Re: Joe's ultrawides test
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Joseph Tainter wrote: > was so dim that I was shooting ISO 3200, 1/30 second (handheld), with > the FA* 24 at f2.0. That's at the edge, obviously, and shows why the FA > 20 f2.8 won't do. I will get the DA 14, but as you can see there will be > times when it is too slow. Yes, but *perhaps* the 14 can be handheld at 1/15? Kostas
Re: pic
Hello Butch, Thanks. We are still trying to decide if they are cardboard cutouts or not . -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 10:49:36 PM, you wrote: BB> Great pic BTW. BB> I don't suppose you got model releases for the two fishermen as that image BB> would make a great vacation spot ad picture BB> Butch BB> Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself. BB> Hermann Hesse (Demian)
Re: OT; Best Photocopier?
On Jun 9, 2004, at 12:54 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: I can't think of a better place to turn than the diverse wisdom and experience of this august group. My office is shopping for a new copier. Does anyone know of web sites that contain user reviews and/or durability statistics? I tried searching but turned up nothing. Nope, but you just reminded me of a Photoshop technique that was published in Computer Arts magazine a couple of months ago. The author said that the best way to get the effect they wanted was to print the photo, run it through a photocopier or a fax machine then scan it back in. I wonder if Photoshop 9 will come with a photocopy filter :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
It's Official - DSLR announcement
Added sometime recently to the pentax USA page: http://pentaxusa.com/news/news_display.cfm?pressid=196 Some text from page: [snip] PENTAX PLANS DIGITAL SLR FAMILY EXPANSION June 8, 2004 (GOLDEN, CO) – PENTAX Imaging Company, a division of PENTAX of America, Inc. has announced it is developing cameras for the entry level digital SLR category. The first introduction is slated for Fall of 2004. ... This latest announcement further demonstrates the PENTAX commitment to the digital SLR camera market including entry level photographers. [/snip] Sounds like they have big plans! David
SMC-F 28 f2.8 some impressions.
My initial impressions of the lens were positive. The sharpness was good, and I was finding it harder to look beyond the jpeg compression as it looked to me like the compression was holding the lens back, so I tested it with some RAW images... It's incredibly sharp, incredibly good. The resolution is clearly better than what the 20-35mm can manage. There is no comparison. I am thoroughly amazed. I used the Photoshop conversion to smooth things out a bit, and its still sharp as a tack. Clearly RAW provides advantages over the jpegs, I know there probably aren't many on this list who would debate that, but people have told me as much in the past, so its good to see the advantages RAW can provide if you have an excellent lens. I highly recommend this piece of equipment. I'll post a more complete review with some photo-samples in the near future. -Shawn
RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
On 8 Jun 2004 at 21:52, Shawn K. wrote: > Rob, please now, spare your BS, No problems, I'll spare you directly from now on, you best set up a mail filter otherwise. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Stan Halpin wrote: > The FA 20-35/4.0 won't give you the same reach as the 28-70, even on > the *ist-D, , but it is a nice lens. Worth looking at. I already own the 16-45/4.0, so I'm looking for something longer. I find the 16-45 to be my normal every day lens, and liked the 28-70 as a slightly longer lens for events (weddings, etc). I don't shoot people that often, so the 28-70/4.0 didn't get tons of use, but it got enough to justify replacing it. alex
RE: Left eye dominant (was Papa-D)
Okay Steve, Did you make that up because you have met me? :-) I think I have some nice shots of the two of you, separately though. I will post it to you offline if they do not make a webpage, Cesar Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:54 AM I've heard that this sort of switching can lead to an imbalance in brain chemistry and eventual madness. Well, Ok, I made that up, but watch it anyway. ;-0 >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/08/04 08:12AM >>> I used to be left eyed. I found it difficult to continue to be using the MZ-S. I found it very easy to shoot with the right eye. So I guess I am right-eyed with cameras that need the room for my right hand to work controls, and can be left-eyed otherwise. I actually switch which eye I use with my other cameras. H, Cesar Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 11:07 AM I'm left eyed dominant as well, as I found to my surprise, never even noticed it. I'm curious if it's 50/50 or is it predominately right-eyed? Norm Rob Studdert wrote: >I'm a left eye'd shooter, I can't use the button on the back, it's as wasted on >me as the vertical shutter release on the grip.
RE: PAW - Mountain Man
You obviously cloned those ears on me to make me look sillier than I already do. You'll hear from my lawyer. BTW, the lovely mountain in the background is OOF... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: PAW - Mountain Man Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:04:23 -0400 This came out so well I simply couldn't resist posting it. http://home.wlu.edu/~desjardi/ Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: My new-to-me MZ S!
Jens - I have an FA* 80-200/2.8 that cost me less than $1000 (used). There are others out there now and then. You have a better chance finding one than getting a 70-210/2.8 anytime soon. Do you really need that extra 10mm on either end? Stan On Jun 4, 2004, at 1:37 PM, Jens Bladt wrote: Great idea, Dario, except I would prefer a Tokina, if possible! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Dario Bonazza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 4. juni 2004 17:19 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: My new-to-me MZ S! Jens Bladt wrote: I would like a SMC 2.8/70-210mm - for less than 1000 USD! Is that possible? That was my need too. I ended up buying an AF Sigma EX 2.8/70-200, costing around $650 and reputed to perform better than any other 70-200 (or the like) on the market (including Canon/Nikon/Pentax). It will be a nice addition to my *ist D + DA 16-45mm, I think. Not yet received it, but I'm confident I'll get it within a week or so. Dario Bonazza
RE: Baby-D potential owner survey
I might. I use the camera a lot at work. I will be sending my *ist D in before the warranty expires for cleaning and such. I will need a digital SLR when it is gone. Also, if I do start shooting digitally at certain events, I will need a backup. It all comes down to price I guess, César Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:31 AM Actually this was meant to be a test message, because about 3 posts over the past week haven't gone through. But well, just in case it -does- go through, thought it should look a bit more interesting than -testing testing-. So. Assuming Baby D's out, at least 5mp and more or less a 300D to a 10D, full featured K mount, around USD800. Which of you already Pappy-D owners will buy it, and why? Cheers, Ryan
RE: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv
Cesar, Oh yeah. I forgot about that! Thanks for reminding me... NOT! -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> That's your side of the story. Just glad that no one had a camera ready when Frank was standing beside me :-P The list has gotten busy with all of us back - 200 messages to catch up, Cesar Panama City, Florida _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: photography vs cameras
Interesting article. Do you think Laurenceau's work falls in that category? rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: "Gonz" Subject: Re: photography vs cameras Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work? http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558 In his case I don't think his talent is due to his equipment, even if it IS a hassy + nice lenses. Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape. William Robb 1209 Horace St. Regina, Sk. Canada S4t 5L5
Re: Tan from Japan...
Bill, She did, several times. She stopped, when I told her I quite enjoyed it... -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Damnit Tanja, I said hit him for me. William Robb _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: My favorite GFM photo
Cesar, Link no good for me. Funny, Jostein kept tapping me on the shoulder, as if he knew how a real bazooka worked. Or, maybe he's watched too many war movies. -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Cesar Matamoros II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: My favorite GFM photo Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:46:38 -0400 Frank, I was one for sure. Look at http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/gfm.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=91 1 just finished putting it up. You make a hell of a tripod :-) Still have to go through all the digital shots, César _ MSN Premium: Up to 11 personalized e-mail addresses and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
Rob, please now, spare your BS, I honestly doubt you would notice the difference in sharpness as a print, or at anything less than 100% view in Photoshop... As for the rest of it, well, you may be partially correct, perhaps it SHOULD be better... You know, I think that all the lens manufacturers have been leading us around in circles for about 20 years regarding image quality, and that's just from my experience with older glass. I certainly wasn't using cameras 20 or even 10 years ago... I'm using old lenses now and finding them the equal or better, optically to the newer lenses. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Samples from DA14/2.8! On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:03, Shawn K. wrote: > I have to disagree with you here Rob. The 16-45 has CA problems worse than this > that I've seen, so it doesn't surprise me, especially since this lens is 14mm, > and that alone is a difficult thing to accomplish... The difficulty in producing good wide angles is generally associated with their extreme WA coverage it's not a function solely of the of the FL. The smaller the area of the projected image behind the lens the easier it is to produce the lens. There are some very low distortion very cheap sub 5mm lenses being produced for small sensor digicams. At it's price and given it's limited scope for use I'd expect it to be near perfect. > I honestly think the > resolution of the lens is beyond the capability of the istD's sensor That I can assure you it is not if you are referring to the Pentax samples as examples. > I've seen much worse examples of CA, > particularly of the FA 24mm lens. Which out of the array of lenses I own has the poorest CA performance of the lot. > Maybe you are trying to get Pentax to make some last minute quality > upgrades by complaining loudly, I don't know. I'm just being honest. As am I. > The > pictures weren't amazingly good, but then again, the lens is 14mm's, and it's a > 2.8, and it's going to debut at less than 700 dollars. The A 15mm is about > double that, and has problems of its own, so you tell me which lens is the > better bang for the buck. The A15/3.5mm is US$900 at the most and it's usable on all Pentax bodies so you tell me which is the best value? > By the way, everyone knows that in camera sharpening even on the highest > setting does practically nothing. All the image settings in camera make > very slight changes actually, and the sharpness is the most slight of them > all. Strangely I can see the difference between settings. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: I'm Back (GFM aftermath)
Marnie, We missed you on the last day. Too little time with each person, Cesar Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 2:29 AM Well, I survived. Despite several disasters, well, mishaps, well, bad things. Not sure what quite to call them. Unpleasant travel experiences? Seeing everyone was fun, though. Marnie aka Doe I just got back from St. Louis, visiting a friend on the way home.
