On 24 Nov 2002 at 19:17, Pål Jensen wrote:
Michael wrote
So perhaps, their second DSLR will be a resurrected version of the MZ-S based
full frame sensor.. Wouldn't that be nic
I have no doubt that Pentax will release a full frame DSLR eventually. I doubt,
however, the MZ-S will ahve
Hi Dan,
'The New 35mm Photographer's Handbook' by Julian Calder and John
Garrett
Thanks Cotty. A copy is on its way to my mailbox.
Let me know what you think of it, privately if you think it's crap ;-)
Did you manage to get anything into the December PUG?
Do you know - I can't remember b.
Somebody hold my glasses, please. Hork, ptui.
GAK! [insert sound of bodily fluid striking eye]
How could anyone possibly see the subtle nuances of the fringe area
between focus and out-of-focus looking at a silly chart or table? The
thing you are shooting is _right in front of you_. Look at
Richard,
You sly dog. How the heck are ya?
fanfare
I've decided to let go of all of
my Pentax film gear
stylus-scratch
Et tu Bruti!
At least I held onto a few trinkets for pity's sake.
Let me know if you're heading this way or ever passing through.
Cotty
Hi,
good story, but it's the wrong analogy. I'm not suggesting a change to
the f-stop system I'm suggesting a different way of labelling lenses.
---
Bob
Monday, November 25, 2002, 12:58:20 AM, you wrote:
You guys sound like the member of the legislature (a true story!) who
quite
After taking a break from the regularly scheduled arguments ;-), I've taken
some photos and put 'em on my web page.
My annual batch of fall shots are at http://www.robertstech.com/fall2002.htm
Lovely photographs, Mark. Stunning colour, composition. I particularly
like 'Pilot Mountain'. Perhaps
Hi,
I don't know why it's hard to understand. Small number, big ap. Big
number, small ap. Big ap, minimal depth of field. Small ap, maximum
depth of field. It all follows along quite nicely.
that's precisely the problem. In most of the rest of everyday
experience we use bigger numbers to
Even when my eyes were younger and in good condition I was never able to see
'depth of field' I always relied, and still do, on the lens distance scales.
On the Kern Macro Switar 50 mm I used for 30 years these are very clear and
easy to see. I picked up a P30 a moment ago with a 50 mm f1.7 and
A beginner need not 'understand' f stops. When he, or she, picks up the
camera and is told, and sees, that the hole becomes smaller as the number
increases, that's enough. You hold a camera, adjust the stops and see the
hole become smaller. After that you know, if you have any common sense at
all,
If the Sigma 400mm f5.6 is the _APO_ version its worth having.
Don
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: Arathi-Sridhar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday,
Books that were recently reocmmended to me:
'The Art of Landscape Photography' by Chris Coe, Fountain Press
'A to Z of Creative Photography' by Lee Frost,
ISBN 0-7153-0681-1
'Perfect Exposure' by Roger Hicks and Frances Schultz, ISBN 0-7153-0814-9
Pat
Pat Temmerman
[MZ3_fella]
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Robert Soames Wetmore wrote:
Mike Johnston's Sunday Morning column is on the topic of his favorite
lens - a Pentax, of course.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/11242002.html
Interesting. Can anyone confirm that the chrome ESII is indeed scarcer
than the black one? I
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002, Cotty wrote:
How anyone would tolerate stopping the lens down to try and see what the
focus is like on the foreground (say) of a poorly-lit, grainy focussing
screen is beyond me.
I'm afraid I am with Cotty on this one. Pentax LX with a bright screen -
can't see
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:04:48 +, Bob Walkden wrote:
Hi,
good story, but it's the wrong analogy. I'm not suggesting a change to
the f-stop system I'm suggesting a different way of labelling lenses.
That would be like changing the way you rate electrical appliances.
It's all based on a system
Yeah but if you are shooting an F1.4 or F1.8 lens, and want to check DOF
at F4 or F5.6 it can be very useful!
I think the key here is that is is hard to use for shots with a small
aperture/wide DOF, but is very useful when working with large
apertures/limited DOF.
