On Fri, 13 Aug 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
Given that it has the same angle of view as a 21mm full frame lens why is it
so much bigger and heavier than the FA20/2.8? I thought that the idea
behind smaller image circle lenses was so that they could be lighter and
smaller?
APS-C sized
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004, Jerome Reyes wrote:
Oh, certainly! I know it would have. And yes, I know that such filters are
a whole lot less expensive than new lenses (or front elements). So, yep,
get in line and you can kick me in the butt right after I kick myself
first. Whats worse, is that simply
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Gonz wrote:
Bruce Dayton wrote:
I have to say that I consider it great news. Choosing to support full
frame, aperture ring and on top of that, picking some primes speaks
very positively. These represent to me that they are looking beyond
the first time buyer and
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Anders Hultman wrote:
Exciting with the new lenses. Could someone please explain what the
difference in focal length will mean for macro shots? I fully
understand what difference it makes in regular shooting conditions,
but wouldn't life size 1:1 magnification become 1:1
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Caveman wrote:
I definitely like the sliding cover method of protecting the lens/camera
in the Oly, so I would like to see it in the digicam. Canon wins, very
nice design for pocketable camera. However, I was attracted by the
nightshot feature of the Sony. Now that's really
On Sun, 1 Aug 2004, graywolf wrote:
You do not want to compare that 5n's viewfinder to a clean MX's.
You would immediately sell the camera, and never take another photo
for the rest of your life.
When I got my MX (just CLA'd) I didn't use the ZX-5n for quite a long
time. There were many
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004, Cotty wrote:
On 23/7/04, John Forbes, discombobulated, offered:
Answer the question, please, Cotty. What's so good about CMOS?
I don't know if anything is so good about it, but when I was looking into
digital, I read that on the whole, CCDs are (were) supposed to be
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Kenneth Waller wrote:
I've had my ist D for a few weeks like using it. However, I don't
think I'll give up shooting slides any time soon. I've pretty much
kept things simple by going with the default settings. I saw Tan's
post where she talked about the settings for an
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
In his former life as a egzotic dancer alex wetmore wrote on 23.07.04 17:57:
If you can afford the storage costs RAW is really the way to go.
That's not only storage costs, but it is also time spent to convert all
these RAWs with right settings
On Fri, 23 Jul 2004, Larry Hodgson wrote:
Hi Alex,
You wrote:
I use C1DSLR for my conversions.
alex
How do like C1DSLR? Have you compared it to the results from Photoshop? Is
it worth the money? Please give some thoughts on your experience with this
product.
It is pretty good. I'm
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, DagT wrote:
Some non-Pentax people have been praising the AA compatibility of the
*istD as a great advantage with the camera.
It is a major selling point for me.
On vacations I don't want to carry one charger per device. Having
more devices that can use a common AA
On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, William Robb wrote:
Sure, as long as you in fairly civilized areas I agree. But
sometimes I
go outdoors and stay there for some days and other times I travel
to
countries were charging is not readily available. In both cases AA
batteries are available in any shop I
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Alex, are you using Auto focus? Flash? I am amazed that you can get so
much! I assume that if you say 270, then you are shooting RAW? (As I do,
and I can get 282 exposures) What the heck am I doing wrong?!?!?
I use auto focus, but I don't
http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/pentax/reduced/d30-vs-istd.jpg
On the left is a Canon EOS-D30 (with grip) and the 28-135IS lens (not
sure on max apertures). On the right is the *ist D with the 16-45/4
lens (the largest one that I own).
The Canon stuff is probably great, and there is no doubt
On Sun, 18 Jul 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Shaun, if anyone *has* come up with such a solution - I WANT IT! Try using
the *istD with the Hitachi microdrive, no battery grip, and see just how
long the batteries last!
I use this setup and have no problem with filling up the drive
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Tom Reese wrote:
demand has suddenly skyrocked and Pentax can't ship fast enough (yeah right)
I think this might actually be the case for some of the popular lenses.
I ordered my FA 35/2 in Feb or March and it showed up in April.
During that time everyone showed it as
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:
What's interesting is that you can actually make out the hexagonal
pattern in the bokeh. BTW, these flowers are EVERYWHERE in Rockbridge
county right now.
