wrong iso choosen
beginner question... I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better to take the rest of the pictures with the correct iso setting or is it better to use the same iso setting for the whole film? sometimes automatic cameras do have their advantages -_^ bye Katrin
general purpose lens...
Hello all I know Tamron/Sigma makes wonderful 28-200, 28-300mm zooms for Pentax. They are nice and small and everything I can ask for. (If picture quality matters that much I can always use my primes, there arer some applications where one of these would do) There is only one problem I HATE the turn zooms. I can only turn one barrel at a time and I use manual focus... I love the push-pull zooms that I can focus by turning and zoom by pushing/pulling. (note, I only use manual focus bodies, they don't even have A mode..., MX, ME Super SE) Now I have one of these Tokina ATX 50-250mm. Wonderful lens, great picture quality, etc. but it's too big... For what I got it for, which is a general lens on my camra body in case I only want to take one lens, it is way too big and too heavy. Can someone recommend a lens that goes from wide or normal to tele that is small, light, push-pull and has resonable build/picture? Thanks L PS: If you want that Tokina ATX 50-250. Make an offer... It is just collecting dust right now... I might get rid of it...
OT: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the 'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets. A well-known Canon dealer in the UK is advertising the D10 on pre-order at 1499 GBP (with a 512MB CF card) - or 'your D60 and 500 GBP'. So if I want to trade in my mint in box D60 and hand over 500 notes (the best part of 800 USD) then I can have a brand new camera. Perhaps if I sold it on the used market I might be looking at 1200 to 1400 quid. This on a camera that cost 1899 GBP last September, although I was able to claim back the tax, effectively making it about 1600 GBP. Still, you can see the money literally leaking out of it! The question is, am I tempted? Well, as with all new shiny toys, yes I am. But not for long. If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it, in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed. The new camera may have a metal shell with more AF points (of which I would probably only continue to use one...) and a few more bells and whistles (Adobe 1998 colour space would be a slight benefit, but not much) but ultimately I am content with the choice I made, and so no reason at all to switch. What has this to do with Pentax? If you buy the Pentax DSLR this summer, then the summer after, maybe later, you will be confronted by a similar situation - and the feelings engendered are very interesting to say the least. A sort of 'oh no I don't want to be left behind' fretting, countered by a 'crickey - all I want to do is make some nice snaps and this is all a load of bollocks' reality, ending up with a 'well I'm doing just fine and I'm not going to let this hype get to me' cosiness. Food for thought. 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: Sinking flagships
Peter Alling schrieb: Alan you're beginning to become like Bruce. The changes I know of to the LX were all improvements I don't have one of the earliest models but my 18+ year old body has been about as reliable as my 5 year old model. Both are particularly solid and reliable. Hm, I dunno! I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later. Got repaired within several weeks(!), failed another six month later. Then I got it back with some strange new properties: e.g. the shutter wasn't able to do times longer than 1/75 with winder or motor attached (I thought it was the winder's fault, and bought the motor...*g*) Got fixed again, then jammed again. After that they just gave me a new body without any further comments(!) - must have been 1988 or 1989. Now I had this nice button to switch metering on! :-) But I can tell you: I was quite close to jump the ship! If I hadn't had the glass and my K2-DMD... The new body has been working flawlessly until april 2001. Then the sticky mirror appeared with it's infinity-focus problems. I got myself the MZ-3 then... After I recently found Rob's website describing the problem, I got my LX fixed again and am quite happy to have it in working condition. But I really can't recall if my happy moments with the LX make up for the damn frustrating moments...at least, it always failed when I was at home. Never on my travels...*g* Thomas
RE: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
That's why i'm going to stick with film for a few more years. I dont need instant results. The new pentax digital is probably as good as 35mm film, but not 67 or 4X5. I am in no hurry to buy into DSLR at this point for sure. I'm going to wait for full frame and 10 Mpixel for under $1000. Then MAYBE I'll be interested. In the mean time, my 1999 1.3 Mpixel digicam is fine for me for web use only. It's already paid for itself in that regard in saved film processing. JCO -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 4:08 AM To: Pentax List Subject: OT: Real world example of DSLR depreciation Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the 'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets. A well-known Canon dealer in the UK is advertising the D10 on pre-order at 1499 GBP (with a 512MB CF card) - or 'your D60 and 500 GBP'. So if I want to trade in my mint in box D60 and hand over 500 notes (the best part of 800 USD) then I can have a brand new camera. Perhaps if I sold it on the used market I might be looking at 1200 to 1400 quid. This on a camera that cost 1899 GBP last September, although I was able to claim back the tax, effectively making it about 1600 GBP. Still, you can see the money literally leaking out of it! The question is, am I tempted? Well, as with all new shiny toys, yes I am. But not for long. If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it, in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed. The new camera may have a metal shell with more AF points (of which I would probably only continue to use one...) and a few more bells and whistles (Adobe 1998 colour space would be a slight benefit, but not much) but ultimately I am content with the choice I made, and so no reason at all to switch. What has this to do with Pentax? If you buy the Pentax DSLR this summer, then the summer after, maybe later, you will be confronted by a similar situation - and the feelings engendered are very interesting to say the least. A sort of 'oh no I don't want to be left behind' fretting, countered by a 'crickey - all I want to do is make some nice snaps and this is all a load of bollocks' reality, ending up with a 'well I'm doing just fine and I'm not going to let this hype get to me' cosiness. Food for thought. 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: wrong iso choosen
Hi, Monday, March 10, 2003, 8:45:43 AM, you wrote: beginner question... I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better to take the rest of the pictures with the correct iso setting or is it better to use the same iso setting for the whole film? sometimes automatic cameras do have their advantages -_^ bye Katrin continue to use 100 for the rest of the roll. When you process it tell the person who does the developing that it was exposed at ISO 100 and they will compensate. They will probably charge a little extra. --- Bob
Re: OT: Pros on the net (was: Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D)
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Cotty wrote: PS: Coulthard WON - go the Brits! Aye, but Barry Sheene died last night too :-( Chris
Re: Sinking flagships
Hey Thomas, You know you aren't allowed to point out the flaws of the mighty LX here, don't you? :-) regards, Alan Chan Hm, I dunno! I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later. Got repaired within several weeks(!), failed another six month later. Then I got it back with some strange new properties: e.g. the shutter wasn't able to do times longer than 1/75 with winder or motor attached (I thought it was the winder's fault, and bought the motor...*g*) Got fixed again, then jammed again. After that they just gave me a new body without any further comments(!) - must have been 1988 or 1989. Now I had this nice button to switch metering on! :-) But I can tell you: I was quite close to jump the ship! If I hadn't had the glass and my K2-DMD... The new body has been working flawlessly until april 2001. Then the sticky mirror appeared with it's infinity-focus problems. I got myself the MZ-3 then... After I recently found Rob's website describing the problem, I got my LX fixed again and am quite happy to have it in working condition. But I really can't recall if my happy moments with the LX make up for the damn frustrating moments...at least, it always failed when I was at home. Never on my travels...*g* Thomas _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Sinking flagships
