Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:12 PM, David Savage wrote: > Why was it again that you haven't bought an M8? Because I can't afford it. That says nothing about its merits as a camera. While price is always a factor, it wasn't the point of this discussion as the question was which was best amongst similarly priced cameras. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I thought the word "Budget" in the subject line inferred there were monetary concerns as well as a desire for quality. :-) All I was really stating was that you can almost get a K10D for 1/2 what an *ist D cost in 2004. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:16:17 -0700 > >LOL ... Of course my inference was a bit of hyperbole. >But you shift the bases of your discrimination so fluidly, Tom... ;-) > >The discussion was not about money. It was about which was the better >camera of the two listed. You brought into this a completely >different notion on a skew line. > >G > > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > The inference you make is illogical. I never said cost was the > > *only* thing > > that was important. It would be logical to conclude the opposite, > > in fact. > > > > If cost *was the only thing* that was important, then sure, go for the > > lowest price DSLR. That's not what I said though. Since I stated a > > K10D (a > > superior camera albeit at a *higher* price) would likely be > > available at a > > more affordable price soon, the logical inference would be that I was > > suggesting getting a better camera at a lower price. > > > > You want to pick on the word 'cost' and imply that since nothing > > else was > > mentioned, that it was not considered. That's like saying if I > > state I'm > > going to the grocery store, that by inference, I'm not going to the > > gas > > station also. How can one infer from the absence of information? > > > >> Of course they're my words. I wrote them. > >> > >> They represent a logical inference from your statements. The question > >> is whether the inference is correct, and if it isn't, then what > >> exactly are you intending to mean? > >> > >>> Your words, not mine. > >>> > >>>> So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much > >>>> something costs. > >>>> It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. > >>>> > >>>>> There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D > >>>>> will > >>>>> probably cost under $600. > >>>>> > >>>>>> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. > >>>>>> Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Go with the Nikon. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
At 11:39 PM 26/09/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much >something costs. >It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. Why was it again that you haven't bought an M8? "I'd like an M8 too. Body and Elmarit-M 24/2.8 ASPH lens, please. Definitely out of my salary bracket at the moment... ! " It's same reason why I haven't replaced all my Pentax glass with the Canon equivalent & bought a 5D. Cost is always a factor in the real world. DS -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
>cut them out with a T-square and box cutter Have you ever tried a rotary cutter? You can get pretty straight lines with those. rg2 On 9/26/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have a mat room cutting board with one-inch increments marked. One > of the ad agencies I worked for let me take it home when they were > moving to new quarters. It allows you to slice through the photo > without marking the board behind it. I can cut out two dozen prints > in less than twenty minutes. Not fun, but not a lot of work. > Paul > On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > Cutting to size can be a lot of work when you're putting out a couple > > of dozen prints, but that strategy is a good way to get a very > > consistent paper/profile match for all different paper sizes. I've > > found sometimes a batch of 8.5x11 sheets doesn't match the > > characteristics of a batch of A3 sheets, etc. > > > > Godfrey > > > > > > > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >> I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is > >> closer to full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two > >> pictures per sheet and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. > >> For 5 x 7, I print four per sheet. And of course I also print the > >> occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 (with borderless printing turned on). > >> Epson Premium Luster is my most used sheet, but I also print on > >> Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson Enhanced Matte) > >> and Epson Fine Art. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and follow the directions. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
LOL ... Of course my inference was a bit of hyperbole. But you shift the bases of your discrimination so fluidly, Tom... ;-) The discussion was not about money. It was about which was the better camera of the two listed. You brought into this a completely different notion on a skew line. G On Sep 26, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Tom C wrote: > The inference you make is illogical. I never said cost was the > *only* thing > that was important. It would be logical to conclude the opposite, > in fact. > > If cost *was the only thing* that was important, then sure, go for the > lowest price DSLR. That's not what I said though. Since I stated a > K10D (a > superior camera albeit at a *higher* price) would likely be > available at a > more affordable price soon, the logical inference would be that I was > suggesting getting a better camera at a lower price. > > You want to pick on the word 'cost' and imply that since nothing > else was > mentioned, that it was not considered. That's like saying if I > state I'm > going to the grocery store, that by inference, I'm not going to the > gas > station also. How can one infer from the absence of information? > >> Of course they're my words. I wrote them. >> >> They represent a logical inference from your statements. The question >> is whether the inference is correct, and if it isn't, then what >> exactly are you intending to mean? >> >>> Your words, not mine. >>> So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much something costs. It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. > There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D > will > probably cost under $600. > >> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. >> Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) >> >>> Go with the Nikon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I have a mat room cutting board with one-inch increments marked. One of the ad agencies I worked for let me take it home when they were moving to new quarters. It allows you to slice through the photo without marking the board behind it. I can cut out two dozen prints in less than twenty minutes. Not fun, but not a lot of work. Paul On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Cutting to size can be a lot of work when you're putting out a couple > of dozen prints, but that strategy is a good way to get a very > consistent paper/profile match for all different paper sizes. I've > found sometimes a batch of 8.5x11 sheets doesn't match the > characteristics of a batch of A3 sheets, etc. > > Godfrey > > > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is >> closer to full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two >> pictures per sheet and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. >> For 5 x 7, I print four per sheet. And of course I also print the >> occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 (with borderless printing turned on). >> Epson Premium Luster is my most used sheet, but I also print on >> Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson Enhanced Matte) >> and Epson Fine Art. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I'm going to use my stock answer, a lens is a lens, if the focusing screen is good you can manually focus it just as well if not better than the autofocus system in the camera can. The tactile feel of focusing may not be the best but the lens should focus just fine manually or automatically. Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you for the clarification. Would I be "going against the > grain" in focusing my AF 50/1.8 D via the manual method? I have > heard that autofocus lenses are optimized to be focused automatically > and that they do not perform "well" as manual focus lenses. Also, > could MF'ing an AF lens possibly harm the lens? > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > >> Actually the D40(and D40X) will mount any Nikon F mount lens which >> doesn't require Mirror lockup to mount. It's the only Nikon DSLR >> which can mount pre-AI lenses. The D40 doesn't meter with non-CPU >> lenses or AF with non-AF-S lenses (Sigma HSM lenses also AF on the >> D40). >> >> So your 50mm f1.8 AF-D will mount and meter (including the 3D >> ambient and flash metering). All you lose is AF. There is only one >> Nikon prime under 200mm which will AF on the D40, and that's the >> (overly expensive) 105mm VR Micro. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >>> Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than >>> one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor >>> lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 >>> D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept >>> a D lens? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> >>> The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit and a couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer model (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, ISO3200, better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the first consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with > regard to > the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or > were > they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the > line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher > model. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > >> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, >> has >> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all >> pentax AF >> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, >> D50 is >> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better >> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a >> slightly >> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. >> Also the >> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the >> use of >> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 >> with >> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is >> far >> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. >> >> -Adam >> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better >> for the >> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >>> Favorably. >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >>
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
The inference you make is illogical. I never said cost was the *only* thing that was important. It would be logical to conclude the opposite, in fact. If cost *was the only thing* that was important, then sure, go for the lowest price DSLR. That's not what I said though. Since I stated a K10D (a superior camera albeit at a *higher* price) would likely be available at a more affordable price soon, the logical inference would be that I was suggesting getting a better camera at a lower price. You want to pick on the word 'cost' and imply that since nothing else was mentioned, that it was not considered. That's like saying if I state I'm going to the grocery store, that by inference, I'm not going to the gas station also. How can one infer from the absence of information? Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:04:38 -0700 > >Of course they're my words. I wrote them. > >They represent a logical inference from your statements. The question >is whether the inference is correct, and if it isn't, then what >exactly are you intending to mean? > >G > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > Your words, not mine. > > > >> So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much > >> something costs. > >> It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. > >> > >> G > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Tom C wrote: > >> > >>> There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D will > >>> probably cost under $600. > >>> > >>>> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. > >>>> Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) > >>>> > >>>>> Go with the Nikon. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Cutting to size can be a lot of work when you're putting out a couple of dozen prints, but that strategy is a good way to get a very consistent paper/profile match for all different paper sizes. I've found sometimes a batch of 8.5x11 sheets doesn't match the characteristics of a batch of A3 sheets, etc. Godfrey On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:53 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is > closer to full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two > pictures per sheet and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. > For 5 x 7, I print four per sheet. And of course I also print the > occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 (with borderless printing turned on). > Epson Premium Luster is my most used sheet, but I also print on > Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson Enhanced Matte) > and Epson Fine Art. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Of course they're my words. I wrote them. They represent a logical inference from your statements. The question is whether the inference is correct, and if it isn't, then what exactly are you intending to mean? G On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Tom C wrote: > Your words, not mine. > >> So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much >> something costs. >> It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. >> >> G >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Tom C wrote: >> >>> There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D will >>> probably cost under $600. >>> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) > Go with the Nikon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
No, AF lenses work fine in manual focus. They simply don't have as smooth and well-damped a focus ring as a good manual focus lens. They are specifically designed to work in both modes, the only way to potentially cause damage to a screwdriver-AF lens is to force it to focus manually with the screwdriver AF coupling engaged(IE with an AF body other than the D40 set to AF rather than MF mode). As the D40 lacks this coupling altogether, you cannot damage the lens that way. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you for the clarification. Would I be "going against the > grain" in focusing my AF 50/1.8 D via the manual method? I have > heard that autofocus lenses are optimized to be focused automatically > and that they do not perform "well" as manual focus lenses. Also, > could MF'ing an AF lens possibly harm the lens? > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Actually the D40(and D40X) will mount any Nikon F mount lens which >> doesn't require Mirror lockup to mount. It's the only Nikon DSLR >> which can mount pre-AI lenses. The D40 doesn't meter with non-CPU >> lenses or AF with non-AF-S lenses (Sigma HSM lenses also AF on the >> D40). >> >> So your 50mm f1.8 AF-D will mount and meter (including the 3D >> ambient and flash metering). All you lose is AF. There is only one >> Nikon prime under 200mm which will AF on the D40, and that's the >> (overly expensive) 105mm VR Micro. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than >>> one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor >>> lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 >>> D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept >>> a D lens? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit and a couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer model (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, ISO3200, better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the first consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with > regard to > the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or > were > they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the > line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher > model. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, >> has >> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all >> pentax AF >> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, >> D50 is >> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better >> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a >> slightly >> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. >> Also the >> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the >> use of >> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 >> with >> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is >> far >> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. >> >> -Adam >> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better >> for the >> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >>> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >>> Favorably. >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
On 26/09/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. >Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? Mark! -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you for the clarification. Would I be "going against the grain" in focusing my AF 50/1.8 D via the manual method? I have heard that autofocus lenses are optimized to be focused automatically and that they do not perform "well" as manual focus lenses. Also, could MF'ing an AF lens possibly harm the lens? Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Actually the D40(and D40X) will mount any Nikon F mount lens which > doesn't require Mirror lockup to mount. It's the only Nikon DSLR > which can mount pre-AI lenses. The D40 doesn't meter with non-CPU > lenses or AF with non-AF-S lenses (Sigma HSM lenses also AF on the > D40). > > So your 50mm f1.8 AF-D will mount and meter (including the 3D > ambient and flash metering). All you lose is AF. There is only one > Nikon prime under 200mm which will AF on the D40, and that's the > (overly expensive) 105mm VR Micro. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than >> one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor >> lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 >> D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept >> a D lens? >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is >>> technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit >>> and a >>> couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer >>> model >>> (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, >>> ISO3200, >>> better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the >>> first >>> consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. >>> >>> Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a >>> stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher model. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, > has > ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all > pentax AF > lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, > D50 is > outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better > battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a > slightly > larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. > Also the > Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the > use of > compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 > with > dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is > far > smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. > > -Adam > Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better > for the > most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: >> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >> Favorably. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> What a timely post, Larry! >>> >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >>> find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >>> DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working >>> within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >>> like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how >>> does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or >>> photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>> And, >>> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >>> D50, I >>> gather? >>> >>> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >>> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as "best begommer budget DSLR" Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point- and- shoot, but y
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
