Re: Curious

Hi! If past is prologue, why should we have expected anything faster? The only possible reason I can think of is that now Pentax have had produced half dozen siblings for *istD. So they kind of learned the drill, so to say. Assuming that their programmers know the craft, I would hope that

Re: Curious

Larry Levy wrote: Pentax has us all on tenterhooks by the way they are introducing the new version of the D. I'm curious as to why we would expect anything faster than we are getting from them. In October 2001, Pentax announced the cancellation of their full frame DSLR. That announcement ment

Re: Curious

Derby, You sure you're not in Telecom Product Development.? Looks like a snapshot of our of our industry. . dk On 2/24/06, Derby Chang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm in medical device product development. Consumer gear has different > constraints, but I'll bet the frustrations are the same. >

Re: Curious

I think that's any industry, I do support(ish) for a large ISP/Telco and deal regularly with Product Development and he pretty much described our process too. -Adam Dave Kennedy wrote: Derby, You sure you're not in Telecom Product Development.? Looks like a snapshot of our of our industry.

Re: Curious

If you stick to your line of reasoning, you will be a happy man, Larry. Any surprise will be a positive one...:-) Seriously, I think Pentax has gathered more momentum now. Jostein - Original Message - From: "Larry Levy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:11 PM

Re: Curious

Derby Chang responed to my delineation of the *ist D timeline with a wonderful summary: I'm in medical device product development. Consumer gear has different constraints, but I'll bet the frustrations are the same. * Marketing changes their product requirements every 3-2 months * Upper manageme

Re: curious

Paul, I just tried this link and got an error message. It doesn't load on its own.(?) Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social > environment. > It's not un

Re: curious

Paul, I just tried this link and got an error message. It doesn't load on its own.(?) Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social > environment. > It's not un

Re: curious

I saw it, and it didn't do anything for me at all. So I kept my gob shut :-) Cheers, Dave On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. > It's no

Re: curious

Paul, I just tried this link and got an error message. It doesn't load on its own.(?) Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social > environment. > It's not un

Re: curious

Fair enough, just curious as I said:-). Paul On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:02 PM, David Savage wrote: > I saw it, and it didn't do anything for me at all. So I kept my gob > shut :-) > > Cheers, > > Dave > > > > On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm somewhat surprised that there wa

Re: curious

Hmmm, don't know why that might happen. It loads for me from your response. No biggy. Paul On Mar 2, 2007, at 11:05 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > Paul, I just tried this link and got an error message. > It doesn't load on its own.(?) > > Jack > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm so

Re: curious

On 3/2/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > Is the total silence due to the

Re: curious

In a message dated 3/2/2007 8:17:24 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a >> picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social >> environment. >> It'

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > Is the total silence due to the content or the execution?

Re: curious

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > === > It looks too deliberate to me -- carefully laid out and posed. From the > towel, to the beer cans, to the cigarette pack carefully sticking out of her > pocket. Was it for an ad for so

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: >I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a >picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. >It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. >Is the total silence due to the content or the execution? Or

Re: curious

My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5667450&size=md > > === > It looks too deliberate to me -- carefully laid out and posed. From the > towel, to the beer cans, to the ciga

Re: curious

On 2/3/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a >picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. >It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. >Is the total silence due to

Re: curious

It was posed. This lady and I did a whole series of posed shots in a trailer park. I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, although I don't want them to look posed. If you remember I posted a reference to an article in last Sunday's New York Times about a photographe

Re: curious

Thanks for looking. Interesting feedback on this one. Very different from what was said when I first showed these (in color) some years ago. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. > > Shel > > >> [Original Message] >> From: <[EMAIL

Re: curious

Thanks Cotty. I appreciate the feedback. The original crop was closer to what you describe, and it was a horizontal. It also reveals the lawn chair to be far from pristine. We had all we could do to keep it from collapsing. You can see it here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5670710

Re: curious

On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was posed. This lady and I did a whole series of posed shots in a > trailer park. > > I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, > although I don't want them to look posed. That's fine by me. Show us the rest of the

Re: curious

It loads for me too this AM.(??) I had quite a PM yesterday thrashing around getting E5 downloaded to Vista. Finally staggered away from the keyboard after a couple hours. The link did not acknowledge the courser, so I pecked it in and doubtless fumbled the address. I did not see this and find it h

Re: curious

Thanks. Yes, I'll post a small gallery in another message. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It was posed. This lady and I did a whole series of posed shots in a >> trailer park. >> >> I personally have no misgivings in

