Re: K-3II announcement and new FA Limited primes coming...
Yeah, in the other K-3 II thread, I had mentioned this myself. I suppose they could do something where each of the four sub-exposures gets 1/4 of the total flash power, with the flash firing a total of 4 times for each resolution-enhanced image. For TTL flash, that would probably require a special flash unit with special programming. I suppose a thyristor flash in manual mode, at a low enough power setting, could also keep up with the four sub-exposures. Since this feature is for stationary objects, and not for action, shooting flash in manual mode wouldn't be too much of a drawback for me personally. On 4/23/2015 5:22 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote: I'm also worried about the flash exposure, assuming the flash will only hit one exposure out of four. This has to be investigated. Dario -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-3II announcement and new FA Limited primes coming...
If I had the new K-3 II, I wouldn't miss the pop-up flash at all. I generally use either hot shoe flashes or monolights when I need flash. Speaking of hot shoes, this new internal GPS unit won't tie up your hot shoe like the older external model does. Using both GPS and a hot shoe flash at the same time should be easy now. Those of you who never shoot outdoors in the wilderness probably don't need the GPS features so much. It should be a big benefit to those wanting to capture stars as point sources instead of trails though. The compass and logging features might also come in handy while hiking through remote areas. I'd definitely make use of the GPS unit for some of my shooting. On 4/23/2015 2:51 AM, John Coyle wrote: Just occasionally I've wished I had recorded the GPS location of a shot - once for sure in the White Desert, east of Cairo. We were camping under the stars, at least an hour from the nearest town, and it would be interesting to see exactly where we were. I guess it's one of those features that's great to have when you really need it, but not much missed otherwise. Not sure about taking out the popup flash, I used mine today to throw some balancing light into a contrasty scene. John in Brisbane -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-3II announcement and new FA Limited primes coming...
Since we're only talking about a senor shift of one pixel, would a little subject movement necessarily ruin your shot? I'd think in many cases, the resulting quality wouldn't be that much different than shooting a normal image without the resolution enhancement turned on. On 4/23/2015 4:31 AM, Larry Colen wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 01:46:23AM -0400, John Francis wrote: On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 12:46:59PM -0700, Larry Colen wrote: What would be really nifty would be the option of getting all three or four low resolution raw files in addition to the superresolution final file, on the off chance the merge doesn't work, you'd still have unmerged files that would be usable. I don't see a lot of point to that. The logic that combines the four original images into a a single multi-channel image is pretty straigntforward; with the exception of the green component, which is the sum (or average) of values from two of the original images, each component value in the merged image is just a copy of the value in one of the four input images (possibly offset by one pixel horizontally and/or vertically). I consider it extremely unlikely that errors would occur in doing this combining (and suspect there may, in fact, be custom hardware such as a one-scanline shift register to support doing this rapidly). If there are things moving in the image enought to screw up the blend, but for some reason you just don't notice them. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K-3 II is Officially Announced
It's no longer just a leaked report or rumor. I got an email about this today, and you can find the official announcement on the Ricoh Imaging website: http://us.ricoh-imaging.com/dslr/K-3_II Pentax Forums has also written multiple articles about the new camera. I've been interested in the sensor-shifting approach to resolution enhancement for quite awhile now. The way they've implemented it, the final image resolution stays at 24 megapixels, but the quality and accuracy of those 24 megapixels is noticeably enhanced. Sharpness is increased, color accuracy per-pixel is increased, and noise is noticeably reduced. The images are comparable in quality to other cameras that have a higher pixel count in their image sensors. The new camera also has GPS and a compass built into the camera, with logging capability. Not only will the new camera do astrotracing with the internal GPS unit, but it might even help me avoid getting lost if I take it on a hike in the woods. ;) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-3 II is Officially Announced
I believe that means the focal plane shutter opens once, and stays open, for all four of the pixel-shifted exposures. The lens diaphragm should likewise stop down appropriately, and stay constant during the four pixel-shifted exposures. Since the same scene is being rapidly photographed four times to get the final enhanced image, and the focal plane shutter only opens once for this process, it makes me wonder if there will be any complications with flash synchronization. I'm wondering if the enhanced resolution feature will only work properly with constant light sources? On 4/22/2015 11:16 PM, Darren Addy wrote: From the specs... can someone speculate on this info under Shutter: Electronically controlled vertical-run focal plane shutter * Electronic shutter when using Pixel Shift Resolution What is an electronic shutter if not the focal plane shutter? On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Glen Berry g...@glenvision.com wrote: It's no longer just a leaked report or rumor. I got an email about this today, and you can find the official announcement on the Ricoh Imaging website: http://us.ricoh-imaging.com/dslr/K-3_II Pentax Forums has also written multiple articles about the new camera. I've been interested in the sensor-shifting approach to resolution enhancement for quite awhile now. The way they've implemented it, the final image resolution stays at 24 megapixels, but the quality and accuracy of those 24 megapixels is noticeably enhanced. Sharpness is increased, color accuracy per-pixel is increased, and noise is noticeably reduced. The images are comparable in quality to other cameras that have a higher pixel count in their image sensors. The new camera also has GPS and a compass built into the camera, with logging capability. Not only will the new camera do astrotracing with the internal GPS unit, but it might even help me avoid getting lost if I take it on a hike in the woods. ;) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: BH taking orders
Yeah, but who wants a big hole in the middle of their 24x36 image? :) On 2/5/2015 12:46 PM, Jack Davis wrote: One can always crop 25.1X16.7 out of the center of a 24X36. Jack -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Thank you, Canon! You just made me love my K-30 even more! :)
Someone should make a large battery grip / vertical release for the K-30, for those folks who need to be impressed with a huge, deceptively professional looking camera. Then, pair that with a fat lens and a huge lens hood. Some potential clients would actually be impressed by that. :) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there actually is a grip available for the K-30? On 11/6/2014 5:44 PM, Richard Womer wrote: The Canon's performance is crummy, but at least the thing is a heavy monster that will impress the crowd! I played with one in Berlin. My K-5 and DA 16-45 weighed far less than the 7D body alone. The 7D owner had brought several lenses with her to Berlin, but had left all but one in the room because they were too heavy to carry around. Rick http://photo.net/photos/RickW On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 7:25 PM, Glen Berry g...@glenvision.com wrote: I want to thank Canon, for making me feel very good about my Pentax K-30 purchase! :) http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Pentax-K-30___977_811 The Canon 7D Mark II is their new flagship crop-sensor camera, and its sensor specs are horrid. Apart from the 20Mp vs 16Mp difference, the K-30 sensor is superior in all respects. The K-30 also beats or ties the 7D Mark II in several of the other non-sensor specs as well. Amazon lists a K-30 body for less than $400. The 7D Mk II body is selling for $1800. That extra $1400 would buy some really cool glass, or three K-30 backup bodies, or some decent lighting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Thank you, Canon! You just made me love my K-30 even more! :)
I want to thank Canon, for making me feel very good about my Pentax K-30 purchase! :) http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-versus-Pentax-K-30___977_811 The Canon 7D Mark II is their new flagship crop-sensor camera, and its sensor specs are horrid. Apart from the 20Mp vs 16Mp difference, the K-30 sensor is superior in all respects. The K-30 also beats or ties the 7D Mark II in several of the other non-sensor specs as well. Amazon lists a K-30 body for less than $400. The 7D Mk II body is selling for $1800. That extra $1400 would buy some really cool glass, or three K-30 backup bodies, or some decent lighting. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Is Anyone Happily Using ISO 25,600 for Anything?
A friend of mine photographed me several years ago in a tunnel, using T-MAX P3200. I looked up the data sheet for the film, and it says it could be pushed to ISO 25,000. We're pretty sure he pushed the film to 25,000 when he photographed me. I remember, he wanted to see what the limits of the film were like. I think I'll go back to the same location and do a comparison. I'll shoot it on my K-30, set to 25,600 and let everyone know how the DSLR compares to the T-MAX P3200. On 10/22/2014 9:41 AM, Mark C wrote: Then there was TMax P3200 which tended to be a little grainy But ISO 25,600 was beyond the pale... Mark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Introducing the Pentax K-S1 Sweets Collection
What bothers me more, is a camera company publishing an ad that shows someone with their finger dangling in front of the lens. You might think a camera company might set a better example than that. That, and it doesn't even look like she was actually holding that particular camera when her photo was taken. It looks like someone photoshopped a K-S1 into her hands. It also looks like they got the size of the camera wrong. It's about the same width as her mouth! Is the K-S1 REALLY that small? :) Oh, wait... Maybe the bite-sized Pentax depiction was done on purpose, to subliminally fit with the edible sounding color schemes? ;) On 10/22/2014 7:32 PM, Bill wrote: Please make it stop. Lime Pie, Strawberry Cake and Blue Cream Soda are not colours. Remember, some things, once seen cannot be unseen. You have been warned. http://is.gd/Y5qkjI bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
ISO 100 or 200 for Best Results?
I'm in the habit of shooting at the lowest ISO possible, to get the best image quality. Lately, I was having second thoughts about shooting my K-30 at ISO 100. Since ISO 100 is an extended ISO, and ISO 200 seems to be the camera's base ISO, would there be any advantages in image quality when shooting at 200 ISO? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: ISO 100 or 200 for Best Results?
Thank you, for sharing that link. That answers everything. On 10/19/2014 2:28 PM, Larry Colen wrote: If you look at the dxo measurements: http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Pentax-K-30___811#tabs-2 You'll see that ISO 100 outperforms ISO 200. I have wondered about using higher ISOs for low dynamic range scenes to be able to measure smaller gradations in tonality, but have never tried any tests. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Is Anyone Happily Using ISO 25,600 for Anything?
I've tried using ISO 25,600 a few times, just to see what it was like. Naturally, I didn't expect the highest quality at this setting. I must say, it was nice to be able shoot images hand held in very low light. I was taking hand-held photos in dark alleys without any problem. However, the lower image quality probably ruins things for most people. I was just wondering, if anyone had found an excellent use for ISO 25,600 (or greater), and what type of photography you use it for? Surveillance work, perhaps? Avant-Garde art, perhaps? In the days of film, I had seen some very grainy, BW Fine-Art imagery shot in this ISO range. I don't know if anyone is currently attempting anything like that with digital though. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Getting back to the FF DSLR
Spock voiceSo, you believe it's logical. Fascinating... /Spock voice I think having one finger control my shutter speed with the front wheel, and my thumb control the aperture using the rear wheel is AT LEAST as logical. Why burden both hands with controlling shutter and aperture, when just one will suffice? ;) I started shooting with film cameras, back in 1979. Naturally, I used aperture rings all the time then, and I didn't have any problems. However, I don't miss them at all on my new Pentax K-30. If the new FF Pentax provides a similar degree of backwards compatibility as my K-30, I think everything will be fine. On 9/17/2014 11:37 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: Having the aperture ring on the lens is logical. It divides up tasks more evenly between the operators two hands. With the aperture control on the lens it helps the mind grasp what you're controlling. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Camera Choice
I recently bought a K-30, and I love it! The prices on that model are low, but it's a terrific camera. I think it's the very best value for the money. It even has focus peaking, which the K-5 does not have. I would suggest shopping for bargains on Amazon, if you want a new K-30, or shop on KEH, if a used K-30 would suit you. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Updated K-30 Firmware, then Manual Mode Disappeared!
