RE: Re: Northern Lights
Hi, You're not going to get any reading with a normal spotmeter... unless the Aurora is extremely bright (but then you'll be able to measure with your camera meter as well). This may happen only about once in 25 years or so... ;-) The only camera which I know to work on automatic with Aurora is the LX (which btw is the best camera on the planet for photographing astronomical phenomenon). I just attach a suitable lens (usually SMC 15/3.5) to my LX with a winder and then lock the cable release on auto. The camera will shoot continuously on itself and I can just watch the play. My standard film is the Kodak Ektachrome P1600 shot at 1600. Brighter ones expose well with the E200 (which you can push as well to 400 or 800). It also helps to have more than one LX. With no LX, just shoot continuously, bracket a lot, try to guess the correct exposure time by looking at the aurora with your naked eye. Make notes... and compare them to your results. Eventually you'll have a human exposure meter :-). It's not that hard to estimate the brightness of the aurora display after you've seen and photographed a couple. It helps too if you pre-choose your shooting point and go there on a starry night and take pictures with different exposure times. This way you'll have a clue how long you can expose without overexposure in the selected shooting spot. This helps prevent overexposure when shooting faint aurora... Don't take all the time photographing them. The aurora is best enjoyed right on the spot with your own eyes while almost freezing to death ;-). Antti-Pekka --- Antti-Pekka Virjonen Computec Oy, Turku Finland Gsm: +358-500-789 753 www.computec.fi * www.estera.fi -Original Message- From: michal mesko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Northern Lights Thanks for the tips guys! Looks like I will have to borrow a spotmeter to get a starting point and bracket a lot from there. Jostein, those are absolutely awesome pictures of aurora. The rest of the site is very nice, too. Especially the MF photography. Holding my breath for the next aurora, Mike --- Forwarded message --- Forwarded by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded date: 2004-11-10 19:28:31 Michal, The aurora is very variable. I've only had two good shoots with it, and on both occations, the LX metering saved my day, or night if you like. I've got the best from both shoots on my website, and as you'll see, the exposure times varied a lot. One night, the exposures were down to 40 seconds at f/2.8 on ISO 100. The other night I used 4 minutes at f/4 on ISO 400. If you're interested in my pics, you can find them at http://oksne.net Cheers, Jostein - Original Message - From: michal mesko [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 11:55 PM Subject: Northern Lights Hello List, just saw the first aurora in my life. It was very pretty, but at least as much educative. Here are the lessons learned: I have been looking for a geomagnetic storm since I came to Finland, checking the monitoring site (http://www.sec.noaa.gov/rt_plots/kp_3d.html) almost daily. As the gray-steel skies started to break up at the sunset today, I rushed to the city to buy rolls of Provia 400F, one of the films generally recommended for aurora photography. Being young and naive, I set out to photograph the lights right after twilight at 5pm. My idea was that aurora would dance over the sky for the whole night, only to disappear with the first rays of the dawn. :) After more than two hours of stumbling through the scary dark forest and catching cold by the lake, I packed up and went home. Of course an hour later, the lights did appear. Rushing to the lake again, I lent my tripod to a friend to play with and went looking for The Perfect Composition. By the time I found it, the sky turned dark again. Puzzled, I approached a seasoned (or so it seemed) aurora photographer on the scene. He explained that aurora usually passes our latitude from 10pm to 11pm going down from north to south. It returns after midnight at 1am, going back north again. Apparently, it is one of those things everyone but me knows. ;-) It has something to do with the position of sun, he even carried a PDA to check the angle at which the solar winds hit the atmosphere. I then inquired about the exposure times. What he used is very inconsistent with the resources on the internet (http://www.ptialaska.net/~hutch/aurora.html, http://w1.877.telia.com/~u87717747/english/bild rkiv_4.htm and more), where they talk about 400 speed, fast lens and about 30 second exposures. He was using f2.0 lens, ISO 50 and about four seconds! My friends digital camera had the right exposures at ISO 100, f2.8 and 8-15
Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Here, even if it is yours! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:45 AM Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time Same here, unless it's yours... Regards, Bob... From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 10 Nov 2004 at 18:44, Don Sanderson wrote: None of these are against the rules, but they would qualify me as a grade A ass! I don't do these things, not because I care a whit about whether I'm breaking rules or not, I don't do them because I like to sleep at night. I use the same philosophy in buying and selling on eBay. ...but if business (or government) plays strictly by the rules (which they do of course ;-) its just business... BTW it's against the law here to park across any pedestrian walk-way or across a driveway.
Re: *ist D Anomalies
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Peter Loveday wrote: As another note, every time I've had my *istD do something odd, (...) Half the time, re-inserting the same batteries will fix it Yesterday my *istD did a quite odd thing. It got stuck. The display continued to show what it previuosly was showing, even if I turned it off or rotated the mode dial. Quite fresh batteries. Taking them out and re-inserting tehm solved it. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Comments in text -Original Message- From: Ryan Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:46 AM To: PDML Subject: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2 battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter. I miss my kidneys. I also have purchased the 20D w/17-85 and the 420EX speedlite with one extra battery Anyway, having had a chance to play with both, here are some comparisons. Never had the *istD, but played with it in the store 1. The most obvious one, I miss the sleekness of the tiny ist D (even with a grip) holding the 20D and grip. It's chunky. A monstrous monstrosity. And no matter what people tell you, the 20D is ugly. The battery grip doesn't make an effort to be tiny either. I'm so thankful that not all manufacturers are following this tiny trend. The *istD felt way to light to me as well as to small to get my hands around. The 20D fit's my hands well in this regard. Haven't went with the grip yet, and may not as it is very comfortable to hold vertically as it is for me The ist D's grip takes 4 AA's sideways while the 20D's grip takes 6 AA's side by side. And what's more, my 16 beloved 2500mah Inca Nimh batteries which I spent a fortune on, seem fine browsing the 20D, but don't supply enough voltage to shoot! In fact, AA's in the 20D hardly work at all, and Canon will tell you that (like they told me). On the other hand, my Inca's lasted forever in the ist D (using a 50 1.4). Felt like I never had to recharge them. I'm probably going to end up selling them now :-( Good to know, as it was my only reason for considering the grip. 2. The ist D sounds a lot better. The 20D (because of a new mirror design to accomodate the short back focus EF-S lenses) sounds, literally, like the whole camera was made of wood. Imagine the ist D's to be a 'chlick' vs the 20D's 'chlock'. I should capitalise some of that for emphasis too.. Very ironic considering the 17-85 is quieter than a dog's tail wagging. The 20D is still quieter then film cameras I've used, especially with no focus or drive noise. 3. The 20D, unfortunately, does have superior image quality. I'm probably not comparing in the same price/spec range that's why. Amazingly, while the ist D produces significant noise at 1600, the 20D at 1600 produces possibly the same noise as the ist D's 400. For non RAW shooters, the 20D also provides more control over in camera settings e.g. more range to set sharpness, contrast etc. One of the main reasons I went with the 20D, for higher ISO's with less noise. 4. The 20D's TTL with the 580EX seems to provide more accurate exposures than the ist D with the AF360fgz. In low light without AF assist, the 20D with the 17-85 focuses much faster than the ist D with the SMC F 50 1.4. More accurate flash exposures is the number one reason I went with the 20D, the super fast noiseless focus sealed the deal. 5. The 20D does not feel like a walkaround camera. Feels like it should live in a studio. This might present problems when I'm backpacking London and Paris in a few days. For me it's no heavier then the film SLR's I've been carrying. I never wound up using the 2 ZX series bodies I own enough to say I used them because they were way too light. Hand holding a light camera doesn't work well for me at all since I find my pictures are much more blurred at lower shutter speeds. I don't notice much difference weight wise from my PZ-1p. Speaking of blur, IS is fantastic! 6..Probably other stuff to talk about, but the 20D doesn't allow me to post to the PUG. I hope I don't end up Franken-lensing like some. One other reason for my choice was Canon's CMOS sensor, it attracts less dus t then others. I'm not sure how this compares to the *istD, but the 20D's shutter has been cycle tested up 200,000 exposures consistently without failure, as compared to the 10D's was only 30,000 exposures. Not sure about the truth of this statement, but the lady at Hunt's in Melrose, MA seemed quite knowledgeable in this department. They claimed to have a customer that was using the 10D's for aerial photography and had already burned out 3 of them in a very short time. The 20D is still pumping along with no failures. This customer was pushing all of these cameras hard from what I'm told. Dave
Re: PAW: Clear at the Can
frank theriault wrote: On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:58:22 -0800, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have to agree. Even though you didn't think it would make any difference, Frank, the explanation does bring more meaning and interest into the photo. Thanks for sharing it. The explanation makes the photo, in truth. I know there's a lot of commentary to the contrary, but there simply are some photos that benefit from a little help. Well, I'm glad. Thanks both Paul and Bruce for the comments. Of course, what's really interesting (to me) is that my beautiful Italian machine is front and centre vbg. Near brings tears to your eyes, it does! g thanks again, frank No, just kidding, Frank. Nice machine. Somehow it just looks 'nimble...' Is it? keith
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
My first *istD didn't work, and BH replaced it with a new camera, no questions asked. However, they did require that it be returned in the original box Pentax with all the packing material. On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:55 PM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Ryan Lee Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Or perhaps because CR Kennedy had one of my ist D's for a month, 7 days after I bought it, That's amazing. In Canada, the customer would make a case to the seller that the product sold was not suited to the purpose for which is was sold, and after a bit of bitching and whining, would get a new camera. The distributor would reimburse the seller with new stock in trade for the defective, and life would go on, with everyone happy. One has a right, when one buys something, to have it work for a reasonable amount of time, or have it replaced or refunded. William Robb
Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