RE: OT - GFM pics from tan and tv
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 10:30 PM > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On 7 Jun 2004 at 2:56, tom wrote: > > > Damn I'm tired. Here are some pics from tan's *ist-D - > > > > http://www.bigdayphoto.com/tan/index.htm > > Great pics, I'm sad I missed it. > > What the hell did Tan do to Norm? :-) She has that effect on some people. I think Cesar tried to take his shirt off at some point but we were able to stop him. tv tv, That's your side of the story. Just glad that no one had a camera ready when Frank was standing beside me :-P The list has gotten busy with all of us back - 200 messages to catch up, Cesar Panama City, Florida
RE: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
> Sadly there don't seem to be any great replacements to > consider. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di XR seems to be highly > regarded and is very small for a lens of that length, but is > more than twice the weight (510g vs 240g) and a lot more expensive. My husband likes his Tamron 24-135mm f3.5-5.6. It was almost $500. > The 24-90/3.5-4.5 seems like a reasonable compromise, but > they are still pretty expensive. > > Any other suggestions? This will be for a *ist D. It won't > get tons of use but I find this focal length to be fairly > useful for certain types of events. > > Is the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 any good? > > The only other moderately fast lens in this range seems to be > the Sigma 28-70/2.8-4. At $119 (bhphoto) I can't really > imagine that it is very good. Comments? From > photographyreview.com it sounds like there is a lot of > distortion at the wide end. I have the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4. It's not wonderfully contrasty or anything, but it's sharp enough. I think I paid $130 for it used at B&H; new I believe it's $150. Mine lives on my istD and I really like it as a general-use lens. Amita
GFM and Mark Roberts and Bill Owens
Hi, People who write much prettier than me have said what a great time they had at GFM, what a great group PDML is, what a pleasure it was to meet so many of us, etc. etc. I'll merely echo those comments. I do want to explicitly thank Mark Roberts for driving me from Pittsburgh to NC (and back), for keeping me overnight twice at his friend's cabin near West Jefferson NC, for showing great hospitality in having me stay over last night at his place in Pittsburgh, for introducing me to his beautiful SO, Lisa, for taking me out to a lovely dinner last night, and for stimulating conversation on two very long drives. Thanks, Mark, for everything. Also, while in "thank you", mode, Thanks to Bill Owens for a place to sleep at PDML Central, for a great chili dinner, a great breakfast, great homebrew beer, lots of coffee in the morning, and for introducing me to his lovely wife Phyllis. GFM wouldn't have been what it was without you, Bill. Thanks. Okay, back to your regulary scheduled programming... thanks, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pic
Thanks Charles. Maybe they are just cardboard cutouts they put up for us photogs to get a nice shot. :) Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 7:09:31 PM, you wrote: CBJ> Nice shot Bruce. Great sky and reflection. I think I saw those same two CBJ> fishermen yesterday when I was at Price Lake. CBJ> Charles
RE: My favorite GFM photo
Frank, I was one for sure. Look at http://groups.msn.com/CesarsPhotography/gfm.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=91 1 just finished putting it up. You make a hell of a tripod :-) Still have to go through all the digital shots, César Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 6:46 PM Don't laugh, John, We actually did have a bazooka with us. Photos to follow (I just have to remember who took the pic of the bazooka. Me and Jostein were holding it). cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer >From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: My favorite GFM photo >Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > The subject says it all. > > > > >http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID =81 > > > > Bill > > >"They're coming right at us!" > > _ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=htt p://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: GFM reflections
Hmm...Mark Roberts His voice carries very well...after midnight...in the campground... Despite our late night antics, the tall skinny older guy camping across from PDML West won for two of his photos. Cory wonders if he remembers how to work his film scanner... - Original Message - From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:40 PM Subject: Re: GFM reflections > Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >Mark Roberts is about 6" taller than I expected. > That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me! > ;-) > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
Re: Not GFM, not green
Wow! -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Not too much green in this GFM shot (from Saturday night): http://www.robertstech.com/temp/0658.jpg ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com _ STOP MORE SPAM with the MSN Premium and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Tan from Japan...
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: Re: Tan from Japan... > Wait till Jack hears that you spent all Saturday night hitting on me. > Damnit Tanja, I said hit him for me. William Robb
Re: Tan from Japan...
Wait till Jack hears that you spent all Saturday night hitting on me. I ~did~ say "no", didn't I? -frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Norman Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> You will pay _ MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Samples from DA14/2.8!
Indeed. One of the problems with retro-focus lens design, in conjunction with the fact you have to try to correct for the effective 'wide angle adapter' you have to build in to the front of the lens. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software - Original Message - From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 11:33 AM Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8! One of the little bits of wisdom I have picked up along the way is that for a lens to have optimal correction, it needs to have the rear nodal point somewhere in the vicinity of the lens. With the 40 something millimeter flange to focal plane distance that most 35mm SLR's have (this includes the istD), getting a super wide with everything excellent is going to be a very difficult proposition. Generally, really short focal length lenses are not the best performers. Rob mentioned a while back that the Mamiya 7 43mm lens was a much better performer than the Pentax 6x7 45mm lens. Not having a moving mirror in the way opens up all sorts of possibilities to the lens designer. William Robb
GFM: returned to Chicago
My wife and I arrived home today at about 5:45 PM. The return trip took us thru Asheville, Smokey Mountain National Park, Pigeon Forge (think Wisconsin Dells, yuck), and Berea, Kentucky's craft area. It's a long drive. tv said it well when he suggested setting up appointments to talk with people. My wife talked more to Marnie and Cory Waters than I did. At least I can put a name with the face now, and next year I'll be ready. I probably met about half the pdmler's there... :-( It was really difficult to juggle sleeping in a real bed off the mountain, attending the presentations, shooting a roll of film for the contest, and talking to folks. I think that I'll skip sleeping next time. The staff was amazing. For lunch on Saturday, I ordered the barbecue sandwich the group raved about last year. The head of the cafe warned me barbecue was on the menu for our dinner that night. She asked if we were NEW (first time visitors) saying we didn't look familiar! She then warned us to arrive early for dinner as things could get a little crazy and seating was likely to be a bit cramped. (It worked out just fine.) ...She recognized that we weren't regulars! Wow. Overall. it was a great weekend. The scenery is terrific. The presentations were first class. The company was great. And the price was only $65! Try it yourself next year. Regards, Bob S.
RE: Pics of the Venus transit
Really cool shot, Heiko. The extra mm's from 400 to 1000 really does the trick. We never saw Venus that far away from the edge of the sun here. Maybe when it was right on the horizon, but it didn't shine through the fog until 6:30 Eastern American time. Cheers, Jostein > -Original Message- > From: Dr. Heiko Hamann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 11:18 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pics of the Venus transit > > > Hi Jostein, > > on 08 Jun 04 you wrote in pentax.list: > > >Adelheid and I are now at the Outer Banks on the coast of North > > Adelheid should have taken you to Germany - we had perfect weather ;-) > You can find a pic from the transit here: > http://www.mycroft.de/temp/IMGP5012.jpg Taken with a Russian MC-MTO-11CA (1000/10) and an *istD. Attention - 3MB! Cheers, Heiko
RE: Pics of the Venus transit
Hi Rob. The exact data from the EXIF are: Exposure time: 1/800s Aperture: f/25 ISO: 200 It's shot as RAW, and tweaked for higher contrast and deeper shadows at the import into Photoshop. The crop is about 1500x1000 pixels, which was then rescaled for web. Cheers, Jostein > -Original Message- > From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:22 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Pics of the Venus transit > > > On 8 Jun 2004 at 10:15, Jostein wrote: > > > Hi gang. > > > > Adelheid and I are now at the Outer Banks on the coast of North > > Carolina. We're staying at Kitty Hawk. This morning I rose > with the sun > > in hope to capture the Venus transit, and got lucky. The > fog lifted just > > in time to get the last part when Venus left the sun disk. > Actually, the > > fog turned to be an ally instead of an enemy, because the > sun that shone > > through was bleak and mute. And well within exposure range for the > > *istD. > > > > So here's the pic: > > http://www.oksne.net/paw/venustransit.html > > Excellent. What f-stop? > > Cheers, > > > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > >
Re: GFM reflections
Stan Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts is about 6" taller than I expected. That's the nicest thing anyone's ever said about me! ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Swamped with photos!
