Alex, are you using Auto focus? Flash? I am amazed that you can get so
much! I assume that if you say 270, then you are shooting RAW? (As I do,
and I can get 282 exposures) What the heck am I doing wrong?!?!?
One thing though, is that I will often delete in field, so I guess for every
time I
Rob, how does that thing work?!?! And yeah, how much would it set me
back?!?!
:-)
tan.
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 18 July 2004 3:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D and Power sources
On 18 Jul 2004 at 12:42, Dr. Shaun
On 18/7/04, Bob W, discombobulated, offered:
Went to London today, chiefly to the Tower to see the Jewels etc. I shot
less than a hundred digi shots and my son Stefan blazed ahead, burning 4
rolls of film on his Pentax Z-10 ! Way to go!
Did you get a chance to look at Tom Stoddart's
On 17/7/04, Herb Chong, discombobulated, offered:
i'm giving them until October to promise a high end DSLR body and a couple
of lenses of FA* quality with DA features. if not then, i can't wait and
continue to lose photos that i haven't been able to get purely because of
hardware limitations.
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could frame it (the glue
is drying as I type).
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Jul-2004
For some reason I quite like the background. I suspect others will
hate it :) I find the shapes interesting but due to the smooth tones
On 18 Jul 2004 at 4:21, Don Sanderson wrote:
I have to admit that I never considered the driver as a source of scan
quality problems.
I should know better, as a computer guy I change video, sound and NIC
drivers all the time to get better or more reliable performance.
That's definitely an
Very nice, very decorative - will look nice framed. I like the shallow
DOF very much.
Antonio
On 18 Jul 2004, at 12:22, David Mann wrote:
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could frame it (the
glue is drying as I type).
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Jul-2004
http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/wow2.jpg
This is a two parter.How to fix,if possible and how to avoid in the future.
As you can see the singer on the right has a spot light shining on him(almost all of
the
people at this
Hi!
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could frame it (the
glue is drying as I type).
It deserves to be printed, that's certain.
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Jul-2004
For some reason I quite like the background. I suspect others will
hate it :) I find the
laptop keyboards are not serviceable. you replace them. they replace them.
if you could get them into a large enough ultrasonic bath, that is probably
about the only thing.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 17,
On 18 Jul 2004 at 22:22, David Mann wrote:
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could frame it (the glue
is drying as I type).
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Jul-2004
For some reason I quite like the background. I suspect others will
hate it :) I find
almost all of the features in Elements but not in CS are in the Elements
equivalent of actions. the crucial difference is that only Adobe knows how
to create those features of Elements while everyone can create actions
without Adobe's help.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Tanya Mayer
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the
practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens
quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also,any tips to avoid this in the future. The next Reesor family reunion is 10
years away so i have time to play.vbg
You need to talk to the guy on the lights before the gig :-)
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT)
On 17/7/04, Rob Studdert, discombobulated,
offered:
So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the pending fate of
film?
I have, I'm down to the smallest number of film bodies I've had for many
years
and I don't expect the number
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:41, Herb Chong wrote:
the ones that are paying attention to their images will discover that the
practical and affordable lenses are not good enough for the *istD. the lens
quality matters even more with a DSLR than with a film camera.
What makes you say this Herb?
All my
I'm quessing as to placment of light and or filters,Rob.
Dave
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also,any tips to avoid this in the future. The next Reesor family reunion is 10
years away so i have time to play.vbg
You need to talk to
a couple of notes on NiMH batteries. first is that many brands have high
self-discharge rates. you really need to charge them the night before at the
most and the morning of your shoot is better. cheaper battery chargers have
charging circuits for pairs of batteries. that means that they charge
i would except there is no charger that handles pairs of them. they look
like the ideal solution. their self discharge rate isn't too bad compared to
NiMH batteries, although still not great.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent:
Haven't tried vuescan yet, once I changed the driver I went back and used
Elements to test.
No problem that I know of other than it honked about the driver.
I'll try it out today some time, had to go get a little sleep first.
Don
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL
well, let's just say that i'm not optomistic either.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying
Ain't gonna happen Herb. I reckon the best you can hope for is the *ist D
Alan Chan wrote:
Some news from Taiwan retailers (or just rumour) suggested some Pentax FA
lenses were not manufactured anymore (like FA100/2.8 FA50/2.8 etc)
because
they are expecting new lenses to replace them. But then again, nobody can
confirm.
Just wait a few weeks and you'll see...
