> ------------------------------
>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 04 : Issue 352
>
> Today's Topics:
> Re: A busy little fairygirl.... [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: *ist D software update [ Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= < ]
> Re: *istD for print photo [ "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Mark's PAW [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Support for big glass [ Don Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> OT - I WILL GET BROADBAND! [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: PAW: A good breakfast [ Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: A busy little fairygirl.... [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: A busy little fairygirl.... [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: bokeh [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: A busy little fairygirl.... [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: *ISTD autofocus failing before b [ "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: A busy little fairygirl.... [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Mark's PAW [ Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Pentax or Burst ? [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: PAW frozen lake [ Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> The lens remains the same? [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
> Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
> Re: Support for big glass [ Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:12:35 -0500
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> b) the viewfinder shows about 95% of what is being captured filling in the
> entire area. that's why it looks closer. your 50mm lens has the same FOV as
> as 75mm lens on a 35mm film body.
>
> c) if you had shot RAW, you could have set white balance after the fact when
> converting from RAW to TIFF/Photoshop. you might not be able to organize
> your work with IrfanView if it doesn't support PEF files. TIFF files aren't
> worth using because they are large and have already been reduced to
> 8-bit/channel mode. if you do little manipulation of your images, then RAW
> isn't an advantage. if you may need to do some extensive color adjustment,
> especially if you don't know which ones you might do ahead of time, then RAW
> is your best bet. i don't think it is worth using 512M memory cards on the
> *istD in RAW mode. 1G cards are the minimum useful. don't bother with the
> Pentax software since you have Photoshop CS. use the CS File Browser
> instead.
>
> Herb...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tanya Mayer Photography" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:20 PM
> Subject: A busy little fairygirl....
>
>
> > b) In regards to the focal length multiplication thingy - it appears to me
> > that when I look through a 50mm lens with the *istD, the subject does
> indeed
> > look closer than if I look through the same lens on my MZ-6. Ryan seems
> to
> > think that this shouldn't be the case and that it should simply be that it
> > is a cropped version of what I see in the MZ-6 - I know that there has
> been
> > discussions about this in the past, but I didn't see them, so I was just
> > wondering what the general concensus of this is?
> >
> > c) I haven't shot in RAW as yet, as I have only just got the plug-in set
> up
> > etc (and I haven't even bothered to install the Photo Lab software, I'd
> > prefer to just stick with PS and Irfanview). BUT, I noticed that the
> files
> > are HUGMUNGO (and TIFFS are even bigger) and with 512mb cards I can only
> fit
> > 30 or so images on the card!! I was wanting to stay with 512mb cards just
> > to get around the possibility of losing too many images should a card
> fail,
> > but with only 30 or so images per card - this is totally impractical when
> > shooting weddings etc. Just wondering what other wedding photographers
> are
> > using? I saw that yesterday someone began to discuss this, claiming that
> > most "Pros" shoot with JPEGs at their lowest compression. Wondering what
> > kind of difference this makes in comparison to RAW, quality wise? I would
> > need to be carrying around 8-10 512mb cards just for one wedding if I were
> > to shoot RAW, or at least 5 and have to download images to my laptop a few
> > times during the course of the day. On a practical level both of these
> > options are a pain in the arse and it would suit me much better to just
> > shoot JPG Large, if I could do it and preserve the quality that I need...
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: 22 Feb 2004 13:14:39 +0100
> From: Frits =?ISO-8859-1?Q?W=FCthrich?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: *ist D software update
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> Are you comparing the CS version with the upgraded Pentax Photolab?
>
>
> On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 02:03, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 2004, at 7:41 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
> >
> > > the CS file
> > > format filter is considerably better than the Photo Laboratory
> > > conversion to
> > > TIFF.
> > >
> >
> > Yep, no contest there. The CS filter is light years ahead of the Pentax
> > Photo Lab.
> > Paul
> --
> Frits W�thrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:12:50 -0500
> From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: *istD for print photo
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Actually its the original Epson Stylus Photo vintage about 1997 using
> Photoshop 5.0, mainly using their photo Paper. Paid about $300 for it then
> and have run 1 to 2 thousand prints from it without (knock wood) any
> problems.