Thanks, P.J.! That was the problem. Nothing had actually malfunctioned. However, I do think it's confusing for the camera to claim it's in TAv mode in that circumstance. Perhaps in a pure manual mode, one shouldn't be allowed to use Auto-ISO? There are plenty of other modes where you can use it. I think that would be more straightforward. If not that, then just don't switch the labeling for the mode from Manual to TAv. That's just a minor quibble though. I'm glad that was just a case of user inexperience. I'm absolutely loving the K-30 so far! :) On 3/30/2014 1:59 PM, P.J. Alling wrote: Is auto ISO set to On in manual mode on your K30? On 3/30/2014 9:55 AM, Glen Berry wrote: Last night I updated the firmware in my brand new K-30 to version 1.06. (It originally had version 1.00.) I thought the update went smoothly, but I later noticed I no longer had a manual mode on the camera! Instead, the camera was operating in TAv mode whenever I selected the M option on the mode dial. Fortunately, the K-30 has 2 user-defined modes. I programmed one of those to be my new manual mode. That will work for now, but this isn't reassuring behavior for a new camera that just arrived 2 days ago. I'll be contacting Pentax on Monday, to see what they have to say. Has anyone else had anything like this happen to them? Is there any sort of undocumented reset procedure for the K-30? Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Updated K-30 Firmware, then Manual Mode Disappeared!
Yes, once the Auto ISO is turned off, the screen on the rear shows the mode as manual once again. I still think it's counterintuitive, and a bit of clumsy interface design, for the dial on top to say M (for manual mode), while the screen on the back says something entirely different. I'm not going to worry about that tiny quirk though. I'm far too busy and happy enjoying my K-30! :) On 3/31/2014 6:03 PM, John Francis wrote: Personally, I think the camera is doing exactly the right thing. It's warning you that, although you've set the dial to M, it's actually going to be working in TAv mode becase Auto ISO is on. Presumably if you turn Auto ISO off it then shows the mode as M. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Updated K-30 Firmware, then Manual Mode Disappeared!
Last night I updated the firmware in my brand new K-30 to version 1.06. (It originally had version 1.00.) I thought the update went smoothly, but I later noticed I no longer had a manual mode on the camera! Instead, the camera was operating in TAv mode whenever I selected the M option on the mode dial. Fortunately, the K-30 has 2 user-defined modes. I programmed one of those to be my new manual mode. That will work for now, but this isn't reassuring behavior for a new camera that just arrived 2 days ago. I'll be contacting Pentax on Monday, to see what they have to say. Has anyone else had anything like this happen to them? Is there any sort of undocumented reset procedure for the K-30? Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K-30 AF-Assist Lamp?
I just got a new K-30 and I was wondering if there is any way to force the built-in AF Assist lamp to function when I want it to? Several times, while trying to take photos in very low light, the AF Assist lamp SHOULD have turned on, but it didn't. It almost seems to activate at random when I'm in a dim environment. Any suggestions? Should I just duct tape an LED flashlight to my camera? :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-30 AF-Assist Lamp?
Thanks for that link. I'll be updating the firmware in my camera later tonight. Maybe I'll get lucky and that will improve things a bit. I was kidding about taping a flashlight to my camera, but I am definitely considering engineering my own LED focus-assist light. On 3/29/2014 12:39 PM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun wrote: There is an interesting article about Pentax K-5 low-light focusing, especially section 4.1 which touches exactly this issue of AF lamp activation: http://www.falklumo.com/lumolabs/articles/k5focus Should I just duct tape an LED flashlight to my camera? :) But then how do you turn it off when taking the picture? :) Seriously, I've done something similar last winter when I've photographed the Christmas tree: I've put the camera o a tripod (the exposure was about 20 seconds long), focus activates only on the AF-L button, and used a strong LED flashlight for auto-focusing. Hope it helps, Ciprian. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-30 AF-Assist Lamp?
It might not be totally at random, but it sure feels like it, when you press the shutter button half-way down about 30 times, all while pointed at the same subject in dim light, and the AF-assist lamp only comes on 2 or 3 times. My lens would agonizingly hunt for extended periods of time and ultimately fail to find focus--except for those few times the AF-assist light came on. Whenever the light came on, focus was always prompt and accurate. If Pentax provided more user control over the light, or simply programmed it to come on whenever the AF fails, everything would be fine. On 3/29/2014 4:24 PM, John wrote: So, it's not entirely at random, but there doesn't seem to be any user control other than to turn the function on/off. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Definition of pinup?
Technically, I don't consider pin-up to be a genre, at least not a strict or narrow one. It's a reference to a printed image application. Namely, a mass-produced printed image that is typically pinned to a wall, without a frame, and often cheaply available. The calendars that auto mechanics hang in their garages are pin-up calendars. So are many posters of celebrities. A Playboy centerfold pulled from the magazine and pinned to a wall would be a pin-up. An 8x10 glossy photo thumbtacked to a wall could be a pin-up. They were originally called pin-ups, because you literally pinned them to the wall, not because of some very narrow definition of their subject content. Look it up in a few dictionaries, and you'll see I'm not alone on this point. When the original classic pin-up images were being created, did they go to the trouble of only using vehicles that were at least 50-years old? No. They were totally free to use contemporary vehicles. If the original classic pin-up images could use contemporary vehicles, why shouldn't you have that same freedom? Was there any sort of official international treaty that decided the use of contemporary vehicles in pin-up images had to cease by a certain year? No. Feel free to use vehicles from any era you like, even futuristic vehicles. I do realize term Pin-Up is commonly used these days as a genre, but I think its application is often a bit misguided. Some folks seem to think there are very narrow and strict guidelines as to what can be Pin-Up and what can't. I think that's poppycock. If it's a genre at all, I think it's a fairly broad one. I also think it needn't be frozen in time. I think there should be plenty of room in this world for modern looking Pin-Up images, and for Pin-Up images that push the envelope and take the category to new territories. Else, there will be very little true art in the genre, and everyone will be endlessly and slavishly copying everyone else. Note: If you use the term in its classic sense, to refer to an image literally pinned to a wall, it's pin-up. If you use the term to refer to an art movement, then it's Pin-Up (capitalized). I have very similar feelings about folks who consider pop music a term that refers to a particular genre of music, when it literally just means music that is popular — any music, any genre, as long as it's popular. We won't get into that can of worms now, though. :) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Definition of pinup?
Yeah, I'd really like to know which international standards body made that decision! lol On 2/23/2014 5:09 PM, Larry Colen wrote: Only pre-1962 American cars? Really? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Definition of pinup?
I agree, and I admire a man who gets right to the point! :) On 2/23/2014 6:06 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote: I say do your own thing - set trends don't follow them. If it looks right in your own eye, then it is right. Tell her to shove a pin up her arse. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?
I'm impressed! I think that looks as good as my K100D, when it's set to ISO 800. On 2/9/2014 3:45 AM, Larry Colen wrote: With the K-5, I often shoot in excess of ISO 6400. This set of a burrowing owl was shot with the K-5 at ISO 10,000. I consider it much better than merely satisfactory. http://www.fluidr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157634684347823/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?
Thanks everyone, for all the very helpful comments! The more I research it, the more I believe buying a used K-30 is the camera that will give me the most value for my money. I've seen reviews that said the video mode had some limitations, but I'm not buying a DSLR for video. Any little video-mode quirks, like the lack of an external microphone jack, aren't very important to me. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
A Few K-30 Questions
I was hoping someone could answer a few questions I have about the Pentax K-30. Some of these are a bit obscure, and aren't things you commonly find mentioned in most online reviews. 1) I know it has live view, but can that live view be displayed on an external monitor of some sort? 2) Is it possible to control the camera's aperture and shutter speed remotely? 3) Is it possible to shoot tethered at all? 4) It's not a deal breaker for me, if the K-30 can't do those first 3 things, but it would be a huge bonus. If the K-30 can't do those things, is there a Pentax DSLR that can? 5) With my old Pentax DSLR, it's extremely difficult for me to achieve critical focus when using manual lenses. (It has no live view, and no focus peeking.) Since the K-30 has live view, with magnification and focus peeking, I would think accurately focusing an older manual lens would be very easy. Am I correct? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: A Few K-30 Questions
Thanks for the link. That might help a bit. I noticed this odd warning near the beginning of the manual: Depending on your individual factors or physical condition, the use of the camera may cause itching, rashes or blisters. In case of any abnormality, stop using the camera and get medical attention immediately. I know that's just a CYA sort of statement, but they make it sound like the camera body is made from molded radioactive toxic waste or something! lol On 2/13/2014 2:17 PM, Stanley Halpin wrote: K-30 manual available here (under Support section of US Ricoh site): http://c758710.r10.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/support/manual/1340052607_Manual_K-30_EN.pdf Might address your questions… stan -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
K-100D vs K-30 -- Noise at high ISO?
This is going to be a difficult question to answer without showing comparison images, but can anyone give me some sort of idea how noisy a K-30 is, compared to the much older K-100D? One of the things that bugs me the most about the older cameras like the K-100D, is the very noticeable noise at higher ISO's. With every step above ISO 200, I can notice additional noise in the image. I think ISO 3200 is horrible. I've read comments from folks who had much newer DSLR's of various brands, and some of those folks seem content with ISO 3200 on THEIR camera, and I think I've even read a few mentions of folks being satisfied with ISO 6400 for certain applications. So, how good is the K-30 with regards to high ISO noise, and try to compare it to an older model like the K-100D if you can. I'm hoping the K-30 will let me shoot a few stops higher ISO without sacrificing quality. Would that likely be correct? Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Which Macro Lens?
Please help me decide on a used Pentax macro lens. I've narrowed it down to these two used lenses: 50 F2.8 SMC MACRO D FA 100 F2.8 SMC D FA MACRO What are the pros and cons of the 50mm vs the 100mm? What applications would the 50mm be best for? What applications would the 100mm be best for? Does either of them have a reputation for being noticeably sharper than the other? Would the 100mm exacerbate the already shallow depth of field inherent in macro photography, in other words, would the 50mm have greater depth of field at 1:1 magnification? Thanks, for any suggestions! -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: OT: Cans?
If you really want a metal coffee can, I believe WalMart's Great Value brand of coffee still comes in a metal can, unless they recently changed packaging. I have one of their 33.9 ounce (960g) metal cans sitting on my desk right now. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax AF-500FTZ Flash on K100D
I purchased the AF-500FTZ flash. In case anyone was wondering, here's what works with this flash on a Pentax K100D: Manual mode: - Works at all power levels and zoom settings Flash automatically zooms to match the 18-55mm lens: - Works Flash zoom manual override: - Works Focus assist light: - Works Strobe (multiple burst) mode: - Works Ready light in viewfinder: - Works Automatically limits camera shutter speed to 1/180 max when the AF-500FTZ is turned on: - works Optical slave mode: - Works, as long as the master flash doesn't use P-TTL or red eye reduction. Second-curtain sync? - Yes and no. The delayed sync timing works, but the flash always fires at full power. TTL mode: - No, because the K100D doesn't support it. The flash always fires at full power when set to TTL mode, and used on the Pentax K100D. P-TTL mode: - No, because the AF-500FTZ doesn't support it. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Pentax AF-500FTZ Flash on K100D
I'm strongly considering purchasing a used Pentax AF-500FTZ, mainly for off-camera strobist style shooting. As I understand it, the unit has a built-in optical slave which should work fine for manual-mode, strobist style shooting. I'd also like to us this flash in the hot shoe of my K100D, which only supports P-TTL mode. I know that I'll have to use the AF-500FTZ in manual mode to control the exposure. I'm fine with that. Do any of these other AF-500FTZ features work with K100D: Focus assist light? Strobe (multiple burst) mode? Second-curtain sync? Ready light in viewfinder? I appreciate any information you can share about this particular combination of gear. Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Pentax GPS accessory
This seems like it would be a good application for blue tooth technology. That is, if only Pentax cameras were built with blue tooth capability. You would then only have to have the GPS unit near the camera, not connected to it. On 2/10/2011 2:13 PM, John Sessoms wrote: From: eckinator maybe it is just a data logger and only attaches to the hotshoe physically - there are others like it so it could just be redabged OEM who knows; I'll just wait and see =) 2011/2/10, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com: Pentax doesn't trigger the hot-shoe at shutter speeds above sync. How does this thing work if it's mounted there? It's got to have some sort of output from the camera to tell it when a photo is taken so it knows when to log the coordinates. I'm curious how it gets that information since the hot-shoe it appears to mount on doesn't trigger all the time. - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3433 - Release Date: 02/09/11 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Which Macro Lens?
