Re: Great ****LX**** news!
Mike Johnston wrote: And, as Bob Sullivan pointed out, now I get to do the LX wink. ;-) Feel like joining the Brotherhood next? ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Dumb Newbie Q#6 - How Difficult is it to Develop Slide Film?
Eactivist wrote: Been shooting with Fuji Veliva recently, and I must say I like the results. ...[snip]... I may not like it as much when the hills here are golden instead of green, but... I'm not fond of Velvia in general but I have been known to like its yellows and browns. I think thats because I don't notice heavy saturation of these hues as much as for greens and blues. BTW - Do film scanners also scan unmounted slides? Yes. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Question for the AF guys?
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Do you all only use the AF for moving subjects/action and switch it off for static subjects? Seems like with static subjects, using AF would be leaving things to chance. My only AF body is a Z-1p and I find the focussing screen to be hopeless for manual focus. While manually focussing I am forced to rely on the in- focus indicator which uses the AF system anyway. I'd love an AF body that had a good screen from an MF body. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Mike Johnston wrote: 300-dpi 8x10 = 2400 x 3000 = 7,200,000 240-dpi 8x10 = 1920 x 2400 = 4,608,000 So you need a 7-mp camera for a top quality inkjet 8x10 and a 4.5-mp camera for an adequate-quality 8x10. That's without rezzing up, interpolating, anything. Note that some experts say you can't tell the difference visually between a 300-dpi print and a 240-dpi print. I have no opinion on that. Don't forget that digital camera marketers count each R, G and B sensor separately in the megapixel rating. In which case it should probably be called megadots. While I'm being pedantic, I assume you mean ppi instead of dpi in your printing resolution ;) The file comes out with the right amount of megapixels because of the software interpolation making guesses about what's going on between the sensors. This adds to the filesize but doesn't add any actual information. So you need to multiply your numbers by three; ie 21.6Mp and 13.8Mp respectively. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Comparing digital to film
Pål Jensen wrote: My next question is: If the same or similar interpolations to reduce the noise from the distance between pixels in a digital camera were used to reduce the grain noise in a scan from film, would this tend to level the playing field? Yep. Galen Rowell used this for huge exhibition prints made from 35mm. Guess what, he claimed it can compete with medium format. Heard it before? A very interesting concept. How does the software do this if the grain pattern of film is essentially random? Descreening processes tend to require a regular dot pattern. BTW, of course 35mm can compete with medium format. Which is better is a different story ;) Looking at the slides themselves I find more detail on a 6x7 than a 35mm of the same scene. But that still won't convince me to carry a medium format kit up a mountain. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Vs: 31 and 35mm lenses tested in German magazine
Raimo Korhonen wrote: Interesting. Zeiss and Pentax 15 mm lenses were developed jointly. There are still a couple of minor optical differences, I think. I remember seeing the optical diagrams. However I suspect that the Zeiss 15mm lens may be sharper at wide apertures because of more precise manufacturing rather than better optical design. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Comparing digital to film
William Robb wrote: One of the things I keep reading WRT how good digital capture is relates to the lack of grain in the digital capture. I do have a problem understanding this. It seems to me that in order to have a grain free image, the capture would have to be a continuous tone device. This brings up a point which I've been wondering about lately. A digital camera pixel is continuous tone. It measures the _intensity_ of the light that falls on it. As I understand it, a single film grain or dye cloud or whatever it is, is a discrete device: either its exposed or its not exposed, and the density of the exposed grains control the perceived tone - ie its some kind of a randomly arranged halftone process. If this is true, its little wonder that people say digital files have finer grain than film. And higher perceived detail. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
M 20mm f/4
Hi all, I've spotted this lens in a local camera shop and I'm just a little tempted as it would make a nice companion with the LX. I envisage adding this lens to my lightweight snapshooting kit, which is currently made of the LX and 35mm f/3.5. I haven't found a lot of information in my list of bookmarked sites so I'm looking for general comments from anyone who owns one of these. Is its angle of view sufficiently different from a 24mm to justify purchasing it? How's the sharpness, contrast/flare, distortion, colour rendering, light falloff, etc? Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: What a day :-(
Pål Jensen wrote: Well, according to some sources, you don't need MF because full frame 11+mp digital rivals it. Well, I can't afford an 11mp DSLR! Last night I saw a box full of Hasselblad gear which someone had traded for a Canon 1Ds body (NZ$15,660). What a bargain... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: M 20mm f/4
Two responses in one... Andre wrote: I love this lens and bring it with me most of the time when I travel. If you can have it for a good price, don't think for too long, or it won't be there anymore. It's not easy to find one. The last three I saw sold between 300$ and 400$. That means the one I've found is a bit of a bargain, especially considering its good condition. I've never seen one of these before so they can't be too common in these parts. Bob S. wrote: I think it's coverage is significantly different from the 24mm. I've been thinking that if I carried this lens I would not be likely to carry the FA 24mm as well. In fact I did consider buying an A24mm f/2.8 which I saw a few weeks back, just for the saving in size and weight when I want to travel light. I decided against that one due to the duplication of focal length. The 20mm gets really wide. You have to watch what creeps into the frame (especially when you are more comfortable with telephotos than wide angles as I am). It would be great paired with the 35mm you mentioned. I also like using teles but wides are not a problem for me. I already own the Pentax 15mm and am well aware of the problems associated with viewfinders that have indadequate coverage (one of my little peeves). I agree that 20mm and 35mm make a good combination. I'll need to check out the distortion... and also think of whether I really this lens ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Robert Capa's biography
Hi all, Yesterday I finished reading the biography of Robert Capa, written by Richard Whelan. In short, I wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone. Capa was quite a character. Now I'm thinking about borrowing Slightly Out Of Focus for Capa's (reportedly quite embellished) versions of many of the events covered in the biography. Currently I'm back to reading the Yes, Prime Minister diaries :) What a fantastic show that was. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: I'll never shut up. was Re: Okay, I'll shut up now
Bruce Dayton wrote: That is a deceiving figure. While the single dot resolution is that high, the real dithered dot to make up the right color is not that high of resolution - somewhere between 200-400 dpi in a traditional sense. It takes up many dots together of one or more of the ink colors to create the correct color for a given dot. Bruce, What you're talking about here is the difference between dots per inch (dpi) and pixels per inch (ppi). There is another figure called lines per inch (lpi) but that doesn't really apply in this case. In a continuous-tone system, there is one dot per pixel. The intensity of each colour in the pixel can be directly controlled. Some printers can do this, but these tend to be expensive. When halftoning, as inkjet printers do, there are many dots per pixel. This is because the printer cannot change the intensity of the ink itself, so it creates shades by controlling the density of the dots within a pixel. Just like film. Hence the incredibly high dpi numbers which have no direct relation to the actual pixel count. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Color Calibration
