Re: if microsoft made cameras
Hi! a big scary text snipped... It is bad enough as it is. There is no real need to frighten your fellows g. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy
Hi Henry, on 20 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: I have used the target plate supplied by the January 2003 issue of CAPA magazine (Japan) to test the AF accuracy of the individual AF sensors of my Really interesting test. Could you scan the test target and write something about the test procedure? I would like to make this test with my MZ-5n AF. Regards, Heiko
RE: Mono chrome slides
Dnia 20-01-2003 o godz. 4:31 tom napisal(a): -Original Message- From: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] At a recent camera club meeting some slides were shown in black and white, this caught my eye as I had not thought such a film was available? Is this the case? If so, how is this effect created? It's probably a film called Agfa Scala. Kodak also sells a kit for processing regular B+W as slides. It's called the KODAK T-MAX 100 Direct Positive Film Developing Outfit, but I think it can be tweaked for other films. It could be Agfa Scala (ISO 200 BW positive) as Tom pointed out http://www.agfa.com/photo/products/film/professional/bwrevfilm/ or a similiar product made by Czech foto factory FOMA - Fomopan R100 (ISO 100 BW positive) http://www.foma.cz/en/prod/cbneg.htm http://www.foma.cz/en/tech_listy/F_pan_R.htm There is also a posibility of developing the negative in the process mentioned by Tom owhich will result in having a positive. I think a company called Tetenal also makes such a kit. And one more option I also encountered is shoting the BW prints on color positive film. I've seen something like this done on Fuji Provia 100F and the results weren't that bad. Tonality suffers on such a process but when stuck between color slides the BW ones were really catching the eye. Cheers Maciej --- Wszystko, czego potrzebuje nowoczesna kobieta! Diety, horoskopy, kosmetyczne nowoci... www.polki.pl - najlepszy serwis kobiecy!
Re[2]: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Iren wrote: IHC I generally agree with Mike's argument that pixel count isn't everything. IHC But he did miss the following points: IHC 1. Higher pixel count will likely to enhance the colour accuracy of the IHC current RGB mosaic type CCD sensors. More pixel will increase the IHC information available for interpolation calculations. Well, not necessarily. All things equal, higher pixel density means less effective image capturing area, which results in higher noise level and less dynamic range. Apparently the 14mp Kodak chip is affected by this syndrome. There are some authorized voices on the net complaining that Kodak sample images are plagued by heavy use of noise filtering alghoritm. Servus, Alin --- Xnet scaneaza automat toate mesajele impotriva virusilor folosind RAV AntiVirus. Xnet automatically scans all messages for viruses using RAV AntiVirus. Nota: RAV AntiVirus poate sa nu detecteze toti virusii noi sau toate variantele lor. Va rugam sa luati in considerare ca exista un risc de fiecare data cand deschideti fisiere atasate si ca MobiFon nu este responsabila pentru nici un prejudiciu cauzat de virusi. Disclaimer: RAV AntiVirus may not be able to detect all new viruses and variants. Please be aware that there is a risk involved whenever opening e-mail attachments to your computer and that MobiFon is not responsible for any damages caused by viruses.
Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy
Dear all, As you can see from my photos, the target is very simple. It consist of a vertical plate with a big black cross on it. The plate is mounted on 2 rulers tilted 30 degrees to the horizontal. The scale printed on the ruler is so calibrated to read the horizontal distance in front of or behind the target cross. All you need is the lock the AF onto the target with aperture wide open to achieve minimum DOF. The developed photo can show the in-focus range of the 2 ruler scales. Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Heiko Hamann) Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy Date: 20 Jan 2003 09:02:00 +0100 Hi Henry, on 20 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: I have used the target plate supplied by the January 2003 issue of CAPA magazine (Japan) to test the AF accuracy of the individual AF sensors of my Really interesting test. Could you scan the test target and write something about the test procedure? I would like to make this test with my MZ-5n AF. Regards, Heiko _ The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
Re: Mono chrome slides
Hi, Monday, January 20, 2003, 5:49:06 AM, you wrote: At a recent camera club meeting some slides were shown in black and white, this caught my eye as I had not thought such a film was available? Is this the case? If so, how is this effect created? It's probably a film called Agfa Scala. Just to throw in my 2 cents, I love Scala. Shoot a couple of rolls and you'll swear off black and white neg. The big downside is that you can really only mail it off for development. Its not a process like E6 where you can get it developed same day if really needed. I use Scala quite a lot and I really like it. I'm lucky enough to work within easy walking distance of the lab that processes it, so if necessary I can get a quick turnround on processing. The 2 major downsides of Scala for me are 1) like any slide film, showing the results to people is a drag and 2) it is expensive. --- Bob
FA*200/2.8 coating difference (pic)
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/SMC.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy
Hi, My result shows that the AF sensors of my MZ-S in average locked focus at about 5-10mm in front of the target plate. The result agrees quite well with the similar testing carried out in the Dec 02 issue of CAPA Magazine, using MZ-S and FA*85/1.4 lens. Is it due to the problem of my camera, or the problem of Pentax AF technology? Anyone have similar experience? Mine MZ-5N does the same with 300mm tele lens. From focus fixed by AF sensor I can usually improve focusing accuracy, turning the focus ring into direction, as an object would stay little bit further, about 10-15mm. It can be clearly seen while distance is close to the minimal focal distance of my 300mm. regards, === Waldemar Krasowski tel: +48 501087147 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
Re: Mono chrome slides
This one time, at band camp, Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use Scala quite a lot and I really like it. I'm lucky enough to work within easy walking distance of the lab that processes it, so if necessary I can get a quick turnround on processing. The 2 major downsides of Scala for me are 1) like any slide film, showing the results to people is a drag and 2) it is expensive. I was thinking of trying it with some portraits for something a little different. Is it very contrasty? How does it go with studio lighting? 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: Re: 200/f2.5 comes through with flying colours
Hi Fred, Have you received my e-mail with some questions? Please answer me directly, Alek Uytkownik Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] napisa: Incredibly good result [snip] Once again verified to me just how good the lens is. [snip] If you ever see this lens-- grab it... If you are careful, this lens produces fantastic images; very sharp, great color rendition and the bokeh is very pleasing. Nice lens, nice results! You guys left me without anything much to add. The K 200/2.5 is indeed a sweet lens. Fred ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
RE: 5 more of those whatyamacallit birds
Nice shot. I believe you'll find the collective noun for a group of shags is an orgy Simon -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, 20 January 2003 3:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 5 more of those whatyamacallit birds Decided to test my 85-210 F4.5 SMCPZ lens with some TMAX 100 today. To my surprise I spotted 5 more of the same birds resting on a temporary construction divider: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/birds04s.jpg TMAX 100 1/250 @ F9.5 ~180mm setting I can say one thing, this lens is awesome quality. Yes, it's slow, it's bulky ( but not heavy) and it's very old ( early 70's optical design! ). BUT, it's got that legendary Pentax quality. I wouldnt recommend it for anything but bright outdoor use but in that case its great. JCO
Re: Suckered! was: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!
Mike wrote: It's an ACTUAL EXAMPLE. She's a real person. She exists. I've known her for most of my life. And if you'll recall the original post, I stated that she refuses to switch to digital, because she is comfortable with her point-and-shoot camera, happy with her drugstore prints, not willing to learn how to use the new technology, and well enough off to spend the money she spends for film and processing without giving it much thought. I'm not denying she is a real person. I just don't think person is very representative... That doesn't mean the potential for savings are not there. The potential is there. I just think that potential for spending more is more likely for most people... Pål
Re: Suckered! was: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!
