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
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?
-
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
>>
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
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.
-
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
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
--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?
>
&
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
>
>
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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
&
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
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
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?
>
>
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:
>
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
As recently as May, Fuji was still producing Astia 100f, which I preferred to
Provia because it was a little snappier and also much less sensitive to the ph
of the water used for developing it, which made Provia a real pain in the butt
to develop. If your local lab has blue/magenta issues with
On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh Oh Ann. You've woken the Brother hood up.:-)
Hey Aaron.
No one had said anything about not being able to hand-hold a Pentax 67
lately, so I figured I wasn't needed.
-Aaron
On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Toine Kuiper wrote:
Anyway, I don't like blue fringes on my Pentax horizons and trees.
Do you find that this is something you notice in practical
applications, or is it just upon close examination of the files?
-Aaron
I had issues last summer shooting baseball where I repeatedly had to wait for
the camera's buffer to empty itself out -- should the ability to write to the
card faster not cause the buffer to empty more quickly?
Of course, I was using a D, not a DS. I don't offhand know what the buffer or
writ
t chromes
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:02 pm
Size: 403 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>Oh Oh Ann. You've woken the Brother hood up.:-)
>>
>> Hey Aaron.
>
>
> No one had sa
taken in autumn and winter with many trees against a blue sky
result in a slight blue haze in the tree line. It's ugly.
On 2/5/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Toine Kuiper wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I don't like blue fringes on my Pen
While you say that jokingly, it's always a great idea to ask what your lab is
most comfortable handling. It's the best way to ensure strong results.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: question about chromes
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:02 pm
Size:
I was wondering if anyone here had experience with faster mirror lenses. I saw
a lens that tickled my fancy and budget, a 300mm f4.5, and I've been thinking
about picking it up.
www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar_300_lens.htm
I'd be primarily using it for baseball, for which I've been stealin
On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
I belong to the society for prevention of flash photography
- only to
be used in extreme circumstances
I've been known to spend a lot of time faking available light. Frank
Theriault and Dave "too bald" Chang-Sang saw it firsthand at Christmas
Thanks for those suggestions, though I was looking more for information on the
look of cat lenses -- I want a different look to some of the images from the
Sigma 300 f4 or the A* 200 2.8 with a 1.4x TC (effectively a 280 f4). I don't
so much need a cheap solution as -appreciate- a cheap solutio
ogers Centre (formerly SkyDome) is around 1/1000 f4 - 5.6 with ISO
1600 under the lights.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: mirror/cat lenses
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 4:19 pm
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On Feb 6, 2006, at 11:21 AM, Aar
Bill pretty much nails it, Shel: I was simulating overhead office lighting and
window light with strobes.
The overheads were dim and green, and sunlight refused to stream in throuh the
windows because we were having a blizzard.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL P
Heh, that for three years I had an extra hour every day.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Hi, Aaron! WAS Re: question about chromes
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 5:08 pm
Size: 306 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 2/5/06, Aaron Re
not proactively provide what would be considered fairly normal
information
The original message clearly stated their intended use -- for a slide
show to run at trade shows. It explicitly said that the images would
not be used on their website or in print ads.
Marco is a close personal frien
The messages I'm referring to were vulgar and aggressive. If you want to know
why the idea was canned, ask your brethren why they needed to write "dear
jackass" letters.
I didn't expect that from the PDML, so yes, I didn't think this through.
Please now, I am aware of my mistake; let's move on
On Feb 7, 2006, at 1:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only an hour?!?
Yeah, I read fast.
-Aaron
Thanks for the heads-up on the factory! That's some news I can use.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: mirror/cat lenses
Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 7:20 am
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On Feb 6, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Fred wrote:
> Which VS1, G
Pentax is refocussing their R&D and now will make flying cars.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Antti-Pekka Virjonen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: I'm back (again)
Date: Tue Feb 7, 2006 4:33 am
Size: 228 bytes
To:
Hi,
I'm back again from a months vacation.
Any super new releases fr
On Feb 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, frank theriault wrote:
Yeah, I read fast.
