On 9 Oct 2002 at 17:29, Cameron Hood wrote:
> We all share a common love, photography and gear, and are brought together
> by the fact that we use Pentax stuff, which is, was, and always will be,
> fabulous. Your MF gear will still be great when they introduce the 2 gig
> chips. Film will not die
"vilified" like he's a poor innocent victim.hahahahaha
Brad Dobo
- Original Message -
From: "Bruce Rubenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2002 9:38 PM
Subject: RE: D1s review; a friendly rebuk
Well, I'm not Rubinstein, but I think it's safe for me to speak for him.
It was a piece of sarcasm, since I've been vilified for stating the things
you did, which I happen to full agree with.
B. RubEnstein
From: Cameron Hood
Branded by who? You? I would be worried and embarrased if it was anyo
lous!
Just chill a bit Brucey; we love ya, man!
Cameron
Fellow Pentaxian
> From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce)
> *Subject: RE: D1s review
> *Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 06:25:27 -0700
>
>
>
> You can&
On 10 Oct 2002 at 1:01, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> on 10.10.02 0:47, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Was a price ever announced by Pentax? As far as I can recall the only price
> > that was mentioned was that published by the french mag (for got the name)
> > based solely on the
on 10.10.02 0:47, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Was a price ever announced by Pentax? As far as I can recall the only price
> that was mentioned was that published by the french mag (for got the name)
> based solely on the cost of a one off purchase of the Philips 6MP sensor + a
> fu
On 9 Oct 2002 at 13:52, Mark Roberts wrote:
> "Ryan K. Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >- A 6MP DSLR would still be competitive today, two years after it was
> >announced.
>
> But not at the price announced. As far as I can tell, the price of the
> Philips/DALSA CCD hasn't come down so
I don't buy this, for the following reasons:
- Any company would have done a business case analysis before proceeding
with the MZ-D prototypes, and we know they got far along before
cancelling. Obviously there was a pricepoint that worked.
- We're still buying non-autofocus A* lenses fer chri
It's
because Pentax can't make any money selling a DSLR. The amount of cost that
would need to be amortized over the relatively short product life of a DSLR, and
the small number of units that Pentax can sell would make the cost of the camera
very high. There will be fewer manufacturers of i
On Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 07:38 PM, Cameron Hood wrote:
I downloaded a jpeg from that camera, and printed it on my Epson 1270 on max
rez at 11x14 with premium glossy and...
Holy crap...
It's pretty nice, isn't it?
And Pentax hasn't even entered the fray.
This is a MAJOR blunder by them.
I downloaded a jpeg from that camera, and printed it on my Epson 1270 on max
rez at 11x14 with premium glossy and...
Holy crap...
I can see why there is a glut of used MF stuff on the market now.
It is as good or better than the best of my 35mm stuff at that size. Clean
as a whistle, not a pixe
For me, the biggest give away that something was shot with a direct to
digital camera is that the image looks a little "flat". I'm not used to
seeing so much detail in the highlights and shadows. To make things look
more like film I apply a bit of a "S" curve with Curves in PS. Having the
option t
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Change of subject just in case the post got lost in the noise:
> There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
> forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
> and not print film when it come
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
> forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
> and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the
> highlights. It's easy to ch
Shadow detail may be there but, from everything I have seen, it is full
of SERIOUS noise.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Rubenstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 27 September 2002 02:18
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re[2]: OT: D1s review
>
>
>
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
> forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
> and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the
> highlights. It's easy to ch
On 26 Sep 2002 at 21:18, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
> There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
> forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
> and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the
> highlights. It's easy to ch
It appears that in recent comparisons film has been downgraded from earlier
estimates of either 70 or 40 megs (I recall both numbers at different
times). There might be a confusion over capture resolution and resultant
file size, and it would be helpful if the writers of these essays could be
mor
tember 26, 2002 11:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: OT: D1s review
>
>
> Probably poorly.
>
> At 10:59 AM 9/26/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above.
> >
> >tv
> >
> > > -Original
There has been a longish thread on a professional photographer's digital
forum and their comments are similar: Digital must be treated like slide,
and not print film when it comes to exposure - don't blow out the
highlights. It's easy to check the histogram in the camera to make sure.
Shadow detai
Ryan,
Aside from the inability on the web to really show things well (how
were the files doctored for display at various sizes, etc), one huge
factor for film is the ability to pick various types of films - wide
latitude, narrow latitude, chromes, negs, various saturations,
corrections for skin t
Mike,
The one tricky thing about these comparisons is how much image
manipulation the camera software is doing. Things like sharpening and
contrast changes. It is very hard to do an apples to apples
comparison. Expertly applied sharping can do wonders for an image
especially as you size it up
> >From: "Ryan K. Brooks"
> >
> >I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still
a superior
> >media after seeing these pictures.
One of the great failings of this, imo, is that we see pictures
from completely different mediums and think we are making a
valid comparison.
Unfortuna
gt; To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: OT: D1s review
> >
> >
> > I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is
> > still a superior
> > media after seeing these pictures.
> >
> > -R
> >
> >
> > Mike Ignatie
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a
disadvantage? Also, he says that 4
Sorry, by ICE I meant ICE3 or more accurately GEM.
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>
> I've never found ICE to reduce all the noise... after all
> there's noise
> that comes from the film itself. I scan at 4000dpi on my SS120 and
have
> conclud
I'd like to see how well it performs at ISO 800 and above.
tv
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan K. Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: OT: D1s review
>
>
> I don't see h
agree. money is definitely one of them :)
mishka
-Original Message-
From: "Robert Soames Wetmore"
Subject: Re: OT: D1s review
>
> >I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a >superior
> >media after seeing these pictures.
>
hu, 26 Sep 2002 13:53:08 +0100
Subject: RE: D1s review
>
> Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
> didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
> reduction in their software don't they, so why put the sc
Rob Brigham wrote:
>Mind you, he harps on about noise. I don't therefore understand why he
>didn't use a scanner with ICE? The digital cameras have automatic noise
>reduction in their software don't they, so why put the scans at a
>disadvantage? Also, he says that 4000dpi is his perceived maxi
>I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a >superior
>media after seeing these pictures.
>
>-R [Ryan K. Brooks]
Maybe because there are considerations for some of us other than absolute
image quality. Even if you don't agree, other perspectives shouldn't be
inconceivable
#x27;
slides, although I think provia is reasonably 'wide', so if the D1s can
match that it aint bad.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Ignatiev [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 26 September 2002 13:46
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: OT: D1s review
>
>
I don't see how anyone could conclude that 35mm film is still a superior
media after seeing these pictures.
-R
Mike Ignatiev wrote:
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/1ds/1ds-field.shtml
>
>A pretty impressive comparison 35mm vs 645 vs Canon D1s -- seems like D1s is a
>undi
33 matches
Mail list logo
