Re: cosina hopes
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just wonder if Cosina could come up with a dslr that would be fully compatible with Pentax K and M lenses. No reason why not, since Pentax released the K mount as an open standard (which is why Vivitar, Ricoh, etc used it). The basic K mount was indeed used by other manufacturers, but not the KAF (with aperture contacts, data transfer contact and AF coupling). Anyone know if this was because Pentax didn't make all this information public or if there just wasn't interest on the part of other manufacturers? -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
POWFolder
This first pic is of the young Lady who lifted her skirt so joyously in a more demure pose,with proof that she was accompanied. http://www.pbase.com/image/26847632 The folder is several days worth of patience shooting skyscapes with an *istD and a Sigma mirror lens-500mm plus a few from the Russian fisheye lens Zenitar-K2,8/16 2.8-22 and a Sigma 70-300mm F4-5.6 Macro Super. http://www.pbase.com/chennedi/skyscapes Any comments welcome.I'm now in training for Stan Halpin's imminent visit to Sydney so probably won't be very sober! Regards Chris Kennedy
My First Front Page
Congrats.Kevin.The first of many I hope. Regards Chris K
Markins M10 Ball Head
Well I finally get my Markins M10 Q ball Head next wednesday.Be nice to be ableto use my longer lenses for a change.Look out moonshot. Regards Chris K
Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk
- Original Message - From: Frits Wüthrich Subject: Re: Prefixes and readibility (was Re: Computer Talk I already do that deleting automatically. But when people take the effort to rename there reply to the original subject name of the thread, then a threading email client still won't show it in the proper thread. It ain't a perfect world thats for sure. William Robb
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
- Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) So I dare you guys to make better tests, using a 6MP camera like the *ist D and an expensive filmscanner. I bet you'll have to stand on the tip of a finger nail, to make scans that than actually match or overpass the digital images. I know that a lot of you own analog Pentax'es as well as a *ist D. So get on with it, please! It would be a better test if the film was printed conventionally, as that removes the scanner from the equation. Essentially, your test is a test of the scanner, not of the film. BTW, while I normally don't bother testing anything formally, I really see it as a waste of effort, I have noticed that prints made from the istD show a remarkable lack of grain at larger print sizes compared to 35mm optical prints, and look sharper too. I think film handles fine detail better, and still has a more subtle pallette than digital, as most digital prints are from 8 bit (256 colour) files, or get converted to it as part of the printing process. This is admittedly an observation made from looking at probably half a million prints and not a measured test, but after a quarter century in the business of manufacturing photographs, I have learned a thing or two about print quality. What you are asking people to do is make a meaningless comparison. At least thats what I think. YMMV William Robb
NG thoughts on PayPal
Gleaned from a newsgroup this a.m.: Here's the most common Paypal scam: You sell somebody something and you're paid with a credit card. You withdraw the funds and ship the item. The buyer receives the item and then calls the credit card company and claims it's defective. The credit card company immediately issues a chargeback, without any kind of investigation. Paypal is the 'merchant of record' and must return the money to the CC company. It then attempts to recover its loss from your Paypal account. If there's no money in it, it is empowered through the terms of service contract you signed to get into your bank account and withdraw whatever it deems is owed it. Finally, your account will be frozen until Paypal arbitrarily decides otherwise. The buyer has your item, you have zero $, and your account is frozen. The credit card company, while enabling the scam and triggering the whole process, is not to blame. It cannot dispute the cardholder's claim that the item is defective, short of sending someone to inspect it personally. It cannot wait to issue a chargeback until the item has been returned to the seller, since the seller himself might be the scammer and claim either the item was perfect when shipped and the buyer damaged it, or it was damaged in shipping, or any other excuse. Paypal is also caught in the middle. It has lost money, namely, the amount you withdrew from your account before you mailed the item. It has a choice of either absorbing the loss or going after your money with all its resources. Guess which one it will do? And can you blame it? The system is inherently impossible to fix because the seller is not the 'merchant of record' and has no recourse with the credit card company. I'm fairly active on eBay and, as a seller, will not accept Paypal for more than $100 precisely because of this scam. But as a buyer I will use Paypal every time and pay only with a credit card. Bob G
Re: Pentax Daddy-D: better compatibility with K and M lenses (was something else)
You could just have a single calibrate button. Point the camera with lens attached at a scene that isn't going to change much during the half-second or so it takes to calibrate the lens*, and the camera scans through a hundred or so possible aperture-coupler positions and records the position that's closest to each half-stop. Having a method of storing the settings for each of the lenses in your collection would be the icing on the cake. It's perfectly feasible - the mechanical problem is certainly no harder than positioning the heads on a hard disk. You'd have to tell the user to close the aperture to its narrowest limit before calibrating, but other than that, I think that the method gives the camera all the information it needs. Including, I think, the lens information required to enable matrix-metering. :-D Now, whether Pentax would ever consider investing the RD money required to produce such a camera, given that it could only have a negative impact on their lens sales, is another question entirely... ;-) S *or just sell a range of lens-caps with built-in calibration light-sources... John Mustarde wrote: If the Daddy-D comes with full aperture coupling, driven by a stepper motor or some such, Pentax could build a settings function, whereby the camera remembers the aperture lever positioning requirements for any particular lens. This would calibrate each lens one by one to compensate for any difference in linearity of its aperture mechanism. The setting function would be primarily for K and M lenses, but could be used for any lens operated in manual aperture mode. The operator would input settings for each lens, perhaps based on in-camera histogram level tests made with the exact lens to be used, limited perhaps to even f-stops for simplicity. Plus the operator would choose that setting each time the lens in question was mounted. But it is possible to do this, if driving the aperture actuation lever position can be computerized and individualized. It's also likely very usable if the setting was one-button and you just had to quickly press through the two or twelve K lenses you own to get to the one you were about to mount. So you attach your M20/f4, assign it a name within the camera computer (like M20/4), take exposures at each aperture click stop, calibrate a curve using the histogram for each f-stop, check exposure, loop back if needed until the exposures are spot-on at each aperture, save the setting, then do the same for the old Vivitar Series 1 90-180/4.5 Flat Field Macro Zoom (Viv90-180), followed by the M200/2.5, etc until every K or M lens in your bag had its name and calibration in memory. This is a simple calibration sequence like those used in industry every day. Switching the lenses around would require selecting the name of the lens from a menu or better yet a single-purpose button. Sounds very feasible, and very much a value add proposition for the Daddy-D to me. I'd pay and extra fifty bucks for this feature. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
On 11 Mar 2004 at 18:46, Joseph Tainter wrote: Overall I prefer the Pentax conversion. When I first looked at this I thought Oh, , I will have to get Windows XP and PS CS. Looking at the images more closely, perhaps I don't need to after all. I just managed to have a quick look at the large composite image, I'm amazed. To my mind the Pentax convertor image (left) looks like it was taken with an inferior lens. I see loss of detail and micro-contrast. Look at the detail in the lips, the eyes, and cheeks it's virtually filtered out in the Pentax version. Then in the Pentax image there is an hideous over sharpened look which can clearly be seen on the boarder of the jacket and background foliage and on the light blue to dark blue transition on the hood. The background foliage also seems to have acquired strange blotches of colour which look reminiscent of jpg low compression artifacts. My vote goes to the CS convertor (right image) I think it's got far more pleasing attributes technically. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
OT: Re: CAW - Radio Caroline
On 12/3/04, STAN THE MAN disgorged: I don't know Radio Caroline but I would guess that all three are hard to stop consuming once you have started, but after two or three hours you will regret it. Stan (drinking some home brew with no regrets. Except that his source only gave him one bottle to test.) Cotty wrote: Conundrum A Week Just gone 11pm. Sat in a hotel room at Gatwick. What do Radio Caroline, Port, and peanuts (salted) have in common? Close enough. Radio Caroline was a pirate radio station based aboard a small ship that was anchored off the coast of the UK back in the 70s, and so could transmit outside of the UK's (then) archaic controls. I have a 3 CD set kept as MP3s on iTunes and was listening last night as I sat reading email in a hotel room near London. The Port was in the back of the Land Rover - a Christmas present to a colleague that never made it. The peanuts I grabbed from home before I left. I had to be up at 5.30 am to meet film this man: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/3531667.stm as he returned to the UK after rowing across the Atlantic So the answer to this week's CAW is that those three things mean sad old git having a party. Coming soon: HAW - Horse A Week: Gastronomy the French way Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: digital leica thing
On 11 Mar 2004 at 23:13, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The mere fact that Epson/Cosina put an M mount in a rangefinder body in front of a digital sensor (kudos to Sony for spooning that now-outdated chip into another camera...) does not mean that it will WORK WELL Leica could be right, and Epson/Cosina foolish or naive. My prediction: It doesn't have to work well, it's just like the *ist D, IOW the only option. It will sell very well even if it has problems with some of the ultra wides (you'll note that there are a number of lenses listed as incompatible, only one current lens is listed and it's not a wide angle). People will buy the Leica when/if it ever comes out but more people (including die-hard Leicaphiles) will buy the Epson/Cosina regardless. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: My first front page
On 12/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Just pays to keep that *istD with you at all times. and a link... http://www.wildcherry.com.au/index.php?p=photophoto_id=19 Kevin Nice one Kevin. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: NG thoughts on PayPal
Collin Brendemuehl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gleaned from a newsgroup this a.m.: Here's the most common Paypal scam: You sell somebody something and you're paid with a credit card. You withdraw the funds and ship the item. The buyer receives the item and then calls the credit card company and claims it's defective. The credit card company immediately issues a chargeback, without any kind of investigation. This where this scam becomes an urban legend, I think. Pay Pal isn't a merchant at all, they're basically a cash transfer service. Technically, you don't pay for any physical product with a credit card via Pay Pal, you pay Pay Pal for a SERVICE: Sending money to someone. As long as Pay Pal can prove that they have indeed sent the correct amount of money to the correct person, they've fulfilled their obligations and the credit card company has no grounds for a chargeback. In fact, Pay Pal has been subject to a lot of outrage from people who got ripped off by eBay sellers and discovered they *couldn't* get a chargeback for defective or undelivered merchandise. Using your credit card on Pay Pal is exactly like taking a cash advance on your credit card and wiring the money to someone: You can't get your money back from the credit card company (or the wire service) if the person you sent it to reneges on their end of the deal. The recent buyer protection plan offered by Pay Pal and eBay is an attempt to address this problem. I believe that it's still an option left up to the seller, though. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Kirk plates for ist-D
Well just for you Herb, because you alerted me to its availability... I opened the PZ-87, took the grip off my ist-D, and tried the mounting plate. If anything, it fits better on the camera body than the PZ-88 does on the Grip. And, yes, it allows you to access either the normal or the backup battery compartment. These guys are good. Stan Herb Chong wrote: i'm ordering mine today. does it clear the second battery compartment for the backup battery? Herb - Original Message - From: Stan Halpin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 12:50 AM Subject: Kirk plates for ist-D In the interim I had been using a generic 3-inch Wimberly plate on my *ist-D with the Grip mounted. That combination was not good: the plate blocked the battery door just enough that the plate had to be removed to change batteries. The custom Kirk plate allows just enough room for the battery door to swing up just far enough to change batteries.
