Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Kenneth Waller]

Stan, responses below...

Kenneth Waller

- Original Message -
From: "Stan Halpin"
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]


> This is a laggardly response Ken... I still have the 300mm and
occasionally
> think I really should do something about a lens-collar-mount. I bought the
> lens from Peter P. in Colorado, he had had a custom built tripod mount for
> it, but sold that separately. Is that the one you bought?

Yes it is.

> I have considered going to a local machinist, or into my own "workshop"
and
> making a simple L-shaped bracket that would attach to the camera, extend
> forward and then up to support the lens from the bottom. A 1/4-20 hole
> drilled in the bracket would allow me to mount it on a tripod... Does this
> make sense?

Sounds feasible, but I suggest you might want to think about adding some
means of cradling/securing the lens to the end of the bracket. And obviously
you'd want to locate the 1/4-20 hole to achieve a neutral balance of the
lens/mount.

> Stan
>
> on 11/20/03 8:04 PM, Kenneth Waller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Stan, I have the mount for this lens that you referred to. It was also
> > bought from a list member. I haven't used it much, but I can see it
needs
> > modification. A two piece ring spacer is positioned around the lens body
and
> > this spacer then fits into a ring receptacle and is retained by
tightening
> > one fingerscrew, this results in basically a two point contact between
the
> > spacer and ring receptacle. A similar mount (for a N***n lens, also sold
> > without a mount) is made by Kirk. It's method of lens retention to mount
> > results in a more positive, uniform retention. The mount I have
definitely
> > produces a more balanced assembly (camera body/lens), but it does not
firmly
> > attach to the lens and this leads to movement of the lens/camera body
> > relative to the mount itself. It looks like I should be able to come up
with
> > something that will lessen this effect.
> >
> > I have had the 300 mm f4.5 FA for several years and it is one of my
> > favorites and most used. I have no complaints with it but the lack of
> > balance does  seem wrong.
> >
> > Kenneth Waller
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]
> >
> >
> >> on 11/18/03 7:52 PM, jmb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >>> Stan,
> >>>
> >>> I wonder if a tripod mountable lens holding device for these has been
> >>> invented?
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>> 3030 tripod head. The 300mm does not have a tripod mount, so it was
> > hanging
> >>>> off the 2X extender, just floating around in the breeze. For some
shots
> >>>> later I used the self-timer with mirror lockup but for these bird
shots
> > I
> >>>> used neither a remote nor the timer.
> >>>>
> >>>> stan
> >>>>
> >>
> >> The list member who sold me the lens also provided a reference to a
shop
> >> which will fabricate a tripod mount for this (or about any other) lens.
I
> >> have the info stashed away someplace but have not followed up on it...
> >>
> >> Stan
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Pentxuser]

Yes Stan it does have a Rubber brace that the front of the lens sits on. You 
can kind of see it in the picutre. The strap just keeps it nice and tight to 
prevent it from moving. The whole unit can be put on a quick release plate and 
snapped on and off your tripod quickly. The beauty of it is it can probably 
work with a number of your longer lenses..
Vic 


Thanks Vic. This does look interesting. I am puzzled though - it looks as
though there is a strap at the front that would pull down on the lens - I
would have expected a brace that would hold the front of the lens up...

Stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

on 12/07/03 11:17 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Stan will this work I think it is completely adjustable. It's not custom
> but it's only $56 bucks...
> Vic 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku
> =126662&is=REG
> 
> 

Thanks Vic. This does look interesting. I am puzzled though - it looks as
though there is a strap at the front that would pull down on the lens - I
would have expected a brace that would hold the front of the lens up...

Stan

oops (was Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm])

[Stan Halpin]

Actually Vic, I was referring to the FA 300/4.5.

I had meant that a a side msg to Ken, not to the list. It would have made
more sense if I had copied the original msg, and it would have made even
more sense if I had sent it just to Ken as I intended. I hit the wrong
button. But thanks for your comment.
It is late, I've spent too much time on web design and otherwise staring at
the computer the last few days.