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:00, Don Sanderson wrote:
Haven't tried vuescan yet, once I changed the driver I went back and used
Elements to test.
No problem that I know of other than it honked about the driver.
I'll try it out today some time, had to go get a little sleep first.
The beauty of Vuescan
Very nice David.
I find the background pleasing and the two caterpillars almost look to be mirrored.
If i were you i'd print this one out.LOL
Dave
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could
frame it (the glue
is drying as I type).
Hi!
bcin http://www.caughtinmotion.com/paw/brothers.JPG
Playing music at sunset... I wish I could hear it g...
Most enjoyable, even just to view it like this.
Boris
([EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Thanks Boris.
On 18 Jul 2004 at 7:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm quessing as to placment of light and or filters,Rob.
Sorry Dave I guess the smiley wasn't broad enough. Tell them the truth, IOW
that shooting colour will give them inferior results, sell them up on the
concept of BW, ie that it records the
On 18 Jul 2004 at 14:12, Dario Bonazza wrote:
Just wait a few weeks and you'll see...
I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens line-
up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast
end.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel
my observations while scanning a lot of slides, mostly Provia 100F.
acceptable lenses that seemed to deliver neglibly different sharpness from
my best lenses on my film bodies show a lot more difference in sharpness on
the *istD. Velvia scans show more difference. none of my lesser expensive
When used with the PF1800 it errored out sayiny No scanner found until I
loaded the CyberViewX driver in place of the older one.
Apparently it does use the driver as an comm interface between itself and
the scanner, though probably just the USB part of it.
The scanning GUI is VueScans rather than
I sold ALL my film bodies (6 cameras: LX, 3x MX, P3 and SuperProgram) to buy
my *ist D. I knew I'd never use film again! ;-)
Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So who here has shed their excess film bodies in view of the
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll be more disappointed than ever if they start fixing areas of the lens
line-up where it 'aint broke before they fix where it is i.e. down the wide/fast
end.
Frankly, I have no problem with Pentax's lens lineup at all. I suppose
I'd rather like a fast
Then how do you do hi-res BW ? rhetorical question no answer
expected.
6MP DSLRs still cant match fine grain BW 35mm film (yet).
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, David Mann wrote:
I had this one printed to 8x12 yesterday so I could frame it (the glue is
drying as I type).
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/cgi-bin/paw.cgi?date=18-Jul-2004
For some reason I quite like the background. I suspect others will hate it
:) I find the shapes
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
Then how do you do hi-res BW ?
u I don't? Did I before digital? hm, nope! ;-)
rhetorical question no answer expected.
oops!
6MP DSLRs still cant match fine grain BW 35mm film (yet).
Well it sure
Hi,
I was stood on the riverbank
next to the Tower landing and could *see* the exhibition directly across
the river. With certain almighty powers and maybe some floating shoes, I
could have walked it in 5 minutes. Without, it was simply not an option.
what a shame - you would have enjoyed
It looks like a colour temperature (CT) problem. The main subjects are
primarily lit by incandescent light, which produces the golden hue when
shot with daylight colour film. For more info on CT, see:
www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html
In the future, you might try using Tungsten
Are you using Cyberview? And are you scanning negs or
'chrome? That scanner is not going to scan into the
shadows on slide film, and is not going to give good
color balance with neg film unless you post process
with an editor.
However, using post processing with neg film should
give good
READ! I said BW film. Black and White! Try shooting some Tech Pan
full frame with some really good lenses and find out what 35mm
film is capable of. The color films you just mentioned are nowhere near
as sharp.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Christian Skofteland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There are several messages in this thread that cover what I've gone thru so
far.
I am now using CyberViewX rather than CyberView35, it makes a WORLD of
difference.
VueScan wouldn't run until I upgraded to CyberViewX.
I'm just now playing with VueScan, I'll check out SilverFast too!. Thanks!
Don
My point JCO, is that I never shot Tech Pan before so why would I start now?
And why would I compare it to the *ist D? Apples and Oranges. Even I can
see that. I implied that the D replaced film *for me* and the way *I* make
pictures. I make no assumptions for other people and their styles.
Do you attribute this to rather unforgiving square pixels in digital as
versus the softer random edges in film grain?
Most of my lenses are in the adequate/good/very good category, I'd hate to
think I'd get less from them than I do now by going digital.
Don
-Original Message-
From:
And I'm holding on to my MZ-S primarily for sentimental reasons. I haven't
shot the first frame of film since getting the *ist D.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:44 AM
Subject: Re: Film is Dying?
Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to
start everything at some point don't you?
Never shoot BW? Oh I see, but what if you wanted to try? By selling
ALL your film bodies and saying never use film again you have
burned your bridges and limited your creative possiblities.
Assuming you had film and digital sensors of same resolution/mm spec,
a FF film image will be sharper than a APS digtial sensor until
the lens used with the APS sensor is 50% sharper than the lens used
on film. With APS digital you need really good lenses to match
average lenses on FF film. Reason
- Original Message -
From: Tanya Mayer Photography
Subject: RE: *ist D and Power sources
One thing though, is that I will often delete in field, so I guess
for every
time I fill the card with 282 exposures, you could probably add
another 100
that I've already deleted. Obviously,
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the
center portion of the lens circle.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: Replacement for the FA 50 and 100 Macros?
Hi,
Ryan Lee wrote:
Apart from sending my laptop in for an overpriced CLA, anyone with any
ideas?
40degrees, no starch, light spin. (unhelpful, probably)
I thought all laptop keyboards are membrane types?
mike
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Alex, are you using Auto focus? Flash? I am amazed that you can get so
much! I assume that if you say 270, then you are shooting RAW? (As I do,
and I can get 282 exposures) What the heck am I doing wrong?!?!?
I use auto focus, but I don't
Gotcha, kinda like being saddled with a 1.5x rear converter all the time.
Yuck.
Would this also leave DOF the same for a give F stop even though the
effective focal length increases by 1.5x?
That would mean having to run wide open more often to control DOF,
decreasing sharpness further on most
Ditto. I'm perfectly happy shooting BW, not worried what the digital
guys do I have a digital PS for snaps, but that's it for me.
Norm
Bill Owens wrote:
Hate to bring up the old film vs digital debate again, but...
There are those of here who are perfectly satisfied with digital, and others
It looks like a colour temperature (CT) problem. The main subjects are
primarily lit by incandescent light, which produces the golden hue when
shot with daylight colour film. For more info on CT, see:
www.aeimages.com/learn/color-correction.html
In the future, you might try using
I don't think it is just a matter of satisfaction. Film and digital
are just two
different technologies and it is a matter of how each technology is
applied that
will determine the final results. i.e. 8x10 film looks way better than
1.3 MP digital
and 14MP digital looks way better than 110 film.
Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital PS camera easily
exceeds low end 35mm systems using the cheap Kodak film you buy at
Walgreen's... The high-end APS systems, such as the istD, are better than
color film period. My father has been an amateur for many years and when he
saw the
I don't think it's pointless to point out that digital has theoretical
limits far beyond that of film in almost every possible way.
-el gringo
-Original Message-
From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Film vs Digita,
Bill wrote:Hate to bring up the old film vs digital debate again, but...
There are those of here who are perfectly satisfied with digital, and others
who are perfectly satisfied with film. It's doubtful that any of us will be
swayed from our current positions regardless of chemistry vs.
This time, in the August Pop Photo, he describes his experience taking
only the *ist D to London for a week.
The entirely editorial is about shooting with the *ist D, and overall it
is positive and good publicity. He is, however, still not very
knowledgeable about digital and unwilling to
Bullshit? You're the one dispensing it.
there is one major flaw with your argument, this is NOW not the future
and
you cannot get affordable digital that equals or exceeds large format
film
that is available NOW. To say the *istD is clearly better than film is
silly. Film goes beyond 35mm format.
Bill, don't worry I think the debate has been ongoing for a while (just
check the thread title!).
Antonio
On 18 Jul 2004, at 18:59, Bill Owens wrote:
Hate to bring up the old film vs digital debate again, but...
There are those of here who are perfectly satisfied with digital, and
others
who
Gringo, well if we are talking theoretically . then I guess there
is no limit to anything.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote:
I don't think it's pointless to point out that digital has theoretical
limits far beyond that of film in almost every possible way.
-el gringo
Perhaps but I wasnt talking low end 35mm systems. I was talking 35mm
SLR vs digital APS SLR. Pentax *ist Film vs Pentax *istD, for arguments
sake each with the same glass.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote:
Sorry, Thats bullshit. What you get from a digital PS camera easily
exceeds
Thats right - and I would say that 35mm film shot with a half decent
camera and lens is still better quality wise than a digital SLR such as
the *ist. Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:50, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Bullshit? You're the one dispensing
that's one factor. the other is the automatic 1.5 magnification of the
center portion of the lens circle.
