Amita asked:
> AG> Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with the
> AG> istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
> AG> I've only had the camera for a couple of months? I do just fine with my
> AG> older cameras and my ZX-50.
>
and Bruce replie
To adjust the diopter:
Point the camera at something moderately bright that has noting to focus on. A
evenly lite wall works well.
Adjust the diopter until the viewfinder screen, not the wall looks sharp.
Luckily modern cameras always seem to have all kinds of distracting things on
them to focu
In fact the first time it goes sharp is the sharpest focus you are going to get.
The reason for that is because at the same time you are fiddling with the focus,
your eye is also fiddling with its focus trying to get that blurry image sharp.
By the time you have rocked through the focus point se
F for many sports and
full
MF for portraits too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the
masters.
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
- Original Message -
From: "graywolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject:
Just out of curiouslity, does the focus hexagon appear when you think
its in focus?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 8/1/2004 12:37:27 AM >>>
> MF for landscapes, probably
> pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
> too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
Am I the only
- Original Message -
From: "Amita Guha"
Subject: RE: To AF or not to AF: was Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe:
Pentax is Dying?
> > MF for landscapes, probably
> > pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
> > too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sa
Hmmm, I focus manually about 95% of the time. I have no problems at
all with the matte screen. Wonder what the difference is? What
lenses are you using? I wonder if the speed of the lenses has any
impact?
Bruce
Saturday, July 31, 2004, 9:37:27 PM, you wrote:
>> MF for landscapes, probably
> MF for landscapes, probably
> pre-focussed MF for many sports and full MF for portraits
> too. Gotta get those eyes sharp, sayeth all the masters.
Am I the only person here who has a hard time focusing manually with the
istD's matte screen? I rarely get it right, but could that be because
I'v
t;
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> That is simple, because 99% of their customers have no interest in
learning how
> to use a camera. Hence cameras that use themselves. Great for fairly
sharp,
> f
- Original Message -
From: "Peter J. Alling"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> This is much more information than we needed.
Sorry.
WW
William Robb wrote:
Tom, if you want discipline, find a dominatrix. :`)
My wife? :)
Seriously though, Rob is correct. You can take a disciplined approach
no matter what format of camera you are using, but you have to refuse
to take the shortcuts of convenience.
I agree.
However, you can do everythi
I've gone to digital and all manual focus by using A and M lenses with the *istD.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: "Tom C"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 27/07/04 18:57:58
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film
close and
then adjust in any direction using the ball head. I have the grip ball
heads which makes the adjustment a one handed operation.
Tom C.
From: "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe:
This is much more information than we needed.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for the same
reason
as putting any camera o
One should never eschew an opportunity to use eschew. It's another
excellent word.
John
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:08:56 -0600, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You are talking discipline in one post, and eschewing it in another.
William Robb
I knew someone would pickup on that. It's because the t
Gonz wrote:
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying
B&W, 120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores
someplace in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable
prices, I and probably the other 10-15 serious photographers her
On Wed, 28 Jul 2004, graywolf wrote:
> which punch holes in the negative. (Maybe there is a business opportunity there?
> No, not in a town as small as this one.)
Mail order?
Kostas
Some of that cost is offset but lower flim use. With the larger format you tend
to work far more carefully and once you are experienced enough to really know
what you are doing film use can approach 1:1. I usually think of it in film
units. e.g. 1-8x10 = 2-5x7 = 4-4x5 = 8 t0 12-120 = 36-35mm. Th
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Responding to myself now... and I know someone will come in through
the back
> door and beat me over the head with "and how many of those photos
do you
> want hanging o
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>
> So you are alluding to the fact that the only way to present a
landscape is
> large and grain free? I've personally seen some great landscape
images printed
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Nobody said AF is bad, in fact it is great for some things
> like action/sports, but for landscape it is best turned off
> IMHO.
Twice in one day I am a
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Bizarre yes... To me, if I'm going to spend a significant amount on
a camera
> system... specifically to reap the benefits of a larger format...
with each
> shot cos
I were my name would Jesus.
Tom C.
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo
e
the classic landscape photo is taken by someone who never enlarges the image
beyond 8x10.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pe
On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:59:30 -0600, Tom C wrote:
> I suspect that many times [AF] focuses better
> than I would have/could have in certain circumstances.
I agree with that at the same time that I'm having a problem with where
it chooses to focus. I find that when shooting race cars, it often
fo
or.