Re: curious

Thanks Jack. Appreciate the feedback. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Jack Davis wrote: > It loads for me too this AM.(??) I had quite a PM yesterday thrashing > around getting E5 downloaded to Vista. Finally staggered away from the > keyboard after a couple hours. > The link did not acknowledge

Re: curious

Hi Paul, I recall some of the earlier pics, some of which I liked, and while I recognize that they, too, were set-ups, this one comes across as more artificial-looking than what I remember the earlier pics to be. Of course, over time, our perspectives change, changing the way we view photos and s

Re: curious

Thanks for the feedback, Shel. I posted a small series. It's here: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=701586 I'm surprised that the disc never arrived. I sent it over a week ago. If it doesn't come in the next few days, I'll mail another one. I was wondering why you didn't report your

Re: curious

It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only really decrepit trailer park we were able to find. This particular trailer was abandoned. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 10:19 AM, Walter Hamler wrote: > Paul, what part of LA (lower alabama) was that picture taken? > :-) > > Walt > > -- > PDML Pentax

Re: curious

It was posted twice FWI. I looked @ it & believe you had posted it a few years ago. Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 11:54 PM Subject: Re: curious > In a message dated 3/2/2007 8:17:24 P.M. Pacific Standard T

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only really decrepit > trailer park we were able to find. This particular trailer was > abandoned. Holy cow, Paul! You folks have some really well preserved trailer parks up there. Down here, what's shown in those photos wou

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, > although I don't want them to look posed. If you do another trailer park series, get the wardrobe and props from the local Salvation Army or Goodwill store or something so they'll look "lived in". :-) -

Re: curious

That's exactly where we bought them -- Salvation Army. Right down the street from the TP. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 12:27 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: > >> I personally have no misgivings in regard to staging a photograph, >> although I don't want them to look posed. > > If you

Re: curious

Yeah, I believe it. I think if I took a ride up into Michigan Militia territory, I can find something nastier. But I didn't want to make this too much work:-). Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 12:30 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: > Paul Stenquist wrote: >> It was taken in Pontiac, Michigan. It was the only rea

Re: curious

Paul Stenquist wrote: > That's exactly where we bought them -- Salvation Army. Right down the > street from the TP. You've got better Salvation Army stores than we do, too. :-) -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.

Re: curious

*that's* the shot. Love it. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailma

Re: curious

On 3/3/07, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >Thanks Cotty. I appreciate the feedback. The original crop was closer >to what you describe, and it was a horizontal. It also reveals the lawn >chair to be far from pristine. We had all we could do to keep it from >collapsing. You can see

Re: curious

I saw it and quite liked it, nice tonality. Paul Stenquist wrote: > I'm somewhat surprised that there was no response to my post of a > picture of a woman in what coucl be called an aniti-social environment. > It's not unlike an Arbus pic, although not as well executed perhaps. > Is the total

Re: curious

On 4/3/07, Lists, discombobulated, unleashed: >I saw it and quite liked it, nice tonality. Holy shit, the List is talking. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail

Re: curious

Thanks Cotty. Eventually I blunder my way to something decent. :-). On Mar 3, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Cotty wrote: > > > *that's* the shot. Love it. > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|

RE: curious

Mail List Emne: Re: curious Thanks for looking. Interesting feedback on this one. Very different from what was said when I first showed these (in color) some years ago. Paul On Mar 3, 2007, at 1:51 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > My feeling exactly re: being staged or set up. > > Shel &g

Re: Curious ...

I've used it. It worked in so far as the frames lined up properly. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? I always thought it was cool, but never needed it so never got one. (The only other PK body I’ve seen with double

Re: Curious ...

Pretty sure the K2 could do it too. I remember using it once. Cheers, Dave > On Jun 29, 2023, at 1:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: > > Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? > > I always thought it was cool, but never needed it so never got one. > > (The only other

Re: Curious ...

I vaguely remember trying it a couple of times back in the 80's -I mostly did double exposures in the darkroom. ann On 6/28/2023 3:52 PM, John Sessoms wrote: I've used it. It worked in so far as the frames lined up properly. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVE

Re: Curious ...