Rob Studdert wrote: You'll find that the files probably aren't interchangeable, each batch 35mm or otherwise has it's own specific cal files. Yes, someone else pointed that out earlier. The reference files are on Kodak's FTP site at the following address: ftp://ftp.kodak.com/gastds/q60data/ This address was provided on the info sheet which came with the slide. I seem to recall finding the files after searching Kodak's site (in other words, like a true engineer I didn't read the info sheet). The Index file explains the file naming convention. According to this, mine is an Ektachrome 35mm target manufactured in August 2000. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Robert Capa's biography
Bob Walkden wrote: Currently I'm back to reading the Yes, Prime Minister diaries :) What a fantastic show that was. I watched it in Basque once when I was in San Sebastian. Somehow it didn't seem quite so funny g. I found a German translation of a Garfield book a couple of years ago. Late last year I picked up the English version of the same book. Its quite interesting to read them both at once... maybe I'll pick up a few words of German that way. However I don't think German would be my first choice of a second language to learn. I'd love to see Calvin Hobbes in another language, particularly some of the more philosophical Sunday strips. I think the translators would really have their work cut out for them :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Color Calibration steps
Bruce Dayton wrote: I'm wondering if there are any quick and dirty places to look to just spot check for general color cast before I get into full/real calibration? Compared to 9300K, which is the usual setting for monitors, 6500K does look very yellow; 5500K even more so. 6500K is recommended as this is the white point for both the sRGB and Adobe RGB working colour spaces. At least one calibration package (OptiCal, which you can get bundled with the Spyder) allows you to do this as a pre-calibration step before calibrating and profiling. You adjust the R/G/B controls on your screen until both the colour temperature and luminance are correct. After that you proceed through the actual calibration and profiling steps. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: wacom tablets
Dan Scott wrote: With Photoshop, most of what I do is just easier to do with a mouse than a stylus. Being able to simply take my hand off the mouse and use the keyboard is a lot quicker than having to set the stylus down, type, and then pick up the stylus again. It sounds trivial, but if you do it a lot, you'll probably find yourself using the mouse more and tablet less. Using a stylus as a mouse substitute for accessing tool pallets and menus isn't much fun, either. Its a matter of personal preference, I think. For quick typing (eg a filename) I can still type while holding the stylus, I just do so with one less finger thumb. Its slightly less convenient but only because I touch-type. For typing something longer such as an email, I stick the stylus in its holder and type to my heart's content. It doesn't bother me whether I use the tablet or the mouse for menus (BTW my mouse is a normal mouse, not the mouse you can get for the tablet, which behaves the same as the pen). Wacom Intuos tablets have 9 programmable buttons at the top of the tablet for commonly used menu combinations, or there's always shortcut keys. Toolboxes are just as easy either way, IMO. The one time I resort to using a mouse is where I want absolute accuracy on a slider control, because the mouse is less likely to move when you take your hand off the button :) My mouse takes a lot less effort to access any of those due to the difference in mouse tracking software versus stylus tracking softwaremousing software is speed sensitive and click sensitive whereas stylus tracking software is much more oriented to tracking path, pressure, and angle. Moving a mouse with a quick flip of the wrist will get you from one side of your screen to the other almost instantaneouslyyou're going to find yourself moving your whole arm to cover the same territory with a stylus. Again, it sounds small, but it grows old quick. That's exactly what a tablet is designed for ;) You must trade off accuracy for speed in absolute mode. There is no acceleration factor. This is one reason I opted for the 5x4 tablet over a larger one. The other drawback of a tablet is the feel. Instead of the tactile feedback you get with a pen, pencil, paintbrush or crayon, with a stylus A stylus feels far better to me than a mouse, but I'm editing scanned photos rather than creating my own drawings (in other words, crayons are not an option for me;). you have only the feel of a tiny point of plastic sliding on flat smooth plasticfeatureless and unresponsivedead. Sucks a lot of the positive tactile energy you get from wielding the tool right out of the experience. With Intuos pens you can replace the tips, and if you wanted a certain feel I'm sure you could make a tip or modify an existing one by gluing something to a tip. You can also place material (eg paper) on top of the tablet if you wish but anything soft would probably wear out quickly. The eraser tip (on the top of the stylus) has a much softer feel, but I'm not sure if you can configure it to not suddenly switch Photoshop into erase mode. My tablet gets most of its use with Illustrator and Painter, places where I want to use expressive strokes or quickly sketch out an idea for further development. If I really want to brainstorm visually, I usually pick up the old analog toolsif I need to get any of what I do with them into into the computer, I can scan it on my old lowrez scanner. It works fine. Horses for courses really. I agree that its a lot easier to just sketch something out on paper. My perspective comes from touching up images which are already in the computer. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Color Calibration
Andre Langevin wrote: Yes, the calibration data comes on a disc with the printed target. They form a pair. That's better than the Kodak IT8 slide (Q60 E3A) I ordered last year, and I got received a slide but no reference file. I wasn't impressed as these slides aren't cheap (I'd hate to think of what the 4x5 slide costs). Luckily the obtainable from the Kodak website somewhere but I had to look pretty hard to find it. If anyone is missing this file I am willing to make it available. It will only be useful if you already have both the slide and the software to make a colour profile for your scanner. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: What Lens Do YOU Want?
Mike Johnston wrote: If you could direct Pentax to make and market one lens it currently does not make, what would it be? I'm going to bend the rules and specify one for each format I use. 35mm: 400mm f/4.0 AF, image stabilising is optional. Close focus to 3m (2m would be nice). Variable focus limiter. AF/MF clutch, tripod mount. 6x7: 35mm f/4 rectilinear with provision for filters either front or rear. This of course assumes that price is no object. I would not be able to afford either of the above lenses ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Just in case you're interested ...
Fred wrote: And, in my opinion, with good reason. As much as I love the M*/A* 300/4's for their compactness and speed, it is hard not to like the optically superb and well-built F* 300/4.5. It's my favorite autofocus lens (used primarily as a manual focus lens). I would have to agree with you there. I find my macro lens more useful but the quality of this 300mm lens has tempted me to sell my FA*400mm (the jury's still out on that). I will definitely sell my A*300mm f/4 sometime. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: HTML Editors
Shaun Canning wrote: What HTML editors or web page creation software are PDMLer's using for their web sites? I am still using Frontpage 2000, which does the job, but is an idiosyncratic little bugger... I used to use Pico (a simple non-graphical unix-based text editor). Coded everything by hand. I eventually got sick of that and did a couple of weekend courses in Dreamweaver. They gave me a student ID which got me the academic packages for 1/5th of the commercial price. I am not going back. Dreamweaver is brilliant. The site management alone is extremely valuable. I set it up to give me both the wysiwyg and code views simultaneously but its not often I need to edit the code directly. For web graphics, Fireworks is just what I was looking for (also a Macromedia product). Now I just need the time to build my new site, although my current temporary one was mostly done with Dreamweaver. I recently bought a book on how to do Flash but I won't get the time to read it for a while. Flash is not important to me but I may find it useful where I hit the limits of HTML and javascript. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: What Lens Do YOU Want?