They are lilies and this is the time of year for them.
I shot this one on a hike two weeks
On Fri, 16 Jul 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
there are probably other equally plausible explanations. I share your
frustration.
Maybe they have been in the process of replacing the FA lenses?
Pentax usually isn't full of surprises. We heard about the DA lenses
4-6 months before they were released,
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004, Joseph Tainter wrote:
It happens, I suspect, anytime Pentax goes too long with a new product
for us to ponder, query each other about, and debate the merits of.
We just got the DA 14/2.8 and the new Optio MX and there are rumors
about the new digital SLR coming in the fall.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jostein wrote:
I like the C1 converter very much. Unlike the Photoshop CS converter, you
can work with curves and levels directly at the conversion, and there are
eyedropper tools for setting blackpoint and whitepoint. In all the images I
have played with so far except
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
I second that, Tom.
I would prefer to be able to see PDML stuff on the screen, even if there are
children present, at work, the libraries etc., where I don't want do cause
others to feel embarrassed.
There was plenty of warning on these images.
I was
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Robert Woerner wrote:
Good price for new. BH was selling them for that a couple of years or so
ago new. Don't know about Samys reputation as far as add on pricing.
Beware.
Based on my recent experiences (elements in two of these lenses
delaminating from each other) I don't
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Amita Guha wrote:
Had friends over for watching Fireworks --
I'm getting to like shooting digital (borrowed
friends) scary, eh?
:) I got excellent firewroks shots near my apt. with the istD. I don't
think I'll ever shoot them with film again. It was great not having to
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Tom C wrote:
I thought that in Hyper Program mode that the camera would only allow
shutter/aperture values that resulted in a 'proper' exposure.
In the first email you said:
All were taken within a 60 second time span. All were taken
with multi-seg metering and
These are from a hike on Noble Knob near Mt Ranier that I took on
Saturday July 3rd, 2004. Shot with the *ist D and DA 16-45/4
(I also carried my FA 35/2 and M 135/3.5 that day, but never used
those).
I like the texture in this one a lot:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004, John Mustarde wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jul 2004 08:05:50 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
Very good shots, there were enough photo ops on this one hike to last
a month of Sundays. I enjoyed browsing this paw as much as any in the
past year. But you left me wanting for info - who are the
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Thibs wrote:
These lens (DA ones) are really only usable on the IST-D right?
Or are these like some Sigma/Tamron, optimized for digital but you can still
use them for 24x36 ?
I just hope Pentax will make Fas with the new focus mechanism of the DAs
DA lenses have a reduced
On Fri, 2 Jul 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think it is important to remember that, AF or MF, it's still an SLR.
If you use AF and everything you want looks nice and sharp, then you
won't do better with MF. I use MF for since I like to do macro, and
like the MF feel of the A lenses. (I'm
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
Because today good cameras are based on very sophisticated technology -
AF-systems, Data Processing, Imaging-/Sensor Technology - as well as high
quality lens design/lens making. Pentax may survive as a lens maker - if it
can find corporate lens buyers. As
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Jim Apilado wrote:
Thanks for these shots. What an awesome building. The Boeing 307
Stratoliner, I believe, crashed into Elliott Bay in Seattle, WA a couple of
years ago. It had been restored and was flying back to D.C. They were able
to repair the restoration and flew
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, Sid Barras wrote:
Well, I'm getting less and less inclined to lug around the entire SMC
tak prime lens collection these days... So, I'm wondering, to all the
screwmount afficanados, I ask the question:
The best (available, anyway-- I intend to seek and buy the lens) zoom
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
no way,
the primes?
24
28
35
40
50
55
85
105
135
200
300
I assumed that one was carrying a selection of the primes in a set of
increments, not everything.
I don't see any reason to carry 35, 40, 50, and 55. 35 and 55 maybe.
Likewise for
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Jim Apilado wrote:
Konica and Minolta merged. Could Pentax merge with another company that has
more name recognition, like Nikon? That might improve the stature of both
companies.
Konica's SLR line has been dead for years or decades.
