holidays! signing off for a week

I'm off to a cabin with none of that electrical stuff for a week -- I have no interest in having a 3000 message inbox when I return, so I'm signing off until September. Please respect the embargo on discussion of the ass-kickiness of the secret features of the new camera while I'm gone. -Aaron

[no subject]

-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Help buying a darkroom

Darkroom prices are in the tank. While is a nice setup, the price is probably twice what it should be. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Help buying a darkroom Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 5:33 pm Size: 995 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net I'm interested in buying a used da

Re: Full Frame/Canon

By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their originally intended angle of view. I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went "I'm mad because my 200 2.8 acts like a 300 2.8". So perform

Re: Japan DSLR Stats

On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Tom C wrote: > Even Canon's entry level model for the last year is generally > recognized as > being superior in many ways to Pentax's top of the line. Wait, does > Pentax > actually have a top of the line? Not one that is anywhere close to current. By that same m

Re: Turbulent age

On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Cotty wrote: > > > > C'est la vie, uh? Yeah, but did you ever see the pictures it took? It took balls, but killing that thing off was probably the smartest move they made in a decade. -Aaron -- PDML Pent

Re: Japan DSLR Stats

ame sensor in it, and it's mirror seems to be the same as that in the MZ/ZX series. The Ds/Ds2/DL/DL2 have a new mirror and mirror box suited to the APS format. Aaron Reynolds wrote: >Well, I never would have bought a D, but the DS2 had me at hello. "Stupid" >enough to ge

Re: Japan DSLR Stats

t;To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: Japan DSLR Stats >Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:13:01 -0700 > >On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > > ... Why are people so obsessed with whether or not Pentax are in > > "first > > place"? >

Re: Japan DSLR Stats

On Aug 24, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > Makes me want to "skip" the K10D 'til I get a feel for the rate at > which they are falling behind the curve. Hah -- you'll feel pretty silly for saying that once the camera is announced. Why are people so obsessed with whether or not Pentax ar

Re: Useless gearhead quiz (was - venting)

On Aug 24, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Exactly what I do, but I don't hold onto things that I am not using > unless I feel that I might need them again within a reasonable period > of time. Those are the things that I rent! In a decade I was never able to accumulate more than t

RE: Turbulent age

My reply wasn't directly addressing it, just relating a recent anecdote. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: RE: Turbulent age Date: Thu 2006 Aug 24 11:26 am Size: 1K

Re: Turbulent age

On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Bob W wrote: > Photojournalists that I know or have spoken to are always interested > in who's using what and why. It's important for them to have an edge > on the competition, so if they see someone using something > unconventional they want to know what benefit it

Re: Turbulent age

On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: > What the pros are using, and particular the photo > journalists, are less important now for brand recognition I had two different sports photographers ask me on Tuesday what I knew about the new Pentax bodies after seeing that I was shooting with

Re: Turbulent age

On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > Thanks Ken. It would have been nice to know where Minolta was. Is that > SLR-only? ...out of business? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Useless gearhead quiz (was - venting)

This thread simply proves to me that I'm not a gearhead. I tend to buy something to do something specific, and keep it. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > Well at least Tokina has been reminding them :-) Hey, if it's good enough for Nikon pro long primes, it's plenty good enough for me. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.ne

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a > 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for > 35mm movie cameras Wasn't Trainspotting entirely shot with a 10mm Zeiss lens? I seem to recall that the lens rental alone w

Re: CF v SD Cards

I really don't get what's being said here -- old, film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame Canons, as evidenced by the L series? Am I missing something? Has the L series been around for a long, long time, or are we just talking about how well NEW lenses perform? Tom's talking about

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. There's certainly nothing cheap feeling about the DS2. I mean, it weighs less than the 67, and it's not as cold to the touch, but it's pretty damned solid. There's no "play", nothing is loose, nothi

Re: CF v SD Cards

s of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." >From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >R

Re: CF v SD Cards

But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- F

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Savage wrote: > "2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter > of > 2006 business year > (from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006):" Hrm -- I'll have to place an inquiry as to where the numbers I was fed come from. -Aaron -- PDML Pen

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David Savage wrote: > It says on the first page. Care to share? I'm reading my mail on my Palm, and its PDF support is, well, substandard. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > From: Outline of Finances and Business Results in 1st Quarter of 2006 > Business Year (Consolidated) What months are those? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: venting about lack of available 3rd party & other lense

On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Amita Guha wrote: > In the meantime, I have my eye on the Nikon D200. I'm going to go look > at one this weekend. Just don't buy it until at least October, okay? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: venting about lack of available 3rd party & other lense

On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Perhaps better if Aaron's secret feature amounts to > something. Oh, does it ever amount to something! -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the > moment I'm still not convinced that the volume is sustainable or > particularly profitable as they appear to be priced ridiculously low. And yet somehow their camera div