Mike wrote: This is just plain complete ignorance. For your information, Pål, the manufacturers care a hell of a lot more about grandmothers than they care about YOU. For digital? I seriously boubt that grandmothers are buying a significant share of the digital cameras sold. Grandmothers doesn't enter the equation until the early adopter market is saturated. Pål
multiple emails
I seem to be getting multiple emails from the PDML - from 2 to 4 of the same one. Is it me (I mean - my PC :) or is the list having hickups? ukasz === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczdzi na kosztach obsugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: 5 more of those whatyamacallit birds
Now, if we can quickly wrap up that tarp, we'll have faux goose for dinner! J. C. O'Connell wrote: Decided to test my 85-210 F4.5 SMCPZ lens with some TMAX 100 today. To my surprise I spotted 5 more of the same birds resting on a temporary construction divider: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/birds04s.jpg TMAX 100 1/250 @ F9.5 ~180mm setting f/9.5? I'm not sure I want to know, but how do you know it's 9.5, and what sort of setting is that? Is that lens aperture ring detented there ~ halfway between 8.0 and 11.0? Must be, or you wouldn't have said it! On a whim, I checked out my legendary Vivitar 85-205, and sure enough, it too has a detent at f/9.5... g I should put brain in gear before I display my ignorance. keith whaley I can say one thing, this lens is awesome quality. Yes, it's slow, it's bulky ( but not heavy) and it's very old ( early 70's optical design! ). BUT, it's got that legendary Pentax quality. I wouldnt recommend it for anything but bright outdoor use but in that case its great. JCO
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like film sizes in traditional film camera. In the traditional film, 35mm format is the most balanced design. If one want to go for better quality, you can have 645 or 67, while for more compactness we have the APS format. But 35mm format is still the most popular. Digital evolution will be the same. There is nothing to do with the pixel count. You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I fear that I do not have the trust in intelligent evolution that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. --Mike
Re: FA*200/2.8 coating difference (pic)
Dear Alan, According to the official lenses catalogue of Pentax Japan, the coating colour of FA*200/2.8ED should be pale green (the lens at the centre of the cover), rather red: http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/catalog/pdf/35_lenses.pdf The coating colour of the front element of my FA*300/4.5ED is also pale green. Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 From: Alan Chan [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: FA*200/2.8 coating difference (pic) Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 01:39:01 -0800 http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/SMC.jpg regards, Alan Chan _ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints
I think grins are kind of idiosyncratic. I use: g = little tiny grin, grin = grin, GRIN = great big grin, and sometimes chuckle = light chuckling. Smiley faces :) are kind of outdated amongst serious internet users and tend to indicate someone who isn't quite with it. A search for internet acronym's should find you several lists. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Another OT thing: Why don't you use smilies? Such as :) or :(. And where is a glossary of 's, such g or vbg?
Re: 200/f2.5 comes through with flying colours
Thanks Bob I'll do it next time... Vic
Re: SOLIGOR 80-200/4.5
I used to own this lens way way back. It was actually the lens I bought with my first kit. It's a good lens. If I recall it has 1:4 close focusing capability. I would not pay a lot for it but if you can get it for a good price.. give it a try.. Vic
Re: Kodak Samples
May well be, there originally was a photo of some candy or or friut or something there, they took it off. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Antti-Pekka Virjonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:52 AM Subject: Re: Kodak Samples At 10:23 17.1.2003 -0600, you wrote: Hey Pal, You can go download this TIFF file and make a print on your own printer. That way you can tell if you think a 14-mp camera stands up to film. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/cameras/dcsPro14n/samp l eImageGirlLow.jhtml;jsessionid=DY02DTLUTEYQHQHIO3JXWIY --Mike I wonder if Kodak is afraid to show us some nature or landscape sample images at this point... 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: 200/f2.5 comes through with flying colours
Yes Jose with a max ap of 2.5, if you're shooting wide open your depth of field is quite small. I used a monopod and shot wide open at 250 sec. I was shooting precision skating so they were certainly moving at a good clip for most of the program. The 250th was sufficient speed to stop them most of the time... Vic
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I sometimes wonder if APS had been designed with 35mm, rather than 24mm, in mind if it would not have been more successful? Bill
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Dear Mike, I presume that consumers are intelligent in choosing what they think the best film format for them. 35mm format is the most popular choice which is a balanced design with mobility, choice of lenses, choice of DOF and affordable price. Consumers voted no to APS in SLR market although APS did win a lot of market in the compact cameras but now facing distinction due to the birth of its ultimate predator - digital cam. When the price of sensor drops more in a few years time, I think digital camera will evolve in the similar way. DC with APS sized sensor will occupy part of the compact camera market while 35mm is the main choice of serious amateur/semi-pros. Digital back of 645 sensor size will be the dominating force in pro-market. Pixel size in sensor, like grain size in film, should be as small as technically possible. Let's wait and see. Now, as the price of D-SLR is dropping, we are already seeing cameras like Olympus D-ZLRs being under threat, like their film predecessors. What happened in film will eventually happen in DC. Long lives Darwin's theory of evolution! Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I fear that I do not have the trust in intelligent evolution that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. --Mike _ Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Re: Mono chrome slides
More than likely they were shooting SCALA. It is unbelievably beautiful stuff. Nothing touches this stuff for beautiful blacks and fine gradations. It's only downfall, It's expensive and it can only be developed by specialized labs. If you are into BW you own it to yourself to try this stuff. I have never used it but have seen the results with it. We had an Ilford rep come to the camera club to show slides of this stuff and it was incredible... Vic In a message dated 1/19/03 10:14:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At a recent camera club meeting some slides were shown in black and white, this caught my eye as I had not thought such a film was available? Is this the case? If so, how is this effect created? Kind regards Kevin
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Because I suspect that digital photography will follow the distribution on the personal computer whose density is very unevenly distributed. Unfortunately, this distribution doesn't mimic the distribution of cameras on a global basis. Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints
This is both a fair and an unfair comparisons, and I think it underlines the real problem with traditional photography. It is both difficult and expensive to get top quality repeatable results from wet processing technology. It is relatively easy to get top quality results from digitally processed images. Speaking of which, William, whatever happened to the Great Canadian Grain Silo and Barn Mono Print Challenge? My black and white Epson offering will have faded to brilliant white by now! :-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy
No auto-focus system is perfect. A long time ago it seems Modern Photography tested and found that out. If I remember correctly Popular Photography did the same thing much more recently and discovered the same result. I guess people who expect it to be perfect will always be disappointed. Most practical engineering is aimed at getting the results to 'good enough'. You may disagree about what good enough is but that's all you'll get. At 09:59 AM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: Sounds like Pentax engineers fudged toward focusing closer in and depending on hyperfocal distance to take care of the background which makes sense for most photographs. I would say it is a feature rather than a defect. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Iren Henry Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] My result shows that the AF sensors of my MZ-S in average locked focus at about 5-10mm in front of the target plate. The result agrees quite well with the similar testing carried out in the Dec 02 issue of CAPA Magazine, using MZ-S and FA*85/1.4 lens. Is it due to the problem of my camera, or the problem of Pentax AF technology? Anyone have similar experience? Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
It is same with my cameras. With a digital camera, you'll know whatever camera you buy today can be had for significantly less money in maximum six months time. Or you can buy a significantly bettter camera for the same money in six months. Fact: here in the UK, The Canon D60 was introduced around at a shop price of about 2000 GBP. 6 months later, 1899 was a steady figure, holding for some months. Nearly a year later, at the announcement of its demise, the cheapest I've seen is about 1750. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would not say that 250 quid is a significant amount with respect to the starting price. 500 would be getting there However, I accept that a D60 is significantly better than a D30. As will be a D90 over a D60. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: VS1 70-210/2.8-4 QDOS Lens
