Because sensor resolution and lens resolution interact and
the result is NOT the minimum of the two, the result is
(sensor-res*lens-res)/(sensor-res+lens-res) from what I have
read on the subject. i.e. if sensor and lens are both 60 lpmm
then system total result is only 30 lpmm. In order to get a
Hi Don,
Despite being interested in digital topics, I agree with you in trying let
subjects tell the message contents.
However, I'm afraid it's a lost cause. E.g., I tried several times to recall
PDML members to change subject line when discussion changes completely from
subject topic. Have you
looking for a cheap (big) microdrive?
have you seen this?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1023message=7308713
ciao,
Danilo.
Hi,
I think it's a rather naive idea. If people don't change the subject
line, which is written in natural language, what makes you think we
will stick to a system of more or less arbitrary and incomplete codes?
Why would anybody put themselves to more effort just to relieve you of
the burden of
Hi,
WR wrote:
And I got, I am sure, a good picture that I wouldn't have gotten on film,
perhaps even more than one.
How so? Speed/sensitivity change?
mike
I have the same lens, but I haven't used it in eons. In the seventies I
used it extensively for shooting car interiors, and during the custom
van craze, modified van interiors. I don't have scans of any of those
shots, but here are a couple of shots I took with it during a trip to
Sweden
I think I have a different lens. I believe it's a 20/3.8, circa mid
70s. It has a huge front element. I'll have to pull it out tonight and
take a look. Don't have time now.
Paul
On Jan 26, 2004, at 5:54 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have the same lens, but I haven't used it in eons. In the
I used a simple test chart with lines - nothing serious - and I am not claiming
the 40 lp/mm being more accurate than +/- 5. But still better than the 25 lp/mm
that could be expected according to your table.
I don't know better off hand, but your theory does not feel right to me.
Sven
Zitat von
40,000 images at 3M each is still only 120GB.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:25 AM
Subject: RE: The problem with digital
I would have serious storage issues if I didn't delete the junk.
as Shel says, what is mediocre now sometimes isn't later.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
To try to keep from being completely buried by mediocrity.
but you keep every negative and contact sheet.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:08 AM
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
Because I don't have unlimited storage space, some are true junk, like
so i don't wonder why the numbers skipped.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
What do you save the blank ones for?
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
It should be alright for a can of beer, after all that's where they put
you dog
if you're taking it with you.
Thanks Pete.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
On 26/1/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Wouldn't you agree that there is a certain amount of irony in the fact that
many companies spend a fortune to learn what Pentax had here. Unless, in the
background they are still there of course
Malcolm - available for sponsorship
Oh, they are still
Labelling the subject in some simple way would not only help people like me
to eliminate unwanted posts -- but an F: for film would help select the
desirable ones as well. If the task becomes too laborious, as it often does,
I may sacrifice all and lose valuable exchanges as a result. Is that what
Hi Jens,
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 21:46:13 +0100, Jens Bladt wrote:
I'm in the market for a *ist D at a reasonable price - www.dnet24.de sell
them for 1.523 ?. Best pricing I've seen so far.
I think the prices will drop further over the next months (PMA :-)
I got the *ist-D last week for 1649
hard drives at at 300G now and even if you rotate between one hard drive in
your computer and two for backups, it's under $1K to provide dual backups.
if you backup using writeable DVD, then 300G is even cheaper.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Well the theory is well known and documented, look it up on the web.
System resolution is the equation I gave. It makes perfect sense to me.
if the sensor is perfect infinite resolution and the lens is 50 lpmm,
then the system res is 50 lpmm. or vice versa, perfect lens res, 50 lpmm
sensor,
Thanks JvW.
I suppose you a right about dropping prices - new and better cameras is
hitting the market in a fast pace. But it seems the *ist D is a rather
successful camera - get nice reviews. The 1529 ? (I think it was) was found
by using a price seeking tool om the web. Many places will charge
It should be noted that the current 6Mpixel APS sensor situation
is very similar to color film. The current 62.5 lpmm resolution of
the istD closely matches that of todays color film stocks. What that
means is the lens has to be WAY better than average to achieve even
very slight gains in overall
Just to be clear the system resolution formula is:
SYSTEMRESOLUTION (overall)= SensorResolution X LensResolution /
(SensorResolution + LensResolution)
Sometimes it is shown as:
1/SYSTEMRESOLUTION (overall) = 1/SensorResolution + 1/LensResolution
They both give the same result. I shouldnt have
On 26 Jan 2004 at 7:09, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Just to be clear the system resolution formula is:
SYSTEMRESOLUTION (overall)= SensorResolution X LensResolution /
(SensorResolution + LensResolution)
What is the formula for your notional SensorResolution?