I was taking shots of the kids
Hi Rob,
People tend to forget that a vast part of a digital SLR
development effort is the software. I doubt that Pentax wrote for
the initial MR-52 something like a true OS with a hardware
abstraction layer (HAL) that will allow them to switch to whatever
underlying CCD/CMOS
- Original Message -
From: Shaun Canning
Subject: RE: A 100/2.8 Macro on eBay
$830.00...that is shear madness..
Nope, thats what happens when scarcity combines with quality.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Glen O'Neal
Subject: RE: new to the list
Ernst,
Welcome to the list. Its nice to have you with us. Please
enjoy the engaging
conversation and feel free to ask questions or offer advice
whenever you
like.
And please, don't post in html.
William Robb
On 25 Nov 2002 at 13:45, Alin Flaider wrote:
In this light, things like chassis design look rather like a
cosmetic decision.
Hi Alin,
I don't dispute the underlying technological design difficulties that you mentioned
however it would make far more sense economically to retrofitting
I left out a comma, in my post about DOF. Sorry folks. The Sigma 50mm f2.8
has an almost non-existent depth of field scale.
In the meantime I've been trying to get the aperture lever on my P30 to give
me some useful information. Unfortunately, as far as I can see and that's
not far, DOF pre-view
- Original Message -
Subject: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S
In a message dated 11/24/02 12:07:01 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I could. It's another component to have fail.
William Robb
If it fails you have a backup
I do? Oh, yes. I have a LX.
Providing it is working
Hi, Steph and all
I agree. The list in its actual shape really sucks. We
lost some valuable daily posters, and we added a
really f...ng idiot. I ignored him to death, but the
problem is most posters reply to his idiot posts. The
best thing is to ignore him.
This list is cyclic, or bipolar if you
Rob wrote:
RS I don't dispute the underlying technological design difficulties
RS that you mentioned however it would make far more sense
RS economically to retrofitting new electronics to an existing,
RS complex and reliable electro-mechanical chassis?
It would, if it was the second or
We lost some valuable daily posters
True. However, likely not all of the losses are due to the current
problem.
I ignored him to death, but the problem is most posters reply to
his idiot posts.
This has always been a problem here on the PDML.
The best thing is to ignore him.
This has
Go to www.photocritique.net or www.photo.net and
search for Alexey Tikonov. He has a pair of shots
taken with that lens. All his photos are very good
Regards
Albano
--- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Michael,
A really ugly group of people. Soften' down so you
can't really make
out
Mark wrote:
MR Egad! I'd entirely forgotton that, but I also use DOF preview for that all
MR the time. It's the only way to be sure you aren't getting flare in some
MR conditions.
Hi Mark,
I'm a DOF preview fan, yet I noticed that most of time true flare
on film has little to do with
I have also been known to use the DOF preview to see approximately
what the flare pattern is going to look like if I have the sun in,
or close to, the frame.
Good point. How often have many of us gotten back prints or slides
with some flare that was a total surprise (after shooting the
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After taking a break from the regularly scheduled arguments ;-), I've taken
some photos and put 'em on my web page.
My annual batch of fall shots are at http://www.robertstech.com/fall2002.htm
Lovely photographs, Mark. Stunning colour, composition. I particularly
On 25 Nov 2002 at 14:55, Alin Flaider wrote:
Back to development, I can only guess that all camera components,
including the software, are now designed with a reusability goal,
especially if they want to keep up with the 6 months products life
cycle.
I'm still at a loss to
$830.00...that is shear madness..
Nope, thats what happens when scarcity combines with quality.
I sold my user specimen of this lens about two weeks ago for $350.
It had perfect glass and mechanics, but it was the least pretty one
that I had. (It was my first A 100/2.8 Macro, and it was my
Rob wrote:
So how foolish are Pentax wasting all that design and engineering in the MZ-S
and MZ-D? It seems that if all that we read is true, Pentax could easily have
delivered a DSLR with a partial frame sensor some time ago. Instead they decide
to develop a whole new chassis, where is
Juey wrote:
So when are they going to drop the focus ring from the lens? After all,
that's another ring that's made redundant by automation so why bother
having it on the lens? It'll be a lot cheaper to make a lens that's
just a few pieces of glass encased in a barrel with no rotating
Cameron wrote:
I have yet to find a salesman who can tell me how to switch from aperture to
shutter priority on an MZ-S. Paal mentioned briefly that it was easier than
I had at first thought. Could anyone explain it carefully for me, as I do
not own an MZ-S.