OT: Cyclists only.
http://www.atomiczombie.com/
Re: My first front page
Good work Kevin. I hope there will be more. Congrats! Attila
RE: Can you discriminate between grays?
That's pretty freaky. I could *swear* that those greys were different shades until I saw the video at one website where they showed them being moved into and then out of the design. It's scary how they seemed to change according to the context. Just goes to show how subjective our perception can be. chris On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: Wow! I'm a little disturbed. But then again, I knew that. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Can you discriminate between grays? The images contained the following URLs illustrate colour ambiguity, or how easily the eyes and gray matter can be fooled: http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Dale%27s%20Illusion1.jpg http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Colorcross1.html I makes you wonder if naturally occurring illusions may be the reason that some images look wrong but are near impossible to quantify why? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: digital leica thing
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Herb Chong wrote: Sanyo is the world's largest digital camera manufacturer at about 20 million units last year. virtually none of their cameras are sold under the Sanyo brand name or any brand name owned by Sanyo. Where did you hear this? I'm curious about what cameras they've made. chris
RE: Cyclists only.
Very cool. Some of the designs are quite impressive. I ride an underseat steering recumbent myself. Kind of like a lawn chair on wheels.
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to. I agree that digital cameras are usually underrated and that many tend to produce good photos up to 8x10, but I don't really see the point of your second paragraph. For everyday photography, people just need film and a camera... why would they need a $1000+ scanner and computer? You seem to be making the assumption that people intend to scan all of their prints, but that's a wildly general statement. Why would you have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with digital images? Again, for most people the object is to get prints, not scans. I get prints made from my film cameras, and if I scan the negs at all it's to view them on a computer monitor, which mean that a cheap low-res scan will more than suffice. The majority of film photographers does not keep both negatives and high-res scans for the archives. That being said, I agree that digital cameras produce prints up to 8x10 that are perfectly acceptable for the majority of people who take pictures. chris
PAW: more vultures
Sorry, it's two shots, but I'd like comments on which is better (if any). http://home.mindspring.com/~c_skofteland/id7.html I'm impressed with the level of detail (especially the full-sized images). I'm a little disappointed that I cut off the wingtip in the second image. Shot with the D and Sigma 300/4 + 1.4x TC, hand-held, iso 400, f5.6ish and really fast shutter speed. Resized for the web but not cropped. Thanks! Christian
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
I also disagree with the second paragraph, for the occasional shooter, most of which just want 4x6 color prints, film cameras and film are far most cost efficient in both time and money. shoot the roll, drop it off, get the prints. Digital requires much more time involvement in editing the files and deciding what to deliver to the printer and even more time if you try to do the printing at home. Since you have to pay for your prints from a processor or doing yourself at home, there isnt much money saved, just film and film developing costs by using a film camera. There are still many people who do not want to fool around with digital cameras, they are far more complicated to use than the film point and shoots to use properly for the non-hobbyist. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:19 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to.
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) There are still many people who do not want to fool around with digital cameras, they are far more complicated to use than the film point and shoots to use properly for the non-hobbyist. This is one of my ongoing work related problems with digital cameras. Daily, I have to deal with people who have files that are too small, incorrect formats, badly set up sharpening parameters, etc. If they can do it wrong, odds are, they will. Topping it off, for the non computer user, they are getting all their files printed anyway, which negates the only possible financial advantage of the digital camera. William Robb
FS: user KX, user ME, nice K50/1.4, SMC-T 35/3.5, adapter
Hello all: This is surplus and gathering dust and I have some medical bills to pay (I recently had back surgery, glad to say it was successful). If anyone's interested: 1) User KX -- everything works fine except self-timer. $70 2) User ME -- everything works fine except frame counter reset and mirror foam isn't that great. $30 3) K50/1.4 -- a few smallish use marks on the aperture ring and on the filter ring, odd specks of dust, but really in nice condition, clean and good diaphragm (and if this were eBay I could say that it is minty, whatever that is supposed to mean) -- $55 4) User SMC Takumar 35/3.5, somewhat sluggish diapghragm, slight fungus at very edge of front element, $15 5) Generic Japan-made M42 to K adapter $6 E-mail for further details; prefer money order. Add shipping to all prices. If my prices strike you as ridiculous, make an offer! Thanks, Aaron Bransky
Re: unique K2
Dario is right. I speculated that Asahi had planned this years before. When the K line was presented to the public in 1975, I think Asahi had already thought about an LX (60) to be presented in 1980, the 60th anniversary of Asahi Optical. Cheers, Andre I dunno. I got that off of AOHC's website... blame Dario... ;-) Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 6:06 PM Subject: Re: unique K2 They must have settled on this before the 1975 KX was launched. The 1980 LX was probably developped over a period of at least 5 years... Andre LX = 60 as in 60th anniversary of Asahi Optical Christian - Original Message - From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I also wonder if X as in KX, ZX-M, etc, has been used in any consistant nomenclature sense. It could stand for old fashioned, essentially. I'd argue for mechanical but for the ZX series. Or X-cellent. Or X as a variable, thus cameras where the user's input is needed. But it's only true for the KX, MX and ZX-M... Andre
Re: OT: Cyclists only.
Sweet! Thanks for the link. I'd love a Highlander Chopper and SkyCycle myself. chris On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Malcolm Smith wrote: http://www.atomiczombie.com/
Re: PAW: more vultures
I think the second is a lot more visually stunning, but, as you said, it's a shame about the cut-off wingtips. The first one has good composition, but it doesn't have as much light shining through the feathers, and there's not enough body detail for my liking. I'd say you came very close with both, but didn't quite achieve most excellent! status. :) chris On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Christian wrote: Sorry, it's two shots, but I'd like comments on which is better (if any). http://home.mindspring.com/~c_skofteland/id7.html I'm impressed with the level of detail (especially the full-sized images). I'm a little disappointed that I cut off the wingtip in the second image. Shot with the D and Sigma 300/4 + 1.4x TC, hand-held, iso 400, f5.6ish and really fast shutter speed. Resized for the web but not cropped. Thanks! Christian
RE: Can you discriminate between grays?