If that happened I expect that
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
That's right. Works great for my SONY. I hardly ever think of the missing
viewfinder anymore. It works great - and even enlarges the image center for
manual focusing.
One of my favorite things about switching from the Sony DSC-F717 to my
*ist D is that I
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote:
I am wrestling with that same question, although it sounds as if
you have far more gear then me. My largest investment is in a single
lens. Since the *istD works with A* lenses, I do not expect them to
depreciate considerably. The value of my
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Jeff Post wrote:
I have my sensors confused. I knew Sony made a 8 meg sensor, but
I was thinking of the canon sensor. Yes, I know it is an evil word, but in
a year I would be surprised if that canon 8 meg sensor isn't in a camera at
the 10D price point.
The
Every file format produced by the Pentax *ist D can be rotated losslessly.
Whatever orientation a sensor produces could always be considered a
best guess, and you could re-rotate it as you prefer afterwords.
alex
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Herb Chong wrote:
what happens when you use the remote
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Mark Stringer wrote:
Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote:
The 16-45 is told to underexpose one stop.
I am very disappointed in my DA16-45 which I bought with my istD. I
cannot count on it to produce useable photos. My first outing was
to see my daughter at an equestrian event on a
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
I keep reading this but there doesn't seem to have any objective
evidence to prove the Pentax 2.8 zoom is superior. Not that I don't
want to believe, but even what I consider the most believable
results from photodo doesn't give that good score (and their
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
I would like to see a 40-140 or so DA telephoto which is smaller than
the DA 16-45/4. Something with a 58mm filter size and perhaps the
length (but wider) of the M 135/3.5 prime would be ideal in my mind,
and I think
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Alan Chan wrote:
The problem with the FA28-70/4 is that it was designed to have poor built
quality. This is, of course doesn't matter if it didn't fall apart like some
Sigma lenses do.
In my experience with two FA28-70/4 lenses they self destruct after about
5 years. The
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
reputation of F-lenses comes from people seeing faded, peeling, dirty,
poorly looked after specimens in second-hand shops. I guess the F-lenses
don't stand up as well to abuse as earlier lenses but if you find a
well-looked after, as-new, example I
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think we could see more of the f4 zooms. Pentax can make an opticaaly
superior lens but keep the price down. Although, to be honest, a
lesser 2.8 zoom at Tokina prices might serve them better. OTOH, slow
zooms
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004, Nenad Djurdjevic wrote:
I wrote:
How about an f2.8 DA zoom that goes from 45-140? That would be the same
as
a 35mm 70-210 f2.8. I would buy that!
alex wetmore wrote:
Me too. I'd take an f4 version too.
I'd love to see more high quality, one stop slower
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Chaso DeChaso wrote:
Are there any compact digital point-and-shoots that
have a wide-angle lens? It seems most are around
35-to-something or 38-to-something, equivalent.
How compact?
Nikon's 5000 had a 28mm equivelent lens. I don't know what the
followup model is called
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Andy Chang wrote:
I have this lens and I think I paid around USD160 for it second hand
Great lens, worth every penny for it!
I believe that the A 24/2.8 has the same optics. Since most Pentax
bodies no longer work with pre-A lenses as well as post-A lenses I
would suggest
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
I don't know which Pentax bodies, that will not work with K and M lenses,
Alex???
They will allow work, but many won't meter properly. Sorry, I don't
know the models of the exact film cameras which this is true for.
When I bought my MZ-5n it was true of
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Nick Clark wrote:
Is there any reason IS couldn't be implemented in software? You
could produce a 5MP image from a 6MP sensor by using the extra
pixels to shift the image. You'd need to measure the movement of
the camera, which could be done using a sensor of some sort
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Both my PZ-1 and my ZX-5n will show the aperture setting in the
viewfinder if the aperture ring on an autofocus lens is set to other
than A.
AF lenses are different than the A lenses. The AF lenses have an
extra contact which digitally communicates
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Mark Dalal wrote:
I haven't really been playing close attention to the discussion on
converting RAW files from the *istD. The little bit I have read has given me
the impression that people aren't totally pleased with the Pentax converter
and have been happier with the
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have
one
in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for
spares
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
This is all a little worrying when I have one fitted to my MZ-3 most of the
time, it's nice to know the rest of the camera bag is full of Pentax A primes
and a couple of Sigma primes.
