Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, I haven't. But you knew that already. and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? I don't have immediate plans to get a digital, either. Like I've said earlier, maybe I'll change my plan when they release the full-frame digital MZ-5n ;-) - Toralf
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Tom Reese wrote: Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote: ...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? That would be me. Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese yawn - dog bites man :-) ann p.s. well maybe there were SOME here that didn't know
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and plan to stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital offerings are quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a hint of gearlust in me at least... Pål
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Pål Jensen wrote: I'm not using digital. I've just ordered an Nikon 9000ED scanner and plan to stick with film for a few more years. Besides, Pentax digital offerings are quite underwhelming in my opinion, and doesn't trigger a hint of gearlust in me at least... What would it take for Pentax's offerings to be whelming in your opinion?
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel, I'm using digital. I've been asked to make some photos of my sports club on thursday for the newspaper. I'll take them with the digi, because the workflow is faster and I've been asked for files. Nevertheless, I've just finished a darkroom course. I started in summer developing my first BW negatives. Last sunday I picked up my new (used) enlarger, the rest is to follow soon. Guess what I'll be doing during christmas holiday. Film is great, especially for big enlargements. Probably there's something in medium format to follow. This was not really an answer to your question, but it's my statement that came to my mind. To me, it's not so much a question of either or, but of using the right tool for the right job. Pancho Shel Belinkoff schrieb: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
At 9:39 AM -0800 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Me! Me! -- Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Op Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:39:02 +0100 schreef Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? I haven't, and I don't have any plans. Unless local C41 processing becomes totally unavailable in the near future (which look a lot more likely than a year ago): of course. I'll either have to switch to digital, or limit myself to BW. -- Regards, Lucas
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
Hi Shel, My only digital is the Optio 555, if we don't count the digital workflow from Large Format (4x5) slides thru the Epson Expression 1680 Pro to PS. I'm still waiting for a full frame DSLR. Maybe I will go over to the dark s(l)ide, the Canon 5D is appealing (and besides, my only AF lens is the FA 100/2.8 macro so I will end up buying AF lenses in any case and the IS would be nice). Antti-Pekka Antti-Pekka Virjonen Computec Oy Turku www.computec.fi -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 7:39 PM To: PDML Subject: Who's Not Using Digital I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
There were a lot of cameras and other things I could have sold to generate some quick cash. The istDS returned a greater percentage of the purchase price than the film cameras would have, and since more people are interested in digital than film, I figured it would sell faster - it sold in a few minutes after posting the 4sale message. The Leicas not only have some sentimental value, but they and the Pentax film bodies are physically easier for me to use right now - they are easier to hold and shoot. Because of the way I grip the istDS, it is harder for me to hold, and the control layout is more difficult to use easily. Selling the digi was a no-brainer. I like it, and I miss it, but I also know that, in the long run, I'd miss the Leicas and earlier Pentaxes more, and, being older cameras, replacing them with similar models in good condition (many of my older cameras have been overhauled within the last couple of years - the M2 Leica has a brand new M4 rangefinder system) would be difficult. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Date: 12/11/2005 5:51:37 PM Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital Probably a good move, Shel. I've been thinking about selling one of my Ds now before a new camera is introduced. Paul On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for some unexpected medical expenses, and was unable to work for a month or so, so I chose to sell the digi rather than one of my film cameras. I think graywolf knew that, so there was no need to explain it further. IOW, working with film is still important to me, and while the digi is nice (and I miss it), the Leicas and some of the Pentaxes are nicer still. When I get my financial equilibrium back, I'll buy another DSLR ... I've been watching the prices on the istDS2 and am looking forward to seeing what Pentax has coming up for new offerings. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: keith_w Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR U, I seem to have missed something... I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year? And now you're leaving it? I don't know why... Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry!
