The only question hovering in my mind is the following:
If that 22bit thingie is removing so much noise (or not introduing
nois whatever this is not a words discussion) why wouldn't Pentax give
access to ISO 3200 ?? Strange isn't it ?
The 22bit A/D image processor does not change the
Differently put, some of what this 22-bit thingy is about, is probably
that the signal is converted to digital a bit earlier in the sequence,
so as to speak. This does eliminate some sources of noise -
probably not
the most significant ones, but still...
[ ... ]
Certainly an
A consideration:
We must remember that these DSLRs are now just computers and
the longer we hang onto older technology the faster it loses value.
The faster upgrade may be the cheaper way to go.
I rather doubt that it will be cheaper in total. You may loose less each
time you upgrade,
I know you have said that. And of course the qualifier is given the
technology as Rob understands it. It reminds me of the Cal Tech
mathematics PhD who said in the early fifties that a car couldn't
possibly exceed 150 mph from a standing start in a quarter mile.
What's the record
If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless
compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit.
You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50%
compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g.
for
If the K10D produces 11MB 16bit files, this is almost 50% lossless
compression, which would be pretty good indeed! Hopefully it's indeed 16bit.
You may wish to note, though, that in the computer industry, 50%
compression is something that's just assumed in marketing material (e.g.
That's an absurd response. I didn't say Rob MUST be wrong now. I said
he COULD be wrong because his understanding is based on currently
available knowledge and technology. Change is constant. I cited an
example of someone drawing firm conclusions about future advances based
only on the
No, it is not! What he is saying, is that often we think we know the
answers, but we do not really understand the question.
No, I think by bringing up such an example, he does more than saying
that. The argument implied is something like:
1. Rob Studdert makes a prediction about
Tim Øsleby wrote:
And removal of noise _can_ mean improved dynamic range, can't it?
Definitely. The practical dynamic range is considered to be
(full-well-capacity)/(noise). Or rather, that figure expressed in
decibels, but you know what I mean.
The problem is that you can't really remove
as has
been pointed out many times there are perhaps 40,000 photons available
to be counted
Wouldn't the number of photons vary considerably with exposure time
(shutter speed)?
It's also a question of the number of electrons available. When a photon
hits the sensor, its energy
There's really not much market for film scanners anymore, except at
the high end.
I've had a Minolta Scan Dual II since 2000. It's getting a little
long in the tooth and is a little lightly built for ultimate
durability, so I nabbed a used Nikon Coolscan IV ED that I saw
available
In theory I think you could gain 4 stops. One stop is x2 more light, so x2^4
should translate to 4 stops.
That's quite a lot. I don't find the raw files from *istD to lack much
in dynamic range as it is, so an increase of just 2 stops would
probably make me a very happy man.
Nice in theory anyway Of course, in the real world the linearity comes
in to play as you say, but, as discussed previously, theres a point where
sensor noise makes more bits basically meaningless.
Yes, you have to distribute your bits between the noise level and the
saturation
It's been mentioned before, but based on some info Rob Studdert dug up,
I'm lead to believe that there aren't any extra tricks involved in those
22bits. It's probably all about a circuit designed to work with
different types of sensors, that *for internal use* converts the signal
performance.
Well caught lego fans.
Thanks.
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When someone mentioned buying an A70-210 the other day, I decided to
take my own for a spin around the block (it had been far too long...)
Here's some of what it caught:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn
When someone mentioned buying an A70-210 the other day, I decided to
take my own for a spin around the block (it had been far too long...)
Here's some of what it caught:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=lego4
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=lego3
Thanks, Toralf. Glad to read that another is happy with the A70~210's
performance.
What I like even more about this lens, though, is the sheer feel of it.
I think you know what I mean.
Jack
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1732439.htm
I suppose I always feared as I watched his programs, that it would end
up this way.
Sad, though ;-(
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to danger than most people would,
if you know what I mean. It's still a bit strange that it would end up
in exactly this way, though, as it seems to me he's taken greater risks
in the past.
