Hi all,
I'm dropping off the list for (hopefully) a day while I move into my
new house. Or should I say the bank's new house.
Provided nothing breaks or gets rained on, I should return within 24hrs.
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
On 25/11/04, Peter J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Yes. I think you've got it.
Oh I've got it alright yeah baby I've got it
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Hi Timothy,
on 25 Nov 04 you wrote in pentax.list:
>Found whilst surfing and lurking! Shots from the new 14:
You can find some shots on my homepage www.mycroft.de.
cheers, Heiko
On Nov 26, 2004, at 11:01 AM, jayers wrote:
It would be interesting to compare the M15mm f3.5 lens to the DA14.
I assume you mean A instead of M :)
Cheers,
- Dave
http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/
On Nov 26, 2004, at 12:45 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
As far as I know, the difference is minor. The 67 is said to have a
somewhat more durable film advance mechanism. I have a 6x7 with mirror
lockup and have never experienced a problem.
That's about the only difference I can recall, but I wouldn't
Especially now that the Egremont Russets are out.
Mishka wrote:
i second: an apple.
mishka
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:16:08 +, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
||
I was just flipping through the paper (the Age Green Guide) and saw an
add for the *istDS. The add said it arrives next week and you can order
it for AU$1499.95 with a Sigma 18-125 zoom. Right next to it on the
add was the D70 with a Nikon 28-100 zoom for AU$1799.95 (after $200
cashback). The spe
On Nov 26, 2004, at 2:02 AM, Peter J. Alling wrote:
What if it's an orange Apple.
There were only Tangerine Apples... ;-)
--
-Jon Glass
Krakow, Poland
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rats, I can't get the second one to come up, Paul
ann
Cotty wrote:
> On 24/11/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >The original version:
> >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2907524&size=lg
>
> Much prefer the original. The mirror adds quirky interest.
>
> >The modified
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> Thanks Frank. That's kind of the way I see it. It could easily be the
> 1950s. Perhaps it should be BW, or maybe I should desaturate it to look
> like faded color. Or maybe I should leave it alone and go do something
> else :-).
> By the way, they're apparently looking at s
frank theriault wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:35:44 -0500, Paul Stenquist
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On the Avenue, August 2004:
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2907524&size=lg
> >
> >
>
> There's something absolutely surreal about that photo! The bland,
> homogenized expr
Cotty wrote:
> On 24/11/04, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >On the Avenue, August 2004:
> >http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2907524&size=lg
> >
>
> There's a bit of Robert Frank in that. I like it.
>
> Cheers,
> Cotty
>
I commented separately but hit the send before
> Thinking about the 9th if my weekends are not free,
Cool! Forgot to mention, I'm also free for lunch if that's all you end up
having time for.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> On the Avenue, August 2004:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2907524&size=lg
Yikes!
Thats enough to make one barf, on a couple of levels.
are they for real? Pretty scary stuff ;)
ann
Hmmm...I was hoping someone would take up the torch for the Ilford formulas.
How does that work anyhow? Their technology and formulas if they go under
can somehow be used by someone can't they?
> -Original Message-
> From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, Novembe
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: *ist DS review in this month's (Dec04) Popular
Photography
Batteries are such a non-issue for me these days, I reckon I'm
getting about
10GB of RAW images on a fully charged set of AA NiMH batteries,
that is unless
I use them in m
Hey Cotty :)) How ya be?
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pentax's Best 50mm Lens
> On 25/11/04, Steve Larson, discombobulated, un
Read the articles I think you'll find at least part of what you'd
like to know in the blurbs accompanying the links. From what I read the
answer isn't quite as you've guessed it to be.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hmmm. I hope they also announc
Hmmm. I hope they also announce an optimum ISO. The latitude is
admirable. But what is our starting point? I would guess it's about ISO
200 or perhaps ISO 400.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 10:45 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Maybe this has been posted here before. Rollei, in a joint venture
with
Maco, has
After reading all the PhotoShop RAW white papers and some of the
comments here, I went back and worked on this for a bit. In truth, most
of what I did was based on things I already knew. For example, I burned
in the sky and dodged the faces of the people in the front seat. But I
also worked a b
Maybe this has been posted here before. Rollei, in a joint venture with
Maco, has announced a new B&W film that reprtedly spans an ISO range from
25 through 1600. Details can be found here:
http://www.silverprint.co.uk/bwf11.html
http://db.riskwaters.com/public/showPage.html?page=199364
Shel
Peter J. Alling mused:
>
> Brighter with easier focusing and viewing. I don't know if that's
> inherent or that it's just easier to make
> a pentaprism that way.
