On Sat, 14 Oct 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On static subjects a combination of image combining (can secure
(1.21 jigawatts, etc, much deleted crunchy bits)
to do manually but there are some really nice automation kits out
there for serious work.
Yow, am I the only one who finds all the
On 17/10/06, gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On static subjects a combination of image combining (can secure
(1.21 jigawatts, etc, much deleted crunchy bits)
to do manually but there are some really nice automation kits out
there for serious
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
Your assumption is maximum depth of field is what is
Always needed when its not. With tilts and swings
You can entire offset planes in focus with selective (minimal)
DOF
: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:59 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Inet Shopper wrote:
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses because you need full camera
On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
You clueless.
JC I have had enough. Your language is unacceptable. Bye-bye.
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
There are only a few adapters for Canon FD series lenses and none
give full functionality.
Yes, adapters exist, but stop-down metering is not convenient. Plus, there is
either teleconversion and light loss, or loss of infinity focus. So I will buy
some lenses for the DSLR.
Go for the FA35/2
On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:26 AM, Inet Shopper wrote:
Go for the FA35/2 AL or FA28/2.8 AL. Both are very good lenses and
not too terribly expensive. They're not f/1.4, but the Pentax DSLRs
are quite clean in rendering up to ISO 800 and even 1600 in a
pinch ... much better than film.
The thing
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The 18-55 has some W-shape distortions ... a good lens but not really
at its best for architecture. The DA16-45 has a bit of simple barrel
distortion, easy to correct. The 20-35 has less and has nicer
rendering qualities.
Rendering-wise, the DA16-45 is
I've used 'em both. The 16-45 is better, but the 18-55 is still a good
lens for the money as you say, and a nice snapshop lens. Well worth the
price ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Carlos Royo
I have found that the distortions shown by the DA 18-55 are easily
corrected by using PT
All well and good, and no contradiction to what I said. I wouldn't
choose it for doing architecture, however. Between the rendering
quality and the need to do rectilinear correction with PTLens, I'd
find it a pain. ;-)
Godfrey
On Oct 13, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I've used
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
All well and good, and no contradiction to what I said. I wouldn't
choose it for doing architecture, however. Between the rendering
quality and the need to do rectilinear correction with PTLens, I'd
find it a pain. ;-)
Godfrey
I agree that there is no
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Carlos Royo
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 1:52 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
All well and good, and no contradiction to what I said. I wouldn't
choose it for doing architecture
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses because you need full camera movements
That only a view camera can provide for architecture.
Its amazing what you can do with a view for that.
jco
I thought tilt/shift lenses were designed to perform
?
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Inet Shopper
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:11 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Inet Shopper
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 3:11 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses
- Original Message -
From: Inet Shopper
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses because you need full camera movements
That only a view camera can provide
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 4:25 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
- Original Message -
From: Inet Shopper
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Inet Shopper wrote:
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses because you need full camera movements
That only a view camera can provide for architecture.
Its amazing what you can do with a view for that.
jco
JCO:
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
If I am the john you are reffering to, I do use
Photoshop. Not sure which John you are talking about.
Photoshop can do perspective control with a loss in
Resolution but it cant
of the camera itself.
jco
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 6:59 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
On Oct 13, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Inet
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
William Robb
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2006 8:05 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell
Subject: RE: Pentax DSLR - some questions before I decide Inet
If I am
questions before I decide Inet
Sorry guys but you really cant do serious
Architechure with any pentax cameras or
Lenses because you need full camera movements
That only a view camera can provide for architecture.
Its amazing what you can do with a view for that.
jco
I thought tilt/shift
On 14/10/06, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also, for landscape work. That is how you get everything from the blades
of grass in front of the camera to the mountains in the background
sharp. Folks ought to read a good book on view camera techniques just so
they will know what can be done,
On Oct 9, 2006, at 8:39 PM, Inet Shopper wrote:
I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture, and prefer a wide-angle
lens. With
the compact I usually use the wide end (38mm) and with the Canon
A1, the lens
is usually 50/1.4 or 28/2. I also shoot at evening gatherings, and
like the low
You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds
the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada)
If you mean the 43/1.9, it's currently US$370 after rebate at BH online, while
the FA 35/2 is US$300 (but out of stock). Does your Canadian store have a
website? I'd like to take a
You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds
the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada)
The Sigma's not worth the money. The Tamron is, but the SMC-DA 16-45 f4
goes for similar (or less) cost and is a better option IMHO. The 18-55
is actually decent (unlike the
Inet Shopper wrote:
You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds
the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada)
If you mean the 43/1.9, it's currently US$370 after rebate at BH online,
while
the FA 35/2 is US$300 (but out of stock). Does your Canadian store have a
Inet Shopper wrote:
You can probably afford the 40 limited. It's very cheap (About 2/3rds
the cost of a new FA 35/2 here in Canada)
The Sigma's not worth the money. The Tamron is, but the SMC-DA 16-45 f4
goes for similar (or less) cost and is a better option IMHO. The 18-55
is actually
No actually there is a 40mm f2.8 Ltd., designed specifically for the APS
format digital cameras. It's mostly an update of the old 40mm pancake
lens, looks to be the same optical formula with new coatings and a lens
barrel with no aperture ring.
Inet Shopper wrote:
You can probably afford the
Inet Shopper wrote:
Thanks for pointing out the 16-45/4. I'd wrongly assumed that it would be very
expensive, yet it's priced like the Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. It looks like the
cheap
route would be the kit lens and a used manual focus 28/2 or 35/2, and the more
expensive route would be the
Hi everyone,
I'm new - been lurking for a few days. I currently use film-based equipment
(Canon A1 and Rollei compact point-and-shoot), but am considering going
digital.
I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture, and prefer a wide-angle lens. With
the compact I usually use the wide end (38mm)
On 9/10/06, Inet Shopper, discombobulated, unleashed:
But Canon and Nikon have the clear edge in
availability of used lenses and accessories, so I'd also like to hear from
members who use gear on the Canon and Nikon platforms.
H.
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/mods/eoskmount.html
;-)
BTW
You're correct. An A lens will give you full functionality, minus autofocus.
The FA 35/2 is a superb lens, and I believe the A version is optically
identical.
-- Original message --
From: Inet Shopper [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi everyone,
I'm new - been lurking for
Inet Shopper wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'm new - been lurking for a few days. I currently use film-based equipment
(Canon A1 and Rollei compact point-and-shoot), but am considering going
digital.
I shoot mostly landscapes and architecture, and prefer a wide-angle lens. With
the compact I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're correct. An A lens will give you full functionality, minus autofocus.
The FA 35/2 is a superb lens, and I believe the A version is optically
identical.
They are not the same optically. The FA 35 mm. 2.0 is a newer design, 6
elements in five groups, being one
35 matches
Mail list logo
