I'm not sure what you mean(?) IMO the MZ-S photograph might as well have been taken with my K1000. Under these conditions (the bikes and me was not moving, the light conditions were not changing fast) the photographs would have been identical, although I might have shot at f5.6 and 1/1000 sec. or f8 and 1/500 sec. In paractice no siginificanvt difference.
Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 07:46 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess not a fair comparison because you could have got same quality "analog" with a $200 K-1000. jco ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:42 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Take a wild guess 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 I used better aperture for the analog picture to try to compensate for DOF, but this difference was aparentlly too small. You were right about the color cast as well (Sony pushing blue). All so the red seemed more orange in the Sony picture. I do believe, that the colours of the Pentax picture is closer to what the scene looked like in my eyes that day (Sunday, May 24th 2004). I have tried to scan the analog negative at higher ppi. An enlargemenet shows (not surprisingly), that the analog picture has much better resolution, than the 5 MP SONY picture, though. I am, however, still quite amazed that the small, cheep SONY (paid 700 USD for it, used 1 year) performes so well. I paid almost twice as much for the Pentax (MZ-S, Grip, SMC FA 1.4/50mm - used 1 year); 1200 USD. I wonder how much better the Pentax *ist D will perform, should I ever get one. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 23:48 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess I believe it is. My MZ-S and PZ-1 says 6.7! Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 24. maj 2004 22:51 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Perhaps it is how it rounds up the numbers? - I have always thought that the stop between 5.6 and 8 was 6.6. A. On 24 May 2004, at 22:43, Jens Bladt wrote: > I lied a little (very, very little) about the f-stops. And I can asure > you, > that the FA 1.4/50mm can give you an f-stop (? step) called 6.7 > (between 5.6 > and 8) according to my PZ-1 LCD. > > Jens Bladt > mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > Fra: Antonio Aparicio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sendt: 24. maj 2004 19:27 > Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Emne: Re: Take a wild guess > > > Also, the 50/1.4 does have an f stop at 6.7, but rather 6.6. ;-) > > A. > On 24 May 2004, at 19:18, Antonio Aparicio wrote: > >> Just looking at the bokeh I would say pic 2 is the pentax 50mm 1.4 >> >> A. >> >> On 24 May 2004, at 18:44, 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? >>> >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >>> http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html >>> >>> Jens Bladt >>> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >>> >>> >>> >> > > >
