On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 07:50:16AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> . . .
> I'm going to really try to hook up with my friend who teaches at RIT.
Mentioning that in public could raise a few eyebrows ...
Just another example of how a perfectly innocent phrase changes
meaning with changing generations
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 12:40:47PM -0400, Daniel J. Matyola wrote:
> Try to take a picture of that famous bridge they claim to have up
> there. Every time I tried to photograph it, all I saw was fog and more fog.
That's not necessarily a bad thing:
http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 10:53:55PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
> I'll agree. The 28-105 4.5-5.6 PZ is a nice sharp lens. I loved it
> when I was shooting film & I still like the results.
>
> It's fairly heavy, but that doesn't bother me as much as it does others.
It doesn't bother me one whit, for
On Fri, Aug 19, 2005 at 09:05:43PM +0100, Cotty wrote:
> On 19/8/05, John Francis, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >
> >That's not necessarily a bad thing:
> >
> >http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/muir12.jpg>
>
> Thanks for posting th
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 04:42:33PM +0100, Malcolm Smith wrote:
> Best place to buy used gear? Right here on PDML; of the used equipment I
> have got via shops or eBay or here, the most reliable and honestly
> advertised items were mentioned for sale right here.
Despite personal experience (the on
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 07:54:51PM -0500, Don Sanderson wrote:
> 95%/.95, 8 frame burst, B&W filter, under $800WooHoo! ;-)
>
> Don
Surely that's just the same as the original DS?
Personally I'm more interested in the other announcements - the
12-24 will ship in October, and there'll be
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 08:54:53AM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> Charles Robinson wrote:
>
> >Looks like the only difference in the DS2 from the DS is the larger
> >screen. STILL has the annoying "continuous autofocus only in 'action
> >mode'" restriction.
>
> Luckily, it's not so. Quoting the
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 01:06:14PM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Dario Bonazza wrote:
>
> >Of course, we'd like something better. The new AF540FGZ flash can make our
> >good hopes grow...
>
> I was quite pleased with the announcement. But it looks very bad to me
> co
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 06:00:10AM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> True. It is a plus for Pentax in some ways. I'm just mildly
> disappointed that this wasn't the upgrade announcement many of us have
> been waiting for. Still, I'm doing fine with the D and can continue in
> that fashion indefini
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 09:23:17AM +0200, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
> John Francis wrote on 22.08.05 4:53:
>
> > Personally I'm more interested in the other announcements - the
> > 12-24 will ship in October, and there'll be a new flash with the
> > power of
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:12:39PM -0400, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Another thread mentions the new 5D from Canon, a FF DSLR for $3300 USD.
> Does anyone here really believe that Pentax can support a body that
> expensive for its 35 mm lenses? Most of the Pentax users interested in
> something th
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 07:26:57PM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, John Francis wrote:
>
> >For me - I don't *want* the Dn too early; it will be bad enough trying
> >to get a new flash as well as the 12-24.
>
> Out of curiosity, were you u
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:58:32AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> The greatest likelihood, if you're using NiMH batteries, is that they
> are unable to sustain the power demanded by the transfer
> consistently. NiMH batteries seem to be best at modest duration
> bursts on power delivery. Pe
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:29:44PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Aug 22, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Dave Kennedy wrote:
>
> >I guess a more generic question is :
> >Is the DA50-200 designed to complement the 16-45 or the 18-55?
> >Price-wise it looks like the 18-55, but I'm wondering in terms of
> >p
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:16:30PM +0100, Cotty wrote:
> On 22/8/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment,
> >writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you
> >have any suggestions?
>
> H. H
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:47:47AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> What's the reality of getting 10 years of use from now current Pentax DSLR?
I would expect my *ist-D to still be capable of delivering images
in ten years time. The question is more whether I'll be asking it
to do so.
Digital
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:15:00AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> An exposure every 12 seconds or so doesn't seem like much thought went into
> composition or framing ...
