cheap 18-55? Is the upgrade even worth it? 2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I'll do some controlled detail pics when I have a chance. I would like to see something definitive on this. Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - that the lens is over rated. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553size=lg Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I'll do some controlled detail pics when I have a chance. I would like to see something definitive on this. Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - that the lens is over rated. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
This photo doesn't show any fine detail. Not by my standards. That may be why you're so satisfied with the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Horse doo-doo. A 6-megapixel sensor can't record any more detail than what is shown there. Remember you're looking at detail from a picture that would be something like 6 feet wide. On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: This photo doesn't show any fine detail. Not by my standards. That may be why you're so satisfied with the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg Thanks Paul. Can you comment on the loss of detail (?) on the battery caps? Thanks, Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
That's not fine detail, either [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Believe what you will, Paul. Perhaps we're talking about different things ... but I've gotten finer detail than a picture of an engine, which shows no really fine details at all. Here's something of an example of what I mean: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html This was made with the 16-45 and does not compare favorably with a similar image made with one of my primes. Tonality is rougher, the image needed much more sharpening, and looks a bit rougher. What you photograph works well with the lens, but the lens comes in a very poor second with some of the things I photograph, and the kind of detail and resolving power I'm looking for. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 8/24/2006 4:46:18 AM Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Horse doo-doo. A 6-megapixel sensor can't record any more detail than what is shown there. Remember you're looking at detail from a picture that would be something like 6 feet wide. On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:38 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: This photo doesn't show any fine detail. Not by my standards. That may be why you're so satisfied with the lens. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
So show me an example, Shel. If you do not have the lens anymore, an example of the kind of details you're talking about will help. Thanks -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
More doo-doo. Let's see an example then from the master. Pretentious BS doesn't make your argument valid. On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That's not fine detail, either [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Sheesh, Paul, you seem to be taking this rather personally. All I'm trying to do is get an understanding of what you consider to be fine detail. We clearly see that differently. Hey, if you're happy with the lens, and it works for what you photograph, then be happy. But there's no need to start name calling sheesh! I sent an example of what I consider fine detail, made with the 16-45. It was the best results I could get with the lens - tripod mounted, stopped down a bit, using the self time or MLU function. Anyway, chill out ... maybe you've had too much caffeine this morning, so I'll forgive you ;-)) Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Date: 8/24/2006 5:00:24 AM Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards More doo-doo. Let's see an example then from the master. Pretentious BS doesn't make your argument valid. On Aug 24, 2006, at 7:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: That's not fine detail, either [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553size=lg -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Maybe not what Shel likes but still impressive IMO. The question is: I have the 18-55 and considring the price I got it at (70 euros), the 16-45 seems a bit pricey. Of course I could by the 2.8 zoom which is coming our way but I beleive I won't be able to afford that for quite a time. The 12-24 is interesting for me 'cos I'm not much into WA so a zoom is indeed a better solution but again, price is steep. A 14-28/3,5-5,6 would be better for me on a financial POV of course. And then the K10 is tempting lol... 2006/8/24, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: This is by no means a definitive test, but it does demonstrate how well the DA 16-45 records detail. It's shot at f8, 1/45th with electronic flash in a reflector. There might be a tiny bit of ghosting from the relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg Here is that same image interpolated to 72 megabytes, with a crop of a small area (100% in photoshop). You can see the only thing breaking up the edges of the letters is pixelization. To me, that says the lens can deliver as much detail as the sensor can record. How it will perform at 10 megapixels remains to be seen. http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4845553size=lg Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I'll do some controlled detail pics when I have a chance. I would like to see something definitive on this. Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:48 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: There are at least two or three others on the list that feel as I do - that the lens is over rated. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 11:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I used it every day for almost a month. It's OK, but, IMO, over rated, especially when used for detail work. Not at all bad for portraits, some landscapes, travel ... but not up to critical standards or for fine details. What other way is there to evaluate a lens than by using it, i.e., an in use test? I used it hand held and on a tripod, I used it wide open and stopped down, I used it for close focusing and for distant objects. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I tend to think you might be pleased with the 16-45 as well in a longer term test. In use evaluation is invaluable but not always accurate. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Already posted ... Shel [Original Message] From: Thibouille So show me an example, Shel. If you do not have the lens anymore, an example of the kind of details you're talking about will help. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 24/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. They vary per sample, at the 16mm setting the filter ring can be displaced laterally about 2mm, talk about de-centring. I'm hardly surprised that it records detail well between f5.6 and f11, most lenses perform their best around these apertures. I'll do a wide open test at 24mm against my lowly 20+ year old designed A24/2.8 tomorrow, hopefully my perspective will remain unclouded through the fog of my discontent. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 24/8/06, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: This photo doesn't show any fine detail. Not by my standards. That may be why you're so satisfied with the lens. And why I am killfiled. What a patronising git! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: [Original Message] From: Thibouille So show me an example, Shel. If you do not have the lens anymore, an example of the kind of details you're talking about will help. Already posted ... http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html, yes? Thanks for reposting it, but this comes with your comment of lacking fine detail, as opposed to something that shows it. I am none the wiser, but I understand you no longer have the lens, so can't ask for a reshoot to understand what I am missing. The quest continues :-) Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Excellent. look forward to seeing the results. I'll have to see how much displacement my barrel shows when I have time. I know there is some. The 12-24, on the other hand, doesn't extend very far and shows virtually no movement. It's apparently a completely different design. Paul On Aug 24, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: On 24/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Perhaps there is some sample variation. My 16-45 records fine detail extremely well when used on a tripod and stopped down between f5.6 and 11. They vary per sample, at the 16mm setting the filter ring can be displaced laterally about 2mm, talk about de-centring. I'm hardly surprised that it records detail well between f5.6 and f11, most lenses perform their best around these apertures. I'll do a wide open test at 24mm against my lowly 20+ year old designed A24/2.8 tomorrow, hopefully my perspective will remain unclouded through the fog of my discontent. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Yeah, saw it after I posted.. Thanks ! 2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Already posted ... Shel [Original Message] From: Thibouille So show me an example, Shel. If you do not have the lens anymore, an example of the kind of details you're talking about will help. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Hi, You'd have to compare this shot to one made with another lens. I do have a similar shot made with a prime - I think the K35/2.0 or the A 50/1.4 - and the difference in detail and tonal quality - especially tonal quality - is quite obvious. I'll see if I can find that shot - it wasn't on the web page that I looked at. So, while it shows an example of what I consider to be fine detail, it doesn't show and compare the quality of the detail that can be had with other lenses, therefore my earlier comment that the lens doesn't do that well rendering fine detail. However - and bear in mind that this is something I just use as a guide - the amount of sharpening necessary to get a good web result was consistently greater than with any of my other lenses. While i know that's often dependent on subject and lighting, I was consistently using 80% plus to get a good result with the 16-45, while with my other lenses, with the exception of the K18/3.5, I usually sharpen at between 40% and 55%, and in some instances even less. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html, yes? Thanks for reposting it, but this comes with your comment of lacking fine detail, as opposed to something that shows it. I am none the wiser, but I understand you no longer have the lens, so can't ask for a reshoot to understand what I am missing. The quest continues :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote: You'd have to compare this shot to one made with another lens. I do have a similar shot made with a prime - I think the K35/2.0 or the A 50/1.4 - and the difference in detail and tonal quality - especially tonal quality - is quite obvious. I'll see if I can find that shot. Thanks Shel. Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I think they're slightly out of focus due to the limit of DOF. Paul -- Original message -- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote: relatively slow shutter and the flash combination, but the detail edges are apparent in the crop. Here's the entire frame: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2829588size=lg Thanks Paul. Can you comment on the loss of detail (?) on the battery caps? Thanks, Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CF v SD Cards