> As for the camera its the Optio S (3.2MP) at the highest resolution. If
> you're not shooting for the Web why would you shoot at lower resolution?
> Kenneth Waller
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Whaley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: *istD for print photo
>
> > Kenneth Waller wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't have the *istD (yet), but I can tell you that I can get totally
> > > acceptable 8X10's from my Optio S. I haven't compared the digital print
> > > with a wet print, but the people in my office are blown away by the
> output
> > > of my Optio S and my Epson Stylus Photo printer.
> >
> > Okay, Okay, I'll ask the obligatory question: "You mean you got a great
> > 8x10 print from an Epson Stylus?"
> > Which Stylus? What application feeding the printer driver?
> > I presume an S4 and an Epson Stylus 820 will suffice? <g> I'll have to
> > try that!
> >
> > keith
> >
> > > For larger output, the answer to your question will depend alot on the
> > > nature of the image itself, the capture resolution and the printer
> > > resolution. My guess is you will need more than 6mp capture to
> consistently
> > > get great 16X20 digital prints (without interpolation).
> > > Kenneth Waller
> >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Frankie Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Subject: *istD for print photo
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I would like to know whether the *istD could give better (or
> equivalent)
> > > quality print photo (8x10 size or larger) for portrait and landscape
> when
> > > compared with film. Any opinion?
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:41:53 -0500
> From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mark's PAW
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> What I like about this shot the most is the "V" the water makes
> between the background boats, almost like two channels of water.
> Someone could point to this as an example of the kind of scene
> that made artists develop perspective rules a few centuries back.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>In a message dated 2/21/2004 4:29:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> >>http://www.markcassino.com/paw/082419_paw.jpg
> >>The Chicago Marina.
> >
> > Nice, Mark. Very luminous.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 07:57:28 -0500
> From: Don Herring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Support for big glass
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Just got my hands on a Takumar 500/4.5.
>
> My Bogen 3021 tripod with a 3047 pan head will support the thing, but it is
> very subject to vibration when focusing and such.
>
> So, I'm wondering what needs replacing to help reduce the vibration? The
> whole thing, or just the head or legs?
>
> Thx
>
> Don
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:55:43 +0000
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: OT - I WILL GET BROADBAND!
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I am over the moon! I found out by chance that our telephone exchange is
> being upgraded to ADSL in June, and I've just signed up for Broadband
> access! No more modem diallup!
>
> WHEWWWWW!
>
> <floating>
>
> Wow - I can FINALLY join the list properly instead of the steenkin' digest....
>
> Just need to buy a couple of Airport cards for the pair of iMacs upstairs
> and away we go.
>
> Wearing a smile today,
>
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _____________________________
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:00:59 -0500
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> replace the legs first, but i suspect you will end up replacing the head
> too.
>
> Herb....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Herring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:57 AM
> Subject: Support for big glass
>
>
> > Just got my hands on a Takumar 500/4.5.
> >
> > My Bogen 3021 tripod with a 3047 pan head will support the thing, but it
> is
> > very subject to vibration when focusing and such.
> >
> > So, I'm wondering what needs replacing to help reduce the vibration? The
> > whole thing, or just the head or legs?
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:13:07 -0500
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PAW: A good breakfast
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Thanks for the nice comments. I agree that the top of the egg is a bit
> blown out here. That's why the edge of the shadow looks slightly
> unnatural. In my print it's the opposite: it lacks contrast. I'm not
> quite up to speed on my PS CS calibration yet. But I'm much closer than
> I was 24 hours ago.
> Paul
> On Feb 21, 2004, at 10:58 PM, Mark Cassino wrote:
>
> > It ain't Bob Evans... :-0
> >
> > Great lines and shapes - simple, but engaging. I agree with Shel re
> > the top portion of the egg being a bit blown out. Remarkable detail
> > though - especially in the textures of the lower portion of the
> > eggshell.
