How about one of those "Could I borrow the tripod back? I have some
pictures I really need it for." (I presume her son has no influence?)
Regards, Bob S.
On 9/6/07, Rebekah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:34 AM, Rebekah wrote:
>
> > Fine, YOU go up to my mother-in-law's house and ask her for my
> > tripod. :oP
>
> >Is it a good tripod? ... ]'-)
>
> The tripod was a gift from my father. Knowing my father and knowing
> me, I can infer 3 things about the tripod:
>
> 1. The tripod can probably survive a nuclear blast, seeing as I
> hadn't managed to break it before it disappeared. I am the ultimate
> test for all things electronic or with moving parts.
> 2. The tripod has all the useful features you'd need, but probably
> nothing "frilly" or unnecessary.
> 3. The tripod was purchased at a reasonable price and will hold its value
> well.
>
> I don't know, do you think it's worth your life?
>
> rg2
>
>
>
> On 9/6/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's quite true. But they produce higher quality images than my 10D
> > does, and are far less hassle to me than shooting RAW is (I've come to
> > the realization of late that the reason I keep going through DSLR's is a
> > profound aversion to post-processing rather than any issue with the
> > bodies themselves, although small buffers continue to annoy).
> >
> > I get more quality for a given amount of effort from 645 than I would
> > from even a K10D, even if the max available quality (K10D RAW vs. 4490
> > scans of my 645 negs) is essentially the same.
> >
> > -Adam
> >
> >
> > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> > > That's fine if that's what you want to do. It does not contradict
> > > what I said, however.
> > >
> > > BTW: unless you're using a Nikon 9000 or Imacon scanner, or drum
> > > scanner, or do all the processing with a high quality wet lab
> > > enlarger and chemical printing process, the 645 negatives will only
> > > just match the image quality available from a K10D exposure for up to
> > > a 16x20 inch print. I've tested this and found it to be true to my
> > > satisfaction.
> > >
> > > Godfrey
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sep 6, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm not much of a tripod user with 35mm/digital stuff. But I don't use
> > >> that kit for the most part if max quality is the goal, I pull out the
> > >> 645 and the tripod and shoot with MLU and a remote release.
> > >>
> > >> -Adam
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> > >>> Without using a tripod, you're cutting your maximum resolution by a
> > >>> factor of at least 50%. Even at 1/500 second exposure time.
> > >>>
> > >>> This is not be important for many types of photographs, but for
> > >>> others it is a very important factor. I use a tripod a LOT of the
> > >>> time.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > [email protected]
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> [email protected]
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
>
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