Inherent. The reflecting surfaces in a pentaprism rely on total
internal reflection, which is to all intents and purposes 100%
effic
Okay, my mistake. I figured out how to see the hi-res versions. (You
have to click "original.") Yes, the corners are very soft. The DA
`16-45 outperforms this lens if that's the best it can do. But I do
want to believe that it's good. I'd love to have a great 14/2.8.
Perhaps this is a bad sampl
Okay, I looked again. What I see is are a series of approximately 750
x 501 pixel images, most of which look quite nice for such a small
image. I don't know where you're seeing the full sensor res. Certainly
not on the files I've been able to download. I'm not saying you're
wrong. I just can'
Then, I must have looked at the wrong image. I'll have to get back to
this later. My web access is at a standstill today, perhaps because of
the holidays.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 9:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Nov 2004 at 19:53, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I can't really draw any conclusions from thes
and I should really think about what I've written before I hit send...
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Brighter with easier focusing and viewing. I don't know if that's
inherent or that it's just easier to make
a pentaprism that way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Bo
that should be you're, (you are), damn spell checker...
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Oooh, your bad.
Cotty wrote:
On 24/11/04, César, discombobulated, unleashed:
GFMtn is bad for its enablement - thanks Bob and Bruce. And let us
not forget Norm - his battered 67 is just up my alley...
And I neve
Brighter with easier focusing and viewing. I don't know if that's
inherent or that it's just easier to make
a pentaprism that way.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi, Boris.
1. On DS the viewfinder most likely will be penta-mirror. For me
the D's viewfinder was
On 25 Nov 2004 at 19:53, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I can't really draw any conclusions from these itty-bitty web images. I
> want to see a 70 megabyte file before I condemn or endorse a lens.
The images are the prescribed full sensor res (2008x3008 px) I can't see how
greater colour depth or inte
Oooh, your bad.
Cotty wrote:
On 24/11/04, César, discombobulated, unleashed:
GFMtn is bad for its enablement - thanks Bob and Bruce. And let us not
forget Norm - his battered 67 is just up my alley...
And I never knew he cared!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pas
Another cute dog picture, for a guy with cats you certainly get good dog
pictures...
frank theriault wrote:
Another one from the anti-pitbull law demo of about a month ago. My
friend Tarren is the one who told me about it, and he really wanted me
to take a shot of him and his little pal, Teego.
Actually it's the US that might not let you back in, which would be a
shame actually.
César wrote:
frank theriault wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 00:38:39 -0600, César
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, I am finally getting my trip north. The funny thing is that I
will probably be making the trip
You can find a full discussion of this here:
http://stans-photography.info/LongComments.html#50%20mm%20Lenses
the home page is here:
http://stans-photography.info/
which can be an invaluable resource
Steve Pearson wrote:
Hi all,
Which of the many 50mm lenses, made by Pentax, is
considered to be the
But what about on the straightaways?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Rob Studdert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I'm pretty pleased
> (and a little surprised) with the performance my A15/3.5 on my *ist D,
it's
> better than the A20/2.8 in the corners.
For simple, (yea, right simple), straight forward landscapes these are
just stunning, if it were me
I'd try to lighten up the foreground while leaving the same brightness
in the sky, but that looks like work
so I'll just enjoy it as it is.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
Ok, this is the last Pinnacles shot
Yes. I think you've got it.
Cotty wrote:
So if I got an *ist Ds, could I stick a A 20mm or A 24mm f/2.8 on it and
it'll work without anything fancy? Just thinking in terms of a very
small, compact carry-cam, a digital HCB machine with manual focus and
aperture priority..
Not anytime soon, but
I can't really draw any conclusions from these itty-bitty web images. I
want to see a 70 megabyte file before I condemn or endorse a lens.
Paul
On Nov 25, 2004, at 8:15 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 25 Nov 2004 at 15:45, Joseph Tainter wrote:
"Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?"
These imag
What if it's an orange Apple.
Cotty wrote:
On 24/11/04, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
Which is better, and apple or and orange.
An Apple :-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
So you don't want to be what you eat?
Cotty wrote:
On 24/11/04, Collin Brendemuehl, discombobulated, unleashed:
Hi.
We're travelling for Thanksgiving so may not respond.
We'll be back next week.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
Thanks but I don't do Thanksgiving.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O)
DagT wrote:
På 24. nov. 2004 kl. 22.08 skrev Jon Glass:
On Nov 24, 2004, at 5:41 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:
Hmm, pics or comments didn't do too much for me, again a strange
comparison. If
it shows me anything it is that the 200/4 for the P67 is a pretty poor
performer, CA is really pronounced.
That'
On 25 Nov 2004 at 15:45, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> "Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?"
>
> These images were announced on dpreview during the summer. Someone else
> pointed out that one image in particular had noticeable corner softness.