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I have not either made move to digital. I like the stuff I have. However, for bird photography I'm considering getting a digital - also for the sake of being able to check out exposures. Otherwise I'm quite happy with my MF and 35mm stuff. I do some cold weather photography and my LX and Hasselblad do the job much better than LCD dependent cameras do. I'm also in the same league as Jack - sometimes using my wifes compact digital. Cheers, Ronald Jack Davis wrote: Not yet..aside from my wife's compact. Don't know exactly what it will take, but it will have to come from Pentax. As the saying goes, I'll know it when I see it. --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've used. The problem is with the lights rather than the shadows. This one, for instance: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1085361ref=author It takes medium format to deal with those buggers up on the masts. Even 35 mm analog produces hopelessly flared-out highlights with stars around them which might be fun on an xmas card but are rather annoying in anything else. This here... http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1145051ref=author ...is on 35 mm and it already shows a lot of what I call the xmas card effect around the lights. Other than using elaborate DRI (and that still won't get rid of the stars) there's only one way: the biggest neg format you can muster, at least 645, and a modern colour negative film. Something like Portra or Optima where you literally have to burn holes into the emulsion before they'll top out in the highlights. Won't even work with slide film. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I'm not regular poster, but sometimes i think about going digital. For example, i was asked to shoot some event this week: If i have DSLR, then it will be somewhat easier. Now i have option to use my MZ-3 and Press-800, with 50mm and 135mm manual focus lens. Great setup for landscape/nature photography, but not soo good for indoor events. So far - it is out of my budget. For that money i can get more lenses for my 645 or mountain climbing equipment upgrades. Gasha Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Agree. If i have a chance to get used istD, i'll get it. But otherwise i'm planning to robber some bank shortly after P645D will be available :D But more likely, that i get wide angle lens for my 645 or get 67. Gasha David Mann wrote: Me. A digi body is in my long-term plans, but there's no budget for it. My plan to pick up a 67II body is higher-priority anyway. If I had money I'd have bought a really good kit recently :( - Dave On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations, it's easy to marry two exposures. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle situations like you show here without flare. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:16 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've used. The problem is with the lights rather than the shadows. This one, for instance: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1085361ref=author It takes medium format to deal with those buggers up on the masts. Even 35 mm analog produces hopelessly flared-out highlights with stars around them which might be fun on an xmas card but are rather annoying in anything else. This here... http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1145051ref=author ...is on 35 mm and it already shows a lot of what I call the xmas card effect around the lights. Other than using elaborate DRI (and that still won't get rid of the stars) there's only one way: the biggest neg format you can muster, at least 645, and a modern colour negative film. Something like Portra or Optima where you literally have to burn holes into the emulsion before they'll top out in the highlights. Won't even work with slide film. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Nice shots by the way. You make the mundane quite attractive. Good work. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:46 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over highlights than you can achieve with any film. For extreme situations, it's easy to marry two exposures. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle situations like you show here without flare. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:16 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: David Oswald [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've used. The problem is with the lights rather than the shadows. This one, for instance: http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1085361ref=author It takes medium format to deal with those buggers up on the masts. Even 35 mm analog produces hopelessly flared-out highlights with stars around them which might be fun on an xmas card but are rather annoying in anything else. This here... http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1145051ref=author ...is on 35 mm and it already shows a lot of what I call the xmas card effect around the lights. Other than using elaborate DRI (and that still won't get rid of the stars) there's only one way: the biggest neg format you can muster, at least 645, and a modern colour negative film. Something like Portra or Optima where you literally have to burn holes into the emulsion before they'll top out in the highlights. Won't even work with slide film. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over highlights than you can achieve with any film. No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world will bring back the lost infirmation. For extreme situations, it's easy to marry two exposures. Only with static subjects. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle situations like you show here without flare. Those stars aren't flare but the result of diffraction at the diaphragm edges. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
The PSCS RAW converter will extrapolate missing highlight information in one channel based on that in other channels, according to Adobe. Based on considerable personal experience, I can say that I've seen highlights appear when the exposure is dialed down in conversion that were at not apparent at first viewing. I also know I can pull up underexposed parts of a frame in RAW if I expose to save the highlights. In other words I can manipulate the exposure curve, post exposure. I realize the stars are due to diffraction, but the poster (was it you?) also complained about flare with 35mm. I merely pointed out that flare is a function of lensing. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over highlights than you can achieve with any film. No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world will bring back the lost infirmation. For extreme situations, it's easy to marry two exposures. Only with static subjects. Controlling flare is mainly a lensing issue. The most current Pentax glass, such as the FA 35/2, can handle situations like you show here without flare. Those stars aren't flare but the result of diffraction at the diaphragm edges. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