I just realized that I have a lens-reversing adapter. I just mounted a Pentax 50mm f2.0 lens on my camera backwards, and it gave fairly impressive results. When shooting coins, a US quarter will almost totally span the narrow dimension of the frame. There is just a very tiny amount of space left on both sides of the coin. Using this same adapter, along with a special adapter plate for my old Omega enlarger, I can mount my Pentax DSLR in place of my enlarger head. This will let me shoot high-magnification macro through my EL-Nikkor enlarging lens. With the camera mounted on the enlarger it's not terribly portable, but I can definitely make use of this here at home. These are some things I can make good use of right now, until I get more elaborate macro gear. :) I want to think everyone for their macro lens suggestions. You've all been very helpful! . -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Is Live View Also Sent Over The Video Output?
I was wondering if any of the Pentax DSLRs actually transmit a Live View video feed through their video output connection? The reason I'm asking, I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to place a Pentax DSLR in a remote location (on the end of a pole, for example) and view the Live View signal on a remote monitor. If so, you could trip the shutter remotely and use the camera in places where it's physically impractical to place your head behind the camera. If this would work, which models of Pentax support this sort of remote live viewing? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Comparing K100D with K-x?
I've read the specs for both cameras, and the K-x really should be better than the K-100D, but I'd still like to ask the question. Do you think there is a BIG and obvious improvement in image quality, after upgrading from a K-100D to a K-x body? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Sensor Cleaning
Whats your favorite way to clean the sensor in your Pentax DSLR? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Which Macro Lens?
I'm considering spending some money on a new macro lens. I used to have an older Pentax 50mm f2.8 autofocus lens that was built like a tank, and took very sharp photos. I bought it used at a local shop for only about $100, which was a huge bargain! Unfortunately, that lens got stolen along with the camera it was mounted on at the time. God, how I wish the thieves had stolen my inexpensive kit lens instead! :) Anyway, I'm currently shooting with a K100D, and I'm trying to decide between getting one of these new macro lenses: Pentax smc P-D FA 50mm f/2.8 Pentax SMCP-DA 35mm f/2.8 Are either of these lenses noticeably sharper than the other? Which would you buy, especially if this were going to be your only macro lens? Are there any other macro lenses I should consider? thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: finding pictures or making pictures?
Lately, most of my photos are loosely planned. I'll typically know the subject, theme, and location. I'll usually know some other details as well. However, I'll frequently have to improvise a bit, once it's time to start shooting. Sometimes circumstances will force me to revise my plans at the last moment. Other times, unforeseen opportunities will present themselves during shooting. Because of such uncertainties, I don't often try to plan my images in intricate detail. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
No, Scott, thank you for posting this information--I very much appreciate it. As I have no current plans to digitize, this is valuable information. My wife and I have been using the Wal-Mart in Winchester for most of our processing. The pro shops in toward DC charge about four times as much, and the difference is usually negligible (if present at all). I give the rolls to my wife, she combines them with hers, and then she fills out the information at the W-M photo kiosk (she has better handwriting than I :) As I have said here before, I have never even read the information at the kiosk regarding digital processing. Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good BW print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish tint disappointed me. Perhaps print BW C-41 is just too strange an animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print processing to W-M, and trying AI mailers for my BW prints. Overall, their prices are rather high (though not more than the pro shops), but since they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print BW ($15.50 vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is excellent (Old Grumpy had endorsed them). I welcome any further thoughts. Regards, Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Since we've been tossing around the Wal-Mart name a bit, and since I've been doing some scanning recently, this has been on my mind and I thought I'd share (with the other 2 of you who are still shooting film). When I was working in Hagerstown, MD I brought my E-6 to a little independent shop called FirstLook Photo. They had a 2 hour slide service than ran about $8. Drop off before my shift, pick up during lunch. It was wonderful and well worth the price. The finished product was mounted in plastic and filed in archival pages punched for 3-ring binders. They also still did BW in house. Not having the volume to process it every day, the store owner would do it himself once per week. I think he just liked black and white processing and wasn't too terribly interested in making money from it. After moving north a bit, FirstLook became inconvenient. So I started looking around for another E-6 processor. I tried three different small shops. None of them did it on site, turn around was at least a week, and the end result was variable. Prices ranged from $8 to $12 per roll. So I decided to try Wal-Mart. In case you don't know, Wal-Mart sends everything that's not 1-hour C-41 to Fuji. As I have had good luck with Fuji's processing in the past, via mailers, I put a few rolls in Wal-Mart's send-out bin. Success! About a week, quality was consistent, and the price tag was $4.88. Turns out, sometime between a year ago and now, Fuji closed their E-6 facility and contracted with Dwayne's. I like Dwayne's. A lot. They do good work. Bottom line, Wally World send out goes to Dwayne's. 36 exposure 35mm (E-6 and Kodachrome), 120 or 220 E-6 is $4.88 per roll, and it usually takes 7 to 10 days. I'm a happy camper. FWIW - there are a couple of pro labs in the area, but I haven't tried them. They cater mostly to wedding photographers and don't seem to have much interest in developing a roll or two for guys like me. They're also considerably more expensive. I suppose I'd use them if I was being paid for it, but for the amateur crap I shoot, Wal-Mart is fine. Thanks for listening. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I mention Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value. In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?). Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it has its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the *total* start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start cutting...Hmm... Thanks, Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good BW print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish tint disappointed me. Perhaps print BW C-41 is just too strange an animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print processing to W-M, and trying AI mailers for my BW prints. Overall, their prices are rather high (though not more than the pro shops), but since they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print BW ($15.50 vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is excellent (Old Grumpy had endorsed them). I welcome any further thoughts. I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing. Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41 stuff. It seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is much more consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1-hour envelopes they're going to process it in the store. As far as I can tell, anything that's not in a 1-hour envelope goes to Fuji and takes a few days, at least. Perhaps Bill can confirm this. C-41 BW is tricky and most mini-labs don't do it well. Wal-Mart, as well as Target, Costco, Rite-Aid, etc., are probably going to print it on the same paper they print everything else on. You're going to have a color cast. I used to send film to a mail order outfit called Clark Color (I believe they're affiliated with York Photo). They would print C-41 BW and traditional BW on traditional black and white paper. They have since gone to a production inkjet system that really sucks. Your best bet is to get a scanner and scan/print the stuff yourself. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Thank you for the comment... The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-gloss. It is also rather expensive at $9.00 for 40 sheets. This amounts to nearly the same number of prints as a roll of film (36 vs. 40)--and that is just for paper, without ink and shipping on the paper (if one purchases it via mail order). For $8.92 I can have two rolls of 24 developed and printed (*in matte*) at Wal-Mart, or, for $15.50, I can have a professional lab (i.e. AI) develop and print a roll of 36. Again, I have yet to see the overwhelming cost savings or general astuteness of scanning and printing at home. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 11:28 AM, Steve Sharpe wrote: At 11:20 AM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote: I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I mention Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value. In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?). Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it has its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the *total* start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start cutting...Hmm... I print 4X6 with my Epson SP825. That's premium glossy paper...I don't know if that size is available in other types. If I want bigger than 8X10 then I switch to roll paper, which allows 8X12, 8xwhatever. -- Steve • [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote: The 4490 is likely a better choice to start than the 4990, unless you're already shooting Large Format. You'll also want to pick up some 35mm ANR inserts from betterscanning.com, they massively improve 35mm scans from flatbeds. You'll want 2 for the 4490. Note Epson.com has refurbs right now for $99. The printer will come with a set of ink carts. So you won't be buying ink right away. If you intend to do large amounts of printing, a R2400 or up will quickly pay for itself in Ink (the R2400's in costs are about 1/4 the cost of an R280's, due to the cartridges holding a lot more ink than the low-end cartridges. Note that a high-end printer like the Epson 4800 is even cheaper, at about 1/3 of the cost of the R2400. The cost difference between those two is about 250 8x10's). Your best bet if you like 5x7's is to print 2 to a page and cut down. Most papers are available in 8.5x11 and larger only. A few are available in 5x7, Moab papers in particular are available in 5x7 (Entrada bright is a superb matte art paper). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I mention Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value. In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?). Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it has its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the *total* start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start cutting...Hmm... Thanks, Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good BW print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish tint disappointed me. Perhaps print BW C-41 is just too strange an animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print processing to W-M, and trying AI mailers for my BW prints. Overall, their prices are rather high (though not more than the pro shops), but since they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print BW ($15.50 vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is excellent (Old Grumpy had endorsed them). I welcome any further thoughts. I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing. Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41 stuff. It seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is much more consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1-hour envelopes they're going to process it in the store. As far as I can tell, anything that's not in a 1-hour envelope goes to Fuji and takes a few days, at least. Perhaps Bill can confirm this. C-41 BW is tricky and most mini-labs don't do it well. Wal- Mart, as well as Target, Costco, Rite-Aid, etc., are probably going to print it on the same paper they print everything else on. You're going to have a color cast. I used to send film to a mail order outfit called Clark Color (I believe they're affiliated with York Photo). They would print C-41 BW and traditional BW on traditional black and white paper. They have since gone to a production inkjet system that really sucks. Your best bet is to get a scanner and scan/print the stuff yourself. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I see. Would a semi-gloss paper be a better choice (and be similar to the semi-matte of minilabs)? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It will(although not ideally, it's intended for pigment printers), but note it's a true Matte paper, not the semi-matte or pearl that minilabs pass off as matte paper. Matte papers are not really ideal for colour work unless you want a watercolour look to the print. You may want to look at Moab?legion's other products as well, I simply went with the paper I knew. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote: The 4490 is likely a better choice to start than the 4990, unless you're already shooting Large Format. You'll also want to pick up some 35mm ANR inserts from betterscanning.com, they massively improve 35mm scans from flatbeds. You'll want 2 for the 4490. Note Epson.com has refurbs right now for $99. The printer will come with a set of ink carts. So you won't be buying ink right away. If you intend to do large amounts of printing, a R2400 or up will quickly pay for itself in Ink (the R2400's in costs are about 1/4 the cost of an R280's, due to the cartridges holding a lot more ink than the low-end cartridges. Note that a high-end printer like the Epson 4800 is even cheaper, at about 1/3 of the cost of the R2400. The cost difference between those two is about 250 8x10's). Your best bet if you like 5x7's is to print 2 to a page and cut down. Most papers are available in 8.5x11 and larger only. A few are available in 5x7, Moab papers in particular are available in 5x7 (Entrada bright is a superb matte art paper). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11 because this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is also the only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I mention Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value. In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?). Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it has its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the *total* start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start cutting...Hmm... Thanks, Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good BW print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish tint disappointed me. Perhaps print BW C-41 is just too strange an animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print processing to W-M, and trying AI mailers for my BW prints. Overall, their prices are rather high (though not more than the pro shops), but since they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print BW ($15.50 vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is excellent (Old Grumpy had endorsed them). I welcome any further thoughts. I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing. Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41 stuff. It seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is much more consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1- hour envelopes they're going to process it in the store. As far as I can tell, anything that's not in a 1-hour envelope goes to Fuji and takes a few days, at least. Perhaps Bill can confirm this. C-41 BW is tricky and most mini-labs don't do it well. Wal- Mart, as well as Target, Costco, Rite-Aid, etc., are probably going to print it on the same paper they print everything else on. You're going to have a color cast. I used to send film to a mail order outfit called Clark Color (I believe they're affiliated with York Photo). They would print C-41 BW and traditional BW on traditional
