On 1 Feb 2005 at 0:00, Kenneth Waller wrote:
> Re:
> *ist D CF card removal:
>
> Just looked @ my Nikon 5700. It has the same CF card orientation as my
> *ist D - the lip on the card is oriented toward the back of the camera making
> it
> harder to remove than if it was in the front.
It's no
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Jan 31, 2005 11:59 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
On 31 Jan 2005 at 22:16, Mark Cassino wrote:
> Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at
> length.
>
> Not that I'd _want_ them to pick
As I said about the DS, it would be nice. I don't feel it
terribly important for my needs, the DS does well enough.
Godfrey
--- Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > if you think the *ist DS image buffer is too shallow and
> slow try a *ist D
__
Be kinda hard since he never handled it, and thus couldn't compare it to
his D70.
Oh, well. I guess I'm being Judgmental again, and damn it all I
promised not to say
anything more about the subject.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: "Mark Cassino"
Subj
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been
vented at length.
Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a
more relevant gripe for reviewers than &q
Peter Loveday mused:
>
> Out of interest, how has it been improved in the DS, any idea? Is it
> compressed, or no padding, or both?
It's improved on the *ist-DS; the camera estimates 97 RAW files per GB,
I believe (vs. 73 on the *ist-D, IIRC), and generally does significantly
better than that.
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong"
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
the Canon 1Ds Mk2 with a 16MP sensor outputs RAW files
approximately 16MB in size.
That sounds like they are being consistent, anyway.
William Robb
On 31 Jan 2005 at 22:16, Mark Cassino wrote:
> Well, shut my mouth and call me slappy, it looks like this has been vented at
> length.
>
> Not that I'd _want_ them to pick up on it - but wouldn't this be a more
> relevant gripe for reviewers than "fiddly CF card socket..."
I suspect the fix fo
Cassino Photography
Kalamazoo, MI
www.markcassino.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
On 31 Jan 2005 at 21:44, Mark Cassino wrote:
W
the Canon 1Ds Mk2 with a 16MP sensor outputs RAW files approximately 16MB in
size.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:33 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
My friend with the rebel digital sez his RAW
There are plenty of references to this problem in the archives, this is
one of
the issues that as been at least partly addressed in the *ist DS. And
Godfrey
if you think the *ist DS image buffer is too shallow and slow try a *ist D
:-(
Out of interest, how has it been improved in the DS, any ide
On 31 Jan 2005 at 21:44, Mark Cassino wrote:
> Well, Pentax RAW files must have some sort of compression going on - they
> are (slightly) variable in file size.
The *ist D PEF files consist of a fixed RAW bayer array dump (12 bits per pixel
+ 4 bit padding) plus a low res, full sized jpeg on wh
: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
Yes, indeed.
Canon raw files are compressed (though not amazingly well).
Pentax raw files are not only not compressed, they're padded to 16 bit :(
It is one of my single bi
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino"
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to
a Canon 10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files
per 1 gig card. I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but
I
On 1 Feb 2005 at 12:52, Peter Loveday wrote:
> Yes, indeed.
>
> Canon raw files are compressed (though not amazingly well).
>
> Pentax raw files are not only not compressed, they're padded to 16 bit :(
>
> It is one of my single biggest annoyances with the *istD. It _should_ be
> able to get
th no
compression, they should be 3/4 of the size...
Love, Light and Peace,
- Peter Loveday
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Cassino" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2005 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
I've never used or even looked at a Canon
I've never used or even looked at a Canon 10D, but I was talking to a Canon
10D user, who said that he got something like 150 RAW files per 1 gig card.
I only get 70-75 raw files with the *ist-D, but I've never heard any
complaints about poor compression of RAW files on it *ist-D.
Considering
ybe the problem really arises with microdrives? How close to a CF
FJW> > card are they in size (obviously, I have never used one and never
FJW> > tried one in the *ist-D)?
FJW> >
FJW> >John Coyle
FJW> >Brisbane, Australia
FJW> >
FJW> >
FJW> >
Paul Stenquist wrote:
The card compartment takes a wee bit of getting used to, but I don't
consider it a problem. I now whip cards in and out without even thinking
about it. If you have a strap attached, you have to make sure it's not
in the way when you open the door, and it's a bit hard to gr
> Made up example: the istDS fixes that notorious lenses falling off
> problem of the istD.
OK, now that you guys have done a pretty good job thrashing around the
earlier *ist D, please let me ask: What flaws might there be in the newer
*ist DS design or implementation?
Fred [still wondering w
--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The *ist-Ds adds the Highlight alert IIRC. I don't remember if
> it puts the histogram on the image or not.
It does both, on your option.
> They fixed the CF card eject problem but changing to SD cards
> and according to some reviews I've
> re
ECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote:
The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D!
Test performed just now:
Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is
perfectly horizontal.
Ensure the s
*ist-D)?
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote:
The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D!
Test perfor
I've changed CF cards in all kinds of conditions with no problems. I don't use
microdrives, but why would I want to? MY CF cards slide right out of both of my
*ist D cameras. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Paul
> On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote:
>
> > The first is really a
On 30 Jan 2005 at 11:15, John Coyle wrote:
> The first is really a non-issue with the *ist-D!
>
> Test performed just now:
> Lay the camera on the desk, lens mount down, no lens, so the body is
> perfectly horizontal.
