First lets get one thing straight. I am not saying anyone is a fool, not even you.
Second that is clearly a quote notice the funny little marks (). I chose not
to direct quote it as it did not matter who said it.
One in the end uses what they chose to use, or are forced to use in the case of
E.R.N. Reed wrote:
Tom Reese wrote:
Pål Jensen wrote:
According to Pentax the *ist name is reserved (thank God)
for what they consider entry level; typically ones first dslr.
If they are to be believed high-end bodies will not have
that stupid
name. Lets hope they don't
Oh, I grabbed a few shots, and they knew I was photographing them. The
hubby turned around and smiled a moment or two earlier, but I didn't like
that shot. There's another in the series I may put up ... glad y'found it
enjoyable.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Pat Kong
It looks like Mom
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:27, Malcolm Smith wrote:
Well, given that no matter how many 'bells and whistles' are added to the
camera and people are still not happy, I'd say it was odds on they will. It
all
seems strange to me as a happy owner of an LX and an *ist D as they are. If
you
want
On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:28, K.Takeshita wrote:
Yes, Pentax has been slow, and that is their most sin. Technically, they
have everything needed to produce a pro level DSLR.
The problem with Pentax, and it probably comes from their size, is that they
are
timid in making a bold move in the
Rob Studdert wrote:
It's about film, not bells and whistles. I want a DSLR that
I'm confident will provide me with the equivalent if not
better than the quality that I was used to using top end 35mm
film bodies and expensive film. The *ist D isn't there yet
though I assume that you know
Scott Loveless wrote:
Who's going?
I am.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond:
http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/
Pentax isDS
Jim, where is it? I mean geographically...
What I should say about the pond images themselves is that I would
really like to find a place such as this
I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for
instance, every AF camera I have ever tried to us has had its manual
I'll be in in London downtown next week from monday to wednesday - flight
back on wednesday night.
Any suggestions on travelling from Heathrow to Russel Square with all the
... don't know how to put that correctly.
If someone from the crowd is around - care to meet?
Cheers
Adelheid
What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with the proper head.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Jon M [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Help me find my head (tripod head, that is)
Got this old Gitzo Gilux Reporter at an estate
auction not long ago, and I'd like to get an
Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Interesting Albano,
but I think the real comparison to be made is with two
the other image is straight from the camera:
Duh
Sorry for the misread.
If the jpeg was the only image you had, would you do any post camera
processing?
White point, dark point, hue/saturation, USM?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 12:47:59 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
A. Focus screen optimized for brightness rather than accuracy.
B. Focus on the lens loose so the AF motor does not have to be too big,
rather than optimized for smoothness
On 7/19/05, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excellent. I really like this one. Great tonal range. Nice composition.
And it's entertaining. What more could one ask for?
Good work.
Paul
On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:36 AM, David Savage wrote:
Thanks, Paul, David, Scott and Boris, for looking
On 7/20/05, Jim Hemenway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond:
http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/
Pentax isDS
#'s 1 and 3 grab me - lovely, relaxing, idyllic. I'm not so thrilled
with #2 - not a bad shot, just doesn't say much to me. The
From: Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am sorry that so many folks here take a general post to 600 and read as
direct critism of themselves. But since that seem to be the way it is I
will say no more on the subject. In fact I think I will unsubscribe for a
while.
graywolf
I got bent out
On 7/21/05, Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks, Frank.
I haven't the slightest Idea what the story is, but
there's a good possibility it's the residue of a
personal /or financial failure.
My contrived story is an obvious result of viewing the
tattered half staff flag as mourning a
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, keithw wrote:
Their buying of the *istD started out very slowly, but all of a sudden, it
seemed that 70% or more of the regulars had them!
You what? Where did you find that figure from?
Kostas
On 7/21/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's going?
I wish I could. This would actually be more my thing than the Nature
Photography Clinic, but since there's more PDML involvement in the
latter, it's that event I choose to attend.
Maybe one year I'll be able to afford both...
I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it.
After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could
track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about.
