Re: Words (was -- Re: PDML numbers: Re: I haven't got *Ist D)
Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Change never occurs in a vacuum, on its own, without external stimuli. Hmm.. No one has ever attributed particle decomposition (half life) to external stimuli. In fact, because of its Gaussian nature, it appears to happen literally in a vacuum, or from within... :)
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: EVERY canon AF lens ever made will work on the EOS-10d if I understand it correctly. Nope, they just made a new lens esp for the 300D, that only works on that camera. The 10D mirror would actually hit the optics on that lens.
Re: Pentax 35-135ish lens?
I have the same lens, macro. What do you think of it? rg C or B Waters wrote: I have a SMC-F 35-135 Macro lens and I think they made another that wasn't macro. Cory - Original Message - From: Ramesh Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 1:44 PM Subject: Pentax 35-135ish lens? I was looking for AF lens in the range of 35-135ish. During this I found Pentax has so many versions in the 28-80ish range but none in 35-135sh range. Instead of churning out the same thing again and again, Why can't pentax come out with new focal length range? Any idea how much work it takes to design new focal lenght in 35-135ish rage? I know Pentax had A 28-135mm. Another way to get this range is to use 28-70 f2.8 with *istD. Canon has 28-135mm IS and Nikon has 24-120mm VR. Image stabilization makes it really good travel lens. I thought of changing to Canon just beacuse of this nice range IS. Thing that's keeping me in pentax is compact size of the camera body. Hope Pentax comes with an IS lens in this range. Thanks Ramesh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.522 / Virus Database: 320 - Release Date: 9/29/2003
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Its a matter of coming out of the cave. Haven't you ever seen 2001 a space odyssey? Technology moves forward, you adjust. Don't worry, you'll get used to it... :) Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Oct 2003 at 23:03, Rob Brigham wrote: Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the MZ-S - but I adjusted. Now I have to adjust back and have not found the transition quite as easy in this direction. No problem though, I will cope - but then I am lucky I don't have any lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. As I said, I will copy, but I really liked the idea of having a twin film/digital interface so that my work was identical on whichever body. This was part of why I bought an MZ-S because I thought I was gonna get its twin when I went digital. Still lament that one slightly. Well said. I don't have any lenses which will be a problem either but hell I'd like to be able to use their bloody aperture rings. I bought my MZ-S for the same reasons as yourself and now all I see is total inconsistency from Pentax regarding operation, compatibility, delivery, body design and yes even lens/body finish and colour. What I can't understand is how people here seem to view these moves as positive advancement? Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement. With the A lenses, continously variable aperture adjustment became possible. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. With both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. :) Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Oct 2003 at 17:49, Robert Gonzalez wrote: A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture control is a much more desirable form of adjustment. Desirable to whom? Everyone but a few whiners it seems. A great retort indeed, indicating that the author has a deep understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
But they have to support the newer FAJ lenses too. This translates to more code to differentiate between the two, and more testing at the back end to ensure compatibility. Haven't you ever done a testing matrix to make sure that your test coverage is complete? Adding this feature to the matrix has a multiplicative effect. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Hogwash, they have been making bodies supporting K/M/A/F/FA ALL FULLY, ALL in same body, and all in cheap $300 bodies. they didnt have to reinvent that stuff for the istD. Pure marketing decision IMHO. All they needed was a cheap aperture sensing cam, about a $10 part at most and a few lines of code to adjust the shutter speed slower as the aperture ring gets stopped down J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 11:27 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D Continuously variable shutter speed was the first big advancement. With the A lenses, continously variable aperture adjustment became possible. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. With both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. :) Rob Studdert wrote: On 7 Oct 2003 at 17:49, Robert Gonzalez wrote: A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture control is a much more desirable form of adjustment. Desirable to whom? Everyone but a few whiners it seems. A great retort indeed, indicating that the author has a deep understanding of the underlying concepts and dilemmas. :-( Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Continuous variable aperture has always been possible. It's especially easy to do with a Spot F with an analog needle meter. I've used it many times when shooting evenly lit scenes, turn the aperture ring until the needle is centered. It hardly ever happens on a particular f-stop detent. Sorry, I meant for shutter priority modes. You can compensate for problems with non-constant aperture zooms this way, as well as get the perfect aperture for a given shutter speed. This seems less than possible if you let the camera set both shutter and aperture for you, Which is the only way this is really possible. Why spend all this money on an SLR. If your going to let the exposure system do all your thinking for you Actually I use hyper manual on my PZ most of the time, but when there is fast action, I don't have time to fiddle with it, so the automation comes in handy. get a PS. You don't need computerized control to compensate for variable aperture zooms by the way, purely analog metering systems have been doing it quite well for a very long time. Its a guestimate based on wide open reading, which is not too bad actually. One based on the electronic data is better. Of course it's one more thing that can break. :( Sometimes simple is better. With both ends open, as in green mode, the program line can pick a combination that is not possible to select by hand. I find this desirable, don't you? Why limit yourself to fixed f-stop buckets when you have a continuum between wide-open and min aperture?? Not wanting it is like a grade schooler saying I like Whole numbers, I'm scared of Real numbers. You seem to like having a robot make your decisions for you. I'm not afraid of real numbers but imaginary numbers give me hives. Yea, I never liked the whole imaginary number games used to solve electrical engineering problems. Like I mentioned though, I use Hyper-manual most of the time, so I like having the control. I do like the concept of doing away with fixed buckets. Its useful as a reference to get a grasp of the general lighting conditions, but that's all. I initially felt betrayed by the lack of full support for KM lenses on the new digital body, but I've gotten good use out of them, and they could still be used on that body with a little extra work. Adding the support for the older lenses is more expensive than people realize, with the extra development, manufacturing, and testing required, There is a kernel of truth here it would be more expensive, probably $20.00 per unit. That would make each *ist-D cost 1% more if they passed the whole cost on to the consumer. If they didn't they could make up for that cost by selling 100 to 1000 more units world wide, depending on their current gross profit per unit. I think with a world wide population of several billion people Pentax might find that many more to buy an *ist-D if they kept faith with their past. I honestly think for the *istD it would have cost a whole lot more money than that. Mainly because of software and testing. We go through this with software all the time. Should we support the xxx version of the operating system for customers who are still on it? Adding the support sometimes takes your testing matrix beyond the resources available and do not make sense *at that time*. It may be the case that they have postponed this to the next body. this incremental change propagates throughout the organization and affects the bottom line. If they do add this to a future body, it will probably be more expensive and/or they will have amortized their RD costs so that they can balance the benefits/costs better and come out ahead. Most of us who have been complaining have already said we would be willing to pay more for this compatibility in a high end unit. Yup. But we are less than the critical mass needed to make it happen. :) Your smilie doesn't stop your post from having a distinctly condescending tone. Sadly you set up several straw men to knock down and failed to do even that. Huh? Where? My apologies if I offended anyone.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Mark Roberts wrote: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Funny thing is, I moaned about not having body control on the MZ-S - but I adjusted. Now I have to adjust back and have not found the transition quite as easy in this direction. No problem though, I will cope - but then I am lucky I don't have any lenses which will be a problem. What I am slightly annoyed about is the lack of consistency. I have to switch mentally when I go from one body to another. Yeah, this is my problem. I bemoaned the lack of aperture control on the body with the MZ-S because I liked using the TV wheel on the PZ-1p to set the aperture. It's a real pain having to change the lens setting when switching a lens from a PZ-1p (or *ist/*ist-D) to an MZ-S or MX, for example. I never got the MZ-S, so I'm going from the PZ series to the *D, which should prove to be an easier transition than if I had. What was it about the MZ-S that made people move from the PZ-1*?
Re: Wedding Photography Marketing??
My 3nd question is what is the standard method of doing the work today? Back then I supplied myself, my equipment, and the blank film. I charged a flat price for those items and turned over all exposed film. That was it...My clients liked it as they just got standard 4x6 prints as proofs and enlargements on their own and it gave me far less hassle. Is that common way to do it? I think I would still be shooting 35mm film, but I wonder if clients will still accept that type of arrangement... I don't know about the other questions, re. marketing and business development, but while film is nice today as a backup, I hear more and more that digital is being used as the primary. You can do so much more, i.e. white balance on the fly, change iso on the fly, instant feedback, excellent post processing abilities in the digital lab, etc. The equivalent film setup would cost much more to put together.
Re: If Pentax were like an automobile company ...
How bout: Toyota - good value, reliable, nothing in the high end Chevy - inexpensive, gets you there, conservative not innovative Chrysler - never the leader, good mix of features but never outstanding Collin Brendemuehl wrote: ... which one would it be more like? Jaguar -- Small, sleek, but not very reliable. GM -- A clumsy juggernaut with a mediocre product. Accura -- Not a Mercedes, but really nice for the price. ... or some other copmany ... and why? Collin KC8TKA
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Peter Alling wrote: I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use auto-focus don't use digital neither is simple. 2.) If you insist in using a camera that sets exposures that are not guestimates then you have one choice, the LX. Everything else is just that even your best digital is still a guess from a wide open test. 3.) If you think that they didn't have to write special software routines to keep the *ist-D from working with K/M and test them then you're simply naive. Actually I do think that. But I've been in the software business for 23 years and believe me, its not that they wrote special code to do anything. They just didn't write the code to support it. Its alot easier to test when you have less things to test. Maybe your just too jaded.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
John Francis wrote: Peter Alling wrote: I have three things to say, if simpler is better 1.) Don't use Actually they *did* have to write one piece of code - the piece that checks to see if a pre-A lens is mounted, and won't trip the shutter unless the appropriate Pentax function is set. But that's one small, simple piece of code. Code to support K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written. That is true, they had to write a *small* bit of code to support the flag that the user can turn on if he wants to use manual with non-A lenses. The very presence of that flag is pretty much proof that they took the attitude user beware, and probably didn't test this area very much.
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John Francis wrote: Actually they *did* have to write one piece of code - the piece that checks to see if a pre-A lens is mounted, and won't trip the shutter unless the appropriate Pentax function is set. But that's one small, simple piece of code. Code to support K/M lenses would reqire significantly more code to be written. As there is no mechanical aperture sensor the only functionality that could be provided would be stop-down metering. That's not code that is needed for anything else, so it would have to be specifically written. Good explanation, but don't try to be reasonable about this. ;-) Marnie aka Doe Still wondering if anyone has ever contacted Pentax to ASK. You're right, we'll just keep arguing here over what Pentax's real motivation was and never know until Pentax decides to tell us, if ever. Basically we'll never know.
Re: OT: eBay Plagiarism
Send a note to ebay. There are rules against this. Dr E D F Williams wrote: I wrote a careful description for a Leitz Heine Phase Contrast condenser and put it on eBay with a couple of pictures. I gathered all the information I could find and did a good job of the text. But I withdrew the item very fast when I saw there was another listed. I had missed it somehow. I decided to wait a week or so and then put it on again. These things are worth a lot of money (maybe $600) and so I didn't want competition. However a third Heine condenser has suddenly appeared on eBay and the description the seller has put up has been taken -- word for word -- from mine. The SOB even had the cheek to write 'I don't no much about this so I had an expert write this for me [sic].' How does one deal with this? The bugger has a very good feedback rating and seems to be well known. And his starting bid was low, there is no reserve, and it seems to be in very good shape from the pictures. Argh! Don ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery See New Pages The Cement Company from HELL! Updated: August 15, 2003
Re: M lens and *ist D
Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. Bill Owens wrote: Taken with a 100/4.0 M Macro in manual at f8, metered with handheld meter. No manipulation other than resizing http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=41 Bill
Re: M lens and *ist D
Chill out. I meant exposure-wise. I.e. if you meter, manual mode does the right thing mechanically. Some posts had me wondering if the *D did the right thing since they implied that the aperture didn't stop down until *after* the shutter had tripped. Rob Studdert wrote: On 9 Oct 2003 at 13:17, Robert Gonzalez wrote: Very nice. Its good to see a pic from a non-A lens look so well on the *. Not that I don't like the pic but hey you can tell jack * about a lens or just about any other part of the system by viewing a 600x400 pixel image. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Fantastic *ist-D and Lenses Many people have mentioned just using a hand held meter intead of TTL. That will work a lot of the time, but not with varible aperture zooms, and macro will also get tricky because of light loss at high mags. Ditto for filters and extension tubes and such... Two words: Instant review. William Robb Or count the stops from wide open after using the meter button.