I actually had to open them in PS to convince myself. I showed it to number 7 and she insisted something must be wrong with PS. Freaky. tv -Original Message- From: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:01 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Can you discriminate between grays? That's pretty freaky. I could *swear* that those greys were different shades until I saw the video at one website where they showed them being moved into and then out of the design. It's scary how they seemed to change according to the context. Just goes to show how subjective our perception can be. chris On Thu, 11 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote: Wow! I'm a little disturbed. But then again, I knew that. David Madsen mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.davidmadsen.com -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 7:36 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Can you discriminate between grays? The images contained the following URLs illustrate colour ambiguity, or how easily the eyes and gray matter can be fooled: http://www-bcs.mit.edu/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Dale%27s%20Illusion1.jpg http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/Colorcross1.html I makes you wonder if naturally occurring illusions may be the reason that some images look wrong but are near impossible to quantify why? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
Willam Robb I think the test will make a lot of sence to a lot of people, who are in doubts about going digital or investing further in analog equipment. all the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. marts 2004 14:29 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) So I dare you guys to make better tests, using a 6MP camera like the *ist D and an expensive filmscanner. I bet you'll have to stand on the tip of a finger nail, to make scans that than actually match or overpass the digital images. I know that a lot of you own analog Pentax'es as well as a *ist D. So get on with it, please! It would be a better test if the film was printed conventionally, as that removes the scanner from the equation. Essentially, your test is a test of the scanner, not of the film. BTW, while I normally don't bother testing anything formally, I really see it as a waste of effort, I have noticed that prints made from the istD show a remarkable lack of grain at larger print sizes compared to 35mm optical prints, and look sharper too. I think film handles fine detail better, and still has a more subtle pallette than digital, as most digital prints are from 8 bit (256 colour) files, or get converted to it as part of the printing process. This is admittedly an observation made from looking at probably half a million prints and not a measured test, but after a quarter century in the business of manufacturing photographs, I have learned a thing or two about print quality. What you are asking people to do is make a meaningless comparison. At least thats what I think. YMMV William Robb
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
True. I guess a lot of people buy a digital camera just to be at the cutting edge of things. And to get rid of expensive film - and the can redo faulty shots right away. They can even see if the results are OK at a glance - so they don't have to know anything about photographing in advance - they can learn fast by trial and error. It's not because of a better image quality. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. marts 2004 16:31 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) There are still many people who do not want to fool around with digital cameras, they are far more complicated to use than the film point and shoots to use properly for the non-hobbyist. This is one of my ongoing work related problems with digital cameras. Daily, I have to deal with people who have files that are too small, incorrect formats, badly set up sharpening parameters, etc. If they can do it wrong, odds are, they will. Topping it off, for the non computer user, they are getting all their files printed anyway, which negates the only possible financial advantage of the digital camera. William Robb
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
Hi Chris In Denmark 90% of all people have have an intenet connection at home. These are the highest figures on the world, I believe. Millions of people all over the world don't have a computer. They want prints from their photographs! Only a few percent, photo-enthusiasts, bother to spend hours at the computer to manipulate or edit digital images or to scan film. If most people want 4x6 prints a digital camera surely is a very attractive alternative to using film. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Chris Brogden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. marts 2004 16:19 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to. I agree that digital cameras are usually underrated and that many tend to produce good photos up to 8x10, but I don't really see the point of your second paragraph. For everyday photography, people just need film and a camera... why would they need a $1000+ scanner and computer? You seem to be making the assumption that people intend to scan all of their prints, but that's a wildly general statement. Why would you have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with digital images? Again, for most people the object is to get prints, not scans. I get prints made from my film cameras, and if I scan the negs at all it's to view them on a computer monitor, which mean that a cheap low-res scan will more than suffice. The majority of film photographers does not keep both negatives and high-res scans for the archives. That being said, I agree that digital cameras produce prints up to 8x10 that are perfectly acceptable for the majority of people who take pictures. chris
Re: My first front page
Hi! No matter the size but this is a success. So c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s are in order! Boris
Re: FS: user KX, user ME, nice K50/1.4, SMC-T 35/3.5, adapter
I'm interested in the M42-K adaptor. (Well, of the things I'm interested in, that's the one I can afford.) Has it already been claimed? -- Glenn
Re: FS: user KX, user ME, nice K50/1.4, SMC-T 35/3.5, adapter
ARGH! Bitten by the header-rewrite _again_. I very carefully make sure to issue the reply only to sender command, forgetting that the PDML setup rewrites Reply-To:, and ... Bleah. I _know_ what I _told_ my MUA to do! -- Glenn
Personal to Boris Liberman
Okay, *this* time I'm intentionally sending a personal message to the list. Boris, I just sent you private email, but I'm posting this as well because the last message I sent you apparently fell into a black hole in the net or something. So this is a diagnostic: if you see this post but not the private message, we know there's a delivery problem other than a one-time glitch. -- Glenn
RE: PAW: guitar
From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Which points out that studying graphic design is another way to improve your photography. I wonder what Amita's instructor had to say about the shot. Which I like, by the way. Thanks! I'm just learning basic design concepts, but it's already helped me see things differently. This shot was just one of 44 that I needed for this project. The instructor pointed out a couple of others that I took but he didn't say anything about this one. Amita
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/rd1top.jpg A photo showing part of the RD1 top, including the gauge ...
Re: Personal to Boris Liberman
Hi! DGAJ Okay, *this* time I'm intentionally sending a personal message to DGAJ the list. DGAJ Boris, I just sent you private email, but I'm posting this as DGAJ well because the last message I sent you apparently fell into DGAJ a black hole in the net or something. So this is a diagnostic: DGAJ if you see this post but not the private message, we know there's DGAJ a delivery problem other than a one-time glitch. It is 19:10 (7:10 pm) local time and I've received this message you sent to the list. I haven't yet received the personal one. Let's wait a little. Thanks. Boris
Re: those tests
There's nothing wrong with getting prints (the old-fashioned way), but I can see it getting increasingly pointless. Why bother getting prints made when all your friends and family have internet access? Unless you see them on a daily basis, sharing your photos via a website is probably a better solution all round. Speaking personally, until I can afford a DSLR which meets my needs, I'll stick to getting my films developed and scanning the negatives, primarily for that reason. S [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What's wrong with the old-fashioned take film to the photofinisher and get prints approach? Why not buy a cheap film point-and-shoot for substantially less than the modern digital camera? Since when was Pentax accused of making bulky and expensive SLRs? The film-plus-computer-and-scanner thing is at the moment perhaps the WORST route for normal uses because it is expensive and tends to lose quality. However, what this really replaces is a FULL COLOR DARKROOM because it gives you custom control and such. For normal uses, this is overkill and you'd be better off taking your film to the corner store. Computer-based photoprocessing is really only for people who need electronic format output, or need digital editing. The photofinishing industry has been trying very hard to remove the need for computers from the digital camera workflow--the pool of computer-owning, computer-literate snapshooters is a lot smaller than the pool of people who can take their digital PS to the corner store and get prints made.
