Re: Full Frame/Canon
By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their originally intended angle of view. I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200 2.8 acts like a 300 2.8. So performance of wide angles is of paramount concern. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Full Frame/Canon Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 2:23 pm Size: 727 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with lens design. However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a normal UWA. But it's still more extreme than with longer lenses, isn't it? The conventional wisdom is of course that digital sensors are more sensitive to those angles than film, of course... But I don't know a lot about it, or even care. I was just trying to point out that it seemed unfair to draw conclusions about lenses in general based on the behaviour of wide-angles. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Help buying a darkroom
Darkroom prices are in the tank. While is a nice setup, the price is probably twice what it should be. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Help buying a darkroom Date: Fri 2006 Aug 25 5:33 pm Size: 995 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net I'm interested in buying a used darkroom. I've come across what seems to be a good deal. I'm sure some of you have more knowledge of this sort of thing than I do. for sale: Besler 23CII enlarger with Zone VI cold light head. Zone VI compensating enlarger timer with footswitch. Rodagon 80mm lens. Nikon 50mm lens. Peak grain focuser. Negative carriers. Saunders 4-blade easel. Cascade archival print washer. Gra Lab print timer. Zone VI film washer. Three sizes of developing trays. Film loading bag. Sundries: steel tongs, thermometers, jugs, funnel, stir rod, print squeege, graduates, hand-colouring pencils, negative sleeves, film hangers, canned air, anti-static cloth, and more. $900. obo Thats about $800USD. Assuming everything is in good condition (the photos indicate that it is all fairly new), is that a good value? I'm sure that I could knock $100 or so off the price, too. Mike -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
[no subject]
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
holidays! signing off for a week
I'm off to a cabin with none of that electrical stuff for a week -- I have no interest in having a 3000 message inbox when I return, so I'm signing off until September. Please respect the embargo on discussion of the ass-kickiness of the secret features of the new camera while I'm gone. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Useless gearhead quiz (was - venting)
This thread simply proves to me that I'm not a gearhead. I tend to buy something to do something specific, and keep it. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Turbulent age
On Aug 24, 2006, at 6:13 AM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Thanks Ken. It would have been nice to know where Minolta was. Is that SLR-only? ...out of business? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Turbulent age
On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:24 AM, Pål Jensen wrote: What the pros are using, and particular the photo journalists, are less important now for brand recognition I had two different sports photographers ask me on Tuesday what I knew about the new Pentax bodies after seeing that I was shooting with Pentax. The game was actually quite eventful, so we didn't get a lot of time to chat about it. But I find it interesting that the question even came up. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Turbulent age
On Aug 24, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Bob W wrote: Photojournalists that I know or have spoken to are always interested in who's using what and why. It's important for them to have an edge on the competition, so if they see someone using something unconventional they want to know what benefit it is giving them. True, though these guys all had paper-issued gear, so they can't really make those kinds of purchasing decisions. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Turbulent age
My reply wasn't directly addressing it, just relating a recent anecdote. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Turbulent age Date: Thu 2006 Aug 24 11:26 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Bob W wrote: What the pros are using, and particular the photo journalists, are less important now for brand recognition I had two different sports photographers ask me on Tuesday what I knew about the new Pentax bodies after seeing that I was shooting with Pentax. Photojournalists that I know or have spoken to are always interested in who's using what and why. It's important for them to have an edge on the competition, so if they see someone using something unconventional they want to know what benefit it is giving them. Over recent years the range of different types of camera that photojournalists use seems to me to have expanded significantly. I know one guy who shot 4x5 in a war zone. A few of them are using square format, or (as Shel posted some time ago) 'consumer' digicams. They want their work to look different and to stand out from the herd. Is it just me or are these two answers missing Paal's initial remark? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Useless gearhead quiz (was - venting)
On Aug 24, 2006, at 11:48 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Exactly what I do, but I don't hold onto things that I am not using unless I feel that I might need them again within a reasonable period of time. Those are the things that I rent! In a decade I was never able to accumulate more than two 6x7 lenses despite near-constant use of the thing. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Japan DSLR Stats
On Aug 24, 2006, at 12:27 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Makes me want to skip the K10D 'til I get a feel for the rate at which they are falling behind the curve. Hah -- you'll feel pretty silly for saying that once the camera is announced. Why are people so obsessed with whether or not Pentax are in first place? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Japan DSLR Stats
Well, I never would have bought a D, but the DS2 had me at hello. Stupid enough to get the sale. The K100D's anti-shake is a pretty big deal, and the price difference between it and the ten MP body will likely continue to fuel sales of the 100. None of these, aside from the original D, tanked. Had they not made them, how could they have sold them? -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Japan DSLR Stats Date: Thu 2006 Aug 24 1:53 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net That's not true at all. How can you make a judgement like that? I really don't give a rat's ass about what people think about the camera I carry. I do care about how I spend the limited amount of money I have because I can't afford to run out and buy a new camera system everyday. It's also of interest because Pentax's position in the marketplace has a bearing on how quickly and slowly they bring new products to market. So far I think their stupid *ist D variations and now two more K100 6MP variations were a waste of resources when they should have been concentrating on getting more innovative products to market sooner. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Japan DSLR Stats Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:13:01 -0700 On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: ... Why are people so obsessed with whether or not Pentax are in first place? Because they have nothing better to occupy their time. To people who think this way, the Pentax badge is emblematic, a matter of status in ownership. Me, I don't give a damn about Pentax other than that they have made a very nice set of lenses and good cameras to use them with. I make photographs. Having someone say That's a nice picture! or even, heaven forfend, buy one of my photos is far far more rewarding to me than having someone say, Wow, you must have a great camera! Pentax is doing really great now, eh? G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Japan DSLR Stats
