Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

I wouldn't want to wear it out. Perhaps I'll put in a digital  
simulation of a bell to preserve the original... ;-)

G

On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Y. Rowe wrote:

> Please, ring it daily!
>
>> If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
>> a foolish idea.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Y. Rowe]

Please, ring it daily!

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 09:52
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
> a foolish idea.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> --



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

P. J. Alling wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>   
>>> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
>>>
>>> 
 I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER  
 consider the
 50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.
   
>>> Yup.
>>>
>>> 
 It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
   
>>> Bokeh is also very crappy, just like the rest of the lens. I tried  
>>> one and tossed it back, bought the EF 50/1.4 instead. That's a much  
>>> much better performer and is nicely built. Not as good as the Pentax  
>>> 50/1.4, however, and a bit more expensive.
>>>
>>> Godfrey
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> It's nowhere near perfect, but it's by far the best lens you can buy new for 
>> $75.
>>
>> -Adam
>>   
> But you can get a used A 50mm from KEH for around $80.00 and Pentax USA 
> still says they are current products, even if you can't seem to find 
> them anywhere, (well almost anywhere, Milford Photo had a new one on 
> their display shelf for $79.99 last time I was there).
> 

And that's why I specified 'New'. An A 50/1.7 or 1.4 is definitely a better 
lens that an EF 50 1/.8. 

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[P. J. Alling]

Adam Maas wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>   
>> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
>>
>> 
>>> I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER  
>>> consider the
>>> 50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.
>>>   
>> Yup.
>>
>> 
>>> It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
>>>   
>> Bokeh is also very crappy, just like the rest of the lens. I tried  
>> one and tossed it back, bought the EF 50/1.4 instead. That's a much  
>> much better performer and is nicely built. Not as good as the Pentax  
>> 50/1.4, however, and a bit more expensive.
>>
>> Godfrey
>>
>>
>> 
>
> It's nowhere near perfect, but it's by far the best lens you can buy new for 
> $75.
>
> -Adam
>   
But you can get a used A 50mm from KEH for around $80.00 and Pentax USA 
still says they are current products, even if you can't seem to find 
them anywhere, (well almost anywhere, Milford Photo had a new one on 
their display shelf for $79.99 last time I was there).

-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> When I was a Boy Scout, I made my own 4x5 pinhole camera from 
> cardboard.Some
> folks have made them from those cylindrical Quaker Oatmeal boxes. An 8 
> year
> old can do this.

I realize that. The one I made was from an elongated cardboard box used for 
delivering flowers. I wanted a telephoto camera, so thats what I made.
I'm not sure if it benefited my learning or not, but I expect it was the 
first step towards buying some gloriously expensive big lenses.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
> 
>> I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER  
>> consider the
>> 50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.
> 
> Yup.
> 
>> It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
> 
> Bokeh is also very crappy, just like the rest of the lens. I tried  
> one and tossed it back, bought the EF 50/1.4 instead. That's a much  
> much better performer and is nicely built. Not as good as the Pentax  
> 50/1.4, however, and a bit more expensive.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> 

It's nowhere near perfect, but it's by far the best lens you can buy new for 
$75.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

When I was a Boy Scout, I made my own 4x5 pinhole camera from cardboard.Some 
folks have made them from those cylindrical Quaker Oatmeal boxes. An 8 year 
old can do this.

Regards,
Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
  -Jean Luc Godard

- Original Message - 
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


>
> - Original Message ----- 
> From: "Bob Blakely"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
>> Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a
>> pinhole.
>> After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries.
>> Camera won't work without batteries? Get one that does! Light meters
>> should
>> be forbidden until at least half way through the course.
>
> I know that your tongue is somewhat in cheek with this, but you aren't too
> far off the mark for what should be expected of photography students. The
> local tech college here is still issuing 4x5 cameras to students, and the
> Don has been bugging me recently to part with my mechanical cameras, which
> are quite in demand due to attrition.
> I wouldn't ask a student to build their own camera unless they were also 
> in
> the carpentry program, as one skill isn't necessary for the other, but I
> wouldn't issue them zoom lenses ever, and if the course happened to 
> include
> digital cameras, they would get a hobbled RAW converter and nothing else 
> for
> post processing.
> Let the little bastards learn how to make their pictures without 
> Photoshop.
> One of things I am being asked to do quite often at the shop is to fix
> pictures taken by supposed pros that should have been easy images to make 
> if
> the person had a clue about what they were doing.
>
> William Robb
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions. 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:

> I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER  
> consider the
> 50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.

Yup.

> It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.

Bokeh is also very crappy, just like the rest of the lens. I tried  
one and tossed it back, bought the EF 50/1.4 instead. That's a much  
much better performer and is nicely built. Not as good as the Pentax  
50/1.4, however, and a bit more expensive.

Godfrey


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[David Savage]

On 10/18/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Adam Maas
> > Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> >>  Wow.  Impressive thread.  Let me know if I missed any controversies:
> >>
> >> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
> >> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
> >> - Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
> >> - Canikon vs. Pentax
> >> - Emacs vs. VI
> >> - Firefox vs. Internet Exploiter
> >> - Policitcal conservatism vs. liberalism.
> >> - Mac vs. PC.
> >> - A fish pun thread
> >>
> >>  What'd I miss?
> >>
> >> -Cory
> >>
> >
> > Word vs Wordperfect.
>
> Ol' Miss vs. 'Bama ... Roll Tide!

Let's make it really nasty:

Football v''s Throwball (or whatever it is our North Americans friends
call that incomprehensible game they play in armour)



Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[John Sessoms]

> From: Adam Maas
> Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>>  Wow.  Impressive thread.  Let me know if I missed any controversies:
>>
>> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
>> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
>> - Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
>> - Canikon vs. Pentax
>> - Emacs vs. VI
>> - Firefox vs. Internet Exploiter
>> - Policitcal conservatism vs. liberalism.
>> - Mac vs. PC.
>> - A fish pun thread
>>
>>  What'd I miss?
>>
>> -Cory
>>
> 
> Word vs Wordperfect.

Ol' Miss vs. 'Bama ... Roll Tide!


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Christian wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> William Robb wrote:
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus 
>>>> for everything.
>>> So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are we.
>>>
>>> William Robb
>>>
>> Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they 
>> run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon 
>> owners as a must-have (Sharp, fastish, cheap, a good combo). And they're 
>> known to throw fits on Rebels with in-spec but marginal AF calibration.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
> 
> I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER consider the 
> 50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.  It 
> is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
> 

I think every digiRebel user I know has one. But both the camera groups I'm 
part of tend to recommend those things as the first lens to buy after the kit 
lens. Usually by the 'try mine' method.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Christian]

Adam Maas wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>
>>
>>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus 
>>> for everything.
>> So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are we.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
> 
> Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they 
> run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon 
> owners as a must-have (Sharp, fastish, cheap, a good combo). And they're 
> known to throw fits on Rebels with in-spec but marginal AF calibration.
> 
> -Adam
> 

I know a lot of digiRebel users...  none of them would EVER consider the 
50/1.8.  "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason.  sheesh.  It 
is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu AM 07:08:07 GMT
> To: "pentax list" 
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >(She's 
> >thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)
> 
> Got her number ?  ;-))

He's already told you.  28/2.8  Pay attention at the back!