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro-abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call a virtual boycott--and I leave the rest to Our Blessed Mother. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. FWIW, BH is wonderful to do business with. I've spent more than I should have with them over the last few years and have received nothing but good service. Every order has been correct, shipping has been within a day or two of placing the order, and the one time I had a question for them they replied very promptly with the information I requested. You really can't go wrong with BH. I've had the same sort of service from Newegg, but I prefer to order anything photo related from the guys in New Yawk. BH has the R280 in stock at the same price as Newegg. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Is it at all difficult to select and print only those negatives that you find acceptable? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:31 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote: At 1:10 PM -0400 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you for the comment... The Epson 4x6 paper is available only in glossy or semi-gloss. It is also rather expensive at $9.00 for 40 sheets. This amounts to nearly the same number of prints as a roll of film (36 vs. 40)--and that is just for paper, without ink and shipping on the paper (if one purchases it via mail order). For $8.92 I can have two rolls of 24 developed and printed (*in matte*) at Wal-Mart, or, for $15.50, I can have a professional lab (i.e. AI) develop and print a roll of 36. Again, I have yet to see the overwhelming cost savings or general astuteness of scanning and printing at home. Good points. For myself, I seldom want prints of everything on a roll - I'm not that good a photographer - so why pay for prints I don't want? I prefer specify develop only when I take the film in, then scan the film when I get it back, examine the images on the monitor and then only print the ones I like. That saves me money. -- Steve Sharpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] • http://earth.delith.com/photo_gallery.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. “ He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro-abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call a virtual boycott--and I leave the rest to Our Blessed Mother. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
More slander here, too, I see. In regard to the substance of your comments, I note: you choose to buy the bill of goods sold to you by media knaves, politicians, and textbooks. In America, and in many other nations, this is your your right. I choose to investigate the facts for myself, and come to an informed conclusion about what you call war and persecution. Did not someone once say that history is determined more by those who write it than anything else? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Glen, Your position is rather extreem. God protect me from people like you who know the 'right'. So much war and persecution can be blamed on this. Regards, Bob S On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro-abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call a virtual boycott--and I leave the rest to Our Blessed Mother. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. FWIW, BH is wonderful to do business with. I've spent more than I should have with them over the last few years and have received nothing but good service. Every order has been correct, shipping has been within a day or two of placing the order, and the one time I had a question for them they replied very promptly with the information I requested. You really can't go wrong with BH. I've had the same sort of service from Newegg, but I prefer to order anything photo related from the guys in New Yawk. BH has the R280 in stock at the same price as Newegg. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I am pigheaded? I have used no such derogatory language. All I did was respond to a post, and state my position. I put forth no ad hominem attacks, but you clearly have. What kind of country (and world) are we living in these days? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:14 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is probably the most inane, pigheaded post I've ever seen on this forum. The people who run BH are some of the most honest businessmen I've ever encountered. I don't subscribe fully to any god, but if there is such an entity, I'm sure she frowns upon anyone who would discriminate against another because of their beliefs. Such nonsense. Paul -- Original message -- From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro-abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call a virtual boycott--and I leave the rest to Our Blessed Mother. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. FWIW, BH is wonderful to do business with. I've spent more than I should have with them over the last few years and have received nothing but good service. Every order has been correct, shipping has been within a day or two of placing the order, and the one time I had a question for them they replied very promptly with the information I requested. You really can't go wrong with BH. I've had the same sort of service from Newegg, but I prefer to order anything photo related from the guys in New Yawk. BH has the R280 in stock at the same price as Newegg. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Where are you getting this? I never said that BH, or anyone else, should be denied the means of subsistence. Again, all I said is that I choose not to support them. Like some who choose to take a stand for the environment, or for politician so and so, or for proposition x-y-z, I choose to take a stand for Christ. I am well aware of Red China's doings, and, no, you will find very, very little in my house that has the Made in China designation. Again, I do what I could. What do you do you? What type of research have you undertaken? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Tom C wrote: I'm not going to carry on a public debate with you either, other to point out that your stance clearly contradicts the spirit of being Christian. Romans 5:8 - 'but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.' Mark 12:31 - 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Clearly the belief that someone should be denied the means of subsistence based on their beliefs is unchristian. I'd point out that 'Our Beloved Wal-Mart' as well as just about every retail establishment in this country is supporting a godless Red China - yet you no doubt support their economy through your purchases. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400 I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. “ He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Reading what has been written already, I knew this smear would come. Can any of you who have responded thus address the matter with reason and discernment? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Bob W wrote: Awesome! Keep it coming! It's like being on a long flight with Mel Gibson. Could you not write your next emails in Aramaic for us? -- Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Tortorella Sent: 10 October 2007 22:41 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro-abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Where are you getting this? When did I say that you are blaspheming? You are the one that censured my post, and asked for protection from people like me. What kind of meaning is present here, Bob S.? Who are people like [me]? Hmm...sounds like a bigoted remark. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:18 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Glen, Nobody is slandering anybody here or blaspheming. See my post again. It is a simple comment and a wish for recognition of my rights to hold a different opinion than yours without holy war. Regards, Bob S. On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: More slander here, too, I see. In regard to the substance of your comments, I note: you choose to buy the bill of goods sold to you by media knaves, politicians, and textbooks. In America, and in many other nations, this is your your right. I choose to investigate the facts for myself, and come to an informed conclusion about what you call war and persecution. Did not someone once say that history is determined more by those who write it than anything else? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:07 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Glen, Your position is rather extreem. God protect me from people like you who know the 'right'. So much war and persecution can be blamed on this. Regards, Bob S On 10/10/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro- abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do that which is physically and logistically possible--what Orsini and others call a virtual boycott--and I leave the rest to Our Blessed Mother. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:59 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam... Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want to make sure of this. Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New York camera stores (BH, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not purchase it from these stores. FWIW, BH is wonderful to do business with. I've spent more than I should have with them over the last few years and have received nothing but good service. Every order has been correct, shipping has been within a day or two of placing the order, and the one time I had a question for them they replied very promptly with the information I requested. You really can't go wrong with BH. I've had the same sort of service from Newegg, but I prefer to order anything photo related from the guys in New Yawk. BH has the R280 in stock at the same price as Newegg. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I apologize for the typos. This post should read: Where are you getting this? I never said that BH, or anyone else, should be denied the means of subsistence. Again, all I said is that I choose not to support them. Like some who choose to take a stand for the environment, or for politician so and so, or for proposition x-y-z, I choose to take a stand for Christ. I am well aware of Red China's doings, and, no, you will find very, very little in my house that has the Made in China designation. Again, I do what I could. What do you do? What type of research have you undertaken? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 5:53 PM, Tom C wrote: I'm not going to carry on a public debate with you either, other to point out that your stance clearly contradicts the spirit of being Christian. Romans 5:8 - 'but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.' Mark 12:31 - 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Clearly the belief that someone should be denied the means of subsistence based on their beliefs is unchristian. I'd point out that 'Our Beloved Wal-Mart' as well as just about every retail establishment in this country is supporting a godless Red China - yet you no doubt support their economy through your purchases. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400 I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. “ He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I see you employ the reductio ad absurdum here. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Tom C wrote: Since you won't allow such persons to even make 10-20% profit on a sale so they can make payroll or buy groceries, I wonder... Would you help one change a flat tire? What if they were on the way to a synagogue? If there house were on fire, would you warn them? Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 17:40:48 -0400 I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. “ He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other attacks on life (including euthanasia, contraception, and unjust wars--which is why I am opposed to America's occupation of Iraq). I have employed the words, as much as possible here so as to highlight the realities of any boycott. That is, while I have done rather extensive research in these areas, I know that I do not possess an unlimited access to information. Secondly, as Jean-Francois Orsini of the St. Antoninus Institute points out, a complete boycott is rather impossible. One must realize that sources of blasphemy, irreligion, and immorality have lengthy tentacles. For instance, Johnson Johnson (a pro- abort firm) produces a dazzling array of name brand and generic products, some of which are necessary for everyday living, and some of which one may not even be able to determine are produced by Johnson Johnson. Hence, I do
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
Since this discussion has clearly degenerated, I second Rebekah's and Tom's appeals to abandon this discussion. Even though some of you hurled some rather harsh, untrue, and uncalled-for remarks in my direction, I hold no ill sentiments toward you. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:52 PM, Bob W wrote: Religion is not a matter of reason. Religious people often use the tactic you've used below, which Daniel Dennett has described as playing tennis with the net down for one player. On one side the religious appeal to faith, which is by definition irrational. Yet when the irreligious mock them, they demand 'reason and discernment'! Har! I wish you a harvest of turds, my bigoted chum! -- Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Tortorella Sent: 10 October 2007 23:41 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Reading what has been written already, I knew this smear would come. Can any of you who have responded thus address the matter with reason and discernment? Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:05 PM, Bob W wrote: Awesome! Keep it coming! It's like being on a long flight with Mel Gibson. Could you not write your next emails in Aramaic for us? -- Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Glen Tortorella Sent: 10 October 2007 22:41 To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) I do not wish to engage in a protracted debate, as this subject has arisen only because someone had mentioned why he has chosen to patronize BH. Likewise, I should not have to defend my decision not to patronize them. However, in short, I note that Sacred Scripture does not corroborate your view. You highlight a verse in St. Matthew's Gospel in isolation. The matter of being aware of those who oppose Christ and His Church has nothing to do with making friends. Christ came to reconcile the world to Himself, and to provide the Good News for those who were of goodwill, for those who were (and are) willing to listen. Christ did not come to ingratiate Himself to the world, i.e. to its powers, publicans, and pretenders. Rather, His Cross is precisely the opposite of that: it stands in overt contradiction to the world and its ways. His entire public ministry, which spanned three years of His life (beginning at the Wedding Feast of Cana), contradicts the view that Christ was some sort of UN negotiator. Further, His words and actions continually characterize His Divine Mission. Since you have brought up St. Matthew's Gospel, let us search there for Our Lord's edifying words: Do not think that I am come to send peace upon earth: rather I came not to send peace, but the sword (Mt 10:34), He who is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth (Mt 12:30), and Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up (Mt 15:13). These are not the words of a modern politician. Even the Scribes and Pharisees knew that they were the words of no common man. Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 4:36 PM, Tom C wrote: I guess the little problem I see with this reasoning is that not even God himself takes that viewpoint, according to the Bible. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous (Matt. 5:45). To alienate someone for their beliefs is not a way of making friends. Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:34:23 -0400 I thank you for you comments, Scott. Since you have made note of the subject, I will explain my position with regard to BH. I am familiar with BH's reputation for customer service. My avoidance of BH et. al. has nothing to do with prejudice stemming from a stereotypical opinion of large, New York-based businesses. My avoidance of businesses such as BH is founded strictly upon my religious views. I, as much as possible, will not support those whom I know to honor or reverence that which condemns or blasphemes Our Blessed Lord, Jesus Christ, His Blessed Mother, or His Saints. The Talmud, in numerous locations, refers to Our Lord, and His Blessed Mother, in such a manner. Thus, I make an effort to avoid supporting those who honor the Talmud. I apply a like boycott to business that support ideologies or activities that I find morally objectionable. For example, I, as much as possible, avoid companies or other establishments that fund Planned Parenthood or promote other
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
I have already expressed my waning interest in continuing this discussion, as no one has shown any knowledge of, or familiarity with, the matter in question. These will be my final remarks on the matter. Perhaps they will help to clarify the issue. Suppose that someone wrote a book that declares that one's father was a liar and a sorcerer, and that he got what he deserved when he was violently murdered, and, finally, that he is presently burning in Hell in hot excrement. Further, let us say that this same book declares that one's mother was a whore. Do you think one would feel motivated to purchase something from someone who believes and upholds the teachings of this book? Read the Talmud. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:13 PM, David Savage wrote: On 10/11/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Your digging yourself into a bigger bigger hole and reinforcing my opinions of religion mate. Do us all a favour, pull you bottom lip up over your head and swallow. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Wal-Mart and film processing (Long winded)
In my last post, I forgot to add this link: http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html This should also help. Glen On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:13 PM, David Savage wrote: On 10/11/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those who contradict and blaspheme Jesus Christ clearly scattereth, and, as Our Lord directs, I will avoid having any complicity in their doctrines or deeds. Your digging yourself into a bigger bigger hole and reinforcing my opinions of religion mate. Do us all a favour, pull you bottom lip up over your head and swallow. Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Maximum capacity of SD card for the K-100D ?