frank theriault wrote: [...] So, what has all this to do with this thread? Well, when a catcher moves up the line to block the plate, it's within the rules for a base runner to run over him to get to home. Rose was within the rules of the game. BUT, it was an All Star (exhibition) game. It meant nothing. Even if it was a regular season game, is it worth endangering someone's life, even if it's within the rules? Here's my point. Rose may not have broken any rules (on that play), but he was still an asshole. Rose never DID follow many of the rules, did he. And even today, as much as he wants the accolades and trappings of fame all he has is infamy. In my opinion, it served him right. Rules often indicate only a minimum required behaviour, not a golden standard. Playing barely within the rules doesn't mean that one is being moral or is even much above reprehensable. Sorry for that long post, but I've long had a pet peeve WRT those that equate legal with ethical... thanks for listening to this rather long diatribe. cheers, frank I think you're right, Frank. I'm on your side... g keith
OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans
http://tinyurl.com/2ja75 Enjoy :-) regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Like Cotty says, good performer and BIG. Reminds me of a 'pre'-300mm f4 A in shape and size. Becomes a nice 400mm with the old T6-2X converter, but 1.4 2.0A's work ok too. Overall much bigger and heavier than the Pentax 200/4 (K, M, or A), But the extra speed is great for focusing in the viewfinder... Regards, Bob S On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:59:19 +, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
-Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:26 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time Sorry if I was misunderstood but I still hold that there is a big difference between following the rules and being honorable. i suppose, being honorable means following *your* rules? Nope, not at all, simply means treating others as you would like them to treat you, simple. If you will carefully check MY eBay feedback you will see that I at least *try* for the latter so do i. but i can afford that since ebay income/expenses are negligible (compared to my other sources of income/expneses). i can imagine that that would be different if i had to make a living off ebay. You would forsake trying to be honorable to make a profit? That's a very sad thought, I didn't realise a person had to be able to afford being honorable. Perhaps there are some basic cultural differences at work here but I don't understand your last statement at all. Don mishka
RE: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Thanks Frank, I wholeheartedly agree. Don -Original Message- From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 21:05:18 -0600, Don Sanderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bob, you apparently missed the fact that I was responding to Mishka's comment that as long as you play by the rules you aren't an ass or whatever. snip snip Here's my point. Rose may not have broken any rules (on that play), but he was still an asshole. Rules often indicate only a minimum required behaviour, not a golden standard. Playing barely within the rules doesn't mean that one is being moral or is even much above reprehensable. Sorry for that long post, but I've long had a pet peeve WRT those that equate legal with ethical... thanks for listening to this rather long diatribe. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans
Neat! Shel [Original Message] From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans http://tinyurl.com/2ja75
Re: PESO - Pinnacles 1
Bruce, Great photo but a little disorienting. The rocks are so high...magnificent! ...And the sky with the clouds. I think the left foreground hill is what unbalances me. But I love the tree. Is it the camera angle that unbalances me? It all grows on you over time. Great photo! Regards, Bob S. On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 19:11:47 -0500, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, i think tipping the camera up more or cropping the bottom a bit would make it more effective. the left side's dark area draws away from the trees and the rocks against the sky. Herb - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: PESO - Pinnacles 1 Anyway, here is one of many shots: http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0017.htm
RE: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans
That's great! Thanks Don -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 6:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT - for catlovers /or Led Zep fans http://tinyurl.com/2ja75 Enjoy :-) regards, Anthony Farr
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. I love mine. Mishka On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:30:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I've been an under-the-carpet list member (mostly because I couldn't get my submissions to work) for half a year or so but I'm going to have to show my face if I want to have any of my questions answered. Francis
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Previously, Ryan wrote: So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2 battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter. I miss my kidneys. One question. Why? Please answer truthfully. because it's hard to take a P*** without kidneys Someone had to say it Butch
RE: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
this is just a guess but since it is faster, probably contrastier(sic?), probably sharper, and lighter, I bet it is. JCO -Original Message- From: Ronald Arvidsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:37 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I owned one once. Big lens, solidly built, good performer IIRC, but compared to a 2.8 80-200 zoom, not as flexible, which is why I sold it. Good value therefore! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
It still weighs less than a 80-200 F2.8 lens no? JCO -Original Message- From: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 9:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5? Big and heavy. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. I love mine. Mishka On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:30:09 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Is there any one on the list who has or has used the Pentax MF 200mm f2.5 ? If so what do you have to say about it? I've been an under-the-carpet list member (mostly because I couldn't get my submissions to work) for half a year or so but I'm going to have to show my face if I want to have any of my questions answered. Francis
Re: *ist D Anomalies
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Peter Loveday wrote:
As another note, every time I've had my *istD do something odd, (...)
Half the time, re-inserting the same batteries will fix it
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Anders Hultman replied:
Yesterday my *istD did a quite odd thing. It got stuck. The display
continued to show what it previuosly was showing, even if I turned it off
or rotated the mode dial. Quite fresh batteries. Taking them out and
re-inserting them solved it.
Sounds like the typical computer engineer solution - reboot the system.
This could easily be a software problem. Try to keep track of what was
happening when the camera ('s computer) got stuck. This information enables
you to:
1 - Possibly avoid those situations in the future
2 - Provide the data to Pentax so that they can take corrective action for
release in later versions of the software
For some strange reason, we all (including me) expect software to always
work the way the designers and programmers intended it to. Always is a long
time.
Larry in Dallas (with over 3 decades of system design)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/2/2004
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Paul Stenquist wrote on 11/11/2004, 6:17 AM: My first *istD didn't work, and BH replaced it with a new camera, no questions asked. However, they did require that it be returned in the original box Pentax with all the packing material. On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:55 PM, William Robb wrote: My first one had an issue with the power switch/DOF lever. The store I bought it from replaced it with a new one even though I'd had it for 2 months (same deal with the packing/box; I keep all my boxes now...). -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Exactly right! One my major points to them was that they have an obligation to sell me goods which are working in the first place- they were trying to tell me it's procedure and it could only be done that way etc. They weren't even considering refunding me because having an incompatible (correct mount, but autofocusing probs) lens wasn't enough reason. And furthermore it wasn't a problem with the 'piece' but a problem affecting the 'model'; lens or body, they say Sigma and Pentax are on it.. I think I'm lucky I was able to say that I was leaving the country soon, which more or less makes it more awkward for them if they wanted to hold their position. Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Or perhaps because CR Kennedy had one of my ist D's for a month, 7 days after I bought it, That's amazing. In Canada, the customer would make a case to the seller that the product sold was not suited to the purpose for which is was sold, and after a bit of bitching and whining, would get a new camera. The distributor would reimburse the seller with new stock in trade for the defective, and life would go on, with everyone happy. One has a right, when one buys something, to have it work for a reasonable amount of time, or have it replaced or refunded. William Robb
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing. I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane, and that handstrap would have been a wonder tool.) and have been more than extremely happy with the results I've been getting. Plus with the 580EX flash, it's all feels like an across the board boost. I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! And yes, like you point out, it's all about the photographs- I agree totally. Anything else- looks, feel, or (granted that 6.3mp is more or less an acceptable resolution to print out a photo decently close to film quality) 2 extra megapixels- all bonuses :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Why not give the *ist D another try Ryan? If it's possible, or wait for the next thing Pentax does. You've seen all the beautiful shots it can produce. I've picked up the Canons and Nikons and have been horrified just by the way they felt and looked, compared to the *ist D. Maybe that's unscientific, but until the big 2 come out with a camera that feels, looks, and beats what I can do with a Pentax, I'm not willing to change and give up my present investment in lenses, etc. Granted, almost any camera can deliver a great photograph. I find pleasure however, in using a tool that fits my hands and mindset. Just my 2 cents. Tom C.
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
ROFL! It's so true :-( I've limited myself to one ice cube a day! Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Butch Black [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 10:37 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Previously, Ryan wrote: So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2 battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter. I miss my kidneys. One question. Why? Please answer truthfully. because it's hard to take a P*** without kidneys Someone had to say it Butch
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *ist D Anomalies
It's interesting (I have close to 25 years in software design/development).
I wonder if I was triggering a bug. I was impatient to get the next shot
and so occassionally would go spastic on the shutter release, hoping to fire
it as soon as the camera would allow. Maybe this rejected input caused the
software to branch unexpectedly and caused the mode to internally change to
.jpg.
Tom C.
From: Larry Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: *ist D Anomalies
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:57:43 -0600
Sounds like the typical computer engineer solution - reboot the system.
This could easily be a software problem. Try to keep track of what was
happening when the camera ('s computer) got stuck. This information enables
you to:
1 - Possibly avoid those situations in the future
2 - Provide the data to Pentax so that they can take corrective action for
release in later versions of the software
For some strange reason, we all (including me) expect software to always
work the way the designers and programmers intended it to. Always is a long
time.
