Eac> Egad, what a horrible idea.
Eac> I also notice you volunteered someone else's D/DS. ;-)
;-)
I would offer my DSLR in a heartbeat, bu you see, it's a Nikon, that
test would be meaningless... I am so sorry ;-)
Good light!
fra
In a message dated 3/15/2005 4:08:41 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, anybody want's to test it with his IstD or IstDS? Using PC with Pentax
Remote Assistant, I think it would be simple to use DC adapter and
shoot 100K of exposures in rather a short time ;-)
Good light!
KK> Sorry Fra, in my opinion for the amount of money you paid for the
KK> Nikon such uncertainty is not on.
No, I quite expected that. I was after all using the camera
professionaly, not as a daily newspaper shooter but still a lot and in
somke rougher conditions nevertheless. It has paid for itse
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Frantisek wrote:
> That at least makes me use the Leica more for just snapshots, it has
> much more life packed in its shutter than the SLR I guess ;-)
Sorry Fra, in my opinion for the amount of money you paid for the
Nikon such uncertainty is not on.
Kostas
On 15 Mar 2005 at 23:32, Frantisek wrote:
> That at least makes me use the Leica more for just snapshots, it has
> much more life packed in its shutter than the SLR I guess ;-)
100k releases at the very minimum I believe.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hour
>> his D100 mirror assembly after many studio shots, and I have got one
>> (hopefully just isolated) shutter failure on the D70 so far... which
>> is around the 20-30kilo mark
RS> Ouch.
Yes, ouch :-( At least they would probably exchange the whole shutter
for a new one, so I get more life out of
On 15 Mar 2005 at 20:25, Frantisek wrote:
> So, what's your current count ;-)
Only 12k at this point, I hope it's good for at least another 50-60k though.
> The Nikons are definitely not as well made then :-? Colleague killed
> his D100 mirror assembly after many studio shots, and I have got one
RS> No one has jet killed a Pentax DSLR here by taking too many shots, I
personally
RS> would start to worry under the 100k exposure mark. What I would check
though is
RS> their return policy regarding hot, dead or stuck pixels.
So, what's your current count ;-)
The Nikons are definitely not as
--- Francis Alviar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Given KEH's conservative (to me) grading of their
> items for sale, would you recommend purchasing a
> used
> dslr from them?
Yes. Absolutely.
I bought a LN- one from them just a month ago. It came
boxed with all cables &
On 15 Mar 2005 at 23:25, Rob Studdert wrote:
> No one has jet killed a Pentax DSLR here by taking too many shots, I
> personally
> would start to worry under the 100k exposure mark. What I would check though
> is
> their return policy regarding hot, dead or stuck pixels.
OK I think I'll try thi
On 15 Mar 2005 at 12:33, Frantisek wrote:
> One suggestion that has been already made on the list is to check for
> the number of total shutter releases on the camera. That's an internal
> number that on most DSLRs doesn't get reset even if you reset the
> frame # counter, and is stored in the EXI
One suggestion that has been already made on the list is to check for
the number of total shutter releases on the camera. That's an internal
number that on most DSLRs doesn't get reset even if you reset the
frame # counter, and is stored in the EXIF field, usually in the
makernote. I don't know of
Given KEH's conservative (to me) grading of their
items for sale, would you recommend purchasing a used
dslr from them? It would certainly help lower the
cost of getting into digital and I'll have some money
left for other goodies like a memory card and
rechargeable batteries, maybe a
Probably a D1 JCO. They were one of the first out there and it seems the folks on the
D1
BB value
them in the $800-1000 range now.
I thought it would be higher,but i have not checked prices for a while.
I like mine.Takes decent pictures.
Dave Brooks
> I sh
I just said for more than just ebay.
I want interchangable lenses.
jco
-Original Message-
From: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 4:43 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Cheapest USED DSLR on the market?
How about the Fujifilm FinePix S602Z Pro
How about the Fujifilm FinePix S602Z Pro? Anything else seems overkill
for ebay.