Stan

on 12/07/03 10:47 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> No need for anything custom here Stan. Manfrotto has already made it for you
> and it is relatively inexpensive. I don't know the exact item number but take
> a look on B&H and I'm sure you will find it...
> Vic 
> PS. I suspect you are talking about the 300 A* F4...
> 
> 
> This is a laggardly response Ken... I still have the 300mm and occasionally
> think I really should do something about a lens-collar-mount. I bought the
> lens from Peter P. in Colorado, he had had a custom built tripod mount for
> it, but sold that separately. Is that the one you bought?
> 
> I have considered going to a local machinist, or into my own "workshop" and
> making a simple L-shaped bracket that would attach to the camera, extend
> forward and then up to support the lens from the bottom. A 1/4-20 hole
> drilled in the bracket would allow me to mount it on a tripod... Does this
> make sense? 
> 
> Stan
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Pentxuser]

Stan will this work I think it is completely adjustable. It's not custom 
but it's only $56 bucks...
Vic 



http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku
=126662&is=REG

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Pentxuser]

No need for anything custom here Stan. Manfrotto has already made it for you 
and it is relatively inexpensive. I don't know the exact item number but take 
a look on B&H and I'm sure you will find it...
Vic 
PS. I suspect you are talking about the 300 A* F4...


This is a laggardly response Ken... I still have the 300mm and occasionally
think I really should do something about a lens-collar-mount. I bought the
lens from Peter P. in Colorado, he had had a custom built tripod mount for
it, but sold that separately. Is that the one you bought?

I have considered going to a local machinist, or into my own "workshop" and
making a simple L-shaped bracket that would attach to the camera, extend
forward and then up to support the lens from the bottom. A 1/4-20 hole
drilled in the bracket would allow me to mount it on a tripod... Does this
make sense? 

Stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

This is a laggardly response Ken... I still have the 300mm and occasionally
think I really should do something about a lens-collar-mount. I bought the
lens from Peter P. in Colorado, he had had a custom built tripod mount for
it, but sold that separately. Is that the one you bought?

I have considered going to a local machinist, or into my own "workshop" and
making a simple L-shaped bracket that would attach to the camera, extend
forward and then up to support the lens from the bottom. A 1/4-20 hole
drilled in the bracket would allow me to mount it on a tripod... Does this
make sense? 

Stan

on 11/20/03 8:04 PM, Kenneth Waller at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Stan, I have the mount for this lens that you referred to. It was also
> bought from a list member. I haven't used it much, but I can see it needs
> modification. A two piece ring spacer is positioned around the lens body and
> this spacer then fits into a ring receptacle and is retained by tightening
> one fingerscrew, this results in basically a two point contact between the
> spacer and ring receptacle. A similar mount (for a N***n lens, also sold
> without a mount) is made by Kirk. It's method of lens retention to mount
> results in a more positive, uniform retention. The mount I have definitely
> produces a more balanced assembly (camera body/lens), but it does not firmly
> attach to the lens and this leads to movement of the lens/camera body
> relative to the mount itself. It looks like I should be able to come up with
> something that will lessen this effect.
> 
> I have had the 300 mm f4.5 FA for several years and it is one of my
> favorites and most used. I have no complaints with it but the lack of
> balance does  seem wrong.
> 
> Kenneth Waller
> - Original Message -
> From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:44 PM
> Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]
> 
> 
>> on 11/18/03 7:52 PM, jmb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 
>>> Stan,
>>> 
>>> I wonder if a tripod mountable lens holding device for these has been
>>> invented?
>>> 
>>> John
>>>> 3030 tripod head. The 300mm does not have a tripod mount, so it was
> hanging
>>>> off the 2X extender, just floating around in the breeze. For some shots
>>>> later I used the self-timer with mirror lockup but for these bird shots
> I
>>>> used neither a remote nor the timer.
>>>> 
>>>> stan
>>>> 
>> 
>> The list member who sold me the lens also provided a reference to a shop
>> which will fabricate a tripod mount for this (or about any other) lens. I
>> have the info stashed away someplace but have not followed up on it...
>> 
>> Stan
>> 
>> 
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Kenneth Waller]

Stan, I have the mount for this lens that you referred to. It was also
bought from a list member. I haven't used it much, but I can see it needs
modification. A two piece ring spacer is positioned around the lens body and
this spacer then fits into a ring receptacle and is retained by tightening
one fingerscrew, this results in basically a two point contact between the
spacer and ring receptacle. A similar mount (for a N***n lens, also sold
without a mount) is made by Kirk. It's method of lens retention to mount
results in a more positive, uniform retention. The mount I have definitely
produces a more balanced assembly (camera body/lens), but it does not firmly
attach to the lens and this leads to movement of the lens/camera body
relative to the mount itself. It looks like I should be able to come up with
something that will lessen this effect.

