Re: NO FS this Friday?
And when you're at home (or anywhere else inside) it can do a pretty honest job as a portrait lens @135-200mm with an external flash. I got some nice portraits (given the bad conditions) using DA50-200+K10D+360FGZ. 2007/2/15, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Good move. I'll be interested in hearing what you think of it. As > I've said before, it's among the lenses I use most often. > Paul > On Feb 14, 2007, at 4:57 PM, cbwaters wrote: > > > I ended-up buying the DA50-200 new. I had a gift card from Amazon > > that I > > received for Christmas so I figured that + the rebate made buying a > > new lens > > easier ;) > > > > CW > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Pdml@pdml.net" > > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:28 PM > > Subject: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > >> Man, the lens pickens are SLIM... There's like three lenses total > >> at KEH, > >> Ebay looks to have been picked over like last week's kill, and > >> nothing at > >> all offered on the PDML... > >> How's a guy supposed to enable himself these days? > >> > >> Cory > >> spent a lot of money in the last 7 days on a camera, still want > >> another > >> lens... > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >> -- > >> No virus found in this incoming message. > >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. > >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: > >> 2/1/2007 > >> 2:28 PM > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Good move. I'll be interested in hearing what you think of it. As I've said before, it's among the lenses I use most often. Paul On Feb 14, 2007, at 4:57 PM, cbwaters wrote: > I ended-up buying the DA50-200 new. I had a gift card from Amazon > that I > received for Christmas so I figured that + the rebate made buying a > new lens > easier ;) > > CW > > - Original Message - > From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Pdml@pdml.net" > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:28 PM > Subject: NO FS this Friday? > > >> Man, the lens pickens are SLIM... There's like three lenses total >> at KEH, >> Ebay looks to have been picked over like last week's kill, and >> nothing at >> all offered on the PDML... >> How's a guy supposed to enable himself these days? >> >> Cory >> spent a lot of money in the last 7 days on a camera, still want >> another >> lens... >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: >> 2/1/2007 >> 2:28 PM >> >> > > > -- > 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: NO FS this Friday?
I ended-up buying the DA50-200 new. I had a gift card from Amazon that I received for Christmas so I figured that + the rebate made buying a new lens easier ;) CW - Original Message - From: "cbwaters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pdml@pdml.net" Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 6:28 PM Subject: NO FS this Friday? > Man, the lens pickens are SLIM... There's like three lenses total at KEH, > Ebay looks to have been picked over like last week's kill, and nothing at > all offered on the PDML... > How's a guy supposed to enable himself these days? > > Cory > spent a lot of money in the last 7 days on a camera, still want another > lens... > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.19/663 - Release Date: 2/1/2007 > 2:28 PM > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> I mean really, how the hell are you supposed to respond to childish > gibberish like that? Just wait Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > >> >>> >>> From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying >> > > I mean really, how the hell are you supposed to respond to childish > gibberish like that? > > William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
thank god, I have had it with you. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:26 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? As I said, why argue with an idiot? Attempt rational discussion? laughable notion. "JCO Filter" switched back on. Bye bye. G On Feb 9, 2007, at 10:11 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > [more useless drivel] -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
Well if you cant or wont refute my posts based on the topic, you just posting these dumb off topic insult only posts after the fact that dont address the issues/posts directly adds nothing to the discussion but wasted time having to respond to them. If you really dont care, then just dont post at all unless you are willing to refute them on topic with something to back up your belated insinuations. How difficult a concept is that for you to understand ? ? ? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:55 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? As I told you before, I don't care what you say. Why "argue posts" (... another little editing error? ...) with an idiot? G On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:39 AM, whoopee cushion wrote: > [something nonsensical] -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
As I said, why argue with an idiot? Attempt rational discussion? laughable notion. "JCO Filter" switched back on. Bye bye. G On Feb 9, 2007, at 10:11 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > [more useless drivel] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > As I told you before, I don't care what you say. > Why "argue posts" (... another little editing error? ...) with an idiot? Apparently my theory that Anna Nicole Smith and JCO being the same person was wrong. The shared intellect was eerie though. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
As I told you before, I don't care what you say. Why "argue posts" (... another little editing error? ...) with an idiot? G On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:39 AM, whoopee cushion wrote: > [something nonsensical] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Screw you. You never can seem to argue the posts when I make them, you just throw in these absurd off topic alanders after the fact to attempt to make all the points made just "go away". I suggest you argue the actual posts and you might have some credibility here, but of course you cant or couldnt so you do this kind of thing instead. Thats the real stupidity here. And if you are trying to say the subjects are stupid ( like which lenses work best on which cameras and why and what lenses will work better on FF cameras, etc) you are out of your mind. These are very important issues and subjects for Pentax users. They just may be stupid to you because they go right over your narrow minded head... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 12:01 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? It seems most of what you post is "a simple editing error". The rest is abject stupidity. G On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:17 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > its a simple editing error, whats childish about that? > Still waiting for your answer WR,. ( should have read are you OR > are you > not?) -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
It seems most of what you post is "a simple editing error". The rest is abject stupidity. G On Feb 9, 2007, at 8:17 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > its a simple editing error, whats childish about that? > Still waiting for your answer WR,. ( should have read are you OR > are you > not?) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
its a simple editing error, whats childish about that? Still waiting for your answer WR,. ( should have read are you OR are you not?) jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 10:12 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > >> >> From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying > I mean really, how the hell are you supposed to respond to childish gibberish like that? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
CORRECTION- are you OR are you not? William Robb is still avoiding answering that simple question of course, because it makes one of his big arguments wrong no matter which way he answers jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of mike wilson Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 7:17 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying Mark! - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
> > From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/02/09 Fri PM 03:11:38 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > - Original Message - > From: "mike wilson" > Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > >> > >> From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >> WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying > > > > I mean really, how the hell are you supposed to respond to childish > gibberish like that? Herring? - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "mike wilson" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > >> >> From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying > I mean really, how the hell are you supposed to respond to childish gibberish like that? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
> > From: "J. C. O'Sealion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying Mark! - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> > From: "K.Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Viewing from an armchair, its not at all consistent. > What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" Mark! - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific feature. Paul -- Original message -- From: John Francis > > Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. - I find myself using TAv mode a lot whenever I have a long lens on the K10D. It's so versatile, and I'm satisfied with the noise up to 800. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
That wasn't a mistake, but an engineering necessity. As it is Leica still has rear element clearance issues with the M8, due to some lenses being designed to nearly brush the shutter on film models (The shutter on the M8 is placed slightly forward of the normal location in order to give room for the sensor AA/IR filter). These same lenses of course aren't compatible with an M5 or CL due to the swinging metering arm hitting the lens. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > Or maybe they could spec. a sensor like the Kodak sensor optimized for > corner and edge light capture that Leica is using in the M8 without the > mistake they made in cover plate/filter stage which is causing so much > fun... (It is possible to learn from others mistakes). > > DagT wrote: >> Just a small comment: >> My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as >> they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but >> because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a >> FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for >> the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS >> sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. >> >> DagT >> >> Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: >> >> >>> these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" >>> lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, >>> the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture >>> to say, they just work >>> better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had >>> a full frame camera that matched what the full >>> frame lenses can do and were designed for, you would reverse which >>> ones you are calling superb and which ones >>> you are calling not performing as well. I dont >>> think its fair or show's much understanding >>> to describe them that way when you are using >>> DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses >>> which are optimized for FF but not using >>> them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure >>> there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point >>> but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming >>> well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body >>> that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. >>> >>> jco >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >>> Behalf Of >>> Godfrey DiGiorgi >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >>> >>> >>> On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> >>> >>>>It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to >>>> >>> replace >>> >>>> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >>>> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >>>> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >>>> expense >>>> >>>> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >>>> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >>>> performance of newer varieties. >>>> >>> It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I >>> depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want >>> the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I >>> paid for. >>> >>> When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a >>> bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I >>> used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold >>> them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I >>> took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job >>> for my work. >>> >>> I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely >>> hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three >>> superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old >>> lenses which don't perform quite as well. >>> >>> G >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >>> >> DagT >> >> >> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