- Original Message - From: Ralf R. Radermacher Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital Shooting RAW with a digital camera will give you better control over highlights than you can achieve with any film. No, it doesn't. Once the sensor is saturated no RAW format in the world will bring back the lost infirmation. Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered exposure. Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time William Robb
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered exposure. Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time Tell you what. I'll simply win the lottery next weekend and then I'll invite you all over for a shoot-out in front of the Seraing coking plant so you'll see for yourselves. Nothing like some good practical experience. :-) Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
me. no plans till I can put a 15mm on without problems, and when I do, I want it to have a 15mm focal length. I might have to wait till no film is available, lol. Steve - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: PDML pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:39 AM Subject: Who's Not Using Digital I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Sounds like a plan. Count me in :-)). Seriously, your photography is excellent. But it's interesting to consider what might be possible here. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 7:58 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered exposure. Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time Tell you what. I'll simply win the lottery next weekend and then I'll invite you all over for a shoot-out in front of the Seraing coking plant so you'll see for yourselves. Nothing like some good practical experience. :-) Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
This one time, at band camp, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Kevin, What digital bodies are you using? I have 3 *istD bodies. Sorry if I gave the impression they were of various makes. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: me. no plans till I can put a 15mm... That lens alone is reason enough for keeping at least one analog body. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Good point. However, I have no complaints with the performance of the DA 12-24. Great flare resistance, good sharpness, even in the corners. Paul On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:44 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Steve Larson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: me. no plans till I can put a 15mm... That lens alone is reason enough for keeping at least one analog body. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
One can make adapter, to the dark side, like Cotty did ;) I still wonder sometimes, what is cheaper: 1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens 2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners. 3) MF camera with wide angle lens. Gasha Paul Stenquist wrote: Good point. However, I have no complaints with the performance of the DA 12-24. Great flare resistance, good sharpness, even in the corners. Paul
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 12/12/05, Gasha, discombobulated, unleashed: 1) full frame body, with great prime wide angle lens 2) cropped sensor body, with extreme wide angle without corners. 3) MF camera with wide angle lens. I'd vote number 2. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 12, 2005, at 4:58 AM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Control over highlights isn't the same thing as trying to save a buggered exposure. Try to save the highlights off a 2 stop overexposed slide some time Tell you what. I'll simply win the lottery next weekend and then I'll invite you all over for a shoot-out in front of the Seraing coking plant so you'll see for yourselves. Nothing like some good practical experience. :-) Sounds good to me. Now I need to find funding for the travel expenses... ;-) BTW, I agree with Bill's comment. If diffraction stars are a problem, you're working at a lens opening which is too small and should open up. It's weird, but sometimes I find a need to add an ND filter for high contrast, dimly lit scenes ... Godfrey
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 12, 2005, at 5:02 AM, Steve Larson wrote: me. no plans till I can put a 15mm on without problems, and when I do, I want it to have a 15mm focal length. I might have to wait till no film is available, lol. Um, you can fit a 15mm lens on any Pentax DSLR today and it will still be a 15mm lens. I'm sure you know that but your statement taken literally makes no sense. If you want the same field of view as a film body with a 15mm lens, you need a 10mm lens for the Pentax DSLRs. I believe Sigma just announced availability of their 10-20mm lens for Pentax mount: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp Godfrey
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120103pentax_fishizoom.asp Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: Godfrey DiGiorgi If you want the same field of view as a film body with a 15mm lens, you need a 10mm lens for the Pentax DSLRs. I believe Sigma just announced availability of their 10-20mm lens for Pentax mount: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0512/05120601sigma_10-20mm.asp
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye: In my experience, the effect of a fisheye lens wears off much too rapidly to justify the expense. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