You should check out - http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/BuyEpson/ccHome.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=0 < Epson clearance center > Kenneth Waller http://tinyurl.com/272u2f - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is closer to >full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two pictures per sheet >and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. For 5 x 7, I print four >per sheet. And of course I also print the occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 >(with borderless printing turned on). Epson Premium Luster is my most used >sheet, but I also print on Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson >Enhanced Matte) and Epson Fine Art. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The >> R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper >> you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be >> offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard >> framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another >> elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? >> Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this >> paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to "downsize" the >> print size. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> > Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same >> > print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only >> > suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to >> > get decent neg/slide scans out of them. >> > >> > -Adam >> > >> > >> > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The >> >> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no >> >> expert. >> >> >> >> Glen >> >> >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >> >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The >> >>> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features >> >>> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 >> >>> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson >> >>> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro >> >>> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much >> >>> ink). >> >>> >> >>> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of >> >>> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual >> >>> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work >> >>> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) >> >>> >> >>> -Adam >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >>>> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point >> >>>> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an >> >>>> older >> >>>> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive >> >>>> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and >> >>>> go the >> >>>> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What >> >>>> would >> >>>> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a >> >>>> good >> >>>> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older >> >>>> inkjets >> >>>> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian >> >>>> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. >> >>>> >> >>>> Glen >> >>>> >> >>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. >> >>>>> All my >> >>>>> film >> >>>>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed >> >>>>> with an >> >>>>> inkjet. It works pretty well
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Actually the D40(and D40X) will mount any Nikon F mount lens which doesn't require Mirror lockup to mount. It's the only Nikon DSLR which can mount pre-AI lenses. The D40 doesn't meter with non-CPU lenses or AF with non-AF-S lenses (Sigma HSM lenses also AF on the D40). So your 50mm f1.8 AF-D will mount and meter (including the 3D ambient and flash metering). All you lose is AF. There is only one Nikon prime under 200mm which will AF on the D40, and that's the (overly expensive) 105mm VR Micro. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than > one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor > lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 > D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept > a D lens? > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is >> technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit >> and a >> couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer >> model >> (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, >> ISO3200, >> better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the >> first >> consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. >> >> Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a >> stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to >>> the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were >>> they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the >>> line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher >>> model. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > Favorably. > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> What a timely post, Larry! >> >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >> DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >> like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how >> does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> D50, I >> gather? >> >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the >>> K100D >>> as "best >>> begommer budget DSLR" >>> >>> >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >>> >>> Answer >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you >>> take and >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point- >>> and- >>> shoot, >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >>> seemed >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple >>> compact >>> camera >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital >>> SLR is >>> right >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >>> >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >>> take into >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept a D lens? Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is > technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit > and a > couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer > model > (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, > ISO3200, > better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the > first > consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. > > Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a > stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to >> the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were >> they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the >> line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher >> model. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has >>> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all >>> pentax AF >>> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, >>> D50 is >>> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better >>> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a >>> slightly >>> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the >>> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the >>> use of >>> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 >>> with >>> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is >>> far >>> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. >>> >>> -Adam >>> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better >>> for the >>> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. >>> >>> >>> P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: > What a timely post, Larry! > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how > does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or > D50, I > gather? > > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > > Thanks, > Glen > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > > >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the >> K100D >> as "best >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> Answer >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you >> take and >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point- >> and- >> shoot, >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> seemed >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple >> compact >> camera >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital >> SLR is >> right >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> take into >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> variety of >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the >> choice of >> professional photographers for years. >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above >> into >> some >> perspective. >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a >> beginner >> on a >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D >> Super, the >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> significantly >> more affordable. >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that >
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I generally get 8 1/2 x 11 as Sam's club sells boxes of Ilford Professional Galerie Professional Glossy for what most places charge for 10-25 sheets, but then I'm cheap. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is closer to > full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two pictures per sheet > and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. For 5 x 7, I print four per > sheet. And of course I also print the occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 (with > borderless printing turned on). Epson Premium Luster is my most used sheet, > but I also print on Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson Enhanced > Matte) and Epson Fine Art. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The >> R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper >> you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be >> offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard >> framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another >> elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? >> Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this >> paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to "downsize" the >> print size. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >>> Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same >>> print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only >>> suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to >>> get decent neg/slide scans out of them. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much > ink). > > For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point >> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an >> older >> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive >> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and >> go the >> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What >> would >> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a >> good >> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older >> inkjets >> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian >> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >> >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. >>> All my >>> film >>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed >>> with an >>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >> find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >> DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I'd generally recommend the current R2x0-series over the R380, it's the same basic printer, without the DVD print tray and Colour LCD. As to paper, I'd simply do as Paul suggests and print more than one shot per sheet for 5x7. I normally print either 8x10 or 8.5x11, so it's one sheet slightly trimmed (I've got a source for pre-cut mattes that fit 11x14 frames with 8.5x11 openings, so that's what I normally use). You can cut the paper first and then use a custom paper size set in the print driver if you wish though. But as a rule, printer paper comes in 8.5x11, 13x19 and a couple larger sizes. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The > R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper > you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be > offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard > framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another > elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? > Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this > paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to "downsize" the > print size. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same >> print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only >> suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to >> get decent neg/slide scans out of them. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The >>> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no >>> expert. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an > older > one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and > go the > scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What > would > about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a > good > deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older > inkjets > I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. >> All my >> film >> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed >> with an >> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I >>> tend >>> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >>> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, >>> buy a >>> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as >>> many >>> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >>> paper, software, and who knows what else... >>> >>> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >>> world. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I > find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within > the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how > does > one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into > prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I buy only one size paper -- 13 x19. For 8x 10 or 8x12 (which is closer to full frame for both 35mm film and digital), I print two pictures per sheet and cut them out with a T-square and box cutter. For 5 x 7, I print four per sheet. And of course I also print the occasional 18 x 12 or 13 x 19 (with borderless printing turned on). Epson Premium Luster is my most used sheet, but I also print on Epson Premium Presentation Matte (formerly Epson Enhanced Matte) and Epson Fine Art. Paul -- Original message -- From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The > R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper > you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be > offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard > framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another > elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? > Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this > paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to "downsize" the > print size. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same > > print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only > > suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to > > get decent neg/slide scans out of them. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The > >> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no > >> expert. > >> > >> Glen > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> > >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > >>> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > >>> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > >>> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > >>> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > >>> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much > >>> ink). > >>> > >>> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > >>> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > >>> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > >>> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > >>> > >>> -Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an > older > one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and > go the > scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What > would > about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a > good > deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older > inkjets > I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. > > All my > > film > > work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed > > with an > > inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I > >> tend > >> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > >> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, > >> buy a > >> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as > >> many > >> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > >> paper, software, and who knows what else... > >> > >> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR > >> world. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Glen > >> > >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I > find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within > the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how > does > one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into > prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanne
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to "downsize" the print size. Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same > print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only > suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to > get decent neg/slide scans out of them. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The >> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no >> expert. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The >>> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features >>> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 >>> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson >>> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro >>> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much >>> ink). >>> >>> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of >>> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual >>> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work >>> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. > All my > film > work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed > with an > inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I >> tend >> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, >> buy a >> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as >> many >> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >> paper, software, and who knows what else... >> >> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >> world. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, >>> which I >>> suspect isn't quite true. >>> >>> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. >>> Scanners >>> are >>> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A >>> digital >>> camera produces digital images. >>> >>> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print >>> anything >>> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >>> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >>> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >>> >>> - If you h
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I agree. In fact, you may likely not even pick up your film SLR again. :-( Oh for the halcyon days of film, that bygone era of innocence and bliss. Tom C. >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:56:31 + > >I would avoid investing in a scanner at this point. I would estimate that >about nineteen out of twenty film users who have tried digital stuck with >it. Yes, a few have gone back to film. But unless fine-art BW photography >is your ultimate goal, in the long run you'll spend less and do more with >digital. >Paul > -- Original message -- >From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The > > Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. > > > > Glen > > > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > > > For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > > > higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > > > (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > > > myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > > > Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > > > models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). > > > > > > For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > > > Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > > > III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > > > on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > > > > > > -Adam > > > > > > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > > >> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > > >> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older > > >> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > > >> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the > > >> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would > > >> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good > > >> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets > > >> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > > >> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > > >> > > >> Glen > > >> > > >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > >> > > >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my > > >>> film > > >>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an > > >>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > > >>> > > >>> -Adam > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > > >>>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > > >>>> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > > >>>> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, > > >>>> buy a > > >>>> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > > >>>> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > > >>>> paper, software, and who knows what else... > > >>>> > > >>>> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR > > >>>> world. > > >>>> > > >>>> Thanks, > > >>>> Glen > > >>>> > > >>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > > >>>>>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I > > >>>>>> find > > >>>>>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > > >>>>>> DSLR > > >>>>>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within > > >>>>>> the > > >>>>>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > > >>>>>> like > > >>>>>> prints. Thus, I ask the supr
