Re: Slooshy these wise slovos, oh my brothers (was Re: why I haven't switched to canon
--- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > So, Frank. > > What's it going to be then, eh? > > Are you going to read the book? Well, since I have time on my hands these days... I guess I'll have to now, won't I? cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Slooshy these wise slovos, oh my brothers (was Re: why I haven't switched to canon
Hi, > BTW, who's Alex, and what are droogs? "A Clockwork Orange". I'm surprised you haven't read the book, Frank! It has a lot to say about crime, punishment and justice. Droogs are friends. Alex and his friends live in the future. Anthony Burgess, the author, wrote the book in the early 1960s and extrapolated a future from the youth cults of the time. It was groovy to mix in a few Russian-ish words, such as 'beatnik', so Burgess has his characters use almost a fully-developed dialect based on Russian. Droog is Russian for friend. Other words he uses include moloko (milk), krovy (blood, I think), yarblokos (testicles, from the word for apple), ptitsas (girls, birds), and so on. There is a vocabulary at the back of the book, but it's surprisingly easy to pick it up from the context as you read along. So, Frank. What's it going to be then, eh? Are you going to read the book? http://perso.wanadoo.fr/chabrieres/texts/clockwork_orange.html -- Cheers, Bob "It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite when Ali announced that the archibishop had come to see me." Anthony Burgess - opening sentence of "Earthly Powers"
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
Hi, frank theriault wrote: --- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob Brigham wrote: http://www.garrard501.com/garrard501.html Never were as good as http://www.transcriptors.co.uk/ - at least in looks. Got to have a Hydraulic Reference to play jazz on, Frank. You can pretend to be Alex and his droogs, too. mike Sigh... I wish BTW, who's Alex, and what are droogs? Just being facetious. They were the leader and his nasty crowd in Clockwork Orange. One of the really vile (and violent) scenes featured a transcriptor turntable as a prop - they were common in "chic" films of the era. As you are [almost 8-)] completely the opposite of the characters... mike
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, frank theriault wrote: > --- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > looks. Got to have a Hydraulic Reference to play > > jazz on, Frank. You > > can pretend to be Alex and his droogs, too. > BTW, who's Alex, and what are droogs? This is a "Clockwork Orange" reference isn't it Mike? Does that make any sense to you yet Frank? Chris
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
--- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Rob Brigham wrote: > > > http://www.garrard501.com/garrard501.html > > Never were as good as > http://www.transcriptors.co.uk/ - at least in > looks. Got to have a Hydraulic Reference to play > jazz on, Frank. You > can pretend to be Alex and his droogs, too. > > mike Sigh... I wish BTW, who's Alex, and what are droogs? always curious, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
Rob Brigham wrote: http://www.garrard501.com/garrard501.html Never were as good as http://www.transcriptors.co.uk/ - at least in looks. Got to have a Hydraulic Reference to play jazz on, Frank. You can pretend to be Alex and his droogs, too. mike
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
Turntable, (vinyl recording media, used to be called records). Steve Desjardins wrote: I agree, at least in context (what's a Garrard?) In the digital world, it does not appear that Nikon can really keep up with Canon on the high end. I do like the D70 much more than the D-Reb, however. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 02:35AM >>> If I was going to switch brands... and I'm not... still contemplating a 67II, it would be to Canon... call it intuition... I have the general, unresearched, unstudied, undocumented, unverified sense that Nikon is very slowly becoming the Garrard of cameras... or maybe Pentax has... Tom C. From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: why I haven't switched to canon Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:27:13 +0200 I forgot to say: You may be right about older, used Pentax lenses being quite pricy. But it's also true, that Pentax lenses somtimes are above a state of the art lens, meaning that some Pentax lenses are in fact unmatched / perform better than coresponding lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or Canon. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. juli 2004 08:15 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: why I haven't switched to canon Edwin. IMO a 6MP DSLR featureing: . 