eactivist wrote: (about an FA 400mm f/2.8) I'd go with that -- something good for wild life photography that would not also break the bank. Nevermind the bank... I want a fast AF 400mm that won't break my *back*. Hence my desire for a 400mm f/4.0. The f/5.6 is a bit slow for my liking. I've held a Nikon 400mm f/3.5 and its not too bad for size and weight. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Agfa D-labs printed
Herb Chong wrote: according to Bruce, the operator had no color profile to work with for their printer so they were unable to do exact color matching. The lab I use has a pair of D-Labs (one each of the 2 and the 3). I intend to ask them if they have colour profiles so I can do soft-proofing at home before sending them my files. I certainly hope I can get profiles from them, but who knows what goes on inside those big boxes. i supplied my images in sRGB profile and if they had a profile for conversion or they sent it to me, i could have sent my files in the Agfa D-labs profile. that should ensure better color match. The D-Lab works in the sRGB colour space. If you embed profiles in your files then it may be able to automatically convert from other spaces (Adobe RGB etc). But I'm not sure about that. for absolute color accuracy, the operator would have to look at my prints as reference or to have the files come in already set to the correct color profile for the photographic printer. Also your end would have to be set up perfectly as well; ie calibrated scanner and monitor. There are always limitations, though. The simple fact that a monitor is emissive (additive) and a print is reflective (subtractive) is a headache in itself. The colour rendition of a print is dependent on the light source under which it is held. Your perception of the colour on that print varies with your brain's compensation for ambient conditions. i looked at the 7x10 prints with an 8X loupe and compared the two. the dot pattern is clearly visible in the inkjet prints but there is no dot pattern visible in the photographic prints. The D-Lab uses a continuous tone process so there should be no dot pattern :) it is just possible to see the scan lines from the lasers, so overall resolution is excellent. I had two 12x18 prints done recently. Under a 10x loupe I think I can see what might be scan lines, but my eyesight isn't good enough to tell for sure. But I don't often look at prints under a loupe ;) The D-Lab prints at 400ppi so in theory it should be pretty hard to see the pixels even under a loupe, provided the original file was not resampled (100Mb file for 12x18 400ppi at 24 bit!). there are some differences in edge detail though. for some reason, the D-labs prints show slightly less detail, as if a small amount of blurring was applied. That sounds really strange. I wonder if that could be due to a lack of paper flatness, or even if its due to the laser optics. The distance from the optics to the centre of the print will be less than the distance from the optics to the edge, so it may be related to DOF. The photos on which my prints are based were bokeh'd at the edges so I wouldn't have noticed. also, if there are dark edges against light backgrounds, there seems to be a small amount of hard edges added that are not in the inkjet prints, sort of like an small amount of unsharp mask. looking at the prints at normal viewing distances, the D-labs output has a slight more snap to it, a subtle added sharpness, because the edges are slightly sharper. My prints show the same thing, but they came off negatives so I would naturally expect a little unsharp masking to make up for the scanning process. I would hope that digital files were not modified by the D-Lab in this way. On the other hand, any halftone process [eg inkjet] will inevitably lose a little edge sharpness. one of the files was blown up to about 12x18. on that print, the places where the hard edges showed up are softened but the subtle tone changes are lost. there seems to be some image processing taking place. Did your file have sufficient pixel count to print at 12x18? My prints, which came off negs, also show some pretty bad bokeh'd areas and a bit of noise but I assumed that this was due to the scanner which is only 2k x 3k and is designed primarily for speed. In my opinion 2k x 3k is pushing its luck for a 12x18 print. i would have no trouble being satisfied with the quality of the prints i received. owning a large format Epson printer means i can produce the prints i want up to 12x18 with excellent quality. The only thing stopping me from buying an Epson printer is the cost. I won't be making nearly enough prints to justify its purchase: my walls just aren't big enough. If I ever sell prints, I can just pass the lab's printing charge on and its one less process that I have to look after. color matching is the only sticking point, but that is a procedural and training thing that the operator needs to know about if you want to blind submit files for printing. Colour accuracy is a real pain and its not just the lab's responsibility. If you really want right first time prints from a file then a printer profile would be very helpful for soft-proofing at your end, provided your monitor has also been profiled. However that depends on a D-Lab profile being available, and
Interesting multiple exposure
A photo featured today on www.spaceweather.com: http://science.nasa.gov/spaceweather/swpod2003/06jan03/Ayiomamitis1.jpg 42 exposures on a single piece of film, showing where the sun was in the sky at the same time on different days of the year. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 8000 ED scanner; was: 645 vs 35mm
Jan van Wijk wrote: I now shoot mostly on Reala 100 print-film, and scan these huge negatives on the Nikon 8000 ED in 16 bits (well actually there are only 14 of them :-). Have you had any problems with the 8000? I've been told by the staff at my local camera shop that this scanner should be avoided as all the ones they sold had problems, mainly due to bad film flatness (or inadequate film flatness for the DOF of the scanner optics). That's not the reason I'm not buying one... they're also well outside my price range. My 1200ppi Agfa will do the job for now. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
I'm back
Yes, I was gone! I spent the last few days in Wellington taking in the sights and a couple of movies in some halfway decent theatres. Looking at the archive, I didn't seem to miss much here :) It seems that in my hurry to get my PUG image in, I screwed up my comment. The pic was taken near the mouth of the Wairau, not the Taylor. There is no Taylor river in that area. I must have been thinking of Taylors Pass which is a good road for mountain biking on the southern side of Blenheim. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Good reads?
Dan Scott wrote: Anyone pick up any interesting books in the last week or two? I'm currently reading the biography of Robert Capa, written by Richard Whelan. Borrowed it from the library. I'm not very far through it yet but its rather an interesting read. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
A lucky find
Hi all, Several months ago I lost the little thumb-ring which fits onto the Pentax 6x7 shutter speed dial when using the metered prism. This ring comes with the prism and is totally separate so it is very easy to lose (aaghh, my preciousss!). I was quite annoyed when I lost this ring. I'd been careful with it but I never saw it again after throwing it into the camera bag while changing finders. It must have bounced out or something. It was my first real outing using that prism after I'd lugged it all the way back from London. Today I found it again. Right where I thought I'd dropped it, near the top of the hill. I had returned to the location because I thought it'd be a nice place to spend such a sunny afternoon and run some film through the 6x7 (with the back taped up to try and trace a light leak, but thats a different story). And to see if, against all odds, I could find the ring again. I would have gone back earlier but its quite a drive and quite an uphill walk to get there, relatively speaking, so I ended up just giving up and hoping to return sometime in the more distant future. So after about 4 months of being rained on, baked in the sun, and who knows what those sheep did to it, it is now back in my posession. And it still looks pretty decent after a good wash in hot soapy water. To prevent losing it again I wanted to glue it to the shutter dial but I'm not so sure about that now... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Tripod recommendations please
Jostein wrote: Cotty, the Manfrotto 055 comes with a 3-way head as standard also. I've got one as a spare for my Sachtler. I didn't know Manfrotto tripods came with a head. Mine [also 055] didn't when I boughti it a couple of years ago. I added an 029, the big 3-way head with those hexagonal quick-release plates. I subsequently bought a 168 ball head which takes those same plates. I fitted that head to my monopod. There are at least three variants of the 055. One plain, one with camo colours and padded grip areas on the legs, and one with an option to attach the center column sideways (great for macros). I think there's also the silver vs black option as well. The one with the sideways centre column option is the 455, if I remember correctly. It was released not long after I purchased my 055 :( It's a very popular tripod in this country amongst nature photographers, because it gives a reasonably good performance at an acceptable weight. I second this. It will hold a medium format camera quite comfortably, without being cumbersome. The leg locking mechanisms may or may not be to your liking. Cotty, is the tripod for your video camera too big? Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Medium Format-Which one is best?