That is the COOLEST lens! I want one, I want one!~ IL Bill Fred wrote: [was: Vivitar Series One 28/1.9 PK for $60?] there is at least another rare VS1 zoom - the 70-210/2.8-4 QDOS novelty. What`s the deal on this lens, I have a 70-210/2.8-4 (used it tonight as a matter of fact), is the QDOS a different beast, or is it just hype? I seem to remember one on ebay, was it a 3D claim? Well Steve, there are five VS1 70-210 lenses altogether, as far as I can tell. First, there have been four regular VS1 70-210 lenses: 1. The first 70-210/3.5 version, with 67mm filter threads, and with two obvious prongs used to shift into macro mode. 2. The second 70-210/3.5 version, with 62mm filter threads. 3. The first 70-210/2.8-4 version (and third 70-210 version), with multiple DOF lines fanning out toward the zoom/focus ring. 4. The second 70-210/2.8-4 version (and fourth 70-210 version), with multiple DOF lines fanning out toward the aperture ring. But, then, there is also the QDOS version, which appears to be identical to #4, except for the additional hardware to provide the QDOS 3D effect to images (which can be enabled and disabled by sliding a switch on the barrel near the mount, sort of like the Manual-Auto switch on some of the newer Takumar screwmount lenses. A side view of the lens - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosside.jpg A front view of the lens - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosfront.jpg The slide switch set for normal lens use - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosnormpos.jpg A view from the rear of lens when set for normal use - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosrearn.jpg The slide switch set for QDOS use - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosqdospos.jpg A view from the rear of lens when set for QDOS use - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdosrearq.jpg The two manuals supplied with lens (one of which is just the regular (fourth) VS1 70-210 manual) and the front and back of the cardboard-framed viewing glasses also supplied (not shown are the plastic QDOS sunglasses style viewing glasses and the plastic QDOS clip-on style viewing glasses also provided) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdospaper.jpg A photo taken using the QDOS setting (which won't make a whole lot of sense when viewed without a clear piece of red glass or plastic in front of your left eye and a clear piece of blue glass or plastic in front of your right eye) - http://www.cetussoft.com/pentax/vqdos/vqdos01.jpg Weird, eh? Just like ol' 3D comic books - g. Fred -- William Kane http://www.KaneScience.com IABT Advisory Board Member http://www.iabt.net Tinley Park High School 6111 W. 175th Street Tinley Park, IL 60477 V: 708/532-1900 ext 3909 http://www.bhsd228.com
Re: FS: Maxwel Bright-Screen for Pentax
I'm still looking for Maxwell's web site, where they may mention their bright screen screens! No luck yet... Maybe they quit making them... keith whaley smcforme wrote: I'm having an awful time reading the numbers on the bag. It looks like 1F640-245, or IK6Y0-245 or some combination thereof. Terrible handwriting. Please let me know if you have some insight into this even if your not interested in buying the screen. Many thanks. --- smcforme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't have it in front of me, as I'm not currently at home. I don't recall seeing a number on the screen itself, but there is some writing on the baggy that it came in. I'll look when I go home later this evening, will post what I find then. --- Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Need the screen number, please. No way to know unless we can compare that with literature...\ keith whaley smcforme wrote: Hi, I have a brand new Maxwel Bright-Screen that I would like to sell. It fits all Spotmatics and I believe K1000,K2,KX,etc. It is a matt screen with a micro prism center. I just sold the camera that it was going into, so I have no use for it. It has never been installed-brand new $60 Thanks. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: --JOHNSTON with a T, of lowland Scots origin rather than English Every day I fight with people who insist on spelling my last name with a K instead of the correct CH. I refuse to give up the fight. -- http://www.infotainment.org - more fun than a poke in your eye. http://www.eighteenpercent.com- photography and portfolio.
Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy
Hi Henry and others, I have taken the liberty to translate your experiment descriptions in Dutch and posted it on a Dutch newsgroup on photography. I asked whether other brands (nikon, minolta, canon...) had the same problem. If so, it is interesting to know. Btw: if you're interested in this Dutch version, i'll be glad to mail it to you. And; i will see what happens in the dutch group, and keep you posted! Thanks for your stimulating input. However, i still do not regret having a MZ-5n. (Usually my pictures are ok: maybe the subjects move towards me between the instant of autofocussing and pressing the button... ;-) ) Bye! Syb From: Iren Henry Chu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Testing of my MZ-S AF accuracy Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 22:56:49 +0800 Dear Heiko, Thank you for your interest on my testing. You can see the photos showing the test target and the equipment arrangement from the following links: http://www.irenhenry.com/photosharp/focus-test-3D.jpg http://www.irenhenry.com/photosharp/focus-test-section.jpg The following is a clearer scan showing the typical result from the centre AF sensor of my MZ-S: http://www.irenhenry.com/photosharp/mzs_focustest_centre01.jpg It has shown that the sharpest focused area is about 5mm-10mm in front of the target. Quite a disappointing result from my MZ-S. Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 Hi Henry, on 20 Jan 03 you wrote in pentax.list: I have used the target plate supplied by the January 2003 issue of CAPA magazine (Japan) to test the AF accuracy of the individual AF sensors of my Really interesting test. Could you scan the test target and write something about the test procedure? I would like to make this test with my MZ-5n AF. Regards, Heiko _ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _ Ontvang je Hotmail Messenger berichten op je mobiele telefoon met Hotmail SMS http://www.msn.nl/jumppage/
Re: if microsoft made cameras
..and if you cant figure out why it isnt firing, you would be asked to shut off and restart, which will work 95% of times and nobody can convincingly tell you why. - Original Message - Subject: if microsoft made cameras
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
Official statement from Canon is that the D60 has been discontinued. The newcomers !!! are The EOS 3 based, 8megapixel D80 full size camera. The D40 based on a smaller camera features a 4 megapixel APS size chip. The price on the latter should be app. USD 1500,- + tax. Both cameras are to be shown at PMA, Las Vegas in march Please been in touch, we will get furter info Holy moly! I think this puts the Pentax DSLR in with a chance of being a full frame chip eh? Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
RE: Mike Johnson's Sunday
I always thought that - I would have probably bought in to it! It certainly would have made film scanning, especially batch scanning, far simpler! I did actually get an APS once, but when I saw the grain from the tny neg I woke up to the stupidity of it all... This was just the gadgetman in me gone crazy and not seeing the marketing hype for what it was. The different framings was just a waste (not that this was my interest) and I could get a camera just as small in the mju ii - in 35mm!! For £75 I got a camera which takes better pictures than a £800 digicam - albeit without a zoom lens. -Original Message- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 20 January 2003 14:25 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I sometimes wonder if APS had been designed with 35mm, rather than 24mm, in mind if it would not have been more successful? Bill
Re: if microsoft made cameras
Well unfortunately if Apple made cameras they would take a standard size film and produce a negative that would somehow not work in a standard size negative carrier. At 09:53 AM 1/20/2003 -0600, you wrote: And that's why I'm THANKFUL I own a Macintosh. g The funniest one of these I've seen over the years was one called If Microsoft Made Automobiles. Does anyone happen to have a copy of that one? It was really funny--things like, Every now and then, for no apparent reason, the motor would stop. Everyone would have to get out of the car, slam the doors, then get back in before it would start again. (For all you MS apologists, yes, I know the above is outdated, I know XP is wonderful, I know I'm out of touch for liking Macs, yadda yadda yadda. Please don¹t bother pointing all this out again.) --Mike P.S. I have to admit that my current iMac is the worst Mac I've ever owned. It's almost as good as a PC, and I'm actually running MS software on the damned thing (IE and Word). I'm not going gently into this good night, however. The market, in its infinite wisdom, has optimized and evolved the desktop computer into a sullied morass of LCD mediocrity. That's why I own a Macintosh In a message dated 1/20/03 12:23:22 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Let's imagine for a moment that Microsoft buys out C and N and made cameras. Every year or two they would introduce new cameras and they would not accept the same film, lenses, filters, flash units, tripods, batteries, etc. as the previous version, and could not be modified to do so. They would not work with any other manuafacturers components only with microsoft specified products. So complete brand loyalty would be required so none of us would ever buy a tamron or tokina again. Each lens will be required to routinely misfocus and over expose for no reason Loading film would take 5 hours as the camera refuses to regonise the film iso and wont let you do it manually. Would be 70% bigger with more features than the last camera of which 99% of those features we never used. They would come with a 10 day warranty and a customer service whose phone was always busy and which ignored e-mail and regular mail letters. If you ever did reach a human you would be told that the problem was obviously your fault. Periodically, just when you were ready to take a once-in-a-lifetime photograph the camera would freeze up and refuse to work. Periodically the company would come out with upgrades, but when you got them you would find that the instructions were incomplete or wrong and the parts would not fit anyway. Cameras would be manufactured identical to first prototypes with no testing or debugging so that the company could have its customers do its work for it. Finally they would buy out Pentax , minolta, contax (leaving only leica for those who can afford it and sigma (who now has a cult following) who will give their cameras away for free and allow any one to build their camera or lens) there is no competition Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: 5 more of those whatyamacallit birds
Nice shot. I believe you'll find the collective noun for a group of shags is an orgy Simon LOL! The collective noun we use for a group of cameramen is... a 'focus'. ...and a 'whinge' of journalists. I can't possibly repeat the noun for sound recordists on this list! Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Contrast-control flash questions