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Peter Loveday wrote: > I really hope theres more to this that it seems on the surface. I don't know anything about the p&s, but as to that other thing, "yes". -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Not the resolution part of it, and not by itself. But sort of yes! -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 4:23 pm Size: 526 byte

Re: CF v SD Cards

I don't think they would make them 100% incompatible, but if they did I would still have my current cameras and lenses. If I wanted USM, I would have to buy both new lenses and a new body anyways; if the new body were incompatible with my old gear I would just be less disposed towards buying it

Re: CF v SD Cards

I shoot nearly 100% jpg, and the larger buffer of the DS2 combined with the faster write speed feels significantly more than twice as fast. The buffer helps initially, but the speed of recovery from a burst using a fast card makes a huge difference if, like me, you shoot numerous 2-3 shot bursts

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:02 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > That's hardly a concern when comparing CF and SD cards. Unless you > plan > to lift them into orbit. Yes, thus the "heh" to convey the jokiness of the post, I, too, put SD cards in my pockets all the time and have not even come close to los

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Tom C wrote: > I don't really care Aaron. If in use, I can't detect a difference (or > it's > negligible), the specs don't matter. Price may make a difference, but > not > memory card specs where the slowest link in the chain is probably the > camera > itself.

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Tom C wrote: > Rally? Okay, Tom, I'll bite: what Pentax body using SD cards is slower to write to the card than the original *istD using CF cards? I freely admit to having used only the D, the DS, the DS2 and the DL and to only owning the DS2. Are the new K

Re: any views on K100D vs. Canon Rebel XT (350D)?

On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Tom C wrote: > I would expect Canon to implement in-body anti-shake at the soonest > possible > time. No information to that, just common sense. Won't that destroy the market for their pricey lenses with anti-shake in them? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail L

Re: CF v SD Cards

e: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net Faster... noticeably to humans or just to chronometers measuring in nanoseconds? Tom C. "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered." From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail Li

Re: CF v SD Cards

1) Reeling in what sense? 2) What are you expecting to hear from the American importer, and what exactly did you ask? Your cards work JUST FINE in your camera. If you keep your camera, you will need cards. If you sell your camera, sell the cards with it. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca ht

Re: Screw mount bellows on the K100D (was - scanner question)

I have a set of bellows in the basement somewhere -- I'll see if I can successfully attach them to my DS2, which should be about the same shape. Of course, I'd have to successfully find them first. -Aaron On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > What I haven't come across is wh

Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:18 AM, David Savage wrote: > Assuming prices are up to date, the average works out to: AU$257 > (~US$195) Well, it sucks to be in Australia. Maybe your CF cards have held their value, then, eh? Three fast Gb plus a slow 1Gb card for my Palm cost me about $100 total, a

Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > The numbers work out to considerably less than $100.00 if you make a > wise > purchase. I know -- I was trying to put together a reasonable worst-case. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > are harder to lose Heh, my Ampex 501 is a lot harder to lose than my iPod, but when choosing a portable music player I'll go for the one that doesn't weigh more than my kid. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net

Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

I've never shopped by "name", so I don't know what the write speed of an Ultra II translates to. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

Re: CF v SD Cards

Capable, sure, but what can you get for the same price? The *ist D isn't worth comparing, speed-wise, as even Pentax's cheapest DSLR outperforms it by a large margin now. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: "Peter L

Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:18 AM, David Savage wrote: > Not if you'd bought $500+ (a 1GB & a 2GB in my case) worth of CF cards > you wouldn't. David -- are those cards fast compared to what's out there currently, or would putting them into your new camera put you at a significant write speed disadv

Re: CF v SD Cards

On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Cotty wrote: > Seems to me that SD is becoming the consumer standard. CF is still a > professional standard and I don't see any sign of that changing. I > would > suspect that there are probably good reasons for that. Considering that most "pro" bodies are physicall

Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2

On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > Maybe, maybe not. The only thing certain is that Pentax has already > shown a lack of concern for customers investments in storage cards. NOT TO MENTION THEIR LACK OF CONCERN FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO SHOOT A LOT OF FILM!!! I HAVE ALL THI

Re: I NEED an intervention.

On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:21 AM, David J Brooks wrote: > Just added another Dslr to the Lowepro. WHAT DID YOU BUY NOW??? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: FA* 24/2 AL [IF]

On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > More important, how is it optically? I seem to recall some people > saying > that it wasn't very good - although I don't recall any specifics. I've only used it on film, and it was spectacular. Made my Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8 look l

Re: Printer Recommendations?

rinter Recommendations? Date: Fri 2006 Aug 18 2:54 am Size: 975 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > Real Epson service call, in which I was apparently > the first person ever to require a replacement waste ink tank -- it > wasn&#x

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:26 PM, John Francis wrote: > Beyond that I'm just beginning to hear talk of a 60-250 (probably > f4, not f2.8). Oh, I want that. Pretty please. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?