I'm not aware of magnification. It is a crop of the central part of the
lens circle, giving a field of view that looks like a 1.5x magnification.
Even the photography magazines seem to have
And maybee pigs will fly.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 19:39, El Gringo wrote:
Maybe a thousand years from now,
science will invent a gravity generator, then a portable gravity
generator,
then tiny gravity generators and anti-gravity generators, then maybe
cameras
in the future will focus with
Alan wrote:
I read the patent for the 118/2.4 too last year but it doesn't make sense for Pentax
ro release another expensive Limited lens consider the last one (FA31/1.8) hasn't sold
that well.
REPLY:
I've no idea whether there will be more Limited lenses. I've heard though, that the
El Gringo wrote:
The 645 digital on the other hand
has massive potential. It could be made smaller than it is, more in the
range of a large 35mm, it could burst faster than any film MF camera, and it
has a real viewfinder, unlike the Mamiya 7. Not to mention that it has a
nice range of high
Now, if the majority of photographers would begin to understand.
As I've mentioned in the past, a 50mm lens projects the same size image on
the film/sensor regardless of format, it's just that the image takes up a
larger portion of the film/sensor the smaller the format.
Bill
- Original
I never use mine. It's just a hassle.
CW
- Original Message -
From: Paul Sorenson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:11 PM
Subject: Pacific Imaging scanner (Was: Scanner Test (Revisited))
Lon -
How happy are you with the Pacific Imaging scanner?
But it seems that if you take the same information from a SMALLER section of
the image circle,
Then enlarge that to the same size you would have using the FULL FRAME the
image circle is capable of,
you have magnified that smaller section 1.5x as much, and the imperfections
in the lens with it.
Here's one example (excuse the poor composition)
http://www.pbase.com/image/31458299/large
I uploaded the
original file in all its glory (2.3M)
You may be disappointed if you're planning on using your
100-300 with the
istD. At 300 anyway. At 200 it doesn't seem too bad.
Going to try
I wanted to take that back the moment I clicked send!
You ARE NOT magnifying more, you're simply wasting part of the potential
frame size.
However, since the lens was designed with a specific frame size in mind,
I would think performance would be affected.
DOF should be deeper and oddly enough
Have you seen the new (?) Mamiya 7 II? Popular Photography July 2004
adv., page 7.
I have not yet compared to the model 7 (basic) but it does seem
comparatively small for a 6x7 cm camera...
They must be very expensive, as I can't find a hint of a price on their
web site.
keith whaley
Pål
Earlier Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints.
Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality
to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe
crops I'll agree with you. Our
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why start digital if you never used digital before? You have to
start everything at some point don't you?
huh? sure, but I have no interest in fine grained BW (see below)
Never shoot BW?
No, I've shot countless rolls
Antonio wrote:
Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints.
Here I must disagree. A properly printed digital print is equal in quality
to an average film print, up to 8x10 at least. Above 8x10 and for severe
crops I'll agree with you. Our Frontier 375 minilab does a
The Mamiya 7II is the current model, the 7 was replaced by it about 3-4 years
ago. A 6x7 range finder camera with fabulous (by all reports) lenses. Yes it is
expensive, ridiculously so in the US, but many people think the image quality is
worth the money. Some think of it as a decendant of the
Just tried SilverFast, far and away the best results so far!
I was surprised that when you download SilverFast they give you quite a quiz
as to your scanner type.
The copy I got was specifically for the PF-1800 AFL!
I scanned and printed a crop of just the cats nose and eyes to 8x10, looks
nearly
In my experience most Inkjets are great for color, poor for
black and white. There may be some exceptions but I have never
seen a BW inkjet print that looks as good as a good wet one.
Not true for color, the best inkjets I have seen look BETTER
than the best wet ones I have seen...
JCO
I think the 7 is a follow on from the Mamiya 6 actually.
Antonio
On 18 Jul 2004, at 21:19, graywolf wrote:
Some think of it as a decendant of the Mamiya Press, but I would call
it more of a direct decendant of the Simon Omega Rapid, Koni-Omega,
Rapid Omega 100 (made by Mamiya) line of cameras.
If anyone has one to sell, please mail me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you.
That´s OK Boris, I like your honesty :-)
Actually, the guy is a friend of mine, and I am not completely happy
with the picture. If I make a print I´ll probably remove the persons
growing up from his head.
What I think is funny is the way he holds the umbrella, but nobody else
notices, so it
Hi,
El Gringo wrote:
snicker
do that. Also, digital sensors are limited by physics, but there may be a
day when there is a sensor for every photon of light.