Mark Roberts wrote: The real advantage of 6x6 medium format like Hasselblad is in studio work on a tripod, where you can compose for either horizontal or vertical shots without rotating the camera 90 degrees. The Mamiya RB and RZ systems had the same ability in 6x7 by using a rotating back. I used to own an RB kit and found it was a pretty decent field camera despite its weight. Being able to do verticals without tilting the tripod was a real bonus. The rotating back assembly does add a fair bit of bulk to the camera though. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Thinking about a Z-1p mod
Feroze Kistan wrote: There is a hollow base that is made by Pentax to fit the Z1, can't find the reference off hand but will post as soon as I do. Maybe then you can attache to that instead? I already have a grip strap to use. The base it uses is hollow and is certainly big enough. The tricky part would be finding the right place to put the button. I don't want to be able to press it accidentally but it needs to be convenient to use when I want to. I doubt I'll ever find the right kind of button though, so this is probably all academic. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: F*300/f4.5 versus FA*300/f4.5
Arnold Stark wrote: However, the F* lens has one disadvantage, too: To switch from auto focus to manual focus and vice versa, pulling/pushing the ring on the lens is not sufficient, the focus switch on the camera must be operated, too. On the FA* lens, pushing/pulling the focusing ring is sufficient. Yes, that's my only complaint about the F* lens. Apart from that its a top performer. I would probably be disturbed by the size of the tripod mount but the last owner of my lens had it reduced a bit. I would be very interested in seeing an experiment to see whether the tripod shoe on the F* lens really is necessary. I tested my F* lens against my A* lens but as the optics are different I can't draw conclusions about the tripod mount. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Lens sharpness vs. camera shake
Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: Or does blurring work as an equalizer, permitting, in this case, say, no more than, say, 30 lpm, no matter how sharp a lens is used? In the case of camera shake it probably would, for a given focal length. Coming from a slightly different perspective, I find blur from camera shake to be far more disturbing than blur from an unsharp lens. The camera shake blurring tends to be of greater magnitude in one axis. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: An experiment in tonality
William Robb wrote: This is the point that is being deliberately I think missed. The advantage of medium format is that there is more film. More film means less magnification needed to get to the final image. It seems that one side of this argument is talking about magnification of object-to-film, and the other side is talking about film-to-paper. I think we need to look at the whole process. If you shoot a coin at 1:1 and enlarge to fill an 8x8 sheet with the coin's rim just touching the edges of the paper, then the total magnification (object-to-paper) is independent of the film format. The tonality difference between formats comes from the fact that the intermediate magnification of object-to-film can be increased by using a larger piece of film. This correspondingly reduces the film-to-paper magnification during enlargement, which is the only place where tonality is affected. So you might shoot a macro at 1:1 on 35mm and enlarge 10x to fit 8x10 paper, or you could shoot at 10x magnification onto 8x10 sheet film, and make a contact print. The 8x10 film will end up with a technically better result (tonality-wise anyway) but the compromise is that most of us would rather not set up such an 8x10 rig more than once :) Now that I think about it, this is exactly paralleled by the printing resolution of digital files. You can print a 10Mb file at 100ppi, or a 160Mb file at 400ppi to achieve the same size print. The bigger file will hold more detail under close scrutiny, the compromise being a pretty steep law of diminishing returns regarding the file size. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Enablers, UNITE!
Mike Johnston wrote: Enablers, Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Now comes Brother WILLIAM ROBB before us, who needs enabling to buy an 8x10 view camera! Brothers, address your reasonings and rationalizings to Brother WILLIAM, doing your best to convince him of the beauty of the 8x10 image and its importance in his life! There are people who claim digital is as good as 35mm. There are people who claim 35mm is as good as medium format. There are people who claim medium format is as good as large format. So Brother William ought to buy a PS digicam. Its just as good. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: The big picture: Photography iwith a larger than a postage stamp negative.
Bruce Dayton wrote: After having experienced 67 compared to 35mm, I can clearly vouch for the quality difference that you talk about. My 35mm gear is almost never being used anymore. I still use 35mm when I need the compact size, lighter weight and wider variety of lenses. Oh and auto focus :) I am starting to covet the 67II because it supports centre-weighted metering and aperture priority... I'm finding the old 67 TTL prism to be difficult in scenes which aren't evenly lit. Yesterday I had to resort to guessing exposure for one photo. then William Robb wrote: I would like to make a few addendums. I was not harsh enough towards 35mm. I didn't mention large format. A 4x5 transperency is like looking through a window. So is 35mm, but the window is a bit smaller ;) I'd love to try 4x5 but its not economical for me in this country. When I worked out the dollars per square inch of film it was a lot worse than 6x7 (which is 50% cheaper than 35mm on that basis). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Belated PUG submission
Hi all, I think I have my scanner up running again. So, better late than never, here's my Juxtaposition. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/juxt.html Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Build quality of lenses
Dan Scott wrote: I find that the equipment feeds my appreciation of my environment. I thought I was pretty observant and continually got feedback from others indicating the same, but I found I had missed out on a veritable feast of visual delight before I acquired my FA 100/2.8 and started looking for opportunities to use it. Same way with other items including, to my surprise, my tripod. You mean the 100/2.8 Macro? I have one of those and its probably the best photographic item I ever bought. The front garden is now a feast of photographic opportunity. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Eastern US Winter Storm
Ken Archer wrote: It must be getting cold up there because it is supposed to get down to 30 degrees F here tonight. Right now its 27 degrees C at 10pm. Feel free to Fedex me some of that snow; its going to be hard to sleep tonight! Our friends in Sydney could use some, too. Big fires again. Depending on the winds we might see the smoke here as we did last January. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: prisms on K1000 and K2
Chris Brogden wrote: Does anyone know whether or not the pentaprism on a K2 is interchangeable with the prisms of other models, like the K1000, KM, etc? I'd assume that it is, but I need to know if anyone knows for certain. The K2 has pretty high viewfinder coverage (98%?) so it may be unlikely, unless Pentax decided to save on tooling costs at the expense of some extra weight in the other bodies. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Basic rule you can take to the bank
Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Generally speaking people who scrub lenses (argh!) to clean them do it
round and round and not radially. Radial marks are quite unusual and bear
investigation merely because they are such. Lens cleaning is an art and
should only be carried out by someone who is a master of that art.
{snip}
I took a lens to bits to clean it, once. It was an old 50mm lens which
had seen better days. I seem to recall using mild soapy water with lots
of rinsing, then leaving the elements to dry. The environment is not
exactly dust-free here so I ended up with a few bits of dust inside the
lens.
After reassembly the lens performed just fine. It looked much better
than before.
However I am _not_ willing to take my FA*400mm lens apart. And I doubt I
could trust the local repair agents to clean lens elements anyway. The
lens may be a little on the soft side at infinity but at least it still
functions :)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Another new arrival
Hi all, A big box arrived on my doorstep this morning, courtesy of a fellow member of the Brotherhood. The big box contained a much smaller box, and inside the small box was a lovely little Pentax 90mm f/2.8 for 6x7, a lens I have been coveting for quite some time. I am now happy as I finally have a normal lens for the 6x7 :) I went for a quick walk after dinner and took a few photos but the light wasn't too good for handheld work. Hopefully the weather will improve in the not so distant future. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Landscape Books Redux
eactivist wrote: I did find Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography. I am about 1/3 of the way through. Even though it is aimed for the professional photographer, it covers enough so that it's good for everyone. A series of articles -- somewhat repetitive and I am sure somewhat controversial -- but I am finding it a very good read. I'm reading that same book at the moment. It is very good but I've learned to read each article in its entirety before starting to disagree with any of his points :) Making me think a lot, anyway. That's exactly the intention of the book, and its one reason why I respect the guy so much. He doesn't teach technique, he teaches you how to make a great photograph. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
F*300mm f/4.5 test
Hi all, I just finished looking over the slides from my 300mm lens test. The test was performed by photographing a building across a sports field, a distance of perhaps 100 metres. Tripod mounted LX with mirror locked up, Kodak E100S film. I have tested the LX and I know the focus accuracy is spot-on. The F*300mm f/4.5 is fantastic. A real gem, ultra sharp and high contrast even wide-open. In fact its wide-open performance is very impressive. It handles really well even when manually focussing. This bit of glass is a real keeper and I certainly don't regret buying it. In fact, this lens is optically better than the A*300mm f/4 I tested it against. The difference is much less noticeable below about f/8 but when wide open the difference is chalk and cheese. In fact I am strongly considering selling the A* lens as I am not likely to need the extra 1/2- stop enough to justify keeping it. I am still a bit disappointed with the FA* 400mm f/5.6. Mine just doesn't seem to be a very good performer at near-infinity, although it is better than the manual focus Tokina lens it replaced. I will do some more testing at closer distances. However if I hold it just right I can see what may be cleaning marks on an internal element (I purchased this lens secondhand). Maybe thats causing a bit of softness. Would other owners of this lens care to comment? Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: F*300mm f/4.5 test
Chet wrote: It goes back to something I was wondering about earlier when I noticed that the SMC 300 is marked to focus to 300 feet before infinity; the M* and A* dropped to 150 feet before infinity; and the F* has dropped to 60 (or 80?) feet before infinity. That would be due to the amount of rotation it takes to go from minimum focus to infinity, combined with changes to the minimum focus distance. The F*300mm goes from infinity to 2m in half a turn (180 degrees). The A*300mm goes from infinity to 4m in 3/4 of a turn (270 degrees). So the A* can have more space for distance markings. The F* will be more difficult to focus accurately. I suspect the turning reduction was done to speed up AF. Otherwise the lens would put more strain on the motor due to a higher gearing ratio to achieve the same AF speed. So what happens if the subject is at 200 feet (with a distant background)? Would the SMC 300 display DOF effects, whereas the F*300 would have it all at infinity? I am speculating here but my assumption is that it'd be identical (except wide-open where its f/4 vs f/4.5). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: DOF in DSLRs - HELP ME PLEASE...