Something like an A-24/2.8 would solve all of your problems Cory! Stan On Jun 8, 2004, at 9:27 PM, cbwaters wrote: I need to buy a lens to get my mind off all this... Cory
Re: GFM Gathering
Funny observation: Braswell comes up as Brawl or Barstool in my Outlook Express spellchecker. CW HAR! - Original Message - From: "Charles Braswell Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:08 PM Subject: GFM Gathering > It was great getting to see everyone on the mountain this weekend and put > faces to familiar names. A special thanks to everyone at pdml central for > making a lurker feel very welcome. I tried to post an update on Friday > afternoon to let everyone know who had arrived and what was going on but > there must have been a problem with the list and my message didn't go > through (Oh well, I tried). I wish I had gotten to spend more time with all > of you. You are a special group indeed. > > I went back to the mountain yesterday and shot some more film (digital). The > light was great and I got some really nice shots. I'll try to post some in a > few days. > > Charles > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
Re: Attention GFM folks- Anyone win/place/show in photo contest?
Didn't Charles Braswell place as well? He wasn't shooting Pentax but he was lurking around PDML Central for a while. Nice guy for a Cannon shooter... CW - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lon Williamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Attention GFM folks- Anyone win/place/show in photo contest? > Hello Lon, > > If I remember correctly, Tom Reese placed with a shot of an eagle. > Perhaps he will share it with all of us. > > Bruce > > > Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 6:24:04 AM, you wrote: > > LW> Subject says it all. > > > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
RE: Attention GFM folks- Anyone win/place/show in photo contest?
Resending from the proper account this time... From: Stanley Halpin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: June 8, 2004 7:24:18 PM CDT To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Attention GFM folks- Anyone win/place/show in photo contest? Charles Braswell also placed, in the Accomplished Wildflower category. He is a list member, and is definitely a Pentax user. Stan On Jun 8, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Lon, If I remember correctly, Tom Reese placed with a shot of an eagle. Perhaps he will share it with all of us. Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 6:24:04 AM, you wrote: LW> Subject says it all.
Swamped with photos!
I've taken a lot of photos in the last three weeks. Many more than usual with a ten day family vacation and GFM tacked on the end. I don't know where to start sorting them and editing them and getting them online and AH! I worked out that I shot about 350 frames at GFM on slide, Tri-X, Plus-X, Gold 100, Fuji 800, and Compact Flash. The film went in today. CDs will come with the prints. I shot about 250 shots at Disney and another 24 at St. Augustine. I'm probably just tired but it seems like too much right now... I need to buy a lens to get my mind off all this... Anybody want to link me to a good tripod going cheaply on ebay? Cory Somebody please get Doug some of "them French Fried taters" --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.701 / Virus Database: 458 - Release Date: 6/7/2004
Re: Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
The FA 20-35/4.0 won't give you the same reach as the 28-70, even on the *ist-D, , but it is a nice lens. Worth looking at. If strictly for use on the *ist-D, then by all means consider the DA 16-45/4.0. Covers about the same range as the 28-70 and is every bit as good, maybe better. Stan On Jun 8, 2004, at 8:48 PM, alex wetmore wrote: Some folks might remember that I discovered two elements of my FA 28-70/4 were coming apart, making it unusable. I picked up a replacement on eBay and found that it is in the early stages of the same problem. It is being mailed back to the seller. Sadly there don't seem to be any great replacements to consider. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di XR seems to be highly regarded and is very small for a lens of that length, but is more than twice the weight (510g vs 240g) and a lot more expensive. The 24-90/3.5-4.5 seems like a reasonable compromise, but they are still pretty expensive. Any other suggestions? This will be for a *ist D. It won't get tons of use but I find this focal length to be fairly useful for certain types of events. Is the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 any good? The only other moderately fast lens in this range seems to be the Sigma 28-70/2.8-4. At $119 (bhphoto) I can't really imagine that it is very good. Comments? From photographyreview.com it sounds like there is a lot of distortion at the wide end. alex
RE: Cotty home
Whatever Cotty says about me isn't true. And, any compromising photos of me have been photoshopped. Seriously, it was great to meet you Cotty. You're everything I expected and more. I got home about an hour ago, and sleep is my next project, too. later, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Cotty home Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:44:39 +0100 Just a quick note to say that I have arrived back home in England safely after tv and #7 dropped me at the airport. In fact I got upgraded so had a very pleasant flight, if only a few minutes sleep. I didn't unsubscribe so have a few dozen digests to peruse tomorrow before going back to work on Thursday. I haven't checked latest most recent digests yet but I am sure there has been a few postings on the subject of GFM Will post my anecdotal version of events in due course. Now, I will welcome back an old friend: sleep. best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ _ Free yourself from those irritating pop-up ads with MSn Premium. Get 2months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
GFM reflections
I am back home in Kansas City. A total of 1900+ miles driven, 32.75 hours in the van since I left here last Wednesday. I have many great (IMHO) portraits of PDMLers and friends at GFM, a few decent shots of the venue. All of course are still 1.5-2.5 mb, include distracting elements like dust, bunny ears, etc. that will take some time in PE. Posting to come later. Meanwhile, some preliminary thoughts: Greywolf is not the shaggy mountain man I expected. Put him in a coat and tie and he would fit well in a corporate boardroom. Geoff was about 10 years younger than I expected. His friend Wendy is a super young lady and I hope to see more of them in the future. Tan was about 10 years older than I expected. (That is a joke, folks.) Bill Owen's hospitality far exceeded any possible expectations. He and Phyllis were great 'hosts' to this gaggle of people. Don, our main host, makes a great breakfast of sausage and eggs. I was also impressed with his comment to the room full of Canon and Nikon shooters: "It is all about the glass, not about the camera hanging off the back of the glass. And in that regard, Pentax glass will kick your ass all day long." Or words to that effect. Don is also blessed with two sons that would make any father proud. Mark Roberts is about 6" taller than I expected. Frank, tv, Cotty, and Cesar were all pretty much as I expected them. But I had met them all before. Cesar and I are long-lost half brothers; it is like a yin-yang thing. He is always buying stuff, I am always selling stuff... The talent in this group continues to blow me away. There was some informal sharing of portfolios - this is a talented group! Grandfather Mountain itself is a good venue for this sort of Nature Photography gathering, but it would take more scouting than I had time for to find the 'good spots'. I am impressed that Jostein managed to find the only three Lady Slippers on the mountain. Don't try to follow a marathon runner up a rugged mountain trail. If you do try. leave the bulky photo equipment behind. Many confirmations of one of the fundamental laws of photography, and its corollary: a. if you carry it, you won't use it; b. if you don't carry it, you will desperately want to use it. If you are going to camp in North Carolina, or anyplace where it is know to rain, then it would be better to have a tent that doesn't leak. [Note to self: 33 years of usage may be about the useful life span of the North Face tent; buy new tent. Soon.] There is an advantage to staying with the group - those who were off-mountain had significantly fewer hours available to socialize. e.g., Marnie, Bruce, Bob S., Charles... There is also an advantage to being a paid guest rather than a worker - tv, Mark, Doug, Bill all had duties that kept them from relaxing and enjoying the crowd. It was good to meet all of the PDML contingent. It was especially good to meet those from outside the U.S. that I have not met before: Tanja, Adehlaid, and Jostein. As well as meeting with Cotty and Frank again. They bring a slightly different outlook on life that challenges one to examine his/her own assumptions. Norm should not give up his day job for a modeling career. Cesar, on the other hand, might do ok. These are all good people; if you have the opportunity, whether at GFM or elsewhere, look them up, get acquainted. By the way; film is dead. I heard it at GFM and so it must be true. A great weekend, one which I shall hope to repeat. Stan
RE: GFM Gathering
Hi, Charles, It was great meeting you, too. We had a chance to chat for a few moments on Saturday night, IIRC, and I truly enjoyed getting to know you a bit. And, congrats on the prize-winning photo this past weekend. You deserved it! Hopefully, I'll see you again next year. cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Charles Braswell Jr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Pentax-discuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: GFM Gathering Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:08:31 -0400 It was great getting to see everyone on the mountain this weekend and put faces to familiar names. A special thanks to everyone at pdml central for making a lurker feel very welcome. I tried to post an update on Friday afternoon to let everyone know who had arrived and what was going on but there must have been a problem with the list and my message didn't go through (Oh well, I tried). I wish I had gotten to spend more time with all of you. You are a special group indeed. I went back to the mountain yesterday and shot some more film (digital). The light was great and I got some really nice shots. I'll try to post some in a few days. Charles _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: Pic
Nice shot Bruce. Great sky and reflection. I think I saw those same two fishermen yesterday when I was at Price Lake. Charles
Re: *istD unsharpness
- Original Message - From: "David Miers" Subject: RE: *istD unsharpness > That's exactly what I've been thinking William, but I'm not quite up enough > on the technical details of digital cameras to comment much. Wasn't it just > discussed how Nikon lenses are sharper for the most part then Pentax? What > about with the new photoshop CS or what ever it is that has the plugin for > pentax raw files? Would that make it more fair? I'm getting the impression > that with Pentax raw files he used the included software? You don't need to be up on the technical details of digital cameras to see the flaw in a test procedure that uses several different lenses and conversion algorithms to compare sensor sharpness between camera brands. Nikon may take sharper pictures because of a better conversion algorithm, or it may be a higher resolution lens, or it may be something else altogether. If you want to find out who grows the nicest apple, don't throw a banana into the test and say it's an awful apple. William Robb