Larry in Dallas (with over 3 decades of system design)
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! Let me guess, you're going to put tape over the word 'Canon', right? I think the *ist D is a beautiful and well-crafted piece of kit. But am I the only one on the planet who doesn't like it's small size? I love the weight and size of bigger bodies. (cue WW) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Yep... you've gone over. :) May God rest his soul. Tom C. From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800 Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing. I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane, and that handstrap would have been a wonder tool.) and have been more than extremely happy with the results I've been getting. Plus with the 580EX flash, it's all feels like an across the board boost. I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! And yes, like you point out, it's all about the photographs- I agree totally. Anything else- looks, feel, or (granted that 6.3mp is more or less an acceptable resolution to print out a photo decently close to film quality) 2 extra megapixels- all bonuses :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Why not give the *ist D another try Ryan? If it's possible, or wait for the next thing Pentax does. You've seen all the beautiful shots it can produce. I've picked up the Canons and Nikons and have been horrified just by the way they felt and looked, compared to the *ist D. Maybe that's unscientific, but until the big 2 come out with a camera that feels, looks, and beats what I can do with a Pentax, I'm not willing to change and give up my present investment in lenses, etc. Granted, almost any camera can deliver a great photograph. I find pleasure however, in using a tool that fits my hands and mindset. Just my 2 cents. Tom C.
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Hi, Thanks Cotty, I didn't mean AF speed. I meant easier - I kind a prefer fixed focal lengths as I find them easier to work with than zoomz when only one focal length is needed. However, I've got an old Sigma 200/2.8, fixed focal length, and I don't quite like that lens -its good enough but I'm thinking of upgrading to a 200/2.5. Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I have no experience with the Pentax 80-200 2.8 - I had a Sigma 70- 200 2.8 in KA mount and a Canon 70-200 2.8 L IS. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Or do you mean faster to work with as in speed and ease of use? Well, that L IS lens was one of the main reasons I bought into Canon. That's lightning-fast AF. As for the 200 2.5 and manual focus, it was fine. It's an impressive and quality lens. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On 11/11/04, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed: May God rest his soul. He'll be joining me and one or two others in the Howling Hells mate, you better believe it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
With the battery grip attached, the *istD is a nice size for me. Without the grip, it's too small for real work, but perfect for social affairs. Paul On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! Let me guess, you're going to put tape over the word 'Canon', right? I think the *ist D is a beautiful and well-crafted piece of kit. But am I the only one on the planet who doesn't like it's small size? I love the weight and size of bigger bodies. (cue WW) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear. Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics. If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Can I quote you on that? -Original Message- From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Nov 10, 2004 9:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time And a very good quote it is too. Such a magnificent quote is just what we expect from such a towering presence such as yourself. Why it leaves me absolutely speechless in the glow of it's simplicity as utter profundity. (I'd say more but even now my fingers grow weary with the very power of the quote I'm commenting on)... Thick enough yet? Cotty wrote: On 10/11/04, Kenneth Waller, discombobulated, unleashed: Hey guys, lets keep the quotes straight, I never said The nature of eBay is greedy. It inspires greed in lots of people - both buyers and sellers. It's possible to go over the top in both camps. As for the ethical implications, you could say that 'sniping' is pretty rude. Kenneth Waller For the record, that quote above is mine. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
The size is fine for me, but the shape of the grip is less than ideal. I REALLY miss the MZ-S as it felt like it was bespoke built for me and could easily have been an extension of my arm! There is not another camera on the planet which grips as nicely as the MZ-S... I have the grip but never use it as I cant get happy with it at that size, and don't really mind holding it vertically without the grip. Plus it wouldn't go in my camera bag with the grip attached and I cant be ar**d to keep taking it off putting it on. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 November 2004 15:45 To: pentax list Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! Let me guess, you're going to put tape over the word 'Canon', right? I think the *ist D is a beautiful and well-crafted piece of kit. But am I the only one on the planet who doesn't like it's small size? I love the weight and size of bigger bodies. (cue WW) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: *ist D Anomalies
Tom C wrote: It's interesting (I have close to 25 years in software design/development). I wonder if I was triggering a bug. I was impatient to get the next shot and so occassionally would go spastic on the shutter release, hoping to fire it as soon as the camera would allow. Maybe this rejected input caused the software to branch unexpectedly and caused the mode to internally change to .jpg. Hey! You know, I think I saw you at an intersection the other day, feverishly pressing the WALK button at least 100 times a minute. I suppose I should have stopped and said hello... keith whaley Tom C. From: Larry Levy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *ist D Anomalies Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 08:57:43 -0600 Sounds like the typical computer engineer solution - reboot the system. [...]
Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here, one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through software and quality control issues, problems of all sorts, downloading glitches, memory cards that fail, just seems to defeat the purpose of a camera and lessen the experience of photography for me. I'm not particularly interested in solving computer problems when out making photographs, and have never really had many problems in all the years I've been shooting film: One battery problem with an ME Super, a sticky shutter release on an MX (solved by whapping the camera against the palm of my hand), and an LX with sticky mirror. Apart from a friend dropping one of my Leicas and needing to replace the rangefinder unit, those are the only problems I've encountered since 1968 oh, my original Spotmatic had to have the meter calibrated. Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
I loved its size with the grip. Just nice for me. I think they could have done a bit better on the bit where the tips of your fingers hold on to though. Would be perfect if the edge came forward a tad more. And without the grip *snigger* mine's seen a few social affairs.. ask John Coyle :-) Cheers, Ryan PS. Cotty- yeah been meaning to mention that. Could that name be any more in-your-face?? And another thing C***n's having their 25th anniversary in Singapore- it's friggin ridiculous how oftern you see the logo! I'd bet with anyone, take a walk around town here for an hour, and you -will- see the name at least once every 5 minutes. If only Pentax were as aggressive! Look at how the Optio S5i or the (really gimongous LCD) 5 megapixel Casio Exilim (Pentax lens :-)) both sell compared to the ixus s500 the latter 2 are equal if not better spec'd than the ixus, yet they don't sell as well. It's all in the marketing.. - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:55 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison With the battery grip attached, the *istD is a nice size for me. Without the grip, it's too small for real work, but perfect for social affairs. Paul On 11/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! Let me guess, you're going to put tape over the word 'Canon', right? I think the *ist D is a beautiful and well-crafted piece of kit. But am I the only one on the planet who doesn't like it's small size? I love the weight and size of bigger bodies. (cue WW) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
On 11/11/04, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed: Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I don't use an *ist D but FWIW, I have not had one single problem in 2 cameras. Never lost images. Never had a card go down. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Shel said: I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel Shel, I am just about done my *istD poll answers and hope to have them posted later this after noon. Maybe this will help a bit. I only received 10 replies,so its not a good x section but what the hey:-) I was hoping to hear from Bill and Ryan and a few others that seemed to have problems. OTOH,I had to have the main board on my D2H replaced earlier in October.Its under warranty,but, when things go wrong,they really go wrongvbgNo worse i suppose than a PZ camera in for electrical repairs i suppose. Dave
Re: how does the ZX-50 do with ttl flash?
