John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27281712@N08/15016470680/
Well, mostly on the track, anyway :-)
I don't think the gratuitous insult was called for, though.
I've driven
P.J. Alling wrote:
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
--
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com (postbox on min4est)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Tut, tut! Come now gentlemen. The originals may be the real ones but the
new ones are unreal. Dakar is testimony to that.
Alan C
-Original Message-
From: John Francis
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:21 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: PESO Mini Cooper
On Thu, Sep
Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel
sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had
an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a
7.6-megapixel camera.
In other words, it's a silly marketing game.
--
Mark Roberts -
That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change
is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing
things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things,
then someone who went from bench pressing 460 lbs from 360 lbs
shouldn't be any prouder of
Yeah, but that's the kind of world we live in nowadays.
On 9/10/2014 3:18 PM, P.J. Alling wrote:
Does anyone else think this is, well, kinda twisted?
On 9/10/2014 2:21 PM, Bob W-PDML wrote:
When you get bored with your helicoptercam:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/29140059
I think a moose
They were light enough that with the help of a couple of spectators he
should have been able to right it been back in the race.
On 9/11/2014 1:52 AM, knarf wrote:
I used to love watching Minis at the production races at Mosport, Ontario
before the F1 and CanAm races in the 70s.
Huge crowds
On 9/11/2014 6:33 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Comapred to the current 36-megapixel full-frame sensor, a 46 megapixel
sensor represents in increase by a factor of about 1.27. So if you had
an old 6-megapixel ist-D it would be equivalent to upgrading to a
7.6-megapixel camera.
In other words, it's a
And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a
significant step.
Jack
- Original Message -
From: John sesso...@earthlink.net
To: PDML pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 6:07:45 AM
Subject: Re: 100% reliable rumor 46MP Sony FF Sensor
On 9/11/2014
http://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/pentax-news-rumors/ricoh-wg-m1-specifications.html
A good move closer to GoPro territory, IMHO.
--
Photographers must learn not to be ashamed to have their photographs
look like photographs.
~ Alfred Stieglitz
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sep 11, 2014, at 8:23 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a funny way of looking at it. First of all, almost all change
is incremental, but that doesn't mean it is insignifcant. If reducing
things to percentage increase was a valid way of comparing things,
then someone who
I'm not denying that there is an appropriate place to use percentages.
It is especially useful in apples to apples comparisons.
I'm just saying that comparing APS-C to full frame AND to a completely
different era is apples to oranges, in my book.
To go back to Mark's numbers, he's saying a 27%
On Ricoh's web site...
http://us.ricoh-imaging.com/digital-camera/WG-M1_Orange
Available for pre-order at $299.95
-p
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:35 AM, Darren Addy pixelsmi...@gmail.com wrote:
Check out the related products at the bottom of the Ricoh page.
(Different mounts)
I gotta say that I like the specifications for this thing. It would an
awesome unit for the roof of a vehicle on a storm chase. HDMI out
means you could have a 7 monitor inside the car. Would be really cool
on an
Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote:
And I suspect a rounded pixel count increase of 28% will be viewed as a
significant step.
Since the current 36-megapixel camersa already out-resolve most
available lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space with little or
no improvement in image quality.
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27281712@N08/15016470680/
Well, mostly on the track, anyway :-)
I don't think the gratuitous
On Sep 11, 2014, at 11:56 AM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
mark roberts wrote:
Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available
lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space
with little or no improvement in image quality.
Of course you won't notice the difference on the web or 4x6 print.
But remember way back when *all* our
That is true, but I think that about the K-3 sensor as well, and most
users seem to think that the K-5 produces better image quality at high
ISO than the K-3.
What I'd hope for in the future, more than most anything else, would
effectively be, a K-5III with an improved ~16mp, (OK Pentax will
I think that it might well be more than a 28% change in file size, but
I'm not sure at this point, everything even raw files are subject to
some kind of compression these days.