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
- Original Message - From: "Peter Loveday" Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > Hmm, its possible to mount a screw mount on most (all?) major brand DSLRs, > isn't it? It would at least make sure the tester was paying more than lip service to the concept of valid testing procedure. William Robb
RE: *istD unsharpness
On 8 Jun 2004 at 21:45, David Miers wrote: > That's exactly what I've been thinking William, but I'm not quite up enough on > the technical details of digital cameras to comment much. Wasn't it just > discussed how Nikon lenses are sharper for the most part then Pentax? Sorry I'm not Bill but try to get over this notion. The newer top line lenses are hairs apart WRT sharpness from most manufacturers. In days gone by some of the Nikon primes were designed to optimise sharpness at the expense of other less measurable factors such as bokeh. > What about > with the new photoshop CS or what ever it is that has the plugin for pentax raw > files? Would that make it more fair? Using the generic Bayer converter and lens would be a far more ideal situation for making meaningful comparisons between various camera systems. However I'm still not convinced that there is a problem regardless. > I'm getting the impression that with > Pentax raw files he used the included software? The files that I just posted for comparison were decoded in camera, from my observations and that of others the in-camera processing provides a near optimum edge result unlike the external Pentax RAW convertor. So it's difficult to draw any realistic conclusions when comparing these disparate image files. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: "Gonz" Subject: Re: photography vs cameras > Have you ever seen this fellow's (contemporary) work? > > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=338558 > > In his case I don't think his talent is due to his equipment, even if it > IS a hassy + nice lenses. > Read Mike Johnston's latest over at Luminous Landscape. William Robb 1209 Horace St. Regina, Sk. Canada S4t 5L5
Re: Samples from DA14/2.8!
One of the little bits of wisdom I have picked up along the way is that for a lens to have optimal correction, it needs to have the rear nodal point somewhere in the vicinity of the lens. With the 40 something millimeter flange to focal plane distance that most 35mm SLR's have (this includes the istD), getting a super wide with everything excellent is going to be a very difficult proposition. Generally, really short focal length lenses are not the best performers. Rob mentioned a while back that the Mamiya 7 43mm lens was a much better performer than the Pentax 6x7 45mm lens. Not having a moving mirror in the way opens up all sorts of possibilities to the lens designer. William Robb
RE: Camera backpack with drawers
Don't you know trolling ebay is dangerous!!! to your wallet that is! Your sure to see all kinds of things you just have to have...lol 8). Dave -Original Message- From: Amita Guha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 7:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Camera backpack with drawers Found it! I went through some old Outdoor Photographers that I was about to throw out and found it. It's the Domke Armadillo 30 and it's not made anymore, so I'm going to start trolling ebay for it. Amita
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
No. If you change more than one parameter, you invalidate the test. You want to compare naked resolution of the sensors on various camera makes and models, then you need to start with a lens that will resolve more than the sensor will, and that same lens must be used on every camera. Otherwise, you are testing lenses as much as sensors. Hmm, its possible to mount a screw mount on most (all?) major brand DSLRs, isn't it? Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
Giving up on the FA 28-70/4
Some folks might remember that I discovered two elements of my FA 28-70/4 were coming apart, making it unusable. I picked up a replacement on eBay and found that it is in the early stages of the same problem. It is being mailed back to the seller. Sadly there don't seem to be any great replacements to consider. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di XR seems to be highly regarded and is very small for a lens of that length, but is more than twice the weight (510g vs 240g) and a lot more expensive. The 24-90/3.5-4.5 seems like a reasonable compromise, but they are still pretty expensive. Any other suggestions? This will be for a *ist D. It won't get tons of use but I find this focal length to be fairly useful for certain types of events. Is the FA 28-105/3.2-4.5 any good? The only other moderately fast lens in this range seems to be the Sigma 28-70/2.8-4. At $119 (bhphoto) I can't really imagine that it is very good. Comments? From photographyreview.com it sounds like there is a lot of distortion at the wide end. alex
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
Well of course Bayer interpolation algorithms are the difference if the sensor is the precisely the same type. I just don't understand why there seems to be so much debate about something that isn't a problem. I'm happy with the sharpness of the *ist D, but I'm sure with the appropriate sharpening factors I could make its image like the D100. See the following set of samples and see which one appears least distorted: http://www.pbase.com/image/27208228/original Ack, horrible conversion :) Someone's been using either dcraw, or the photoshop raw convertor :) Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday Director of Development, eyeon Software
RE: *istD unsharpness
That's exactly what I've been thinking William, but I'm not quite up enough on the technical details of digital cameras to comment much. Wasn't it just discussed how Nikon lenses are sharper for the most part then Pentax? What about with the new photoshop CS or what ever it is that has the plugin for pentax raw files? Would that make it more fair? I'm getting the impression that with Pentax raw files he used the included software? Dave -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:14 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD unsharpness - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: *istD unsharpness > Maybe Pentax simply doesn't like sharpness? Most of the really sharp lens > designs have been replaced by less sharp ones. > > One of the things I have noticed is that My Pentax lenses don't seem to be quite as sharp (high resolution) as my Nikkors were, and what the Canon lenses seem to be as well. It makes the whole trying to compare the istD sharpenss with other camera kinda retarded, since the test would have to be conducted with identical lenses to be a real test of the sensor resolution. William Robb
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
We knew what you meant... Tom C. From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2004 09:13:44 +1000 On 9 Jun 2004 at 8:59, Rob Studdert wrote: Oh I wish I had an editor :-( >This means that if > the image is not very sharp and has no sharpening artifacts you're likely not > see a difference in the before and after images. Should read: "if the image is not very sharp and has sharpening artifacts" > Now have a guess at which side was the original? I'll give you a hint, it's the > one that's lost resolution :-) Should read: "Now have a guess at which side was the original? I'll give you a hint, it's the one that hasn't lost resolution" Sorry for the confusion. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:03, Shawn K. wrote: > I have to disagree with you here Rob. The 16-45 has CA problems worse than this > that I've seen, so it doesn't surprise me, especially since this lens is 14mm, > and that alone is a difficult thing to accomplish... I'm not so sure. The difficulty in producing good wide angles is generally associated with their extreme WA coverage it's not a function solely of the of the FL. The smaller the area of the projected image behind the lens the easier it is to produce the lens. There are some very low distortion very cheap sub 5mm lenses being produced for small sensor digicams. At it's price and given it's limited scope for use I'd expect it to be near perfect. > I honestly think the > resolution of the lens is beyond the capability of the istD's sensor That I can assure you it is not if you are referring to the Pentax samples as examples. > I've seen much worse examples of CA, > particularly of the FA 24mm lens. Which out of the array of lenses I own has the poorest CA performance of the lot. > Maybe you are trying to get Pentax to make some last minute quality > upgrades by complaining loudly, I don't know. I'm just being honest. As am I. > The > pictures weren't amazingly good, but then again, the lens is 14mm's, and it's a > 2.8, and it's going to debut at less than 700 dollars. The A 15mm is about > double that, and has problems of its own, so you tell me which lens is the > better bang for the buck. The A15/3.5mm is US$900 at the most and it's usable on all Pentax bodies so you tell me which is the best value? > By the way, everyone knows that in camera sharpening even on the highest > setting does practically nothing. All the image settings in camera make > very slight changes actually, and the sharpness is the most slight of them > all. Strangely I can see the difference between settings. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Camera backpack with drawers
Found it! I went through some old Outdoor Photographers that I was about to throw out and found it. It's the Domke Armadillo 30 and it's not made anymore, so I'm going to start trolling ebay for it. Amita
GFM: pics
This is all the Price Lake pics that I am going to post. The first was taken on Friday morning just before we got rain and fog. The rest were taken Saturday with nicer weather. www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/index.htm 1st pic: *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld - 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED], 18mm, ISO 200, manual focus 2nd pic: *istD, F Fisheye 17-28/3.5-4.5, handheld, 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED], 17mm, ISO 200, manual focus 3rd pic: *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld, 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED], 26mm, ISO 200, manual focus 4th pic: *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld, 1/[EMAIL PROTECTED], 25mm, ISO 200, manual focus -- Best regards, Bruce
Re: pic