Just check it on a regular basis. Since this was a cheap lens to
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, John Whittingham wrote:
Can someone explain the Giving up on the FA 28-70/4 subject to me, I have one
in need of a clean (fungus) wouldn't want much for it, I'll keep it for
spares otherwise.
http://www.mail-archive.com/pentax-discuss%40pdml.net/msg185702.html
is my
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Robert Leigh Woerner wrote:
I doubt the manual focus feel is any different on the SMC version. Does the
28-70 f4.0 fare better in this area?
I couldn't find the Takumar-F 28-80/3.5-4.5 that I own this morning
to compare. I remember it being really really loose though.
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Amita Guha wrote:
Does anyone remember who made a camera backpack with front-loading lens
drawers? I'm not talking about the Lowepro Trim Trekker. The interior
was yellow. I thought it was Domke but I think I was wrong.
Amita, still in search of the perfect camera backpack
Some folks might remember that I discovered two elements of my FA 28-70/4
were coming apart, making it unusable.
I picked up a replacement on eBay and found that it is in the early
stages of the same problem. It is being mailed back to the seller.
Sadly there don't seem to be any great
On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Stan Halpin wrote:
The FA 20-35/4.0 won't give you the same reach as the 28-70, even on
the *ist-D, , but it is a nice lens. Worth looking at.
I already own the 16-45/4.0, so I'm looking for something longer.
I find the 16-45 to be my normal every day lens, and liked the
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-at least 4MP. I'd expect the same 6MP sony sensor as the *istD. If
there's a better sensor availible Pentax would be wise to upgrade the
*istD with it and put the cheap, well-understood sony one in the baby.
Nobody seems to be jumping on the
On Thu, 27 May 2004, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Am I missing something? Aren't USB cables, well ... universal? There are
four cables here, two that came with different card readers, one that came
with a USB hard drive, one that came with the Sony digicam ... oh, and
another from some strange
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I really like how you caught that shockwave in flame. I've never seen
that before.
A friend and I were curious about this picture. Was it taken with
a flash? It looks like a preflash caught the mortar and then a
long exposure caught some of the
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Alex, you are wrng as Dpreview is. *istD has buffer for 6 frames no matter
if RAW or JPEG. One thing is nowhere mentioned - you have to turn noise
reduction off, as it apparently reserves some buffer space for image
processing. After all N.R. is
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
Thanks for you reactions, all.
You are of cource all right. DOF, colour cast, and frame format gave it
away.
The first one is from a Sony, the second from a Pentax.
The correct exposure values are
Sony: f6.3, 1/1250 sec
Pentax: f8, 1/750 sec
After the conversation on the DSC-F717 I thought I would do a PAW
with a few of my favorite photographs from that camera:
http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/nz02/christchurch/botanical-gardens/reduced-800/butterfly-in-field.JPG
or http://tinyurl.com/3d6zr
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
I'm glad I'n not the only one with a F717.
Your shots are very nice. I like your butterfly the best. It's brilliant.
Perfect focus/DOF. I believe digital is better for close-ups (greater DOF
due to smaller format) than landscapes, where resolution is
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 23 May 2004 at 22:22, Christian Skofteland wrote:
Funny how you didn't seem too impressed by the *ist D when I was there in
October but now you seem very enthusiastic about it!
Still not that pleased with the camera, more so the medium. It's doing
On Mon, 24 May 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
I took the same photograph twice:
One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200
ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot
with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA.
Which one was made with a PENTAX?
On Sat, 22 May 2004, Doug Franklin wrote:
On Sat, 22 May 2004 08:34:16 +0200, Anders Hultman wrote:
Sorry if the link truncatees. I can't set my page width any higher.
A handy tip is to place long links between and marks. Several
e-mail programs then will recognize that it's one
On Thu, 20 May 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone use one that they like? And why?
I have a LowePro Offtrail that I like. It has two lens pouches
which can hold one or two lenses each (you can stack two shorter
primes into one). The main bag easily fits any Pentax SLR.