J. C. O'Connell wrote: DSLRs use smaller sensors than 24 X 36 mm 35mm film does. Thus, for a given angle of view, they use shorter focal length lenses. Shorter lenses give better depth of field. More DOF is not always better! Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: F*300mm f/4.5 test
Herb Chong wrote: what if it has been disassembled and not put back together right? That thought had crossed my mind. It might be interesting to find out what it'd cost to have it checked and fixed if necessary. But I'd have to be 100% certain that the lens is supposed to be sharper than my sample. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: F*300mm f/4.5 test
Alan Chan wrote: I can tell you that the cleaning marks could be performed by the Pentax factory. No, I am no insane. Most of my Pentax lenses were bought brand new from Japan, HK, Canada or US. Some of them do show hand-cleaning marks inside. Interesting. The marks in my lens are radial, ie they go around the lens in a circular pattern and cover basically the whole area of the element. Is this typical of your experience? I wondered if it was cemented elements coming apart but it looks too far into the lens to be the two- element group. It would be near-impossible for me to get a photo of the marks as I have to look directly into the lens with the sun right behind me. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Depth of Field Preview (was: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S)
Mark Roberts wrote: I think it's a waste of time as far as previewing the depth of field is concerned but that's not what I use it for. I use DOF preview all the time to judge how *out* of focus the background is. I find it indispensable for macro work and wouldn't buy a camera without it. Same here. It really comes in handy for any shallow-DOF work including some scenic work, macro, wildlife and definitely portraiture. Very often I'll find something distracting in the background that I would otherwise have missed. Using DOF preview it takes about half a second to check out approximately what the out-of-focus stuff is going to look like, and your eye doesn't need to leave the finder. BTW as others have noted, DOF preview was probably not the best term to use. The DOF scales on many lenses are useless on macro or long telephoto lenses. For example, the F* 300mm f/4.5 only shows DOF marks for f/32 and they're _very_ close together. Also, the scales only give the lens manufacturer's approximation of what will look sharp on a print when viewed from a certain distance. Your own eye might not agree (which is why I go 1 stop further when I do use the scales). I have also been known to use the DOF preview to see approximately what the flare pattern is going to look like if I have the sun in, or close to, the frame. I also would not buy a camera without DOF preview. I still wish the Z-1p did this properly as its a real pain if I'm in HyP mode. The MZ-S looks like a great camera but I prefer the Z-1p flash system (compensation in the body). BTW DOF preview is the major reason I use an SLR in preference to a rangefinder... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: book ideas
I wrote: Galen Rowell has done some fantastic books. This thread inspired me to go down to the library and hunt down some more of his books. I just borrowed these two: Galen Rowell's Vision: The Art of Adventure Photography Galen Rowell's Inner Game of Outdoor Photography I'm looking forward to reading them and I might post some impressions when I've finished. Yesterday I bought the National Geographic wildlife photographs book, marked down from NZ$195 to NZ$40, which I'm only halfway through. I guess I should finish that one before starting on these (which I have for four weeks). I still need to buy Mountain Light, which I read a year or two ago. And some film. I'm itching to get out into the open again. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: book ideas
Herb Chong wrote: [...] i'm interested in hearing about what books primarily on landscape and nature photography other people on the list like and why. i'm arbitrarily excluding picture books just because. Galen Rowell has done some fantastic books. Mountain Light is a must- read for any budding landscaper. All the books I've read about wildlife photography (not many) have been a bit lacking, so I can't make any recommendations there. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 28-105 vs 24-90 vs 35-105
Alan Chan wrote: Personally, I don't care much about the label, but the actually design of the lens. They are just what I have been waiting for all these years - M lens quality with AF. This is exactly how I felt when I was starting to get the AF bug. I wanted an AF normal lens and the build of the F/FA 50mm f/1.7's did not impress me at all, with my background of K-series glass. The NZ distributor had a 43mm in stock (surprisingly enough) which they let me borrow for a week. Just handling it and using it was enough to convince me that unless the optics were of Barbie-cam quality, I just had to buy it. Its the only lens I've ever bought new. Sometimes its hard to convince people that you paid double the price just for better build. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Tokina RMC 400mm F5.6
J. C. O'Connell wrote: Recently bought a screwmount Tokina RMC 400mm F5.6 lens even though I already had the Pentax Tele-Takumar 400 F5.6. The main attraction for me was for the auto aperture ( The Pentax is manual aperture). To my surprise it's very compact and doesnt get longer as you focus close. I guess the focal length gets shorter as you focus. It's shocking sharp in my initial tests. Keep an eye out for this one, it's a winner. (Paid $125 ebay for it). Is this the SL series lens (a small stylish red SL mark)? I had one of these and found it was pretty good when stopped down but a little soft wide-open. It had a pretty decent built-in hood. I ended up selling it when I found a FA*400mm f/5.6 secondhand at BH. AF was pretty tempting at 400mm. The Pentax appears to be a bit better optically, but was not quite as good as I expected. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited lenses.
Cesar Matamoros II wrote: Thanks for the input. I cannot change the site name now, but it is something I will have to think about. No problem. Its not your fault... quite a few people seem to be setting up sites with underscores but the domain name registrars are at fault for allowing it in the first place. I guess it will eventually become a de- facto standard. BTW I was a little unclear when saying underscores are technically not allowed. They're allowed in a URL but not in a hostname (which is part of a URL). Here is some extra info from the Squid faq (Squid is a popular web proxy/cache package: www.squid-cache.org): --- 11.8 DNS lookups for domain names with underscores (_) always fail. The standards for naming hosts ( RFC 952, RFC 1101) do not allow underscores in domain names: A name (Net, Host, Gateway, or Domain name) is a text string up to 24 characters drawn from the alphabet (A-Z), digits (0-9), minus sign (-), and period (.). The resolver library that ships with recent versions of BIND enforces this restriction, returning an error for any host with underscore in the hostname. The best solution is to complain to the hostmaster of the offending site, and ask them to rename their host. See also the comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains FAQ. Some people have noticed that RFC 1033 implies that underscores are allowed. However, this is an informational RFC with a poorly chosen example, and not a standard by any means. --- Squid can be set up to allow underscores but this is not enabled by default. I changed my setup but my upstream ISP hasn't changed theirs despite me asking them. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Ideal lens if you could...
Rob Studdert wrote: http://www.home.aone.net.au/audiobias/PB213592m.JPG Thanks for the pic, Rob. I don't claim to know anything about optical design! Plus that's an A 50mm f/1.2 in your pic, something I didn't realise existed... I should have kept my mouth shut yesterday ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Ideal lens if you could...
