re is NO sign at all of this on film?
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 15 October 2003 12:32
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> >
> >
> > Quoting [EMAIL
(chuckle)
I had to run numbers through the calculator dozens of times to come to that understanding. Mishka looks at the formula and says, "Aha, that means...".
How come such a sharp youngster can not spell my name... (grin)?
Mike Ignatiev wrote:
listen to greywolf -- he knows
really, all that
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 18:14:54 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmmm, this means it's hard to know ahead of time which lenses will work
> well with a DSLR. Because film may not indicate real chromatic aberration
> problems. Right?
Well, partly because it's harder for the human visual system to detec
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hmmm, this means it's hard to know ahead of time which lenses will
> work well with a DSLR. Because film may not indicate real chromatic
> aberration problems. Right?
It sounds like it might be time for a Pentax *ist D lens gallery.
alex
On 15 Oct 2003 at 9:16, Doug Franklin wrote:
> 2) the difference between the "random" distribution of film grains
> compared to the rigidly defined distribution of sensor pixels means
> that the aberration artifacts get distributed around randomly on film
> and therefore diffused, but end up as li
Looks like the chromatic aberrations common to p&s digitals:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Optical/Chromatic_Aberrations_01.htm
chris
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: I g
Says something about Pop Photo. However, it upholds my opinion of US photo magazines; "What a waste of good paper".
Bill Owens wrote:
The same question was written up in the current Pop Photo. Their response:
"A 24mm lens on a 1.5 digital is the equivalent of a 36mm lens in all
respects." No if
Rob wrote:
RS> as an aliasing artifact on the high contrast boarder. It looks like it may be a
RS> combination of adjacent pixel spill (due to the high contrast transition) and
RS> the lens aberrations.
The 100/2.8 Macro being too contrasty for the sensor? Maybe that's
all there is about FAJ
Hi Everyone,
I have the Tamron 90mm f2.8 AF macro and it looks
great even wide open. By the way it's almost as sharp
as the 77mm Pentax at f2.8 when magnified up with
Photoshop. But my Pentax A 50mm f1.7 is the sharpest
of all my lenses. It wins out over the 77mm slightly.
I would say those are my
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 2:01 AM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> Bill,
> Are you sure it's only down to aliasing?
Heck no, but thats what it looks like to me. I w
On 15 Oct 2003 at 9:16, Doug Franklin wrote:
> 2) the difference between the "random" distribution of film grains
> compared to the rigidly defined distribution of sensor pixels means
> that the aberration artifacts get distributed around randomly on film
> and therefore diffused, but end up as li
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 03:48:41 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> [...] why would the chromatic aberration be worse or show up
> worse on a digital rather than a film camera?
I can think of a couple of possibilities:
1) greater magnification from the smaller sensor means _everything_ is
bigger, incl
Bill,
Are you sure it's only down to aliasing?
At any rate; do you know how stopping down affects aliasing?
cheers,
Jostein
Quoting William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: I got my *ist D a
>The biggest disappointment there, imo, is the FA100/2.8 macro. At full
>opening it shows enough chromatic aberration to be unusable. It's OK at f/8,
>though.
>Jostein
Wish I could have followed this thread concerning DOF, but it went over my
head.
However, one question, why would the chromatic
On 15 Oct 2003 at 0:07, Jostein wrote:
> ... and here's the link.
> http://home.online.no/~jooksne/istd_aberr.htm
Interesting, the halo is much wider than what would likely be produced solely
as an aliasing artifact on the high contrast boarder. It looks like it may be a
combination of adjacent
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> > http://home.online.no/~jooksne/istd_aberr.htm
>
> There also seems to be some blue fringing on the vertical part of the
> railing, where it contrasts with the white
Hi,
Jostein wrote:
>
> ... and here's the link.
> http://home.online.no/~jooksne/istd_aberr.htm
There also seems to be some blue fringing on the vertical part of the
railing, where it contrasts with the white foam of the stream. This is
also visible on the top of the lower horizontal rail.
mik
Comments inline:
Robert Gonzalez wrote:
I way I interpreted the photo.net explanation it sounds like the
magnification factor has an effect on the DOF. Since it takes more
magnification for a smaller sensor to fill the 8x10, the DOF will be
different. In what you are saying, it sounds like M,
- Original Message -
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I fiddled a bit with the *D yesterday, and got some TIFs with me back
home.
> Not the camera, alas... Today I bought a card reader so I could upload my
> test images to the 'puter.
>
> I made two shots with the FA100/2.8 macro le
You can't beat the laboratory method. I will be interested in seing your
results, which should be a genuine education.