Tanked in the sense that they had them in stock long after production ceased. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Japan DSLR Stats Date: Thu 2006 Aug 24 2:44 pm Size: 3K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net I'm not sure the original D tanked exactly. It was priced as a semi pro model with semi pro accessories. It was a stopgap camera in many ways. The Mirror box looks to be a variation on the MZ-ZX cameras mirror box, you could fit a full frame sensor in it, and it's mirror seems to be the same as that in the MZ/ZX series. The Ds/Ds2/DL/DL2 have a new mirror and mirror box suited to the APS format. Aaron Reynolds wrote: Well, I never would have bought a D, but the DS2 had me at hello. Stupid enough to get the sale. The K100D's anti-shake is a pretty big deal, and the price difference between it and the ten MP body will likely continue to fuel sales of the 100. None of these, aside from the original D, tanked. Had they not made them, how could they have sold them? -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Japan DSLR Stats Date: Thu 2006 Aug 24 1:53 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net That's not true at all. How can you make a judgement like that? I really don't give a rat's ass about what people think about the camera I carry. I do care about how I spend the limited amount of money I have because I can't afford to run out and buy a new camera system everyday. It's also of interest because Pentax's position in the marketplace has a bearing on how quickly and slowly they bring new products to market. So far I think their stupid *ist D variations and now two more K100 6MP variations were a waste of resources when they should have been concentrating on getting more innovative products to market sooner. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Japan DSLR Stats Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2006 10:13:01 -0700 On Aug 24, 2006, at 9:52 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: ... Why are people so obsessed with whether or not Pentax are in first place? Because they have nothing better to occupy their time. To people who think this way, the Pentax badge is emblematic, a matter of status in ownership. Me, I don't give a damn about Pentax other than that they have made a very nice set of lenses and good cameras to use them with. I make photographs. Having someone say That's a nice picture! or even, heaven forfend, buy one of my photos is far far more rewarding to me than having someone say, Wow, you must have a great camera! Pentax is doing really great now, eh? G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Turbulent age
On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Cotty wrote: http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/bodies/prototypes/MZ-D.html C'est la vie, uh? Yeah, but did you ever see the pictures it took? It took balls, but killing that thing off was probably the smartest move they made in a decade. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Japan DSLR Stats
On Aug 24, 2006, at 3:29 PM, Tom C wrote: Even Canon's entry level model for the last year is generally recognized as being superior in many ways to Pentax's top of the line. Wait, does Pentax actually have a top of the line? Not one that is anywhere close to current. By that same measurement, Pentax's own entry level model for the last year is generally recognized as being superior in many ways to their old, outdated top of the line camera that was only still around because of slow sales. Compare -- the *istD went out of production a significant period of time ago, yet brand new bodies were still available from Pentax a month ago. The DS2 went out of production and brand new bodies were available for two weeks after production ceased. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
And those L lenses aren't legacy, really -- compared to what we're talking about when we say Pentax legacy lenses, L series glass is very new. Surely at least for the last five years they've been designed with digital as a primary consideration. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 6:02 pm Size: 3K To: pdml@pdml.net I suppose that's possible. But even with reported edge softness of Canon L glass on the EOS 5D (probably at selected apertures) it appears to be a runaway hit, so I wonder how bad it can be. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 17:56:00 -0400 But Tom, what full frame bodies deliver really good results with old lenses? I mean, comparable to the same lens on film. What you desire just may not be attainable with today's tech. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed 2006 Aug 23 5:19 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net The lens and shutter release are also irrelevant on their own. :-) The issue for those of us who like to whine and bellyache about the lack of a FF sensor body for our legacy non-DA lenses is not one of an APS-C sensor being inherently of lesser quality, it's one of our not being able to use the lenses as intended. It's aggravated by the likely fact that as sensor prices continue to drop, it would be economically feasible at least for Pentax to produce a FF body. Whether that makes good profit sense after having saturated the market with cheap APS-C bodies is another question. Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 16:55:49 -0400 That's not entirely true, but we'll let it pass. Bob W wrote: That's not really true. Smaller film formats than 35mm did not take over from 35mm film. Just because a digital sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame doesn't mean that it is lower quality. Really the size of the sensor is irrelevant on its own. -- Cheers, Bob not sure really. But it follows an historical trend: people prefer little less quality than bigger better quality. I expect this to continue... -- -- Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's favorite pet. People like pets to possess the same qualities they do. Cats are irresponsible and recognize no authority, yet are completely dependent on others for their material needs. Cats cannot be made to do anything useful. Cats are mean for the fun of it P. J. O'Rourke -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I wouldn't call them cheap APS-C bodies. There's certainly nothing cheap feeling about the DS2. I mean, it weighs less than the 67, and it's not as cold to the touch, but it's pretty damned solid. There's no play, nothing is loose, nothing is flimsy, nothing changes shape when I grip it. I'll let everyone know when it dies -- the drop count on it is already at four. The last ME Super that I did in lasted until 16, I think. I don't drop cameras often, I just use them a lot. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I really don't get what's being said here -- old, film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame Canons, as evidenced by the L series? Am I missing something? Has the L series been around for a long, long time, or are we just talking about how well NEW lenses perform? Tom's talking about his old Pentax glass. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 9:49 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: I wouldn't be surprised to see something like a 10/3.5. There's been plenty of research in lenses of that ilk for 35mm movie cameras Wasn't Trainspotting entirely shot with a 10mm Zeiss lens? I seem to recall that the lens rental alone was a very large chunk of their budget. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 10:02 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: Well at least Tokina has been reminding them :-) Hey, if it's good enough for Nikon pro long primes, it's plenty good enough for me. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2
On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:32 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote: Maybe, maybe not. The only thing certain is that Pentax has already shown a lack of concern for customers investments in storage cards. NOT TO MENTION THEIR LACK OF CONCERN FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS WHO SHOOT A LOT OF FILM!!! I HAVE ALL THIS FILM AND MY NEW CAMERA DOESN'T TAKE FILM! 1) Pentax USA has absolutely no idea what Pentax Japan will do. Good example: they said Photolab 3 absolutely would not be a free upgrade, and suddenly it appeared on the Japanese web site as a free upgrade. 2) Joe, we all know that you are very, very upset that if you buy a new camera you may have to spend $30 to $50 on some new cards to go with it. You can give that one a rest now that we all know it, can't you? Face it, the cards are smaller and more robust and you don't have to worry about bending all those tiny pins in the camera. And they're cheap. So what's the problem? The old cards were expensive. And so what? They're not expensive now. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Cotty wrote: Seems to me that SD is becoming the consumer standard. CF is still a professional standard and I don't see any sign of that changing. I would suspect that there are probably good reasons for that. Considering that most pro bodies are physically much bigger, there's not as much compelling upside to switch. But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd take the smaller, faster card every time. Why wouldn't you? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2
