http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
It's an ugly looking bug of a camera, ain't it.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
Shel
--
--
Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's
favorite pet. People like pets
It's an ugly looking bug of a camera, ain't it.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
Shel
--
--
Its easy to understand why the cat has eclipsed the dog as modern America's
favorite pet. People like pets
Yes.
On 8/26/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's an ugly looking bug of a camera, ain't it.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Still yes.
On 8/26/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's an ugly looking bug of a camera, ain't it.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
Shel
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Have a nice 22.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 3:25 AM
Subject: holidays! signing off for a week
I'm off to a cabin with none of that electrical stuff for a week -- I have
no interest in having a
On 25-Aug-06, at 10:16 PM, Steve Sharpe wrote:
At 8:44 PM -0400 8/25/06, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Do you want to buy my darkroom? :-) Actually, you can delete the
smiley. I really would love to sell it.
If I had room I might! It's something I'd love to try.
We are probably going to be moving to
Thibouille wrote:
I shop near me in Brussels in selling the M42 version for 1200euros if
my memory serves me well enough :)
The M42, if it is the rare aspheric version, goes for more than the K or
A incarnations, but 1200 euros is too much .
Carlos
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
P. J. Alling wrote:
I'm going to hate myself for this, but you should put it on e-bay. I
haven't seen one of them go for less than $800-$900 which is a roughly
600-700 euros.You shouldn't short change yourself. My last comment was
a joke unfortunately it's just not in my budget right now.
Doug Franklin wrote:
This just in, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
I'd say thanks God for that, if I were a believer.
[With apologies to Chevy Chase]
Carlos
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Aug 26, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Joseph Tainter wrote:
I don't recall if you can put a polarizer on the 15/3.5.
That lens doesn't accept external filters at all. All you get are
the built-in ones: O2, Y2, UV and Skylight.
I wish they'd used 80A and 81A instead of the UV and Skylight as
they'd
On Aug 26, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Cotty wrote:
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/landscapes/images/pic42.html
http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/landscapes/images/pic43.html
You shouldn't have sold your medium format camera, unless you were
buying a bigger one.
I like the lighthouse except for the
On Aug 26, 2006, at 4:57 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Much better. I like this one. What really makes it interesting is
the narrow street lined with cars, the cyclist and the oncoming car.
Makes you wonder just how well everything is going to fit and who is
going to give in (game of chicken).
On 26/8/06, David Mann, discombobulated, unleashed:
You shouldn't have sold your medium format camera, unless you were
buying a bigger one.
I'll take that as a compliment.
I like the lighthouse except for the blown-out clouds, but I love the
beach pic.
Thankee sir.
--
Cheers,
On 25/8/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
A much better look. Maybe a tiny bit oversharpened? But it's still
hard to say with a web image. In any case, I still love the
lighthouse shot.
Thanks Paul.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
On 25/8/06, Russell Kerstetter, discombobulated, unleashed:
After Cotty and Jack, I figured that I needed to get off my rear and
post, although in mine is simply a house of the regular variety.
and a barn.. and an RV.
http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/pic11.html
brutal and honest
On 26/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
They look even better now, particularly the lighthouse shot.
Thanks Dave
Just for chuckles:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/light_DSv.jpg
:-)
Great Scott. Nice idea but needs some shadows on the sea. Something I'd
never think of
On 8/26/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
Just for chuckles:
http://www.arach.net.au/~savage/Misc/light_DSv.jpg
:-)
Great Scott. Nice idea but needs some shadows on the sea. Something I'd
never think of doing!
I thought of adding
Much better. I like this one. What really makes it interesting
is
the narrow street lined with cars, the cyclist and the oncoming
car.
Makes you wonder just how well everything is going to fit and who
is
going to give in (game of chicken).
That happened to me a lot when I commuted
I like this. Not enough to make me dance. Looking at the picture I
think I want to see more of the forest.
Toine
On 8/25/06, Morten Dahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A summer memory: Deciduous forest (backlit)
http://folk.uio.no/mdahl/Deciduous.html
Pentax *ist DS, 50-200mm @ 50mm, 1/60, f6.7
He is embargoed if he was given information on condition that he keep
quiet about it.