How rapidly is too rapidly? I got an FA 17-28 fisheye zoom in July, and it is still my second-most-used lens. Rick --- Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye: In my experience, the effect of a fisheye lens wears off much too rapidly to justify the expense. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How rapidly is too rapidly? I got an FA 17-28 fisheye zoom in July, and it is still my second-most-used lens. Anything online? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Ralf, See http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031; also http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760021 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760007 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760017 http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3760024 Finally, this was taken with a borrowed fisheye: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3536070 Lots more I haven't scanned yet... Enjoy, Rick --- Ralf R. Radermacher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How rapidly is too rapidly? I got an FA 17-28 fisheye zoom in July, and it is still my second-most-used lens. Anything online? Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031; also http://www.photo.net... I'll be honest, I'm rather unimpressed. Though I'm a fan of extreme wideangle lenses (of the linear variety), it appears fisheyes don't do much for me. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 13 Dec 2005 at 0:01, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: See http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=527031; also http://www.photo.net... I'll be honest, I'm rather unimpressed. Though I'm a fan of extreme wideangle lenses (of the linear variety), it appears fisheyes don't do much for me. In the digital realm converting a fisheye view to a rectilinear view is as easy as applying any digital image filter, so fisheye lenses can realistically be treated as ultra view angle rectilinear lenses 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: Who's Not Using Digital
Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In the digital realm converting a fisheye view to a rectilinear view is as easy as applying any digital image filter, so fisheye lenses can realistically be treated as ultra view angle rectilinear lenses too. Or so I thought, as well. Have you ever tried it? Once converted to linear, the residual distorsion of those lenses (usually wave-shaped) looks far worse than the fisheye image you started with and it's a lot more complicated to correct. The extremely softened edges you'll be getting aren't very esthetical, either. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 13 Dec 2005 at 0:22, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Or so I thought, as well. Have you ever tried it? Once converted to linear, the residual distorsion of those lenses (usually wave-shaped) looks far worse than the fisheye image you started with and it's a lot more complicated to correct. I convert fisheye images to rectilinear regularly and have done for many years, at least 1/3 of the 4500+ images that I shot on my recent trip were shot using my fisheye with a view to rectilinear remapping.. The extremely softened edges you'll be getting aren't very esthetical, either. There is very little visible degradation at the edges particularly given an APS cropped original file. Generally the outcome is as good as or better than dedicated WA lenses, as an example my A15/3.5 displays greater residual geometric distortion than my corrected fisheye images (though I can also negate the remnant distortion in the 15mm images using the same application). 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: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:04 PM, Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: And, for a slightly different perspective, the Pentax 10-17mm fisheye: In my experience, the effect of a fisheye lens wears off much too rapidly to justify the expense. I have to admit that fisheye views often become cliché to my eye too. However, I'm still pleased with the photos that the Zenitar 16 fish- eye makes with the DS body. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/46.htm The key is to work on good compositions for which the curvilinear rendering is an advantage rather than a detriment. Godfrey
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
Not for a couple of years. I don't want to spend money in something that is going to be outdated in several months. With slides I have the raw allways at my service with just a film scanner. Rolls of film developed and digitalized are less expensive than buying DSLR that have less pixels than film or slides, couple of Giants SD's and so on. And the tecnology is still imature, full frames that can not handle wide angles, ccd's vs cmos, limits in the number of photos a camera is able to do. I could be writing so many words about it, and most of them aren't mine. When Pentax DSLR's could match my MZS or Super A, Konica Minolta dual scan IV and slide film for the same price, I am on it. Manuel -Mensagem original- De: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Enviada: domingo, 11 de Dezembro de 2005 17:39 Para: PDML Assunto: Who's Not Using Digital I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital, it is just another tool for use where appropriate. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Not yet..aside from my wife's compact. Don't know exactly what it will take, but it will have to come from Pentax. As the saying goes, I'll know it when I see it. --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Sun, 11 Dec 2005, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Me. Kostas (still looking for an affordable MZ-S, though)
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I am still shooting film with a PZ-1p, a PZ-1, and occasionally a Super Program. I have an Optio 33L that is always in my bag, but an Olympus Stylus Zoom is in there too. When the successor to the istD comes out I will give it due consideration, and I may or may not take the digital plunge then. Rick --- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
I haven't. I do have a small (2mp) Nikon digicam, but I don't think that's what you mean. In all truth, I haven't been taking photos at all this year, film or digital. I seem to have been too busy with other stuff. However, I'm starting to get itchy feet and I might take an exotic trip soon. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 11 December 2005 17:39 To: PDML Subject: Who's Not Using Digital I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital, it is just another tool for use where appropriate. Exactly. Same here. Digital has its advantages, mainly through convenience. But half of my work (industrial night scenes) is almost impossible with 35 mm, let alone digital. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Hi Kevin, What digital bodies are you using? Paul On Dec 11, 2005, at 12:37 PM, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital, it is just another tool for use where appropriate. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I've had a *istD for a little over a year, but I still use my film bodies for BW (ZX-L, MX, ME Super, H1, H3V). Glenn On 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax -- Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Film. Not likely to change in the next few years. After that, probably won't be able to afford to. mike
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Oh god, another convert, proselytizing. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR And since when does asking a question equate to proselytizing? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: graywolf Oh god, another convert, graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future?