MX readout
I'm still looking lustfully at the new Topcon-styled silver Bessa TM thing with M42 screw mount. If it had something better than an MX-style exposure readout I'd probably already have one. DJE I always thought of the MX readout as a good one. It shows clearly half-stops, while the LX shows only full stops. One could argue that the needle shows smaller fractions of a stop, though. What are the defects of the MX readout? Which K-mount (or S-mount) cameras have a better one? Andre
Re: Not my PAW but just wanted to share
Was this a quarter horse? Great shot! Rider in total control. So was the horse, for that matter! Beautiful! keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Going through some shots and i thought i'd share this one with ya all.One of the better ones. Dave http://www.caughtinmotion.com/SLIDE_4728.JPG
Re: OT: language Re: CAW - Radio Caroline
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Keith Whaley wrote: I have a 3 CD set kept as MP3s on iTunes and was listening last night as I sat reading email in a hotel room near London. The Port was in the back of the Land Rover - a Christmas present to a colleague that never made it. The peanuts I grabbed from home before I left. Don't you just love the unintentional ambiguity of the English language? [snip] Was it the colleague that didn't make it, or the port that never GOT to the colleague? g keith Well, technically, that should refer to the port, as who should be used to refer to a person. Taking this back on topic, it's a beautiful day outside and I can't wait for my laundry to finish drying so I can take the 67II out and give that new Kodak 100UC (Ultra Colour) print film a try. I've shot the 400UC in 35mm and am not happy with the grain when blown up to 8x12. Hopefully shooing MedF will make a difference there, and the fact that's it's now available in 100 can't hurt either. :) I'll probably take the extension tubes out with the 45mm and shoot some wide angle macros. It's only -8 C, which is balmy for Winnipeg. chris
Re: Not my PAW but just wanted to share
Was this a quarter horse? Yes it is. Great shot! Rider in total control. So was the horse, for that matter! Beautiful! Thanks,this is 1 of 12 the Ontario Reining Horse Association wants to use to update their photo displays.Printing starts tonight.LOL Dave keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Going through some shots and i thought i'd share this one with ya all.One of the better ones. Dave http://www.caughtinmotion.com/SLIDE_4728.JPG
Re: Not my PAW but just wanted to share
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Going through some shots and i thought i'd share this one with ya all.One of the better ones. Dave http://www.caughtinmotion.com/SLIDE_4728.JPG Absolutely beautiful, Dave. I love the dust clouds... they're amazing. It looks as if the dust was actually attacking the horse and dragging it down. You didn't ask for a critique so I won't do one, but I'd be proud to have shot this. chris
Re: Not my PAW but just wanted to share
Dave, Now that is cool! Gotta believe you sold that one. Well done, Bruce Thursday, March 11, 2004, 9:38:09 PM, you wrote: bcin Hi all. bcin Going through some shots and i thought i'd share this one bcin with ya all.One of the better bcin ones. bcin Dave bcin http://www.caughtinmotion.com/SLIDE_4728.JPG
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
You point out the obvious, Jens. For digital images digital cameras work better. Now prove that they make better analog images. And I don't mean digital prints from film scans, I mean custom optical prints. A couple years back I had the opportunity to see some large prints (24x30)from 8x10 slides, digital and Ilfochrome. Needless to say both were state of the art. The scans were 115 megabytes each, a bit higher than you can get with a digital camera. The analog prints showed better highlight detail, but other than that you could not tell much difference from normal viewing distances. So there is no question that digital can match analog, but it is going to cost you. However comparing web images from the two is almost always going to show the direct digital to be better. And if that is your ultimate use then go buy a 2mp digicam and be done with it. On the other hand the convenience, and ease of transmission makes digital a hands down winner in almost any but the most discriminating circumstances. Also nowadays almost all publication printing is done digitally so starting with a direct digital image saves big bucks. I don't think anyone but a diehard luddite would say that digital does not pretty much obsolete 35mm for most commercial uses. As a hobby, however, we can do what we want. I have moved back into the 40's and 50's for my serious photography. Even before digital some hobbyists had moved back into the early 20th (so called, alternative processes), or even the 19th century (Daguerreotype). There is something to be said for the satisfaction of doing it the old way. -- Jens Bladt wrote: Thanks Lasse In Denmark it's: Utak er verdens løn. Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest. For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to. I also saw, that some of my old lenses show considerable chromatic aberrations. And that for small enlargemts (less than A3) the reslution of a 5MP camera is more than enough. Actually I believe, that for photgraps up to a slide-show size of 1,2x1,8 meters (50 times enlargement) the higher resulution of a 35mm neg will be insignificant. So I dare you guys to make better tests, using a 6MP camera like the *ist D and an expensive filmscanner. I bet you'll have to stand on the tip of a finger nail, to make scans that than actually match or overpass the digital images. I know that a lot of you own analog Pentax'es as well as a *ist D. So get on with it, please! I will, however order professional scans (40MP) shortly and then republish the results. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Lasse Karlsson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 12. marts 2004 01:04 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Lasse Karlsson Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) Well, well, Jens. Here you do all this work and effort in order to offer the list some useful insights, and what do you get in the true spirit of PDML - a whole lot of complaints about your testing procedure... :-) Lasse, if the testing procedure was flawed (note, I don't know, I didn't read the thread), then expect it to get complained about. [snipped about testing procedures] Just to make it clear: One thing I like very much about the PDML is that you can't get away with anything here. Any statement, no matter how unimportant, OT, tongue-in-cheek, off track etc, will thoroughly get tried and tested, challenged, turned over and upside down, counter acted upon, not seldom to the degree of enjoyable absurdity (as well as occasional annoyance). Particularly I like it, since the PDML, still (for most of the time) can maintain an overall civility in dealing with any controversial issues. I feel very much at home with this, since I'm a general sceptic(?) and one who hardly won't take anything for truth. I also think I have a great awareness of problems and difficulties with scientific testing procedures in any field of expertise. I am particularly on my guard regarding statements and statistics presented as facts in areas where I cannot on personal knowledge or merits judge or evaluate statements presented. As for Jens' test, most of what was being observed and complained about seem to be very valid points, which Jens also acknowledged unless I'm mistaken. My post to Jens was simply a word of appreciation of the work
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
If you think of digital as a pocketable Polaroid that doesn't cost an arm and a leg per print, then you can easily see the reason for the popularity to snapshooters. Strangly enough, I know of many who never do anything but look at them on the LCD. When they get their 100 or minimal jpegs used up they just let the next one overwrite one of the others. In other words they use it as a toy. I think that by next Christmas a 2mp, 3x zoom, digital PS will be under $100, so they are priced as toys also. -- Jens Bladt wrote: True. I guess a lot of people buy a digital camera just to be at the cutting edge of things. And to get rid of expensive film - and the can redo faulty shots right away. They can even see if the results are OK at a glance - so they don't have to know anything about photographing in advance - they can learn fast by trial and error. It's not because of a better image quality. All the best -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: Not my PAW but just wanted to share
They will be proud to have a shot like this one to include in their displays. It displays rider-horse control at it's best. In my most humble opinion anyhow. . . keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Was this a quarter horse? Yes it is. Great shot! Rider in total control. So was the horse, for that matter! Beautiful! Thanks,this is 1 of 12 the Ontario Reining Horse Association wants to use to update their photo displays.Printing starts tonight.LOL Dave keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all. Going through some shots and i thought i'd share this one with ya all.One of the better ones. Dave http://www.caughtinmotion.com/SLIDE_4728.JPG
Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
Hi, Michel Carrère-Gée wrote: Shel Belinkoff a écrit : http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/rd1top.jpg A photo showing part of the RD1 top, including the gauge ... The Epson page http://www.i-love-epson.co.jp/products/rd1/rd11.htm Interesting that it has a film plane mark. Seems to be quite a bit forward from where I would expect a real one to be. I'm a bit confused about the picture quality markings. N = naff, H = hard to tell it's not film, R = rocket science? Or normal, high, RAW? mike
Re: Gulls photos
Patience and luck is what is needed to get great photos. It is far more important than what camera, lens, film, tripod, etc. you use. However, it is what most of us, and I certainly include myself, lack. When you think of it some of the great photographers spend days getting that one particular shot. -- Boros Attila wrote: It also needs lots of patience and good luck to get a good angle for shooting. I was staying on that brigde for 3 hours, and I shot 2 rolls of film. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
RE: A tax question for EU residents
Yes. Customs and tax (25% of the bottom line - shipping and all). I germay 17% +. In Denmark totally about 30%. All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. marts 2004 00:21 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: OT: A tax question for EU residents If I shipped a used camera from Australia that was purchased new (with tax paid) from a vendor inside the EU to an EU member country would it attract a second round of tax? Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
daddy-D
John had a complicated method for getting a *istD successor to correctly operate K and M lenses with camera-aperture-control. Nikon has a similar scheme in the D2h to allow matrix metering and such with older CPU-less lenses, which is odd since the FA of 1983 could do it without the manual input of information. Wouldn't it be simpler to build a daddy-D with an aperture-tracking-tab so that it could meter correctly at full aperture, but NOT attempt to overcome the difference in aperture-lever travel between K/M and A/F/FA lens lines. It would let you use your K and M lenses in aperture-priority and manual just like you always did, and more modern lenses with all the newfangled modes. Pentax could top this off by re-issuing some of the older lenses in FA variants for people who just have to have P mode with their 18/3.5. If the camera knows when it's got an A or better lens mounted due to electronic communication, it could refuse to go into advanced exposure modes unless it found a modern lens attached--just give a snippy error message. DJE
RE: RAW Conversion comparison
At first look, the edge still has more jaggies than Photoshop, but definitely better than the 'black halo' of PhotoLab. The softness is the initial impression, but this can soon be sorted, and colour brought into line. There seems to be a little less detail in your image than either PhotoLab of PhotoShop at the final stage though - is this just the sharpening method they employ creating the impression of detail? Maybe if I were better at this sharpening lark I could sort that out. Thanks for the comparison, makes one wonder how Pentax could have gotten it soo wrong... I am gonna try Genzo later to have a look at that too, but the product is a GUI nightmare! What plans do you have for your conversion? Seems like a lot of people will eventually looking for 3rd party options before long... -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 March 2004 18:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison To do the test quickly I did not try to colour correct any of the images, merely clicked on a grey point and left it at that. Because the Pentax software doesn't allow for accuracy of cliking in the tiny image, it is quite likely that the colour differences have something to do with my not clicking on exactly the same spot in each image. The main thing I was trying to show was the bad bayer interpolation of the Pentax Software, as many were not believing there could be that much difference. I think it is definitely worth investigating other products whether that be CS, DCRAW or custom made software... Maybe if you do, you will be enabled after all! OK - here's as close to the RAW sensor data as you are likely to get. http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/pef1127.jpg The only processing done here to go frow raw sensor data to RGB is: o Fill in missing sample values (average of closest neighbours) o Scale the R/G/B values based on what I believe to be the white balance scaling stored in the raw file by the camera. o Convert from linear to sRGB colour space.