Either that or delete liberally.
Yes, that too.
-Aaron
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
Still using the Epson 7500?
Yep! It was behaving badly for a while, but then we put it in the car
and moved it somewhere else and a chunk of pigment the size of a subway
token fell out of it, followed by a torrent of pigment, and now
On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Last evening I visited three stores to check prices and to possibly
order
an istDS2. Buydig and Beach Camera, and another the name of which I've
forgotten, didn't list the camera as being available. Some other
stores -
more expensive generall
d
with Pentax. The D2 was just recently released
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Aaron Reynolds
> On Feb 7, 2006, at 9:13 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> > Last evening I visited three stores to check prices and to possibly
> > order
> > an istDS2. Buydig and Beac
Mine just arrived while I was typing that.
-Aaron
m
Size: 1K
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
And then donated to Samsung?
Go figure ...
2006/2/7, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Thanks for your thoughts on the matter ... I'm really getting frustrated
> with Pentax. The D2 was just recently released
>
> Shel
>
>
Tom, Pentax Canada, like Pentax USA, produce nothing. They import and re-sell
cameras atincreasingly poorer margins.
If you had read the e-mails, you'd know why they canned it. They were
disgusting.
They were looking for goodwill and attempting to engage their customer base in
a friendly, gr
se types of responses were definitely out of line. Why not just ignore
those people instead of withdraw the request?
Tom C.
>From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
>Subject: Re: Pentax Wants Your Di
It's not advertising spam, it's bounce messages -- every message I send to the
list I get back from this one guy's mailserver, telling me not to e-mail him
anymore because his inbox is full.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Who is the owne
xtremely polite and business like. I think it was
> the lack of 'official sounding' wording that led to the questions people
> had (the word copyright was never used) and the fact that the request
> came second hand (albeit through Frank :-) )
>
>
>
> Tom C.
>
of PCan, or the idea would
not have been dropped.
John
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:33:00 -, Aaron Reynolds
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you assume they didn't consider copyright? Usage was explicitly
> laid out in the initial mail.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
You guys realize that you're enabling me, right?
I just spent a third of the proceeds of my last job on a camera body -- don't
know how well the Dr. will react to lenses arriving in the mail.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: mirror/cat lenses
Da
On Feb 7, 2006, at 4:56 PM, John Forbes wrote:
An apology for that is in order (though perhaps not for Mr Jackass,
who I suspect wasn't a PDMLer anyway).
Far more than one person. A cursory search of the PDML archive shows
that a few of them have posted to the PDML, though they are not name
On Feb 7, 2006, at 5:19 PM, John Forbes wrote:
More than one PDMLer wrote: "Dear Jackass"? Are you sure?
I think you should distinguish between people who wrote to say that
the thing was not as well organised as it might have been, and those
who were "vulgar and aggressive".
I am 100% cert
That was brief and really not very much fun. Maybe I'll sign on again
in another three years.
-Aaron
Alright, I've had to momentarily de-lurk again because I cannot stand
it when misinformation persists. It drove me crazy with "you can't
hand-hold a Pentax 67" and now it's this.
Jens, I e-mailed you off-list to correct some misapprehensions you had.
Instead of taking that information in, yo
Wow, the Arizona Diamondbacks will sign ANYONE these days.
-Aaron
p.s. nice shot.
Is the DS2 the only one of the new DSLRs that has changed the legendary
Green Button Kludge?
I remember using a non-updated DS and hating how I had to meter with my
old M lenses, but the DS2 behaves differently -- not perfect, but
better. Does the DS firmware upgrade add the same functionalit
Even shooting professional events, you have to agree to a laundry list of usage
limitations. I may sell my baseball photographs to newspapers, magazines or
books for editorial purposes. I may not sell posters, individual prints, or
images for advertising without making financial arrangements w
On Feb 25, 2006, at 12:48 PM, Colin J wrote:
So can someone tell me, why do I need to spend
more money on a 10 MP Pentax "D2" when I can sell
my Pentax *ist D and Sigma 15-30mm and 24-70mm EX
lenses on eBay and buy a 10 MP Sony DSC-R1 plus a
couple of 1 GB memory sticks with the money?