Good thing I reckon. I should have said I know where it is, not that I knew about it. Bill - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:47 PM Subject: Re: pic > So, is that a good thing or a bad thing - not being able to recognize > it? > > Bruce > > > Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:41:39 PM, you wrote: > > BO> Okay, I know where Price Lake is, I just didn't recognize it in this photo. > > BO> Bill > > BO> - Original Message - > BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BO> To: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:36 PM > BO> Subject: Re: pic > > > >> Obviously not on the mountain. If you get on the Blue Ridge Parkway > >> just outside of Boone, you shortly come to what is called Price Lake. > >> That is the location of this shot. Even though not right on the > >> mountain, it is certainly part of the beautiful scenery of the area. > >> I have quite a few shots along the parkway between Boone and GFM. > >> I'll try to get them prepped and put up on the web. > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >> > >> Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:18:20 PM, you wrote: > >> > >> BO> Bruce, where was that taken? > >> > >> BO> Bill > >> > >> BO> - Original Message - > >> BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> BO> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:23 PM > >> BO> Subject: GFM: pic > >> > >> > >> >> Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no > >> >> rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to > >> >> put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had > >> >> imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. > >> >> > >> >> I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: > >> >> > >> >> www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm > >> >> > >> >> Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Comments welcome. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Bruce > >> >> > >> > >> > >
Re: Tatoos
Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I am to take some photos of tatoos, on a test run it is >difficult to see them, unless they are new. Any suggestions >to 'bring them out' a little brighter would be greatly >appreciated. I have a friend who collects photos of tattoos as a kind of hobby. He's a forensic pathologist, and his photos are all of dead people, but I expect he will still be able to offer some tips. I'll speak to him in the next few days and report back. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
On 9 Jun 2004 at 8:59, Rob Studdert wrote: Oh I wish I had an editor :-( >This means that if > the image is not very sharp and has no sharpening artifacts you're likely not > see a difference in the before and after images. Should read: "if the image is not very sharp and has sharpening artifacts" > Now have a guess at which side was the original? I'll give you a hint, it's the > one that's lost resolution :-) Should read: "Now have a guess at which side was the original? I'll give you a hint, it's the one that hasn't lost resolution" Sorry for the confusion. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
GFM Gathering
It was great getting to see everyone on the mountain this weekend and put faces to familiar names. A special thanks to everyone at pdml central for making a lurker feel very welcome. I tried to post an update on Friday afternoon to let everyone know who had arrived and what was going on but there must have been a problem with the list and my message didn't go through (Oh well, I tried). I wish I had gotten to spend more time with all of you. You are a special group indeed. I went back to the mountain yesterday and shot some more film (digital). The light was great and I got some really nice shots. I'll try to post some in a few days. Charles
Re: *istD unsharpness
> > OK, from what little I've shot with the *istD I'll say that it appeared to > me a little less sharp than the images I get from my identically-sensored > Nikon D100. OTOH, it is known that Pentax uses less in-camera electronic > sharpening, so this alone may be the difference. I find that I do not > have to unsharp mask my Nikon D100 and D1H shots in photoshop to get the > level of sharpness that I am looking for, whereas I do with the *istD. > This suggests that maybe Pentax was at least a little too conservative > for most users. But, again, this assumes that there will be no manipulation of the image post-exposure. If you are doing *any* image retouching other than just a simple crop (things like level adjustment, as well as image resizing) then you want to perform the sharpening as the last step, not as the first. Rather than being conservative, perhaps Pentax just assume a different workflow that's going to involve at east minimal post-exposure processing. Mind you, all this hypothetical argument is pretty much negated by the fact that you can't get a decent image from the camera using the Pentax RAW converter. From what many folks here say PhotoShop CS does a much better job, but I don't have a copy of that.
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
On 8 Jun 2004 at 17:39, Dario Bonazza wrote: > No, no. My comments are not based on your comment on the F 70-210 lens. > They come from 6-months experience with the *ist D and being disappointed > in seeing 4-5MP digital compacts allowing larger prints. > > *ist D folks, do you want me to shock you all? > > I resized that DA 14mm picture down to 4MP and saved it as best jpeg > (Photoshop quality=12), then I closed the file for being sure not to retain 6MP > info in Photoshop memory. Then I opened the 4MP file again and I resized it up > to 6MP. You can find the result here: Hi Dario, I'm not sure what you are trying to prove given your method and selection of test image and I'm not so sure why you are so surprised as to the results. Firstly in order to reduce a 6MP+ image to the pixel dimensions of a 4MP image the linear dimensions need to be reduced to about 83% so that equates to discarding less than one in five pixels in each dimension. This means that if the image is not very sharp and has no sharpening artifacts you're likely not see a difference in the before and after images. Have you done similar test with high quality 4MP images? If the results of such an experiment are similar to the previous one you made with the 6MP images where does that leave us :-) So in order to alleviate further misdirected energies towards non-existent sharpness problem of the *ist D I've made my own test which I believe will prove its self. I used a source image shot by myself using the 31mm LTD (the non-green image that I posted earlier) which was saved as best quality JPG in camera with minimum in-camera sharpening and contrast and average saturation. http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/EXIF.gif I simply reduced it's size to 83% then enlarged it again to it's original dimensions within PS (using best quality bicubic interpolation). I then saved the result as a loss-less file. I compared these two images side by side in my image browser (Thumbs Plus) at 3x magnification and made the following screen shot: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~audiob/temp/test.jpg Now have a guess at which side was the original? I'll give you a hint, it's the one that's lost resolution :-) I hope my point is made, if not then we obviously have a very different understandings and expectations regarding digital imaging. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
I think you mean "very film like" which has been mentioned by the Japanese as well. Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan All I can say is that when used well the *ist D can produce printed photographic results that don't have that identifiable digital look. All that I can put this down to is that the designers wanted the images it produced to look like photos and as such didn't try to extract information from the sensor that was beyond its capabilities and I'm pretty glad about that. _ MSN Premium with Virus Guard and Firewall* from McAfee® Security : 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
Re: pic
So, is that a good thing or a bad thing - not being able to recognize it? Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:41:39 PM, you wrote: BO> Okay, I know where Price Lake is, I just didn't recognize it in this photo. BO> Bill BO> - Original Message - BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BO> To: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:36 PM BO> Subject: Re: pic >> Obviously not on the mountain. If you get on the Blue Ridge Parkway >> just outside of Boone, you shortly come to what is called Price Lake. >> That is the location of this shot. Even though not right on the >> mountain, it is certainly part of the beautiful scenery of the area. >> I have quite a few shots along the parkway between Boone and GFM. >> I'll try to get them prepped and put up on the web. >> >> Bruce >> >> >> Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:18:20 PM, you wrote: >> >> BO> Bruce, where was that taken? >> >> BO> Bill >> >> BO> - Original Message - >> BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BO> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:23 PM >> BO> Subject: GFM: pic >> >> >> >> Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no >> >> rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to >> >> put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had >> >> imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. >> >> >> >> I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: >> >> >> >> www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm >> >> >> >> Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. >> >> >> >> >> >> Comments welcome. >> >> >> >> >> >> Bruce >> >> >> >>
Re: pic
Okay, I know where Price Lake is, I just didn't recognize it in this photo. Bill - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 6:36 PM Subject: Re: pic > Obviously not on the mountain. If you get on the Blue Ridge Parkway > just outside of Boone, you shortly come to what is called Price Lake. > That is the location of this shot. Even though not right on the > mountain, it is certainly part of the beautiful scenery of the area. > I have quite a few shots along the parkway between Boone and GFM. > I'll try to get them prepped and put up on the web. > > Bruce > > > Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:18:20 PM, you wrote: > > BO> Bruce, where was that taken? > > BO> Bill > > BO> - Original Message - > BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BO> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:23 PM > BO> Subject: GFM: pic > > > >> Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no > >> rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to > >> put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had > >> imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. > >> > >> I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: > >> > >> www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm > >> > >> Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. > >> > >> > >> Comments welcome. > >> > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >
Re: pic
Obviously not on the mountain. If you get on the Blue Ridge Parkway just outside of Boone, you shortly come to what is called Price Lake. That is the location of this shot. Even though not right on the mountain, it is certainly part of the beautiful scenery of the area. I have quite a few shots along the parkway between Boone and GFM. I'll try to get them prepped and put up on the web. Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 3:18:20 PM, you wrote: BO> Bruce, where was that taken? BO> Bill BO> - Original Message - BO> From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BO> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BO> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:23 PM BO> Subject: GFM: pic >> Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no >> rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to >> put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had >> imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. >> >> I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: >> >> www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm >> >> Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. >> >> >> Comments welcome. >> >> >> Bruce >>
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) - Bill?