My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they were
Kostas,
After I bought mine in November 2003, I kept track of all the list members who
confessed to buying before the List. :-)
A couple of months later my count passed 110, and I gave up on it. Many of the
regulars were on my list already then.
Jostein
Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL
On 7/22/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it.
After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could
track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent about.
My initial conversation
Congratulations!
Awaiting a blessed event is always wrought with
anxiety.
Jack
__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
We had a recent interclub competition with two other clubs and there were
some issues with rules. I'd be interested in how other clubs set up their
rules for contests.
My questions:
what categories do you use?
(nature? wildlife? botany? scenic? etc)
do you have rules for whether a picture
I asked:
We had a recent interclub competition with two other clubs and there were
some issues with rules. I'd be interested in how other clubs set up their
rules for contests.
Please feel free to send me a doc file of your rules if you have one. I'll
do the same if you're interested.
Tom
Nice catch Shel.
Boy, do I remember those days when it was time to feed the kids no
matter where.
Jim
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
One of a couple of snaps from this scenario:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html
K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ...
Shel
Thank Frank.
The first is my favorite as well... but I don't know why except that I
like the warm colors.
Jim
frank theriault wrote:
On 7/20/05, Jim Hemenway [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From a late afternoon walk around a nearby pond:
http://www.hemenway.com/HornPond-Summer2005/
Pentax
Well then... some landscape, some railfan, and
whatever else I decide to point a camera at and
release the shutter. :)
--- Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What type of shooting do you do. Has alot to do with
the proper head.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Jon
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp
PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH RESOLUTION, LOW LEARNING
CURVE
Christian
Nice. and 1/3 the cost? a steal! A lens I always lusted after... 2nd only
to a FA* 600/4.
Christian
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax Discuss pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 8:28 AM
Subject: Major Enablement.
I've hinted at
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF dimmer. By
optimising the screen for brightness and by reducing the magnification
(concentrating the
I like ball heads for general purpose use like this. I have two: a
pro-quality Kirk BH-1 fitted with a Really Right Stuff lever action
quick release clamp ... superb head, able to handle loads up to
13-14lbs but quite expensive at $350+.
The other is a Manfrotto 322RC2 Grip Action
Tom,
Virginia Beach Photo Club Competition Rules:
http://www.vbpc.org/publications/comprules2005.pdf
I've only participated once, and can't say that I've read the rules... but
perhaps they'll be helpful.
- jerome
_
Jerome D. Coombs-Reyes, Ph.D.
Norfolk State
To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this
one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at
useful ISO settings however.
and the projected price? $200. not bad at all.
Christian
weird responding to myself...
- Original Message
William Robb wrote:
I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it.
After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could
track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent
about.
My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the
KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the AF-system. This makes the VF
dimmer. By
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:52:39 +0200, Kostas Kavoussanakis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
Technical reason would be that part of the light (35% according to the
KMP!)
entering the lens needs to go to the
Jostein wrote:
Kostas,
After I bought mine in November 2003, I kept track of all the list members who
confessed to buying before the List. :-)
A couple of months later my count passed 110, and I gave up on it. Many of the
regulars were on my list already then.
... and I bought mine after
I will send you our club competition rules off list by attachment.They seem
to work well.
the e-mail will come from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lewis
From: Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: contest question for club members
Date: Fri, 22
- Original Message -
From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: New Optio 60
Christian wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp
PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH
Christian,
The Optio 50 seems also interesting, 5Mp, rechargeable
batteries, optical viewfinder, ...and very cheap.
But, from what I have read, the camera is a very poor
performer. Besides, I have seen clones of it with
other names like the STARBLITZ SD 545, same camera,
different name.
I am
SIGH Just another toy camera I see it has a Simple Mode. Perhaps
the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a Dunce
Dial
Shel
[Original Message]
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp
PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL CAMERA WITH HIGH
(Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store
photographs is just plain stupid.
Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs
do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do a lot
better?
This reverence for the holly 8 bits byte
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: New Optio 60
SIGH Just another toy camera I see it has a Simple Mode.
