Re: Digital Camera Predictions by Thom Hogan
There is an interesting (to me) piece about the direction of digital photography in 2003 by Thom Hogan here: http://www.bythom.com/2003predictions.htm If not seeing the Pentax name gets you upset, don't go there. Thom appears to be electronically challenged. Thom did write the Nikon Flash Guide though. A fine book it is too. Kind regards Peter -- CAMERA DIRECT 8 DORSET STREET BRIGHTON EAST SUSSEX BN2 1WA UK TEL 44 1273 681129 FAX 44 1273 681135 http://www.camera-direct.com
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V03 #27
On 24 Feb 2003 at 22:31, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regarding focusing, despite what I've read about a split-image not being useful for macro work, my experience has been just the opposite (at least down to 1:1). The problem with using split image focussing in macro applications is that the camera must be moved so that the element that you wish to focus on is smack in the middle of the frame, not too convenient. A high performance full matt screen will provide a good indication of focus over the whole finder view. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
On 25 Feb 2003 at 2:32, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Secondly TTL flash is overrated in my opinion, on camera flash pix suck even when they are perfectly exposed. Fill flash looks good, but even the LX maxes out at 1/90 for flash doesnt it? 1/75th actually As for the LX metering/AE going to minutes, it's going to underexpose due to film reciprocal failure anyway. When doing those kinds of shots you need to bracket like hell MANUALLY. That's right, good ol' fashion B and a stop watch. In the instances where you might be tempted to use an LX for lengthy automatic exposures it usually produces a neg that it biased towards over-exposure, so I under expose slightly and it's spot on, contrary to your theory. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Digital Camera Predictions by Thom Hogan
On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thom appears to be electronically challenged. Thom did write the Nikon Flash Guide though. A fine book it is too. It may be but it's also a far cry from imaging sensor design theory :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Giga pixels is possible?
Look, they already have today a 14Mpixel in 1.5 square inches. (Kodak). Multipy that by 70 and you have 1 gigapixel. So even with today's pixel density, they could get 1 gigapixel with a 108 square inch sensor. This would be approx a 9 X 12 large format camera. Not exactly portable, but imagine the quality of the image if you could get a lens good enuff to take advantage of it! JCO
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
Sory, but it's not my theory, it's a FACT. The film reciprocal error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same for different film types. There is no way the LX is spot-on using different films and different exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. For example TMAX 100 is FASTER than Tri-x 400 after a couple minutes. The LX doesnt know THAT! The only way to ensure you get the correct exposure when you get into multi-second and multi-minute exposures is to bracket, bracket, and bracket. 35mm film is cheap, re-shoots are expensive JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX On 25 Feb 2003 at 2:32, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Secondly TTL flash is overrated in my opinion, on camera flash pix suck even when they are perfectly exposed. Fill flash looks good, but even the LX maxes out at 1/90 for flash doesnt it? 1/75th actually As for the LX metering/AE going to minutes, it's going to underexpose due to film reciprocal failure anyway. When doing those kinds of shots you need to bracket like hell MANUALLY. That's right, good ol' fashion B and a stop watch. In the instances where you might be tempted to use an LX for lengthy automatic exposures it usually produces a neg that it biased towards over-exposure, so I under expose slightly and it's spot on, contrary to your theory. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
RE: Pentax Hero
Tom pointed out: I don't think I can match the other stories in this thread. I was under the impression that shooting anything in your neighborhood is an act of bravery. Oh yeah ... it's funny how risks you get used to stop feeling like bravery, isn't it? Actually, while there are still plenty of people around here who are a mite touchy about cameras (especially if they can't figure out why they're being photographed but get the feeling that it might be related to something they've just done, such as when I shoot a photo of a car blocking a lane of traffic because the driver was too lazy to pull into a parking space right next to where he stopped -- oooh, they get confrontational and _confused_ all at the same time), there are also a bunch who react to an openly carried camera with requests that I take their pictures! If other folks are still awake and about when I go to shoot a fire, there'll almost always be some group of two or three people -- usually a few blocks away -- who say, Are you taking pictures? Take our picture! as I walk by. If I've got a frame left and a lens shorter than 200mm mounted, I'll often go ahead and do so. Curiously, they don't usually ask for a copy of the photo or think to tell me how to get a copy to them unless I ask them to jot down their name and address. -- Glenn
Re: OT: dumb film Q
Pat in SF commented: I realize this comparison crossed the lines btw Fuji Press and Superia Xtra lines but Superia doesn't seem to come in ISO 1600. As far as I can tell (IIRC they use the same two-letter code) the difference between Fuji Press 800 and Fuji Superia Xtra 800 is that one is sold in 36 exposure rolls in camera stores and the other is sold in 24 exposure rolls in drug stores. So you didn't actually cross emulsion families. -- Glenn
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: Absolutely! I owned a KX and found that even when I wasn't using MLU, my prints seemed sharper because of the low vibration. The K2 adds autoexposure. Only the KX allows MLU in real time or with the timer. The K2 also allows MLU with the self timer. I just tried mine :) Is there anything in particular to watch out for with these bodies? Make sure the aperture viewing window is aligned. I bought a KX where it was out of alignment. Metering can be off, too, after all this time. I learned this from the guy I sold mine to; I couldn't tell, because I routinely set out to overexposure my color prints for saturation and sharpness. The magnification (0.88x) is generous, but be prepared for a dim view. Also, as I recall, the KX lacks a split image focusing aid. I don't' know about the K2. As far as I can recall the K2 came with either of two screens: either a split-image with microprism collar (like the LX) or a microprism spot only. However of the four K2 bodies I've owned, none had a split-image finder. I prefer the microprism spot in most situations. The K2 has quite a heavy shutter but its never bothered me. However it is a slightly unusual body in its control layout (eg the film speed dial is a ring around the lens mount). The meter is very good but not really suitable for long exposures (30 sec) in automatic mode. Huge bright viewfinder with 95% coverage. The LX is an excellent body for macro work. I did a 4x macro once in conditions so dim that I could not focus. So I popped off the prism and placed my 10x loupe on the focussing screen (my loupe is quite compact). The exposure was done in auto mode and lasted a couple of minutes. The picture turned out very nicely. As others have mentioned the LX also adds TTL flash capability which is a big bonus if you shoot with flash. The only thing I dislike about the LX is that the meter only indicates in increments of a full stop. For manual shooting I prefer the match-needle of the K2, except at night when I can't see it :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: To Everyone who has been published
