On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:12 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
A rather special dinner at the Opera House last night.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/08_10/08_10_guillaume/index.htm
I've been there :) Amazing piece of architecture and I do recommend
taking a tour.
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:55 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
The backlighting is great along with the nice light. But I'd like
the runner to be more prominent in the frame.
I like the subtlety of not having the runner more prominent in the
frame :)
- Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
even though Full Frame is generally used to mean one thing by
the average user, it is technically not a correct use of the term.
Exactly. Words and phrases can change their definition by shifts in common
usage but I don't have to agree with the change. And if enough people
disagree and
I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels, a perfect topic for an
endless discussion.
What's a frame? Is it related to lenses in use? Is it related to a bayonet
shape or a register distance? I don't think so.
With film, a frame is related to a supposedly standardised portion of film.
Ken, thanks for your comments. I mixed up the PUG themes. My pic was
taken exactly at the time of equinox!
Henk
Ken Waller schreef:
I really liked -
+Pittsburgh Moonrise by Matthew Hunt - Great light, good composition
+Low Tide by Henk Terhell - what a wonderful image of a beautiful dog
on
2008/10/21 Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels.
Damn you, Dario.
Drinking coffee and reading PDML is getting more and more hazardous to
computer hardware.
Well said, though. Worthy a MARK!!
Rest of the post was good too. Couldn't agree more.
Bob W, Jack, David, David, Frank, Ken, Christine,
Thanks for commenting. Glad you liked it.
Exposure time was 926 seconds, ie. roughly 15 minutes. The
lightbrushing was sort of an afterthought, I didn't do it through more
than half the exposure, I think. It's mostly a hit miss process to
me.
It's a crutch for people who obsess over the size of their tool ;-)
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dario Bonazza
Sent: Tuesday, 21 October 2008 5:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Full Frame: what is it?
I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels, a perfect topic for an
endless discussion.
What's a frame? Is it related to lenses in use? Is it related to a bayonet
shape or a register distance? I don't think so.
snip
Very well put, all of it. :D
John
(just turned 30 27 minutes ago)
--
From: Brendan MacRae [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.primelensphoto.com/Pentax_Optio_W60/index.html
Gallery title:
The Joy of Ticks
-
Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
--
PDML
On 20/10/08, PN Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
I did find THAT Ann Summers through Google, but i figured you wouldn't
know of such things:-))
Ann often calls me for design advice...
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
Dario, I totally agree with you. Yet I want either smaller camera or a
full frame(*) one.
(*) Full Frame is the so called 24x36 mm sensor size ;-).
Boris
Dario Bonazza wrote:
I believe Full Frame to be akin the sex of angels, a perfect topic for
an endless discussion.
What's a frame? Is it
2008/10/21 AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exposure time was 926 seconds, ie. roughly 15 minutes. The
lightbrushing was sort of an afterthought, I didn't do it through more
than half the exposure, I think. It's mostly a hit miss process to
me. Beginners luck, I guess.
To take some of the hit a
Me too, Dave.
I was referring to the lightbrushing. :-)
Jostein
2008/10/21 David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/10/21 AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Exposure time was 926 seconds, ie. roughly 15 minutes. The
lightbrushing was sort of an afterthought, I didn't do it through more
than half the
So was I :-)
You just have to pay attention to what you are painting.
If you were to be around me during a test shot all you'd hear would be
me counting one one thousand, two one thousand, three one
thousand. while I went nuts waving my mini maglight all over the
place.
:-)
DS
2008/10/21
I too have never understood the obsession with the sensor's physical
size. I'm shooting now with my K10D and getting pictures that are
really good quality. The k20 is a little better, I suppose. Are th
efull frame cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor?
I doubt it.
CW
2008/10/21 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dario, I totally agree with you. Yet I want either smaller camera or a full
frame(*) one.
(*) Full Frame is the so called 24x36 mm sensor size ;-).