The only thing that
Okay, so you all want fridge pictures. For some reason I actually
have an assortment of these:
This is my beer fridge from right after I added two taps to it:
http://phred.org/~alex/pictures/beer/reduced/fridge-closed.jpg
It now has two more and a drip tray.
This is what it looks like when
On Tue, 18 May 2004, Mark Cassino wrote:
No matter what digital camera you purchase, a better one will be coming
along. Today's 6 megapixel DSLR's a nice, but digital will only get better
and, if other digital revolutions can be used as a guide, they will get a
LOT better a LOT faster. If a
On Tue, 18 May 2004, graywolf wrote:
As I have mentioned before, I used to do a lot of event photography.
If that is your thing then you can almost not afford not to go
digital. However, strange as it may be, 80+% of the folks on this
list seem to be landscape/nature photographers. Why in
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Antonio Aparicio wrote:
John, nobody is bashing anyone. Calm down. We are just discussing the
merits of one OS over another. They are just tools/machines. Clearly
virus and spyware are more prevalent on the Windows OS thatn elswhere
PRECISELY because of the design of that
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Cotty wrote:
So anyway, looks like the MZ-S will be the last ever Pentax film SLR.
* ist (not the *ist D) came out after the MZ-S by a couple of years,
didn't it?
alex
On Mon, 17 May 2004, William M Kane wrote:
You're right about it being the better choice, but this is difficult
for me to explain to her. The Canon comes with a lens for 999, while
the Pentax is 1300 with the lens counting the rebates.
The Canon comes with a pretty cheap lens though.
If
On Sun, 16 May 2004, Cycad wrote:
The business part of my trip is at the Fred Hutchison Cancer Centre, and I
assume I'll be staying nearby. Can you tell me which of these camera stores
will be within walking distance?
Glazer's and Optechs are within walking distance.
Jim's would require
On Sat, 15 May 2004, Peter Loveday wrote:
Actually, my Canon S45 digicam has this Custom mode (the G3/G5 etc have
more than 1 I think), which is also on the mode-dial. What a great
feature I thought to start, I set it up so that mode was flash-disabled,
ISO 400 (high as it goes), etc thinking
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Butch Black wrote:
I have gotten to that point where my camera bag has gotten too heavy. So I'm
thinking of downsizing what I carry when I'm not shooting something
specific. My current lineup: Z-1p, K1000, K 28/3.5, K 35/3.5, M 50/1.4, A
50/1.7, M 50/2.0, M 100/4.0 macro,
On Thu, 13 May 2004, Timothy Sherburne wrote:
The advertised focal length of Pentax's DA zoom is 16mm to 45mm. Am I
correct to assume that the lengths reflect the 1.5x conversion? In other
words, I wouldn't end up with a 24-68 when paired with a *istD.
The advertised focal length is the true
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Shawn K. wrote:
Thats a strange focal length. Nice that its a cosntant 2.8 though, could be
good.
24-60mm is probably what they could acheive while keeping the lens
small. It isn't a bad focal length, 35mm equivelent wide angle is
pretty useful for most situations.
I
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
on 5/12/04 5:26 PM, alex wetmore at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone still needs to make a 40-160/4 lens to pair up with the
16-45/4 so that only 2 lenses can be carried to cover a wide range of
useful focal lengths.
I would prefere something
On Wed, 12 May 2004, Rob Brigham wrote:
If I wasn't using RAW, I would be using jpg. You really cant tell a
significant difference unless you need the advantage of 16 bit colour
for manipulation. The biggest plus for RAW is not the lack of
compression issues but the ability to adjust
On Tue, 11 May 2004, JA wrote:
1. Swiveling LCD screen (for those self portraits, or low shooting angles)
Why? There is no live preview on the screen (this is a D-SLR, not a
point and shoot).
alex
On Tue, 11 May 2004, jtainter wrote:
Cesar, this is just my inference from the number of people who have
bought one, then complained on the list about something not working
right. Just a few minutes ago, Steve complained about his spot
autofocus not working properly. The observation is
Last night I got together with some friends and their telescopes.