Collin Brendemuehl polled: What was your first published photograph? A mugshot of a friend [at the time - she's my partner now] for a research paper she co-wrote for a chemistry journal. It hardly counts because it was her work, not mine, that earned the publishing in the first place! The pic was just cropped out of a snapshot I took of her, using my point shoot at a party before the serious drinking started. The camera was a Pentax Espio 738. This was a year or so before I got my first SLR. I never was paid ;) That was about 5 years ago. I haven't been published since and I'm not specifically looking for it. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
Bruce Dayton wrote: I can say that I much prefer the aspect ratio of 67 over 35mm. Most of the time 35mm feels just too long and narrow. Also knowing that I am shooting pretty close to full frame for 8X10 has been nice. The aspect ratio of 645 was another minor turnoff for me. Not big enough to factor into the decision, just a minor one. I shoot 67 and 35mm and I like both formats. I feel equally comfortable with both and I think I only prefer 67 because its bigger, not because its squarer. I expect I'd also feel comfortable with 645 as it lies between the two. I've also shot 24x68mm (the same aspect as 6x17, or 2.85:1 movies) and found it extremely difficult to compose with. In fact, shooting in this format was so difficult that I'd love to try it again. My kingdom for a Pentax 67 Xpan! I've never shot square, yet. Its something I would like to try someday. Maybe I'll look for a 6x6 with a circular fisheye lens, and shoot round images on a square frame ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: How things change so quickly
This is what Kodak are talking about right now...100 megapixel sensors as being easily constructed! The conclusion to this article says it all...cost will be the limiting factor, but designers and engineers will want to build the ultimate sensor 'cause that's what they are there for, and it's the boy-racer geeky thing to do (if the RD budget stretches of course). http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/papersArticles/ultimateSensor.pdf As for the minimum pixel size Rob, yes the pixel logically should be larger than the wavelength of the light that it has to capture. However, if we are talking wavelengths of light, we are measuring in nanometers. This is millionth's of a meter...as you know, and some light wavelengths are as tiny as 400 nanometers (i.e. violet) - that's 400 millionths of a meter. If a pixel size was in the order of say 100 nanometers (improbable, but possible) then we could certainly pack a few of 'em onto a 35mm sized DSLR sensor. All I am saying is never say never...and I certainly don't consider myself foolish by thinking (dreaming?)about what the future may hold despite BR's opinion to the contrary. Cheers Shaun Rob Studdert wrote: On 25 Feb 2003 at 1:41, Peter Alling wrote: When you look at giga pixels in a reasonable sized sensor you're running into fundamental physical constraints. In other words you can't pack the photons tight enough for a hand held device. It's more fundamental than that, there is an obvious minimum size of a sensor pixel and that is that it has to be larger than the wave-length of the light that it is designed to capture, regardless of technological advances. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html . -- Shaun Canning Cultural Heritage Services High Street, Broadford, Victoria, 3658. www.heritageservices.com.au/ Phone: 0414-967644 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: PDML NYC (day 2?)
-- -Original Message- -- From: jerome [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 11:06 AM -- -- Fellow New Yawkers, -- -- intentions are to at least -- make it to the Prospect Park Zoo on Sunday -- snipI think I -- remember that at least one PDMLer lives in the vicinity of -- Prospect Park. Well, -- whoever that was (and anyone else for that matter) if you -- care to join me than -- I'd welcome the opportunity to meet a fellow PDMLer. At -- $2.50 per adult, it's -- hard to beat the price of admission to one of Brooklyns best -- kept secrets. And -- Cesar, if you are still in the area... then perhaps you can -- come carry my -- tripod around for me... you know... for old times sake :o) -- -- - jerome -- [who is coming from 60 degree weather (Fahrenheit), and --hence not sure *what* to expect up in NY] Jerome, Sorry about not being able to make it. I was supposed to have family driving up from NJ to visit. The closing of the Turnpike due to fog prevented it, but our little family still had a nice lunch and caught up. I think my mother appreciated it since I have been more out of the house than in it this trip. Sherpa skills still intact, César Panama City, Florida in Baltimore
RE: LX Rumor
-- -Original Message- -- From: Collin Brendemuehl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 2:21 PM -- -- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- Will it come true ... we'll just have to wait and see. -- -- :) -- -- Collin -- Not on a Ti. At least not the first one ;-) A majority of my LXen are not reskinned - just two of the five. I actually brought one of each up with me on this trip... Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: LX Rumor
-- -Original Message- -- From: Fred [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:26 PM -- -- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in an -- eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? -- -- ;-) -- -- Fred -- Ahhh, a traditionalist. Those who have seen my Cobra LX for the first time this trip have commented that it looks a lot better than in the photos ;-) If not snake, then another skin perhaps? Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: LX Rumor
-- -Original Message- -- From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 6:29 PM -- -- Hi, -- -- Friday, February 21, 2003, 9:26:16 PM, you wrote: -- -- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in an -- eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? -- -- ;-) -- -- Fred -- -- yes, I know. It's so tacky isn't it? I would use chinchilla. -- -- --- -- Bob -- Hmmm, no need for gloves in the cold weather then? Something to consider ;-) Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
Re: OT: Kodak RFS 3600 scanner
Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does anyone have any experience with the Kodak RFS 3600 film scanner? Calumet has them on sale for $499, less then half the cost of a N***N 4000, and it can do a full roll of negs uncut. Also, has anyone done a comparison between a picture CD scan (or equivalent) and a scan from a 2800 and/or 4000 DPI scanner? I'm finding the picture CD scans barely tolerable. I have been using the RFS 3600 for a year and a half or so. It's main disadvantage is that it doesn't have digital ICE or other automatic dust/scratch removal (I'd guess that's why it's just been discontinued). I try to compensate by keeping my slides scrupulously clean and since I only do high-res scanning when I'm going to make large prints for display, I'd probably keep digital ICE off for those scans even if it were available to me. Being able to scan a whole roll of uncut slide or negative film is wonderful; a big time saver. Resolution is *drastically* better than picture CD! Even the difference between 2800 dpi (my Minolta Scan Multi) and 3600 dpi was eye-opening. There's little to be gained by going to 4000 dpi, though: At higher resolutions most of the extra information you get is film grain rather than image detail. I routinely make 12 x 18 inch prints from scans done on the RFS 3600 (provided the original image is good enough). Some of the PDML people who've been to the Grandfather Mountain Nature Photography Weekend have seen a few of my big prints. Perhaps Cesar can offer some witty comments? ;-) The SilverFast software that comes with the RFS 3600 is brilliant. I scan at 48-bit color, then do all my level adjustment, editing and unsharp masking before converting to 24-bit to archive. Email me if you have any other questions. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My latest view lens
