-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2005 1:50 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 #1128
------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain pentax-discuss-d Digest Volume 05 : Issue 1128 Today's Topics: Re: New Enablement. [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Pentax 16-45/4 or Sigma 18-50/2, [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Classy portraits :) [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Pentax 16-45/4 or Sigma 18-50/2, [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: I'm back, it was fun, 1GB ain't [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Raw [ Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] RE: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Leica digital back no longer vap [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PESO -- Working Boat [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PAW PESO - Bike Waiting for a Tr [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: Re: OT - Mrs Quinn visits WR [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Re: DA 40 on manual focus [ "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] OT - Gherkin revisited [ Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PESO -- Working Boat [ Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: PESO -- Working Boat [ "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] Who was looking for a FA 135/2.8 ? [ "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? [ Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED] ] RE: 21 Ways to Improve Your Photogra [ "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] Re: Classy portraits :) [ Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:21:21 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: New Enablement. Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On May 18, 2005, at 9:55 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: > ... Vs the F 35-70 yes. While it isn't the sharpest at wide apertures > and low focal length the Vivitar is certainly sharper than the F 35-70 > at any focal length between 70 and 85mm and any f stop between 3.5 and > 2.8, and at least equal anywhere below. So what you're saying is that the F35-70 is about equal to the Vivitar at any focal length in its range, and is better wide open than the Vivitar. I think I'd prefer the Pentax F35-70 and save the $5. Or get it free like Henri did. If I didn't prefer the A50/1.7, that is. ;-) Godfrey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:34:51 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Pentax 16-45/4 or Sigma 18-50/2,8 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 18/5/05, Tim �sleby, discombobulated, unleashed: >So I wonder, what lens is best in general? Anyone on this list, who can help >me on this? Who actually has tested/tried both lenses. Or anyone who knows >some links to sites that has? >bla >>blab bla bla >>blab la bla >bla >bla Couldn't have put it better. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:31:04 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Classy portraits :) Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >On May 18, 2005, at 5:19 AM, frank theriault wrote: > > The black MX must be the most beautiful 35mm SLR ever made, by Pentax > or anyone else. Yep, I'll second that. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:39:24 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Pentax 16-45/4 or Sigma 18-50/2,8 Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On May 18, 2005, at 10:16 AM, Tim �sleby wrote: > I�ve just bought myself a second hand *ist DS at a fair prize. I�m the > happiest person on the planet right now (perhaps top ten). While I�m > waiting > for it I am thinking about lenses. The kit-lens isn�t state of the art > I�ve > been told. I have a few old one with K-mount, all manual. So I new > normal > zoom is my first priority. I have been looking at Tamron/Sigma > 17-35/2,8-4, > but they doesn�t seem perfect for my use. That leaves me with two > alternatives, the original 16-45/4 or Sigma 18-50/2,8 (in Norway this > lens > has KA-mount). > > I am a lowlight photographer (concert pictures, from first row). So the > speed of the Sigma is significant for me. But I�m still not quit sure > what > the best choice. On the other hand, 16mm is a bit wider, that another > significant factor. I could go on like this. It all depends on what you're after. If the wider field of view is more important to your needs, I'd go with the wider lens. One stop shouldn't be a major barrier ... push the ISO up one step, you can get pretty clean photos with the DS using ISO 1600, particularly if you save in RAW format and do your own RAW conversion post-processing. > So I wonder, what lens is best in general? Anyone on this list, who > can help > me on this? Who actually has tested/tried both lenses. Or anyone who > knows > some links to sites that has? Lens discussions are a constant on the DPReview.com Pentax SLR Talk forum. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1036 I have no experience with the current Sigma lens line; many people like them. My experience with Sigma is that their quality control is extremely variable, I stopped even trying. Tamron have been more consistent in my experience, about as consistent as the manufacturer's lens lines in general although perhaps not quiet as consistent as for a "top of the line" series (eg: Canon L, Pentax FA*, etc). With the DS 16x24mm sensor format, I find an FA24-90/3.5-4.5 or a FA28-105/3.2-4.5 zoom makes a fine all around lens, covering most of the field of view that I use most of the time with reasonable speed and good quality performance (I use the FA28-105/3.2-4.5 AL IF). Beyond that, I tend to use prime lenses ... DA14/2.8, A24/2.8, A50/1.4, etc ... most of which outperform all but the best zooms. I have the DA16-45/4 and find it a good performer too, but it's somewhat bulky and I find I prefer using the DA14 when I want ultrawide field of view. Godfrey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:45:38 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: I'm back, it was fun, 1GB ain't enough! Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I find 3-5 Gbytes of media is about right for me these days. That's about as much as I'll fill in an average weekend if I don't have access to a computer or off-line storage device. I was out shooting last evening and used a different bag than usual ... boy, I was bummed when I filled the 1G card in the camera. For my upcoming 3-week trip to the UK, I'll carry 5G of cards as well as the Epson P-2000 (40G worth of off-line storage) rather than a laptop. It will be interesting to see how this works out. Godfrey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 10:46:23 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Cotty <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Cotty, Interesting question. These were taken during my learning phase with my digital equipment. It was a play in which I needed to get coverage of all the actors. I had the opportunity to shoot both the dress rehearsal and the live performance, which helped me learn a few things and also get a second chance in some cases. So in a long winded way, the images shown are not all that was shot, but more is shown than if I were to just show a few for advertising, etc. The kids and parents were able to go to the site and view/order pictures. The school also got a set of prints to put up around the school and for promotion. Based on what I have learned since that time, I would shoot it a bit differently (at least RAW) and possibly different lenses than I had at that time. But isn't that how everything goes? We learn as we go and when looking back, can see how we could have done better. Part of what makes life interesting. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 12:08:02 AM, you wrote: C> On 17/5/05, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed: >>Go with 1600 - nothing like a flash to ruin the mood of the pictures. >>I shoot 1600 all the time. Keep in mind that if you meter the >>spotlighted actors, you will probably find that 1600 is more than >>adequate with fast primes. >> >>Here is a junior high play I shot last year. It was done in jpg and >>mostly 1600 ISO. From image 8473 to the end were all done at that >>speed. >> >>http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/OJHPlay/index.htm C> Forgive me - is this everything you shot, or just a selection? C> Cheers, C> Cotty C> ___/\__ C> || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche C> ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com C> _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:49:13 -0400 From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Raw Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > On May 18, 2005, at 8:59 AM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > > >> The problem is that Ann wants to open RAW format under Windows 98 and, > >> as far as I know, Elements 3 requires Windows 2000 or XP. > > > > YIkes - yeah thats true. > > I don't know a lot about Windows. Is it impossible to simply upgrade to > Windows XP? In a word, yes... in my circumstance Just so you know, I'm not a total techo idiot re computers - I have worked with them since 1960... and while it isnt "impossible" to upgrade it would be really dangerous and way beyond what I could deal with on an emotional level. > G writes: > > If you have the camera's image processing parameters set correctly for > the scene you are trying to capture, if the scene's dynamics will > translate well to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] RGB JPEG rendering, if you get the > exposure pretty close to correct, if the image does not need extensive > post-processing, and if the camera's JPEG rendering is clean enough > (free of JPEG artifacts), then a JPEG file produced in camera should be > just as good as what you produce with a RAW format exposure and post > processing for most purposes. THAT is exactly what i wanted to hear... thanks! you are forgiven for your notebook comment(below) now :) > > That makes it sound harder than it is, yes. No - it makes it much easier - I'd say three-quarters of > the photos I see could be captured with JPEG rendering just fine. The > problem is that, for me anyway, the remaining one-quarter are usually > the photos *I* want to take. 8^| > > > so much about the digital stuff I'm ignorant of - > > and already forgetting stuff I've learned. > > My advice: > - Bolster your memory by keeping a notebook. I WILL kill you :) Geez. I NEVER would have thought of that! > - Stop thinking of it as "the digital stuff" and think of it simply as > photography. > It isn't, though... going from shooting manual when all you have to think about is f stops and aperatures on the tech side is a huge leap. Don't get me wrong, I'm loving many things about the digcam or I wouldn't have gotten myself into deeper debt buying the thing - but the wrinkle comes when I want to shoot for someone else, not for myself - to generate income to justify the expense. > It's not a burden, not any more than learning new techniques for > handling and rendering film images anyway. It is different, that's all: Right. thats the problem. > new material to work with, understand, and learn how to use to best > advantage. Accept that learning