11-area AF . TTL Phase matching AF system . Focus point selectable . EV 0 to 19 (ISO 100) detection range Focus modes . AF-Single . AF-Continuous . Manual focus AF assist via flash Shooting modes . Auto-exposure with hyper-program . Programmed AE Mode . Shutter-Priority AE . Aperture-Priority AE . Metered Manual . Bulb Program lines . Normal . Hi-S . Depth of field . MTF Metering modes . 16-segment . Center-Weighted Average . Spot Metering range . EV 0 to 21 (at ISO 200 with 50 mm / F1.4 lens) AE Lock . Button (20 sec timer) . Half-press shutter release AE Bracketing . 3 frames . 0.3, 0.5 or 1.0 EV steps Exposure compen. . -3.0 to +3.0 EV in 0.5 EV steps . -2.0 to +2.0 EV in 0.3 EV steps Exposure steps . 0.5 EV . 0.3 EV Sensitivity . ISO 200 . ISO 400 . ISO 800 . ISO 1600 . ISO 3200 is a state of the art camera. In 1980 LX was that. In 1983 the Super A was that. In 1992 PZ-1 was that. In 2001 MZ-S was that too. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 21. juli 2004 06:01 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: why I haven't switched to canon OK, I'm gonna play devil's advocate with Jens' post here. Obviously, I'm not anti-Pentax, since I own a hell of a lot of Pentax stuff. I'm not pro-Canon either. People should know by now that my other system is not Canon but Nikon. I'll buy Canon gear under only two conditions: 1) my employer hands me a Canon DSLR instead of a Nikon one 2) Canon produces a better-looking and/or better-working cheap DSLR that takes M42-mount lenses than Pentax (Nikon's not an option here) My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons. Pentax make brilliant user interfaces. My experience with Canon (all second hand) is that they are very good at the top of the line, and very competitive at the bottom, but weak in the middle. Pentax is arguably a better advanced amateur system both in cameras and lenses. Pentax is more "traditional" in some desirable ways. In general, I'd agree that Pentax UI is good. Some of that is that they stayed with the classic UI better than many. Give me a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring and I can run almost any camera. Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old lenses may cost less than a new consumer lens. Backwards compatability IS a strong suit. With an M42-K adapter you can use lenses from as far back as 1957, which is as good as any brand gets (although Nikon F-mount is close). Alas, NOBODY has kept complete backwards compatability. Both Nikon and Pentax have modern cameras which won't talk to older lenses (although they will mount, and work). K-mount lenses are very easy to get, and not expensive. (I have a nice M*300mm, that cost me 700 USD. A new 300mm Pentax pro lens would drain my budget by 12000 USD (list price). But I still have both options. I find that good Pentax equipment is harder to find on the used market than Nikon or Canon, and often more expensive. Many of the legendary K and A lenses are almost impossible to find. Granted, for basic "M" primes and zooms there are plenty to be had cheaply. I'm still looking for an M20/4 and a
RE: why I haven't switched to canon
Amazing... Garrard history and all... I had a Garrard turntable I bought around 1980... must have been a Brazilian model, and I found it to be low quality. Based on Garrard's reputation I had expected differently. I was using Garrard as an example of a company that lives on it's past reputation, while producing largely marginal products - as possibly an example of some camera manufacturers today. Interesting that they're still around in name. Tom C. From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: why I haven't switched to canon Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:32:31 +0100 http://www.garrard501.com/garrard501.html > -Original Message- > From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Gerrard was (I can't imagine they're still around) an > English turntable company.
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
> > Gerrard was (I can't imagine they're still around) an > English turntable company. They were pretty big in > the 50's and early 60's. They basically made the best > LP changer around . . . They also made the turntable equivalent of the K1000 - the Garrard SP25. Generations of college students grew up with one of these (I owned the Mk II, IIRC). It was cheap enough that students could afford it, but it had all the features necessary to get good sound out of a record without destroying it in the process, and it was built to withstand reasonable amounts of abuse. A Garrard SP25 (and, later, a Pioneer PL-12D) are the main reason why I've got 30-year-old records that are still playable. In particular, when fitted with an SME lightweight headshell and a Shure M75 cartridge the PL-12D operated reliably at 0.75g tracking weight - significantly better than most of the "groove grinders" out there.