On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:18 AM, David Savage wrote: Not if you'd bought $500+ (a 1GB a 2GB in my case) worth of CF cards you wouldn't. David -- are those cards fast compared to what's out there currently, or would putting them into your new camera put you at a significant write speed disadvantage? Considering when you bought them, I'm going to have to guess that they're very slow compared to what's out there now in SD. So, to save $100 (the total cost of a fast 1GB card and a fast 2GB SD card if you don't shop around for the best price and get screwed on shipping) you would cripple your camera's write speed, effectively reducing the number of frames you could shoot in a row and how quickly you recover after shooting a burst. Why would you do that? Would you buy a $1200 film camera and insist on only putting Gold Max in it? You have to remember Shel, when most people bought there *istD flash memory wasn't as cheap as it is now. If it had been, I would consider it disposable. For a camera maker know for backwards compatibility, IMO they should have put in a dual memory card slot. Bad for two reasons: 1) makes the camera bigger 2) cheap users will constantly complain on the internet about how slow their very expensive new camera is. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Capable, sure, but what can you get for the same price? The *ist D isn't worth comparing, speed-wise, as even Pentax's cheapest DSLR outperforms it by a large margin now. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Peter Loveday [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 7:22 am Size: 817 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd take the smaller, faster card every time. Why wouldn't you? Actually CompactFlash is capable of far higher speeds than SD. Not that it matters a whole lot, the I/O speeds on Pentax DSLRs is far from stellar (especially the *istD). Although no cards are actually capable of this kind of speed at the moment, the current CF spec is capable of 133MB/sec (thats 886X), where SD spec (including SDHC) is only capable of 20MB/sec (133X) as far as I know. Still, assuming SD can evolve and increase that as card flash speeds increase, its not that important. Love, Light and Peace, - Peter Loveday -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2
I've never shopped by name, so I don't know what the write speed of an Ultra II translates to. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2 Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 7:03 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net At 06:44 PM 22/08/2006, you wrote: On Aug 22, 2006, at 3:18 AM, David Savage wrote: Not if you'd bought $500+ (a 1GB a 2GB in my case) worth of CF cards you wouldn't. David -- are those cards fast compared to what's out there currently, or would putting them into your new camera put you at a significant write speed disadvantage? Considering when you bought them, I'm going to have to guess that they're very slow compared to what's out there now in SD. All of them are Sandisk Ultra II's. Are the SD Ultra II's faster? So, to save $100 (the total cost of a fast 1GB card and a fast 2GB SD card if you don't shop around for the best price and get screwed on shipping) you would cripple your camera's write speed, effectively reducing the number of frames you could shoot in a row and how quickly you recover after shooting a burst. Why would you do that? Would you buy a $1200 film camera and insist on only putting Gold Max in it? Probably, because I'm illogical. For a camera maker know for backwards compatibility, IMO they should have put in a dual memory card slot. Bad for two reasons: 1) makes the camera bigger 2) cheap users will constantly complain on the internet about how slow their very expensive new camera is. -Aaron The camera (K10D) has already got bigger to fit the SR mechanism. I see your point guy's, it's just the Scottish blood in me that hates paying for stuff again and again. I guess I'm overruled in this matter so I'll just shut my yap. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:34 AM, Adam Maas wrote: are harder to lose Heh, my Ampex 501 is a lot harder to lose than my iPod, but when choosing a portable music player I'll go for the one that doesn't weigh more than my kid. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:26 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: The numbers work out to considerably less than $100.00 if you make a wise purchase. I know -- I was trying to put together a reasonable worst-case. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 4 GB SD cards for istDS/DS2, istDL/DL2
On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:18 AM, David Savage wrote: Assuming prices are up to date, the average works out to: AU$257 (~US$195) Well, it sucks to be in Australia. Maybe your CF cards have held their value, then, eh? Three fast Gb plus a slow 1Gb card for my Palm cost me about $100 total, and some of those cards I bought before the most recent price drop -- I paid more for my fast 1Gb card than I did for my fast 2Gb card, only a few months apart. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Screw mount bellows on the K100D (was - scanner question)
I have a set of bellows in the basement somewhere -- I'll see if I can successfully attach them to my DS2, which should be about the same shape. Of course, I'd have to successfully find them first. -Aaron On Aug 22, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: What I haven't come across is whether or not I can attach a screw mount bellows to the K100D. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
1) Reeling in what sense? 2) What are you expecting to hear from the American importer, and what exactly did you ask? Your cards work JUST FINE in your camera. If you keep your camera, you will need cards. If you sell your camera, sell the cards with it. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 11:15 am Size: 794 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net After posting my comments I began to think about what I said. Can anyone make a case for CF cards as being a better choice than SD cards, apart from some CF cards having a greater capacity than the current highest capacity SD cards? Shel - Make a case? The case for me is that it feels like Pentax has gratuitously slapped me in the face. I bought an *ist D and supported Pentax at a time when the company was reeling. In return, Pentax won't even explain why CF cards have been abandoned. It's not the money, gang. I know that SD cards are inexpensive. I am really offended by Pentax treating me this way. A Pentax rep once described Pentax managers to me as arrogant. Yep. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
Tom, go ahead and compare the price difference on cards of the same speed. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 11:56 am Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net Faster... noticeably to humans or just to chronometers measuring in nanoseconds? Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 06:37:23 -0400 On Aug 22, 2006, at 6:20 AM, Cotty wrote: Seems to me that SD is becoming the consumer standard. CF is still a professional standard and I don't see any sign of that changing. I would suspect that there are probably good reasons for that. Considering that most pro bodies are physically much bigger, there's not as much compelling upside to switch. But if you gave me the option between a larger, slower card and a smaller, faster card for the same money, I'd take the smaller, faster card every time. Why wouldn't you? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: any views on K100D vs. Canon Rebel XT (350D)?