Perhaps
the next model will have a a further enhancement of the
- Original Message -
From: Joaquim Carvalho
Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW
(Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store
photographs is just plain stupid.
Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs
do a lot better
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: New Optio 60
To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and
this
one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at
useful ISO settings however.
and the projected price? $200. not bad
Christian wrote:
- Original Message -
From: E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: New Optio 60
Christian wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0507/05072203pentax_optio60.asp
PENTAX ANNOUNCES Optio60 DIGITAL
On 22 Jul 2005 at 16:11, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
(Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store
photographs is just plain stupid.
Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs
do a lot better (0-4095), film does a lot better and our eyes do
Thanks for that. I've always wondered if I was the only one who found
the DOF feature totally useless for actually checking the DOF. (hence
I never used it). I can see that it could be quire usefull for
previewing the backgrounds tho.
dk
On 7/21/05, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
keithw
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I read you won't reply, but I am sending it anyway.
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, Graywolf wrote:
fight the camera. It is not as simple as just turning off AF, for
instance, every AF camera I have ever
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
SIGH Just another toy camera I see it has a Simple Mode. Perhaps
the next model will have a a further enhancement of the concept - a Dunce
Dial
Shel,
Had you ever before considered the Espio, film APS cameras or other
PSs? If no, why are you
Why a sigh? This seems like a nice camera for a lot of people who just want to
take pictures. Hopefully, it will sell well enough to help fund development of
our next DSLR :-). Seriously, I bought my daughter a Canon Espio 4 megapixel
camera to take with her when she studied in France this
Hi!
Having planned my major enablement, I also have planned a disablement of
sorts... Or should I say potential enablement for others...
Here for sale:
1. SMCP M 50/1.4. It has interesting problem. Aperture does not close
tighter than f/16. That is, you click but you see no change in size
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum. I find the preaching here to be
sometimes funny, sometimes quite sick.
Frantisek
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:44, Kenneth Waller wrote:
If the jpeg was the only image you had, would you do any post camera
processing?
White point, dark point, hue/saturation, USM?
I might try getting back some of the lost highlight information using the
shadows/highlight tool but the histogram of
Hi!
I've hinted at this in a couple of posts, but didn't want to jinx it.
After reading a few posts by Pal and Tom R., I decided to se if I could
track down one of those FA200/4 Macro lenses that they waxed eloquent
about.
My initial conversation with the store had the Pentax rep saying they
- Original Message -
From: Boris Liberman
Subject: Re: Major Enablement.
Congratulations Bill... Seems you have good relationship with Pentax
Canada...
They like me, thats for sure.
William Robb
I'm not bothering with these. I don't even know what an Espio is. Have
you ever heard of humor? sarcasm?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Kostas Kavoussanakis
SIGH Just another toy camera I see it has a Simple Mode.
Perhaps
the next model will have a a further enhancement of the
You'll get used to it.
Christian wrote:
To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this
one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at
useful ISO settings however.
and the projected price? $200. not bad at all.
Christian
weird
Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest it has some decent features. Smallish size, uses AAs and this
one actually has an optical viewfinder. The 6MP is a worry for noise at
useful ISO settings however.
and the projected price? $200. not bad at all.
Indeed! I think I know what my
Nice catch.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
One of a couple of snaps from this scenario:
http://home.earthlink.net/~pdml-pics/urban1.html
K-body, K28/3.5, Reala ...
Shel
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of
simple mode. You've become a real old fart of late ;-)) taking things
much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light
hearted and loose.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why
C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of
simple mode. You've become a real old fart of late ;-)) taking things
much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light
hearted and loose.
That's right. There's only room enough for 20 or so
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Rob, is the jpeg straight out of the camera?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW
On 21 Jul 2005 at 20:07, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Interesting Albano,
but I think the real comparison to be
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, keithw wrote:
Their buying of the *istD started out very slowly, but all of a
sudden, it seemed that 70% or more of the regulars had them!
You what? Where did you find that figure from?
