RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I left all the settings at default in the camera. Do they have an effect when shooting RAW or does RAW do just that - capture the unadjusted RAW data? -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 October 2003 01:08 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 15 Oct 2003 at 17:18, Rob Brigham wrote: RAW seems to allow for an extra 3 stops in either direction which is actually pretty massive. Relative to what contrast setting when saving jpeg in camera? 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I did a couple of shots when I handled a pre-production model. I never posted since I was asked not to. But from those shots I was quite pleased. I use 3200 quite often when I shoot wedding ceremonies (bw prints) and as such am quite used to the grain. I can understand why it is a custom function to use it as most people would shrink away from it and think the camera was broken. Just my two cents, and still trying to catch up, César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:23 AM -- -- I've done a few test shots at ISO 3200 in the *istD. As you -- say, if you -- need the speed, the noise is not that objectionable, and -- really no worse -- than grain in film. -- -- Bill -- -- - Original Message - -- From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:01 AM -- Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel -- -- -- -- -- Rob Brigham wrote: -- -- [. . .] -- -- BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics -- for this test - -- it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure -- in the RAW -- software actually made the noise a lot better too, -- something that again -- the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. -- -- Seems to me, anytime you feel you have to or want to -- resort to an ISO of -- 1600, a little noise is a very minor price to pay, -- especially if there's -- a relatively simple way to reduce it. -- 1600 ISP with a digital... marvelous! g -- -- keith --
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Yeah, its very good for 3200. In colour I don't like the colour speccling you get on the grain though. I found changing it to BW makes it far more acceptable. -Original Message- From: Cesar Matamoros II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 16 October 2003 13:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I did a couple of shots when I handled a pre-production model. I never posted since I was asked not to. But from those shots I was quite pleased. I use 3200 quite often when I shoot wedding ceremonies (bw prints) and as such am quite used to the grain. I can understand why it is a custom function to use it as most people would shrink away from it and think the camera was broken. Just my two cents, and still trying to catch up, César Panama City, Florida -- -Original Message- -- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:23 AM -- -- I've done a few test shots at ISO 3200 in the *istD. As you -- say, if you -- need the speed, the noise is not that objectionable, and -- really no worse -- than grain in film. -- -- Bill -- -- - Original Message - -- From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:01 AM -- Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel -- -- -- -- -- Rob Brigham wrote: -- -- [. . .] -- -- BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics -- for this test - -- it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure -- in the RAW -- software actually made the noise a lot better too, -- something that again -- the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. -- -- Seems to me, anytime you feel you have to or want to -- resort to an ISO of -- 1600, a little noise is a very minor price to pay, -- especially if there's -- a relatively simple way to reduce it. -- 1600 ISP with a digital... marvelous! g -- -- keith --
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, tom wrote: -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? No one that I know. Most of the pros I know either carry a gray card or the expo disk which is a sort of butch filter that emulates a gray card somehow. Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Right. The histogram is so innacurate. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Many pros still carry a handheld meter. Honestly between a professional's eye-meter and a knowledgeable reading of picture displayed on the screen you don't even need the built-in meter at all. I can eyeball light to within a stop or so. Digital FLASH metering is a different story... DJE
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote: On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and lens mount in registration. At least thats what I've been told. The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. And hence an area that saves money. The thing is, build quality on everything these days is getting worse. You look at anything from toasters to cars. The amount of plastic is appalling. We're being 'plastic groomed'. So most conusmers will pick up a 300D and think, 'Hey this isn't that bad'. Picking up the *ist D or 10D/D100 and they'd notice the difference. D1x/h / 1Ds / DC14thingywossname n and they'd notice the difference big time. I'm convinced that most consumers couldn't pick up a D1H/1D because it's so damned heavy. I bought a ZX-M a while back which was the first modern consumer-level camera I'd experienced. Took me a while to believe it was even there because I'm used to the weight of pro cameras. ...and an LX and they'd faint at the quality! Plus you can actually lift the LX, unlike a Canon F1 or Nikon F3. As to build quality getting worse: Not quite. The AVERAGE build quality is getting worse as the price gets lower. You can still get old-fashioned quality if you are willing to pay for it. Realistically the run-of-the-mill prices are getting LOWER, making us forget what things used to cost when they were all well-built because they hadn't figured out to build them cheaply. Consider that an entry-level SLR costs $250 these days, whereas when I was a kid they cost more and the dollars were worth more. The camera companies have realized that most people just don't use their cameras very much, and often replace them every so often anyway. If your average SLR user is paying $250-300 for a camera and using it a couple times a year why build it to endure heavy use, especially given that the replacement cost isn't that much? Cameras are getting almost disposable in that the repair cost is a good fraction of the replacement cost. Ironically many used SLRs are totalled as they sit in that the cost of a CLA exceeds the purchase price of the camera. Cameras made for pros, who use their cameras very hard, are probably better built than they used to be, and consequently heavier and more expensive. For all the Nikon users who are whining that the AF lenses aren't built as well as the MF lenses (sound familiar?) I can say that the pro AF lenses are BETTER built than their manual-focus predecessors. My MF Nikkors are constantly giving me trouble mechanically. The change is that the difference in construction between the pro stuff and the amateur stuff is much greater now that it used to be. The difference in price and weight means that few amateurs buy pro gear and don't see how much better built it is. The camera companies are probably correct that for the average amateur photographer the pro stuff is not worth the cost and weight. DJE
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
John Francis wrote: OK, now we're getting to the part where my analysis has to be spot on. Shooting motorsports, I'm not going to have time to review in camera. Not something you want to do, in any case, with large heavy objects whizzing by at 200mph. Not that I haven't seen people doing that; sitting on the Jersey barrier, back to traffic, paying no attention. [Have you heard the term for that activity? It's known as 'chimping'; folks staring at their camera dispay and going Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!] Hehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe Hehehehehehehehehehehehe. Heh. LOL.