Re: PZ-1P
If he does not need the money, offer $300. The 28-80 is usually the kit lens which is crap by Pentax's standards. I have one from a used purchase and its noisy, got poor contrast/resolution, and it seems like there are bearings on the inside that sound like they're going to fall off any minute. Francis Alviar wrote: Hello to all, I have an opportunity to purchase a friend's PZ-1P. Since buying it he ran no more than 10 rolls through the camera. He says it's too complicated to use and prefers digital point and shoot cameras instead. Anyway, my question is: How much should I offer for the camera? Since he does not need the money (wife's a dentist), I've been leaning towards the $350-$400 range. One more question: How good is the 28-80mm lens that came with the camera? Thanks. Francis M. Alviar __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Yea, I agree that it would be nice to make the aperture and speed dials more analogish, the fixed position thing is really an artifact of older technology and historical reference points. Someone is eventually going to do this. Juey Chong Ong wrote: On 7/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The mechanical aperture ring is a thing of the past. A continuously variable, microprocessor operated aperture control is a much more desirable form of adjustment. You can compensate for focal-length/aperture variations much more accurately this way. I'd be better convinced by this statement if I could also continuously vary the aperture (and shutter speed) in manual mode like I can do on a large-format lens. --jc
Re: Has Pentax missed again?
Precision camera in Austin. Where are you located? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert G posted: I had my first look at a camera store near me and it looks like a winner. Very light! But very solid. Which camera store ... ?
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Tell me about it. I buy high density polyethylene (HDPE) for fixtures and jigs for my woodworking, and its mighty expensive stuff. I buy it on ebay sometimes and machine it to the right dimensions. Its perfect for stable, low friction applications though. Plastic comes in many flavors! graywolf wrote: Yep everything is plastic these days, guns, supersonic aircraft, blankets, your drawers, my teeth (grin). Funny thing is there are cheap plastics and plastics that cost more than machined titanium. cheap and plastic are not necessarily synonymous anymore (look at the price of those teeth). Cotty wrote: On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and lens mount in registration. At least thats what I've been told. The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. And hence an area that saves money. The thing is, build quality on everything these days is getting worse. You look at anything from toasters to cars. The amount of plastic is appalling. We're being 'plastic groomed'. So most conusmers will pick up a 300D and think, 'Hey this isn't that bad'. Picking up the *ist D or 10D/D100 and they'd notice the difference. D1x/h / 1Ds / DC14thingywossname n and they'd notice the difference big time. ...and an LX and they'd faint at the quality! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Me and another guy here thought of this very thing as a viable alternative to manufacturer software. Create open source based on-camera and off-camera software that completely blows the socks off the typical offerings. It would be in the camera makers best interest to let this and make this happen. They would be pleasantly surprised by the creativity of their user base. Then we would have no one to blame but ourselves for any missing features!! ;) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, we may start a plea to Pentax to make open source of *istd code. Then found the Pentax Users Development Group and take over the job of stripping their bugs off. We'll publish free monthly OS updates and use PDML for testing (on real units donated by Pentax of course). Then Pentax can leave the software development to us, its loyal users, and get back to what they know best - making cameras and lenses. According to our specifications of course. No FAJ please. And btw, I'll write the K/M module myself. Just let me know if you need a downloadable MTF database for those darn old lenses. ;o) Servus, Alin Actually, it seems to me this should be quite doable. Really. It's been done in other arenas. Like DVD players, etc. The Net has a long tradition of hacking and sharing code, too. The only thing I can't figure out (not having seen a *istD) is how can one upload new software to it? Or any DSLR for that matter? Someone on this list must know. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Makes you wonder if sooner or later they will probably be driven by a linear or USM motor, with some type of feedback, like a shaft encoder or similar. This would make it extremely precise and consistent. It might actually be cheaper than a mechanical linkage, but it would necessitate a completely new interface that powered the lens. Thats when we better get IS and maybe some other goodies to make it worthwhile, but it would still make people feel even more screwed than they do now, since it would be more difficult to keep any compatibility with older lenses. Since they would yet again force people to buy new lenses, which means it will probably happen at some point! Peter Alling wrote: It's still a mechanical linkage. It would take statistical measurement of thousands of lenses to make a determination. In a perfect world the electronically controlled system should be more accurate. However it isn't a perfect world. At 01:03 PM 10/13/03, you wrote: - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: Old lenses and *ist D ? General consensus appears to be to treat exposure like slide, once saturation occurs it's a brick wall however generally the harder it saturates the more nasty aberrations (coloured edges etc.) you'll see around the areas of saturation. Most digicams have more exposure latitude into the shadow than slide film however but a couple of stops short of the better print films. Next question, how much more accurately (if at all) is the diaphram controlled on an A lens rather than a K lens. William Robb I drink to make other people interesting. -- George Jean Nathan
Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
Here's a question. There is also noise reduction ala Neat Image. What would you apply first, the noise reduction or sharpening? They somewhat act against each other, but they are both useful. Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: Jostein, I always apply USM at 100% magnification. However, should you apply USM to *ist D pictures, they can only look sharp at less than 100% magnification. If you apply lesser USM, they don't look sharp even at 50% magnification, while if you apply enough USM for getting sharp pics at 50% magnification you'll see too edge effect at 100%. That's the problem with the *ist D pictures I tried to sharpen. Dario - Original Message - From: Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 12:13 AM Subject: Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!! - Original Message - From: Dario Bonazza 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] That's not the case with the *ist D: when you apply enough USM to let pictures look acceptable when smaller than 1:1 on video, when you enalarge them 1:1 angled lines such as hair or grass are so much saw-toothed. Dario, Why do you apply USM at less than 100% magnification? In my experience, doing sharpening at less than 1:1 is risky business with scans as well. Best, Jostein
Re: Old lenses and *ist D
Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Oct 2003 at 11:54, Robert Gonzalez wrote: Me and another guy here thought of this very thing as a viable alternative to manufacturer software. Create open source based on-camera and off-camera software that completely blows the socks off the typical offerings. It would be in the camera makers best interest to let this and make this happen. They would be pleasantly surprised by the creativity of their user base. Then we would have no one to blame but ourselves for any missing features!! ROTLF, I can imagine the expressions on the faces of the Pentax service imps reading this :-) He he, they'd have to hire double the service reps to keep up!! Think of the revenue potential! This might even make Pentax more money than the crippled mount tactic.
Re: I got my *ist D and I LOVE IT !!!
I way I interpreted the photo.net explanation it sounds like the magnification factor has an effect on the DOF. Since it takes more magnification for a smaller sensor to fill the 8x10, the DOF will be different. In what you are saying, it sounds like M, the magnification factor is effectively the same since you are getting the same final crop in terms of subject sizes? Here is a summary of what that web site has (I have substitued the *istD for his original example): 1. For an equivalent field of view, the *istD has at least 1.5x MORE depth of field that a 35mm film camera would have - when the focus distance is significantly less then the hyperfocal distance (but the 35mm format need a lens with 1.5x the focal length to give the same view). 2. Using the same lens on a *istD and a 35mm film body, the *istD image has 1.5x LESS depth of field than the 35mm image would have (but they would be different images of course since the field of view would be different) 3. If you use the same lens on a *istD and a 35mm film body and crop the 35mm image to give the same view as the digital image, the depth of field is IDENTICAL 4. If you use the same lens on an *istD and a 35mm film body, then shoot from different distances so that the view is the same, the *istD image will have 1.5x MORE DOF then the film image. 5. Close to the hyperfocal distance, the *istD has a much more than 1.5x the DOF of a 35mm film camera. The hyperfocal distance of the *istD is 1.5x less than that of a 35mm film camera. I'm not sure, but I think what you are saying is consistent with this, correct? rg graywolf wrote: DOF does not have much to do with the size of the Circle of Confusion (COC) on the film or sensor unless you only look at contact prints. Normally DOF is based on an 8x10 print viewed at 10 inches. When you reduce the formulas to their basics the only things that matter is COC in the final image, the size of the subject in the final image (magnification M), and the diameter of the aperture A (not f-stop). If you use a uncropped 8x10 @ 10 inches as your reference COC becomes a constant. What that means is in that the same size subject in an 8x10 print, a given f-stop (f4.5 in the mentioned case) with a given lens (24mm NOTE: you have to specify the focal length if you use f-stop, because what is involved in DOF is the diameter of the aperture and you need the focal length of the lens to convert f-stop to aperture) has exactly the same DOF with the small sensor as it does with 35mm film. That applies whether you move closer to fill the larger film frame or crop down to match the smaller sensor as both methods give the same overall magnification. I repeat, in the final image the DOF is exactly the same with both formats. Dario Bonazza 2 wrote: Good point. The 24mm should become a 36mm, while depth-of field must be conidered one stop less, hence pictures taken with the 24mm f/4.5 are like those taken at 36mm f/3.5, while 24mm f/11 is like 36mm f/8. However, I was expecting some more sharpness there (not more unsharp mask!). Can you explain your logic here? In my experience the DOF is based on the lens focal length, not the 35mm equivelent focal length. The 24mm on the *ist D gives you the field of view of a 36mm lens but the depth of field of a 24mm lens (because that is what it is). A 36mm lens at f3.5 would have much less depth of field. Glad you noticed that. I'll try to explain this concept (all but mine). The depth of field is based on the concept of confusion circle: 1) Your eyes see as pinpoint each spot size below their resolution. 2) Your eyes can appreciate dimensions of each spot size above their resolution. Images look unsharp (out of focus) when the size of dots forming them are above eye resolution and look sharp (in focus) when dots forming them are below that limit. The confusion circle is a parameter in optical design, and depth of field as indicated in DOF scales is related to it. Since *ist D CCD sensor diagonal is 1.5 times smaller than that of 35mm film, using a 24mm designed for film on such a sensor not only gives you an angle of view equivalent to that of a 36mm lens, but in order to do that it only uses (enlarging it) a central portion of its possible image field. So, to get a print (or file as seen on PC monitor) the same size of that taken with a true 35mm lens on a 24x36mm sensor, you have to enlarge the image of such a 1.5 factor. Think of doing that with film: should you want to get a 35mm perspective print out from a 24mm slide or negative, you have to enlarge it 1.5 times more and then crop the print to the same size of that made with a true 35mm lens. The only difference is that the *ist D crops during shooting. You'll enlarge the image taken with the 24mm more than that shot with the true 35mm on a larger sensor (35mm film format), hence you'll push image resolution of the 24mm to a 1.5x higher extent. In other words, some
Re: Does exposed film travel?