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, John Whittingham wrote: That all sounds very reassuring, I think I might just look into getting the AF400FTZ It is a very nice flash and can be bought for a song. There is also an optional W/A adapter (24mm coverage on 35mm) for it, for which I have no opinion. Kostas
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Cotty wrote: No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Butch Black wrote: Previously, Ryan wrote: So, time to make the announcement. After returning my ist D, I now find myself with a C***n 20D, 17-85 f4-5.6IS USM, a 580EX speedlite, a BG-E2 battery grip, an E1 hand strap, an extra battery and a B+W MRC UV filter. I miss my kidneys. One question. Why? Please answer truthfully. because it's hard to take a P*** without kidneys Someone had to say it Butch Yes, yes they did... -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
My first *istD was defective. It wouldn't recognize a card. However, BH replaced it immediately. I now have two *istD and have not had any problems with either. i find that my exposures are very accurate and the quality is very good. The camera has made me much more productive. Where a magazine shoot used to take four hours with the 6x7, I can now do it in two. In the year prior to purchasing the *istD I posted about 30 shots with my stock house. In the year since, I've posted around 200. I print on the Epson 2200, and the results are very nice. I couldn't be more pleased with the camera or the technology. Paul I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here, one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through software and quality control issues, problems of all sorts, downloading glitches, memory cards that fail, just seems to defeat the purpose of a camera and lessen the experience of photography for me. I'm not particularly interested in solving computer problems when out making photographs, and have never really had many problems in all the years I've been shooting film: One battery problem with an ME Super, a sticky shutter release on an MX (solved by whapping the camera against the palm of my hand), and an LX with sticky mirror. Apart from a friend dropping one of my Leicas and needing to replace the rangefinder unit, those are the only problems I've encountered since 1968 oh, my original Spotmatic had to have the meter calibrated. Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
A footnote to my earlier comments: One of the reasons I went digital was that I had experienced a lot of problems with film. The best pro lab in town kept kinking my 6x7 transparency film, frequently rendering the first one or two frames useless. The lab that was processing my color neg film had scratched a number of rolls, and dirt was becoming a constant problem. I don't miss color film. I still shoot some BW film and process it myself. But I've also found that I like the converted BW outpur of the *istD. I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here, one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through software and quality control issues, problems of all sorts, downloading glitches, memory cards that fail, just seems to defeat the purpose of a camera and lessen the experience of photography for me. I'm not particularly interested in solving computer problems when out making photographs, and have never really had many problems in all the years I've been shooting film: One battery problem with an ME Super, a sticky shutter release on an MX (solved by whapping the camera against the palm of my hand), and an LX with sticky mirror. Apart from a friend dropping one of my Leicas and needing to replace the rangefinder unit, those are the only problems I've encountered since 1968 oh, my original Spotmatic had to have the meter calibrated. Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
While those with problems are vocal because they need help or to vent, those without don't comment as much (probably so as not to sound like they're gushing) because they don't really have to. I was unfortunate to have 2 ist D related problems, the first a backfocus issue with the Sigma 28-70 2.8 DF. While this is terribly annoying, it's not just a Pentax thing. Some C***n users have noticed backfocusing problems using the 20D with the 17-40L lens even. The N***n D70 was on the list too.. The problem really annoyed me when I discovered it because it was shooting 300 or so frames of the Aussie Olympians in a tickertape parade, and I only discovered the focus problems when I downloaded the images (on the LCD they looked fine!). I guess you could call that a loss of images. The other problem was regarding the battery grip. While the power was from the grip, connecting it to my laptop would produce a 'battery depleted' message. If you're thinking of it as a supplementary system, and if you've got boxes of Pentax glass, and are ready to put in the effort to ensure you don't get a lemon, I'd say go for it. There are listers who constantly produce wonderful work with their ist D's. On the other hand, if you're only 20% convinced, I'd suggest crossing your fingers Pentax have something planned for next Photokina :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 12, 2004 12:12 AM Subject: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD) Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel
cross-brand/cross-model comparisons
It's been evident from discussions here @ camera shops that each model has a differing image quality partly because of the changes to the physical screen in front of the sensor. So ... Is that the basis for some of the istD/Canon/Nikon image differences? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
God has nothing to do with it... Tom C wrote: Yep... you've gone over. :) May God rest his soul. Tom C. From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800 Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing. I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane, and that handstrap would have been a wonder tool.) and have been more than extremely happy with the results I've been getting. Plus with the 580EX flash, it's all feels like an across the board boost. I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! And yes, like you point out, it's all about the photographs- I agree totally. Anything else- looks, feel, or (granted that 6.3mp is more or less an acceptable resolution to print out a photo decently close to film quality) 2 extra megapixels- all bonuses :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Why not give the *ist D another try Ryan? If it's possible, or wait for the next thing Pentax does. You've seen all the beautiful shots it can produce. I've picked up the Canons and Nikons and have been horrified just by the way they felt and looked, compared to the *ist D. Maybe that's unscientific, but until the big 2 come out with a camera that feels, looks, and beats what I can do with a Pentax, I'm not willing to change and give up my present investment in lenses, etc. Granted, almost any camera can deliver a great photograph. I find pleasure however, in using a tool that fits my hands and mindset. Just my 2 cents. Tom C. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm Comments welcome. Bruce
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Many of these problems are typical of all DSLR or Digital cameras in general or digital equipment in general. Software is pounded out and often not properly tested. The rush to market makes the end user the final tester in many cases. I'm sure the Canon and Nikon forums have just as many complaints. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here, one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through software and quality control issues, problems of all sorts, downloading glitches, memory cards that fail, just seems to defeat the purpose of a camera and lessen the experience of photography for me. I'm not particularly interested in solving computer problems when out making photographs, and have never really had many problems in all the years I've been shooting film: One battery problem with an ME Super, a sticky shutter release on an MX (solved by whapping the camera against the palm of my hand), and an LX with sticky mirror. Apart from a friend dropping one of my Leicas and needing to replace the rangefinder unit, those are the only problems I've encountered since 1968 oh, my original Spotmatic had to have the meter calibrated. Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD? Shel -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ryan. I too have toyed with the idea of going over to the dark side. Oddly enough, what's stopped me from doing so has been the relative size and weight differences between Pentax and Canon offerings. Any of the unfortunate souls who accompanied me on my short, easy hike on Grandfather Mountain this year will tell you how and where I like to do my photography :) Only when I'm traveling alone I like to do it as a faster pace and hauling *more* gear (not photographic - I mean tent, sleeping bag, etc.) The small size and weight of the ist-D is absolutely perfect for my use. I may add the battery grip at some later time for other situations, but it's not a priority now. When Canon announced the 1D-II I was sorely tempted. 8 megapixels is very attractive and I'd settle for the 1.3x FOV crop over full-frame, considering the price difference. But thing's simply too enormous for me to even consider it. This may change in the future and my decision may change, too. I suspect we'll have a race: Will Canon bring down the size of their camera first or will Pentax bring up the size of their sensor in time? If Canon produces a 1.3x FOV crop camera of reasonable size and weight before Pentax produces a camera close to ist-D size with a 1.3x FOV crop, I'll probably make the switch. I have no doubt that Canon can win this race... *if* they want to. I just don't know if they really want to; there's a sizeable market amongst people who are much more impressed by large cameras, regardless of their other qualities. As always, the future is obscure! For now, I'm delighted with my ist-D. It really is better suited to my needs than any other DSLR available from any manufacturer. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Bruce Dayton wrote on 11/11/2004, 11:43 AM: Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm Normally you aren't suppose to have the horizon line cut halfway through a landscape, but it works here. Great lighting, very moody sky and the wave action was caught perfectly. Nicely done, Bruce! -- Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Poll Results(long)
Well here they are. I had 10 people respond, which is what we had in our last Municipal Election, LOL, but hopefully this will be helpful. I was hoping to here from more people who had complains about the camera,but they did not want to play I suppose.:-) Answers follow the 1-Why did you buy a Pentax *istD. 8 already had lots of glass (80%) 1 was love at first sight 2 were tired of scanning, plus had glass 1 thought it would be a good snapshot camera at least 2-Have you previously owned other digital cameras, either PS or DSLR 90% plus have had at least a PS digital,1 even had an Optio 330 The rest had not owned a PS digital 2A-Did you try or purchase other brands of DSLRS prior to or since buying the *istD Not much of a response to the reword of this, but, 1 person tried TVVs 10d which was liked, but not the D100 which he also tried, and 1 tried a 10d for a day. 3-Did you compare printed quality of the D to scanned images before and or after the purchase.. 65% compared and commented the D is much superior to the scan. The rest did not compare or called me names, LOL Scanning techniques were not brought into the equation here. 4-What problems have you had with the D. Was service satisfactory.(asking this to see if the camera has constant faults of one nature or another) 99% have stated no problems. Someone had a faulty DOF lever and fixed it. Several complaints about AF in low light. I was surprised no mention of the battery problems. I know several have asked questions when batteries are in both camera and grip, reporting low levels when fresh batteies are used, camera shutting off etc. 5-What do you like about the images printed from the camera. General consensus is: No grain, low noise even at ISO 800, do not look digital, and sharpness is good. Seems 100% who answered enjoy their images.g 6-What DONT you like about the images printed from the camera. 10% say resolution not as good as film 10% say to expensive to print 10% say reprints with blown out areas dont look as good as film. The rest have no complains/comments or need to be better photographers. LOL 7-What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find work well with your camera/shooting style.(sharpness etc) Hummm. A very broad range here. Not very good for a percent answer. Many are happy with primes from 28 to 50mm, with fast aperture, DA 16-45. Many are happy with certain Tamron(28-75 f 2.8)Tokina 80-200 f2.8Sigma 55-200f3.5-5.6, F and FA zooms lenses are a hit. Vivitar 400 f5.6, Tamron 20o f 3.5, the 31 and 354mmand macro lenses received good marks to. Notable mentions to Pentax: 17-28, 28-80, F70-210, F 20o f 4, ed macro, 300 f4.5, 600 f 4 and 1.4, 1.7 x converters. Phewww that was long.g 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) 30% mention the wides are not wide enough now. 10% mention slower than 2.8 is a problem 1% say long primes bring chromayic aberation 1% mention Sigmas 15 f 2.8 1% mention FA 24/2 and FA135/2.8 worked weel on film bodies but not the digital body. The rest say all is well with the lenses they own. 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you 50% yes they shoot no film 49% say they shoot film if hi res is needed or important work 1% said nope. 9-Do you still shoot film, if so what format(s) 35mm slide 2 35mm film 2 BW-MF or 35mm3 LF1 IR 1 6x6 slides 3 A few people still shot more than one format still, thus it does not add up to 100%. 10-How do you post process.(PS, Corel etc) PS seems to be the biggy here either Version 7.0 or CS. One uses older versions that Ill assume is 5.5 or 6.0 Others used (and they seems to be divided equally over the 10 replies) are: Breese Browser, C1LE, Picturewindow Pro, FixPhoto, Ulead, PhotoImage, Image Majic, Photolab (Pentax Raw), ACDSee for Tiff-Jpg conversions. 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. RAW 40% JPG 40% BOTH 19% WHATS NEEDED 1% I noted some shot jpg ONLY if non critical work is being shot, or if they have a LOT of images they want to shoot. One was to cheap to spring for another 1GIG card.vbg 11a-How big have you printed with quality you are happy with. 20x30 1 12x18 3 4x6 1 8x10 3 8x122 11x141 15x112cm pano 1 13x191 12-How do you rate flash shooting. Good 2 Medium 2 Bad1 Non using 3 Interesting replies. Some hate it, others have had good results. The AF360 either does ok or sucks. The AF400 seems to be well suited for weddings and the AF 360 for fill. I am surprised that to get decent results and ISO of 400 is needed. I know Nikon and Canon had very bad TTL in their earlier DLSR models but seem to have come up with a decent set of
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm This photo reminds me of Michael Reichmann's comment The manufacturer of my camera has no right in the world to dictate the height-to width ratio of my photographs! In other words: Crop off the top 25% or so of the frame and you'll have a tremendous shot. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
I suppose, but I figured I'd stick to Pentax issues since the Pentax would be my first choice (or consideration) were I to buy a DSLR, mostly because of all the K-mount glass that I have. Anyway, this is mostly a Pentax forum ;-)) That Nikon, Canon, Kodak, and others have similar problems is understood. That doesn't make me feel better (or worse) about the Pentax. Seems that there have been quite a bit more quality and operational problems with cameras (and this is a very personal conjecture) since the advent of autofocus and cameras with lots of electronics. Shel [Original Message] From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Many of these problems are typical of all DSLR or Digital cameras in general or digital equipment in general. Software is pounded out and often not properly tested. The rush to market makes the end user the final tester in many cases. I'm sure the Canon and Nikon forums have just as many complaints. Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system.