Re: Gulls photos
I agree. Luck is always a part of it, but patience is the largest part. One of the biggest revelations I ever had a photographer was when I realized that the light was at least as, and often more, important than the subject itself. A snapshooter will take a photo of something that interests them, regardless of what the light is like. Someone more advanced will wait until the light is interesting before finding a subject. A still more advanced photographer will prioritize the subject like the snapshooter, but will have the patience to wait until the light is perfect before photographing it in earnest. I'm still more of the second one, but I'm trying to move to the third level. chris On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, graywolf wrote: Patience and luck is what is needed to get great photos. It is far more important than what camera, lens, film, tripod, etc. you use. However, it is what most of us, and I certainly include myself, lack. When you think of it some of the great photographers spend days getting that one particular shot. -- Boros Attila wrote: It also needs lots of patience and good luck to get a good angle for shooting. I was staying on that brigde for 3 hours, and I shot 2 rolls of film. -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: MX readout
From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm still looking lustfully at the new Topcon-styled silver Bessa TM thing with M42 screw mount. If it had something better than an MX-style exposure readout I'd probably already have one. DJE I always thought of the MX readout as a good one. It shows clearly half-stops, while the LX shows only full stops. One could argue that the needle shows smaller fractions of a stop, though. BTW, I'm not sure the cosina camera has more then 3 LEDs (- 0 +) What are the defects of the MX readout? Which K-mount (or S-mount) cameras have a better one? Andre I find the +- 1 stop range of the readout to be limiting, although the half-stop precision is an improvement over many similar systems. The Spotmatics, K1000, and ME super share this problem, whereas any match-needle (or the LX needle-LED) system gives you a greater range except at the extreme ends. This would put K2 and KX on my good list, along with LX and Super Program. I'm not familiar with anything in the AF era. Having used the electronic analog readouts in the Nikon F4 and F5--which show +-2 stops in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments--I'm spoiled. I can remember fussing with settings on older cameras to figure out HOW FAR under or over the meter thought I was. Not a problem for slower working styles, but a challenge for active tricky-light shooting. Of course Nikon had to make up for the crummy readout in the F3... DJE
Re: daddy-D
I like the idea. I don't expect Pentax to do it. Jim From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 14:17:15 -0600 (CST) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: daddy-D Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:39:24 -0500 John had a complicated method for getting a *istD successor to correctly operate K and M lenses with camera-aperture-control. Nikon has a similar scheme in the D2h to allow matrix metering and such with older CPU-less lenses, which is odd since the FA of 1983 could do it without the manual input of information. Wouldn't it be simpler to build a daddy-D with an aperture-tracking-tab so that it could meter correctly at full aperture, but NOT attempt to overcome the difference in aperture-lever travel between K/M and A/F/FA lens lines. It would let you use your K and M lenses in aperture-priority and manual just like you always did, and more modern lenses with all the newfangled modes. Pentax could top this off by re-issuing some of the older lenses in FA variants for people who just have to have P mode with their 18/3.5. If the camera knows when it's got an A or better lens mounted due to electronic communication, it could refuse to go into advanced exposure modes unless it found a modern lens attached--just give a snippy error message. DJE
Re: MX readout
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Having used the electronic analog readouts in the Nikon F4 and F5--which show +-2 stops in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments--I'm spoiled. I can remember fussing with settings on older cameras to figure out HOW FAR under or over the meter thought I was. Not a problem for slower working styles, but a challenge for active tricky-light shooting. You would like the modern Pentax bodies then. My ZX-5n and *ist D both show 1/2 stop (or maybe 1/3rd stop) increments with +/- 2 stops (it might even be 3 stops on the ZX-5n, it has been a while). The bottom of http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxistd/page3.asp shows the viewfinder readout. alex
SP1000 half-frame
Has anyone ever seen one of these before? I assume it's a third-party modification, as there's nothing to indicate on the body that it was designed by Pentax that way, but it's very well done. chris
April PUG theme?
The PUG seems to be down right now, so does anyone remember the theme for April? Thanks, chris
Re: April PUG theme?
Curves -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, March 12, 2004, 1:20:40 PM, you wrote: CB The PUG seems to be down right now, so does anyone remember the theme for CB April? CB Thanks, CB chris
Re: April PUG theme?
I refuse to try to remember. . .that's a fool's quest! keith G Chris Brogden wrote: The PUG seems to be down right now, so does anyone remember the theme for April? Thanks, chris
digital PS follies
Sanyo is the world's largest digital camera manufacturer at about 20 million units last year. virtually none of their cameras are sold under the Sanyo brand name or any brand name owned by Sanyo. Where did you hear this? I'm curious about what cameras they've made. chris Probably nothing we've heard of. Those little cheap digital PS things probably sell a lot, and there are far fewer companies actually making them than putting their names on them. I understand that something like 50 million digital cameras were sold last year, but that is almost certainly primarily webcams, cheap PSes, etc. SLRs must be a minority of camera sales. Digital imaging is becoming pervasive because at the webcam level it is small enough and cheap enough to put almost anywhere (phones, PDAs, etc). I myself have a handful of webcams, a pencam-gadget, a $100 HP digital PS, and a PDA-cam. Topping it off, for the non computer user, they are getting all their files printed anyway, which negates the only possible financial advantage of the digital camera. William Robb It still saves the cost of film and developing. The break-even point for a cheap digital camera is a lot lower than for a DSLR, perhaps low enough to actually save money for an active PS user given the roughly $10 per roll to buy C-41 film and have it processed. As was pointed out, some of them may NOT be getting files printed at all, and just keeping them on the computer and e-mailing them to friends. DJE
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
- Original Message - From: Rob Brigham [EMAIL PROTECTED] The main thing I was trying to show was the bad bayer interpolation of the Pentax Software, as many were not believing there could be that much difference. I think it is definitely worth investigating other products whether that be CS, DCRAW or custom made software... Maybe if you do, you will be enabled after all! The piccies you posted scared me enough to download the CS and have a go. After some initial playing around, it seems that the dark-fringe-at-high-contrast-edges from the Pentax software can be duplicated in PhShp CS by boosting the sharpening during the RAW-import. Dunno if my conclusion from this is right, but to me it seems that it is the sharpening algorithm rather than the Bayer interpolation itself that is the culprit in the Pentax software. Jostein
Re: April PUG theme?
Thanks! chris On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Bruce Dayton wrote: Curves -- Best regards, Bruce Friday, March 12, 2004, 1:20:40 PM, you wrote: CB The PUG seems to be down right now, so does anyone remember the theme for CB April? CB Thanks, CB chris
Re: PAW: Heron in the Mist
Joseph - It was Kodak Gold 200 ASA film. -- Fred Widall, Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] URL: http://www.ist.uwaterloo.ca/~fwwidall --
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
John Francis wrote: OK - here's as close to the RAW sensor data as you are likely to get. http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/pef1127.jpg The only processing done here to go frow raw sensor data to RGB is: o Fill in missing sample values (average of closest neighbours) I'm wondering, do you think that the average is very fast, but probably sub-optimal, as it doesn't take into account any 1st 2nd derivative effects? What do the other mechanisms use, bilinear or bi-cubic, or something else I wonder? Is the matrix designed to be treated as a square, or is there (x,y) information directly annotated or implicit in some fashion? o Scale the R/G/B values based on what I believe to be the white balance scaling stored in the raw file by the camera. John, where is that info in the file, is it a tag, or just some internal field? o Convert from linear to sRGB colour space.
Re: SP1000 half-frame
Has anyone ever seen one of these before? I assume it's a third-party modification, as there's nothing to indicate on the body that it was designed by Pentax that way, but it's very well done. chris With the rewind cam modified and a permanent half-frame window? Any photos? The only 35mm body that has this feature otherwise is the Konica Auto-Reflex (which takes Pentax screw mount lenses with an adaptor.) Andre
OT - Spain suffers
I remember feeling a deep sympathy with America over 911. I would just like to register a similar sympathy here over the tragic events here in Europe. Although not on the same scale as the New York travesty, the confusion and sorrow is no less powerful. I know our Spanish friends are shocked and concerned at the moment, and surely our hearts go out to them at this time. Needed saying. Apologies for the OT. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Digital Rangefinder Imminent
My SONY has an on/oof lever like that, only smaller. It's function changes between on and off - but has the same position, after every use. Jens Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -Oprindelig meddelelse- Fra: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 11. marts 2004 19:19 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Digital Rangefinder Imminent And how does that single image prove you wrong, Shel? It appears the On-Off lever is separate from the film advance lever. At least they work opposite each other, so that when the on-off lever is flipped to off, the film lever is standing out, as shown in the image. That makes me believe they are separately operated, and we still don't know what the advance lever is for. keith Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.digitalcamera.jp/html/HotNews/image/2004-03/11/epson-2.JPG So, I was wrong ;-(( Shel Belinkoff wrote: I understand that it's for cocking the shutter ... a nice touch indeed ;-)) Christian wrote: I think the film advance lever is a nice touch!