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I cant say I have notices RAW being any slower on the *istD than JPG to be honest. The ist CAN zoom on RAW files (I am sure it can - will check later just in case), and while the software ist fantastic it is a lot easier than doing the adjustments in PS. It IS slow to convert to jpg after the changes though, but still waaay faster than trying to do the changes in PS (and with better results too). File size IS a problem - or would be if I had to pay full price for memory. Its wonderful being able to borrow the memory from work! Using the histogram and adjusting when necessary is fine if you are able to recreate a shot, or the lighting and contrast range of the shot doesn't vary at all between shots, but often neither of these is the case. Each to their own, I guess. I will mix match the two but if and when I get serious about a particular shoot, it will be RAW every time. BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics for this test - it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure in the RAW software actually made the noise a lot better too, something that again the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 October 2003 01:26 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 15 Oct 2003 at 0:59, Rob Brigham wrote: Seeing the full size files, this is clear cut for me. Jpg is not a problem from a compression point of view, but creating the jpgs from the camera is throwing away some of the information from the image capture which can never be recovered. If you have any small exposure error then RAW will probablybe able to correct that for you, but jpg will not. I came to very similar conclusions when I first ventured into digital image capture. This is precisely why I regularly check my historgams when shots are critical. Not only can you determine the optimum exposure you can also match the cameras contrast control to the scene. For instance why flat line at the top and bottom of the histogram when a high contrast setting will provide a broader histogram with obviously greater delineation across the light range of the scene. Shooting RAW has more drawbacks than positive attributes for me. Saving is slow, file size is huge, I can't zoom the RAW image on review in the camera, my RAW import utility is poor and even the better third party s/w is pretty slow. I spent some time learning how to optimise capture and I save in-camera in jpeg, I'm most often very pleased with the results. I'm still keen to have some time with the *ist D to see if the RAW processing stream has improved any. 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Rob Brigham wrote: [. . .] BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics for this test - it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure in the RAW software actually made the noise a lot better too, something that again the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. Seems to me, anytime you feel you have to or want to resort to an ISO of 1600, a little noise is a very minor price to pay, especially if there's a relatively simple way to reduce it. 1600 ISP with a digital... marvelous! g keith
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I've done a few test shots at ISO 3200 in the *istD. As you say, if you need the speed, the noise is not that objectionable, and really no worse than grain in film. Bill - Original Message - From: Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 9:01 AM Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Rob Brigham wrote: [. . .] BTW anyone wondering about the noise in my sample pics for this test - it was shot at 1600ISO!! I notice reducing the exposure in the RAW software actually made the noise a lot better too, something that again the jpg adjustments couldn't do - and not something I expected. Seems to me, anytime you feel you have to or want to resort to an ISO of 1600, a little noise is a very minor price to pay, especially if there's a relatively simple way to reduce it. 1600 ISP with a digital... marvelous! g keith
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
That's a good point, I suppose - I could bracket 3 jpgs and still end up using less storage than the single RAW file!! Then again you are bound to find the odd one where you prefer the timing of the one with the worst exposure! I have been looking some more at shots where the contrast between the sky and ground is too high to capture, and finding that I can create 2 files from the RAW - one for sky and one for ground and merge the best bits. This wont work with 2 bracketed shots unless your camera is VERY stable in between. RAW seems to allow for an extra 3 stops in either direction which is actually pretty massive. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 October 2003 11:05 To: pentax list Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 14/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Right, I have done this test (http://www.calcot.plus.com/RAWTest/) I found no obvious difference between the original RAW and JPG images, so for the rest of the test I used a jpg created from the RAW file with no adjustments whatsoever, so that I know the two methods have exactly the same start point in terms of exposure etc. [snip] Very good Rob. Boy, you're a stickler for the detail ;-) but you did say that you are. I'll now have to do some of my own tests, although my final image is an inkjet print, and I would expect that shooting jpeg will still be the way I go because I have yet to experience a poor exposure on the camera. If in doubt, I bracket anyway. At the end of the day I'm limited to the resolution of the printer and although it is excellent, not enough I fear to make a difference between RAW and jpeg originals. The advantage for me with jpeg is greater in that I can fit more on a card and extracting and processing RAW files on my system is slow. I'll do some tests this weekend. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 15 Oct 2003 at 17:18, Rob Brigham wrote: RAW seems to allow for an extra 3 stops in either direction which is actually pretty massive. Relative to what contrast setting when saving jpeg in camera? 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
John, have you got a web site? Fast cars fast cars fast cars fast cars *~* I get my track access from motorsport.com, so most of my stuff goes there. I've got a few older shots up at my home page http://www.panix.com/~johnf/, and I've recently been given some space on a system operated by a friend of mine where I can put up a larger selection (just try and keep it under 10GB..) once I find the time to select the images (right after I set up the new home computer and copy over the old images, scan that pile of boxes of slides, ...) Shooting motortsports isn't my day job; it's just what I do on some weekends. My primary focus (ha ha) is the Champ Car series; I cover most of the events on the West coast. Last year I also took my vacation around three races in Ohio, Wisconcin, and Montreal, ending up at nine of the races in 2002. This year I've cut back again, although I did get over to the UK for Brands Hatch. One reason I've not done as much this year is that not having a DSLR has been a distinct disadvantage, so I've let the guys with the D1s provide coverage.
Washo the photographer (was Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Hi, Tuesday, October 14, 2003, 10:25:28 AM, you wrote: On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: [Have you heard the term for that activity? It's known as 'chimping'; folks staring at their camera dispay anf going Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!] ROTFLMAO! That is hilarious! I see it all the time. Is it anything to do with the Fleet Street (UK newspaper traditional base of activities) moniker for a stills photographer: a 'monkey' ? There was a photo in the Independent of this last week. As far as I remember it showed either Sven Goran Ericssen or Rupert the ... I mean Ian Duncan Smith surrounded by a troupe of photographers, all staring at their display screens. Phillip Jones Griffiths (how come everybody in this email has 3 names?) commented scathingly on this once at a talk I went to. Said photographers were missing a lot of shots doing this. -- Cheers, Bob Binominal Walkden p.s. chimps, like us, are apes, not monkeys.