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
And assuming you are talking about 35mm film, *probably* a dedicated film scanner as opposed to a multi-purpose flatbed. Tom C. >From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:01:46 -0400 > >Hmm...that was my concern: decent neg/slide scans. I guess it is >better to go with separate units, a printer and dedicated scanner. > >Thanks, >Glen > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same > > print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only > > suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to > > get decent neg/slide scans out of them. > > > > -Adam > > > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The > >> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no > >> expert. > >> > >> Glen > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> > >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > >>> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > >>> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > >>> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > >>> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > >>> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much > >>> ink). > >>> > >>> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > >>> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > >>> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > >>> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > >>> > >>> -Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > >>>> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an > >>>> older > >>>> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > >>>> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and > >>>> go the > >>>> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What > >>>> would > >>>> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a > >>>> good > >>>> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older > >>>> inkjets > >>>> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > >>>> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > >>>> > >>>> Glen > >>>> > >>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. > >>>>> All my > >>>>> film > >>>>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed > >>>>> with an > >>>>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > >>>>> > >>>>> -Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>>>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I > >>>>>> tend > >>>>>> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > >>>>>> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, > >>>>>> buy a > >>>>>> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as > >>>>>> many > >>>>>> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > >>>>>> paper, software, and who knows what else... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR > >>>>>> world. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> Glen > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>>>>>> Wh
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Hmm...that was my concern: decent neg/slide scans. I guess it is better to go with separate units, a printer and dedicated scanner. Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same > print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only > suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to > get decent neg/slide scans out of them. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The >> Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no >> expert. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The >>> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features >>> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 >>> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson >>> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro >>> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much >>> ink). >>> >>> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of >>> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual >>> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work >>> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. > All my > film > work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed > with an > inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I >> tend >> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, >> buy a >> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as >> many >> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >> paper, software, and who knows what else... >> >> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >> world. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, >>> which I >>> suspect isn't quite true. >>> >>> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. >>> Scanners >>> are >>> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A >>> digital >>> camera produces digital images. >>> >>> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print >>> anything >>> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >>> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >>> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >>> >>> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer >>> with >>> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >>> system by default) will start up and download all the >>> photographs so >>> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected >>> printer >>> via >>> a print service on the internet. >>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Ni
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I would avoid investing in a scanner at this point. I would estimate that about nineteen out of twenty film users who have tried digital stuck with it. Yes, a few have gone back to film. But unless fine-art BW photography is your ultimate goal, in the long run you'll spend less and do more with digital. Paul -- Original message -- From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The > Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. > > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > > > For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > > higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > > (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > > myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > > Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > > models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). > > > > For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > > Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > > III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > > on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > > > > -Adam > > > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > >> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older > >> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > >> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the > >> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would > >> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good > >> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets > >> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > >> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > >> > >> Glen > >> > >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> > >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my > >>> film > >>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an > >>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > >>> > >>> -Adam > >>> > >>> > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, > buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR > world. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I > >> find > >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > >> DSLR > >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within > >> the > >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > >> like > >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does > >> one > >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo > >> lab > >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > > You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, > > which I > > suspect isn't quite true. > > > > - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners > > are > > used to capture film and print images into digital images. A > > digital > > camera produces digital images. > > > > - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print > > anything > > else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an > > online print service having moved the image files from camera to > > computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. > > > > - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with > > its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple > > system by default) will start up and download all the > > photographs so > > you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer > > via > > a print service on the internet. > > > >> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the > >> D40 or > >> D50, I gather? > > A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions > > you > > are posing. If you already have
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to get decent neg/slide scans out of them. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The > Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. > > Glen > > On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The >> higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features >> (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 >> myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson >> Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro >> models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). >> >> For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of >> Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual >> III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work >> on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point >>> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older >>> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive >>> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the >>> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would >>> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good >>> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets >>> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian >>> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. >>> >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, > buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR > world. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >>> find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >>> DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >>> the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >>> like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does >>> one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo >>> lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, >> which I >> suspect isn't quite true. >> >> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners >> are >> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A >> digital >> camera produces digital images. >> >> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print >> anything >> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >> >> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with >> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >> system by default) will start up and download all the >> photographs so >> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer >> via >> a print service on the internet. >> >>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the >>> D40 or >>> D50, I gather? >> A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions >> you >> are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense >> to buy >> a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax >> lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy >> it ... >> they all work better than the m
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
No problem. Sometimes I'm cranky. :-) I think Chapter 2 in the second link probably answers your question pretty well. Tom C. >From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:31:54 -0400 > >Thank you, Tom. I was looking for brief answers to my questions, and >that is why I made the post to this mailing list. I realize, >however, that more detailed information and analysis is obtainable. > >Glen > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Tom C wrote: > > > No. I'm not offended, but a little surprised. Asking a question > > like 'how > > does one convert the 1's and 0's to a printed image' is sort of > > like asking > > 'what chemical reactions enable film to be processed and printed'? > > > > Sure the question is an honest question. But there are reams of > > books, > > other printed information, and online that all explain the process > > (both > > digital and film). To ask the question here seems to imply (at > > least to me) > > that the other avenues to gathering knowledge haven't been > > explored. Even a > > basic Intoduction to Photography book that was released in the last > > five > > years would have a chapter, probably telling you as much or more > > than you > > would want to know. The process has not changed much in 5 years. > > Assuming > > you want a non-technical answer it would be 'the same way you > > printed images > > from film, just take the media to your photo processor'. > > > > I guess my point is, that the information is already available out > > there for > > you, in a far more concise, accurate, and complete form, than the > > answers > > you might receive from asking a mailing list. > > > > For instance: > > > > http://www.shortcourses.com/guide/ > > > > and more to the point possibly... > > > > http://www.shortcourses.com/display/ > > > > Tom C. > > > > > >> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:41:09 -0400 > >> > >> Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended > >> you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I > >> had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among > >> the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances > >> so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are > >> often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo > >> kiosks, but have never used one. > >> > >> Glen > >> > >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: > >> > >>>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>>> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > >>>> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 > >>>> > >>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>>>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > >>>>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" > >>>>> DSLR > >>>>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > >>>>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to > >>>>> like > >>>>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how > >>>>> does one > >>>>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > >>>>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > >>>>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > >>>>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > >>>> > >>>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, > >>>> which I > >>>> suspect isn't quite true. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? > >>> Wikipedia? > >>> Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) >
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Tom. I was looking for brief answers to my questions, and that is why I made the post to this mailing list. I realize, however, that more detailed information and analysis is obtainable. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Tom C wrote: > No. I'm not offended, but a little surprised. Asking a question > like 'how > does one convert the 1's and 0's to a printed image' is sort of > like asking > 'what chemical reactions enable film to be processed and printed'? > > Sure the question is an honest question. But there are reams of > books, > other printed information, and online that all explain the process > (both > digital and film). To ask the question here seems to imply (at > least to me) > that the other avenues to gathering knowledge haven't been > explored. Even a > basic Intoduction to Photography book that was released in the last > five > years would have a chapter, probably telling you as much or more > than you > would want to know. The process has not changed much in 5 years. > Assuming > you want a non-technical answer it would be 'the same way you > printed images > from film, just take the media to your photo processor'. > > I guess my point is, that the information is already available out > there for > you, in a far more concise, accurate, and complete form, than the > answers > you might receive from asking a mailing list. > > For instance: > > http://www.shortcourses.com/guide/ > > and more to the point possibly... > > http://www.shortcourses.com/display/ > > Tom C. > > >> From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:41:09 -0400 >> >> Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended >> you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I >> had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among >> the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances >> so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are >> often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo >> kiosks, but have never used one. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: >> >>>> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >>>> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 >>>> >>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>>>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>>>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >>>>> DSLR >>>>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>>>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >>>>> like >>>>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how >>>>> does one >>>>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>>>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>>>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>>>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>>> >>>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, >>>> which I >>>> suspect isn't quite true. >>>> >>> >>> Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? >>> Wikipedia? >>> Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) >>> >>> Tom C. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>> and follow the directions. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Your words, not mine. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:39:32 -0700 > >So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much >something costs. >It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. > >G > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D will > > probably cost under $600. > > > >> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. > >> Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) > >> > >>> Go with the Nikon. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