Alan Chan schrieb: Hey Thomas, You know you aren't allowed to point out the flaws of the mighty LX here, don't you? :-) Ooops...did I forget to mention, that I still love this camera? *g* Thomas Hm, I dunno! I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later. Got repaired within several weeks(!), failed another six month later. Then I got it back with some strange new properties: e.g. the shutter wasn't able to do times longer than 1/75 with winder or motor attached (I thought it was the winder's fault, and bought the motor...*g*) Got fixed again, then jammed again. After that they just gave me a new body without any further comments(!) - must have been 1988 or 1989. Now I had this nice button to switch metering on! :-) But I can tell you: I was quite close to jump the ship! If I hadn't had the glass and my K2-DMD... The new body has been working flawlessly until april 2001. Then the sticky mirror appeared with it's infinity-focus problems. I got myself the MZ-3 then... After I recently found Rob's website describing the problem, I got my LX fixed again and am quite happy to have it in working condition. But I really can't recall if my happy moments with the LX make up for the damn frustrating moments...at least, it always failed when I was at home. Never on my travels...*g* Thomas _ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Re: Re: wrong iso choosen
Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 10.03.2003, 10:43:11: continue to use 100 for the rest of the roll. When you process it tell the person who does the developing that it was exposed at ISO 100 and they will compensate. They will probably charge a little extra. Thanks! is this compensating done when developing the film or when making prints? bye
Re: wrong iso choosen
- Original Message - From: Subject: wrong iso choosen beginner question... I have a kodak iso 400 black and white film loaded in my mx. stupid me forgot to set the iso to 400 and let it on 100. I realised my mistake after about 12 pics taken. what effect does this have? is it better to take the rest of the pictures with the correct iso setting or is it better to use the same iso setting for the whole film? sometimes automatic cameras do have their advantages -_^ If it is a chromogenic film (C-41 process), set the iso correctly for the film and forget about it. You can't alter the process anyway. If it is a real black and while film, continue to shoot the roll at 100, and pull process it by 20%. William Robb
KAF3 lens mount already here?
According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different way of aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount? Pål
RE: Mamiya fisheye
fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no distortion. it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just different. when speaking of lenses, no distortion usually means no deviation from the idealized mapping, for rectilinear being x=t*tan(theta), and for fisheye x=r*theta or x=r*sin(theta). best, mishka
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
on 10.03.03 13:16, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different way of aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount? Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont? Who knows, patent for KAF3 have been around for a while. I wouldn't be suprised if new lenses to be shown later this year will have built-in ultrasonic motors. Now the question would be will they work on older bodies? For instance Nikon's AF-S lenses work using ultrasonic motors even with such a venerable bodies like F4 (but I am not sure of this - Bruce, can you confirm this?). Only IS (VR) lenses require completely new bodies. -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Sylwester wrote: Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont? Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was all about. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi, Pål Jensen wrote: According to someone who are into the technicalities of the Pentax lens mounts the mount of the new FA J lenses is not KAF2 as it uses a completely different way of aperture control. Is this the first lenses with KAF3 mount? Yesterday I sent a mail with long Kaf3 speculation, but somehow it didn't make it. So, here is my SPECULATION in short: - FAJ lenses and the crippled bodies will now officially be called Kaf3. Sadly, the *ist and *ist D might be in this group too. - Kaf3 = Kaf2 - PZ - mechanical aperture coupling - The compatibility-table looks like this: - Ka, Kaf and Kaf2 bodies and lenses are Kaf3-compatible - A, F, and FA lenses are OK - A, P, SF, Z/PZ, MZ/ZX bodies are OK - K and M lenses and bodies are Kaf3-incompatible and will not be supported by new products Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Cheers, Boz
Re: wrong iso choosen
Hi, Monday, March 10, 2003, 10:54:52 AM, you wrote: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb am 10.03.2003, 10:43:11: continue to use 100 for the rest of the roll. When you process it tell the person who does the developing that it was exposed at ISO 100 and they will compensate. They will probably charge a little extra. Thanks! is this compensating done when developing the film or when making prints? bye when developing the film. It's called 'pull processing'. --- Bob
Re: OT: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
[EMAIL PROTECTED] discussing trading up to the latest Canon D10 writes: If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it, in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed. The new camera may have a metal shell with... Cotty, This is why you are a Pentax user at heart! ...less flashy, more emphasis on function. Regards, Bob S.
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
on 10.03.03 13:43, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylwester wrote: Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont? Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was all about. Interesting. We'll have to wait for other lenses, probably with built-in USM motors, and maybe later IS. Maybe there will be successor for FA* series - very good, but quite old (some lenses dates back up to 1991) -- Best Regards Sylwek
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Very likely scenario. Maybe we can hope for a high-end KAF3 lens series in the fall that maintain the aperture ring? After all, the FA J lenses are strictly entry level with plastic lens mounts. Pål
Re: Mamiya fisheye
We already knows he makes up his own rules, and ignores those that are stupid to him. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fisheye lenses are defined as follows: A fisheye lens produces extreme barrel distortion and exagerated forshortening in the center by the ICP encyclopedia of Photography, your funny little formulaes not withstanding. William Robb
RE: Mamiya fisheye
On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote: fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no distortion. it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just different. when speaking of lenses, no distortion usually means no deviation from the idealized mapping, for rectilinear being x=t*tan(theta), and for fisheye x=r*theta or x=r*sin(theta). View a photo rendered using a rectilinear lens from the appropriate distance with one eye and it's as true in geometry as the real world, fisheye renderings are not at any distance using one eye or two. © Rob Studdert
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Work, work, work. According to this page (http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm) AF-S will work on F4, N70, N90 and newer bodies. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For instance Nikon's AF-S lenses work using ultrasonic motors even with such a venerable bodies like F4 (but I am not sure of this - Bruce, can you confirm this?). Only IS (VR) lenses require completely new bodies.