We can'
On Feb 25, 2006, at 11:52 AM, K.Takeshita wrote:
Despite
the arguments that skilful photographers won't need it (which is
probably
true), IS saved me a lot of otherwise cull pics.
I think it really depends on what you're shooting. I wouldn't go
without my monopod to a baseball game because
On Feb 25, 2006, at 1:06 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
- Using the DoF preview will show you the difference in EV between the
currently set manual exposure and what the meter is seeing. The DoF
Preview button does not set the shutter speed, only the AE-Lock button
(or the thumbwheel...) does t
On Feb 25, 2006, at 1:08 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I once had the tape deck stolen out of my car while it was parked in my
garage one night. No big deal - it was a cheap tape deck and I just
replaced it, as I had been meaning to do for weeks, with the
top-of-the-line Nakamichi TD500... which had
On Feb 25, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
For the record, I have some very nice sets of action photographs taken
of motorcycle road racing made over the years with a Leica M, a Mamiya
1000S, and a Sony F707. None of these cameras is what I'd consider to
be a speed demon ...
Hell,
On Feb 25, 2006, at 1:40 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
If the DS2 actually operates the iris mechanism in Av mode with these
lenses, that is indeed different behavior, a worthwhile change. I'd
suggest looking in the lens and checking.
You're right, it *doesn't*!
But it seems to say that it do
On Feb 25, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From my experience in various press venues, I'd say that magazine
photographers shoot RAW, newspaper photographers shoot jpeg.
Probably depends on the newspaper. When there was all that fuss about
dig
On Feb 25, 2006, at 4:04 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Can you not make adjustments to a RAW file and save it?
No. Not yet...
So you'd convert it to a different format, do the alterations, then
save that file as RAW? Is that not possible?
RAW has been a save-as option in Photoshop for as long
On Feb 25, 2006, at 4:37 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
RAW has been a save-as option in Photoshop for as long as I can
remember.
I don't see it in CS2. Remember, too, that RAW is a generic term. For
Nikon you'd have to save the file as a (non-demosaiced) NEF file. For
Pentax it would be a PEF file.
On Feb 25, 2006, at 4:42 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
What you're asking is not possible. Once a file has been saved in
another
form, like TIFF, JPEG, PSD, it cannot be reconverted back to RAW.
Just for my own curiosity, is it because of nature of the file itself
(as in, is it theoretically i
On Feb 25, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
Or is 35mm now the realm of other manfacturers?
Is it the realm of *any* manufacturers now? Film sales are so sluggish
even compared to two years ago that I would be stunned if there was any
kind of market at all for new 35mm SLRs.
-Aaron
On Feb 25, 2006, at 4:27 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote:
I refer also to 35mm digital, not just film
Well, I think we've seen from the announcement of the 645 digital body
that Pentax has decided to go bigger for their high-end gear.
-Aaron
On Feb 25, 2006, at 6:14 PM, Cotty wrote:
On 25/2/06, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
He reads like he is a bit of a wimp.
Artist. Same thing.
Now now, Cotty, some of us have been in bar brawls.
-Aaron
On Feb 26, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Jens Bladt wrote:
Fact:
The write speed - 8 secs per RAW file IS slow compared to the
competition,
which have been pointed out many time by others in this forum as well.
That's not lying. That's my OPINION.
When you insist again that the photographer must pau
Comparing two older printers, carts for the 2200 are about $18 CDN each, and
carts for the 7500 are about $75 CDN each. The 7500 is much cheaper to run.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Thibouille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Printing myself my photos ...
Date: Sun Feb 26, 2006 2:52
On Feb 26, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Carlos Royo wrote:
Aaron, I think Jens is writing about his *ist D, and you about the DS.
Yes, I'm writing about the DS2, because it is a current camera. As far
as I know, the DL / DL2 also have the faster write speed. The D is
very old camera by digital stan
301 - 400 of 1707 matches
Mail list logo
