I've been an occasional contributer here for a while, so I guess I
should say something before unsubscribing.
I start my clinical rotations for med school in a couple weeks so I'll
have increasingly less time to deal with list volume (and unfortunately
also less time to spend w/ photography in
I see the 645 digital solution as being a removable back for a new 645
camera that takes the existing lenses. It gives current users an
upgrade path to the new camera (maybe with the new AF from the *ist?)
and then the option to add a digital back later if they can't pay for
it all at once.
Yes, all green and blue sensors will be black, but I would argue that
this isn't actually a loss of data. If you look closely at the output
file, you won't see 2 out of every three pixels appearing totally
black. Since info from pixels of all three colors is used to calculate
the color value
Sorry, but there simply aren't 24M sensors. Read the following for an
example of how color filter arrays work:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/key=colour+filter+array
This of course doesn't mean that taking a B&W photo on a 6MP camera
results in a 2MP file. You still record all channels and t
Sorry. It's early, I was a little quick on the reply there.
-Matt
On Thursday, October 9, 2003, at 01:13 AM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
I have 2 copies of Photoshop Elements 2.0 to give away, they both came
free with some gear i bought and i dont need them.
If any one needs and wants a copy then just
I've had a lot of luck using photoshop's quadtone setting and then
printing in color. Not exactly black and white, but monotone, and I
find they look pretty good.
There's an article detailing the procedure at the Luminous Landscape,
here's the link:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials
On Monday, September 29, 2003, at 10:52 AM, graywolf wrote:
Now the istD has a 95% viewfinder magnification that is the same as an
MX.
Minor point - the magnification of the MX is actually 0.97x, the
coverage is 95%. These are two different parameters, measuring
different things.
Of course, a
On Saturday, September 27, 2003, at 10:27 PM, Christian Skofteland
wrote:
I've never owned an AF SLR and I knew it would be odd to adjust to all
the
buttons and dials (I come from LXen and MXen). But after 100 or so
images
it would take a plastic surgeon to remove the silly grin from my face.
So I pulled the winder off, whacked it around a bit, looked inside,
then popped it back on the camera. Tried the wind lever on the camera,
heard something click in the winder and lo and behold, it works again.
Who knows why, but I'm not messing with it again.
-Matt
On Saturday, September 20,
ckets on the bottom of the cameras.
They get dirty/oxidized and don't make good contact.
Regards, Bob S.
From: Matt Bevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I recently got a new (to me) Winder MEII, which appeared to work fine
for a while. Today, when I try to use it I'm having some
diffi
On Tuesday, September 16, 2003, at 05:19 PM, Keith Whaley wrote:
Then why the statement "They are faster than non-FA* lenses?"
I think the original poster meant "faster" in the sense of "larger max
aperture"
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 06:10 PM, graywolf wrote:
By the way, Internet Explorer is a Mozilla variant.
Since when?
Mark Roberts wrote:
But he didn't, I did.
And if that doesn't work for you, look for a mozilla variant. I'm
always amazed when I use IE on a PC and I start seeing po
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 11:32 AM, Cotty wrote:
SAFARI !
I'll second that one
And if that doesn't work for you, look for a mozilla variant. I'm
always amazed when I use IE on a PC and I start seeing pop-up ads, I
just didn't think they existed anymore
-Matt
On Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 09:43 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
Noting that IBM is building the G5 Macs, it looks like Apple is
(a) no longer able to produce quality products internally
Um, IBM makes the processors, apple designed the computer. Other
components are also subcontracted out.
So, I got the last of my developing back-log done this weekend and I
finally got a website together.
In addition to my photos, I put up a bunch of pentax stuff. When I
started this crazy hobby a couple years ago I did tons of research, so
i figured I may as well put the info I found up on the
FS: SMC Pentax-A 28/2.8
I got this in an Ebay auction with some other stuff, and as it is my
third 28mm lens, I just don't need it. It's an A lens, so it even
works on the *ist and *ist D.