-
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:

>(She's 
>thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)

Got her number ?  ;-))

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Doug Franklin]

William Robb wrote:

> One of things I am being asked to do quite often at the shop is to fix 
> pictures taken by supposed pros that should have been easy images to make if 
> the person had a clue about what they were doing.

So charge the shit out of them and laugh all the way to the bank.  A lot 
of people don't realize it, but W.C. Fields (or P.T. Barnum, I can never 
remember which) wasn't lamenting, he was espousing a business opportunity.

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> 
>>> Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
>> run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon
>> owners as a must-have (Sharp, fastish, cheap, a good combo). And they're
>> known to throw fits on Rebels with in-spec but marginal AF calibration.
> 
> I suspect that other than the usual DPreview whiners, there aren't many non 
> zoom lenses in use on Rebels.
> Besides, if they wanted a good camera, they had the option to buy something 
> other than the bottom feeder. I hear Canon makes some pretty good cameras.
> 
> William Robb 
> 

You're right for the tourist set, but there's a lot of semi-serious 
people out there with 50/1.8's.

-Adam
Who agrees, Canon does make some nice cameras.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> > Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
> run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon
> owners as a must-have (Sharp, fastish, cheap, a good combo). And they're
> known to throw fits on Rebels with in-spec but marginal AF calibration.

I suspect that other than the usual DPreview whiners, there aren't many non 
zoom lenses in use on Rebels.
Besides, if they wanted a good camera, they had the option to buy something 
other than the bottom feeder. I hear Canon makes some pretty good cameras.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Text Editors (was Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?)

[John Sessoms]

From: "P. J. Alling"

> Sorry my text editor of choice is KEdit, a windows version of XEdit.
> Extensible using REX, (I think I have a REX manual around here
> somewhere), a language that is one understandable by mere mortals and
> doesn't lead me to trying to rewrite the editor entirely, so I
> actually get some work done.


That brings back some memories. I haven't used KEdit since DOS 3 days. 
Didn't even know it had been ported to windows.

I used to use IBM's E editor a lot; very simple with powerful tools for 
manipulating text in blocks ... and with PC DOS 7 it included REXX.

I never did a whole lot of programming, mostly low level stuff with debug.

Now I use Word if I need M$ Word compatibility and notepad for most 
everything else.

I'm looking at Open Office though.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> 
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus 
>> for everything.
> 
> So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are we.
> 
> William Robb
> 

Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they 
run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon 
owners as a must-have (Sharp, fastish, cheap, a good combo). And they're 
known to throw fits on Rebels with in-spec but marginal AF calibration.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a 
> pinhole.
> After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries.
> Camera won't work without batteries? Get one that does! Light meters 
> should
> be forbidden until at least half way through the course.

I know that your tongue is somewhat in cheek with this, but you aren't too 
far off the mark for what should be expected of photography students. The 
local tech college here is still issuing 4x5 cameras to students, and the 
Don has been bugging me recently to part with my mechanical cameras, which 
are quite in demand due to attrition.
I wouldn't ask a student to build their own camera unless they were also in 
the carpentry program, as one skill isn't necessary for the other, but I 
wouldn't issue them zoom lenses ever, and if the course happened to include 
digital cameras, they would get a hobbled RAW converter and nothing else for 
post processing.
Let the little bastards learn how to make their pictures without Photoshop.
One of things I am being asked to do quite often at the shop is to fix 
pictures taken by supposed pros that should have been easy images to make if 
the person had a clue about what they were doing.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a pinhole. 
After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries. 
Camera won't work without batteries? Get one that does! Light meters should 
be forbidden until at least half way through the course.

Regards,
Luddite Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
  -Jean Luc Godard

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> William Robb wrote:
>
>>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use
> autofocus
>>> for everything.
>>
>>So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are
> we.
>
> True. I just convinced one of my students, a digi-rebel user, to buy a
> prime. She went for a Canon 28/2.8 and absolutely loves it. (She's
> thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Mark Roberts]

William Robb wrote:

>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use 
autofocus 
>> for everything.
>
>So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are 
we.

True. I just convinced one of my students, a digi-rebel user, to buy a 
prime. She went for a Canon 28/2.8 and absolutely loves it. (She's 
thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Paul Stenquist]

Good point.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:59 PM, William Robb wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under  
> NDA) ?
>
>
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use  
>> autofocus
>> for everything.
>
> So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then,  
> are we.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even  
>>> under NDA) ?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different
>>>> things.
>>>> If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to  
>>>> be THE
>>>> focal point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is
>>>> frequently
>>>> the stop of choice for portraiture.
>>>
>>> If you are shooting portraits, there isn't a lot of reason to use  
>>> AF,
>>> unless
>>> your subject is being really uncooperative, in which case, you are
>>> probably
>>> the wrong photographer for the job.
>>> If you use the tools the right way, they work just fine.
>>>
>>> William Robb
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>>> PDML@pdml.net
>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly  
>>> above and
>>> follow
>>> the directions.
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
>> and
>> follow the directions.
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
> and follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus 
> for everything.

So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are we.

William Robb


>> - Original Message - 
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>
>>
>> > Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different 
>> > things.
>> > If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE
>> > focal point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is 
>> > frequently
>> > the stop of choice for portraiture.
>>
>> If you are shooting portraits, there isn't a lot of reason to use AF, 
>> unless
>> your subject is being really uncooperative, in which case, you are 
>> probably
>> the wrong photographer for the job.
>> If you use the tools the right way, they work just fine.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow
>> the directions.
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions. 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Mark Roberts]

Cotty wrote:

>Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in Europe for several
>years, almost passe now. The latest fashion seems to be shooting sharp
>and blurring in PS in areas that would have been impossible to do at
>shooting stage. From landscapes to product shots - they're all at it.
>
>I don't do that but I do like minimal DOF in a portrait.
>
>
>
>
>
>Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
>take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))

It seems to have made it as far as the east coast, at least :)
Several of the portrait-shooter pros I know here prefer to shoot with 
DOF narrow enough that the eyes are sharp and the ears are out of focus 
and even the tip of the nose is a bit soft.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

Steve is both vain and insecure:-).
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
> 
> >
> > -- Original message --
> >From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >l>
> >> 
> >> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
> >> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
> >> 
> >
> >Bite your tongue, young fellow. My pic of Steve at f2.5 with the K85/1.8:
> >http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763
> >
> >Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the
> >old coot!
> 
> You feel an affinity eh ;-)
> 
> He's still living! Thanks. I will go to his funeral.
> 
> The pic of Steve I like very much, but personally, with that head, if it
> were mine I would present it with every piece of stubble, every blemish,
> every hair follicle, in razor sharp finger-cutting focus. But like my
> wife says, 'If we were all the same the world would be a boring place'.
> 
> Me, I just say bollocks a lot.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Cotty wrote:

> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763
>>
>> Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the
>> old coot!
>
> The pic of Steve I like very much, but personally, with that head,  
> if it
> were mine I would present it with every piece of stubble, every  
> blemish,
> every hair follicle, in razor sharp finger-cutting focus. But like my
> wife says, 'If we were all the same the world would be a boring  
> place'.