They vary per sample, at the 16mm setting the filter ring can be displaced laterally about 2mm, talk about de-centring. I'm hardly surprised that it records detail well between f5.6 and f11, most lenses perform their best around these apertures. I'll do a wide open test at 24mm against my lowly 20+ year old designed A24/2.8 tomorrow, hopefully my perspective will remain unclouded through the fog of my discontent. Rob, the A24 (which was one of my favourite Pentax lenses) is just the same as the K24 but with the A setting. The design probably goes back to about 1976. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Anything with edges can reveal the level of detail captured. The jeans are a bad subject for such a test because the lines cause moire. -- Original message -- From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Believe what you will, Paul. Perhaps we're talking about different things ... but I've gotten finer detail than a picture of an engine, which shows no really fine details at all. Here's something of an example of what I mean: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html Thats been oversharpened almost to the point of aliasing. Digital itself doesn't do well with this sort of thing, it's not a lens problem. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Believe what you will, Paul. Perhaps we're talking about different things ... but I've gotten finer detail than a picture of an engine, which shows no really fine details at all. Here's something of an example of what I mean: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html Thats been oversharpened almost to the point of aliasing. Digital itself doesn't do well with this sort of thing, it's not a lens problem. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
You guys know what I meant when I said cheap APS-C bodies. Under $500 for a 6MP DSLR is a technological miracle compared to what the *ist D cost and what DSLR's cost several years ago. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:07:16 -0400 On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. There's certainly nothing cheap feeling about the DS2. I mean, it weighs less than the 67, and it's not as cold to the touch, but it's pretty damned solid. There's no play, nothing is loose, nothing is flimsy, nothing changes shape when I grip it. I'll let everyone know when it dies -- the drop count on it is already at four. The last ME Super that I did in lasted until 16, I think. I don't drop cameras often, I just use them a lot. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Film quality, presuming all else is equal, measures quality by the square inch. Digital, presuming all else is equal, measures quality by the megapixel. William Robb My point, well stated, from about a week back. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote: Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the fourth or fifth post, don't read it? I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of interest may be said. If I didn't feel that something of interest *might* be said, I would just unsubscribe to this mailing list. My note was to keith, information as to whether he had missed anything of substance. He hadn't. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Some of us just like to club each other over the head. It hurts us but we figure alot of other people enjoy it. :-) I actually think because of the continued debate that the two sides 1) optimistic-happy-Pentax-owners vs. 2) pessimistic-disappointed-Pentax-owners have moved a little closer together or at least now understand each others POV better... a little... maybe. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards] Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 08:52:12 -0700 On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote: Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the fourth or fifth post, don't read it? I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of interest may be said. If I didn't feel that something of interest *might* be said, I would just unsubscribe to this mailing list. My note was to keith, information as to whether he had missed anything of substance. He hadn't. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Thibouille wrote: Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least). On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only wishful thinking I dunno. Anyway I agree with you on that point ! Anyone, who has been on list as long as Keith, knows perfectly well that any thread that has gone past about 20 posts is almost certainly either split or off topic. He has only himself to blame. Insert vbg if you must 2006/8/24, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The archives are accessible Shel [Original Message] From: keith_w Ya know, I've thrown away a *ton* of CF v SD Cards messages, because I foolishly thought we were still talking about memory cards. I don't currently have any interest at all in memory cards, so I tossed 'em out! It really would be nice if somebody would change the Subject line a little more often, because I do enjoy reading about lens tests, new camera offerings, and all the other numerous topics that invariably creep in... I'll bet I missed a *lot* of informative messages that would have been very interesting. I know. My fault... keith whaley Shel Belinkoff wrote: FWIW, I've been real pleased with the performance of the A50/1.4 on the istDS, and would probably feel the same for the FA version as well. A 75mm/1.4 - so to speak - is very nice. Leica offered a 75/1.4 for the Leica M - very spendy! I traded an old ME Super for the A lens. I think I got the better deal. However, Like Rob, I do think some of the newer DA lenses are over rated, at least the few that I tried. I'm not saying they're crap, but they were a little disappointing based on comments I read here and elsewhere. I think my feelings about the 16-45 have been noted more than once. I did like the 14/2.8 that I tried, although I didn't have a chance to really put it through its paces and use it as much as the 16-45. I'd love to try the 12-24 and the new 21mm. Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist To add to this, I would bet you'll be seeing some very good DA primes down the road. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for 35mm movie cameras, so it's not brain surgery. And Pentax hasn't forgotten how to make glass. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:35 AM, Cotty wrote: Cotty is using a SMC P 15mm f3.5 on his Canon with a 1.3 crop. From what I've seen his results are very very good. Maybe he could borrow a D5 somewhere and make a report. I'll keep that in mind and report back when I can. Please do. That would make an interesting comparison. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:09 AM, Tom C wrote: Some of us just like to club each other over the head. It hurts us but we figure alot of other people enjoy it. :-) I would say that it's fun to watch but a) that would be a little too voyeuristic for my taste, and b) I don't really find it that much fun. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 24, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Thibouille wrote: Mmm since now Pentax used only one sensor in all their DSLRs. I think it would be interseting to compare e.g. 16-45 on a K100D (ist-D to get an even bigger diference) against a 16-45 on a K10D. What part exactly of the final image is influenced by the sensor? Maybe our current ratings will chane a bit? Or not at all? Presuming RAW capture, unless the anti-aliasing filter has been changed between the K100 and the D/DS/DL/etc bodies substantially, you will see no difference at all. For JPEGs rendered in-camera, there will be greater differences between the bodies. The K10D body's image output will be different because it will have an entirely different sensor. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Shel, Why do you persist in comparing zooms with primes? They're different animals completely. Chalk and cheese. If you are after very fine detail (which your chosen example fails to demonstrate, IMHO), you choose a prime. If you want convenience, you choose a zoom. Anybody who says that the 16-45 is a very fine lens can be understood to be also saying for a zoom. It obviously cannot be compared to the best primes, and Paul wasn't suggesting that for a moment. John On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 13:59:05 +0100, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, You'd have to compare this shot to one made with another lens. I do have a similar shot made with a prime - I think the K35/2.0 or the A 50/1.4 - and the difference in detail and tonal quality - especially tonal quality - is quite obvious. I'll see if I can find that shot - it wasn't on the web page that I looked at. So, while it shows an example of what I consider to be fine detail, it doesn't show and compare the quality of the detail that can be had with other lenses, therefore my earlier comment that the lens doesn't do that well rendering fine detail. However - and bear in mind that this is something I just use as a guide - the amount of sharpening necessary to get a good web result was consistently greater than with any of my other lenses. While i know that's often dependent on subject and lighting, I was consistently using 80% plus to get a good result with the 16-45, while with my other lenses, with the exception of the K18/3.5, I usually sharpen at between 40% and 55%, and in some instances even less. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html, yes? Thanks for reposting it, but this comes with your comment of lacking fine detail, as opposed to something that shows it. I am none the wiser, but I understand you no longer have the lens, so can't ask for a reshoot to understand what I am missing. The quest continues :-) -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Yep, it is very hard to learn that the correct amount of shapening or unsharp mask is just to the point before it becomes noticable. If you can tell it has been done, it is too much. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Believe what you will, Paul. Perhaps we're talking about different things ... but I've gotten finer detail than a picture of an engine, which shows no really fine details at all. Here's something of an example of what I mean: http://home.earthlink.net/~morepix/jeans/rumpledjeans_2.html Thats been oversharpened almost to the point of aliasing. Digital itself doesn't do well with this sort of thing, it's not a lens problem. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:48 PM, David Savage wrote: Godders, if there is nothing new of interest being said past the fourth or fifth post, don't read it? I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of interest may be said. If I didn't feel that something of interest *might* be said, I would just unsubscribe to this mailing list. My note was to keith, information as to whether he had missed anything of substance. He hadn't. Hah, hah... thanks, kind sir! I sort of suspected that! g keith Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
mike wilson wrote: Thibouille wrote: Yeah I understand it is annoying (to say the least). On my part I always try to stay on subject but maybe it is only wishful thinking I dunno. Anyway I agree with you on that point ! Anyone, who has been on list as long as Keith, knows perfectly well that any thread that has gone past about 20 posts is almost certainly either split or off topic. He has only himself to blame. Insert vbg if you must Totally true, Mike! keith -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: New subject [WAS: Re: CF v SD Cards]
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I continue to read the thread on the off-chance that something of interest may be said. Hell yeah! If I'd killfiled the CF vs SD thread earlier I'd have missed all the Bonzo Dog Band stuff! :-) -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