I'm asking $75 including priority mail shipping in the US.
If I don't hear anything by Saturday, I'll pr
On Tuesday, September 2, 2003, at 06:28 PM, Bob Walkden wrote:
Why do you need a computer? Why not use a mirror like the rest of us?
I like to think that I'm relatively normal - the problem is I have to
learn pathology as well. Although, I think I manage to study plenty of
that reading PDML.
On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 01:58 PM, Anders Hultman wrote:
I have two ME:s and one SuperA and they all have 1/1000 as their
fastest
shutter speed.
...but my ME Super goes to 1/2000. As for the Super Program, I should
be able to tell you later this week ;-)
Some may remember my flash qu
I use an MX with a grid screen for shooting slides, mostly provia 100F.
When I'm doing this I'm taking things a little more seriously, so I
bring along most of my (small) contingent of lenses - M 50/1.7, M
28/3.5 and A 70-210/4. I have an M 135/3.5 that hasn't seen much use
since I got the 70
Ugh. Sorry, hit send too fast.
On Monday, August 25, 2003, at 02:30 PM, Christian wrote:
This was still in my outbox today I meant to send it Friday.
Ok, I'm gearing up to go completely digital so this is what's left of
film
bodies, accessories and lenses without an "A" Believe it or no
Pentax LX with FA-1, grip B and original strap: Shutter is great, NO
STICKY
MIRROR, it has a scratch or two on the body, focusing screen is a
grid-type
and is a little dusty. The DOF preview works but mirror lock-up and
self-timer are inoperable. Nothing a CLA wouldn't cover. Also, I'll
thro
Good post! But, the drinking age, AFAIK, is now 19 in most of Canada -
except Quebec, which is still 18.
Eh, figures. Must be some of that American Puritanism rubbing off on
ya.
As for drinking with relatives - I am just getting used to drinking
with my "little" brother, I can't imagine drink
I have a story about Labatt Blue, it goes as follows:
A friend of mine had an older brother who took a trip up to Canada when
he turned 18 (that's the drinking age there, it's 21 in the US) - he of
course went right to a bar. He and his friend say: "Can we have two
Labatts please?"
The barten
On a somewhat related side note, I know find myself with a powerbook to
sell. I have a limited opportunity to downsize to a 12" model and as I
find myself carrying my 'book around more I'm looking forward to the
reduction in weight.
Given that, I now have my 1-year-old 15" titanium G4 powerboo
00, ME-F, Canon G2, Contax G2,
Hasselblad
500 C/M, Canon Elan II, and Leica M6.
It's still with me now and provides me with fill/background light when
it's
mounted on a light stand and bounced into an umbrella.
Cheers,
Dave
Original Message:
-
From: Matt Bevers [EMAIL
On Monday, July 21, 2003, at 06:24 AM, Jos from Holland wrote:
Buy Swivel head that goes around (almost 360 degrees)and up down of
course.
This will make it possible to quickly use indirect flash in many
situations.
Buy flash with second (fill) flash pointing forward. This will keep
"live"(point
So, this weekend I was down in Washington, DC, taking a bunch of
photos. My brother works for the Secret Service, so he got us a tour
of the the White House. We weren't allowed to take photos inside the
West Wing (we saw the oval office and cabinet room), but we could shoot
in the press room.
Are the strips on the sides 2mm as well? Mine were completely gone so
I had to guess, and I never quite got the right fit.
-Matt
On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 07:11 PM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
ME Super mirror bumper is 3mm, I used three layers of 1 mm form double
width
(3.5mm) strips.
The MX mir
Every now and then I go back and look at some old slides to get an idea
of how much I've improved and how much stricter my standards are now.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 06:21 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
your standards will go up as your skills improve and your select rate
will
go up o
he inkjet so you can keep a print. I think this is how
digital cameras are being used in many cases, so I think comparing
prints is a valid test.