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:52 AM, Tom C wrote: I would expect Canon to implement in-body anti-shake at the soonest possible time. No information to that, just common sense. Won't that destroy the market for their pricey lenses with anti-shake in them? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:58 AM, Tom C wrote: Rally? Okay, Tom, I'll bite: what Pentax body using SD cards is slower to write to the card than the original *istD using CF cards? I freely admit to having used only the D, the DS, the DS2 and the DL and to only owning the DS2. Are the new K bodies suddenly really slow? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Tom C wrote: I don't really care Aaron. If in use, I can't detect a difference (or it's negligible), the specs don't matter. Price may make a difference, but not memory card specs where the slowest link in the chain is probably the camera itself. Tom, it's a noticeable difference, at least for people shooting bursts. I never would have purchased an *istD because I found it frustratingly slow. I had no qualms about buying a DS2. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 11:02 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: That's hardly a concern when comparing CF and SD cards. Unless you plan to lift them into orbit. Yes, thus the heh to convey the jokiness of the post, I, too, put SD cards in my pockets all the time and have not even come close to losing one. I have, however, lost rolls of film out of my pockets -- perhaps the slim form factor helps in SD's case. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I shoot nearly 100% jpg, and the larger buffer of the DS2 combined with the faster write speed feels significantly more than twice as fast. The buffer helps initially, but the speed of recovery from a burst using a fast card makes a huge difference if, like me, you shoot numerous 2-3 shot bursts one after another. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 1:46 pm Size: 1K To: pdml@pdml.net Shooting .jpgs or RAW? How fast does the buffer fill up? Is the speed increase due to the memory card or some other factor? Just curious actually. I rarely shoot in bursts but for, say wifdlife pictures, it could be an advantage. If I had a choice between a 2x buffer size and a 2x burst speed, I'd take the 2x buffer (but I'm going off on a tangent). Tom C. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:24:01 -0700 I'd say about twice as fast, maybe a bit more ... at least for the DS/DS2 and the DL series. Can't speak to the newer cameras. Shel [Original Message] From: Tom C You wrote The *ist D isn't worth comparing, speed-wise, as even Pentax's cheapest DSLR outperforms it by a large margin now. My question is really What large margin? I've never compared them, but large margin? How large? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
I don't think they would make them 100% incompatible, but if they did I would still have my current cameras and lenses. If I wanted USM, I would have to buy both new lenses and a new body anyways; if the new body were incompatible with my old gear I would just be less disposed towards buying it without giving the competition a good look. -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: CF v SD Cards Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 12:51 pm Size: 588 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net For those of you who bought only the DS (or later) model, and feel that you need to criticise those who bought the D and would like to keep using our CF cards, consider this: If Pentax's new attitude is back of the hand to their customers' investments, what is to keep them from abandoning the AF drive shaft sometime shortly after the KAF3 mount comes out? Yep, SD cards are inexpensive, but a lot of our lenses aren't. It's not the money. It's the attitude Pentax has displayed. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Not the resolution part of it, and not by itself. But sort of yes! -Aaron -- http://aaronreynolds.ca http://battersbox.ca http://hardballtimes.com -Original Message- From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue 2006 Aug 22 4:23 pm Size: 526 bytes To: pentax list PDML@pdml.net According to DPReview, there's some wizard new processing system in this camera: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082103pentaxa20.asp that bumps up the resolution. they call it 'ASIC'. I presume this is what Aaron is hyped up about? deflating wind Give me a party-popper ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 22, 2006, at 7:02 PM, Peter Loveday wrote: I really hope theres more to this that it seems on the surface. I don't know anything about the ps, but as to that other thing, yes. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:49 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: And whilst I agree that the Pentax bodies are selling well at the moment I'm still not convinced that the volume is sustainable or particularly profitable as they appear to be priced ridiculously low. And yet somehow their camera division is making more money than ever in the history of the company right now... -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: venting about lack of available 3rd party other lense
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:48 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Perhaps better if Aaron's secret feature amounts to something. Oh, does it ever amount to something! -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: venting about lack of available 3rd party other lense
On Aug 22, 2006, at 9:43 PM, Amita Guha wrote: In the meantime, I have my eye on the Nikon D200. I'm going to go look at one this weekend. Just don't buy it until at least October, okay? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:01 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: From: Outline of Finances and Business Results in 1st Quarter of 2006 Business Year (Consolidated) What months are those? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:21 AM, David Savage wrote: It says on the first page. Care to share? I'm reading my mail on my Palm, and its PDF support is, well, substandard. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: CF v SD Cards
On Aug 23, 2006, at 12:57 AM, David Savage wrote: 2. An outline of financial and business results for the first quarter of 2006 business year (from April 1, 2006 to June 30, 2006): Hrm -- I'll have to place an inquiry as to where the numbers I was fed come from. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: FA* 24/2 AL [IF]
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: More important, how is it optically? I seem to recall some people saying that it wasn't very good - although I don't recall any specifics. I've only used it on film, and it was spectacular. Made my Sigma Super Wide II 24mm f2.8 look like dogfood. Boz's site mentions an AF/MF clutch. What is that? Does that mean the lens can be used in auto focus mode and then adjusted manually without having to take the camera out of AF mode, like some of the new DA lenses? Yes, except you have to snap the focus ring backwards to do it, if I recall correctly. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: I NEED an intervention.
On Aug 21, 2006, at 10:21 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Just added another Dslr to the Lowepro. WHAT DID YOU BUY NOW??? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Printer Recommendations?
