I can't remember whether you had an E-3 or went straight from the E-1
to the
E-5. If you had an E-3, do you think the E-5 has major advantages
over it?
I was planning to buy an E-3 when the E-5 came out, to take advantage
of remainder pricing, etc. But the more I looked at it, the more
Yes. The digital backs for Hasselblad was made by a Danich company, that did
merge with Hasselblad (Sweden) a few years back. I guess the scanners came from
the very same company - which now is a part of the Hasselblad concern.
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On
Yes, I quite happy with the FA* 2.8 28-70mm AL. It acturally outperforms many
of my primes, except maybe my Limited lenses such as the 43mm and 77mm - and of
cource my old 1.8 85mm, whic is the best portrait lens I've had so far.
I do understand now, thanks to the answers from PDML members,
I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again.
Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the
scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the
process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel
nostalgic.
Going
I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again.
Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the
scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the
process creates, I put the film camera away until the next time I feel
nostalgic.
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 5:13 AM, Gasha cir...@konts.lv wrote:
Pentax 67 takes a lot more time to shoot.
If you walk around with your friens, you can shoot something with digital
SLR.
In contrast, when you walk with Pentax 67 (and tripod), you cannot take your
friends with you :)
Gasha
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi gdigio...@gmail.com wrote:
I occasionally get nostalgic and think I want to work with film again.
Then I shoot a roll of film, have it processed, and work through the
scanning business. After that, and after I look at the photos the
process
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
I'll be going for a walk soon and will carry ... the Olympus E-5. ...
I can't remember whether you had an E-3 or went straight from the E-1 to the
E-5. If you had an E-3, do you think the E-5 has major advantages over it?
I was
2011/1/2 AlunFoto alunf...@gmail.com:
I frequently miss shooting with the 645Nii, but never get around to
actually loading it with film.
Let me know when the dust gets too thick to manage ]=)
Ecke
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Pentax 67 takes a lot more time to shoot.
If you walk around with your friens, you can shoot something with
digital SLR.
In contrast, when you walk with Pentax 67 (and tripod), you cannot take
your friends with you :)
Gasha
Jens wrote:
Good point Godfrey.
To me is more an economical
Jens wrote:
But more important: 2. I just can't seem to learn how to compose square images
Have you considered composing in portrait orientation?
Ecke
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the
On 3/1/11, eckinator, discombobulated, unleashed:
Have you considered composing in portrait orientation?
Filthy bugger!!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
-- http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
It's definitely not legal in Alabama. It may go by county in VA.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:12 PM, P. J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/2011 1:32 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose.
That's not legal in Virginia. ;-)
You sure you
He, he...
I meant to say 6x6 isn't the format for me. I want a rectangular viewfinder and
rectangular images - most of the time.
Regards
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On Jan 3, 2011 12:21 eckinator eckina...@gmail.com wrote:
Jens wrote:
But more
Good point Godfrey.
To me is more an economical issue.
I own a large collection of Pentacon Six /Carl Zeiss Jena/Schneider Kreutznach
lenses.
I got this 10-15 years ago (ebay) after selling my Rolleiflex (man, was that
great), since I needed interchangeable lenses.
The Pentacon Six really does
Some great shots there, Mark.
I see you're still (?) using the MZ-S.
I got mine from a fellow PDML member. I do intend to keep it.
I recenly bought a K2. Great camera. Like a K1000 with an Auto Exposure option.
Still have one Spotmatic, a MX and a ME Super.
(Now I Just miss a Super A (one of the
They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish actually)?
Jens
--
Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
On Jan 1, 2011 20:32 paul stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote:
I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording
From: Jens
Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question.
I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was
using old film and a questionable lab for developing.
My result is shown at flickr.
I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling
2010/12/31 J.C. O'Connell hifis...@gate.net:
MF or LF on a light table rules!
Give me a side by side comparson of MF film and a digital capture on
your light table, and I might believe you. :-)
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
2011/1/2 Jens p...@planfoto.dk:
They still make imacon scanners (I believe they were Danish actually)?
Jens
The Imacon scanners are now sold as Hasselblad Flextight scanners.
They're more expensive than a Pentax 645D by good margin.
I'm sure the Pentax 67 is a wonderful tool for acquiring
Sun Jan 2 09:58:35 CST 2011
John Sessoms wrote:
From: Jens
of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67 delivers reslults
re-sluts? ;-)
Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose. That will impose a
I see now why such a suggestion was given. :-)
:-)
Cheers,
Igor
Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose.
That's not legal in Virginia. ;-)
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
From: Jens
Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question.
I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn
Sides, you'd have to take them off to do that..I'm guessing here, of course!
Jack
--- On Sun, 1/2/11, Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Steven Desjardins drd1...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml
On 1/2/2011 1:32 PM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Try shooting the K7 through a pair of pantyhose.
That's not legal in Virginia. ;-)
You sure you mean Virginia.
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:58 AM, John Sessomsjsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
From: Jens
Thank you all for you rinterest in
I keep checking in on 'em from time to time, but so far the only 4x5
film they've got is some expired Type 57.
It looks like they're concentrating on films for the SX-70 type cameras
so far. Supposedly they've made an 20x24 SX-70 type process film that
works in the big Polaroid camera, and
Thank you all for you rinterest in responding and answering my question.
I have done some samll tests, that didin't turn out too well. But I was using
old film and a questionable lab for developing.
My result is shown at flickr.
I photographed a sitting girl (in full figure) filling out the frame
I'm surprised the K7 pic is as sharp as it is, given that it was shot at f13,
where you're going to get a lot of diffusion. Try it at f5.6 or so. What stop
did you shoot the 6x7 pic at. And what lens. You list an 80/2.8. I assume you
mean the 90/2.8?