Once again, a rather disparaging put-down of alternative shooting styles.
For many of us who shoot motorsports, dog shows, hor
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 07:16:02PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I think what Herb said will work, but set white-balance manually
> BEFORE you fit the filter. Processing the image could be tricky...
> I've never tried that technique but anything can work.
>
> However, when you are intending
On Fri, Aug 26, 2005 at 09:07:20AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, as in "death throws".
>
> Sorry, I was being pedantic. It's "death throes".
I'm glad somebody eventually pointed this out; it's been
quietly bugging me every time I see the subject li
I wouldn't say it's got to "many" yet - I'd expect only a handful of
digital projectors (there's currently just one in San Jose). If you
read the fine print carefully on all those other 'digital' cinemas
you'll find it's really digital sound on a standard projector.
But there _is_ a compelling r
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:15:50PM -0400, Adam Maas wrote:
>
> Is it bad that it took me less than 30 seconds to figure out the watch
> is set to 2:52?
That's pretty bad, yes. It took me about 3 seconds.
On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 12:03:54PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> BTW, what's the widest lens currently available for this camera, Pentax or
> otherwise? No need to mention the new Penatx 12~24 zoom.
Obviously the Pentax DA 14mm is a fairly wide option.
As a matter of interest, what's wrong wi
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 08:10:37PM +0800, David Savage wrote:
> I suspect this guy is a frustrated plastic surgeon. Lotsa' boob jobs,
> tummy tucks & butt lifts.
>
> A good example of not getting it as right as possible "in camera",
That was my first impression - on a lot of those original shots
So let me get this right - you'll risk losing a shot, and/or having
a $1000 item misbehave, to protect your $10 investment in batteries?
I'll swap batteries as soon as the low battery indicator comes on
reliably (not just the spurious low indication you can sometimes get
when auto-focussing at t
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 11:15:51PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> The difference is that the 30-50% gains with the automated tools
> might mean more value for large bodies of code, where the number of
> code sections that can be optimized to the maximum extent by hand
> tend to be a lot
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:33:17AM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> Discussing batteries and chargers . . .
>
> The batteries are supposed to stay in the charger only for their recharge
> cycle (with or without trickle charge depending on the urgence of using
> them).
Not if you have a smart enoug
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 08:24:32AM +, mike wilson wrote:
>
> >
> > From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> > I liked the Synchronicity themes of the past as well.
> >
>
> Seconded.
I guess it's time for me to repeat that I think the synchronicity
them is one of the worst. It puts all
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 08:19:16PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
I used it when it was free for up to 100 images, but even
then only if I was making a medium-to-high resolution image
available - I didn't bother with it for 800x600 pixel images.
> Digimarc costs a lot of money and isn't very effective
I hate to suggest the obvious, but:
Both the operations that are causing problems (image deletion
and card formatting) are destructive operations. That being
so, the dialog that comes up requiring you to press the 'OK'
button has the default action set to cancel out of the whole
operation. If y
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 10:36:43AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> If the initial settings screen is coming up, that means the camera
> has not yet been initialized with date and time information.
Or that it's lost it. Is there a button battery for this stuff?
If so, maybe it's defective.
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 02:51:34PM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> I flew out to Baltimore several weeks ago to do the photography for my
> niece's wedding. This is one of the shots from an outdoor bridal
> portrait session.
>
> Pentax *istD, A 70-210/4, handheld
> ISO 200, 1/180 sec @ f/5.6
>
> ht
It's not that hard - send me a JPEG (lowest quality, lo-res should work)
to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and I'll tell you how many shutter cycles are shown.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 12:03:20AM -0400, R.C.Booth wrote:
> Yes it was - in the box with all of the extra pieces, even a couple of
> lithium batter
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 09:32:39AM -0400, Tom Reese wrote:
> > have you ever used this Teleconverter?
> > Have you some comments?