you really ARE as stupid as your posts. The Pentax 105 is ON A LARGER format than hassy, NOT SMALLER. I stated that SMALLER format designed lenses are generally sharper at same focal length or angle of view, NOT LARGER FORMAT LENSES. And you did NOT compare the Pentax 45mm 6x7 lens to A hassy 38mm in your original post, you have just done that only now and I do not beleive you for a second that the hassy 38mm lens is 99 lp/mm resolution either. I will believe that when I see it. And lastly, stating a few exotic uncommon lenses, even if these numbers were correct doesnt support your claim that MedFormat lenses are just as sharp generally as 35mm lenses or that Pentax MedFort lenses are well below AVERAGE. Your only saying, ( if even true ) that they are below SOME of the very best. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 7:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > The 45mm is a > very > wide angle on a LARGER format than the hassy you fool. > Anyone with half a brain would not try to compare a > 45mm lens on a LARGER format with a 80mm lens on a smaller format, Well fuckface, if you could parse a sentence, you'd figure it out. Sorry, I just can't put it into simpler terms for you. The Hassy 80 compared to the Pentax 105 (similar AOV) is 50% higher res, the hasst 38 compared to the Pentax 45 (similar AOV) is also 50% higher res. For someone who supposedy has an engineering background, this shouldn't be higher math. Maybe take your shoes and socks of so you can count higher. Granted the Hassy lenses are way better than anything the Japs make, but they are also the most common MF cameras in professional use. Anyway FF, you are now back to my ignore file. Probably permanently this time. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
The smiley was there for a purpose. Thanks for making my point Ken. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of K.Takeshita Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:21 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On 2/08/07 2:07 PM, "Tim Øsleby", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) Isn't it? :-). One day, they say oh it's just a tool and another day, excluding all but their own equipment and how they choose. Viewing from an armchair, its not at all consistent. What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). Ken -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
Yes, just the K10D. Although the Samsung equivalent would have it as well. Paul On Feb 8, 2007, at 7:17 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > thanks for the great explanation. What bodies > have it so far, just the K10d at this point? > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Paul Stenquist > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:30 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > In TAv exposure mode, you set your f stop and shutter speed. You then > specify a range within which the camera can change ISO. You can > select the full range (100 to 1600) or a narrow range. The camera > then changes ISO sensitivity as the light varies. Your stop and > shutter speed remain constant. I find it wonderful when moving from > sun to shade or when the sun is moving in and out of the clouds. It's > also great indoors when moving from areas near windows to areas > farther away, from brightly lit rooms to dimmer rooms, etc. The uses > are many, and it works flawlessly in my experience. > Paul > On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> what is the Tav exposure mode( how does it operate)? >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> John Francis >> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> >> >> It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by >> when I >> first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you >> realise just how convenient it is. >> >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> wrote: >>> You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific >>> feature. Paul >>> -- Original message -- >>> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>>>> >>>>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern >>>>> evaluative >>>>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >>>>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >>>>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, >> high >>>>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or >> >>>>> incompetent is truly bullshit. >>>> >>>> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> PDML@pdml.net >>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
No no. Simply referring to the tools ;-) BTW I find a lot of comfort in being told that it's the man that matters, not the tools ;-) Tim (doing his best to divert the thread) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling Sent: 9. februar 2007 00:20 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Wait a minute! Who you callin' a ... Tim Øsleby wrote: > I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory > Papenfuss > Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > >> What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their >> position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) >> >> > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) > > -Cory > > >> Tim >> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >> >> >>>>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>>>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>>>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>>>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>>>> >>>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>>> >>>> >>> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >>> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >>> The >>> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >>> due to >>> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >>> >>> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >>> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >>> error/incompetence/laziness. >>> >> Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. >> >> If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you >> paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question >> that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. >> >> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative >> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high >> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or >> incompetent is truly bullshit. >> >> All these things can add up to improved picture quality when >> exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional >> photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do >> not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. >> >> You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. >> I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > The 45mm is a > very > wide angle on a LARGER format than the hassy you fool. > Anyone with half a brain would not try to compare a > 45mm lens on a LARGER format with a 80mm lens on a smaller > format, Well fuckface, if you could parse a sentence, you'd figure it out. Sorry, I just can't put it into simpler terms for you. The Hassy 80 compared to the Pentax 105 (similar AOV) is 50% higher res, the hasst 38 compared to the Pentax 45 (similar AOV) is also 50% higher res. For someone who supposedy has an engineering background, this shouldn't be higher math. Maybe take your shoes and socks of so you can count higher. Granted the Hassy lenses are way better than anything the Japs make, but they are also the most common MF cameras in professional use. Anyway FF, you are now back to my ignore file. Probably permanently this time. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
You just cant handle the truth I guess -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:32 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Whoopee Cushion wrote: > How many times do I have to post it? ... Zero. I for one would be happy if you didn't post at all. G -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
thanks for the great explanation. What bodies have it so far, just the K10d at this point? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Stenquist Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:30 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? In TAv exposure mode, you set your f stop and shutter speed. You then specify a range within which the camera can change ISO. You can select the full range (100 to 1600) or a narrow range. The camera then changes ISO sensitivity as the light varies. Your stop and shutter speed remain constant. I find it wonderful when moving from sun to shade or when the sun is moving in and out of the clouds. It's also great indoors when moving from areas near windows to areas farther away, from brightly lit rooms to dimmer rooms, etc. The uses are many, and it works flawlessly in my experience. Paul On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > what is the Tav exposure mode( how does it operate)? > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > John Francis > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by > when I > first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you > realise just how convenient it is. > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific >> feature. Paul >> -- Original message -- >> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>>> >>>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern >>>> evaluative >>>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >>>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >>>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, > high >>>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > >>>> incompetent is truly bullshit. >>> >>> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
EAT SHIT WILLIAM ROB, that is your thing isnt it? Every time you are caught with your pants down you avoid simple on topic questions and resort to the stupid personal attackes because you cant handle being exposed for what you are. Why do you continually subject yourself to this kind of flagrant revelation of your own gross stupidity? Your numbers are total bullshit, most (nearly ALL!) medium format lenses are NOWWHERE near those numbers and you know it. you're just trying to cover your own dumb ass. The 45mm is a very wide angle on a LARGER format than the hassy you fool. Anyone with half a brain would not try to compare a 45mm lens on a LARGER format with a 80mm lens on a smaller format, I specifically stated at SAME focal length or same angle of view, that a SMALLER format lens can be made sharper, so you give the complete opposite as an example to "prove" your point, are you really that stupid or do you think we are all that dumb to not see thru your B.S?. What total fucking asshole you are, you dont even understand the question, let alone have a logical answer. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:22 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > And furthermore, your comments that PENTAX medimum > format lenses "resolve quite a bit lower than average" > is horseshit and it only further supports my point > that generally 35mm lenses resolve better the MedFormat lenses do. A > few rare exceptions is not "general" situation. The general situation > is 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses especially at a given > focal length, but even generally the case at given angles of view too. > Right. As an example, a Hassy 80mm (standard lens) can hit as hight as 107 lpmm, the 38mm Biogon 106 lpmm. Contrast that with the Pentax 6x7 105mm lens besting at 67 lpmm, the 45 besting at 66 lpmm. If this is what you call similar resolution, you have lost what little mind you had left. The 60's were obviously good to you. BTW, you'll have a hard time besting the Hassy numbers with any 35mm camera lens. Anyway John, I've provided you with hard facts, you can ignore them at your leisure, and at this point, I will let the Wookie win. And you are still a fuckface. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I see, you will not answer a simple question, we all know why, because you have already over committed to both, opposite sides of an argument, that's why. I believe that makes TOU the ignorant one here. Only an "arguing fool" would do that and get caught/avoid the simple question! You are busted. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:04 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying that the > format a lens is designed for ( film or sensor size ) does or does not > affect affect the maximum lens performance possible of a given focal > length? Its time to take a position and stick with it dude. your > burning the candle at both ends at this point It means that not all lenses are created equal. And you still don't know what you are talking about, because you are still debating from a position of ignorance. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