Dont check them!! The X-ray machines used in the baggage handling area are *MUCH* more powerful, and will fog your film big time. Its better to go through the walk through. If you carry them separate, they usually will give you the courtesy of not passing them through the smaller X-ray machine. Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Hi folks, I am on holiday in Greece and have shot 2 Kodak T-MAX 400 (@800, if it makes any difference). I would like to develop them in my favourite lab (Ilfords in the UK) but I am worried about X-ray machines and metal-detector arches etc. Do you see any problem? Would you fly with them back to your origin? Where would you put them, in the x-ray machine for hand-luggage, in your pocket through the arch, or in the luggage you kiss goodbye (perhaps forever) at the check-in desk? Or would you post them home? Perhaps too worried but thought to ask, Kostas
Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
Its hard to tell while I'm on my laptop, but it looks a tad underexposed to me. Cheers, rg Bill Owens wrote: Just went out on the front porch and took this shot with the *istD. Camera on manual, ISO200, f/11, 1/500 per Gossen Digisix meter. http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42 Comments? Bill
Re: OT: Lotus Elise
Swet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some of you were discussing the Lotus Elise a few days ago and I thought I'd pass along that the US version is reviewed in this month's Road Track. It's getting a new Toyota engine with 190 bhp and 133 lb.-ft of torque... not bad for a car weighing in at 2K pounds. Too bad I just bought such an expensive camera. I guess the RX-7 will have to do for now :) Cory --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 10/9/2003
Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
John Francis wrote: There are competing demands; to shrink the size of an individual sensor, and to increase the precision of measurement (roughly corresponding to bits per pixel). We're not at the technologically imposed limits yet, but getting beyond the next generation or two is going to require some changes to either the materials used or the design of the sensor. The big problem in shrinking the individual sensor (photosites) is not the material or the photomasking, etc. Its S/N ratio. There is just too much noise. While this is also a nuisance in digital logic circuits, its not as critical as a analog oriented application. Since digital logic only comes in levels 0 or 1, you can work around the S/N problems easier. On the other hand, trying to get clean, distinct measurements out of a photosite requires gathering 4096 levels of data (for 12 bits) is tough, a tiny bit of noise will make the measurement skip 10's and possibly 100's of levels. Cooling the sensor helps alot, but this brings up power issues. One technological improvement that would help would be 3D photolithography, this might enable the photosites to be larger while being denser, since the routing (wires) could be underneath. Routing currently takes up a huge amount of space on the surface, the use of microlenses above the sensor concentrate the light to the small sensor photosites. These are exciting times, there is no doubt that there are opportunities for small, nimble companies to create new technologies that can change the industry practically overnight. rg
Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
Agreed, I meant to add that! graywolf wrote: Only if it cost $1500. If it cost $6000. Most of them would not be bothered at all. Robert Gonzalez wrote: If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible camera next yaar, alot of *istD owners would feel their camera was obsolete. Esp those landscape photogs that love their wide angles!! Of course its just a w*t dream. John Francis wrote: if I had spent $1500 on a camera that will undoubtedly be obsolete in less than a year. You reckon? What's going to obsolete it, then? And even if Pentax *do* come out with a new model (which I don't believe will happen) what's going to be wrong with the *ist-D?
Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain)
If it went for the same price then as the aps do today, then maybe... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez Subject: Re: *ist D makes me cringe (was Pentax 6x7 in the rain) If (big IF) Pentax came out with a full frame, 14Mp, K/M compatible camera next yaar, alot of *istD owners would feel their camera was obsolete. What you are talking about here is a change in format. The real question is not whether the full frame chipped camera would make the present DSLR obsolete, but if it would make the APS sized format obsolete? William Robb
Re: Sell me your useless film cameras
That is incorrect. There are only 3Mp in green, 1.5Mp in Red, 1.5Mp in Blue. They are interpolated to create 6Mp in RGB. That is why Foveon claims that they actually have a 9Mp camera, because they have 3Mp in red, 3Mp in Green, and 3Mp in blue. This is a slight exaggeration, but goes along with the marketing hype of Bayer sensor cameras. J. C. O'Connell wrote: Are you saying that each of the 2000X3000 pixels in a typical 6mP image are not independent true color pixels? I believe they are and there are a red, blue, and 2 greens sensors for each of them for a total of 24mP JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 3:19 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sell me your useless film cameras nope a 6Mp camera has 24M sensors not 1.5M jco Wrong again. And in any case we weren't discussing the way marketing counts each sensor as a pixel, even though it only senses one colour component. I was merely pointing out that the usual Bayer array has a cell of four pixels, so the breakdown from th 6MP cameras such as the *ist-D, D100 and 10D is not evenly divided into 2M sensors of each colour, but instead is 50% G, 25% R, 25% B. -- -- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -- -- -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2003 12:24 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Sell me your useless film cameras well, i suppose, for printing uncropped images at 8x10, 6M of RGB pixels is as goot as it gets. but i don't now any digicam capable of that. yet. Not yet. The Foveon sensor in the Sigma XD-9 is only 3MP 6MP digicam has exactly 2M of pixels of each color Not even that. It's usually 1.5M R B, 3M G
Re: What kind of Monarch?
Not a Monarch. Would have to look it up though. Beautiful image BTW, what camera, lens, settings, etc. did you use? Thomas Haller wrote: Hey does anyone know what kind of Monarch butterfly this is? It's been hanging around my yard. I've never seen a wing pattern like this... http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/TPHaller/butterfly520_small.jpg Any Monarch experts on board? - THaller
Re: FA 50/2.8 Macro
Sometimes that is due to the curvature of the slide itself. I have run into this with some slides that were quite curved. Fred wrote: Sometimes the lens defects in the slide projector's lens can make a good slide (taken with a good camera lens) look bad. So, do you know for sure that the slide image itself is soft at the edges? (Have you checked the slide with a loupe?) You may be right, this could be due to projector. I do not see this behavoir when viewing on the 17 monitor. I have been right only on very rare occasions, Ramesh, so don't take anything I say too seriously - g. I have had only modest experience with slide projectors (and none recently, and projector lenses may have improved over the past ten years or so). However, when I used to use one on occasion (it was some Kodak model, but I have no idea of the model or of the actual lens it used), field curvature was an annoying problem. If I focused sharply on the center of the image, the edges and corners were out of focus. If I focused on the corners, then the center was out of focus. I usually ended up with a compromise focus point that favored the center quite a bit but gave away a little bit of center sharpness in order to help out a tad in the corners. Fred, K1FW
Re: Av Wheel Wanted....
Mark Erickson wrote: All, I was doing some still-life and macro shooting with my MZ-S this morning with a couple of big lenses. I wanted to do some aperture bracketing to experiment with different depths of field, and I caught myself wishing that my MZ-S had an aperture wheel! Nutty, huh? In particular, my A* 200/F4 macro lens only displays the aperture in the viewfinder if the lens is set on A. I can put the camera on Shutter Priority and use the shutter dial on the MZ-S, but I have to do exposure compensation via the exposure compensation dial, which is not easy to do with your eye at the viewfinder That *ist D is looking more and more attractive with every passing day. Must... Resist --Mark Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated ;) rg
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
Of course its a lens aberration. But I think she thought that it could be corrected post capture. And what I replied was that I didn't think that the software could do something like this. Although if you knew exactly the what the aberrations were for this particular lens sample, you might be able to do something. Hopefully the visibility of these types of aberrations in digital will force manufacturers to produce better lenses. :) How bad have these aberrations shown up on your starkist? William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez Subject: Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See 2. Better software for chromatic aberrations This is where I am really ignorant. But it seems to me that good interpolation (?) software might distribute the results of chromatic aberration better, so that digital apes film more. I mean, people are not going to be happy when they discover that one half of their lenses do not work that well with a DSLR. I wouldn't be happy shopping around for older lenses, having to find out which one had bad effects on a DSLR. Interesting concept, although it would probably be relatively difficult to determine what is a chromatic aberration versus true adjacent color deltas. If you did a blind blend while preserving luminosity, it would eliminate some of it, at the cost of general color softness (I'm not sure what you call this). I had always though that chromatic aberation was a lens deficiency. Blaming a lens problem on digital capture seems like shooting the messenger. The answer is lenses that are better corrected for chromatic aberation, though this may mean compromising some other lens defect. William Robb
Re: What DSLR Improvements I'd Like To See
It may be that CCD TV cameras can operate so fast because: 1. The res is not so high (800x600 or less) 2. It sends out the analog signal directly to the output without conversion (A to D conversion is slow if you want good quality) Since digital camcorders have to do a A/D conversion (lower res than a DSLR), it might be possible to put this functionality on a DSLR if they cut a corner on #1 or #2. I.e. less resolution, or lower quality. Just my $.02 worth rg John Francis wrote: When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ... That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem. It doesn't mean that it's an inherent problem if you use CCD sensors. As I pointed out, CCD TV cameras work just fine, so it's obviously possible to have a live-preview CCD SLR which adds less than 1/60 of a second to the shutter lag - something you'd be hard put to detect. There may be other reasons (cost, power, ...) not to incorporate this capability in a sensor designed to be used in a DSLR. But inasmuch as there are proofs-by-example that it's possible, your assertion that it can't be done seems to be on shaky ground
Re: OT: Sigma SD10, preview and samples
The ISO 800 and 1600 ones look worse than the 10D or *istD samples at those ISOs I've seen. But they are different samples, so its unfair to compare. Alan Chan wrote: Here are some SD10 samples I think are pretty good. http://www.pbase.com/rickdecker Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan _ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: 5 Mpixel price breakthough
They produce their own, so they don't have to pay Sony any profit. Plus its CMOS, which is a cheaper process. J. C. O'Connell wrote: That cant be right or CANON couldnt be selling the 6Mpixel rebel digital for 999.99 retail. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: alex wetmore [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 6:49 PM To: pentax discuss Subject: Re: 5 Mpixel price breakthough On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: I just saw on TV that gateway has a 5Mpixel digital PS for $249.99 I think 35mm film's days are really numbered. Why does a DSLR cost $1250.00 more WITHOUT a lens??? The CCD in a DSLR has about 10x the surface area (23.4mm by 15.6mm vs 7.2mm by 5.3mm). Big chips cost much much more to make because they get lower yields. The last thing that I found said that the sensor in the Pentax *ist D and Nikon D100 cost about $700 each in quantity. alex
Re: istD review - finally
Its about time. At least it got the highly recommended rating, not that people pay that much attention anymore. The reviews have been accused of being biased towards Canon. Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote: You should check dpreview - it's there! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/ Alex Sarbu --- Acasa.ro vine cu albumele, tu vino doar cu pozele ;) http://poze.acasa.ro/
Woohoo, its here!
Wow! My *istD just arrived. Got it plus FAJ 18-35 and the AF360FGZ flash on eBay for $1575. I don't know how the guy could do it, but he had overwhelmingly positive feedback, so I took a chance. Will probably sell the 18-35, since I already have the Sigma 15-30, which is fantastic. If anyone wants the 18-35 in this list, just drop me a note and make me an offer. Its brand new, in the box, haven't even opened it yet. Took a few pics in one banana operator mode, and they look great. Tried manual white balance + raw and the pics look much better. The software that Pentax provides is pretty low budget however, I expect it to improve as Pentax gets better at (lets hope) producing DSLR's and the associated software. I went ahead and ordered the grip (for longer power vertical handling) from Adorama for $169, hope the missus doesn't see that one. I got enablement approval for the *istD, so I dont think another couple of hundred will leave me in the doghouse. I also have to get a bigger card. I got an inexpensive 256Mb card from Fry's for $69, but it only holds like 16 raw images. I'd like to get the new Hitachi 4Gb card that is supposed to retail for $499, maybe if I drop some hints it will end up in my stocking. :) I don't know what will happen to my film cameras now. I have an ME-super, an MX, a P30t, and a PZ-1. My main camera was the PZ-1, and I have alot of unused Chrome in the freezer that I should use, but its going to be hard to use film when digital is SO easy. At least I can contribute to PUG now, not having had a scanner to use with my film stuff, I never was able to do so. I was 99% slides. I could not justify a scanner since I started saving for the DSLR. Yippee!!! Can you tell I'm excited? I don't think I've had a post this long before rg Cheers
Re: remote for *ist D
Where did you find the IR remote? rg alex wetmore wrote: I'm getting a remote release for the *ist D and oddly the IR remote seems to be less expensive than the cable remote. How does the IR remote work with long exposures in the B mode? Is there any reason to get the cable remote over the IR remote? To continue another thread, I stopped by Ballard Camera in Seattle today. They have the *ist D now but the two customers there who were looking at cameras were looking at the 300D and 10D. alex
Re: Woohoo, its here!