Re: Washo the photographer (was Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 14/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: p.s. chimps, like us, are apes, not monkeys. You speak for yourself, mate ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: Washo the photographer (was Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Hi, Tuesday, October 14, 2003, 10:25:28 AM, you wrote: Phillip Jones Griffiths (how come everybody in this email has 3 names?) commented scathingly on this once at a talk I went to. Said photographers were missing a lot of shots doing this. -- Cheers, Bob Binominal Walkden p.s. chimps, like us, are apes, not monkeys. Several of the equine photgraphers using their 1D's and D100's will shoot a raft of shots then immediatlely start looking at the screens, deleting and keeping the better shots. Thats when i shoot,getting the best shot.vbg David James Brooks :-)
Re: Washo the photographer (was Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tuesday, October 14, 2003, 10:25:28 AM, you wrote: Phillip Jones Griffiths (how come everybody in this email has 3 names?) commented scathingly on this once at a talk I went to. Said photographers were missing a lot of shots doing this. Several of the equine photgraphers using their 1D's and D100's will shoot a raft of shots then immediatlely start looking at the screens, deleting and keeping the better shots. The better photographers among them aren't looking at the images they just shot - they're examining the histograms to check their exposures. Thats when i shoot,getting the best shot.vbg But you still beat them if you get the best shot! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Right, I have done this test (http://www.calcot.plus.com/RAWTest/) I found no obvious difference between the original RAW and JPG images, so for the rest of the test I used a jpg created from the RAW file with no adjustments whatsoever, so that I know the two methods have exactly the same start point in terms of exposure etc. normal.jpg is the original, straight from the camera exposure (apart from a resize for the web). Normalexp.jpg is a crop of that image which I will use to analyse the differences. RAWminus1exp.jpg is a crop of a jpg created from the RAW file with -1 exposure plus come extra sharpening and contrast all done in the RAW software RAWminus2exp.jpg shows that even reducing the exposure further in the RAW software, yet more detail can be extracted from the blown highlights. Jpgminus1exp.jpg is the straight jpg edited in paint shop pro to -40% brightness and +10% contrast to give a similar exposure that the RAW-1 gave. Adjusted RAW/JPG are the resised full images. The adjustment to the exposure in RAW has brought back all of the lost highlight detail. None of this was recoverable from the jpg. The exposure adjustment to the jpg has resulted in far more of the mid-tones being lost into shadow too. Maybe better PS skills would avoid that to some degree, but the image would almost certainly be degraded compared to the RAW adjustments. Seeing the full size files, this is clear cut for me. Jpg is not a problem from a compression point of view, but creating the jpgs from the camera is throwing away some of the information from the image capture which can never be recovered. If you have any small exposure error then RAW will probablybe able to correct that for you, but jpg will not. -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham Sent: 14 October 2003 10:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I am 100% certain that both will be fine. Will do it later today to satisfy your wishes, if someone else doesn't do it first. What I am more interested in is: 1 Take a slightly under/over-exposed RAW shot, set the WB how you want it on the PC, increase sharpening, and alter the exposure slightly. 2 Convert this to JPG. 3 Take a slightly under/over-exposed Best JPG using a preset WB, apply USM, adjust the brightness, and (if necessary) the colour to match your ideal. 4 NOW compare the two. I reckon the adjusted RAW image will have lost less detail due to the exposure problem, sharpening will have degraded the image less at 100% viewing and colour adjustment will have been easier. I would be very surprised if at least one of these isnt correct. I will also be doing this test when I get a chance, and will happily admit if I am wrong. The differences may still be negligible, but I can be really picky about things like that at times. I wont care in most situations, but if I have an image I feel passionate about it will matter to me. I'll let y'all know how the test goes. -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 October 2003 10:20 To: pentax list Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: One of the things Cotty has found, though I can't actually verify it with my own little eyes, is that the fine JPEG save is pretty much indistinguishable from RAW. Seriously, I would be very interested to hear from any *ist D user: please take this test!! 1. Take a RAW shot of a nice landscape. 2. Now switch to large/fine jpeg mode and take another shot of same. 3. Extract RAW shot later on computer, have it open in one window in Photoshop. 4. Open the jpeg shot of same in another window in Photoshop. 5. Zoom in on both equally so you're looking at the same group of pixels in each shot - compare. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 15 Oct 2003 at 0:59, Rob Brigham wrote: Seeing the full size files, this is clear cut for me. Jpg is not a problem from a compression point of view, but creating the jpgs from the camera is throwing away some of the information from the image capture which can never be recovered. If you have any small exposure error then RAW will probablybe able to correct that for you, but jpg will not. I came to very similar conclusions when I first ventured into digital image capture. This is precisely why I regularly check my historgams when shots are critical. Not only can you determine the optimum exposure you can also match the cameras contrast control to the scene. For instance why flat line at the top and bottom of the histogram when a high contrast setting will provide a broader histogram with obviously greater delineation across the light range of the scene. Shooting RAW has more drawbacks than positive attributes for me. Saving is slow, file size is huge, I can't zoom the RAW image on review in the camera, my RAW import utility is poor and even the better third party s/w is pretty slow. I spent some time learning how to optimise capture and I save in-camera in jpeg, I'm most often very pleased with the results. I'm still keen to have some time with the *ist D to see if the RAW processing stream has improved any. 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
a DSLR is the most accurate light meter an average photographer will ever get their hands on. white balance can be fixed trivially after the fact when shooting in RAW mode. it makes the same adjustment as the camera does on the fly or with higher precision, depending on your preferences. Herb - Original Message - From: Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:40 PM Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 13 Oct 2003 at 0:09, graywolf wrote: Probably a Macbeth Color Checker. Could also be an IT8.7/2 calibrated colour target too. I have a print (scanner or digicam) and slide version, both come with calibration offsets on floppy and can be used to produce a customised colour calibration profile using appropriate software ie Vuescan. http://www.monacosys.com/targets.html 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
$79 !?!?!?! Did he sell ANY? -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 04:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auto may be OK when you are shooting RAW but it's a pain in the butt if you are shooting high quality jpeg, I'm rarely happy with the results (using any digicam that I've ever had my hands on). Well, that's why we shoot raw! Would the same guys snigger when a photog indicates that they use CC filters on their digicam too? Yeah. We were snigering more at his attitude. Basically he was saying you couldn't get acceptable images unless you did a WB with a perfectly white object. Luckily, he had several hundred perfectly white objects with him, and he was discounting them at $79 a pop. tv
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
-Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 04:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Here's what I do: - Shoot raw, auto WB. That's not always practical, but I have just ordered my second 1Gb card, so with 2.5Gb total I will be able to do it more often now. - FTP it to a lab that knows what they're doing. Here's my little theory about WB - you don't need to worry about it. What have print labs been doing for years? Working with a media that is stuck on daylight balance but shot in a multitude of conditions. If you're making prints, find an expert printer and let him do his job. Yeah, but if I had an expert printer who I was consistently happy with and I didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for then I wouldn't have felt so much drive towards digital in the first place. For many, half the point of digital is cutting this weak link out of the chain.