Paul
On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Jens
I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the same time,
I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11.
Next time I shall:
1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the same.
2. Use new 120 film (Kodak Ektar 100 or Fuji Astia 100)
3. Use a pro-lab
On Jan 1, 2011, at 2:27 PM, Jens wrote:
I'm not sure Paul, but since it a studio recording done at appr. the same
time, I guess it the same aperture - F 13 or perhaps F11.
Next time I shall:
1. Make sure the conditions are very close to being exactly the same.
2. Use new 120 film
On 1/1/2011 9:07 PM, Jens wrote:
In my small, not too well done ,test it seems that the K-7 is doing
rather well. In order to convince myself, that I should keep on using
the 67 (insted of selling it) I need results that show, that the 67
delivers reslults that are superior to those of the K-7.
Jens,
No tests here, but the film is the same and the exposed area is 4X+
the size of 35mm.
I would expect 4X the size of the K-5 or K-7 files is what you'd need.
I don't think lens resolution is a problem.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Jens p...@planfoto.dk wrote:
Hello list
There is no fair resolution comparison because the systems are so different.
There is chemical information on a larger negative wich cannot be duplicated on
digital because it is simply not present. Likewise, digital information takes
to enlargement much better than does film (in most
On Dec 31, 2010, at 9:10 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Jens,
No tests here, but the film is the same and the exposed area is 4X+
the size of 35mm.
I would expect 4X the size of the K-5 or K-7 files is what you'd need.
I don't think lens resolution is a problem.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Dec
There is no sensible, direct translation of film acutance to digital
resolution. I have watched people quoting ppi, sensor resolution, etc
etc for years. It's all horsepucky.
The resolution of film is dependent on many factors:
- film speed
- how it is exposed
- how it is processed ... gamma is
Godfrey,
Along the same lines as your commentary...
I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
As a consumer, early digital could make acceptable 4x6 prints.
But the last couple of
On Dec 31, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Godfrey,
Along the same lines as your commentary...
I've loved 35mm slides and projected images since I first got to
borrow my dad's Retina IIIc.
The acutance in a 35mm Kodachrome image is just wonderful.
As a consumer, early digital
I am with Collin here. It is really a question without an answer. I mean
- it just depends. If you have a drum scanner nearby with highly trained
operator, then you can produce amazing amount of information and
tremendous enlargements from your 6x7 negative. For the references,
several years
: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of Bob
Sullivan
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 11:44 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Godfrey,
Along the same lines as your commentary...
I've loved 35mm slides and projected
My first 'serious' camera was a 1949 Rolleiflex that my grandfather
let me use in 1967-1968. I used medium format cameras alongside my
35mm and digital equipment until I finally sold all of it just last
year. I'm well aware of what medium (and large) format transparencies
look like on a light
Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with
Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different
coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to
small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called full frame) digital
cameras.
--
Godfrey
On 12/31/2010 7:30 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Thinking about it further, the real and only reason to shoot with
Medium Format film today is, for me, to work with the very different
coupling of Field of View and Depth of Field it affords compared to
small-format (FourThirds, APS-C and so-called
From: J.C. O'Connell
ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table?
absolutely mindblowing image quality.
It was discontinued about the time I was born, but Kodachrome used to be
available as sheet film. I've seen 8x10 Kodachrome that just knocked my
eyes out.
About the best I've been
Godfrey,
We've met and Tanja's recent thread on ages should remind you.
I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes.
Fine arts exhibitions I don't know much about, but I spent 10 years
with a major printer and publisher and understand commercial printing.
And believe me,
Your vast Age is irrelevant. ;-)
My point was that I'm very familiar with how medium format film looks
and how I prefer to view photographs, and I have many years of
experience in making photographs with medium format cameras and media.
Looking at stuff on a light table is about the most
] On Behalf Of
Godfrey DiGiorgi
Sent: Friday, December 31, 2010 2:49 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Pentax 67 resolution compared to 15 MP Digital
Your vast Age is irrelevant. ;-)
My point was that I'm very familiar with how medium format film looks and
how I prefer to view
The Impossible Project is supposedly working on reincarnating 4x5 and
8x10 Poloroid sheet films.
On 12/31/2010 1:15 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
From: J.C. O'Connell
ever seen an 8x10 fujichrome on a light table?
absolutely mindblowing image quality.
It was discontinued about the time I was
Jens wrote:
Hello list
I'm getting into photographing with Pentax 67. BTW: I just got the SMC 1:4 165
mm Leaf Shutter lens for studio work. Nice lens :-).
Has anyone done tests, showing the resolution etc. of 6x7 film images compared
to digital 14-15 Mp images, please?
I've never done any
I would like that. I have a 4x5 polaroid back for my speed graphic. The pics
were actually 3 1/2 x 41/2, if I recall. Fun, but expensive.
Paul
On Dec 31, 2010, at 3:51 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
The Impossible Project is supposedly working on reincarnating 4x5 and 8x10
Poloroid sheet films.
On 12/31/2010 8:58 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
I was shooting prints before you were a 'twinkle in your parent's eyes.
Mark! Gee, that's an expression I should memorize...
Boris
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
On 12/31/2010 10:23 PM, J.C. O'Connell wrote:
MF or LF on a light table rules!
I remember light table reviewing some of the Jostein's fine 645 slides
back in 2004. It was literally an eye-opening experience. You will have
to believe me that Jostein was a darn good shooter 6 years ago. He
Boris,
It's an old saying in English, designed to keep the young from getting
too pompous about how smart they are.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Boris Liberman bori...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/31/2010 8:58 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
I was shooting prints before you were a
51 matches
Mail list logo