> Ensure the strap isn't obstructing the card door.
> Open the card door.
> Pu
ssage -
From: "Larry Cook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore ... two s
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore ... two serious flaws ‹ a highly problematic card compartment
and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure
review mode (only on subseq
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and the joy-stick on the back is an absolute pig of a design, one of
the
poorest implementations of such a control that I've used.
That, Rob, is so absolutely my opinion too.
:-(
Jostein
I received both attempts ;)
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 09:20:27 +1000, Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
>
> > Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ...
> > thank you guys ... :-)
>
> Read the previous comments as you
On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
> Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ...
> thank you guys ... :-)
Read the previous comments as you will but for my money the card door and eject
mech is a bad design and still is a bad design after I've been using it
From: Frantisek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Then again, Mr. Reichmann is just, in my opinion, sometimes
too bloated.
> Perhaps he should uncork himself, as they say in one part of
Italy.
Knowledge from Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum", I suppose...
:-)
Ciao,
Gianfranco
=
_
__
On 29 Jan 2005 at 17:00, Peter Smekal wrote:
> Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ...
> thank you guys ... :-)
Read the previous comments as you will but for my money the card door and eject
mech is a bad design and still is a bad design after I've been using it
- Original Message -
From: "Graywolf"
Subject: Re: *istD-flaws
I have come to the conclusion that ten minutes of using something
will give you about the same information as reading 200 reviews.
Reviews should be read with a tablespoon full of salt. Because they
make mounta
I find it quite funny of Mr. Reichmann to object of missing blinking
highlights warning, when he is such a strong proponent of RAW. I don't
know a single DSLR which computes the highlight warning from the
16bit data. AFAIK most if not all are computed from the 8bit preview (zoom) jpeg
!!!
Then aga
On 29/1/05, cbwaters, discombobulated, unleashed:
>about to brave the ice storm to provide audio support for a marching band
>competitiongo figure.
Ceeb, you and you bloody marching bands
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cotty
In a message dated 1/29/2005 7:02:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Btw, shooting RAW may have made me more laid-back on the exposure
accuracy than I used to be with slide film. I'm still imagining that I
work with a high-contrast slide film when I'm out there, and
frequent
The *ist-Ds adds the Highlight alert IIRC. I don't remember if it puts
the histogram on the image or not.
They fixed the CF card eject problem but changing to SD cards and
according to some reviews I've
read you can eject one across the room.
Peter Smekal wrote:
A Luminous Landscape review from
Graywolf wrote
"the istDS fixes that notorious lenses falling off
>problem of the istD"
... huuh ... what was that?
Peter
I have noticed over the years that reviewers like to mention a couple of
fiddlely things. But they only mention serious defects when they review the next
model. Made up example: the istDS fixes that notorious lenses falling off
problem of the istD.
I have come to the conclusion that ten minutes
Another argument not to get the *ist D blown into the wind ...gggrrr ...
thank you guys ... :-)
Peter
> A Luminous Landscape review from 2003
maintains the following:
>
> "Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
> ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment
an> d
> the lack of a histogram and highlight
The *istDS body supports histogram on review, can do the
blinking highlight thing, and the SD card carrier is not fiddly
at all.
When I use the instant review, I usually have it set for a
minimal review time, without the histogram but with the
highlight blinky going. That gives me enough informat
Instead of a hinged compartment door, it should have been a sliding
door. :-)
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 3:13 PM
Subject: RE: *istD-flaws
I guess the card problem could have been solve
ur
negative or B/W, though, but I'm not able to tell...
hth,
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Smekal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
&qu
Pete wrote
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore ... two serious flaws â a highly problematic card compartment and
the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode
(on
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. januar 2005 14:57
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD-flaws
My card slot was quite fiddly upon receipt of the camera. After break-in
however, it's
//hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. januar 2005 12:31
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D
The card compartment takes a wee bit of getting used to, but I don't
consider it a problem. I now whip cards in and out without even
thinking about it. If you have a strap attached, you have to make sure
it's not in the way when you open the door, and it's a bit hard to grip
the card after push
Well put, William. My thoughts exactly.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. januar 2005 13:25
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: *istD-flaws
- Original Message
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:30 AM
Subject: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore ... two serious flaws < a highly problematic card compartment and
the lack of a histogr
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Smekal"
Subject: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they
can't
ignore ... two serious flaws < a highly problematic card
compar
29. januar 2005 13:00
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: RE: *istD-flaws
I can certaiinly live with both:
1) The problematic card compartment means, it's a little trickey to get the
car out. And the compartment door sometimes gets caught in the camera strap.
It's all really a matter of
Here's the link, just in case:
http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pentax-istd.shtml
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Peter Smekal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 29. januar 2005 12:31
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: *istD-flaws
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
i
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore the two serious flaws that I've pointed out a highly problematic
card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in
post-exposure review m
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore the two serious flaws that I've pointed out a highly problematic
card compartment and the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in
post-exposure review m
A Luminous Landscape review from 2003 maintains the following:
"Regrettably Pentax has missed the mark with the *ist D ... they can't
ignore ... two serious flaws a highly problematic card compartment and
the lack of a histogram and highlight alert in post-exposure review mode
(only on subsequen
57 matches
Mail list logo