On February 24, 2003 11:52 pm, J. C. O'Connell wrote: It's a Schneider Super-Angulon 90mm F8. This is just like a 28mm on a 35mm camera. Judging by the shutter and chrome barrel I think it's 60-70's vintage. Anyway results using it straight-on (no movements) are excellent especially for a wide angle. No vignetting, no distortion, and very sharp at least to my eye. Good contrast too, single coated, not multicoated. I havent tried all the apertures, I usually just shoot at f22 on 4X5 as a matter of routine... Too bad pentax never made view lenses :( !! Sounds nice. About a month older then my Xenar-)) 4X5 isnt very practical for a lot of things but I think it really excels for wide angle landscapes/scenics. I get the impression 1/2 of the world always wants a wider view lens the rest of us want something longer. I have trouble seeing much less then the 150mm. Often wanting something quite a bit longer. I like this lens so far. Nice thing about view lenses is they only cost used about half of what 67 used lenses cost Some of them are cheaper then screwmount lens. Nick
Re: It's Coming
Yeah, but what is it and how long do we have to wait? :-P -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I shoot 67 and 35mm and I like both formats. I feel equally comfortable with both and I think I only prefer 67 because its bigger, not because its squarer. I expect I'd also feel comfortable with 645 as it lies between the two. This seems to be a really personal issue so you have to try it to see how you'll like it. For me, the 3:4 ratio of 645 is one of my favorite things about the format. I find the 2:3 ratio of 35mm too rectangular and 67 too square. Shooting 645 seems totally natural to me. YMMV. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: LX Rumor
Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -- -Original Message- -- From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Friday, February 21, 2003, 9:26:16 PM, you wrote: -- -- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in an -- eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? -- -- yes, I know. It's so tacky isn't it? I would use chinchilla. Hmmm, no need for gloves in the cold weather then? Something to consider ;-) I've got it! Cesar needs to go organic here: A Chia LX! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: It's Coming
The DSLR I presume? Pål
Re: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
Mark wrote: This seems to be a really personal issue so you have to try it to see how you'll like it. For me, the 3:4 ratio of 645 is one of my favorite things about the format. I find the 2:3 ratio of 35mm too rectangular and 67 too square. Shooting 645 seems totally natural to me. YMMV. I fully agree with this Pål
Vuescan users quiry
Hi all. I recently downloaded the test version of vuescan and liked it so i payed for the license fee (scans look alot nicer with out the $40 backgroundG) A quiry or two though. I scan and save both the raw tiff file and the jpg file but i'm just wondering what i can do with the tif file as it looks to me like it is the neg image.Is this file reloadable to vuescan or can it be reversed and worked on in PS or what have you. Also the web site suggests over 200 film profiles,but could be wrong here,dont seem to see that many.Have i screwed up in the download or do i need to contact Ed for more. One of the one's i am missing is NPZ which i just tried a roll of and i like this one a lot.I see now why Aaron shoots this. It seems to give smaller files than the Epson software and Silverfast too.Most of my 35mm colour negs files are in the 10meg range with jpgs just under 1 meg,even lees with BW. Only printed one colour and 3 BW's so far but i like what its giving me. Any comments to help a scanner newbeg Dave Brooks
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
at what? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 7:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX JCO, You need to try an LX. It's better than you think. g Regards, Bob S.
RE: Question for USA (Miami or near) members
-- -Original Message- -- From: Paul Franklin Stregevsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 9:43 AM -- -- -- Date: Sun, 23 Feb 2003 10:49:18 +1000 -- From: jcoyle [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: Pentax-Discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- http://www.dalelabs.com/ in Hollywood, Florida, very close to Miami. -- -- John Coyle wrote: -- Can anyone recommend a good quality lab that can make high -- quality 8x10's -- (or larger) from a scanned negative, in both mono and -- colour? An actor -- friend of mine is visiting Florida to do some promotional -- work, including -- some photo-signing sessions, and was bemoaning the weight of -- 1100 prints to -- take for handing out to the adoring fans, so I suggested -- sending a scan and -- having them done locally. -- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- Though late, I can recommend this lab. I often visit a friend in Hollywood. Having season tickets midfield for professional football I often take shots using my A* 300/4. I have taken the slides for development there so he could see the shots. They do a great job and the place itself is very professional looking and the people very knowledgeable. Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: Spring's coming!
-- -Original Message- -- From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:08 AM -- -- Henbit is starting to bloom here, which means -- Spring is just around the corner. -- -- Time to get those lenses cleaned up and shake last year's desiccated -- mud out of the ground cloth. -- -- Dan Scott -- Clean the lenses! They should be clean from all the use you have been giving it:') Cannot think of a reason not to be out shooting, unless I myself am uncomfortable. I took some shots of a parade in the French Quarter in New Orleans about two weeks ago. It was raining. So my camera is clean. Just wiped it off with a cloth. Fortunately I had a change of clothing in the car since I came out fairly soaked from that experience. Curious to see how relying on the MZ-S's AF and meter did in that environment. I was shooting the FA* 24/2. Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: The slippery slope of LX and 67 ownership was: More Pentax news/rumors (Now taking a poll)
-- -Original Message- -- From: gfen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:44 PM -- -- I met Cesar's LXen this weekend... I think I could be taken, -- its almost as -- pleasant to look through as my 645. I'm hoping my bargain MX -- will be good -- neough to keep me happy, though. -- -- In other news, that 77ltd sure is a mighty nice looking lens, too. -- -- -- -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a -- poke in your eye. -- http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio. -- Be happy I did not bring them all along - with accessories. Sorry about showing off and taking a picture of the crew by placing the camera on the table removing the prism and focusing using the ground glass ;-) I will have to see which screens I actually have in the two I brought with me. I don't even notice them anymore. Unless I use someone else's camera and I am shocked as to how different the view is... I left the 31 Limited behind this time too, maybe next trip... Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: It's Coming
We Have Been Waiting For Long Enough !!! -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 February 2003 13:03 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: It's Coming Wait For It.