RE: why I haven't switched to canon
--- Steve Desjardins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree, at least in context (what's a Garrard?) In > the digital world, > it does not appear that Nikon can really keep up > with Canon on the high > end. I do like the D70 much more than the D-Reb, > however. > Steve, Gerrard was (I can't imagine they're still around) an English turntable company. They were pretty big in the 50's and early 60's. They basically made the best LP changer around - which was, I suppose, fine when components were so bad that it mattered not how scratched your records were, or how much wow and flutter your TT produced (their changers used an idler wheel drive, IIRC). Once everyone realized that single play manual tables sounded better, and that the trade-off for the "convience" of being able to stack 3 or 4 records at a time was horrible sound and quickly wearing records, they pretty much went the way of the (choose your metaphore). Last Gerrard I saw was a changer on a credenza all-in-one unit at my late grandmother's place. Kinda sad... cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: why I haven't switched to canon
I agree, at least in context (what's a Garrard?) In the digital world, it does not appear that Nikon can really keep up with Canon on the high end. I do like the D70 much more than the D-Reb, however. >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/21/04 02:35AM >>> If I was going to switch brands... and I'm not... still contemplating a 67II, it would be to Canon... call it intuition... I have the general, unresearched, unstudied, undocumented, unverified sense that Nikon is very slowly becoming the Garrard of cameras... or maybe Pentax has... Tom C. >From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: why I haven't switched to canon >Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:27:13 +0200 > >I forgot to say: >You may be right about older, used Pentax lenses being quite pricy. But >it's >also true, that Pentax lenses somtimes are above a state of the art lens, >meaning that some Pentax lenses are in fact unmatched / perform better than >coresponding lenses from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon or Canon. >All the best > >Jens Bladt >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >-Oprindelig meddelelse- >Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 21. juli 2004 08:15 >Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Emne: RE: why I haven't switched to canon > > >Edwin. IMO a 6MP DSLR featureing: >. 11-area AF >. TTL Phase matching AF system >. Focus point selectable >. EV 0 to 19 (ISO 100) detection range Focus modes >. AF-Single >. AF-Continuous >. Manual focus AF assist via flash Shooting modes >. Auto-exposure with hyper-program >. Programmed AE Mode >. Shutter-Priority AE >. Aperture-Priority AE >. Metered Manual >. Bulb > >Program lines >. Normal >. Hi-S >. Depth of field >. MTF >Metering modes >. 16-segment >. Center-Weighted Average >. Spot >Metering range >. EV 0 to 21 (at ISO 200 with 50 mm / F1.4 lens) AE Lock >. Button (20 sec timer) >. Half-press shutter release >AE Bracketing >. 3 frames >. 0.3, 0.5 or 1.0 EV steps >Exposure compen. >. -3.0 to +3.0 EV in 0.5 EV steps >. -2.0 to +2.0 EV in 0.3 EV steps >Exposure steps . 0.5 EV >. 0.3 EV >Sensitivity >. ISO 200 >. ISO 400 >. ISO 800 >. ISO 1600 >. ISO 3200 > >is a state of the art camera. > >In 1980 LX was that. In 1983 the Super A was that. In 1992 PZ-1 was that. >In >2001 MZ-S was that too. >All the best > >Jens Bladt >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > >-Oprindelig meddelelse- >Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sendt: 21. juli 2004 06:01 >Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Emne: Re: why I haven't switched to canon > > > >OK, I'm gonna play devil's advocate with Jens' post here. Obviously, I'm >not anti-Pentax, since I own a hell of a lot of Pentax stuff. I'm not >pro-Canon either. > >People should know by now that my other system is not Canon but Nikon. >I'll buy Canon gear under only two conditions: >1) my employer hands me a Canon DSLR instead of a Nikon one >2) Canon produces a better-looking and/or better-working cheap DSLR >that takes M42-mount lenses than Pentax (Nikon's not an option here) > > > My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons. > > Pentax make brilliant user interfaces. > >My experience with Canon (all second hand) is that they are very good at >the top of the line, and very competitive at the bottom, but weak in the >middle. Pentax is arguably a better advanced amateur system both in >cameras and lenses. Pentax is more "traditional" in some desirable ways. > >In general, I'd agree that Pentax UI is good. Some of that is that they >stayed with the classic UI better than many. Give me a shutter speed >dial and an aperture ring and I can run almost any camera. > > > Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old >lenses > > may cost less than a new consumer lens. > >Backwards compatability IS a strong suit. With an M42-K adapter you can >use lenses from as far back as 1957, which is as good as any brand gets >(although Nikon F-mount is close). Alas, NOBODY has kept complete >backwards compatability. Both Nikon and Pentax have modern cameras which >won't talk to older lenses (although they will mount, and work). > > > K-mount lenses are very easy to get, and not expensive. (I have a nice > > M*300mm, that cost me 700 USD. A new 300mm Pentax pro lens would drain >my > > budget by 12000 USD (list price). But I still have both options. > >I find that good Pentax equipment
Re: why I haven't switched to canon