Thanks. Yes, new toys are nice; last time was a few years ago, except for some used lenses in between. I'm so freaked by the possibility of getting dust on the sensor that I have not taken off the first lens I put on it (85mm 1.4). At least it is a nice lens. Congrats on your LX. I always envied LX owners, they're such nice cameras. Cheers rg frank theriault wrote: Congrats, Robert. Ain't new toys fun? vbg cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Woohoo, its here! Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:17:43 -0600 Wow! My *istD just arrived. Got it plus FAJ 18-35 and the AF360FGZ flash on eBay for $1575. I don't know how the guy could do it, but he had overwhelmingly positive feedback, so I took a chance. Will probably sell the 18-35, since I already have the Sigma 15-30, which is fantastic. If anyone wants the 18-35 in this list, just drop me a note and make me an offer. Its brand new, in the box, haven't even opened it yet. Took a few pics in one banana operator mode, and they look great. Tried manual white balance + raw and the pics look much better. The software that Pentax provides is pretty low budget however, I expect it to improve as Pentax gets better at (lets hope) producing DSLR's and the associated software. I went ahead and ordered the grip (for longer power vertical handling) from Adorama for $169, hope the missus doesn't see that one. I got enablement approval for the *istD, so I dont think another couple of hundred will leave me in the doghouse. I also have to get a bigger card. I got an inexpensive 256Mb card from Fry's for $69, but it only holds like 16 raw images. I'd like to get the new Hitachi 4Gb card that is supposed to retail for $499, maybe if I drop some hints it will end up in my stocking. :) I don't know what will happen to my film cameras now. I have an ME-super, an MX, a P30t, and a PZ-1. My main camera was the PZ-1, and I have alot of unused Chrome in the freezer that I should use, but its going to be hard to use film when digital is SO easy. At least I can contribute to PUG now, not having had a scanner to use with my film stuff, I never was able to do so. I was 99% slides. I could not justify a scanner since I started saving for the DSLR. Yippee!!! Can you tell I'm excited? I don't think I've had a post this long before rg Cheers _ Is your computer infected with a virus? Find out with a FREE computer virus scan from McAfee. Take the FreeScan now! http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
*istD FAT32
Sorry if someone already answered this, I couldn't find it through a quick search. Anyone know of what file format the *istD supports? Any CF card 2Gb must be backed up by FAT32 support. Thanks, rg
Re: Woohoo, its here!
Thanks Cotty. I think I'll pass on the underwater idea, but I might take it to a semiconductor fab room, I'll have to put on an Intel bunny suit and all. ;) rg Cotty wrote: On 5/11/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I'm so freaked by the possibility of getting dust on the sensor that I have not taken off the first lens I put on it (85mm 1.4). At least it is a nice lens. I think there's an underwater housing available ;-) Congrats Robert. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Resistance is Futile
Or along graywolf's lines: D'Hood, like I'm from D'Hood John Francis wrote: I still think it should be called, D'gang. Full-starr'd knights? (with apologies to Walt Whitman)
Re: Colour fidelity low-light AF of *ist-D
I remember noticing this maybe 15 years ago. I just thought that I was getting old, or that one eye was irritated. Apparently everyone has a dominant eye, mine is my left eye, and it appears cooler than my right eye, which does seem to have a noticeable warmer tint to it. rg graywolf wrote: It might be a function of depth perception, like 3D glasses. My right eye seems to be color dominant. If I look at something and cover my left eye the color does not change. If I cover my right eye the color gets bluer. You are astute to have nowiced that, Joe. I asked an opthalmoligist about it once, and he didn't know a thing about it. I first noticed it myself years ago when adjusting my binoculars. How about a few others on the list checking it out and letting us know if it works that way with everyone, or are some of us different? -- Joe Wilensky wrote: This brings up a question I have always wanted to ask -- related to the fact that my own two eyes see colors slightly differently! It's easiest to see in skin tones, but if I close one eye and then the other, it's obvious to me that my right eye sees a slightly warmer or redder rendition than my left. It's slight, and with both eyes open I suppose I see an average or mix of the two that isn't disconcerting, but it's obvious that at least slight differences must exist among people. Maybe wide ranges of difference are normal, like television sets where the tint is all out of whack and faces look green or magenta. Has anyone tried this? It may be more noticeable in daylight or artificial light. Just a quick switch from one eye to the other and back should tell you. Joe I think its more likely that different eye/brain sets might see the same colour very slightly shifted, one way or the other, on the spectrum. One person might see it a little redder or bluer than another. But, as we decided before, one can never really know. Its not the same as colour blindness. My guess is that normal human eyes all see the spectrum the same way and it is in the brain that differences might arise ... if they do. Don Hi, Thursday, November 6, 2003, 2:24:49 PM, you wrote: It's an interesting thought, but what I perceive to be blue might actually what you perceive to be green. Imagine people around you who go thru life seeing 'blue' vegetables (though it seems perfectly normal to them *because* that's what they always known the label 'green' to refer to). And how would one actually prove any of this? I don't think it's empirically testable. If two people attach the same label to the same experience then that is all we can know, or need to know. I have no empirical evidence that other people think; you could all be automata* as far as I know, but I assume that you all do think. It's similar to the Turing** test, or these games of Chinese boxes that AI researchers enjoy so much. Cheers, Bob *as a matter of fact I happen to think exactly that, except that I include myself as an automaton. It doesn't alter the argument. **I've always believed that 'the Who' of long ago was a Turing test that some researcher was conducting.
Re: *ist D and Flash
Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just speculating? John Francis wrote: It keeps dust off the sensor during lens changes. I expect point and shoots use non shutters, but their response times are pretty abysmal, partially, I expect, due to how they have to desensitize then resensitize the sensor. Will this never die? We've hashed this out here at great length before, wth references taken from Phil Askey's camera tests on dpreview.com The main reason for shutter lag in point-and-shoots is the time it takes for the auto-focus and metering circuitry to come up with an answer. The additional sensor-clear lag is usually well under 1/10 of a second; practically un-noticeable when bundled in with the half a second or more that's typical of even the more expensive point-and-shoots.
Re: Let's talk MV for a bit... (off-topic question)
I like the Balveine double wood also, and the Cao'Ila (spell?) although I haven't had that one for a while, its hard to find here. I definitely have more bottles than camera gear. :( John Francis wrote: Oh yeah! I agree on the Oban... Of course, Dalwhinnie is right up there with the best, as well. Not bad, I guess. Tallisker isn't bad, either. Abelour or Highland Park for light tastes. George J.G. Smith's 100 proof Glenlivet is definitely interestings, as are the various wood-aged varieties of Glenmorangie. But I'd have to give the award to Glenmorangie 1972 single-cask bottling.o I've got more bottles of single malt than cameras or lenses, I think.
Re: *ist D and Flash
Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be the digital processor. These cheaper PS's may not have the processing power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole process. And that is speculation also. :) Herb Chong wrote: you don't need to speculate and you don't need to read any specs. use a high end PS digital camera and measure. everything other than AF time is too small to measure reliably by a stopwatch run by a person. Herb - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 11:37 AM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Do we know this for sure, i.e. times for individual events like auto-focus, sensor-clear, etc., from some technical spec, or are we just speculating?
Re: *ist D and Flash
I never said cleaning, read again, it says clearing. I.e. electrical zeroing out of the sensor sites. Herb Chong wrote: i have no idea where you read that there is any sensor cleaning going on in a PS digital camera. there isn't any camera out there without a removeable lens that needs sensor cleaning. as for AF delay, take a picture in AF mode and take picture in MF mode. that's all you need to know. anything else is pure BS. Herb - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 12:42 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. We *are* just speculating. I've never seen anyone post a link to a manufacturers site that shows the breakdown. There have been numerous opinions on this list, some that say most of the time is taken up by the sensor clearing, some that say that its the AF that is taking up all the time, some that say its something else. If you set one of those things on a tripod and keep taking pictures of something at a fixed distance, the shutter lag seems to be the same, without knowing what the mechanism/algorithm breakdown is, everyone's guess is as good as anyone else's. It could also just be the digital processor. These cheaper PS's may not have the processing power that the better cameras have and this may slow down the whole process. And that is speculation also. :)
Re: *ist D and Flash
I think we are in violent agreement about the measurements, I get the same thing. I am only questioning the level of truth being assigned to the conclusions reached. People are proclaiming their conclusions to be fact when in reality they are speculating on the facts based on their observations. This is why we have a plethora of conclusions and not very many real facts that can be traced to actual design data. Its ok for people speculate, but they should be prepared for intelligent discussion about the merits of their speculation. For all we know, PS cameras have very little shutter lag and the manufactures are adding delays to fit their marketing requirements. ;) rg Herb Chong wrote: your camera doesn't have manual focus mode and manual exposure mode, only manual focus mode. even so, you should have deduced what John and are saying AF accounts for almost all of the delay. that is before even knowing that my Nikon Coolpix 5000 can set exposure and take a picture in 55 ms after it has focus locked. Herb - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 4:08 PM Subject: Re: *ist D and Flash Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us.
Re: *ist D and Flash
I'm not questioning anyone's measurements, as you pointed out, I get the same thing. My original question was whether or not we had actual times from some factual source or whether the times were being deduced, hence speculation. Here is an example of what I mean, taken from one of your previous posting on this thread: The additional sensor-clear lag is usually well under 1/10 of a second; If the sensor was being cleared, we could state something like this since we know that minimum shutter lags without AF are 1/10 sec. But we don't even know if the sensor is being cleared, so we cannot say this for a FACT. Do you understand the difference? I'm not trying to argue here, just trying to get an answer to my original question. rg John Francis wrote: Wrong. I have an Optio S. And although I can measure the times at different settings, I'm still speculating on what's going on inside, and so are you. AFAIK, there is no data in the camera that tells me what the timing breakdown is. If there is such a way, please point it out to us. I don't understand why there are such defensive responses such as this one when members question expertise which really amounts to guestimation. You aren't questioning expertise - you are attempting to put forward your own opinion in the teeth of all the evidence being presented to you, even when your own experimentation proves the point you are arguing against. I'll try again, just one more time: The objectionable shutter lag on point-and-shoot digital cameras is an artifact of the auto-focus system. Turn off auto-focus, and the delay all but goes away. The camera is capable of performing all the other calculations and operations (metering, sensor pre-clear, etc.) quite fast enough for it to be unmeasurable except on a lab bench. True, we aren't privy to what goes on inside the camera. But we can measure the total time being spent on everything except auto-focus, and show that it is insignificant as a contributor to the total delay. I'll repeat that, because it's an important point: absolutely everything else except auto-focus is 'almost instantaneous', even in a digital PS. So - what *does* cause the shutter lag? Answer - turning on the auto- focus system. We're not trying to break it down any further than that; it might be becuse the camera processor is too slow; it might be because the auto-focus motor can't move the lens fast enough; it might be because the auto-focus software uses a poor algorithm; it might even be because the software writer has put in an idle loop to deliberately waste time. It doesn't matter. It's very simple - turn on the AF; get shutter lag. I also have the *istD, and shutter lag is all but nil there, so I can't even begin to speculate on the timing breakup there. On the *ist-D (and all other DSLRs with which I am familiar) the AF system is the same as that used in a typical film-based SLR, and is very fast. That is what is missing from a digital point-and-shoot. But, in any case, that's irrelevant. We don't need to know the breakdown of the timing of the *ist-D. We're not trying to allocate the finest details of timing - just pointing out where the PS spends it's time. John Francis wrote: Yes, I know we can measure the whole thing. But we know diddly squat about how that time is broken up. It's obvious at this point that you don't have first-hand experience. I suggest you get your hands on a mid-range or higher digital camera and try it for yourself. Until then I don't really think any purpose is being served by you continuing to speculate about subjects outside your field of experience, especially when your opinion is at odds with that being expressed by everyone who has actually done the experiment.