If I were my name would Jesus.
Tom C.
>From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600
>
>>
>>I do think this
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:50, Tom C wrote:
> If AF is so bad... why are 99% of the cameras sold today AF? Why are there so
> many abominable in focus snapshots (and there's nothing wrong with snapshots if
> that's what one wants)?
Small f-stops mask imprecise focus. How many regular snapshots do you
y name would Jesus.
Tom C.
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 17:31:59 -0600
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo e
artifacts
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:28, William Robb wrote:
> Not bizarre at all. In the context of w
On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:28, William Robb wrote:
> Not bizarre at all. In the context of what the conversation has
> become, enlargement potential is pretty important.
> The classic landscape photograph shows no grain detail as fine as the
> eye can see, and ample depth of field.
> While one could tak
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo effect of
sorts, you can take the same time and care formatting a 110 film shot as a
10x8. I suspect it just boils down to what respect you have for the media
which
I guess is a function of cost per frame vs perceived enlargement pot
On 27 Jul 2004 at 11:57, Tom C wrote:
> Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can 'craft' a
> shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all manual focus
> will help in that regard.
I do think this format size vs composition argument is a placebo effect
On 27 Jul 2004 at 18:34, graywolf wrote:
> In this day and age or zoom lenses you seldom see someone holding out their
> hands as a composing device. However it still works quite well.
I still haven't got the new *ist D AOVs of my existing FFL lenses embedded in
my photo-preview system :-(
Rob
e the image through my un-camera
aided eye to determine what lens I want to use.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when foc
All you really have to do, Frank, is use a slower shutter speed. Motion blur
often looks intentional, out of focus seldom does.
--
frank theriault wrote:
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's the only other choice,
other than what
Frank does (does he ever focus a picture).
No.
-frank
in certain circumstances.
Tom C.
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:45:56 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subjec
t hard to work with.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/27/2004 3:33:06 PM >>>
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it
like
doing color LF?
At
That's OK Bruce. Just keeping you honest. :) :)
You're absolutely correct that I could shoot that same way with the
equipment I have... I'm hoping that the reward of the larger format quality
combined with the forced manual operation will motivate me to improve.
Tom C.
Having gone from 35mm t
PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is at
> infinity...
>
> OK - here I'll argue a point just to hear myself...
>
> Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is usef
Tom,
Sorry for coming off the way I did. I have been reading the DPReview
forum too much recently and I get frustrated reading some of the
posts.
Having gone from 35mm to 67 myself, I am only trying to point out that
the things you are musing about MF/LF can be accomplished right now
with the equ
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The reason you buy an AF body is because that is the only way they
make DSLR's or 35mm SLRs or 645s.
Of course, why not leave the camera in P mode instead of controlling
it. You bought it with that feature, why not use it?
OK, that's fair based upon my wordin
> >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It's the only other choice,
> other than what
> >Frank does (does he ever focus a picture).
No.
-frank
PS: seriously, I'm thinking of buying a Holga. Do
away with focusing altogether. Why bother?
=
"The optimist thinks this is the best
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 13:45:56 -0600
- Original Message -----
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe:
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> I agree with your point but then again why buy an autofocus
camera body
> and not use it?
Lets put this in perspective.
I bought myself a 600rpm 1/2 inch Makita dril
- Original Message -
From: "Steve Desjardins"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it
like
> doing color LF?
At the risk of sounding like an ass, much the same as bl
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:52:45 -0400
>>
>>SLR is less stable than non-SLR due to mirror movement.
>>That'
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Followup... actually I'd like to try 4 X 5. I do think one can
'craft' a
> shot regardless of format. That's why I think going to a 67 and all
man
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> You are correct... I have never done LF firsthand, or MF for that
matter.
> Here's the thing... let's say my personal "Keeper shots/Shots taken
Ratio"
>
AF is for ACTION!! MF is for STATIC!
You buy AF to use it for ACTION, not landscapes.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 3:06 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Because I'm lazy
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:52:45 -0400
SLR is less stable than non-SLR due to mirror movement.
That's why the mirror lock up feature exists. Any if
you are
: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
What size prints are you making from the 4 x 5 negs?
Tom C.
>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is
Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
What do you scan with?
Tom C.
>From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>Date: Tue, 27 Jul
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>>Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:16:38 -0700
>>
>>Hello Tom,
>>
>>slowing down and thinking through the shot
What size prints are you making from the 4 x 5 negs?