I thought you said you agreed? :-)
You could make a smaller camera by reducing the bayonet diameter
Gee,
You're way more systematic with your brushing than I'll ever be... :-)
jostein
2008/10/21 David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So was I :-)
You just have to pay attention to what you are painting.
If you were to be around me during a test shot all you'd hear would be
me counting one one
2008/10/21 Cory Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Are th efull frame
cameras better simply because of the size of the sensor?
It depends where/what you are shooting.
For long exposures (10+ minutes) low light, high ISO shots the full
frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ.
For regular
AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Inspired in part by David Savage's night shots:
in blog with text: http://alunfoto.blogspot.com/2008/10/night-shot.html
Amazing. I can't think of when we've last had such calm weather that
would have permitted such a long exposure without the whole
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:08 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
even though Full Frame is generally used to mean one thing by
the average user, it is technically not a correct use of the term.
Exactly. Words and phrases can change their definition by shifts in common
usage but I
The only real issue (in my mind) is the availability of wide angle
lenses. It's easier to get wide angles for the FX format (Nikonese, I
believe) especially since so many exist in the used market. Other than
that, I'm happy with a smaller camera and the DX format.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I imagine threads like this on the PDML are making Pentax a little worried.
I imagine threads on the PDML are barely noticeable to Pentax.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
2008/10/20 Brian Walters [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:34:47 +0800, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
Not much.
I just love the way to quickly get to the essence of a topic
:-)
:-)
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
I think hell just froze over, but I have to agree with JCO here. Full
Frame is technically just full frame for the basic format (As the new
PhaseOne P65+ is 645 full frame) but in common usage it refers
specifically to 24x36mm sensors on a 35mm platform. Common usage has
already stuck as of
And, if they were once, it was many years ago, when people here was worried
about what their brand offered form a technical point of view.
Now or they don't care much and/or just use other brands that better suit their
needs.
Hey, does this mean that this list has reached a certain level of
Snipped from a post on this very list 4 days ago,
Just got off the phone with Pentax USA and they do not have an answer.
But they are reading this forum, and in fact were reading my last post
re: EXIF when the phone tech called them up with this problem. So our
whines are heard. Good to
That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe,
maybe not.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For long exposures (10+ minutes) low light, high ISO
shots the full
frame sees a big (no pun intended)
On Oct 21, 2008, at 2:42 AM, Dario Bonazza wrote:
I understand you all can disagree.
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.
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Thanks Ken, she was by me so quickly...
I had not planned for her in the shot and then she was gone.
I will be better prepared next time.
The pictures are better with people in them.
Regards, Bob S.
I like that quite a bit, Bob.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Very nice, Bob. I wouldn't change anything.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Autumn Run
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 12:50 AM
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms
Subject: Re: What do you all think of the micro 4/3 system?
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I imagine threads like this on the PDML are making Pentax a little
worried.
I imagine threads on the PDML are barely noticeable to Pentax.
I
- Original Message -
From: Dario Bonazza
Subject: Full Frame: what is it?
At the end of the day, I think that FF is just another name for something
which didn't truly need it. Its's just another way of calling 24x36mm,
with no other meaning in it.
Funnily enough, I agree with
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:20 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, with that in mind:
Ned Bunnel, Ned Bunnell, Ned Bunnell, Ned Bunnell.
Is that like Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice, Beetlejuice?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Possibly, but it doesn't help for the photos I'm taking now.
Cheers,
Dave
2008/10/21 Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
That's true at the current level of technology. A few years from now maybe,
maybe not.
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage [EMAIL
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm pretty much in awe, if you want an honestly, truthfull comment.
I thought it could use a slight, and I have the hubris to think better BW
conversion, which is coming to a personal mailbox near you.
Thanks,
- Original Message -
From: Jaume Lahuerta
Subject: Re: What do you all think of the micro 4/3 system?
And, if they were once, it was many years ago, when people here was
worried about what their brand offered form a technical point of view.