>
> In my experience, it doesn't work well with long lenses because it has a
> limited focusing range. The instructions are to set the lens at infinity
> then allow the
It's in the Pentax private data in the MakerNote tag.
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:08:59AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Hi John care to explain how that's done?
>
> Shel
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: John Francis
>
> > It's not
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 07:29:44AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote:
>
> I love using the "D", except the buffer is too small (make five shots, then
> wait 30-40 seconds :-(
> AF is too slow for some occations. It's not a camera for sports photography.
> For that you'll need 8 4-8 FPS, a larger buffer and
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 06:07:37PM +0200, Dario Bonazza wrote:
> Isn'it it possible that a large rear element force rays perpendicular to
> the sensor? This will allow a better image on the sensor and if such an
> element is part of the lens design, it won't affect lens performance.
No. To a fi
That may be true strictly for photo editing. But from all I hear
the raw converter in CS2 is greatly superior to that in CS
(I didn't see any good prices on CS, apart from one dubious deal
that offered only the CD and a serial number)
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 08:05:50AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wr
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:30:25AM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
> Looks like Mikey's calling it quits on the SMP articles..
You won't be seeing anything from him on the dpreview site, either ..
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:25:14PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> No reason given? Perhaps just too much work?
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 3:47 PM, John Francis wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 11:30:25AM -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
> >>Looks like Mikey's calling
Let me speak up for number 2. I much prefer the facial expression.
On Sun, Sep 11, 2005 at 04:23:10PM -0400, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I agree. The first one is the best, but both are keepers. You have a
> beautiful daughter.
> Paul
> On Sep 11, 2005, at 3:19 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >I
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 08:39:22AM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote:
>
> Current possible attendees:
> . . .
> John Francis
Funny - I don't remember signing up :-)
As it turns out, the chances of my showing up just increased
significantly (especially since somebody mentioned
nce to recent reports that Dpreview is somehow
> supported by Canon?
>
> Shel
> "Am I paranoid or perceptive?"
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: John Francis
> > > >>Looks like Mikey's calling it quits on the SMP articles..
> > &
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 09:16:42AM -0700, keith_w wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> >On Sep 12, 2005, at 1:42 AM, mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >>>A "large parallel cylinder of light" is the same thing as light
> >>>coming from an infinitely distant point source. Consider light from
> >>>the sun: al
On Mon, Sep 12, 2005 at 04:49:37PM -0500, Gonz wrote:
> Email might be a problem. I think it would probably exceed my
> provider's limits. But FTP would probably be an option. I dont have
> any idea how big it would be zipped however. Its in netscape mail
> format, so I don't know how easy i
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 07:54:21AM +0200, Jens Bladt wrote:
> I have been using Skype for a couple of years - free telephone calls over
> the internet.
> Now ebay.com bought Skype from Janus Friis - the 29 years old Danish guy,
> who invented and developed Skype.
> The price tag was 25 billion kron
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 01:57:25PM +0100, Cotty wrote:
> On 13/9/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >Sorry, I still don't understand the game. However, what I really like
> >is that they all look so smashing, dressed in white and all. I
> >remember when they dressed in white fo
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:43:42AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/12/2005 6:39:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> OTOH, Kodachrome is certain to be one of the fastest ones to be
> discontinued. niche product in an already niche market. slide film ac
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 12:45:46PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> LONG URL's: Perhaps those posting messages with long URL's can use Tiny
> Url to shorten these addresses Please: http://tinyurl.com/
Only if you also include the original URL.
> BOTTOM POSTING: many listers post their rep
On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 10:59:10PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
> doubling the number of frames ought to reduce the noise by a factor of 2
Sqrt(2), shirley?
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:10:42AM +0200, Peter Lacus wrote:
>
> Silicon Valley Tour - we'd like to see some of the most important
> computer companies, namely Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems,
> Hewlett-Packard and of course Palo Alto Research Center where all this
> began. Yes indeed, we are
; adds about 1 bit of resolution.