Antonio
On 10 Jul 2004, at 22:25, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I should clarify my intent, yes it would be mostly for ebay usage
but I would also like to use for serious Macro work. That is one
case where the small sensor
I should clarify my intent, yes it would be mostly for ebay usage
but I would also like to use for serious Macro work. That is one
case where the small sensor is an advantage over 35mm film because
it means better depth of field for the same angle of view (lower
magnifications).
JCO
- Original
>
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:46:04 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:22:29 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote:
> > >
> > > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch
> > > > space on a different physical drive [...]
> > >
> > > Different than what
On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 20:46:04 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:22:29 -0500 (EST), John Francis wrote:
> >
> > > If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch
> > > space on a different physical drive [...]
> >
> > Different than what? The one that PS
Bob W:
http://www.web-options.com/nerdkrieg.tif
Oh thank you ever so much! I have long wanted to see that particluar strip.
As you might know, it is featured in "In The Beginning Was The
Command Line", the excellent eassay on computer culture by Neal
Stephenson.
The essay is available in many
Same thing in WinDoze, bill ...
"Bill D. Casselberry" wrote:
>
> Cotty wrote:
>
> > As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is not
> > the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is Photoshop.
> > And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors
Hi,
Friday, January 16, 2004, 4:55:51 PM, you wrote:
> ah, but Cotty!
> just because PhotoShop for Macintosh has such elegant
> interface w/ the hardware is certainly no guarantee that
> an equally graceful operation is possible on all other
> computer pla
zoomshot wrote:
> There is nothing wrong with the PC interface..lets not have a
> PC war
not a chance - just funnin' around :^)
... still using PShop v2.5.1 & sys8.1 on a 90mhz PMac 7200
w/ 128meg RAM - 72meg allocated to PShop. Of course, I have
no fi
reasonable performance.
HTH
Regards,
Ziggy
-Original Message-
From: Bill D. Casselberry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 16 January 2004 16:56
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Photoshop performance (was: Re: Used DSLR prices
Cotty wrote:
> As I understand the way Photoshop wo
Cotty wrote:
> As I understand the way Photoshop works, this is not correct. It is not
> the user that decides if Photoshop has to swap to disk, it is Photoshop.
> And it will readily do so depending on a number of factors including
> levels of history vs file size etc. I am prepared to stand cor
On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space
>on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's
>far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going
>to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transf
I asked this question a while ago and was told by leon Altoff that he
uses the refconverter A ... refconverter M should also work.
Cotty wrote:
> John, I use an angle finder extensively. Always when on the tripod (as
> I'm taller than it) so viewing is a breeze. Low angle shots no problem.
> Is o
>
> On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> John, I use an angle finder extensively. Always when on the tripod (as
> I'm taller than it) so viewing is a breeze. Low angle shots no problem.
> Is one available to fit the *ist D?
I've seen posts here that suggest the refconverter A or M would
On 14/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>While not disagreeing with your overall conclusion, there are times when
>I miss the LCD viewfinder of my PowerShot G1 - trying to take low-eyepoint
>shots with the *ist-D means I have to lie flat on the ground. Sometimes
>this is merely inconvenient; oth
>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
>
> If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space
> on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's
> far better to have enough mem
>
> I'm using 512 meg of RAM and just upgraded to a faster #2 hard disk (my
> #1 hard disk has only the operating system - Win2k - on it; hard disk #1
> has all my applications and data files). I noticed a big speed
> improvement with Photoshop after the upgrade. I'm going to upgrade the
> other h
Agreed, but not everyone can get more memory into older machines. I can
only get 768mb into my P3 (have 512 at present), and now that I'm
starting to work with larger files, the extra scratch space is very
welcome. I'll probably add a little more memory when I can get around
to it.
John Francis
Quoting John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While not disagreeing with your overall conclusion, there are times when
> I miss the LCD viewfinder of my PowerShot G1 - trying to take low-eyepoint
> shots with the *ist-D means I have to lie flat on the ground. Sometimes
> this is merely inconvenient
If you have to swap to disk, then putting the Photoshop scratch space
on a different physical drive takes some of the pain away. But it's
far better to have enough memory in the first place, and never going
to disk at all. Even the fastest disk transfer speed is still much
slower than main memor
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more
>> speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop.