Whether you liked the man or not, I think you have to admire his enthusiasm.
--
Toralf Lund
--
PDML
When someone mentioned buying an A70-210 the other day, I decided to
take my own for a spin around the block (it had been far too long...)
Here's some of what it caught:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=lego4
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=lego3
It strikes me as one more thing that will need to be repaired
someday...probably when parts are no longer available.
When we talk about USM, as Canon term it, it is an Ultrasonic Motor, and not
like a conventional motor.
USM is not Canon's creation and there are many companies making
I have used Canon USM lenses for
several years now and the focus is fast and almost completely silent.
Certainly, outside on a street with the odd car, you will not hear it
all. When I use my wife's *ist Ds, it startles me by comparison.
My original point, though, is that it sort of
On the low-end, AFD was replaceed by the micro-motor drive, which is
faster with small, light lenses but not powerful enough for anything
heavy. It's essentially a small high-speed motor.
It's essentially a normal DC motor with an ironless core, isn't it? (Or
am I referring to
K.Takeshita wrote:
On 9/02/06 9:01 AM, Toralf Lund, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Noise is a different matter, as there is bound to be *some* sound from
the screws and gears.
No, no, and no :-).
It is really silent as no gears involved.
I was referring to the gears of the Pentax AF
K.Takeshita wrote:
On 9/02/06 8:40 AM, Toralf Lund, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both of which can come in packages that are identical to a traditional
DC motor, and could as far as I can tell be used in an in-body motor AF
system - which would cancel out the need for the traditional feedback
Seems to me this all makes it similar in functionality to a traditional
step(per) motor. Technically it is even more closely related to a
piezoelectric motor, although I don't believe it's exactly the same thing.
Both of which can come in packages that are identical to a traditional
DC
I was referring to the gears of the Pentax AF setup...
Yeah, it's really noisy . :-)
Maybe the gears are noisy, but the motor itself is noisy, too...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC.
My point is that an AC frequency can't be ultrasonic since electricity
isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand,
in a way is.
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Toralf Lund wrote:
But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC.
My point is that an AC frequency can't be ultrasonic since electricity
isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand,
in a way is.
- Toralf
Then there are no USM motors by your
Digital Image Studio wrote:
On 01/09/06, Adam Maas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shel,
Stars are very similar to a hot pixel. Very difficult to differentiate.
Unless the camera can tell the difference between an open and closed
shutter of course!
That's where your per-pixel gain
Actually, after thinking about this for a while longer, it occurred to
me that per-pixel gain and offset may be all there is to it. [ ... ]
Being able to sense and apply per-pixel gain will lead to a normalized
output per pixel but it still can't negate thermal and other random
noise
Rob, who admits to having seen a press release, confirmed that it has a
battery grip.
When I searched the web for rumors, I found continued reference to
extended dynamic range and advanced noise reduction. Both of these are
apparently detailed in patents filed by Pentax. They also seem
mike wilson wrote:
From: K.Takeshita [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2006/08/31 Thu PM 01:56:06 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: K10D Facts and speculations v2
On 8/31/06 9:39 AM, Jostein Øksne, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then came all the observations of powerzoom
Hmmm. This has been discussed to great length before, but unless they
have done something radical in other stages, the sensor itself doesn't
have a dynamic range anywhere near the one associated with a 22-bit A/D
converter, so why would they do that?
The likey ADC/pre-processor has a
Check the 'ordered m K10 today'. Rob is dropping heavy hints (about
weather sealing, mainly), and someone called 'gerasimov' from Bulgaria
posted a credible list of features containing a 22 bit A/D coverter. That
could be Aaron's 67-ditching feature...
Hmmm. This has been
http://www.nucoretech.com/nu3/images/80_downloads/pb_ndx2240.us.pdf#search=%22pb_ndx2240.us.pdf%22
It doesn't explain how the job is done, though.
Actually, after thinking about this for a while longer, it occurred to
me that per-pixel gain and offset may be all there is to it. Such
Does it matter how it's done if it works properly and seamlessly?