>
> Herb
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2005 11:16 PM
> Subject: Re: What Ever Happened to Chrome? was: Being There
>
>
> >On Tue
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:32:51PM -0400, Tom Reese wrote:
> > Well, if we were reading one post your idea would make sense. But we are
> reading a lot of posts
> > (sorted by subject and thread in a mail reader). That means that we are
> following the thread and have
> > some idea of what is going
es the SNR by 1 bit assuming that
> there is only thermal noise and that noise temperature remains constant
> across samples. what measure you use for SNR determines by what factor the
> number increases.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -
> From: "John Francis"
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:51:19PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> For what are the Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction sliders on
> the Detail tab used?
Would you believe Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction respectively?
Basically one is noise reduction (or smoothing) in the l
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 05:15:43PM +1200, David Mann wrote:
> On Sep 15, 2005, at 12:29 AM, frank theriault wrote:
>
> >Watching fishing on TV is about as interesting as watching poker on
> >the tube (how does poker end up on sports channels, anyway - cards is
> >a sport?).
>
> Poker?!? And I th
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:33:24AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> When I first got the camera, John Celio showed me how to set the focus
> point, so now the camera is set properly to use only the center focus
> point. However, the problem of oof is eveident with MF lenses.
With MF lenses you'r
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 07:38:31PM +0100, Robert Whitehouse wrote:
> Godfrey, Paul,
>
> Many thanks for the advice - This has given me a good starting point.
>
> It is all very well people saying that using Raw mode gives better control
> of the final image - but if you don't know what you are do
No it doesn't. For someone as precise as you, Shel, I'm more than
a little astonished that you continue to mis-use 'begs the question'.
To "beg a question" is to side-step it, and to assume the answer;
to ignore the fact that there possibly might be a question there.
It doesn't mean "calls for
On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 03:09:29PM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Sep 16, 2005, at 2:19 PM, Christian wrote:
>
> >.. Film cameras never had such minor changes done over their
> >lifespans. ..
>
> Actually, a lot of film cameras did but the manufacturers never used
> to ballyhoo every
If I come along to the NorCal PDML gathering, I can bring both
an A50/f1.7 and an A50/f1.4 along for you to play with.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 08:52:40AM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Ahh ... good point. No need to be too concerned about the aperture ring
> when used inthe DS, which is why I wa
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:20:04PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>
>(apologys to all the
> PZ/Z1-p lovers out there, but it was feature wise out classed by
> everyone else, when features began to matter more than performance).
>
>
That's n
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:08:50AM -0400, Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> >Its done for convenience. You can see your shutter speed real time and
> >can make adjustments if its too fast/slow. Pentax could have had a
> >pseudo-AE mode if they wanted to with just one press of the green button
> >per ape
You think that would be an improvement. I don't.
If I put the camera in manual exposure mode, the it
changes the exposure settings when *I* say so, not
when it measures a change in the light. That's what
auto-exposure modes are for.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:46:13AM -0500, Gonz wrote:
> See m
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:53:20AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Answering myself, it's because digital lenses have some "coating" that
> >puts them "in a class of their own". So that's all cobblers, then.
>
>
> You've worked it out, then?
Odd - I th
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:19:54AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Brian,
>
> A killfile is a beautiful thing :)
>
> Seriously - unlike Godfrey, I *do* maintain a real killfile. Not to
> "punish" anyone or ignore differing opinions, but because this list
> generates more traffic than I have time to
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 11:14:16AM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> When the ist-D first appeared there was near-unanimous agreement that
> backwards compatibility was unacceptable.
That's a bit of an exaggeration. Even then, there were a significant
number of people for whom it wasn't an issue.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:23:05PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/19/2005 12:05:48 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I (sort of) agree with Cotty on this one. I think Pentax would have
> gladly abandoned the old lenses but realized that they didn't ha
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 12:30:07PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Cool - hope you can make it, regardless of the lenses. Your presence
> always adds a little something to these meetings.