I suspected as much. :) Tom C. GAAAK. William Robb
Re: pic
Bruce, where was that taken? Bill - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 5:23 PM Subject: GFM: pic > Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no > rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to > put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had > imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. > > I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: > > www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm > > Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. > > > Comments welcome. > > > Bruce >
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
Well, not to me. It's like trying to compare two audio amplifiers, each with a different set of speakers. Since, IMO, all other things equal, image 'quality' is largely a factor of the lens, using different lenses only says something about the lens or the lens/camera system, not the camera. I understand your point, it's just that we're talking about minisucle details and about something that is largely subjective to begin with. Tom C. From: Andre Langevin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 16:19:03 -0400 You'd need to compare the exact same scene, same time, same everything including lens, which is impossible... Tom C. Isn't it quite possible if you you compare raw data from the cameras at test, previously fit with (almost identical) medium speed normal lenses? Andre
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
- Original Message - From: "Andre Langevin" Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > >You'd need to compare the exact same scene, same time, same > >everything including lens, which is impossible... > > > >Tom C. > > Isn't it quite possible if you you compare raw data from the cameras > at test, previously fit with (almost identical) medium speed normal > lenses? No. If you change more than one parameter, you invalidate the test. You want to compare naked resolution of the sensors on various camera makes and models, then you need to start with a lens that will resolve more than the sensor will, and that same lens must be used on every camera. Otherwise, you are testing lenses as much as sensors. William Robb
Re: *istD unsharpness
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: *istD unsharpness > Maybe Pentax simply doesn't like sharpness? Most of the really sharp lens > designs have been replaced by less sharp ones. > > One of the things I have noticed is that My Pentax lenses don't seem to be quite as sharp (high resolution) as my Nikkors were, and what the Canon lenses seem to be as well. It makes the whole trying to compare the istD sharpenss with other camera kinda retarded, since the test would have to be conducted with identical lenses to be a real test of the sensor resolution. William Robb
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) - Bill?
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) - Bill? > I wish William Robb was a round to give us a refresher on sharpness vs. > resolution. GAAAK. William Robb
Re: photography vs cameras
- Original Message - From: "Nick Clark" Subject: Re: photography vs cameras > You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you? No. Photography is not about chemistry. It is about light. William Robb
Re: Tatoos
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: Tatoos > I am to take some photos of tatoos, on a test run it is > difficult to see them, unless they are new. Any suggestions > to 'bring them out' a little brighter would be greatly > appreciated. I've found that hitting em with a fairly heavy unsharp mask and then bumping the saturation and contrast is the way to go. William Robb
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
You'd need to compare the exact same scene, same time, same everything including lens, which is impossible... Tom C. Isn't it quite possible if you you compare raw data from the cameras at test, previously fit with (almost identical) medium speed normal lenses? Andre
RE: Camera backpack with drawers
> What do you mean by front loading lens drawers?
It had drawers in the front that tilted open. I saw it in an
advertisement in Outdoor Photographer.
> It sounds like you could be talking about one of the smaller
> Crumpler backpacks. They have the camera area in the bottom,
> and I believe that they are front loaded. I have a larger
> Crumpler backpack ("Brian's Hottub" is the model) and like it
> a lot, but you do need to take it off to get to the lenses.
I've seen Brian's Hot Tub and it's way too big for me unfortunately, but
thanks for mentioning it. :) I actually want to take a look at the
Crumpler Puppet, which is the smallest.
Re: baby-D wish/expect list
>From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I admit I'm a little surprised by some of these comments. I think it's >clear that the Baby D will have: >- a 6 MP sensor Agreed that this is what is availible and likely. What I meant was that I'd accept 4. I can get film-quality 8x10s out of 2.77. >- CF card storage SD card slots are starting to show up in DSLRs as well as a lot of P&Ss. Given how much Pentax likes small and light, I wouldn't discount the idea. >less clear is whether or not they will include the firmware fix for the >K/M lense. This assumes that the camera will have the DoF preview >feature, which is how the "fix" works. I'd think this would be pretty cheap to implement, and pretty standard these days (although I haven't really looked at an entry-level camera in years). If it isn't there, it's probably for marketing reasons. >I'm picturing a digital camera based on the MZ-60 or film *ist body. >As a matter of fact the film *ist is configured like a DSLR with a large >LCD panel (B&W) on the back. My wild guess is that they'll base the >Baby D on this body. Makes sense, as there isn't much else to base it on except maybe the ZX-M. There's no need for a new baby film body because that's what the *ist is. DJE
Cotty home
Just a quick note to say that I have arrived back home in England safely after tv and #7 dropped me at the airport. In fact I got upgraded so had a very pleasant flight, if only a few minutes sleep. I didn't unsubscribe so have a few dozen digests to peruse tomorrow before going back to work on Thursday. I haven't checked latest most recent digests yet but I am sure there has been a few postings on the subject of GFM Will post my anecdotal version of events in due course. Now, I will welcome back an old friend: sleep. best, Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
*istD unsharpness
>Rob Studdert wrote: > So now I'm confused. Are you discussing lens capabilities, DOF, relative > position of the focus plane, post-export sharpening, print quality or the *ist > Ds apparent sensor sharpness? >First we have to agree the problem does exist. Then we can try to >understand >which is the main factor responsible for that. >I'm afraid we haven't still agreed there is a problem to investigate, as >Sylwek and myself seem to be the only two that noticed it, while others >deny. >Dario Bonazza OK, from what little I've shot with the *istD I'll say that it appeared to me a little less sharp than the images I get from my identically-sensored Nikon D100. OTOH, it is known that Pentax uses less in-camera electronic sharpening, so this alone may be the difference. I find that I do not have to unsharp mask my Nikon D100 and D1H shots in photoshop to get the level of sharpness that I am looking for, whereas I do with the *istD. This suggests that maybe Pentax was at least a little too conservative for most users. There are various other places that Pentax might be losing sharpness. There's the anti-aliasing filter. The Nikon D2H apparently has better apparent sharpness because the anti-aliasing filter is weaker. There's the oft-mentioned bayer interpolation. There's the possibility that the Pentax lens designs somehow don't interact well with the camera even though they work fine with film. I'm also curious, Dario and other detractors, if you've managed to test multiple *istDs? It could be that the AF is a little off, or the "film plane" (or focusing screen) is not quite where it should be, so that everything coming out of your particular camera is in fact slightly out of focus. I had a Nikon 8008 that never seemed to produce sharp pictures, MF or AF, and I actually had it checked for back-focus accuracy. It was apparently OK but I'm convinced somthing was misaligned somewhere because at large apertures I was consistently having trouble with meticulously focused stationary subjects not being sharp and the plane of focus clearly not where it was supposed to be. It LOOKED sharp in the finder, but not on film. It's also possible that the sensor or filter or something is simply a little defective so that your particular camera isn't performing up to spec. Maybe Pentax simply doesn't like sharpness? Most of the really sharp lens designs have been replaced by less sharp ones. DJE
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
Sorry, you're just not making sense to me. First you refer to and complain explicitly about the *istD compared to other cameras and now you're saying you're referring to the image and the raw converter. And unless I'm missing something here, you're doing it with an image that you retrieved from the web, not took yourself, and have manipulated after that to prove some point about pixels worth of data... am I wrong? If so, please let me know. Tom C. From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 23:23:39 +0200 I don't call it a test of the camera. I call it a visible demonstration of the information stored in original image file and how poor and unnatural the outlines are rendered by the Pentax RAW conversion software (this was already known). Should you want to keep your eyes closed, you're free to do that, of course. Somebody else could be interested in knowing and understanding something better. No offense intended, just plain straightforward words. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:55 PM Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > You can't screw with the picture in Photoshop and call it a test of the > camera! > > Tom C. > > > >From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > >Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:40 +0200 > > > >Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > > > > Hi Dario, > > > > > > Your posts always make sense and your photographs even more so. I fear > > > you read too much into my "looks like it's out-of-focus" comment; I > > > never thought you would be furnishing us with such a picture. I was > > > criticising the lens performance. > > > >Hi Kostas, > > > >No, no. My comments are not based on your comment on the F 70-210 lens. > >They come from 6-months experience with the *ist D and being disappointed > >in seeing 4-5MP digital compacts allowing larger prints. > > > >*ist D folks, do you want me to shock you all? > > > >I resized that DA 14mm picture down to 4MP and saved it as best jpeg > >(Photoshop quality=12), then I closed the file for being sure not to retain > >6MP info in Photoshop memory. Then I opened the 4MP file again and I > >resized > >it up to 6MP. > >You can find the result here: > >http://www.dariobonazza.com/tests/istD_4to6MP.jpg > >Compare any detail between the original picture and this one (both images > >side by side on your monitor at 400% or so). You'll see that there are few > >if any details lost, while the bad outline interpolation of the Pentax RAW > >converter has been fixed, so that the image looks more natural (slanted and > >curved lines are smoother, showing less pixelation). > > > >Conclusion? The original *ist D picture featured more or less 4MP > >information in it. > >For that reason, I consider the *ist D to be a 4MP equivalent camera, at > >least in RAW/Pentax Lab converter workflow. Hopefully, a decent RAW > >converter could do something better. > > > > > Keep writing and keep showing us your pictures. > > > >Of course! > > > >Dario Bonazza
Re: Camera backpack with drawers
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Amita Guha wrote:
> Does anyone remember who made a camera backpack with front-loading lens
> drawers? I'm not talking about the Lowepro Trim Trekker. The interior
> was yellow. I thought it was Domke but I think I was wrong.