On 9/11/2014 10:46 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Jack Davis jdavi...@comcast.net wrote:
And I suspect a rounded pixel
On 11/09/2014 9:56 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
https://www.flickr.com/photos/27281712@N08/15016470680/
Well, mostly on the track,
On 11/09/2014 10:15 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Sep 11, 2014, at 11:56 AM, P.J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast
wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter
print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at
close range.
i would actually bet.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:57 PM, P.J. Alling webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that it might well be more than a 28%
On 9/11/2014 1:11 PM, Bill wrote:
On 11/09/2014 9:56 AM, P.J. Alling wrote:
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07:13AM +1000, Philip Northeast wrote:
A real Mini Cooper on teh race track
On 11/09/2014 10:46 AM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
mark roberts wrote:
Since the current 36-megapixel cameras already out-resolve most available
lenses it's a 28% increase in storage space
with little or no improvement in image quality.
Of course you won't notice the difference on the web
It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to
each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides.
IOW, they will find what they're looking for.
Camera handling notwithstanding(???)
Jack
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Luka Knezevic-Strika lukastr...@gmail.com wrote:
i bet that no one here could tell a difference between a 2x3 meter
print from a 36mpix sensor and the one from a 48mpix sensor. even at
close range.
i would actually bet.
And if the sensor's outresolving the lens, there won't BE any
difference.
It's a nicely speced small rugged camera.
However, for non-Go-Pro-like applications, it might be limited
because of the extra-wide lens.
While Darren described his use, I'd assume that it is for various
extreme and fun applications like those, - but it would work
for the everyday applications.
You *want* your sensor to out-resolve the lens, people. Don't say it
like it's a bad thing.
I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES NOT
out-resolve the lens you theoretically have moire. This is why AA
filters were necessary in the past, but as pixel pitch shrinks it
becomes
On Sep 11, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2014 10:15 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Sep 11, 2014, at 11:56 AM, P.J. Alling
webstertwenty...@gmail.com wrote:
On 9/11/2014 3:19 AM, Larry Colen wrote:
John Francis wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at
On 9/10/2014 3:43 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
and new line of Sony cameras using them in January?
Reported...
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr4-no-other-new-camera-from-sony-at-photokina-sr5-new-generation-sensor-and-cameras-release-in-january/
This is of interest, of course, since Pentax uses
On 11/09/2014 12:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This thread has a topic? It’s a PESO. Nice shot.
Yeah, apparently the topic is about how butt hurt people get when
someone says an original Mini is a real mini.
bill
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Sep 11, 2014, at 2:24 PM, Bill anotherdrunken...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/09/2014 12:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
This thread has a topic? It’s a PESO. Nice shot.
Yeah, apparently the topic is about how butt hurt people get when someone
says an original Mini is a real mini.
Oh. My.
on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote
P.J. Alling wrote:
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
did the math — K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be
the one pushing the ragged
the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal
lines dont have any jaggies
On 9/11/2014 2:09 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
You *want* your sensor to out-resolve the lens, people. Don't say it
like it's a bad thing.
I think that people are forgetting that if the sensor DOES
Hi all,
It's that time of year when some of us think back to the horrific events
of 9/11. At the time, I subscribed to the digest version of the list. I
kept about 6 or 7 hour's worth of the PDML chatter from that day, a
beginning portion of which I provide below. If you want all the digests
I
I just used LR’s Auto Tone, under Library in the Quick Develop module, for the
first time. Liked the results I got so much I started synchronizing them across
groups of images shot under similar conditions. Am I cheating?
When I look at the details of what was done in Develop mode I see that
On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
wrote:
[...]
Log scales can be another useful tool…
My logs weigh more than your logs.
B
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML,
steve harley wrote:
on 2014-09-11 1:22 Larry Colen wrote
P.J. Alling wrote:
46mp in a 24x36mm sensor seems like they're pushing the ragged edge of
physics.