I actually managed to kill the paper feeds of two 2200s under warranty, so I never ran into that problem -- they sent me new ones. For the record, they were running about eight hours a day, seven days a week. -Original Message- From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Printer Recommendations? Date: Fri 2006 Aug 18 2:54 am Size: 975 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Real Epson service call, in which I was apparently the first person ever to require a replacement waste ink tank -- it wasn't user changeable because they figured no one would fill one in the lifetime of the printer. On all the new models it's user-replaceable.) That's one thing that annoys me about the 2100/2200. Next time the waste pad fills up I'm probably going to drill a hole in the bottom of the printer under the waste-ink hose, and I'll mount my own sponge- in-a-container underneath it. I've only had to clean out the pad once, and the disassembly isn't something I'm looking forward to repeating. I have had the heads clog a few times but as others have said, if you print regularly you shouldn't have any problems. I've found that one 8x10 a week is sufficient for my printer. - Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Printer Recommendations?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 6:17 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: The newer Epsons don't seem to clog. My 2200 has never clogged in the five years I've been using it. Clogging is heavily dependent on usage. If you leave the printer for long stretches without printing, it's more likely to clog. If you leave the printer switched on when not using it for long periods of time, even with the power disconnected, it's a lot more likely to clog (turning it off runs a quick head cleaning cycle and parks the heads so they don't dry out). Tricking the printer into getting the last few drops of ink out of a cartridge is the best way to get air bubbles in your lines, which will give you a clog-like result that's hard as hell to get rid of. It took about five years for my Epson 7500 to build up enough dried waste ink on the heads to actually clog, and when I cleaned it a chunk the size of a dime fell out and then everything was fine. By the way, I do not at all recommend being on the bleeding edge with a new set of pigments and a new machine, unless spending a lot of time troubleshooting for the manufacturer is your idea of fun. The serial number on my 7500 is 0001. (Sir, the serial number is on the back of the printer. I understand if it's in an awkward position and you don't want to look back there, but it's very important that we have the serial number. I'm behind the @#!*!*@ printer right now, AND THAT'S THE SERIAL NUMBER! Please sir, be serious... Real Epson service call, in which I was apparently the first person ever to require a replacement waste ink tank -- it wasn't user changeable because they figured no one would fill one in the lifetime of the printer. On all the new models it's user-replaceable.) -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: For those in the know about K10D
That's because everyone wants quality for nothing, Bill! Related: bad news for those who enjoyed the 12 cent prints from photolab.ca, as TCN (who were providing the service) are shutting down operations. -Aaron -Original Message- From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: For those in the know about K10D Date: Thu Aug 17, 2006 9:30 am Size: 530 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net - Original Message - From: Thibouille Subject: Re: For those in the know about K10D Thik of all the money we don't spend on film.. Yeah but you don't need any PC/Mac nor do you need a any software like Adobe and such. If you lab was good then that was it. You wouldn't believe how much bitching and complaining about photolabs we used to get on list before the istD hit the market. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: For those in the know about K10D
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:57 AM, graywolf wrote: I have not checked but I suspect that many of those high volume quality people labs are still doing business as most pro photographers still make their money by shooting, not by sitting in front of a computer In Toronto and the surrounding area, they're dropping like flies. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Printer Recommendations?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 4:32 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Only problem is, I tend to examine even prints with a loupe, at least intelectually speaking. In a way, it's like having 500 hp under the hood but not needing it or using it. Still a rush knowing it's there. Does one need camera RAW, etc, etc..? My Epson Stylus Pro 7500 is very old, slow and low-res by today's standards, and yet people find the results breathtaking. It's not at all about the droplet size, it's about learning to get the most out of your printer -- if you can't use the thing to its fullest potential, your prints will be lacking to matter how small your droplets are. It's one of those things where people obsess over the wrong part of the technology. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Printer Recommendations?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 5:53 PM, Jack Davis wrote: Aaron, this, of course, is about 'all else being equal'. And what I'm saying is that at the advanced stage we're at, improvements in image quality come from something other than droplet size, at least when viewed with the naked eye. Colour range and colour fastness as well as colour detail and smoothness are of far more importance when judging a printer. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Printer Recommendations?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 7:13 PM, Jack Davis wrote: If I had the choice between two otherwise identical, equally priced printers, I'd choose the one with the smallest droplet size. Well, sure, as long as everything else actually is equal -- but everything else are those hard to quantize in numbers things that people never think about when shopping. And how do you compare? When buying the 7500, I spent eight hours in the showroom making prints and drinking coffee. The sales guys were wondering why I wanted to print these funny images that for the most part lacked punchy, bright colours and kept showing me samples with punchy bright colours. The 7500 outclassed everything -- it was also the first time I had seen something that I would accept as a photographic print. Of course, in those good old days I was looking at eight thousand dollar printers. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Tonal gradation in shadows - The $67 Question?
On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Anthony Farr wrote: Perhaps this post didn't get through the first time so I'm resending it but with an altered subject line. I didn't reply because there was no context to what I was looking at, so it didn't make any sense to me. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 17, 2006, at 11:26 PM, John Francis wrote: Beyond that I'm just beginning to hear talk of a 60-250 (probably f4, not f2.8). Oh, I want that. Pretty please. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 1:36 AM, Jens Bladt wrote: A lens with shutterblades, will allow high shutterspeeds, when using a flash. Nope, I don't have one of those for the 67. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Way closer. What else? -Aaron -Original Message- From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:04 am Size: 449 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Fra: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. No grain/noise DagT -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Why would either of these prompt me to sell my 67? I don't care about any technical tomfoolery -- so what is it that I do care about? Also, when there are lovely modern superwides out there, what does the sensor size matter? -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:59 am Size: 518 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net - The sensor is larger than APS-C? - The sensor can be changed buy the user? Those are my best guess's. Dave At 06:46 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote: On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I think that current digital SLR images are well below the quality of 67. I do not know anything about that patent at all. I did not bring that patent up. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:25 am Size: 837 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. No grain/noise Yes. Maybe he thinks (application of) the patent you posted will reduce the noise and/or improve the dynamic range to the level of the 6x7 format. I think he will be disappointed. Maybe not if he thinks that the current digital images are *only just* below the quality of the 6x7, but if he is of the opinion that they are a lot poorer and the no-brainer feature is just stick in a hardware component that will remove all the noise... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Colder. -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 7:27 am Size: 247 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net At 07:13 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote: Also, when there are lovely modern superwides out there, what does the sensor size matter? Sensor noise. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: You mean, No grain/noise is close, but (reduction of) sensor noise isn't. You are confusing me. (But that's the fun part of all this, I'm sure ;-)) No, I didn't mean that no grain/noise was close. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Stringer wrote: 6x7 format translates to fine art print sizes without cropping. In camera mask would make composing in a ratio similar to 6x7 easier and as I said earlier, an easy to use hyperfocal adjustment for foreground sharpness would be nice. I wouldn't sell my 67 for this. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
No. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Lie Arne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:53 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Aaron, * Biggest disadvantage with digital: you are stuck with one type of film: the CCD it is born with. * Best with (67) film camera: you can select your film any time! Solution to Holy Crap: Interchangeable CCD sensors. Pentax comes with one CCD sensor optimized for high ISO (6Mp?), and one for low ISO (10Mp). That was easy... Arne -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: 16. august 2006 15:29 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Stringer wrote: 6x7 format translates to fine art print sizes without cropping. In camera mask would make composing in a ratio similar to 6x7 easier and as I said earlier, an easy to use hyperfocal adjustment for foreground sharpness would be nice. I wouldn't sell my 67 for this. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Nope. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:54 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Aaron, Going back to the source might help me to dig out your meaning. It addresses my most basic complaint about digital. We've explored noise reduction, but you seem to have gone cold on that approach ;-) A few people have mentioned resolution but not followed it up (I believe they mean resolving power a.k.a. sharpness). OK, I'll bite. We know that the killer of sharpness is the anti-moiré filter. When Nikon released the D70 they only used a weak anti-moiré filter, for improved sharpness at the risk of moiré when textiles etc. were shot. They apparently got away with it and the D70 and its derivatives have been praised for their sharper pictures. What if the anti-moiré filter were made retractable/removable, or dispensed with altogether and moiré control implemented in software? Instead of reducing the sharpness of every shot for the sake of the few that suffered from moiré, you might get the best sharpness possible most of the time and only bring in moiré control when needed. Regards, Anthony Farr -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
My 67 does not have AF. Again, it has already been said more than once by more than one person. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:07 am Size: 368 bytes To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Another shot from the scattergun - The noise being reduced isn't image noise, but AF motor and screwdriver noise. The K10D finally launches a USM capable Pentax. Regards, Anthony Farr (loving this speculation game, the most fun I've had on the list for an age) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
It's *closer* in that it's related to the right part of the improvement, but it's not *the thing*. -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:50 am Size: 531 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net At 09:26 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote: On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Toralf Lund wrote: You mean, No grain/noise is close, but (reduction of) sensor noise isn't. You are confusing me. (But that's the fun part of all this, I'm sure ;-)) No, I didn't mean that no grain/noise was close. -Aaron You said no grain/noise was Way closer. If you didn't mean that, how are we supposed to solve this riddle? :-) Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
That is beyond my understanding. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:40 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net I made this suggestion a couple of hours ago, but there's been no response to it. That can mean two things. One is that the post never got to the people who matter. The second is that while incorrect guesses can be easily dismissed, something very close to the mark can't safely be touched due to the embargo. Here's my earlier unanswered post: - Having no time to audit the Holy Crap thread, to eliminate what Aaron has negatoried and reconsider his ambiguous answers, I'm going to have a stab. Why not? It's fun and after all it was Aaron who opened up Pandora's Box, what does he expect of us inquisitive types who don't work in retail and have insider knowledge? I've no background in electronics to understand what the patent documents say, but I do know that a big gripe about digital capture is that the exposure is recorded lineally, ie the brightest stop gets half the bit depth, the second brightest stop gets the next quarter of all the bit depth, etc. Eventually, the darkest discernible stop only has two or three levels in it. Perhaps Pentax has implemented logarithmic exposure (logE as film is measured) rather than linear exposure. Just a guess, and just for fun ;-) Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lie Arne Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 12:15 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body OK. Other limiting factor of digital is the linear CCD sensor, it is not non-linear as film. The latter is a benefit in avoiding burn-outs and loosing details in shadows. So, they (Pentax) are able to make the characteristcs of the CCD approaching more that of film when it comes to sensitivity. ??? Arne -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 11:06 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I think a lot of you are making too much of Aaron's statement that he'd (possibly) give up his 67 for this. In fact I believe -- and I think Jostein, who also knows the secret, will agree with me on this -- that Aaron may be expecting too much. Not that it isn't groundbreaking, but I think it'll still be far off 67 quality. At least with the 10-megapixel, APS-crop sensor in the K10D. It will likely not be the same as 67, that's very true. However, it will have jettisoned the thing I don't like about digital and replaced it with the thing I love most about 6x7, which is not resolution. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I find that place tiresome. I can only imagine what gadgets/math/technofoolery they're thinking up. I ain't going there -- they're sure to be obsessing over the wrong things. -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:00 pm Size: 189 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Aaron wander over to the Pentax SLR forum at DPReview see what you've started. LOL. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Why would I need to understand the math behind it to run a lab? -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:51 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net You don't understand logE? You do/did operate a lab, did you not? Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 1:01 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body That is beyond my understanding. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:40 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net (snip) I've no background in electronics to understand what the patent documents say, but I do know that a big gripe about digital capture is that the exposure is recorded lineally, ie the brightest stop gets half the bit depth, the second brightest stop gets the next quarter of all the bit depth, etc. Eventually, the darkest discernible stop only has two or three levels in it. Perhaps Pentax has implemented logarithmic exposure (logE as film is measured) rather than linear exposure. Just a guess, and just for fun ;-) Regards, Anthony Farr -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
22 -Aaron -Original Message- From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:04 pm Size: 708 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net 50 Dario - Original Message - From: Digital Image Studio [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:45 PM Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body On 17/08/06, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 50 42 -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
No, I'd still love my 67 if it were pink with a big flower on the front of it. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:20 pm Size: 833 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Well the 6x7 is a BBC. As I have said time and time again BBC's impress the clients. However if that is what Aaron likes about the K10D, I am not impressed. BBC = Big Black Camera, for those who have problems with acronyms. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Mark Roberts wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. It impresses chicks? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