>
> Amita, still in search of the perfect camera backpack
What do you mean by front loading lens drawers?
It sounds like you could be talking about one of the smaller Crumpler
backpacks. They have the camera area in the bottom, and I believe
that they are front loaded. I have a larger Crumpler backpack ("Brian's
Hottub" is the model) and like it a lot, but you do need to take it
off to get to the lenses.
This is the Crumpler model that I was thinking of:
http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/the_formal_lounge.html
This is what I have:
http://www.crumplerusa.com/products/camerabag/brians_hot_tub.html
alex
Re: Tan from Japan...
-Original Message- > From: Tanya Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Oh, and in regards to Norm's pic, I did not need to direct him one > bit - that pose was purely motivate by his love for his boyfriend > Jack... ... was it that Jack Daniels fellow? He is from down near that neck of the woods as I recall. :^) Bill
Camera backpack with drawers
Does anyone remember who made a camera backpack with front-loading lens drawers? I'm not talking about the Lowepro Trim Trekker. The interior was yellow. I thought it was Domke but I think I was wrong. Amita, still in search of the perfect camera backpack
GFM: pic
Got back yesterday about 2:30 am and had to get to work early (no rest for the weary). I had a great time and it was so interesting to put faces to names. Many turned out to be different than I had imagined. All were wonderful and the event was great. I'll try to get pics up as I can. Here is the first of them: www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/gfm/imgp9437a.htm Taken with *istD, Sigma 18-50/3.5-5.6 DC, handheld at 1/180, f11. Comments welcome. Bruce
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
I don't call it a test of the camera. I call it a visible demonstration of the information stored in original image file and how poor and unnatural the outlines are rendered by the Pentax RAW conversion software (this was already known). Should you want to keep your eyes closed, you're free to do that, of course. Somebody else could be interested in knowing and understanding something better. No offense intended, just plain straightforward words. Dario Bonazza - Original Message - From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:55 PM Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > You can't screw with the picture in Photoshop and call it a test of the > camera! > > Tom C. > > > >From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) > >Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:40 +0200 > > > >Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > > > > > Hi Dario, > > > > > > Your posts always make sense and your photographs even more so. I fear > > > you read too much into my "looks like it's out-of-focus" comment; I > > > never thought you would be furnishing us with such a picture. I was > > > criticising the lens performance. > > > >Hi Kostas, > > > >No, no. My comments are not based on your comment on the F 70-210 lens. > >They come from 6-months experience with the *ist D and being disappointed > >in seeing 4-5MP digital compacts allowing larger prints. > > > >*ist D folks, do you want me to shock you all? > > > >I resized that DA 14mm picture down to 4MP and saved it as best jpeg > >(Photoshop quality=12), then I closed the file for being sure not to retain > >6MP info in Photoshop memory. Then I opened the 4MP file again and I > >resized > >it up to 6MP. > >You can find the result here: > >http://www.dariobonazza.com/tests/istD_4to6MP.jpg > >Compare any detail between the original picture and this one (both images > >side by side on your monitor at 400% or so). You'll see that there are few > >if any details lost, while the bad outline interpolation of the Pentax RAW > >converter has been fixed, so that the image looks more natural (slanted and > >curved lines are smoother, showing less pixelation). > > > >Conclusion? The original *ist D picture featured more or less 4MP > >information in it. > >For that reason, I consider the *ist D to be a 4MP equivalent camera, at > >least in RAW/Pentax Lab converter workflow. Hopefully, a decent RAW > >converter could do something better. > > > > > Keep writing and keep showing us your pictures. > > > >Of course! > > > >Dario Bonazza
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
You can't take two pictures with different cameras, different lenses, maybe different apertures and therefore DOF, and who knows what else is different post-camera, compare them, and say anything with certainty about the camera itself! Tom C. From: Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:23:38 +0200 on 08.06.04 10:49, Dario Bonazza at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > AFAIK, the *ist D allows excellent blow-ups up to 20x30cm, and just > acceptable ones up to 30x40cm. Not so bad, you could say, but can anybody > explain me why the hell any good 4-5MP digital P&S (Canon, Konica, Leica, > Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax...) can go beyond that? > I've had several proofs of that, since a friend of mine (owner of a > pre-press service company and very skilled Photoshop user) shows me such > large format prints again and again. > The only 5-6 MP camera he was unable to bring beyond 30x40cm is (guess > which?)... the *ist D! Unfortunately you are probably right Dario :-( While *istD is great at closer distances it looses many details at longer ones. I compared my photos to my friend's, made with C 10D (people photos, with flash) and the difference was clearly visible on hair - if it was taken from greater distance *istD loosed details and it looked slightly unnatural - it remained a kind of picture I am used to in video cameras... 10D pictures looked much better in this condition. And yes, my friend's Sony F707 could resolve more detail in people's hair and skin when in certain distance. I don't know what is responsible for this? I quess it is faulty bayer interpolation software, because it seems that Nikon D100 using the same CCD doesn't have this problems from what I've seen so far. That said, 20x30 cm prints from *istD are great, 30x40 cm made on inkjet (HP Designjet 10ps) are very nice too. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: photography vs chickens
Lewis Matthew wrote: You guys seem just like scientists... Reaching a conclusion and then attempting to fit the evidence to it. Tom C. The seem more like some photographers who make an image and then search fo a justification of the image. Lewis I read a good quote about something similar last night; "Now to consult rules of composition before making a picture is little like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk. Such rules and laws are deduced from the accomplished fact; they are the products of reflection and after-examinations, and are in no way part of the creative impetus. When subject matter is forced into preconceived patterns there can be no freshness of vision, Following rules of composition can only lead to a tedious repetition of pictorial clichés." -- Edward Weston /Henri
Re: photography vs chickens
You guys seem just like scientists... Reaching a conclusion and then attempting to fit the evidence to it. Tom C. The seem more like some photographers who make an image and then search fo a justification of the image. Lewis _ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
Re: photography vs cameras
You mean a computer whizz rather than a chemistry whizz don't you? Nick -Original Message- From: "William Robb"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> So you now need to be a computer whiz rather than a photographic technologist to be a competent photographer. Kinda changes the whole concept of photography, no? It's a trend I started noticing when the AF SLR's started hitting the market. The cameras got more difficult in direct proportion to the photographic skills they were replacing. William Robb
Re: Old film
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: I've used old film for a long time with only one issue. Some old Kodak 25-speed C41 film gave me some really red results. But all of the 100 & 200 has been fine. Even 3+ years out. Collin Okey, so I bough them. 14 rolls of Superia 200 for about $1.50/pcs. Hope they aren't a complete wast! /Henri
RE: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
I imagine the scanner has something in place to deal with the dust. A self cleaning mechanism of some sort. There is a spot in the sky of the first image as well. You'd think Pentax would use a new istD for the test shots. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Andre Langevin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8! >After having scanned about a thousand rolls, I can tell you that the >dust on the sensor feels like a bit less of a problem than the film >damage. >Bruce Dust ON the film sure is a problem with scaners but has dust inside the scanner ever been pointed as part of that problem? If so, would it be safe to open the scanner's casing and blow gently some air? Andre
IF the new DSLR can get onto the shelves ...