I just updated my K-100D firmware to version 1.02 Does anyone know, what is the largest capacity of SD card supported by this firmware? I currently have a 2 gig card, and I'd be interested in getting something larger. thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Maximum capacity of SD card for the K-100D ?
Hi Scott, My firmware was only 1.00 before I did the upgrade. That particular revision didn't support 4 gig cards. I was hoping the newer firmware revision would support 4 gig and larger, but I didn't notice any definite confirmation of this on the Pentax web site. thanks, Glen Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Berry wrote: I just updated my K-100D firmware to version 1.02 Does anyone know, what is the largest capacity of SD card supported by this firmware? I currently have a 2 gig card, and I'd be interested in getting something larger. thanks, Glen The K100D has supported SDHC cards since 1.01. SDHC capacity ranges from 4GB to 32GB. 4 and 8GB cards shouldn't be too hard to find. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fall Foliage Search
This sounds great. The eastern slope of the Sierra is wonderful. I did some hiking there in 1996 (around Big Pine). Too bad there is no sign of fall here (northern Virginia). Summer just refuses to die. It has been in the 90s here. When will the cooler weather finally arrive?...(I guess it is rather plain that I have northern blood). Glen On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Jack Davis wrote: We (wife and I) are off for a few days in search of fall. Going to do Highway 395 again, primarily in the Bishop Canyon area on the eastern slope of California's Sierra. Later, Jack __ __ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: my photos on website
Good point--I agree. Glen On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:36 AM, Bob Sullivan wrote: Link to Gary's Classic Cars doesn't belong there... Regards, Bob S. On 10/8/07, Ted Beilby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It has been many years since I did this type of work. My boss wanted to have me do the photos for the web site he was getting up. Was a nice change from building cabinets. Made a little bit of money in addition to my regular salary. Comment on photos would be appreciated as well as comments on the site. All taken with K10D and 16-45 DA. Site comments would be passed on to my boss. Ted http://www.easthall.com/hr2/index.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: my photos on website
Nice shots, Ted. I have yet to master interior lighting. I need a good (bounce capable) flash. Glen On Oct 8, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Ted Beilby wrote: It has been many years since I did this type of work. My boss wanted to have me do the photos for the web site he was getting up. Was a nice change from building cabinets. Made a little bit of money in addition to my regular salary. Comment on photos would be appreciated as well as comments on the site. All taken with K10D and 16-45 DA. Site comments would be passed on to my boss. Ted http://www.easthall.com/hr2/index.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Mlford Pond and Church
Nice shot, P.J. Judging by your comments, you would seem to be a railfan. Are you a NYNHH fan? Glen On Oct 5, 2007, at 12:19 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I had to be in the center of Milford a much bigger shore town, but as self consciously quaint as Stony Creek is still mostly un-self consciously quaint. On the other hand Milford has been a relatively easy commute from New York since the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad has been in existence. http://www.mindspring.com/~happydogsoftware/PESO%20--% 20mlfordpondandchurch.html Equipment Pentax *ist-Ds/smc Pentax FA 20-35mm f4.0 AL As usual comments are welcome but may be totally ignored. -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
Thank you, P.J. After learning more about this, I would have to agree with you. It seems like the only lab that would get it right is AI. While their mailers are a bit expensive, it seems they provide the proper services. What do you think? Also, if I chose their 4x6 with borders, what effect do the borders have upon sizing? I think the borders look nice, but are they inadvisable for the smallish 4x6 size? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 10:20 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: BW printed on Color paper is generally a bad idea. That's what you got from Wal-Mart. To get the best results, you need to print it one real silver based BW paper or scan them and print them yourself. Or you need to find a lab that really knows what they're doing to get decent results on Color Print paper. Glen Tortorella wrote: I forgot to ask: is all C-41 processing the same? I ask because on my C-41 BW I had processed at Wal-Mart, some of the whites have a bit of a purplish tone. My instinct tells me that this is a result of inadequate light in these particular photos...or is C-41 for BW at Wal-Mart just a bad idea? Thanks, Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Try each, settle on whichever produces the better results for you (I'd forgotten the N80 was 1/2 stops only). The flash system in the N80 is essentially identical to the F100 (as is the metering) apart from the F100's selectable exposure stop increments. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam, for your detailed commentary. Also, I thank everyone else who has responded--even the fellow who said I should have bought a Pentax (Dave, I think) :-) Adam: I tried dialing-in the -0.7 FEC value you suggest. It seems the N80 will take only 1/2 increments (-0.5, -1.0, etc.). I do not see any other way to set it. Is there something I am missing? Also, if I am correct about this, would -0.5 be sufficient, or would I be wasting my time?...or is this just another reason to look into an F100 (as you have suggested)? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/ wash- out effect of the subject (people). Dial in -0.7 stops of Flash exposure compensation when shooting people with Nikon flashes (including the popup). Leave this permanently dialed in. 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. Add flash, leave the -0.7 stops of FEC dialed in. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? That is correct, the N80 will attempt to balance the exposure if it can get the shutter between 1/125 and 1/30 or so, with a slight bias towards the flash illumination (hence the FEC I recommend). If you want a pure flash exposure, shoot in manual. 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? Probably. Check your negs. I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? Thanks, Glen Fill flash is your friend, but remember direct flash always looks a bit ghastly. A (cheap) SB-24 and an SC-17 or SC-28 cord will get the flash off-camera with full TTL, and is a much better
Disappointing Results
Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/wash- out effect of the subject (people). 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Disappointing Results
Here is a correctly stated issue #2: 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. I sometimes have a tendency toward the typo ;-) Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
Thank you, William. You are right: difficult lighting is just plain difficult. The speck on the subject's face is definitely white. Also, I looked at the negative. There seems to be a speck on the neg. It is difficult to tell for sure, though. Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:45 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Glen Tortorella Subject: Disappointing Results Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/wash- out effect of the subject (people). 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? You seem to have discovered one of the rules of photography that I like the best, which is that good equipment can't compensate for bad photography. Difficult lighting situations are difficult because of their nature, not because of less than savvy cameras. Was the spot on the subject's face white or black? If it's white, it's dust on the film at the time of printing, which isn't a big deal, if it's black, then it's dust on the film at the moment of exposure. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
Thank you, Adam, for your detailed commentary. Also, I thank everyone else who has responded--even the fellow who said I should have bought a Pentax (Dave, I think) :-) Adam: I tried dialing-in the -0.7 FEC value you suggest. It seems the N80 will take only 1/2 increments (-0.5, -1.0, etc.). I do not see any other way to set it. Is there something I am missing? Also, if I am correct about this, would -0.5 be sufficient, or would I be wasting my time?...or is this just another reason to look into an F100 (as you have suggested)? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/wash- out effect of the subject (people). Dial in -0.7 stops of Flash exposure compensation when shooting people with Nikon flashes (including the popup). Leave this permanently dialed in. 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. Add flash, leave the -0.7 stops of FEC dialed in. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? That is correct, the N80 will attempt to balance the exposure if it can get the shutter between 1/125 and 1/30 or so, with a slight bias towards the flash illumination (hence the FEC I recommend). If you want a pure flash exposure, shoot in manual. 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? Probably. Check your negs. I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? Thanks, Glen Fill flash is your friend, but remember direct flash always looks a bit ghastly. A (cheap) SB-24 and an SC-17 or SC-28 cord will get the flash off-camera with full TTL, and is a much better option. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
I forgot to ask: is all C-41 processing the same? I ask because on my C-41 BW I had processed at Wal-Mart, some of the whites have a bit of a purplish tone. My instinct tells me that this is a result of inadequate light in these particular photos...or is C-41 for BW at Wal-Mart just a bad idea? Thanks, Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Try each, settle on whichever produces the better results for you (I'd forgotten the N80 was 1/2 stops only). The flash system in the N80 is essentially identical to the F100 (as is the metering) apart from the F100's selectable exposure stop increments. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam, for your detailed commentary. Also, I thank everyone else who has responded--even the fellow who said I should have bought a Pentax (Dave, I think) :-) Adam: I tried dialing-in the -0.7 FEC value you suggest. It seems the N80 will take only 1/2 increments (-0.5, -1.0, etc.). I do not see any other way to set it. Is there something I am missing? Also, if I am correct about this, would -0.5 be sufficient, or would I be wasting my time?...or is this just another reason to look into an F100 (as you have suggested)? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/wash- out effect of the subject (people). Dial in -0.7 stops of Flash exposure compensation when shooting people with Nikon flashes (including the popup). Leave this permanently dialed in. 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. Add flash, leave the -0.7 stops of FEC dialed in. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? That is correct, the N80 will attempt to balance the exposure if it can get the shutter between 1/125 and 1/30 or so, with a slight bias towards the flash illumination (hence the FEC I recommend). If you want a pure flash exposure, shoot in manual. 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? Probably. Check your negs. I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? Thanks, Glen Fill flash is your friend, but remember direct flash always looks a bit ghastly. A (cheap) SB-24 and an SC-17 or SC-28 cord will get the flash off-camera with full TTL, and is a much better option. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
Thanks, Scott. I have some Fuji Neopan Acros 100 on hand. What do you recommend in traditional BW 400? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 12:26 PM, Scott Loveless wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: I forgot to ask: is all C-41 processing the same? I ask because on my C-41 BW I had processed at Wal-Mart, some of the whites have a bit of a purplish tone. My instinct tells me that this is a result of inadequate light in these particular photos...or is C-41 for BW at Wal-Mart just a bad idea? Thanks, Glen They print those on the same color paper they print everything else on. A green, yellow or purple tint is common. Good luck finding a printer these days who can work around that. I used to bring my C-41 black and white to a Target store in the St. Louis area. The girl behind the counter actually knew what she was doing and would set my film aside until she had an opportunity to calibrate something on their mini-lab. The prints I got there were the best I've seen from C-41 BW. Even the local pro labs didn't do as well, and they charged a lot more money. When she quit I stopped using the stuff and went to traditional BW film. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Disappointing Results