OK, I'm gonna play devil's advocate with Jens' post here. Obviously, I'm not anti-Pentax, since I own a hell of a lot of Pentax stuff. I'm not pro-Canon either. People should know by now that my other system is not Canon but Nikon. I'll buy Canon gear under only two conditions: 1) my employer hands me a Canon DSLR instead of a Nikon one 2) Canon produces a better-looking and/or better-working cheap DSLR that takes M42-mount lenses than Pentax (Nikon's not an option here) > My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons. > Pentax make brilliant user interfaces. My experience with Canon (all second hand) is that they are very good at the top of the line, and very competitive at the bottom, but weak in the middle. Pentax is arguably a better advanced amateur system both in cameras and lenses. Pentax is more "traditional" in some desirable ways. In general, I'd agree that Pentax UI is good. Some of that is that they stayed with the classic UI better than many. Give me a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring and I can run almost any camera. > Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old lenses > may cost less than a new consumer lens. Backwards compatability IS a strong suit. With an M42-K adapter you can use lenses from as far back as 1957, which is as good as any brand gets (although Nikon F-mount is close). Alas, NOBODY has kept complete backwards compatability. Both Nikon and Pentax have modern cameras which won't talk to older lenses (although they will mount, and work). > K-mount lenses are very easy to get, and not expensive. (I have a nice > M*300mm, that cost me 700 USD. A new 300mm Pentax pro lens would drain my > budget by 12000 USD (list price). But I still have both options. I find that good Pentax equipment is harder to find on the used market than Nikon or Canon, and often more expensive. Many of the legendary K and A lenses are almost impossible to find. Granted, for basic "M" primes and zooms there are plenty to be had cheaply. I'm still looking for an M20/4 and a K105/2.8 whereas I find Nikon 20/3.5 and 105/2.5s everywhere I turn. > Pentax cameras are very reliable. When ever one of mine broke, it was my own > fault (with only one exception in 23 years). This depends on what camera and how you use it, I suspect. I switched to Nikon because I decided that pentax cameras were NOT reliable or easy to get fixed given what I was using and how--I've had an MX, a K2, an SF-1, and 2 super programs fail on me and been told that they were irreparable, plus my ME supers were always in the shop for some fault or other. I'm now using different Pentax cameras and using them differently, and have not had problems. > I have a huge number of lenses available. A 20 year old 100 USD Pentax lens > can produce perfectly sharp photographs used with a state of the art digital > body. Are Canon offering this? A state of the art digital body? Yes. Is Pentax? (yes, I know this isn't quite what you meant...) >From what I've heard, some folks would argue that the *istD does not produce "perfectly sharp photographs" with many lenses. Canon has the largest array of lenses in current production, many of which are inexpensive. I suspect you can fit pre-AF canon lenses to an EOS with an adapter, although it's certainly not the last word in convenience. Canon also offers a lot of lens options Pentax doesn't and never did, especially at the high end. DJE
RE: why i haven't switched to canon
My answer is simple. I don't want to. For many reasons. Pentax make brilliant user interfaces. And afforable consumer lenses as well a pro lenses. I can buy affordable and still hope for professional lenses. Good backwards compatibility (could be even better) - excellent old lenses may cost less than a new consumer lens. K-mount lenses are very easy to get, and not expensive. (I have a nice M*300mm, that cost me 700 USD. A new 300mm Pentax pro lens would drain my budget by 12000 USD (list price). But I still have both options. Pentax cameras are very reliable. When ever one of mine broke, it was my own fault (with only one exception in 23 years). I have a huge number of lenses available. A 20 year old 100 USD Pentax lens can produce perfectly sharp photographs used with a state of the art digital body. Are Canon offering this? Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 18. juli 2004 04:08 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: why i haven't switched to canon - Original Message - From: "wendy beard" Subject: Re: why i haven't switched to canon > I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super. Used it today at the horse show. I > nearly cried when I saw the results of shots taken at 300mm > > Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) > http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large I'd be disappointed too. Look what it did to the rendering of that Pinto. William Robb
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
HA! I like the two-faced guitarist. Need to get rid of that hat shaped shadow though. -- Amita Guha wrote: Sorry, that shot was Wendy's taken with the 70-300 APO. I have the 70-300 of a couple of generations before the APO. It's not bad, but it's not wonderful. I took this with it. http://www.sunny16.net/photos/paw/2004-07-06.html -Original Message- From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: why i haven't switched to canon Amita, that shot is way weaker than I get with the Sigma 70-300 APO at 300, wide open, on film. I feel your pain. Amita Guha wrote: Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large I uploaded the original file in all its glory (2.3M) You may be disappointed if you're planning on using your 100-300 with the istD. At 300 anyway. At 200 it doesn't seem too bad. Going to try out the 80-320 tomorrow, see what I get. So how did it go? I'm looking for a lens in that range and I'm interested in the 80-320. Amita -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