No. I'm not offended, but a little surprised. Asking a question like 'how does one convert the 1's and 0's to a printed image' is sort of like asking 'what chemical reactions enable film to be processed and printed'? Sure the question is an honest question. But there are reams of books, other printed information, and online that all explain the process (both digital and film). To ask the question here seems to imply (at least to me) that the other avenues to gathering knowledge haven't been explored. Even a basic Intoduction to Photography book that was released in the last five years would have a chapter, probably telling you as much or more than you would want to know. The process has not changed much in 5 years. Assuming you want a non-technical answer it would be 'the same way you printed images from film, just take the media to your photo processor'. I guess my point is, that the information is already available out there for you, in a far more concise, accurate, and complete form, than the answers you might receive from asking a mailing list. For instance: http://www.shortcourses.com/guide/ and more to the point possibly... http://www.shortcourses.com/display/ Tom C. >From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:41:09 -0400 > >Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended >you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I >had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among >the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances >so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are >often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo >kiosks, but have never used one. > >Glen > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: > > >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 > >> > >> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > >> > >> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I > >> suspect isn't quite true. > >> > > > > Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? > > Wikipedia? > > Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > > and follow the directions. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). > > For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point >> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older >> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive >> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the >> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would >> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good >> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets >> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian >> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my >>> film >>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an >>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >> find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >> DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >> the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >> like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does >> one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo >> lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, > which I > suspect isn't quite true. > > - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners > are > used to capture film and print images into digital images. A > digital > camera produces digital images. > > - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print > anything > else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an > online print service having moved the image files from camera to > computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. > > - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with > its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple > system by default) will start up and download all the > photographs so > you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer > via > a print service on the internet. > >> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the >> D40 or >> D50, I gather? > A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions > you > are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense > to buy > a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax > lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy > it ... > they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. > > 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 >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>> and follow the directio
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
So ... By your comment, the only thing that's important is how much something costs. It's one way of looking at the world, I guess. G On Sep 26, 2007, at 8:00 AM, Tom C wrote: > There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D will > probably cost under $600. > >> At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. >> Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) >> >>> Go with the Nikon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo kiosks, but have never used one. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: >> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >> >> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I >> suspect isn't quite true. >> > > Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? > Wikipedia? > Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) > > Tom C. > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Tom, I'm guessing you haven't used the K100D or D50. The K100D's AF is distinctly faster than the D50 or D40's AF. Camera operations about as responsive between the two cameras, but the rear LCD UI is less responsive than the Nikons. -Adam Tom C wrote: > It's hard to say what camera is the right way to go for someone buying a > first DSLR. Personally the Nikons and Canons feel more responsive > (especially AF) when I handle them. > > It's still to early to know where Pentax is heading under Hoya's wing. > Both Pentax and Canon of course have announced and are releasing or > released new mid and high end models. Nothing new from Pentax yet, > though it could hardly be expected. > > At this point in time I'd say if one was going to buy a Pentax DSLR, and > unless budget was the major issue, go with the K10D. At around $649, > it's half what a *ist D cost brand new, and it will not get long in the > tooth quite as fast as the 6MP models, which is why they're about ready > to start including free coupons for them in boxes of Cracker Jack. > > > Tom C. > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:35:30 -0400 >> >> Since whoever put the sensor into the camera body is beside the point of >> my statement, I'm just a bit nonplussed. (Which sounds a awkward now >> that I read it but what the heck). >> >> Tom C wrote: >> > Why not? >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > >> >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:14:00 -0400 >> >> >> >> What??? >> >> >> >> Tom C wrote: >> >> > Go with the Nikon. >> >> > >> >> > Tom C. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> >> >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 >> >> >> >> >> >> You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you >> >> change >> >> >> the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just >> >> without >> >> >> the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W >> >> film and >> >> >> go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real >> >> love), >> >> >> but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a >> decent >> >> >> printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm >> >> isn't >> >> >> exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor >> >> >> sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain >> >> control. >> >> >> >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >> >> > What a timely post, Larry! >> >> >> > >> >> >> > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >> find >> >> >> > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >> DSLR >> >> >> > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >> the >> >> >> > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >> like >> >> >> > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how >> does one >> >> >> > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> >> >> > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> >> >> > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo >> lab >> >> >> > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> >> >> > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> >> D50, I >> >> >> > gather? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I welcome any and
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
There's really no right or wrong. If one waits 6 months a K10D will probably cost under $600. Tom C. >From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:51:21 -0700 > >At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. >Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) > >G > >On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Tom C wrote: > > > Go with the Nikon. > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >PDML@pdml.net >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
It's hard to say what camera is the right way to go for someone buying a first DSLR. Personally the Nikons and Canons feel more responsive (especially AF) when I handle them. It's still to early to know where Pentax is heading under Hoya's wing. Both Pentax and Canon of course have announced and are releasing or released new mid and high end models. Nothing new from Pentax yet, though it could hardly be expected. At this point in time I'd say if one was going to buy a Pentax DSLR, and unless budget was the major issue, go with the K10D. At around $649, it's half what a *ist D cost brand new, and it will not get long in the tooth quite as fast as the 6MP models, which is why they're about ready to start including free coupons for them in boxes of Cracker Jack. Tom C. From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:35:30 -0400 Since whoever put the sensor into the camera body is beside the point of my statement, I'm just a bit nonplussed. (Which sounds a awkward now that I read it but what the heck). Tom C wrote: > Why not? > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:14:00 -0400 >> >> What??? >> >> Tom C wrote: >> > Go with the Nikon. >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > >> >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 >> >> >> >> You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you >> change >> >> the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just >> without >> >> the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W >> film and >> >> go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real >> love), >> >> but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent >> >> printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm >> isn't >> >> exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor >> >> sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain >> control. >> >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >> > What a timely post, Larry! >> >> > >> >> > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> >> > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> >> > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> >> > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> >> > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> >> > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> >> > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> >> > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> >> > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> >> > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> D50, I >> >> > gather? >> >> > >> >> > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Glen >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the >> K100D >> >> >> as "best >> >> >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> >> >> >> >> Answer >> >> >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you >> take and >> >> >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact >> point-and- >> >> >> shoot, >> >> >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> >> >> I&
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
At last. Solid, direct, simple advice. Possibly wrong, but who's counting for accuracy? ];-) G On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:47 AM, Tom C wrote: > Go with the Nikon. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Since whoever put the sensor into the camera body is beside the point of my statement, I'm just a bit nonplussed. (Which sounds a awkward now that I read it but what the heck). Tom C wrote: > Why not? > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:14:00 -0400 >> >> What??? >> >> Tom C wrote: >> > Go with the Nikon. >> > >> > Tom C. >> > >> > >> >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 >> >> >> >> You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you >> change >> >> the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just >> without >> >> the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W >> film and >> >> go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real >> love), >> >> but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent >> >> printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm >> isn't >> >> exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor >> >> sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain >> control. >> >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >> > What a timely post, Larry! >> >> > >> >> > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> >> > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> >> > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> >> > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> >> > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> >> > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> >> > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> >> > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> >> > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> >> > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> D50, I >> >> > gather? >> >> > >> >> > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> > >> >> > Thanks, >> >> > Glen >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the >> K100D >> >> >> as "best >> >> >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> >> >> >> >> Answer >> >> >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you >> take and >> >> >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact >> point-and- >> >> >> shoot, >> >> >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> >> >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> >> >> seemed >> >> >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple >> compact >> >> >> camera >> >> >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital >> SLR is >> >> >> right >> >> >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> >> >> >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> >> >> take into >> >> >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> >> >> variety of >> >> >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the >> choice of >> >> >> professional photographers for years. >> >> >> >> >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above &g
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Why not? Tom C. From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:14:00 -0400 What??? Tom C wrote: > Go with the Nikon. > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 >> >> You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you change >> the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just without >> the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W film and >> go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real love), >> but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent >> printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm isn't >> exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor >> sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain control. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> > What a timely post, Larry! >> > >> > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >> > gather? >> > >> > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Glen >> > >> > >> > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >> >> as "best >> >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> >> >> Answer >> >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >> >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >> >> shoot, >> >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> >> seemed >> >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >> >> camera >> >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >> >> right >> >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> >> take into >> >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> >> variety of >> >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >> >> professional photographers for years. >> >> >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >> >> some >> >> perspective. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >> >> on a >> >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >> >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> >> significantly >> >> more affordable. >> >> >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >> >> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >> >> camera's >> >> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >> >> While you >> >> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >> >> speeds with >> >> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >> >> lot of >> >> blurry shots. >> >> >> >> Since the
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point > something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older > one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive > cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the > scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would > about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good > deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets > I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian > pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. > > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my >> film >> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an >> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. >> >> -Adam >> >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend >>> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >>> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a >>> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many >>> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >>> paper, software, and who knows what else... >>> >>> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >>> world. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does > one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. > And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or > D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. 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 >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >> and follow the directions. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
What??? Tom C wrote: > Go with the Nikon. > > Tom C. > > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >> Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 >> >> You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you change >> the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just without >> the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W film and >> go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real love), >> but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent >> printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm isn't >> exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor >> sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain control. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> > What a timely post, Larry! >> > >> > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >> > gather? >> > >> > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Glen >> > >> > >> > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> > >> > >> >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >> >> as "best >> >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> >> >> Answer >> >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >> >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >> >> shoot, >> >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> >> seemed >> >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >> >> camera >> >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >> >> right >> >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> >> take into >> >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> >> variety of >> >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >> >> professional photographers for years. >> >> >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >> >> some >> >> perspective. >> >> >> >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >> >> on a >> >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >> >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> >> significantly >> >> more affordable. >> >> >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >> >> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >> >> camera's >> >> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >> >> While you >> >> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >> >> speeds with >> >> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >> >> lot of >> >> blurry shots. >> >> >> >> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >> >> works with >> >> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >> >> >> >> >> >> In addition to
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