It's handy for closeup work, too. In the shot I posted recently http://www.jfwaf.com/PAW/PAW.php?name=PAW0703 I wanted f/11 for depth of field, and a shutter speed of 1/25s (still pretty slow for hand-held at 105mm; shake reduction helps). That turned out to require ISO 400, but I didn't have to think about it - I have the auto-ISO range set from 100 to 640. As I shifted viewpoint slightly, looking for just the right shot, the light varied by more than one full stop, but I didn't have to make any adjustments; the camera altered the ISO to compensate. On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:29:34PM -0500, Paul Stenquist wrote: > In TAv exposure mode, you set your f stop and shutter speed. You then > specify a range within which the camera can change ISO. You can > select the full range (100 to 1600) or a narrow range. The camera > then changes ISO sensitivity as the light varies. Your stop and > shutter speed remain constant. I find it wonderful when moving from > sun to shade or when the sun is moving in and out of the clouds. It's > also great indoors when moving from areas near windows to areas > farther away, from brightly lit rooms to dimmer rooms, etc. The uses > are many, and it works flawlessly in my experience. > Paul > On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > what is the Tav exposure mode( how does it operate)? > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of > > John Francis > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by > > when I > > first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you > > realise just how convenient it is. > > > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > >> You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific > >> feature. Paul > >> -- Original message -- > >> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > >>>> > >>>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern > >>>> evaluative > >>>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > >>>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > >>>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, > > high > >>>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > > > >>>> incompetent is truly bullshit. > >>> > >>> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >>> PDML@pdml.net > >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > >> > >> > >> -- > >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >> PDML@pdml.net > >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On Feb 8, 2007, at 11:44 AM, Whoopee Cushion wrote: > How many times do I have to post it? ... Zero. I for one would be happy if you didn't post at all. G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
In TAv exposure mode, you set your f stop and shutter speed. You then specify a range within which the camera can change ISO. You can select the full range (100 to 1600) or a narrow range. The camera then changes ISO sensitivity as the light varies. Your stop and shutter speed remain constant. I find it wonderful when moving from sun to shade or when the sun is moving in and out of the clouds. It's also great indoors when moving from areas near windows to areas farther away, from brightly lit rooms to dimmer rooms, etc. The uses are many, and it works flawlessly in my experience. Paul On Feb 8, 2007, at 5:33 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > what is the Tav exposure mode( how does it operate)? > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > John Francis > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by > when I > first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you > realise just how convenient it is. > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: >> You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific >> feature. Paul >> -- Original message -- >> From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>>> >>>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern >>>> evaluative >>>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >>>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >>>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, > high >>>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > >>>> incompetent is truly bullshit. >>> >>> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 6:05 PM, "P. J. Alling", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or maybe they could spec. a sensor like the Kodak sensor optimized for > corner and edge light capture that Leica is using in the M8 without the > mistake they made in cover plate/filter stage which is causing so much > fun... (It is possible to learn from others mistakes). Slightly dished sensor is being studied. BTW, elimination of jumping mirror dinosaur (using high performance EVF) and sensor shifting AF (similar to what Contax did for their film) would completely change the traditional form factor of SLR. Talking about sensor shift AF, Pentax did XY plane movement for SR, and suppose they can do the same for Z axis movement. Doesn't this solve problems of AF speed, CA and other optical aberrations caused by lens movements? I keep hearing that Oly have been trying to break the mold (legacy) of 35mm SLR in DSLR design. Sorry for side tracking. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > And furthermore, your comments that PENTAX medimum > format lenses "resolve quite a bit lower than average" > is horseshit and it only further supports my point > that generally 35mm lenses resolve better the MedFormat > lenses do. A few rare exceptions is not "general" > situation. The general situation is 35mm lenses are sharper > than MedFormat lenses especially at a given focal length, > but even generally the case at given angles of view too. > Right. As an example, a Hassy 80mm (standard lens) can hit as hight as 107 lpmm, the 38mm Biogon 106 lpmm. Contrast that with the Pentax 6x7 105mm lens besting at 67 lpmm, the 45 besting at 66 lpmm. If this is what you call similar resolution, you have lost what little mind you had left. The 60's were obviously good to you. BTW, you'll have a hard time besting the Hassy numbers with any 35mm camera lens. Anyway John, I've provided you with hard facts, you can ignore them at your leisure, and at this point, I will let the Wookie win. And you are still a fuckface. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Wait a minute! Who you callin' a ... Tim Øsleby wrote: > I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) > > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory > Papenfuss > Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > > >> What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their >> position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) >> >> > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) > > -Cory > > >> Tim >> Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >> >> >>>>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>>>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>>>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>>>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>>>> >>>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>>> >>>> >>> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >>> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >>> The >>> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >>> due to >>> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >>> >>> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >>> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >>> error/incompetence/laziness. >>> >> Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. >> >> If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you >> paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question >> that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. >> >> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative >> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high >> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or >> incompetent is truly bullshit. >> >> All these things can add up to improved picture quality when >> exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional >> photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do >> not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. >> >> You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. >> I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. >> >> Godfrey >> >> >> > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
And furthermore, your comments that PENTAX medimum format lenses "resolve quite a bit lower than average" is horseshit and it only further supports my point that generally 35mm lenses resolve better the MedFormat lenses do. A few rare exceptions is not "general" situation. The general situation is 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses especially at a given focal length, but even generally the case at given angles of view too. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:09 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? -- > What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS his > earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I stated > that in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and > he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, > William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens > sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks > like you > have. It would look that way to you because you don't ever look at what people put in front of you. Had you actually looked at the resolution charts I pointed you to in that thread, you would realize that Pentax 6x7 lenses resolve quite a bit lower than the average for medium format. If you look at the better system resolutions, Hasselblad and Rollei come to mind, (in general, these are the systems the professional photographers use), you would find resolution numbers very close to often better than 35mm lens resolutions. I can't help it that you are obdurate to the point of being stupid, though I admit it does make me wonder how you keep breathing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying that the > format a lens is designed for ( film or sensor size ) does or does > not affect affect the maximum lens performance possible > of a given focal length? Its time to take > a position and stick with it dude. your burning the > candle at both ends at this point It means that not all lenses are created equal. And you still don't know what you are talking about, because you are still debating from a position of ignorance. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Or maybe they could spec. a sensor like the Kodak sensor optimized for corner and edge light capture that Leica is using in the M8 without the mistake they made in cover plate/filter stage which is causing so much fun... (It is possible to learn from others mistakes). DagT wrote: > Just a small comment: > My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as > they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but > because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a > FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for > the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS > sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. > > DagT > > Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > > >> these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" >> lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, >> the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture >> to say, they just work >> better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had >> a full frame camera that matched what the full >> frame lenses can do and were designed for, you would reverse which >> ones you are calling superb and which ones >> you are calling not performing as well. I dont >> think its fair or show's much understanding >> to describe them that way when you are using >> DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses >> which are optimized for FF but not using >> them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure >> there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point >> but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming >> well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body >> that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of >> Godfrey DiGiorgi >> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> >> On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >> >> >>> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to >>> >> replace >> >>> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >>> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >>> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >>> expense >>> >>> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >>> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >>> performance of newer varieties. >>> >> It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I >> depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want >> the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I >> paid for. >> >> When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a >> bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I >> used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold >> them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I >> took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job >> for my work. >> >> I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely >> hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three >> superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old >> lenses which don't perform quite as well. >> >> G >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> > > DagT > > > > > -- -- The more I know of men, the more I like my dog. -- Anne Louise Germaine de Stael -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Rob's come to expect everthing to look smeared since he became a father. -- Bob > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Jack Davis > > Interesting. The A-20 f/2.8 wide edges actually had a smeared look > about them. > > Jack > > --- Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 09/02/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > > > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D > > again. > > > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > > > DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > > > > LOL, just the other day I made a series of tests and now I'm more > > inclined to keep my A20/2.8 and sell my DA16-45 ;-) > > > > -- > > Rob Studdert > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