Re: MX readout
Lets see, the MX has the meter reading, the f-stop, and the shutter speed right there in the finder. If I need two stops of compensation I can meter correctly, then simply change the shutter speed or aperture two stops. I guess some of you can only focus on one indicator and completely forget the others are there. Probably mesmerized by the blinky lights. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Andre Langevin [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm still looking lustfully at the new Topcon-styled silver Bessa TM thing with M42 screw mount. If it had something better than an MX-style exposure readout I'd probably already have one. DJE I always thought of the MX readout as a good one. It shows clearly half-stops, while the LX shows only full stops. One could argue that the needle shows smaller fractions of a stop, though. BTW, I'm not sure the cosina camera has more then 3 LEDs (- 0 +) What are the defects of the MX readout? Which K-mount (or S-mount) cameras have a better one? Andre I find the +- 1 stop range of the readout to be limiting, although the half-stop precision is an improvement over many similar systems. The Spotmatics, K1000, and ME super share this problem, whereas any match-needle (or the LX needle-LED) system gives you a greater range except at the extreme ends. This would put K2 and KX on my good list, along with LX and Super Program. I'm not familiar with anything in the AF era. Having used the electronic analog readouts in the Nikon F4 and F5--which show +-2 stops in 1/3 or 1/2 stop increments--I'm spoiled. I can remember fussing with settings on older cameras to figure out HOW FAR under or over the meter thought I was. Not a problem for slower working styles, but a challenge for active tricky-light shooting. Of course Nikon had to make up for the crummy readout in the F3... DJE -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: SP1000 half-frame
Pentax did make them, IIRC. Chris Brogden wrote: Has anyone ever seen one of these before? I assume it's a third-party modification, as there's nothing to indicate on the body that it was designed by Pentax that way, but it's very well done. chris -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
Re: pentax-discuss-d Digest V04 #566
Cotty wrote: [. . .] I have a 3 CD set kept as MP3s on iTunes and was listening last night as I sat reading email in a hotel room near London. The Port was in the back of the Land Rover - a Christmas present to a colleague that never made it. The peanuts I grabbed from home before I left. Don't you just love the unintentional ambiguity of the English language? As a professional engineer, and sometimes technical writer, for some reason that ambiguity bugs me more and more the older I get. Well, not so much 'bugs me' as it stands out like a sore thumb! Which WAS it that never made it? Was it the colleague that didn't make it, or the port that never GOT to the colleague? g LOL. That was the Port talking Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: OT: Re: CAW - Radio Caroline
On 12/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Actually, this isn't ambiguous because Cotty is British: If he'd been referring to the person he'd have said a colleague *who* never made it. ;-) Like I said mate, it was the Port that was talkin, innit! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: Cyclists only.
Cool -Original Message- From: Malcolm Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:21 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT: Cyclists only. http://www.atomiczombie.com/
Re: April PUG theme?
On 12/3/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Curves 8-D Oh boy. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
John Francis wrote: OK - here's as close to the RAW sensor data as you are likely to get. http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/pef1127.jpg The only processing done here to go frow raw sensor data to RGB is: o Fill in missing sample values (average of closest neighbours) I'm wondering, do you think that the average is very fast, but probably sub-optimal, as it doesn't take into account any 1st 2nd derivative effects? What do the other mechanisms use, bilinear or bi-cubic, or something else I wonder? I picked simple averaging (which *is* bilinear interpolation) not so much because it is fast (not really important; the file I/O time dominates) but because it was easy to implement as a first test. My initial effort is concentrated on getting the colour balance right; if I can't get the correct colours then nothing else really matters. Once I've got over that first hurdle I'll look at using a better initial interpolator. It _is_ important; it's the foundation on which all the later adjustments depend. Equally, though, it's important not to make the wrong choice - artifacts introduced at this stage are extremely hard to remove later. I'll probably use a slightly larger filter kernel to take into account more than just the closest neighbours. It's not really appropriate to talk about bicubic or biquadratic interpolation, because the registration of the grids means we would only evaluate the function at a single point. Is the matrix designed to be treated as a square, or is there (x,y) information directly annotated or implicit in some fashion? I haven't got the faintest idea what you are talking about here. o Scale the R/G/B values based on what I believe to be the white balance scaling stored in the raw file by the camera. John, where is that info in the file, is it a tag, or just some internal field? Based on my reverse-engineering of the PEF format, it's a (Pentax private) tag inside the MakerNote data structure, which itself is pointed to by the MakerNote tag in the EXIF IFD, which in turn is pointed to by the EXIF tag in the primary image IFD.
Re: RAW Conversion comparison
At first look, the edge still has more jaggies than Photoshop, but definitely better than the 'black halo' of PhotoLab. The softness is the initial impression, but this can soon be sorted, and colour brought into line. There seems to be a little less detail in your image than either PhotoLab of PhotoShop at the final stage though - is this just the sharpening method they employ creating the impression of detail? Maybe if I were better at this sharpening lark I could sort that out. The jaggies are an artifact of the very simple box filter I am using in the interpolation step (which is a fancy way of describing just averaging the neighbouring pixels). I'll investigate better filters later, once I'm happy with the overall colour balance. The softness and/or lack of detail are, indeed, because I'm not doing any sharpening at present. Again, that's a topic for later investigation. I'd be very interested to know what corrections you felt were necessary to bring the colour into line. I think I'm missing a step somewhere in calculating the weights, and any additional data would be valuable. Thanks for the comparison, makes one wonder how Pentax could have gotten it soo wrong... I am gonna try Genzo later to have a look at that too, but the product is a GUI nightmare! What plans do you have for your conversion? Seems like a lot of people will eventually looking for 3rd party options before long... Oh, I'll be making my stuff freely available to anyone on the Pentax list. But at present all I have is a DOS command-line utility that loses all the EXIF data, and only writes PNGs or JPEGs. Not all that much use. I'd like to produce: o A command-line converter that can write TIFF or JPEG o An interactive program to replace PhotoLaboratory -Original Message- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 March 2004 18:34 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: RAW Conversion comparison To do the test quickly I did not try to colour correct any of the images, merely clicked on a grey point and left it at that. Because the Pentax software doesn't allow for accuracy of cliking in the tiny image, it is quite likely that the colour differences have something to do with my not clicking on exactly the same spot in each image. The main thing I was trying to show was the bad bayer interpolation of the Pentax Software, as many were not believing there could be that much difference. I think it is definitely worth investigating other products whether that be CS, DCRAW or custom made software... Maybe if you do, you will be enabled after all! OK - here's as close to the RAW sensor data as you are likely to get. http://panix.com/~johnf/temp/pef1127.jpg The only processing done here to go frow raw sensor data to RGB is: o Fill in missing sample values (average of closest neighbours) o Scale the R/G/B values based on what I believe to be the white balance scaling stored in the raw file by the camera. o Convert from linear to sRGB colour space.
Re: those tests
J. C. O'Connell wrote: I dont agree with your last sentence. If you are going to shoot for web like you suggest then using film and scanning is an incredible waste of time and money. Even a cheap 2Mpixel digicam is more than needed for web and they only cost about $150.00 new now. Where can I get a $150.00 2MP digital camera with interchangable lenses, manual focussing, external flash automation and a TTL viewfinder? Seriously, I'd love to know. :-) I think that your idea of shooting for web is very different from mine. I still do nearly all my web photography (mostly ebay ads) with a 4 yr old 1.3 Mpixel panasonic digicam and even then I have to reduce the files for web. That camera has more than paid for itself many times over in film and time savings, but then again its only web quality. I never do any serious real photography with it. It is no good for prints at all. I think you're being *very* conservative regarding the things you can do with photos on the web. What if the recipient of my photos wants to print them out? What if they want to zoom in on details? What happens in 20 years' time when everyone has 300dpi monitors? If I junk my Pentax gear and buy a $150 digicam, I'm shooting myself in the foot. If I take photos on film, I can put them on the web at 2MP resolution today, and I still have the negatives ready for if I ever need better than that. I will admit to occasionally producing A4 prints for peoples' walls etc. :-) S
Re: OT: Epson R-D1
Using my MZ-S, which is a s compatible as you're going to get, I can have manual or Av priority with K/M lenses. The camera does not know the aperture (no info in the viewfinder) but just measures light levels. It is a bit better than the current *istD fix, but not by much. [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/12/04 06:37AM that's aperture lever. Herb... - Original Message - From: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 6:34 AM Subject: Re: OT: Epson R-D1 only if every K and M lens were the same in the aperture level positioning requirements or you required stop down metering. Herb... - Original Message - From: Steve Jolly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 5:23 AM Subject: Re: OT: Epson R-D1 Um, you could build a digital body with an aperture-indicator coupler. That would be more compatible with K- and M-series lenses than the *ist-D: you'd gain Av, Tv and Program exposure modes and the only things you'd lack would be matrix (and spot?) metering and (of course) autofocus...