Kostas
Like the largest bulk of any published
Thanks, Shel,
I'll make future photos PAW messages. Hadn't
considered it and should have.
An image may send a message or convey meaning without
the help of the photographer's prose. As you said,
it's not unlike the old radio expression; theater of
the mind.
Actually a photo need not have a point,
On 22 Jul 2005 at 8:48, keithw wrote:
To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is
overall more pleasing.
I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone...
Hi Keith,
IMGP2846.JPG is straight out of the camera. Have a look at the colour of the
sky
On 22 Jul 2005 at 10:23, Malcolm Smith wrote:
I do indeed still use film and thus I have a choice. You have MF for a high
quality image capture. What it really comes down to is wanting it all in one
package, inconvenient as it is, you already have it, albeit in two different
forms of
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 15:13, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 at 16:11, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
(Regardless of the raw vs jpg discussion) using 8 bits formats to store
photographs is just plain stupid.
Why the hell is anyone happy with a 0-255 dynamic range when modern CCDs
do a lot
On 22 Jul 2005 at 7:17, Lewis Matthew wrote:
I got bent out of shape and unsubscribed for a while. Guess what? The damned
list went on without me and never missed a beat.
It's good to bail for a bit, you'll be rid of me for a moth or more soon, I
hope that Graywolf comes back refreshed and
HAR!
C'mon, Paul - lighten up - I was just having some fun with the concept of
simple mode. You've become a real old fart of late ;-)) taking things
much to seriously. It wasn't so long ago that you seemed far more light
hearted and loose.
That's right. There's only room enough for
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 at 8:48, keithw wrote:
To me, on MY monitor, the larger image has more shadow detail and is
overall more pleasing.
I'm not entirely sure which is which, based on file size alone...
Hi Keith,
IMGP2846.JPG is straight out of the camera. Have a look at
I don't think you quiet understand precision manufacturing if you don't
understand the cost savings in
making a smaller viewfinder.
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto
Has there really been much disagreement?
Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top
photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was
from the digital.
Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of
the lower picture (AWB should do better than a film being
On 22 Jul 2005 at 17:10, Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
Yes but those are bad excuses:
- there are 12 bits DVI screens
- for printing the conversion from 8 bits RGB to 8 bits CMYK is worse
than from 12 bits RGB
- on both 8 bit screens and printers the software could do dithering to
show more than
I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a
viewfinder if you think the physical size of the pentaprism/mirror
makes any significant contribution to eventual image size.
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 12:55:38PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
I don't think you quiet understand
Rob Studdert wrote:
I guess the very bottom line for me is that it isn't just
inconvenient, it's getting difficult and becoming limiting
having to tote and juggle two systems, plus quality film and
processing is now a significant cost. My frustration is
compounded by the fact that I'm
Hi John ... let's just say, for the moment, that a number of people have
been wrong. I don't know if there's been much disagreement, since a
number of people never stated specifically which they thought was which.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Francis
Has there really been much
On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote:
Has there really been much disagreement?
Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top
photograph was from the film camera, and the lower one was
from the digital.
Reasons stated included the rather better white balance of
the
Hi Pal,
I'm Dutch, but about Yachts I only know that it is jacht in Dutch:-)
Jos
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Verzonden: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:06 PM
Aan: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Onderwerp: Any dutch list members?
A shot in the
My $0.02:
I might consider spending $2500-3000 (by today's USD) but I can safely
say that I would not spend $5000-6000 on any DSLR, big sensor or not.
So a really high end, expensive Med format DSLR is of no use to me. What
I would like are the current D/DS features with a somewhat bigger sensor
I'll admit optics I'm not so good with. I'd hardly try to grind my own
lenses but manufacturing I
know quite a bit about and optics isn't even half the problem.
John Francis wrote:
I could equally well say you don't quite understand the optics of a
viewfinder if you think the physical size
It's also named 18mm.jpg (I should have looked), Shel's film scanner
certainly produces a cleaner image than mine does.
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 22 Jul 2005 at 12:57, John Francis wrote:
Has there really been much disagreement?