I'm not sure you are saying what you mean.
snak)
up significantly?? Decades ago?? What about digital?? A few months ago,
and not only
På 17. jul. 2004 kl. 20.40 skrev Boris Liberman:
Hi!
D Thanks! I appreciate your comments.
D I have been working a little more on the concept and put three of
these
D pictures together in a series:
D http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2533175size=lg
D I´m not sure if it adds anything,
John,
What would you use as a filter on the fill flash - 85B or 85C or something
else ?
Jim
www.jcolwlel.ca
I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was
guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously
there is more to it than that.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 20:08, Bill Owens wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Not to mention the poor quality of those digital prints.
Here I
I did notice the umbrella. This is the first thing I saw, I have to say.
Thibouille
-Message d'origine-
De : DagT [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Envoyé : dimanche 18 juillet 2004 22:29
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: PAW - Out
That´s OK Boris, I like your honesty :-)
Actually, the guy is
LOL!
mike wilson wrote:
So, if I don't _need_ one, why should I buy one now if a better one will
come along next month? That would be a remarkably stupid action by your
predictions. Except, if I and many others don't, what you prophesy will
not come to pass. I managed to destroy APS and disc
On 18/7/04, Caveman, discombobulated, offered:
I'd say that if for whatever reason you're not comfortable with it,
bring it back.
Adelheid v. K. wrote:
Since it is again the last one to get at my camerashop I am reluctant to
bring it back.
Yo, Cavey!
This list is like a pigeon. They all
Hi,
Sunday, July 18, 2004, 9:33:52 PM, Antonio wrote:
I stand corrected. Not having seen one of the prints you refer to i was
guided by poor quality stuff you get on the high-street. Obviously
there is more to it than that.
You should pay attention at exhibitions. There are some
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also, an angle not mentioned is the renewed interest folks are having
in photography generally as a result of digital- perhaps it
will be the
saviour of film and not the other way around...
Very true. It brought my husband back to SLR
Wow!
Well... thanks! I read this yesterday on my way out for the weekend.
With three kids in the car I didn´t have the time to answer. Which is
OK, as I din´t know what to say :-)
Actually, I still don´t, but...
The Reflection picture
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2035399
How was your flight??
I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a little fun
is totally lost on you.
*Keep hanging on to your film you backwards fools, the rest of us are moving
forward.*
-el gringo
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL
Hi,
Digital could be doomed..
Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far
is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a
galaxy. Crap!
--
Cheers,
Bob
Thats like saying the typewriter is going to make a comeback against MS
Word. I mean, MS word could be doomed, it really could be, probably not,
but it could be.
-el gringo
-Original Message-
From: mike wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 3:29 PM
To: [EMAIL
For the application Rob, it might be a great viewfinder... 35mm cameras I'm
sure you know, have as part of their convenience factor the TTL viewfinder.
Something I appreciate more than anything. The beautiful thing is, you can
have your cake and eat it to with digital... You don't need a mirror
Will do, living in small village surrounded by the sea on one side and
by desert on the other on the south-eastern spanish coast its not that
easy to do - but will watch out for the prints next time I am at one in
London.
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:29, Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Sunday, July 18, 2004,
Ah, but isn't the Galaxy doomed?
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:53, Bob W wrote:
Hi,
Digital could be doomed..
Absolutely! I mean, the best they've been able to come up with so far
is the one on Hubble, and that can't resolve anything smaller than a
galaxy. Crap!
--
Cheers,
Bob
Funny enough I end up feeling like some stacked livestock every time I
fly lately!
A.
On 18 Jul 2004, at 23:48, El Gringo wrote:
How was your flight??
I only wrote that to have a little fun, glad to see the idea of a
little fun
is totally lost on you.
*Keep hanging on to your film you
A strange ship landed on the Chicago lakefront yesterday.
I'm sending a photo as there is a TOTAL news blackout on the subject.
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/ship1.jpg
They are letting people walk right up to the thing and touch it.
http://members.aol.com/rfsindg/ship2.jpg
If you look at it
If the noise you are getting is like a brief scratching or quiet growl then I get the
same with the 43WR and think it is a normal part of the operation.
Lets not forget that the Pentax 645 system IS portable. In fact it weights
no more than comparable Nikon/Canon high-end slr systems. The 645 is down
right small compared to EOS-1Ds or similar! I'm sure Pentax will make a 645
DSLR even smaller.
Without the film transport mechanisms, it is quite
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