Now or they don't care much and/or just
Hi Bob: Lovely light and composition. Wouldn't change a thing. Cheers,
Christine
- Original Message -
From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 7:03 PM
Subject: PESO: Autumn Run
Here is a shot from a nice Sunday morning in the
Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal
degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called
full frame that provides a wider rectilinear FoV.
Godfrey - www.gdgphoto.com
On Oct 21, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think hell just froze over, but I have to agree with JCO here. Full
Frame is technically just full frame for the basic format (As the new
PhaseOne P65+ is 645 full frame) but in common usage it refers
specifically to
David Savage wrote:
2008/10/21 Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For long exposures (10+ minutes) low light, high ISO
shots the full frame sees a big (no pun intended) improvement in IQ.
For regular shooting in good light, not so much
Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6
-Adam
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Olympus has a lovely 7-14mm lens in 4/3 System which nets 115 diagonal
degrees,rectilinear. There's only one lens I know of for so-called full
frame
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Savage wrote:
2008/10/21 Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
--- On Tue, 10/21/08, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For long exposures (10+ minutes) low light, high ISO
shots the full frame sees a big (no pun
Well, of course I agree. Dario is right.
I for one have the right to express my own, hmmm, preferences.
When I take my trusty old MZ-6 and or even older Perkeo I folder I am
thinking that my K10D is too big.
My lenses, with only one being an exception, cover more than the camera
can
Since medium format already has/had so many formats, 645,6x6,6x7,6x8,6x9
Etc, I strongly doubt any camera company or photographers are going to
Us the simple term FF with any of the these cameras because it would
be
Too vague. They might specify FF 6x6 or FF 6x9 , but they are not
Going to be
Ira,
The geometric pattern of the railing is interesting.
I'm a little confused about the context.
Is this a railing to keep you from falling off of something?
It looks like it casts shadows on a wall right behind it.
I have trouble imagining how this space goes together.
Regards, Bob S.
On Tue,
I believe FF 24x36 will always have advantage over aps sensors
Because the lenses are the limiting factor already, bigger sensor
Makes lenses relatively sharper compared to the size of the sensor,
Just like medium format vs 35mm film.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
Dave, This conjures a funny image... Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:21 AM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So was I :-)
You just have to pay attention to what you are painting.
If you were to be around me during a test shot all you'd hear would be
me counting one one
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: What do you all think of the micro 4/3 system?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:20 AM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, with that in mind:
Ned Bunnel, Ned Bunnell, Ned Bunnell, Ned Bunnell.
Is that like Beetlejuice,
With top quality lenses, there is nearly twice as much detail
In a FF image as a aps image, this is because they both have
Relative same lp/mm and the FF image is much larger.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Oh, I'm not saying you can't do it. It's just that many folks have a
number of wide angles that are no longer as useful in the DX format. I
don't, so I'm happy with the smaller format.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
Adam Maas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:02 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's an interesting observation, too: The 4/3 lens mount has the same
opening diameter as the Nikon F mount (44mm), so larger sensors *could* be
used in the 4/3 system in the future. They'd require a new
It's a good thing it's dark when I do it then :-)
Cheers,
Dave
2008/10/21 Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Dave, This conjures a funny image... Regards, Bob S.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 5:21 AM, David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So was I :-)
You just have to pay attention to what you
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
Dave
--
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/
Ontario Canada
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
Nice Bob.
Good shadows and the runner is a good touch.
Dave
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a shot from a nice Sunday morning in the Morton Arboretum...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn#5259387443044581714
K20D, 31mm, f4 @
At a given Mpixel sensor, FF yields less noise
And sharper image vs APS because the pixels are
Larger and the lenses are relatively sharper compared
To those larger pixels. Same way 4x5 is better than MF,
Or MF is better than 35mm.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
My cat Lucy thinks 'shrooms are for playing. She ate two last week.
I did not charger her for those, but next time.
Dave
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 11:07 PM, John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Further to Bill posting his mushroom pics recently, I just got
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://danasmillie.com/main.php
Wonderful photos. Thanks for posting these!
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Very nice Bob.