>
> Shel
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: John Francis
> >
> > If I c
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 09:30:13PM -0700, John Celio wrote:
> >JCO is one of the old timers here.
>
> So that gives him the right to drive the rest of us bonkers?
>
> John Celio
He's a one-note fiddle. We've all heard everything he has to say
(over and over and over again). Just ignore him.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:37:59AM -0400, Christian wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >I am only responding to these lame
> >attempts to somehow "prove" that Pentax's
> >decision **wasn't*** a screwing of not just
> >me but millions of othe
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 03:50:01AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/19/2005 4:38:31 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Several people have recommended IrfanView. They're right :-)
> Lots of other free stuff out there, too:
> http://www.robertstech.com/pix
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 07:52:50PM +0200, Lucas Rijnders wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 19:34:16 +0200, Ronald Arvidsson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The internal buffer memeory thats probably something really good to have
> >upgraded. Like certain PDA's that some people soldered some extra
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:41:22AM -0500, Charles Robinson wrote:
> I'm looking for something that may not exist.
>
> Back "in my film days" when I shot a lot of concerts, I was quite
> fond of my 135mm f2.5 zoom. Not the sharpest lens on the planet, but
> the combination of reach and speed s
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 03:33:38PM -0500, Charles Robinson wrote:
> On Sep 20, 2005, at 13:51, John Francis wrote:
> >
> >How about the M 40-80/f2.8-f4 zoom?
> >
> >Not a stellar optical performer, but a useful focal length range.
> >
>
> My Dad actually
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:35:13PM +0100, John Forbes wrote:
>
> If you were to devise, say, a simple spreadsheet template, you could
> easily delegate list compilation to people in different states/countries.
Surely this is a task crying out for a web-based form?
Oh, yes - I'm interested. Bu
Not in my inbox he doesn't ...
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 08:03:26PM -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
> JCO counts for at least 20 of us by message volume.
>
> Herb...
> - Original Message -----
> From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To:
> Sent: Tue
It is, of course, incorrect to say the Amish don't have electricity.
What they do not have is an electricity distribution system, and
they don't use electricity if something else (such as compressed
air - a common power source) can do the job.
Some Amish do even have computers - often powered by
Nope - that's just stereotyping. The Amish aren't anti-technology;
they just evaluate any new technology before possibly using it.
Cell phones can be found in (some) Amish communities.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 12:23:12AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> The Amish, have Cell Phones? I think that's l
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 07:51:03PM -0500, Don Sanderson wrote:
> Hi John, I like your ideas.
> The one thing that I feel is a must is that we all
> decide the what, when, who and where via a common
> consensus (vote).
> We need one person ultimately responsible for the
> final format.
> If all of u
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:44:11PM +0200, Frantisek wrote:
> JF> On a slightly different note - what (if anything) do people use
> JF> as a quick image viewer on a Pocket PC? I wanted to take an old
> JF> shot with me when I went along to a book signing (this image)
>
> Short, there is XNView Poc
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 08:19:27AM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, John Francis wrote:
>
> >[how many cameras have you bought in the last 10 years?] ...
>
> New, I suppose?
>
> While I respect your opinion, I am not sure how you would expolit
&
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 03:28:40PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
> >
> I still want to take the "image" view on this, though (surely image is
> more important to photo companies than most others ;-)) The question is
> not (only) if people actually want to use these old lenses, but how the
> lens com
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 05:23:24PM +0100, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005, John Francis wrote:
>
> >Somebody who has bought five new cameras in the last decade is
> >more likely to buy another one than somebody who hasn't bought
> >a single one.
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 09:11:47AM -0600, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Tom Reese"
> Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request)
>
>
> >
> >
> >How about a shoe mounted external radar unit for autofocusing? How cool
> >would that be?