>From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR >Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 > >Glen Tortorella wrote: > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > >You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I >suspect isn't quite true. > Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? Wikipedia? Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Go with the Nikon. Tom C. From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:21:46 -0400 You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you change the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just without the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W film and go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real love), but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm isn't exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain control. Glen Tortorella wrote: > What a timely post, Larry! > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I > gather? > > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > > Thanks, > Glen > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > > >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >> as "best >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> Answer >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >> shoot, >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> seemed >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >> camera >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >> right >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> take into >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> variety of >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >> professional photographers for years. >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >> some >> perspective. >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >> on a >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> significantly >> more affordable. >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >> camera's >> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >> While you >> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >> speeds with >> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >> lot of >> blurry shots. >> >> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >> works with >> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >> >> >> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers >> plenty for >> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. >> The >> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on >> one of >> the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick >> out far >> from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who >> like to >> travel. >> >> Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works >> well if >> you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries >> before a >> photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable >> batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). >> >> You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my > film > work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an > inkjet. It works pretty well for me. > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend >> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a >> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many >> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >> paper, software, and who knows what else... >> >> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >> world. >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I >>> suspect isn't quite true. >>> >>> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners >>> are >>> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital >>> camera produces digital images. >>> >>> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print >>> anything >>> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >>> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >>> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >>> >>> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with >>> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >>> system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so >>> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer >>> via >>> a print service on the internet. >>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? >>> A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions >>> you >>> are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy >>> a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax >>> lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... >>> they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. >>> >>> 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 > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
;) lol! I don't own a camera bag, actually, I just run around with my camera, a roll of film inside, and my other lens in a case with a strap. Maybe another roll of film in my pocket. Simple is good. rg2 On 9/26/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Rebekah wrote: > >> Why do you need a ~huge~ photo bag? > > > > film. ;) > > Hmm. I'm using the same Domke F5XB bag I used to carry my Nikon FM > and Leica M6 in... > Camera, two/three lenses, and a half dozen rolls of film fit without > too much problem. > > G > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:31 PM, Rebekah wrote: >> Why do you need a ~huge~ photo bag? > > film. ;) Hmm. I'm using the same Domke F5XB bag I used to carry my Nikon FM and Leica M6 in... Camera, two/three lenses, and a half dozen rolls of film fit without too much problem. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
P. J. Alling wrote: > I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital > camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer > system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... Same here. Digital capture is /so/ much less hassle than scanning film. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
>Why do you need a ~huge~ photo bag? film. ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Rebekah wrote: > >> Some of those old lenses still work pretty darned well. > > > > It's all manual in my ~huge~ photo bag. > > Why do you need a ~huge~ photo bag? > I'm pretty content with a couple of small lenses and a camera body. > > G > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:29 PM, Rebekah wrote: >> Some of those old lenses still work pretty darned well. > > It's all manual in my ~huge~ photo bag. Why do you need a ~huge~ photo bag? I'm pretty content with a couple of small lenses and a camera body. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
In a message dated 9/25/2007 4:05:08 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen === I got the K100D and like it (though I sort of wish I'd waited a month for the K100D super, but I didn't know it was coming out). It is very like the DS but with Anti-Shake. I got it at discount, when it was discounted, and felt it was a lot of bang for the buck. Marnie aka Doe - Warning: I am now filtering my email, so you may be censored. ** See what's new at http://www.aol.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Easy for you to say... David Savage wrote: > At 09:50 AM 26/09/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> If you let it become a financial black >> hole, don't blame the technology. ;-) >> > > Yeah. > > Blame Canada. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I used to shoot about half a dozen rolls of film a week. The amount I've saved on film and processing since buying my first DSLR has paid for it five times over. However, even with film, I was doing my own printing. If you're going to get serious about photography, you have to maintain a level of control. Or you have to be wealthy enough to engage the services of top shelf printers. Paul On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:40 PM, Glen Tortorella wrote: > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >> >> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I >> suspect isn't quite true. >> >> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are >> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital >> camera produces digital images. >> >> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything >> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >> >> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with >> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >> system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so >> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via >> a print service on the internet. >> >>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >>> D50, I gather? >> >> A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you >> are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy >> a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax >> lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... >> they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. >> >> 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 > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
At 09:50 AM 26/09/2007, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >If you let it become a financial black >hole, don't blame the technology. ;-) Yeah. Blame Canada. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
- Original Message - From: "Glen Tortorella" Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. The upside of digital is that your film costs decrease rather dramatically, and while not the ideal way to do it, one can shoot jpegs and just use commercially available photo labs. Even most of the department store labs such as Wal-Mart can do a decent job of printing digital, often better than they print film, especially since optical printing is pretty much no longer available. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I >> suspect isn't quite true. >> >> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are >> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital >> camera produces digital images. >> >> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything >> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >> >> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with >> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >> system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so >> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via >> a print service on the internet. >> >>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >>> D50, I gather? >> A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you >> are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy >> a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax >> lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... >> they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. >> >> 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Printing photos via computer/web/printer costs no more than having prints made at the photofinisher. It costs less in many cases, presuming a minimum level of competent computer/printer equipment (which you already have, it seems). Whether you want to spend more to get more out of a digital camera is up to you. For my use, a digital camera's reusable storage media has cost me far less than was I was paying for film, processing C41, and B&W processing chemistry. And proves a HUGE savings in time. But again, it's completely up to you to manage what you want to spend and at what level you want to do photography. Photography has always been an expensive endeavor. If you let it become a financial black hole, don't blame the technology. ;-) Godfrey On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:40 PM, Glen Tortorella wrote: > Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend > to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the > surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a > rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many > prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, > paper, software, and who knows what else... > > Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Though I am replacing my Second Version Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm with the Third version, Curse You Mark Roberts, (and spending too much money doing it damn damn damn mutter mutter mutter...) P. J. Alling wrote: > I'm still using most of my manual lenses, (for some of them there are no > "modern" replacements. > > Rebekah wrote: > >> oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) >> >> rg2 >> >> On 9/25/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital >>> camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer >>> system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... >>> >>> Rebekah wrote: >>> >>> > Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > > > just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has > ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF > lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is > outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better > battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly > larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the > Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of > compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with > dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far > smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. > > -Adam > Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the > most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > > > >> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >> Favorably. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >> >> >>> What a timely post, Larry! >>> >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >>> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >>> gather? >>> >>> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as "best begommer budget DSLR" Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. >>>
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I'm still using most of my manual lenses, (for some of them there are no "modern" replacements. Rebekah wrote: > oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) > > rg2 > > On 9/25/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital >> camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer >> system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... >> >> Rebekah wrote: >> Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself >>> with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, >>> special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well >>> as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby >>> store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone >>> here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with >>> looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the >>> price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price >>> tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) >>> >>> >>> rg2 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > Favorably. > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > > >> What a timely post, Larry! >> >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >> gather? >> >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >>> as "best >>> begommer budget DSLR" >>> >>> >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >>> >>> Answer >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >>> shoot, >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >>> seemed >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >>> camera >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >>> right >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >>> >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >>> take into >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >>> variety of >>> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >>> professional photographers for years. >>> >>> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >>> some >>> perspective. >>> >>> >>> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >>> on a >>> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >>> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >>> significantly >>> more affordable. >>> >>> The Pentax K100D is the
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
>Some of those old lenses still work pretty darned well. It's all manual in my ~huge~ photo bag. rg2 On 9/25/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Glen Tortorella" > Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > > > > Wow, Rebekah, you have hit the nail on the head here. Once this > > discussion got going, I started thinking the same thing: enablement > > city! I fear of the $$$... > > > That little web page of my dogs running up and down the beach in BC, the > pictures were all shot with a Pentax K105/2.8 lens. > Some of those old lenses still work pretty darned well. > > William Robb > > > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Rebekah wrote: > > > >> oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit and a couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer model (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, ISO3200, better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the first consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: > This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to > the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were > they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the > line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher > model. > > Thanks, > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > >> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has >> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF >> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is >> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better >> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a >> slightly >> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the >> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of >> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with >> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far >> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. >> >> -Adam >> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the >> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >>> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >>> Favorably. >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D > as "best > begommer budget DSLR" > > > Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? > > Answer > You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you > take and > capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- > shoot, > but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. > I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often > seemed > silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact > camera > for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is > right > around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. > > I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you > take into > account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider > variety of > shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of > professional photographers for years. > > Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into > some > perspective. > > > Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner > on a > budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D > Super, the > original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it > significantly > more affordable. > > The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that > also > includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the > camera's > sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. > While you > can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter > speeds with > plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a > lot of > blurry shots. > > Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it > works with > every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. > > > In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megap
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
- Original Message - From: "Glen Tortorella" Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR > Wow, Rebekah, you have hit the nail on the head here. Once this > discussion got going, I started thinking the same thing: enablement > city! I fear of the $$$... That little web page of my dogs running up and down the beach in BC, the pictures were all shot with a Pentax K105/2.8 lens. Some of those old lenses still work pretty darned well. William Robb > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Rebekah wrote: > >> oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > > You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I > suspect isn't quite true. > > - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are > used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital > camera produces digital images. > > - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything > else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an > online print service having moved the image files from camera to > computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. > > - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with > its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple > system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so > you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via > a print service on the internet. > >> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> D50, I gather? > > A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you > are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy > a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax > lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... > they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. > > 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Glen Tortorella wrote: > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. > And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or > D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher model. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has > ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF > lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is > outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better > battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a > slightly > larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the > Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of > compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with > dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far > smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. > > -Adam > Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the > most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: >> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >> Favorably. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> What a timely post, Larry! >>> >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >>> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >>> gather? >>> >>> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >>> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as "best begommer budget DSLR" Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. The compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on one of the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick out far from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who like to travel. Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works well if you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries before a photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge).