True...and I suppose this holds true for those prints that are sent offsite for processing, as mine were of the two-day variety. Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 1:11 PM, Adam Maas wrote: C-41 processing, given fresh chemicals and a clean machine, is standardized. Colour Printing requires colour corrections on a per- emulsion basis. Most 1-hour labs can't be bothered to print correctly. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I forgot to ask: is all C-41 processing the same? I ask because on my C-41 BW I had processed at Wal-Mart, some of the whites have a bit of a purplish tone. My instinct tells me that this is a result of inadequate light in these particular photos...or is C-41 for BW at Wal-Mart just a bad idea? Thanks, Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Try each, settle on whichever produces the better results for you (I'd forgotten the N80 was 1/2 stops only). The flash system in the N80 is essentially identical to the F100 (as is the metering) apart from the F100's selectable exposure stop increments. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam, for your detailed commentary. Also, I thank everyone else who has responded--even the fellow who said I should have bought a Pentax (Dave, I think) :-) Adam: I tried dialing-in the -0.7 FEC value you suggest. It seems the N80 will take only 1/2 increments (-0.5, -1.0, etc.). I do not see any other way to set it. Is there something I am missing? Also, if I am correct about this, would -0.5 be sufficient, or would I be wasting my time?...or is this just another reason to look into an F100 (as you have suggested)? Glen On Oct 3, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Since I have a new, more advanced body, the N80, I tried taking some shots I would have avoided in the past. The results were awful-- not one good shot on the entire role, a miserable 0-for-24 (Kodak Gold 200). In the past, I would avoid two types of shots: 1) indoor shots and 2) outdoor high sun shots in the fair weather months (i.e. during the hours of about 10:00-4:00). In doing so, I have assured myself decent, but not necessarily perfect, results. Since the N80 has a better metering system (10-segment) and a pop-up flash that is supposed to be pretty good, I figured: let me see what it can do. As I have said, the results were dreadful. Here are the main issues. 1) Every indoor flash shot showed at least moderate spotlight/ wash- out effect of the subject (people). Dial in -0.7 stops of Flash exposure compensation when shooting people with Nikon flashes (including the popup). Leave this permanently dialed in. 2) On the outdoor high sun shots, the camera turned a seemingly minor shadows (through the viewfinder) on the subject's face into a black blobs that covered almost all of the subject's face. Add flash, leave the -0.7 stops of FEC dialed in. 3) When taking indoor shots with the flash, I would meter (10- segment) something like 1/30 or 1/45 or perhaps 1/60 at, say, f2. With the flash powered up, I do not think it ever metered differently. For example, 1/30 at f/2 was still 1/30 at f/2 with the flash enabled. Is this correct, or is there something wrong with my camera? That is correct, the N80 will attempt to balance the exposure if it can get the shutter between 1/125 and 1/30 or so, with a slight bias towards the flash illumination (hence the FEC I recommend). If you want a pure flash exposure, shoot in manual. 4) The one decent shot in the whole role--an indoor shot using only available light...go figure?--was spoiled by some sort of small speck on the subject's face. I usually keep my filter free of dust, etc. Could this speck have appeared as a result of the cheap processing I used (Wal-Mart C-41)? Probably. Check your negs. I know that using a fill flash may have alleviated the problem expressed in issue number 2, but, since I have had my subjects turn a bit ghastly by using the flash, I am hesitant to use it indoors or outdoors. I would appreciate any advice or commentary (or even pep talk), as I am pretty down about this. What good is a more advanced camera if I cannot even come remotely close to satisfactory results on the more difficult shots (i.e. indoor, high sun, etc.)? Thanks, Glen Fill flash is your friend, but remember direct flash always looks a bit ghastly. A (cheap) SB-24 and an SC-17 or SC-28 cord will get the flash off-camera with full TTL, and is a much better option. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions
Re: Funny observation Saturday
Yes, I know what you mean. I recently purchased an OEM hood for one of my lenses. I have been inclined to use just a filter, and so I have already forgotten to use the hood on several outdoor shots. When I go out, I must think hood, think hood. :-) Glen On Sep 30, 2007, at 6:27 AM, David J Brooks wrote: Took the 6x7 and 200 f 4 to the Markham fair yesterday. Lovely sunny day, but not the harsh summer type sun. I wanted to get some BW shots of the old farm equipment used to demonstrate how things were done a 100 years ago or so. I found myself focusing, then holding down the shutter while i composed, took the shot then immediately looked at the back of the camera.:-) Funny how our minds get into a system eh., Dave -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Thank you for your kind words. I hope the picture of my little red head is satisfactory. She gave a nice little smile. I tend to have a fairly steady hand. When I shoot, I try to concentrate on cradling the body properly and exhaling when I release the shutter. Also, I think my hand is a bit steadier with the Nikon N80, as it is a much heavier, studier body than the ZX-M. It has a noticeably lower center of gravity, and a better grip, too--I feel like some sort of pseudo-pro now :-) I am not one who thinks photography is all in the lens. Certainly the lens is crucial, but so is the body. You ask: Do you have a fast lens?...my Pentax A is a 50/2 and my Nikon is an F 50/1.8 D...pretty fast... Yes, the Fuji 800 is nice. I have the 400 in my camera right now. I will pass along some comments one I have a roll or two developed. Glen On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Rebekah wrote: Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Sure, sometimes I get blur, but usually I get pretty sharp pictures even when I'm taking slow pictures, as long as the subject isn't moving ;) and if I do get it a bit blurry most of the time it's in a picture where I don't mind. My camera only takes pictures down to 1s, but I usually don't go that slow. Here's a picture taken at ½s that isn't too bad. http://picasaweb.google.com/rg2pdml/PESO/photo?authkey=W1C- i05p28o#5116002907034854178 For me, it's hard not to shift my hands when I press the shutter button. It probably goes back to that you should use a tripod argument. I used to use 800 speed kodak exclusively but I guess I was never quite satisfied with the sharpness so I ended up trying to take my pictures slower. I haven't tried 800 Fuji of any type, but your approval of it makes me curious. Do you have a steady hand? Or do you have a fast lens? I hope your bath picture comes out well :) rg2 On 9/29/07, Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Thanks, Glen On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
Both of us got good deals, as KEH has your camera, the F100, in LN- condition right now for $499 (without the MB-15), and the N80 for $215, also in LN- condition and also sans battery pack. I very much appreciate this forum's feedback on KEH. All who have praised them here were absolutely right about their conservative grading standards and their level of service. I traded some older gear, and was very happy with my quote and what I received in trade. I will continue to be a KEH customer. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:07 PM, Adam Maas wrote: My (used) F100 came in essentially the same condition, although the warning card had been removed (And placed in the box). And I was the 3rd owner. But it was in KEH LN shape when I got it (And I payed LN prices for it, $450CDN with LN grip, in box) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Yes, it appears to be NOS. It came with everything--from warranty card to plastic wrappings...even the little warning card (in reference to the screen) that is placed inside the door. I am glad to have found an N80 in such pristine shape. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Somebody was dumping NOS then, MSRP on the N80 alone was twice that (the F100 was a $1200+ body new). The only Nikon film cameras available new now are the F6 and (cosina-built) FM10, and the latter is only new as Nikon knows the day after they discontinue it the Bessaflex F will be announced. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: True, but I purchased a brand new N80 and MB-16 for the price I indicated--with box, manual, etc.--and the price also included shipping. Whenever I could, I tend to prefer buying new. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, An extra $90 would have gotten you into the F100 from KEH ($265 in BGN condition) ;-) Note the F100 uses AA's even without the grip (Unlike th N80, the AA's and slightly better handling are the sole reasons to get an MB-16. The F100's MB-15 grip increases FPS to 5 from 4.5 and offers a rear control dial, shutter release and AF-On button, it takes 6 AA's or a dedicated rechargable pack vs the 4 AA's that the body's AA carrier takes). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you for the detailed commentary, Adam. Wow, the N80 feels like flimsy plastic compared to the F100. Since I have gotten the N80, I have been thinking that it makes my ZX-M feel like flimsy plastic--a scant 320 grams vs. 515 for the N80. I am sure that the F100 is quite a nice body, and, if I had the funds, I might try one. Considering the deal I got on the N80 ($175 for body and MB-16 pack...which seems unimaginable to me in view of the N80's functionality, etc.), though, it makes it seem almost senseless to think about the F100...but I am the type that would think about it, anyway :-) Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It's quite noticably larger, especially with the vertical grip (It's actually a bit larger than an F5 with the grip attached). The F100 is notably heavier, much more solid feeling (it makes the N80 feel like flimsy plastic). The F100's dimensions are: 155 x 113 x 66mm and it weighs 785g. The F80/N80's dimensions are:141.5 x 98.5 x 71mm and it weighs 515g. That's a fairly significant difference. Note the F80 is plastic over metal frame, while the F100 is a full metal body with rubberized grips. The viewfinder is also significant, with the F80 having 92% coverage at .71-.75x magnification (depending on diopter settings) with an early-generation LCD overlay (which dims the finder, especially when the camera is off). The F100's finder has 96% coverage at .76x without the LCD overlay (Note Nikon has seriously improved the LCD overlays, with the newest generation costing almost no brightness when the camera is turned on, the F80 was the first camera to use this technology and it did not have the same performance). You'd really need to use the F100 to appreciate it. It's not a small camera, but it is simply one of the best handling AF cameras ever. And it delivers incredible performance in a small package (To get similar performance from most other cameras would require a large battery grip) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
I read somewhere that the F100, under certain conditions, will lapse into self-timer mode. Is this true? Have you experienced this? Thanks again, Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 11:07 PM, Adam Maas wrote: My (used) F100 came in essentially the same condition, although the warning card had been removed (And placed in the box). And I was the 3rd owner. But it was in KEH LN shape when I got it (And I payed LN prices for it, $450CDN with LN grip, in box) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Yes, it appears to be NOS. It came with everything--from warranty card to plastic wrappings...even the little warning card (in reference to the screen) that is placed inside the door. I am glad to have found an N80 in such pristine shape. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Somebody was dumping NOS then, MSRP on the N80 alone was twice that (the F100 was a $1200+ body new). The only Nikon film cameras available new now are the F6 and (cosina-built) FM10, and the latter is only new as Nikon knows the day after they discontinue it the Bessaflex F will be announced. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: True, but I purchased a brand new N80 and MB-16 for the price I indicated--with box, manual, etc.--and the price also included shipping. Whenever I could, I tend to prefer buying new. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, An extra $90 would have gotten you into the F100 from KEH ($265 in BGN condition) ;-) Note the F100 uses AA's even without the grip (Unlike th N80, the AA's and slightly better handling are the sole reasons to get an MB-16. The F100's MB-15 grip increases FPS to 5 from 4.5 and offers a rear control dial, shutter release and AF-On button, it takes 6 AA's or a dedicated rechargable pack vs the 4 AA's that the body's AA carrier takes). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you for the detailed commentary, Adam. Wow, the N80 feels like flimsy plastic compared to the F100. Since I have gotten the N80, I have been thinking that it makes my ZX-M feel like flimsy plastic--a scant 320 grams vs. 515 for the N80. I am sure that the F100 is quite a nice body, and, if I had the funds, I might try one. Considering the deal I got on the N80 ($175 for body and MB-16 pack...which seems unimaginable to me in view of the N80's functionality, etc.), though, it makes it seem almost senseless to think about the F100...but I am the type that would think about it, anyway :-) Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It's quite noticably larger, especially with the vertical grip (It's actually a bit larger than an F5 with the grip attached). The F100 is notably heavier, much more solid feeling (it makes the N80 feel like flimsy plastic). The F100's dimensions are: 155 x 113 x 66mm and it weighs 785g. The F80/N80's dimensions are:141.5 x 98.5 x 71mm and it weighs 515g. That's a fairly significant difference. Note the F80 is plastic over metal frame, while the F100 is a full metal body with rubberized grips. The viewfinder is also significant, with the F80 having 92% coverage at .71-.75x magnification (depending on diopter settings) with an early-generation LCD overlay (which dims the finder, especially when the camera is off). The F100's finder has 96% coverage at .76x without the LCD overlay (Note Nikon has seriously improved the LCD overlays, with the newest generation costing almost no brightness when the camera is turned on, the F80 was the first camera to use this technology and it did not have the same performance). You'd really need to use the F100 to appreciate it. It's not a small camera, but it is simply one of the best handling AF cameras ever. And it delivers incredible performance in a small package (To get similar performance from most other cameras would require a large battery grip) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes, Digitals tend to be a bit thicker, they need the extra thickness for the LCD, main circuit board and sensor. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