>
> How about
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 11:00:50PM +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> People on this list have expressed doubts about whether anyone can
> deliver the FA50/1.4. It certainly leaves a hole if it's gone...
B&H were reported to have them in stoch at present.
Remember last time we were discussing batteries, when I mentioned
that the set of Energiser 2500s in my camera were still indicating
full charge, even though they were last charged at the end of July?
Well, I *still* haven't recharged them, and they still show full.
I hink it's safe to say that t
On Wed, Sep 21, 2005 at 02:55:20PM -0400, Marnie wrote:
>
> That's weird. I thought the Amish kept their kids from the world (temptation
> and all that, but not wanting them to go AWOL). Obviously movies etc. have
> portrayed them inaccurately.
Now *there's* a surprise! Hollywood portrayals tha
Oh, they can afford to lose a sale; it costs them far less
than trying to please everybody.
Let's face it - we've seen some feature-lists here that are
never going to show up on a $2000 body in the next 3 years
(and even some that will never show up on a camera aimed at
any market Pentax stand a
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:46:52AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In a message dated 9/22/2005 8:41:34 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> They should, they can't afford to lose a sale.
> ===
> I really hope the petition does some good. And, actually, I agree with yo
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 11:30:16AM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Seems the it was shot using aperture priority...
>
> EXIF info as per IrfanView on the first file
. . .
> ExposureProgram - Shutter priority
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:32:31PM +0200, Jostein wrote:
>
> I certainly was around before Doug took over the list. I remember the first
> beginnings of PUG, when Dick Graham and others advocated it. I also remember
> all the positive hum on the list when the MZ-5 was released. And all the
> bitch
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 08:57:23AM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
>
> Yeah, so I've heard. Tallest mountain I've ever been up or even seen
> is Mt. Washington in New Hampshire, which may be only a couple of
> hundred feet taller than GFM, but is fun to drive up
It's a lot less fun now that they p
Oooh, look - Insults!
I guess this means you're still in the denial stage.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:13:16PM -0400, P. J. Alling wrote:
> You're just as much a broken record as JCO. (I can't think of anything
> worse I could say about it).
>
> John Francis wrote:
While I suspect that in this case you are right,
it's quite possible that replacing four or five
mechanical switches with a single multi-function
switch might improve reliability. But to do that
you'd have to use a better multi-fuction switch,
and I don't see the extra expense being put in
on som
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 12:46:53AM -0700, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> Shout out if you're not on this list and would like to be!
>
> Current possible attendees:
> John Francis
+ guest
(either we both show up, or neither of us)
I suppose if we're going to be s
It doesn't matter how much the meter reading changes - in
hyper-manual mode (which is all you get with K/M lenses)
the exposure setting won't change until you press the AE
button again, at which time the camera will pick a shutter
speed (using stop-down metering).
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 11:43:1
You only get the flashing arrow if you're asking the camera to pick
a shutter speed. If you set the shutter speed yourself (by choosing
either shutter priority or manual exposure modes) you get no arrow.
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 04:38:25PM -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Same thing on the D, huh
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:00:57PM -0700, John Celio wrote:
> >I suppose if we're going to be shooting air shows I'll bring
> >the long glass. That means I'll have to drive, rather than
> >take public transport :-(
> >
> >What's parking like in the waterfront area? During fleet week?
>
> I would
ge files, but the lens name is not. Pentax Photo Browser does show
> the correct name, but nothing else I've got that can read the files
> does.
>
> I guess I'll go poke in a couple of PEF files with John Francis'
> PEFViewer utility to see how they differ from,
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 04:42:15PM -0500, graywolf wrote:
> In your list of considerations you left out rental availability. Very
> important for the things you use so seldom that buying is not sensible,
> and when you need a substitute because yours is in the shop.
To my mind that is *the* big
1 - 100 of 6042 matches
Mail list logo
