on 11.07.03 22:52, Alan Chan at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> So F100 still beats MZ-S huh? :-)
Neee.. it can't leave film leader out ;-) But otherwise it's very nice
machine, only heavy and large as for me :-)
> PS: Not a real comment, pls don't flame.
We all know you quite well :-) I don't think
Good thought Frank.I cringe everytime i see a lens for sale,buy it and think should i
have??(mfof
course)Then
when it arrives i cannot wait to use it.I cannot think of a nicer way(at least until
the
ice has had a
chance to cool the brown bottles)to spend a few hours when the weather is nice,than
Wrong attitude, Marnie!
Don't think of it as "dollars down the drain", rather, think of it as money well
invested in an enriching leisure activity .
cheers,
frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sigh. Another camera, more lenses, more dollars down the drain.
--
"I don't believe in God, but I do be
>The MX has a linkage designed to slow the mirror just before it hits the
>foam bumper. Pentax claimed that MLU was unneeded. Over the years, I never
>noticed a vibration problem. But then, I only used a tripod about 10% of the
>time with the MXen. Tripods and 35mm never made much sense to me. If y
if Alan were to try a MZ-S on loan and had the same results as his PZ-1p,
then i would believe that he is experiencing AF system problems.
I know the Z-1p's AF is not as accurate as MF, but the problem extends to MF
mode too due to poor viewing quality. That's why I like the MX so much. It's
vie
>Shouldn't it be "focus first and compose later"?
>This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I
usually >don't use a tripod either .-)
>DagT
Sure, that's what it's "supposed" to be. That's what the camera manuals say.
Hold down the button 1/2 to focus lock then
The Z-1p doesn't have the new type of focusing screen either. Otherwise, I
found the Z-1p easier to manual focus with slower lenses than the LX. To
each his own I guess, but for me magnification or lack thereof has never
been a problem when focusing. What makes a difference to me is whether it
They fixed it already, but they're having trouble removing your hex.
I must be cursed. Who is it? Show yourself. I know you are here!! :-(
regards,
Alan Chan
_
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.m
Herb wrote:
> if Alan were to try a MZ-S on loan and had the same results as his PZ-1p, then i
> would believe that he is experiencing AF >system problems.
Well, he did say that he was getting the same problem while manual focusing
Most likely the viewfinders doesn't agree with him (but th
17:47
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
>
> The Z-1p doesn't have the new type of focusing screen either. Otherwise, I found the
> Z-1p easier to manual focus with slower lenses than the LX. To each his own I guess,
> but for me magnification or lack thereof has never been a
Alan wrote:
Are you referring to me??? I know the LX & Super A/Program are great vibrators, and
the Z-1p vibrates better than the MX too. :-) However, the 2s mirror pre-fired of the
Z-1p has elimated pretty much most vibration while the MX doesn't have any MLU at all
(I don't use the trick anym
Boris wrote:
2. I did not mean to argue about 600/4 lens hunting down quite remote
and no less fast animal that for some reason should be filling the
whole frame once the film is processed and printed and/or scanned.
3. In fact I was talking about something like shooting my daughter
with 35 or 50
There is one plane of focus. The farther you move from it the more out
of focus things are. DOF is determined by what is the maximum amount of
blur considered acceptable at the limits of the DOF. So yes, the
sharpness is not uniform through the DOF.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I supp
11, 2003 17:00
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Actually, with the MZ-S you can select the sensor you want (2nd sensor from
> the right lines up with the subject's eye for vertical portraits, for
> example). That way, you just let the camera focus, then you shoot. No
>
know that they require you to compose first and focus later.
>Herb
Actually, with the MZ-S you can select the sensor you want (2nd sensor from
the right lines up with the subject's eye for vertical portraits, for
example). That way, you just let the camera focus, then you shoot. No
recompos
> -Original Message-
> From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Damn!
> You just gave me an excuse to buy another expensive toy. I
> need ring Pentax
> and see if they could switch that stupid 31 with a brand
> new MZ-S. They have
> my lens for a month and not a single response
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p
for six years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I I pointed out to
the Alan that if he was having focus problems with his Z-1p it was either
due to a faulty camera or he was experiencing vibration problems. This was
Hi!
Thanks for all those who responded, which however excludes some of the
people who still managed to squeeze in some very strange arguments and
wordings. Come, let us at least pretend we're all civilized enough.
Now, to the point of the thread. There're few things that were out of
the scope but
>You mean, not do like that guy Paal Jensen that's currently engaged in a
>thread where he states that it's impossible to take sharp photos with
>the PZ1p,
REPLY:
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p for six
years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I
frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems
>that there may some situations that manual focus is faster and more
>accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more
>accurate) than AF. It ~may~ be that in the maj
Wow, that's a great argument. Let me try it:
People who don't like Pentax don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have
used poor versions of it.