Tom C.
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd
27, 2004 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Autofocus works just fine for landscapes... more often so when focus is
at
infinity...
OK - here I'll argue a point just to hear myself...
Shooting a landscape with an SLR on a tripod is useful for th
What do you scan with?
Tom C.
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400
I'd like to comment.
I can say from exp
nce the
*ist D. Therefore I'm looking for something different.
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:16:38 -0700
Hello Tom,
slowi
Looks like the one a friend gave me that I then gave to my dad
Christian
-Original Message-
From: Gonz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You mean like this one? :
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=30076&item=3829210996&rd=1
Its not a pentax, and it costs $3500 bucks so I ho
ition... works especialy well with a ballhead IMO.
Tom C.
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:11:11 -0400
sure you CAN do la
ECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it like
doing color LF?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM >>>
Perhaps they
Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it like
doing color LF?
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM >>>
Perhaps they are more gadget/equipment enthusiasts instead of image
enthusiasts?
Bruce
Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote:
WR> I still don't understan
Hello Tom,
slowing down and thinking through the shot is a good thing to do. But
it doesn't require medium format to do it. Why are you using AF now? (at least
by your post, it sounds like you are) I only use AF in rare instances
no matter what body I shoot with. Fully controlling your shots i
cant focus fast enough to action.
That is exact opposite of landscape photography.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:58 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Followup... actually I'
e after.
JCO
-Original Message-
From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:40 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 11:39:46 -0600
From: "John C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
4x5 is a far superior image quality SYSTEM, it is not because the
lenses are better, actual
Yep, except I would expect to pay almost 1/4 of the BIN for for the outfit in
that condition. Now if it had the Zeiss Ultima lens set (75mm Biogon, 135mm
Planar, 250mm Sonnar) that would be a real good deal. One of my life's regrets
is that I sold mine with the same lenses as this one back in th
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying B&W,
120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores someplace
in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable prices, I and
probably the other 10-15 serious photographers here in town wi
Perhaps I will have to bribe you into coming to BC in September with
the offer to shoot both formats.
We could do our own little photo workshop...
William Robb
That might be doable... I'm close and and am always looking for an excuse to
go...
On Mon, 26 Jul 2004, Tom C wrote:
> You obviously have much more experience here than I. I typically shoot in
> two veins... one might be a landscape where everything is at infinity... but
> I also like wide angles where everything from 1 ft. to infinity is in focus
> (speaking in 35m terms). H
much about the process (craft) as it is about the resulting image.
--
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
This is the heart of it. If I'm packing photo-kit for a a few weeks
or months
On 27 Jul 2004 at 3:32, William Robb wrote:
> I am in a fortunate position to have the choice of four formats,
> depending on what I am shooting. If I had to choose only one, the
> choice would be the 6x7. It isn't as strong in some areas, but is
> very strong in others.
> I have also heard it sa
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> why bother with MF (67)?? It is way too expensive.
> Go to LF, it is way cheaper than P67 both cameras
> and lenses and will blow away 67 for quality on
> landscapes.
Huh? I recently checked prices for a LF system and it ways way out of my budged.
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> This is the heart of it. If I'm packing photo-kit for a a few weeks
or months
> away and I envisage encompassing long bush treks, plane trips and
I'm not goi
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>I typically shoot in
> two veins... one might be a landscape where everything is at
infinity... but
> I also like wide angles where everything from 1 ft. to infinity is
in f
it depends on how many Sherpas or llamas you have with you.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> This i
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:48 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
On 26 Jul 2004 at 22:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Yes the film holders can get heavy and bulky if you carry dozens of
> them, but I have nev
On 26 Jul 2004 at 22:05, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Yes the film holders can get heavy and bulky if you carry
> dozens of them, but I have never shot more than about 20
> exposures on an outing and that was all day. There is a
> way around it though, carry readyloads or load film
> holders in field,
OH? I thought there were! But if you think $7-10K is too much for a camera, you
surely do not want to look at MF or LF digital. Which can only be afforded if
your customers are footing the bill, or you are truly wealthy.
--
Cotty wrote:
yeah but if MF had any future, there'd be a few MF digital
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:13:19 -0600
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Not trying to be alarmist... it's just that *if* film dies ou
I wrote this about when film will die:
> I think it will be when digital cameras can produce a sharper picture than
> film can.
William Robb then replied:
"That day has already arrived.
However, sharpness is only one criteria."