John
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 04:41:58 +0100, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, anyone who has knowledge of the K10 camera and who is not
a camera dealer or a journalist is in no way
P. J. Alling wrote:
I guess England is different. Middle class people can afford a lot
better in the US. Canada too probably. To my eye this place is bleak,
at best, warehouses for unwanted people. The people who were living
there knew that and treated it accordingly. It's clean now
On 8/26/06, John Forbes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
He is embargoed if he was given information on condition that he keep
quiet about it.
Exactly.
:-)
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
That's fine. But this has become moronic. Enough said.
On Aug 26, 2006, at 1:17 AM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 26/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Could be. But you're the guy who said he had his fingers crossed, so
you don't have them.
Bad logic I'm afraid. More a case
Hey all... got a film-related question here. I was going to scan
in a bunch of 35mm color slides from a family trip 20 years ago. Some of
them were accidentally cross-processed by the lab... I think as color
negative film (very dark?). Maybe they were just underdeveloped. I don't
looks like Colorado between Colorado Springs and Denver
Russell Kerstetter wrote:
Very dark on my laptop, which is not a calibrated monitor. But this
one seems to be way off the scale.
Paul
hmm... that is what I thought it might be. I had it a little
brighter before, but I
That's true as a matter of personal ethic, but it's not legally
binding. Having worked in the automotive press for many years, I know
writers have to sign for embargoed information. That's legally binding.
The embargos don't permit the communication of the material to anyone,
even on a
Thanks for the insights on taking the shot.
It is a wonderful picture.
It made me wonder what the white walls leading to the light were for.
Protection for walkers during high seas?
Regards, Bob S.
On 8/25/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 25/8/06, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed:
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Hey all... got a film-related question here. I was going to scan
in a bunch of 35mm color slides from a family trip 20 years ago. Some of
them were accidentally cross-processed by the lab... I think as color
negative film (very dark?). Maybe they were just
It's more than that Paul. If you have a source which gives you info on
the condition you keep quiet about it, you should, or next time that
source won't tell you. It's more tha personal ethics, it's a matter of
not burning someone who did you a favour. You may not have signed the
NDA, but the
The dark slides are probably just underexposed. Try scanning them in.
Set the brightness higher as needed in your scanning software after you
get a preview. Make final corrections after scanning in PhotoShop. They
won't be great, but if there's an image on the film, you can improve
it.
Russell,
pic11.html is way too dark.
http://www.avocadohead.com/piclinks/pic12.html
looks a lot better, but still a bit dark.
I like the idea and the composition, the repeating horizontal lines of
the barbed wire fence, rail line, and telephone wires, and the overall
starkness of the place.
I have no problem with your ethical position. It's the juvenile games
of some that have become annoying.
On Aug 26, 2006, at 9:29 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
It's more than that Paul. If you have a source which gives you info on
the condition you keep quiet about it, you should, or next time that
I have to agree.
If you know something but you won't or can't tell, whats the point of
saying anything?
Dave
On 8/26/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no problem with your ethical position. It's the juvenile games
of some that have become annoying.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
There a couple of books that might help you: Professional Photoshop
by Margulis, and Photoshop Color Correction by Kieran. They include
useful straightforward methods for getting the colours and exposure
right, including rescuing damaged photos.
--
Cheers,
Bob
-Original Message-
I'm not going to say you're wrong, anything is possible in Louisiana,
but if anyone is still living in a tent this long after Katrina they
probably deserve it. A lot of the relief money that was handed out in
the immediate aftermath was spent on necessities such as booze, firearms
and
P. J. Alling wrote:
I'm not going to say you're wrong, anything is possible in Louisiana,
but if anyone is still living in a tent this long after Katrina they
probably deserve it. A lot of the relief money that was handed out in
the immediate aftermath was spent on necessities such as
indeed... very Canon if you ask me ^^
Well, KM/Sony is even worse IMO... I woukdn't have imagine 2 years ago
that KM would make bodies even more ugly than Canons...
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
On 26/8/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
That's true as a matter of personal ethic, but it's not legally
binding. Having worked in the automotive press for many years, I know
writers have to sign for embargoed information. That's legally binding.