Pentax Guy wrote: Along the same lines, a SMCP-FA 50mm f/1.2 or 1.0 since they make a manual 1.2 An FA50mm f/1.2 may be possible depending on the mechanics, but I have doubts about a 1.0. The rear element of the SMCP 50mm f/1.2 takes up nearly the whole mount space. They had to put a small kink in the stop- down lever to make it line up. I keep repeating my wish, maybe one day it'll come true :) An FA* 400mm f/4.0 ED IF. Image stabilising optional. Focus limiter switch. Must focus to 3 metres (2 would be nice). A decent built-in hood. Oh, and my second wish is to be able to afford one. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pentax Upgrade Follow-Up Q
Bob S. wrote: The M lenses have a 49mm front element as a rule across the series. The K and A both have 52mm front elements, and they use all the space! They never made a 50mm f1.2 with a 49mm front filter size. I think they could have done it in 49mm. It would have had the front- plate text on the front of the focus ring (like many A-series lenses) or on the side of the focus ring (like the M 200mm f/4 or A*85mm f/1.4). I think this cosmetic change was only applied to M and A series lenses, with the exception of the K 15mm f/3.5 and possibly one or two others. I doubt that Pentax thought a new 50mm f/1.2 to be a high priority. They wouldn't have saved much weight to justify an M lens, and the electronic contacts for an A-series lens might have been a bit difficult considering the size of the rear element. They only just managed to fit it into the mount as it is. And it would probably have been a financial disaster :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Shots of the wear on my Limited lenses.
Doug Franklin wrote: http://cesar_abdul.home.mindspring.com/limwear.html I think some of your slashes are backwards. Nope, they're all correct for a URL. Pretty much only Internet Exploder will understand using backslash (\) in a URL, and backslashes aren't legal within a URL according to the standard document. Underscores aren't really allowed either which is why some of us have problems viewing Cesar's site. Most software seems to turn a blind eye to the non-standard character, and allow it through. My ISP's proxy is configured to disallow it (so was mine by default). If you go into your browser settings and disable the proxy you may be able to get through. Be sure to re-enable it afterwards. I was going to give a link to the page with an IP address but after I got the page, the images would not load :( Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re[2]: we're back
Bruce Dayton wrote: Cotty, You are more than welcome back. We even accept Canon users here - although they have to like Pentax and talk nice ;) Cotty, have you bought a 35mm lens for the Pentax yet? :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Wanted: historical 6x7 information
Bruce Dayton wrote: My hat is off to you. That sounds like a great site and a lot of work. I'll help in any way I can. Same here. I did some initial work trying to collect info for a similar kind of site but put it on hold when other commitments took over. All I have is an incomplete table of lens information. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Anybody else enjoyed the Leonids?
The weather was no good here. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pics of modified F*300mm f/4.5
Fred wrote: Thanks for the photos, Dave. That does seem like an interesting modification. [Suggestion: one photo from the side would be helpful - g.] Yeah I thought that as I was putting them online. I'll try to remember to take the lens to work tomorrow and grab another pic or two. The final result is similar to the proportions of the A* 200/4 Macro's tidy little tripod mount. Looking at what the F* 300mm is supposed to look like, I wonder how it could be comfortably handheld or even carried in a camera bag. The tripod mount is monstrous. Maybe the FA* version isn't so bad after all, guys :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Oops - I did it again
Yes, I spent more money :( Today's purchase is a nice little secondhand F*300mm f/4.5 lens. Its previous owner is doing a photography course, and since everyone else was using Nikon he sold his Pentax kit. And who am I to complain? Some other lenses he was selling were quite tempting but I eventually decided against them. The previous owner had modified the tripod shoe a bit as he thought it stuck out too far, so he had it shortened both in height and length. Looking at the photo on Boz's site it does look a bit like overkill. Whoever did it made quite a tidy job, and it still balances perfectly with the Z-1p attached. I still needed to modify it slightly so my own modified Manfrotto hex plate would fit nicely. 10 minutes with the drill and it was sorted. Don't worry folks, the shoe is detachable! I really like the handling of this lens; it seems less front-heavy than the A*300mm f/4, and it focusses a lot closer. The tripod shoe is well worth having. The built-in hood is quite interesting: you unscrew it, slide it out, then screw it into place. It actually makes sense; it seems a bit better than the bayonet-fitting hoods of the FA* lenses. The AF is very very quick with the Z-1p in bright sunlight. I don't like the MF/AF selection; you have to change the setting on both the lens and the body. Also you don't slide the whole focus ring: there is a separate ring at the camera end of the focus ring. I'm too used to the FA* lenses which disengage the body automatically when you set the lens to manual (and the clutch mechanism is much nicer in general). However it is still quite a fast operation as my fingers know where the body's focus selector switch is. I'll just need to mentally switch over when swapping between this lens and the 400mm FA*. Now if I end up liking this lens I may have to sell the beloved A* 300mm f/4 due to lack of use :( Tomorrow is a public holiday so I'll put some film in this body and have a play. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pentax K2 and K1000 dimensions
Alexander Krohe wrote: They are not the same. The K1000 and K2 are two different camera platforms. (snip) I get the impression that the original question relates to whether or not the top, and possibly bottom, plates are interchangeable between these two cameras. I have my doubts, but I don't know for sure. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Disaster strikes!
Pål Jensen wrote: My tripod toppled over today due to wind and along with it's three meter fall on granite went my 645N and FA645 33-55/4.5 lens. Neither particularly cheap. The camera body cracked open exposing the electronics. The lens broke immediately in front of the aperture ring - the glass is fine though. The equipment is already in the mail for an estimate. I fear the body is beyond repair but I have some hopes that the lens can be saved. I was not insured :-( Pål, you have my deepest sympathies. That is one experience I don't want to duplicate. I am naturally quite paranoid about my gear so its all insured at nearest- new-equivalent replacement value. Which doesn't help much with all the old manual focus stuff. Actually I'm more paranoid about the house being broken into than I am about it getting damaged, but I'm covered either way. To drag up an old argument; what kind of hood/filter was protecting the lens? :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Oops - I did it again [A* vs F* 300's]
Fred wrote: Congratulations. You picked up a really fine lens. Thanks. From the other comments I've seen, I'm sure I've made a good purchase. I think I wouldn't have bought it if it wasn't for the following reasons: 1) I already have the A*300mm f/4 but the 4m minimum focus distance is a bit of a pain. I'm also not very good at focusing long MF glass quickly enough when my subject is moving... so the auto focus is a real plus. So is the built-in tripod mount. 2) I was wishing for something slightly wider while using the FA*400mm f/5.6 last weekend. Today while using this F* 300mm lens, I've found that it fits in my bag much more easily as well. The lighter weight is another bonus. Perhaps you can post a photo of the modified mount? I will do so as soon as I can get it near a digital camera. However, The F* 300/4.5 is also larger (longer by about 3cm) than the M*/A* 300/4 - it's not a huge difference, but it's enough so that the A* (focused at infinity) does fit neatly in my camera bag, while the F* is simply too long (too tall) to fit (although your mileage may vary) (and it's heavier to lug around, too). My small bag (Lowepro Nova 3) will fit this lens vertically, just. With a body attached it would have to lie flat. Indeed. As huge as the shoe is (especially compared to the nice A* 200/4 Macro tripod mount that can replace it), it is still nice to have. I would say that the tripod shoe is the main reason why the F* 300/4.5 still often sells for close to what the FA* 300/4.5 does. I would tend to agree with you there. There's too much weight hanging off the front of the camera otherwise. Whether thats just an academic argument is another matter. I've taken some great pics with the A* lens on a tripod, at some stupid shutter speeds. However I was more careful with my technique due to the front-heavy nature of the rig. It is better, in my opinion, than both the bayonet hood of the FA* and the