That's about the same pixel pitch as 24MP in a K-3.
did the math K-3 has significantly higher pixel density, so it would be
the one
I dont use it in Quick develop mode but in the Develop window and for
the most part it works fine for me. I often use the Sync then after
that like for my horse shots under similar lighting. Saves a lot of
time. Cheat away i say
Dave
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Eric Weir
On 11 Sep 2014, at 22:37, Eric Weir eew...@bellsouth.net wrote:
I just used LR’s Auto Tone, under Library in the Quick Develop module, for
the first time. Liked the results I got so much I started synchronizing them
across groups of images shot under similar conditions. Am I cheating?
on 2014-09-11 15:12 JC OConnell wrote
the sensor NEEDS to outresolve the lens significantly so that diagonal lines
dont have any jaggies
i'm not sure that's correct; a lens that underperforms the sensor should
reduce moire, but a diagonal line projected very sharply onto a sensor
should
I don't have any idea if John's point about diagonal lines is valid or
not, but...
did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on 8mp
cameras?
...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was
answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alias
on 2014-09-11 16:45 Darren Addy wrote
did anyone have problems with jaggies when using very sharp lenses on
8mp cameras?
...i think that this question is irrelevant unless someone was
answering the question with a camera that lacked an anti-alias filter.
I doubt that there were any in 8MP
Thanks for posting. But not a good memory. Didn't see this at the time. I was
on a plane getting ready to take off for Mexico City.
Paul via phone
On Sep 11, 2014, at 5:27 PM, Steve Cottrell co...@seeingeye.tv wrote:
Hi all,
It's that time of year when some of us think back to the
On 9/11/2014 5:36 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I just used LR’s Auto Tone, under Library in the Quick Develop module, for the
first time. Liked the results I got so much I started synchronizing them across
groups of images shot under similar conditions. Am I cheating?
If you're not cheating, you
Oh Cotty - no no no
I look out my window at the twin lights right now - far close than
Amita, you know.
I hide every 9/11 - no TV
They milk it in NY - disgusting
ann
On 9/11/2014 17:27, Steve Cottrell wrote:
Hi all,
It's that time of year when some of us think back to the horrific events
Thank you, Ann.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com wrote:
Nice grab shot!
ann
On 8/6/2014 09:46, Bruce Walker wrote:
Took a trip down to Bronte Harbour in Oakville on Monday to catch a
new musician friend doing a solo matinee gig at a vegan cafe.
I was
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 11, 2014, at 6:11 PM, Bob W-PDML p...@web-options.com wrote:
On 11 Sep 2014, at 14:36, Stanley Halpin s...@stans-photography.info
wrote:
[...]
Log scales can be another useful tool…
My logs weigh more than your logs.
B
--
Ah, but my logs crackle
I agree about the blurry guy. I couldn't figure a way to crop him out in a way
that worked.
Thanks for the comment!
Cheers,
frank
On 7 September, 2014 8:31:11 PM EDT, Ken Waller kwal...@peoplepc.com wrote:
Yep legs, I sure do like legs. especially healthy legs attached to
a
female.
Thanks, Rick, and thanks to everyone else who commented. It was dusk and darker
than I thought. The slow shutter speed worked though. Just one of those
quick-reaction snaps.
Glad you all enjoyed.
:-)
Cheers,
frank
On 9 September, 2014 8:28:33 PM EDT, Rick Womer rickpic...@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting stuff. I think I prefer the more representational stuff but it's
all very interesting.
I think it will look great up on a wall.
Cheers,
frank
On 10 September, 2014 8:53:28 AM EDT, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Images #1-6 from my Mimesis project, a continuing
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No other
organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be removed, including one next
to the aorta. Been sorting this out since she was diagnosed last month. Not
easy, but It’s the hand we were dealt. Prayers and positive
You and your wife are in my thoughts, Paul.
Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com
On September 12, 2014 6:17:48 AM Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No other
organs involved but quite a few
Best wishes to Marlene for a positive outcome, I'm betting that you've
made sure that she's in the best of hands, positive thoughts to
Marlene, you and your family.
On 12 September 2014 13:17, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for
Xlnt!
:-)
Cheers,
frank
On 11 September, 2014 8:54:37 PM EDT, Bruce Walker bruce.wal...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you, Ann.
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Ann Sanfedele ann...@nyc.rr.com
wrote:
Nice grab shot!
ann
On 8/6/2014 09:46, Bruce Walker wrote:
Took a trip down to Bronte
Paul,
We will keep her in our thoughts.
You too.
Hope the surgery goes well.
Bob Lynn
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:17 PM, Paul Stenquist
pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No other
organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be
Paul,
Good luck, and all the best!
Igor
On September 12, 2014 6:17:48 AM Paul Stenquist wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No other
organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be removed, including one
next to the aorta. Been sorting this out
Quoting Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer.
No other organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be
removed, including one next to the aorta. Been sorting this out
since she was diagnosed last month. Not easy, but
A very dynamic image, Frank! Textbook panning and perfect timing on
the shutter button.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:37 PM, knarf knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks, Rick, and thanks to everyone else who commented. It was dusk and
darker than I thought. The slow shutter speed worked though.
Sorry to hear it, as well. Stressful for everyone, I'm sure (to say
the least). Best wishes for coming through with flying colors. We are
with you and Marlene in spirit. Looking forward to your sharing good
news out the other side.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:30 PM, Brian Walters
She couldn't have a better man by her side.
Thoughts with Marlene, Grace and you at this difficult time. Hoping for the
best possible outcome for tomorrow.
All the best,
frank
On 11 September, 2014 11:17:15 PM EDT, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net
wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at
May the peace of the Lord be with you all at this difficult time. You are in
our prayers.
Alan Ann C
-Original Message-
From: Paul Stenquist
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 5:17 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: My Wife, Marlene
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow
On 11/09/2014 9:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No
other organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be removed,
including one next to the aorta. Been sorting this out since she was
diagnosed last month. Not easy, but It’s the
Hi Paul:
Darrel and I send the very best wishes and positive thoughts to Marlene and the
rest of the Stenquist family!
Christine Darrel
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 11, 2014, at 10:17 PM, Paul Stenquist pnstenqu...@comcast.net wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal
on 2014-09-11 21:17 Paul Stenquist wrote
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer.
i'll have Marlene in my thoughts, Paul
--
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
Knowing about this earlier, mine have been in place for a little while
it was good to see the outpouring of support here this evening. It's
hard on you, too, we all know. Glad Marlene has you. Please give her my
love.
ann
On 9/11/2014 23:17, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Marlene is having surgery
I'm seeing pretty impressive results from the K3 coupled with the
Sigma 18-35/1.8 in studio. Editing shots from a session last week from
a pretty loosely shot group portrait of 11 I found some moire in a
small headpiece of fine netting. I'm not sure if the lens is
out-resolving the sensor but it's
All the best to both of you for a positive outcome. May her doctor's
hands be sure and steady.
-p
On 9/11/2014 10:17 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Marlene is having surgery at 10 am tomorrow for colorectal cancer. No other
organs involved but quite a few lymph nodes must be removed, including
Actually resolution unlike sharpness can be objectively measured.
On 9/11/2014 1:26 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
It's obviously all about marketing. Lens resolution is elusive and unique to
each sample, therefore is as high as it's owner decides.
IOW, they will find what they're looking for.
Camera
Not cheating, what ever works is fine.
On 9/11/2014 5:36 PM, Eric Weir wrote:
I just used LR’s Auto Tone, under Library in the Quick Develop module, for the
first time. Liked the results I got so much I started synchronizing them across
groups of images shot under similar conditions. Am I
71 matches
Mail list logo