Very late reply: I have, but the results were not very good. NOT a fault with the camera, but with the brain behind the eye behind the viewfinder. On 6/28/2023 9:29 AM, coll...@brendemuehl.net wrote: Anyone here EVER use the double-exposure capacity of the LX? I always thought it was cool,

RE: Curious Comparison

Or how about the 43 vs. the 50 1.4 and 2.0 models... J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -

RE: Curious Comparison

Or how about the 43 vs. the 50 1.4 and 2.0 models... 43/1.9 has slightly more distortion (and slight bright-ring bokeh) than 50/1.4. But the 43 is slightly sharper near wide open. Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ STOP MOR

Re: Curious Auctions

Yeah, this is a recurring scam. And it's usually the FA* 85/1.4 that's offered. On May 9, 2008, at 10:47 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > I know we shouldn't discuss current auctions here, but I am also > confident that no one here is foolish enough to bid on a dodgy one. > > Does anyone else think it

Re: Curious Gull

Great tilt of the head, Jack. Nice catch. Yields a nice animal expression. Crop is a little tight for my eye. Would prefer a bit more space around the wing span. Cheers, Christine - Original Message - From: "Jack Davis" To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Wednesday, April 13,

Re: Curious Gull

gt; Subject: Re: Curious Gull > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Date: Wednesday, April 13, 2011, 9:22 PM > Great tilt of the head, Jack.  > Nice catch.  Yields a nice animal expression. Crop is a > little tight for my eye.  Would prefer a bit more space > a

Re: Curious DemSelfies :-)

First guess would be a lucky shot. In his collection I see many more damselflies posing in groups. He must have found a way to enforce lucky shots... On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, 00:48 Igor PDML-StR, wrote: > > > Well, not quite that spelling, but I couldn't resist. :-) > > https://seuppcdn01.1x.com/imag

Re: Curious DemSelfies :-)

Maybe staged (posed?) somehow rather than photoshopped? On 11/9/2021 2:22 AM, Toine wrote: First guess would be a lucky shot. In his collection I see many more damselflies posing in groups. He must have found a way to enforce lucky shots... On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, 00:48 Igor PDML-StR, wrote: W

Re: Re: Curious ...

The K2 method is no different than any other camera with a rewind button on the bottom. The LX was clearly special. -- %(real_name)s Pentax-Discuss Mail List To unsubscribe send an email to pdml-le...@pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the dire

Re: curious printing issue

Have you run a nozzle check? A plugged cyan nozzle could be the problem. Powell At 08:20 AM 28/04/2006 , you wrote: > >I had a weird problem while printing the other day. > >A couple of the latest B&W photos I was printing to an ~11x14 size >were coming out with a slight magenta tint on the E

Re: curious printing issue

Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printing the same file to a different size of the same paper. The other prints were perfect, showed no tinting at

Re: curious printing issue

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: Re: curious printing issue Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printin

Re: curious printing issue

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: curious printing issue Printing remains a fussy business, regardless of how sophisticated the technology. Where the ink hits the paper remains a certain amount of one-by-one randomness. It has always been that way in the

Re: curious printing issue

On Apr 28, 2006, at 7:34 PM, William Robb wrote: Yes, nozzles are all clear. And I replaced the two marginally low ink carts (light cyan and magenta) as well afterwards ... no change. As I said, this happened in the middle of printing the same file to a different size of the same paper. Th

Re: curious printing issue

Hi Godfrey, It's not that difficult, once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding. :-) Jostein - Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "SeePhoto Camera Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "PDML" Sent: Friday, April 28, 2

Re: curious printing issue

Obviously, since I've solved the problem. G On May 4, 2006, at 1:52 PM, Jostein wrote: It's not that difficult, once you pass a certain threshold of resources and understanding.

Re: curious about two lenses

Alex Nemerosky describes both the SMCP-A 200/4 and SMCP-M 28/3.5 at http://home.att.net/~alnem/html/pentax_primes.html#28 I'm not sure I'd want to get an -A 200/4, nor pay that much: they are going for between $40 [E] and $90 [M] on eBay. I'm also not sure that the -A is better than the -M: all

Re: Curious views on HCB

When you said you were not aware of Frank's position I thought of OUR Frank - who certainly is a fan of HCB as am I. I didn't know about Robert Frank's opinion either. I saw the exhibit at MOMA - my final opinion was that it was too inclusive - that is - there was too much of the work that he

Re: Curious views on HCB

Well first off, the critics quoted come off as exactly the kind of pretentious, self-important wankers who give art and artists a bad name. They're the visual equivalent of wine snobs ("flaccid!", "absurd!", "fruity, yet arrogant"). I understand Frank's criticism and agree to a limited extent, but