I agree with both of you. Now that's frightening.

> Me, I just say bollocks a lot.

There is help available for that.

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Cotty wrote:

>> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
>> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which
>> is distracting and looks bad.
>
> Godders Godders Godders
>
>
> Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in Europe for  
> several
> years, almost passe now. The latest fashion seems to be shooting sharp
> and blurring in PS in areas that would have been impossible to do at
> shooting stage. From landscapes to product shots - they're all at it.
>
> I don't do that but I do like minimal DOF in a portrait.
>
> 
>
> 
>
> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European  
> trends
> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))

Neither of these are formal H&S portraiture ... Besides, his nose is  
blurry. ;-)

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>
> -- Original message --
>From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>l>
>> 
>> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
>> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
>> 
>
>Bite your tongue, young fellow. My pic of Steve at f2.5 with the K85/1.8:
>http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763
>
>Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the
>old coot!

You feel an affinity eh ;-)

He's still living! Thanks. I will go to his funeral.

The pic of Steve I like very much, but personally, with that head, if it
were mine I would present it with every piece of stubble, every blemish,
every hair follicle, in razor sharp finger-cutting focus. But like my
wife says, 'If we were all the same the world would be a boring place'.

Me, I just say bollocks a lot.

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

Right on the money, Bruce. :-)

G

On Oct 17, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:

> When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
> more towards f5.6.
>
> There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
> exception than the rule.  On trick is to not put them too close to the
> background - that way they are all in focus and the background is not.
> Or you can use a background that doesn't compete with the subject.
>
> I do agree that the eyes have to be sharp.  If they are, then a little
> softness in other areas can be forgiven or ignored by the viewer, but
> if the eyes are soft, no matter what else you do, the picture is not
> acceptable.  That is one of the reasons I find manual focus so
> important when shooting people/portraits/weddings.  You have to get
> the right focus and don't want to be fussing with focus
> locking/recomposing or fiddling with trying to set the right focus
> point.  Just use your eyes and turn the focus ring to the right spot.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen  
> many lovely shots with critical focus on the eyes only.

Certainly. Conventional portraiture is what I was referring to.

Blurry bits in the foreground, however, are distracting. You've got  
to at least cover the nose with acceptable sharpness in my opinion.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[David J Brooks]

So i was watching TV on the Labour day weekend, and wound up giving a
dollar to Jerry's squids.

Dave

On 10/16/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > >I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
> >
> >There's something fishy going on here
> >
> >Cheers,
> >   Cotty
> >
>
> You're spawning new ones.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>


-- 
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

 -- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
l>
> 
> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
> 

Bite your tongue, young fellow. My pic of Steve at f2.5 with the K85/1.8:
http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763

Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the old coot!
Paul
> -- 
> 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

Everyone has their likes and dislikes. I prefer razor sharp eyes and 
eyelashes, nose just soft enough that pores aren't disturbing, soft ears, 
very soft forground (if any) and background so soft that it only hints of 
something. Bokeh is important. But that's just me.

Regards,
Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
  -Jean Luc Godard

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>>
>> or even 1.4  ;-)))
>
> Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a
> minimum at 7' focus distance for a conventional H&S portrait to
> obtain razor sharp eyes and acceptably sharp nose to shoulders, with
> a nicely soft backdrop.
>
> With an 75mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, that requires f/8.
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.43 ft
> Far limit 7.67 ft
> Total 1.24 ft
> In front of subject 0.57 ft (46%)
> Behind subject 0.67 ft (54%)
> -
>
> With a 43mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, it presents a somewhat wider FoV,
> but f/4 works well to produce a very similar image:
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.42 ft
> Far limit 7.7 ft
> Total 1.28 ft
> In front of subject 0.58 ft (45%)
> Behind subject 0.7 ft (55%)
> -
>
> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which
> is distracting and looks bad.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[graywolf]

No, no, Bruce. You know that you have to have auto-focus for portraiture. I 
mean 
that subject may move a couple of inches or so between shots.



Excellent advice, by the way.


Bruce Dayton wrote:
> When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
> more towards f5.6.
> 
> There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
> exception than the rule.  On trick is to not put them too close to the
> background - that way they are all in focus and the background is not.
> Or you can use a background that doesn't compete with the subject.
> 
> I do agree that the eyes have to be sharp.  If they are, then a little
> softness in other areas can be forgiven or ignored by the viewer, but
> if the eyes are soft, no matter what else you do, the picture is not
> acceptable.  That is one of the reasons I find manual focus so
> important when shooting people/portraits/weddings.  You have to get
> the right focus and don't want to be fussing with focus
> locking/recomposing or fiddling with trying to set the right focus
> point.  Just use your eyes and turn the focus ring to the right spot.
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Christian]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely 
> shots with critical focus on the eyes only. 
> Paul

yeah but what do you, cotty and I know about portraiture!  apparently 
about as much as we know about "street" photography... :-)

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[graywolf]

If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.

Cory Papenfuss wrote:

> Word is used as the wrong tool for so many jobs it's 
> incredible.

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bruce Dayton]

When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
more towards f5.6.

There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
exception than the rule.  On trick is to not put them too close to the
background - that way they are all in focus and the background is not.
Or you can use a background that doesn't compete with the subject.

I do agree that the eyes have to be sharp.  If they are, then a little
softness in other areas can be forgiven or ignored by the viewer, but
if the eyes are soft, no matter what else you do, the picture is not
acceptable.  That is one of the reasons I find manual focus so
important when shooting people/portraits/weddings.  You have to get
the right focus and don't want to be fussing with focus
locking/recomposing or fiddling with trying to set the right focus
point.  Just use your eyes and turn the focus ring to the right spot.

-- 
Best regards,
Bruce


Wednesday, October 17, 2007, 10:25:20 AM, you wrote:


GD> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:

>> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>>
>> or even 1.4  ;-)))

GD> Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a
GD> minimum at 7' focus distance for a conventional H&S portrait to  
GD> obtain razor sharp eyes and acceptably sharp nose to shoulders, with
GD> a nicely soft backdrop.

