DM> I'm not too worried about this as the results I've had have been quite
DM> good despite some gamut clipping (particularly blues and yellows) as my
DM> source images exceed the limits of sRGB. If I was looking for fine-art
There is this webpage which has diagram of the gamut of Frontier and
No
On May 17, 2004, at 2:16 AM, William Robb wrote:
There is really no such thing as a "profile" in this instance.
Really, find out what colour spaces the lab recognizes, and choose
the one that is best for you.
If they can't tell you, then the default profile to use is sRGB.
In the case of my lab, th
>> I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte
WR> and
>> glossy paper I would like to get hold of both.
WR> There is really no such thing as a "profile" in this instance.
WR> Really, find out what colour spaces the lab recognizes, and choose
WR> the one that is best for you
DM> I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte and
DM> glossy paper I would like to get hold of both.
Today I am getting wedding proofs from them, so I will ask.
DM> My friend uses Profile Prism, which first profiles your scanner then
DM> uses that to profile your printer.
On May 15, 2004, at 10:37 PM, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
I can ask my lab which has very competent staff if their D-LAB has an
softproofing ("printer") profile for use on my computer. I can send
you one too, if they have.
I would appreciate that. If there are separate profiles for matte and
glossy pa
WR> I can't get any of this info from Noritsu. All they were able to tell
WR> me is that the machine presumes everything is sRGB.
WR> They have their own profiling system for monitor balance, it seems to
WR> very closely match the monitor balance I get from my Pantone Spyder
WR> thingie.
It can mu
DM> The output profile will be kept internally on the machine and I don't
DM> know if you'll be likely to get your hands on it. I certainly couldn't
DM> - I don't even know if Agfa used an ICC workflow in their machine, or
I too would think they have CMS of their own design. But at least Fuji
rel
No problem Tom, I read your last line but chose to ignore it ;-)
>If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below...
>
>However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save
>by the
>camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide.
>
>Cotty wrote:
>> On 13/5/04, GRA
In that case, we're at least half way there, huh? :)
Tom C.
From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 16:16:54 +0100
I don't think CF is going away u
>> Or we could compare the
>> generic Frontier ICC profiles Fuji provides with profiles from
WR> Noritsu
>> and others, if any are for download.
WR> sRGB is the standard profile used by the industry.
sRGB is only a working profile, as I understand it. You are right that
most digilabs assume the
- Original Message -
From: "Frantisek Vlcek"
Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Anybody
> knows which device has the widest gamut (perhaps on which paper as
> well) ?
They are all 8 bit per colour channel printers.
It doesn't
My lab uses Agfa D-lab 2, I think. It does have a worse scanning unit
than Frontier, but that doesn't matter as I bring digital files in,
not negatives. And time to time I use another lab with Frontier 350.
Maybe the frontier is better, but the lab with Agfa is just more
professional. They have bet
-
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
i think for the next 10-15 years, such a fuel cell will cost 4-5 times as
much as a cell of the same capacity with existing technology.
Herb
i think for the next 10-15 years, such a fuel cell will cost 4-5 times as
much as a cell of the same capacity with existing technology.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "JA" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 11:38 PM
Subjec
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
Hi Tom, I don't think anybody literate in computer imaging would
resave an edited jpeg back into jpeg. When I have a source image in
jpeg, I save it as a lossless format for all the editing steps. It is,
I hope, pretty much common knowledge that resaving jpeg is a no-no.
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fortunately the density of the data off cameras such as the *ist D is so smooth
>pixel to pixel (particularly when sharpening is set to low) that it's
>impossible to tell the difference between TIFF and minimum JPG out for the
>camera. This is why you
: Friday, 14 May 2004 8:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
- Original Message -
From: "Christian"
Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
> I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to
tif
g> But if you load your jpeg in photoshop and correct the color then save it. Then
g> come back later load it, and crop it, then save it. And looking at it the next
Hi Tom, I don't think anybody literate in computer imaging would
resave an edited jpeg back into jpeg. When I have a source image in
- Original Message -
From: "Christian"
Subject: Re: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
> I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to
tiff using
> PhotoLab. WOW!
That's heartening.
William Robb
On 13 May 2004 at 20:32, graywolf wrote:
> If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below...
>
> However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save by the
> camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide.
Fortunately the density of the data off cameras such as
If you and Shel had read my last line quoted below...
However, there is still some loss of quality even with only one jpeg save by the
camera. Whethere that is OK to you, only you can decide.
Cotty wrote:
On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered:
...you can save the jpeg as a tiff to edit
Frontier 375 or Epson 725.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:43 PM
Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
>
> - Original Message -
time manipulating your images before finalizing them.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
> As I understand it Tom, i
now...
> -Original Message-
> From: Anand DHUPKAR [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13 May 2004 22:51
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
>
>
> --so, you are using canon printer
I've done a 20x30 (inches) print from a *ist D pef converted to tiff using
PhotoLab. WOW!
Christian
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2004 5:36 PM
Subject: Re: Common sense
--so, you are using canon printer with epson paper ?
there is no compatibility problem !! that's an interesting point...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:44:
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza"
Subject: Common sense (was: Pentax High End DSLR)
>
> Should you want to just print up to A4 size prints, a 4Mpix digicam
is more
> than enough, hence don't worry about DSLR, interchangeable lenses,
RAW
> sh
On 13/5/04, GRAYWOLF, discombobulated, offered:
>Actually the difference is that each time you save a jpeg you lose data.
>That is
>the price you pay for the compact file size. If you are going to shoot
>and print
>without much editing then jpeg is fine.
>
>But if you load your jpeg in photoshop
s is partly the
reason.
I'm not making a case against Compact Flash. I'm just saying that there may
be marketing reasons for companies to change the standard occasionally.
Tom C.
From: "Amita Guha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTEC
> Legacy systems create markets for legacy items . . . But
> truly, the CF card is currently a very small object. Aside
> from marketing, is there any real advantage to having
> something smaller?
I don't think so. SD cards are smaller and more delicate. I'd rather
deal with a sturdy CF card
memory form factor changes as well, and then to
buy a
new digital SLR one will need new memory also.
Tom C.
From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax High End DSLR
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
I once wanted o
jwc> If you are that concerned about storing large images while out in the field,
jwc> then buy a small rugged laptop (12" screen) with a cd burner (or even
jwc> better, a DVD burner). This would be a good alternative or addition to an
jwc> image tank. One of the disadvantages however is extra we
AH> As for the make of the HDD, if you prefer some special brand, you can
AH> always get the empty version and install your own. I got myself one with a
AH> 40 GB drive already installed and have not checked out the HDD brand.
Oh, I haven't seen they sell an empty version!
AH> I can give you a re
>
> Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images
> with?
I use an Epson 2000P. I also have an Olympus P-400 (like Dave). Am seriously
considering either the HP 7960 or Epson R800 as well to be a general purpose printer
for other documents (I have an HP Deskjet 970
In their wisdom, William Robb & Co. wrote:
> >>The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well.
> >>The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are
> >>making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals
> >>on a computer screen.
> >>My friend with the Canon Digital Re
>"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well.
>>The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are
>>making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals
>>on a computer screen.
>>My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
> I am curious, does any maker of the image tanks give important
> information like the make of the hdd inside (some cheap crap or
> what?), vibration/impact it can stand (normalised for peak impact and
> long vibration, both in standby and operation) an
RS> I flogged the crap out of my X-Drive after I slapped it together (that roughly
RS> translates to: I tested it thoroughly with all manner of connections and
RS> storage cards after assembled and I commissioned it).
I am curious, does any maker of the image tanks give important
information like
>
> Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images
> with?
I use a Canon S800 with a BJC8200 as a backup.
Paper used is Ilfords Classic Gloos/Pearl and Epson Glossy.
I recently bought an Olympus P-400 dye-sub.The few test prints
John Francis
> Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>
>
> JF> I tried dcraw - I even went as far as to download the source and
> JF> take a look at it. At least part of my playing around
> with my own
> JF> conversion code is based on my dissatisfaction with dcraw
JF> I tried dcraw - I even went as far as to download the source and take
JF> a look at it. At least part of my playing around with my own conversion
JF> code is based on my dissatisfaction with dcraw; quite aprt from the fact
JF> that the conversion process loses all the EXIF information, I found
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The Adobe RAW converter seems to work well.
>The Pentax RAW converter works just fine, presuming that you are
>making prints, rather than looking at your images as 4x6 foot murals
>on a computer screen.
>My friend with the Canon Digital Rebel sez this c
, 2004 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
> A little closer to the source:
>
> http://www.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/monitor/0208/interview.html
>
On May 13, 2004, at 7:05 AM, Cotty wrote:
I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook.
Not
been defeated yet. I print onto inkjet.
Sounds messy. Most of us print onto paper.
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Hi Dario,
On Wed, 12 May 2004 19:59:07 +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
>I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW with the *ist D, as
>the Pentax RAW converter does a worse job (too evident pixelation on
>outlines) than the in-camera software. Hard to believe, very hard to
>justify, but
On 12 May 2004 at 22:18, graywolf wrote:
> So one challenged my statement that Nikon was part of Mitsubishi. Here is a link
> that supports my statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi#Core_members
A little closer to the source:
http://www.mitsubishi.or.jp/e/monitor/0208/interview.html
So one challenged my statement that Nikon was part of Mitsubishi. Here is a link
that supports my statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi#Core_members
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza"
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>
> Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter,
also
> allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks
doing the
> same) can you explain your th
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR
> I think the price of compact flash is relatively minor (if you
don't have $1
> then $1 looks like a lot though) because it's reusable. The
question is,
> what if compact flash goes ou
- Original Message -
From: "Timothy Sherburne"
Subject: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
>
> Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their
*istD images
> with?
Noritsu 3101
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: "jtainter"
Subject: Pentax High End DSLR
> Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that
I would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR, even if I could
afford one. As we all know, the camera itself is only the beginnin
On 12 May 2004 at 18:30, jtainter wrote:
> I would worry a great deal about deleting precious images from the cf card until
> I see that they have been transferred safely. To me that involves seeing the
> image, not just counting files. Yes, I'm probably overly nervous about it, but
> that's how i
Ok, so I hit the "reply" button then, so how the heck did that go to list?
:-)
tan.
-Original Message-
From: TMP [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 10:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Omigosh! That is so many Bruce, you must be
BTW, are you heading to GFM?
tan.x.
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 9:16 AM
To: TMP
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
Tanya,
I'm curious as to how many frames/average you shoot on a wedding.
Care to share? I am in t
Antecedent thread:
> I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
> considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can
> download your card?
>
> Shel Belinkoff
>
> Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though,
especially f
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
> Please bear in mind that I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but it
> would seem to me that the difference between JPEG and RAW may be discerned
> when making large
"...plant a pretzel in his smacker."
OMG! It took that comment to give me my first laugh of the day, Cotty!
I'll be chuckling about that for some time! Thanks!
keith
Cotty wrote:
The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest
drive you can buy. When the other cases (
Re: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
> I used to have an Epson (Stylus Photo EX) but when it croaked, the
> frequent head clogging put me off Epsons.
>
> DB> Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also
> DB> allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the
> DB> same) can you explain your thoughts on this?
>
> Have you tried "dcraw" ? It is a command line utility, though
> (although a GIMP pl
ot;Timothy Sherburne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>
> I guess we need to define "large" and "small". For small, I was thinking
of
>
Please bear in mind that I'm speaking from a place of ignorance, but it
would seem to me that the difference between JPEG and RAW may be discerned
when making larger prints. Might this not be the case? After all, a puny
(by comparison) 8 x 10 print on a home inkjet, regardless of the quality of
th
Photoshop CS.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
> Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also
>Why ever would I buy such an expensive camera, good lenses, a computer
>and printer, invest the time and effort to become a better photographer,
>then shoot at anything less than the highest resolution? It feels like
>using cheap film. If not RAW, I would be shooting TIFF, which produces
>even la
>The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest
>drive
>you can buy. When the other cases (with the integrated screen) get cheap
>enough
>toss the old shel
and if he complains, just plant a pretzel in his smacker.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | Pe
Thursday, May 13, 2004, 12:34:44 AM, Tom wrote:
TC> I was reading on some site several months ago about compact flash memory
TC> possibly becoming 'obsolete' in the near future. It seems the trend is to
TC> move to smaller physically dimensioned, higher memory capacity cards. I
TC> don't know wha
ment or media failure" clause in my
contract...
;-)
tan.
-Original Message-
From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 4:11 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I have to use multiple smaller capacity cards on my digicam, and, fr
something I read.
Tom C.
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 07:44:02 +1000
On 12 May 2004 at 12:24, Tom C wrote:
> There's no way I could justify one at a pric
the *istD came in, and I don't expect him to come out... ever!
tan.
-Original Message-
From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 13 May 2004 3:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
I still cannot understand why people keep shooting RAW wit
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Rob Brigham wrote:
> If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a
> significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour
> for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of
> compression issues but the ability to adjust expo
May 2004 22:11
> To: Pentax Discussion List
> Subject: Inkjet recommendations (WAS: Re: Pentax High End DSLR)
>
>
>
> Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing
> their *istD images with?
>
> Right now I'm using an aging HP 970 Cxi, which is oka
st in
the highlights or shadows.
> -Original Message-
> From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 May 2004 20:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>
>
> Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the
> Pentax R
004 19:24
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Pentax High End DSLR
>
>
> There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher
> than the *istD. I
> think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first.
>
> I don't want to drown in wav
Try the Photoshop CS convertor. You can download a trial, but WARNING
YOU WILL SUBSEQUENTLY SPEND MONEY!!!
> -Original Message-
> From: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 May 2004 18:59
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Pentax High End DSLR
>
&
CF card prices have come doen - a lot, and continue to do so. Even
better if you buy a 4Gb one in a Muvo mp3 player - wow that IS cheap!
> -Original Message-
> From: jtainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 May 2004 18:30
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Penta
Agfa D-Lab (my local lab) and sometimes my home HP 7350. Once in a
while the Sam's Club Fuji Frontier.
Bruce
Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 2:10:41 PM, you wrote:
TS> Which brings up a good question: What are folks printing their *istD images
TS> with?
TS> Right now I'm using an aging HP 970 Cxi,
On 12 May 2004 at 13:12, jtainter wrote:
> Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though,
> especially for the ones that have a built-in viewing screen.
Joe,
The key is buy to something that's inexpensive and will hold the biggest drive
you can buy. When the other cas
Joe Tainter wrote:
> Dario, I recall that others have posted problems with the Pentax RAW
converter. Perhaps my eyesight is poor. I do not have problems with it. In
fact, I like very much being able quickly to adjust an images' color
temperature by experimenting with the white balance settings.
T
On 12 May 2004 at 12:24, Tom C wrote:
> There's no way I could justify one at a price MUCH higher than the *istD. I
> think I would rather invest in a medium format film system first.
A full frame 10-14MP DSLR would likely better a 645 so factor the cost of a 645
system and all that processing
jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Until the price of compact flash comes down, I am not certain that I
>would try to acquire a higher resolution dSLR
I expect the decrease in the price of flash memory will proceed pretty
much at a similar pace to the pervasiveness of digital cameras. In other
On 12/5/04, TIM S, discombobulated, offered:
>I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple,
>smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for
>anyone?
I use a couple of 512MB cards, shoot jpeg, and load onto a PowerBook. Not
been defeated yet. I
Am I missing something here? Have you found a good RAW converter, also
allowing color balance (unlike the Genzo)? Joe (and other folks doing the
same) can you explain your thoughts on this?
Thanks.
Dario Bonazza
*
Dario, I recall that others have posted problems
Shel wrote:
I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can
download your card?
Shel Belinkoff
Hi, Shel. Yes, and I may eventually get one. They too are pricey, though, especially
for the ones that h
t; photographing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not
> a good idea.
>
> Shel Belinkoff
>
>
>> [Original Message]
>> From: Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Da
o: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Pentax High End DSLR
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 11:29:42 -0600 (GMT-06:00)
I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has
higher resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The
primary reason is that higher
My answer to the CF storage problem:
1. Invest in a used semi-powerful laptop($600 eBay).
2. Get an extra battery($? eBay) for it.
3. Buy an External 2.5" USB/Firewire storage box(~$50).
4. Buy a 40GB 2.5"HD($82*)for the storage box.
if 3GB holds 212 RAW, then 30GB(don't fill the HD!) hol
graphing outside, on the street, in situations that change often,m not
a good idea.
Shel Belinkoff
> [Original Message]
> From: Timothy Sherburne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Pentax Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 5/12/2004 10:57:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Pentax High
explain your thoughts on this?
Thanks.
Dario Bonazza
- Original Message -
From: "jtainter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 7:29 PM
Subject: Pentax High End DSLR
> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one m
Joe
My answer to the CF storage problem:
1. Invest in a used semi-powerful laptop($600 eBay).
2. Get an extra battery($? eBay) for it.
3. Buy an External 2.5" USB/Firewire storage box(~$50).
4. Buy a 40GB 2.5"HD($82*)for the storage box.
if 3GB holds 212 RAW, then 30GB(don't fill the HD!
I haven't been there yet, but my planned strategy is to use multiple,
smaller CF cards rather than one really large card. Has this worked out for
anyone?
t
On 5/12/04 10:42, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
> considered one of those
> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may
> appear that has higher resolution than the *ist D, I find
> that I have reservations. The primary reason is that higher
> resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am
> already constrained by storage capacity. On my
I suspect this is repeating the obvious, however, I must ask: Have you
considered one of those small, portable storage banks into which you can
download your card?
Shel Belinkoff
> [Original Message]
> From: jtainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one m
I once wanted one, preferably full frame. Now that one may appear that has higher
resolution than the *ist D, I find that I have reservations. The primary reason is
that higher resolution will fill up a cf card faster. When I travel, I am already
constrained by storage capacity. On my recent tri
92 matches
Mail list logo