Re: Curious views on HCB

The point about curation is well taken, Ann. Interestingly, with respect to the music biz, Johnny Lovine, Beats owner, talks about the lack of curation in the digital music business--here's the video. http://www.thatericalper.com/2014/05/10/watch-beats-electronics-jimmy-iovine-talk-about-the-

Re: Curious views on HCB

I think I agree with you Mark about Frank's comments, and think the point, which I might agree with to a degree, is made a bit too sharply. Cheers, Christine Sent from my iPad > On May 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > > Well first off, the critics quoted come off as exactly the ki

Re: Curious views on HCB

Some of those comments appear to be reviews of the exhibition rather than of HCB's work. As far as critical and popular opinions of his work are concerned, most great artists under reappraisal and a dip in popularity after their death, so it shouldn't be a surprise if this happens to HCB. Part

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically to the same degree in Photoshop. Any thoughts on why this may be so? What format are you saving to? William Robb

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

Both to JPEG. Shel > [Original Message] > From: William Robb > - Original Message - > From: "Shel Belinkoff" > Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? > > > > > > Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved identically > > to the same degree in Photoshop. Any

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

Shel Belinkoff wrote: Over the last few days I've been experimenting with some PEF files and some files scanned from various color films. When I resize the files to the same dimensions, the scanned files are always larger (in kb's) than the files from the istD. While I know that there will always

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Both to JPEG. I bet you will find you are saving more noise with the film files (as Peter surmised). William Robb

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

what file format? it's most likely noise, specifically film grain. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to the same ppi, same dimensions, and saved

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

It's noise from grain causing the poorer JPEG compression. Godfrey On Mar 20, 2005, at 7:07 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Both to JPEG. Shel [Original Message] From: William Robb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Curious Anomoly? or something more? Files are adjusted to th

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

Are you saving with the same software? The amount of jpeg compression can vary widely. In PhotoShop the degree of compression is, of course, selectable. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 10:29 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" Subject: Re: Curious A

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

Yes, all saved in PS to the same degree of compression. A few have suggested that it's noise, but I don't know for sure what noise is. The images look nice and smooth and don't show any artifacts or junk. Someone suggested film grain ... maybe that's what it is. Shel > [Original Message] > F

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

I've noticed that photos with a lot of detail and multiple colors don't compress very well. I imagine grain vs. the absence thereof would have the same effect. Paul On Mar 20, 2005, at 11:46 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes, all saved in PS to the same degree of compression. A few have suggested th

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

if there is film grain, it's not nice and smooth by definition. Herb - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more? A few have suggested that it's n

Re: Curious Anomoly? or something more?

Shel Belinkoff mused: > > Over the last few days I've been experimenting with some PEF files and some > files scanned from various color films. When I resize the files to the > same dimensions, the scanned files are always larger (in kb's) than the > files from the istD. While I know that there

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

On 12/20/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe someone can enlighten me. > Some zoom lenses are physically longest at > their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. > Others, like the FA28-70/4 AL are physically > shortest at their longest FL. > Does anyone know why this is, and

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

Don Sanderson wrote: Maybe someone can enlighten me. Some zoom lenses are physically longest at their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. Others, like the FA28-70/4 AL are physically shortest at their longest FL. Does anyone know why this is, and what advantage or disadvantage each design

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

Dear Just Curious, You should see your doctor about these compulsive posts. However, I would venture to guess that something like the 28-70 is basically a 70mm lens that has a variable retrofocus-converter to dial in the zoom focus length making it physically longer at shorter focal lengths.

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

In a message dated 12/20/2005 6:03:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 12/20/05, Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Maybe someone can enlighten me. > Some zoom lenses are physically longest at > their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. > Others, like the FA28-

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

On Dec 21, 2005, at 2:29 AM, Don Sanderson wrote: Maybe someone can enlighten me. Some zoom lenses are physically longest at their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. Others, like the FA28-70/4 AL are physically shortest at their longest FL. I used to have a 35-70 zoom that was physical

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

On Dec 20, 2005, at 22:15, David Mann wrote: I used to have a 35-70 zoom that was physically shortest somewhere in-between, close to one of the ends. As you went through the zoom range it'd get shorter, shorter, shorter then suddenly get longer again. Actually I think my Espio 738 does t

Re: Curious about zoom lens length.