RE: My First Spotmatic
I am so glad to hear that. I have noticed it occasionally when shooting with my collection. I have disregarded it because the images have been fine. Which reminds me that I have to take my screwmount gear out shortly and take them for a spin. Hmmm, maybe Mardi Gras in Mobile, Alabama will be a good place... Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland -- -Original Message- -- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 3:40 PM -- -- At 06:35 PM 2/22/2003 -0500, Gregory wrote: -- -- The offset on top dead center is standard on all the screw -- mount Pentaxes -- I own. What do you mean by flash Dial? -- -- snip
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
You must be lucky. There is no way I wouldn't bracket in those type situations. Your asking for trouble. The LX cant know the film characteristics. Try bracketing in half stop intervals with color neg or BW film, usually there IS a near perfect overall exposure for the scene. Expecting the LX to get it just right on AE with only one exposure is asking for a miracle. JCO -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 8:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:21, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sory, but it's not my theory, it's a FACT. The film reciprocal error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same for different film types. There is no way the LX is spot-on using different films and different exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. I wasn't disputing the phenomenon of film reciprocity but indicating that given the circumstances in which you might allow an LX to auto expose for several minutes, there is no such thing as a technically perfect exposure and that 9/10 exposures in very low light the LX produces usable shots. I know as I've been using an LX this way since 1987 and I'm sure others here have too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: To Everyone who has been published
Collin Brendemuehl polled: What was your first published photograph? about 15yrs ago I did a series of photos of the members of our band for a promo piece in the local paper for free. I still get a nice feeling when I remember how they ooohed aaahed over those nice big *Brownie!* negs. ... best looking images in the whole rag!!8^D Bill - Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX Sory, but it's not my theory, it's a FACT. The film reciprocal error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same for different film types. There is no way the LX is spot-on using different films and different exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. For example TMAX 100 is FASTER than Tri-x 400 after a couple minutes. The LX doesnt know THAT! The only way to ensure you get the correct exposure when you get into multi-second and multi-minute exposures is to bracket, bracket, and bracket. 35mm film is cheap, re-shoots are expensive Failure of the reciprocity effect is predictable and repeatable. Often, it is published in the film spec sheets. I use exposure compensation to adjust the camera for reciprocity when needed. William Robb Do you carry around the data sheets for all the different films you use? I don't. It's much easier and safer to bracket long exposures. AE time exposures dont mix IMHO . BTW, if your going to override the AE with compensations, you might as well go manual and be done with it. JCO
RE: Seeking advise on medium format
-- -Original Message- -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 5:51 PM -- -- -Original Message- -- From: Pål Jensen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- -- Mark wrote: -- -- Actually, I'm considering doing just that myself. I'm -- thinking of the 67 -- 165mm f2.8 for my 645. (I've heard people say they don't -- like the 645 -- 150/2.8, which is the closest 645 lens) -- -- Why? I've heard that the 165/2.8 is not the best among the -- Pentax 67 lenses whereas the 150/2.8 for the 645 is -- supposedly stellar. -- -- Yeah, I was just going through some prints to bring to the PDML -- meeting tonight, and I have a headshot of Cesar I took when -- I borrowed -- one at GFM. You can his skin in excruciating detail. -- -- Frankly, it's disgusting. -- -- tv -- Thanks Tom. I'm going to go tell my mom on you :-P I must admit that with its sharpness and my not being unshaven it is not the most pleasing photo I have seen of myself. Though I hear you have a hot of me wearing a soft lens cap... César Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
Re: Digital Camera Predictions by Thom Hogan
Don't worry, we have Shaun for that. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thom appears to be electronically challenged. Thom did write the Nikon Flash Guide though. A fine book it is too. It may be but it's also a far cry from imaging sensor design theory :-)
DCPDML last night.
I want to thank Tom for orchestrating the get together last night. I had a great time. It was the largest gathering here that I have attended. And for those keeping notes, it matched the turn out in NY. It was great seeing old friends again and meeting new ones. And a couple of us diehards actually hung out for a little longer... Maybe my next trip will provide better seasonal timing to include some shooting. Always looking for a PDML gathering, César Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
Re: MV
I don't know if it's the same exact shutter as an ME, but it seems a bit noisier. Perhaps the mirror damping or part of the housing is different and doesn't absorb the noise as well. It also has no real exposure compensation other than changing the ASA, and the rewind knob is less ergonomic. It does have the in-viewfinder flash confirmation, though, which the ME doesn't. Joe It's essentially a stripped down ME, as such it's as good as an ME. I've been happy with the one I have for it's purposes. At 09:47 PM 2/24/2003 -0800, you wrote: Is the Pentax MV any good? Just curious... Thanks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: It's Coming
Mike wrote: MJ Wait MJ For MJ It. It's a stray message from a parallel universe where Pentax owns C*non. Ignore it... Servus, Alin :oT
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
For a while i was tempted to part with my K1000's,Spotties and such,to fund an LX, but the Super Program and that would be it.But with all the horrer stories lately about poor LX service,long waits,iratable shutters etc,i'm not so sure that s a good way to go now. Dave Brooks You must be lucky. There is no way I wouldn't bracket in those type situations. Your asking for trouble. The LX cant know the film characteristics.