Almost every post I've noticed seemed to agree that the top
Unless somebody made a horrific mistake on the digital white balance, the
yellow image has to be from the film camera. I thought that was a given.
Paul
A number of people have determined for themselves which photo was made with
the digi and which was made with the film SLR. Some were wrong
Hi Shel,
If you truly wanted we guess which is which, you had to remove exif metadata
from the pics and use pic names not giving hints :-)
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re:
Hmm. I thought the two JPEG filenames, one 18mm.jpg and the other
28mm.jpg were clear indicators of which camera took what image. But
I checked anyway...
Given the fact that the EXIF info on the 18mm.jpg image clearly
states that it was made with a Pentax *ist DS set to Manual exposure
If, as Rod says, the top image is from the DSLR, either someone doesn't know
what they're doing with that DSLR or they're having a bit of fun at our
expense. It's quite obvious that one can achieve accurate white balance with a
DSLR with very little difficulty and that film would tend to be off
Does this include moving subjects?
My personal out fit includes several heads depending on what I'm shooting.
Static subjects get taken with a Bogen Mini Gear head that allows precise
adjustment in three axis, obviously not for moving targets.
For moving subjects I have a Kirk ball head for use
The primary cost savings in the design of an SLR viewfinder has to do
with the size of the prism and the accuracy which which it has to be
assembled. A 100% coverage viewfinder prism for 35mm format is large
and expensive, and has to be assembled extremely accurately or it
reflects an
LX body: some brassing around the strap lugs, also engraved name below
advance lever and to the right of viewfinder (at least it is neatly done).
Works well. Probably KEH Bargain. Also comes with grip, original manual.
$225 shipped CONUS
If I sell the LX, then I will sell the following too:
illagementus non carborundum (sp?)
or something like that
(don't let the bastards wear you down)
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Jul 22, 2005 11:19 AM
To: Joaquim Carvalho pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Amazing capability of RAW
De
Hi,
Take the Piccadilly Line to Hyde Park Corner, or take the Heathrow Express
to Paddington, then get a taxi to Russell Square.
I'm likely to be too tied up at work to get away for any PDMLing, I'm
afraid.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
From: Adelheid v. K. [mailto:[EMAIL
John Francis wrote:
On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 11:18:07AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Not true, the viewfinder is irrelevant to auto focus. The camera
doesn't use the viewfinder for focusing, you do. Viewfinders are only
for aiming and composition in AF, that's
the larger image has more shadow detail and is
overall more pleasing.
Keith, I agree,
but as far as I can tell, one of the images has had no post camera processing.
A somewhat one sided comparison.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amazing
Kenneth Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
illagementus non carborundum (sp?)
or something like that
(don't let the bastards wear you down)
8-)
Ken, were you the one at GFM who showed me a beautiful portfolio book
from Light Impressions? I want to get one but can't seem to find it (to
any
Gonna raise me a crop of dental floss! Oh wait, that's Montana. Never
mind.
Well, dental floss or no, I'm off to the Mid-Ohio Sports Car Course to
shoot the AMA Superbike races. Updates if time allows during the
weekend.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
On Fri, 2005-07-22 at 17:03, Rob Studdert wrote:
...
whether 12 bits per colour channel would make make an appreciable visible
difference given the dynamics of current display technology is arguable
(given
the relatively low contrast ratios of even the best TFT displays). I'd be
happy
Hi,
thanks for the info :-).
Nevermind, it is on very short notice anyway.
PUG might be late this time... ;-)
Cheers
Adelheid
: -Original Message-
: From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
: Sent: Freitag, 22. Juli 2005 20:31
: To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
: Subject: RE: Trip to London
Well, Paul, since the cat's out of the bag, so to speak, you're right,
wrong, and in the middle. First, the owner of the DSLR just told me that
she had the WB of the istDs set to flash. When we made the pics I
certainly didn't change it. Never occurred to me to do so, never even
occurred to
1 - 100 of 213 matches
Mail list logo