Gee, it works, it must be true .-)
DagT
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experienc
on 11.07.03 14:38, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera
> could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge
> difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a
> c
People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used
poor versions of it.
People who don't like digital don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have
used poor versions of it.
There's at least a two stop difference in handheld useable shutter speeds betw
Herb wrote:
> he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring.
Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be
out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between
the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have s
he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "Pål Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 08:05
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Well, it then
Boris wrote:
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third
party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm.
Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens,
AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought
of i
Caveman:
Quote: "A fascinating test. I'm especially amazed by how poorly the Nikkor 1.8/50
performs at all apertures".
No wonder Brucey doesn't bother with focus. It's all bokeh to him anyway.
REPLY:
Is it too much to ask of you that you for once refrain from insulting persons who use
other g
Tom wrote:
At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
no automation at all.
REPLY:
Well, the AF systems I use enables me to decide whats in focus. In addition, it can
yield sharp images
Alan wrote:
I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper
results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p
doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers.
REPLY:
Well, it then can't have anything to do with the AF
You know, if you keeping running around the dinner table you will miss your meal.
Sometimes I even sit down.
DagT
> Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because
> walking is too slow when you don't know how to do it?
>
> BR
>
> <[
But you can buy a Pentax 2x magnifier to slip over the viewfinder
that at least takes a step in that direction. I think one of the
newer RefConverters has a magnifier built-in, as well.
I remember that Keppler used a magnifier when comparing manual to
autofocus in a Pop Photo article a few years a
stems well enough that i trust what it does and know when
it gets it wrong.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 07:06
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> OK, so you prepare for a composition, focus
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:39
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Is that right, Herb?
> If it is, obviously I don't use one regularly...but, when I have used
> AF, if the depth of field is going to be narrow, I always use spot
> metering, and I se
Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems that there may some
situations that manual focus is faster and more
accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more accurate) than AF.
It ~may~ be that in the majority of situations,
AF works best (and fastest)
You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because walking
is too slow when you don't know how to do it?
BR
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow.
_
n't know what is the most
> critical thing i want in focus, assuming i don't want everything in focus. if you
> use a view camera, you also work the same way.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
D]>
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50
> Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> > Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the
> > camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the
> > thing?
> >
> > I really can't believe this was posted.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 06:03
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Shouldn't it be "focus first and compose later"?
>
> This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually
> don't use a tripod either .-)
Shouldn't it be "focus first and compose later"?
This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually
don't use a tripod either .-)
DagT
> Fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would
00:50
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Lets see if I have this straight. You have the leisure time to wander the
> camera around on a tripod composing, but you don't have time to focus the
> thing?
>
> I really can't believe this was posted.
>
> William Robb
>
when the camera requires a AF lock button to be pushed to hold it, i'm not interested
in holding the button the entire time.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50
Subj
Boris,
It's not quite BS. There are a few things to consider. The "lpm" numbers
are irrelevant as long as it's
above the critical resolution in the final enlargment.
For 8"x10" this is (I suppose) something like 250ppi, therefore, sice
24mm is ~ 1", one needs 8*250 lines/inch ~
50 lpmm. As long
omposing.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 21:35
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Hi, Herb,
>
> I wasn't talking about focusing on the LCD screen, but rather to
s on a digital camera's LCD is basically useless, in my opinion.
>
> Herb
> - Original Message -
> From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 18:31
> Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto
learn new tricks. Or maybe modify old tricks to
look new.
See you later, gs
--
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:56:36 -0400
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Conten
Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Go back and read "Beating the 50 lines per mm Resolution Limit"
(http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html).
In practice it is hard to get 50 lp/mm regardless of how the lens is
focused.
Quote: "A fascinating test. I'm especially amazed by how poorly the
Nikkor 1.8/50 performs
manual focus on a digital camera's LCD is basically useless, in my opinion.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 18:31
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Stil
Go back and read "Beating the 50 lines per mm Resolution Limit"
(http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/limits.html).
In practice it is hard to get 50 lp/mm regardless of how the lens is
focused. If you have to take pictures right NOW, you will get more "in
focus" shots with AF then MF.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah, but we're just a couple of crusty old farts, Tom!
-frank
T Rittenhouse wrote:
> At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
> this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
> no automation at all.
>
--
"I don't believe in God,
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:31 PM
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
> Well, here's my problem with autofocus:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/image/18233117
>
> Jeff took it with his Canon digital Elph (actually, quite a nice
Well, here's my problem with autofocus:
http://www.pbase.com/image/18233117
Jeff took it with his Canon digital Elph (actually, quite a nice camera). The
first thing I noticed when I saw the photo, is that the camera bodies and such,
are fuzzy. What's in focus is the strap of my lovely little C
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third
party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm.
Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens,
AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought
of it, and it seem
52 matches
Mail list logo