I have had the 300 mm f4.5 FA for several years and it is one of my
favorites and most used. I have no complaints with it but the lack of
balance does  seem wrong.

Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Stan Halpin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]


> on 11/18/03 7:52 PM, jmb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Stan,
> >
> > I wonder if a tripod mountable lens holding device for these has been
> > invented?
> >
> > John
> >> 3030 tripod head. The 300mm does not have a tripod mount, so it was
hanging
> >> off the 2X extender, just floating around in the breeze. For some shots
> >> later I used the self-timer with mirror lockup but for these bird shots
I
> >> used neither a remote nor the timer.
> >>
> >> stan
> >>
>
> The list member who sold me the lens also provided a reference to a shop
> which will fabricate a tripod mount for this (or about any other) lens. I
> have the info stashed away someplace but have not followed up on it...
>
> Stan
>
>

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[jmb]

Stan,

I wonder if a tripod mountable lens holding device for these has been 
invented?

John
3030 tripod head. The 300mm does not have a tripod mount, so it was hanging
off the 2X extender, just floating around in the breeze. For some shots
later I used the self-timer with mirror lockup but for these bird shots I
used neither a remote nor the timer.
stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Steve Larson]

Hi Doug,
 Thanks for the great explanation!
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]


> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:10:10 -0800, Steve Larson wrote:
> 
> > So that`s where the %20`s come from. Thanks, I always wondered
> > where they came from.
> 
> When you see a %xx in a URL, it's replacing a character that's
> restricted.  You most often see it with spaces (%20) and plus signs
> (%2B) but any ASCII character can be represented this way.  The number
> is simply the hexadecimal value of the ASCII code for the character.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
> 
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Anders Hultman]

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003, John Francis wrote:

> > When you see a %xx in a URL, it's replacing a character that's
> > restricted.  You most often see it with spaces (%20) and plus signs
> > (%2B) but any ASCII character can be represented this way.  The number
> > is simply the hexadecimal value of the ASCII code for the character.
> 
> Incidentally, the viewer-friendly way to represent spaces in a URL is
> with a + sign, not with a %20.  Thus Bird+On+Wire should have worked.

Right but wrong. A + sign means space within a query string (the part of
the URL that comes after a ? sign) but not in the filename part of the
URL.

Try these for example:
  http://anders.hultman.nu/ss 4.gif
  http://anders.hultman.nu/ss+4.gif
  http://anders.hultman.nu/ss%204.gif

anders
-
http://anders.hultman.nu/

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[John Francis]

> 
> Hi Steve,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:10:10 -0800, Steve Larson wrote:
> 
> > So that`s where the %20`s come from. Thanks, I always wondered
> > where they came from.
> 
> When you see a %xx in a URL, it's replacing a character that's
> restricted.  You most often see it with spaces (%20) and plus signs
> (%2B) but any ASCII character can be represented this way.  The number
> is simply the hexadecimal value of the ASCII code for the character.

Incidentally, the viewer-friendly way to represent spaces in a URL is
with a + sign, not with a %20.  Thus Bird+On+Wire should have worked.

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

on 11/18/03 7:17 AM, jmb at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Stan,
> 
> I see nothing wrong with these technically on my monitor.  So this is
> effectively 600+ telephoto (900?)!  What tripod setup did you use?
> 
> Run! Don't walk!  to buy this!
>> 
>> For academic interest, herewith is presented a shot with *ist-D at ISO 200,
>> FA* 300mm/4.5 plus Pentax A-2X-S.  The really curious may contact me off
>> list and I can provide the original jpeg.
> 
>> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> John
> 
> 
I have a relatively "low-end" Bogen 3205 (= Manfrotto 190B?) tripod with
3030 tripod head. The 300mm does not have a tripod mount, so it was hanging
off the 2X extender, just floating around in the breeze. For some shots
later I used the self-timer with mirror lockup but for these bird shots I
used neither a remote nor the timer.

stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

Fred,

Shel? He is the luddite in a different thread. This is Stan, I am the
early-adopter out here on the bleeding edge of technology...