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
most people cannot program a VCR let alone properly configure all the settings in a typical VCR. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) that may have been the case from last year and before but there is every indication that this year, the primary digital camera buyer will be a young woman interested in documenting events in her family's history. with not enough time to do much in front of the computer and no desire to anyway, she will take her digital photos to the local processing store to get them printed. the only difference between digital and film is that she will have deleted the obvious bad shots first right after they were taken. Herb - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) True. I guess a lot of people buy a digital camera just to be at the cutting edge of things. And to get rid of expensive film - and the can redo faulty shots right away. They can even see if the results are OK at a glance - so they don't have to know anything about photographing in advance - they can learn fast by trial and error. It's not because of a better image quality.
Re: those tests
no offense taken, but i was absolutely sure that i am the lousiest photographer ever, until i got a scanner. now i know for sure where the problem is. i also know for sure that -- film (even slide film) has more than +/-0.1 stop of lattitude that the lab prints show -- focusing camera does work (although the lab prints normally don't show it). -- reasonable colors can be achieved. although not in the lab prints. best, mishka William Robb wrote: At the risk of being offensive, if you have tried that many places and have had universally bad results, I would be looking a lot closer to where I lived for the cause of the problem. William Robb
Re: MX readout
Lets see, the MX has the meter reading, the f-stop, and the shutter speed right there in the finder. If I need two stops of compensation I can meter correctly, then simply change the shutter speed or aperture two stops. graywolf On that aspect, the LX was a deception compared to the MX I was using before. Clear half-stop indication was helpfull when using the MX as a meter. Andre
RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
Oops that last word should be DIGICAM not VCR. :) JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:38 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) most people cannot program a VCR let alone properly configure all the settings in a typical VCR. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:18 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) that may have been the case from last year and before but there is every indication that this year, the primary digital camera buyer will be a young woman interested in documenting events in her family's history. with not enough time to do much in front of the computer and no desire to anyway, she will take her digital photos to the local processing store to get them printed. the only difference between digital and film is that she will have deleted the obvious bad shots first right after they were taken. Herb - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 11:16 AM Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) True. I guess a lot of people buy a digital camera just to be at the cutting edge of things. And to get rid of expensive film - and the can redo faulty shots right away. They can even see if the results are OK at a glance - so they don't have to know anything about photographing in advance - they can learn fast by trial and error. It's not because of a better image quality.
RE: those tests
I have posted some pictures from my LF scans at roughy 2000 pixels wide on web pages on occasion to give a better presentation of what was on the negative but most people complain they are too large to see in entirety on the screen rather than compliment on the quality of the image. auto reduction software would be a nice alternative for that though. Face it, the great majority of PC/WEB users are today using 1.3 Mp displays or smaller. There hasnt been much progress in that area in the last few years either. I am currently using 1280X960 which is less than 1.3 Mp. JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: Steve Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:17 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: those tests J. C. O'Connell wrote: I think we do not agree on what shoot for web means. I take it to mean posting images to be viewed on the WWW web pages. I dont mean emailing high quality images to friends and families for printing. Email has nothing to do with WWW or the Web in my understanding of the whole internet mess. I think the misunderstanding would be cleared up if you took a look at my website - I upload everything at the maximum resolution of my scanner (currently 1600dpi, hopefully to increase before too long...) and the gallery software creates a 250-pixel-long thumbnail and a 640-pixel-long intermediate-resolution image. The viewer can look at and/or download whatever version they like. http://www.elvum.net/gallery if you want to see my idea of the workflow of the future. ;-) S
New Epson/Cosina digital rangefinder
For what it's worth, here's what Excite's translation tool made of the Japanese website. I love their rendition of Leica. :) Wearing of the L/M mount correspondence lens of historied RAIKA for 80 years or more was realized for the first time as a digital camera. EM mount (RAIKA M type compatible mount) of R-D1 corresponds to many of RAIKA M mount lenses of not only a KOSHINA FOKUTORENDA lens with an actual result but a BAYONETTO system. And correspondence is possible also on L mount lens of a screw formula at adapter (product made from KOSHINA) wearing. Traditional ?? which has built the history of a photograph revives in the digital world. * It cannot equip with the lens which has the outside size of 20.5mm or more from mount. lens with which it cannot equip RAIKA: -- HOLOGON 15mm F8/SUPER ANGULON 21mm F4/SUPER ANGULON 21mm F3.4/ELMARIT 28mm F2.8 (type for beginning term) / SUMMICRON 50mm F2 (Dual Range SUMMICRON) lens which cannot ?? RAIKA: -- HEKTOR 50mm F2.5/ELMAR 50mm F3.5. Double finders, such as completeness of the exclusive design which can feel a photographic subject more direct, are equipped. The space which is visible by ?? can be cut off feeling the whole space by the left eye. In a bright finder, since the range finder image of a real image formula dissociates distinctly, focus ??? with more high accuracy is possible. In the rate of a view, effective baseline length secured 38.2mm 85%. Moreover, an iris diaphragm priority AE function is carried. If an iris diaphragm value is decided, shutter speed will be automatically set up by TTL light measurement (lighting display), and it will lead to the optimal exposure. Of course, a full manual setup is also possible. Moreover, it is displayed clearly [ can change 28 and a 35 or 50mm BURAITO frame, and ], and immediate photography is also supported certainly. The Para Lux automatic compensation mechanism is also carried. The basic information in connection with all photography is always displayed on a shutter dial and a needle type indicator. Not the setting method of the menu form which used the liquid crystal panel but required information can check immediately, and can concentrate on photography by realizing still more nearly immediately direct operation which can be changed. The number of ? sheets which can be photoed [ white balance setup / photography quality setup / ], and battery residual quantity are displayed on a needle type indicator. With a shutter dial, the exposure compensation at the time of an ISO sensitivity setup, AE photography setup, and AE can be checked. The shutter dial which condensed the function in connection with exposure operations, such as shutter speed, in one dial. An ISO sensitivity setup from ISO200 to 1600. A manual shutter speed setup from a valve to 1/2000. It is an exposure compensation setup of 1 / 3EV unit to -2EV-+2EV at the time of AE setup and AE. A setup is smoothly possible in all exposure control. Since the dial was sticking out a little and was arranged at the front side of a body, without letting a finder out of sight, even if it goes into the photography posture, change of shutter speed was attained and realized smooth operativity. Moreover, it is possible to prevent an exposure gap and to take a photograph in comfort by preparing a lock function in AE position of 0EV compensation. It is the dial which thought the motion of a fingertip as important by arranging a shutter RERIZU button in the center of a dial. The electric control type length run focal-plane shutter which operates till a maximum of 1 / 2000 seconds. The rhythmic sense at the time of photography etc. adhered to the manual winding-up lever without a feeling of resistance, in order not to spoil the joy which manipulates a camera. Smooth charge is realized at 30 degrees of reserve angles, and 90 degrees of charge angles. The shutter RERIZU button also adhered to tactile feeling and a quiet shutter sound of a fingertip, and comfortable operativity is realized. Moreover, the shutter dial also adhered to manual operation and an ISO setup, shutter speed, and the good visibility that exposure compensation understands at a glance are secured. The indicator of the four-stitch formula which makes it bear a close resemblance to a mechanical chronograph clock is the crystal of technology and an aesthetic sense with which Epson fills this R-D1. 500-0 of the perimeter display the number of ??? sheets. The left of an in dial sets up a white balance from a top out of A= auto, fine weather, the shade, a clouded sky, an incandescence electric bulb, and a fluorescent light. The right sets up picture quality from N=NORMAL, H=HIGH, and R=RAW. The bottom displays battery residual quantity. Four needles display data required at the time of photography correctly beautifully. The body which gets used to a hand exactly was realized having considered all as the strong product made from the ARUMIDAI cast, and being equal to the photography under severer
Re: Dissatisfied
Shel, it works pretty well for me. My eye went straight to the main subject, the shoe-shine operator and his customer, and the unusual body language, which upsets the normal expected relationship. It then went to the person in the upper-left, then to those in the upper-right, but came back to the subject. Technically, the shot is sharp and smooth in contrast on my (LCD) monitor: although the lighting conditions appear to have been overcast. Tonal range is excellent however. Regards John Coyle Praxis Data Solutions (www.epraxisdata.com) Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:21 PM Subject: PAW: Dissatisfied I'm ambivalent about this shot. It looked better in the viewfinder than it appears on my screen. Not sure if it's the image itself or my dissatisfaction with XP-2 (and my lack of skill using it) that makes me feel the way I do. I don't think I did a good job in Photoshop, either. http://home.earthlink.net/~scbelinkoff/images/market-st.jpg
Re: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY)
so what? they are buying and that is what matters. Herb... - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 7:38 PM Subject: RE: Pentax (film) vs 5MP (SONY) most people cannot program a VCR let alone properly configure all the settings in a typical VCR.