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
That's one of the best PESO/PAW/etc. shot I've seen here. Just superb. --Mark Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm Comments welcome. Bruce
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Hello Shel, I have two *istD bodies with about 15000-2 frames shot. I have not had any problems of concern with them. Every camera is going to have standard quirks, especially electronic ones. So for me, the big quirk (and I have tamed it in one or two sessions) is the flash TTL thing. Beyond that, I have been more than happy. I also get the feeling (especially reading the dpreview forum) that many people expect an electronic camera to think for them. So the camera gets blamed for not handling a situation that would require the person to think and take control of the picture. Simple example: when there is a lot of sky in the picture, the foreground is underexposed - well, duh! Along the same lines, some people are heavily relying on AF for some/all situations. Being a mostly manual focus guy, I don't encounter AF issues as much as many. So, in a nutshell, I have not encountered any significant differences between my old PZ-1p's, MZ-S's or the *istD's. HTH, Bruce Thursday, November 11, 2004, 8:12:49 AM, you wrote: SB I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film SB but as a supplemental system. Having been reading many digi-threads here, SB one thing keeps popping up: the various problems people have been having SB with the istD. The idea of buying a camera and then working through SB software and quality control issues, problems of all sorts, downloading SB glitches, memory cards that fail, just seems to defeat the purpose of a SB camera and lessen the experience of photography for me. I'm not SB particularly interested in solving computer problems when out making SB photographs, and have never really had many problems in all the years I've SB been shooting film: One battery problem with an ME Super, a sticky shutter SB release on an MX (solved by whapping the camera against the palm of my SB hand), and an LX with sticky mirror. Apart from a friend dropping one of SB my Leicas and needing to replace the rangefinder unit, those are the only SB problems I've encountered since 1968 oh, my original Spotmatic had to SB have the meter calibrated. SB Are these problems typical of the Pentax dslr, or are there just a few SB people here with such problems who post a lot looking for help in resolving SB these issues. From what I gather most of the regulars here are using an SB istD. How many have had NO problems with their cameras, software, memory SB cards, or what have you? Who has had serious problems, where the cameras SB has had to go in for repair, or be replaced, within a year or less after SB purchase? Who has had a problem, regardless of what it was, that caused a SB loss of images, or prevented a shooting session from being completed? SB I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a SB single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has SB juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from SB the Pentax istD? SB Shel
Re: cross-brand/cross-model comparisons
I am mailing Bruce Dayton two pictures from my nikon to look at, then John Coyle wants to see them. I'm sure Bruce and John will carve them apart.lol As for your question, it could be. I tried a friends 1D this summer and other than not really liking the camera layout and feel,felt the images were close to what i was getting on the Nikon.However they seemed to have less contrast than mine even with the settings set up for auto contrast and i was on Less contrast. Dave It's been evident from discussions here @ camera shops that each model has a differing image quality partly because of the changes to the physical screen in front of the sensor. So ... Is that the basis for some of the istD/Canon/Nikon image differences? Sincerely, C. Brendemuehl 'Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.' Ronald Reagan Sent via the WebMail system at mail.safe-t.net
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
So, 33% of your cameras were unsatisfactory and needed replacement ;-)) Thanks for jumping in, Paul. Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My first *istD was defective. It wouldn't recognize a card. However, BH replaced it immediately. I now have two *istD and have not had any problems with either.
RE: Poll Results(long)
Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how do you arrive at these odd percentage responses? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM Subject: Poll Results(long) 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) 30% mention the wides are not wide enough now. 10% mention slower than 2.8 is a problem 1% say long primes bring chromayic aberation 1% mention Sigmas 15 f 2.8 1% mention FA 24/2 and FA135/2.8 worked weel on film bodies but not the digital body. The rest say all is well with the lenses they own. 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you 50% yes they shoot no film 49% say they shoot film if hi res is needed or important work 1% said nope. 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. RAW 40% JPG 40% BOTH 19% WHATS NEEDED 1% I noted some shot jpg ONLY if non critical work is being shot, or if they have a LOT of images they want to shoot. One was to cheap to spring for another 1GIG card.vbg
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. Big snip What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs. Perhaps you don't mind the issue, I just thought to throw in one of the reasons I am not keen to go near them with a bargepole. Kostas
RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to Canon. Is there any particular reason that there's not as much discussion about going to Nikon? Pentax seems to put such emphasis on design and ergonomics, and my personal opinion is that in these areas, Nikon stands out compared to Canon. Just wondering... please, no Canon vs. Pentax vs. Nikon and all possible permutations thereof flamewar! -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ryan. I too have toyed with the idea of going over to the dark side. Oddly enough, what's stopped me from doing so has been the relative size and weight differences between Pentax and Canon offerings. Any of the unfortunate souls who accompanied me on my short, easy hike on Grandfather Mountain this year will tell you how and where I like to do my photography :) Only when I'm traveling alone I like to do it as a faster pace and hauling *more* gear (not photographic - I mean tent, sleeping bag, etc.) The small size and weight of the ist-D is absolutely perfect for my use. I may add the battery grip at some later time for other situations, but it's not a priority now. When Canon announced the 1D-II I was sorely tempted. 8 megapixels is very attractive and I'd settle for the 1.3x FOV crop over full-frame, considering the price difference. But thing's simply too enormous for me to even consider it. This may change in the future and my decision may change, too. I suspect we'll have a race: Will Canon bring down the size of their camera first or will Pentax bring up the size of their sensor in time? If Canon produces a 1.3x FOV crop camera of reasonable size and weight before Pentax produces a camera close to ist-D size with a 1.3x FOV crop, I'll probably make the switch. I have no doubt that Canon can win this race... *if* they want to. I just don't know if they really want to; there's a sizeable market amongst people who are much more impressed by large cameras, regardless of their other qualities. As always, the future is obscure! For now, I'm delighted with my ist-D. It really is better suited to my needs than any other DSLR available from any manufacturer. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
Bravo Bruce. That's a wall hanger for sure. CW - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: PESO - 17 mile drive #2 Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm Comments welcome. Bruce --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.792 / Virus Database: 536 - Release Date: 11/9/2004
RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Haynes, Grady (PPC) wrote: At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to Canon. Is there any particular reason that there's not as much discussion about going to Nikon? Probably because Canon is the largest company with the strongest brand recognition. Nikon is the second largest in this particular market segment, hence considered somewhat an underdog. Even though Canon has a model called rebel it's never rebellious to join the market leader. anders - http://anders.hultman.nu/ med dagens bild och allt!