Op Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:29:43 +0100 schreef Don Sanderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Maybe someone can enlighten me. Some zoom lenses are physically longest at their longest focal length, such as the FA24-90. Others, like the FA28-70/4 AL are physically shortest at their longest FL. Hi Don, My FA

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

- Original Message - From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi" Subject: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ... > > Seems to me that there must be something funky about the PEF file > created when the orientation sensor is in an ambiguous position... ?? I'll have alook at if mine does that too. I w

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

I also noticed some files didn't import properly. Tried 2 test shots facing and bingo one of them won't import. Another lightroom bug: the lens used is not imported with PEF. I must check DNG but PEF is smaller. On 6/13/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I noticed now and then that

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

On Jun 13, 2007, at 2:25 PM, Toine wrote: > I also noticed some files didn't import properly. Tried 2 test shots > facing and bingo one of them won't import. > Another lightroom bug: the lens used is not imported with PEF. The lens data for older lenses is properly interpreted in both Lightroom

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

The lens data bug is caused by firmware 1.20 I've read on DpReview. Can't say more 'cos I run 1.10 no problem at all so far. -- Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... 2007/6/13, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I noticed now an

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

I use SilkyPix - the one you pay for. So far, with about 15,000 frames shot, I have not encountered the problem you are describing. -- Bruce Wednesday, June 13, 2007, 2:25:36 PM, you wrote: T> I also noticed some files didn't import properly. Tried 2 test shots T> facing and bingo one of them

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Thibouille wrote: > The lens data bug is caused by firmware 1.20 I've read on DpReview. > Can't say more 'cos I run 1.10 no problem at all so far. I've got 4000 exposures made with all versions of the K10D firmware and all lenses, dating back to the beginning of De

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

On Jun 13, 2007, at 4:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On Jun 13, 2007, at 3:26 PM, Thibouille wrote: > >> The lens data bug is caused by firmware 1.20 I've read on DpReview. >> Can't say more 'cos I run 1.10 no problem at all so far. > > I've got 4000 exposures made with all versions of the K1

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 15:03:02 -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> Another lightroom bug: the lens used is not imported with PEF. > >The lens data for older lenses is properly interpreted in both >Lightroom and Bridge/Camera Raw, regardless of whether I have the >camera set to create PEF or DNG fi

Re: curious K10D behavior ... possible bug ...

To be more precise about what I read (I will try to find back the post on DPR) Pentax added a number in the field identifiying the lens. The added a 0 probably 'cos they want to expand available codes I guess. Of course Lightroom do not understand anymore. That's what I read. Can't check myself. -

Re: Curious about A*, F, FA* etc history..

Most of what you are interesting in finding out is available here http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/ including a discussion of the transition of lens mount versions and pictures of every known K mount lens and accessory made by Pentax. At 03:34 AM 2/18/04, you wrote: I was just taking a look at a pamph

Re: Curious about price differential on 50-135/2.8

There is one for $625 on Denver's Craigslist right now, which would be tempting if I hadn't just blown a lot of moola on silver Limiteds. People tend to sell for less than whatever they bought it for, which may be quite disconnected from the current new prices. With any SDM lens, I would be suspic

Re: Curious about price differential on 50-135/2.8

Darren, Yes, I thought of the issues with the SDM. As for the previous lower prices, - I do not think that's really a factor here. If it were a single case, I would understand, but it is really the market price. The market adjusts to the prices going up. The prices being this low consistentl

Re: Curious about price differential on 50-135/2.8

On 2015-02-15 23:22 , Darren Addy wrote: There is one for $625 on Denver's Craigslist right now *cough* People tend to sell for less than whatever they bought it for, which may be quite disconnected from the current new prices. With any SDM lens, I would be suspicious of AF motor problems unl

RE: Curious - who would make a no-name 85/1.4

Samyang. http://www.syopt.co.kr/eng/product/manual_zoom.asp Bob > > I had this on my ebay watch list and no one seems to have bought. Not > that I'm interested either (my FA85 and the phrase cold dead > hands comes > to mind), but who would make a generic 85/1.4 lens. Seems odd > > Looks T

Re: Curious - who would make a no-name 85/1.4

Interestingly, it's an Aspherical design, which is somewhat exotic for an 85. Wonder if it's any good. Loks like Samyang may be looking at moving up in the lens world. They're currently the replacement for Cosina at the low end of the 3rd party market. -Adam On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 3:58 AM, Bob

Re: Curious - who would make a no-name 85/1.4

Hi! On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Loks like Samyang may be looking at moving up in the lens world. > They're currently the replacement for Cosina at the low end of the 3rd > party market. Adam, is the above the long version of "rubbish"? ;-) Boris -- P

  1   2   >