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( It might be that Pentax will maintain compatibility on higher end KAF3 bodies. Anyway, one cannot really expect a company to built in expensive, mechanical compatibility for lenses deleted 20 years ago, particularly not in entry level bodies. And how many K and M lens connoisseurs are after modern, entry level AF bodies? Perhaps that was what the MZ-S was all about: the last chance to buy a modern AF slr that matches K and M lenses in built quality while maintaining the essential interfcace from that era. I have the MZ-S with K 18/3.5 in front of me and this lens/camera match is made in heaven! A smooth brick of a camera with smooth brick of a lens, but with modern features. We still have the Limited lenses. They are certainly the closest thing to modern K lenses. Pål
RE: Mamiya fisheye
Subject: RE: Mamiya fisheye On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote: fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no distortion. it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just different. when speaking of lenses, no distortion usually means no deviation from the idealized mapping, for rectilinear being x=t*tan(theta), and for fisheye x=r*theta or x=r*sin(theta). A rectilinear lens has a constant focal length vs. off axis angle and renders a natural looking reproduction as long as the viewing angle of view matches the taking angle of view. A fisheye on the other hand, has a non linear focal length vs. off axis angle. It's longer in the center of the view and very short at the off axis edges. This transformation causes a very obvious distortion of reality. But that what makes them fun! JCO
Re: Mamiya fisheye
Exactly so... keith whaley Rob Studdert wrote: On 10 Mar 2003 at 7:23, Mishka wrote: fisheye with no distortion is no more oxymoron than rectilinear with no distortion. it is not possible to map 3d world as we see it (hemisphere) on a plane with no distortion. from this point of view, rectilinear is as bad as fisheye, just different. when speaking of lenses, no distortion usually means no deviation from the idealized mapping, for rectilinear being x=t*tan(theta), and for fisheye x=r*theta or x=r*sin(theta). View a photo rendered using a rectilinear lens from the appropriate distance with one eye and it's as true in geometry as the real world, fisheye renderings are not at any distance using one eye or two. © Rob Studdert
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Hi Pål, on 10 Mar 03 you wrote in pentax.list: Electronically controlled aperture a'la EF mont? Yes, electronically controlled. Apparently a motor in the lens do the stopping down. It is a completely new protocol and new protocol was what the KAF3 was all about. I don't believe that Pentax will built a motor into a low budget lens. That's paradox. And BTW why should they make the apperture control technically more complicated? Another point is the fact that the *ist has a KAF mount, i.e. it has no way to transfer the necessary power to the lens. Cheers, Heiko
Re: The concept of Intellectual property (Was: eBay Boz's site)
Intellectual property is highly regarded in most corners of the universe, except one insignificant little blue-green planet in the unfashionable parts of the western spiral arm of the galaxy. The people of which are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital cameras is a pretty neat idea. -Only to put things into proportion, of course. :-) Jostein Bruce wrote: North America and Western Europe hardly defines universal. .
Re: Sinking Flagships
Sorry to disappoint you, folks, but the free version is not TTL, just slave. Jostein -- Original Message -- From: Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 19:00:26 -0500 You bet it does!. It winks, it blinks and has a fiber-optic connection to the reindeer's dingleberry port. It also provides a nice counterpoint to the stainless steel clad antlers, tipped with blue LED's and purple neons on the hooves. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does the reindeer's nose work with the camera's wireless flash function? .
Digital sensor elements
I've recently been looking at some of the (to me) competitive digital cameras. I want a small one, and will either use it in conjunction with my much larger older one, or if it's good enough, it will be a replacement for it. However... When looking at the CCD tech info, I find the following data, on the three cameras Im considering: typesize color depth OptioS1/2.5 inline CCD 3.34 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 4501/1.8 4.13 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 5501/1.8 5.25 Mpixels 12 bit x 3 colors Then I compare this data with what's on the spec sheet for my Epson PC750Z digital and find: bit depth 1/2.7 CCD 1.25 Mpixels24 bit x 16 meg colors I suspect color depth and bit depth are somehow different, but I don't know how. I DO know my Epson performs far better than I had any reason to expect, and a lot of that is probably due to the method of interpolation used by their Hy-Pict® image enhancement software, but how to relate or compare 'color depth' to 'bit depth?' Any ideas? keith whaley
KAF-3 thoughts
Speculation, just for the fun of it: If there is a KAF-3, it's not the J. Else they'd have named it such. Rather, the J is a KAF-2 as Junk (cheap) version. Missing features for profitability purposes. KAF3 will be fully KAF-2 compatible and will add features within the lens. Piezo-motor controlled aperture. Image Stabilization on longer lenses. A larger image circle for film and future larger digital sensors. Pentax will do what they've done for a long time: We're going to see many current lenses closed out. They've been on the market for too long. They'll be replaced with J KAF-3 versions, built more economically, and also to be sold for another 20 years! Collin (just thinking too much) Brendemuehl
Re: Mamiya fisheye
Hi, JCO wrote: a fisheye with almost no distortion? Isn't that an oxymoron? I get the impression that they mean distortion other than the fisheye effect. Maybe someone more optically unchallenged, based in Finland, would like to contribute? In any case, the study is a waste of time and effort. They explicitly state (can't quote as it is a .pdf document) that they used only one example of each lens but, from previous work, there is very large sample to sample variation. As some of the lenses which came best in the tests are made by the company whose site the page is on, I have to say that this is poor science at best. At worst, you can draw your own conclusions. mike p.s. apologies if this has already been discussed but I am working from the archives which seem to be a tad slow these days.
Re: flower pics
Answer interspersed. From: David Mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just find the dark area a little distracting, especially with the big halo around the flower at the top (which I like). They compete for the attention of my eye. Ok. Tried it again, and I see your point. However, my experience of the image change a lot. Imo, the buds take the role that the dark area had. It brings more focus to the petals, but I think the buds loose their power as an active element in the picture. Whether that makes the picture any _better_ is another matter (and a highly subjective one, too). It's two very different pics, I think. Both good. Makes me long for spring... Jostein.