Re: Poll Results(long)
Like 47% of all statistics he made them up. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how do you arrive at these odd percentage responses? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM Subject: Poll Results(long) 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) 30% mention the wides are not wide enough now. 10% mention slower than 2.8 is a problem 1% say long primes bring chromayic aberation 1% mention Sigmas 15 f 2.8 1% mention FA 24/2 and FA135/2.8 worked weel on film bodies but not the digital body. The rest say all is well with the lenses they own. 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you 50% yes they shoot no film 49% say they shoot film if hi res is needed or important work 1% said nope. 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. RAW 40% JPG 40% BOTH 19% WHATS NEEDED 1% I noted some shot jpg ONLY if non critical work is being shot, or if they have a LOT of images they want to shoot. One was to cheap to spring for another 1GIG card.vbg -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: Poll Results(long)
Some people had several answers to one question,like the film one. Some shot 35mm slide aAND 35mm film so i put tick mark for both. Should have added,results may vary by 10-30%.lol Dave Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how do you arrive at these odd percentage responses? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM Subject: Poll Results(long) 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) 30% mention the wides are not wide enough now. 10% mention slower than 2.8 is a problem 1% say long primes bring chromayic aberation 1% mention Sigmas 15 f 2.8 1% mention FA 24/2 and FA135/2.8 worked weel on film bodies but not the digital body. The rest say all is well with the lenses they own. 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you 50% yes they shoot no film 49% say they shoot film if hi res is needed or important work 1% said nope. 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. RAW 40% JPG 40% BOTH 19% WHATS NEEDED 1% I noted some shot jpg ONLY if non critical work is being shot, or if they have a LOT of images they want to shoot. One was to cheap to spring for another 1GIG card.vbg
RE: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Pentax seems to put such emphasis on design and ergonomics, and my personal opinion is that in these areas, Nikon stands out compared to Canon. Just wondering... please, no Canon vs. Pentax vs. Nikon and all possible permutations thereof flamewar! I think your right here. Nikon sems to have a bad customer service attitude(which i just found out myself)and Canon seems to have a more owner friendly attitude to comments on the products. Also i think Canon stands out more in public,with those big white plastic lenses,than the nikons do (mostly black stealthy units)so that may sway people on purchases.(ohh look those people have Canons,must be a good camera,lets buy one.vbg) I found i liked the Nikon feelover the Canon,otherwize i would be doing horse shows with a 1D not a D2h. Dave
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
I don't see that as a problem that will prevent getting the picture, so I didn't mention it. If dust, however, causes mechanical or electronic problems, that's another concern, but I don't think it does. I don't see at as any more of a concern than scratches, spots, or dust on a negative. Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem that way. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs. Perhaps you don't mind the issue, I just thought to throw in one of the reasons I am not keen to go near them with a bargepole. Kostas
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Canon is the Evil empire, they are cleaning Nikons clock, eating their lunch, kicking Nikons dog, (I seem to have run out of inappropriate metaphors, oh well). If present trends continue Nikon could well find itself in the same position as Pentax in a few years, a niche producer with some nice products and but, apparently, not quite up to date with technology. Haynes, Grady (PPC) wrote: At the risk of starting a heated discussion (really really please that's not what I want!!), it seems to me that most people on this list that talk about going to the dark side use that phrase to mean switch to Canon. Is there any particular reason that there's not as much discussion about going to Nikon? Pentax seems to put such emphasis on design and ergonomics, and my personal opinion is that in these areas, Nikon stands out compared to Canon. Just wondering... please, no Canon vs. Pentax vs. Nikon and all possible permutations thereof flamewar! -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 11:02 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ryan. I too have toyed with the idea of going over to the dark side. Oddly enough, what's stopped me from doing so has been the relative size and weight differences between Pentax and Canon offerings. Any of the unfortunate souls who accompanied me on my short, easy hike on Grandfather Mountain this year will tell you how and where I like to do my photography :) Only when I'm traveling alone I like to do it as a faster pace and hauling *more* gear (not photographic - I mean tent, sleeping bag, etc.) The small size and weight of the ist-D is absolutely perfect for my use. I may add the battery grip at some later time for other situations, but it's not a priority now. When Canon announced the 1D-II I was sorely tempted. 8 megapixels is very attractive and I'd settle for the 1.3x FOV crop over full-frame, considering the price difference. But thing's simply too enormous for me to even consider it. This may change in the future and my decision may change, too. I suspect we'll have a race: Will Canon bring down the size of their camera first or will Pentax bring up the size of their sensor in time? If Canon produces a 1.3x FOV crop camera of reasonable size and weight before Pentax produces a camera close to ist-D size with a 1.3x FOV crop, I'll probably make the switch. I have no doubt that Canon can win this race... *if* they want to. I just don't know if they really want to; there's a sizeable market amongst people who are much more impressed by large cameras, regardless of their other qualities. As always, the future is obscure! For now, I'm delighted with my ist-D. It really is better suited to my needs than any other DSLR available from any manufacturer. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Poll Results(long)
Only to protect the guilty. Hey this took up valuable at work time to do this.VBG Dave Like 47% of all statistics he made them up. Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for posting this. Your figures seem odd. With only 10 replies, how do you arrive at these odd percentage responses? Shel [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 11/11/2004 8:58:02 AM Subject: Poll Results(long) 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) 30% mention the wides are not wide enough now. 10% mention slower than 2.8 is a problem 1% say long primes bring chromayic aberation 1% mention Sigmas 15 f 2.8 1% mention FA 24/2 and FA135/2.8 worked weel on film bodies but not the digital body. The rest say all is well with the lenses they own. 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you 50% yes they shoot no film 49% say they shoot film if hi res is needed or important work 1% said nope. 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. RAW 40% JPG 40% BOTH 19% WHATS NEEDED 1% I noted some shot jpg ONLY if non critical work is being shot, or if they have a LOT of images they want to shoot. One was to cheap to spring for another 1GIG card.vbg -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
RE: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
You're really getting me motivated to take a day and drive down to the area. Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.) Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I can compare the K 200/2.5 to the manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 (which I still have) and to the A* 200/2.8 (which I no longer have). I'd say the ease of focusing is essentially the same in all three. I'd say that the focusing feel is slightly stiffer (although still very smooth) in the 200/2.5 than in the others (while the A* 200/2.8 has the easiest-to-turn focus feel). I did own the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 both at the same time for a while. I actually had the A* first, and picked up the K lens later. I liked the K so much that I ended up selling the A*. (Go figure...) Actually, the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 are my two most favorite K-era Pentax lenses (not including a few dear VS1 lenses of that era that I also love). That's not too surprising, I guess, inasmuch as the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 share the same optical design as the premium A* 200/2.8 (and these are the only three Pentax lenses to share this particular design, I believe). (It's not just the 6 elements in 6 groups configuration that they share - their optical diagrams are also virtually identical.) (The K 200/4, in contrast, also has a 6/6 formula, but a different optical diagram.) See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/135f2.5-i.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.5.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.8-i.gif (The A* lens, probably due to its use of LD glass, has just a ~very~ slightly different shape to some of the elements, but the two K lenses are virtually identical.) Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. ...which is a real pleasure, if you're a manual focus fan. Objects really seem to snap into focus at 200mm and at f/2.5. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Agreed. An f/2.5 lens is supposed to be faster than an f/2.8 one, but it's not a big difference. And, I'm just a bit dubious about the f/2.5 in the K 200/2.5, anyway - with a 77mm front filter mount (and with a clear aperture of therefore a little less than 77mm), it seems to me (who admittedly doesn't know much about optics) that 200mm divided by 2.5 should require a clear aperture of 80mm. The A* 200/2.8 also uses 77mm filters, but the actual diameter of the 200/2.5's front element is definitely a little wider than that of the 200/2.8's front element - i.e., the circular frame around the outer edge of the 2.8's front element is definitely more restrictive than is the thinner frame on the 2.5. Still, 200mm divided by 2.8 is only 71mm, while 200mm divided by 2.5 is 80mm. The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. If it really is a true f/2.5 lens, then that would be true. When the lens was first introduced, the Pentax Lenses and Accessories booklets of the time stated: In testimony of its role as a leader in the field of optics, and ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer, Asahi Optical has introduced the first 200 lens with an f/2.5 maximum aperture. This ultra high-speed telephoto lens is well suited for available light photography, such as indoor and nighttime sporting events. Even when used wide-open, its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and resolution, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights. And that's an objective opinion (no pun intended) - g, but, it's true - sharpness, contrast, and good bokeh are definitely characteristics of this lens. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). True. (I do think someone here on PDML tried out one of those custom tripod mounts - from a UK company, if I remember correctly - for this lens some time ago.) I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Mounted to a body that is mounted through its base to a tripod, the lens is extremely front heavy (and probably would strain the frame of the body if it's at all plasticky - most of the metal-bodied camera bodies would handle the load OK, however). The lens really works well with a monopod (especially for low-light use, which is where it really shines). With one hand cradling the focus ring on the lens, and the other handling the body, the font-heaviness of tripod use seems to disappear (with monopod use). Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. True, true, and true. I'd say its optical performance is essentially identical to that of the A* 200/2.8 (despite the latter's LD elements). Theoretically, I should see just a slight sharpening of edge detail with the LD A* lens, but I never could notice a
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. I'd say it depends on the body. I've used the K 200/2.5 on a tripod-mounted LX with absolutely no sign of stress. (It's quite front-heavy, of course). I don't think I'd like to try the lens on a tripod-mounted ZX-5n, say, however. It really works well on a monopod-mounted body, though, where the lens is partially supported by the hand on the focus ring. Fred
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about everything... indirectly at least. :) Tom C. From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:52:14 -0500 God has nothing to do with it... Tom C wrote: Yep... you've gone over. :) May God rest his soul. Tom C. From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800 Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing. I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane, and that handstrap would have been a wonder tool.) and have been more than extremely happy with the results I've been getting. Plus with the 580EX flash, it's all feels like an across the board boost. I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! And yes, like you point out, it's all about the photographs- I agree totally. Anything else- looks, feel, or (granted that 6.3mp is more or less an acceptable resolution to print out a photo decently close to film quality) 2 extra megapixels- all bonuses :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Why not give the *ist D another try Ryan? If it's possible, or wait for the next thing Pentax does. You've seen all the beautiful shots it can produce. I've picked up the Canons and Nikons and have been horrified just by the way they felt and looked, compared to the *ist D. Maybe that's unscientific, but until the big 2 come out with a camera that feels, looks, and beats what I can do with a Pentax, I'm not willing to change and give up my present investment in lenses, etc. Granted, almost any camera can deliver a great photograph. I find pleasure however, in using a tool that fits my hands and mindset. Just my 2 cents. Tom C. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Dust is not a problem if the camera is handled properly. I change lenses frequently and shoot outdoors quite a bit, but I don't have dust problems. I never leave the body exposed without a cap for more than a few seconds at a time, and I clean the sensor by flowing it off with a sterile ear syringe about once a week. When not in use, the syringe is stored in a box to avoid any contamination. Paul I don't see that as a problem that will prevent getting the picture, so I didn't mention it. If dust, however, causes mechanical or electronic problems, that's another concern, but I don't think it does. I don't see at as any more of a concern than scratches, spots, or dust on a negative. Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem that way. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs. Perhaps you don't mind the issue, I just thought to throw in one of the reasons I am not keen to go near them with a bargepole. Kostas
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Hello Kostas, I can say that after scanning thousands of pictures, that dust on the sensor is a minuscule problem compared to all the crap that is on negatives. I don't have to blow the dust off very often and then it is a 20 second operation. If a few images end up with a dust spot, it is no different than cloning out all the dust from scans. Lack of cleanup of images is one of the MAJOR reasons to shoot digital if you are already scanning. -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, November 11, 2004, 9:17:10 AM, you wrote: KK On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I have some concerns about moving to digital, not as a replacement for film but as a supplemental system. KK Big snip KK What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in KK case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs. KK Perhaps you don't mind the issue, I just thought to throw in one of KK the reasons I am not keen to go near them with a bargepole. KK Kostas
Re: PESO - 17 mile drive #2
I really wish I could have stayed there longer. One quick drive through does not do it justice. Bruce Thursday, November 11, 2004, 9:41:08 AM, you wrote: SB You're really getting me motivated to take a day and drive down to the area. SB Shel [Original Message] From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ok, we are swinging back to Monterey and the 17 mile drive for this one. Part of the same trip as the other two. Pentax *istD, Sigma 55-200/3.5-5.6 DC, Handheld http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/pinnacles_0085.htm
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Tom C wrote: Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about everything... indirectly at least. :) No, not really. However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly innocuous creed and certainly acceptable to everyone. Best, keith whaley Tom C. From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:52:14 -0500 God has nothing to do with it... Tom C wrote: Yep... you've gone over. :) May God rest his soul. Tom C.