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Feels good to me. Especially the fact that with normal
resolution lenses, the reduction in sensor resolution
caused by going from APS to FF doesnt have a big enuff
effect on system resolution lpmm to swamp the huge advantage
in recording area of FF vs. APS, 2.25 times as much
area. Thats
...funny how things evolve. I started this saying, I just bought this lens,
which appears to be one of the sharpest Pentax lenses ever (with a few
exceptions). I no time the discussion is about resolution of lenses, film
and CCD's...I guess we all have pixels, not pictures, on our minds...
On 25 Jan 2004 at 22:58, Butch Black wrote:
This begs another question. What then would be the ideal pixel size and
density to get the least noise, widest exposure latitude, with enough
resolution to keep up with the best (or at least the very good) lenses?
Would this number change as the
On 26 Jan 2004 at 23:37, Rob Studdert wrote:
http://gsfctechnology.gsfc.nasa.gov/laisdocs/spie_paper.pdf
Sorry wrong link:
http://www.mwoa.org/SPIE_paper.pdf
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 26 Jan 2004 at 13:31, Jens Bladt wrote:
...funny how things evolve. I started this saying, I just bought this lens,
which appears to be one of the sharpest Pentax lenses ever (with a few
exceptions). I no time the discussion is about resolution of lenses, film and
CCD's...I guess we all
Hi,
the correct way to deal with this sort of thing is for people to use
the subject line properly, and to change it as and when necessary.
That is the real problem, although personally I don't think it is a
particularly bad problem. If I miss something interesting in one of
the threads I delete,
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
SYSTEMRESOLUTION (overall)= SensorResolution X LensResolution /
(SensorResolution + LensResolution)
Sometimes it is shown as:
1/SYSTEMRESOLUTION (overall) = 1/SensorResolution + 1/LensResolution
Speaking as a physicist, that formula looks wrong to me.
I believe that the
Steve Jolly wrote:
So, if the lens and sensor both have an individual resolution of 50
lppm, you ought to get a combined resolution of
1/sqrt((1/50)^2+(1/50)^2), which equals 35 lppm.
Sorry, I should have said: that explains the difference between Sven's
measurement and JCO's calculation. :-)
On 26 Jan 2004 at 12:43, Bob W wrote:
Easy identification of the subject, and useful filtering comes from
writing and maintaining useful subject lines, not inventing new
languages and trying to impose them on other people.
Is my mailer the only one that can sort as easily using the messages
Anybody knows what this sign means? What language is this? Chinese,
Japanese?
http://www.wuthrich.cc/sign.jpg
--
Frits Wüthrich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
No photography please?
Oops - too late!
-Original Message-
From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 January 2004 13:02
To: Pentax Discussion List
Subject: OT: meaning of sign?
Anybody knows what this sign means? What language is this?
Chinese, Japanese?
Well, I can't say I like look it up on the Web as a reference...
The figures you calculated just do not I correspond to my observations. So
either of these must be wrong.
Sven
Zitat von J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Well the theory is well known and documented, look it up on the web.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 12:59, Jens Bladt wrote:
By the way - I was in Amsterdam recently - check my snap shots:
http://gallery29912.fotopic.net/
All the best
Jens
Nice Jens, it seems you had a good time. BTW, Almere is not Amsterdam.
Are you interested in architecture?
--
Frits Wüthrich
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
15 miles is a good run in that cold. That's about the equivalent of a 60
mile ride. A good balaclava is indespensible. I wear one with a toque over
it, and it makes a world of difference. Keeps the cheeks and chin warm.
Well, wind chill is a whole
That's bull and you know it. No one imposes anything on anyone on this list
and you know that too. All I'd really like to see is D: for digital and an
F: for film. I thought I'd made that clear. But since there is so much
digital stuff going on now I've just unsubscribed. I'll come back any time
That is a good one :-)
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 14:02, Rob Brigham wrote:
No photography please?
Oops - too late!
-Original Message-
From: Frits Wüthrich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 26 January 2004 13:02
To: Pentax Discussion List
Subject: OT: meaning of sign?