Re: OT: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
You know, Cotty, that might be _the_ most important reason for Pentax to get a sturdy bug-free camera first time around. To actually prove that they can make a camera that satisfy for a good while. Then they won't have to upgrade themselves out of design faults (sex-appeal aside, naturally...) Jostein -- Original Message -- From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 09:08:23 + Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the 'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets. A well-known Canon dealer in the UK is advertising the D10 on pre- order at 1499 GBP (with a 512MB CF card) - or 'your D60 and 500 GBP'. So if I want to trade in my mint in box D60 and hand over 500 notes (the best part of 800 USD) then I can have a brand new camera. Perhaps if I sold it on the used market I might be looking at 1200 to 1400 quid. This on a camera that cost 1899 GBP last September, although I was able to claim back the tax, effectively making it about 1600 GBP. Still, you can see the money literally leaking out of it! The question is, am I tempted? Well, as with all new shiny toys, yes I am. But not for long. If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it, in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed. The new camera may have a metal shell with more AF points (of which I would probably only continue to use one...) and a few more bells and whistles (Adobe 1998 colour space would be a slight benefit, but not much) but ultimately I am content with the choice I made, and so no reason at all to switch. What has this to do with Pentax? If you buy the Pentax DSLR this summer, then the summer after, maybe later, you will be confronted by a similar situation - and the feelings engendered are very interesting to say the least. A sort of 'oh no I don't want to be left behind' fretting, countered by a 'crickey - all I want to do is make some nice snaps and this is all a load of bollocks' reality, ending up with a 'well I'm doing just fine and I'm not going to let this hype get to me' cosiness. Food for thought. 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: Digital sensor elements
- Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 08:33 Subject: Digital sensor elements When looking at the CCD tech info, I find the following data, on the three cameras Im considering: type sizecolor depth OptioS1/2.5 inline CCD 3.34 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 4501/1.84.13 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 5501/1.85.25 Mpixels 12 bit x 3 colors Then I compare this data with what's on the spec sheet for my Epson PC750Z digital and find: bit depth 1/2.7 CCD1.25 Mpixels24 bit x 16 meg colors I suspect color depth and bit depth are somehow different, but I don't know how. 10bit x 3 = 30bit = 1b colors 24 bit = 8 bit x 3 = 16m colors herb
Re: Digital sensor elements
On 10 Mar 2003 at 5:33, Keith Whaley wrote: I suspect color depth and bit depth are somehow different, but I don't know how. Colour depth generally refers to the cumulative number of bits that represent the individual colour components ie 24bit (red, green and blue) colour but the same colour depth could also be described as 3 x 8bit (8bits each of red, green, blue) or 16M+ (2^8 * 2^8 * 2^8) colours. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html Pentax user since 1986 PDMLer since 1998
Re: Digital sensor elements
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:33:52 -0800, Keith Whaley wrote: typesize color depth OptioS1/2.5 inline CCD 3.34 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 4501/1.8 4.13 Mpixels 10 bit x 3 colors Pentax 5501/1.8 5.25 Mpixels 12 bit x 3 colors bit depth Epson PC750Z 1/2.7 CCD 1.25 Mpixels24 bit x 16 meg colors I suspect color depth and bit depth are somehow different, but I don't know how. In the tables above, color depth is the number of bits per color. Bit depth is the number of bits in all colors. So, the OptioS and 450 have a bit depth of 30, and the 550 has a bit depth of 36. OTOH, the PC750 has a color depth of 8 bits each in three colors. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Re: The concept of Intellectual property (Was: eBay Boz's site)
Where they go around yelling, Badges? We don't need no stkin' badges! BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Intellectual property is highly regarded in most corners of the universe, except one insignificant little blue-green planet in the unfashionable parts of the western spiral arm of the galaxy. The people of which are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital cameras is a pretty neat idea. -Only to put things into proportion, of course. :-) Jostein
Re: OT Agfa APX
Hi, Frank. Yes, it's grainy, but I don't think it's as grainy as TriX. It's a good film with classic look (a la trix, not tmax style). I suppose it's not T grain technology. I like it. Please note it's not first hand experience. A friend of mine use it all the time and i see his results Regards Albano PS: Here it cost a lot less than competition. --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was buying film today, and noticed that Downtown Camera here in Toronto is selling Agfa APX (bw 400) for $3.00 Cdn for a roll of 36. I asked them what it was like, and they said quite grainy. I asked if it was a lot grainier than TriX, and he just said again, quite grainy. OTOH, when I looked on the Agfa Canada site, they mentioned good fineness of grain. I chickened out, and bought my usual Ilford HP5+, for a whole 33 cents a roll more. Anyone familiar with APX, and if so, what do you think of it? thanks, frank -- Honour - that virtue of the unjust! -Albert Camus = Albano Garcia El Pibe Asahi __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: OT: Pros on the net (was: Re: *ist v D60 and now the EOS 10D)
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003, Cotty wrote: PS: Coulthard WON - go the Brits! A fact that my wife announced to me as she climbed into bed at 5 o'clock (was it?) on Sunday morning. Aye, but Barry Sheene died last night too :-( :( vivid memories of cross channel ferries bearing Mr S. Peter
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes: This is what they write on the *ist: Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter) This is what they write on The *ist D: Compatible lenses: K, KA, KAF, and KAF2 mount lenses Usable, compatible, not at all obsolete. The compatibility of *ist and *ist D with K- and M lenses has been confirmed by serveral sources including Pentax Germany. The latter source also expressed the expectation that FA-J will be limited to the cheapest price segment. Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de? Arnold
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I know ofgrr Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with the *ist D? If so, I can start selling now and make the switch to another brand for digital. --- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Very likely scenario. Maybe we can hope for a high-end KAF3 lens series in the fall that maintain the aperture ring? After all, the FA J lenses are strictly entry level with plastic lens mounts. Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
RE: wrong iso choosen
CN16 is Fuji-s analog of C41 (Kodak) process. To pull or push color neg.films You or your lab needs film processor with SPECIAL DRIVE MOTOR. Cheers , Raivo
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Taz, The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses. Michael Cross Taz wrote: Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I know ofgrr Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with the *ist D? If so, I can start selling now and make the switch to another brand for digital. --- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Very likely scenario. Maybe we can hope for a high-end KAF3 lens series in the fall that maintain the aperture ring? After all, the FA J lenses are strictly entry level with plastic lens mounts. Pål __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the *ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D. At 04:09 PM 3/10/2003 +0100, you wrote: Steve wrote: Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with the *ist D? The *ist D has not been finalized yet. But it is a possibility... Pål Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
RE: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
Cotty wrote: Okay, here's some ammo to those who highlight DSLR depreciation and the 'must keep up' aura that permeates the electronics/photo markets. It's only depreciation, if you have the desire to have the very latest camera. If you are happy it does what you want, why change? Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy to throw thousands away to have the latest car every year. I am sure most of us have similar examples. What has this to do with Pentax? If you buy the Pentax DSLR this summer, then the summer after, maybe later, you will be confronted by a similar situation - and the feelings engendered are very interesting to say the least. A sort of 'oh no I don't want to be left behind' fretting, countered by a 'crickey - all I want to do is make some nice snaps and this is all a load of bollocks' reality, ending up with a 'well I'm doing just fine and I'm not going to let this hype get to me' cosiness. Food for thought. Why are you going to worry if you buy the Pentax DSLR :-) If you buy the first model, it will be because you wanted to buy it. If you sit and wait, will you buy the second generation, the third.? If you buy the first DSLR, and it does, as you say, what you are happy with, why worry.. Malcolm - cameras and amateur radio gear 20+ years and going, car replacement date c. 2010.