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Seems that there have been quite a bit more quality and operational problems with cameras (and this is a very personal conjecture) since the advent of autofocus and cameras with lots of electronics. That's the first thing I thought of too, when I read your first post. Digital SLRs require more features to work together flawlessly than any other cameras before them, and thus with higher probability than ever that there will be some technical quirks. That said, my experience with the *istD has been a very pleasant one so far. I think it's a pretty decent camera. I think also that the experience with a DSLR is very dependant on one's expectations. For my part, the image quality of 6 megapixels has exceeded my expectations. The AF performance of *istD, however, has not met them. In my photography I'm not very dependant on a fast AF, so I chose acceptance rather than disappointment...:-) Btw, I didn't answer to the poll... best, Jostein
RE: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
dust isnt much of an issue anymore with film or sensor sourced digital images because it is so easy to clean up with photoshop ( unless its absurdly large or numerous). Its not like the old days where dust in a wet darkroom could easily drive you to insanity because it was so hard to eliminate completely. With digital editing it can be removed 100% without too much effort at all. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:03 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD) Dust is not a problem if the camera is handled properly. I change lenses frequently and shoot outdoors quite a bit, but I don't have dust problems. I never leave the body exposed without a cap for more than a few seconds at a time, and I clean the sensor by flowing it off with a sterile ear syringe about once a week. When not in use, the syringe is stored in a box to avoid any contamination. Paul I don't see that as a problem that will prevent getting the picture, so I didn't mention it. If dust, however, causes mechanical or electronic problems, that's another concern, but I don't think it does. I don't see at as any more of a concern than scratches, spots, or dust on a negative. Maybe it is, but it doesn't seem that way. Shel [Original Message] From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] What I did not see in your list (and I am only mentioning it just in case) is how problematic dust is/is not with the *ist-D/DSLRs. Perhaps you don't mind the issue, I just thought to throw in one of the reasons I am not keen to go near them with a bargepole. Kostas
Re: Worst Ebay Seller of all time
Tom C wrote: ***Basically***, the only things that are against the ***strictly enforced*** rules on e-bay are receiving money for an item and not delivering it to the buyer, or buying an item and not delivering the funds to the seller (which in the end deprives the seller of nothing but his time, and other bidders of a potential purchase... assuming the seller does not ship until receiving the funds). I'm not advocating this of course. Tom, as someone who barely scrapes by as ebay with nearly my only source of income, let me say this. (just for the stats, I have 783 feedback points, 99.9% (1 neg from a book dealer in 1999 who only said the book I had wasnt a a real first after I left him negative feedback but took the book back. ) But when buyers don't pay or drag their heels the time becomes considerable. I always treat any deliquency as an oversight on their part with cause - gently reminidng them, never threatening, and occasionally I've actually called someone who didnt write at all. Even though there really is no excuse for a buyer not using another's computer or asking a friend to check to see if they won, I don't get on their case about it. The problem is I spend time not just writing them, but having to go through the extensive red tape to get back my final value fee - maybe this has changed as I haven't had to do this recently. It is an emotional strain, as well. Ebay isn't like a garage sale anymore, alas. Though I'm struggling to keep that atmosphere in my auctions. Having a cold seems to make me procrastinate a lot more too.. I have to go write some reminder letters now :) annsan
Re: *ist D Anomalies
Yeah it was me. I saw you ignoring the DONT WALK and decided you were a deviant. :) Tom C. Hey! You know, I think I saw you at an intersection the other day, feverishly pressing the WALK button at least 100 times a minute. I suppose I should have stopped and said hello... keith whaley Tom C.
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
I suppose you're right in the strictly Judeo-Christian sense, but I think Cotty expressed my nuance in his post... Tom C wrote: Oh silly me... I thought God had something to do with just about everything... indirectly at least. :) Tom C. From: Peter J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:52:14 -0500 God has nothing to do with it... Tom C wrote: Yep... you've gone over. :) May God rest his soul. Tom C. From: Ryan Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 23:41:44 +0800 Well Tom, it's a bit late now isn't it! I've already bitten the bullet and got my 20D stuff (btw, that handstrap which I bought as an extra is amazing. I remember running all about the place with the ist D and grip, a Sigma 28-70 2.8 and the AF360fgz for the Aussie Olympians returning to Brisbane, and that handstrap would have been a wonder tool.) and have been more than extremely happy with the results I've been getting. Plus with the 580EX flash, it's all feels like an across the board boost. I completely agree with you about feels and looks; the ist D is a gorgeous little thing, and it's not too shabby specwise either. However, I'm not deeply invested in Pentax glass, and my love affair is more with the mz5n or the mz3 bodies (samples of wonderfully thoughtful design). I'll be hanging on to that forever, but having played around with the 20D, I can't say the same- it almost feels like it's anticipating to be replaced already! And yes, like you point out, it's all about the photographs- I agree totally. Anything else- looks, feel, or (granted that 6.3mp is more or less an acceptable resolution to print out a photo decently close to film quality) 2 extra megapixels- all bonuses :-) Cheers, Ryan - Original Message - From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:44 PM Subject: Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison Why not give the *ist D another try Ryan? If it's possible, or wait for the next thing Pentax does. You've seen all the beautiful shots it can produce. I've picked up the Canons and Nikons and have been horrified just by the way they felt and looked, compared to the *ist D. Maybe that's unscientific, but until the big 2 come out with a camera that feels, looks, and beats what I can do with a Pentax, I'm not willing to change and give up my present investment in lenses, etc. Granted, almost any camera can deliver a great photograph. I find pleasure however, in using a tool that fits my hands and mindset. Just my 2 cents. Tom C. -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Cotty, Sounds like what I want. Weight is not a problem - its more if its convenient to work with and there big lenses do differ. Some being outright awkward but I think from your description this is what I want. I'm not quite small myself, my family were from northern Scandinavia and carrying stuff is what one was brought up with having no roads for long stretches and nice lakes for fishing in. Have used big glass like mf 500mmf5.6 and like a good tripod also. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: On 11/11/04, Ronald Arvidsson, discombobulated, unleashed: Do you rate the 200/2.5 as easy to work with as a 135 mm or 200/f4 lens (manual focus)? Understood Ron. I would say that it is appreciably heavier than the 135 or the 200/4 so that may slow you down a bit. Depends. I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. If only you could get to see one before you buy, but I realise that's usually impossible when sourcing less than common gear. Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. It is a super lens, but it is heavy. The hood is big enough to bivouac two in an emergency and the case has tandem axles and full electrics. If you can get one at a good price i would say go for it, you certainly won't be disappointed. HTH Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
I guess a monopod would do the trick if one wants to be mobile. Thats what I prefer when photographing birds and wildlife if I need to be mobile rather than handheld. Cheers, Ronald Cotty wrote: No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Is it too heavy to stick the camera (with it attached :-) on the tripod? Kostas Very impractical. I think it would put a big strain on the lens and body mounts, and possibly on the bush or quick release mount. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Fwd: Magnum Vacancy
This is a forwarded message ===8==Original message text=== Dear Friends, Magnum Photos is looking to fill the position of Editorial Assistant. In short it is to liaise on the editorial front for all the territories that Magnum London addresses which include: the UK, Asia, Australia New Zealand. With such a large number of our clientele based in remote areas an ability to work with and create digital presentations to further sales is essential. Keen sensibilities regarding content is also imperative in promoting Magnum material with clients, intelligently and in fresh ways. If you feel you know somebody who you think may be interested in this opportunity, we would be very grateful if you would pass this job description on. Many thanks, Bree for Magnum Photos, London bureau ___ Editorial Assistant, Magnum Photos Applicant will have: - experience with (either) buying or selling of images - working knowledge of photography and production matters - ability to create cross platform digital presentations Otherwise: - highly organized - excellent people skills Please forward CV, cd of digital/graphic work and letter of intention to the care of : Bree Seeley Magnum Photos 5 Old Street London EC1V 9HL Questions? Please call 020 7490 1771 ===8===End of original message text===
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
Yes. I haven't found the *ist D to have more or less problems than a regular electronic body film SLR. Tom C. I've had my little Sony for 18 months or so, maybe more, and have not had a single glitch with it. I just put in a card, make sure the battery has juice, and point and shoot merrily all day long. Can that be expected from the Pentax istD?