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Couple of dozen, al least. tv -Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] $79 !?!?!?! Did he sell ANY? -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 04:07 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel -Original Message- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Auto may be OK when you are shooting RAW but it's a pain in the butt if you are shooting high quality jpeg, I'm rarely happy with the results (using any digicam that I've ever had my hands on). Well, that's why we shoot raw! Would the same guys snigger when a photog indicates that they use CC filters on their digicam too? Yeah. We were snigering more at his attitude. Basically he was saying you couldn't get acceptable images unless you did a WB with a perfectly white object. Luckily, he had several hundred perfectly white objects with him, and he was discounting them at $79 a pop. tv
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
-Original Message- From: Rob Brigham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Here's my little theory about WB - you don't need to worry about it. What have print labs been doing for years? Working with a media that is stuck on daylight balance but shot in a multitude of conditions. If you're making prints, find an expert printer and let him do his job. Yeah, but if I had an expert printer who I was consistently happy with and I didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for then I wouldn't have felt so much drive towards digital in the first place. For many, half the point of digital is cutting this weak link out of the chain. Fair enough. My attitude is that I'm the expert on composing the shot, there's a geek in a coat somewhere who's the expert on making a print. I've got my job, he's got his. tv
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Fair enough. My attitude is that I'm the expert on composing the shot, there's a geek in a coat somewhere who's the expert on making a print. I've got my job, he's got his. tv Tom, In your position I would do the same thing. Since I'm doing my own printing, I find it's often easier to adjust the WB prior to exposure rather than after. The instant review usually tells me if I'M close enough. I seldom use manual WB though, but one of the presets is usually close enough. Bill
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On Monday, Oct 13, 2003, at 02:31 America/New_York, Rob Studdert wrote: Could also be an IT8.7/2 calibrated colour target too. We used a Kodak Q13 chart in the PhaseOne training course. But then again, this is a US$14,000 digicam with no auto white balance. :-) Note: we used a Q13 rather than a Macbeth color checker because the purpose was to neutralize the grays. --jc
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Tell me about it. I buy high density polyethylene (HDPE) for fixtures and jigs for my woodworking, and its mighty expensive stuff. I buy it on ebay sometimes and machine it to the right dimensions. Its perfect for stable, low friction applications though. Plastic comes in many flavors! graywolf wrote: Yep everything is plastic these days, guns, supersonic aircraft, blankets, your drawers, my teeth (grin). Funny thing is there are cheap plastics and plastics that cost more than machined titanium. cheap and plastic are not necessarily synonymous anymore (look at the price of those teeth). Cotty wrote: On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and lens mount in registration. At least thats what I've been told. The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. And hence an area that saves money. The thing is, build quality on everything these days is getting worse. You look at anything from toasters to cars. The amount of plastic is appalling. We're being 'plastic groomed'. So most conusmers will pick up a 300D and think, 'Hey this isn't that bad'. Picking up the *ist D or 10D/D100 and they'd notice the difference. D1x/h / 1Ds / DC14thingywossname n and they'd notice the difference big time. ...and an LX and they'd faint at the quality! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Yep everything is plastic these days, guns, supersonic aircraft, blankets, your drawers, my teeth (grin). Funny thing is there are cheap plastics and plastics that cost more than machined titanium. cheap and plastic are not necessarily synonymous anymore (look at the price of those teeth). Very good point Tom, I'll give you that. But you know what I mean ;-) Your teeth excepted. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: That's not always practical, but I have just ordered my second 1Gb card, so with 2.5Gb total I will be able to do it more often now. Jumping Jupiter Rob. That's a heck of a lot of space! I have 2X 512 Mb cards and I've yet to fill both in one sitting. In fact I have only just filled one in one sitting, if you see what I mean. Mind you, I'm a portable computer guy and it goes everywhere with me. 2.5 Gb though - sheesh! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Here's my little theory about WB - you don't need to worry about it. What have print labs been doing for years? Working with a media that is stuck on daylight balance but shot in a multitude of conditions. If you're making prints, find an expert printer and let him do his job. Yeah, but if I had an expert printer who I was consistently happy with and I didn't have to pay an arm and a leg for then I wouldn't have felt so much drive towards digital in the first place. For many, half the point of digital is cutting this weak link out of the chain. tv's needs are different. I enjoy the printing almost as much as the shooting. When I get it just right and a real gem slides out onto the tray, I'm in heaven. BTW the Ilford Gallerie Smooth Pearl is superb stuff. Bloody thick! I really like it. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 13/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Yep everything is plastic these days, guns, supersonic aircraft, blankets, your drawers, my teeth (grin). Funny thing is there are cheap plastics and plastics that cost more than machined titanium. cheap and plastic are not necessarily synonymous anymore (look at the price of those teeth). This is all very well and good, but cheap plastic crap is just that, nothing more. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Jumping Jupiter Rob. That's a heck of a lot of space! I have 2X 512 Mb cards and I've yet to fill both in one sitting. In fact I have only just filled one in one sitting, if you see what I mean. Canon also seems to use more compression than Pentax. My buddy with the 300D can fit quite a few more images onto a card than I can. William Robb