Cheers,
Dave
2008/10/21 Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Here is a shot from a nice Sunday morning in the Morton Arboretum...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn#5259387443044581714
K20D, 31mm, f4 @ 1/200th ISO200
Comments?
Regards, Bob S.
--
PDML
Mark Roberts wrote:
the mirror can be made to move back and up rather than just
flipping up on a normal hinge - I think Nikon has done the latter on a
recent camera.
My bad. Not Nikon. It's the new Sony A900. And they stole the idea from
the Pentax K2 :)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
I pointed out that Olympus has a
different platform that was intended to be the size it is, in which
context
it is indeed full frame, albeit not 35mm full frame.
In fact that was me, and I was using the common usage of the term,
which refers to 36x24mm sensors on a 35mm-based
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 09:20:02 -0500
Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ira,
The geometric pattern of the railing is interesting.
I'm a little confused about the context.
Is this a railing to keep you from falling off of something?
It looks like it casts shadows on a wall right behind it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Adam Maas
(snip)
Now I learn that Phase one has announced an upcoming product, and
significantly they called it the world's first FULL FRAME 645 medium
format
camera system. Their words, my
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
The idiocy is that a 24mm lens is *always* a 24mm lens. The focal
length only
Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and a piece of junk.
Big deal. ]'-)
G
On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:03 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
Nikon 13mm f5.6, Voigtlander 12mm f5.6, Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6
-Adam
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Olympus has a lovely
On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear
after the micro 4/3 gets established.
If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them
is full frame, I wonder... ?
8 x
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of
them is full frame, I wonder... ?
8 x 10
A
PN Stenquist wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm roll
film. And many of those cameras can share lenses. Which of them is
full frame, I
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:40:43AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can share
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:59 AM, Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I pointed out that Olympus has a
different platform that was intended to be the size it is, in which
context
it is indeed full frame, albeit not 35mm full frame.
In fact that was me, and I was using the common
I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-)
Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma
(mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 09:27:56AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Ok, three. One SLR lens, one RF lens, and
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 8:05 AM, David J Brooks wrote:
I still don't see the big deal of FF.
I know people say then their 24 will be a 24. not a 35 equivalent,
etc, but just do what I do.
I step back a bit.:-)
The
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 02:02:43PM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
Howdy. If you take a look at http://www.pdmlpug.org/, over on the
right, under themes, is a link for the December submit form. Once
we've decided on a list for next year, I'll put them all in place so
that you can submit photos
3 SLR lenses (the Voigtlander 12mm is available in F mount as well as
LTM mount, although it requires lockable MLY, meaning F, F2 and
Nikkormats only). The Sigma 12-24 is actually a pretty good performer
with stellar control of distortion.
-Adam
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi
John Francis wrote:
I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-)
Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma
(mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results.
I'm a big fan of the Sigma EX series lenses. I'd rate the 180/3.5 macro
with some of
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Francis wrote:
I wouldn't call the Nikon 13mm a piece of junk :-)
Seriously, though, I knew many people who owned and used the Sigma
(mostly in Canon mount). It seemed to produce reasonable results.
I'm a big fan
Paul, the local pusher of sundry used film gear, especially Pentax
kit. He loves them Spotmatics.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mawz/2961404124/
Larger/Direct link:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3219/2961404124_c89fb171cc_o.jpg
Nikon D40, Voigtlander 40mm f2 pancake, 1/100, f2, ISO 400, -1/3
On Oct 20, 2008, at 23:07 , Ken Waller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The backlighting is great along with the nice light. But I'd like
the runner to be more prominent in the frame.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message - From: Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:03 PM, Bob Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here is a shot from a nice Sunday morning in the Morton Arboretum...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn#5259387443044581714
K20D, 31mm, f4 @ 1/200th ISO200
Comments?
Regards, Bob S.
That's lovely!
Very nice. Well composed. And it's shot in one of my favorite places.