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Wow, Rebekah, you have hit the nail on the head here. Once this discussion got going, I started thinking the same thing: enablement city! I fear of the $$$... Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Rebekah wrote: > oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) > > rg2 > > On 9/25/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital >> camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my >> computer >> system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... >> >> Rebekah wrote: Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> >>> just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself >>> with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, >>> special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as >>> well >>> as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby >>> store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone >>> here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with >>> looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the >>> price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price >>> tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away >>> dude! ;) >>> >>> >>> rg2 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > Favorably. > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> What a timely post, Larry! >> >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >> find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >> DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >> the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >> like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how >> does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo >> lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or >> D50, I >> gather? >> >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> >> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the >>> K100D >>> as "best >>> begommer budget DSLR" >>> >>> >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >>> >>> Answer >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you >>> take and >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact >>> point-and- >>> shoot, >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >>> seemed >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple >>> compact >>> camera >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital >>> SLR is >>> right >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >>> >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >>> take into >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >>> variety of >>> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the >>> choice of >>> professional photographers for years. >>> >>> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question >>> above into >>> some >>> perspective. >>> >>> >>> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a >>> beginner >>> on a
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital > camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer > system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... > > Rebekah wrote: > >> Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > >> > > > > just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself > > with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, > > special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well > > as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby > > store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone > > here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with > > looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the > > price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price > > tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) > > > > > > rg2 > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has > >> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF > >> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is > >> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better > >> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly > >> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the > >> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of > >> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with > >> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far > >> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. > >> > >> -Adam > >> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the > >> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. > >> > >> > >> P. J. Alling wrote: > >> > >>> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > >>> Favorably. > >>> > >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: > >>> > What a timely post, Larry! > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I > gather? > > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > > Thanks, > Glen > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > > > > > Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D > > as "best > > begommer budget DSLR" > > > > > > Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? > > > > Answer > > You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and > > capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- > > shoot, > > but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. > > I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often > > seemed > > silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact > > camera > > for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is > > right > > around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. > > > > I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you > > take into > > account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider > > variety of > > shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of > > professional photographers for years. > > > > Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into > > some > > perspective. > > > > > > Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner > > on a > > budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the > > original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it > > significantly > > more affordable. > > > > The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also > > includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the > > camera's > > sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... Rebekah wrote: >> Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> > > just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself > with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, > special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well > as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby > store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone > here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with > looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the > price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price > tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) > > > rg2 > > > > > > On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has >> ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF >> lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is >> outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better >> battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly >> larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the >> Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of >> compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with >> dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far >> smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. >> >> -Adam >> Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the >> most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. >> >> >> P. J. Alling wrote: >> >>> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >>> Favorably. >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>> What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D > as "best > begommer budget DSLR" > > > Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? > > Answer > You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and > capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- > shoot, > but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. > I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often > seemed > silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact > camera > for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is > right > around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. > > I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you > take into > account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider > variety of > shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of > professional photographers for years. > > Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into > some > perspective. > > > Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner > on a > budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the > original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it > significantly > more affordable. > > The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also > includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the > camera's > sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. > While you > can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter > speeds with > plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a > lot of > blurry shots. > > Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it > works with > every Pentax l
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
>Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has > ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF > lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is > outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better > battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly > larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the > Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of > compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with > dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far > smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. > > -Adam > Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the > most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. > > > P. J. Alling wrote: > > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > > Favorably. > > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> What a timely post, Larry! > >> > >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I > >> gather? > >> > >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Glen > >> > >> > >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D > >>> as "best > >>> begommer budget DSLR" > >>> > >>> > >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? > >>> > >>> Answer > >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and > >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- > >>> shoot, > >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. > >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often > >>> seemed > >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact > >>> camera > >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is > >>> right > >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. > >>> > >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you > >>> take into > >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider > >>> variety of > >>> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of > >>> professional photographers for years. > >>> > >>> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into > >>> some > >>> perspective. > >>> > >>> > >>> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner > >>> on a > >>> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the > >>> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it > >>> significantly > >>> more affordable. > >>> > >>> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also > >>> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the > >>> camera's > >>> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. > >>> While you > >>> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter > >>> speeds with > >>> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a > >>> lot of > >>> blurry shots. > >>> > >>> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it > >>> works with > >>> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. > >>> > >>> > >>> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers > >>> plenty for > >>> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. > >>> The > >>> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on > >>> one of
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > Favorably. > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> What a timely post, Larry! >> >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >> gather? >> >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >>> as "best >>> begommer budget DSLR" >>> >>> >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >>> >>> Answer >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >>> shoot, >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >>> seemed >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >>> camera >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >>> right >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >>> >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >>> take into >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >>> variety of >>> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >>> professional photographers for years. >>> >>> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >>> some >>> perspective. >>> >>> >>> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >>> on a >>> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >>> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >>> significantly >>> more affordable. >>> >>> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >>> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >>> camera's >>> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >>> While you >>> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >>> speeds with >>> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >>> lot of >>> blurry shots. >>> >>> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >>> works with >>> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >>> >>> >>> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers >>> plenty for >>> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. >>> The >>> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on >>> one of >>> the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick >>> out far >>> from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who >>> like to >>> travel. >>> >>> Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works >>> well if >>> you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries >>> before a >>> photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable >>> batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). >>> >>> You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for >>> less than >>> $400 without a lens. >>> >>> This second option works well if you already have some Pentax >>> lenses from a >>> film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick >>> up some >>> used Pentax lenses without paying full price. >>> >>> >>> >>> Larry in Dallas >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>>
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Note that most 'Photo' printers up to 8.5x11 have card readers these days and can function as printers for your PC or dedicated photo printers. -Adam Doug Franklin wrote: > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> Thanks, Doug, for the detailed response. > > You're welcome. I probably forgot some options. Oh yeah, option (4) > would be "have a buddy that does his own digital printing and trade him > beer for prints of your shots". :-) > >> I like options (1) and >> (1a); however, I do not discern any difference between these two >> options. It seems like in either case I would just buy a printer. >> Is there any other difference? > > (1a) is a subset of (1). > > (1a) is talking about printers that /only/ print photos, and the > inexpensive ones often top out at 5" x 7" prints. They tend to take > "all in one" ink cartridges and some even have packaged paper cassettes. > The emphasis is on low entry cost and nearly-one-button ease of use, > not control or, to a certain degree, quality. They can eat you up on > running costs just like the cheap inkjet computer printers. > > (1) is talking about more expensive and more flexible printers that you > must connect to a computer to use. These usually go up to at least A4 > or 8.5" x 11" paper size. They can have from one to eight or nine ink > cartridges. You can put any of dozens of cut sheet paper types in them. > You can control the color better. > > The difference between (1) and (1a) is sort of like the difference > between using an SLR and a covey of lenses versus using a point and > shoot camera. :-) > >> Also, is there a cable that runs >> between the printer and camera body? > > Maybe, maybe not, depending on the printer and camera body in question. > For some of them, you just take the memory card out of the camera and > plug it into the printer and press a few buttons and /voila/, prints! > Or sometimes you connect the camera to the printer via a USB cable or > something. It just depends on the devices in question. > > Same things apply to the camera and the computer. Most folks around the > PDML seem to take the card out and use a card reader on the computer to > get the photos into the hard drive, myself included. Some DSLRs can > also be connected to the 'puter via a specialized USB or Firewire cable > that comes with the camera and you can extract the photos from the > camera that way. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thanks, Doug, for the detailed response. You're welcome. I probably forgot some options. Oh yeah, option (4) would be "have a buddy that does his own digital printing and trade him beer for prints of your shots". :-) > I like options (1) and > (1a); however, I do not discern any difference between these two > options. It seems like in either case I would just buy a printer. > Is there any other difference? (1a) is a subset of (1). (1a) is talking about printers that /only/ print photos, and the inexpensive ones often top out at 5" x 7" prints. They tend to take "all in one" ink cartridges and some even have packaged paper cassettes. The emphasis is on low entry cost and nearly-one-button ease of use, not control or, to a certain degree, quality. They can eat you up on running costs just like the cheap inkjet computer printers. (1) is talking about more expensive and more flexible printers that you must connect to a computer to use. These usually go up to at least A4 or 8.5" x 11" paper size. They can have from one to eight or nine ink cartridges. You can put any of dozens of cut sheet paper types in them. You can control the color better. The difference between (1) and (1a) is sort of like the difference between using an SLR and a covey of lenses versus using a point and shoot camera. :-) > Also, is there a cable that runs > between the printer and camera body? Maybe, maybe not, depending on the printer and camera body in question. For some of them, you just take the memory card out of the camera and plug it into the printer and press a few buttons and /voila/, prints! Or sometimes you connect the camera to the printer via a USB cable or something. It just depends on the devices in question. Same things apply to the camera and the computer. Most folks around the PDML seem to take the card out and use a card reader on the computer to get the photos into the hard drive, myself included. Some DSLRs can also be connected to the 'puter via a specialized USB or Firewire cable that comes with the camera and you can extract the photos from the camera that way. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Very well, it's a nice portrait length on a Pentax dslr. It should give very good results. Glen Tortorella wrote: > Thanks, P.J. Would my A 50/2 work with the Pentax digital bodies-- > i.e. the K100D? > > Glen > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:23 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > >> Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? >> Favorably. >> >> Glen Tortorella wrote: >> >>> What a timely post, Larry! >>> >>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >>> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >>> gather? >>> >>> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Glen >>> >>> >>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >>> >>> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as "best begommer budget DSLR" Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. The compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on one of the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick out far from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who like to travel. Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works well if you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries before a photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for less than $400 without a lens. This second option works well if you already have some Pentax lenses from a film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick up some used Pentax lenses without paying full price. Larry in Dallas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >> -- >> Remember, it’s pillage then burn. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, Doug, for the detailed response. I like options (1) and (1a); however, I do not discern any difference between these two options. It seems like in either case I would just buy a printer. Is there any other difference? Also, is there a cable that runs between the printer and camera body? Thanks again, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Glen Tortorella wrote: > >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > > Several options: > > 1) A laser or inkjet printer that you own and you do your own > printing. > Doesn't necessarily require additional software beyond what comes > with > your operating system, but could benefit in some cases. Like Windows. > > 1a) "Dedicated" inkjet printers for the home. Plug in your memory > card, > use the menus on the printer to tell it how many of which ones, load > paper, wait for prints to come out. > > 2) Take your memory card to Walmart or local photo shop or one of the > other seventy bazillion places that have a "digital printing kiosk". > Plug in the memory card, tell it how many of which photos, and shortly > they pop out. > > 3) Any of a variety of Internet photo printing services (Google is > your > friend ... I can't remember the names of any of them at the moment). > Upload your photo file to their web site, give them money and a > mailing > address, wait for the mailman. > > Cheapest would be (2) or (3). Most control with best chance of a > "best > possible" print would be (1). > >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? > > Options (1a) and (2) don't require you have a computer but (1) and (3) > do. (3) also requires a high-speed Internet connection; you'll go > crazy > waiting for your photos to upload over a dial-up line. > > Scanner is unnecessary in all scenarios, unless you have film you want > to digitize. That's a whole 'nother discussion, though. > > Your iMac should be fine, I'd think, though I know virtually nothing > about any of the Macs. > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > 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: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, P.J. Would my A 50/2 work with the Pentax digital bodies-- i.e. the K100D? Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:23 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? > Favorably. > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> What a timely post, Larry! >> >> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find >> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR >> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the >> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like >> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one >> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab >> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, >> finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I >> gather? >> >> I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) >> >> Thanks, >> Glen >> >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: >> >> >>> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >>> as "best >>> begommer budget DSLR" >>> >>> >>> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >>> >>> Answer >>> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take >>> and >>> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >>> shoot, >>> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >>> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >>> seemed >>> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >>> camera >>> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >>> right >>> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >>> >>> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >>> take into >>> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >>> variety of >>> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >>> professional photographers for years. >>> >>> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >>> some >>> perspective. >>> >>> >>> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >>> on a >>> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, >>> the >>> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >>> significantly >>> more affordable. >>> >>> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >>> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >>> camera's >>> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >>> While you >>> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >>> speeds with >>> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >>> lot of >>> blurry shots. >>> >>> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >>> works with >>> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >>> >>> >>> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers >>> plenty for >>> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. >>> The >>> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on >>> one of >>> the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick >>> out far >>> from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who >>> like to >>> travel. >>> >>> Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works >>> well if >>> you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries >>> before a >>> photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion >>> rechargeable >>> batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). >>> >>> You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for >>> less than >>> $400 without a lens. >>> >>> This second option works well if you already have some Pentax >>> lenses from a >>> film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick >>> up some >>> used Pentax lenses without paying full price. >>> >>> >>> >>> Larry in Dallas >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Remember, it’s pillage then burn. > > > -- > 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: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
You change the 1s and 0s in a dslr into prints the same way you change the 1s and 0s in a scanned negative or slide into prints, just without the scanner. Personally if I had a darkroom I'd shoot more B&W film and go directly to a silver print, (I think Tri-X was my first real love), but baring that color printing, (and B&W conversions), with a decent printer reasonable software and a large sensor, (OK so 24mmX16mm isn't exactly huge, but it's much bigger than the vast majority of sensor sizes), is the best way to get reasonable quality and maintain control. Glen Tortorella wrote: > What a timely post, Larry! > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I > gather? > > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > > Thanks, > Glen > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > > >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >> as "best >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> Answer >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >> shoot, >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> seemed >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >> camera >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >> right >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> take into >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> variety of >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >> professional photographers for years. >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >> some >> perspective. >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >> on a >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> significantly >> more affordable. >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >> camera's >> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >> While you >> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >> speeds with >> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >> lot of >> blurry shots. >> >> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >> works with >> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >> >> >> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers >> plenty for >> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. >> The >> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on >> one of >> the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick >> out far >> from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who >> like to >> travel. >> >> Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works >> well if >> you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries >> before a >> photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable >> batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). >> >> You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for >> less than >> $400 without a lens. >> >> This second option works well if you already have some Pentax >> lenses from a >> film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick >> up some >> used Pentax lenses without paying full price. >> >> >> >> Larry in Dallas >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Glen Tortorella wrote: > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Several options: 1) A laser or inkjet printer that you own and you do your own printing. Doesn't necessarily require additional software beyond what comes with your operating system, but could benefit in some cases. Like Windows. 1a) "Dedicated" inkjet printers for the home. Plug in your memory card, use the menus on the printer to tell it how many of which ones, load paper, wait for prints to come out. 2) Take your memory card to Walmart or local photo shop or one of the other seventy bazillion places that have a "digital printing kiosk". Plug in the memory card, tell it how many of which photos, and shortly they pop out. 3) Any of a variety of Internet photo printing services (Google is your friend ... I can't remember the names of any of them at the moment). Upload your photo file to their web site, give them money and a mailing address, wait for the mailman. Cheapest would be (2) or (3). Most control with best chance of a "best possible" print would be (1). > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? Options (1a) and (2) don't require you have a computer but (1) and (3) do. (3) also requires a high-speed Internet connection; you'll go crazy waiting for your photos to upload over a dial-up line. Scanner is unnecessary in all scenarios, unless you have film you want to digitize. That's a whole 'nother discussion, though. Your iMac should be fine, I'd think, though I know virtually nothing about any of the Macs. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: > What a timely post, Larry! > > While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find > this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR > has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the > DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like > prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one > turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? > Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a > scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab > supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, > finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I > gather? > > I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) > > Thanks, > Glen > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > > >> Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D >> as "best >> begommer budget DSLR" >> >> >> Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? >> >> Answer >> You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and >> capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- >> shoot, >> but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. >> I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often >> seemed >> silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact >> camera >> for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is >> right >> around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. >> >> I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you >> take into >> account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider >> variety of >> shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of >> professional photographers for years. >> >> Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into >> some >> perspective. >> >> >> Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner >> on a >> budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the >> original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it >> significantly >> more affordable. >> >> The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also >> includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the >> camera's >> sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. >> While you >> can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter >> speeds with >> plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a >> lot of >> blurry shots. >> >> Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it >> works with >> every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. >> >> >> In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers >> plenty for >> anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. >> The >> compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on >> one of >> the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick >> out far >> from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who >> like to >> travel. >> >> Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works >> well if >> you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries >> before a >> photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable >> batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). >> >> You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for >> less than >> $400 without a lens. >> >> This second option works well if you already have some Pentax >> lenses from a >> film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick >> up some >> used Pentax lenses without paying full price. >> >> >> >> Larry in Dallas >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: > Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D > as "best > begommer budget DSLR" > > > Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? > > Answer > You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and > capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- > shoot, > but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. > I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often > seemed > silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact > camera > for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is > right > around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. > > I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you > take into > account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider > variety of > shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of > professional photographers for years. > > Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into > some > perspective. > > > Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner > on a > budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the > original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it > significantly > more affordable. > > The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also > includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the > camera's > sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. > While you > can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter > speeds with > plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a > lot of > blurry shots. > > Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it > works with > every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. > > > In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers > plenty for > anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. > The > compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on > one of > the specialized Pentax "pancake" lenses. These lenses don't stick > out far > from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who > like to > travel. > > Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works > well if > you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries > before a > photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable > batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). > > You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for > less than > $400 without a lens. > > This second option works well if you already have some Pentax > lenses from a > film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick > up some > used Pentax lenses without paying full price. > > > > Larry in Dallas > > > -- > 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: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
Hi, Jostein wrote: > > No, his camera never broke down. > Which is quite a good testimony, imo. I absolutely agree with that. Often you can hear of film cameras (even manual ones) expiring under the very humid and warm conditions of tropical rainforest. Would be interesting to know if he took any special precautions, although seeing him up to his navel in the river leads me to assume he didn't. mike
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
No, his camera never broke down. Which is quite a good testimony, imo. He had also an F5 and 180 rolls of film for backup, of which he took 2 rolls. He said he's planning another trip in 6 months, which will be digital only. Obviously a PJ that knows his trade and exploiting the potentials of his gear to the max. Most of the pictures he showed were crap, though. LOL. Jostein - Pictures at: http://oksne.net - - Original Message - From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:41 PM Subject: Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin > a friend of mine on our New Zealand trip in 2000 did it with only 1 square > meter of solar panels to charge his computer and radio batteries. since i > can't read the web page, did his cameras ever break down? i was near a power > source and was able to plug in. that was the first vacation i did with only > a digital camera and a portable computer. > > Herb > - Original Message - > From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 1:21 PM > Subject: Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin > > > > That's right, Herb. > > He had an amazing setup with a foldable 2 square meter solar panel that > > could charge both his nikon batteries and the laptop simultaneously. > Weired > > guy, though. > > > > Here's a shot taken by his assistant... > > > > http://www.biofoto.no/ostlandetny/ostlandsavdelingen.htm > > > > Jostein > >
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
a friend of mine on our New Zealand trip in 2000 did it with only 1 square meter of solar panels to charge his computer and radio batteries. since i can't read the web page, did his cameras ever break down? i was near a power source and was able to plug in. that was the first vacation i did with only a digital camera and a portable computer. Herb - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 1:21 PM Subject: Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin > That's right, Herb. > He had an amazing setup with a foldable 2 square meter solar panel that > could charge both his nikon batteries and the laptop simultaneously. Weired > guy, though. > > Here's a shot taken by his assistant... > > http://www.biofoto.no/ostlandetny/ostlandsavdelingen.htm > > Jostein
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
- Original Message - From: "Bob Walkden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > let's hope for his sake there were no candiru fish in that part of the > river. He was still walking...:-) On another occasion he had been attacked, though... > > Here's a shot taken by his assistant... > > > http://www.biofoto.no/ostlandetny/ostlandsavdelingen.htm > > > Jostein >
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
Hi, let's hope for his sake there were no candiru fish in that part of the river. -- Cheers, Bob "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies" Marx (G.) Saturday, December 20, 2003, 6:21:10 PM, you wrote: > That's right, Herb. > He had an amazing setup with a foldable 2 square meter solar panel that > could charge both his nikon batteries and the laptop simultaneously. Weired > guy, though. > Here's a shot taken by his assistant... > http://www.biofoto.no/ostlandetny/ostlandsavdelingen.htm > Jostein