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Yeah, this is the main reason. RAW only gives 70 shots even on 1Gb. If I go on holiday I am not taking a laptop with me - that's the dayjob and exactly what I am trying to get away from! I could do 70 shots in a weekend easily if something special is hapenning. When I went to the Brit GP 2 years ago, I think I did 7 or 8 films in one day - the sort of shots I would want in RAW. Likewise when I went down to the dorset coast and got up a 5 to get the sunrise every morning - the light is changing so fast here that presumably the white balance would need to keep being adjusted, so RAW would make life simpler? Plus the missus suddenly wants to use my camera when I am at work! Thats not on really, but you cant say no - so she will probably get the half gig card for that use. IF Pentax RAW was a bit more thrifty then I might not have felt the need for so much. Mind you, the fact that I do a lot of work with pocket PCs that use CF cards at the moment makes it easier to get hold of them cheaply. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 21:44 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel - Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Jumping Jupiter Rob. That's a heck of a lot of space! I have 2X 512 Mb cards and I've yet to fill both in one sitting. In fact I have only just filled one in one sitting, if you see what I mean. Canon also seems to use more compression than Pentax. My buddy with the 300D can fit quite a few more images onto a card than I can. William Robb
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Ha Ha, LOL! Have you got the names and addresses of the people who bought those 'white elephants'? I wonder if they want to buy a nice bucket of pure Bristol water for a lot of money? -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 October 2003 19:56 To: pentax list Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel We were snigering more at his attitude. Basically he was saying you couldn't get acceptable images unless you did a WB with a perfectly white object. Luckily, he had several hundred perfectly white objects with him, and he was discounting them at $79 a pop. $79 !?!?!?! Did he sell ANY? Couple of dozen, al least. tv Was this guy wearing binoculars so he could spot them coming? :-D Mind you, it's all tax-deductable, eh. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
OK, now we're getting to the part where my analysis has to be spot on. Shooting motorsports, I'm not going to have time to review in camera. Not something you want to do, in any case, with large heavy objects whizzing by at 200mph. Not that I haven't seen people doing that; sitting on the Jersey barrier, back to traffic, paying no attention. [Have you heard the term for that activity? It's known as 'chimping'; folks staring at their camera dispay anf going Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!] It sounds like I'm really going to need to have a laptop along for dumps from the CF (or whatever) cards. day on film. See below I can easily do 250+ shots a day on film. [ . . . ] I'll probably shoot more on digital since the incremental cost is so low . I've shot more than 250 frames during a single on-track session. For the cost of a couple of GB of CF memory you can get this: http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=detailssid=10463894873648587sku=ICDSDFT That's a 30GB hard drive, 3.5 LCD review screen, built in CF reader. No assistant needed, and a lot easier to carry around the circuit. With that, and a couple of 512Mb CF cards, you'd be able to shoot all you want in raw mode; just change the 'film' every 35 frames, and dump one to the hard drive while you're shooting the next. The only reasons I haven't got one of these myself is that I usually have my laptop with me in the media room for posting the images as soon as I can, and that as I shoot in daylight almost all the time I expect the white balance presets to be good enough. And one other thing - with the laptop I can make sure I've burned the images to CD before I delete them from the CF card - I'm paranoid, but I never like having a single point of failure for something as evanescent as digital images.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 17:33:36 -0600, William Robb wrote: I can't actually verify it with my own little eyes, is that the fine JPEG save is pretty much indistinguishable from RAW. As long as I can still do the manipulations I can foresee needing to do, without going nuts, or spending more time than I'm spending scanning and cleaning film images on the CanoScan, that's fine by me. I haven't a clue as to the dump speed. I use a USB2 card reader which seems quick enough. I bought it after getting tired of how slow my G1 downloaded. I should have been clearer. I didn't mean dumping them through the camera's USB port, because I expected that to be as slow as molasses in the winter. What I actually meant was doing a big XCOPY from the CF into the computer using a card reader (IDE or SCSI, not USB). TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by Grisoft's AVG. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 03-10-10
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Hi John, On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:36:27 -0400 (EDT), John Francis wrote: Not that I haven't seen people doing that; sitting on the Jersey barrier, back to traffic, paying no attention. I don't even stand around with my back to traffic when I'm flagging (unless I'm the yellow flagger). And I'm a lot more protected in the flag station than a lot of the photogs, hanging out at fence openings and fire posts. [Have you heard the term for that activity? It's known as 'chimping'; folks staring at their camera dispay anf going Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!] HAR! I see that in Atlanta traffic every day, too ... from people behind the wheel! I've shot more than 250 frames during a single on-track session. I would, but I'm doing it for myself rather than for pay, so I can't justify the extra cost. Plus, I want to see a _little_ of the race. http://www.adorama.com/catalog.tpl?op=detailssid=10463894873648587sku=ICDSDFT That's a 30GB hard drive, 3.5 LCD review screen, built in CF reader. Now that sounds excellent. For that money, I couldn't even get a used laptop with 30GB of storage. 20k JPEGs probably means 2k RAWs or more, which would be plenty based on my past usage, and counting the ones that get smacked for focus, composition, etc. Hang that sucker on my web belt and I don't even have to sit down to swap cards and start downloading. I wonder what duration on the battery is like? Especially considering I wouldn't be reviewing too much until the end of the day or event, so the LCD could stay off. And one other thing - with the laptop I can make sure I've burned the images to CD before I delete them from the CF card - I'm paranoid, but I never like having a single point of failure for something as evanescent as digital images. I'm a bit paranoid, too, but I'd wipe the CF cards as soon as they got into this little device just because going and burning CDs would eat too much of my time. Not having credentials, I do a lot of camping, waiting for someone to get out of the spot I want, or need, to get my shots. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ -- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by Grisoft's AVG. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.525 / Virus Database: 322 - Release Date: 03-10-10
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
*istD has a stainless steel chassis... [snipped many favorable comparisons] Rebel Digital feels cheap and plastiky So, Bill, what's your point? vbg Fred