Re: wrong iso choosen
Holy mackerel! Here we go again! ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002 - Original Message - From: Taz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:28 PM Subject: Re: wrong iso choosen I keep hearing about pulling or pushing film but when I talk to my local labs, they seem to know nothing of this. Is it because most color films are C41 process and truly cannot have this done? I've never done this and continue to be in the dark here. For example just looked on one of my print film boxes and it says for process c16/c41. So are these 2 different processes of which only c16 can be pulled or pushed? I've heard repeditively that c41 is a fixed process and cannot be adjusted. when developing the film. It's called 'pull processing'.
Re: Sinking flagships
That's just it. I've had some troubles with every camera I've ever owned. I give them hard use, sometimes to destruction. (If someone wants some mangled Spotmatic parts I may be able to find the body I dropped off the cliff). The only problem I've had with an LX came after a CLA. I know other people have had problems with LX's but from there litany of ills it almost seems like they have a different model camera. Maybe it's a quality control problem, how else to you reconcile Pål's experience with William Robb's experiences. But you don't have to run down a product with every breath, Alan has been doing that since I've been paying attention to his posts. I usually don't comment on it but sometimes I just get tired and testy. At 10:20 AM 3/10/2003 +0100, you wrote: Peter Alling schrieb: Alan you're beginning to become like Bruce. The changes I know of to the LX were all improvements I don't have one of the earliest models but my 18+ year old body has been about as reliable as my 5 year old model. Both are particularly solid and reliable. Hm, I dunno! I bought an LX with winder in 1985 and it jammed 6 month later. Got repaired within several weeks(!), failed another six month later. Then I got it back with some strange new properties: e.g. the shutter wasn't able to do times longer than 1/75 with winder or motor attached (I thought it was the winder's fault, and bought the motor...*g*) Got fixed again, then jammed again. After that they just gave me a new body without any further comments(!) - must have been 1988 or 1989. Now I had this nice button to switch metering on! :-) But I can tell you: I was quite close to jump the ship! If I hadn't had the glass and my K2-DMD... The new body has been working flawlessly until april 2001. Then the sticky mirror appeared with it's infinity-focus problems. I got myself the MZ-3 then... After I recently found Rob's website describing the problem, I got my LX fixed again and am quite happy to have it in working condition. But I really can't recall if my happy moments with the LX make up for the damn frustrating moments...at least, it always failed when I was at home. Never on my travels...*g* Thomas Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: The concept of Intellectual property (Was: eBay Boz's site)
Wasn't that 4 out of 5 burrows of NYC, where civilization has come and gone? Bob S [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Where they go around yelling, Badges? We don't need no stkin' badges! BR
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50 for a throwing object.) Taz, The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses. Michael Cross
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Arnold Stark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Boz wrote: Conclusion: K and M equipment is obsolete. K and M buyers should buy Limited equipment (these people want good mechanical build, and nowadays that costs money). :-( Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes: This is what they write on the *ist: Usable lenses - Pentax KAF2-(power zoom not available), KAF-, KA- and K-mount lenses (Autofocus possible with KA- and K-mount lenses using AF adapter) This is what they write on The *ist D: Compatible lenses: K, KA, KAF, and KAF2 mount lenses Usable, compatible, not at all obsolete. Boz must have incredibly powerful leg muscles by now... From jumping to conclusions, ya know. (And I have a huge lump on my head from all the times the sky's fallen on it.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote: Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold mines. It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera makers. Nick
Re[2]: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Peter wrote: PA Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the PA *ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed PA off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D. If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales projection then I expect them to be very, very scrupulous about the support for K/M lenses. Even the incompatibility of new KAF3 lenses with old cameras will be almost inconsequential compared to the rage the abandon of old lenses will induce. Servus, Alin
Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sinking flagships
On March 9, 2003 04:45 pm, William Robb wrote: Good point, but if your two year old digital camera set you back the better part of two grand, you are probably going to be looking to repair, no matter what they have improved. Odds are if you've spent $2k on a camera you really need it. You'll likely need the better one to. I still think many of current digital camera are being sold to people who bought older models that didn't live up to thier needs. Nick
New Pentax web design ( Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
Arnold Stark wrote: Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de? What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ? Without having to click I am a consenting adult ? I am deeply offended. I will sell all my Pentax gear, starting tomorrow. ;-) cheers, caveman ;-)
U.S. Price Of *ist Film
B H has posted a price of $299.95 for the *ist. It's not available yet, but coming soon. Michael
Obsolete?
Someone posted that K and M Pentax equipment was obsolete. Great! Now we can make some money. I sold my obsolete Alpa Reflex 9D, a couple of years ago, for 17 times what I paid for it new. D ___ Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On March 10, 2003 12:38 pm, Taz wrote: Surely not even Pentax can ignore the impact that Ebay has on the camera industry. Old lenses as long as they are clean are like little gold mines. It's a gold mine for you and me. It can't be a postive for the camera makers. Nick True, but to ignore their existance would be foolhardy for pentax when that is one of the things they have always based most of their camera bodies on in the past.