Pentax lens prices
I've noticed that a few AF lenses that I was looking at in ebay went for close to retail. Has anyone noticed this recently? I'm wondering whether the release of the *istD is responsible for some of this. For example, a recent auction of an FA* 80-200 2.8 went for almost $1100, when you could get one new for just a little over that at BH. The bidding for this went up really high in the last 5 minutes or so, I thought I was going to get it for around $650. :( rg
Re: *ist D and Flash
John Francis wrote: Ah, but we *do* know for a FACT that the sensor is being cleared. The sensor is used to provide live preview on the LCD display, and needs to be cleared before being used to capture the real image. Interesting. I know that it must clear the sensor array, that is a given, otherwise the sensor sites, which are tiny capacitors, would saturate. And this probably takes place (I'm speculating) for every frame it puts out while providing a live image. I'm wondering whether it needs to do a separate, special clear before it captures the image, and if so why? And if so, how long? Any ideas? My suspicion is that the frame rate to the LCD live display sets the mininum clear time and that there is no special clear, only a longer or shorter, post-clear, capture, which reflects the shutter speed of the image. And, in any case, sensor spec sheets have been quoted here which give the exact clear time for the sensor (and which confirm that the sensor must be cleared before an image can be captured). OK, now were talking fact. If there is a data sheet that has this spec, then that should quiet any argument claiming large sensor clearing lag. This is what I was looking for. Furthermore, just a reminder: my original post was made simply to try to put an end to speculation that the sensor clear accounted for any significant part of the total shutter lag - a theory which is totally contradicted both by sensor spec sheets and by empirical measurements. I had no doubt in my mind about this.
Re: Let's talk MV for a bit... (off-topic question)
Dang. Where are you located? I'll take the Caol Ila and the Laphroig, thank you. I can almost taste the briny sea air in the Caol Ila! How 'bout Armagnacs, ever try those? Love them for a little relaxing after dinner slow sipping drink. rg John Francis wrote: I definitely have more bottles than camera gear. :( A quick survey of the shelf here shows: Glenmorangie 12 yr (Madeira), Tmnavulin, Glenkinchie, Glenmorangie 18, Abelour, Highland Park, Glen Lochy, Linkwood, Glen Moray, Mortlach, Glen Mhor, Glenturret, Lagavulin 16, Single-single, Caol Ila 17, Laphroig, Talisker, The Edradour, Glenmorangie (Sherry), Bowmore, Gloen Mhor 20, Bowmore again, and Springbank. Plus the Glenmorangie 1971 single-cask bottling and the large (gallon) bottle of Glenlivet I use when I'm adding anything other than a little water (or, on hot days, maybe a small amount of ice).
Re: Hot pixels
I'll give it a shot. I just capped the exposure of about 30 seconds at 1600 iso. There was low level noise, and a couple of places where it reached a level that would have been almost a warm pixel, but not quite. So I was really pleased. No real standouts. Thanks, rg Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Nov 2003 at 20:35, Robert Gonzalez wrote: I asked about this in an earlier thread, and someone thought it came with the camera. But I have not found anything like this either. I did a test myself however, and was unable to find any hot or stuck pixels on the sensor in the *istD sample I bought. Try this little utility using capped exposures of 15 and 60 seconds: http://www.starzen.com/imaging/deadpixeltest.htm Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
Unfortunately, Pentax doesn't have the resources that Canon does, to fabricate their own chips. Pentax is at the mercy of Sony. Since Sony also provides the 6mp chips for Nikon, and Nikon is also creating their own line of APS dedicated lenses, it appears that they also believe that APS sensor cameras are going to be with us for a long time. Its not clear if Canon has or will recoup their investment in the 1DS, but it is sure making for a strong marketing story that they have all bases covered and should be the horse people should bet on. Just my $.02 worth. :) rg Ryan Lee wrote: - Original Message - From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm personally happy with the smaller chip size and lenses. I'd rather have smaller and lighter lenses. I'm very happy with the performance of current APS-sized sensors with regards to noise and pretty happy with their resolution. Yup.. I suppose my observation is that Pentax is like a mother bird coming back to feed a nest of squawking chicks with only so much worm to go round. If the mother feeds the skinniest to help it grow (probably not the case in real life.. I bet they brutally let the runt die in very economical manner) While some might be content with APS sized sensors, more demanding (and fatter..35mm fat to be exact) chicks sense the neglect and squawk louder.. (Please excuse the analogy..possibly obtuse to rational people- I blame it on midnight madness.. a sign I've been awake a bit too long) As long as there are cameras with the smaller sensors it makes sense for the DA lenses to exist. alex I agree with this totally. I give them points for identifying, and tending to this market, but if Canon unveils a full frame CCD in a 300D price range a bit too soon, it'll be a disaster for Pentax if they've committed too much to this APS sized sensors and lenses etc.. If Pentax decides to have a bit of foresight, they might have a ears up trying to find out whether Canon will follow suit with DA type lenses or is trying to tame full frame, because it does seem to have implications for Pentax eitherway. How long will DA last? I give it 2 years.. 3 optimistically.. but who knows :) Regards, Ryan
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
I know it sounds too flattering to Pentax, but it also seems too coincidental. Ever since Pentax announced the *istD in Feb, there had been rumors of its potential low release price. The idea that another company creating the first sub $1000 camera was too much for Canon, which obviously wanted that distinction. By cutting every corner and re-using as much technology out of the 10D as they could, Canon created the digi rebel and quickly announced it and its price right before Pentax did. Herb Chong wrote: i sincerely doubt that Canon paid the slightest attention to Pentax in their marketing plans for the 300D. Herb - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 11:25 PM Subject: Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26 And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out with the 300D at $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the lucrative market share it might have given them.
Re: New Pentax SMC-DA 3.5-4.5/15-26
LOL. But companies do this all the time however (lose money to gain market share). Esp Japanese companies. Remember all the fuss over DRAM back in the 80's and the dumping below cost to put other DRAM companies out of business? Pentax doesn't have that deep of pockets however, hence the caveat at the end. graywolf wrote: Ah yes, Pentax should sell the camera at a loss. A couple of hundred dollars a camera is nothing to worry about. After all they can make it up in film sales. -- Robert Gonzalez wrote: And Pentax may have made a mistake by not pricing the *istD more aggressively. Canon may have stolen the *istD's thunder by coming out with the 300D at $1000, which they may have thought the Pentax camera was going to priced at. By not competing with the 300D, in which Pentax would have been clearly superior to, it got lost in the noise. Lack of deep pockets to fight that war may have been the reason. It probably would have been unsustainable at those price levels, even for the lucrative market share it might have given them. rg Rob Studdert wrote: On 13 Nov 2003 at 9:11, Mark Roberts wrote: I'll bet that Canon has an economy version (less than $5000.00) full-frame DSLR already designed and ready to go into production... as soon as they need to sell it. That'll be when a serious full-frame competitor appears and not a moment before. Spot on, this is how the microprocessor industry works, I've been privy to information discussed under NDAs in the past (the market is being manipulated constantly). I am sure that the DSLR market is the same, look how damned fast the 300D hit the market when Pentax finally delivered. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: And now: the *ist D vs. the EOS 300D!
graywolf wrote: .Using the close focus portion of my glasses gives me a crick in the neck (grin). The +2 also allows me to focus with contacts. And the nursing home guy can't help you with that? ;)
Re: I feel like Mike Johnston
Exactly. And the main thrust of the current discussion centers around getting the best possible image, which apparently Pentax's photo lab does not deliver. Dario's comparison with the 300D proves that. The Genzo Raw convertor's images look much sharper. I can't seem to find it anywhere tho. rg Bucky wrote: Utter nonsense. People have yammered on ad nauseam about developers in this forum too. Bits, bytes, and the software that manipulates 'em is a big part of a new, and equally legitimate, form of photography. Pentax is now a manufacturer of digital photographic equipment, which makes the entire science fair game on this list. I do agree with Shel on one point though - discussion of intricacies of digital world takes us somewhat away from Pentax and from Photography. Indeed, comparing various OSes, software packages, file formats, and so on, has rather little to do with PP above...
Re: *ist-D IR and other ramblings
Those IR shots are inspiring. I've gotta try one of those filters on my *istD. Did you use a ring flash for the bug or just a regular flash? I agree with you that the instant feeback is one of the greatest things that digital has to offer. I played with the lighting setup for an ebay sale pic and kept taking the one pic over and over with different angles and lighting arrangements until it looked right. I've learned more about lighting and perspective in these few weeks with the instant feeback than any other time period. rg Mark Cassino wrote: I got my *ist-D over a week ago, but between having to log in some serious hours getting ready for an art fair later this week, and the utterly crappy / gloomy weather, I haven't really had the time to do much with it. I _have_ managed to shoot about 900 images though - my last surviving cat is exceedingly well documented at this point. I gotta say, Pentax has really come through with this one - no notable complaints at all (though I may chime in with a pet peeve here and there...) The most fun thing - the sun broke out of the clouds for about 30 minutes today and so I was able to test out the *ist-D's IR capabilities. I have a Hoya RM90 IR filter - filters out most of the visible spectrum of light. I popped it onto a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro (the only lens I had handy with 55mm threads to match the filter) and tested the *ist-D's IR. Here's a couple of samples: My back fence with ivy: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/istir01.jpg The street in front of my house: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/istit02.jpg A wooden chair and two flower pots: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/istir03.jpg Looks _very_ promising! The unaltered shots are a magenta to lilac color, and required long exposures (at ISO 400 I was shooting 20 - 30 seconds at f11 - in sunlight but not super bright/clear sun). The first image is the red channel from the unaltered image, the second image resolved itself into the green-grey when I hit auto-colors in Photoshop. The third image is the Blue channel. Aside from silly IR stuff, I've had the chance to test the camera with a variety of lenses. It works great with the 1.7x AF adapter an A* 400 f2.8 - that 1.5x crop effect really adds to the reach. A sample (from my very first morning out with the camera): http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP0178.jpg The light was crap - I did not find the cranes that day till the sun was too high up. And, yes, I did a cheesy guassian blur on the background (that corn stubble looks like hell). But the bird is relatively sharp and the frost on the corn stubble pops out nicely though. On the shorter end of the focal lengths, that multiplier really hits the wide angles. My Sigma 14mm f3.5 works fine, but by it's nature (front element is a semi-sphere) it picks up all sorts of flare. The 17-28 fisheye loses too much of the fisheye effect - at 17mm it seems to have the AOV of a 20mm (judging by the finder) but has too much distortion to look good, and not enough distortion to look like a cool fisheye. So it just looks like a wide angle lens with bad distortion. Ug. I've very happy with it with the A*200mm macro. I found a leaf footed bug stuck between the main window and the storm window yesterday, so I took it in and set it up on a large potted plant. The bug looked like hell. there was virtually no ambient light in the house - at ISO 800 I was getting a meter reading of half a second at f4. But I got the bug in front of a lamp and fired up the flash to snap a shot of it cleaning it's feelers: http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP0839.jpg The bug was covered with some sort of crud - possibly cobwebs from the window. But the sharpness and detail in the one shot I got was really great. (I left the room for a minute and bug took off somewhere - haven't seen it since.) One pet peeve here - the Pentaprism on the *ist-D intrudes upon the tripod mount on the A*200 - so you can't rotate the lens on the mount. Lastly, the thing I _really_ like is the freedom to shoot whatever. And the instant feedback lets you adjust the image on the fly for tricky subjects. So I _finally_ got a shot that captures (even exaggerates) the subtle rainbow hues I see in wisps of light bouncing off my bathroom doorknob. (My life as a photographer is now complete...) http://www.markcassino.com/temp/IMGP0714.jpg I gotta upgrade my flash cards and it looks like my 25mzh 486 laptop is finally obsolete (that 200 meg drive won't hold many RAW files) - but I'm putting my fall film order on hold. Overall - it's a helluva great camera. - MCC - Mark Cassino Photography Kalamazoo, MI http://www.markcassino.com -
Re: *ist D review
Great work on the *istD. I also have the epson 925. Had a little trouble with it producing streaks. I think it gets clogged easily. I like your review of the 3200 scanner. I'm looking for a scanner right now to scan alot of Kodachrome slides, which seem to be really difficult according to many here. I was warned to stay away from the Nikon **4000 series because it doesn't do well with KC. Do you know how well the Epson 3200 does with KC? Just a couple of small nitpicks on the *istD review I noticed: the Canon full frame is the 1Ds, not the 1D, and the max # of frames for the *istD in continous mode is independent of format, not dependent on it. Cheers, rg Brian Dipert wrote: Happy reading; any and all feedback always welcomed: http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/article/CA336981 == Brian Dipert Technical Editor: Mass Storage, Memory, Multimedia, PC Core Logic and Peripherals, and Programmable Logic EDN Magazine: http://www.edn.com 5000 V Street Sacramento, CA 95817 (916) 454-5242 (voice), (617) 558-4470 (fax) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Visit me at http://www.bdipert.com
Re: Is this a Vivitar?