On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Anthony Farr wrote: > Perhaps this post didn't get through the first time so I'm resending > it but > with an altered subject line. I didn't reply because there was no context to what I was looking at, so it didn't make any sense to me. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Di

Re: Printer Recommendations?

On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > If I had the choice between two otherwise identical, equally priced > printers, I'd choose the one with the smallest droplet size. Well, sure, as long as everything else actually is equal -- but everything else are those hard to quantize in numbe

Re: Printer Recommendations?

On Aug 17, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > Aaron, this, of course, is about 'all else being equal'. And what I'm saying is that at the advanced stage we're at, improvements in image quality come from something other than droplet size, at least when viewed with the naked eye. Colour rang

Re: Printer Recommendations?

On Aug 17, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > Only problem is, I tend to examine even prints with a loupe, at least > intelectually speaking. In a way, it's like having 500 hp under the > hood but not needing it or using it. Still a rush knowing it's there. > Does one "need" camera RAW, etc, e

Re: For those "in the know" about K10D

On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:57 AM, graywolf wrote: > I have not checked but I suspect that many of those high volume > quality people labs are still doing business as most pro photographers > still make their money by shooting, not by sitting in front of a > computer In Toronto and the surrounding a

Re: For those "in the know" about K10D

That's because everyone wants quality for nothing, Bill! Related: bad news for those who enjoyed the 12 cent prints from photolab.ca, as TCN (who were providing the service) are shutting down operations. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: For

Re: Printer Recommendations?

On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > The newer Epsons don't seem to clog. My 2200 has never clogged in the > five years I've been using it. Clogging is heavily dependent on usage. If you leave the printer for long stretches without printing, it's more likely to clog. If you l

Re: For those "in the know" about K10D

The simple solution is to continue to use your old camera with your old cards -- you're not being forced to buy a new body, nor are you being forced to discard your old one. I like SD cards, largely because I can snap them into my Palm and e-mail the images instantaneously, without having to ca

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > That makes it clear. You're talking about the noise reduction that is > part of the K10D package. It's just like minimal grain. Perhaps my > greatest joy in working with the 6x7 was shooting Delta 3200 and > producing prints that looked like the

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: > Image Format ? (Dimensions) Nope. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > IMHO, the only BIIG advantage of a 67 (and any MF and LF cameras) is > given by the combination between negative film dynamics and reduced > grain (aka noise). But that is not a feature, is a characteristic of > the negative film. Oh no,

Re: For those "in the know" about K10D

On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > If you shoot RAW you'll probably want nothing smaller than 2 Gig cards > for this camera, because of the 10-megapixels and... other factors. Other magnificent, wonderful factors. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pd

Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype

Except that's not my feature! -Aaron -Original Message- From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:15 pm Size: 440 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net Gang, a fellow in Beijing, posting over at dpreview, decoded Jostein's mes

Re: fine art print sizes without cropping (RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > Cropping the image to the paper allows use of standard frame sizes with > even matting on every edge. Of course, you could always buy frames in different shapes. At Ikea, they have a lot of odd (to North America) Euro sizes -- print to those! -A

Re: fine art print sizes without cropping (RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Bob W wrote: > To my mind it's a brain-upside-down way of thinking, but I've heard > and read it so often that perhaps it's me that's got something wrong. > Cut the paper to fit the image! It's upside down to me, too. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@p

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

BTW, my guess is that non-linearity would be a function of the A/D conversion, not a characteristic of the sensor. None of which means that Pentax or anyone else is about to announce anything of the sort ;-) Regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mai

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Sadly, this is as close or even closer than most guesses. And no, that's not a hint. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Peter Fairweather" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:40 pm Size: 615 bytes To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" I rel

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

All in. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Jostein Øksne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:28 pm Size: 645 bytes To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" I'll raise you by 3.14 Jostein On 8/16/06, Dario Bonazza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

aywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ------- Aaron Reynolds wrote: > Why would either of these prompt me to sell my 67? > > I don't care about any technical tomfoolery -- so what is it that I do care > about? > >

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

olf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" ------- Mark Roberts wrote: > Aaron Reynolds wrote: > >> On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: >> >>> My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no >&g

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

22 -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:04 pm Size: 708 bytes To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 50 Dario - Original Message - From: "Digital Image Studio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

You don't understand logE? You do/did operate a lab, did you not? Regards, Anthony Farr > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron > Reynolds > Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 1:01 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List &