RE: Mamiya fisheye
No, the bird's eye lens was never put into production. At 08:27 PM 3/10/2003 +0300, you wrote: I have no intent to argue the terminology and definitions of fish, eye and distortion, with either you or encyclopedia. I asked the forum a question. Mind you, about a lens, patented by Pentax. I explained what I meant, since it looked like my question was misinterpreted, supplying the link to the original article, quoting 0.2% mapping ditortion -- by far better than anything else mentioned there. For those too lazy to read the article, I showed a couple of funny little formulae showing *exactly* what I meant. If no one knows the answer -- fine. But I fail to see how either post (read: trolling) is relevant to the original question. Mishka. Fisheye lenses are defined as follows: A fisheye lens produces extreme barrel distortion and exagerated forshortening in the center by the ICP encyclopedia of Photography, your funny little formulaes not withstanding. William Robb We already knows he makes up his own rules, and ignores those that are stupid to him. BR Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Or take the features of the ZX-M and put it in the K1000 metal body, now that would be a very attractive camera to me. The ZX-M has been compared as the K1000 replacement. Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. Price Of *ist Film
i notice that the BH site has changed over the weekend so that where it used to just say Photography as a major category, it now says Film Photography. Herb - Original Message - From: Michael Cross [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 13:06 Subject: U.S. Price Of *ist Film B H has posted a price of $299.95 for the *ist. It's not available yet, but coming soon. Michael
Re: OT: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
If I look at what I have, and what it does, and what I can make with it, in fact I am not tempted in the least. It does the job very well indeed. The new camera may have a metal shell with... Cotty, This is why you are a Pentax user at heart! ...less flashy, more emphasis on function. Regards, Bob S. LOL. Good point, and I think you may have something there ;-) 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: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Alin wrote: If the existing Pentax users are present in their *istD sales projection then I expect them to be very, very scrupulous about the support for K/M lenses. Even the incompatibility of new KAF3 lenses with old cameras will be almost inconsequential compared to the rage the abandon of old lenses will induce. I personally don't think limiting compatibility of K and M lenses are particularly smart for their first DSLR. On the other hand, K and M lenses were being made for only 6-7 years over 20 years ago. Hardly anyone who still use them have bought a new Pentax product in 20 years or ever. And very few of them will buy a DSLR. I believe such compatibility, and mind you I speak as someone who actually use K lenses, are only for psychological reasons as the real market for DSLR for K and M lens owners is microscopic. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Taz wrote: I still say if Pentax doesn't make a body to support these old lenses they are shooting themselves in the foot. I think that from the manufacturers point of view it is actually the other way around. Pentax need to give reason for consumers to stop using old lenses and start buying new lenses AND new bodies. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Arnold wrote: Boz, you keep repeating the same wrong speculation, so I will quote again what Pentax USA writes: Again I have to repeat that the *ist and ist D was designed with limitation from K and M lenses. As the *ist D is not finalized yet, things may change. Perhaps they have changed with the *ist too. Anyway, whats printed on the Pentax US site doesn't say anything about what compatibility K and M lenses have. I guess we have to wait until the thing is released and someone can test it out. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Michael wrote: The Nikon N80 will not meter with nearly all Nikkor manual focus lenses. Not to mention how bad it works with Pentax K and M lenses... Pål
Re: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
Malcolm wrote: Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy to throw thousands away to have the latest car every year. I am sure most of us have similar examples. The problem is that if you buy a DSLR today, you can have the same camera or a better one for 50% less in six months with some bad luck. Thats not depreciation, but wasting money. Pl
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
- Original Message - From: Taz Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here? Thanks for that update Michael, that would have really erked me to have fallen into that trap again(remembers trying very hard not to use a zx-50 for a throwing object.) If you want full backwards lens compatablity with Nikon, you have to buy the top end models. If you want the same from Canon or Minolta, sorry, they don't offer it. If you want it from Pentax, avoid the very bottom end models, as they are for people who glue their lens on so they won't lose it. William Robb
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
It would be better to use the FM2n, since that was in production for a long time with a price history. I would not be surprised if the price ratio difference between the K1000 and FM/FM2n was pretty constant over time. When the FM2n stopped being sold last year it sold for $400-$500. The K1000 price was probably in the 2:3 ratio range (?) That would be a reasonable guess as to what a K1000 would cost today. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3?
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
- Original Message - From: Peter Alling Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here? Well that will just piss off a lot of people after the assurance that the *ist D is compatible with K/M mount lenses. I'd be considerably more pissed off than I was with the cancelation of the MZ-D. From the Official Pentax information package: quote A wide range of compatible PENTAX lenses for flexible shooting A wide range of compatible PENTAX lenses are available for use with the *ist D, allowing the user to compose satisfying scenes regardless of the type of subject.* *Compatible lenses: K, KA, KAF, and KAF2 mount lenses; screw mount lenses, 645, and 67 series lenses (adapter required). Some functions may not activate depending on the choice of lens. /quote. For myself, I believe Pentax corporation themselves over a reindeer rustler who in reality is at the bottom of the Pentax food chain with the rest of us William Robb. Are you saying that K M lenses will not work with the *ist D? The *ist D has not been finalized yet. But it is a possibility... Pål
Re: New Pentax web design ( Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
Only partial. Less than you'd see on German Billboards. At 01:21 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Arnold Stark wrote: Let's go to CeBit and put an end to all this speculation! BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de? What ? Nudity ? Without a warning ? Without having to click I am a consenting adult ? I am deeply offended. I will sell all my Pentax gear, starting tomorrow. ;-) cheers, caveman ;-) Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Hypothetical question: Cost of a new K1000
Probably not any cheaper. At 01:18 PM 3/10/2003 -0500, you wrote: Here's an interesting question. Suppose that Pentax made a brand new K1000, metal body and all What would they have to charge for such a beast? Could it be made much cheaper than the Nikon FMA3? Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: Sinking flagships
Peter Alling wrote: Maybe it's a quality control problem, how else to you reconcile Pål's experience with William Robb's experiences. Bill has already confessed that he attempted to mount some Nikon lens on his LX. No wonder that at the sight of such bokeh his LX has since refused to work. cheers, caveman
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
DUH! You would wind up doing exactly what you don't want for Pentax! (Not being able to use old lenses on new bodies.) The deal with Nikon is that you can get a full sized/cost body like the F100 and use all the new AF and AI MF lenses. Get a new compact AF body (N80) and only be able to really use AF lenses (newest ones supported). Older AF body and be able to use AI, MF lenses, but not all new AF lenses. You better know exactly what lenses you want to use if you start looking at the big N. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sigh, this whole thing has caused me to eye up a Nikon N80 for sale that I know ofgrr
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
snip BTW: Have you seen the new design of the Pentax Germany pages at www.pentax.de? All the nice product-pdf to download are gone ... :.-( Thomas
Re: U.S. Price Of *ist Film
Maybe you'll be closer with the *ist D :-) . Frits Wüthrich wrote: On Monday 10 March 2003 18:06, Michael Cross wrote: B H has posted a price of $299.95 for the *ist. It's not available yet, but coming soon. Michael Hum, my guees was $300, so I was $0.05 off. $1 = £1.