GD> With an 75mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, that requires f/8.
GD> -
GD> Subject distance 7 ft
GD> Depth of field
GD> Near limit 6.43 ft
GD> Far limit 7.67 ft
GD> Total 1.24 ft
GD> In front of subject 0.57 ft (46%)
GD> Behind subject 0.67 ft (54%)
GD> -

GD> With a 43mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, it presents a somewhat wider FoV,
GD> but f/4 works well to produce a very similar image:
GD> -
GD> Subject distance 7 ft
GD> Depth of field
GD> Near limit 6.42 ft
GD> Far limit 7.7 ft
GD> Total 1.28 ft
GD> In front of subject 0.58 ft (45%)
GD> Behind subject 0.7 ft (55%)
GD> -

GD> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates  
GD> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which
GD> is distracting and looks bad.

GD> Godfrey




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely 
shots with critical focus on the eyes only. 
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
> 
> > On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> >> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
> >
> > or even 1.4  ;-)))
> 
> Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a  
> minimum at 7' focus distance for a conventional H&S portrait to  
> obtain razor sharp eyes and acceptably sharp nose to shoulders, with  
> a nicely soft backdrop.
> 
> With an 75mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, that requires f/8.
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.43 ft
> Far limit 7.67 ft
> Total 1.24 ft
> In front of subject 0.57 ft (46%)
> Behind subject 0.67 ft (54%)
> -
> 
> With a 43mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, it presents a somewhat wider FoV,  
> but f/4 works well to produce a very similar image:
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.42 ft
> Far limit 7.7 ft
> Total 1.28 ft
> In front of subject 0.58 ft (45%)
> Behind subject 0.7 ft (55%)
> -
> 
> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates  
> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which  
> is distracting and looks bad.
> 
> Godfrey
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

On 17/10/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates  
>unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which  
>is distracting and looks bad.

Godders Godders Godders


Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in Europe for several
years, almost passe now. The latest fashion seems to be shooting sharp
and blurring in PS in areas that would have been impossible to do at
shooting stage. From landscapes to product shots - they're all at it.

I don't do that but I do like minimal DOF in a portrait.





Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))



-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
> 
>> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>> or even 1.4  ;-)))
> 
> Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a  
> minimum at 7' focus distance for a conventional H&S portrait to  
> obtain razor sharp eyes and acceptably sharp nose to shoulders, with  
> a nicely soft backdrop.
> 
> With an 75mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, that requires f/8.
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.43 ft
> Far limit 7.67 ft
> Total 1.24 ft
> In front of subject 0.57 ft (46%)
> Behind subject 0.67 ft (54%)
> -
> 
> With a 43mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, it presents a somewhat wider FoV,  
> but f/4 works well to produce a very similar image:
> -
> Subject distance 7 ft
> Depth of field
> Near limit 6.42 ft
> Far limit 7.7 ft
> Total 1.28 ft
> In front of subject 0.58 ft (45%)
> Behind subject 0.7 ft (55%)
> -
> 
> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates  
> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which  
> is distracting and looks bad.
> 
> Godfrey
> 

There's only a few inches from the tip of the nose to the eyes and 3-4 more to 
the ears. That's what I usually want in focus, and that requires a larger 
aperture than f8 at 75mm on 35mm(which would have the entire head, and then 
some in focus).

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:

> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>
> or even 1.4  ;-)))

Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a  
minimum at 7' focus distance for a conventional H&S portrait to  
obtain razor sharp eyes and acceptably sharp nose to shoulders, with  
a nicely soft backdrop.

With an 75mm lens on a 35mm film SLR, that requires f/8.
-
Subject distance 7 ft
Depth of field
Near limit 6.43 ft
Far limit 7.67 ft
Total 1.24 ft
In front of subject 0.57 ft (46%)
Behind subject 0.67 ft (54%)
-

With a 43mm lens on a Pentax DSLR, it presents a somewhat wider FoV,  
but f/4 works well to produce a very similar image:
-
Subject distance 7 ft
Depth of field
Near limit 6.42 ft
Far limit 7.7 ft
Total 1.28 ft
In front of subject 0.58 ft (45%)
Behind subject 0.7 ft (55%)
-

Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates  
unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which  
is distracting and looks bad.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:

>And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture. 

or even 1.4  ;-)))

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

On 16/10/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:

>Point taken. It really is the high end Canons that are so blisteringly fast. 
>If I find myself shooting a lot of agility, I might have to consider one of 
>them and some sort of a zoom lens for it, though an improved Pentax would 
>suit me better.

I see Wendy's been showing you hers again ;-)

-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[David Savage]

On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "mike wilson"
> > Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> >
> >
> >>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>>
> >>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
> >>> they get there a fair bit faster.
> >> Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon
> >> start then claiming you've won?
> >
> >
> > As long as focus accuracy is within the depth of focus (surprisingly deep on
> > telephoto lenses), or depth of field (surprisingly deep on wide angle
> > lenses), then it's all good.
> > I don't know how "less accurate" (if at all) Canon's AF is, but it certainly
> > isn't going to be especially bad, or people wouldn't be buying their cameras
> > in droves for professional use.
> > Pentax AF may be a tad more accurate, but it is certainly less fast than the
> > present crop of higher performace Canons, which, in many situations where AF
> > is beneficial, negates the advantage of AF.
> >
> > Accuracy of AF with non or slow moving subjects does not necessarily
> > translate into better focusing performance with fast moving subjects.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
>
> Note this is Canon's low-end AF. Their higher-end units (like on the 
> 1-series) are truly world-class.

And If I remember correctly isn't that (Canon 1Dxxx) what Wendy is using?

(I'm assuming it was Wendy you were originally refering to Bill)

Cheers,

Dave

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> 
>>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
>>> they get there a fair bit faster.
>> Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon 
>> start then claiming you've won?
> 
> 
> As long as focus accuracy is within the depth of focus (surprisingly deep on 
> telephoto lenses), or depth of field (surprisingly deep on wide angle 
> lenses), then it's all good.
> I don't know how "less accurate" (if at all) Canon's AF is, but it certainly 
> isn't going to be especially bad, or people wouldn't be buying their cameras 
> in droves for professional use.
> Pentax AF may be a tad more accurate, but it is certainly less fast than the 
> present crop of higher performace Canons, which, in many situations where AF 
> is beneficial, negates the advantage of AF.
> 
> Accuracy of AF with non or slow moving subjects does not necessarily 
> translate into better focusing performance with fast moving subjects.
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 

Note this is Canon's low-end AF. Their higher-end units (like on the 1-series) 
are truly world-class.

-Adam


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[graywolf]

For those who may be interested:

Most of the editors mentioned in this sub-thread are from the Unix/Linux world 
although most of them are available for Windows these days (Unix stuff should 
run natively on OS-X for the Apple fans). Emacs started out as a text editor 
but 
has over time evolved into more of a computing environment, an application that 
does everything, 180 degrees away from the Unix philosophy (many small 
applications that can interact); you either love it or hate it, there is no 
middle ground.