sliding mini-hoods of the M*/A* (even though it took me a while to figure out how to fully use it - I had trouble securing it while extended at first - doh! - g). Yes, that's where I was starting to head with my thoughts yesterday. After using the lens a bit today I do prefer this style of hood. The FA* bayonet hoods add too much bulk and tend to be fragile (they're plastic), and a bit fiddly as you have to separate them from the lens. The built-in sliding hood of the A*300mm f/4 is not deep enough. Because of this I bought a gigantic generic brand 77mm metal hood that I found in the camera shop's big bag of secondhand hoods. This hood is 3-1/4 (83mm) long and 3-1/2 (89mm) wide at the opening. Mamiya rubber hoods for RB67 glass (the 127~250mm hood) suit this lens as well, while making it look almost like an f/2.8 lens. The only gripe I have about the F*300mm f/4.5 hood is that I keep trying to screw it the wrong way. It is quite hard to unscrew if you've done it up too tight. I do wish that the gear train was disabled when using the clutch set for manual focusing (as it is, I understand, in the FA* 300/4.5), It is with the FA*400/5.6 and FA*24/2 so I guess the FA*300/4.5 does the same thing. It is a very very nice feature, but I still wish these close- focussing long lenses had a distance limit switch like the big glass does. If the Z-1p can't lock (or starts focussing the wrong way), it takes a while to go through the entire range and back. Half the focus throw of this lens covers the 2-4 metre range. but I don't find the whirring feeling of the F* 300/4.5 to be as objectionable as on many of the clutchless autofocus lenses I have tried. The F* is very nice to manually focus. In fact it feels the best of all my AF glass. I can't feel any whirring, although I can hear it if I'm focussing quickly. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: As Close As It Gets
Ken Archer wrote: I sniped this nice piece of glass with one (1) second to go. This is as close as I can do it. I am surprised that Ebay hasn't put an anti-sniping feature. An auction site in NZ (trademe.co.nz) has such a feature: any bids placed in the last 5 minutes cause the auction to automatically extend. Good for the sellers but can be a bit frustrating for the bargain-hunters (I missed out on a nice G3 powermac because of it). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
test (take 2)
1 2 3... I burned my hand today. I'm finding that its a good excuse to hold a nice cold beverage, to numb the pain. Some beverages are more effective than others, after a couple of glasses ;) Better get a refill... (had to add some interest for those few who actually read test messages). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: test (take 2)
jellymaster wrote: hope the hand gets better Its just a very minor burn - about 1cm across (3/8 inch). Got too close to a sparkler I was lighting. Its no longer hurting; not sure if it just needed a couple of hours, or if the medicine helped *hicc*... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Which Photo quality printer?
gfen wrote: I haven't figured out the best way to hand them files, though, I know it prints at 300dpi, but I don't knwo if I should give them 300dpi .tifs, or 1200dpi .tifs (1200 is the highest my crappy flatbed gives me, it also gives me massive amounts of what I can only assume are newton rings, and it hurts me to see them) Newton rings are the bane of scanning on a glass plate. I've had slides scanned that way and the resulting files were unusable. When you send your images to the lab, scan the film at whatever resolution you like, but just make sure of the following: a) There is enough information in the scanned image to get a good print b) The file itself is sized to 300ppi before you send it out. You set this number in your editing software (its part of the image size dialog in Photoshop). I've found that a 1200ppi scan of a 35mm neg will get you a reasonably good 6x4 minilab print if you're careful. If you want anything bigger you'll start wishing for more scanner resolution :) (yes, there is a subtle difference between ppi and dpi... dots are not always the same as pixels; eg inkjet printers) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Quality film scanner at an acceptable price?
Pål Jensen wrote: Well, I'm considering a film scanner as well. Something that can scan medium format in addition to 35mm slides. A Nikon 8000 is out of the question due to its price. The guys at my local camera shop have told me that the Nikon 8000 had a few problems. At least all the ones they sold did. The Minolta MF-capable scanners are apparently quite nice, but any MF- capable film scanner is likely to be expensive since Agfa dropped out of the market (the cheaper Agfas were only 1200ppi though). I still wish that the HP S20 could scan larger film - it has support for 7x5 prints in addition to 35mm film. But you can't put 120 into it. Your best bet may be a good 35mm film scanner combined with a flatbed for 645. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Digital and film (WAS:The flagship is coming! The flagship is coming!)
Frits Wüthrich wrote: ratio you also could express it in dB. I am just comparing those two light levels here. If it was 10 stops as in your example, the ratio would be 1000, or 30dB. A factor of 1000 is actually 60dB. The formula is dB = 20 log(ratio). Just being picky :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
I'll be back...
Hi all, I'm unsubscribing for a few days while I take the train northwards for the long weekend. I do not want to come home to 1200 email messages :) I'll be back early next week... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: OT: Depth of Field
Steve Desjardins wrote: How do you think about DOF in the artistic sense and how does that manifest itself in you photography? I like shallow DOF. Especially in my macros. It helps to isolate my subject and give a quasi-3rd dimension to my pictures. Except most of my landscapes where I tend to make everything look sharp. I wouldn't buy a camera without a DOF preview. It can be a bit challenging to get exactly the right DOF (one reason why I use SLRs over rangefinders)... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: digital - a story
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder how many megabytes it would take to compete with a 20x24 negative. Just one pixel would be sufficient if you forgot the dark slide... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: Well, in an effort to bring around additional topics...
ukasz Kacperczyk wrote: Regarding the yearly self-portraits, I think it's an interesting idea. I keep forgetting to mention that I invalidated Cotty's and Bob's pictures of me. My hair is now quite a bit shorter :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Poll: Primes that we wish Pentax had built
Numbers are complete guesses but I'm trying to be realistic... Lens name: SMC Pentax-FA* 400mm f/4.0 ED IF Length: 300mm (not including hood) Diameter: 120mm (not including hood) Weight: 2500g Filter Thread: 49mm (rear) Other: Focus limit switch, AF/MF clutch, bayonet-mounting hood, minimum focus distance 2 metres, f/4.0~f/45, rotating tripod collar. Basically a faster FA*400mm f/5.6 with a focus limiter added. Lens name: SMC Pentax-67 65mm f/2.8 Length: 75mm Diameter: 90mm Weight: 550g Filter Thread: 77mm Other: Built-in tulip hood, f/2.8~f/22. I'm glad you didn't specify 35mm format only :) This focal length would fit nicely in a kit with the 90mm f/2.8 (the 75mm f/2.8 is a little close for my liking). Lens name: SMC Pentax-M 1:1.4 35mm Length: 62mm Diameter: 65mm Weight: 420g Filter Thread: 58mm Other: M-series My third choice is this prototype. Runner-up for third is a 35mm f/4 rectilinear for 6x7. Now that would be expensive. --- Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: dslr
Chris Brogden wrote: Hmmm... you do mean 2103, right? :) Should be a pretty safe bet that they'll have made one before then. Or is that January 9th of 2003? :) I read it as January 9, 1903. But I was born last century... Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Results of the SMC Pentax Macro Lens Poll
Kenneth Waller wrote: He also questioned why so few were ever made. Probably had something to do with the quantity sold. Pentax aren't going to produce heaps of something that is not selling large quantities :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Scanning negs
Maris V. Lidaka Sr. wrote: What scanner are you using, and what computer, OS, and scanning software? Agfa Arcus 1200 (scsi), PC/Windows ME, Agfa Fotolook 3.6 (the latest driver for the scanner). I've also tried Vuescan which does support my scanner. Speaking generally, negative film has an orange cast, which has to be dealt with by the software in the process of inverting the negative to a positive image, so there are clearly some additional issues to deal with. Yes I'm aware of this. What I am curious about is whether its possible to just register the film base colour with the scanner driver (which mine does), then just scan away with no need to ever adjust colour for that type of film. I hate adjusting colour. Its not always possible to do it by the numbers and correcting by eye is imprecise and inconsistent. Fotolook has an annoying bug which bases some inaccessible settings on the results of the previous automatic setting. I had trouble getting good results from Vuescan when setting everything to neutral... I will play around a bit more with that package. Apart from my recent playing, I only have experience with scanning slides and prints which are very easy to deal with once you get the hardware colour profiles set up. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Macro Lens Poll