what is the Tav exposure mode( how does it operate)? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Francis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by when I first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you realise just how convenient it is. On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific > feature. Paul > -- Original message -- > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern > > > evaluative > > > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > > > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > > > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > > > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > > > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > > > Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Lack of sleep or extreme pride will do it too you. I speak from experience. Jack --- Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rob's come to expect everthing to look smeared since he became a > father. > > -- > Bob > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Jack Davis > > > > Interesting. The A-20 f/2.8 wide edges actually had a smeared look > > about them. > > > > Jack > > > > --- Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On 09/02/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. > So > > > > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D > > > again. > > > > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > > > > DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > > > > > > LOL, just the other day I made a series of tests and now I'm more > > > inclined to keep my A20/2.8 and sell my DA16-45 ;-) > > > > > > -- > > > Rob Studdert > > > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > > > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > > > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > > > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
WELL THEN, are you are are you not saying that the format a lens is designed for ( film or sensor size ) does or does not affect affect the maximum lens performance possible of a given focal length? Its time to take a position and stick with it dude. your burning the candle at both ends at this point jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:09 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? -- > What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS his > earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I stated > that in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and > he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, > William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens > sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks > like you > have. It would look that way to you because you don't ever look at what people put in front of you. Had you actually looked at the resolution charts I pointed you to in that thread, you would realize that Pentax 6x7 lenses resolve quite a bit lower than the average for medium format. If you look at the better system resolutions, Hasselblad and Rollei come to mind, (in general, these are the systems the professional photographers use), you would find resolution numbers very close to often better than 35mm lens resolutions. I can't help it that you are obdurate to the point of being stupid, though I admit it does make me wonder how you keep breathing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
In the central area, the 20mm may have been slightly more contrasty. Difficult to determine with any certainty. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, never used that lens. How was it on film in the same > central area? I think I will start to make a list of > these observations for reference. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > Jack Davis > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:28 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED > > > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. DA > 16~45 > f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > > Jack > --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > > you should be using APS digital term. > > > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > > I would like to here from everyone who > > has any experience on the matter please, > > > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > > to solve the problem if applicable? > > > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > Of William Robb > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > > quality > > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > > designs which may allow them to have better rendering > characteristics. > > > I have a > > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > > in digital because of lens aberations. > > Sorry for the harsh words. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > Looking for earth-friendly autos? > Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. > http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > -- > 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 > Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
It's one of those things that I wasn't particularly impressed by when I first saw the write-up on the camera. But once you've used it you realise just how convenient it is. On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 06:34:47PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific feature. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > > > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > > > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > > > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > > > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > > > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > > > Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Interesting. The A-20 f/2.8 wide edges actually had a smeared look about them. Jack --- Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09/02/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D > again. > > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > > DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > > LOL, just the other day I made a series of tests and now I'm more > inclined to keep my A20/2.8 and sell my DA16-45 ;-) > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Yes! Except at f/8. Jack --- Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Obvious questions: :-) > > Did you compare them both at 20mm f/4 on same same subject, same > conditions, > etc.? > > The A was manual focus, the DA is auto focus. Was focus accurte on > bothe > and were they focussed on the same spot in the image? > > > Tom C. > > > >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED > >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) > > > >My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > >distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. > >Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > >DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > > > >Jack > >--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > > > you should be using APS digital term. > > > > > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > > > I would like to here from everyone who > > > has any experience on the matter please, > > > > > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > > > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > > > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > > > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > > > to solve the problem if applicable? > > > > > > jco > > > > > > -Original Message- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf > > > Of > > > William Robb > > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that > the > > > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > > > quality > > > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > > > > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > > > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > > > designs > > > which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I > have > > > a > > > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are > unusable > > > in digital because of lens aberations. > > > Sorry for the harsh words. > > > > > > William Robb > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > -- > > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > > PDML@pdml.net > > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Looking for earth-friendly autos? > >Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. > >http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > > > >-- > >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 > TV dinner still cooling? Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV. http://tv.yahoo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
I agree. On Feb 8, 2007, at 1:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific > feature. > Paul > -- Original message -- > From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>> >>> But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern >>> evaluative >>> metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure >>> metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image >>> stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high >>> speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or >>> incompetent is truly bullshit. >> >> Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. >> >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? -- > What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS > his earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I > stated that > in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and > he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, > William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens > sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks > like you > have. It would look that way to you because you don't ever look at what people put in front of you. Had you actually looked at the resolution charts I pointed you to in that thread, you would realize that Pentax 6x7 lenses resolve quite a bit lower than the average for medium format. If you look at the better system resolutions, Hasselblad and Rollei come to mind, (in general, these are the systems the professional photographers use), you would find resolution numbers very close to often better than 35mm lens resolutions. I can't help it that you are obdurate to the point of being stupid, though I admit it does make me wonder how you keep breathing. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
On 09/02/07, Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So > distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. > Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. > DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. LOL, just the other day I made a series of tests and now I'm more inclined to keep my A20/2.8 and sell my DA16-45 ;-) -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Obvious questions: :-) Did you compare them both at 20mm f/4 on same same subject, same conditions, etc.? The A was manual focus, the DA is auto focus. Was focus accurte on bothe and were they focussed on the same spot in the image? Tom C. >From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:27:59 -0800 (PST) > >My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So >distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. >Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. >DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. > >Jack >--- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > > you should be using APS digital term. > > > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > > I would like to here from everyone who > > has any experience on the matter please, > > > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > > to solve the problem if applicable? > > > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of > > William Robb > > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > > > > >> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > > quality > > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > > designs > > which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have > > a > > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > > in digital because of lens aberations. > > Sorry for the harsh words. > > > > William Robb > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > >Looking for earth-friendly autos? >Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. >http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ > >-- >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: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Thanks, never used that lens. How was it on film in the same central area? I think I will start to make a list of these observations for reference. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jack Davis Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > you should be using APS digital term. > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > I would like to here from everyone who > has any experience on the matter please, > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > to solve the problem if applicable? > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of William Robb > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > >> > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > quality > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. > I have a > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > in digital because of lens aberations. > Sorry for the harsh words. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- 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: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