The embargos don't permit the
Haven't dealt much with assistance programs have you, Peter? You have
the stereotype down pat, but the reality escapes you. You do not replace
the infrastructure of a major city all that quickly. Also while it may
have been possible for people who owned their homes and had insurance to
replace
On 26/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated, unleashed:
I have to agree.
If you know something but you won't or can't tell, whats the point of
saying anything?
As I mentioned in a previous post, embargoes are basically worthless
unless they are for less than 36 hours. If I'm a big camera company
Point taken.
If someone gave me a juicy piece of info and then told/asked me not to
tell anyone, I wouldn't I don't. I don't even hint at what I may or
may not know.
I guess I'm too honest/naive ;-)
Dave
On 8/26/06, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 26/8/06, David Savage, discombobulated,
It wasn't just a guessing game. Obviously, the information was sent via
private mail to a number of members of the list, who now wink at each
other as they preach about the sacredness of the embargo.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:22 PM, graywolf wrote:
But, keeping quite about it also means not
- Original Message -
From: mike wilson
Subject: Re: Digitally restoring badly-processed slides?
My understanding of cross processing was that, if it was done
completely, the final bleach would remove all traces of an image.
Yours
sound more like underexposure.
If an E-6 film is
But, keeping quite about it also means not mentioning it at all. Making
it a guessing game violates that promise to my way of thinking. Which
reminds me of an old joke.
The warden is instructing newly hired guards, If you see two inmates
talking, break it up. If there are more than two, don't
300+ list messages?
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
David Savage wrote:
I have to agree.
If you know something but you won't or can't tell, whats the point of
saying anything?
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: FWIW - New Canon
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Quoted from DPReview regarding the new Canon
quote
Phil: Canon did not provide us with any press materials until after the
embargo (which occurred at 4 AM GMT), this designed intended to avoid
those embarassing leaks which occur before almost every significant
Canon announcement. As usual in
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode. Is that Canon-speak
for spot metering?
-Mat
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: FWIW - New Canon
http://tinyurl.com/o4ywe
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
William Robb
Excet it's now the only
That's probably true too, though harder to trace. However since both
the Red Cross and FEMA gave out bank cards not cash it was relatively
easy to compile statistics on where the supposed beneficiaries spent theirs.
mike wilson wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
I'm not going to say you're
Not really, embargos came about because monthly magazines have a lead
time of about 3 months. So if you want your announcement to be in the
current magazines you have to put it out 3 months before you actually
want to, so you require them not to mention it before such and such a date.
On 8/26/06 12:43 PM, Adam Maas, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Excet it's now the only 10MP model without a decent viewfinder (the D80
got the D200's viewfinder, which is as good or better than the D/DS
finder, the A100 has a finder similar to the DL).
More MP means less forgiving for the shake.
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 12:44:01PM -0400, Mat Maessen wrote:
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode. Is that
Mat Maessen wrote:
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode. Is that Canon-speak
for spot metering?
-Mat
Really
graywolf wrote:
Not really, embargos came about because monthly magazines have a lead
time of about 3 months. So if you want your announcement to be in the
current magazines you have to put it out 3 months before you actually
want to, so you require them not to mention it before such and
- Original Message -
From: Mat Maessen
Subject: Re: FWIW - New Canon
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Mat Maessen
Subject: Re: FWIW - New Canon
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9%
Mat Maessen wrote:
On 8/26/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp
It seems well enough spec'd. Canon at it's best.
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode. Is that Canon-speak
for spot metering?
-Mat
This is
I was making a comment on a subset of people from which you have
generalized an attack. I'm sorry if Ive offended you. Just try to be
more open minded when you read my response and those interspersed in
your post.
I'm not condemning the people who truly need help, and never meant to
imply
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: FWIW - New Canon
What is a partial 9% at center metering mode. Is that Canon-speak
for spot metering?
Yup.
Umm, nope.
Canon does do spot metering on their higher-end stuff (Pro film bodies
and all except the cheapest DSLR's).