BTW, I do know the value of standards which conform to the lowest common
denominator, and it is after all still unusual for an OS to be able to deal
with file names containing spaces.  So my comment about the "silly" HTML
restrictions was in self-deprecating jest.

RE your questions,
1. I am not sure what the birdonawire is, but it is probably an
EasternBlueBird (not all that uncommon here in Western Missouri).

2. The cardinal shot (and all of the others) was done with manual focus.

I was on the SkyLineDrive in Virginia last week. I was stopped on the road,
in the driver's seat, looking through the right-side window at a black bear
who was standing upright facing us with his forefeet on a low stone wall at
the edge of he road. Maybe 10 feet away. I leaned over my wife (in the
passenger seat), held the ist-D plus FA 77mm lens toward that side of the
van, and began pushing the shutter button. The autofocus never focused, no
shot was taken. Then he moved as though to come toward us, my wife said
something to the effect of that she was too near the bear which was headed
toward her open window (actually, I think she may have said "oh sh--", I am
offering a liberal interpretation.) I wasn't sure how sedentary these birds
would be, I wanted to take the picture already and not worry about the AF.
Normally I love it, but not for these sort of shots.


on 11/18/03 6:41 AM, Fred at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> Doug - I have changed to accommodate silly HTML restrictions! (The
>> original worked fine on my system...)
> 
> They're not necessarily "silly", Shel.
> 
>> Try:
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/birdOnWire.jpg
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/redTwig.jpg
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg  [no change]
> 
> Nice photos, Shel.  (And useful for me to look at, since these are
> among the sort of photos that I often take).  A couple of questions,
> though:
> 
> 1.  In the "birdOnWire", what is the bird?  (I'm not familiar with
> western US birds at all.)  It sort of reminds me of an Eastern
> Bluebird.)  The 2X-S did a pretty good job on that lens.
> 
> 2.  In the "cardinal", was the focusing done manually or
> automatically?  (With all the branches around, I'm guessing that
> autofocus might have been easily fooled.)  Nice bokeh.
> 
> Fred, K1FW
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Doug Franklin]

Hi Steve,

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 05:10:10 -0800, Steve Larson wrote:

> So that`s where the %20`s come from. Thanks, I always wondered
> where they came from.

When you see a %xx in a URL, it's replacing a character that's
restricted.  You most often see it with spaces (%20) and plus signs
(%2B) but any ASCII character can be represented this way.  The number
is simply the hexadecimal value of the ASCII code for the character.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Doug Franklin]

Hi Stan,

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:14:21 -0600, Stan Halpin wrote:

> Doug - I have changed to accommodate silly HTML restrictions!
> (The original worked fine on my system...)

Yep, I found out the problem several years ago by posting files with
spaces in their names.  Pretty embarassing for a professional computer
geek. :-)

> Try:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/birdOnWire.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/redTwig.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg  [no change]

Nice shots.

> Thanks for pointing out the problem.

You're welcome.  I'm good at pointing out problems.  I'm less good at
resolving them. :-)

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[jmb]

Stan,

I see nothing wrong with these technically on my monitor.  So this is
effectively 600+ telephoto (900?)!  What tripod setup did you use?
Run! Don't walk!  to buy this!
For academic interest, herewith is presented a shot with *ist-D at ISO 200,
FA* 300mm/4.5 plus Pentax A-2X-S.  The really curious may contact me off
list and I can provide the original jpeg.


Thanks,

John

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Steve Larson]

So that`s where the %20`s come from. Thanks, I always wondered
where they came from.
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California


 
> Spaces aren't legal in a URL.  They need to be replaced with %20 for
> most browsers, though Internet Exploder might work with them.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
 

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Fred]

> Doug - I have changed to accommodate silly HTML restrictions! (The
> original worked fine on my system...)

They're not necessarily "silly", Shel.