RE: My latest view lens
JC, What film were you using? What developer? When I'm done with the Plus-X /HC-110 I have right now, the next step will be Acros and Rodinol. Looked into T-Max, but nobody here stocks the sheet film developer. Just the roll film version. ( Yes, there are two different developers. Anyone know the real difference? ) A 4x5 lense, like is 35mm counterpart, hits its best performance point @ about 2/3 stopped down. Go to f22 and you'll enjoy the results. You can find the vintage year of you Schneider lens via the serial number at http://www.schneideroptics.com I had some fun Sunday. Shot a frosted wine bottle against a dark background. Fun to print as well. Required a filter to enhance the contrast, but nice results. Send me your address I'll mail you a print. Enjoy it. Collin
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
John Mustarde wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:49:53 -0500 (EST), you wrote: Photography can be expensive. Not really. Sell all those old third-party and second-tier lenses you've accumulated over the years and get some real Big Glass. Let's see, an SMCP-M 50/2, a Sears 135/2.8, a Sears 80-200/4, a Kalimar 500mm reflex, a 2x TC without a brand name, an FA 28-90mm kit lens... Think I could get $200 for the lot? There's a mint Pentax FA* 600/4 on Ebay for only $3699. A dirt-cheap bargain. I think we must all have our own ideas of expensive and dirt-cheap.
RE: MF Normal Lens
It's funny but she doesn't like the weight because she has been using the ZX-7. I am constantly reminded that whereas most of use like the feel of a metal camera, her genration thinks nothing of having plastic, since most of there favorite things (CD players, etc.) are the same level of construction. This just feels natural to them, whereas the metal stuff feels heavy and clunky. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/24/03 04:56PM the sp500 and the k1000 weigh virtually the same! Thats because a K1000 is essentially the same chassis with a k mount JCO
RE: DCPDML last night.
-Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I want to thank Tom for orchestrating the get together last night. Someone has to do it. I had a great time. It was the largest gathering here that I have attended. And for those keeping notes, it matched the turn out in NY. Yeah, it was good that so many folks showed up. Ed will probably send me the pic he took with his D100 today, so I can post it later. It was great seeing old friends again and meeting new ones. And a couple of us diehards actually hung out for a little longer... Sorry we had to bolt. #7 was getting antsy. tv
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] For a while i was tempted to part with my K1000's,Spotties and such,to fund an LX, but the Super Program and that would be it.But with all the horrer stories lately about poor LX service,long waits,iratable shutters etc,i'm not so sure that s a good way to go now. Geoff needs to post his horror story. tv
Re: *IST Incongruencies
I agree. I though Bruce's rely was saying that N and C users didn't notice the MZ-S, which I thought was an unusual expectatin. Maybe I misunderstood his point. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/24/03 07:23PM - Original Message - From: Steve Desjardins Subject: Re: *IST Incongruencies I can see how someone might switch if all they have is an entry or mid-range camera, but I would be surprised to see anyone considering the almost-high end (MZ-S, F-100, EOS-3) to switch. I'd be very surprised if Pentax could come out with any camera that could make a pro/advanced amateur switch. The idea isn't to get people to switch to your brand, the idea is to keep people from switching to something other than your brand, and to hopefully entice new users to your brand rather than another brand. With the stranglehold that Nikon and Canon have on the 35mm pro market, Pentax would do well to keep doing what they have always done, and ignore that segment completely. William Robb
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Peter Jansen said: My point is: if you're going to spend $5000 on a lens, get a major brand name like Pentax. You're better off to save a little more to get a better lens. Plus like John said, there's always used glass for sale that's cheaper than this Sigma. The Pentax lens comes for $2000 more, 200mm shy. And with a 1.4x TC short one f/stop and I miss the magic f/5.6 that autofocus needs, while the Sigma is image stabilized. What makes me better off with the Pentax lens? The Pentax lens is actually $2500 more, but add $200-500 for a camera compatible with the Sigma lens. At that level you buy the lens, then get whatever camera it takes. Also consider that the resale on this lens will be lousy when you want to get rid of it. I'm not sure it would be, but resale value is about the worst reason to make a buying decision. --- Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Peter Jansen said: I'd spend the extra $2000 and get a decent lens. What's wrong with the Sigma?
Re: MF Normal Lens
Sharp, well made, smooth as butter (like all screwmount Taks that I've used), they are simply a joy to use. This is exactly it. I think I just want to use this lens becuase the feel of the MF ring is so nice. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's Coming
Seems that Friday is early this week... Alin Flaider wrote: Mike wrote: MJ Wait MJ For MJ It. It's a stray message from a parallel universe where Pentax owns C*non. Ignore it... Servus, Alin :oT
Re: MV
I bought the MV with the 40 f2.8 for $100 in San Francisco in 1981. If was a small, light camera that performed well for many years, until the advance clutch broke in 2000. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Pentax Hero
OK. Cesar is the official Pentax hero... Cesar Matamoros II [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am strapped into a side-facing seat of a UH-1 helicopter taking photos and slightly leaning out to get a better view. It is when you hear the pilot say oh-oh! over the intercom that it kind of grabs your attention. We were on the Honduras-Nicaragua border, or rather supposed to be close to it. We had inadvertently entered Nicaraguan airspace, and not by just a bit. Don't think we were in any danger at any point, but it did get the adrenaline going. For the longest time I could not tell people where the shots were taken... We did have a fun ride going back to camp as we did a map of the earth at high speed. Some of the other passengers did not see the fun in it. It brings to mind my first ever helicopter ride earlier that year. I believe it was a Bell, similar to the one used in the U.S. television show Magnum P.I. We were being used as a target for some radar testing near the Albermarle Sound in North Carolina. It was winter. I got some great shots during the flight - one of which sits atop a speaker at my house. Anyhow, the pilot was playing around seeing if we could hide by getting close to the sea. We had waves going over the skids! As we were going back up we felt a shudder. Surveying the prop and such we could see no bird strike. It was when we felt the second shudder that he decided to call it a day and find someplace nearby to land. Did I metion that it was winter and a water landing would have been fatal? We headed to some farmland and as we were landing, still a good height above the ground, the engine gave out and we autorotated safely to the ground. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Seeking advise on medium format
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: do you still get the auto aperture function when you mount a 67 lens on a 645 body via the adapter? From 67-645, yes. From 645-K, no..stop down only. (of course, for those of us who are obsessed with wide open, that's not so bad at all) -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
JCO wrote: You must be lucky. There is no way I wouldn't bracket in those type situations. Your asking for trouble. If you're exposing something that takes minutes, the bracketed shot may be of a different subject! At least with what I'm shooting there is no second chance. The subject has changed in the mean time. The LX cant know the film characteristics. No but the photographer can. Knowing the reciprocity characteristics of the film is no big deal with some experience. Couple this with experience with the meters peculiarities and you're all set. Pål
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
JCO wrote: AE time exposures dont mix IMHO . BTW, if your going to override the AE with compensations, you might as well go manual and be done with it. Nope. AE and long exposure is where it really works. I cannot judge exposure in low light and doubt anyone else can. In addition, finding a meter that give you reading when the LX does is hard to find and impossible to find anything that meters during exposure. Pål
Re: LX Rumor
-- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in -- an eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? -- -- ;-) -- -- Fred Ahhh, a traditionalist. Those who have seen my Cobra LX for the first time this trip have commented that it looks a lot better than in the photos ;-) If not snake, then another skin perhaps? How about Naugahyde? I don't think it would take the skins of too many cute little naugas to cover an LX. ;-) Fred
RE: Seeking advise on medium format
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, tom wrote: Wierd, I think this is the greatest short tele of all time. The FA150/2.8 or the A150/3.5? I remember hearing less-than-stellar talk about one of them, I thought they were in fact referring to the FA version, not the older A. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
RE: DCPDML last night.
-Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well what do you expect after meeting with PDML members two times in the same week. She'll begin to think your a member of some strange cult. Hey, that was Cesar, who *is* a member of some weird cult. They sacrifice snakes. tv
Re: Giga pixels is possible?
Peter tell that to the digital is better fanatics, they claim film held back lenses. Of course we all know better, right? --- Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly you can't get a lens good enough to take full advantage of film. At some point far before we reach this sensor size the law of diminishing returns takes over. At 03:11 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: Look, they already have today a 14Mpixel in 1.5 square inches. (Kodak). Multipy that by 70 and you have 1 gigapixel. So even with today's pixel density, they could get 1 gigapixel with a 108 square inch sensor. This would be approx a 9 X 12 large format camera. Not exactly portable, but imagine the quality of the image if you could get a lens good enuff to take advantage of it! JCO Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: Seeking advise on medium format
I used to have a p6x7, but sold it last year. The answer really depends on what you plan it to use for. Do you need AF and automation? Is weight a factor? How big a tripod do you want to carry? Metal or plastic? Price? Do you need zooms? Do you care for a lot of primes? Do you prefer square or rectangular? Do you consider straight ground glass focussing a must? Once you have answered these questions, there's usually one or two cameras left. P6x7 and 645 are so different creatures that (IMO) they shouldn't be considered simultaneously. For me the answer was (unexpectedly) a rollei tlr (although I now considering a used 'blad, since the prices seem to be dropping through the floor). Best, Mishka From: Francis Alviar Subject: Seeking advise on medium format Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:56:53 -0800 I am considering investing in a medium format system. I'd like to ask owners of the Pentax 645 and Pentax 67 cameras their opinion on which system to invest in and why. Besides the difference in film size, what are the advantages and disadvantages of a 645 camera compared to a 67 camera and vice versa? Thank you. Francis M. Alviar
Steve Sanders's Canon i950 review
Everybody should read this: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i950.html Skip to the conclusion if you're bored by the details. --Mike
Re: It's Coming
Mike, You big tease! Bruce Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 7:40:25 AM, you wrote: MJ It's MJ Coming.
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
I have to agree with Rob, I used to bracket by two stops on either side, (exposure compensation ring on the LX), and before that timed exposures with an MX. The un-compensated LX exposure is almost always the most correct. At 11:21 PM 2/25/2003 +1000, you wrote: On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:21, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sory, but it's not my theory, it's a FACT. The film reciprocal error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same for different film types. There is no way the LX is spot-on using different films and different exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. I wasn't disputing the phenomenon of film reciprocity but indicating that given the circumstances in which you might allow an LX to auto expose for several minutes, there is no such thing as a technically perfect exposure and that 9/10 exposures in very low light the LX produces usable shots. I know as I've been using an LX this way since 1987 and I'm sure others here have too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: *IST Incongruencies
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The idea isn't to get people to switch to your brand, the idea is to keep people from switching to something other than your brand, and to hopefully entice new users to your brand rather than another brand. Where's that emergency sentence-parsing decoder ring when I need it? I remember a brilliant Doonesbury strip from the 1970's in which Richard Nixon is explaining to Leonid Brezhnev how he handles the press during difficult times (this strip was done during the Watergate scandal). He summons the infamous Ron Zeigler (press secretary?) who responds to a question with In order to be responsive at this time, let me say that, as I said - and therefore this is a restatement of what I have said earlier - that which we are unable to offer in response is based on information already available. Very impressive! responds Brezhnev. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: My latest view lens
I used a Speed Graphic on a tripod last night... In a... *GASP* STUDIO, of all places! My first real 4x5 pictures. And more to come on Friday. It's amazing how the bigger the camera is, the more intimidated people feel when it's pointed at them... -Mat gfen wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Speed graphic 4X5, Lens shutter used, not focal plane. TRIPOD!!! Where's Graywolf? Someone has to admonish you for using the Speed on a tripod. (I mean, he's done it to me in the past, I just want others to share the blame)
RE: The slippery slope of LX and 67 ownership was: More Pentaxnews/rumors (Now taking a poll)
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Be happy I did not bring them all along - with accessories. Sorry about showing off and taking a picture of the crew by placing the camera on the table removing the prism and focusing using the ground glass ;-) What can I say, I'm easily amused. And I was just thinking to myself how useful that would've been to have in places (its why I kept my TLR). I left the 31 Limited behind this time too, maybe next trip... You need the 43, just to complete the set. Don't stop, you know you wnat it. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: LX Rumor
I'm staying out of the Nauga thread, yes I am. At 09:58 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: -- Cesar is going to get that LX Ti and put snake skin on it. -- -- Snakeskin ?!? Well, we'll just have to do a Denial of Service -- attack on whatever mail server he would use to try to sneak in -- an eBay snipe, that's all... Snakeskin ?!? -- -- ;-) -- -- Fred Ahhh, a traditionalist. Those who have seen my Cobra LX for the first time this trip have commented that it looks a lot better than in the photos ;-) If not snake, then another skin perhaps? How about Naugahyde? I don't think it would take the skins of too many cute little naugas to cover an LX. ;-) Fred Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: *IST Incongruencies
It's in the box of Corn Flakes Mike. The Corn Flakes. At 09:44 AM 2/25/2003 -0600, you wrote: The idea isn't to get people to switch to your brand, the idea is to keep people from switching to something other than your brand, and to hopefully entice new users to your brand rather than another brand. Where's that emergency sentence-parsing decoder ring when I need it? --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Giga pixels is possible?