A 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC is available from Sigma BTW. Yes I know what most people think about Sigma, I agree but when there's no alternative: why not... 2006/8/23, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards If I was sitting on an A 15/3.5, I would move it and replace it with the DA 12-24, but that's just me. I thought of that, after buying the 14/2.8. The thing is, if I need a really wide angle FOV, the digital often just doesn't cut it. The 10-17 can be defished, but I prefer the 15 with film if I really need a wide angle. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Yes and I wan to add that historicaly standard formats were quite bigger than 35mm. In the end, the 35mm became the de facto standard (good or bad) and now APS-C becomes standard for digital. This is really not unexpected IMO. Now, being a good thing or notI'm not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... 2006/8/23, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards instead of complaining, I might want to look at the smaller digi sensor as just a different format, and to stop comparing it to 35mm. That made sense. It made enough sense to me that I quite happily bought the lenses I needed to make the format work. I think shooting 35mm, 6x7 and 4x5 at the same time made me more receptive to accepting the digital as a different format camera. I considered it fortunate that I could use my 35mm camera lenses on the new format, even if they didn't see the same way anymore. I learned to like the 77, which I never really got comfortable with on film. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
This information predates the release of the K100, which by all accounts is in huge demand. My local camera store, which sold only a handful of the various D models, tells me that the K100 and DA lenses are now among their top sellers. According to them, it's a sea change. Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: On 23/08/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the moment I'm still not convinced that the volume is sustainable or particularly profitable as they appear to be priced ridiculously low. And yet somehow their camera division is making more money than ever in the history of the company right now... From: Outline of Finances and Business Results in 1st Quarter of 2006 Business Year (Consolidated) http://www.pentax.co.jp/english/company/ir/semi/soa/info20060727.pdf the net sales of the Imaging System Business as a whole amounted to 1,741 million yen (4.5% increase from the comparable term in the previous year). The operating income drastically increased to 300 million yen (compared with a 1,075 million operating loss of the comparable term in the previous year) because of increased sales and decreased cost. No, they've been performing poorly due to costs and now they are selling some cameras, operating income is up significantly but as a percentage sales are only up 4.5%, good but no panacea. -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 01:54:35 +0100, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote, inter alia: - get rid of that goofy smiling face and the silly flower on the mode dial, replace them with a broad wearing a tight sweater and packing a .38 - and would make me very happy. Two 38s would be even better. John -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Aaron, It's nice to see Pentax doing beter, and especially nice that those results come from the camera side. However, even the camera results are far below best ever, especially if you take inflation into account. What's really good is that the camera side is now the best performing division, and it would be madness for Pentax to take the advice of that crumby asset-stripper, Abe, and get out of the camera business. John On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:10:40 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Savage wrote: 2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter of 2006 business year (from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006): Hrm -- I'll have to place an inquiry as to where the numbers I was fed come from. -Aaron -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 8/23/06, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 23/08/06, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What attitude? If you want to complain about something, I'd recommend the stop-down coupler which is currently missing from the digital SLRs, btw. Actually I think that supporting a single card format (SD. Well, the *istD is history) is a great idea. I hope Pentax will stick with SDs. It would amuse me if they changed to a another card format but then again I only have one SD card currently. -- Sorry; stick with SD = use SD in all their cameras (i.e. no new camera with only a CF slot). -- Best regards, Alex Sarbu -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Also, note that on the implementation (PC side) of SD readers, you will get a dedicated chip connected by USB or Firewire which is necessary to read an SD. A CF reader *can* be passive because CF is based of IDE standard. I can put a CF card (type1 or 2) on a very simple adapter (needs only power) and put it on an IDE cable in any PC. And boot on it of course and yes it does work well and even recognizes brand/models.. A side effect of this is that CF is supposed to be able to go up to 137GB. SDHC if I remember well is planned up to 32GB, not more. Also SDHC is incompatible with SD: of course SDHC uses now FAT32 but that's not the only difference. Even high capacity SD are not compatible with some readers. And ther's nothing to let me think that it will be different with SDHC. There's no such thing with CF. So it is perfectly possible (speculation of course) that if I (or anybody) buy an SDHC reader now, I have NO garantee that it will read SDHC from 2 years later. What a crap! A CF reader will if the PC can read FAT32. Simple as that.. Just my 2 cents. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:49:42 -0700 I've dropped SD cards into my pants or shirt pocket with no ill effects. Accidentally put one through the washing machine once, it had no problems afterwards. So THATS how you do your colour to BW conversions. g Dave Godfrey Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 23/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This information predates the release of the K100, which by all accounts is in huge demand. My local camera store, which sold only a handful of the various D models, tells me that the K100 and DA lenses are now among their top sellers. According to them, it's a sea change. OK, how about comparing financial results with Canon in the same period for it's camera products, just to keep it fair don't look at the bottom line (though it does bring things into perspective a little) just the percentage increase in sales, make of it what you will. From: RESULTS FOR THE SECOND QUARTER AND THE FIRST HALF ENDED JUNE 30, 2006 http://www.canon.com/ir/results/2006/rslt2006q2e.pdf overall camera sales for the first half increased by 21.4% from the year-ago period to ¥460.3 billion (U.S.$4,002 million). The gross profit ratio for the camera segment also rose substantially, boosted by such factors as favorable sales in high value-added products, along with cost-reduction efforts realized through production-reform and procurement-reform activities. As a result, operating profit for the camera segment increased by 75.8% year on year to ¥108.7 billion (U.S.$946 million). -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 23/08/06, Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, note that on the implementation (PC side) of SD readers, you will get a dedicated chip connected by USB or Firewire which is necessary to read an SD. A CF reader *can* be passive because CF is based of IDE standard. I can put a CF card (type1 or 2) on a very simple adapter (needs only power) and put it on an IDE cable in any PC. And boot on it of course and yes it does work well and even recognizes brand/models.. Which is why a great deal of pro equipment still utilize the format, for instance CF is still very prevalent in pro digital audio recorders. If it ain't broke... -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Break it, then fix it. Dave On 8/23/06, Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it ain't broke... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel [Original Message] From: John Forbes - get rid of that goofy smiling face and the silly flower on the mode dial, replace them with a broad wearing a tight sweater and packing a .38 - and would make me very happy. Two 38s would be even better. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
He uses the bleach bypass process LOL Shel [Original Message] From: David J Brooks Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 08:49:42 -0700 I've dropped SD cards into my pants or shirt pocket with no ill effects. Accidentally put one through the washing machine once, it had no problems afterwards. So THATS how you do your colour to BW conversions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Many a company has gotten a teetery division into temporary shape just so they could profitably send it to the asset strippers. Not saying that is what Pentax is doing, but don't be too surprised whatever happens. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- John Forbes wrote: Aaron, It's nice to see Pentax doing beter, and especially nice that those results come from the camera side. However, even the camera results are far below best ever, especially if you take inflation into account. What's really good is that the camera side is now the best performing division, and it would be madness for Pentax to take the advice of that crumby asset-stripper, Abe, and get out of the camera business. John On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 06:10:40 +0100, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Savage wrote: 2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter of 2006 business year (from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006): Hrm -- I'll have to place an inquiry as to where the numbers I was fed come from. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:23:05PM +0200, Thibouille wrote: Also SDHC is incompatible with SD: of course SDHC uses now FAT32 but that's not the only difference. Even high capacity SD are not compatible with some readers. SDHC is perfectly compatible with SD - that's why it was chosen. Of course that doesn't mean an arbitrary SD implementation will be able to read SDHC - there were several (mutually incompatible) extensions made to SD to get over the 2GB limitation, and these use fields that were undefined in the original SD specification (much as several hard drive manufacturers came up with their own way of extending ATA/IDE beyond 128MB prior to the EIDE specs). If your SD firmware or software doesn't allow access to those additional fields, or uses them in a different way from that in the SDHC specs, then you're not going to be able to use SDHC cards in your SD device. But the reverse (using SD cards in an SDHC-compliant device) is required to work. That's why Pentax have been able to promise that the K100D will work with both SD and SDHC cards with only a firmware update. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Shel Belinkoff wrote: She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel She was dressed as Biffo the Bear. In that kind of outfit, she could get rolled at night. And I don't mean on a crap table. [Original Message] From: John Forbes - get rid of that goofy smiling face and the silly flower on the mode dial, replace them with a broad wearing a tight sweater and packing a .38 - and would make me very happy. Two 38s would be even better. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CF v SD Cards
That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: CF v SD Cards
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 23 August 2006 14:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
