Hey Tom!!!
Are you from the Olympus Mailing List? ;-) I think the same
as you, and I´ve decided to increase my OM gear and buy the
LS-4000. I think tomorrow or in a few days I´ll have it.
I think that is a real pity to jump to digital market and
waste money with new lenses. Next year (new 5.5 mpi
t;
> >From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
> >Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200
> >
> >Steve writes:
> >
Johnny writes:
> you mean like those massive, unwieldy,
> boat-anchor-like Leica-M lenses?
They are smaller because they are closer to the film.
> > > There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the
> > rays
> > > come in at 90 degrees.
> >
> > No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have
> > different
> > acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do
> > get
> > falloff at the edges
--- Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the
> rays
> > come in at 90 degrees.
>
> No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have
> different
> acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, y
on 9/17/01 5:47 PM, Anthony Atkielski at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Good lenses are already bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
you mean like those massive, unwieldy, boat-anchor-like Leica-M lenses?
(I will grant you they are expensive)
--
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
> There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays
> come in at 90 degrees.
No they don't. Different CCDs and different CCD designs have different
acceptable angles. It is true that with wide angle lenses, you do get
falloff at the edges, and it is probably worse than fi
CTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 19:10
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
> A lens are sharper in the middle, I suggest that you go tohttp://www
> Photodo.com
> MTF tests of lenses by Lars Kjellberg or read
Paul writes:
> Let me guess. They'd be bigger, heavier and
> more expensive?
Good lenses are already bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
per" as in
higher resolution matters at all - at least at the current state of the art.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Atkielski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Steve
> There is one good thing about that tough. The CCD require that the rays
> come in at 90 degrees. Especially with a wide angle lens the exposure
> rate would depend on the distance from the middle point. I have to
> admit that I don't know how bad that effect is, though. Also I believe
> that len
>From: "Mikael Risedal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:10:55
(Answer 2 same question as before, but the right adress to Photodo.
A lens are s
;
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
>Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2001 20:30:30 +0200
>
>Steve writes:
>
> > But you do have the advantage that the centre is
> > invariably sharper, often much sharper, than th
Steve writes:
> But you do have the advantage that the centre is
> invariably sharper, often much sharper, than the edge.
If that is such an advantage, why hasn't anyone designed lenses for 24x36 that
cover a much larger area than the film frame? The same logic would apply.
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Greenbank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 6:26 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Robert Meier" &l
it will hit the
shelves in December at a price of 50,000 Francs (approx. 7,600 EUR)
Read more at http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#eosd1
Mikael Risedal
>From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Meier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 5:47 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
> Or another way to look at it is that you just crop the inner part of a
> 35mm fr
And a fine lens it is, as are my Olympus 16/3.5 and 18/3.5 and the other
couple dozen Zuikos I own
Now if I could just find that digital OM back.
Tom
From: "bob geoghegan"
> Olympus has made a 21/2 since the '80s. Just don't ask me what digital
> body will take it.
>
> Agreed on the general p
om: Pat Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:06 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
>
>
>Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
>than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
>make
--- Pat Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
> than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
> makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at
> that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can
> costs thousands of dollars. It is all
a moment before.
Until then, Provia 400F and an LS-4000 rule.
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Pat Perez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 8:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is small
Pat writes:
> Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
> than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete.
> It makes them telephoto ...
Same thing. I don't need a closet full of telephoto lenses.
> If I were a sports or nature photographer, I
> think I'd be in hog heaven with the magn
Pat writes ...
> Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
> than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
> makes them telephoto, ...
I think a better description of how a small CCD uses a 35mm lens, is "as
if you used a 'doubler' or 'tripler'" with the lens. What you get is th
Keep in mind that just because a sensor is smaller
than 24x36mm doesn't make your lenses obsolete. It
makes them telephoto, and comparatively high speed at
that. The 200 f2.8 might end up a 300 2.8, which can
costs thousands of dollars. It is all in how one lloks
at it. If I were a sports or natur
John writes:
> The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to
> make your 35mm lenses be what they're supposed
> to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the
> digital cameras of today are.
Yes, and until I see that chip, I don't have much motivation to move to digital.
Not when it makes all my
The REAL point of getting a 24x36 chip is to make your 35mm lenses be what
they're supposed to be. Not some inbetween angle of view as the digital
cameras of today are.
--
John
Chicago, IL
===
on 9/16/01 9:09 AM, Mikael Risedal at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The resolution from 24 x 36
Risedal
>From: "Anthony Atkielski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: NIKON LS 4000 AND D1X
>Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 13:59:31 +0200
>
>Mikael writes:
>
> > The scanner Ls4000 an
Mikael writes:
> The scanner Ls4000 and negative or positive film
> are inferior to the D1x file regarding colors,
> smoothness .cleanness and information (above 100ISO
> film)
The "above 100 ISO" is quite a significant qualifier. What about photos at 100
ISO and below? I hardly ever shoot _a
I'd have to agree even from the samples on the net. The new crop of Pro
Digital bodies are giving great resuts @ their 400 iso setting. I thought
film, at least for me, would hang on a little longer but I don't know about
that now. Maybe another year or two till the used market gets some good
digi
At 11:31 PM 15/09/01 +, Mikael wrote:
>MY CONCLUSION IS
>The history ends here for me regarding using 24 x 36 mm film and Nikon
>Ls4000 scanner.
>...The Nikon D1 x produce remarkable clean pictures comparing to film.
>What's around the corner?
Umm, one that I can afford? :)
I'll give
30 matches
Mail list logo
