velvia in the studio
Recently I have been testing out Fuji Velvia and thought I wonder how it goes with the studio flash etc. Anyone had any experiences with this? Kind regards kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Pentax 6X7, 35mm Auto Focus Fisheye Lens
Ehh... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3001007918category=30075 It would be nice to have Pentax 6x7 AF gear though ;-) Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
Re: Pentax 6X7, 35mm Auto Focus Fisheye Lens
Too bad! This seller is trying to find a Pentax 6x7 photographer who: (1)does not know what material exists; and (2)does not recognize the lens as being manual focus. No wonder he got only one assignment... ;-) Ehh... http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3001007918category=30075 It would be nice to have Pentax 6x7 AF gear though ;-) Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 * _ Ontvang je Hotmail Messenger berichten op je mobiele telefoon met Hotmail SMS http://www.msn.nl/jumppage/
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate as the original. as if a print isn't. Herb That's not the point here. Comparing a print made from a digital scan of a negative with a print made from a digital file captured by a digital camera is comparing a 2nd generation copy with a first generation one, which is hardly a valid process. You have negative--digital file--print versus digital file--print. If you compare prints from the digital camera file and from a negative, you're at least comparing the same generation of copies: digital file--print versus negative--print. Sure, an enlarger will affect the print in some way, but that's the whole point of this comparison... to see how a traditionally produced wet print compares to a digitally produced print. chris
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
Hello, I would like to thank you (all of you) with this one letter for your opinions, and for drawing my attention to some other lenses, non Pentax brand. Now everything looks more clearly to me. It is always better to hear from the owners of the lens, than to believe what producers are saying... It appears that the most reasonable solution would be to wait about a year or more and buy some costly 300/2.8 lens with set of 1.4x to 2x teleconv. But as long as I really can't live without long lens ;-) I decided to buy now the Takumar SMC 300/4 screw mount, probably I will be able to sell it later, when I will have enough money for buying 2.8 one, sharp even wide open. Most of my bird pictures are taken from within a tent-like blind, so 300mm (now f4 and next year 2.8) shuld be long enough, while still having good lightness level, even with teleconverter. Is that right? I have ordered already Takumar SMC 300/4 screw mount with tripod collar and now I am waiting for my postman and delivery. I have borrowed once Super-Takumar 300/4 screw mount and I was quite happy with its results, except some blicks (the lack of SMC layers). Anyway, it was to short time to test it fully. I am really intersted in Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter (mentioned by one of you in some earlier posting). Does it make an AF lens from my MF lens??? Even this Takumar screw mount lens? How it could be done? Kind of magic or... just a joke? on EBay, you can find a Takumar 500/4.5 in M42 screwmount What is it's closest focusing distance? Regards, === Waldemar Krasowski tel: +48 501087147 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
RE: Comparison
No, the Pentax is much softer and much sooner in the zoom range. I too disagree about the Sigma being 'extremely' soft at 300, all zooms of this range are a 'little' soft at the long end, but the sigma is and always has been the best of the bunch. -Original Message- From: Gary L. Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 02:36 To: Pentax Users Group Subject: Comparison How does the Pentax FA 80-320mm zoom compare to the Sigma 70-300 DL macro? I know the Sigma is extremley soft at 300, but is the Pentax any better? Thanks! Later, Gary
Re: DN Q #4 -- When/how do you take your shots?
Thanks to Paul, John, Wendy, E.R.N., and Bob for your answers. I've read all with a tremendous amount of interest. I am just curious about how people work. So before this thread gets completely and mysteriously populated by chimney pots -- you have a SECOND CHANCE at answering this ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC QUESTION!!! (List updated slightly.) When/How do you take your shots? 1. You always try to have a camera with you (in the car or elsewhere). 2. You do studio work, so your sessions are usually scheduled. 3. You go out (or in) several times a week, month, etc. on a semi-regular basis to take photographs. 4. You travel a lot and mainly take your pictures then. 5. You mainly take pictures of family and friends. 6. You want to try different things and plan out what you will shoot in the future (over the coming months). So you have a mental schedule to try macro, portraits, landscapes, etc. 7. Your shooting is a very intermittent type of thing that you do when you are so moved to. 8. You do it for a living. And your take your non-business shots when... (or you never find the time to get around to taking non-business shots). 9. You grab your camera when you realize it's been awhile since you last shot anything. 10. Your photography is mainly event oriented (dog shows, car races, etc.), so it depends on when the event happens. 11. You have a hobby, such as bird watching, to which photography is primarily an adjunct. 12. You take pictures mostly for the PUG. ;-) So your photography tends to be dictated by the coming month's theme. 13. You find you mainly take pictures when you have a new camera, lens, tripod, film type that you can't wait to try out. 14. Several of the above. 15. None of the above. Another answer altogether... TIA, Doe aka Marnie Who knows? I might get one or two more replies this way. ;-)
Re: 135mm Lenses Relative Sizes
I hope Kelvin will be able to post some monster pics wide open... I asked Kelvin and he wrote back - Lenszilla (and it really is - weighs 5 pounds) needs a CLA ... so that's where its going before any photos are taken. Fred
RE: Col or mono with digital (was: Re: I want to start a WAR)
Coming out from under the bed, Alan? Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto No, more a case of this list is to busy without my ramblingsas well! I agree with what you say, but it was an interesting experiment that for this one time worked. I love photography but I do not think that I have an artistic bone in my body :-( Alan
RE: darkroom simplicities
Or convert the bathroom into the darkroom, it works :-) How do people go on with the enlarger etc when the 'Darkroom' is a bathroom? Where do you put it all? Do you carry it all in ,use then carry it all out again to store somewhere else? I have the dilemma of where to use as a darkroom. At the moment I use my computer room/Workshop. Trouble is : a) tall those damm LED's need covering. B) I am sure that the fumes are not doing the computers much good (Actually as I come from a Chemical background, I LIKE the smell of them!) Those who do not learn from Dilbert are doomed to repeat it.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Let's look at it this way. If tomorrow you and another photographer shoot the same subject. Which one of you gets paid for it depends on whose shots are delivered to the customer first, which camera would you chose? About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, As you can see the chemical prints are still a little better. I would not have noticed the subtilities if he had not pointed them out, and at normal viewing distance for 30x40 prints I doubt anyone else could either. He was only scaning at 1200dpi so his files were only in the 115 megapixel range. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:27 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of our local pro types has sold off his 6x7 in favour of the D60. He says he just can't justify shooting film anymore. He is primarily a wedding photographer. I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner.. If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc), and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose to buy today? Kind regards Kevin -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Once again, I say the issue is moot. For a pro the only requirement is the customer happy with the results. Actually, come to think of it, it is exactly the same for the amateur, only he is his own customer. This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES! Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:54 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill has a point, think of it like this, your scan is a 2nd generation copy, and therefore not as accurate as the original. as if a print isn't. Herb That's not the point here. Comparing a print made from a digital scan of a negative with a print made from a digital file captured by a digital camera is comparing a 2nd generation copy with a first generation one, which is hardly a valid process. You have negative--digital file--print versus digital file--print. If you compare prints from the digital camera file and from a negative, you're at least comparing the same generation of copies: digital file--print versus negative--print. Sure, an enlarger will affect the print in some way, but that's the whole point of this comparison... to see how a traditionally produced wet print compares to a digitally produced print. chris
FS: Metz 50 MZ 5 Flash + 2 Pentax TTL modules (early start of FS Friday)