Yes, Fuji is very good, particularly in dim lighting (this was my experience with the 800 speed variety). Wow, you shoot down to 1/4 with the 400 speed...no blur? I loaded a roll of the 400 in my camera today. I just took a picture of my one year-old getting a bath, and I I thought I was pushing it ay 1/45... Thanks, Glen On Sep 29, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Rebekah wrote: BTW Glen - I usually take my pictures with available light and use 400 speed fuji or kodak gold, and I really feel like the Fuji outperforms the Kodak in low light situations. Its contrast and grain hold up even when I'm taking dim indoor pictures at 1/30 or even 1/4s. I like Kodak much better in outdoor light but I have to say I'm always disappointed by it when the light isn't perfect. rg2 On 9/29/07, Derby Chang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bill Owens wrote: When I could get it, I shot Agfa 200. Otherwise I shot Fuji Superia 200, though I think Kodak Gold 200 is also excellent. I liked Agfa because it seemed to render neutral colors more naturally. Bill Has anyone seen the resurrected Agfafilm in the flesh? Doesn't look like they are resurrecting Portrait or Ultra though :( http://www.lupus-imaging-media.com/content/blogcategory/16/31/ lang,en/ D -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder magnification (supposedly .75x) might be a hinderance, but I find that, so far, the viewfinder is not all that bad. In fact, it seems as if may be even a tad better than my ZX-M's finder, which is supposedly 0.77x. The N80 is loaded with functionality, and I find that, with the MB-16 pack attached, it has good balance and a comfortable feel in my hand. I had the D40 and K100D in my hand yesterday, and I thought both bodies were a bit thick for my hand. The K100D's body is a bit thinner, and thus it felt a little better, but the N80 is just about perfect for my somewhat small hand. Perhaps this is how all digital bodies tend to be (a bit thick)? When comparing the feel of the ZX-M and N80 to the digital bodies I have mentioned, it is similar to holding a baseball as opposed to a softball. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
Yes, Godfrey, more stuff ;-) They also seemed even a bit heavier than some of the film SLRs I have held. How does your K10D feel? I do not know the size of your hand, but how does the thickness feel to you? Thanks, Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 12:10 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Yes, most DSLR bodies tend to be a bit thicker than 35mm film SLRs. They have more stuff in them... stuff ... That's a technical term. ;-) Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes, Digitals tend to be a bit thicker, they need the extra thickness for the LCD, main circuit board and sensor. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder magnification (supposedly .75x) might be a hinderance, but I find that, so far, the viewfinder is not all that bad. In fact, it seems as if may be even a tad better than my ZX-M's finder, which is supposedly 0.77x. The N80 is loaded with functionality, and I find that, with the MB-16 pack attached, it has good balance and a comfortable feel in my hand. I had the D40 and K100D in my hand yesterday, and I thought both bodies were a bit thick for my hand. The K100D's body is a bit thinner, and thus it felt a little better, but the N80 is just about perfect for my somewhat small hand. Perhaps this is how all digital bodies tend to be (a bit thick)? When comparing the feel of the ZX-M and N80 to the digital bodies I have mentioned, it is similar to holding a baseball as opposed to a softball. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
Thank you for the detailed commentary, Adam. Wow, the N80 feels like flimsy plastic compared to the F100. Since I have gotten the N80, I have been thinking that it makes my ZX-M feel like flimsy plastic--a scant 320 grams vs. 515 for the N80. I am sure that the F100 is quite a nice body, and, if I had the funds, I might try one. Considering the deal I got on the N80 ($175 for body and MB-16 pack...which seems unimaginable to me in view of the N80's functionality, etc.), though, it makes it seem almost senseless to think about the F100...but I am the type that would think about it, anyway :-) Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It's quite noticably larger, especially with the vertical grip (It's actually a bit larger than an F5 with the grip attached). The F100 is notably heavier, much more solid feeling (it makes the N80 feel like flimsy plastic). The F100's dimensions are: 155 x 113 x 66mm and it weighs 785g. The F80/N80's dimensions are:141.5 x 98.5 x 71mm and it weighs 515g. That's a fairly significant difference. Note the F80 is plastic over metal frame, while the F100 is a full metal body with rubberized grips. The viewfinder is also significant, with the F80 having 92% coverage at .71-.75x magnification (depending on diopter settings) with an early-generation LCD overlay (which dims the finder, especially when the camera is off). The F100's finder has 96% coverage at .76x without the LCD overlay (Note Nikon has seriously improved the LCD overlays, with the newest generation costing almost no brightness when the camera is turned on, the F80 was the first camera to use this technology and it did not have the same performance). You'd really need to use the F100 to appreciate it. It's not a small camera, but it is simply one of the best handling AF cameras ever. And it delivers incredible performance in a small package (To get similar performance from most other cameras would require a large battery grip) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes, Digitals tend to be a bit thicker, they need the extra thickness for the LCD, main circuit board and sensor. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder magnification (supposedly .75x) might be a hinderance, but I find that, so far, the viewfinder is not all that bad. In fact, it seems as if may be even a tad better than my ZX-M's finder, which is supposedly 0.77x. The N80 is loaded with functionality, and I find that, with the MB-16 pack attached, it has good balance and a comfortable feel in my hand. I had the D40 and K100D in my hand yesterday, and I thought both bodies were a bit thick for my hand. The K100D's body is a bit thinner, and thus it felt a little better, but the N80 is just about perfect for my somewhat small hand. Perhaps this is how all digital bodies tend to be (a bit thick)? When comparing the feel of the ZX-M and N80 to the digital bodies I have mentioned, it is similar to holding a baseball as opposed to a softball. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Fuji or Kodak?
Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
True, but I purchased a brand new N80 and MB-16 for the price I indicated--with box, manual, etc.--and the price also included shipping. Whenever I could, I tend to prefer buying new. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, An extra $90 would have gotten you into the F100 from KEH ($265 in BGN condition) ;-) Note the F100 uses AA's even without the grip (Unlike th N80, the AA's and slightly better handling are the sole reasons to get an MB-16. The F100's MB-15 grip increases FPS to 5 from 4.5 and offers a rear control dial, shutter release and AF-On button, it takes 6 AA's or a dedicated rechargable pack vs the 4 AA's that the body's AA carrier takes). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you for the detailed commentary, Adam. Wow, the N80 feels like flimsy plastic compared to the F100. Since I have gotten the N80, I have been thinking that it makes my ZX-M feel like flimsy plastic--a scant 320 grams vs. 515 for the N80. I am sure that the F100 is quite a nice body, and, if I had the funds, I might try one. Considering the deal I got on the N80 ($175 for body and MB-16 pack...which seems unimaginable to me in view of the N80's functionality, etc.), though, it makes it seem almost senseless to think about the F100...but I am the type that would think about it, anyway :-) Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It's quite noticably larger, especially with the vertical grip (It's actually a bit larger than an F5 with the grip attached). The F100 is notably heavier, much more solid feeling (it makes the N80 feel like flimsy plastic). The F100's dimensions are: 155 x 113 x 66mm and it weighs 785g. The F80/N80's dimensions are:141.5 x 98.5 x 71mm and it weighs 515g. That's a fairly significant difference. Note the F80 is plastic over metal frame, while the F100 is a full metal body with rubberized grips. The viewfinder is also significant, with the F80 having 92% coverage at .71-.75x magnification (depending on diopter settings) with an early-generation LCD overlay (which dims the finder, especially when the camera is off). The F100's finder has 96% coverage at .76x without the LCD overlay (Note Nikon has seriously improved the LCD overlays, with the newest generation costing almost no brightness when the camera is turned on, the F80 was the first camera to use this technology and it did not have the same performance). You'd really need to use the F100 to appreciate it. It's not a small camera, but it is simply one of the best handling AF cameras ever. And it delivers incredible performance in a small package (To get similar performance from most other cameras would require a large battery grip) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes, Digitals tend to be a bit thicker, they need the extra thickness for the LCD, main circuit board and sensor. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder magnification (supposedly .75x) might be a hinderance, but I find that, so far, the viewfinder is not all that bad. In fact, it seems as if may be even a tad better than my ZX-M's finder, which is supposedly 0.77x. The N80 is loaded with functionality, and I find that, with the MB-16 pack attached, it has good balance and a comfortable feel in my hand. I had the D40 and K100D in my hand yesterday, and I thought both bodies were a bit thick for my hand. The K100D's body is a bit thinner, and thus it felt a little better, but the N80 is just about perfect for my somewhat small hand. Perhaps this is how all digital bodies tend to be (a bit thick)? When comparing the feel of the ZX-M and N80 to the digital bodies I have mentioned, it is similar to holding a baseball as opposed to a softball. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML
Re: N80 Viewfinder, etc. (Adam?)
Yes, it appears to be NOS. It came with everything--from warranty card to plastic wrappings...even the little warning card (in reference to the screen) that is placed inside the door. I am glad to have found an N80 in such pristine shape. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:54 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Somebody was dumping NOS then, MSRP on the N80 alone was twice that (the F100 was a $1200+ body new). The only Nikon film cameras available new now are the F6 and (cosina-built) FM10, and the latter is only new as Nikon knows the day after they discontinue it the Bessaflex F will be announced. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: True, but I purchased a brand new N80 and MB-16 for the price I indicated--with box, manual, etc.--and the price also included shipping. Whenever I could, I tend to prefer buying new. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, An extra $90 would have gotten you into the F100 from KEH ($265 in BGN condition) ;-) Note the F100 uses AA's even without the grip (Unlike th N80, the AA's and slightly better handling are the sole reasons to get an MB-16. The F100's MB-15 grip increases FPS to 5 from 4.5 and offers a rear control dial, shutter release and AF-On button, it takes 6 AA's or a dedicated rechargable pack vs the 4 AA's that the body's AA carrier takes). -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you for the detailed commentary, Adam. Wow, the N80 feels like flimsy plastic compared to the F100. Since I have gotten the N80, I have been thinking that it makes my ZX-M feel like flimsy plastic--a scant 320 grams vs. 515 for the N80. I am sure that the F100 is quite a nice body, and, if I had the funds, I might try one. Considering the deal I got on the N80 ($175 for body and MB-16 pack...which seems unimaginable to me in view of the N80's functionality, etc.), though, it makes it seem almost senseless to think about the F100...but I am the type that would think about it, anyway :-) Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:03 PM, Adam Maas wrote: It's quite noticably larger, especially with the vertical grip (It's actually a bit larger than an F5 with the grip attached). The F100 is notably heavier, much more solid feeling (it makes the N80 feel like flimsy plastic). The F100's dimensions are: 155 x 113 x 66mm and it weighs 785g. The F80/N80's dimensions are:141.5 x 98.5 x 71mm and it weighs 515g. That's a fairly significant difference. Note the F80 is plastic over metal frame, while the F100 is a full metal body with rubberized grips. The viewfinder is also significant, with the F80 having 92% coverage at .71-.75x magnification (depending on diopter settings) with an early-generation LCD overlay (which dims the finder, especially when the camera is off). The F100's finder has 96% coverage at .76x without the LCD overlay (Note Nikon has seriously improved the LCD overlays, with the newest generation costing almost no brightness when the camera is turned on, the F80 was the first camera to use this technology and it did not have the same performance). You'd really need to use the F100 to appreciate it. It's not a small camera, but it is simply one of the best handling AF cameras ever. And it delivers incredible performance in a small package (To get similar performance from most other cameras would require a large battery grip) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: I was not aware of the fact that the F100 body is larger than the N80 body. I am glad, then, that I opted for the N80. How much larger is the F100, as I have not completely ruled out that body (in terms of a possible future purchase)? Does it feel significantly larger? Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Glen, I dislike the N80 finder, however I've been spoiled by the excellent finders in Nikon's higher-end bodies (as well as the LX and MX). The N80 finder will compare well to the very similar finders in Pentax's consumer bodies. I also find the body to be too small, but I'm used to the larger F100, F2, F3 and my Mamiya 645 kit. And yes, Digitals tend to be a bit thicker, they need the extra thickness for the LCD, main circuit board and sensor. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam: I do not know if you were able to read a post I wrote a couple of days ago regarding my N80 body purchase, but, anyway, I received the body and am quite impressed. I thought the smallish viewfinder magnification (supposedly .75x) might be a hinderance, but I find that, so far, the viewfinder is not all that bad. In fact, it seems as if may be even a tad better than my ZX-M's finder, which is supposedly 0.77x. The N80 is loaded with functionality, and I find that, with the MB-16 pack attached, it has good balance and a comfortable feel in my hand. I had the D40 and K100D in my hand yesterday, and I thought both bodies were a bit thick for my hand. The K100D's body is a bit thinner, and thus it felt
Re: Fuji or Kodak?