My A-20mm f/2.8 performed extremely poorly at the wide edges. So distorted and SOFT that I knew I'd never mount it on the K10D again. Immediately sold it on eBay ($440) to one who shoots only film. DA 16~45 f/4 edge performance blew it away at 20mm. Jack --- "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wrong again, your confusing digital term when > you should be using APS digital term. > > This brings up a VERY important issue and > I would like to here from everyone who > has any experience on the matter please, > > WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem > with like WR states here? (and on which dslr > camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND > what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get > to solve the problem if applicable? > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of > William Robb > Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > - Original Message - > From: "Cory Papenfuss" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > >> > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher > quality > > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > > If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. > I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical > designs > which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have > a > few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable > in digital because of lens aberations. > Sorry for the harsh words. > > William Robb > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>Bang on! >Tom, you are one of the most rational people in this list! I'm impressed. >Of course most of people here are rational, too :-). > >Ken > I'm having a relatively good day. :-) Tom C. (who saw Blue Man Group last night) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:39 PM, "Tom C", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> ...but to say these OLD lenses are >>> not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are >>> DIFFERENT, not better or worse... > > I can agree with this. It very much depends on shooting conditions, > application, aperture, etc. Are the DA lenses *more* demonstrably > different/better optically when compared to legacy lenses, than two > individual legacy lenses are different from each other (same mfr., > cross-mfr.), when used on APS sensors? > > Pentax wants us to believe both that their DSLRs are capable of producing > great results with old lenses, and that they'll produce great results with > new DA lenses as well. > > It gets down to: > > 1) There's no discernible difference to most people when it comes to looking > at standard sized prints or electronically displayed media. It'd be > interesting to do a street poll and find out just how many people understand > chromatic aberration, noise and sensor size concepts. Want to guess? > > 2) There are likely trade-offs depending on just how the lens is used > between 'digital' and legacy lenses. > > 3) If you have the money and want the newest whiz bang lens, go for it. > Otherwise be happy with what you have or can afford. > > 4) As Tim said, the skill of the photographer will make a larger difference > in photo quality than most lens specifications will. Bang on! Tom, you are one of the most rational people in this list! I'm impressed. Of course most of people here are rational, too :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
What WR has just posted below is very true, BUT IT CONTRADICTS his earlier strong opposite position in another long thread where I stated that in general, 35mm lenses are sharper than MedFormat lenses and he took me to task in saying that I was wrong. Nice try, William Robb. Have you now changed your position on the lens sharpness vs format (coverage) issue to agree with me? It sure looks like you have. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:38 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic > aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy > equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some > data on the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" > phrase is certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little > sceptical, the same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. > It sounds good but > tells me nothing substantial. Not that I've seen yet. I have a few samples of both older lenses and newer in similar focl lengths, but I can't be bothered with doing formal tests at this point. My impression is that the DA lenses that I own are doing a better job of rendering images to the sensor than the older ones in similar focal lengths. > > It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards > lens compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally > optimized" lenses as being especially desirable or preferrable to all > those compatible lenses, > which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing > sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of > the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot > when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Many years ago, I shot Nikon 35mm and Pentax 6x7. One of the selling points that I took into account when I switched 35mm sytems was the ability to mount my 6x7 glass onto Pentax 35mm cameras. Unfortunately, I found that the 6x7 glass didn't render images to the smaller film format as well as I would have liked, so I ended up buying glass optimized for the 35mm film format. We are in a similar situation now with digital. It is a different format with different lens quality requirements. That we can use older lenses is nice, but, like being able to mount a 6x7 lens onto an LX, there are compromises involved in doing so. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:41 PM, "William Robb", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). > > We use Pentax, we are superior. I of course emphatically have to agree with that! Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?- IMPORTANT INFORMATION REQUESTED
Wrong again, your confusing digital term when you should be using APS digital term. This brings up a VERY important issue and I would like to here from everyone who has any experience on the matter please, WHICH PENTAX FF LENSES have you had a problem with like WR states here? (and on which dslr camera were you having it? 6 or 10MP?), AND what DA lens (or other FF lens ) did you get to solve the problem if applicable? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:23 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have a few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable in digital because of lens aberations. Sorry for the harsh words. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
NOPE- I stand by what I stated fully. I say that the some of the FF lenses, even really old ones, will be able to create higher quality images than even the very best DA/APS systems, on a good FF digital K mount body! Yes, some lenses will have issues with perpendicularity (most noticably wide angles or lenses with nodal points close the sensor, but definately not all). Coatings, APO, and other "feature sets" will not be able to overcome the difference the larger format will make. And some of the older lenses ARE APO and already had excellent coatings anyway. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:14 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi > will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good > FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over 30 years old ) > on a good FF camera in terms of sheer image quality. This is what I > have been talking about in the thread. With DA/APS you have format > limitations that cannot match what is possible with really good, even > OLD FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax > FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider > them for what they are, LENSES, they can create > a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once > the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage > of this capability. > > jco > You're not correct here. There *ARE* featuers of newer lenses that make them better than old ones: - Better coatings - Potential APO in the formulation - Optimized to project the image onto the sensor perpendicularly... not at an angle. Film was much more tolerant of angle of incidence than are sensors. Non-optical ways they're "better:" - A superset of features can be arguably called a way that it's "better." (AF, auto-aperture, MTF transmission info, etc) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering * * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:18 PM, "Tom C", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It makes a weird sort of marketing sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Difficult to quantify it. But here is one thing I know (and believe). In my other hobby, the difference in the level of sophistication of equipment used is more pronounced than in the case of camera/lens (which is more subtle). But everybody knows that the difference in skill level of people who use it always outplays the difference in equipment used. Nevertheless, people keep spending lots of money for more expensive equipment just to eliminate the factor of perceived difference in equipment. In photography, only those pixel peeper can tell much of difference in decent equipment, be it lens or camera (there certainly are obvious dogs), and become too obsessed with it to the point to forget the joy of appreciating the printed products which is the basic of photography. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Thats what I have already posted about a dozen times! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 2:26 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? -- Original message -- From: Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > it's not the additional features that make the new lenses better on the current Pentax DSLRs. It's the fact that the optics were designed to optimize image quality on the smaller image area. They can produce higher quality images than the lenses that were designed for full frame. -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >>>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic > aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy > equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some data on > the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" phrase is > certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little sceptical, > the > same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. It sounds good > but > tells me nothing substantial. Not that I've seen yet. I have a few samples of both older lenses and newer in similar focl lengths, but I can't be bothered with doing formal tests at this point. My impression is that the DA lenses that I own are doing a better job of rendering images to the sensor than the older ones in similar focal lengths. > > It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards lens > compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally optimized" > lenses > as being especially desirable or preferrable to all those compatible > lenses, > which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing > sense, > but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of > the > newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially > considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot > when > projected on an APS sized sensor. Many years ago, I shot Nikon 35mm and Pentax 6x7. One of the selling points that I took into account when I switched 35mm sytems was the ability to mount my 6x7 glass onto Pentax 35mm cameras. Unfortunately, I found that the 6x7 glass didn't render images to the smaller film format as well as I would have liked, so I ended up buying glass optimized for the 35mm film format. We are in a similar situation now with digital. It is a different format with different lens quality requirements. That we can use older lenses is nice, but, like being able to mount a 6x7 lens onto an LX, there are compromises involved in doing so. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> > > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. > >Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? > >William Robb > That must have been after you started whimping out then? ;-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/8/07, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Scott Loveless" > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. > > Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? > Damn. I'll try again later. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