For 21 pounds, I would not complain about much. The description lists it as a 'Kiron'. So buyer beware... Good luck :) rg Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Just bought this off ebay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2962277257category=29982rd=1 Damn. It arrived today. *Fantastic* balance and handling of a huge lens on the miniscule MZ-5n. Screwing the Jessops UV gives you a good idea of the kind of quality we are talking about. However, I had a look at the front element(s) and I see a reflection like a small splash on the back of the front element or on the second element or sth like that. Is that Mr Mushroom? Is that a goner? Disappointed, Kostas
Re: and now me - 011101100... + Q
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: After lng negotiations with my wife (now I know why corruption statistics in Poland are so bad ;-), I can finally go *istD too. Just before I go and buy it, I would like to ask some questions to *istD brotherhood, as I noticed some strange things testing *istD: 1. It had misaligned superimposed AF points in viewfinder (all were slightly shifted up). Has abybody problems with it? 2. Flash confirmation with AF360 didn't some up? Anybody? 3. Has anybody used Microdrive 1GB with it? Is it very power hungry, slow and very delicate? Would you recommend it for use with *istD? 4. Some of my flash (with AF360) shots were alightly underexposed. Should it work this way? I noticed this also. The focal length indicated on the 360 seemed to multiply the lens focal length in the wrong direction, i.e. down instead of up. So I manually adjusted the focal length on the 360 and the exposures came out right. Me thinks its a firmware bug on the *istD. TIA for any answers and I hope to join 111001000111010hood soon ;-)
Re: New scanner
Herb Chong wrote: well, i bought a Nikon 4000ED and i have done about 1000 scans with it so far. every now and then, i wish i had bought the mounted slide feeder, but i haven't, so i have to do it the hard way, one at a time. it takes about 40-50 mounted slides at once. i experimented some turning off the Digital ICE but that led to so much work, even from visually clean slides under an 8X loupe, that i quickly turned it back on and leave it that way. there is some softening, but the alternative is a lot more work in front of the monitor. also, the softening is losing detail only when i am scanning Velvia taken with my macro lens. the Coolscan and other LED scanners have a terrible time with Kodachrome so i gave up on that almost right away. shot the last of my Kodachrome 25 and got some interesting but not really intended effects because of the heavy color casts that resulted and then my attempts to correct them. i don't shoot BW anymore. if a slide looks like it might be interesting as BW, i convert using the Channel mixer. Herb Speaking of Kodachrome. Are there any scanners out there that handle Kodachrome well? I need to send out a bunch of slides to scan and am afraid to send it to the wrong place. I tried one outfit with some test slides and the color + dynamic range were terrible. rg
Re: card storage in the field
Hi Tom, I like your shots you posted here. Can you share the specifics so I can learn a little? Were these shots with the *istD? What lens/aperture? How did you do the lighting in this case, was it bounced or direct/semi-direct? What flash if any? Thanks, rg Hmm. I throw out 2/3 of what I shoot, but I wouldn't call them crap. Most of them are dups, and I pick the best of a set. I shot about 10 frames to get these 3: http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4462.htm http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4463.htm http://www.bigdayphoto.com/boland/4464.htm Are the other 7 frames crap? Well, some of them were, but most of them were just also-rans. I got to pic the best 3 out 10. tv
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
Bruce Dayton wrote: Hello Pieter, One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side. When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each pixel is only one color. What you are really referring to is a dithering pattern. All inkjet printers do this, monitors do this and I believe digital mini-labs do this. So in fact, the color doesn't have to be faked as much as it has to be patterned. The downside to this is that certain patterns (especially man-made) could come out looking wrong. The natural random nature of film grain tends to hide this rather than accentuate it. I don't think the Foveon crowd has quite as much advantage as you think. They still have to create a dither pattern from the sensor data as each pixel can only store 1 color. One correction here, the Foveon has a special photosite technology that allows it to capture a full R,G,B pixel on each photosite, whereas everyone else has a single R or G or B value per photosite, which forces an interpolation of adjacent sites to get a full RGB value, so the color is based on several photosites instead of just 1. This is why the Foveon crowd is so passionate about their stuff. If they came up with a 6Mp Foveon chip with the same size as the 10D or *istD chip, it would blow the socks off those chips. But the technology is still in its infancy, the best they have is a 3Mp or so chip right now with I think a 1.6 factor. Only time will tell which technology will win out, Bayer or Foveon. I for one am happy with my *istD, but I wouldn't mind Pentax putting in a 6Mp Foveon chip in the next DSLR. :) Using film as a beginning but moving it to digital output is not much different than the Foveon, capturing all three colors at 1 pixel point but then creating a dither pattern out of it. Either the scanner or Foveon chip do this. I suspect that the layout pattern of the CCD/CMOS chip pretty much regulate this. In the end, it all comes out in the wash. The only real comparison would be between a purely analog film process vs a digital capture/output. My local labs no longer do analog. That means that my film is at a disadvantage. It is subject to their scanner/software limitations. The only alternative is to scan and manipulate the images myself. Food for thought.
Re: *istD and prime lens aperature
Mark Roberts wrote: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: is a 3Mp or so chip right now with I think a 1.6 factor. It's a 1.7 factor, which is just too much for a lot of people, myself included. Dang, that IS pretty bad. I can live with 1.5, but 1.7 is too much. Only time will tell which technology will win out, Bayer or Foveon. I don't think either one has to win out - they can probably coexist. Because of the 3.4 megapixel resolution and 1.7x conversion factor I'm not interested in current Foveon products, but I hope enough other people are to keep them in business! I think their initial product was dazzling for a first effort. If they keep improving it they'll have something amazing in a few years. That's just it though, if Foveon had the resources Canon does, they would already have a 1.5x or better 5-6Mp non-bayer chip. Consumer forces might kill bayer technology if and when Foveon gets into the mainstream, it will depend on the market dynamics. The lack of deep resources is one of the few things thats preventing the Foveon technology from getting a stronger presence. The other reason is that they have the intellectual property (patents) locked up and it might take until the patents expire before it becomes more common. I don't know why there isn't any type of licensing going on with the big names, it may be that Sigma wanted an exclusive license for a couple of years. One other possible reason that Bayer remains popular may just be simply that it is a much cheaper technology to produce at any scale. If this is the case, then we may end up like you say, with a situation where they coexist.
Wierd accessory made by Asahi Optical
Check this out. I've never heard of this before... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=2973230044category=4688
Re: New Pentax cameras
I agree there is information there. What's esp intriguing are the new 35mm (non-aps) lenses. Its a stretch, but me thinks that it might be a hint that there is potentially a full frame dslr in pentax's future. Pål Jensen wrote: Dag wrote: It is old news, and can be translated into some obvious statements: They´ll have to compete with 300D but they´ll keep a line of more advanced cameras They´ll have to come up with some kind of image stabilization They´ll make some lenses that are compatible with film cameras Not much information here... Well, I think theres lot of information there. Firstly it implies new lens series in addition to the coming DA lenses. This could mean the KAF3 mount. At least if not, theres not much need to release a new 35mm covering lens series as Pentax already have a comprehensive line-up of such lenses. Secondly, they acknowledge for the first time that they will actually market image stabilization. Perhaps even built into the camera making all your lenses into IS lenses. A great solution particularly for those of us who have imvested significant money into Pentax super telephotos. In addition Pentax have once again leaked out that they will make a digital solution for the 645 system. According to Pop Photography for release next year. Pål
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Sometimes its great, my 300mm 2.8 becomes an incredibly fast sharp 450 2.8! But many times its a pain in the a$$; at the wide end, I'm having trouble with a good walking around lens. I have a gap between very wide (15-30 zoom, 15 fisheye) and med wide (28 ) and then to normal (50). My 28 is an M lens, so now I have a really big gap that nothing in my bag will fill satisfactorly. That's why I'm waiting for the 16-45 da lens coming next month. I think it will solve this problem handily. The only other lens I have that crosses part of this range is a 35-135 zoom which I find somewhat inferior optically. I loaded one of my film bodies with Kodachrome 64 this weekend. I have yet to take a shot with it. sad... rg Rob Studdert wrote: So how are *ist D users coping with the lens mag factors and are some lenses now less useful than they were on film bodies? Are you using the *ist D in parallel with film bodies? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Coming to terms with *ist D lens mag factor?