No, a device compatible with SDHC will read SD, not the other way around and not only 2GB problem. So you can NOT state that SDHC and SD are compatible. It is only the case in one way. My multi card usb reader will NOT read my Sandisk1GB Ultra2+ but my Thinkpad X60 does happily. CF works whatever the way you deal with it. -- -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Huh AFAIK a smaller film is of lesser quality than the same of a bigger size no? Same goes for a sensor. What's wrong with that? -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 23 August 2006 14:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On 23/8/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. There's a dead bishop on the landing -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:05:57PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. Let's face it - she's as credible as hell. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. In the CD player as I type - Rawlinson End on Disc 3 of the Bonzo Dog 'Cornology' boxed set. Lined up to follow: Sir Henry at Rawlinson End - the complete BBC Radio One broadcasts from the John Peel sessions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:12:36PM +0100, Cotty wrote: On 23/8/06, Bob W, discombobulated, unleashed: It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. There's a dead bishop on the landing What diocese? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
The only FF bodies available up till now have taken either Canon or Nikon lenses, (and the Kodak FF with the Nikon mount wasn't well liked as it was. I haven't heard about Nikon making bad WA lenses but from what I've always heard Canon makes very good telephotos and Tele zoom lenses but that most of the wide lenses weren't that great on film, and not any better on digital. Cotty is using a SMC P 15mm f3.5 on his Canon with a 1.3 crop. From what I've seen his results are very very good. Maybe he could borrow a D5 somewhere and make a report. Aaron Reynolds wrote: But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
The Canon's. The issue becomes what old lenses do you use. Put a Zeiss Distagon 21/2.8 or Leitz R 19/2.8 on a 5D and you will be very pleasantly surprised. From 24mm on up, the Canon L's are superb perfomers on FF, as is the better Nikon glass (via an adaptor). The Nikon 17-35 f2.8 does very well on full-frame as well. One of the major problems with FF is that pixel-peeping has become so easy, before most people did ther tests with their working emulsions rather than Tech Pan and those working emulsions couldn't outresolve decent glass. -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Probably no worse than a 350D with the 18-55 kit lens. On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 04:02:42PM -0600, Tom C wrote: I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
And those L lenses aren't legacy, really -- compared to what we're talking about when we say Pentax legacy lenses, L series glass is very new. Surely at least for the last five years they've been designed with digital as a primary consideration. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 6:02 pm Size: 3K To: pdml@pdml.net I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
John Francis wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:05:57PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. Let's face it - she's as credible as hell. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. In the CD player as I type - Rawlinson End on Disc 3 of the Bonzo Dog 'Cornology' boxed set. Lined up to follow: Sir Henry at Rawlinson End - the complete BBC Radio One broadcasts from the John Peel sessions. Dammit! I have a pile of Bonzos albums here. I must get around to burning them onto CD. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I was just cheking dpreview.com's review of the 5D. It says, yes on prime lenses at wide angles and large apertures light falloff and edge softness can show up. Keeping that in mind it should not be a problem. With the way I shoot when using wide angle I'll almost always have the lens stopped down anyway. I could have afforded a new body and lenses a year ago. It's all wishful thinking for me at present. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net,pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:10:00 -0400 And those L lenses aren't legacy, really -- compared to what we're talking about when we say Pentax legacy lenses, L series glass is very new. Surely at least for the last five years they've been designed with digital as a primary consideration. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 6:02 pm Size: 3K To: pdml@pdml.net I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 06:20:48PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote: John Francis wrote: On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 10:05:57PM +0100, mike wilson wrote: I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. Let's face it - she's as credible as hell. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. In the CD player as I type - Rawlinson End on Disc 3 of the Bonzo Dog 'Cornology' boxed set. Lined up to follow: Sir Henry at Rawlinson End - the complete BBC Radio One broadcasts from the John Peel sessions. Dammit! I have a pile of Bonzos albums here. I must get around to burning them onto CD. The 'Cornology' 3-CD boxed set probaby contains most of them: it has Gorilla, The Doughnut in Granny's Greenhouse, Tadpoles, Keynsham and Let's Make Up and Be Friendly, as well as three bonus tracks: Labio-Dental Fricative, Re-Cycled Vinyl Blues and Trouser Freak. Cannibal Chiefs Chew Camembert Cheese ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