How many times do I have to post it? Optimizing for digital and optimizing for format size are two different things, and I dont believe that the differences you are seeing in some of the DA lenses vs FF lenses of the same focal lengths are due to digital optimization, they are due to Format optimization. (DA lenses, designed to cover only 2/3 the angle or 45% of the area of a FF sensor, can be made to perform slightly better ONLY ON THAT SMALL AREA, then a lens which has to cover it all. Digital optimization will become more of an issue for SOME FF lenses when the FF sensor is used, but for now, the limited angle of coverage being used with FF lenses on APS cameras is not bringing digital optimization much into play IMHO. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Screw you, I know more about what I was talking > about and what I posted than you do. Nice that you think so. Dag, Godfrey and myself all seem to have experienced something that disagrees with you regarding film optimized lenses though. Pentax and the other lens manufacturers seem to think lenses need to be optimized for digital as well. I suppose you are saying screw you to their optical engineers too? You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do on this subject. Continue blowing hard though, you definitely know more about doing that than I do. William Robb -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
-- Original message -- From: Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. > it's not the additional features that make the new lenses better on the current Pentax DSLRs. It's the fact that the optics were designed to optimize image quality on the smaller image area. They can produce higher quality images than the lenses that were designed for full frame. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the > additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality > photographs than are possible with older lenses. If I implied that, it wasn't intentional. I did state (obliquely) that newer lenses may have better optical designs which may allow them to have better rendering characteristics. I have a few older lenses which I liked very much on film that are unusable in digital because of lens aberations. Sorry for the harsh words. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "K.Takeshita" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). We use Pentax, we are superior. WW -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
JCO wrote: > > ...but to say these OLD lenses are > > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > > DIFFERENT, not better or worse... I can agree with this. It very much depends on shooting conditions, application, aperture, etc. Are the DA lenses *more* demonstrably different/better optically when compared to legacy lenses, than two individual legacy lenses are different from each other (same mfr., cross-mfr.), when used on APS sensors? Pentax wants us to believe both that their DSLRs are capable of producing great results with old lenses, and that they'll produce great results with new DA lenses as well. It gets down to: 1) There's no discernible difference to most people when it comes to looking at standard sized prints or electronically displayed media. It'd be interesting to do a street poll and find out just how many people understand chromatic aberration, noise and sensor size concepts. Want to guess? 2) There are likely trade-offs depending on just how the lens is used between 'digital' and legacy lenses. 3) If you have the money and want the newest whiz bang lens, go for it. Otherwise be happy with what you have or can afford. 4) As Tim said, the skill of the photographer will make a larger difference in photo quality than most lens specifications will. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Scott Loveless" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. Doesn't a 10 pound 6x7 count for anything around here? William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
> What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >>>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/08/07 2:07 PM, "Tim Øsleby", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) Isn't it? :-). One day, they say oh it's just a tool and another day, excluding all but their own equipment and how they choose. Viewing from an armchair, its not at all consistent. What IS consistent is the common theme of "I am always superior to you" :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I wasn't referring to you personally. I was referring to your dick ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: 8. februar 2007 20:15 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their > position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) > WHO'S A TOOL? I take offense to that... J/K... ;-) -Cory > > Tim > Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >>>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >>> >>> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >>> >> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >> new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? >> The >> improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness >> due to >> not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. >> >> If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >> nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >> error/incompetence/laziness. > > Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. > > If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > > Godfrey > > -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
Hey! I didn't know you were a Hokie! Bill -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cory Papenfuss Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:57 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >> >> My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh >> words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. >> > > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. > > William Robb > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality photographs than are possible with older lenses. -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
Not completely, if you dont have the right focal length lens ( proper angle of view ) for a given scene, you cant get full control of the composition. Either you have to use zooms or a bunch of primes if you want to maintain best image quality for a given composition (POV). This is why I seriously doubt that anyone can really be getting best possible image quality all the time with only a few lenses, unless they are limiting their composition possibilities to those few angles of view that they have at thier disposal. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:44 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Composition trumps all. :-) > At least is is actually completely separate from equipment. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed >to >complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy >photographer. I take umbrage with that. > >William Robb > Understood. I'm curious if there are any lens test sites that compare chromatic aberration and other factors of DA lenses with their closest legacy equivalent. I haven't looked but I'd be interested in seeing some data on the subject. The "exclusively designed for digital cameras" phrase is certainly a marketing term, which leaves me feeling a little sceptical, the same way the 22-bit A/D converter and Prime engine, do. It sounds good but tells me nothing substantial. It doesn't make sense for Pentax (or other mfrs.) to tout backwards lens compatibility and at the same time promote the "digitally optimized" lenses as being especially desirable or preferrable to all those compatible lenses, which is also a selling feature. It makes a weird sort of marketing sense, but I'd like to see numbers and photos showing exactly how the optics of the newer lenses are *demonstrably* better than the legacy lenses, especially considering the image circle from a legacy lens is from the sweet spot when projected on an APS sized sensor. I'm not arguing they don't have other desirable features. It's not that I'm a disbeliever, it's just that I know it's in a camera/lens company's best interest to sell more lenses. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
> All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi > will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good > FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over > 30 years old ) on a good FF camera in terms of sheer > image quality. This is what I have been talking about > in the thread. With DA/APS you have format limitations > that cannot match what is possible with really good, even OLD > FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax > FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are > not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are > DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider > them for what they are, LENSES, they can create > a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once > the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage > of this capability. > > jco > You're not correct here. There *ARE* featuers of newer lenses that make them better than old ones: - Better coatings - Potential APO in the formulation - Optimized to project the image onto the sensor perpendicularly... not at an angle. Film was much more tolerant of angle of incidence than are sensors. Non-optical ways they're "better:" - A superset of features can be arguably called a way that it's "better." (AF, auto-aperture, MTF transmission info, etc) -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
NO lenses are as good on DSLR as they are on best film because DSLRS still dont have the resolution of the highest resolution films. This is most likely a limitation of your APS DSLR, not your lenses. I say most likely because your making an assumption that these lenses do not image as good on you DSLR because of digital sensor issues, when its most like due to format size and sensor resolution issues. You would have to wait for a good FF pentax body and compare your 135mm lens to a 90mm DA lens or your 100mm lens to a 66mm DA lens and then compared which is better to be sure which is better wouldnt you? And you last statement is totally backwards/wrong. On a ff sensor, MORE ( more than twice as much ) of the FF lens image is used, so the fixed abberations of the lenses become LESS noticable, not more noticable. (The exception to this would be any lens which actally has sensor related issues vs. film, but I havent seen or heard any hard data on that yet, as we dont have the Pentax FF bodies to make the quick comparisons possible). APS makes normal lens abberations ( not film vs. sensor related stuff ) more noticable because you only use a small portion of the FF lens image on a APS body which is like "zooming in" on the flaws. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of DagT Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? Just a small comment: My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. DagT Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" > lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, > the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture > to say, they just work > better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had a full > frame camera that matched what the full frame lenses can do and were > designed for, you would reverse which ones you are calling superb and > which ones you are calling not performing as well. I dont > think its fair or show's much understanding > to describe them that way when you are using > DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses > which are optimized for FF but not using > them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure > there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point > but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming > well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body > that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to > replace >> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >> expense > >> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >> performance of newer varieties. > > It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I > depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want > the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I > paid for. > > When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a > bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I > used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold > them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I > took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job > for my work. > > I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely > hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three > superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old > lenses which don't perform quite as well. > > G > > > -- > 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 DagT -- 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: NO FS this Friday?