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
I'll go for 24hours, as I'm feeling generous. mike Jostein wrote: > > Folks, > > A week ago I saw a projected show by a Norwegian PJ who went to the Amazon > basin to shoot a feature on nutty norwegian anglers. Miles away from the > nearest power socket. > > How long do you think his Nikon D1x lasted? > > If anyone wanna bet, I'll be the bookmaker. :-) > > Cheers, > Jostein > -
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
On 19/12/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: >A week ago I saw a projected show by a Norwegian PJ who went to the Amazon >basin to shoot a feature on nutty norwegian anglers. Miles away from the >nearest power socket. > >How long do you think his Nikon D1x lasted? How many charged battery packs did he take? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin
i doubt power was the problem with solar powered chargers. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 4:46 PM Subject: Digital SLR in the Amazon basin > Folks, > > A week ago I saw a projected show by a Norwegian PJ who went to the Amazon > basin to shoot a feature on nutty norwegian anglers. Miles away from the > nearest power socket. > > How long do you think his Nikon D1x lasted? > > If anyone wanna bet, I'll be the bookmaker. :-)
Re: Digital SLR
John, You should take somewhere, have the Nikon removed, have an expert put on Pentax and then take pictures of it and post them to web sites. People will go nuts ;-) - Original Message - From: "John Mustarde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Digital SLR > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:47:30 +, you wrote: > > >The Pentax DSLR will be a mighty temptation, if only to have that > >glorious word 'Pentax' emblazoned on the front. > > My D100 sports the wonderful Pentax-logo neck strap from a PZ1p. Much > better looking than that Halloween-costume "Nikon Digital" > black-and-yellow thing they give you with the camera. > > I figure I'm only using the Nikon camera to get pixels, which are in > fact Pentax pixels due to the Pentax strap supporting the whole > system. VBG. > > I still think Pentax has one great opportunity here - introduce a DSLR > with the good features of a D100 or D60, but with two important > improvements: better autofocus and significantly lower price. Oh, yeh > - and 1/250 flash sync. > > -- > John Mustarde > www.photolin.com >
Re: Digital SLR
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 21:47:30 +, you wrote: >The Pentax DSLR will be a mighty temptation, if only to have that >glorious word 'Pentax' emblazoned on the front. My D100 sports the wonderful Pentax-logo neck strap from a PZ1p. Much better looking than that Halloween-costume "Nikon Digital" black-and-yellow thing they give you with the camera. I figure I'm only using the Nikon camera to get pixels, which are in fact Pentax pixels due to the Pentax strap supporting the whole system. VBG. I still think Pentax has one great opportunity here - introduce a DSLR with the good features of a D100 or D60, but with two important improvements: better autofocus and significantly lower price. Oh, yeh - and 1/250 flash sync. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Digital SLR
Hi Lon, Yes, very interesting. I have been wandering in the back of my mind about this, and in a way, I suppose I am trying to subconsciously avoid it at the moment. I think that I am truly wound up too much in getting to know my current DSLR to suddenly chuck it all away and start again. Plus, as a point of principle, I would not consider buying a first generation DSLR. I tell you, I lusted and lusted after a D30, but I strained at the reins, holding back until its successor came along. I'm glad I did. The Pentax DSLR will be a mighty temptation, if only to have that glorious word 'Pentax' emblazoned on the front. At my time of life, with my experiences now, I am not the slightest bit interested in what folk think. I'd much rather carry the Pentax brand about with me rather than the Canon brand. In fact, I've mused with the idea of sticking a 'Pentax' logo over the pentaprism of the D60 just for a laugh, but it would be an injustice for the Pentax name. I'm sure Canonites would reel also. I tend to take most things at face value. I have no experience of the EOS system other than the D60, and what I find is a beautifully engineered machine that does the job it was designed to do, very well indeed. A Pentax camera would have to not only meet the same criteria, but exceed it for me to switch back. What we mustn't forget is that people change over the years. If I could somehow conjure up the original MX/LX design team into today's DSLR R and D, and get them to design the Pentax DSLR, I would buy one site unseen. But it's not the same team who designed the MX/LX, and at the end of the day, it's all about branding, and nothing else. I mean, can you name the head of Pentax? I can't. Nor can I name the head of Canon. They are basically large organisations with ghosts at the helm. We remember the brand name, and the quality (if any) and that's it. Funny how we *do* remember Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, for example. One of the main reasons I wanted a Mac was because Steve Jobs appeared to be the underdog, and I *love* supporting the underdog. Who doesn't?? With the Pentax DSLR, I will watch, and I will wait. I will gladly see what it's like, and I will make my decisions accordingly. It will take time, and at the moment, I'm having too much fun with the opposition. But if there was a fire, I know which camera I'd grab first on the way out the door. Yep. The MX. (Which is in a LowePro with the D60..) Rambling apres l'Anjou Blanc... I raise my glass to the PDML. *hic* >Cotty, > >This makes me wonder. You have started to stray from the Pentax >fold, not only lusting in your heart for harlot DSLRs, but >actually purchasing one, as I recall. > >Will you repent? Buy the new Pentax, insert your Nikanonlta into >a garbage disposal and turn the knob to "Heavy Shred"? > >Grin. > >-Lon > >Cotty wrote: >> >> >1. I am VERY excited about the announcement reagarding the upcoming >> >announcement of Pentax having a DSLR. (Note, they only stated that they >> >would announce a DSLR in Spring of 2003, not that they'd release one then). >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> I, too, queried this exact point with Pentax.It is my understanding that >> the camera will be announced 'in the spring' [northern hem.] (read: PMA), >> and on the shelves 'a few months later'. I would expect the first trickle >> into the shops June-ish, with most retailers having decent stock >> July/August-ish. This assumes no delays. >> >> HTH >> >> Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Digital SLR
Cotty, This makes me wonder. You have started to stray from the Pentax fold, not only lusting in your heart for harlot DSLRs, but actually purchasing one, as I recall. Will you repent? Buy the new Pentax, insert your Nikanonlta into a garbage disposal and turn the knob to "Heavy Shred"? Grin. -Lon Cotty wrote: > > >1. I am VERY excited about the announcement reagarding the upcoming > >announcement of Pentax having a DSLR. (Note, they only stated that they > >would announce a DSLR in Spring of 2003, not that they'd release one then). > > Hi Bill, > > I, too, queried this exact point with Pentax.It is my understanding that > the camera will be announced 'in the spring' [northern hem.] (read: PMA), > and on the shelves 'a few months later'. I would expect the first trickle > into the shops June-ish, with most retailers having decent stock > July/August-ish. This assumes no delays. > > HTH > > Cotty > > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ >
RE: Digital SLR
Great anecdote BTW, no wonder Pentax DSLR's do not sell well in Canada. As far as I know, there was never made *any*! Regards Jens PS: None was sold in Europe either... -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Michael Nosal [mailto:mike.nosal@;divine.com] Sendt: 28. oktober 2002 17:24 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Digital SLR At 09:13 AM 10/28/02 -0600, Dan Scott wrote: >Well, c'mon Brad. Current sales of Pentax DSLRs have been extremely poor. >You don't expect Pentax Cananda to import products that don't sell well, >do you? ;-) > >Dan Scott This reminds me of an anecdote, told by Harvey Mackay in one of his books, which goes something like this: There was a shoe company, and they wanted to expand their sales. They send a salesman to the heart of Africa. After a couple of weeks, he writes back to the head office: "Business is terrible. Send me home. No luck at all. The people here don't even wear shoes!" Well, the company decides to give it one more try, so they send their top salesman to Africa. After a couple of weeks, he writes back to the head office : "Business is great! Send me more shoes. *No* competition at all! Nobody here owns *any* shoes!" --Mike
Re: Digital SLR
Heh, I wonder if Pentax Canada will order any? ;-) anon again ;-) - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 5:03 AM Subject: Re: Digital SLR > >1. I am VERY excited about the announcement reagarding the upcoming > >announcement of Pentax having a DSLR. (Note, they only stated that they > >would announce a DSLR in Spring of 2003, not that they'd release one then). > > Hi Bill, > > I, too, queried this exact point with Pentax.It is my understanding that > the camera will be announced 'in the spring' [northern hem.] (read: PMA), > and on the shelves 'a few months later'. I would expect the first trickle > into the shops June-ish, with most retailers having decent stock > July/August-ish. This assumes no delays. > > HTH > > Cotty > > > Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at > http://www.macads.co.uk/ > > Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! > http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ > >
Re: Digital SLR
>1. I am VERY excited about the announcement reagarding the upcoming >announcement of Pentax having a DSLR. (Note, they only stated that they >would announce a DSLR in Spring of 2003, not that they'd release one then). Hi Bill, I, too, queried this exact point with Pentax.It is my understanding that the camera will be announced 'in the spring' [northern hem.] (read: PMA), and on the shelves 'a few months later'. I would expect the first trickle into the shops June-ish, with most retailers having decent stock July/August-ish. This assumes no delays. HTH Cotty Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/
Re: Digital SLR
- Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein Subject: Re: Digital SLR > What you see, depends on what you look for. If threads give you a tingle, then great; I > wouldn't have the quality of a picture hang by one. Wise words indeed. However, what we look for does depend on the subject matter. For example, if I can make a portrait that appears sharp, but at the same time has degraded fine detail to the point where I am not seeing skin blemishes or loose threads, thats wonderful. Thats what I wanted in the first place. OTOH, if I am working to produce a classic large format landscape, then I am dissapointed if I manage to not capture every bit of detail that is in front of my lens. Digital capture sounds great for the former example, not so good for the latter example. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
What you see, depends on what you look for. Now, I don't want anyone here who makes prints for a living to take offense at the following, but here goes: The prints most folks look at are 4x6 machine prints with off colors, so-so exposure done on high contrast paper that blows out the highlights and blocks up the shadows. A rather modest digital darkroom can produce an 8x10 that looks far better. Is it as good as a custom wet chemistry print? No, but you may not see the difference at any sort of normal viewing distance. I don't look at prints with a loupe. I check a print from about 8" away. If I can't see it at that distance, no one will see it on a wall. On the wall I see the difference between a good lens and a mediocre one, and slow film from fast film. I mean, do people do this with paintings, unless they're examining brush techniques? I am most interested in things I can see when I look at a picture like a picture, and not a test specimen. If threads give you a tingle, then great; I wouldn't have the quality of a picture hang by one. --- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The thing that twigged me that something wasn't quite right was > the groom's tuxedo -- it was deep and rich, but with reasonable shadow > detail...and an absolute lack of threads. Once you start looking for > it, it becomes fairly obvious. > > But like I said, depending on what you do and what you like in a print, > it doesn't necessarily matter. Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
On Monday, March 25, 2002, at 05:50 PM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > I do know the the 2400 dpi files from my > HP s20 (~20meg @ 8bit) do not have all the detail that's in the film. > 11x14 > inkjets from the files, at closer than normal viewing distance, don't > appear to > be lacking any detail. With 400 print film the grain becomes noticable > first > (the DSLR files are much cleaner). No argument here. That's one of the attractions of digital: that 'clean' look. However, that look is at the expense of fine detail. For most stuff, it's a non-issue, really. > Most of the pro comments pertain to images used in the print media. I > was > surprised by the wedding folks, since they do deliver prints. I suspect > that if > you start with a digital file, and don't have film to compare it to, it > looks > good and you don't notice anything that might be missing. Yep. The thing that twigged me that something wasn't quite right was the groom's tuxedo -- it was deep and rich, but with reasonable shadow detail...and an absolute lack of threads. Once you start looking for it, it becomes fairly obvious. But like I said, depending on what you do and what you like in a print, it doesn't necessarily matter. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
Since you are doing the printing, I'm not going to argue with what you see (at least you actually look at something). I do know the the 2400 dpi files from my HP s20 (~20meg @ 8bit) do not have all the detail that's in the film. 11x14 inkjets from the files, at closer than normal viewing distance, don't appear to be lacking any detail. With 400 print film the grain becomes noticable first (the DSLR files are much cleaner). Most of the pro comments pertain to images used in the print media. I was surprised by the wedding folks, since they do deliver prints. I suspect that if you start with a digital file, and don't have film to compare it to, it looks good and you don't notice anything that might be missing. --- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If the final result is for printing at 8x10 or > smaller, or reproduction in a lower-resolution magazine or a newspaper, > digital rocks. If you want to make nice 11x14s or 16x20s that rival > traditional prints with plenty of detail, digital ain't there. Yet. Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards® http://movies.yahoo.com/ - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
Sometimes I want to cry when I see the results being churned out by people who have much better scanners than I could possibly afford. Aaron -- Nice to read your comments Aaron-- Been busy for a while -- did I miss anything? Heh ; ) Digital smigital! I had a similar discussion with a buddy of mine who has a little recording studio. He can't figure out why people are so crazed about MP3s. They do not have the same sound quality as a CD...it is a step backward to him. Problem is...people can only hear so much quality. Anything above a certain point doesn't really matter to most people. Same thing with digital imaging. If you want to know about image quality...stop looking at your screen...72 dpi is crapola! Make an 8x10 print on the best HP/Epson/whatever high end printer. Put a loupe to it. Yuck! Sure it looks great a foot away from your face, but it doesn't compare to a SilverHalide print...not even close. Problem here is we are really comparing apples to oranges. Data and molecules. Pro journalists shoot using digital because of the speed...not quality. They make money by being first. Newspapers and TV don't need photo quality...just good enough to get the point across. Drives me nuts when a DSLR slinging photographer for a paper turns thier nose up at me film equipment. Give me a break! Commercial photographers use MF digital to deliver the product to a client the same day. Speed. Set up the shot the way the client wants it...make a photo...show the client the result..."good?"..."great, exactly what we want!"..."fine, I'll put it on CDhere you go." In the commercial world...now is the time. Digital has made a lot of business people successful photographers. If Pentax comes out with a digital SLR, I'll be happy. Ity will allow me to compete on a level playing field with others in business, but it won't make better photos or make me a better photographer. Digital isn't better than film...just different. Now, everybody take a deep breath and have a big Pentax group hug!...don't be shy! ; ) Dave - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
A 16-35mm zoom gives a rough equivalent to a 25-55mm on the D30/D60, if you can afford the costly Canon lens. This would work for me because I don't do a lot of wide angle shots for the type of pictures in which I specialize. I do use longer lenses for most of my work. The 100mm f/2 becomes an equivalent 160mm f/2, and a 28-105mm zoom pretty much covers a range of 45-170mm. But, I agree with you that lots of people on the PDML, or at least the PUG, like their wide and super-wide lenses. For my own fun shooting, I like them too. But, if I was sure that Pentax isn't going to produce a good digital SLR, I'd probably sell all of my Pentax stuff and go where my needs would be met. I am, however, sure that Pentax will produce one, and I'll be able to use all of my Pentax lenses, if they maintain the lens mount compatibility. Len --- > So a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm lens. That may be fine for Canon enthusiasts, > but it seems that most of us on this list have made it clear that no matter > how nice the gain on the long end, we prefer to preserve the focal lengths > we invested in. > > < Unfortunately, this is reality Canon style. I'm impressed. > http://www.ssdonline.com/detail_page.cfm?Productid=EOSD60&affid= A01&urlid=EO > SD60 > > > > Paul Franklin Stregevsky - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
On Saturday, March 23, 2002, at 04:32 PM, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > Just about all the folks saying that digital has a ways to go yet, turn > out to > be spectators. Bruce, I own a lab. I do a good business in large format inkjet printing. One thing I've learned is that just because someone is a working pro with a digital rig or a nice scanner setup it sure as hell doesn't mean they know thing one about using it right. Sometimes I want to cry when I see the results being churned out by people who have much better scanners than I could possibly afford. 35mm Provia 100F through our old Polaroid SprintScan 4000 (which sells for under $1k these days, I think, I paid $1800 CDN for it a couple of years ago, and we've since upgraded to a SprintScan 120) produces an image significantly better than anything we've seen from our customers using D1s and D30s, particularly in terms of black detail and fine texture. Current digital has a smoothness to it that masks its lack of detail. The images are sharp, but the detail is not there. It was particularly evident in some NHL images that we printed, where the fibres of the jerseys were just not visible, despite the razor sharpness of the images. The difference is quite noticeable at 11x14 with every camera I've seen so far, but I expect this to change. Having seen the printing side of things, I would not hire a digital wedding photographer for my wedding (but I would also not hire someone who used excessive softening filters in shooting or printing, either). It is not to my taste. However, if one were shooting 'soft' images in the first place, and that was the desired result, today's digital is entirely capable. If the final result is for printing at 8x10 or smaller, or reproduction in a lower-resolution magazine or a newspaper, digital rocks. If you want to make nice 11x14s or 16x20s that rival traditional prints with plenty of detail, digital ain't there. Yet. -Aaron - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Digital SLR
I didn't realize the focal length was affected. So, I'm not as impressed. Robert >From: "Paul F. Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Digital SLR >Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 07:45:47 -0500 > >So a 28mm lens becomes a 45mm lens. That may be fine for Canon enthusiasts, >but it seems that most of us on this list have made it clear that no matter >how nice the gain on the long end, we prefer to preserve the focal lengths >we invested in. > >< Unfortunately, this is reality Canon style. I'm impressed. >http://www.ssdonline.com/detail_page.cfm?Productid=EOSD60&affid=A01&urlid=EO >SD60 > > > >Paul Franklin Stregevsky >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