Here's a question for those who have used Pentax cameras with both an RTF flash and a separate flash unit. Let's say you have a PZ-1 or PZ-1p, which has the built-in RTF flash and can do true contrast-control flash with some of the newer flash units (using TTL flash and a slightly slower shutter speed than maximum flash synch, the separate flash and the RTF flash fire at a 2:1 ratio). But what happens if you use the AF-280T, which is the only flash I have with bounce/swivel capability? It doesn't do the contrast-control thing, however. But if you fire the AF-280T (let's say angled toward the ceiling) and the RTF flash together, you still get TTL flash, but what's the ratio? I assume the TTL would shut off both flashes at the same time, but perhaps the more powerful one would dictate the overall exposure? Would this be workable for bounce flash with a little fill-in flash via the RTF? Or should I get an AF400FTZ or AF500FTZ? Joe
Re: Re: A Driblet of Canon News
More, in German. Plus a pic: http://www.akam.no/nyheter/2003_01/canon_speilrefleks.html Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
More, in German. Plus a pic: http://www.akam.no/nyheter/2003_01/canon_speilrefleks.html Cotty D'oh - it's Norwegian. Babelfish doesn't translate Norwegian. Anywhere that does? Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
I doubt very much i'll get rid of the 2.74 Meg pixel D1 soon either Cotty.I t is producing nice prints in the 8x10 max range i and my clients are asking for, and arew happy with. As some one said the other day its up to the printer to be able to utilize those 14 Mega's.If it cannot,its wasted space(sorry 6x6 usersVBG. OTOH I like yourself may upgrade to a Canon S 820 or 900 to utilize the full page printing aspects. Dave Begin Original Message From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I will reasonably expect to keep my current DSLR for at least 5 years! My current (and only envisaged) method of producing pics is by printing them myself. Even with my current printer, I'm getting the quality which I want, and that's a 1998 model. Okay, i'm just about to upgrade to a new printer, but I would then not imagine swapping that for at least 3 years, maybe more. 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: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!
What we have is Mike proselytizing for digital Not really. I'm just making a few points, and then I get backed into a corner because people give me such a hard time. In fact, I'm really on the fence myself. --Mike
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
This begs the question of optimized for what. Attempts were made by Kodak to do just that, using a variety of formats, 828 roll film was an attempt to remove the double sprocket holes to result in a more efficient use of the same width stock as 35mm, 110 was optimized to give 4x5 or 8x10 enlargements using the full frame thus allowing for acceptable enlargements with a smaller film size. 126 was designed to make loading a camera more efficient as well as providing a square format which was extremely popular when it was introduced on, once again, film using stock the same width as 35mm. All of these formats have two things in common, they were designed to have certain optimal characteristics are dead or dying. If you look back at various formats introduced by Kodak you will find all had something to recommend them. Some were in use for a very long time but all except 35mm and 120/220 are virtually extinct. I'm not sure how to measure it but on empirical evidence film formats have been in some way optimized. It's just obvious how. At 07:51 AM 1/20/2003 -0600, you wrote: Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like film sizes in traditional film camera. In the traditional film, 35mm format is the most balanced design. If one want to go for better quality, you can have 645 or 67, while for more compactness we have the APS format. But 35mm format is still the most popular. Digital evolution will be the same. There is nothing to do with the pixel count. You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I fear that I do not have the trust in intelligent evolution that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally
The recent DSLR thread (DSLR Lifespan) has me thinking. For those of you who own one - and those of you who make money with it - how do you get prints for your clients? Do you get them professionally done by a lab or do you print them yourselves? If you do get them done by a lab, at what charge? If you print by yourself, how do you pass that cost along to your clients (i.e. what do you charge for printing)? It's just a curiosity of mine as I don't have a DSLR but I wonder what people out there are charging who do have one. Cheers, Dave mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. At 04:34 PM 1/20/2003 +, you wrote: Because I suspect that digital photography will follow the distribution on the personal computer whose density is very unevenly distributed. Unfortunately, this distribution doesn't mimic the distribution of cameras on a global basis. Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
I just want to make one correction before someone jumps down my throat about it, yes I know 35mm for still cameras wasn't developed by Kodak and second I have no Idea who developed the 120/220 film format. I just assume it was Kodak since they first produced almost every other film format I know of. At 12:10 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: This begs the question of optimized for what. Attempts were made by Kodak to do just that, using a variety of formats, 828 roll film was an attempt to remove the double sprocket holes to result in a more efficient use of the same width stock as 35mm, 110 was optimized to give 4x5 or 8x10 enlargements using the full frame thus allowing for acceptable enlargements with a smaller film size. 126 was designed to make loading a camera more efficient as well as providing a square format which was extremely popular when it was introduced on, once again, film using stock the same width as 35mm. All of these formats have two things in common, they were designed to have certain optimal characteristics are dead or dying. If you look back at various formats introduced by Kodak you will find all had something to recommend them. Some were in use for a very long time but all except 35mm and 120/220 are virtually extinct. I'm not sure how to measure it but on empirical evidence film formats have been in some way optimized. It's just obvious how. At 07:51 AM 1/20/2003 -0600, you wrote: Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like film sizes in traditional film camera. In the traditional film, 35mm format is the most balanced design. If one want to go for better quality, you can have 645 or 67, while for more compactness we have the APS format. But 35mm format is still the most popular. Digital evolution will be the same. There is nothing to do with the pixel count. You may well be correct about digital evolution, Henry, but film was never optimized. An individual inventor working for an obscure German microscope manufacturer doubled the frame size of 35mm movie film, and we've been stuck with that size--and the movie film's closely-spaced double row of sprocket holes, which were _always_ redundant for single-exposure cameras--to this very day. The open spool and paper backing of 120 film was designed for indoor use and for substrates that have long since become obsolete. In fact, virtually the only film size that could be said to be either designed or evolved is the least popular--APS--and it was designed to meet the existing usage parameters of the lowest common denominator consumers. I fear that I do not have the trust in intelligent evolution that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. --Mike Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR's and Printing Professionally
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For those of you who own one - and those of you who make money with it - how do you get prints for your clients? Neither do I have to earn money with my photos nor do I own a DSLR , but I can tell you of a friend of mine ;-) He is a professional photographer using Pentax 6x7 equipment. He uses a Nikon Coolscan 8000ED to scan his slides with 4000dpi. He makes most of his prints with an Epson Stylus 2000P and is very satisfied. He says, that the quality is even a little better than the prints done by an external lab. Although he uses a scanner to produce the input for his printer I would assume that this result is applicable to the use of a DSLR. Regards, Heiko
test
test === www.fotopolis.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] === internetowy magazyn o fotografii ***r-e-k-l-a-m-a** Chcesz oszczedzic na kosztach obslugi bankowej ? mBIZNES - konto dla firm http://epieniadze.onet.pl/mbiznes
Re: OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally
Hi David. I,for the most part,print my self.I did a rough,in the head calc, when i found out how many pictures per set of tanks, and it runs about $4-4.50 Canadian per 8x10 print.I have wanted to have Aaron do one for me,but have not.One dayg I charge $20.00 for an 8x10,using the rule of thimb of 3 times cost(plus haetpo pay for the staff. Dave Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:22:52 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally The recent DSLR thread (DSLR Lifespan) has me thinking. For those of you who own one - and those of you who make money with it - how do you get prints for your clients? Do you get them professionally done by a lab or do you print them yourselves? If you do get them done by a lab, at what charge? If you print by yourself, how do you pass that cost along to your clients (i.e. what do you charge for printing)? It's just a curiosity of mine as I don't have a DSLR but I wonder what people out there are charging who do have one. Cheers, Dave mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.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: OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally
david, I don't have one yet, but I would have the lab print them for my clients. Another way to consider it is based on volume. Home printing is great for single prints, but in volume it sucks rocks. Way too slow. So an occasional fine art print or proof could be done at home. But in quantity (same frame or lots of singles) the lab would be far cheaper on your time. Bruce Monday, January 20, 2003, 9:22:52 AM, you wrote: dcsc The recent DSLR thread (DSLR Lifespan) has me thinking. dcsc For those of you who own one - and those of you who make money with it - dcsc how do you get prints for your clients? dcsc Do you get them professionally done by a lab or do you print them dcsc yourselves? If you do get them done by a lab, at what charge? If you dcsc print by yourself, how do you pass that cost along to your clients (i.e. dcsc what do you charge for printing)? dcsc It's just a curiosity of mine as I don't have a DSLR but I wonder what dcsc people out there are charging who do have one. dcsc Cheers, dcsc Dave dcsc dcsc mail2web - Check your email from the web at dcsc http://mail2web.com/ .