I'm not calling anybody lazy or incompetent. But I can't help thinking that you Godfrey, who are a skilled photographer, are able to easily work around most the limitations in the older lenses. You are able to focus accurately without AF. You are able to learn your lenses to the point where you know where their peak performance is. You are able to expose properly on your own without fancy metering. I'm not half as skilled as you are. I probably never will be. But I know one thing. It is not the quality of the old lenses I have and use (BTW, it is not many) that is the main limitation in my photography. No, that's me, and me alone. This said. I can see myself gradually building two lens kits. One for everyday photography, built up with mainly new DA lenses. And one, with old lenses for more specialised tasks. Macro is one example. I don't think I need AF and the other sophisticated features for macro work. But that's me. You think in other directions, and I'm totally ok with that. What I don't understand is why people are so aggressively defending their position in this debate. It is just tools ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: 8. februar 2007 18:20 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >> >> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >> > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? > The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness > due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or incompetent is truly bullshit. All these things can add up to improved picture quality when exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
I think you are confusing some of the DA lenses doing a better job of rendering images vs FF lenses on DSLRs with doing a better job of rendering images vs FF lenses on APS DSLRs. I will say it again, I believe that some, possibly most prime FF Pentax lenses, can and will give a better result on FF DSLRS than the BEST DA lenses on APS DSLRS, once a good FF DSLR body is available to fully utilize what FF lenses were designed to do. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:17 PM To: pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? -- So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator error/incompetence/laziness. -Cory If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment purchase you are a fool. Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying decision, but it isn't the only part. In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do a better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. Isn't that what's important? When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have done), you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are talking about pissing into the wind. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. > > -Cory > > If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment purchase > you > are a fool. > Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying decision, > but it isn't the only part. > In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do a > better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. > Isn't that what's important? > When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of > equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and > when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have done), > you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. > Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are talking > about pissing into the wind. > > Regards > William Robb > I'm perfectly willing to be labeled a fool for choosing equipment purchases based on the best performance I can obtain for the dollar. After all, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it as well as I. As I said initially, I'm willing to pay 10% for 90% the performance some of the newer lenses perform better on the DSLRS, some don't, ALL are more expensive. That means I can afford 10x as much gear as I would otherwise be able to. Your preening aside, you have yet to explain which new features of these newer lenses provide better resultant image quality. As much as I'd love to engage in a pissing match here, I'll leave that (inevitable) conclusion to JCO. -Cory "Pissing into the wind" -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
All those features mentioned below by Godrey DiGiorgi will not make ANY DA/APS lens/format perform as well as a really good FF pentax Lens ( even some of the SMCT screwmounts over 30 years old ) on a good FF camera in terms of sheer image quality. This is what I have been talking about in the thread. With DA/APS you have format limitations that cannot match what is possible with really good, even OLD FF lenses. Of course we all know there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera yet, but to say these OLD lenses are not as good as DA lenses is really not true. They are DIFFERENT, not better or worse, and if just consider them for what they are, LENSES, they can create a better quality IMAGE than DA lenses can once the proper FF body comes along to take full advantage of this capability. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:20 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >> >> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >> > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? > The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness > due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or incompetent is truly bullshit. All these things can add up to improved picture quality when exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>> >> My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh >> words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. >> > > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. > > William Robb > Actually, what I took exception to was the implication that the additional features of newer lenses inherently result higher quality photographs than are possible with older lenses. -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
What is wrong with your brain?, this post was directed at someone who claimed it made sense to buy all new lenses for their PENTAX DSLR for image quality reasons. It does NOT, IMHO. If you are going to have to buy all new lenses for your DSLR, for image quality issues, ( look up the word IF ) then it really doenst make any sense to go with PENTAX body or make. Canon is better if you are really concerned about maximum image quality from your DSLR system AND you are going to have to buy all new lenses anyway. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:06 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > If I had to buy all new lenses for any DSLR, > I wouldnt buy a pentax DSLR. The main advantage > of buying a Pentax DSLR is if you already have > a bunch of Pentax Lenses. If you dont or have > to, or need to buy all new ones, I would go with canon > as they have more bodies/lenses to choose from and > higher level DSLR bodies with FF if wanted or needed... Is someone holding a gun to your head and making you buy all new lenses for your (obsolete) DSLR? Do you feel compelled to buy a new lens set so that you can take pictures with your (obsolete) DSLR? If you don't then your own actions fly in the face of your point here, and renders it moot. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you > paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question > that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. > It's a cost/benefit ratio for me. I'm personally OK with having a little more manual fiddly to deal with, because I know I didn't have to pay thousands of dollars for all of the lenses. As I said before, if you're trying to make money using the camera, there's a whole different set of priorities. > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. > The only parts of this list that intrinsically affect image quality are improved flare control and better image resolution. The rest are features that provide a greater level of automation. The argument wasn't that these other features are irrelevant or useless, but rather that they have nothing to do with image quality. > All these things can add up to improved picture quality when > exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional > photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do > not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. > Yes they can help, but shouldn't be considered necessary. In particular, WRT the topic of image quality (the ultimate requirement of a lens IMO), old lenses should not be summarily discounted. If one personally values the convenience of more modern features enough to pay for them, great. They shouldn't belittle those who don't. > You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. > I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. > One undeniable advantage: cost. All others are a matter of personal preference. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
You're right, John. I now use TAv 75% of the time. It's a terrific feature. Paul -- Original message -- From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > > incompetent is truly bullshit. > > Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. > > > -- > 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: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Screw you, I know more about what I was talking > about and what I posted than you do. Nice that you think so. Dag, Godfrey and myself all seem to have experienced something that disagrees with you regarding film optimized lenses though. Pentax and the other lens manufacturers seem to think lenses need to be optimized for digital as well. I suppose you are saying screw you to their optical engineers too? You don't know anywhere near as much as you think you do on this subject. Continue blowing hard though, you definitely know more about doing that than I do. William Robb -- -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On 2/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to > complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy > photographer. I take umbrage with that. If you weren't lazy you'd be toting a ten pound Canon. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com Shoot more film! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: NO FS this Friday?