Very simple. My MZ-S is now in
You know, just a quick question, using easily rounded numbers because I'm
only curious about a simple concept.
I have a DSLR that has a 1.5x effecct on focal length. That means my 100mm
lens functions as a 150mm lens, however, when I look through the
viewfinder, am I seeing the angle of view and
I've kept silent long enough
I use DOF preview all the time for a few subjects:
Plants and flower close-ups. Judging the background out-of-focusness in
relation to subject depth of sharpness is easy for me. True, I'm not using
really small apertures. I rarely use the preview above f8
What a nonsense!
Maybe not as smooth as Ks and Ms (and my A24 and K24 are *almost* equally smooth -- if
there is a difference, it's too subtle to matter), I still find the build quality of
As pretty high by any standard.
The A lens with its typical, tacky 1970s design
style is pretty
Sorry. Was meant to be sent off-list. And... the 100mm is damaged,
hence the price...
Andre
--
I would hope that they will never drop the focus or aperture rings from
Pentax lenses. Right now I enjoy being able to use my new lenses on older
manual focus bodies, not just on my PZ-1p. I can, however, see the
possibility of them doing that some years down the road when they decide to
Eh... The actual f-stop difference is almost 1/2 stop -- it's not
all that subtle. And it was in pretty dim environment (my apt. in
the evening).
I can buy that the image brightness diff can be not that obvious at
all. What I was really surprised, is that DOF was the same as well!
Now I
I THINK that you will be seeing the magnification and the 'perspective'
of the 100mm lens, but not the angle of view. Most DSLRs mask off the
bits where the full frame image is cropped, some show it with a line
marking where the crop happens and call it a 'sports finder'. Unless
they redisign
Yes I know that. The bit of info I forgot to mention is that, when I'm
working, I use a Stroboframe, which pretty well occupies my left hand.
Using one is so much a part of my shooting style that I tend to not
think of it at all. That and the fact that I'm getting old, I guess.
The PZ-1p really
My feelings: DOF preview is a great tool for certain subjects and
completely unnecessary for others. Why do we need to be for or
against it in its entirety?
Agreed. However, because of its usefulness to me (under some
circumstances, I would argue in favor of its ~presence~, in its
entirety,
I think you mean that you couldn't see any difference in depth of field. Not
brightness - am I correct?
I doubt that you'd notice any difference in depth of field between 1.4 1.2 in camera
on the focussing screen. You'd have to do a test, close focus on something and shoot
at both apertures
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Rob Brigham wrote:
I THINK that you will be seeing the magnification and the 'perspective'
of the 100mm lens, but not the angle of view. Most DSLRs mask off the
bits where the full frame image is cropped, some show it with a line
marking where the crop happens and call it
That's simply nit picking. But you missed my point entirely: I said it was
_not_ necessary to understand ...
Don
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery
Updated: March 30, 2002
- Original Message -
From: Michel Carrère-Gée [EMAIL
In a message dated 11/25/2002 11:57:03 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dr E D F Williams a écrit:
A beginner need not 'understand' f stops
...To learn that
f22 is smaller than f2 takes a minute or two. You are told
To understand well it is necessary to
Anton Browne wrote:
I think you mean that you couldn't see any difference in depth of field. Not
brightness - am I correct?
Yes. Center your attention on the word see.
Neither will be obvious to the human eye, under 'normal' conditions ~
only to a sensitive film!
I doubt that you'd notice
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have a DSLR that has a 1.5x effecct on focal length. That means my 100mm
lens functions as a 150mm lens, however, when I look through the
viewfinder, am I seeing the angle of view and magnification of a 100mm
lens or a 150mm lens?
That's all.
Thanks for your views Christian.
My feelings: DOF preview is a great tool for certain subjects and completely
unnecessary for others. Why do we need to be for or against it in its
entirety?
As I was the originator of this thread, I simply wanted to learn from
those who do use DOF preview,
Hi all. Pentax usually has a warehouse sale at their US headquarters in Englewood,
Colorado every December. They clear out old stock, warranty returns, factory refurbs,
etc. I haven't received a notice of it in the mail yet for this year. Has anyone
else received a notice, or know when it
Yeah, isn´t it great how progress is progressing.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 24. marraskuuta 2002 22:40
Aihe:
You need to go from aperture priority to program by setting the lens to A and then
turning the control dial to get shutter priority. Two movements, not excessive IMO.