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Mike wrote: I fear that I do not have the trust in intelligent evolution that you do. It's just as likely that convention, inertia, compatibility, ignorant prejudice, and the vested interests of those who wield the most power will determine the eventual standardization of the technology. I fear you're right. I personally hope that 35mm format will not be a template for digital as I cannot see any reason why a format developed for film should be optimal for digital. Pål
Re: FA*200/2.8 coating difference (pic)
Henry wrote: According to the official lenses catalogue of Pentax Japan, the coating colour of FA*200/2.8ED should be pale green (the lens at the centre of the cover), rather red: http://www.pentax.co.jp/japan/product/catalog/pdf/35_lenses.pdf The coating colour of the front element of my FA*300/4.5ED is also pale green. And so is the coating color of the FA* 200/4 Macro lens. Pål
Re: Blanket apology
Mike wrote: Sorry friends, *I* was the one who was feeling grumpy late last night, when I wrote my latest batch of dispatches to the list. My bad. I think they must have been lost in cyberspace as I haven't any grumpy mails... Pål
Industry news
In case you've no heard, Minolta Konica are merging. Collin
Long ramble to Cotty
Pentax DSLR buyers, take note. I doubt seriously you will be keeping such a camera for only 6 months, and if you do, i wish I had your income! .02 Cotty, More like a shilling than two pence (I have no idea what I'm talking about). You're right, is what I'm trying to say. My brother's a medical doctor, and bought a 2-mp Nikon 950 when they were being closed out--he got a good deal. Only recently has he been making noises about maybe replacing it, and that's because it's been malfunctioning intermittently. Meanwhile, the 990, 995, and 4500 have all been introduced. My bro still raves about the quality of his prints, although they don't seem that great to me. I don't have any figures for digital camera ownership (anyone here a member of PMA?), but over the years I've seen various numbers for various kinds of consumers, numbers mostly provided by PMA. The average ownership period for an SLR user has crept down over the years. If memory serves, it was 15 years in the 1970s, 11 years in the '80s, 8 years by the time AF Wunderplastik became prevalent. Digital is probably just too much in a state of flux to compile meaningful numbers, but I don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesize that DSLR buyers would keep their cameras for 2-5 years as long as they aren't among that rabid (and rich) minority that simply has to have the latest thing the instant it comes out. I mean, supposedly Canon is coming out with a 4-mp D40 DSLR at PMA that will cost ~$1500. The D30 has 3 mp and cost $3k when it was brand new, $2k by the end of its run. So the new camera has a fair bit larger sensor and costs a fair bit less. But how many D30 owners will be rushing to dump their D30s for D40s? Not very many, I'd say. The two are still too close. Some number will want D80s, but that's significant upgrading, like an MX owner springing for an LX. It doesn't mean the MX is outdated or incapable, it just means the person would rather move up. Same deal with your D60 and the new D80. 2 megapixels don't amount to all that much that you'd have to upgrade. You can continue to get good use out of your D60. If someone here buys a 6-mp Pentax MZ-D for $1,700 next summer, chances are pretty good that in three years, a Pentax 8-mp DSLR, say, will be available for $1,400. But that still won't necessarily mean that the MZ-D buyer can't proceed to continue getting his or her money out of their 2003 purchase. And of course--yes, MIKE'S POINT AGAIN--it depends on how much film you would have shot in the interim. The more you normally shoot, and the longer you can keep your first DSLR, the more film and processing costs you save. I have to admit that the idea of the Canon D40...a 4-mp CMOS (assuming it's CMOS) for $1,500 is the first time that the notion of a DSLR has sparked any real interest in my brain. I've always been a big fan of the D30's image quality. Just lovely color purity, I think. Assuming the D40 is as good or better, at $1,500 it starts to look tempting. If it moves to $1,200 or $1,300 any time in the near future it will start to be something I'll have to start contemplating carefully. I think my own jumping-in point might be getting nearer. Of course, naturally, I'll want to wait to see what Pentax does. And I'll probably wait to see the successor to the Sony D-717, too. I've heard it rumored that Sony will be intro'ing an 8-mp chip at PMA, and that it will finally be coming out with the larger-capacity Memory Sticks. The idea of an F-717 but with an 8-mp chip and, say, a 512MB Memory Stick is mighty, mighty appealing. Such a camera might not match the image quality of the D60, but it might come pretty close. --Mike
Pop Photo Digital vs 35mm
A good article in the new issue. Shows visual comparisons of the various digital levels as compared to 35mm. Looks like 9mp might compare favorably. Collin
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
Holy moly! I think this puts the Pentax DSLR in with a chance of being a full frame chip eh? I thought Pentax had already announced that the new camera will have an APS-sized chip? --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Cotty wrote: Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. This was about photography as global phenomenon. I doubt digital photography will be a globel phenomenon anytime soon like film photography. It will follow the distribution of personal computers which only a tiny percentage of the world population can afford. Pål
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
Cotty wrote: I think this puts the Pentax DSLR in with a chance of being a full frame chip eh? I don't think so. I believe the news has already been dropped that it won't be full frame... Pål
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe that there is an optimal size of an image sensor which a balance must be strike between the resolution, greater choice of DOF, optimal design for both wide-angle and telephoto lenses, and the compactness of camera body. Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like film sizes in traditional film camera. [snip} Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 I tend to agree with you and it was what I was trying to say the other day, but I did not express very well. There is bound to be a point that one type of sensor is optimized, has the most information that it can gather with the least noise. And there is bound to be a point where one sensor is the optimal size and functionality for a particular camera. And if it's resolution is as good as film or even slightly better than film, that is a likely stopping place for most camera producing companies. OTOH, I am not positive an industry-wide standard will evolve or whether each camera brand that remains standing in the digital age will have its own standard. Maybe that's not likely to happen because 35mm is now an industry standard and camera companies seem more oriented to the needs of photography and photographers than to the concerns of digital-lastest-bells-and-whistles computer geek types. So it seems the camera industry will probably follow its own path rather than emulating a computer path of competing brands and standards like Macs and PCs and Windows and Linux. We shall see. If nothing else there are bound to be plateaus of technological development when optimized sensors are reached for a while. Maybe for a few years, 4-6, maybe longer. Personally, I also think at some point the amount of information a sensor can gather could exceed what one would need or what would even make a good photograph, so that's another reason that an industry-wide standard could evolve. It will certainly be interesting to watch and to see what emerges. I am certainly interested in watching. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Cotty wrote: To think that one will buy a DSLR and then sell it or trade it in against a newer one only six months down the line is lunacy! I have no intention of doing so. I will reasonably expect to keep my current DSLR for at least 5 years! My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Pål
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
Cotty wrote: D'oh - it's Norwegian. Babelfish doesn't translate Norwegian. Anywhere that does? I do. Basically its just rumors. Here is the essence (not much): No D90. D80 will have 8Mp, 3480x2320 NOT full frame but larger than the sensor of the D60. The camera will have the AF system from the EOS3. Price 2899 USD. Canon will also release three lenses suited for the D80 (Pentax have suggested the same for their DSLR. Are these lenses not covering full-frame like the Nikon DX lenses?). D40. 2496x1664 pixels. Smaller sensor than D30/D60. 1499 USD. Apparently 1/2 35mm sized sensor! BTW The author doesn't believe in the D40. At least not if not the price is significantly lowered. Theres also Nikon D2 rumors. 10 MP not full frame etc... Pål
Re: if microsoft made cameras
adphoto wrote: Let's imagine for a moment that Microsoft buys out C and N and made cameras (snip, snip) Didn't need to read any more than that to gasp in horror :) But I'm glad I did - I've hardly read any mail for a few days cause im down with a nasty cold in the frigid NYC area and even typing seems incredibly difficult - but just had to applaud your comic turn. annsan (oh mygod it is the 20th! I have to find some digits for the PUG!)
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. From what I am seeing, this makes quite a bit of sense. The people I talk to seem to be buying every other generation of camera. I would expect the average digital camera will have a user life of 3 to 5 years. This is not all that far different from what we see with film cameras. Point and shoot cameras especially have a fairly short lifespan, either because of build quality issues or because people want feature upgrades. William Robb
FONG: LX outfit for sale
Found this on rec.photo.marketplace.35mm Contact Steve Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://johnsonadv.home.attbi.com/pentax.htm http://www.news2web.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=articlegroup=rec.photo.mar ketplace.35mmitem=435574utag=
Re: Meaning of HAR!
T Rittenhouse wrote: Think of a pirate laughing Har, har, har It has become a PDML term that means. I am pulling your leg. When I came on the list Weathfield Willie (Bill Robb) was using it a lot, but he says he picked it up from another list member. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto OH no - and all the time I thought it was pure WHEATFIELD (aka, SNOWFIELD in the winter, I believe). Unfortunately they have not hadded to the Scrabble dictionary. :( annsan
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:24:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolescence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Pål Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around being when the next thing issues from RR. Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. Doe aka Marnie
Re: Meaning of HAR!
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: Har is Hebrew for mountain. In English, it means, basically, Ha! or Ha-ha! The long version is hardee-har-har! I have no idea why, any more than Spock could understand why humans say to babies, Kootchie-kootchie-koo! AH! hardee-har-har is something Jackie Gleason's character, Ralph , used to say on THE HONEYMOONERS - as a kind of you think that is funny but it really isn't retort. annsan
Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: Kodak digital vs. 6x7 prints Speaking of which, William, whatever happened to the Great Canadian Grain Silo and Barn Mono Print Challenge? I am so bad. All the submissions are quite safe, and unopened. With my lack of organization, I may even find them at some point, although it will be completely accidental when it happens, I am sure. I promise, I will try to get my end of the project completed and get portfolios mailed out soon. I think I only got a half dozen submissions, so it looks like it will be a small discussion group, when we get to that point. My black and white Epson offering will have faded to brilliant white by now! They are that bad in the dark are they? William Robb
Re: FONG: LX outfit for sale
On Monday 20 January 2003 13:50, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Found this on rec.photo.marketplace.35mm Contact Steve Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://johnsonadv.home.attbi.com/pentax.htm http://www.news2web.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=articlegroup=rec.photo.ma r ketplace.35mmitem=435574utag= This guy's been trying to sell this stuff for at leat a year. Nice gear. If only.. Christian
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:14:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was about photography as global phenomenon. I doubt digital photography will be a globel phenomenon anytime soon like film photography. It will follow the distribution of personal computers which only a tiny percentage of the world population can afford. Pål True only a fraction can afford computers. A smaller percent of that fraction is highly computer literate. Look, I am a real camera novice, but not a complete novice when it comes to technology. I just bought a dvd player, held out as long as I could, but my video rental store is now 1/2 dvds. I didn't want to wait until they were 3/4's dvds. BTW - dvds are a industry-wide standard. I don't need to write dvds, I just watch rented dvds. So I think you are overlooking something. That LCD window. Very attractive to the photographer. So what's to say that someone couldn't buy a digital camera, PS or DSLR, *without* having a computer? Just for the less destructable storage medium and for that really helpful LCD window? And have their prints made at a lab that is set-up to do so? I think that will happen. Maybe more than one would think right now. Probably a lot more. Doe aka Marnie Oh, well, don't know that much about it, so bowing out of discussion now.
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around being when the next thing issues from RR. Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. It doesn't matter if it is an evolving technology like computers and digital cameras, or a mature technology like automobiles and televisions, obsolescence is obsolescence. Manufacturers love evolving technology, as they can make products obsolete as fast as they want, and have a valid excuse to hide behind. William Robb
Re: OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally
Hu. Another reply that did not seem to make it.Hummm I'll try again. Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:22:52 -0500 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: DSLR's and Printing Professionally The recent DSLR thread (DSLR Lifespan) has me thinking. For those of you who own one - and those of you who make money with it - how do you get prints for your clients? David I print my own either on a Canon BJC8200 or S800 using the 25 year(hopefully)BCI6 inks. Do you get them professionally done by a lab or do you print them yourselves? If you do get them done by a lab, at what charge? If you print by yourself, how do you pass that cost along to your clients (i.e. what do you charge for printing)? Its built into the onsite charge.I fiqured my cost per print is about $4.50 Canadian and if you add in the staff its about $7.00 per 8.5x 11 page.(based on a 40 print day which is average) Working on the general rule of thumb at 2.5 to 3 times material cost i thusly use $20.00 per page. I have thought about trying a print at Aarons,just might one day. It's just a curiosity of mine as I don't have a DSLR but I wonder what people out there are charging who do have one. Cheers, Dave Dave B 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: Mike Johnson's Sunday
There is another way to view DSLR obsolescence. The problems with PC's is that new software gets bigger and new gizmos want a faster computer. Also, many of us let junk build up on our computers which actually slow them down. If you are satisfied with the image quality of a DSLR, then it should last longer than a PC as long as you still have some way to get the pictures off of the camera. The real problem might be this last issue. It's these software compatibility issues that could ultimately limit the lifespan of a DSLR. After all, the biggest problem with my 4 MP E-10 is that it's not K Mount.
Re: 5 more of those whatyamacallit birds
Decided to test my 85-210 F4.5 SMCPZ lens with some TMAX 100 today. To my surprise I spotted 5 more of the same birds resting on a temporary construction divider: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/birds04s.jpg TMAX 100 1/250 @ F9.5 ~180mm setting Nice panoramic shot! I can say one thing, this lens is awesome quality. Yes, it's slow, it's bulky ( but not heavy) and it's very old ( early 70's optical design! ). True. It is long but quite light probably because of a light optical construction (only 11 elements). Its successor, the 80-200 (which is in fact a 83-205), was to have 15! It is also a rare lens. As I checked the aunction, I was hoping you'd get it at a user's price, not a collector's price, and you did! A comparison with its successor would be interesting: same difficult shot (fine details both in the sun and in the shade) with both lenses on the same film. Andre --
Re: A Driblet of Canon News
Ooops. Seems like I foirgot the 8D. Seems to be the same camera as the D80 but for the fact that it comes in a metal body (based on the EOS1V perhaps?) - Original Message - From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Re: A Driblet of Canon News Cotty wrote: D'oh - it's Norwegian. Babelfish doesn't translate Norwegian. Anywhere that does? I do. Basically its just rumors. Here is the essence (not much): No D90. D80 will have 8Mp, 3480x2320 NOT full frame but larger than the sensor of the D60. The camera will have the AF system from the EOS3. Price 2899 USD. Canon will also release three lenses suited for the D80 (Pentax have suggested the same for their DSLR. Are these lenses not covering full-frame like the Nikon DX lenses?). D40. 2496x1664 pixels. Smaller sensor than D30/D60. 1499 USD. Apparently 1/2 35mm sized sensor! BTW The author doesn't believe in the D40. At least not if not the price is significantly lowered. Theres also Nikon D2 rumors. 10 MP not full frame etc... Pål
Re: Re: Mono chrome slides
The only Scala developer in Canada,according to the Agfa site, is TorontoImageWorks in Toronto. I would like to try a roll this spring. Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 09:36:36 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mono chrome slides More than likely they were shooting SCALA. It is unbelievably beautiful stuff. Nothing touches this stuff for beautiful blacks and fine gradations. It's only downfall, It's expensive and it can only be developed by specialized labs. If you are into BW you own it to yourself to try this stuff. I have never used it but have seen the results with it. We had an Ilford rep come to the camera club to show slides of this stuff and it was incredible... Vic In a message dated 1/19/03 10:14:12 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: At a recent camera club meeting some slides were shown in black and white, this caught my eye as I had not thought such a film was available? Is this the case? If so, how is this effect created? Kind regards Kevin 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: DSLR lifespan
I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter. Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/21/2003 2:02:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It doesn't matter if it is an evolving technology like computers and digital cameras, or a mature technology like automobiles and televisions, obsolescence is obsolescence. Manufacturers love evolving technology, as they can make products obsolete as fast as they want, and have a valid excuse to hide behind. William Robb I think this is true and also not true -- i.e. true to an extent. Some technology reaches a level that stabilizes (at least for a while) at that level. Features may just be bells whistles added on top of that technology. The features differ from issue/version to issue/version, but the underlying technology is the same as used in the previous issue/version. Is the market driven by planned obsolescence? Sure. But not by all companies all the time. The other thing it is also driven by is consumers. At some point people say hey, I want something that I can rely on and that I will not have to upgrade and/or replace every single year. That happens too. Quite often. Market cynicism, I think, should be tempered by a dash of faith in the overloaded, put-upon, increasingly wary consumer. Doe aka Marnie But I am no economist.
Re: Pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF
Can anybody show me some Webpage with pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF or FA 300/4.5 ED IF ??? THE bible: http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/ Well, but I wanted to see pictures taken WITH this lens, NOT the lens itself... === Waldemar Krasowski tel: +48 501087147 mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ===
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) So I think you are overlooking something. That LCD window. Very attractive to the photographer. So what's to say that someone couldn't buy a digital camera, PS or DSLR, *without* having a computer? Just for the less destructable storage medium and for that really helpful LCD window? And have their prints made at a lab that is set-up to do so? There has been a fairly major change in the way cameras have been marketed to the consumers since the digital cameras came on stream. It used to be that you went to a camera store, or at least a camera department for a camera. This no longer holds true, and digital cameras are being marketed in a large part by consumer electronics retailers. This opens up several situations: Good retailing includes what is called horizontal selling and upselling. We've all been subjected to it. Try ordering a burger, no fries, no soda at a McDonald's to get an example. At an electronics store, horizonatal selling involves computer upgrades. Upselling means that the person who comes in to buy a basic product leaves with a more upscale (generally more profitable) product. In the digital camera game, upscale means more complex to operate. Electronics retailers are not especially good at consumer training. They will happily sell you the camera, but won't likely be giving much instruction about how to use it. I see the consequenses of this on a daily basis, as people bring in files that are too small and too compressed to work with for printing. From the POV of a long time photographer, I dispute your calling digital media less destructable than film. The things that will ruin film will also ruin digital media. Digital media can also be ruined by background radiation, strong magnetic signals, age degradation of the imbedded signal, and I am sure a myriad of other maladies. The LCD, in my own opinion is a red herring of sorts. The image is too small, and too low resolution for anything other than a gross evaluation of composition. As an aside, have any of the photojournalist types heard of media problems (either film or digital) from either the Balkans or Persian Gulf caused by the vast amounts of radioactivity released during the wars in those regions over the past decade? William Robb
Re: Re: They will buy anything.was: The Siren Call of Digital
Begin Original Message From: John Mustarde [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:57:54 -0700 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: They will buy anything.was: The Siren Call of Digital On Sun, 19 Jan 2003 15:41:44 -0500, you wrote: BTW anyone have knowledge about the picture on picture programs.My regular custumers are asking if i can do this.Right now i run PS6. PS6 does this. Go to File Automate Picture Package. ...or for same-size images there's File Automate Contact Sheet. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.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: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/21/2003 2:24:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From the POV of a long time photographer, I dispute your calling digital media less destructable than film. The things that will ruin film will also ruin digital media. Digital media can also be ruined by background radiation, strong magnetic signals, age degradation of the imbedded signal, and I am sure a myriad of other maladies. Okay. You know a lot more, a lot more, about that than I do. The LCD, in my own opinion is a red herring of sorts. The image is too small, and too low resolution for anything other than a gross evaluation of composition. Enough for a lot of us, however, to be very attracted to it. William Robb But is there any reason that down the road, in a few years when things have settled down a bit, that more and more people might buy digital cameras *without* owning a computer? Or without being highly computer literate if they have one? And having their prints developed at a lab, the same as before? (Skipping over the reasons of why they might want to buy a digital camera, which might also include availability and marketing, rather than just features and personal preference.) Huh? Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
The LCD, in my own opinion is a red herring of sorts. The image is too small, and too low resolution for anything other than a gross evaluation of composition. Agreed. The E-10 lets you zoom in to a specificed size. This is what you really need, e.g., look at the big picture to check composition and exposure and a close up for focus. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
35mm and Full Frame Sensors
If I understand correctly about full frame sensors, they would cover the same area as a 35mm Negative. ie 24mm x 36mm. If this is correct, can anything less still call itself a 35mm camera? eg, if we assume the following film neg sizes... 8 x 11mm (Minox) 13 x 17mm (110) 24 x 36mm (35mm) 17 x 31mm (APS) Cameras falling into any, or approximating, these sizes should rightfully be categorised as such. Just a thought 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: Kodak Samples
On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 01:52 AM, Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote: I wonder if Kodak is afraid to show us some nature or landscape sample images at this point... This Japanese site mentioned on ProRental may give you some idea. It took me several tries to connect to it so be patient: http://www.i-inc.jp/DCS-Pro14n/14n.html As best as I can read the Japanese, the samples are: Model Product Shot ISO Chart Wide Angle Comparison There are links below the Product Shot and ISO Chart that bring you to a file download iDisk containing samples for other cameras. The wide angle comparison is a street scene shot with 17mm, 24mm and 28mm lenses (or is it a zoom lens at different settings?). They then compare it wth the EOS 1Ds at the same three focal lengths. Too bad they didn't compare it with the Pentax DSLR. :-) Also mentioned is a discussion: http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi --jc
Re: FONG: LX outfit for sale
For what you're getting it looks like a fair price. At 03:08 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Monday 20 January 2003 13:50, Collin Brendemuehl wrote: Found this on rec.photo.marketplace.35mm Contact Steve Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://johnsonadv.home.attbi.com/pentax.htm http://www.news2web.com/cgi-bin/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=articlegroup=rec.photo.ma r ketplace.35mmitem=435574utag= This guy's been trying to sell this stuff for at leat a year. Nice gear. If only.. Christian Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) The LCD, in my own opinion is a red herring of sorts. The image is too small, and too low resolution for anything other than a gross evaluation of composition. Enough for a lot of us, however, to be very attracted to it. Admitedly, I was, until I actually started using a camera with a viewscreen. But is there any reason that down the road, in a few years when things have settled down a bit, that more and more people might buy digital cameras *without* owning a computer? Or without being highly computer literate if they have one? And having their prints developed at a lab, the same as before? Depends on a lot of factors. People still like prints, so they have to have an easy and cheap way to get them. If they don't have a computer, they will be tied to photofinishers, which I don't have a problem with. Also, its not just about getting the products out there, it's also about whether they will be used or not. The last revolution to take on film cameras was compact camcorders. They failed miserably in the consumer market for a variety of reasons, some relating to convenience, some to battery life, and of course the biggie is that shooting video is very discouraging once you start looking at what you have shot on a TV screen. Digital still cameras have a lot of simialr problems. They are not as convenient, those LCD screens suck back batteries really fast, and they are not all that easy to use. For the cameras to be both sold, and used, all that must change. I do have a number of customers who have sworn off their digital cameras entirely. I pretty much just use mine for stuff going on the net. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan
Thanks for noticing I was beginning to feel ignored and un-loved snif At 07:16 PM 1/20/2003 +, you wrote: I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter. Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Meaning of HAR!