Perhaps the most exotic editing system mention is the LyX/LaTeX one I comment 
on. Tex (LaTeX is an enhanced version) is the original Unix 
formating/typesetting program. It takes a text file and turns it into a 
completely formated Postscript file to send to the printer or typesetting 
machine. LyX is a graphical text editor that uses templates to tell LaTeX how 
to 
format the page(s). Once you have a template you simply type in your text and 
send it and the template to LaTeX and a completely formated document comes out. 
Business letters all come out with identical formating. Writing a novel? Every 
chapter comes out with the same format ready to be printed. A dissertation? 
Completely formatted including all footnotes and citations. So one can easily 
see what I meant about using it to write a 100 volume encyclopedia. Overkill 
for 
most uses, but once set up it is as easy to use as a basic text editor; simply 
select a template, type in your text, spell check it, and print it. Saves hours 
of formating hassles.

The text/programing editor I normally use is Wordpad (the free version, the pro 
versions is more of a programing environment). I also use Word 2003 because 
someone gave me Office 2003, and because it is pretty much the standard out 
there although it is bloatware taken to an extreme and takes about a week to 
figure out how to shut off all those unwanted features everytime I have to 
reload it.

BTW, Wordpad that comes with Win XP is not bad as a basic wordprocessor.


David Savage wrote:
> I'm reading this sub-thread and it's all whistling over my head. (I know 
> about LISP, as Autocad uses it, but the rest is gobbledygook :-) .
> 
> You guy's are such computer geek's 
> 
> For the record, if I need to write a letter, report etc & it can't be hand 
> written, I used MS Word/Excel at work & the Open Office equivalent at home
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave
> 
> At 03:04 AM 17/10/2007, Adam Maas wrote:
>> BBEdit is superb. I miss it (Running a Vista system as my main box right 
>> now, need to get another Mac).
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>>
>> P. J. Alling wrote:
>>> Sorry my text editor of choice is KEdit, a windows version of XEdit.
>>> Extensible using REX, (I think I have a REX manual around here
>>> somewhere), a language that is one understandable by mere mortals and
>>> doesn't lead me to trying to rewrite the editor entirely, so I actually
>>> get some work done.
>>>
>>> Gonz wrote:
 Then you need to run M-x doctor.
  (ever tried that?)
 :)
> 
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus for 
everything.
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> 
> > Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. 
> > If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE 
> > focal point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently 
> > the stop of choice for portraiture.
> 
> If you are shooting portraits, there isn't a lot of reason to use AF, unless 
> your subject is being really uncooperative, in which case, you are probably 
> the wrong photographer for the job.
> If you use the tools the right way, they work just fine.
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. 
> If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE 
> focal point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently 
> the stop of choice for portraiture.

If you are shooting portraits, there isn't a lot of reason to use AF, unless 
your subject is being really uncooperative, in which case, you are probably 
the wrong photographer for the job.
If you use the tools the right way, they work just fine.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is  
a foolish idea.

Godfrey



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


>
>>
>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
>
> Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon 
> start then claiming you've won?


As long as focus accuracy is within the depth of focus (surprisingly deep on 
telephoto lenses), or depth of field (surprisingly deep on wide angle 
lenses), then it's all good.
I don't know how "less accurate" (if at all) Canon's AF is, but it certainly 
isn't going to be especially bad, or people wouldn't be buying their cameras 
in droves for professional use.
Pentax AF may be a tad more accurate, but it is certainly less fast than the 
present crop of higher performace Canons, which, in many situations where AF 
is beneficial, negates the advantage of AF.

Accuracy of AF with non or slow moving subjects does not necessarily 
translate into better focusing performance with fast moving subjects.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Indeed,

Which leads to a lot of frustrated Rebel owners(well, except for those using 
the XTi, which has the more accurate AF unit from the 20D/30D).

-Adam



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If 
> you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE focal 
> point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop 
> of choice for portraiture. 
> Paul
>  -- Original message --
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Doug Franklin wrote:
>>> Adam Maas wrote:
>>>
 Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
 they get there a fair bit faster.
>>> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>> It's fine as long as they're covered by DoF. That's why you hear all the 
>> Rebel owners whining that their Rebel can't focus a 50/1.8, the AF's 
>> accuracy is only calibrated for f2.8 and slower lenses, any better is a 
>> matter of luck.
>>
>> -Adam
>>
>> -- 
>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> PDML@pdml.net
>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>> follow 
>> the directions.
> 
> 



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If 
you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE focal 
point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop 
of choice for portraiture. 
Paul
 -- Original message --
From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Doug Franklin wrote:
> > Adam Maas wrote:
> > 
> >> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
> >> they get there a fair bit faster.
> > 
> > Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
> > 
> > :-)
> > 
> 
> It's fine as long as they're covered by DoF. That's why you hear all the 
> Rebel owners whining that their Rebel can't focus a 50/1.8, the AF's 
> accuracy is only calibrated for f2.8 and slower lenses, any better is a 
> matter of luck.
> 
> -Adam
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
> 
> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
> 
> :-)
> 

It's fine as long as they're covered by DoF. That's why you hear all the 
Rebel owners whining that their Rebel can't focus a 50/1.8, the AF's 
accuracy is only calibrated for f2.8 and slower lenses, any better is a 
matter of luck.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[P. J. Alling]

Not a good analogy, more like running the hundred yard dash, beating the 
those who finished to the 90 yard mark, stopping there and declaring 
yourself the winner.

mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
>> 
>
> Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon 
> start then claiming you've won?
>
>
> -
> Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
>
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[mike wilson]

> 
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
> they get there a fair bit faster.

Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon start 
then claiming you've won?


-
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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Eactivist]

In a message dated 10/16/2007 11:30:42 A.M.  Pacific Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's see:

1. Word  Processing software
2. Political orientations
3. Sci Fi quotes
4. Some  discussion of DSLR design.
5. Some name calling

Yep, typical PDML  thread. 


Actually, this one is further a field  than most. Like being in a crowded 
room with several conversations going on at  the same time.

I've been ignoring this thread thinking it was another one  of endless 
speculation about future Pentax developments. I should have known  only a 
thread 
that had gone OT would have gone on this long.

"Make it  so."
The Same Bald Guy

Marnie aka Doe  :-)

-
Warning: I am now  filtering my email, so you may be censored.  




** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Doug Franklin]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Doug Franklin"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
>> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
> 
> Not getting there at all [or] slowly is just as unhelpful.

No argument from me, in most cases.  If the wrong place we're headed is 
a gory and painful death, though, I'd just as soon dawdle a bit.

But remember, I'm an old software developer by trade.  I often have to 
remind the young guns of the ... uh ... "issues" connected with 
computing the wrong thing really quickly. ;-)

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?



>
> The only thing we really lack is a "Prime Directive"...  Leave other 
> species
> alone until they join the present century by themselves.
>

They'd ignore it anyway.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Adam Maas wrote:
> 
>> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
> 
> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.

Not getting there at all slowly is just as unhelpful.

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Doug Franklin]

Adam Maas wrote:

> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
> they get there a fair bit faster.

Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.

:-)

-- 
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[P. J. Alling]

How the heck did I miss that?