That day hasn't arrived in my experience. My experience is that if
I believe the watch is a Patek Phillipe
Jerry Todd
Dancing Frog Studio
Calaveras, CA
> [Original Message]
> From: Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 7/22/2004 9:21:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:51, Jerry Todd wrote:
> Speaking of digital watches, LaCie has a nice one that's recently come on
> the market.
>
> http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10128
Ha ha, a cross-platform "digital" watch. LOL
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(G
ering
though.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> True. But as I said, I heard this from someone in *in the
TC> Tom C.
>>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>To: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
>>Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:31:20 -0700
>>
>>Interesting dilemma - my hunch
Tom,
The problem with this thinking is that Bill is referring to the mass
market and you are referring to the hobbyist/pro market.
In the mass market, everything I see, hear and experience myself says
that digital P&S's have basically surpassed 35mm P&S's in getting a
better picture. Particularl
For the greatest bulk of we so-called "photographers" it really doesn't
matter.
When was the last time you looked at an 11x14" print from one of your
film images?
Now, YOU may have, but I'm trying to speak to the 'common man' photog
among us.
I certainly haven't!
When was the last time you took
Hi,
> Of course, it's really in the interest of camera manufacturers that film
> does get the push, so they can sell new digital bodies
Yes, indeed. It's just the bodies that necessarily become redundant.
I'm rather hoping that some clever manufacturer like
Cosina/Voigtlander will realise th
The prices of the new Breitlings are obscene. Some of the older models
can be reasonably affordable, however, especially the ones without gold
or heavy metal bands. They also hold their value better than cameras in
the same price range. . .
Keith Whaley wrote:
I would too, if I could afford o
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 7/22/2004 9:07:02 AM
> Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> Another thing to think about, watches are all digital now. Except for
some
> reason there are a few very expensive mechanical watches s
Just bad spelling, or memory, on my part.
Patek Phillippe is what I meant.
http://www.patek.com/
And you thought cameras were expensive.
--
Norm Baugher wrote:
I've never heard of one of those either, is it a sandwich?
Norm
graywolf wrote:
someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex probably n
Like Pentak, Patek Philippe has had a tough time in the market of late,
but is looking forward to a turnaround:
http://www.fhs.ch/en/news/news.php?id=321&PHPSESSID=19d3e81bacbbe71876387544d5b8dce6
Like Douglas Adams, I distain digital watches, but I prefer 50 year old
mechanical Breitlings to Pa
Isn't Patti-Phillip a rock diva?
graywolf wrote:
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying B&W,
120, and 4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores
someplace in the world selling the stuff at anything near reasonable
prices, I and probably the other 10-15 serio
I've never heard of one of those either, is it a sandwich?
Norm
graywolf wrote:
someone who is in the market for a plastic Timex probably never even
heard of a Patti-Phillip
Look, here, us folks in the boonies are already reduced to buying B&W, 120, and
4x5 via mail order. As long as there are a few stores someplace in the world
selling the stuff at anything near reasonable prices, I and probably the other
10-15 serious photographers here in town will continue to us
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
>> will come down. One person I know in the camera business says he thinks
>> the reason manufacturers are replacing their 3MP digicams with
>> 4MP-and-up versions is that they are expecting 3MP phone camer
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Mark Roberts wrote:
> will come down. One person I know in the camera business says he thinks
> the reason manufacturers are replacing their 3MP digicams with
> 4MP-and-up versions is that they are expecting 3MP phone cameras to
> become commonplace before too long.
I was tal
Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
>
>> I think you also have to factor in the mentality too, there are probably 10:1
>> snappers in Japan vs the UK. I do expect that Japanese produced film will
>> remain viable there for a while but don't expect tha
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Norm Baugher wrote:
> Dude, there's around 20 million people in Tokyo. Do the math...
So are you suggesting that given a sufficient number of people, then even
in a saturated digital market there is still *SOME* room for film? Or is
it different math I have to do? :-)
Chri
On 22 Jul 2004 at 9:50, Chris Stoddart wrote:
> And I am honestly prepared to stand up here in a couple of years(?) and
> say "I was wrong" if that's the case and I can't get film without
> a struggle anymore. I'll be really, really disappointed that I can't
> though.
I love shooting film (well t
Wow...
A gelatine-based supermarket. Amazing!
Jostein
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying?
> On 22 Jul 2004 at 9
1 - 100 of 233 matches
Mail list logo