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
See comments below (long): On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 02:14 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: But then you get worse compatibility with older lenses. Frankly, I can't see any K and M lens owner going to buy an *ist, just like they don't buy the MZ-60. I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60 $149). There are, however, a number of features that make the *ist attractive to an enthusiast whereas the MZ/ZX-60 is not: Metering: 2 segment on the MZ-60 with no option for spot or center; 16 segment with spot and center weighted on the *ist Flash: The MZ-60 doesn't support the new flash system, despite being released after its introduction No DOF preview on MZ-60 AF system: Not really a fair comparison, but the AF in the MZ-60 is limited even when compared to other cameras in the MZ series. I don't believe the MZ-60 shows shutter and aperture info in the viewfinder, nor does it show an exposure bar graph (someone correct me if I'm wrong. To put it simply, putting the MZ-60 and the *ist in the same category is crazy. These are two very different cameras, targeted at very different markets, with very different price points. Lens mount issues aside, the MZ-60 offers very little (if anything) to the advanced amateur photographer. The *ist is a perfect compromise camera for someone wanting several solid features on a budget. yeah, I know they come from different lines, but PRICE DETERMINES HOW A CAMERA IS SOLD not some marketing hack calling it entry level If you walk into the average US camera store, you see two pentax models on the shelf: The ZX-60 and the ZX-L. The *ist will probably take the ZX-L's shelf space, but I just don't see people looking for a $150 camera paying $300 just because somebody claims the *ist is entry level Of course, it might be that my infiormation is wrong but I would not preorder the *ist if you plan to use K and M lenses with it. This is about the only thing Pål has said since the *ist was introduced that I agree with. Frankly, if you care much about anything you shouldn't buy without at least reading some reviews. -Matt
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Part of that possibility is further fostered by the existing DSLR's in both camps stables. However the *ist D appearance on the horizon has changed that idea to a point. However my buying any DSLR at this time is not going to happen, I'm rather trying to position myself in the best possible place for when the prices come down, or if they hold up well enough they come on the the used market in the next year or so. I'm also concerned that my existing investment dollar wise doesn't suddenly become next to worthless because of the newly released technology and possible compatibility in different camps. I may currently make statements that are not yet well researched, but thanks to those on this group for helping me research it. I love it when a plan comes together...lol. From a compatability standpoint, Nikon and Canon have amoung the worst record in the industry. Pentax has managed to maintain full backwards compatability with every lens they have made for 4 decades on all but their recent bottom feeder camera bodies. Nikon requires you to buy top of the heap, and Canon and Minolta just plain abandoned their entire customer base and started fresh in the mid 80s. Even if Pentax loses backwards compatability with a new model, they have done an extraordinary job of supporting older equipment for a heck of a long time. Jumping ship based on the above reasoning is not logical. William Robb
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Why on Earth would you hand hold 1000mm? At 02:30 PM 3/10/03, you wrote: I didn't appreciate before I'd tried it how much the image shakes when you're holding 1000mm of telephoto by hand.
New lenses (was Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
Gregory L. Hansen wrote: They need to tempt users to new lenses, not introduce compatibility issues. They would tempt me with a nice AF portrait lens. Let's see: FA 77 - greta lens, but too short focal length FA 85 - too expensive, a little bit short, great for indoor only FA 100/2.8 macro - right focal length, great lens expensive, and hey, it's a macro FA 100/3.5 macro - right focal length, nice price, a little slow, again a macro FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's quite soft. So where's that killer portrait lens ? I was looking hard and my best bet was the 100/2.8 macro. cheers, caveman
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Matt, Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap, entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap and entry level. cheers, caveman Matt Bevers wrote: I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60 $149). There are, however, a number of features that make the *ist attractive to an enthusiast whereas the MZ/ZX-60 is not:
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their mount in the next 5, or 10 years. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That makes sense. (Not) Then what are you going to do in, oh, say five years when technology moves along and Nikon and/or Canon change their mounts and specs like they have a track record of doing?
RE: Real world example of DSLR depreciation
Pl wrote: Malcolm wrote: Deprecation depends on your viewpoint on the product. Here we are talking cameras, and in the majority (?) of cases here it is hobby money. I have a local friend who would be horrified at losing a few hundred pounds to upgrade a camera to the latest model, yet he is quite happy to throw thousands away to have the latest car every year. I am sure most of us have similar examples. The problem is that if you buy a DSLR today, you can have the same camera or a better one for 50% less in six months with some bad luck. Thats not depreciation, but wasting money. An even better example would be computers. You know by the time your latest machine is unpacked and running, it's out of date and someone has brought out a cheaper, faster model. We still buy them, and if we want one ~now~ we go and get one. Your point, however, is well made. Malcolm
RE: WAAA!!!