Thats a big if. Whats not a big if is that I have an *istD now with no prime under 85mm and one zoom 15-30 that work with the camera. So I don't need to buy a bunch of new lenses, I need at least one lens somewhere around 28-50 mm to fill that gap. rg Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I was thinking of getting either that (FA35/2) or the 16-45 DA lens. My 28 50 mm are M lenses, so either I have to use them in manual mode, which means a little more hassle and less spontaneity, or I have to use my 15-30 or 85 and compensate for my FOV/location somehow. But its not the same as having the right lens generally. If Pentax are to release a 24x36mm CCD some time in the future, the lense issue will cease to be. I dont see the point in buying a bunch of new lenses to suit what will be obsolete very soon. Kind regards Kevin
Re: PAW (early this week)
Definitely the 308, cant tell if its the GTS or GTB though. David Mann wrote: Hi all, I think my first PAW was Saturday so this one's a few days early. The recent car discussions reminded me of some slides I shot a few years ago. This week's photo is a mystery - try and guess which model car it is. I'll reveal the answer in a few days, or sooner if someone guesses it. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/paw/2004-2-26.html No prizes, sorry :) I swear I'm going to automate my PAW page. I've only done two and its becoming an administrative nightmare already. I might change the look a bit, too... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Too Much PAW
Hmm.. that adds up to 100.1%. That doesn't leave much room for the rest of us. LOL! rg graywolf wrote: 99 and 44/100ths talk. The other 0.66% are scared. And the rest of us are too old. (grin) Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: OMG - no wonder my poor hubby worries about me and that bloody photography list. I spend half of my life convincing him that hanging out with you lot is safe! He is petrified at the possibility of me going to GFM and meeting with a bunch of internet stalkers, lol, his words, not mine! You are very naughty boys, now go to the back of the classroom and behave yourselves... ...And no fondling ass you walk there, ok?!? vbg tan. -Original Message- From: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, 26 February 2004 7:03 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Too Much PAW From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 24/2/04, TAN THE FONDLER disgorged: hehe, the challenge is on! tan. (who fondles AS she photographs) ps no wise arse comments about fondling, ok Cotty? hehe. I'll let someone else have a go :-) Cue Lasse... Yes, yes, Cotty... You want me to have a go at fondling, yes? I haven't been following the thread in detail, but I recall something about tans bottom and now she says she fondles AS she photographs. Am I to step in here? Sure, I'll do the fondling if it helps. Just send me an airline ticket, one tuna sandwich and a note to the captain where to take me and I'd be most happy to oblige. Lasse (who fondless ass she photographss)
Re: The Local Pentax SLR Conundrum
Ft. Worth is about 5 hours or so from San Antonio. That's quite a visit. LOL. rg Cesar Matamoros II wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:47 PM From: Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cord tells me that the reason they're not stocking the istD (or any other Pentax SLR) is because Pentax is not able to deliver the quantities they need for building volume sales and the large customer base that a retailer needs to establish a product line. But they do sell a lot of Pentax ps, both film digital. One of the stores in San Antonio will no longer be carrying anything by Pentax. The only other stores has minimal stock. Mark Which is which, Mark (like I can't guess?) ERN Please tell the list. I visited what stores I could find while in San Antonio the one weekend I was there. Found a great little place in Ft. Worth. The owner (?) talked lovingly of LXen, appreciated the 77 Limited, and showed off some M42 equipment he just obtained... If only I could remember the name, Cesar Panama City, Florida
Re: Pentax F 35-135/3.5-4.5
I bought this lens some time ago on ebay for a paltry $50, thinking I could get a good walking around lens with a fabulous focal range, but it is worth about that much. It is quite soft. I guess it has its uses. I used it to take my PUG entry for Feb, but only because I happened to have that lens at the time, otherwise I would have used a 135mm prime. rg alex wetmore wrote: How is this lens (or the A version)? I'm wondering about pairing them up with the 16-45/4 and a fast normal lens (probably 35/2) as my normal carrying kit for the *ist D. The Pentax lens gallery points out that the A version is soft in the corners. Is the F any better? On Boz's site it looks like it has the identical design. alex
Re: PAW: Southern Comfort
Wow, sounds like a lot more food than we had! Gotta love the southern tradition of using the smallest excuse for having a feast huh? This is especially true for barb-e-ques down in south Texas. We always make enough to feed the whole town, despite the fact that we have leftovers for the rest of the month. I'm sure you had one of your snakeskins with you, don't you always? ;) rg Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Robert, The shot reminded me of an assignment I was on a while ago. Once everything was integrated on the ship we had a party before departing the shipyard the next day for Florida. The shipyard was close to New Orleans. Anyhow, as we approached it the sight was amazing. I cannot recall how many long tables they had, but it was at least four. Each table had a pile about a foot high away from the edges of crawfish. And there was plenty of beer to wash it down with. I don't think I had a camera that night. I may have to look back and see if I did... Cesar Panama City, Florida -Original Message- From: Robert Gonzalez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 6:49 PM Thanks Frank, I love your commentary. It was a fun...hiccup party! I'm surprised I was able to focus. rg frank theriault wrote: That shrimp looks Hot'n Spicy! I like the angle of the rectangular serving dishes, I like the hand and spoon in there - an action shot! Looks like it was a fun party. cheers, frank The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 22:32:34 -0600 Had a big 'ole Southern Shrimp fest this past weekend. Pic with *istD, M50 1.4, don't remember the rest of details http://home.austin.rr.com/randj/pics/shrimp-web.jpg rg
Re: Film Reciprocity failure and high/low shutter speeds
Rob Studdert wrote: On 2 Mar 2004 at 14:42, Robert Gonzalez wrote: Does a CCD suffer from reciprocity failure also? If so, are the curves published anywhere? I believe that they are pretty linear from their minimum exposure time (determined by the matrix read speed) out to lengthy exposures. The main problem is self noise which will eventually saturate (fully expose) all pixels regardless of light hitting them or not. I agree that self noise is probably the limiting factor on the long exposures. I'm guessing that it makes sense that they are linear. But, the matrix read basically only limits how fast you can continually take pictures (added to other parts of the capture pipeline), I don't believe that it limits the minimum exposure time, if you can get the shutter speed to 1/2, I believe you can capture photons (in bright enough light!) that will represent the image. I think the matrix reading happens post-capture, and it has to undergo A-to-D transformation (after scaling for ISO), followed by memory write, and finally conversion if necessary to JPG or other formats and final write to card. rg
Re: Film Reciprocity failure and high/low shutter speeds
Probably all you have to do is cool the hell out of it. As was mentioned before, Thermal noise is probably what limits slow captures. rg Herb Chong wrote: not at the slow end. a good CCD sensor can accurately count individual photons. the *istD one isn't that good, but you get the idea. Herb... - Original Message - From: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 3:42 PM Subject: Re: Film Reciprocity failure and high/low shutter speeds Does a CCD suffer from reciprocity failure also? If so, are the curves published anywhere?
Re: Da Lens -- here yesterday, gone today
LOL. Since when has Pentax had any marketing savvy? I wouldn't be surprised if they had no one in marketing at all. Andy Chang wrote: Or probably just want everybody gagging for it this may be a marketing plot. -Original Message- From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 9:53 AM To: pdml Subject: Da Lens -- here yesterday, gone today BH had the DA 16-45 in stock last Thursday, I believe. Today it is again backordered, so all the stock they received sold immediately. Why is Pentax having so much trouble supplying this lens? A few possibilities crossed my mind: 1. Pentax has been stretched beyond capacity by all of the new product releases. I consider this unlikely because the DA 16-45 is the first new SLR lens in a while. Unless most of the capacity is being used for digital point-and-shoot lenses? 2. The assembly plant in Vietnam is having problems. 3. Hoya's glass production isn't keeping up with the surge in demand caused by digital. Thoughts, anyone? Pentax sure has dropped the ball with this one. The lens is a winner optically, it is in demand, there are rebates to buyers, yet it is nowhere to be found. Joe
Re: February PUG Comments
Tom C wrote: Trying to reconstruct my prior comments that Bill Gates lost: Here's my almost totally subjective comments on this month's PUG, along with sometimes maybe a little bit of objectivity. Ten Mile Point by Martin Mielke I like the Aloneness feeling of this shot. The blues, grays, and blacks make for a concentrated color palette, which I find pleasing (listen to me). This shot has what I like about many landscapes. It makes me want to enter the picture and explore. For example I want to go to the island and walk through its forests and along its shore, seeing what I might find. What is there? I'd like to turn around and look towards the vantage point from where the shot was taken. The simple austereness of the shot adds mystery and creates excitement. This is my favorite of the month. Into the Sea by Boris Liberman Three elements, sky, water, man make this is a strong composition. I knew I should have left the white Speedos at home. Blue Hawaii by Fred Widall Beautiful blue green water and the tree definitely adds. It seems a bit out of focus somehow... I played with it in Photoshop and some unsharp masking cleans it up quite a bit. Might want to try. Denali at Midnight by Ann Sanfedele I like the way the mountain blends and disappears into the sky. Going there this summer, BTW. Waterland by Harald Rust Nice symmetry and perspective. I find the foreground plants to a be a distractor. Cropping out the bottom to make the image a perfect square creates an unusually strong image. Just my opinion. Lady in Blue by Henk Terhell Interesting and definitely electric blue. Trabant With Blue Accents by Joseph Tainter I am sucker for classic cars, especially white w/blue stripes and vice-versa. The setting is also attractive. Bluebirds by Robert Gonzalez Great shot! Hard to get, I've tried many times. The ability to clearly see the pilots makes it even better. Thank you Tom. I tried several times, and with this one I got lucky. I can enlarge it to the point where the pilots are very clear. That 300 A* lens is truly a joy to use. My tripod however, is another matter altogether. rg Ice by Billy Abbott A nice abstract. Cold and blue. Lemon by Steve Morphet Quite interesting. Strong. Stands on its own. I assume you masked the stem spot? Nice touch. Blue by Wendy Beard Yeah, very abstract. Strong and simple elements. I'd consider turning the lamp to eliminate the cord. Cool. Blue Booze by Paul Stenquist, Beautiful blue drink. Makes me wish for the beach and a warm summer night. The ice is wonderful. Tom C.
Re: January PUG Comments Part I
Thanks for the kind words Frank. I was intimidated at first to submit my humble photos in the midst of such great PDML company, but my kids said: just send one Dad and I did. They loved seeing Mushu on the internet. Now you gave me the courage to send more in the coming months. Thanks for taking the time to comment also, especially on so many pics. I forgot to include the following links to see mushu in more detail so you can see not just his ear, but the some of the rest of him: (I put in sizes for those with limited bandwidth to decide if its worth the wait) All taken with the 100mm 2.8 macro the same day as the ear pic: Warning: this one is 328K bytes Mushu's eye (closeup) http://home.austin.rr.com/randj/pics/mush1.jpg Mushu walking around: 89Kbytes: http://home.austin.rr.com/randj/pics/mush2.jpg Mushu's mug shot: 65Kbytes: http://home.austin.rr.com/randj/pics/mush3.jpg frank theriault wrote: Hi, I've determined that I'll comment on each entry this month. I'll likely do it 1/2 dozen or so at a time, over the course of the next day or so. So, in order of appearance, here goes: Mushu by Robert Gonzalez: I like this tight shot very much. Really emphasizes the different patterns and textures of the animals scales. It almost takes on an abstract feel. I also like the tail, or back part of it's body, or whatever it is, out of focus on the upper right. Very nice work! Nemo by Christian Skofteland: Amazing colours, beautiful composition! A real winner. Putting the fish over to the right looks nice enough in it's own right, but that also gives all those pink tentacles (or whatever they are) full view. Love the fade of pink to blue, and the yellow of the fish contrasts so nicely with those other colours. Thanks, Christian. Love it! Unidentified Marine Anemones by Herb Chong: I hate to be negative, Herb, but I also have to be honest: this shot doesn't do too much for me. Not that it's a bad shot, it just doesn't jump out and scream look at me! like so many of the other shots in this month's gallery do. The colours are a bit dull, and it really doesn't seem sharp enough in the right places for me; it seems that the camera or the focuser chose the middle of the frame to focus on, and there just isn't much interesting there to look at. I'd have preferred the big clump on the left to be sharper. OTOH, composition is good. I like the weight of the photo on the left, especially tilted 45 degrees like that. I like the dark on the upper right; it balances the yellow nicely. Nice bokeh. I wonder if the yellow background of the page doesn't do this image some injustice. Now if it were on a dark blue background, that might bring out the yellow a bit more, and make all the difference. A competent shot. Watch by Alin Flaider: I quite like this one. Vibrant colours, especially the green of the lizard (salamander?). Tack sharp subject. Lovely bokeh, wonderful composition, especially the placement of that out of focus branch to the right of the animal - except (sorry there has to be an except g), I find that bright green leaf in front of the lizard distracting. Normally, I'd think something out of focus in the foreground would be nice, give the shot even more depth than it has. But, it's ~where~ that leaf is, right in front of the lizard. It rather detracts from the subject, I think. But, overall, a very strong photograph. Thanks. Frog in the Mist, by E.R.N. Reed: I know you were going for a misty look, Eleanor, but I find it not overly pleasing. It's like getting mist on my glasses, and having trouble seeing (maybe that's why I don't like the effect g). So maybe it's just me. Otherwise, a wonderful shot. Great composition, the frog and leaf in the background play off each other nicely. Love that big out of focus leave in the background - lovely! It looks like it was shot in the wild - very natural look. Walking on a Strange Animal by Gianfranco Irlanda: Another wonderful, serendipitous capturing that fleeting moment shot, Gianfranco. Crisp focus, nice bokeh, terrific lighting from the side. Especially with that title, a very humourous shot - you're taking us into the moth's world for a moment. Two peripheral thoughts: I wonder what passersby must have thought (why is that man taking a photo of that woman's feet?), and, thank goodness that Veronica believes in foot hygene! vbg Thanks for the photo. Dulce Nector by Alejandro Bertini: Very good composition, great timing to get the bee just at the moment that it alights on the flower. Nice, bright colours. Seems to me, though, that these kinds of shots really need sharp focusing, and the insect and the flower just aren't crisp enough (keep in mind, this comment is from a guy who has some of the least sharp images on PUG you'll likely see g). Also, I find the bokeh is not to my liking, kind of harsh. I looked at the lens you used, and I'm guessing that's why
Re: Flash photography and *istD
I've had alot of trouble with the AF360FGZ. It underexposes. I have to compensate *ALOT*. As much as +2 sometimes. Its really bad when I use it to do bounce flash, which I prefer. I took some family portraits recently and I had to play with it for a long time before I got the pics with a decent exposure. I don't know why this would be the case except for maybe there is some bug in the firmware. rg mapson wrote: With a recent purchase of *istD and an arsenal of other Pentax gear I thought I could conquer the world. HOWEVER I found it quite disappointing that the *istD produces far from acceptable results when combined with AF-500FTZ ( I won't even mention that Sigma EF-430ST) goes totally belly-up). Even when the flash gets switched to MANUAL, it still behaves somewhat like auto. I found it almost impossible to get a good fill-in compensation. The built in flash produces better results, however it is not very impressive either. Especially in fill-in where background is quite bright. Here are my questions for the Pentax Brotherhood: * is it the nature of digital cameras that they do not work well with flashes (probably not) * does anyone have any experience using *ist and 500FTZ? * is the 'new kid on the block' AF-360FGZ producing acceptable results combined with *istD * what are the best modes to use flash in? Just to let you know I have used Z-1, Z-1p, and MZ, ZX camers for a number of years, consuming tens of rolls of film a month. Apart from the 1/100s flash synch limitations the results were quite satisfactory. Z-1, Z-1p - no problems. With *istD I am not trying to be pedantic to get it within 0.001EV of a perfect value. I am trying to get it 'somewhere'. Being able to shoot consistently and reliably. At present I cannot achieve it! Can anyone offer any help? (*)o(*) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Flash photography and *istD
Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Frits, That makes me wonder, too. Any physicists here to explain? I simply can't imagine, why the CCD's reflectivity should change with the ISO value. I'm not a physicist, but I am an electrical engineer by training, and the CCD's sensistivity/ISO setting does not alter any physical properties of the CCD. This happens in the hardware A/D convertor stage, where the gain of the sensor amp is adjusted to get higher/lower ISO values. So this theory about the reflection being different based on the ISO values is bunk. I have a feeling that the firmware routine that is computing the exposure value has a bug whereby the ISO setting is not being looked up, but instead some constant value has been put in, probably as a result of prototype code making its way into the final product. rg
Re: Just one tip
Stay out of addictive photograpy discussion groups and get out there taking pics:) rg
Re: Firmware 1.10 and M lens
Wow. I don't care if I have to hit the button 5 times. It now basically meters with M K lenses and I don't have to sell mine. Woo hoo. rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: OK, now for the $64,000 question: Once the ap and shutter speed have been set, will the camera remember them for subsequent exposures until it's reset, or does the green button routine have to be implemented for each exposure? Bill Owens wrote: I just updated mine and guess what guys and gals? The ist D will now meter and expose properly with my M100/4.0 Macro. Directions on how to accomplish: 1. Set custom functions f stop other than A to on 2 Set mode dial to M 3. Set aperture ring to desired f-stop 4. Press the green button 5 Press shutter release and take photo Bill
Re: FAT
Thats interesting to know. Its been a while since I read about the details. For some reason I had thought that they used a variable sized cluster scheme, but that must be another file system I'm thinking about. In that case, changing to FAT32 will probably not have much of an effect on RAW files stored per card. I'll test it anyways to see how they stack up against each other. rg Mark Roberts wrote: Robert Gonzalez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, I knew that FAT16 wasted more space than FAT32 for lots of small files, and of course it had a much smaller limitation on max file/volume size. I thought that it also wasted space basically proportional to the size of the file, i.e. small files on the average wasted space that was proportionally small, but had a big impact when you had lots of them. So don't bigger (Mb) files waste on the average the same space as a percentage? I.e. if you allocate a file that *just* gets into the next sized cluster, isn't a large part wasted? No, files don't waste space as a percentage - it's a fixed amount, rounding up to the next block. That's why it's so much more wasteful with small files than big ones. With 64k blocks, even a 1k file will occupy 64k. A 12.0001 megabyte file will occupy 12 megabytes plus 64k. Hardly significant.
Re: Unsubscribe
Welcome to the list Rebekah. I may be wrong, but I don't think there's a whole lot of young blood in this list. Occasionally, you might feel like fresh blood in the midst of sharks, but its usually not mean spirited. Folks here are pretty passionate about Photography in general and Pentax in particular. I'm glad to see the next generation taking up the torch. Rebekah Gonzalez wrote: Ok thanks Paul. Actually I just subscribed to the digest instead, and I could share my overpowering opinion with anyone, so I was just trying to get into the discussion. Seems I've upset everyone already. I have no plans for leaving though. I think you guys need some young blood on the list here. :o) Rebekah
Re: Chromes,was: Hi there
Are there any scanners that work well with Kodachrome? I posed this question to Kodak and they sent me this lame list of old Kodak scanners that are no longer made. rg Alan Chan wrote: My Minolta Scan Elite F-2900 does a terrible job on scanning Kodachrome, and it uses cold-cathode fluorescent tube . :-( Regards, Alan Chan http://www.pbase.com/wlachan some scanners, particularly the ones that use LEDs for their illumination, do a terrible job of scanning Kodachrome. _ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/featurespgmarket=en-caRU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
Re: Papa Flash
I love the display in the hallway. His water going up hill trick was amazing. rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mark, Doc Edgerton was an early electrical engineer, in Dynamo Engineering I believe. He developed the flash to help freeze the spinning machinery for a good look. In the hall outside his lab there were some of his early photos, including Ariel Recon photos of Boston taken in the late '30's. He loaded some flash tubes and capacitors in an airplane and took night shots of 4 or 9 square miles of Boston at a time. He was a remarkable individual with a great deal of curiosity who treated the students well. He and his lab were remarkably open to undergraduates. In the '60's, he brought friends like Jaques Costeau around to show off his early underwater movies. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Those were photos from Doc Edgerton's lab at MIT. They used some good size flash tubes, and I believe a microphone was used to trigger the flash. Polaroid film and open the shutter, fire the gun, which triggers the flash, and you see where the bullet is. Then, adjust the microphone closer or farther away from the gun, to get the bullet where you want it in the frame. I'm speaking from a position of almost total ignorance here, but surely a bullet is travelling 2 or 3 times faster than sound? Over the short distances involved is it really possible to do this? I don't know anything about the velocity of bullets, but even if they do travel at Mach 3 all you'd have to do is position the target 3 feet from the gun and the microphone 1 foot away and you'd be pretty much synchronized. I would have thought a light or electric trigger would be better. e.g. fit the trigger or the hammer of the gun with an electrical gizmo to fire the flash. A microphone was deemed the easiest way to go: No attachments or modifications to the gun; most equipment readily available off-the shelf. Edgerton claims he got his first shot (the bullet going through the apple, IIRC) on his first try. Clearly, this was a man not unaccustomed to precise laboratory work!
Re: *istD with DA 16-45 in Adorama!!!
They list the lens at $429, so if thats the real price for the combo, that would put the body at sub $1K. Must be an error. rg Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: Just 1324$ in such a fantastic set... It's a steal! http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=detailssku=IPXISTDK
OT: The BBC and TV tax revisited
Well, first of all, I am amazed at the subjects that get discussed here in pdml. Somehow the list got onto a thread a very short time ago about taxing British citizens to finance the BBC. As if the list is all prescient, all of a sudden the BBC is big world news due to the scathing commentary by Lord Hutton accusing the BBC's Board of Governers of basically sleeping on the job during the BBC's Blair Blunder. It was very interesting to hear on the radio commentary about how this is going to go over with the British public, since rough quote The British Broadcasting Corporation is a publicly funded corporation via taxation and there is some expectation of broadcast responsibility I heard that the chairman of the Board of Governers has stepped down after the news today and a couple of others are also considering it. I am curious to hear from our British PDML's if this is a big deal in England or if the american radio has blown it out of proportion again...
Which 28-105?
I was just browsing BH's site pricing the popular Pentax 28-105 zoom. But wait, there's three of them: Price: $ 199.95 Zoom Wide Angle SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF Autofocus Lens Price: $ 357.00 Zoom Wide Angle SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 Autofocus Lens Price: $ 189.95 Silver Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 IF Autofocus What is the difference in quality between these three? I'm confuscated now rg
Re: Which 28-105?
Thanks everyone for your input. Sounds like the 24-90 will work best with the *istD, which is what I'm looking to get a general purpose zoom for. I have the F 35-135, but I'm not too thrilled with the image quality and will probably sell it after I get a better zoom. rg Dr. Heiko Hamann wrote: Stan Halpin wrote: IIRC, the $357 one is the PZ (Power Zoom) version, the original one (which I own.) Considered to be a very good lens though I have gotten spoiled by faster lenses. The silver $189 version was made by Tamron and is ok but not great. The $199 version is a newer Pentax version which is also ok but probably not up to the quality of the original. I have owned the PZ and the Tamron-built one. The PZ is much better and would be my suggestion. The current 28-105 version is the 28-105/3.2-4.5 and seems to be a good performer - better thann the Tamron-built but not as good as the PZ. I haven't used it yet, but someone (who ownes it) told me that it has very good contrast and sharpness. If I were buying today, I would probably choose either (1) a 77mm Ltd or the FA 85/1.4; (2) the PZ version of the zoom; (3) the FA 24-90 zoom. Today I would suggest the 24-90, too. Why? Before the *istD I would have suggested the PZ. But now I have also used it on my *istD. And here it doesn't perform as good as on my MZ-5n. But the 24-90 is very good on the *istD (and the MZ-5n). As the 24-90 was designed togethert with the MZ-S and its digital sibling, it might be that Pentax has taken requirements of a digital camera into account. Cheres Heiko
Re: February PUG is open
Thank you. Very much appreciated. Its a fabulous month. rg Adelheid v. K. wrote: Hi *, the February PUG is ready to go. Another month with great pics. Cheers Adelheid URL: http://pug.komkon.org/ -- About resizing your pics: To make the procedure easier I am going to resize them without further notice - but if somebody is unhappy with the result, please send me one you like better in the proper size and I'll swap it on the server. I hope this is a fair deal.
Re: D - Not Pentax but an interesting digital save...
The results look great. I cant help but feel that this picture has a 50's look to it. I wonder what it would look like if you modernized it a bit, perhaps by bringing back the rose in color? rg Tanya Mayer Photography wrote: Ok, so you all know that I'm not shooting digital with Pentax, but this is particularly relevant to all digital users. Just wanted to show you something that I have just worked on from the wedding I did on Monday. This was a GROSSLY underexposed image. Definitely one for the reject pile, but something about the expressions on their faces wouldn't let me ditch it. So, thanks to digital, I was able to save it... What do you all think of the results? The full res. file has some grain, as you would expect being underexposed, so I just added a bit more for effect... http://www.tanyamayer.com/experiment.jpg I have made a lrvly 8x10 inch print from it! Not bad for something that would have been in the trash if it had been shot on film! Also, thanks to you guys who advised me when I asked about using a 135mm lens with flash that only zooms to 105mm, I have been using a flash in manual with the Oly, and have been leaving it set at 28mm, through all focal lengths. This shot was taken at around 80mm, after a day of stormy, humid weather and believe me the bride and groom were SHINY. In fact, the bride barely had any makeup left on at all, and the groom's forehead, well, it actually had beads of perspiration along it. You can see, I was directly in front of them, and the shadow on the background is really quite soft. AND, there are NO hotspots on their faces!! (There were a couple of tiny ones on their teeth that I PS'd) Very little shine is present - the flash almost looks bounced, but it wasn't - it was direct... S, I have ditched my lumiquest stuff, and my stofen's and I am now shooting everything with my flash set at 28mm, the results are so much better. It just means that the flash range isn't quite as high (distance) and I simply move in a bit closer to accommodate... This was at first, a risky way to go about things, and again, it was only due to shooting digital and being able to immediately check the results that I am now confident enough to use flash this way... Any thoughts to add to this? tan.
Re: Website update
Very interesting. Makes me realize that there's alot more to all of us here than the impressions left through PDML messages! Esp liked reading your journal and your meanderings. I'll have to drop you a note sometime on my thoughts around these. rg graywolf wrote: Been finally doing things to my website. I would like folks to take a look and let me know what they think of the changes.