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Just trying to show why the *istD costs considerably more than the digital Rebel. Bill - Original Message - From: Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 8:23 AM Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel *istD has a stainless steel chassis... [snipped many favorable comparisons] Rebel Digital feels cheap and plastiky So, Bill, what's your point? vbg Fred
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: *istD has a stainless steel chassis... vs a plastic chassis for Canon D100, S2, Sigma, 10D and Digital Rebel have a plastic chassis Hi Uncle Bill, I agree with the trend of your argument but a point of information regarding the above: from DPReview: The EOS-D30/D60 had a metal substructure but a plastic main body. The EOS-10D now has robust magnesium alloy body The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. Pedantically yours ;-) Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
*istD is faster...faster in waking up and operating than Canon the Canon takes a week and a half to wake up Um, the 10D takes 3 seconds. So does the 300D. ;) *istD allows user to choose AF sensor(s) .. 'automatic' with D Rebel Not true. There are something like nine or ten AF sensors to choose from on the 300D.
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
So it's OK to add all these features and drive up the cost of the *istD to all buyers but adding the $10.00 K/M lense compatibility was off-limits??? JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:25 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Excellent Bill, I may even take this is to the kid and tell him to study it... Vic *istD has a stainless steel chassis... vs a plastic chassis for Canon D100, S2, Sigma, 10D and Digital Rebel have a plastic chassis *istD has a MUCH larger and a spectacular viewfinder..vs all other DSLRs *istD features glass pentaprism, like 10D has, better than Rebel's penta-mirror *istD viewfinder is therefore brighter *istD has interchangeable screens... competitors don't *istD can be powered by AA batts vs a proprietary battery Lithium, NIMH, nicads and AA alkalines. get 'em everywhere *istD is faster...faster in waking up and operating than Canon the Canon takes a week and a half to wake up *istD has smarter autofocus, 11 sensors, 9 of which are cross vs 7 sensors *istD allows user to choose AF sensor(s) .. 'automatic' with D Rebel *istD has PC terminal (D100 and Rebel Digital do not) (10D does) *istD allows MTF program mode. nobody else does that *istD allows instant access to White Balance settings, easier than all others *istD allows intentional multiple exposures (no so for D100, 10D or Rebel D) *istD FEELS like a substantial camera, Rebel Digital feels cheap and plastiky Bill*
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
So, Bill, what's your point? vbg Just trying to show why the *istD costs considerably more than the digital Rebel. I understand, Bill - I was just kidding you (notice the vbg after my query). Please know that I was ~not~ questioning the worth of your post. On the contrary, I do agree that the Starkist, even with its less than perfect lens compatibility, is the neatest thing going digitally, and your list of differences made that quite clear. (Now, if I only had a spare $1700... vbg) Fred
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel So it's OK to add all these features and drive up the cost of the *istD to all buyers but adding the $10.00 K/M lense compatibility was off-limits??? John, stop pulling numbers out of your ass. If you want to bitch about this, get your facts striaght. Find out how much it really would cost per unit to include compatability for K lenses. Make sure it includes all the costs too, from extra RD right down the line to mark-ups to the end user. If you think it's $10.00, you really have your head jammed pretty far up your ass. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Do people have a feel for how long a set of batteries last? Not long. I don't think a set of 4 AA NIMH batteries would go for more than a hundred and fifty shots. Mine shows low battery after about 75, but seems to keep going for quite a while after. *istD is faster...faster in waking up and operating than Canon the Canon takes a week and a half to wake up Um, the 10D takes 3 seconds. This is one area where I really like the ist D. It boots very quickly, about a second after turning it on, it's ready to go. Also, you can set it up not to sleep at all. *istD allows instant access to White Balance settings, easier than all others The 10D has good access to WB. I'm not sure that the ist-D could be any easier. The ist D is pretty easy. Set the control wheel to WB, turn the front dial (I think) to the white balance you want, and go. If you want manual white balance, it's a two button push after setting up for it on the WB control. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and lens mount in registration. At least thats what I've been told. The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: Amita Guha Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Not true. There are something like nine or ten AF sensors to choose from on the 300D. The 300D has nicer buttons for choosing this stuff too. The 4 way rocker on the ist D is kind of fiddly. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Owens) wrote: *istD has interchangeable screens... competitors don't It does? Nothing about it in my manual. Do you mean the variable diopter setting on the viewfinder? --- John Dallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
-Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] The 10D has good access to WB. I'm not sure that the ist-D could be any easier. The ist D is pretty easy. Set the control wheel to WB, turn the front dial (I think) to the white balance you want, and go. On the 10D you hit the WB button, spin a dial. The slected WB is always displayed on the top panel. tv
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: John Dallman Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel *istD has interchangeable screens... competitors don't It does? Nothing about it in my manual. Do you mean the variable diopter setting on the viewfinder? Cool. I just had a look, and it sure looks like the screen comes out. Hopefully, Pentax will come out with a grid screen for it. It is a really tiny little screen, too. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
- Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On the 10D you hit the WB button, spin a dial. The slected WB is always displayed on the top panel. It sounds like there isn't really any advantage to one or the other. They are both getting there in much the same way. One less button on the Pentax, which I appreciate. William Robb