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

I find that place tiresome. I can only imagine what gadgets/math/technofoolery they're thinking up. I ain't going there -- they're sure to be obsessing over the wrong things. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body D

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > I think a lot of you are making too much of Aaron's statement that > he'd (possibly) give up his 67 for this. In fact I believe -- and I > think Jostein, who also knows "the secret", will agree with me on this > -- that Aaron may be expecting to

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

That is beyond my understanding. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:40 am Size: 1K To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" I made this suggestion a couple of hours ago, but there's been no r

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

It's *closer* in that it's related to the right part of the improvement, but it's not *the thing*. -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:50 am Size: 531 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

My 67 does not have AF. Again, it has already been said more than once by more than one person. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:07 am Size: 368 bytes To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Nope. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:54 am Size: 1K To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" Aaron, Going back to the source might help me to dig out your meaning. "It addresses my most

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

l Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds > Sent: 16. august 2006 15:29 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body > > > On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Stringer wrote: > >

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Stringer wrote: > 6x7 format translates to fine art print sizes without cropping. In > camera > mask would make composing in a ratio similar to 6x7 easier and as I > said > earlier, an easy to use hyperfocal adjustment for foreground sharpness > would > be ni

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: > You mean, "No grain/noise" is close, but (reduction of) sensor noise > isn't. You are confusing me. (But that's the fun part of all this, I'm > sure ;-)) No, I didn't mean that "no grain/noise" was close. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail Lis

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Colder. -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:27 am Size: 247 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List At 07:13 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote: >Also, when there are lovely modern superwides out there,

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

I think that current digital SLR images are well below the quality of 67. I do not know anything about that patent at all. I did not bring that patent up. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Why would either of these prompt me to sell my 67? I don't care about any technical tomfoolery -- so what is it that I do care about? Also, when there are lovely modern superwides out there, what does the sensor size matter? -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage <[EMAIL PROTE

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Way closer. What else? -Aaron -Original Message- From: DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:04 am Size: 449 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Fra: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On Aug 16, 20

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: > My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no > green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mai

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: > A lens with shutterblades, will allow high shutterspeeds, when using a > flash. Nope, I don't have one of those for the 67. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

RE: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

--Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron > Reynolds > Sent: Wednesday, 16 August 2006 11:48 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body > > Would I sell my 67 just for that? > &

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday - Original Message - From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body > > On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Vi

Re: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

Would I sell my 67 just for that? -Aaron -Original Message- From: "Butch Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:44 pm Size: 213 bytes To: "Pentax discussion group" Could it be something as simple as a removable prism with th

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

I agree, Rob -- though for me about one in twenty images shot with the A* 400mm f2.8 on the DS2 at 1/640 wide open show vague signs of shake when blown up. Fewer and fewer as I grow more comfortable with it -- I suppose with shake reduction there would be no pressure to improve my technique. -

Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype

There is no rumor, just confirmed facts that are under embargo -- so people who know can't share. Though a careful reading of the Holy Crap thread will reveal all. -Aaron -Original Message- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Exactly what is the rumour? John -- Using Opera's

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

You're headed in the right direction but your conclusions are wrong. ;) -Aaron On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:25 PM, Vic Mortelmans wrote: > OK. let's try to do some semantical analysis on the hints... > > Aaron Reynolds wrote: >> It's a feature that's so much >>

Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: > I somehow doubt that there is much to gain from improving the A/D, > though. Seems to me that the real issue is noise already present in the > analogue signal, and also dynamic range limitations also on the > analogue > side. Are you certain? -

Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype

On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > Another thing I noticed from the archives today is that Aaron has got > some news about the K10D that makes him want to sell his 6x7. While > I'm not sure whether he an I have seen the same news, the K10D > certainly will have a number of very p

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Vic Mortelmans wrote: > So maybe time for another hint, Aaron? > > I understand that it's something you have on your 67 but never got on > any digital SLR, could you tell if it is something that *IS* available > on 35mm SLR (Pentax or other)? Yes and no. Depends on

Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: >> Someone else was very, very close before. >> -Aaron > > Hope it was me with the Fuji SR sensor, > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/ > > So Pentax/Samsung have a 10 meg high dynamic range sensor with two > pixel > sensor sizes.

Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Mark Stringer wrote: > A new super-sensor would be great but it does not seem to fulfill the > seer's > vision of "Mid-September ...forehead-slapping amongst the competition > in > the DSLR world." nor does it fit with "...not a single DSLR out there > at any price

RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

I only have one finder for my 67. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:47 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Perhaps, but I doubt that would be enough to cause Aaron to think about giving up 6x7.

Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body

>> I think the clue was that it was something that Aaron _does_ get with >> a 6x7 (but not with 35mm). I haven't shot 35mm in a very long time, so I don't know where exactly that inference came from. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pd

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >