--- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the
need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and
take it. If it's a
moving or changing subject I wait for the right
moment, near as I can
guess, and press the button.
I
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 13:40:07 -0400 (EDT), wendy beard wrote:
Now and again it's good to let loose and do a bit of
machine gunning. :-)
As others have mentioned, even if you're not machine gunning, a faster
camera is ready for the next shot that much faster, too. Not that I
don't enjoy machine
LM But something else strikes me as rather interesting: is the difference in
LM RAW file size between *istD and D70 really that big? Why would that be so,
LM considering both cameras store basically the same amount of image
LM information? Or don't they?
If I remember correctly:
First, Ist D
shot, thanks for showing it
Markus
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 4:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to shoot
First, Ist D stores it as 16-bit uncompressed file, even though there
are only 12 bits from the sensor.
Correct... 4 out of 16 bits are taking up space storing NO
information (zeros) on the -D. That's one pixels' worth in 2 bytes. On
the -DS they pack the bits so that they get two pixels in
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:36 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
or Canon competitors?)
in terms of megabytes/s, my 2-3 times stands. the difference
is made up
megabyte per megapixel with their lossless compression.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
But something
*ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc
4:28 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Thirty years ago I used to shoot drag racing with a Speed Graphic
4x5. Most of the time I would shoot off a tripod, swapping or
flipping film holders between shots. I would
: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3
Maurer
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
I thought that I had mentioned the issue there. I do, in fact, have
two bodies and sometimes it works to do just as you suggested. The
times it doesn't work are when I am using my flash system on a big
LOL
Try going through any door with a spear through your head. That's a neat trick.
Dave S
On 6/4/05, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most things are possible
Try going through a revolving door with a spear through
: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few minutes
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
hell, I still use large formant and you only get
one exposure ( well two
?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
hell, I still use large formant
- Original Message -
From: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about
with film
camera
they didn't take as many pictures and didn't get as many good shots.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors
which works when you have two similar lenses. some people can afford a pair
of A* 400/2.8s. i can't.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 12:42 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL
most things are possible if you don't have to make a living at it, or even
just break even.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most things are possible
Try going through a revolving door with a spear through your head :-)
Christian
with a 127mm Wollensak
lens.
http://www.portfolios.com/zoom.html?User_number=stenquistimagecount=14
- Original Message -
From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 7:46 AM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Original Message -
From: Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:10 PM
Subject: Re: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
most
That usually works but sometimes the unexpected happens.
John Dallman wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff) wrote:
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk or weight to a camera.
Higher resolution is fine, but
Hello John,
Here is a very simple example. You are shooting a wedding - the party
is coming up the aisle two by two - there are 8-10 groups coming
through in short order. You are shooting raw. You shoot one, wait
about 2-3 seconds, shoot the next, etc. The problem is that the
buffer fills
John Dallman wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff) wrote:
Higher resolution and a faster, bigger buffer make sense, shouldn't add
bulk or weight to a camera.
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the
Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is
moving around and you are catching some great facial
expressions. Click, click, click as you go. Suddenly you he
puts on the cutest grin and the BUFFER is FULL.
In my personal experience, even with 4.5fps PZ-1P the young kid
You may have misunderstood, I am not taking consecutive shots with a
motor drive, these are single shots fairly close together - could even
be done without a winder. But you are right in that the kid will grin
when you are not ready. It is just that with the *istD and full
buffer, you are not
Bruce,
I did understand what you meant - I was just trying to make a little joke
out of it.
I apologize if it led to confusion.
Cheers,
Leon
You may have misunderstood, I am not taking consecutive shots
with a motor drive, these are single shots fairly close
together - could even be done
You raise a good point. I do have two *istD's and sometimes use both
of them. Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. I don't have
identical lenses at all focal lengths so it can work if there is
enough crossover with the lenses I have. Times it hasn't worked too
well is when I have the
in
such cases may be helpful..
Shel
[Original Message]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Dallman)
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Date: 6/2/2005 1:30:58 PM
Subject: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Shel Belinkoff
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 21:30 +0100 (BST), John Dallman wrote:
[...] I'm baffled by the need for a faster buffer. I spot the potential
picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a moving or changing subject
I wait for the right moment, near as I can guess, and press the button.
Sometimes a machine
-
From: John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 4:30 PM
Subject: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential picture, get
: Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: RE: Buffer speed (Re: Why choose *ist DL over Nikon or Canon
competitors?)
That's a long time, indeed. Something you do not think about with film
camera. But, if the figures for Nikon D70
then perhaps you should shoot on (mini-)DV and print the stills?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Leon Mlakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's another - taking candid portraits of a young kid who is
moving around and you are catching some great facial
expressions. Click, click, click as you go.
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few
minutes
Two bodies.
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 11:15:50PM -0400, Mishka wrote:
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
mishka
On 6/2/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the proper moment might be 10-20 times a minute for a few
minutes
--- Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and how did people managed that with 36 exposures per fim?
In the old days experience shooters predicted and shot, modern shooters just
shoot
and pray. :-)
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
__
On 2 Jun 2005 at 21:30, John Dallman wrote:
Higher resolution is fine, but I'm baffled by the need for a faster
buffer. I spot the potential picture, get ready, and take it. If it's a
moving or changing subject I wait for the right moment, near as I can
guess, and press the button.
When
38 matches
Mail list logo