Back to program by pushing the green button.
I do not regret selling my LX (and selling my 1.4/50 M).
All the best!
Raimo
Hi,
you've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting any changes to the laws of
physics. I'm suggesting a simpler user interface to the laws of
physics, eg:
Label f-stop
1 90
2 64
3 45
4 32
5 22
6 16
7 11
8 8
9 5.6
10 4
11 2.8
12 2
Hi,
When you want to rename what the various
stops are called, you're obfuscating the reality of it.
Well, I don't want to change what the stops are called, I just want to
change the ways lenses are labelled, and I've even posted a suggestion
in another reply.
Although I wouldn't call it
I've had it with Bubba Dobo.
Kill filter, first ever. Not even the Who did this to me.
And MY two cents, Braddie Bubby: You're probably young so some
is forgivable. But to have the persistance to stir your particular
mud months after it should have been obvious to you that this is the
wrong
Hi,
To learn that f22 is smaller than f2 takes a minute or two. You are told
and you see for yourself. If you can't do that then I respectfully suggest
that you forget about photography as a hobby.
Sounds great, but in practice that's not what happens. In practice
people get confused because
I must be nuts. It seems to me, once the shutter was electronically controlled,
you could shift shutter speed by moving the aperature ring. Coincidentally,
you can _also_ control aperature that way. One hand on the ap ring, one hand
on the shutter. This was THE big step up from fully manual
Yes, please.
All the best!
Raimo
Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho
-Alkuperäinen viesti-
Lähettäjä: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Päivä: 25. marraskuuta 2002 21:50
Aihe: Re: Why I won't be buying an
In a message dated 11/25/2002 3:01:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Hi,
you've misunderstood. I'm not suggesting any changes to the laws of
physics. I'm suggesting a simpler user interface to the laws of
physics, eg:
Label f-stop
1 90
2 64
3
Mishka,
You might not see the difference, but it is there. Take the 50/1.2 off the
camera
and look into it while you change the aperture from 1.4 to 1.2, quite the
difference eh? That extra light it lets in at 1.2 will really help you to
focus
in dim light, not to mention the make or break
Anyone who can't learn about f stops in five minutes should take up another
hobby. Its possible for a child to understand this concept. This post has
become so silly I'm going to give up now. What a lot of you know what.
Don
Dr E D F Williams
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams
Author's
The best thing is to ignore him.
This has always been the most effective solution (although some of
us have been slow to learn...).
How much effort is it really to create a filter.
But it goes on and on because of all the people who have this urgent need to
respond. Don't ignore him, create
Hi,
well cheerio then! If you ever design any user interfaces be sure and
let me know - then I can avoid them.
As Raimo would cheerily say:
All the best!
Bob
Monday, November 25, 2002, 9:42:48 PM, you wrote:
Anyone who can't learn about f stops in five minutes should take up another
hobby.
Does anyone else remember the days in the 50's and 60's when many
cameras and exposure meters had EV scales printed on them, so that you
could, for example, dial in a higher shutter speed and then just turn
the aperture ring until you got the same EV number lined up as the
meter indicated? No
Hallo
don't argue anymore about a Av wheel at the body or not, just enjoy the
following artikel about Pentax lenses and cameras.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-11-24.shtml
Regards
Rüdiger
I'm with Bob on this.
Then again, I'm with Bob on most things.
tv
-Original Message-
From: Bob Walkden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 5:02 PM
To: Dr E D F Williams
Subject: Re[6]: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S
Hi,
well cheerio then! If you ever
Lets say you stack a few filters on a new-to-you lens AND you
have a finder with about 95% view. Stopping down may let you
see vignetting. Use DOF.
Want to know how ghosts or flare look at the TAKING aperature?
Use DOF.
Want to stack a 50 on a 200 for gonzo closeups and check vingnetting?
use
I count 4:
Focus
Shutter speed
Aperature
Focus ring.
Which isn't necessary? Or mebbe exposure takes care
of shutter aperature.