I brought along my *ist D.
This was shot with a 1540mm f11 telescope (Orion Starmax or something)
and the *ist D in prime focus (telescope acting as the primary lens).
ISO 200, 1/10.
be even better if
we got outside of the city lights.
alex
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Tom C wrote:
Cool shot Alex!
It's always been my aspirations to get into astrophotography, especially
deep space objects.
Tom C.
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Peter J. Alling wrote:
Not as sharp as I would have hoped. indeed. This appears to be a very
sharp photo.
You can see a full resolution version at
http://www.phred.org/~alex/pictures/moon/moon-bluesky-large.jpg
It appears to me that the telescope was slightly out of
On Fri, 23 Apr 2004, Markus Maurer wrote:
Beside professional SCSI RAID Array's I do not consider IDE Raids with cheap
onboard or PCI controllers or software RAIDS as useful and would not
recommend it to any customer doing serious business and depending on it's
data.
This is a sweeping
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am looking into storage for my DSLR, so I can off-load pictures from a
flash card in the field, wipe the card, and start over. I am realizing that
shooting with a DSLR I will be shooting tons more photos than before and need a way
to increase my
On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Butch Black wrote:
Alex wrote:
It would be really nice if 8x12 inkjet photo paper was more widely
available. I like this school of thought, but purchasing 13x19 paper
and chopping it up just to make 8x12 prints isn't much fun.
I agree. You do realize that you can
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Primo: As mentioned earlier, my idea is to exchange the UV tubes
for regular fluorescent tubes, or tubes best suited for photography.
At the back of this unit it reads: Philips Type HP 3127F. 240w 6
x TLK 40w/09. The tubes themselves carry the
On Tue, 6 Apr 2004, danilo wrote:
Alle 10:06, martedì 6 aprile 2004, Kevin Thornsberry ha scritto:
OK. Thanks.
My notebook has 2 PCMCIA slots and USB 1.1. I probably should be asking
which of those two is faster.
PCMCIA should be faster, there are PCMCIA card with FireWire / USB 2.0
On Sat, 3 Apr 2004, Lasse Karlsson wrote:
Today I ran into a second hand Philips UV-A fluorescent light
unit. I seems to be one of those tanning machines.
What made me interested in it, was 1) the wheeled type of metal
construction (a simple one) which allows you to conveniently move it
On 31 Mar 2004, Frits [ISO-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote:
I just ran a test and I can NOT confirm the USB2 speed for the *ist D
connected to a PC.
This is what I did:
I connected the *ist D with my PC by means of the Pentax supplied USB
cable, and copied all 15 RAW images that I had on the flash
On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
. . . so the question becomes, How many MB were the 15 RAW files?
RAW files are 13mb. 13 * 15 = 195mb.
alex
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* They like the small size
It's got competition there, if perhaps not equally-featured competition.
I can also understand the desire for small size. My girlfriend really
likes the *istD because it fits her hands well. I have a bit of trouble
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 17 Mar 2004 at 15:25, Bill Owens wrote:
I swear mine didn't until I reinstalled 1.11
OK mine works, I forgot that it only works in the M position (or did I?), my
apologies.
It only works in the M position. There is really no meaningful way for it
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Bill Owens wrote:
With my M100/4.0, when pressing the green button while in manual, the
shutter speed is set for the proper exposure at the f stop you have
selected. It's not like shooting with a Spotmatic.
What I meant by it is like shooting with a Spotmatic is that you
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Christian Skofteland wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0403/04031601sigmalenses.asp
Depending on how good it is, it may replace my FAJ 18-35
How good do you think a slow 7x zoom will be?
My guess: not very good.
It will sell though, just like the 28-200 lenses
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps more people would buy it WITH compatability. I'd love to see the
sales figures for the *istD, because I don't get the impression it is
a runaway hit outside this list. I don't see what the *istD has to
offer a first-time buyer that the
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Mar 16, 2004, at 6:11 PM, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I think the 6MP APS senors will be with us for quite a while.
I think they will last about as long as did the 64K computers with the
sub 1 megahertz processors.
Note that the biggest influence in
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