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I love slides. Although I now own a *ist D, I still use my Spotmatic ES cameras for slides.When I travel to exotic places, I'll record the majority of images on digital, but I also bring an Olympus XA and some Velvia slide film. I don't do weddings with digital. Clients are surprised, but I won't do digital at weddings. Jim A. I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
We have an Optio we use for family snapshots. Otherwise, black and white film and occasionally some chrome. I bought a scanner a while back for scanning film, but am fairly frustrated with the amount of work required to produce something printable. (Have I mentioned how much I hate digital image editing.) A couple weeks ago I bought an enlarger. Will be converting the second bathroom very soon. :) On 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR U, I seem to have missed something... I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year? And now you're leaving it? I don't know why... Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry! I have and use digital, altho' I don't yet use a DSLR. That said, I DO use a great digital that uses a very capable electronic viewfinder, which is the same thing, in principal... I not only have no plan to lose those digital cameras, but in fact have enforced my dedication to film use by just recently buying a couple more MF cameras! I believe film will continue to be used, especially among the old timers who grew up with it. And so long as someone continues to make film! I thought you were one of those diehards, Shel! No disrespect meant ~ either way! And since when does asking a question equate to proselytizing? Doesn't. Never did... Shel keith
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
I'm still PO'd at my D2H. Does thaty count.:-) Dave I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Hi, No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for some unexpected medical expenses, and was unable to work for a month or so, so I chose to sell the digi rather than one of my film cameras. I think graywolf knew that, so there was no need to explain it further. IOW, working with film is still important to me, and while the digi is nice (and I miss it), the Leicas and some of the Pentaxes are nicer still. When I get my financial equilibrium back, I'll buy another DSLR ... I've been watching the prices on the istDS2 and am looking forward to seeing what Pentax has coming up for new offerings. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: keith_w Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR U, I seem to have missed something... I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year? And now you're leaving it? I don't know why... Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry!