Quoting Dario Bonazza 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Yes, I'm going to publish comparison pictures somewhere and I'll acknowledge
> you.
> If I'll conclude that the *ist D is appr
: "Robert Gonzalez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> I way I interpreted the photo.net explanation it sounds like the
> magnification factor has an effect on the DOF. Since i
I way I interpreted the photo.net explanation it sounds like the
magnification factor has an effect on the DOF. Since it takes more
magnification for a smaller sensor to fill the 8x10, the DOF will be
different. In what you are saying, it sounds like M, the magnification
factor is effectively
Alex wrote:
> What suggests to me that your method is wrong is that it would give
> me a narrower depth of field than 35mm (using an equivelent lens).
> I know from practice (using a prosumer digital camera with a 1 2/3"
> sensor) that this isn't the case.
Alex, we are discussing using lenses des
the Pentax was
supposed to be superior to these except for the huge weight though...
-Original Message-
From: Dag T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 14 October 2003 18:25
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
Then, I´ve got a problem. This is the one lens I´ve
thought the Pentax was
supposed to be superior to these except for the huge weight though...
> -Original Message-
> From: Dag T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 14 October 2003 18:25
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>
>
>
Then, I´ve got a problem. This is the one lens I´ve been considering
to buy together with an *istD (and a 16-45), as my Vivitar 2x macro
converter is the only K-mount I use regularly.
Have anybody tested any other macros?
DagT
På tirsdag, 14. oktober 2003, kl. 19:05, Jostein:
The biggest dis
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, should you apply USM to *ist D pictures, they can only look sharp
> at less than 100% magnification.
> If you apply lesser USM, they don't look sharp even at 50% magnification,
> while if you apply enough USM for
DOF does not have much to do with the size of the Circle of Confusion
(COC) on the film or sensor unless you only look at contact prints.
Normally DOF is based on an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches.
When you reduce the formulas to their basics the only things that matter
is COC in the final imag
roblem with the *ist D
pictures I tried to sharpen.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Jostein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
- Original Message -
, October 14, 2003 10:08 AM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> No, I make unsharp masking in Photoshop, not in camera.
> Dario
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday,
No, I make unsharp masking in Photoshop, not in camera.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> Have you changed the s
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
> > > Good point. The 24mm should become a 36mm, while depth-of field must be
> > > conidered one stop less, hence pictures taken with the 24mm f/4.5 are
> like
> > > those taken at 36mm f/3.5, while 24mm f/11 is like 36mm f/8.
> > > However, I was expect
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DB2> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
DB2> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 9:16 PM
DB2> Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>> Dear Alex,
>>
>> Thanks for the link, but the pictures fully confirm my impressions.
>>
>> Co
Have you changed the sharpness in the camera to maximum from medium?
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
> Jostein,
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bucky wrote:
> I have question about this photo - there are several spines on that flower
> that are completely blown out for long stretches. I've downloaded it and
> checked it out with the Curves tool in Photoshop. Have you noticed that
> this is a problem with the camera?
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
> That's not the case with the *ist D: when you apply enough USM to let
> pictures look acceptable when smaller than 1:1 on video, when you enalarge
> them 1:1 angled lines such as hair or grass are so much saw-toothe
cular
highlights, but this seems excessive.
I'm asking because I've ordered one [delivery later this week) and am hoping
it was the right decision.
Cheers
-Original Message-
From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13-Oct-03 12:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I go
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
> Alex wrote:
> > Don't forget that I shot these with a 24mm lens, so the depth of field
> > is very large. Even at f4.5 everything from about 15' to infinity
> > would be in focus, and nothing in most of these pictures is closer to
> > me that 15' away.
Alex wrote:
> Don't forget that I shot these with a 24mm lens, so the depth of field
> is very large. Even at f4.5 everything from about 15' to infinity
> would be in focus, and nothing in most of these pictures is closer to
> me that 15' away.
Good point. The 24mm should become a 36mm, while de
nt: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Bill Owens"
> Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>
>
>
> >
> > Well, if I were to nitpick, I'd complain that the o
- Original Message -
From: "Bill Owens"
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>
> Well, if I were to nitpick, I'd complain that the on/off switch is too
close
> to the tv wheel since I tend to end up turning the tv wheel to turn the
> camera off. B
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
> > I just got to say I LOVE MY *ist D !!!
> > The image quality is sharper than I expected,
>
> Please forgive me, but maybe you were expecting too little, since all *ist D
> images I've seen so far look more or less blurred (compared to ot
Sounds like me talking.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Charron" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
>
> Hello Everybody,
>
> I just got to sa
43 matches
Mail list logo