photography is a process of constant > learning new things. > > Godfrey Ok now tell me how old you are :) I don't have the memory I did when I was in my 20's - I'm pushing 70 - I spend half my day trying to recall things and staring at something and not seeing it. Its pretty depressing. There has been a huge super fast leap from film stuff to digi stuff in a very small period of time. The leap is not quite as large for those who started shooting with all sorts of programable film cameras than we who shot first with a manual slr. The frustration I feel is not about "photography" it's about electronics and mechanics and math, not being able to see the controls on the camera because someone things its nice tohave every thing in black...etc... But there is much I already love about the camera - I jsut can't stand how much I have to learn to get to the point where it is second nature. annsan venting ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:55:46 +0200 From: "Markus Maurer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bruce I saw some very nice photos in your gallery. For dial-up users it would be better to make some sub categories, all the thumbnails take a long time to load even with a DSL connection here. greetings Markus >>>>Here is a junior high play I shot last year. It was done in jpg and >>>>mostly 1600 ISO. From image 8473 to the end were all done at that >>>>speed. >>>> >>>>http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/OJHPlay/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:01:24 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Leica digital back no longer vapourware Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Well said, UncaMikey. And 100% correct, aside from Shel's amazing eyes that can tell film from digital capture on any low rez web image. I do enjoy the equipment discussion, but it seems very rare that a useful discussion of aesthetics and photography continues for very long on any marque or equipment centric forum. I'd love to invite you to my mailing list, which is nowhere near as chatty as this one and where most of the traffic is people posting pictures and comments on them. Sign up if you desire at http://www.micapeak.com/lists/seephoto There's also an excellent forum for people who are pursuing Picture A Week projects ... again, most of the discussion is about photographs, not equipment: http://www.micapeak.com/lists/paw hope to see you there. :-) Godfrey On May 17, 2005, at 4:56 PM, UncaMikey wrote: > Since I am still a FNG here, I get to throw in things out of left field > and can use newness as a defense. > > I am not very interested in gear, I have all the gear I want and need > and can use right now. I shoot film, and when I get it processed I get > a CD so I can pass shots around. That's just me. > > What I most enjoy on PDML is looking at other's photos. Whether I > comment or not, I learn something from almost every one. And to be > brutally honest, in the time I've been here, I have yet to be able to > tell from the photo whether the photographer shot the original with > film or digital. > > In other words, film or digital seems to have little to do with the > intrinsic quality of the photograph. And by "quality" I don't mean by > some technical standard, but rather aesthetic appeal. Personally, if > someone shares a good shot, I'd rather give at least 99% of the credit > to the shooter rather than the equipment. > > *>UncaMikey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:01:51 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shel Belinkoff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PESO -- Working Boat Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Shel, Perhaps it's AF. I still am leary of just how big an area the sensors really cover. I see more minor misses with people using AF than you would believe. Many times, DOF helps cover it up because of slow lenses, but when examined closely, the focus is off just a bit. I'm still a die-hard manual focus guy. AF is helpful in some situations, but that is definitely the exception, not the rule for me. I even have converted my daughter, Erin, to only shooting manual focus. She has seen the difference in exact focus and has put in some practice. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 5:22:21 AM, you wrote: SB> Hi Paul, SB> Look at the Biker Chick pic. It seems to me, both with and without my SB> glasses, that the focus point is on the seat in front of the dog. So many SB> of Peter's pics appear to me as being misfocused I can't help but wonder if SB> there's a problem with Peter's gear or his eyes. SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Paul Stenquist >> The focus point on this one appears to be the far side of the boat, >> which may cause the foreground section to appear soft. However, I'm not >> wearing my glasses :-). >> On May 18, 2005, at 1:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: >> >> > Peter, >> > >> > All of your photos, regardless of lens or focal length, look soft to >> > me, and this one's no exception. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:02:59 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 18/5/05, Bruce Dayton, discombobulated, unleashed: >Interesting question. These were taken during my learning phase with >my digital equipment. It was a play in which I needed to get coverage >of all the actors. I had the opportunity to shoot both the dress >rehearsal and the live performance, which helped me learn a few >things and also get a second chance in some cases. So in a long >winded way, the images shown are not all that was shot, but more is >shown than if I were to just show a few for advertising, etc. The >kids and parents were able to go to the site and view/order pictures. >The school also got a set of prints to put up around the school and >for promotion. > >Based on what I have learned since that time, I would shoot it a bit >differently (at least RAW) and possibly different lenses than I had at >that time. But isn't that how everything goes? We learn as we go and >when looking back, can see how we could have done better. Part of >what makes life interesting. Good mitigating circumstances ;-) And, agreed. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:10:07 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shel Belinkoff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: PAW PESO - Bike Waiting for a Train Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Shel, The attempt with the perspective seems like a good direction. But this particular image doesn't do anything for me. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 5:43:46 AM, you wrote: SB> http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/bikewaiting.html SB> I was about to round file this one, but decided to post it here to see what SB> the experts thought of it. It's just a rough "work print." Comments and SB> crits welcome. SB> Shel ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:11:40 -0700 From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: RE: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi Markus ... I've got a slow dial-up connection, and am usually the first to complain about such things, but, surprisingly, Bruce's thumbnail page came up quite fast for me. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Markus Maurer > For dial-up users it would be better to make some sub categories, all the > thumbnails take a long time to load even with a DSL connection here. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:14:51 -0700 From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Wow! You sure shot a lot. At times it looks like the camera may have been on auto pilot <LOL. Of course, it's great that you could push out so many pics and give the parents and students a lot of choices. In fact, as I looked over the thumbs I couldn't help but think how the digital aspect could be very useful in some commercial situations. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton > http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/OJHPlay/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 12:15:00 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Re: OT - Mrs Quinn visits WR Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" Subject: Re: Re: OT - Mrs Quinn visits WR >> Apparently, they were wandering about the place yesterday for a while. >> Didn't invite me for tea though. > > Wouldn't have satisfied a manly appetite like yours. Cool thing on the way home for lunch today. A few unmarked official type vehicles turned the corner in front of me, forcing me to change lanes. As I passed the middle vehicle, there was Her Royalness looking ot the window at me. We made eye contact, I smiled and winked, she smirked a little, and the moment passed, as did I. Good Golly though, there sure are a lot of police out there today....... William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 12:05:23 -0600 From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: DA 40 on manual focus Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- From: "Collin Brendemuehl" Subject: DA 40 on manual focus > Just curious ... > since there is no aperture ring ... > will this lens work in P & Tv modes on manual focus bodies > (e.g., Super Program, ZX-M)? Think of it as a lens permanently in the A position. It will work with programmed and shutter preferred automatic exposure modes. William Robb ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:18:55 +0100 From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> Subject: OT - Gherkin revisited Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit There was some chat recently about the Gherkin in London - that tall Norman Foster building shaped like a nose-down zeppelin. UK viewers can see a documentary on tall buildings this evening on BBC 1 @ 10.50pm BST: <http://tinyurl.com/7plzy> Includes material about the gherkin.... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com _____________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:22:18 -0700 From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PESO -- Working Boat Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On May 18, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote: > Perhaps it's AF. I still am leary of just how big an area the sensors > really cover. I see more minor misses with people using AF than you > would believe. Many times, DOF helps cover it up because of slow > lenses, but when examined closely, the focus is off just a bit. I agree. I mostly use AF with my zoom lenses, which are relatively slow and cover the focus error well. When I want critical focus, I go to manual focus. Thankfully, critical focus isn't always necessary to enhance a photograph's appeal. > I'm still a die-hard manual focus guy. AF is helpful in some > situations, but that is definitely the exception, not the rule for me. > ... :-) I'm in love with the Magnifier FB now. It makes critical focus with the DA14 and A24 so easy! Godfrey ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:23:56 -0700 From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PESO -- Working Boat Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII I'd believe you, Bruce. As you may recall, apart from my being anti digital, I'm also anti autofocus <LOL> Seriously, there have been discussions here and elsewhere in which the accuracy and efficiency of autofocus has been called into question. You're right about slower lenses and the greater DOF most/many people use covering up focusing errors. Add to that that many people make relatively small prints, and there's really no need to be particularly accurate wrt to the focusing. And now with the greater popularity of APS-sized sensors and digi cams, most of the time the focus is "good enough." Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bruce Dayton > Perhaps it's AF. I still am leary of just how big an area the sensors > really cover. I see more minor misses with people using AF than you > would believe. Many times, DOF helps cover it up because of slow > lenses, but when examined closely, the focus is off just a bit. > > I'm still a die-hard manual focus guy. AF is helpful in some > situations, but that is definitely the exception, not the rule for me. > I even have converted my daughter, Erin, to only shooting manual > focus. She has seen the difference in exact focus and has put in some > practice. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 14:31:06 -0400 (EDT) From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] (Pentax List) Subject: Who was looking for a FA 135/2.8 ? Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit KEH have one, newly listed today. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:42:00 -0700 From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Shel Belinkoff <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ist-D at ISO 1600, worth it? Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I do have to say, that the biggest impact I have seen of digital on "professional" jobs, is the ability to shoot based on speculation. Basically, the more coverage and choices available, the more likely your sales will go up. You are already at the venue, anyway. When I was shooting film, I really had to be careful in this type of environment. As an example, I have become the league photographer for the local little league here. I am to provide action shots for the parents to buy. My pay is based on what is ordered. There are 26 teams and about 400 players. So a single shot of batting and fielding would yield about 1000 shots. Realistically, pitching, running, fielding and batting all need to be covered much better than a single picture. My posted count on the ordering site (thank goodness for automation) is around 5600 images. I still don't have all the teams covered yet and some coverage is less than I'd like. This type of shooting would have been inconceivable with film. The cost would be too high. Again, coverage and choice is very important, making the quantity count go way up. Here is a link to it, if you are interested. http://www.photoreflect.com/scripts/prsm.dll?EventFrame?event=06RZ000D -- Best regards, Bruce I am the official photographer for our American Legion Baseball Showcase where all the better players go once a year to showcase their talent for all the major league teams and colleges from all over the country. Last year was the first time I shot digital and had a Sony f717 and my trusty Pentax "A" film box. I found that I used more of the digital photos just because I could shoot more. I recently bought an *ist D and will use that this year. Last year I just wished that Pentax had a digital so I could use all the "A" glass I have had for over 30 years. The "D" came out just after last years' showcase. I will probably shoot all digital this year with the f717 as my backup this time. My photos go all over the country on CDs and I must have them ready to go the final day. Film is very difficult to do that with. I prefer digital over film and the local "One Hour Photo" shop anytime. I know exactly what you mean when talking cost and convenience. I am a volunteer as are all of the Legionnaires working the showcase so cost is a major factor. I get paid only for photos that are published in various mags but not enough to cover costs if I were using film. Ed Wednesday, May 18, 2005, 11:14:51 AM, you wrote: SB> Wow! You sure shot a lot. At times it looks like the camera may have been SB> on auto pilot <LOL. Of course, it's great that you could push out so many SB> pics and give the parents and students a lot of choices. In fact, as I SB> looked over the thumbs I couldn't help but think how the digital aspect SB> could be very useful in some commercial situations. SB> Shel >> [Original Message] >> From: Bruce Dayton >> http://www.daytonphoto.com/Galleries/OJHPlay/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 19:48:21 +0100 From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 21 Ways to Improve Your Photographs Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, Ceci n'est pas une pipe... -- Cheers, Bob ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 11:43:47 -0700 From: Jim Apilado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Classy portraits :) Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Not me. I love my black K2 DMD. With the black winder attached it looks dynamite! Jim A. > From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 18:31:04 +0100 > To: "pentax list" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Classy portraits :) > Resent-From: [email protected] > Resent-Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:31:22 -0400 > > > >> On May 18, 2005, at 5:19 AM, frank theriault wrote: >> > >> The black MX must be the most beautiful 35mm SLR ever made, by Pentax >> or anyone else. > > Yep, I'll second that. > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > -------------------------------- End of pentax-discuss-d Digest V05 Issue #1128 **********************************************