On Aug 25, 2006, at 8:54 AM, Christian wrote:
Speaking of vacation, here is the QD tourist shot of Sydney:
http://photography.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?pos=-55
and of course, I have to throw in a bird:
http://photography.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?pos=-56
Sulpher-crested
Well my D is going to sell. I have three bids, and the price is now
at $425 with two days to go. The good news is I have 48 watchers. Of
course that might be just the PDMLers, who want to know what an *istD
is worth. But if there are five or six bidders in that mix, the price
could go up a
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-)
How?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
I'm not surprised, it's a capable little machine.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Well my D is going to sell. I have three bids, and the price is now
at $425 with two days to go. The good news is I have 48 watchers. Of
course that might be just the PDMLers, who want to know what an *istD
is worth.
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Well my D is going to sell. I have three bids, and the price is now
at $425 with two days to go.
Absolutely not indicative of how well it will sell. That's my
experience with eBay.
Good luck!
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
good intentions
it's an interesting picture. the buildings are likely low income
housing (I say 'likely because you could not know for sure unless you
were told). all the windows in the frame are boarded up, which would
imply failure of the project, yet there are blankets hanging out to
dry,
I know!!
It's a semi-automatic chrome-plated toilet paper dispenser!
On 8/25/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I share your dislike of Urban Renewal projects. Nevertheless, many
of the neighborhoods that were torn down in and after the sixties were
far from vibrant. Many were far worse than the dingy residential
wharehouses that replaced them.
On 8/25/06, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Under the
I love bridges, and have visited many great ones throughout the world,
including Pont Neuf and Pont Alexandre III in Paris, Ponte Vecchio in
Florence, the Tower Bridge in London, the Brooklyn Bridge in New York,
the Kintai Bridge in Japan, and the Rialto Bridge and Bridge of Sighs
in Venice. The
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Tulip shaped hoods are a compromise too. ;-)
How?
Any lens hood is a compromise on a zoom lens at some point or
another. A tulip shaped hood gives a little more coverage than a
barrel shaped hood, but only in a four-pronged shape
These are cameras, some mine and others belonging to employers, with which
I've burned film or memory, in no particular order. I have some others
which are either inheritances or curiosities, but which I haven't used.
Pentax 6x7
Pentax SP1000
Pentax ME Super
Pentax Super A
Pentax P30t
Bronica
Amen to that Dan!
The replacement housing failed on social organization issues,
but that failing was going to occur anyway.
Regards, Bob S.
On 8/26/06, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I share your dislike of Urban Renewal projects. Nevertheless, many
of the neighborhoods that were
John Coyle
Brisbane, Australia
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited. I bought this about a year ago. It is
barely used, and the body and glass are in EX+ condition. I bought the
black one and stopped using this one. $500 plus shipping.
Sigma Fisheye 15mm f/2.8 EX DG for Pentax AF in EX condition. $400
plus shipping.
Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX
Is it real or is it Photoshop?
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?
attachmentid=31924d=1156557449
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
So you know too. I think this has spread too far.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 4:40 PM, Russell Kerstetter wrote:
I know!!
It's a semi-automatic chrome-plated toilet paper dispenser!
On 8/25/06, Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
From reading the Leica forums, it seems to be real. But is it good?
Maybe, maybe not.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 6:52 PM, Bob Shell wrote:
Is it real or is it Photoshop?
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?
attachmentid=31924d=1156557449
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
You're right. Just looked again. It's now at $540 with almost two
days to go. Five bids. Most of them from Europe. I warned the top
bidder that shipping was about $50. Apparently, that's okay with him.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
I am trying to adjust the opacity on some pictures in adobe photoshop
elements. 3.0. I have been at this for over an hour now and all I seem to
be getting are little squares over my picture to make it lighter. Can I
adjust the opacity with out the darn little squares that take away from my
After opening your image, go to the layers window and double click on
the background layer. Another box will ask you to name the layer. You
can just leave it as layer 0 and click okay. Then set your opacity.
You'll have those little boxes. Go to the layers menu at the top and
choose
BTW, my instructions are for PhotoShop, but I think elements is the
same. The little boxes are always due to not flattening the image.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 8:44 PM, Sandra Hermann wrote:
I am trying to adjust the opacity on some pictures in adobe photoshop
elements. 3.0. I have been at
Thanks for the high opinion of me. As soon as i feed Sami I will go try to
flatten the picture. Thank you for the help also.
sandy
http://www.fotocommunity.com/pc/pc/mypics/698154
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss
Someone bought my FA 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 on eBay and is
having issues with AF. Supposedly (according to some
posts on DP review) this is common?