> Try:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/birdOnWire.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/redTwig.jpg
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg  [no change]

Nice photos, Shel.  (And useful for me to look at, since these are
among the sort of photos that I often take).  A couple of questions,
though:

1.  In the "birdOnWire", what is the bird?  (I'm not familiar with
western US birds at all.)  It sort of reminds me of an Eastern
Bluebird.)  The 2X-S did a pretty good job on that lens.

2.  In the "cardinal", was the focusing done manually or
automatically?  (With all the branches around, I'm guessing that
autofocus might have been easily fooled.)  Nice bokeh.

Fred, K1FW

RE: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Andy Chang]

Those are great pictures!!!
I got to start saving up for this nice "little" baby...

Andy

-Original Message-
From: Stan Halpin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 2:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

on 11/17/03 11:41 PM, Doug Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:31:42 -0600, Stan Halpin wrote:
> 
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/bird on wire.jpg
>> 
>> for others with the 300mm alone, see
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/red twig.jpg   and
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg
> 
> Spaces aren't legal in a URL.  They need to be replaced with %20 for
> most browsers, though Internet Exploder might work with them.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Doug - I have changed to accommodate silly HTML restrictions! (The original
worked fine on my system...)

Try:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/birdOnWire.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/redTwig.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg  [no change]

Thanks for pointing out the problem.

Stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

on 11/17/03 11:41 PM, Doug Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:31:42 -0600, Stan Halpin wrote:
> 
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/bird on wire.jpg
>> 
>> for others with the 300mm alone, see
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/red twig.jpg   and
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg
> 
> Spaces aren't legal in a URL.  They need to be replaced with %20 for
> most browsers, though Internet Exploder might work with them.
> 
> TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Doug - I have changed to accommodate silly HTML restrictions! (The original
worked fine on my system...)

Try:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/birdOnWire.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/redTwig.jpg
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg  [no change]

Thanks for pointing out the problem.

Stan

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Doug Franklin]

Stan,

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:31:42 -0600, Stan Halpin wrote:

> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/bird on wire.jpg
> 
> for others with the 300mm alone, see
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/red twig.jpg   and
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg

Spaces aren't legal in a URL.  They need to be replaced with %20 for
most browsers, though Internet Exploder might work with them.

TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ

Re: More *ist-D images [FA* 300mm]

[Stan Halpin]

on 11/13/03 6:44 PM, John Francis at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

>> 
>> John Francis wrote:
>>> somewhat from chromatic aberration, especially in the corners.
>> 
>> On my monitor all the bright white edges have the blue CA.
>> Even on the back dark edge of the geese' wings.
>> Could this be the lenses used?  I was surprised to see it
>> with the A* 200mm.
> 
> It wan't an A* 200 alone - it was with the 1.7AF adapter.
> 
> I don't have test images with just the A*200, yet; I was trying
> the lens+TC pairing because it's something I would be able to
> use on the *ist-D; I often use the same AF adapter with a 300mm
> with a film body.  Unfortunately it seems to not work as well
> with the 200mm.
> 
> 
For academic interest, herewith is presented a shot with *ist-D at ISO 200,
FA* 300mm/4.5 plus Pentax A-2X-S.  The really curious may contact me off
list and I can provide the original jpeg.

http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/bird on wire.jpg

for others with the 300mm alone, see
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/red twig.jpg   and
http://home.earthlink.net/~smh645/cardinal.jpg


Stan

Re: More *ist-D images

[John Francis]

> 
> John Francis wrote:
> > somewhat from chromatic aberration, especially in the corners.
> 
> On my monitor all the bright white edges have the blue CA.
> Even on the back dark edge of the geese' wings.
> Could this be the lenses used?  I was surprised to see it
> with the A* 200mm.

It wan't an A* 200 alone - it was with the 1.7AF adapter.

I don't have test images with just the A*200, yet; I was trying
the lens+TC pairing because it's something I would be able to
use on the *ist-D; I often use the same AF adapter with a 300mm
with a film body.  Unfortunately it seems to not work as well
with the 200mm.