I agree, Adam. That Fuji Superia 800 is one fine 800 speed film. I just bought a five-pack of the Superia 400, and I expect it be nice, too. Glen On Sep 28, 2007, at 9:55 PM, Adam Maas wrote: In non-pro form, Fuji is where it's at. The only Kodak print films's I'll shoot are the Portra's and 100/400UC, all of which are 'Pro' films. Glen Tortorella wrote: Hi all, Among the less expensive, non-pro print films, which do you prefer, Fuji or Kodak? I have found the Fuji 800 to be pretty good, and am wondering what others might think of this film, and the 100-400 speeds offered by both brands. Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those hidden costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. Godfrey -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo kiosks, but have never used one. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? Wikipedia? Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those hidden costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. Godfrey -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you, Tom. I was looking for brief answers to my questions, and that is why I made the post to this mailing list. I realize, however, that more detailed information and analysis is obtainable. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Tom C wrote: No. I'm not offended, but a little surprised. Asking a question like 'how does one convert the 1's and 0's to a printed image' is sort of like asking 'what chemical reactions enable film to be processed and printed'? Sure the question is an honest question. But there are reams of books, other printed information, and online that all explain the process (both digital and film). To ask the question here seems to imply (at least to me) that the other avenues to gathering knowledge haven't been explored. Even a basic Intoduction to Photography book that was released in the last five years would have a chapter, probably telling you as much or more than you would want to know. The process has not changed much in 5 years. Assuming you want a non-technical answer it would be 'the same way you printed images from film, just take the media to your photo processor'. I guess my point is, that the information is already available out there for you, in a far more concise, accurate, and complete form, than the answers you might receive from asking a mailing list. For instance: http://www.shortcourses.com/guide/ and more to the point possibly... http://www.shortcourses.com/display/ Tom C. From: Glen Tortorella [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:41:09 -0400 Has my lack of knowledge in regard to digital photography offended you? With regard to my post, I was just being direct and honest. I had done a bit of research, but had found differing opinions among the various sources, and, more importantly, the technology advances so rapidly these days that Wikipedia articles (and the like) are often out-of-date shortly after being posted. Yes, I have seen photo kiosks, but have never used one. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Tom C wrote: From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:16:04 -0700 Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. Doesn't anyone try to research things for themselves anymore? Wikipedia? Been near a minilab or walked past a photo kiosk lately? :-) Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Hmm...that was my concern: decent neg/slide scans. I guess it is better to go with separate units, a printer and dedicated scanner. Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to get decent neg/slide scans out of them. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those hidden costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. Godfrey -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, Adam. I did some research on the Epson R3x0 series. The R380 looks nice (at about $100). I looked up the Epson Luster paper you have mentioned. It seems like nice paper, but appears to be offered only in one size, 8.5x11. I tend to like the standard framing sizes, especially 5x7 and 8x10, and, thus, here is another elementary question: how can I obtain these sizes using this paper? Perhaps some type of cutting would be involved? Also, since this paper is rather expensive, it seems rather wasteful to downsize the print size. Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Good printers, at least the Epson 6-ink ones (they use the same print engine as the R2/300's). The scanners in them are really only suitable for documents and prints, I wouldn't even bother trying to get decent neg/slide scans out of them. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert. Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my film work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an inkjet. It works pretty well for me. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those hidden costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept a D lens? Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit and a couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer model (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, ISO3200, better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the first consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher model. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point- and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thank you for the clarification. Would I be going against the grain in focusing my AF 50/1.8 D via the manual method? I have heard that autofocus lenses are optimized to be focused automatically and that they do not perform well as manual focus lenses. Also, could MF'ing an AF lens possibly harm the lens? Thanks, Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 4:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Actually the D40(and D40X) will mount any Nikon F mount lens which doesn't require Mirror lockup to mount. It's the only Nikon DSLR which can mount pre-AI lenses. The D40 doesn't meter with non-CPU lenses or AF with non-AF-S lenses (Sigma HSM lenses also AF on the D40). So your 50mm f1.8 AF-D will mount and meter (including the 3D ambient and flash metering). All you lose is AF. There is only one Nikon prime under 200mm which will AF on the D40, and that's the (overly expensive) 105mm VR Micro. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: Adam--sorry for the late reply on this, but I have read (in more than one place) that the D40 will not accept the F-series D Nikkor lenses. What do you think of this? I ask because I have an F 50/1.8 D...which is a rather nice lens. Also, would the D40x perhaps accept a D lens? Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: The D40 is the newer model, it replaced the D50. However the D50 is technically a slightly higher-end camera (It has a better AF unit and a couple extra controls) but the D40 gained a lot from being a newer model (Notably the better viewfinder, much larger buffer, better IQ, ISO3200, better high ISO performance). The D40 is also notably as being the first consumer SLR since the FE and FM that can mount pre-AI lenses. Unless you've got a stock of older screwdriver-drive AF lenses or a stack of EN-EL3 batteries, the D40's probably the better buy. -Adam Glen Tortorella wrote: This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher model. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point- and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. The compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on one of the specialized Pentax pancake lenses. These lenses don't stick out far from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who like to travel. Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works well if you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries before a photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for less than $400 without a lens. This second option works well if you already have some Pentax lenses from a film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick up some used Pentax lenses without paying full price. Larry in Dallas -- 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: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, P.J. Would my A 50/2 work with the Pentax digital bodies-- i.e. the K100D? Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:23 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. The compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on one of the specialized Pentax pancake lenses. These lenses don't stick out far from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who like to travel. Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works well if you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries before a photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for less than $400 without a lens. This second option works well if you already have some Pentax lenses from a film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick up some used Pentax lenses without paying full price. Larry in Dallas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- 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: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Thanks, Doug, for the detailed response. I like options (1) and (1a); however, I do not discern any difference between these two options. It seems like in either case I would just buy a printer. Is there any other difference? Also, is there a cable that runs between the printer and camera body? Thanks again, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 7:22 PM, Doug Franklin wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Several options: 1) A laser or inkjet printer that you own and you do your own printing. Doesn't necessarily require additional software beyond what comes with your operating system, but could benefit in some cases. Like Windows. 1a) Dedicated inkjet printers for the home. Plug in your memory card, use the menus on the printer to tell it how many of which ones, load paper, wait for prints to come out. 2) Take your memory card to Walmart or local photo shop or one of the other seventy bazillion places that have a digital printing kiosk. Plug in the memory card, tell it how many of which photos, and shortly they pop out. 3) Any of a variety of Internet photo printing services (Google is your friend ... I can't remember the names of any of them at the moment). Upload your photo file to their web site, give them money and a mailing address, wait for the mailman. Cheapest would be (2) or (3). Most control with best chance of a best possible print would be (1). Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? Options (1a) and (2) don't require you have a computer but (1) and (3) do. (3) also requires a high-speed Internet connection; you'll go crazy waiting for your photos to upload over a dial-up line. Scanner is unnecessary in all scenarios, unless you have film you want to digitize. That's a whole 'nother discussion, though. Your iMac should be fine, I'd think, though I know virtually nothing about any of the Macs. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- 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: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Wow, Rebekah, you have hit the nail on the head here. Once this discussion got going, I started thinking the same thing: enablement city! I fear of the $$$... Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:03 PM, Rebekah wrote: oh sure, and then your manual lenses became 'outdated' too ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I had a film scanner and Photo Printer long before I had a digital camera. The DSLR was a minor expense. (I did have to upgrade my computer system eventually, but hey it was outdated anyway)... Rebekah wrote: Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? just think of it this way: you're going to end up enabling yourself with a printer. Then you're going to need to buy special paper, special ink, and a special program to calibrate your monitor, as well as a photoshop program. Or, you can get them printed at a nearby store or online like doug said, but I have trouble believing anyone here does that or plans to for long. So, unless you're happy with looking at your pictures on your computer screen, it seems like the price to purchase a digital camera goes way beyond the initial price tag and will induce a possible enabling frenzy. Enable away dude! ;) rg2 On 9/25/07, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
This is valuable feedback, Adam. I am a bit confused with regard to the hierarchy of the D40 and D50. Which is the newer model (or were they released at the same time)? Also, which is higher up in the line? I have been under the impression that the D50 is the higher model. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 8:21 PM, Adam Maas wrote: Depends on what you want. The K100D handles better than either, has ISO3200 (which the D50 lacks), has in-body IS, AF's with all pentax AF lenses (D40 lacks this), a half-decent viewfinder (D40 matches, D50 is outclassed) and has better AF than either. The D50 has FAR better battery life and the D40 is notably smaller. The D50 also has a slightly larger buffer, while the D40's is triple that of the K100D. Also the Nikons have much smaller RAW files (~5.5MB vs 10MB) due to the use of compression, the Nikons also offer much higher flash sync (1/500 with dedicated flashes, 1/4000 with non-dedicated). Oh, and the D40 is far smaller than either the D50 or the k100D. -Adam Who's owned both the K100D and the D50. Liked the K100D better for the most part, missed the D50's larger buffer though. P. J. Alling wrote: Oh yes the question how does the K100D compare to the D40 or D50? Favorably. Glen Tortorella wrote: What a timely post, Larry! While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? I welcome any and all advice or commentary :-) Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 6:33 PM, Larry Levy wrote: Chris Roberts, in his Digital SLR Guide News has selected the K100D as best begommer budget DSLR Question: What's the best beginner budget SLR? Answer You've been longing to improve the quality of the photos you take and capture moments that just aren't possible with a compact point-and- shoot, but you find the price of digital SLR cameras extreme. I'm not surprised - back in the heyday of the film SLR, it often seemed silly to spend $300 on a camera when you could get a simple compact camera for less than $100. Now that the minimum price for a digital SLR is right around $500, it makes them pretty expensive investments. I firmly believe that the additional cost is justified when you take into account the fact that digital SLRs are able to capture a wider variety of shots than compact cameras. It's why the SLR has been the choice of professional photographers for years. Why tell you this? It will put my answer to the question above into some perspective. Right now, I think that the best digital SLR camera for a beginner on a budget is the Pentax K100D. Recently replaced by the K100D Super, the original K100D has benefitted from a price drop that makes it significantly more affordable. The Pentax K100D is the least expensive camera you can buy that also includes built-in image stabilization. This feature oscillates the camera's sensor to counteract the effect of camera motion on your photos. While you can't really see camera motion when you're using fast shutter speeds with plenty of light, dim lighting and slow shutter speeds can lead to a lot of blurry shots. Since the image stabilization is built into the camera itself, it works with every Pentax lens that's compatible with the K100D. In addition to image stabilization, the 6 megapixel sensor offers plenty for anyone who doesn't want to print at sizes larger than 11x14 inches. The compact frame can be made even more so if you can get your hands on one of the specialized Pentax pancake lenses. These lenses don't stick out far from the camera, making the K100D a portable option for those who like to travel. Finally, the K100D runs on regular old AA batteries, which works well if you're one of those types who always forgets to re-charge batteries before a photo outing (many other cameras use special Lithium Ion rechargeable batteries that take about 2-3 hours to reach a full charge). You can pick up a K100D for less than $500 with a lens, and for less than $400 without a lens. This second option works well if you already have some Pentax lenses from a film SLR camera, or know of a local camera swap where you can pick up some used Pentax lenses without paying full price. Larry in Dallas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
Re: Digital SLR Guide News - Best Budget DSLR
Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, buy a rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many prints as I wish, but then there are those hidden costs...ink, paper, software, and who knows what else... Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR world. Thanks, Glen On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Glen Tortorella wrote: While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I find this article interesting. The idea of getting a good budget DSLR has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within the DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to like prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does one turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo lab supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, which I suspect isn't quite true. - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners are used to capture film and print images into digital images. A digital camera produces digital images. - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print anything else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an online print service having moved the image files from camera to computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple system by default) will start up and download all the photographs so you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer via a print service on the internet. And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the D40 or D50, I gather? A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions you are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense to buy a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy it ... they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. Godfrey -- 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 to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Good Under-$100 Flash?
Hi all, I am thinking of getting a flash for my ZX-M. It would be for general indoor use and perhaps for some fill use. The Pentax AF280T looks like a good choice. Any other recommendations? Thanks, Glen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