1: FA100 f/2.8 Macro. This lens is always mounted on one of my cameras. 2: FA*200mm f/4 Macro. A bit long and a bit slow but I might as well see what all the fuss is about ;) 3: A100mm 1/4 Macro. I owned the screwmount version of this for a while. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Scanning negs
Anthony Farr wrote: Have a look at the separate colour channels of the histogram of an average scene (YMMV). If any of the channels looks either very compressed or extended to the point of severe clipping then that channel needs its slope adjusted to better match the others. This may be possible post-scanning in your favourite image editor, but severe cases will need to be adjusted at the time of scanning. Thanks for the suggestion. The histograms turn out fine, although the tonal range is a bit compressed (I need to bring the shadows slider up a bit). The preview of the driver allows me to see if I'll be clipping anything. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: 6x7 light leak (not flare)
Debra Wilborn wrote: Here's a really simple, cheap test to find the leak. And I know this from experience. :) Thanks for the tip. It might be useful if I was getting the leak on every frame :) There's no film in the camera at the moment so I'll have a closer look at it in the next couple of days. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
6x7 flare
Hi all, I can't remember if my post last night actually made it to the list. Rather than re-type it (I don't keep a sent folder) I'll just point you to the image of some flare I've had with my Pentax 6x7. http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/temp/flare-1.jpg I had this kind of flare on 3 frames (I think) of 120 neg film with two different lenses. Always the same part of each frame. In most cases the flare did not extend outside the frame (and never to the edge of the film). All the affected frames had a thin strip at the edge with no flare at all (as you can see in the image). Can anyone offer a plausible explanation? Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: DSLRs and viruses
Cotty wrote: I'm beginning to think that the easiest way to spot a Pentax user in a crowd is by their aluminum foil hat. Damn! Rumbled again! Oh, I thought yours was a chrome dome ;) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Rebel Ti starts to copy MZ-S
Peter Alling wrote: Ah ye, camera as fashion accessory. Ye, my preciousss. Limited lenses, that's what it has its pocketses... Sorry, its Friday here :) - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Why not use the Auto110 line to make a digital system?
Jim Apilado wrote: The Auto 110 was a cutsey camera that didn't have to be made. I recall Pentax producing a brown one and a transparent one that are both collectors items now. The Minolta 110 zooms were better and easier to use than the 110s. I played with an Auto 110 last week. Cute little thing but its just way too small for my hands. I felt very cramped by it. I get the same feeling with 35mm manual focus gear, but to a much lesser extent. 6x7 is of course ideal :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Extreme Telephoto Prime Lens Poll
AF is great for long glass... 1- FA*300/f2.8 EDIF: Big glass that isn't too big. 2- FA*400/f5.6 EDIF: I'd prefer an f/4.0... but this one does the job. 3- FA*600/f4 EDIF for a bit more reach. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: New Pentax Product's/Photokina
Peter Alling wrote: They'd have to redesign the electronics to handle it, the sensor wouldn't/couldn't be just a direct replacement. That's not much of a problem considering all the effort they put into designing the rest of the body. Tooling is expensive (so is development time) and it'd be a shame to waste the investment. I think that releasing the MZ-D with a different sensor would be a very good idea. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: Pentax at Photokina
Pål Jensen wrote: Apparently, this years Pentax photokina delegation was among the largest ever including the boss and heaps of engineers. Weird, considering they had nothing to show. However, it turns out that they indeed showed a LOT but behind closed doors locked in a large safe (no I'm not making this up; This isn't far-fetched at all - companies do it all the time. In fact, the company I work for is attending some industry trade-shows in the next few months and will be doing exactly the same thing: new products we're still working on will be shown only to selected important customers, behind closed doors. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: New lens
Bruce Dayton wrote: Congrats! I love mine. I debated long and hard about the IF version but couldn't justify the doubled cost. Although is doesn't focus too close, it takes wonderful pics. I have the Takumar version which I am 99% sure is the same optical formula. Lovely lens - I'm sure you'll get great results from it. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
RE: Flash suggestions for Zx-5n (Now it's long)
Pat wrote: I originally went w/ Sunpak for value vs. features; it hasn't let me down w/ the minor exception of size. I will put the 444D on my list to be explored. Just in case you need any more convincing, I agree that the 444D is a very good choice. I considered selling mine when I picked up a 500FTZ, until I discovered the Pentax flash is incompatible with the LX. (I probably shouldn't have bought the 500, considering how often I actually use a flash) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Medium Telephoto Prime Lens Poll
The lens I want most right now (in this format, anyway) is the FA*200mm f/2.8. This is the only focal length in this range that really interests me so its my #1 pick. Second the A*135mm f/1.8 for its speed. I like fast glass. Third, K135mm f/2.5. I have one and its built very solid, with good optics. I really should use it more. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: So?: System
Brad Dobo wrote: I would really like to know what a person would do for the DSLRs out there that break/malfunction after the 1 year warranty is up? Anyone know? A friend of mine dropped his Fuji digicam (not a DSLR), simply because its strap slipped off his shoulder while he was walking along. He didn't notice it slipping as this camera is so light compared to his LXes. Luckily he had a good insurance policy. The insurance co met the cost of the rather expensive repair (still much cheaper than replacement)... I doubt insurance would cover malfunction or wear tear though... only accidental damage. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
RE: Pentax lenses.
Lukasz Kacperczyk wrote: These links don't work for me :( Technically, underscores are not meant to be allowed in a URL. Some software is more forgiving. I set mine up to allow them but my ISP's proxy returns an error. I got around it by temporarily disabling the proxy in my web browser. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: SMC Pentax K-Mount Short Telephoto Lens Poll
Arnold Stark wrote: This time all members of the PDML are invited to choose 3 lenses among the SMC Pentax K-mount primes with focal length between 77mm and 105mm. 1: FA* 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Probably my single most-used lens despite its looks. 2: A*85mm f/1.4. 3: FA 77mm Limited... I'd have to have a chrome one to suit the K2 (and match my 43mm). Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
RE: Photokina watchers
Rob Brigham wrote: Sorry, that first link may be a little too long. You will have to cut and paste the whole lot into the address bar in your browser. That reminds me. Anyone here who uses Pegasus Mail; version 4.02 allows you to highlight a wrapped address and launch it in your web browser, automatically pasted together. Very handy. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: Pentax digital slr
Dan Scott wrote: What are humbles and where are they located? I think they are related to Wombles. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: Re: RE: Dry firing (FORGET sillycon film!!)
David Brooks wrote: Pat(sorry to Monty Phython folk)Your lucky to have a shutter:) Thats right. Us real men stop down to f/90 and use our hat over the lens. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: SMC Pentax Super Wide K-Mount Lens Poll
This time I can actually vote for three lenses! My first choice: FA*24mm f/2: Wide, sharp fast. Second: K24 f/2.8: Wide, sharp, small light. Third: A15/3.5. Lovely lens but not as useful to me as the 24. Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
Re: Running with bulls (semi-OT, but with pictures)
Paul Jones wrote: Heres a group question: How fast has your pentax gone? my MZ-S did 270kmh on the back of my last motorbike :) not sure what that is in miles, but its fast. Mine went about 950km/h in the overhead compartment of a 747 :) Cheers, - Dave http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/ (out of date)