- Original Message -
From: mike.wilson
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
Hi,
WR wrote:
And I got, I am sure, a good picture that I wouldn't have gotten on
film,
perhaps even more than one.
How so? Speed/sensitivity change?
Luck of sheer numbers.
Something out of those
- Original Message -
From: Herb Chong
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
hard drives at at 300G now and even if you rotate between one hard drive
in
your computer and two for backups, it's under $1K to provide dual backups.
if you backup using writeable DVD, then 300G is even
- Original Message -
From: keller.schaefer
Subject: RE: D: SMC 1.4/50mm FA / APS vs FF
Well, I can't say I like look it up on the Web as a reference...
It's one I've always thought was a cop out.
William Robb
Ian,
I've got one of these, which I have had for a couple of years. I've been
told by two people that there has to be a filter on all the time as it is
part of the optical formula. However:
1. I got a Russian colleague to read the manual. He says it makes no
mention of the filter being
Hi,
Cheers to you too, AH.
AH I suppose is some sort of coded insult because I disagree with you.
If so then it reveals a great deal about you, none of it pleasant.
--
Cheers,
Bob
At 07:12 AM 26/01/2004, you wrote:
And so, anything that makes it
easier for others to read your contributions is helpful.
Oh, I wish.
I enjoy reading the list and I learn lots, but this morning I was faced by
4 digests full of quoted text on lpp/lpm and JCO's table repeated over and
over and
Adorama appears to be the first in the U.S. to list it on their site, at
$429.95. Not in stock, though.
Joe
That would be fine.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I can do $20 USD
Since most of us shoot more with digital, even deleting the ones you
don't like should leave you with more images for posterity. There's no
question that what you save differs with digital, but it's a tradeoff
not an outright loss. And, given the numbers, I bet you actually do
better with
Adorama appears to be the first in the U.S. to list it on their
site, at $429.95. Not in stock, though.
Joe
And 1725 with the D camera. So $375 for the lens when sold in kit,
as the D can be had for $1350.
Andre
Hi!
SB And I agree as well. Only thing is, Boris keeps asking what
SB everyone else thinks, and there are a lot of opinions here,
SB including the opinion to not pay attention to other opinions LOL
SB Bill Owens wrote:
I agree whole heartedly with Lon. Unless you're shooting for pay, shoot to
I went under long ago.
Should I read Pop Photo?
grin. -Lon
William Robb wrote:
To try to keep from being completely buried by mediocrity.
Hi!
wb Oh, I wish.
wb I enjoy reading the list and I learn lots, but this morning I was faced by
wb 4 digests full of quoted text on lpp/lpm and JCO's table repeated over and
wb over and over (and over). If there was any interesting stuff in those
wb digest then I missed it.
wb If you can't
Hell, I delete about nine outta ten film shots.
Negative film, even, with latitude.
Most shots are NOT worth keeping. Herb, I love you,
but you and I are DIFFERENT. lol.
-Lon, who really DOES like Herb. He's taught me a lot.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Because I don't have unlimited storage space,
Hi!
If anyone needs to have some parts of their russian manual lens
translated I would be happy to help. I think that parts such as
explanation how to mount or dismount the lens and/or similar require
no translation.
But special stuff - feel free to e-mail me the scans of the manual.
HTH.
Ryan,
Thanks, that explains a lot.
It is on the shed opposite of my house, so I wonder what was going on
there.
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 17:27, Ryan Lee wrote:
Hi Frits,
At first I thought it was Mandarin but it wasn't, so I asked some friends
who said if it were Chinese, it'd be 'ling qi'
Mike Johnston is a semi-famous writer who used to hang
around here and might yet again. Do a Google search on
Mike Johnston Sunday Morning Photographer. Then read
any of the Hot Sites that carry him. Make up yer own mind.
Personally, I like him.
-Lon
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan
Yep, Bob, if it were all nicely edited it would be on the newsstand.
However, I do realize some folks time is worth money. So, I make this offer, for
only a $1000/year subscrition I will read all the messages on this list.
Catagorize them, sort them, delete all the excess repetition, index
Yes you CAN use a tri-monopod in bar situations.
And it is ugly. You CAN do it. I have. As you all
know, it's a blessing and a curse. For eggsample,
some surly folks can get you thrown out. Really.