It matters in the sense that when some people talk about noise
reduction, they actually mean removal of artifacts that is *assumed* to
be caused by noise - but that may in reality represent, say, the stars
in a photo of the
And I don't understand why they call this an analog image processor,
either, since the block diagram indicates is done after an ADC stage...
Typing fast, thinking slow - again. What I meant to say was that the
most of the processing is done after the ADC.
- Toralf
--
PDML
But, IMHO, removing stars from the night sky implies the feature isn't
working properly.
The point is that the same feature might work under other conditions
in that it would make different kinds of pictures look nicer, but some
of that nice look would still be based on the camera's
Rob Brigham's post refers a whole host of features. I'd say 3 fps move
back to facts section, based on that. 22 bit A/D has been referred
by both Robs, and with a link to technology that makes it plausible.
I'd say that goes up too.
As discussed in the context of that link, that may not
Wrong again my friend.
How to get faster horses, younger women, older whiskey, and more money? is
the question. The answer to everything is 42.
So you know the answer *and* the question?
I'm really scared of what is about to happen...
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Jon Myers wrote:
I'm curious, what have I missed regarding the K10D
that spurred this statement? Will it have better
compatibility with the K and M series lenses?
Have we speculated yet that it will get the old aperture coupling back?
Surely we can't have left that one out...
But I think
Yet another post that misses the most important point.
Those two additional contacts are *power* contacts. That's all.
There's no signalling going on over those contacts, so there's no
need to play games with polarities, pulse modulation, or the like.
They are there solely to provide
As I asked elsewhere, would there necessarily be any extra circuitry in
the lens? Or any need for additional signals? [ ... ]
USM, at least as implemented elsewhere, uses a stepper-type motor which
is controlled by in-lens circuitry, not the camera body.
Sort of what I
John Celio wrote:
We have less than two weeks before all questions about the new Pentax camera
will be answered. My question for you is, what's the point of all this wild
speculation?
It's only two weeks left. We have to hurry in order to get all the
speculation done before it is to
I thought it was time to risk revealing my utter and complete ignorance
again, now - in reference to the recent speculation about, shall we say,
in-lens step-motor support on the new Pentax(es).
The thing is, I've always been wondering if the placing of the motor is
really such a big deal. It
New fun then starts. There will be the fun of pentax bashing, discussions
about the value of features, arguments about what and what is not
acceptable, messages about ergonomics, battery life, a new series of wish
list postings, hundreds of test images posted, many too small to determine
[Regardless of future technological developments, cameras with full-
frame sensors will always cost much more than [ ... ]
(Interestingly, the APS-H sensor of the EOS-1D MarkII N is the largest
size that can be imaged in one shot onto a wafer. [ ... ] ]
OK, obviously, they are trying to
Really? *Someone* provided some info *somewhere* in the context of the
release of the Canon 5D that suggested it had actually narrowed quite
a
bit since the release of the 1Ds, and that there was also a lot more
room for improvement. I think it said that the yield was up from 10%
to
25%
I also saw an article just a couple of days ago, stating that the cost
of FF sensor is 10 to 20 times larger than that of APS sized one and
it won't narrow. But I have a bad habit of not bookmarking. Maybe I
read it somewhere in this white paper. I will take a time to read it
more in
But the article went on to say (or perhaps began by saying) that it used
to be worse - around the time of the introduction of the first 1Ds only
5 to 10 of the 80 units would be usable. I don't know enough about IC
production to know for sure how Canon has managed to reduce the number
of
That is the way a camera should work.
A reasonable amount of people seem to agree with this, but apparently
Cosina is the only company these days that think they can turn this
feeling into camera sales... Oh, and Leica, I guess, but as others have
pointed out, it may look like they have given
John Forbes wrote:
What on earth difference does it make which button you use? One button is
as good as another, surely.
I think he's annoyed mainly with the fact that he has to press one
specific button, not so much that this button happens to be the shutter.