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Chris Brogden
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S
How
Hi,
And of course, the problem of the changeover period, when all of the
old equipment would have inconsistencies with newly produced gear,
would last for a very long time, and cause great confusion!
well, there's the rub. It would have as much chance of success as
attempts to change the
On Monday 25 November 2002 17:40, Lon Williamson wrote:
Lets say you stack a few filters on a new-to-you lens AND you
have a finder with about 95% view. Stopping down may let you
see vignetting. Use DOF.
AH, YES! I forgot this one. I test out stacked lenses for vignetting with
DOF preview
Hi,
I would expect a great many allies in a mailing list dedicated to lost
causes g!
---
Bob
Monday, November 25, 2002, 10:17:48 PM, you wrote:
I'm with Bob on this.
Then again, I'm with Bob on most things.
tv
I don't want to prolong an already overly long thread, but here goes anyway:
g
Now, you really have me confused, Bob! I have a 3.8 lens - what's that going
to be, about an 11.8 under your system? I guess that's not really the
problem, because once you get used to it, they're just numbers...
I
- Original Message -
From: Mike Ignatiev
Subject: 50/1.2 (was Re: Depth of Field Preview)
Speaking of DOF preview. Playing with my newly acquired
50/1.2, I tried to compare (naturally) how much difference f/1.2
makes wrt f/1.4. To my surprice, it was NONE. Absolutely
whatsoever none! I
Hi,
Having a focusing helicoid only encourages laziness. People
should focus with their feet!
---
Bob
(Disclaimer: this is a joke!)
Monday, November 25, 2002, 10:41:46 PM, you wrote:
I count 4:
Focus
Shutter speed
Aperature
Focus ring.
Which isn't
Hi, Albano,
I threatened to leave the list a couple of weekends ago, and came back
after a day or so, without actually un-subscribing. (Of course, maybe I
wasn't one of the valuable daily posters you referred to! g) For me
it was the sheer volume and waste of time and silliness of things that
Because it's just an old-fashioned film camera.
Do you see the change?
2 years ago we argued old-fashioned manual vs.
modern auto-focus. (It still happens on occasion.)
Now, it's old-fashioned film vs. modern digital.
(and getting more common).
I'll probably go digi in 2 years, when 6mp-10mp
- Original Message -
From: Lon Williamson
Subject: Re: Why I won't be buying an MZ-S
I count 4:
Focus
Shutter speed
Aperature
Focus ring.
Which isn't necessary? Or mebbe exposure takes care
of shutter aperature.
Mebbe you should consider that focus (that act of focusing)
as
It surprises me that so many people seem to feel that the concept of f-stops
is so intellectually challenging. Shotgun users easily understand that
20-gauge shells are smaller than 12-gauge, electricians easily understand
that 18-gauge wire is much smaller than 14-gauge. It's not that difficult.
Sorry, Collin, that appears to be extremely unlikely. Concentrating on
shooting would eliminate the need for the chest-pounding,
self-aggrandizement and one-upmanship that is the apparent reason this list
exists. Who's a pro? What's a pro camera? I unsubbed over a year ago and
just came back a
On 25 Nov 2002 at 19:29, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I disagree, NONE of my K,M, or A lenses
have as high a build quality or feel as the
Super-Takumar or Super-Multi-Coated-Takumars
which Mike is raving.
Hi John,
I have 10 Pentax/Tak 50-55mm lenses in my possession at the moment and I
certainly
I've played with quite a few lenses and nothing feels as nice to focus as a
screw mount 50/1.4 :)
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:43 AM
Subject: Re: Mike Johnston on Pentax and a question
-
On 25 Nov 2002 at 17:40, Lon Williamson wrote:
Lets say you stack a few filters on a new-to-you lens AND you
have a finder with about 95% view. Stopping down may let you
see vignetting. Use DOF.
Want to know how ghosts or flare look at the TAKING aperature?
Use DOF.
Want to stack a 50
Title: Wind shutter speed
Hi,
Recently I was took some photos in Vermont, it was medium windy when I took the photos.
Landscape photos..
I shot, moutain tops with Pentax FA 100/2.8 Macro. The trees are not as sharp as I expected.
I think the reason could be, the wind on the
Hi,
When I shoot colour neg I usually shoot Reala, but I've noticed that I quite
often get fluorescent green grass? This is from mini lab prints at different
labs and from my own scans of the negs.
Has any one else noticed this? Its just looks really unnatural and wrong.