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 11, 2005, at 2:14 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: ... how many have/have not converted. ... LOL! I never converted. Makes it sound like some kind of belief system I bought another camera, sold an older one to make up some of the money, it happened to be digital. I liked it enough that i bought another one, a better one, sold another older camera to make up some of the money again. A few cycles like that and I found that all my photography was being done with digital cameras rather than film cameras. Still have a number of film cameras in the closet however. Godfrey
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote: ...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? That would be me. Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Aren't we all being a little too sensitive about this? Not you, Scott, but in general it seems that a lot of people suspect that Shel had some devious motive in asking this question. You would think he asked how many need drugs to cope with erectile dysfunction problems. It's just an interesting topic (film vs. digital, not erectile dysfunction drugs vs. unaided). In any case, I would hope that no one takes offense. Paul On Dec 11, 2005, at 6:47 PM, keith_w wrote: Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR U, I seem to have missed something... I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year? And now you're leaving it? I don't know why... Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry! I have and use digital, altho' I don't yet use a DSLR. That said, I DO use a great digital that uses a very capable electronic viewfinder, which is the same thing, in principal... I not only have no plan to lose those digital cameras, but in fact have enforced my dedication to film use by just recently buying a couple more MF cameras! I believe film will continue to be used, especially among the old timers who grew up with it. And so long as someone continues to make film! I thought you were one of those diehards, Shel! No disrespect meant ~ either way! And since when does asking a question equate to proselytizing? Doesn't. Never did... Shel keith
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Probably a good move, Shel. I've been thinking about selling one of my Ds now before a new camera is introduced. Paul On Dec 11, 2005, at 7:24 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi, No, I'm not giving up on digital. I needed some extra cash to pay for some unexpected medical expenses, and was unable to work for a month or so, so I chose to sell the digi rather than one of my film cameras. I think graywolf knew that, so there was no need to explain it further. IOW, working with film is still important to me, and while the digi is nice (and I miss it), the Leicas and some of the Pentaxes are nicer still. When I get my financial equilibrium back, I'll buy another DSLR ... I've been watching the prices on the istDS2 and am looking forward to seeing what Pentax has coming up for new offerings. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: keith_w Shel Belinkoff wrote: Not at all ... I was just curious, trying to get a sense of how many have/have not converted. And, FYI, I've sold my DSLR U, I seem to have missed something... I thought you had just got _into_ digital! I mean, within the last year? And now you're leaving it? I don't know why... Perhaps you said, but I didn't read that/those posts! Sorry!
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 12/11/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That would be me. Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese Me too. -frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please don't flame me... -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
In a message dated 12/11/2005 5:52:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. -frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please don't flame me... Grrr. If you don't switch to digital then we will come and get you and... Sheesh, I can't see why anyone would care what others choose to use -- film or digital. Not that one can't ask out of curiosity, I just can't see why anyone should get upset about it. ...whip you with wet noodles. Marnie aka Doe ;-) I've always like that threat -- it's so limp.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 12/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/11/2005 5:52:02 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me too. -frank (~real~ bw is shot on film) theriault ps: I hope I don't really have to put a smiley WRT the above; please don't flame me... Grrr. If you don't switch to digital then we will come and get you and... Sheesh, I can't see why anyone would care what others choose to use -- film or digital. Not that one can't ask out of curiosity, I just can't see why anyone should get upset about it. ...whip you with wet noodles. Marnie aka Doe ;-) I've always like that threat -- it's so limp. I'm not worried about getting flamed for sticking with film, but rather for my tongue-in-cheek quip about real bw is shot on film. I've seen some pretty good conversions for digital, and I just wanted a pre-emptive strike against you digitalians who might jump all over me about it, that's all. -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:07:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm not worried about getting flamed for sticking with film, but rather for my tongue-in-cheek quip about real bw is shot on film. I've seen some pretty good conversions for digital, and I just wanted a pre-emptive strike against you digitalians who might jump all over me about it, that's all. -frank = My point is, why should we? (Even when it comes to BW.) I am beginning to feel like I belong to the Digital Mafia. And I didn't know when I bought a DSLR that I was joining it. I guess it's the REAL brotherhood. Marnie aka Doe ;-) A horse head will be the next threat.