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
Thanks Fred, Cheers, Ronald Fred wrote: I'll respond to a few of the other messages in this thread. (Sorry if this is a bit long of an answer - remember, though, I could have flooded the thread with a bunch of short answers instead - g.) Was the 200/2.5 easier - faster to work with than the 80-200/2.8 at the long end, or no significant difference? I can compare the K 200/2.5 to the manual focus Tokina AT-X 80-200/2.8 (which I still have) and to the A* 200/2.8 (which I no longer have). I'd say the ease of focusing is essentially the same in all three. I'd say that the focusing feel is slightly stiffer (although still very smooth) in the 200/2.5 than in the others (while the A* 200/2.8 has the easiest-to-turn focus feel). I did own the K 200/2.5 and the A* 200/2.8 both at the same time for a while. I actually had the A* first, and picked up the K lens later. I liked the K so much that I ended up selling the A*. (Go figure...) Actually, the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 are my two most favorite K-era Pentax lenses (not including a few dear VS1 lenses of that era that I also love). That's not too surprising, I guess, inasmuch as the K 200/2.5 and the K 135/2.5 share the same optical design as the premium A* 200/2.8 (and these are the only three Pentax lenses to share this particular design, I believe). (It's not just the 6 elements in 6 groups configuration that they share - their optical diagrams are also virtually identical.) (The K 200/4, in contrast, also has a 6/6 formula, but a different optical diagram.) See: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/135f2.5-i.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.5.gif http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/_optics/200f2.8-i.gif (The A* lens, probably due to its use of LD glass, has just a ~very~ slightly different shape to some of the elements, but the two K lenses are virtually identical.) Sure it's fast, as fast as you can turn the large grippy focus ring. ...which is a real pleasure, if you're a manual focus fan. Objects really seem to snap into focus at 200mm and at f/2.5. There is no perceptible difference in light level between a 2.5 and a 2.8 IMO. Agreed. An f/2.5 lens is supposed to be faster than an f/2.8 one, but it's not a big difference. And, I'm just a bit dubious about the f/2.5 in the K 200/2.5, anyway - with a 77mm front filter mount (and with a clear aperture of therefore a little less than 77mm), it seems to me (who admittedly doesn't know much about optics) that 200mm divided by 2.5 should require a clear aperture of 80mm. The A* 200/2.8 also uses 77mm filters, but the actual diameter of the 200/2.5's front element is definitely a little wider than that of the 200/2.8's front element - i.e., the circular frame around the outer edge of the 2.8's front element is definitely more restrictive than is the thinner frame on the 2.5. Still, 200mm divided by 2.8 is only 71mm, while 200mm divided by 2.5 is 80mm. The fastest 200 you can buy in K mount. If it really is a true f/2.5 lens, then that would be true. When the lens was first introduced, the Pentax Lenses and Accessories booklets of the time stated: In testimony of its role as a leader in the field of optics, and ever mindful of the needs of the professional photographer, Asahi Optical has introduced the first 200 lens with an f/2.5 maximum aperture. This ultra high-speed telephoto lens is well suited for available light photography, such as indoor and nighttime sporting events. Even when used wide-open, its 6-element, 6-group optical design ensures high contrast and resolution, as well as attractive out-of-focus highlights. And that's an objective opinion (no pun intended) - g, but, it's true - sharpness, contrast, and good bokeh are definitely characteristics of this lens. No tripod collar is a big minus (IMO). True. (I do think someone here on PDML tried out one of those custom tripod mounts - from a UK company, if I remember correctly - for this lens some time ago.) I am big of frame and sturdy of leg (!) and heavy gizmos don't phase me but I wouldn't like to hand-hold that monster much under 1/250th. No tripod mount means you're on your own there. Mounted to a body that is mounted through its base to a tripod, the lens is extremely front heavy (and probably would strain the frame of the body if it's at all plasticky - most of the metal-bodied camera bodies would handle the load OK, however). The lens really works well with a monopod (especially for low-light use, which is where it really shines). With one hand cradling the focus ring on the lens, and the other handling the body, the font-heaviness of tripod use seems to disappear (with monopod use). Fantastic build, very smooth. Very sharp. True, true, and true. I'd say its optical performance is essentially identical to that of the A* 200/2.8 (despite the latter's LD elements). Theoretically, I should see just a slight sharpening of edge
YS K-mount
Has anyone a YS K-mount for spare? I'd like to buy one. Contact me off list. Cheers, Ronald
Re: *ist D Anomalies
Tom C wrote: Yeah it was me. I saw you ignoring the DONT WALK and decided you were a deviant. :) Heh, heh...You're way sharper than I thought you were! Good onya! keith Tom C. Hey! You know, I think I saw you at an intersection the other day, feverishly pressing the WALK button at least 100 times a minute. I suppose I should have stopped and said hello... keith whaley Tom C.
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
You apparently possess faith that your belief is correct. :) Tom C. However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly innocuous creed and certainly acceptable to everyone. Best, keith whaley
Re: Poll Results(long)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well here they are. I had 10 people respond, which is what we had in our last Municipal Election, LOL, but hopefully this will be helpful. I was hoping to here from more people who had complains about the camera,but they did not want to play I suppose.:-) Well, I was going to answer. I even had the e-mail tagged in my folder to remind me to reply. I'll give you a few answers now instead :-) 1-Why did you buy a Pentax *istD. I wanted something light to carry around and I already had loads of lovely lenses 2-Have you previously owned other digital cameras, either PS or DSLR Yes, both Canon :-o 2A-Did you try or purchase other brands of DSLRS prior to or since buying the *istD 10D. I only bought it because there was nothing available from Pentax at the time I wanted it. 3-Did you compare printed quality of the D to scanned images before and or after the purchase.. No because I don't have much patience with scanning 4-What problems have you had with the D. Was service satisfactory.(asking this to see if the camera has constant faults of one nature or another) No problems but the little flat battery went dead about 4 weeks after I got it and it arrived with dust spots on the sensor 5-What do you like about the images printed from the camera. 6-What DONT you like about the images printed from the camera. 7-What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find work well with your camera/shooting style.(sharpness etc) 77 ltd is a beauty 7a- What lenses, Pentax or other, do you find DO NOT work well with your camera/shooting style. (sharpness etc) Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super. Awful! 8-Has digital taken the place of 35mm film shooting for you Yes 9-Do you still shoot film, if so what format(s) I took the MZ-S out the other week with some Velvia. It's such a nice camera it's a shame not to use it more. Still have the 67 but haven't used that in ages either. 10-How do you post process.(PS, Corel etc) PS-CS BreezeBrowser . 11-Do you shoot RAW or JPEG or what is needed for the job at hand. Mostly jpeg for events, raw other times 11a-How big have you printed with quality you are happy with. 16x20 12-How do you rate flash shooting. Try to avoid it but will use for fill 13-If a Pentax rep stopped by your house, what would you like to tell him/her to fix or change or add.. Make the RAW files a bit smaller! 14-What do you use the D for mostly ie: Portraits, sports, weddings etc. Snapshots ;-) Wendy
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
Tom C wrote: You apparently possess faith that your belief is correct. :) Funny how that works, isn't it. We're both right, absent contrary proof. Meanwhile, we're both happy! g Best wishes, keith Tom C. However, if you choose to cling to that belief, it's a perfectly innocuous creed and certainly acceptable to everyone. Best, keith whaley
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
On 12/11/04, Ryan Lee, discombobulated, unleashed: I'd suggest crossing your fingers Pentax have something planned for next Photokina :-) I'd cross everything mate. Arms, legs, shoelaces, etc. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Concerns About Moving to Digital (Quality of istD)
On 11/11/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: I'm sure the Canon and Nikon forums have just as many complaints. You're kidding. More! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On 11/11/04, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: When Canon announced the 1D-II I was sorely tempted. 8 megapixels is very attractive and I'd settle for the 1.3x FOV crop over full-frame, considering the price difference. But thing's simply too enormous for me to even consider it. This may change in the future and my decision may change, too. Hey Mark, when is it you're visiting?? GG* * GG - Graywolf GRIN Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Over to the Dark side.. ist D vs 20D brief comparison
On 11/11/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed: I suppose you're right in the strictly Judeo-Christian sense, but I think Cotty expressed my nuance in his post... Just call me Bealzebub. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Pentax MF 200mm f2.5?
On 11/11/04, Fred, discombobulated, unleashed: I love the K 200/2.5. I'd recommend the lens to anybody who wants a sweet and fast 200mm manual focus lens (and who doesn't mind the weight). Totally agree. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