David Savage wrote:
> At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>   
>> You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
>> 
>
>
> Religion was last week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave 
>
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[David Savage]

At 10:53 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>How the heck did I miss that?

Just lucky I guess.

Cheers,

Dave


>David Savage wrote:
> > At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
> >
> >> You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Religion was last week.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

And make it the size of a Rollei 35S and cost $100, of course.

Godfrey

On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Tom C wrote:

> I want a digital 6x7III with interchangeable backs so I can keep  
> increasing the MP as noise goes down, oh yes, and it should be able  
> to take a newly developed film back also, should allow digital  
> capture and film exposure simutaneously, and be compatible with all  
> Pentax lenses whatever mount, format, size ever made, including  
> 645, screwmount and the 110 camera, have the fastest AF on the  
> market, buffer enough for 100 burst images, and wi-fi, bluetooth. I  
> should be acle to edit images in camera with the optional 10" LCD  
> and Photoshop CSIV for Pentax.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[David Savage]

At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!


Religion was last week.

Cheers,

Dave 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Tom C]

Don't forget evolution vs. creation, broadly falls under religion though I 
guess.


Tom C.


From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under  NDA)?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:22:15 -0400

You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!

Though I think the K1 should have an aperture simulator..(But I don't
have to wish for that the K1 or MZ-D or MR-52, or whatever, already had
one).

David Savage wrote:
> At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
>> Let's see:
>>
>> 1. Word Processing software
>> 2. Political orientations
>> 3. Sci Fi quotes
>> 4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
>> 5. Some name calling
>>
>> Yep, typical PDML thread. 
>>
>
>
> Hmmm, but I feel we are still missing something.
>
> ...Ah yes!...
>
> Who would like to see the return of the aperture simulator in the K1D, 
to

> allow full backward compatibility with K & M lenses, & the ability to be
> able to use the aperture ring?
>
> ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>


--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Tom C]

I want a digital 6x7III with interchangeable backs so I can keep increasing 
the MP as noise goes down, oh yes, and it should be able to take a newly 
developed film back also, should allow digital capture and film exposure 
simutaneously, and be compatible with all Pentax lenses whatever mount, 
format, size ever made, including 645, screwmount and the 110 camera, have 
the fastest AF on the market, buffer enough for 100 burst images, and wi-fi, 
bluetooth. I should be acle to edit images in camera with the optional 10" 
LCD and Photoshop CSIV for Pentax.


Tom C.



From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under  NDA)?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:22:15 -0400

You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!

Though I think the K1 should have an aperture simulator..(But I don't
have to wish for that the K1 or MZ-D or MR-52, or whatever, already had
one).

David Savage wrote:
> At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
>> Let's see:
>>
>> 1. Word Processing software
>> 2. Political orientations
>> 3. Sci Fi quotes
>> 4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
>> 5. Some name calling
>>
>> Yep, typical PDML thread. 
>>
>
>
> Hmmm, but I feel we are still missing something.
>
> ...Ah yes!...
>
> Who would like to see the return of the aperture simulator in the K1D, 
to

> allow full backward compatibility with K & M lenses, & the ability to be
> able to use the aperture ring?
>
> ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>


--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.




-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[David Savage]

I'm reading this sub-thread and it's all whistling over my head. (I know 
about LISP, as Autocad uses it, but the rest is gobbledygook :-) .

You guy's are such computer geek's 

For the record, if I need to write a letter, report etc & it can't be hand 
written, I used MS Word/Excel at work & the Open Office equivalent at home

Cheers,

Dave

At 03:04 AM 17/10/2007, Adam Maas wrote:
>BBEdit is superb. I miss it (Running a Vista system as my main box right 
>now, need to get another Mac).
>
>-Adam
>
>
>P. J. Alling wrote:
> > Sorry my text editor of choice is KEdit, a windows version of XEdit.
> > Extensible using REX, (I think I have a REX manual around here
> > somewhere), a language that is one understandable by mere mortals and
> > doesn't lead me to trying to rewrite the editor entirely, so I actually
> > get some work done.
> >
> > Gonz wrote:
> >> Then you need to run M-x doctor.
> >>  (ever tried that?)
> >> :)


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[P. J. Alling]

You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!

Though I think the K1 should have an aperture simulator..(But I don't 
have to wish for that the K1 or MZ-D or MR-52, or whatever, already had 
one).

David Savage wrote:
> At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>   
>> Let's see:
>>
>> 1. Word Processing software
>> 2. Political orientations
>> 3. Sci Fi quotes
>> 4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
>> 5. Some name calling
>>
>> Yep, typical PDML thread. 
>> 
>
>
> Hmmm, but I feel we are still missing something.
>
> ...Ah yes!...
>
> Who would like to see the return of the aperture simulator in the K1D, to 
> allow full backward compatibility with K & M lenses, & the ability to be 
> able to use the aperture ring?
>
> ;-)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave 
>
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[David Savage]

At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>Let's see:
>
>1. Word Processing software
>2. Political orientations
>3. Sci Fi quotes
>4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
>5. Some name calling
>
>Yep, typical PDML thread. 


Hmmm, but I feel we are still missing something.

...Ah yes!...

Who would like to see the return of the aperture simulator in the K1D, to 
allow full backward compatibility with K & M lenses, & the ability to be 
able to use the aperture ring?

;-)

Cheers,

Dave 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Paul Stenquist]

Manual focus is great for high speed objects if you can pick the  
point of shutter release prior to the shot. I used it for many years  
shooting dragsters at 200 mph and other motorsports as well. If the  
path of the speeding object can be predicted, manual is a lock.
Paul
On Oct 16, 2007, at 8:49 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

>
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Paul Stenquist"
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
>> NDA) ?
>>
>>
>>> Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
>>>
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4834217&size=lg
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6065859&size=lg
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5786253&size=lg
>>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5700158&size=lg
>>>
>>
>> I'm not seeing any of those as being a real hard test of the AF.
>> Try a sight
>> hound running straight at you, perhaps 30 or so feet away somethime.
>
> Switch to manual focus and do it the right way.
>
> G
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above  
> and follow the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

You brought it up so...

The main part of the Constitution does not and did not intend to limit 
government power. It only grants certain specific powers. In the context in 
which it was written, government has no power save that which it's given. 
All power that the government wields and laws which it enacts must trace 
directly back to those powers granted it by the Constitution.

Example:  The BATF picked a fight with a fellow in Montana a few years back. 
They discovered that he'd made a machine gun for himself from scratch. Seems 
he didn't have a federal firearms manufacturing license. Well, when they 
brought him to federal court, he argued that since the laws governing 
firearms arise from the government's Constitutionally granted power to 
regulate and promote interstate commerce (which it does), and since none of 
the parts used in the gun were manufactured in any other state and since he 
hadn't transported the gun across state lines, let alone for purposes of 
commerce, the federal government lacked jurisdiction (power) to hassle him 
about it. The high federal court agreed with him and dismissed the case! 
(The fellow was, however, in deep doodoo with the state of Montana about it 
though.)