> >
> > - MCC
> >
> > At 08:33 PM 2/21/2004 -0500, you wrote:
> >> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2151115&size=lg
> >
> > -----
> >
> > Mark Cassino Photography
> >
> > Kalamazoo, MI
> >
> > http://www.markcassino.com
> >
> > -----
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:03:53 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Owens"
>
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
>
> > Yes, flash with the AF60FGZ does leave a lot to be desired.
> >
> Ive heard so many complaints about this that I wonder if the flash is
> the problem. I have no ttl exposure problems at all with the old
> analogue Metz flash that I use.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:19:48 -0500
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I use a 3047 head with big glass and have had no problems, but I have
> it mounted on a 3036 tripod, a much more substantial unit. Last week I
> shot off this tripod with the a 400/5.6 and a 2X converter, all on the
> *ist D. That's a field of view comparable to a 1200mm lens on a 35mm
> film camera.
> Paul
> On Feb 21, 2004, at 7:57 AM, Don Herring wrote:
>
> > Just got my hands on a Takumar 500/4.5.
> >
> > My Bogen 3021 tripod with a 3047 pan head will support the thing, but
> > it is very subject to vibration when focusing and such.
> >
> > So, I'm wondering what needs replacing to help reduce the vibration?
> > The whole thing, or just the head or legs?
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > Don
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:10:20 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kostas Kavoussanakis"
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
>
>
>
> > In the meanwhile, you can turn your attentions to the Limited 77,
> > which may have found a raison d' etre.
> >
>
> I didn't find the 77 to be a suitable portrait lens on 35mm, for
> reasons unrelated to focal length. I suspect i will find the same
> thing with it on the istD.
> I will probably try it today.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:17:01 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: bokeh
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="Windows-1252"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris"
> Subject: bokeh
>
>
> > I know I am showing my ignorance,but what the bloody hell does
> "bokeh" mean.
> > Kennedy the Tyro.
>
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm
> http://www.flarg.com/bokeh.html (cool bokeh rendering tool)
>
> Do a Google search. I did.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:08:20 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-15"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Forbes"
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
>
>
>
> > The 50mm lens is effectively a 75mm on a camera with an APS-sized
> chip, so
> > you SHOULD see a larger image. It has been cropped, but it fills
> the
> > frame, so it will be larger.
>
> When will people stop posting this kind of crap?
> A 50mm lens is effectively a 50mm lens, no matter what camera it is
> on.
> The isD appears to have exactly the same viewfinder optics as a 35mm
> camera, in that a 50mm lens on the istD gives approximately the
> viewfinder magnification.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:31:32 -0500
> From: "Bill Owens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: *ISTD autofocus failing before battery exhausted
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> > >I've had problems like this with dirty contacts on other cameras and keep
> > >mine very clean and have had no problems since.
> >
> > I can try that of course, what do you use to clean them ?
>
> Just clean them with a soft, dry cloth.
>
> Bill
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:33:19 -0800
> From: "Steve Larson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Hi Don,
> Bigger is always better. I use a Bogen 3051 with a 3047 or 501
> video head when using the 1000/8. The video head really does
> reduce the vibration. You can also weight down the whole
> thing, I use a couple of old socks tied together with a string
> and stuff the socks with lead, then drape it over the lens.
> Even with all that, when the mirror slaps you can see the
> end of the lens move. MLU is very important as the
> shutter doesn`t induce too much vibration. Wooden
> tripods absorb more vibration than aluminum will.
> I can`t say enough about the video head (fluid), it really
> does the trick. I think your tripod is fine, you just need
> a bigger one.
>
> Steve Larson
> Redondo Beach, California
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Don Herring" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 4:57 AM
> Subject: Support for big glass
>
>
> > Just got my hands on a Takumar 500/4.5.
> >
> > My Bogen 3021 tripod with a 3047 pan head will support the thing, but it
> is
> > very subject to vibration when focusing and such.