- Original Message - > From: "Rob Brigham" > > I think all of these are pretty weak over 200mm - the Sigma you have is > actually the best of the bunch. The 80-320 and Sigma 100-300 are far > worse at 300. They are going to show up a lot worse on digital anyway > due to the extra 'enlargement' required due to the crop factor making > any lack of sharpness more apparent and necessitating much more stable > support (the latter would apply equally to any 300 too). > > I can vouch for the Sigma 100-300 f4 EX being much better, but for mucho > more money... > Yes, I can vouch for that lens too. Miles better. I have it in EOS mount. Or could it be the camera that's better ;-) :-o I'd like to have something which gives reasonable performance at the 300mm end but is more in keeping with the size of the istD so I have a nice carryaround package. 24-90 and 70-300. I had been pretty pleased with the Sigma apo macro super on a film camera and the macro feature (at 300mm) with close-up lens is pretty good too. On the istD, it's just so awful I may as well not use the last 100mm of the zoom! Wendy -- wendy beard ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
RE: why i haven't switched to canon
Sorry, that shot was Wendy's taken with the 70-300 APO. I have the 70-300 of a couple of generations before the APO. It's not bad, but it's not wonderful. I took this with it. http://www.sunny16.net/photos/paw/2004-07-06.html > -Original Message- > From: Lon Williamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 6:37 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: why i haven't switched to canon > > > Amita, that shot is way weaker than I get with the > Sigma 70-300 APO at 300, wide open, on film. I feel > your pain. > > Amita Guha wrote: > >>Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) > >>http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large > >>I uploaded the > >>original file in all its glory (2.3M) > >>You may be disappointed if you're planning on using your > >>100-300 with the > >>istD. At 300 anyway. At 200 it doesn't seem too bad. > >>Going to try out the 80-320 tomorrow, see what I get. > > > > > > So how did it go? I'm looking for a lens in that range and I'm > > interested in the 80-320. > > > > Amita > > >
Re: 70-210 consumer zoom? [Was: RE: why i haven't switched to canon]
> Och, just wait a bit, people have not concluded yet :-) Only one way I know of to test a lens, try it yourself, gets expernsive at times though! > Why don't you > tell us what you think when you try it? I will do when I get round to it, kept my trusty 70-210 a f4 for the time being. > However, I think Dario's opinion makes interesting reading: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg187719.html Good old autofocus for ya! > It still is top on my shopping list, just wondering if there is a > viable alternative I could try. Considered a 70-300 Sigma Apo for some time, couldn't bring myself to buy one! John John Whittingham Technician -- Original Message --- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:12:44 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: 70-210 consumer zoom? [Was: RE: why i haven't switched to canon] > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, John Whittingham wrote: > > > > We have been bashing the F70-210 lately :-) I would still be willing > > > to try it > > > > Ooops just bought one! > > Och, just wait a bit, people have not concluded yet :-) Why don't you > tell us what you think when you try it? > > However, I think Dario's opinion makes interesting reading: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg187719.html > > It still is top on my shopping list, just wondering if there is a > viable alternative I could try. > > Kostas --- End of Original Message ---
RE: why i haven't switched to canon
> Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) > http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large > I uploaded the > original file in all its glory (2.3M) > You may be disappointed if you're planning on using your > 100-300 with the > istD. At 300 anyway. At 200 it doesn't seem too bad. > Going to try out the 80-320 tomorrow, see what I get. So how did it go? I'm looking for a lens in that range and I'm interested in the 80-320. Amita
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
- Original Message - From: "wendy beard" Subject: Re: why i haven't switched to canon > I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super. Used it today at the horse show. I > nearly cried when I saw the results of shots taken at 300mm > > Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) > http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large I'd be disappointed too. Look what it did to the rendering of that Pinto. William Robb
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
At 01:27 PM 17/07/2004, you wrote: From: brooksdj Hope fully by months end or late August depending on sales. I have the 28-105,the Sigma 100-300 dl and the 35-70 macro for AF and several A and M lenses plus prime M42's that work better on it as is my understanding. Throw in a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and i'll be all set. Dave Dave, I have the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super. Used it today at the horse show. I nearly cried when I saw the results of shots taken at 300mm Here's one example (excuse the poor composition) http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large I uploaded the original file in all its glory (2.3M) You may be disappointed if you're planning on using your 100-300 with the istD. At 300 anyway. At 200 it doesn't seem too bad. Going to try out the 80-320 tomorrow, see what I get. Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