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Then why was it avail on the $100 K-1000 for years??? DIRT CHEAP .. All it is is a simple cam that tells the body how many stops less light the exposure will have vs. wide open reading. Nothing fancy. X number of stops per degree of rotation VERY SIMPLE. You repeatedly thinks this needs tons of RD. It doesnt. The Digital thingy has you very confused Face it they have screwed the K/M owners no matter how you slice it JCO J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 1:51 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel So it's OK to add all these features and drive up the cost of the *istD to all buyers but adding the $10.00 K/M lense compatibility was off-limits??? John, stop pulling numbers out of your ass. If you want to bitch about this, get your facts striaght. Find out how much it really would cost per unit to include compatability for K lenses. Make sure it includes all the costs too, from extra RD right down the line to mark-ups to the end user. If you think it's $10.00, you really have your head jammed pretty far up your ass. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Jim A. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:15:58 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:15:59 -0400 - Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On the 10D you hit the WB button, spin a dial. The slected WB is always displayed on the top panel. It sounds like there isn't really any advantage to one or the other. They are both getting there in much the same way. One less button on the Pentax, which I appreciate. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. I tend to use the presets on mine depending on the light. I've been white balancing for 12 years shooting tv news and there is not one lighting situation that I come across that I couldn't tell you to within 200 deg K what the colour is. Tip, if you're shooting available light indoors with mixed lighting sources - ie daylight coming in through the windows and tungsten bulbs on etc, and you're not using flash, set the WB for about 4400 - that's half way between tungsten (3200) and daylight (5600) and known in my trade as 'half blue'. That way you don't get horrible blue low key in the shadows, and the faces aren't burnt out like lobsters from the table lamps ;-) Worst light to use? Sodium Discharge lamps. Yuk. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I don't bother to carry a white card (yet), but was never really happy with the Auto-White-Balance and tended to select a warmer preset. I was getting fed up continually switching though, and this weekend have tried using the manual white balance set from: A white T-shirt A white painted door A Radiator There is almost always something 'white enough' to do a consistently better job than AWB or presets - I am totally happy with the results - and it was sooo easy too. I you use RAW (this is definitely the BEST solution) then it doesn't matter, but that fills the card up pretty quickly. If you have to think about white balance, then setting it from something white is pretty easy and more consistent than any other method. -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 October 2003 20:40 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Jim A. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 12:15:58 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:15:59 -0400 - Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On the 10D you hit the WB button, spin a dial. The slected WB is always displayed on the top panel. It sounds like there isn't really any advantage to one or the other. They are both getting there in much the same way. One less button on the Pentax, which I appreciate. William Robb
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Do people have a feel for how long a set of batteries last? Not long. I don't think a set of 4 AA NIMH batteries would go for more than a hundred and fifty shots. Mine shows low battery after about 75, but seems to keep going for quite a while after. Anyone have experience with the battery grip? I get at least 1300 shots out of the 10D w/ grip. I don't have an exact number as I've never ran them down all the way. Me too. Don't forget that the *ist D runs a CCD and they are battery hogs, Tom. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
The istD grip doesn't have any batteries integral. It takes 4 AAs just like the body. These last the same as the ones in the body. If you have both (first Pentax grip where you can keep the batts in the body?) then it uses them in parrallel. Number of shots depends on the batts used. -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Anyone have experience with the battery grip? I get at least 1300 shots out of the 10D w/ grip. I don't have an exact number as I've never ran them down all the way. tv
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I only use Auto for flash at the moment - unless I cant find anything white to balance off. I wasn't really very happy with Auto. Unless using RAW of course, where it doesn't matter. -Original Message- From: tom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 October 2003 21:29 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? No one that I know. I actually went to a digital seminar thingie a while back which was basically a front for this guy to sell his *really* white white-card. He claimed you couldn't do proper photography without one. I was with a bunch of photographer friends, and we just sniggered. All of us use auto. Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Right. The histogram is so innacurate. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Whatever. tv
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I put my (2100) NIMH batts in around 200 shots ago - still showing full on the camera! This is with around 20% using the flash as wireless controller. Before that the original 2 CR whatevers had taken about 400 and still showed full. I don't hold back on viewing the shots on screen either - the kids always want to see the pic right after I have taken it! -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 October 2003 18:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel - Original Message - From: tom Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Do people have a feel for how long a set of batteries last? Not long. I don't think a set of 4 AA NIMH batteries would go for more than a hundred and fifty shots. Mine shows low battery after about 75, but seems to keep going for quite a while after. *istD is faster...faster in waking up and operating than Canon the Canon takes a week and a half to wake up Um, the 10D takes 3 seconds. This is one area where I really like the ist D. It boots very quickly, about a second after turning it on, it's ready to go. Also, you can set it up not to sleep at all. *istD allows instant access to White Balance settings, easier than all others The 10D has good access to WB. I'm not sure that the ist-D could be any easier. The ist D is pretty easy. Set the control wheel to WB, turn the front dial (I think) to the white balance you want, and go. If you want manual white balance, it's a two button push after setting up for it on the WB control. William Robb
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Nope, I don't mean the diopter adjustment. If you have one, pull the lens off and look up at the screen. You'll see the little metal thingy that is used to hold the screen in place. Cool. One of you guys is going to *have* to pull that sucker outa there or you won't sleep a wink tonight. Who's the first to crack? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Not really. The other side of the grey card you carry for reflected light metering is a white card that can be used for white balance.