To say it precisely, A reader device compatible with the SDHC specification is guaranteed to read both SD and SDHC specification cards. CF works whatever the way you deal with it. Not necessarily, but almost always. The difference between CF and the other flash memory cards (SD, MMC, Memory Stick, xD, and SmartMemory) is that CF cards each has a controller in it where the others are dependent upon the reader devices' embedded controllers. Curiously, I have two CF readers that do not read cards over 1G capacity properly. They are quite old and are probably not built to full compliance with the CF electrical specification. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:05 PM, mike wilson wrote: Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 23 August 2006 14:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. I dropped in at the Black Orchid. The room was dark, very dark, my mood was darker still. There was an empty stool at the bar. I filled it. The usual, I said. The barkeep poured me a Shirley Temple. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. The *istD was probably the second most expensive Pentax SLR of all time. All of the bodies cost more or as much as recent Pentax film cameras. And they're all rather well made. As far as using the lenses as intended is concerned, they work exactly as intended. They merely crop differently. So my FA 35/2 is now a nice normal, my FA 50/1.4 gives me the performance of an $800 77/1.9 Limited at a fraction of the cost. I think that's what God had in mind when he created those lenses:-)). Paul Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Tom C wrote: The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS- C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:05 PM, mike wilson wrote: Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 23 August 2006 14:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. I dropped in at the Black Orchid. The room was dark, very dark, my mood was darker still. There was an empty stool at the bar. I filled it. The usual, I said. The barkeep poured me a Shirley Temple. Once Shirley woke up, she wondered why some one poured her into a glass. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. There's certainly nothing cheap feeling about the DS2. I mean, it weighs less than the 67, and it's not as cold to the touch, but it's pretty damned solid. There's no play, nothing is loose, nothing is flimsy, nothing changes shape when I grip it. I'll let everyone know when it dies -- the drop count on it is already at four. The last ME Super that I did in lasted until 16, I think. I don't drop cameras often, I just use them a lot. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Quoting Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]: my FA 50/1.4 gives me the performance of an $800 77/1.9 Limited at a fraction of the cost. I think that's what God had in mind when he created those lenses:-)). Halaloya my friend.:-) Dave Paul Paul On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:19 PM, Tom C wrote: The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS- C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Strange, I would expect light falloff and corner softness with fast wide lenses use on film. Why is it strange that you get he same thing with digital? The laws of optics do not change with the capture mode. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Tom C wrote: I was just cheking dpreview.com's review of the 5D. It says, yes on prime lenses at wide angles and large apertures light falloff and edge softness can show up. Keeping that in mind it should not be a problem. With the way I shoot when using wide angle I'll almost always have the lens stopped down anyway. I could have afforded a new body and lenses a year ago. It's all wishful thinking for me at present. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net,pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 18:10:00 -0400 And those L lenses aren't legacy, really -- compared to what we're talking about when we say Pentax legacy lenses, L series glass is very new. Surely at least for the last five years they've been designed with digital as a primary consideration. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 6:02 pm Size: 3K To: pdml@pdml.net I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Quoting Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Curiously, I have two CF readers that do not read cards over 1G capacity properly. They are quite old and are probably not built to full compliance with the CF electrical specification. Interesting. I have my Zio CF reader i bought in 2001, and its reading my Sandisk Extreme III's no problem.(2gig) Dave Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net Equine Photography in York Region -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
- Original Message - From: Thibouille Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Huh AFAIK a smaller film is of lesser quality than the same of a bigger size no? Same goes for a sensor. What's wrong with that? Film quality, presuming all else is equal, measures quality by the square inch. Digital, presuming all else is equal, measures quality by the megapixel. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I was sitting with my feet up on the desk thinking that if I didn't get a client soon, I would be out on the street myself; when this tall redhead walked past my window. I knew she was tall because my office is on the third floor... -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Paul Stenquist wrote: On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:05 PM, mike wilson wrote: Bob W wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: 23 August 2006 14:48 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards She stood across the desk from me and I found myself staring at a pair of 38's. She also had a gun ... Shel It was a blonde. A blonde to make a bishop kick a hole in a stained glass window. I came home late. Very late. What could I tell my wife? Darling, I've been beaten up again. A punk stopped me on the street. Have you got a light, Mac? No, but I've got a dark brown overcoat. I dropped in at the Black Orchid. The room was dark, very dark, my mood was darker still. There was an empty stool at the bar. I filled it. The usual, I said. The barkeep poured me a Shirley Temple. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