It's not a question of
Doug, your getting like me, you spelt Canon wrong.
You mean, the correct spelling is Can*n?
- T
vbg
Dave
Quoting Douglas Newman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Here is a good (English) K100D review from Slovenia:
http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_1154.shtml
A very
I was going to ask what a N*kon is.
We should make it ***on in both cases. As in on my ***on 20D I have
to press the shutter button to wake the camera up, unlike on the ***on
D70, where any button may be used.
- T
Sorry Doug:-)
Dave
BTW i'm pretty sure you need to press the shutter
There are of course a couple of other companies that still market
all-mechanical bodies, but it seems like they are all manufactured (and
partly designed) by Cosina. Or does anyone know an exception?
Pentax should re-introduce the MX...
- Toralf
There's also a Chinese company
If the problem is the sensor, there is not much you can do about it with
lens design.
However, since SLR UWA lenses are extreme retrofocus lenses the light
coming out the back side is not at the extreme angles that it is from a
normal UWA.
But it's still more extreme than with longer
By the same token, though, the strongest desire for full frame sensors comes
from those with older wide angle lenses that they wish to use at their
originally intended angle of view.
I don't think I've ever seen a complaint that went I'm mad because my 200
2.8 acts like a 300 2.8.
So
Also, don't you get the same kind of problems with a e.g. DX-size (!)
sensor and a lens that's sufficiently wider to give an equivalent
field-of-view?
Not if your lens design for the digital sensor is formulated to
correct the ray trace so as to make the edge/corner rays more
Usually color makes a bad place look better, but
not this place, it still looks like a prison. I chose BW because I was
attempting a gritty old time newspaper look.
After reading the posts where some other people said the place didn't
look *that* bad (can't decide if I agree with them
I really don't get what's being said here -- old,
film optimized lenses perform well on the full frame
Canons, as evidenced by the L series?
Define well ;-).
Even the best film-optimized Canon glass cannot take
advantage of the full-frame sensors. In particular,
edge performance on
Tom C wrote:
I suspect they will gain more in sales of bodies and systems across the
board than they would lose on the relatively fewer sales of high-margin IS
lenses.
If they don't take this route they will be making a major marketing faux-pas
which will benefit all other DLSR mfrs. with
I haven't shot the K100D, but I have used the DL, DS, D and the Rebel.
Ergonomically, the Pentax's are far better. More comfortable to shoot
with, far better viewfinder, better control layout. And the Pentax 18-55
is a significantly better lens than the Canon 18-55, with better build,
I currently shoot ME Super with 35-105 f/3.5 and 70-210 f/4 but would
rather move
to auto-focus since I not too sure if I can use MF lenses without any
manual focus assist on the K100D.
Surely, the K100D has manual focus assist, too? OK, it doesn't come with
a split-image screen or
Just guess it. Some of us has.
Otherwise the game will not end before the specifications of the K10D are
finally revealed by Pentax.
I thought it was quite entertaining and fun - one of the best threads in a
long time. So many creative answers!
Afterall, ir's not that many features that
Funny, one of the reasons I don't like dual-wheel controls is that you
have to take your finger off teh shutter. I can hold the camera quite
firmly in my left hand while still turinging the aperture ring.
That's fine until you try it with a long telephoto lens, especially if
you're
My guess is that the mount will be fully backwards compatible - eg no
green button kludge.
Why would I sell my 67 for that?
Honestly, people -- WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF A 6x7?? There really
are not that many.
No grain/noise
Yes. Maybe he thinks (application of)
hmmm...
This guessing game is more about which features Aaron treasure most in
his 67, than it is about new features in the K10D.
My interpretation of the patent link Dag posted is that it looks like
a way to reek out noise produced by the sensor, in such a way that it
could be
Colder.
-Aaron
You mean, No grain/noise is close, but (reduction of) sensor noise
isn't. You are confusing me. (But that's the fun part of all this, I'm
sure ;-))
-Original Message-
From: David Savage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj: Re: Holy Crap -- Pentax 10MP body
Date: Wed
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
I think that current digital SLR images are well below the quality of 67. I
do not know anything about that patent at all. I did not bring that patent
up.