Thanks,
Paul
On 25 Nov 2002 at 15:13, Bill D. Casselberry wrote:
Nah - Wheatfield's right, just three
1) a means to focus
2) a way to set an aperture
3) a way to set a shutter speed
I'd say a means to initiate the exposure is a pretty necessary control, it's a
long time since photographers has
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 08:01:49 +1000, John Coyle wrote:
f1.4 = .7142857, or 71 for simplicity
Actually, these are all based on the square root of two, so f/1.4 is
really f/1.4142... and the multiplicative inverse is 0.7071... doesn't
change your shortened numbers, but I like accuracy. ;-)
TTYL,
Hi William,
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 16:50:04 -0600, William Robb wrote:
Yes, depth of field preview only works for gross differences in
DOF.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but can we get a bit
quantitative about this?
Based on the comments (yours and others) about the DOF difference
Paul,
I agree with your assessment. I don't like the way Reala handles
greens. They don't look natural to me either.
Michael Cross
Paul Jones wrote:
Hi,
When I shoot colour neg I usually shoot Reala, but I've noticed that I quite
often get fluorescent green grass? This is from mini lab
Paul,
Now I need to go back and look at some of my Reala shots and see if I
notice anything like that. I'll let you know what I find.
Bruce
Monday, November 25, 2002, 5:13:31 PM, you wrote:
PJ Hi,
PJ When I shoot colour neg I usually shoot Reala, but I've noticed that I quite
PJ often get
Assuming your tripod is sufficiently sturdy (I'm not personally familiar
with the Slik model you mentioned), it sounds like the wind and the long
shutter speed were definitely responsible for the blurring you observed.
Going to a faster film, like ISO 200 as you suggested, may not be the whole
Whew! It just went for $830.00. And The aperture blades are
opening a little slow.
It makes me feel even better about the K-1000 with a M 100/4.0 macro I got
off e-bay for $160.
How much better is the A 100/2.8 macro over the M 100/4.0 ?
BUTCH
Each man had only one genuine vocation - to
There was an FA* 200mm f4.0 macro on e-bay recently that 830.00 would have
just about bought, and an A* not long ago for the same money. I know that
everyone has there favourite lenses, but surely the 200's represent better
value in that sort of price range than a really expensive (albeit high
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002, Butch Black wrote:
How much better is the A 100/2.8 macro over the M 100/4.0 ?
Well, it's a stop faster, has the A setting, and does 1:1 instead of
1:2. I'm very happy with the results from my M100/4, and I've never tried
the A100/2.89, so I can't comment on image quality.
Slik700DX is pro model and sturdy tripod.
I use polarizer only if it is enhancing the photo.
May be I should sacrifice some DOF and go for high shutter speed.
I think, I was shooting at f/16 f/22.
If I use 200 shoot at f/8; I may get slightly more high speed.
Thanks for responding.
Ramesh
Nagaraj, Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slik700DX is pro model and sturdy tripod.
I use polarizer only if it is enhancing the photo.
May be I should sacrifice some DOF and go for high shutter speed.
I think, I was shooting at f/16 f/22.
If I use 200 shoot at f/8; I may get slightly more high
And at f:8 or 11 you will be using the sharpest part of the lens in many
cases.
Ken
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 02:19 am, Nagaraj, Ramesh wrote:
If I use 200 shoot at f/8; I may get slightly more high speed.
--
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
Business Is Going To The Dogs
Bucky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've seen very few pictures that would benefit from better
hardware more than from better shooting.
Amen to that!
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
On Monday, November 25, 2002, at 07:13 PM, Paul Jones wrote:
Hi,
When I shoot colour neg I usually shoot Reala, but I've noticed that I
quite
often get fluorescent green grass? This is from mini lab prints at
different
labs and from my own scans of the negs.
Has any one else noticed this?
Let's all just agree to hold up fingers to represent f stops. No, wait
a minute, that won't work. Ok, all you guys can put _that_ finger back
down. g
We'll just stick with the standard nomenclature for the time being,
then.
Dan Scott
(I believe it is confusing to newbies, but then again, so
Nagaraj, Ramesh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been avoiding pushing; may be I should go for it.
Definitely worth trying for one roll to see how it works for you. Use good,
pro film, though. Fuji Provia 100, Kodak E100S, E100SW, E100VS are the
ones I can vouch for.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