For this reason, the Constitution written by the "fathers" initially lacked 
the "Bill of Rights" we have now because the the "fathers" did not believe 
it necessary. After all, the Constitution did not give the federal 
government any power to regulate speech, press, religion, etc., so they 
couldn't do it. The states, fearing the new federal government would seek to 
extend it's power by removing liberty from men as all previous governments 
had, demanded that certain rights be specifically named as off limits to the 
new governments. These became the first ten amendments to the Constitution 
known as "The Bill of Rights". They are amendments (or changes) to the 
originally written Constitution and so form a part of it. No state ratified 
the Constitution until after the the document had been amended. All 
amendments are a part of the Constitution.

The only thing we really lack is a "Prime Directive"...  Leave other species 
alone until they join the present century by themselves.

Regards,
Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
  -Jean Luc Godard

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


> Actually the Constitution itself does not limit the governments powers, it 
> is
> the Bill of Rights that does that. And the revolutionary fathers forced 
> that
> through against quite a bit of opposition, if I remember my history 
> correctly.
>
>
> Tom C wrote:
>>> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>> In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the
>>> government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a
>>> great document, even allowing for amendment
>>> should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the 
>>> US.
>>
>> LOL. True.
>>
>> To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in 
>> power)
>> that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What
>> larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the 
>> fields
>> or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is
>> questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs.
>> granting them.
>>
>> Tom C.
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions. 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" 
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?



> 
> Switch to manual focus and do it the right way.

Unfortunately, I'm not as fast as the K10..

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:05 PM, William Robb wrote:

>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under  
> NDA) ?
>
>
>> Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
>>
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4834217&size=lg
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6065859&size=lg
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5786253&size=lg
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5700158&size=lg
>>
>
> I'm not seeing any of those as being a real hard test of the AF.  
> Try a sight
> hound running straight at you, perhaps 30 or so feet away somethime.

Switch to manual focus and do it the right way.

G


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> 
> 
>> On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>>>> So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
>>> I'd rather Pentax built a camera that was up to the standard of a
>>> five year
>>> old Canon. I could live with that, and use my present lenses to boot.
>> LOL ... I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased with the performance of a
>> Canon D60, Bill. And the 10D owners never stopped pissing and moaning
>> about the focusing on that one either. ;-)
> 
> Point taken. It really is the high end Canons that are so blisteringly fast. 
> If I find myself shooting a lot of agility, I might have to consider one of 
> them and some sort of a zoom lens for it, though an improved Pentax would 
> suit me better.
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 

Yes, and it took even Nikon years to catch up. Even the D2's aren't as 
fast to AF as 1998's EOS 3. But you can't get into the uber-fast Canon's 
for reasonable money(A 1DmIIN is the ebst bet, in the $3000+ range). 
Right now it looks like the low-cost AF king will be the D300 from Nikon.

The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but 
they get there a fair bit faster.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> William Robb wrote:
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "David Savage"
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
>>> I was waiting for that
>>>
>>
>> It would be good advice, and I'd probably take it, except for the
>> impractibility of it.
>>
>> William Robb
>>
>>
>
> Your FA and earlier lenses will work on a 40D with adaptors, much like
> apre-A lenses on the K10D.
>

Which doesn't do much good regarding the responsiveness of the AF, which is
my major concern. The 10D isn't bad, it's just not quite good enough.

William Robb


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Roberts" 
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>Tom C wrote:
>>
>>> It'll likely be a matter of attrition.  What % of people here use 
>>> WordPerfect as opposed to MS Word?
>>
>>I use vi
> 
> Open Office here.

WordPerfect, the official program (it seems) of the Canadian law industry.

William Robb

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


>
> On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>> So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
>>
>> I'd rather Pentax built a camera that was up to the standard of a
>> five year
>> old Canon. I could live with that, and use my present lenses to boot.
>
> LOL ... I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased with the performance of a
> Canon D60, Bill. And the 10D owners never stopped pissing and moaning
> about the focusing on that one either. ;-)

Point taken. It really is the high end Canons that are so blisteringly fast. 
If I find myself shooting a lot of agility, I might have to consider one of 
them and some sort of a zoom lens for it, though an improved Pentax would 
suit me better.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Oh I don't know. :-)   My statement was a little different.  I'm saying 
> that
> they have gained a little respect with the K10D and now is the prime time 
> to
> capitalize on it with a camera body that looks like they're trying to
> compete with the very high-mid/high range offerings from Canon and Nikon.
>
> To really do that, it needs to be FF.

I think they could garner quite a bit of respect in the present sensor size 
if they could upp the pixel count to about 14mp, and still keep good high 
iso performance, but greatly speed up the AF, and make the buffer larger.
I don't know if there are any sensors out there that fit this criteria or 
not.
Something closer to full frame would be nicer, even at the cost of shake 
reduction on DA lenses.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?


> Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4834217&size=lg
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6065859&size=lg
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5786253&size=lg
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5700158&size=lg
>

I'm not seeing any of those as being a real hard test of the AF. Try a sight 
hound running straight at you, perhaps 30 or so feet away somethime.

William Robb 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Adam Maas]

Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>   Wow.  Impressive thread.  Let me know if I missed any 
> controversies:
> 
> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
> - Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
> - Canikon vs. Pentax
> - Emacs vs. VI
> - Firefox vs. Internet Exploiter
> - Policitcal conservatism vs. liberalism.
> - Mac vs. PC.
> - A fish pun thread
> 
>   What'd I miss?
> 
> -Cory
> 

Word vs Wordperfect.

-Adam

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cory Papenfuss]

Wow.  Impressive thread.  Let me know if I missed any 
controversies:

- WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
- Sensor sizes defying physical laws
- Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
- Canikon vs. Pentax
- Emacs vs. VI
- Firefox vs. Internet Exploiter
- Policitcal conservatism vs. liberalism.
- Mac vs. PC.
- A fish pun thread

What'd I miss?

-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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Cory Papenfuss]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:

> Let's see:
>
> 1. Word Processing software
> 2. Political orientations
> 3. Sci Fi quotes
> 4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
> 5. Some name calling
>
> Yep, typical PDML thread. 
>
DAMN!   My email client ordered them wrong so you beat me to it!

-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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cory Papenfuss]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Adam Maas wrote:

> Actually it's just ingrained muscle memory, years of having to use vi
> while maintaining services on Unix machines means that the basic editing
> commands are pretty much automatic. vi is ideal for that use, it's
> lightweight and everything has it.
>
> I still :wq on a regular basis in just about every other editor/word
> processor.
>
> If you want punishment, use emacs. All the weight of Word, none of the
> Eye Candy.
>
The way I think of it is that emacs is so configurable in so many 
ways, that it's impossible to configure it at all.  Besides, Lisp has a 
dribbling lisp of parenthesis...