Re: More *ist-D images

[jmb]

John Francis wrote:
somewhat from chromatic aberration, especially in the corners.
On my monitor all the bright white edges have the blue CA.
Even on the back dark edge of the geese' wings.
Could this be the lenses used?  I was surprised to see it
with the A* 200mm.
John

Re: More *ist-D images

[John Francis]

Agreed.  But if you've got time to take incident light readings,
or to spotmeter and assign that vaue to a specific zone, then you
probably have time to pop off a test shot and take a look at both
the histogram and the exposure.

As someone here pointed out, a dgital camera is by far the best
lightmeter you're likely to get your hands on.  Given that, it
seems seems slightly ridiculous to argue the merits of one form
of auto-exposure metering over another.  Each have strengths;
each have weaknesses.  Better by far to learn when to rely on
the camera, and when you need to override it.


> Except in many situations you can't repeat the shot.  My PUG entry this
> month is a prime example.
> 
> Bill
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 1:40 PM
> Subject: Re: More *ist-D images
> 
> 
> > >
> > > I wonder whether multi-segment metering should be used
> > > in constrasty situations with the starkistdee.
> >
> > Use the histogram if you're in doubt; it's a far better
> > exposure guide than *anything* that converts everything
> > to a single number without knowing your intentions.
> >
> > That's a great thing about digital cameras; you can
> > take a test exposure, and it's immediately available
> > for review.
> >
> >
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images

[Christian]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I think you've got just about everything there
backwards.
>

Consider me corrected.

Thank you.

Christian
I think Daylight Savings Time is messing with
me

Re: More *ist-D images

[Christian]

yeah! that's it!

so I was backwards with my thinking.

it's late.

Christian

- Original Message - 
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 11:30 PM
Subject: RE: More *ist-D images


> I said don't blow out the highlights.
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> tv
> 

Re: More *ist-D images

[John Francis]

> 
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >  o  Don't over-expose.
> 
> With slide film (my medium of choice BD) I was
> always taught to expose for the shadows;
> especially with high-contrast film such as Velvia.
> 
> Using digital is more like print film where you
> expose for the highlights.

I think you've got just about everything there backwards.

With slide film it's a good idea to get the exposure right.
But if you are going to err, err on the side of underexposure.
There's nothing you can do about a blown-out highlight, but
you *can* extract detail from overly-dark areas at the cost
of lower signal-to-noise ratio.

Negative film has a lot more latitude to start with.  But
it usually has more latitude for overexposure, so that's the
way to go if you're not sure.


Expose Velvia for the shadows in a high-contrast scene and
you'll totally wash out all the bright parts of the scene,
not just the highlights.  The same goes for digital.

RE: More *ist-D images

[tom]

I said don't blow out the highlights.

Or something like that.

tv

> -Original Message-
> From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:43 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More *ist-D images
> 
> 
> really?  shit
> 
> Christian
> I know I learned something like that.
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:12 PM
> Subject: RE: More *ist-D images
> 
> 
> > backwards!
> >
> > 
> 
> >J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://jcoconnell.com
> > 
> 
> >
> > -Original Message-----
> > From: Christian
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:20 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: More *ist-D images
> >
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > >  o  Don't over-expose.
> >
> > With slide film (my medium of choice BD) I was
> > always taught to expose for the shadows;
> > especially with high-contrast film such as
> Velvia.
> >
> > Using digital is more like print film where you
> > expose for the highlights.  As a matter of fact
> I
> > believe it was tv who dispensed that bit of
> advice
> > well before I got my *ist-D.  Thanks, tom!
> >
> > Christian
> >
> 
> 
> 

Re: More *ist-D images

[Christian]

really?  shit

Christian
I know I learned something like that.

- Original Message - 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: More *ist-D images


> backwards!
>
> 

>J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://jcoconnell.com
> 

>
> -Original Message-
> From: Christian
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:20 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: More *ist-D images
>
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >  o  Don't over-expose.
>
> With slide film (my medium of choice BD) I was
> always taught to expose for the shadows;
> especially with high-contrast film such as
Velvia.
>
> Using digital is more like print film where you
> expose for the highlights.  As a matter of fact
I
> believe it was tv who dispensed that bit of
advice
> well before I got my *ist-D.  Thanks, tom!
>
> Christian
>

RE: More *ist-D images

[J. C. O'Connell]

backwards!