I tried for a while, now I just want the latest digital, spend all my money on digital that will make every thing all right. Yes it will, that's what the voices tell me. At 10:44 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: Peter tell that to the digital is better fanatics, they claim film held back lenses. Of course we all know better, right? --- Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sadly you can't get a lens good enough to take full advantage of film. At some point far before we reach this sensor size the law of diminishing returns takes over. At 03:11 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: Look, they already have today a 14Mpixel in 1.5 square inches. (Kodak). Multipy that by 70 and you have 1 gigapixel. So even with today's pixel density, they could get 1 gigapixel with a 108 square inch sensor. This would be approx a 9 X 12 large format camera. Not exactly portable, but imagine the quality of the image if you could get a lens good enuff to take advantage of it! JCO Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re[2]: It's Coming
Pentax is pregnant! At 05:35 PM 2/25/2003 +0200, you wrote: Caveman wrote: C Seems that Friday is early this week... Nah, Pentax is late... as usual. Servus, Alin Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re[2]: It's Coming
Again At 05:35 PM 2/25/2003 +0200, you wrote: Caveman wrote: C Seems that Friday is early this week... Nah, Pentax is late... as usual. Servus, Alin Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
I asked this before but got no response. What is the ACTUAL EXPOSED dimensions of the Pentax 645 frame? TIA, JCO
Re: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
JCO wrote: It's not AE if you override it. It's basically pseudo manual. Oh really? I'd rather just go REAL manual in that situation. Good luck!
Re: It's Coming
Well, one can assume, with reasonably accuracy, that we are approaching some embargo deadline - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 4:40 PM Subject: Re: It's Coming It's Coming.
RE: DCPDML last night.
See. At 11:10 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Well what do you expect after meeting with PDML members two times in the same week. She'll begin to think your a member of some strange cult. Hey, that was Cesar, who *is* a member of some weird cult. They sacrifice snakes. tv Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX
it depends on the film, how many times do I have to say it??? i.e. TMAX 100 is faster than tri-x 400 at long time exposures. The camera cant be right for both If it was right with one film, it will be wrong with another... JCO -Original Message- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 10:59 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Bodies: K2 vs. KX vs. LX I have to agree with Rob, I used to bracket by two stops on either side, (exposure compensation ring on the LX), and before that timed exposures with an MX. The un-compensated LX exposure is almost always the most correct. At 11:21 PM 2/25/2003 +1000, you wrote: On 25 Feb 2003 at 3:21, J. C. O'Connell wrote: Sory, but it's not my theory, it's a FACT. The film reciprocal error is not linear vs time, nor is it the same for different film types. There is no way the LX is spot-on using different films and different exposure times once you go longer than 1 second. I wasn't disputing the phenomenon of film reciprocity but indicating that given the circumstances in which you might allow an LX to auto expose for several minutes, there is no such thing as a technically perfect exposure and that 9/10 exposures in very low light the LX produces usable shots. I know as I've been using an LX this way since 1987 and I'm sure others here have too. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: It's Coming
It's Coming. Would that be by some mischance the second issue of your revered organ, Sir? I only seem to have received one ish, and a good deal longer ago than 3 months. Kind regards Peter
Re: It's Coming
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, then again I'm not sure I want to know. At 11:29 AM 2/25/2003 -0500, you wrote: It's Coming. Would that be by some mischance the second issue of your revered organ, Sir? I only seem to have received one ish, and a good deal longer ago than 3 months. Kind regards Peter Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
-Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I asked this before but got no response. What is the ACTUAL EXPOSED dimensions of the Pentax 645 frame? It's about 5.6 x 4.1 cm according to my ruler. tv
Re: Spring's coming!
On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Clean the lenses! They should be clean from all the use you have been giving it:') Cannot think of a reason not to be out shooting, unless I myself am uncomfortable. I took some shots of a parade in the French Quarter in New Orleans about two weeks ago. It was raining. So my camera is clean. Just wiped it off with a cloth. Fortunately I had a change of clothing in the car since I came out fairly soaked from that experience. Curious to see how relying on the MZ-S's AF and meter did in that environment. I was shooting the FA* 24/2. Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland Let me clarifymy people kit has been getting good use, but my flower kit hasn't. Better?;-) Dan Scott
Re: OT: Kodak RFS 3600 scanner
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: Being able to scan a whole roll of uncut slide or negative film is wonderful; a big time saver. Are there any other scanners out there that let you do this? chris
Re: *IST Incongruencies
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Peter Alling wrote: It's in the box of Corn Flakes Mike. The Corn Flakes. Ah, yes, Kellogs Born Flakes. chris
Re[3]: It's Coming
Peter wrote: PA Pentax is pregnant! An abortion is in order, in the good Pentax management tradition. Servus, Alin ;o)
RE: It's Coming
IS IT HERE YET?
Re: Sigma 300-800mm
Doug Franklin wrote: On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:50:45 -0700, John Mustarde wrote: Photography can be expensive. Not really. Not nearly as expensive as auto racing. Thank your lucky stars you're only interested in photography that much. :-) I've got both diseases. Speaking of which, I saw an LX user at the 100 Acre Woods Rally here in the States last weekend. I was in a car, so I couldn't talk to him- anyone on the list? -Ryan N9YBX TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: It's Coming
It's Coming. Jumping Jehosaphat! Michael, if you know something, kindly spit it out, or you may find a few PDMLers on your doorstep with an Anti-Embargo Information Extraction Device - namely a film cassette opener, and we won't leave you in a pretty state.!!! Spill it now, scribe! Old One-Eyed Cotty sound of chewin baccy hitting tin Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: It's Coming
IS IT HERE YET? Not here, but there.
RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
Thanks, I'm doing some stats on film formats and was very curious. JCO -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...) -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I asked this before but got no response. What is the ACTUAL EXPOSED dimensions of the Pentax 645 frame? It's about 5.6 x 4.1 cm according to my ruler. tv
Re: OT: Kodak RFS 3600 scanner
I bought one of these scanners for the paper that I worked for, based pretty much just on it's ability to batch scan 35mm film. It's not that great a feature, the scanner is slow, and it's image quality is hit-and-miss. Image quality is better with perfectly exposed negs, but... All I'm saying is to try it out before you buy. Nick Wright On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 10:58 AM, Chris Brogden wrote: On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Mark Roberts wrote: Being able to scan a whole roll of uncut slide or negative film is wonderful; a big time saver. Are there any other scanners out there that let you do this? chris
Re: It's Coming
Rob Brigham wrote: IS IT HERE YET? Sorry, you missed it -- Later, Gary
Re: Steve Sanders's Canon i950 review
Mike Johnston wrote: Everybody should read this: http://www.steves-digicams.com/2003_reviews/canon_i950.html Skip to the conclusion if you're bored by the details. Sounds like an excellent printer but was cunfused by a mention of the PC cartridge. He showed a picture of this cart. being almost empty after printing but was not sure how many prints they did. From what I remember, it sounded like just one 8x10. If that's the case, that could get real expensive at around $12 a pop... -- Later, Gary
RE: Seeking advise on medium format
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, tom wrote: Trust me, the FA is great. I won't doubt you, I just received the A150 about two weeks ago, I haven't really done much with it. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: How to unsubscribe?
Fred wrote: How to Unsubscribe. Materials you will need: [snipped] Procedure: [snipped] Thanks for the recipe, Mark - LOL. Fred thanks for snipping, Fred :) and ditto the LOL! mark, have you considered a job at SNL? they could use you ... annsan
Re: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
Interesting mathematical progression with the three Pentax formats. 35mm: 2:3645: 3:46x7: 4:5 I don't believe any other camera company offers this many ways to express your personal vision. Pat White
Re: Optical advice
I guess I must be stupid, but I still don't get it. According to my optician a 'normal sighted' person should dioptre 0, and glasses should correct defects of vision to that 'zero-level'. Why then put -diopters into the viewfinder? I think most of the Pentax cameras have about a -1.0 diopter viewfinder eyepiece (I remember that some of them might be -0.8). I don't think it's unusual, isn't it so that a 20/20 eye can better focus on the viewfinder screen by making it seem like it's about a meter away? I think it's only confusing with some camera brands when you buy the correction eyepieces, some are marked for the corrective power of the diopter correction, but some take into consideration what the correction will be when put on the already -1.0 viewfinder eyepiece. Putting on a +1.0 eyepiece would bring it to 0.0, but that's not necessarily the ideal, although it may be for your eye. Joe The ME-super has - for some strange reason - a -1.0 diopter eyepiece. Bit of a problem when using glasses. Would it be a solution to put on a +1.0 correction eyepiece? Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peter Smekal Uppsala, Sweden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Spring's coming!
-- -Original Message- -- From: Dan Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:51 AM -- -- -- On Tuesday, February 25, 2003, at 07:30 AM, Cesar Matamoros -- II wrote: -- -- -- Clean the lenses! They should be clean from all the use -- you have been -- giving it:') Cannot think of a reason not to be out -- shooting, unless I -- myself am uncomfortable. I took some shots of a parade in -- the French -- Quarter in New Orleans about two weeks ago. It was -- raining. So my -- camera -- is clean. Just wiped it off with a cloth. Fortunately I -- had a change -- of -- clothing in the car since I came out fairly soaked from that -- experience. -- Curious to see how relying on the MZ-S's AF and meter did in that -- environment. I was shooting the FA* 24/2. -- -- Cesar -- Panama City, Florida -- in Baltimore, Maryland -- -- -- Let me clarifymy people kit has been getting good use, but -- my flower -- kit hasn't. Better?;-) -- -- Dan Scott -- Ahhh, the specialist... :-) Csar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: It's Coming
-- -Original Message- -- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:24 PM -- To: Pentax List -- Subject: Re: It's Coming -- -- -- It's -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Coming. -- -- Jumping Jehosaphat! Michael, if you know something, kindly -- spit it out, -- or you may find a few PDMLers on your doorstep with an Anti-Embargo -- Information Extraction Device - namely a film cassette -- opener, and we -- won't leave you in a pretty state.!!! -- -- Spill it now, scribe! -- -- Old One-Eyed Cotty -- sound of chewin baccy hitting tin -- -- I just assumed he was talking about his LX... Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
RE: DCPDML last night.
-- -Original Message- -- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:10 AM -- -- -Original Message- -- From: Peter Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -- -- Well what do you expect after meeting with PDML members two -- times in the same week. She'll begin to think your a member of -- some strange cult. -- -- Hey, that was Cesar, who *is* a member of some weird cult. They -- sacrifice snakes. -- -- tv -- -- It's just envy vbg Cesar Panama City, Florida in Baltimore, Maryland
Re: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
I asked this before but got no response. What is the ACTUAL EXPOSED dimensions of the Pentax 645 frame? I think it's 56 x 41mm. That's going by a very old memory, but if memory serves --Mike
Re: It's Coming
Damn the Polish Pentax distributor - I know nothing about what's coming :-( Lukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii --r-e-k-l-a-m-a- Tanie bilety lotnicze! http://samoloty.onet.pl
Re: It's Coming
Would that be by some mischance the second issue of your revered organ, Sir? I only seem to have received one ish, and a good deal longer ago than 3 months. That too. But that's not what I was talking about. It **IS** Coming..
RE: Aspect ratios (was seeking advise...)
-Original Message- From: Pat White [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Interesting mathematical progression with the three Pentax formats. 35mm: 2:3645: 3:46x7: 4:5 How does 6/7 reduce to 4/5? I don't believe any other camera company offers this many ways to express your personal vision. My first guess would be that Fuji would win this one: 6x45, 6x7, 6x8, 6x9, 35mm p+s, APS digital sensor, Xpan (TC-1), large format lenses. tv