> >
> > So, I'm wondering what needs replacing to help reduce the vibration? The
> > whole thing, or just the head or legs?
> >
> > Thx
> >
> > Don
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:38:18 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Larson"
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
>
>
> >
> . Wooden
> > tripods absorb more vibration than aluminum will.
> >
> Has anyone tried filling the legs of an aluminum tripod with
> expanding foam insulation?
> I wonder if that would have a dampening effect.
> A lot of the problem with metal tripods is that they are incapable of
> damping certain pitches of vibration.
> This is why a rig might work really well with one camera/lens
> combination, and be a total flop with another.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:43:04 -0000
> From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> First, there is no call for offensive language. It is always good to be
> polite, and it is especially good when you are wrong.
>
> Second, a 50mm lens used on a camera with a frame size equivalent to APS
> gives the same effect as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. If you think
> otherwise, you have some self-education in front of you, and not just in
> manners.
>
> Best wishes
>
> John
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:08:20 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "John Forbes"
> > Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
> >
> >
> >
> >> The 50mm lens is effectively a 75mm on a camera with an APS-sized
> > chip, so
> >> you SHOULD see a larger image. It has been cropped, but it fills
> > the
> >> frame, so it will be larger.
> >
> > When will people stop posting this kind of crap?
> > A 50mm lens is effectively a 50mm lens, no matter what camera it is
> > on.
> > The isD appears to have exactly the same viewfinder optics as a 35mm
> > camera, in that a 50mm lens on the istD gives approximately the
> > viewfinder magnification.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:39:10 -0500
> From: Mark Cassino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Mark's PAW
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Thanks, Shel - the toning loses some of it's punch when viewed through the
> browser. I was trying to get the near "molten metal" look that I saw in
> the old photos I mentioned. It gets closer to that look in my photoshop
> setup, but less so in the web display, for some reason.
>
> - MCC
>
> At 07:49 PM 2/21/2004 -0800, you wrote:
> >Hi Mark ...
> >
> >My first reaction was pretty ambivalent, and then, after
> >calibrating the monitor, I fell for it. A nice, simple,
> >tranquil scene ...
> >
> >
> > > > http://www.markcassino.com/paw/082419_paw.jpg
> > >
> > > >The Chicago Marina.
>
> -----
>
> Mark Cassino Photography
>
> Kalamazoo, MI
>
> http://www.markcassino.com
>
> -----
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:45:00 -0000
> From: John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-15
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>
> This is an excellent idea, William. Of course, the legs won't then
> telescope back into themselves.
>
> John
>
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:38:18 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Steve Larson"
> > Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> >
> >
> >>
> > . Wooden
> >> tripods absorb more vibration than aluminum will.
> >>
> > Has anyone tried filling the legs of an aluminum tripod with
> > expanding foam insulation?
> > I wonder if that would have a dampening effect.
> > A lot of the problem with metal tripods is that they are incapable of
> > damping certain pitches of vibration.
> > This is why a rig might work really well with one camera/lens
> > combination, and be a total flop with another.
> >
> > William Robb
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:49:22 +0000
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Pentax or Burst ?
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On 22/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
>
> >I agree, but for him, the price of the *ist D is not a problem, if he
> >switch to Canon, he will buy the EOS 1D Mark2...
>
> Holy cow. Will he buy me one as well?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _____________________________
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:52:31 +0000
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
> Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> On 22/2/04, KENNETH WALLER THE GOD disgorged:
>
> >About a hundred years ago (it only seems like that ) I had a 59 Bugeye
> >w/hardtop in BRG for my last two years in a commuting college - what a
> >treat. I got a fulltime job and stepped into the real world and bought a
> >brand new 1966 Shelby GT 350 - talk about shock, that shelby could go faster
> >in second gear than the Bugeye could do in forth. On my way to my new job,
> >on the Ohio Turnpike I was able to get the 350 up to an indicated 130+ mph.
>
> Master! I am not worthy (etc......
>
> Did you try the 100 dollar bill on the windscreen trick?