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On 12/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: = My point is, why should we? (Even when it comes to BW.) I was just joking around, Marnie. Really. I'm not even sure why you're using we, or what group you're referring to when you use the word. I'm with Godfrey here, really. They're all just cameras, and they're all being used towards more or less the same ends. I am beginning to feel like I belong to the Digital Mafia. You do. vbg And I didn't know when I bought a DSLR that I was joining it. I guess it's the REAL brotherhood. I still haven't gotten over the fact that you went over to the dark side - and by that I mean Canon, not digital LOL. Marnie aka Doe ;-) A horse head will be the next threat. You call that a threat? g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
Hi Jim I just got a nearly new Olympus XA4 macro for a small price and use it as second body next to my ME Super ;-) I made some wonderful photos with the XA, it was my first camera in 1981. And to answer Shels question: I only use film but would take a Pentax DSLR too ;-) greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 11:42 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Who's Not Using Digital I love slides. Although I now own a *ist D, I still use my Spotmatic ES cameras for slides.When I travel to exotic places, I'll record the majority of images on digital, but I also bring an Olympus XA and some Velvia slide film. I don't do weddings with digital. Clients are surprised, but I won't do digital at weddings. Jim A. I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
In a message dated 12/11/2005 6:32:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I still haven't gotten over the fact that you went over to the dark side - and by that I mean Canon, not digital LOL. Marnie aka Doe ;-) A horse head will be the next threat. You call that a threat? g -frank = Right. I am even worse, I now belong to the Digital DARK Mafia. Give me time, I'll think of one. HowaboutIcometoCanadaandyouhavetoputmeup? Now that's a real threat. Marnie ;-)
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Digital, shmigital. g Cheers, G On 12/11/05, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese I'm very much in the slide corner myself, though Tom's beaten me to the name. Cheers, G On 12/11/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Shel Belinkoff tried to cause trouble when he wrote: ...Who hasn't (made the move to digital) and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? That would be me. Tom (Slides-R-Us) Reese
RE: Who's Not Using Digital
I am one of those folks who isn't using digital and who has no plans to in his personal photography. Happily I am a hobbyist and not a professional photographer and so am not pressured to make decisions based upon speed or upon return on investment. Part of the reason I've not followed the list too closely lately is that it has become so digital oriented, which is fine I guess (especially considering the list has always over-represented the computer-obsessed types) except it will be interesting to see how even this innocent question of Shel's is turned into the usual look how dumb you are for not going digital by Herb or somebody. Again, apart from speed/convenience issues (which are not relevant to my method), I don't see any great advantages to digital apart from vulgar economics, though I admit there are a very select few technical reasons such as the Maxxum's anti-shake, as noted by Mike Johnston in a recent column. Overall, I can't really see any reason to switch to digital and I am happy I am not forced to since I consider film an authentic and transparent medium in comparison to the simulations of the digital milieu. RSW Who's Not Using Digital Shel Belinkoff Sun, 11 Dec 2005 09:39:46 -0800 I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have several digital bodies, but still use film. Over weekend I did some portraits of dancers at a ballet school, all film. I have not gone digital, it is just another tool for use where appropriate. Exactly. Same here. Digital has its advantages, mainly through convenience. But half of my work (industrial night scenes) is almost impossible with 35 mm, let alone digital. Ralf, I'm curious about your industrial night scenes. What about them makes them nearly impossible with digital? This is an honest question. I've found digital's low-light capability to be better than the film I've used. Though I've found metering to be more difficult (especially flash metering). On the other hand, white balancing is easier with digital; no need for tungsten filters, for example. Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts. Dave
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. I am even worse, I now belong to the Digital DARK Mafia. But you ALSO have a Pentax Optio. (You do still have the Pentax Optio, don't you?)
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
In a message dated 12/11/2005 7:49:37 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right. I am even worse, I now belong to the Digital DARK Mafia. But you ALSO have a Pentax Optio. (You do still have the Pentax Optio, don't you?) == I am afraid that only mitigates my crime slightly. Marnie (Yup.) ;-)
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
Me. A digi body is in my long-term plans, but there's no budget for it. My plan to pick up a 67II body is higher-priority anyway. If I had money I'd have bought a really good kit recently :( - Dave On Dec 12, 2005, at 6:39 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: I was thinking about this last night. It seems that most everyone on the list, at least from the usual gang of regular posters, has made the move to digital. Who hasn't, and who have no plans to do so in the near or foreseeable future? Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Still have a number of film cameras in the closet however. Are you saving them for the Mardi Gras? - Dave
Re: Who's Not Using Digital
On Dec 11, 2005, at 11:08 PM, David Mann wrote: On Dec 12, 2005, at 1:36 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Still have a number of film cameras in the closet however. Are you saving them for the Mardi Gras? lol ... No, just for sake of fond reminiscence from using them. Two Rollei 35s, a Minox 35GT-E, a BH/Canon Dial 35, a couple of Olympus Pen EEs, and a brace of Minox subminiatures... Godfrey