You seem so sure! Why is that? -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:15 pm Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Well, as I see it the only real advantage of 6x7 is print quality. Now I do not think there is anyway a 10mp camera is going to match that (except for stitching images together which requires a lot of time and effort), although there are lots of folks who can not tell the difference anyway. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Aaron Reynolds wrote: Why would either of these prompt me to sell my 67? I don't care about any technical tomfoolery -- so what is it that I do care about? Also, when there are lovely modern superwides out there, what does the sensor size matter? -Aaron -Original Message- From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:59 am Size: 518 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net - The sensor is larger than APS-C? - The sensor can be changed buy the user? Those are my best guess's. Dave At 06:46 PM 16/08/2006, you wrote: On Aug 16, 2006, at 3:55 AM, Cotty wrote: My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no green button kludge. Why would I sell my 67 for that? Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really are not that many. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
All in. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Jostein Øksne [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:28 pm Size: 645 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net I'll raise you by 3.14 Jostein On 8/16/06, Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 100 Dario - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:25 PM Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body 50 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Sadly, this is as close or even closer than most guesses. And no, that's not a hint. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Peter Fairweather [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:40 pm Size: 615 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net I release that what I am about to impart to you involves a breach of the temporal prime directive but there should be little impact on the time lines aside from the suicide of a few C and N***n executives. The anti shake switch also creates a warp field around the sensor. within this the normal rules of physics do not apply. We will have zero noise at any light level and the ability to shoot at any angle of view from a standard lens. I would reveal more but the nurse says I must take my medicine now. Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Actually, I only recently found out that digital did not expose like film, when I began to look around for the reasons my test exposures looked the way they did after buying my first DSLR. I knew how film exposed and how to optimize my results, but not the math or math terminology. That stuff bores me, and beyond that it does not help me more than the simple explanation like digital has less and less range as exposure drops into the shadows. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 2:11 pm Size: 2K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net Aaron, Fair comment. I don't understand the math either, not enough to express it accurately, but I do understand the concept behind it and how it differs from the concept of digital exposure. For anyone who's still in the dark about why digital exposure is different to film exposure, here comes my attempt to explain. With negative film, every extra stop of exposure ideally gives the same increase in density to the developed film. Thus a stop in the shadows will, ideally, have the same density range as a stop in the highlights. However, when the film was exposed, every extra stop doubled the total quantity of light given up to the next lower stop. On a 12 stop scale, if it took n lumens to expose the first stop of density then it would take 2,048n lumens to expose to the 11th stop of density, and the 12th stop would require an additional 2,048n lumens for a total of 4,096n lumens. AND YET, and this is the point, the darkest stop that only represented n lumens will raise the negative density by the same amount as the brightest stop that represents an increase of 2,048n lumens. That is because a linear density increase is achieved by a log Exposure increase. But digital exposure is linear. Working with 12 bits, the darkest stop is from level 0 to level 1, and the brightest stop is from level 2,047 to level 4,095. The brightest stop gets you half of all the available brightness levels of the output file, the darkest stop gets only 1/2,048 as much. Is it any wonder that the shadows of a digital shot can be lost in background noise? It's easy to imagine that a non-linear A/D conversion could be better, even if it wasn't fully logarithmic. BTW, my guess is that non-linearity would be a function of the A/D conversion, not a characteristic of the sensor. None of which means that Pentax or anyone else is about to announce anything of the sort ;-) Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: Thursday, 17 August 2006 2:18 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Why would I need to understand the math behind it to run a lab? -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:51 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net You don't understand logE? You do/did operate a lab, did you not? Regards, Anthony Farr -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: fine art print sizes without cropping (RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:38 PM, Bob W wrote: To my mind it's a brain-upside-down way of thinking, but I've heard and read it so often that perhaps it's me that's got something wrong. Cut the paper to fit the image! It's upside down to me, too. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: fine art print sizes without cropping (RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 2:47 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Cropping the image to the paper allows use of standard frame sizes with even matting on every edge. Of course, you could always buy frames in different shapes. At Ikea, they have a lot of odd (to North America) Euro sizes -- print to those! -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype
Except that's not my feature! -Aaron -Original Message- From: jtainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:15 pm Size: 440 bytes To: pdml@pdml.net Gang, a fellow in Beijing, posting over at dpreview, decoded Jostein's message. Jostein gave us some answers, but I (for one) was too slow to pick them up. Pete Fang at dpreview decoded Jostein's hints. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=19617303 Okay, Aaron, your moment as the center of attention is over. Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: For those in the know about K10D
On Aug 16, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: If you shoot RAW you'll probably want nothing smaller than 2 Gig cards for this camera, because of the 10-megapixels and... other factors. Other magnificent, wonderful factors. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 5:53 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO, the only BIIG advantage of a 67 (and any MF and LF cameras) is given by the combination between negative film dynamics and reduced grain (aka noise). But that is not a feature, is a characteristic of the negative film. Oh no, it's a feature of shooting with 6x7 alright. ;) But you're right -- if everyone valued what I've been hinting at as much as I do, they'd all have 6x7s or at least 645s. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 7:56 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Image Format ? (Dimensions) Nope. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 16, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: That makes it clear. You're talking about the noise reduction that is part of the K10D package. It's just like minimal grain. Perhaps my greatest joy in working with the 6x7 was shooting Delta 3200 and producing prints that looked like they were shot on Tri-X or perhaps even Plus-X. Grain and/or noise is usually the enemy. The K10D has apparently minimized that problem. No, no, no -- this may be related to the thing that I like, yes, but the thing that I like is not noise reduction or the absence of noise. (Though I would also like that and it is potentially part of the thing I like.) -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: For those in the know about K10D
The simple solution is to continue to use your old camera with your old cards -- you're not being forced to buy a new body, nor are you being forced to discard your old one. I like SD cards, largely because I can snap them into my Palm and e-mail the images instantaneously, without having to cart my laptop around. Plus the connection appears to be more robust, and it's really easy and comfortable for me to bring spares in my pockets because they're so tiny. Whether you are happy or sad about it, the new bodies take SD cards. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: For those in the know about K10D Date: Wed Aug 16, 2006 10:09 pm Size: 976 bytes To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net David Savage wrote: On 8/17/06, Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 16, 2006, at 14:52, Thibouille wrote: Please tell me it does accept CF... :'( or then the K1D does, pleaaasse Here's $30, kid. Get yourself some new memory cards. :-) Seriously - 2-gig high-speed SD cards are so cheap that it's hardly a big deal to get enough memory to cover the capacity needs of the new camera. Sell the CF with your old camera. That's not the point Charles. If you bought your CF cards before the prices plummeted you've suddenly got some fully functioning cards that can't be used in the new camera. It's also a point that some people just don't like SD cards. I hate SD cards because they're too small. I don't *want* cards smaller than CF. -- Mark Roberts Photography Multimedia www.robertstech.com 412-687-2835 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 6:15 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Probably BW out of the camera. I would consider that no big deal, since BW conversion in PhotoShop actually gives one more control over the grayscale than would in-camera conversion. I already negatoried this one once. And the moving sensor stuff, uh, no to that as well. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:58 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote: Yeah, he dosen't have a tripod so he gets a workout :-) HAR! Yes, Rob wins, the new camera is 85 pounds. -Aaron p.s. kidding! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 5:04 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: BTW - my friend has destroyed his genuine 1GB Sony Memorystick. Here is what he found after dismanting it: http://nasdwoje.e9.pl/pictures/MS.jpg Isn't the Samsung stuff what's inside everything good? It's what's in the flash-based iPods... -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