Vi is evil, and I often wish I'd had to learn it.  :)

-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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cory Papenfuss]

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Gonz wrote:

> emacs.
>
> unless i absolutely have to send a doc, then MS word.
>

If someone *requires* a Word doc, I'll embed a TIF of my LaTeX 
document into Word.  Word is used as the wrong tool for so many jobs it's 
incredible.

-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
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[P. J. Alling]

The original document severely limits the Federal Governments powers. 
The major problem was the authors left a small loophole to take care of 
the unexpected which let the camels nose into the tent...

graywolf wrote:
> Actually the Constitution itself does not limit the governments powers, it is 
> the Bill of Rights that does that. And the revolutionary fathers forced that 
> through against quite a bit of opposition, if I remember my history correctly.
>
>
> Tom C wrote:
>   
>>> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>   
>>> In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the 
>>> government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a 
>>> great document, even allowing for amendment
>>> should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the US.
>>>   
>> LOL. True.
>>
>> To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in power) 
>> that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What 
>> larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the fields 
>> or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is 
>> questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs. 
>> granting them.
>>
>> Tom C.
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>
>   


-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Mark Roberts]

Christian wrote:

>Cotty wrote:
>>>   
>> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>> 
> There's something fishy going on here
>
>   
 Well it certainly smelts like it.
>> 
>>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>> 
>> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.

True, but haven't you noticed how we follow them with an almost 
religious devotion? A rather unpleasant religious devotion, admittedly. 
Sort of an ick-theology, if you will.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[graywolf]

Actually the Constitution itself does not limit the governments powers, it is 
the Bill of Rights that does that. And the revolutionary fathers forced that 
through against quite a bit of opposition, if I remember my history correctly.


Tom C wrote:
>> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the 
>> government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a 
>> great document, even allowing for amendment
>> should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the US.
> 
> LOL. True.
> 
> To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in power) 
> that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What 
> larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the fields 
> or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is 
> questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs. 
> granting them.
> 
> Tom C.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Tom C]

True.  I was merely reflecting on how, my personal opinion, the power is not 
really in the hands of the people at large.  It's concentrated in the hands 
of the select few, who are often born into a wealthy and powerful family.  
If not, then a person generally acquires wealth and power, which 
differentiates them again from the populace they may 'serve'.

A cynical view of course.

Tom C.

>From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List 
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
>Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:19:05 -0700
>
>At that time, we were a union of separate states. The states chose to 
>ratify
>the Constitution as they saw fit via the representation methods they had.
>Remember, they were independent. We became, essentially, a country of
>countries.
>
>Regards,
>Bob...
>
>"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
>   -Jean Luc Godard
>
>- Original Message -
>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > >From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >>In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the
> >>government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a
> >>great document, even allowing for amendment
> >>should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the 
>US.
> >
> > LOL. True.
> >
> > To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in
> > power)
> > that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What
> > larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the 
>fields
> > or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is
> > questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs.
> > granting them.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > PDML@pdml.net
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> > follow the directions.
>
>
>--
>PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>PDML@pdml.net
>http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
>follow the directions.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Christian]

Cotty wrote:
>>   
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
> 
 There's something fishy going on here

   
>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
> 
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
> 
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 

These pun threads are so bass ackwards!

-- 

Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

At that time, we were a union of separate states. The states chose to ratify 
the Constitution as they saw fit via the representation methods they had. 
Remember, they were independent. We became, essentially, a country of 
countries.

Regards,
Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
  -Jean Luc Godard

- Original Message - 
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> >From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the
>>government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a
>>great document, even allowing for amendment
>>should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the US.
>
> LOL. True.
>
> To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in 
> power)
> that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What
> larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the fields
> or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is
> questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs.
> granting them.
>
> Tom C.
>
>
>
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
> follow the directions. 


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Tom C]

>From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the 
>government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a 
>great document, even allowing for amendment
>should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here in the US.

LOL. True.

To my way of thinking, it was the revolutionary government (people in power) 
that granted these powers to the government they had established.  What 
larger part the 'people', the ordinary men and women working in the fields 
or going about a pedestrian way of life had in granting power, is 
questionable.  Seems more a matter of not contesting those powers vs. 
granting them.

Tom C.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Spam: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Derby Chang]

Bob Blakely wrote:
> It's a hard roe for him to hoe.
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
> 
> "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." 
>   -Jean Luc Godard
>  
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
>   
>> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>> 
> There's something fishy going on here
>   
>   
 Well it certainly smelts like it.
 
>>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>>>   
>> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
>> 
I think I'll join in for the hallibut

D

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Bob Blakely]

It's a hard roe for him to hoe.

Regards,
Bob...

"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection." 
  -Jean Luc Godard
 
- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.

 There's something fishy going on here
   
>>>Well it certainly smelts like it.
> 
>>Better get your ducks in a roe
> 
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Tom C]

>
>On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
>There's something fishy going on here
>
>Cheers,
>   Cotty
>

You're spawning new ones.

Tom C.



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?

[Charles Robinson]

On Oct 16, 2007, at 13:30, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> But this all seems so ridiculous. I mean, heck, if you're looking
> through the viewfinder and you can't see whether the image is in
> focus, why bother with an SLR? Are you that dependent upon auto focus
> systems?
>

When I was on a trip to China a couple years ago, I was shooting so  
many photos from so many different angles all of the time (trying my  
best to fulfill the expectations of my behavior as a tourist, I  
guess) I turned on the AF beep for one reason only:  Not to know that  
I was in focus, but a way for me to know that the camera was done  
trying to focus.  That way it was easier for me to use the camera  
AWAY FROM MY FACE (over my head, under a tree branch, all kinds of  
goofy stuff) and know that it had locked (or given up trying to)  
focus and was ready for me to switch from a half-squeeze to a full- 
squeeze and take the shot.

That's the only time I've used and liked the beeping.

  -Charles

--
Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minneapolis, MN
http://charles.robinsontwins.org



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[pnstenquist]

 -- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >   
>  I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>  
> >>>
> >>> There's something fishy going on here
> >>>
> >>>   
> >>Well it certainly smelts like it.
> 
> >Better get your ducks in a roe
> 
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.

This could spawn another silly pun thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
>   Cotty
> 
> 
> ___/\__
> ||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
> _
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Cotty]

>   
 I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
 
>>>
>>> There's something fishy going on here
>>>
>>>   
>>Well it certainly smelts like it.

>Better get your ducks in a roe

I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.




-- 


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[Godfrey DiGiorgi]

On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Cotty wrote:

>
>>
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>

 There's something fishy going on here


>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
>
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.

Oh jeez, another thread gone to eel.

Godfrey

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?

[P. J. Alling]

Cotty wrote:
>>   
>> 
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
> 
>   
 There's something fishy going on here

   
 
>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
>>>   
>
>   
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>> 
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
>   
I believe I'll be swimming up stream away from all this, though probably 
without the spawning opportunities...

-- 
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.