I know you didn't, but there are also speculations about noise
reduction hardware floating about, that may or
Mark Roberts wrote:
DagT wrote:
In my view the reduced noise is equivalent to increase dynamic range.
Not necessarily equivalent, but reduced noise certainly could be the
*result* of increased dynamic range: Increased bit depth could
conceivably facilitate the use of more
A new super-sensor would be great but it does not seem to fulfill the seer's
vision of Mid-September ...forehead-slapping amongst the competition in
the DSLR world. nor does it fit with ...not a single DSLR out there
at any price, including ones using the same sensor, have it. This
I understand that it's something you have on your 67 but never got on
any digital SLR, could you tell if it is something that *IS* available
on 35mm SLR (Pentax or other)?
IS is available on some Canon lenses, and others (by another name);-)
Funny, I can remember a time when
Cotty wrote:
On 15/8/06, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
No, I still think it's a gimmick. And if it isn't, it might actually
allow morons who can't even hold their camera still, to take sharp
pictures, which would be even worse. But you'll never see me cheat like
Bob Shell wrote:
On Aug 15, 2006, at 4:05 PM, Cotty wrote:
S is available on some Canon lenses, and others (by another
name);-)
Funny, I can remember a time when just about every listmember here
poo-
pooed image stabilisation, decrying it as an unnecessary gimmick.
Now it
to the contrary. If Pentax comes out with (and actually delivers to
consumers) a 35mm-type dSLR in the next couple years that has a sensor
larger than what is in their current line, I'll print out and eat this
email.
Headers and all? :)
Seriously though... I don't
John Celio wrote:
Does it bother anyone else that the K1D may shortly follow? Of course I
wouldn't absolutely need it, but for just a few hundred more and with
that larger sensor, etc..etc..
What bothers me is where you got that crazy idea. There is no such thing as
a K1D, and even
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
No, I'm with you too.
If a larger sensor 35mm style camera were coming from Pentax, their
new lenses would be rendered useless. Why would they do that to
themselves?
And encourage us to buy new lenses? Gosh, no!
After getting pissed on for
P. J. Alling wrote:
[ ... ] Rob Studdert did a masterful
analysis of why noise levels would increase as sensor densities
increased a couple of years ago. Maybe he'll repost it.
I'm not Rob, but...
It's really very simple: When the sensor elements get smaller, obviously
less light will hit
Toralf Lund wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
[ ... ] Rob Studdert did a masterful
analysis of why noise levels would increase as sensor densities
increased a couple of years ago. Maybe he'll repost it.
I'm not Rob, but...
It's really very simple: When the sensor elements get smaller
An exception was made for Toralf (who didn't request comments)
I think maybe I intended to request comments, but apparently I was a bit
too quick when I posted the pic, so I submitted an incomplete form. (I
even left out the camera type, but Adelheid was good enough to email me
and ask,
Don Sanderson wrote:
Thank you Adelheid, lovely arrangement.
One of the nicest PUGs I've seen since joining the PDML.
A number of the photos are as beautiful as any I've seen anywhere.
Only one comment for right now;
Toralf, don't be self-conscious, it's wonderful!
Thank you, thank you.
AvK wrote:
Hi folks,
The August PUG is open. A bit late due to last minute adjustments.
It can be viewed at http://pug.komkon.org
Have fun. It is very nice PUG this time. Thanks to all contributors i
appreciate the efforts to submit very much. :-)
Well, thanks a lot to you, too.
I
Toralf -- Love this one! Certainly a favourite.
Thanks!
The folded jacket
(or whatever) is a bit of a distraction. Perhaps looking down a
little more to show more of the castle would be nice?
Yeah, maybe. Not sure now if I was unable to find another/better angle
or if I just didn't
roadway/walkway doesn't add, but not a real problem for
me.