Abusing Google
Let's play a game. The rules are simple. Just type is the world's largest into Google. Sanyo: the world's largest manufacturer of digital cameras and rechargeable batteries. Nikon: the world's largest maker of steppers for semiconductor manufacturing equipment. Canon: the world's largest manufacturer of lenses and the world's largest supplier of 300dpi CIS sensors. Minolta: the world's largest manufacturer of 3D non-contact digitzing instruments. Panasonic: the world's largest consumer electronics company. Pentax: Your search - pentax is the world's largest did not match any documents. :) chris
Pentax advertising!
Just saw a short ad for Pentax Optio cameras on the History channel. I'd heard they were going to start advertising, but this is the first I've seen. It seems to me that there are changes in the works for Pentax, started about the time they changed the company name from Asahi to Pentax. Bill
Re: Pentax advertising!
i thought it was when those two German women took over the worldwide publicity campaign. Herb - Original Message - From: Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 8:23 PM Subject: Pentax advertising! Just saw a short ad for Pentax Optio cameras on the History channel. I'd heard they were going to start advertising, but this is the first I've seen. It seems to me that there are changes in the works for Pentax, started about the time they changed the company name from Asahi to Pentax.
Re: SP1000 half-frame
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Andre Langevin wrote: With the rewind cam modified and a permanent half-frame window? Any photos? The only 35mm body that has this feature otherwise is the Konica Auto-Reflex (which takes Pentax screw mount lenses with an adaptor.) Andre Here are some photos I just took of the camera. Note the difference in the grip on the rewind knob, as well as the half-frame window in the back. http://www.mts.net/~cbrodgen/index.html chris
Re: OT - Spain suffers
Yes, I, too, grieve about what happened in Spain. Jim A. From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 22:21:55 + To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: OT - Spain suffers Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 17:22:02 -0500 I remember feeling a deep sympathy with America over 911. I would just like to register a similar sympathy here over the tragic events here in Europe. Although not on the same scale as the New York travesty, the confusion and sorrow is no less powerful. I know our Spanish friends are shocked and concerned at the moment, and surely our hearts go out to them at this time. Needed saying. Apologies for the OT. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
Re: SP1000 half-frame
Does this mean you own one? I have the original Konica Autoreflex that had a switch to convert from full to half-frame. Having a Pentax half-framer would be a real find. Jim A. From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:20:07 -0600 (Central Standard Time) To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SP1000 half-frame Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:39 -0500 Has anyone ever seen one of these before? I assume it's a third-party modification, as there's nothing to indicate on the body that it was designed by Pentax that way, but it's very well done. chris
Re: SP1000 half-frame
Yup, I picked it up pretty recently. I don't collect screwmount stuff any more, but I couldn't pass up the chance to pick up this one. I'll probably sell it in a while, but I want to run some film through it and play with it for a while first. :) chris On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jim Apilado wrote: Does this mean you own one? I have the original Konica Autoreflex that had a switch to convert from full to half-frame. Having a Pentax half-framer would be a real find. Jim A. From: Chris Brogden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 15:20:07 -0600 (Central Standard Time) To: PDML [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: SP1000 half-frame Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 16:09:39 -0500 Has anyone ever seen one of these before? I assume it's a third-party modification, as there's nothing to indicate on the body that it was designed by Pentax that way, but it's very well done. chris
Cheap Storage for your *ist D
I just saw a segment on TechTV's Tech Live where they were showing that the Creative MuVo MP3 player contains a regular FAT32 formatted Hitachi 4GB microdrive. The MuVo sells for around $200 while the 4 GB microdrive sells for close to $500. Creative is obviously getting a heck of a volume discount. Remove 4 screws and unplug the microdrive and you have $500 of storage for $200. Here's a link to the story online: http://www.techtv.com/news/scitech/story/0,24195,3640312,00.html If I weren't trying to save money these days, I'd already have my order placed. 4 GB will hold a lot of raw PEF files.
Re: SP1000 half-frame
Does this mean you own one? I have the original Konica Autoreflex that had a switch to convert from full to half-frame. Having a Pentax half-framer would be a real find. Jim A. The Konica can be a screw mount camera, like Canon T90 etc. A Pentax K-mount half-frame would be more versatile. But isn't the *ist-D a kind of horizontal half-frame... Andre
timer driven mirror lockup vs. full: Was RE: dorkily enabled
I have heard a lot of quibbling about mirror lockup being a timer element only on this list as well as others over time. I agree that the real thing would be better and I'm not exactly quite sure why they don't do that as I don't see why it's so hard to do. However in reality when I consider this, I don't feel that mirror lockup is of any use to begin with unless your on a tripod and using a release since hand holding or even touching the camera would probably cause more movement then the internal mirror function. After I go through all this I am most likely setting up for a still shot that isn't moving or moment critical to begin with. In a studio the shot is often shot with a soft lens to begin with and at close range so again the mirror lockup doesn't seem critical. The only situation that comes to mind is if you were set up for wildlife at long range and trying to catch a moment there. My point after beating around the bush all day is in reality, how many times does the absence of true mirror lockup vs. timed mirror lock really hinder your chances of getting the shot correctly. I don't mean hypothetically, but rather real time experiences that you have actually encountered and either regretted not having it or really did need the true mirror lock feature. Personally I love the 2 second timer feature as it means not having to dig out or carry the release and I'm probably more likely to actually use it because of the same reason. Not arguing that the true thing isn't better, just really curious. So educate me here ok... :). Dave mirror lock-up (of a sort) I was under the impression that the KX was one of the only two Pentax models to ever have true mirror lock-up (the other one is the LX). Nope, the K2 has manual mirror lock-up too. other Pentax models that have mirror lockup, have it only with the self-timer, which makes it hard to capture the moment if that's what you're trying to do.
Epson 2200, PS CS, *ist-D, Mac OSX 10.3.2
I decided to go for the Epson 2200 printer. My 1200 was obviously on its last legs. The performance is remarkable. I can match my monitor exactly. And the 2880 dpi prints are far better than the 1440 prints my 1200 was turning out. The shadow detail is greatly improved, the color gradations are far superior. Great printer. Paul
Re: SP1000 half-frame
On Mar 12, 2004, at 9:25 PM, Andre Langevin wrote: But isn't the *ist-D a kind of horizontal half-frame... That's like saying a frog is a kind of horse. The *ist-d is an APS sensor camera. It's not half frame 35mm. In fact, it's not even film, so there's no point in discussing it in those terms. . But as far as I'm concerned. half frame is only relevant in the world of film. A half frame camera is valuable in that its frames are the same format as movie film. That means they can be easily transfered to video on professional equipment. I can't think of any other reason why one might want one.
Re: NG thoughts on PayPal
On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 08:40:42 -0500, you wrote: Here's the most common Paypal scam: You sell somebody something and you're paid with a credit card. You withdraw the funds and ship the item. The buyer receives the item and then calls the credit card company and claims it's defective. The credit card company immediately issues a chargeback, without any kind of investigation. Paypal is the 'merchant of record' and must return the money to the CC company. It then attempts to recover its loss from your Paypal account. Yep, I got hit with a version of that scam. So now I have the choice of donating $95 to PayPal, or dealing with a useless frozen account, and perhaps collection agents and credit bureau grief on down the line. And, dammit, it was a nice piece of Pentax gear I lost. Right now I'm telling PayPal I have frozen my account until they remove their unauthorized charge. But I don't expect to win this one. PayPal is too big, and has full-time lawyers on staff. I'm doing myself a favor, I no longer accept any PayPal payments, because there are many ways they can make me lose still more money. Plus Ebay and PayPal charged me hefty fees for the privilege of helping make me the victim of this scam, which didn't sit well at all. Heck, I've quit using Ebay as well as PayPal. The air smells fresher now. Life is simpler. I have more pocket change. My dog loves me more. My photos have richer color. Ahh, happiness - EbayFree and PayPalFree at last. -- Cactus Jack Warm and Dry in the Valley of the Sun www.photolin.com www.photolin.com/payanon/payanon.htm No More Pay, Pal © 2004 John Mustarde Don't Ebay, pal, No more Pay, pal, Hey Hey-ah, Good Bye. Don't Ebay, pal, No more Pay, pal, Na, Na-aaa, Good Bye.