At 01:27 PM 17/07/2004, you wrote: http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs-istd.jpg On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 lens (the largest one that I own). The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. I did switch to Canon. And that is precisely the reason I bought an istD in April. You don't cart around a 10D for fun (well, I don't anyway!) Wendy Beard, Ottawa, Canada http://www.beard-redfern.com
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
Dave, The *ist D is smaller than the PZ-1/PZ-1p by a considerable amount. Probably about 3/4 of the size in fact. In terms of small, nothing touches the *ist D. Many reviewers still complain that the *ist D is too small, however if you fit the battery grip, I reckon it's damn near perfect. I don't exactly have the smallest mitts in the world, and I have no trouble with the size of it at all Cheers Shaun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Alex. Substitute the D30 with the 1D or 1Ds or MkII and the Pentax will look like a marble.LOL One of the Dad's i know at another horse farm let me try his 1D(the 4mp one)last Saturday for a few minutes.I know 30-40 pictures is not a lot to base something on,but i found it a bit ocward and heavier than my D2h with equivilant lens(mind you his was the Canon with the anti vib on it.) Screen smaller,vertical shooting a pain as the shutter releasa is hair trigger and the interface a bit ocward than i find the Nikon. Having said that,i find both my D1 and D2h heavy for anything other than horse work,were i'm standing still and using a monopod.I therefore am "this close" to getting the *istD as a "walking around digital camera".Its about the same size as the PZ-1 i have and if it shoots like it,i will be happy. Hope fully by months end or late August depending on sales. I have the 28-105,the Sigma 100-300 dl and the 35-70 macro for AF and several A and M lenses plus prime M42's that work better on it as is my understanding. Throw in a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and i'll be all set. Dave > http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs- istd.jpg On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 lens (the largest one that I own). The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. I don't know who is going to keep the small SLRs alive though if Pentax doesn't do it. The Olympus E-1 is also quite large and Minolta seems to be releasing D-SLRs even more slowly than Pentax. alex -- _ Dr. Shaun Canning P.O. Box 21, Dampier, WA, 6714, Australia. m: 0414 967644 http://www.heritageservices.com.au [EMAIL PROTECTED] _
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
Hi Alex. Substitute the D30 with the 1D or 1Ds or MkII and the Pentax will look like a marble.LOL One of the Dad's i know at another horse farm let me try his 1D(the 4mp one)last Saturday for a few minutes.I know 30-40 pictures is not a lot to base something on,but i found it a bit ocward and heavier than my D2h with equivilant lens(mind you his was the Canon with the anti vib on it.) Screen smaller,vertical shooting a pain as the shutter releasa is hair trigger and the interface a bit ocward than i find the Nikon. Having said that,i find both my D1 and D2h heavy for anything other than horse work,were i'm standing still and using a monopod.I therefore am "this close" to getting the *istD as a "walking around digital camera".Its about the same size as the PZ-1 i have and if it shoots like it,i will be happy. Hope fully by months end or late August depending on sales. I have the 28-105,the Sigma 100-300 dl and the 35-70 macro for AF and several A and M lenses plus prime M42's that work better on it as is my understanding. Throw in a Sigma 70-200 F2.8 and i'll be all set. Dave > http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs- istd.jpg > > On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not > sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 > lens (the largest one that I own). > > The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the > selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. > > I don't know who is going to keep the small SLRs alive though if > Pentax doesn't do it. The Olympus E-1 is also quite large and Minolta > seems to be releasing D-SLRs even more slowly than Pentax. > > alex >
Re: why i haven't switched to canon
I concur. Ergonomics was a big factor in my decision to go with the *istD. Viewfinder image and features were also factors. But size for features was quite important. The Nikon choices were similar in size to the Canon stuff. Bruce Saturday, July 17, 2004, 9:33:56 AM, you wrote: aw> http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs-istd.jpg aw> On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not aw> sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4 aw> lens (the largest one that I own). aw> The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt that the aw> selection of lenses is wider, but that is just too big. aw> I don't know who is going to keep the small SLRs alive though if aw> Pentax doesn't do it. The Olympus E-1 is also quite large and Minolta aw> seems to be releasing D-SLRs even more slowly than Pentax. aw> alex