>
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
>
> ___/\__
> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
> ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps
> _____________________________
> Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:53:35 +0000
> From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: PAW frozen lake
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> That's nice. :-)
>
> Are you one of the people who would appreciate cropping suggestions, or
> one of the people who would wreak vengeance unto the seventh generation
> upon anyone who even *thought* that such an idea might be worth trying?
>
> S
>
> Butch Black wrote:
>
> > Another winter scene. This one a local reservoir.
> > http://www.usefilm.com/image/312622.html
> >
> >
> > Butch
> >
> > Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find the way to himself.
> >
> > Hermann Hesse (Demian)
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:01:33 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-15"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Forbes"
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
>
>
> > This is an excellent idea, William. Of course, the legs won't then
> > telescope back into themselves.
>
> I was thinking about this in relation to my Mnafrotto 055, which I
> find sings like it wants to be in an opera.
> It should be possible (having had the thing fall apart more than once
> all on it's own) to disassemble the legs and fill each section with
> urethane foam, then reassemble the tripod.
> I can't get at my 055, I kinda buried it behind a home renovation,
> but I may try this when I can get to it.
> I don't like the thing all that much anyway, so would consider it a
> small loss if I made the thing worse.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:57:58 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: The lens remains the same?
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-15"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Forbes"
> Subject: Re: A busy little fairygirl....
>
>
> > First, there is no call for offensive language. It is always good
> to be
> > polite, and it is especially good when you are wrong.
>
> Wow, someone lecturing a Canuck on manners.
> Whee!!
>
> >
> > Second, a 50mm lens used on a camera with a frame size equivalent
> to APS
> > gives the same effect as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera. If you
> think
> > otherwise, you have some self-education in front of you, and not
> just in
> > manners.
>
> Anyway, are you absolutely sure about that?
> Exactly the same effect? Or just a kind of similar effect?
> Or would it be just a close angle of view, but maybe the similarity
> ends there?
> Do you have first hand experience with multiple camera formats?
> I shoot 4 distinctly different formats, and have to deal with this
> issue every time I change camera bags.
> Call me wrong if you like, I politely disagree with you.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:03:46 -0500
> From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> it wouldn't close anymore. are you willing to deal with that?
>
> Herb...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 8:38 AM
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
>
>
> > Has anyone tried filling the legs of an aluminum tripod with
> > expanding foam insulation?
> > I wonder if that would have a dampening effect.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:03:54 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cotty"
> Subject: Re: WAY OT - English Sport Cars
>
>
> > On 22/2/04, KENNETH WALLER THE GOD disgorged:
> >
> > >
> I was able to get the 350 up to an indicated 130+ mph.
> >
>
> My Mazda RX-2 would go that fast, but sometimes it would also become
> airborne all on it's own.
> Real fun is going that fast on a souped up Kawasaki 900.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 08:05:35 -0600
> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Herb Chong"
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
>
>
> > it wouldn't close anymore. are you willing to deal with that?
>
> Why not? Fill each leg section independantly, clean up the ends of
> the legs and fit it back together.
> I don't know if this would have a damping effect or not though.
>
> William Robb
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 09:16:35 -0500
> From: Lon Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Yeah, but you could do it to the lowest sections only.
> They're the weakest, and might profit from this the most.
>
> John Forbes wrote:
> > This is an excellent idea, William. Of course, the legs won't then
> > telescope back into themselves.
> >
> > John
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 07:38:18 -0600, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Steve Larson"
> >> Subject: Re: Support for big glass
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >> . Wooden
> >>
> >>> tripods absorb more vibration than aluminum will.
> >>>
> >> Has anyone tried filling the legs of an aluminum tripod with
> >> expanding foam insulation?
> >> I wonder if that would have a dampening effect.
> >> A lot of the problem with metal tripods is that they are incapable of
> >> damping certain pitches of vibration.
> >> This is why a rig might work really well with one camera/lens
> >> combination, and be a total flop with another.
> >>
> >> William Robb
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------
> End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 Issue #352
> *********************************************