-Original Message- From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $109 to fix my broken AF500FTZ sniff, oh well it must be done I pay $92 every time I have mine fixed. Doesn't seem to matter what's wrong with it. tv
RE: New lenses (was Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
-Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's quite soft. Huh? I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp. So where's that killer portrait lens ? I was looking hard and my best bet was the 100/2.8 macro. The FA 645 150/2.8 is #1! tv
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
I wrote: Well maybe he doesn't jump to conclusion but have gotten the same information I have. I also originally believed that the *ist and *ist D was fully compatible but was told that only lenses with electroning contacts will work fully on the *ist. Actually, I've received contra message that Pentax is indeed changing the specifications (this may explain the conflicting signals initially). However, there may be problems with DOF preview. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Matt wrote: If you walk into the average US camera store, you see two pentax models on the shelf: The ZX-60 and the ZX-L. The *ist will probably take the ZX-L's shelf space, but I just don't see people looking for a $150 camera paying $300 just because somebody claims the *ist is entry level The MZ/ZX series is 8 years old. According to Pentax sources and official info in Japan, Pentax regards the *ist as entry level. It was not my invention. The *ist is the first in a new generation of Pentax bodies. Pål
Re: wrong iso choosen
- Original Message - From: Taz Subject: Re: wrong iso choosen My needs in this department are for example pushing 400 to 800 or 800 to 1600. Thus overexposure isn't my problem. However that I/O switch should cover thatnow if I can just get my local lab to investigate that possibility. This is becoming dangerously close to my starting to rant about how C-41 film cannot be push processed. William Robb
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
- Original Message - From: Caveman Subject: Re: KAF3 lens mount already here? Matt, Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap, entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap and entry level. You get to choose any two of cheap, entry level and flagship. An entry level flagship won't be cheap. A cheap flagship won't be entry level. A cheap entry level won't be a flagship. I really should be fixing my furnace... William Robb
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
Bruce wrote: In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their mount in the next 5, or 10 years. Canon said the same thing about the now obsolete FD mount. They claimed it was the most future proof lens mount out there. It also had an mysterious prong that going to be used for some elusive future feature. Of course it all was bull. Now if small frame DSLR are becoming hits, Canon medium format sized lens mount and lenses may be at a disadvantage. Never say never. Pål
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 1:35 PM, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you want it from Pentax, avoid the very bottom end models, as they are for people who glue their lens on so they won't lose it. No kidding! :-) Reports from Pentax Roadshow indicate that the lens release button on *ist (film) is located differently (location, shape and the direction of push), and this is by design. According to Pentax, it is designed to prevent users from inadvertently touch the button and drop the lens! You know why? William gave the EXACT answer here. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
It all makes sense ... there is no middle ground. I feel much better now. On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:05 PM, Caveman wrote: Matt, Three of the most recurrent expressions in Paal's writing are cheap, entry level and flagship. Anything that's not flagship is cheap and entry level. cheers, caveman Matt Bevers wrote: I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60 $149). There are, however, a number of features that make the *ist attractive to an enthusiast whereas the MZ/ZX-60 is not:
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 15:08:22 -0500, Bruce Rubenstein wrote: In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their mount in the next 5, or 10 years. Most in here are wanting 30-40 year old stuff to work with todays technology. Go back that far with Canon and then do the comparision... :-) Point being that Pentax has supported their legacy stuff far better then Nikon or Canon has over the =long= haul. That is most likely going to change... Never say, never... Later, Gary
RE: WAAA!!!
$109 Cad, new front and rear case, $13 in parts, $7 shipping, taxes, labour, thank Pentax tho the MZ-3 is under warranty ( they said if the pop up went even after they'd still fix it free ) and $109 is still less than a new one. --- tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: Brendan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $109 to fix my broken AF500FTZ sniff, oh well it must be done I pay $92 every time I have mine fixed. Doesn't seem to matter what's wrong with it. tv __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On 03.3.10 2:40 PM, Matt Bevers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I own three M lenses and I might buy an *ist. I know that Pål insists that the *ist is entry level and therefore in the same class as the MZ-60 (despite the fact that at BH the *ist is $299 and the MZ-60 $149). There are, however, a number of features that make the *ist attractive to an enthusiast whereas the MZ/ZX-60 is not: Hi, According to Pentax; 1. *ist is indeed an entry level body. It has to be considered a PS camera with a mirror box(!). 2. But entry cameras from major brands are all very well featured these days. So you cannot judge it an entry level from the feature set alone. 3. *ist is designed to be able to grow with novices who acquire more skill. 4. What differentiate the entry level body from upscale ones is the way it is made. It may not satisfy all the minimum requirements usually observed for the upscale models in terms of tolerance and other elements. But I personally think it is an excellent camera for the money, better than any entry/mid level MZ camera Pentax produced in the past. If you look at the AF/AE features, *ist has everything you wanted and should work very well in the day to day shooting. Whether it has the same feel (texture, weight and finish etc) of upscale model, I doubt it but not many people would care about those. From the price I heard in this list, it seems to be an incredible bang for the money. OTOH., Insistence by Pentax that the first *ist is indeed an entry level model, superior AF/AE system Pentax have developed and from the look of the photos of the machine, all indicate... :-). Just my speculation. Cheers, Ken
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
On Monday, March 10, 2003, at 03:15 PM, Pål Jensen wrote: The MZ/ZX series is 8 years old. According to Pentax sources and official info in Japan, Pentax regards the *ist as entry level. It was not my invention. The *ist is the first in a new generation of Pentax bodies. Are all the new Pentax bodies going to be positioned above the *ist? Is Pentax abandoning the market below the $300 price point? Or is the *ist the first entry in the new line and we might see something cheaper? I hope so, or else Pentax is going be selling a lot fewer SLRs. I told myself I was going to stop responding to this silliness, but unfortunately I have nothing better to do today. If it wasn't so damned cold outside I might actually go take some pictures for a change.
Re: New lenses (was Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?)
tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] FA 135/2.8 - nice focal length, would be great except it's quite soft. Huh? I've never heard anyone make this claim. Mine was very sharp. I was reading Stan Halpin's site, Yoshihiko's comments and the photodo MTF tests. Very mixed results. So where's that killer portrait lens ? I was looking hard and my best bet was the 100/2.8 macro. The FA 645 150/2.8 is #1! ;-) I forgot to mention the FA 200/2.8... If you have plenty of room, it should be great. Unless you have plump models. cheers, caveman
Re: KAF3 lens mount already here?
No where did I say never. It has proven to be the most forward looking mount. The lens mount doesn't have to be changed for a lens with smaller area of coverage. Anyway, it's Canon and they can pretty much call whatever tune they like. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruce wrote: In the most recent 15 year period (1987 - 2003), Canon has had complete, and better compatibility, than Nikon, Minolta or Pentax. The Canon EF mount was designed to transfer information electronically and not back fitted to do so. There is no reason to think that they will change their mount in the next 5, or 10 years. Canon said the same thing about the now obsolete FD mount. They claimed it was the most future proof lens mount out there. It also had an mysterious prong that going to be used for some elusive future feature. Of course it all was bull. Now if small frame DSLR are becoming hits, Canon medium format sized lens mount and lenses may be at a disadvantage. Never say never. Pål
Re: wrong iso choosen
William Rather then rant, why not just tell me what film and process can be pushed in a color print type film. I just want to know how to push film and get it properly processed when I only have a 800 ISO film with me and am told after I'm already there that using my flash is not allowed so that I have other options. Not to mention the fact that I can't even find a 1600 ISO film in the town I live in. The bigger city about 50 miles away has one store that has it some of the time. I scan my own negatives so I very rarely worry about prints from a lab. If this has already been discussed to death and gone over and over...point me to where I can read about it. I don't know how to access the achieves from this group yet. Honestly I'm finding it sad that a simple question is met with so much sarcasm. I wasn't aware that this group is only for advanced amatuers and pros. Now you've got me being sarcasticjssh!!! Taz This is becoming dangerously close to my starting to rant about how C-41 film cannot be push processed. William Robb