>>
>> --
>> Mark Roberts
>
>Most of the time Photoshop is not cpu limited. The most important
>factors ar
>
> The P&S produces amazing
> pictures, no doubt about it, but the motor skills involved in getting the most
> out of it are entirely different and I found that I had to alter my shooting
> habits substantially to get good results. Also, I can'
> This seems reasonable. BTW, does anyone have any idea or know of any
> reference as to how the sensor will age?
Hi Steven,
this would interest me as well! It would be interesting to know
somebody with an early kodak DSLR! I will try to ask at local
agencies how their first Nikon D1 we
Tom,
I agree with you in certain respects. In particular, I agree that DSLRs will
not last forever, and will probably not have the lifespan of, say, an MX or
your Crown Graphic.
My point (and the one that Mr. Desjardins is also making, I think) is that if
you look at the sole tangible product
Hi!
Now the camera makers have a hook (resolution) to tempt folks who can spend
$1000-2000/yr on equipment.
Steve, you're so absolutely right. And what if prices go below
$1000/yr on equipment level?! It is even hard to imagine .
Boris
Hi!
Bucky, I am afraid I either misread his post or language barrier
played yet another joke on me.
All of what you say is true, but the fact remains that the original poster
was talking about a given model of DSLR being rendered *obsolete*, not
merely somewhat less attractive, by new models.
ppropriate.
-Original Message-
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 13-Jan-04 20:16
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
Hey, I have a 486/33 IBM Thinkpad. The build quality is supurb,
but it is pretty
much useless in todays world. Unless of course all you need it
f
All of these fall in the "new toy" category. If you are the kind of
person that is happy with a 20 yr old film camera, then you can hang on
to a DSLR for a while. The real difference here (and this is why the
camera companies are so excited about this) is that DSLR's have
something to improve. T
technology,
and hence the purchaser shouldn't worry about build quality.
> -Original Message-
> From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 13-Jan-04 23:29
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
[some stuff snipped]
> Now, notice, I
o:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices
Why should build quality *not* be important? The "
mapson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>At 12:04 AM 15/01/2004 +1030, you wrote:
>
>>>Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more
>>>speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop.
>>
>>I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was
At 12:04 AM 15/01/2004 +1030, you wrote:
Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more
speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop.
I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was
just over 1 Gb,
SORRY it was meant to be "jus
Yep. I'm using a 1GHz machine now. I don't fell the need for any more
speed, really. Even for working on 90 megabyte images in Photoshop.
I was working on some images today. While processing them the file was just
over 1 Gb, after flattening and saving as TIFF, it is 310Mb now. ;-)
--
Mark Rober
"Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 13 Jan 2004 at 17:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> Im not talking how long its sold, Im talking
>> how long you want to use it. I have SLRs I
>> still use that are 40 yrs old, I wouldnt use
>> any digital camera more than about 5 yrs old.
>
>We are now
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>
>> Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but
>> that doesnt mean I would still want to use
>> them.
>
>Not even as a firewall?
>
>The analogy does not work in my opinion anyway. After a point (1GHz
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 2:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices
Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call
it,
by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality
allows it to be. Si
- Original Message -
From: "J. C. O'Connell"
Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices
> Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life
> due to technical innovations, could someone please
> explain to me why build quality is important?
Because its nicer to use some
ddert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 6:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Used DSLR prices
On 13 Jan 2004 at 17:04, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Im not talking how long its sold, Im talking
> how long you want to use it. I have SLRs I
> still use that are 40
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> > Old Pentium (I) PCs may still work too, but
> > that doesnt mean I would still want to use
> > them.
ugggh! - I wouldn't have wanted too have to use one
of those even when they were "cutting edge"
;^D Bill
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
>> Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life
>> due to technical innovations, could someone please
>> explain to me why build quality is important?