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:56 PM, Caveman wrote:
Matt Bevers wrote:
A) I didn't say "the best" I said "good" pleas
are rolls that are a complete waste.
I once got what I considered 5 "good" shots from 1 24-frame roll.
My highest percentage of keepers ever. The old rule of thumb
"1 good shot per roll" seems to be about average for me.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Am I the only one who shoots film and d
quot; of each, you may want to compare a 8x10
slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money
nor the inclination to do such test.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints,
so you should print both and compare those. Comparin
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so
you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a
print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of
once again "proving" that digital is inferior.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, a
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras
are
status symbols, not photographic tools.
I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film
cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that stil
You can also try searching for:
Pentax 35mm -(SLR,camera)
This finds all auctions with the words "Pentax" and "35mm" in the
title, but excludes those with "SLR" or "camera"
-Matt
On Wednesday, July 9, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Jens Bladt wrote:
Thanks Ann
I didn't know about the "-marks...
-Opri
On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 08:13 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Matt,
I follow what you are saying, but still don't think it is right.
I just pulled up a 1,425KB jpeg and re-saved it in Paint Shop Pro.
I purposely used the minimum compression I could and got a 1,814KB
jpeg.
So I made this fil
The problem with archiving in JPEG is that you will actually lose
quality each time you re-save the file. Not only does this make sense
in theory given the compression algorithm, but I've actually seen it
happen. It's not huge but it's there. Now I use compressed TIFF for
archiving, although
I seem to remember that when I got married, food was part of the
photographer's contract as well as a position at a table near ours so
he could stop eating and shoot should the need arise. I don't
remember if he specifically asked us, but I think we made sure his
table went up for food early
I used to load reels in the bathroom with the lights off, now every
room in my apartment has a window. I've thought about
just loading reels at night, but I haven't been able to convince the
city to shut off the power for the entire block so I still get a lot of
light in. I now use a change ba
them
slides/negatives now? I'm so confused)
-Matt
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 10:55 AM, Nick Zentena wrote:
On June 19, 2003 10:51 am, Matt Bevers wrote:
Exactly - that's why I said the user interface supports it's entry
level status. The single dial doesn't work
On Thursday, June 19, 2003, at 11:27 AM, Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
But this is not an issue if you don't use manual mode :)
Or if you don't use exposure compensation in Av or Tv
e least used part of
the
interface.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Bevers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(previous message snipped)
Don't forget the user interface - this is one clear strike against the
*ist, having only one dial to control shutter, apert
Build quatility (metal mount): 2 (2)
Mount compatiblity to manual lenses 1 (Nikon 4, others none)
Viewfinder 2 (2)
Shutter time, sync speed 3 (2-3)
FPS 3-4 (2-3)
Auto picture mode 2 (picture mode 2)
AF system (cross sensor, on screen display) 4 (2-3)
AF modes (Single, continous)
I got it too, but from [EMAIL PROTECTED] so I don't know if it's PDML
related...
On Tuesday, June 10, 2003, at 05:49 PM, Caveman wrote:
No way I would start an .exe attachement ;-)
Who's the prankster ?
cheers,
caveman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Greetings from Amazon.com.
We thought you'd like t
I have an M 28/2.8 (yes, I know, spare me the "but the 3.5 is much
better" comments, I've heard it already) that I picked up used a while
ago. Lately, I've been getting really overexposed shots when I use f16
or 22. The slides look up to 3 stops overexposed, and I'm not having
the problem wit
Note: The following comments apply more to the film *ist than to the
*ist D
Just over a year ago I was inspired to finally take up photography,
something I had always wanted to do but never seemed to have the time
or money for. Unfortunately, I still didn't have the money, so I
looked exclusi
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:40 PM, KT Takeshita wrote:
1. *ist is indeed an "entry level" body. It has to be considered a P&S
camera with a mirror box(!).