As for street, I have no opinion.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Hey, when you're out street shooting
Mike Johnston sorta loves a Pentax M 50mm 1.4 on a purty
old body, shooting BW film.
I like almost any Pentax Prime on a purty old body, shooting
slow as I can get away with Color Film.
Mike is Famous. Lon is Not.
Any questions? Grin.
BTW, I think this mail list took a slight uphike when Boris
Nope.
Rob Studdert wrote:
Is my mailer the only one that can sort as easily using the messages body of
text as it can the subject line (or any other field for that matter)?
--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change
Well! That solved the problem.
--
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
That's bull and you know it. No one imposes anything on anyone on this list
and you know that too. All I'd really like to see is D: for digital and an
F: for film. I thought I'd made that clear. But since there is so much
digital stuff
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: mike.wilson
Subject: Re: The problem with digital
Hi,
WR wrote:
And I got, I am sure, a good picture that I wouldn't have gotten on
film,
perhaps even more than one.
How so? Speed/sensitivity change?
Luck of sheer
Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while
you're at it.
Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held
photography, and
others like to let everyone know they're taking pictures.
Whatever floats your boat, Lon ...
Lon
Just a little snap from a few nights ago.
I'd be interested in how the description appears
on your monitors ... is it easily readable, too big/small
...
Thanks for looking, IAC ...
http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/mcgee.html
shel
I think I will have to put one of these on my wish list. I have always wanted an
ultra-wideange. They are not expensive at all, and from the photos you guys show
they seem to be good enough for everyday use.
--
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I have the same lens, but I haven't used it in eons. In the
Steve's formula has nothing to do with area, John. It certainly looks correct to me.
--
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Dont agree, see my earlier post, Svens measurement was linear, not area,
and my calculation is correct for linear.
JCO
Hi,
William Robb wrote:
We're not talking jigh art here, we are talking record shots that are no
longer relevant, or test shots on film that is no longer available, or on
equipment that I no longer have, and that sort of thing.
Better not let any historians hear you talking like that. You
Hi,
Boris Liberman wrote:
If anyone needs to have some parts of their russian manual lens
translated I would be happy to help. I think that parts such as
explanation how to mount or dismount the lens and/or similar require
no translation.
I have an English translation of the Zenit 16mm
Hi, Frits,
Ryan's definitely got it right. Those are Japanese Kanji characters
taken
from traditional Chinese alphabet. But they are simplified in the Japanese
way so that I don't recognize them any more. At first look, it makes me
think it refers to an inert gas. I hoped it would be Xenon
Reads fine but bigger would be better; nicely emotive pic; I'm off to
liten to Pearl again.
Big Brother
p.s. I never really fancied visiting SF until you mentioned the Hotsy
Totsy club. Now...
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Just a little snap from a few nights ago.
I'd be interested in how
Me And Bobby McGee was seen, in the description,
on an 800x600 portable computer. BTW, a tripod
would not have helped. Grin -Lon
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Just a little snap from a few nights ago.
I'd be interested in how the description appears
on your monitors ... is it easily readable, too
I can read the description fine (I'm running 1600x1200 on a 19 tube).
The picture gave me a headache and made me nauseas. I have since closed the
web browser and visited the restroom. I feel better now ;-)
Christian
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Hello Shel,
I can read it ok, but it is not that great. I would rather a sans
serif font or thinner.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, January 26, 2004, 11:31:05 AM, you wrote:
SB Just a little snap from a few nights ago.
SB I'd be interested in how the description appears
SB on your monitors
As do I ... ;-))
Christian wrote:
I can read the description fine
[...]
I feel better now ;-)
It is a sans serif font on my monitor. Lemme check ... might have
screwed up the HTML code.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Hello Shel,
I can read it ok, but it is not that great. I would rather a sans
serif font or thinner.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, January 26, 2004, 11:31:05 AM, you
Now, I feel bad. I did not think I was criticizing Boris's photos. He aked, I
though, for help in improving his photography in the future. I thought I
addressed that very thoroughly in fact giving what amounted to a free class in
advanced photo techniques. Now it seems that all that I should
Being new again to Pentax after a 10 year hiatus, I don't have many
images on the web made with Pentax gear,
but I would very much like comment on
some images I have posted recently. Unlike several
other forums I have being member of, this one seems filled with
folks willing to voice there
It's fine here, Shel.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Just a little snap from a few nights ago.