Screw you, I know more about what I was talking about and what I posted than you do. when I was talking about the imaging capability IN THIS THREAD, of course I was referring to optical qualities of FF(legacy? - not my term) lenses on APS/Future FF digital vs DA lenses on APS digital which are format related issues. The feature sets have nothing to do with this optical issues. There are already FF lenses with the same feature sets as DA lenses anyway. My comments were not limted to pre-AF lenses, I was referring to ALL FF lenses in comparison to DA lenses on each of the APS/FF formats. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:56 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? - Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Composition trumps all. :-) > At least is is actually completely separate from equipment. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment >purchase you >are a fool. Did anyone say that? >Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying >decision, >but it isn't the only part. >In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do >a >better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. >Isn't that what's important? It certainly could be. >When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of >equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and >when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have >done), >you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. >Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are >talking >about pissing into the wind. > >Regards >William Robb Bill, I respectfully disagree with you here. Your achievements have nothing to do with whether someone else knows what they're talking about. My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Quoting Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Bill, I respectfully disagree with you here. Your achievements have nothing > to do with whether someone else knows what they're talking about. True, but they at least give my opinions some credibility > > My objective opinion is that this thread is degenerating into a war of harsh > words, when you both, in reality, believe exactly the same thing. > There was a hint that because I am finding the options that lenses designed to complement my camera give me are desirable, that i am somehow a lazy photographer. I take umbrage with that. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
Just a small comment: My A*135mm 1.8 and FA100mm 2.8 macro are not as good on my dslrs as they are on film. This is not because of the smaller sensor size but because they are optimized for film, not sensors. If Pentax made a FF camera they would have to make new lenses that were optimized for the new, large sensors as the problems the old lenses show on APS sensors would be even more evident on the large ones. DagT Den 8. feb. 2007 kl. 08.31 skrev J. C. O'Connell: > these lenses are not really "superb" or "better" > lenses in terms of overall image quality capability, > the DA lenses are actually worse I would venture > to say, they just work > better on the limited size APS format that's all. If you had > a full frame camera that matched what the full > frame lenses can do and were designed for, you would reverse which > ones you are calling superb and which ones > you are calling not performing as well. I dont > think its fair or show's much understanding > to describe them that way when you are using > DA lenses optimized for APS on APS with FF lenses > which are optimized for FF but not using > them FF and are only using them on APS. Sure > there is no Pentax FF DSLR camera at this point > but dont mistakenly blame the FF lenses for not perfoming > well on APS, blame pentax for the lack of a FF DSLR body > that would allow them to outperform the best DA lenses. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Godfrey DiGiorgi > Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:02 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:35 PM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: > >> It must be nice to be able to spend large sums of money to > replace >> perfectly function lenses for a marginal increase in performance and >> functionality. Mandated deprication (read: loss of aperture coupler) >> aside, obtaining 95% of the optical performance for 10% of the >> expense > >> sounds like a winning proposition to me. That is why I shoot pre-AF >> lenses I would rather get 10x the lenses producing 95% the >> performance of newer varieties. > > It's not a matter of 'being able to spend large sums of money'. I > depend upon these tools to produce my work and make my living. I want > the best tools that exploit *all* the features of the body which I > paid for. > > When I started with Pentax, I knew little about the line and bought a > bunch of older lenses, all in pretty good condition, inexpensively. I > used them for a while to sort out what I wanted for the kit, and sold > them all at a fair price, which turned out to make a small profit. I > took that money and bought the new lenses which I found did the job > for my work. > > I only use five or six lenses total, and mostly just three. I rarely > hang on to equipment I don't actually need. I'd rather have three > superb lenses producing the best possible performance than thirty old > lenses which don't perform quite as well. > > G > > > -- > 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 DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 09:19:37AM -0800, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative > metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure > metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image > stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high > speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or > incompetent is truly bullshit. Don't forget TAv mode - an amazingly useful innovation. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> >If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment >purchase you >are a fool. >Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying >decision, >but it isn't the only part. >In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do >a >better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. >Isn't that what's important? >When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of >equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and >when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have >done), >you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. >Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are >talking >about pissing into the wind. > >Regards >William Robb > Composition trumps all. :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
-- So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator error/incompetence/laziness. -Cory If you only consider one parameter when you are making an equipment purchase you are a fool. Glass quality is certainly the most important part of a lens buying decision, but it isn't the only part. In context, a couple of people on list have noted that the newer lenses do a better job of rendering images onto the DSLR sensor. Isn't that what's important? When you start shooting large format cameras and hump 50 or more pounds of equipment into the field, when you win a few awards with your pictures, and when you start earning a living with your camera (all of which I have done), you can start talking to me about operator error/incompetence/laziness. Until then, you are just another person who doesn't know what they are talking about pissing into the wind. Regards William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
On Feb 8, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Cory Papenfuss wrote: >>> All of my comments made in this thread regarding >>> APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related >>> to format (sensor) size, not feature set >>> issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. >> >> Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. >> > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a > new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? > The > improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness > due to > not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has > nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator > error/incompetence/laziness. Bullshit seems to be the word this morning. If you want to buy a camera and take advantage of half of what you paid for by using old lenses on it, that's your choice. No question that you can do some nice work if you know what you're doing. But calling someone who wants to take advantage of pattern evaluative metering, linked AE and focus point, MTF prioritized exposure metering, automatic recognition of lens focal length for image stabilization, improved flare control, better image resolution, high speed/accuracy focusing with fine manual control, etc etc, lazy or incompetent is truly bullshit. All these things can add up to improved picture quality when exploited to advantage. For either an amateur or a professional photographer too. There's no doubt that high quality photographs do not *require* all these capabilities, but they can help. You seem to always want to choose doing things the hardest way, Corey. I don't see any evidence that your choice poses an advantage. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
>From: Cory Papenfuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:52:09 -0500 (EST) > > > All of my comments made in this thread regarding > > APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related > > to format (sensor) size, not feature set > > issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. > > > > Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. > > > > William Robb > > > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a >new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The >improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to >not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. > > If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has >nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator >error/incompetence/laziness. > >-Cory > The arguments seems to becoming one of crossed wires here. Some people buy new lenses because they want to get the most out of there body's feature set. Others are happy using older lenses that are fine performers, but not up to date feature-wise. Some people buy new lenses like they're at the candy store, others do not. The lens' pre-eminent function is to focus light at the focal plane. All the other features a lens may have are superfluous to this. One does not have to purchase new lenses for a Pentax DSLR, unless they want to. I have not purchased a DA lens and may never do so. The only one that tempts me is the DA 40/2.8. I already have a 40/2.8 pancake, but the DA tempts me beause of it's size and AF capability. I wouldn't call it " operator error/incompetence/laziness" Cory, but I get your point. There's absolutely nothing wrong with using older legacy lenses that work just fine and produce desirable results. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
> All of my comments made in this thread regarding > APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related > to format (sensor) size, not feature set > issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. > > Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. > > William Robb > So, without consideration of operator error, what exactly does a new lens' feature set do to improve the resultant picture quality? The improved contrast of having autofocus? The increase of sharpness due to not having an auto-aperture? Bullshit. If you're too damn lazy to use manual lenses, just say it. It has nothing to do with picture quality, except in the context of operator error/incompetence/laziness. -Cory -- * * Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA * * Electrical Engineering* * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University * * -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "Cory Papenfuss" Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? > For the hobbyist, it's a lot harder to justify big money on lenses > that produce images at best marginally better than older, cheaper ones > (provided they're willing to forgo the nicey new features like AF). Hobbiests don't have to justify anything. If they can afford something to support their hobby, and they want it, that is all the justification required. Businesses have a harder time justifying things, since aquisitions must pass a more structured and rigourous means test. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: NO FS this Friday?
- Original Message - From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? All of my comments made in this thread regarding APS and FF lenses (legacy?) were optical quality related to format (sensor) size, not feature set issues. That is another unrelated matter altogether. Bullshit. It's part and parcel of what the lens can do. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