   J.C. O'Connell   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://jcoconnell.com


-Original Message-
From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 2:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images



- Original Message -
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  o  Don't over-expose.

With slide film (my medium of choice BD) I was
always taught to expose for the shadows;
especially with high-contrast film such as Velvia.

Using digital is more like print film where you
expose for the highlights.  As a matter of fact I
believe it was tv who dispensed that bit of advice
well before I got my *ist-D.  Thanks, tom!

Christian

Re: More *ist-D images

[Christian]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>  o  Don't over-expose.

With slide film (my medium of choice BD) I was
always taught to expose for the shadows;
especially with high-contrast film such as Velvia.

Using digital is more like print film where you
expose for the highlights.  As a matter of fact I
believe it was tv who dispensed that bit of advice
well before I got my *ist-D.  Thanks, tom!

Christian

Re: More *ist-D images

[John Francis]

I've now received a few comments about these images; thanks!

I intentionally posted the images straight out of the camera,
with just about everything on the fully-automatic or default
settings.

I've also played around with the images (sometimes in Photo
Laboratory, but more often not:  the extremely small window
in Photo Laboratory isn't condusive to much editing). There
is also a problem with Photo Browser; the way it creates it's
thumbnails appears to be format dependent for RAW, TIFF & JPEG
images, so preview colours and sharpness look very different.

A few common observations:

The foreground of the squirrel image is somewhat overexposed.
A little more detail can be rescued from the image by turning
the sensitivity down slightly. [This is the only correction
that *has* to be done from the RAW image before conversion]

The Lake View image looks a great deal better if you adjust
the levels (black point and white point).  Playing around
with saturation and/or gamma produces an eye-popping scene.
In fact most of the shots are improved by level adjustment,
but this one shows it more than most; that's one reason why
I included it in the portfolio.

The shots using the AF1.7x are a little softer than the others
(all the images should be sharpened slightly before printing, 
but I'm in the camp that prefers that sharpening be postponed
until the final stages of image post-processing).


Someone very kindly also sent me a version of a couple of the
images that had been run through focus fixer.  I'll include
extracts from these, plus the best I've managed to do with
the other images, after I've given people a little more time
to offer comments and/or suggestions for improvement.

Bottom line, though (no surprises):

 o  Don't over-expose.

 o  Pay attention to the histogram, especially for JPEGs.

 o  Get image editing software that you are happy with -
you'll be using it a lot.  The camera can produce a
great starting point, but it's rare to find an image
that can't be improved in the 'digital darkroom'.


> I've now put these up in a more user-friendly format.
> 
> A gallery of thumbnails is at 
> 
> Clicking on the thumbnails takes you to a page for each image
> with a medium-resolution picture (720x481), the equipment and
> exposure details, and a link to the full-resolution image.

Re: More *ist-D images

[Christian]

John;

Did you use flash for the squirrel picture?  The foreground seems blown out
and the catchlight in his eye looks like a strobe.  good fur detail.

the lake picture looks very soft; maybe wind or camera shake?  Also, it must
have been a bright sunny day because the colors seem very washed out.

Did you use a polarizer on the tree picture or was it later in the day from
the lake shot?  The colors here are much better and the sky is not washed
out.  It also seems a bit soft.  I would suggest changing the sharpness
setting in the camera because the default is too soft (I noticed this with
mine and the reviews have pointed this out as well).

As a matter of fact the geese and duck pictures are also very soft.
probably a combination of the lens+TC, a little camera shake and the default
camera settings.

Christian

- Original Message - 
From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: More *ist-D images


>
> I've now put these up in a more user-friendly format.
>
> A gallery of thumbnails is at <http://jfwaf.com/InitialTest/>
>
> Clicking on the thumbnails takes you to a page for each image
> with a medium-resolution picture (720x481), the equipment and
> exposure details, and a link to the full-resolution image.
>
> So far I haven't seen a single comment on the images.
>
>

Re: More *ist-D images

[John Francis]

I've now put these up in a more user-friendly format.

A gallery of thumbnails is at 

Clicking on the thumbnails takes you to a page for each image
with a medium-resolution picture (720x481), the equipment and
exposure details, and a link to the full-resolution image.

So far I haven't seen a single comment on the images.