Funny my smellchecker did not catch that. I use a smell checker because my spelling stinks. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:52 PM Subject: Re: Meaning of HAR! T Rittenhouse wrote: Think of a pirate laughing Har, har, har It has become a PDML term that means. I am pulling your leg. When I came on the list Weathfield Willie (Bill Robb) was using it a lot, but he says he picked it up from another list member. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto OH no - and all the time I thought it was pure WHEATFIELD (aka, SNOWFIELD in the winter, I believe). Unfortunately they have not hadded to the Scrabble dictionary. :( annsan
Re: Pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF
http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/animal7.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/animal8.jpg Bounced flash to ceiling, F*300/4.5 mounted on tripod near wide open. regards, Alan Chan Can anybody show me some Webpage with pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF or FA 300/4.5 ED IF ??? _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Somehow that reminds me of the unsuccessful dinosaurs that only lasted 200 million years compared to the so successful mammals that are still around. Some of those unsuccessful film formats lasted 70 years or so. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday This begs the question of optimized for what. Attempts were made by Kodak to do just that, using a variety of formats, 828 roll film was an attempt to remove the double sprocket holes to result in a more efficient use of the same width stock as 35mm, 110 was optimized to give 4x5 or 8x10 enlargements using the full frame thus allowing for acceptable enlargements with a smaller film size. 126 was designed to make loading a camera more efficient as well as providing a square format which was extremely popular when it was introduced on, once again, film using stock the same width as 35mm. All of these formats have two things in common, they were designed to have certain optimal characteristics are dead or dying. If you look back at various formats introduced by Kodak you will find all had something to recommend them. Some were in use for a very long time but all except 35mm and 120/220 are virtually extinct. I'm not sure how to measure it but on empirical evidence film formats have been in some way optimized. It's just obvious how.
Re: My photos
Thank you. I used a different program to make a better looking album, but it doesn't seem to work right with Netscape. http://home.att.net/~b_rubenstein/isr_test/index.html BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce, Nice work. I enjoyed them all. My favorites are the candle lighting, the woman crouching in the background with food in the foreground, and the veiled woman with the infant. Thanks for posting them. paul
Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday
Well, eventually, they will reach a point where the pixel size will be noise limited. Then the only way to improve a sensor will be to make it bigger, and once again you will have various formats just as you do in film. Right now the technology is so new that things are changing as fast as they can get them out the door. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Mike Johnson's Sunday In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I believe that there is an optimal size of an image sensor which a balance must be strike between the resolution, greater choice of DOF, optimal design for both wide-angle and telephoto lenses, and the compactness of camera body. Eventually, digital camera will evolve into an optimal design, like film sizes in traditional film camera. [snip} Regards, Henry Chu 20/1/2003 I tend to agree with you and it was what I was trying to say the other day, but I did not express very well. There is bound to be a point that one type of sensor is optimized, has the most information that it can gather with the least noise. And there is bound to be a point where one sensor is the optimal size and functionality for a particular camera. And if it's resolution is as good as film or even slightly better than film, that is a likely stopping place for most camera producing companies. OTOH, I am not positive an industry-wide standard will evolve or whether each camera brand that remains standing in the digital age will have its own standard. Maybe that's not likely to happen because 35mm is now an industry standard and camera companies seem more oriented to the needs of photography and photographers than to the concerns of digital-lastest-bells-and-whistles computer geek types. So it seems the camera industry will probably follow its own path rather than emulating a computer path of competing brands and standards like Macs and PCs and Windows and Linux. We shall see. If nothing else there are bound to be plateaus of technological development when optimized sensors are reached for a while. Maybe for a few years, 4-6, maybe longer. Personally, I also think at some point the amount of information a sensor can gather could exceed what one would need or what would even make a good photograph, so that's another reason that an industry-wide standard could evolve. It will certainly be interesting to watch and to see what emerges. I am certainly interested in watching. Doe aka Marnie ;-)
Re: Pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF
On Monday 20 January 2003 17:05, Alan Chan wrote: http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/animal7.jpg http://www3.telus.net/wlachan/animal8.jpg Bounced flash to ceiling, F*300/4.5 mounted on tripod near wide open. regards, Alan Chan What was your working distance? Christian
Re: Pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF
What was your working distance? Near 2M because the pigs are quite small. regards, Alan Chan _ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Pictures taken with F* 300/4.5 ED IF
On Monday 20 January 2003 17:26, Alan Chan wrote: What was your working distance? Near 2M because the pigs are quite small. regards, Alan Chan Which is pretty close to minimum focus distance on that lens, correct? Nice lens. christian
Re: if microsoft made cameras
Mike, You're jab is outdated. XP is wonderful. You're out of touch for liking Macs. Have a great day! vbg -frank Mike Johnston wrote: And that's why I'm THANKFUL I own a Macintosh. g The funniest one of these I've seen over the years was one called If Microsoft Made Automobiles. Does anyone happen to have a copy of that one? It was really funny--things like, Every now and then, for no apparent reason, the motor would stop. Everyone would have to get out of the car, slam the doors, then get back in before it would start again. (For all you MS apologists, yes, I know the above is outdated, I know XP is wonderful, I know I'm out of touch for liking Macs, yadda yadda yadda. Please don¹t bother pointing all this out again.) --Mike P.S. I have to admit that my current iMac is the worst Mac I've ever owned. It's almost as good as a PC, and I'm actually running MS software on the damned thing (IE and Word). I'm not going gently into this good night, however. The market, in its infinite wisdom, has optimized and evolved the desktop computer into a sullied morass of LCD mediocrity. -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
Re: DSLR lifespan
Bob wrote: You could not be more correct. As the pixels go up and the prices come down, the cameras of next year will render those of today obsolete. Pal wrote: My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Just as an aside, note that the camera manufacturers are not at all happy about the short production lifespan and market viability of these products at present. What it has meant for them is that the RD costs are very high yet the products barely have enough time on the market to earn back their cost, much less any profit, unless they are real hits with consumers like the Nikon 950 was. This is a major reason why so few companies are earning any money on digital yet. Manufacturers would be MUCH happier with 2 - 5 year product viability than with .5 - 2 years. They do need to earn back the products' development costs. In fact, the situation is becoming rather desperate for many of them. The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. --Mike