My 67 is manual focus only. In fact, the DS2 is the first AF body I've owned. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Collin R Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:08 am Size: 666 bytes To: PDML@pdml.net How about this: Sensor-based focus / focus-assist / critical focus. Ala Contax with film, it would now be practical on digital. Imagine: set the camera on Infinity and let the sensor do the rest. Or Let the camera do a predictable range focus (much faster) and then let the body finish by adjusting the sensor accordingly. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://www.brendemuehl.net http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose -- Jim Elliott -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Maybe if I say it's not something involving a moving sensor again people will believe me. ;) -Aaron -Original Message- From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:03 am Size: 1K To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net This remark makes me rethink those comments already posted about shifting the sensor to increase resolution or to gain a larger format. Does anybody remember the oscillating sensor? It was a technique used in scientific applications in the early days of digital capture, when sensors had too little resolution to be useful for quality work. If the antishake facility were used to oscillate the sensor around a one pixel diameter circuit, while making 6 captures as it crossed each virtual photosite (for want of a better description) then each photosite could, after the six captures were composited, display true RGB colour instead of interpolated RGB colour. Maybe. Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:36 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: I hope Aaron is enjoying himself :o) I bet he is, this thread has been a monumental waste of EMF. I'm certainly not holding my breath in anticipation. Oh, now that's not very nice. I'm not yanking your chain! It really is something that would make me reconsider the division between what work I do on medium format film and what work I do on digital. It's that good. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
No -- if full frame could move me from 67 to a DSLR, I would have bought someone else's a long time ago. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Robert and Leigh Woerner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:23 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net It is full frame? Anthony Farr wrote: This remark makes me rethink those comments already posted about shifting the sensor to increase resolution or to gain a larger format. Does anybody remember the oscillating sensor? It was a technique used in scientific applications in the early days of digital capture, when sensors had too little resolution to be useful for quality work. If the antishake facility were used to oscillate the sensor around a one pixel diameter circuit, while making 6 captures as it crossed each virtual photosite (for want of a better description) then each photosite could, after the six captures were composited, display true RGB colour instead of interpolated RGB colour. Maybe. Regards, Anthony Farr -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aaron Reynolds Sent: Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:36 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body On Aug 14, 2006, at 8:12 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: I hope Aaron is enjoying himself :o) I bet he is, this thread has been a monumental waste of EMF. I'm certainly not holding my breath in anticipation. Oh, now that's not very nice. I'm not yanking your chain! It really is something that would make me reconsider the division between what work I do on medium format film and what work I do on digital. It's that good. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I think the clue was that it was something that Aaron _does_ get with a 6x7 (but not with 35mm). I haven't shot 35mm in a very long time, so I don't know where exactly that inference came from. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
I only have one finder for my 67. -Aaron -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: RE: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body Date: Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:47 am Size: 1K To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Perhaps, but I doubt that would be enough to cause Aaron to think about giving up 6x7. Paul -- Original message -- From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] It¨s probably interchangeable view finders ... Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk +45 56 63 77 11 +45 23 43 85 77 Skype: jensbladt248 -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] vegne af David Savage Sendt: 15. august 2006 16:57 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body That's a stupid idea IMO. Dave On 8/15/06, DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And a funny one for those who are concerned about dust: http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOCIDX=JP2004040652F=0QPN=JP2004040 652 .-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/419 - Release Date: 08/15/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/419 - Release Date: 08/15/2006 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 2:27 PM, Mark Stringer wrote: A new super-sensor would be great but it does not seem to fulfill the seer's vision of Mid-September ...forehead-slapping amongst the competition in the DSLR world. nor does it fit with ...not a single DSLR out there at any price, including ones using the same sensor, have it. This implies it is an in-production sensor and the improvement could have already been done by someone. Yes. Maybe the innovation is in-camera processing to emulate kodachrome or tri-x and possibly eliminate some post processing. My biggest problem with digital is post processing on a monitor, making a print that doesn't look like the monitor and all the education it takes to calibrate and coordinate equipment to produce the original vision. No. I have quite a few framed prints from MF film. I have nothing on the wall from digital and I've had a D almost since it went on sale. I produce very fine snapshots using my many lens, happy as any amateur shooter could be, but I have not seen the digital image yet that I can get lost in like MF and LF images. I agree. I have made large prints from the DS2 that I am happy with, but they ain't the same as my big prints from 6x7. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Powell Hargrave wrote: Someone else was very, very close before. -Aaron Hope it was me with the Fuji SR sensor, http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilms3pro/ So Pentax/Samsung have a 10 meg high dynamic range sensor with two pixel sensor sizes. Nope. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:32 PM, Vic Mortelmans wrote: So maybe time for another hint, Aaron? I understand that it's something you have on your 67 but never got on any digital SLR, could you tell if it is something that *IS* available on 35mm SLR (Pentax or other)? Yes and no. Depends on how you use it -- it's not as easily available as it is in 6x7. In 6x7 it's a no-brainer. To help defuse some of the wilder technological speculation, it's something I can get with my non-rental 67 kit, the stuff I own -- which is simply a 67 body with a non-metering prism, a 105mm f2.4 that I rarely use and a 75mm f2.8 AL that I use almost all the time. I also have the helicoid extension tube, but it's unrelated to this discussion, as are the specific lenses I own. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Testing the K100D and some more K10D hype
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:56 PM, Jostein Øksne wrote: Another thing I noticed from the archives today is that Aaron has got some news about the K10D that makes him want to sell his 6x7. While I'm not sure whether he an I have seen the same news, the K10D certainly will have a number of very pleasing features. Some of which will hopefully make it stand out from the competition equipped with the same CCD. I'm fairly sure we've seen the same news. It's the big part of the news, right? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: I know what it is:was: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
On Aug 15, 2006, at 3:53 PM, Toralf Lund wrote: I somehow doubt that there is much to gain from improving the A/D, though. Seems to me that the real issue is noise already present in the analogue signal, and also dynamic range limitations also on the analogue side. Are you certain? -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