LN (KEH) Metz 50 MZ-5 Flash (except the original box) including the original non-ttl module and both Pentax dedicated TTL modules: (SCA-372, SCA-3701 M2) one for MF bodies, especially the LX; one for AF bodies like the (P)Z-1(p) and later. I should also have the Extension Cable (for use in between the controller and the flash body). All original manuals included as well. Euro (or USD) 400, including shipping worldwide. I have used the flash only occasionally for some family and macro shots. The battery has been routinely discharged/charged every now and then to keep it alive and well. It is practically brand new. I don't like flash photography that much and the flash takes up too much space in the equipment cabinet... ;-) Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
Re: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
There are kits that adapt a conventional printer to BW work, complete with gray inks in various tones. Those who have a need to print BW with an inkjet usually go that route. Perhaps one of the printer manufacturers will eventualy sell a model that comes already equipped for BW, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The market is probably too small. Mike Johnston wrote: Although in my own experience, scanned color negatives printed on ink jet have replaced color wet prints. They're just better. Of course the same is not true of BW. Yeah, why is that? I'm really kind of mystified that _no_ inkjet printer manufacturer has come out with a dedicated BW printer. You'd think they could take a 3- or 4-ink printer, replace the inks, write some new software, and voilá, there you'd have it. Considering all the printers on the market, you'd think it would be easy enough to do. It's not like nobody wants it. It's obviously a niche market, but it's not like it would cost a zillion dollars to go after it. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
At 06:12 16.1.2003 -0500, Graywolf wrote: This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. The real question is, can we still have fun with our film cameras? I think the answer to that is a resounding YES! I'd be buying the 14Mpix Kodak if I could buy it with the same money as I can buy the MZ-S (or LX) plus 2-5 years worth of film and processing. With the amount of shooting I do, I am more happy to go and buy a new car instead of the DSLR body (about the same cost). If I were shooting professionally the above equation would be the same but the result would be different. I'd most propably buy the DSLR. For quality digital today, I shoot 4x5 slides and scan them at 1600dpi (or higher) and get about 150-200MB files. The resulting printed images are pretty impressive. (It will take quite some time to get this kind of landscape prints with affordable digital) Digital is starting to be comparable with 35 or 120 but with a lot higher price tag (at the moment). Digital or film.. choose as you like but remember to enjoy yourself. Antti-Pekka --- * Antti-Pekka Virjonen * Fiskarsinkatu 7 D * GSM: +358 500 789 753 * * Computec Oy Turku* FIN-20750 Turku Finland * Fax: +358 10 264 0777 *
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I believe these types of statements are really at the best based on poor investigative techniques. Reason for using larger formats like 6x7 is that you get a much improved picture compared to 35 mm in terms of resolution, color gradation.. simply much more information. people who hope for a digital small format camera who can better large format gear will have to wait long time. The same underlying resolution problems with optics are present with digital as well as analog cameras leaving a maximum resolution above which nothing can be done so small format vs larger formats will always have the same basic differences optically!!! Are these guys who tout these truths that digital outbeat any medium format gear paid by the manufacturers? What can be improved from digital then with respect to analog: Lenses - no Recording - maybe?? Analysis in your own darkroom - yes. As Paal says comparing scanned media (with what type of scanner) with medium format analog prints vs digital - do that properly... Cheers, Ronald
i just got a bargain
a tamron adaptall 90mm macro for $170 Australian in really good condition wow i am happy
Re: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
--- Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are kits that adapt a conventional printer to BW work, complete with gray inks in various tones. Those who have a need to print BW with an inkjet usually go that route. Perhaps one of the printer manufacturers will eventualy sell a model that comes already equipped for BW, but I wouldn't hold my breath. The market is probably too small. I've got an Epson 860 running the MIS Full Spectrum BW inkset using the Roark curves for Archival Matte paper. The results are pretty good. I am, however, gonna see how good the digital lab BW output turns out. If the results are to my satisfaction, I will be giving up this system. Mark __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Alright, Who got it?
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 22:51:28 -0800 (PST), you wrote: I walked away from my computer to take a d**p, and this happens: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=3001312384category=15240 Aarrgh.. the bargain of the month, and all of us missed it? Double aarrrgh. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I am really intersted in Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter (mentioned by one of you in some earlier posting). Does it make an AF lens from my MF lens??? Even this Takumar screw mount lens? How it could be done? Kind of magic or... just a joke? No joke, no magic, but you will need that screwmount to K mount adapter on the front of the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter. It works by moving a small lens in the 1.7x adapter. Put your screwmount lens on the front of the adapter. Focus it to somewhere near in-focus. The AF camera motor will spin, moving the little lens back and/or forth and bring the image into focus. You get AF with a screwmount lens... only with your Pentax can you get 40 year old lenses to autofocus! Regards, Bob S.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative. Bill, Well, consider a guy like Mark Roberts. As I understand his working method, he shoots 645 film, and then scans it to make digital inkjet prints as his final output. Considering he's not making wet prints in the first place, why would a guy like him be interested in comparing digital camera prints to wet prints? That's where Michael Reichmann is coming from. He was an expert Cibachrome printer for 20 years (that's how I met him--I commissioned him to write a Cibachrome article for a special issue of _Photo Techniques_) but he closed down his wet darkroom as soon as inkjet printing got good enough. He then made inkjet prints from scanned film for a number of years before gradually switching over to pure digital as the cameras got better. Note that even when he was using the D30 for wildlife shooting, he was still using a Rollei 6008 and scanned film for landscapes. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives. What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are incompetent. Bill, Michael R. was the furthest thing from an incompetent wet printer. Although I guess you'll have to take my word for that. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think this issue is easily resolved in this manner.. If tommorow, you had to shoot one photo, (portrait, landscape, etc), and you were to be judged on that single photo, what body would you choose to buy today? Ha! That's like saying, if you had a twenty-mile hike to go on tomorrow, which new hiking boots would you buy today? I'd want the body I'm most familiar with, whatever it is. --Mike
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
On 16 Jan 2003 at 7:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No joke, no magic, but you will need that screwmount to K mount adapter on the front of the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter. It works by moving a small lens in the 1.7x adapter. Put your screwmount lens on the front of the adapter. Focus it to somewhere near in-focus. The AF camera motor will spin, moving the little lens back and/or forth and bring the image into focus. You get AF with a screwmount lens... only with your Pentax can you get 40 year old lenses to autofocus! The Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter will allow AF using a screw mount lens if one or more the lens mount contacts on the adaptor are shorted to the mount otherwise it's a no-go. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On 16 Jan 2003 at 8:04, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: For those who shoot a lot, digital is good enough right now. For those who shoot a little, film is still better. That's what the pros are telling me. (And I can see the difference with my eyes. No math required.) Hi Collin, You've hit the mail on the head, there's far more to the film vs digicam comparison than the grain non-issue. There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
Re: DN Q #4 -- When/how do you take your shots?
Hi Marnie, On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 04:47:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When/How do you take your shots? 7. Your shooting is a very intermittent type of thing that you do when you are so moved to. 10. Your photography is mainly event oriented (dog shows, car races, etc.), so it depends on when the event happens. I would have included the #4 (travel a lot and shoot then), but I don't travel a lot. I do tend to shoot a fair amount when I travel. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Housekeeping.
You know, I just noticed that I have 12,383 messages in my PDML folder... Time to go use some film. TTYL. Cory Waters
Re: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
Actually you can make your own. One example is the Epson 1160 (used) with four shades of grey instead of 3 colors + 1 black. You can get archival inks and use a CFS (Continuous Flow System) to lower the cost on the long run. Andre, Yeah, I have several friends who do that, including one buddy who has stockpiled old 1160s. It's very finicky and a total hassle. The inks clog constantly and the system requires a lot of maintenance to keep it running smoothly, from everything I've heard. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] This is whole thread is a specious argument anyway. If you guys really cared about quality above all, you would be shooting with a 20x24 inch camera. You are shooting 35, or 120, in that range digital is now pretty comparable. Galen Rowell said the same thing, which i quoted here once, for justifying why he shot only 35mm. all i got were flames. Herb
RE: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
I agree. All they would need several shades of gray ink in addition to pure black and the dithering would be far less objectional. Maybe you guys have the wrong printers. :) We have an HP 970cxi that we used to print BW wallet sizes for our Christmas cards, and they were nearly indistinguishable from real prints. We just printed them at the highest quality, using HP's photo paper.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] About a year back I met a fine arts photographer. He showed me 30x40s that were shot on 8x10 transparency film. He pointed out the differences between the digital prints and the Ilfochrome prints, saying, As you can see the chemical prints are still a little better. I would not have noticed the subtilities if he had not pointed them out, and at normal viewing distance for 30x40 prints I doubt anyone else could either. He was only scaning at 1200dpi so his files were only in the 115 megapixel range. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto the workshop i went to last weekend is the guy doing between 4000dpi and 8000dpi scans of his 4x5 slides. he said was absolutely certain two years ago that digital prints would never equal the quality of wet prints for reproducing his color slides. then he saw what a good drum scanner and Lightjet 5000 output looked like. he said the same things as Galen Rowell did, that people still doing wet prints of color work for exhibition are wedded to loss of detail, loss of saturation, and loss of contrast because that is the way it used to be and always will be with enlargers. as i mentioned in an earlier post, all of the guy's darkroom equipment is for sale and he has no intention ever of using it again. Herb
Re: DN Q #4 -- When/how do you take your shots?
When/How do you take your shots? 1. You always try to have a camera with you (in the car or elsewhere). 3. You go out (or in) several times a week, month, etc. on a semi-regular basis to take photographs. 5. You mainly take pictures of family and friends. 13. You find you mainly take pictures when you have a new camera, lens, tripod, film type that you can't wait to try out. Marnie, That's my answer...except #1 is not true for me these days. It was true back when I was working harder (and doing better work) however. --Mike
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
- Original Message - From: John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Sigma 400/f5.6 APO Macro comes only in autofocus. The APO Macro close focuses to 1:3 magnification, is usably sharp wide open and better than average at f8. Yes, it's out of production (sent to the remainder heap by Sigma's various long zooms), and prices can be very good. It has the touchy-feely Sigma Zen finish and a good built-in hood and tripod collar, and an annoyingly short focus throw of about 90 degrees. My 300/4 APO is the same. I've become good at one-finger-focusing with my manual focus bodies. The Sigma APO Macro 300/4 is a good lens, also. But with both the 300mm and 400mm Sigma APO Macros watch out for pretty complete incompatibility with program mode on Super Programs; and bizarre aperture readouts on PZ1p's (but with the PZ1p the exposure is correct even though the aperture in the viewfinder might claim f1.2). I noticed this too on the Super Program. I generally don't use program mode (aperture priority AE on the SP and LX I use alot) so it never worried me. Christian
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
Thanks, Bruce. I've spent a lot lately on my obsession with close-up photography so a 400 is just not in the budget right now! Thanks again! Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars? Christian, I'm still probably going to sell my A 400/5.6 if you have any interest. Gotta keep funding the habit, you know. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 1:01:12 PM, you wrote: CS On Wednesday 15 January 2003 14:44, Brendan wrote: 1 stop is worth it to some, but I much prefer another 100mm so get a 400mm F5.6 instead :-) CS For birds, I TOTALLY agree However, 400mm lenses were out of my budget. CS My next purchase will be a 2x or 1.4x Sigma matched TC. I'll lose the stop CS or two for the extra reach without a worry and I'll STILL use my slow film. CS I like to torture myself! CS Christian
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Read the title on your thread. You're being purposefully provacative and you know it! Well, no, because I don't think it's a provocative statement. I'm perfectly willing to believe it's simply a _true_ statement. Last summer I saw some prints from a Canon D60. They were clearly better than enlargements from 35mm. This isn't going to make me throw my 35mm cameras in the trash, or run out and buy a D60. It doesn't threaten my world, any more than the existence of 4x5 threatens my preference for 35mm. If anything, I don't really understand why anyone would consider this to be provocative...I'm not being coy, that's the truth. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve.
Re: Re: Re: Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies
I have a 85/1.8 Super MC Takumar M42 that I would like dedicate to K mount. If memory serves, there was a thread about how to modify the adapter to accomplish this, but I can't seem to find it in the archives. Any help out there? Thanks...Bob --- David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the adaptor should go on first.Thats the method i use and so far,so goodg Dave Begin Original Message From: Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:29:44 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies Maybe this is because I never received the tool with the Pentax adapter I have, but I always put the adapter on the lens first, instead of trying to bayonet it into the camera body. Of course, the lens then comes out by itself, leaving the adapter in the body, but when I'm done I've always been able to get it out using a fingernail and careful turning of the adapter edges with my fingertips. What's the proper procedure for using the adapter? Joe Steve. Open up wide to focus,then adjust ap. ring to get your meter reading then shoot.Its a bit better to focus wide open than at the metered reading i find. Do your self a favour and buy the Pentax mount.There is a red dot just as on a lens.Line them up and use the tool or small pen to twist it on.It will lock in place.To undo,put the tool in were the litt;e spring is pull towards the lens opening to release ,then twist off. I use the adaptor sometimes with my 105 f 2.8 Dave End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail = What boots up must come down. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
But a 4000 dpi scan resolves more of the negative than an enlarger, at least in my experience. However, there are too may variables here to judge Reichmann's results as gospel. Here's Michael R.'s general response (again, this was an e-mail sent to me, repeated with permission): The problem is that most people have not seen output from the 1Ds, just as they hadn't seen output from the D30 when I first reviewed it and the D60 in its turn. In all cases I was one of the first people in the world to review the cameras and I didn't have the crutch of someone else's opinion. I had to form my own. At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on belief rather than empirical tests. When I was the first person in the world to review the Canon 1Ds I wrote that it equaled and in many ways surpassed 645 medium format. Now, just a few months later I know at least a dozen professional photographers who are selling their medium format film systems because their hands-on experience has proven to them that in terms of resolution, grain, colour purity and every aspect that counts toward ultimate print quality, the 1Ds is superior. I can't convince anyone of this, and frankly have no interest in doing so. But, anyone that thinks otherwise without having a close look for themselves is living with blinders on.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope That seems like a rather impractical way to display your images. The real issue is how actual prints of a given size, from both 6 x 7 and full-frame-11-megapixel digital, compare. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi! What a wonderful thought(speech)-provoking question(thread)... You know, if you don't mind I'd post here an opinion of an amateur who just recently learned of Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite and who spent good part of past two days reading these pages and thinking them through. In no particular order and totally IMHO: 1. Michael Reichmann does very specific kind of photography. For example, for him ability to change ISO setting from one shot to another as a matter of course seems to be very important. This way he does not have to take with him several heavy bodies not to mention the agility of his work. Digital seems to have great convenience improvement for him. Therefore I suppose, foreseeing this, he was among the first who praised digital. 2. The quality comparison between 6x7 (insert your favorite film format here) vs digital depends hugely on the subject being photographed. As a medium that converts light through some process to image, digital is in a sense yet another kind of film. So, if you think you must change a film every now and then, you have to use film. Digital does not seem to be able to do good b/w by design. Again use film. Now to the Third Party Lenses Resource Megasite 3. To be able to extract the best out of your 11 MP DSLR, or your best film one has to use their best technique. That's why I am thinking of starting with buying a monopod. As Michael Reichmann also said in his talk about EOS 1Ds, this camera forces one to use only best lenses with only perfect technique. So with all due respect for quite some many people on this forum it has little advantage to shell out the big money and go digital. However indeed if by popular definition you're professional (making financial living out of) photographer, digital may be the way to go. 4. Really, let us not argue about Film-Scanner-DigiPrint vs DigiSensor-DigiPrint or similar matter. Come, if you take 30 cm x 40 cm print and look at it from the distance less than few meters, you got to be in pedantic mood at best. I've received my first such size print just few days ago. The picture can be found here: www.geocities.com/dunno57/out/photos/misc/galia-na-divane.htm As you can see it was made with simple film, old lens and so on. Still it is amazing to look at. Naturally if I come closer I see the imperfections, but why would I? I am aware that I have a huge amount of learning to do :). Ultimately the high megapixel DSLR is yet another tool that should be considered just as such. If you could afford it, take it for a test drive and just buy it. However, for very many people the discussion of digital vs film (even 6x7) is mainly theoretical. I immediately and in advance admit to whatever wrongness you find in my reasoning. That's simply because I've noticed an unusually high concentration of quite quality demanding photographers who are also quite active on this list. But then again, I am glad and honored that I can listen to what you have to say to each other and that I can even ask my amateur questions every once in a while. Mike, I think the new world would come in few years hence, when camera like EOS 1Ds would cost no more than $1000. Before then, we can argue and mostly drool... --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: RE: darkroom simplicities
As with all children,my daughter is planning a move from our house to a place on her own or with a roomy.This probably won't happen for a while yet,however i keep telling her,make sure this is what you want as i'll give you 3 days on your own,if your still gone,i'm turning your room into the computer/darkroom and throwing your bed outVBGShe hates it when i say that. Dave Begin Original Message From: Alan Abbott [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:25:19 - To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: darkroom simplicities Or convert the bathroom into the darkroom, it works :-) How do people go on with the enlarger etc when the 'Darkroom' is a bathroom? Where do you put it all? Do you carry it all in ,use then carry it all out again to store somewhere else? I have the dilemma of where to use as a darkroom. At the moment I use my computer room/Workshop. Trouble is : a) tall those damm LED's need covering. B) I am sure that the fumes are not doing the computers much good (Actually as I come from a Chemical background, I LIKE the smell of them!) Those who do not learn from Dilbert are doomed to repeat it. End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
For once I agree with Bruce. After all, how many people view photos under a 40X microscope? Make your comparisons at a reasonable viewing distance. Bill - Original Message - From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:16 AM Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is no way that direct digital will come near 67 film for a long stint, all I have to do is put nearly any of my Mamiya 7 slides under my 40x microscope, there's more information there than a 4000dpi scanner can hope to resolve.
RE: I'm back...wedding pix...
Thanks, everyone! :) Hi Amita, Welcome back! You are a beautiful bride. And Mandy should be playing center field for the New York Yankees g. Love your pictures of the pier and the lake as well. Paul Stenquist
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, tom wrote: I agree. A couple of years ago, the naysayers all provided faux mathematics to prove that digital would never compete with film. Now they're going to say digital costs too much. -shrug- Don't care, either way. Regardless of talent I may or may not have, I do it because I find it fun, and I find it to be my own artistic release. Part of that artistic release includes money on supplies, fingers in chemicals, and forumlas I don't fully understand to give me a prodct that in the end pleases me. Film gives me that pleasure, a digital camera turns, in my eyes, away from that. It makes it easier to preview and see. Makes it easier to complete what you need, and to me takes just a bit of that artistic approach out of it.. FIne, it makes it quicker, cheaper, faster which is all fine and dandy for those of you who rely on this to make your salaries. I do not, so I do not care. Not to mention, when digital becomes the common place, those of us who do continue to produce fine art (FWIW) on film will be that much more exotic, and hey, I'm all about the image of myself as some sort of artiste. ;) A computer can simulate almost any other musical insturment, too, but somehow people are still going to see orchestras and support muscians who use real insturemnts instead of a synth. Painters still paint. Hunters still shoot with bows and with blackpowder. People still buy vinyl. They all just get the term purist applied to them.
Re: RE: darkroom simplicities
Take it from someone with 11 grandkids, they ALL come back and usually they bring more with them. ;-) On Thursday 16 January 2003 02:30 pm, David Brooks wrote: As with all children,my daughter is planning a move from our house to a place on her own or with a roomy.This probably won't happen for a while yet,however i keep telling her,make sure this is what you want as i'll give you 3 days on your own,if your still gone,i'm turning your room into the computer/darkroom and throwing your bed outVBGShe hates it when i say that. -- Ken Archer Canine Photography San Antonio, Texas Business Is Going To The Dogs
Re: Yeah, why no BW inkjet?
Mike said: Yeah, why is that? I'm really kind of mystified that _no_ inkjet printer manufacturer has come out with a dedicated BW printer. You'd think they could take a 3- or 4-ink printer, replace the inks, write some new software, and voilá, there you'd have it. Considering all the printers on the market, you'd think it would be easy enough to do. It's not like nobody wants it. It's obviously a niche market, but it's not like it would cost a zillion dollars to go after it. Find an appropriate conversion of shades to colors in Photoshop and you won't even need new software, just the graded set of inks. It used to be the case that some ink cartridges could be refilled by hand. If you could get those, maybe you can mix your own shades by appropriate proportions of black ink and solvent. Something to do if you have a lot of time on your hands...
deadline
PUG deadline is coming up real quick like:) Dave Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: (2): Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies
Bill Robb posted this a while back.Give him a shout he's back in cyber space again. Dave Begin Original Message From: Bob Poe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 06:15:27 -0800 (PST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Re: Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies I have a 85/1.8 Super MC Takumar M42 that I would like dedicate to K mount. If memory serves, there was a thread about how to modify the adapter to accomplish this, but I can't seem to find it in the archives. Any help out there? Thanks...Bob --- David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe the adaptor should go on first.Thats the method i use and so far,so goodg Dave Begin Original Message From: Joe Wilensky [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:29:44 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Re: Need help w/ how to use SM lenses on K mount bodies Maybe this is because I never received the tool with the Pentax adapter I have, but I always put the adapter on the lens first, instead of trying to bayonet it into the camera body. Of course, the lens then comes out by itself, leaving the adapter in the body, but when I'm done I've always been able to get it out using a fingernail and careful turning of the adapter edges with my fingertips. What's the proper procedure for using the adapter? Joe Steve. Open up wide to focus,then adjust ap. ring to get your meter reading then shoot.Its a bit better to focus wide open than at the metered reading i find. Do your self a favour and buy the Pentax mount.There is a red dot just as on a lens.Line them up and use the tool or small pen to twist it on.It will lock in place.To undo,put the tool in were the litt;e spring is pull towards the lens opening to release ,then twist off. I use the adaptor sometimes with my 105 f 2.8 Dave End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail = What boots up must come down. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: 135mm Lenses Relative Sizes
Wow, what a beast! I hope we will see some pics from it, after Kelvin gets it cleaned up. Thanks Fred , and thanks Paul! Yeah, that was quite interesting. That Vivitar reminds me of the 135mm f/2 Nikkor which we always left at the studio when we went on jobs, because it was too much of a brick to load the camera bag down with s. But I look at the thing now and think, those were the days. --Mike
Re: deadline
Just submitted mine ;) Get scanning folks. Anything scanned is Digital. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film. - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 6:40 AM Subject: deadline PUG deadline is coming up real quick like:) Dave Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Luminous Landscape: Digital
Do this guy actually not the plans of Minolta, Leica et al? Sorry, I don't understand this...? --Mike
Re: Comparison
Sigma makes another version of the 70-300 AF lens, I forget the letter designation, that tested much better in Pop Photo than the DL version did. DG At 10:55 PM 1/15/03 -0600, you wrote: On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 21:44:10 -0600, Ed Matthew wrote: My experience with the Sigma 75-300 DL do not support your 'extremely soft' judgement. Are we talking the same lens? I said the 70-300 DL AF lens. Does Sigma make a 75-300 AF? Later, Gary
RE: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote: best ones in 35mm optics. In my experience, the biggest gains in medium format with film over 35mm with film is grain reduction, with the increase in overall resolution coming in second in terms overall visual improvement. Which brings a question to MY mind... Let's pretend that the 1Ds is everything that they claim it is, but will it still have the smoother tonality of a MF neg due to the amount of information on it, or will it be more akin to a 35mm neg (since the sensor is teh same size) and not as smooth? I wish I knew how to better formulate this question. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
William Robb said: Photographic paper is designed to print photographic negatives. What I see is people who can't get a good wet print dismissing the entire technology of wet prints. It's not the technology's fault that people are incompetent. From what I've read of APS, that problem is solved by encoding information on the film casettes that refer to developing instructions, so that the whole process can be automated and done right. In many ways, APS seems like a wonderful system. Seems like they could do much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge or something. If APS had a larger negative and was an SLR thing, I might want to use it. But I think it's mainly a PS thing.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I have issues with the pixel math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from equaling film. The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good. Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and the conclusions have a very poor historical track record. --Mike
Re: RE: darkroom simplicities
Dave, I did exactly this about 3 years ago when our daughter got married! Bill - Original Message - From: David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 9:30 AM Subject: Re: RE: darkroom simplicities As with all children,my daughter is planning a move from our house to a place on her own or with a roomy.This probably won't happen for a while yet,however i keep telling her,make sure this is what you want as i'll give you 3 days on your own,if your still gone,i'm turning your room into the computer/darkroom and throwing your bed outVBGShe hates it when i say that. Dave
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
tom said: I wasn't disputing that it's cheaper, I have issues with the pixel math. Everytime digital vs film comes up, someone brings out their slide rule and proceed to prove that digital is X years away from equaling film. The proof is in the prints, and the prints are looking pretty good. Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
. Seems like they could do much the same for traditional 35mm by putting a bar code on the film edge or something. There's already a bar code on the edge of 35mm film. It's read by mini labs to set film brand/type and to put the frame number on the back of the print. Bill
OT: The Remainder
Most everything is gone. Here's the remainder: A. Bulk Film, 35mm, 100ft rolls, $25 for all, 10 rolls 1. E200 Qty 8 7 dated 1/02, 1 dated 08/02 2. Ektachrome 100 Professional 05/01 3. Ektachrome Slide Duplicating film +10C +10Y 11/00 B. Paper -- Agfa Brovira 1. BH310RC 4 8x10 Qty 6 $25 for all 2. BEH310RC 5 8x10 Qty 5 $20 for all C. Chromes, $50 for all, 17 propacks (85 rolls) 1. Velvia RVP120 iso 50 10/01 17 propacks 6. Ektachrome 100 EPN 120 10/01 4 propacks 2. Astia RAP 220 iso100 11/01 1 propack 3. NHGII 120 iso800 06/02 2 propacks 4. Ektachrome 400x EPL120 08/01, 05/02 2 propacks 5. E100VS 220 02/01 2 propacks D. C41 film, $60 for all, 17 propacks (85 rolls) 1. NPS 220 iso160 02/02 3 propacks 2. NCP 220 iso 160 4 @ 2/02 3 @ 6/02 3. NPC 120 iso 160 6 @ 4/02 1 @ 6/02 plus actual shipping. US only. Batches only. Thanks, Collin
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
I think one loses a bit of the overall impact of a picture when viewed with a 40x microscope. g I'm glad somebody said that. How much difference can be seen in a 8x10 print, viewed from 18 , with 20/20 vision? People just can't see more than 6-8 lp/mm at 18. They certainly don't see much at all when they look at a picture in a magazine for 3 seconds. I used to have part of a slide lecture where I would show students a series of pictures. I would leave the slides up for a good long time, 30 seconds or a minute, and ask them to look at the picture carefully. Then I'd take it down and ask them if they had seen the X [some object they would invariably miss]. My favorite was a Mark Klett picture called Man Behind Creosote Bush. It was a 4x5 Polaroid Type 55 print of a spindly bush with a man standing right behind it. He's fully visible, and takes up most of the frame, but camouflaged by the bush. Invariably, most of the kids would miss the man until I pointed him out. It was fun--I'd say, so did you see the man standing there? and they'd all go, Get outta here! There was no man in that picture! and He must have been tiny! Then I'd show them the slide again. The purpose of the exercise was to prove to them how quickly we assume that we get all the contents of pictures, without really _looking_. --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Is it legal to enlarge squirrels? Doug has nothing useful to say At 10:06 AM 1/16/03, Gregory wrote: Film has better resolution than digital, until around 11 or 14 megapixels. But film has grain in a small number of colors while digital has xxx bit pixels with noise. And I think you can just have chunkier pixels and still get a pleasing picture if those pixels are close to the true color rather than a dither, like the distinct red and green spots I found when I enlarged a squirrel. Some digital cameras cool the CCDs to reduce noise, but I don't know if that's true of the snapshooting cameras or just of the fixed cameras in labs and observatories.
Re: Luminous Landscape: Digital
Me neither, but I think I know what he wanted to say - doesn't this guy know Minolta's or Leica's plans? Regards, Lukasz PS. BTW - if I understood correctly - what are they? (the plans, of course :-) === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Digital Do this guy actually not the plans of Minolta, Leica et al? Sorry, I don't understand this...? --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczedzic na kosztach obslugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
-Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? 35mm - $20 120 - $20 220 - $30 Roughly. tv
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? Can't really give you an idea on film cost, since I buy different films at different places. When I have C-41 processed, it's $1.89/roll, 24 or 36 exp or 120, which I then scan and print a contact sheet of on plain paper. Bill
Photo Greeting Cards
I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link. Any suggestions? Thanks. tv
Vs: Comparison
You got it the wrong way round: Pentax is soft at 320 mm, Sigma is good and Sigma APO is even better. Based on test results, I have used only the Sigma APO. The Sigmas are 70-300. All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: Pentax Users Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 16. tammikuuta 2003 3:36 Aihe: Comparison How does the Pentax FA 80-320 mm zoom compare to the Sigma 70-300 DL macro? I know the Sigma is extremely soft at 300, but is the Pentax any better? Thanks! Later, Gary
RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
The concept of saving money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else. The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have to buy film further down the road. Where is he saving? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away by having to outlay $2000) I'm so confused... Smirkingly, Dave Original Message: - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:12:31 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE snip Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. /snip mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Photo Greeting Cards
I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply insert a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant personalized card. Anyone got that one? Thanks, Tim On 1/16/03 9:38 AM, tom wrote: I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link. Any suggestions? Thanks. tv
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Including film+developing/proof - good film and good lab 35mm - $18 120 - $12 220 - $22 my MF number are slightly different than Tom's because I get 10 and 21 frames per roll - he gets more. Perhap cost per frame would be a better comparison. Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 9:36:42 AM, you wrote: -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? t 35mm - $20 t 120 - $20 t 220 - $30 t Roughly. t tv
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
For 35mm C-41 processing and the resulting set of 4x6 prints, I pay either $7 for one-hour process print at the local one-stop shopping supermarket or $16 for 3-day service at my favorite LCS (local camera store). BW I do myself for about $3 in consumables (developing and a contact sheet). t On 1/16/03 9:12 AM, Mike Johnston wrote: And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically?
Re: Photo Greeting Cards
My Wife just showed me some of those from the Lilian Vernon catalog yesterday. These were Christmas cards but they may have others. She suggested we get them for Christmas next year. I suggested SHE be toe one to go to the lab and get X00 copies of whatever photo she picked. She changed the subject. Cory Waters - Original Message - From: Timothy Sherburne [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:37 PM Subject: Re: Photo Greeting Cards I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply insert a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant personalized card. Anyone got that one? Thanks, Tim On 1/16/03 9:38 AM, tom wrote: I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link. Any suggestions? Thanks. tv
RE: Photo Greeting Cards
I think Snapfish and Shutterfly both do it... I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link.
RE: Photo Greeting Cards
On 1/16/03 9:38 AM, tom wrote: I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link. Any suggestions? Found it, nevermind. tv
Some Flash Questions
I've been looking around a bit more at flashes. The real world has hit me pretty hard so I'm not in a hurry to buy anything, but I want to have some idea what I'm looking for when I get that straightened out. Some flashes have TTL modes but no manual mode. What exactly does that mean to have no manual mode? It won't work on a K1000? There's no way to turn off TTL metering when used with my ZX-L, even if I have the camera in manual mode? I fear that sometimes light reflected from foreground objects will throw off the exposure, and manual mode would be best then.
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
- Original Message - From: Subject: RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE The concept of saving money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else. The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have to buy film further down the road. Where is he saving? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away by having to outlay $2000) Add to that the time well spent in front of a computer, replicating what the lab has done for you in the past. Digital images need processing too. William Robb
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? i pay $13/roll for Provia 100F and 3hr processing with mounting. Herb
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Hi! Mike, I am sorry, but there's a little flaw in your otherwise nice argument. In order to be able to shoot with DSLR with reasonable level of convenience you have to add to this: 1. Some kind of additional storage so that BH prices would be: - about $300 for 1GB micro drive ether - about $200 for 0.5 GB micro drive or - about $600! for 1GB Compact Flash card or - from $100 to $300 for 0.25-0.5 GB Compact Flash cards or - etc... Say on average you would have to pay some $250 for some storage. Judging from my own experience I would project that quite soon (way sooner than 1 year) you would spend another $250 for some more storage. 2. Now, if we're talking micro drives, and if your DSLR is smart enough to have exchangeable batteries, we might be talking some extra batteries and probably some extra chargers, say car charger. All together my expectation would be that you'd spent on these items anywhere from $250 to $1,000 within the first year after you bought a DSLR. I am counting in these expenses since in case of film camera with a grip you could feed it with cheap AA alkalines that would total in no more than $50 per year. Though this figure is a off the hip estimate. I am too lazy to start counting how many AA batteries you would spend in your film camera. I am willing to subscribe to your argument otherwise. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Photo Greeting Cards
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply insert a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant personalized card. Anyone got that one? Thanks, Tim PhotographersEdge.com. they are on the expensive side. Herb
RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The concept of saving money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else. The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have to buy film further down the road. Where is he saving? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away by having to outlay $2000) because he has to take the pictures no matter what. Herb
RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
My processing cost for prints (which all my family stuff is done on) is about £2 for the film and $6 for dp with 7*5 prints. That's £8 per film including prints. I don't want enlargements of many of these, the 7*5s are fine to stick in an album and even these have filled a couple of shelves(back to your earlier post...) in the couple of years since the kids were born (approx 3000 pics). OK maybe after 250 rolls I have spent what the DSLR would have cost me, but I have my albums full of photos. I find the cost of printing inkjets to be about 25p for a 7*5 so to print these 9000 pics (250*36) would cost another £2250 in prints which is more than the film would cost me for the year. I want to print EVERY frame as they are memories rather than works of art. DIGITAL ONLY PAYS FOR ITESELF IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PRINT A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF YOUR SHOTS. Now this is cetrtainly the case for my 'serious' photography where I tend to get maybe 1/3rd of the shots are keepers. I use slide film for these anyway so the inkjet cost for prints would be incurred anyway, and this is a fairer comparison. I shoot maybe 50 rolls a year like this, so maybe after 5 years the camera would be paid for (250 rolls remember), but by then the depreciation would have rendered it worthless anyway. I think the argument for DSLRs paying for themselves only works for high volume use where you want limited numbers of prints. Ie for professional slide users. That's not to say I am anti digital - I will be first in line if the Pentax DSLR is halfway worth having. But I suspect that I will be less likely to make an active choice to print or keep an out of focus family shot which means some memories (however poorly captured) may be lost. In years to come this could be something which you lament, maybe not... -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 17:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE My calculation: 350 rolls of film a year make a 6mp SLR cost the same as an equivalent 35mm SLR. There was a time I shot 350+ rolls a year, but I have not done that in a long time. However that differential is getting lower all the time. Tom, How do you figure? Even if you figure $5 for a roll of film and $5 for processing, which is on the low side for color, $10 per roll x 350 rolls per year = $3500 per year. Nikon D100 = $2,000 body only (using BH prices for comparison) minus Pentax MZ-S = $800 body only equals $1,200 difference. Seems to me that by this calculation, 120 rolls of film a year gets the price of the DSLR down to the price of the film camera in one year. Then, in another eight months, you've made up the price of the film camera and saved the whole cost of the DSLR. Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. If you only shoot 60 rolls of film a year (a little more than a roll a week), then it takes two years to get the prices to equalize, and 3 years, 4 months to get the DSLR to pay for itself entirely. I know that some people will say that I have not calculated the cost of making inkjet prints from the digital files, but I don't buy that argument, because if you get your color film processed and have slides made or machine prints made from your negative film, you haven't got enlarged prints from your film, either. So either way, i.e. with either film or digital, you're going to have to pay for enlargements. And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? * * * * * * * * * * I personally think that if everybody will run these numbers with his or her own ACTUAL COSTS and ACTUAL CURRENT FILM USAGE and actual number of years they would expect to keep a DSLR, they will come up with a number (I mean, a price) that means they can actually afford a Pentax DSLR when it comes out. (Then consider that, as a bonus, you will not be limited to shooting only your current film usage total. That is, if you currently shoot 60 rolls of film a year (36x60 = 2160 frames), if you buy a Pentax DSLR you can shoot 4,000 frames a year with no cost penalty. Of course it's not really fair to factor that into the calculations.) Can any of you math whizzes reduce this to a formula that would allow us to plug in the number of years we would expect to keep a Pentax DSLR, and then come up with a magic number of what it needs to cost to be cost-efficient for each of us? (I got D's in high-school algebra.) For example, I would be willing to say I'd keep a DSLR for three years. My current film and processing costs are $7 per roll (I do my
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Hi, You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question. What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for instance calculators/watches behave at such temperatures. So please write any comments/experiences. Alek Uytkownik Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative. William Robb i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
One factor that is not figured into this is the slow rise in cost of film/development due to the slow demise of 1 hour labs. Remember on the list we have heard of some recent shutdowns. I will not be surprised to see the price of film go up and the price of develop/print go up with it. I think for many people that will be what drives them to digital. On a side note - my wife is a classic person capturing memories only. With her ZX-10 she know just how much it costs per frame to get her print. Everytime she presses the shutter, she mentally drops a coin in the register. She much prefers shooting the Coolpix because she is free from that feeling. One night she shot 90 pictures and we printed 10. She enjoyed herself and we got more keepers because she didn't feel like she had to save her shots. We also got to see them that night. This is a common occurrence for many non-photographers I talk to. Bruce Thursday, January 16, 2003, 10:03:36 AM, you wrote: RB My processing cost for prints (which all my family stuff is done on) is RB about £2 for the film and $6 for dp with 7*5 prints. That's £8 per RB film including prints. RB I don't want enlargements of many of these, the 7*5s are fine to stick RB in an album and even these have filled a couple of shelves(back to your RB earlier post...) in the couple of years since the kids were born (approx RB 3000 pics). RB OK maybe after 250 rolls I have spent what the DSLR would have cost me, RB but I have my albums full of photos. I find the cost of printing RB inkjets to be about 25p for a 7*5 so to print these 9000 pics (250*36) RB would cost another £2250 in prints which is more than the film would RB cost me for the year. I want to print EVERY frame as they are memories RB rather than works of art. RB DIGITAL ONLY PAYS FOR ITESELF IF YOU DON'T WANT TO PRINT A HIGH RB PERCENTAGE OF YOUR SHOTS. RB Now this is cetrtainly the case for my 'serious' photography where I RB tend to get maybe 1/3rd of the shots are keepers. I use slide film for RB these anyway so the inkjet cost for prints would be incurred anyway, and RB this is a fairer comparison. I shoot maybe 50 rolls a year like this, RB so maybe after 5 years the camera would be paid for (250 rolls RB remember), but by then the depreciation would have rendered it worthless RB anyway. RB I think the argument for DSLRs paying for themselves only works for high RB volume use where you want limited numbers of prints. Ie for RB professional slide users. RB That's not to say I am anti digital - I will be first in line if the RB Pentax DSLR is halfway worth having. But I suspect that I will be less RB likely to make an active choice to print or keep an out of focus family RB shot which means some memories (however poorly captured) may be lost. RB In years to come this could be something which you lament, maybe not... -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 16 January 2003 17:13 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE My calculation: 350 rolls of film a year make a 6mp SLR cost the same as an equivalent 35mm SLR. There was a time I shot 350+ rolls a year, but I have not done that in a long time. However that differential is getting lower all the time. Tom, How do you figure? Even if you figure $5 for a roll of film and $5 for processing, which is on the low side for color, $10 per roll x 350 rolls per year = $3500 per year. Nikon D100 = $2,000 body only (using BH prices for comparison) minus Pentax MZ-S = $800 body only equals $1,200 difference. Seems to me that by this calculation, 120 rolls of film a year gets the price of the DSLR down to the price of the film camera in one year. Then, in another eight months, you've made up the price of the film camera and saved the whole cost of the DSLR. Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. If you only shoot 60 rolls of film a year (a little more than a roll a week), then it takes two years to get the prices to equalize, and 3 years, 4 months to get the DSLR to pay for itself entirely. I know that some people will say that I have not calculated the cost of making inkjet prints from the digital files, but I don't buy that argument, because if you get your color film processed and have slides made or machine prints made from your negative film, you haven't got enlarged prints from your film, either. So either way, i.e. with either film or digital, you're going to have to pay for enlargements. And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? * * * * * * * * * * I personally think
Re: RE: Photo Greeting Cards
Can you post the link Tom,so i can bookmark it please. Dave BTW getting my wedding (tension here) photos back tonight.No calls for my lab guy(he has my number memorised)so might look good.Going to proccess the BW candids my self in class Jan 29th. Begin Original Message From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:08:10 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Photo Greeting Cards On 1/16/03 9:38 AM, tom wrote: I could have sworn someone posted a link to a lab (besides Ofoto) that will take a scan and print it on a greeting card, but I can't find the link. Any suggestions? Found it, nevermind. tv End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Is one f-stop worth thousands of dollars?
Haven't tried, but see Rob Studdert's comments a bit earlier today. You need something to short the contacts on the AF adapter to lens mating surface. I believed somebody used a chewing gum wrapper for this or scraped the screwmount lens down to bare metal at the contact point. Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No joke, no magic, but you will need that screwmount to K mount adapter on the front of the Pentax 1.7x AF Adapter. It works by moving a small lens in the 1.7x adapter. Put your screwmount lens on the front of the adapter. Focus it to somewhere near in-focus. The AF camera motor will spin, moving the little lens back and/or forth and bring the image into focus. You get AF with a screwmount lens... only with your Pentax can you get 40 year old lenses to autofocus! Regards, Bob S. Are you sure, have you tried ?? Extract from owner manual: Compatible lenses ... KA mount ... K mount Even if the Mount-Adapter K mounted Takumar screw-mount lens is combined with this Adapter, the lens does not provide autofocus function
RE: RE: Photo Greeting Cards
-Original Message- From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Can you post the link Tom,so i can bookmark it please. Well, I'll be doing them through Pictage, that's probably not available to you. Here's something else I found: http://www.cardstore.com/asp/webstore/ Dave BTW getting my wedding (tension here) photos back tonight.No calls for my lab guy(he has my number memorised)so might look good.Going to proccess the BW candids my self in class Jan 29th. Let us kow how it goes. tv
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 1:12 PM Subject: Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Hi, You all write about quality of digital vs medium format etc. and I have a question. What about shooting at very low temperatures ( I means -10C or lower)? Does digital camera can still work well, since it takes plenty of power etc.Everybody knows how for instance calculators/watches behave at such temperatures. So please write any comments/experiences. Alek Uytkownik Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Mike, I think there is one aspect where 67 beats digital. That is in cost for amateurs (meaning not making a living from their photography). Until your shooting quantity goes up quite a bit, cost will probably be one of the last strongholds of the film world for awhile. Not only that, we live in a good enough society right now, where price/cost is more important than quality. I believe that for many uses, 6MP D100 and D60 quality is good enough and that most won't want to pay much more than that. One more interesting note: I have watched a few photographers shooting digital and talked with a few, who indicate that they shoot more frames per session/subject than they did with film. The usual cited reason is lack of cost to shoot the frames. By shooting more, they insure/improve the likelihood of getting the shots they need. Doesn't seem to be that much different in mindset than taking a video camera and just let it run and then pick the best frame out of it. One starts to wonder if that will occur (whether with a vidcam or digicam). It would certainly change the style and role of the photographer. Bruce Wednesday, January 15, 2003, 3:18:47 PM, you wrote: MJ Can digital beat 6x7? MJ I thought the denizens of the PDML might be interested in these comments MJ from my friend Michael Reichmann, who runs the Luminous Landscape website MJ and publishes The Video Journal, a photography magazine on DVD. I have MJ Michael's permission to quote from his private e-mails: MJ I'm using a Canon 1Ds. The most remarkable photographic product I've MJ ever owned. Almost large format image quality from 35mm. It's hard not MJ to sound too enthusiastic about it. MJ I sold my Pentax 645 outfit when I got the 1Ds. No contest. MJ I have hung on to the Pentax 67 for the past couple of months, but with MJ every test I did, including side by side shoots the 1Ds images always MJ came out on top; resolution, colour purity, grain, everything. MJ So last week I took it all to my favourite online dealer and he's going MJ to be selling it for me. MJ I'm hanging on to my Hasselblad XPan and M Leica gear. Other than that MJ I'm now all digital. MJ MJ Michael favorably reviewed both the Pentax 645N and 67 on his site, and has MJ used both extensively in the field along with his previous Rollei 6008 MJ system. In parallel, he was going digital with the D30 when it came out. MJ By the way, when Michael says every test I did, including side by side MJ shoots, he really means it--he actually runs the tests and looks at the MJ results. In my experience of him, he truly has no particular axe to grind. MJ Looks like it's really getting to be a new world now. MJ --Mike ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work with. Herb
31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
In the February edition of German ColorFoto (CF) magazine the SMC Pentax-FA 1:1.8 31mm Limited and the SMC Pentax-FA 1:2 35mm AL are tested along with 35mm/f1.4 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and Zeiss, 35mm/f2 lenses from Canon, Leica R, Minolta and Nikon, and a Zeiss 35mm/f2.8. For the last two years, the CF lens tests have shown a lot of consitency. Unfortunately CF usually tests lenses wide open and two stops down, so it is hard to compare the MTF results of lenses of different maximum aperture. However, this much can be said: Of the lenses with f=1.8 or 2 maximum aperture, Minolta and the two Pentaxes offer the best image quality with 20 points (out of 30) for sharpness/resolution and 28 points (out of 30) for contrast. Canon is close (19 and 28 points) while Leica (18 and 27) and Nikkor (17 and 27) are defeated. Looking at the MTF curves, the Minolta 35/f2 offers the best performance wide open. However, at f=4 the MTF of the the Pentax 31/f1.8 is by far the best with unusually small fall-off from centre to corner. Light fall-off (vignetting) is relatively well controlled in all lenses (7 points out of 10) except for Leica (5/10). The Leica (6/10), Canon (6/10) and Minolta (7/10) 35/f2s offer slightly less distortion than Pentax (5/10 each) and Nikon (5/10). The Minolta offers excellent centration (? Zentrierung in German) with 20 points out of 20, while Leica (18), Nikon (17), Pentax 31/f1.8 (17), Pentax 35/f2 (16), and Canon (15) offer good to mediocre centration (of the lens elements) only. BTW: Of the lenses with f1.4 maximum aperture, Canon and Leica are the best, however, at f2.8 the Contax 2.8/35 beats them all. Arnold
Re: RE: RE: Photo Greeting Cards
Thanks Tom. I will,only if at least ONE is goodgI took several of her 4 year old daughter who was the flower girl,i hope they are good.She was one of the few who didnot mind me bugging her for a pose.:) Dave Begin Original Message From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 13:48:20 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: RE: Photo Greeting Cards -Original Message- From: David Brooks [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Can you post the link Tom,so i can bookmark it please. Well, I'll be doing them through Pictage, that's probably not available to you. Here's something else I found: http://www.cardstore.com/asp/webstore/ Dave BTW getting my wedding (tension here) photos back tonight.No calls for my lab guy(he has my number memorised)so might look good.Going to proccess the BW candids my self in class Jan 29th. Let us kow how it goes. tv End Original Message Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Well, I have been very cheap the last few years, out of necessity. Using Fuji Super Delux 100 and having it processed at Wal-Mart (send out) costs me about $4.50 a roll. The D100 cost $2000 the Nikon N80 the D100 is based on costs $400 so the difference is $1600. $1600/$4.50=355 . I kind of rounded to 350. Of course that is 24x rolls. Which of course proves you can prove almost anything if you pick how you will calculate it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:12 PM Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE My calculation: 350 rolls of film a year make a 6mp SLR cost the same as an equivalent 35mm SLR. There was a time I shot 350+ rolls a year, but I have not done that in a long time. However that differential is getting lower all the time. Tom, How do you figure? Even if you figure $5 for a roll of film and $5 for processing, which is on the low side for color, $10 per roll x 350 rolls per year = $3500 per year. Nikon D100 = $2,000 body only (using BH prices for comparison) minus Pentax MZ-S = $800 body only equals $1,200 difference. Seems to me that by this calculation, 120 rolls of film a year gets the price of the DSLR down to the price of the film camera in one year. Then, in another eight months, you've made up the price of the film camera and saved the whole cost of the DSLR. Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. If you only shoot 60 rolls of film a year (a little more than a roll a week), then it takes two years to get the prices to equalize, and 3 years, 4 months to get the DSLR to pay for itself entirely. I know that some people will say that I have not calculated the cost of making inkjet prints from the digital files, but I don't buy that argument, because if you get your color film processed and have slides made or machine prints made from your negative film, you haven't got enlarged prints from your film, either. So either way, i.e. with either film or digital, you're going to have to pay for enlargements. And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? * * * * * * * * * * I personally think that if everybody will run these numbers with his or her own ACTUAL COSTS and ACTUAL CURRENT FILM USAGE and actual number of years they would expect to keep a DSLR, they will come up with a number (I mean, a price) that means they can actually afford a Pentax DSLR when it comes out. (Then consider that, as a bonus, you will not be limited to shooting only your current film usage total. That is, if you currently shoot 60 rolls of film a year (36x60 = 2160 frames), if you buy a Pentax DSLR you can shoot 4,000 frames a year with no cost penalty. Of course it's not really fair to factor that into the calculations.) Can any of you math whizzes reduce this to a formula that would allow us to plug in the number of years we would expect to keep a Pentax DSLR, and then come up with a magic number of what it needs to cost to be cost-efficient for each of us? (I got D's in high-school algebra.) For example, I would be willing to say I'd keep a DSLR for three years. My current film and processing costs are $7 per roll (I do my own). I shoot about 100 rolls of film a year. How much does a Pentax DSLR have to cost to make it as cheap for me as running a film camera? To me it seems like I could pay up to $2100 for the Pentax DSLR and still end up having the camera pay for itself. Is my math correct? --Mike
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
- Original Message - From: Herb Chong Subject: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] i suppose the enlarger doesn't have any effect? Far less effect than the scanner used for digitizing the negative, methinks. William Robb that contradicts the experience of mine and every other photographer i work with. No accounting for incompetent printing Herb. I realize that this reason alone will drive people to digital imaging, I know it is more a competancy issue with the wet printing process than any inherent technical advantages that scanning negatives has over wet printing. I also take issue with comparing Cibachrome prints to scanned from slide prints. The Cibachrome process is inherently flawed. I know a master Ciba printer, he too went digital. William Robb
Re: Photo Greeting Cards
That's the one, Herb. Thanks! t On 1/16/03 10:00 AM, Herb Chong wrote: Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't have the link for you, Tom, but I am looking for the company that sold die-cut greeting card blanks specifically for photos. You simply insert a 3.5x5 or 4x6 print into the front of the card, and voilà, instant personalized card. Anyone got that one? Thanks, Tim PhotographersEdge.com. they are on the expensive side. Herb
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The concept of saving money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else. This reminds me of an old episode of I Love Lucy where Lucy wants to buy a new refrigerator. The refrigerator salesman has told Lucy that the new refrigerator will save enough money to pay for itself. So Lucy gets her courage up to ask Ricky to buy her a new refrigerator. She tells Ricky what the salesman said, and Ricky replies, When the new refrigerator has saved enough money to pay for itself, then it can go buy itself. Michael Cross
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Very true David. Of course, I don't have $2000, so presuming I save my film money towards it how many pictures do I miss while saving up for the digital? Now-a-days I am only shooting about 25 rolls a year, thus I am only going to have to miss 14 years of shooting. If $2000 is pocket change, like it is to Mike, then the only question he needs to consider is, does he want it. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:34 PM Subject: RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE The concept of saving money by having to outlay more money always perplexed me. I'm as guilty of thinking about things this way as anyone else. The problem is, Tom has to fork out $2000 USD to get the Nikon in order to, potentially, (assuming he continues to shoot at the rate he does) not have to buy film further down the road. Where is he saving? (i.e. how much moolah has he been able to stock away by having to outlay $2000) I'm so confused... Smirkingly, Dave Original Message: - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:12:31 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE snip Which means that with 20 months use at a rate of 120 rolls per year, the DSLR is free. Beyond that, you're in the black--SAVING money over the cost of running a film camera. /snip mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE
Not to mention the increase in sales you would get by showing proofs at the reception. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 12:36 PM Subject: RE: Why the new Pentax DSLR will be FREE -Original Message- From: Mike Johnston [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] And actually, $10 per roll is probably underestimating film and processing costs unless you process your own. I don't know--how much does everybody really pay for film and processing, typically? 35mm - $20 120 - $20 220 - $30 Roughly. tv
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: Amen, Tom. I've been enduring the calculations for ten years now. They're always all over the place, they're always assuming premises unproved, and the conclusions have a very poor historical track record. But the argument you are using is like stating that 35mm is as good as medium format because you can't see a difference in the small prints you get from the lab. Using print to evaluate tell you about the printing process. Pål
Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Mike wrote: At the time I said that the D30 was superior to scanned [35mm] film in print sizes up to about A4 or slight larger. I was vilified for this, yet now no one disputes this. Huh? Almost everyone dispute this... When I reviewed the D60 in early 2002 I said that it bested 35mm film in every regard - no exceptions, and many disputed this. Now professional photographers by the thousands have switched to cameras such as the Canon D60, Fuji S2 and Nikon D100 because the image quality surpasses film in every respect. Anyone that thinks otherwise is almost certainly basing their opinion on belief rather than empirical tests. Weird. I've read posts from owners all over the place who says the D60 isn't as good as film but thay use it for other reasons. Some are even so dissapointed that they switch back to film! Who are we going to believe? Pål
Re: Luminous Landscape: Digital
- Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 3:49 PM Subject: Re: Luminous Landscape: Digital Do this guy actually not the plans of Minolta, Leica et al? Sorry, I don't understand this...? Sorry. Typing error. It supposed to be Do this guy actually know the plans of Minolta. Leica etc..?
Re: Re: Can digital beat 6x7? Answer seems to be yes
Tom wrote: The camera should work even better at low tempuratures. The batteries are the problem. If you can get them separated from the camera by a cord and keep the batteries in an inside pocket a digital camera should be great for cold weather photography. The problem for digital for me at least is the fact that it need to be used close to civilization. The battery/power consumption issue need to be resolved before it holds any interest to me. Even the MZ-S is borderline due to it's power consumption. Pål