Paul
On Oct 20, 2008, at 8:03 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Here is a shot from a nice Sunday morning in the Morton Arboretum...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn#5259387443044581714
K20D, 31mm, f4 @ 1/200th ISO200
On Oct 21, 2008, at 06:03 , John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I imagine threads like this on the PDML are making Pentax a little
worried.
I imagine threads on the PDML are barely noticeable to Pentax.
They are probably barely noticeable when it
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:24 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
... The thing about the 24mm lens 'being' a
24mm lens has more to do with the lack of lens choices wider than
24mm, especially primes for those of us who prefer them.
The reason for this is the use of SLR lens mounts that constrain lens
designs
Yes, but
only sharper at the point of focus..
The system with smaller sensor will show a larger depth of focus...
The depth of focus is best compromised for my photography at a size
somewhere in between APS-C and FF (24x36)
Greetz Jos
JC OConnell wrote:
At a given Mpixel sensor, FF
The Voigtländer Heliar 12mm in Nikon mount is discontinued as far as I
can discover. A lens that doesn't allow use of a reflex viewfinder is
hardly an SLR lens, although it can be fitted to an SLR body.
I have no use for Sigma products. The one in 20 that meets the product
specification
On Oct 21, 2008, at 07:36 , JC OConnell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since medium format already has/had so many formats,
645,6x6,6x7,6x8,6x9
Etc, I strongly doubt any camera company or photographers are going to
Us the simple term FF
Snip
How this branch of the conversation began
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip Not everyone needs to shoot at
ISO 128,000 and 15 frames per second. Or wants to.snip
15 frames per second? ~Only~ 15 frames per second? I laugh in your
general direction:
In cinematography, full frame refers to the use of the full film gate
at maximum width and height for 35 mm film cameras. It is sometimes
also referred to as silent aperture, full gate, or a number of other
similar word combinations. It is the original gate size pioneered by
William
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see larger sensor 4/3 cameras appear
after the micro 4/3 gets established.
If it is a larger sensor, it isn't 4/3 System. By definition.
That's great news. We'll call it the Super 4/3.
The
Sorry - forgot the credit on my last post:
Wikipedia.
Joseph McAllister
Pentaxian
--
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.
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:23 PM, frank theriault wrote:
15 frames per second? ~Only~ 15 frames per second? I laugh in your
general direction:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08010601casiof1.asp
Aim high, my friend. You don't want 60fps, you ~need~ it. Now!
insane.
G
--
PDML
I prefer the Intel approach, 4/3 II.
This thread is such a delightful mix of semantics, optics, and sarcasm.
Reminds me of why I subscribe to the PDML.
Dario Bonazza [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/21/2008 3:23 PM
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 7:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
I wouldn't
There is only approx a 1 stop difference between the DOF
Of APS and FF with equiv AOV lenses, and if the FF sensor is less noise
you can
Stop down an extra stop by using double the ISO and end
Up with same DOF as APS.
JC O'Connell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:29 , PN Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Joseph McAllister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are probably barely noticeable when it comes to design and RD
suggestions, as those departments are several years ahead of consumer
product introductions. But as my post regarding EXIF problems in Aperture
from
On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:29 , Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 21, 2008, at 9:31 AM, PN Stenquist wrote:
I guess 6x4.5 isn't full frame either ... I mean, after all,
there're 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x8, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats on 120mm
roll film. And many of those cameras can
A nice collection - well done.
I appreciated the speed of download !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Lovely photos mostly of Egypt
http://danasmillie.com/main.php
-T
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I prefer the Intel approach, 4/3 II.
Or the Canon approach: 4/3 mk-II!
--
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.
On 10/21/08, Steve Desjardins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I prefer the Intel approach, 4/3 II.
Yeah, but is it off by 1?
--
Scott Loveless
New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, USA
http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Seems to get earlier and earlier every year.
Last year it was Nov 8th. Thanksgiving we sat under the sun in +20 degrees.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djbrooks/2961905259/
Its now starting to stay on the ground, better start the wood stove.
Dave
--
Equine Photography
www.caughtinmotion.com
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