>
>Just because a camera is only sold for a short period
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
> Since all DSLRs so far have had a short shelf life
> due to technical innovations, could someone please
> explain to me why build quality is important?
Just because a camera is only sold for a short period of time doesn't
mean that it has a short funct
-Original Message-
> From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
>
>
> But I don't really want to shoot faster, so this is a moot point for me.
> As an example, the Niko
Why should build quality *not* be important? The "shelf life," as you call it,
by which I presume you mean "useful life," is as long as the build quality
allows it to be. Simply because there's something out there that is considered
more modern technology doesn't mean that an existing camera h
l.com
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 1:44 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Used DSLR prices
But I don't really want to shoot faster,
But I don't really want to shoot faster, so this is a moot point for me.
As an example, the Nikon D2H doesn't tempt me at all, although I think
the D1X is neat. I also suspect that the Baby D won't be built quite as
well as the *ist D. I actually think the final real street price of the
*istD ($
>
> I want to ask veterans of Pentax movement this question - when
> MZ-S came out and started to receive favorable reviews - how many
> PZ-1(p) owners started to unload their cameras in order to buy the
> newest one? Please understand this question correctly - I do not
> intend to cause a sh
"John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more
>> megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same
>> size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth
>> the additional storage space (
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One other thing to consider for us current owners:
>I would really like a backup DSLR at some point. If/when a better
>body is released, I would be more inclined to keep the *istD as the
>backup and then purchase the new body, rather than unload the old
>b
>
> It will be interesting to see if APS DSLRs ever move up to 8 or more
> megapixels. I don't know that the increase in pixel count on the same
> size sensor would give enough improvement in image quality to be worth
> the additional storage space (larger buffer in camera, more and bigger
> CF ca
One other thing to consider for us current owners:
I would really like a backup DSLR at some point. If/when a better
body is released, I would be more inclined to keep the *istD as the
backup and then purchase the new body, rather than unload the old
body.
Also, there would need to be a significa
alex wetmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>> I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD
>> for an 8 mp APS sensor successor quickly unless it was <$1000.
>
>If such a camera came out the *ist D would probably be worth $500 or
>less. At that point I wo
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD
> for an 8 mp APS sensor successor quickly unless it was <$1000.
If such a camera came out the *ist D would probably be worth $500 or
less. At that point I would probably keep it as a second body.
I'm alr
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think you might see a sell off if Pentax came out with a reasonably
>priced (<$2000) FF DSLR.
And if my granny had wheels she'd be a trolley...
>I doubt, however, that I would dump my *istD for an 8 mp APS sensor
>successor quickly unless it wa
Cotty wrote:
> Interestingly, I haven't seen many for sale. Not in dealers'
> ads in AP, nor on eBay. I think most people buying these
> cameras have considered the facts and are not going to
> stomach the heavy loss in selling used. If you've bought a
> D60 for £1600 (me) then you're (me) har
On Mon, 12 Jan 2004, Cotty wrote:
> I think all here who bought the *ist D would be very reluctant to sell in
> a year's time. Even in two.
Yes, but for different reasons than D60 owners.
:-P
Kostas
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Dealers are flogging off the Sigma SD-9 brand new for not much more than
that
> (anybody actually ever seen one of these??)
Seen and touched, but not used. Back in the day, I was about to switch
brands to Sigma because they offe
A LN- goes for $1079. This is pretty high by comparison to current new
prices. Although I don't look at the digital section regularly (as
opposed to Pentax lenses, for example ;-) I suspect that there just
aren't a lot available. That D30 is already gone. In a few years,
there could be more DSL
"Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I noticed in a KEH flyer that an "Ex" D30 was going for $850.
Wow. That's much *much* higher than I would have expected! You can get a
6 megapixel 300D for that price!
>Given that the *ist D is starting lower ($1350 US should be the new street
>pri
I noticed in a KEH flyer that an "Ex" D30 was going for $850. Given
that the *ist D is starting lower ($1350 US should be the new street
price), the $600 predicition of Cotty seems like a good one.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(5
73 matches
Mail list logo