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Let's not mince words, Wheatfield. HAR. -Original Message- From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12-Oct-03 10:51 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel - Original Message - From: J. C. O'Connell Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel So it's OK to add all these features and drive up the cost of the *istD to all buyers but adding the $10.00 K/M lense compatibility was off-limits??? John, stop pulling numbers out of your ass. If you want to bitch about this, get your facts striaght. Find out how much it really would cost per unit to include compatability for K lenses. Make sure it includes all the costs too, from extra RD right down the line to mark-ups to the end user. If you think it's $10.00, you really have your head jammed pretty far up your ass. William Robb
RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Not me - I know (from experience) better than to start something which will take hours to fix this close to sleep time! -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 12 October 2003 23:02 To: pentax list Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: Nope, I don't mean the diopter adjustment. If you have one, pull the lens off and look up at the screen. You'll see the little metal thingy that is used to hold the screen in place. Cool. One of you guys is going to *have* to pull that sucker outa there or you won't sleep a wink tonight. Who's the first to crack? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12 Oct 2003 at 12:40, Jim Apilado wrote: I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Lots of extra stuff to carry. For daylight shooting the fixed colour temps are pretty reliable, I only tend to pack my white reference card when I need absolute colour consistency under mixed lighting. Using an external meter with a digicam is a farce. The fact that most have integrated exposure histograms and the ability to dial up the contrast to suite the conditions means that a light meter will only get you in the ball-park. You have to use the in camera displays to optimise your exposure. 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12 Oct 2003 at 18:04, John Francis wrote: Not really. The other side of the grey card you carry for reflected light metering is a white card that can be used for white balance. My Kodak grey card isn't white (or grey) enough to make a good balance from, I can't white balance from a white card in direct sunlight without using a 4x ND as my camera (E-10) saturates (f11 @ 1/640 E80) 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
On 12 Oct 2003 at 16:28, tom wrote: No one that I know. I actually went to a digital seminar thingie a while back which was basically a front for this guy to sell his *really* white white-card. He claimed you couldn't do proper photography without one. I was with a bunch of photographer friends, and we just sniggered. All of us use auto. Auto may be OK when you are shooting RAW but it's a pain in the butt if you are shooting high quality jpeg, I'm rarely happy with the results (using any digicam that I've ever had my hands on). Would the same guys snigger when a photog indicates that they use CC filters on their digicam too? 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Too bad. An owner of a processing lab suggested getting a special card that uses a gray card and a white card. You will get better color if you white balance first. You and your photo friends should really check into this. There was a time when carrying a gray card to meter on was the photo thing to do. Read somewhere once about a card that had all the color spectrum that you took a picture of before shooting your color shots. This would help the film processor in getting the correct color balance. Jim A. From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:28:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:24:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? No one that I know. I actually went to a digital seminar thingie a while back which was basically a front for this guy to sell his *really* white white-card. He claimed you couldn't do proper photography without one. I was with a bunch of photographer friends, and we just sniggered. All of us use auto. Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Right. The histogram is so innacurate. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Whatever. tv
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Here's my little theory about WB - you don't need to worry about it. What have print labs been doing for years? Working with a media that is stuck on daylight balance but shot in a multitude of conditions. If you're making prints, find an expert printer and let him do his job. Yep. I must admit I was more than a little amused to see folks taking digs at the digital bodies because there was a white-balance control. It's a lot easier to tweak a control dial than it is to swap multiple compensation filters on the front of lenses. So, of course, film users jyst don't bother; they rely on the printer (or the scanner) to fix it.
Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
You have to buy the vertical grip to get a PC terminal on a D100, but yes it it available though $150 seems like a lot to pay for a PC terminal (grin). Heiko Hamann wrote: Hi Cotty, on 12 Oct 03 you wrote in pentax.list: The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. Pedantically yours ;-) Here's another ;-) *istD has PC terminal (D100 and Rebel Digital do not) (10D does) The Nikon D100 has a PC terminal, too. I'm looking forward to see the Pentax software and to compare it to Nikon's. Maybe we can find out, what Pentax has got from Nikon in exchange to its AF-system in the D2H ;-) Pedantically and speculatively yours, Heiko -- 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Yep everything is plastic these days, guns, supersonic aircraft, blankets, your drawers, my teeth (grin). Funny thing is there are cheap plastics and plastics that cost more than machined titanium. cheap and plastic are not necessarily synonymous anymore (look at the price of those teeth). Cotty wrote: On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and lens mount in registration. At least thats what I've been told. The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. And hence an area that saves money. The thing is, build quality on everything these days is getting worse. You look at anything from toasters to cars. The amount of plastic is appalling. We're being 'plastic groomed'. So most conusmers will pick up a 300D and think, 'Hey this isn't that bad'. Picking up the *ist D or 10D/D100 and they'd notice the difference. D1x/h / 1Ds / DC14thingywossname n and they'd notice the difference big time. ...and an LX and they'd faint at the quality! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _ Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk -- 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: *istD vs. Digital Rebel
Probably a Macbeth Color Checker. Jim Apilado wrote: Too bad. An owner of a processing lab suggested getting a special card that uses a gray card and a white card. You will get better color if you white balance first. You and your photo friends should really check into this. There was a time when carrying a gray card to meter on was the photo thing to do. Read somewhere once about a card that had all the color spectrum that you took a picture of before shooting your color shots. This would help the film processor in getting the correct color balance. Jim A. From: tom [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:28:30 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: *istD vs. Digital Rebel Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Resent-Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 16:24:59 -0400 -Original Message- From: Jim Apilado [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2003 3:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: *istD vs. Digital Rebel I wonder how many users of digital equipment carry a white card to do white balancing? No one that I know. I actually went to a digital seminar thingie a while back which was basically a front for this guy to sell his *really* white white-card. He claimed you couldn't do proper photography without one. I was with a bunch of photographer friends, and we just sniggered. All of us use auto. Just like how many digital slr users carry a light meter around with them all the time so they can get more accurate metering that their dslr doesn't seemingly give them. Right. The histogram is so innacurate. Lots of extra stuff to carry. Whatever. tv -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com You might as well accept people as they are, you are not going to be able to change them anyway.