I'd be interested in how the description appears
on your monitors ... is it easily readable, too big/small
...
Thanks for looking, IAC ...
http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/mcgee.html
shel
--
graywolf
graywolf wrote:
Yes they do.
But when it is on a mailing list sponsered by Pentax, there
are liability issues involved. On a public list, as the PDML
is now, they don't have to worry about it.
Our Johnny read, on the Official Pentax Mailing list, how to
modify his strobe, stuck his
Looks fine to me, but then I have good eyes. I like the mood of the
picture as well.
Dead-eye Desjardins
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This assumes, however, that we are not generating so much stuff that
there will be plenty of stuff for historians to look at. (We probably
generate enough paper stuff alone to keep thee future guys busy for
ever.) If the digital stuff survives at all, they'll have plenty; if it
doesn't, then
Yow! Is it too late to revoke my critique request? :)
-Original Message-
From: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 2:51 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Me and Bobby McGee
I can read the description fine (I'm running 1600x1200 on a 19 tube).
As do I..too:-)
Dave
BTW interesting shot.Could be used for an anti-- drink and drive ad .
As do I ... ;-))
Christian wrote:
I can read the description fine
[...]
I feel better now ;-)
Boris DID ask for suggestions ... iac, your comments were well thought out and quite
germane to the general subject of this list. And if
Boris or someone else thought they were out of line, or that you are full of crap, the
heck with them.
Frankly, I get the sense that very nice is a good
Yow! Is it too late to revoke my critique
request? :)
Yep.You asked for it.LOL
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is an interesting problem, e.g., how much of the record
from our time will be erased or preserved over the next 2000
years, even assuming that no great catastrophe befalls us. I
think we should create a
Nope. Gimme an Mx, a 50 1.4, and a monopod.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Sure, and you can use a flash and a big honkin' lens and a loud motor drive while you're at it.
Some people appreciate the subtlety inherent in available light and hand held
photography, and
others like to let everyone know
True, yet you passed judgment without an explanation. So, imo, it's not a
critique, just an opinion. And there's nothing wrong with expressing an
opinion, nothing at all. In fact, you yourself note that your comments were
just an opinion.
BTW, thanks for you far more in depth critique ... LOL
It's not as if someone else has taken over the list or that anyone is
actively suppressing film talk. As someone here mentioned once, any
hobby magazine starts to run out of new things to teach you every few
years. The richest source of new data, techniques, and general news is
digital, so of
I have a few thousand prints in albums, frames and shoeboxes all over
the
world...a few of them should survive for a while...
LOL. You gotta fill them with nitrogen and tape'em up good.
Second the motion. Graywolf is good. Even if he shoots Pentax.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't Tom.I for one listen and learn.:-)
Gee, Bill, I though the reflection of the barber pole in the mirror kind of made
the shot.
Also that sink helps show that this is an old, old barber shop. In fact if you
look at it the only thing in this photo that shows it wasn't taken 50 years ago
is the plastic product containers on the
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Labelling the subject in some simple way would not only help people like me
to eliminate unwanted posts -- but an F: for film would help select the
desirable ones as well. If the task becomes too laborious, as it often does,
I may sacrifice all and
It seems to me that most hurled darts at Boris had to do with flash.
The Available Light contingency smote him. That's kinda bad.
I've seen a LOT of available light photos that I don't think much
of. But I thought GrayWolf was both brave (Old?) and kind in his
review.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Funny, I cropped it on the right side and on the top, and thought I would have liked
a bit more of that sink... :-)
Lasse
From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Needs cropping on the left side. The sink is distracting.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a few thousand prints in albums, frames and shoeboxes
all over the world...a few of them should survive for a while...
LOL. You gotta fill them with nitrogen and tape'em up good.
I should start
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:43 PM
Subject: Re: OT: Labelling messages by topic D: S: F: P: OT: and so on (2)
On Mon,
Just goes to show that different folks have different tastes. You can
probably get as many opinions as people that comment.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Lasse Karlsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 4:53 PM
Subject: Re: As usual: photo advise
Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't everyone have a delete key to delete those they don't want to read.
Yup. And for some messages, my delete key is automatic :)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Right. and yes film res and lens res combine to give a lower
lens on film res. Digital sensors are different than film
in that the diagonal and horizontal and vertical film resolutions
are all the same, not true for most digisensors...
JCO
1 - 100 of 177 matches
Mail list logo