Good. Not sure if I could have done anything about it...
- Toralf
Jack
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I said something about PESOs, didn't I? Well, here is one:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=plenen
This shot just brings to mind a voodoo doll just made and ready to be
used. The other strange thought that came to me was Marvin the
Martian.
Maybe. You have good imagination, I think (which is a Good Thing)...
I also like the picture. Nice light.
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
I really just
stopped to check out what was going on with the sunlight.
Always felt guilty for having such luck.
Always inviting comments.
I rather like the sky in this one. The contrast between the blue and
grey, and the way the clouds have a certain depth. And also the
reflections in
Just what the subject says. For anyone interested look under Pentax
Digital Finder accessories.
I think we've discussed this gadget here before. I like the idea
somewhat, but it costs more than I'm willing to pay. I once thought
about building my own variant based on a broken digicam. I'm
Hello Toralf,
I can see what you mean about the expression. It does seem to kind of
hang on to you and make you keep looking. Almost like you are trying
to see what she is seeing/thinking. I like this one in BW. Thanks
for sharing.
Glad you like it. Thanks.
- Toralf
--
PDML
I said something about PESOs, didn't I? Well, here is one:
http://www.toralf.net/bilde.php?navn=plenen
There was just *something* about her expression... Not sure if I managed
to capture it, as usual.
Comments welcome.
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Nice!
This was taken as the egrets flew off. I had to crop it a fair bit as
I didn't have enough reach with the 400mm.
Pentax *istD, Tokina AT-X SD 400/5.6, handheld, manual focus
ISO 200, 1/1500 sec @ f/8.0
http://www.daytonphoto.com/PAW/bkd_3187a.htm
Comments welcome.
--
PDML
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Bruce, Peter, Jack, Mark, ...
You guys have got to stop it!
I promise I'll post some more, so as to lower the standard a bit ;-/
The batches of PESO's the last several days has been very troubling.
Every time I get close to producing PESO quality images,
you guys move
Great shot. A Holga no doubt.
Thanks.
Right you are. I just had to get one of those, after I came across some
Holga enthusiasts' web pages last year. These really put a smile on my
face, in fact I'm pretty much smiling still ;-)
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
... 'cause you are a bird!
(who cares that you can't fly?!)
http://www.komkon.org/~igor/PHOTOS/CentralCoastCA/IMGP3490sm.jpg
Like someone else said: Definitely not your average bird shot. I
rather like it.
- Toralf
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Well, that translates to about US$320. Last new prices I saw on this
scanner at BH Photo was about $265. They are now listing refurbished
units for $189 but are out of stock.
Right. $265 + shipping + tax would be quite a bit more than $320 (or
equivalent.) With a base price of $189,
I'm actually rather pleased with this:
http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildegalleri/vis_bilde.cgi?id=247312
- But maybe you have to consider the type of equipment used. A hint is
in the subject line ;-)
(Pictures not from a Pentax is all right for PESO, aren't they?)
- Toralf
--
PDML
I was just offered to buy a demo-used Minolta Scan Dual IV for NOK
(Norwegian Kroner) 1990, which I think sounded reasonable based on the
new price around here (actually, I don't know exactly what that is/was,
but definitely well over NOK3000.) However, apparently I was not in the
impulsive
Did some of you film lovers out there just say that the Realia 100 was a
really good film? I've never used it myself, but today I bought a pack
of 10 (and I don't take *that* many pictures), so I certainly hope so...
Did I ever tell you how much I like film, by the way? I mean, I've
certainly
This looks interesting, a new Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro lens:
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/press_release_email5.htm
No aperture ring, so only of interest to Z1-p, etc. users.
Well, from my photography teaching experience I can (sadly) report
that the vast majority of users
Did some of you film lovers out there just say that the Realia 100 was a
Minor typo, there, or rather reado, if you know what I mean ;-) (I've
seen references to this film only a few times in the past, and have
somehow always read the name as Realia), but I'm sure you all know
understood
501 - 600 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