Focusing past 60mm and the AF goes all wonky.
Is there a fix for this other than focusing manually
or using DA lenses only?
-Brendan
I don't own this lens, but I have a number of FA lenses, and they all
autofocus very well on both of my *ist D cameras. You can read a lot
of things on dpreview that aren't necessarily true. A lot of wonky
users over there.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 9:40 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote:
Someone
--- Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, KM/Sony is even worse IMO...
The A100 has disappointing image quality, but I think
the body itself is not bad. Not really special, but
certainly not bad. It is a reasonable size, seems
comfortable to hold and fairly well-built. I have only
played
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't own this lens, but I have a number of FA
lenses, and they all
autofocus very well on both of my *ist D cameras.
You can read a lot
of things on dpreview that aren't necessarily true.
A lot of wonky
users over there.
Paul
My
The viewfinder alone is the reason I've been shooting more film lately.
But at $5000, it will be hard for me to justify. I'll most probably
just get a K10D for now.
Maybe Epson/Cosina will put out something similar and cheaper...
j
On 8/26/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From
Yeah, an old Leica film camera is a great thing to have, but I don't
need an overpriced Leica digital. The K10D will be my main camera for
quite a while to come, with the *istD as a backup. When the next
Pentax digital upgrade is released, the D will go and the 10 will
become the backup.
I'm sure almost anything can happen with any camera. But it's not a
common fault. No one on the list has experienced it.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 27/08/06, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts exactly.
Anyway, I just wanted to check
On 27/08/06, Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My thoughts exactly.
Anyway, I just wanted to check here to make the guy
feel a little better. AF should work fine according to
everything I've seen (including the *ist DL manual).
I know a user who has had to send his *ist D (and lenses)
Juan Buhler wrote:
The viewfinder alone is the reason I've been shooting more film lately.
But at $5000, it will be hard for me to justify. I'll most probably
just get a K10D for now.
Maybe Epson/Cosina will put out something similar and cheaper...
j
They did. The RD-1/RD-1s. Only
On 27/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure almost anything can happen with any camera. But it's not a
common fault. No one on the list has experienced it.
I didn't say it was but I do seem to also recall some problems
mentioned early on, particularly with third party lenses.
This is reportedly a case of Pentax lenses not focusing.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 10:38 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 27/08/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm sure almost anything can happen with any camera. But it's not a
common fault. No one on the list has experienced it.
Groan!
I might have known :)
ann
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Dig! I get it:-)
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:55 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Yeah, I dig it!
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Cat Picture
I don't normally
I'm assuming he's got an issue with his camera. It's
not the lens as it worked perfectly for me.
-Brendan
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is reportedly a case of Pentax lenses not
focusing.
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 10:38 PM, Digital Image Studio
wrote:
On 27/08/06,
You have to admit, it's a lot more photogenic than the average kitty:-)
Paul
On Aug 26, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Groan!
I might have known :)
ann
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Dig! I get it:-)
On Aug 26, 2006, at 12:55 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Yeah, I dig it!
Kenneth Waller
On Aug 26, 2006, at 9:42 PM, Bob W wrote:
did you cycle in London at all?
Nope, and that's probably one reason why I'm still alive ;) The
traffic in central London was quite an experience even as a pedestrian.
My brother-in-law spent some time as a cycle courier in London and
he's told me
- Original Message -
From: Brendan MacRae
Subject: FA lenses on *istDL...focus issues?
Someone bought my FA 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 on eBay and is
having issues with AF. Supposedly (according to some
posts on DP review) this is common?
Focusing past 60mm and the AF goes all wonky.
Is
- Original Message -
From: Sandra Hermann
Subject: OT: photoshop elements 3.0 and opacity.
I am trying to adjust the opacity on some pictures in adobe photoshop
elements. 3.0. I have been at this for over an hour now and all I
seem to
be getting are little squares over my picture
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