2. But "entry" cameras from major brands are all very well featured
these
days. So you cannot judge it an entry level from the featur
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
The MZ/ZX series is 8 years old. According to Pentax sources and
official info in Japan, Pentax regards the *ist as entry level. It was
not my invention. The *ist is the first in a new generation of Pentax
bodies.
Are all the new Pen
s not "flagship" is "
cheap" and "entry level".
cheers,
caveman
Matt Bevers wrote:
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål
insists that the *ist is "entry level" and therefore in the same
class as the MZ-60 (despite the fact tha
See comments below (long):
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Pål Jensen wrote:
But then you get worse compatibility with older lenses. Frankly, I
can't see any K and M lens owner going to buy an *ist, just like they
don't buy the MZ-60.
I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I kn
Imaging Resource has a "hands on" look at the *ist D. Link for those
who haven't seen it:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/EVENTS/PMAS03/1046647288.html
Of note:
"In discussion with booth staff, we confirmed something we'd already
suspected - we were told that the suggestion that the *ist D sh
Maybe I'm being overly hopeful, but if one looks at list prices for
current cameras on Pentax USA's web site and compares them to selling
prices (at B&H for example), the street price is usually around 60% of
the list. Following that logic, we could see the *ist at about $200
and the *ist D at
On Sunday, February 23, 2003, at 07:44 AM, Pål Jensen wrote:
Well, I don't think it is middle level but entry level. Entry level
can be defined in several ways: it doesn't necesarily mean the
cheapest body on offer.
I just don't see what makes it entry level - you say entry level can be
defin
Funny - this is almost exactly what I have - M28/2.8, 50/1.7 and 135/3.5
Got the 50 with a body, the other two for a total of $85. Cheap is
the only way I can do it.
On Monday, February 10, 2003, at 11:17 PM, Alan Chan wrote:
M28/2.8, M50/2, M135/3.5.
So I'd decided I was going to do some shooting at a local park today, but I
thought I should wait until this evening to get some nice warm near-sunset
light. Around six, I leave for the park, throwing the hiking guide book in
the car with me so I can look up the directions. Half-way there, I rea
I just want to clarify something as I'm still relatively new to the list.
It seems as if there have been an awful lot of posts regarding ongoing Ebay
auctions lately. I thought that the "unspoken rule" was not to mention
something until it was over or only if it was in an odd category and
therefo
Wow - my first PUG and I get such a thoughtful and useful review on the
famous "Cotty List." The praise made my day and the suggestions have
motivated me even more than I already was. I missed this month's PUG, but
I'm looking forward to coming up with something for June.
Thanks so much.
-matt
I also have no trouble with the f-stop reading in the MX viewfinder, and
I'll agree that the LEDs are a bit hard to see in bright light. Would a
rubber eye-cup help this problem?
As for info, I see shutter and f-stop being a bare minimum, especially
useful, if like me, you are just starting. I'
I got mine for $35 off ebay about a month ago with great glass but a minor
"clicking" noise when focusing, the list assured me this was not a problem.
The first images from it confirm that it's not a problem.
-matt
on 4/22/02 11:44 AM, Jeff Post at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I bought my about
As I understand it, the SMC-M 100/4 macro will do 0.5x magnification on its
own, but is capable of 1x with an extension tube - what length tube would I
need to get this capability?
Thanks.
-Matt
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and f
ther cameras like I've done ;o) and M135/3.5 lens,
>
> Good luck, Vlad
>
> P.S. I like the M135/3.5 lens - very sharp, compact, built in hood, etc.
> except it has harsh bokeh for my taste ;o(
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Matt Bevers" <[EMAIL
Hi all - just joined the list thanks to the recent purchase of an MX.
I also just picked up an M 135/3.5 off Ebay, which appears to be in
excellent shape. However, when mounted on the camera, the lens makes a
"clicking" noise that increases in pitch when focusing from about 12ft (4m)
to infinity
62 matches
Mail list logo