... then Pentax may well sell a half-million. Even the first year. Actual production will be the key. Collin Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
After having scanned about a thousand rolls, I can tell you that the dust on the sensor feels like a bit less of a problem than the film damage. Bruce Dust ON the film sure is a problem with scaners but has dust inside the scanner ever been pointed as part of that problem? If so, would it be safe to open the scanner's casing and blow gently some air? Andre
RE: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
Perhaps Pentax need to do an IR scan of the sensor surface and try to do some ICE work - LOL! Man, that would be cool though... > -Original Message- > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 08 June 2004 20:14 > To: Shawn K. > Subject: Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8! > > > Yeah, it is a bit like the nasty problem that > negatives/slides have of getting/being scratched and > collecting dust. After having scanned about a thousand > rolls, I can tell you that the dust on the sensor feels like > a bit less of a problem than the film damage. Both have to > be dealt with if/when they occur. It certainly pays to be > aware of the potential problem though. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce > > > Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 10:52:45 AM, you wrote: > > SK> In the second photo of the city, there is a spot in the > sky, looks > SK> like a spec of something was on the sensor. I find it Ironic, > SK> considering that many people ahve complained about dust > collecting > SK> on the istD's sensor. I guess its a problem with most DSLR's > SK> though. > > SK> -Shawn > > SK> -Original Message- > SK> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > SK> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:49 AM > SK> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SK> Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8! > > > SK> On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:07, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > > >> They are already here: > >> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html > > SK> Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite > surprised > SK> that the chromatic aberrations are still not great at the > edges and > SK> both images were shot at f8. > > > SK> Rob Studdert > SK> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > SK> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > SK> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > SK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SK> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ > SK> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > >
Re[2]: Samples from DA14/2.8!
Yeah, it is a bit like the nasty problem that negatives/slides have of getting/being scratched and collecting dust. After having scanned about a thousand rolls, I can tell you that the dust on the sensor feels like a bit less of a problem than the film damage. Both have to be dealt with if/when they occur. It certainly pays to be aware of the potential problem though. -- Best regards, Bruce Tuesday, June 8, 2004, 10:52:45 AM, you wrote: SK> In the second photo of the city, there is a spot in the sky, looks like a SK> spec of something was on the sensor. I find it Ironic, considering that SK> many people ahve complained about dust collecting on the istD's sensor. I SK> guess its a problem with most DSLR's though. SK> -Shawn SK> -Original Message- SK> From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] SK> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:49 AM SK> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] SK> Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8! SK> On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:07, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: >> They are already here: >> http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html SK> Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite surprised that the SK> chromatic aberrations are still not great at the edges and both images were SK> shot at f8. SK> Rob Studdert SK> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA SK> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 SK> UTC(GMT) +10 Hours SK> [EMAIL PROTECTED] SK> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ SK> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: My favorite GFM photo
In a message dated 6/8/2004 6:39:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Why does the picture look like it's taken out of "Shrek 2"? :-) It does give me a feeling of a computer generated image. Too sharp? Too clean? Too vivid? I'm sure if some of the grass is withering brown instead of lush green, I will feel differently. Looks like I'm more accustomed to harsher confines than the eden that is GFM in early June. Yefei --- It was that green. And the color contrasts and composition on that photo is great. It dries out in CA in the summer, but they get more rain in NC. More humidity for sure, anyway. ;-) Marnie aka Doe I love that photo.
RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
I have to disagree with you here Rob. The 16-45 has CA problems worse than this that I've seen, so it doesn't surprise me, especially since this lens is 14mm, and that alone is a difficult thing to accomplish... I don't think it's superb, but viewing it at 50% I have to say it looks quite good. I honestly think the resolution of the lens is beyond the capability of the istD's sensor The CA is tiny, extraordinarily tiny. I've seen much worse examples of CA, particularly of the FA 24mm lens. For a 14mm wide-angle in this price range, I think these examples show it to be a capable, though not extraordinary performer. Maybe you are trying to get Pentax to make some last minute quality upgrades by complaining loudly, I don't know. I'm just being honest. The pictures weren't amazingly good, but then again, the lens is 14mm's, and it's a 2.8, and it's going to debut at less than 700 dollars. The A 15mm is about double that, and has problems of its own, so you tell me which lens is the better bang for the buck. By the way, everyone knows that in camera sharpening even on the highest setting does practically nothing. All the image settings in camera make very slight changes actually, and the sharpness is the most slight of them all. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8! On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:59, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > on 08.06.04 14:49, Rob Studdert at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite surprised that the > > chromatic aberrations are still not great at the edges and both images were > > shot at f8. > Well, they are not that bad. And I must say that from what I've seen DA > 16-45 has some CAs too (slightly bigger even than FA 24-90). On the other > side both lenses seems to be nicely sharp even in the corners. Herein lies the key to our differences in the perception of what's sharp and what's not I guess. Did you notice that all the images were made with the contrast on hard, the saturation high and the sharpening on hard? Even discounting the CA they are dreadful examples IMHO. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: On Sharpness (Confusion)
You can't screw with the picture in Photoshop and call it a test of the camera! Tom C. From: "Dario Bonazza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: On Sharpness (Confusion) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:39:40 +0200 Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: > Hi Dario, > > Your posts always make sense and your photographs even more so. I fear > you read too much into my "looks like it's out-of-focus" comment; I > never thought you would be furnishing us with such a picture. I was > criticising the lens performance. Hi Kostas, No, no. My comments are not based on your comment on the F 70-210 lens. They come from 6-months experience with the *ist D and being disappointed in seeing 4-5MP digital compacts allowing larger prints. *ist D folks, do you want me to shock you all? I resized that DA 14mm picture down to 4MP and saved it as best jpeg (Photoshop quality=12), then I closed the file for being sure not to retain 6MP info in Photoshop memory. Then I opened the 4MP file again and I resized it up to 6MP. You can find the result here: http://www.dariobonazza.com/tests/istD_4to6MP.jpg Compare any detail between the original picture and this one (both images side by side on your monitor at 400% or so). You'll see that there are few if any details lost, while the bad outline interpolation of the Pentax RAW converter has been fixed, so that the image looks more natural (slanted and curved lines are smoother, showing less pixelation). Conclusion? The original *ist D picture featured more or less 4MP information in it. For that reason, I consider the *ist D to be a 4MP equivalent camera, at least in RAW/Pentax Lab converter workflow. Hopefully, a decent RAW converter could do something better. > Keep writing and keep showing us your pictures. Of course! Dario Bonazza
RE: Samples from DA14/2.8!
In the second photo of the city, there is a spot in the sky, looks like a spec of something was on the sensor. I find it Ironic, considering that many people ahve complained about dust collecting on the istD's sensor. I guess its a problem with most DSLR's though. -Shawn -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:49 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Samples from DA14/2.8! On 8 Jun 2004 at 14:07, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: > They are already here: > http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/ja/35mm/ist-d/ex.html Considering it's a dedicated digital only lens I'm quite surprised that the chromatic aberrations are still not great at the edges and both images were shot at f8. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Pics of the Venus transit
Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, the > fog turned to be an ally instead of an enemy, because the sun that shone > through was bleak and mute. And well within exposure range for the > *istD. > > So here's the pic: > http://www.oksne.net/paw/venustransit.html Hi Jostein, That's a great shot! I hope at least one of mine, of the two rolls I shot this morning, turns out that well... We had a wonderfully clear sky, though, so the sun filter was a must. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Pics of the Venus transit
Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: To: PDML <> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 4:15 PM Subject: > Actually, the > fog turned to be an ally instead of an enemy, because the sun that shone > through was bleak and mute. And well within exposure range for the > *istD. > > So here's the pic: > http://www.oksne.net/paw/venustransit.html Hi Jostein, That's a great shot! I hope at least one of mine, of the two rolls I shot this morning, turns out that well... We had a wonderfully clear sky, though, so the sun filter was a must. Ciao, Gianfranco = _ __ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
