> Do you know the definition of "pervert" in North Carolina?
> Someone who likes sex more than basketball.
Same for Indiana.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SR Weirdness
> Cotty wrote:
I take exception to that, communist? Hardly.
Cotty wrote:
>
Holy mackerel that sucker moves about a lot!
>>> Which, the camera or the sensor? ]'-)
>>>
>> And if you were referring to a third alternative, we don't want to
>> know...
>>
>
> You're all a bunch of go
Cotty wrote:
>>>You're all a bunch of goddam communist preverts!
>
>On 15/12/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>I am *not* a communist!
>
>Well, that's two of us for the preverts. Any more?
Do you know the definition of "pervert" in North Carolina?
Someone who likes sex more than
>>You're all a bunch of goddam communist preverts!
On 15/12/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>I am *not* a communist!
Well, that's two of us for the preverts. Any more?
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps
On Dec 15, 2006, at 3:18 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Holy mackerel that sucker moves about a lot!
Which, the camera or the sensor? ]'-)
>>>
>>> And if you were referring to a third alternative, we don't want to
>>> know...
>>
>> You're all a bunch of goddam communist preverts!
>
> I a
Cotty wrote:
Holy mackerel that sucker moves about a lot!
>>>
>>>Which, the camera or the sensor? ]'-)
>>
>>And if you were referring to a third alternative, we don't want to
>>know...
>
>You're all a bunch of goddam communist preverts!
I am *not* a communist!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
>>> Holy mackerel that sucker moves about a lot!
>>
>>Which, the camera or the sensor? ]'-)
>
>And if you were referring to a third alternative, we don't want to
>know...
You're all a bunch of goddam communist preverts!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>On Dec 15, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Cotty wrote:
>
>> Holy mackerel that sucker moves about a lot!
>
>Which, the camera or the sensor? ]'-)
And if you were referring to a third alternative, we don't want to
know...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.n
On Dec 15, 2006, at 2:00 PM, Cotty wrote:
>> I've done a quick video (sorry about the dodgy quality) to
>> illustrate the
>> sensor popping to a corner and locking issue I'm seeing in SR.
>>
>> http://www.users.on.net/~ploveday/SRTest.mov (its about 5MB)
>
> Holy mackerel that sucker moves abo
On 15/12/06, Peter Loveday, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I've done a quick video (sorry about the dodgy quality) to illustrate the
>sensor popping to a corner and locking issue I'm seeing in SR.
>
>http://www.users.on.net/~ploveday/SRTest.mov (its about 5MB)
Holy mackerel that sucker moves abou
>> I'm in the camp that buys a camera to take pictures
>> with, not calculate theoretics or reverse engineer.
>
Pffft! Wuss ;-)
-Cory
--
*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>I'm in the camp that buys a camera to take pictures
>with, not calculate theoretics or reverse engineer.
Heretic! BURN 'IM!
;-)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
LOL
I was just testing the image stabilization. Seems to me that I can
get a pretty darn sharp picture with the DA21mm lens at about a half
second exposure time when it's enabled. I could post a pair of
example shots ... but why bother?
Since someone will undoubtedly ask to see it, here ya
You must be new here.
On 12/15/06, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I tend to agree. I'm in the camp that buys a camera to take pictures
> with, not calculate theoretics or reverse engineer. ;-)
>
> G
>
> On Dec 15, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > If it takes good pict
SR will do very little to sharpen an 8 second hand-held shot imo.
Godfrey
On Dec 15, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Rick Womer wrote:
> Peter,
>
> What is "normal" about an 8-second handheld
> exposure???
>
> This sort of thing is what clutters the dpreview
> forum!
>
> Rick
>
> --- Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PRO
I tend to agree. I'm in the camp that buys a camera to take pictures
with, not calculate theoretics or reverse engineer. ;-)
G
On Dec 15, 2006, at 3:14 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> If it takes good pictures when you don't bounce it around, it's
> probably fine. I think I'll pass on torture test
Peter,
What is "normal" about an 8-second handheld
exposure???
This sort of thing is what clutters the dpreview
forum!
Rick
--- Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm still not sure if I should be
> returning it or if this
> is 'normal'.
>
>
http://www.photo.net/photos/RickW
___
SR doesn't work on B setting, because the camera thinks you're smart
enough to use a tripod.
Paul
On Dec 15, 2006, at 12:31 AM, Mike Hamilton wrote:
> That's the second video that I've seen of the SR working. The sensor
> moves around quite visibly. I just took a look at my own K10D, Bulb
> set
>
> From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/12/15 Fri AM 04:43:47 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: SR Weirdness
>
> > Interesting, after the last big movement it just sort of goes I'm over
> >
If it takes good pictures when you don't bounce it around, it's
probably fine. I think I'll pass on torture testing mine.
Paul
On Dec 14, 2006, at 11:43 PM, Peter Loveday wrote:
>> Interesting, after the last big movement it just sort of goes I'm over
>> it, I'll just rest here in the corner for
> Thinking about this more:
> SR is probably only good for up to 1.5 seconds or so. After that,
> there's little point to the sensor continuing to move around,
> attempting to stabilize. The engineers probably just had it lock to
> a certain point after that specified time.
Will it not re-activ
Yes, I used manual mode and sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.
- Original Message -
From: "Lawrence Kwan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: SR Weirdness
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2006,
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006, J and K Messervy wrote:
> I just tested my camera and more often than not, the sensor does not move.
> This backs up my experience when trying out SR in photos. I got the
> impression it wasn't working much of the time. Turns out it isn't. :(
Make sure that for the testing,
> I'll have a play with mine later but I'm really not fussed about have
> the sensor exposed to the elements if it's not really necessary so
> there won't be any videos. Return to the centre makes sense unless
> it's done that way in an effort to effectively anchor the sensor in
> order to prevent
> Thinking about this more:
> SR is probably only good for up to 1.5 seconds or so. After that,
> there's little point to the sensor continuing to move around,
> attempting to stabilize. The engineers probably just had it lock to a
> certain point after that specified time.
Nah, its not time bas
On 12/14/06, Mike Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/14/06, Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You'll see the sensor moving quite happily (its kinda cool to watch if
> > you've not done so already), then about 2/3rds of the way through the sensor
> > pops to the lower corner, th
as it's my only
digital camera.
James
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Loveday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 3:12 PM
Subject: SR Weirdness
> I've done a quick video (sorry about the dodgy quali
On 12/14/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 15/12/06, Mike Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's the second video that I've seen of the SR working. The sensor
> > moves around quite visibly. I just took a look at my own K10D, Bulb
> > setting, no lens mounted, and t
On 12/14/06, Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'll see the sensor moving quite happily (its kinda cool to watch if
> you've not done so already), then about 2/3rds of the way through the sensor
> pops to the lower corner, then never moves again... I'd be interested to
> know if anyone
On 15/12/06, Mike Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's the second video that I've seen of the SR working. The sensor
> moves around quite visibly. I just took a look at my own K10D, Bulb
> setting, no lens mounted, and there is *no* sensor movement at all! I
> hear a gentle buzzing, just
That's the second video that I've seen of the SR working. The sensor
moves around quite visibly. I just took a look at my own K10D, Bulb
setting, no lens mounted, and there is *no* sensor movement at all! I
hear a gentle buzzing, just like Peter, but I can't see sensor
movement.
http://www.mich
If you're shaking the camera that forcibly when making an exposure,
you have more problems than the fact that the SR decides to take a
rest. ;-)
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On 15/12/06, Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I wonder if that is it... basically decides its too damn bumpy.
> Still, I really would expect it to go to the centre, even if it made such an
> choice. Or perhaps if it hits the stop, it stays there to protect itself?
> I dunno, its o
> Interesting, after the last big movement it just sort of goes I'm over
> it, I'll just rest here in the corner for a bit.
Yeah, I wonder if that is it... basically decides its too damn bumpy.
Still, I really would expect it to go to the centre, even if it made such an
choice. Or perhaps if it
On 15/12/06, Peter Loveday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've done a quick video (sorry about the dodgy quality) to illustrate the
> sensor popping to a corner and locking issue I'm seeing in SR.
>
> http://www.users.on.net/~ploveday/SRTest.mov (its about 5MB)
>
> The movement of the camera looks a
I've done a quick video (sorry about the dodgy quality) to illustrate the
sensor popping to a corner and locking issue I'm seeing in SR.
http://www.users.on.net/~ploveday/SRTest.mov (its about 5MB)
The movement of the camera looks a little exagerated in this video.. I'm not
actually shaking it
36 matches
Mail list logo