> I don't know what the outcome was for this par
On 25 Nov 2004 at 17:56, William Robb wrote:
> I expect that they get used to having batteries supplied, since most
> of the cameras are using proprietary (and heathenly expensive)
> batteries that come shipped with the camera so that the poor suckers
> don't know what they are getting into rig
What's being supplied seem to be different in every country. I suppose many
US users simply prefer Maha or other US famous brands, instead of the
Japanese 4hr chargers which are also good, but not recognized in North
America.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
One of their negatives 'Rechar
Hell, I don't even think my 15 is that bad
I am surprised to see purple fringing when the lens was purposely designed
for digital. Maybe the FA*24/2 is not so bad afterall.
Alan Chan
http://www.pbase.com/wlachan
On 25 Nov 2004 at 23:06, DagT wrote:
> No
>
> In some cases I´ve got some CA (or purple fringing) as you can see here:
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=2478716
Thanks for pointing me to your example images, I assume you are pretty pleased
with the lens?
Also think it wise to cons
- Original Message -
From: "Fred Widall"
Subject: *ist DS review in this month's (Dec04) Popular Photography
There's a 3 page review of the *ist DS in this months Popular
Photography
(DEC04) magazine. They had a pre-production model and there are no
acual
test results, just a descripti
There's a 3 page review of the *ist DS in this months Popular Photography
(DEC04) magazine. They had a pre-production model and there are no acual
test results, just a description of the various features.
One of their negatives 'Rechargeable AA's not included' - yes,
I'm really concerned that I do
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Studdert"
Subject: Re: Samples from 14 2.8
Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/31162980/original
Hell, I don't even think my 15 is that bad
William Robb
- Original Message -
From:
Subject: Re: *ist DS versus *ist D for the "Digital Newbie"
What is the advantage of a pentaprism compared to the penta-mirror?
I have an MZ-6 with a penta-mirror.
Pentaprisms tend to be brighter, and probably stay alligned better as
well.
William Robb
On 25 Nov 2004 at 14:01, jayers wrote:
> It would be interesting to compare the M15mm f3.5 lens to the DA14.
It sure would, has anyone anywhere put them head to head? I'm pretty pleased
(and a little surprised) with the performance my A15/3.5 on my *ist D, it's
better than the A20/2.8 in the co
Quoting Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Some times it helps to shop abit out of the photo supply area.
>
> For instance one of those metal rimmed twist to store car windshield
> reflectors
> makes a great photo reflector (if you get the neutral silver one) at a cost
> of
> $6-7 instead of $40.
Quoting Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Wow, what a lead in for a long political rant! Instead, I will just offer
> this:
>
> For all the have-nots in the US, no money, no family, no health, no future,
>
> etcetera, the holidays only last a short while. You can hang in there for a
>
> month and
Hi,
Thursday, November 25, 2004, 10:59:21 PM, Joseph wrote:
> I do note that the A 20 f2.8 was introduced in 1985. That's an old
> optical formula to still be in production. It has no aspherical or ED
> elements. Did these even exist in 1985?
According to Cecchi's book "In 1985 the family grew b
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi, Boris.
>>
>>
>> 1. On DS the viewfinder most likely will be penta-mirror. For me
>> the D's viewfinder was like a blessing compared to penta-mirror of
>> my MZ-6.
>>
>A penta-mirror might not be my ideal (unless it would indeed be as
>good as a pent
Re: A/FA 20 f2.8
Wheatfield wrote:
"It's kinda soft in the corners wide open, but you won't likely find a
sharper 20mm lens in the corners either."
Thanks everyone. Of course it's nearly the only game in town at that
focal length. The alternative is the Sigma 20 f1.8, which I have used
but not
After a quick skim last spring, I'd tend to agree with you, Paul.
But there are more levels to povery. Even in US.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/05/0517_040517_pathwayscobb.html
Anyways, to be able to take part in an online community like this one
has a lot to be grateful for indeed
"Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?"
These images were announced on dpreview during the summer. Someone else
pointed out that one image in particular had noticeable corner softness.
I don't know what the outcome was for this particular lens, but it
seemed at the time that the lens migh
Fractions of a second.
I don't know how to measure it, though.
Your own reaction time might very well be longer, but you could try to shoot
a moving object (known speed) to see how far the moving object has come in
the picture - compared to where it was, when you (think you) fired the
camera :-). P
On 25/11/04, wendy beard, discombobulated, unleashed:
>> >Last Sunday my son-and-heir was playing in a Soccer
>> >dome in Montreal. At best, I was scraping 1/200s @
>> 2.8
>> >with ISO3200.
>> >It just wasn't enough!
>> >http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/soccer
>>
>> Looks fine to me Wend. That wit
I work at our local homeless shelter and at the food bank,
I don't need pompous sermons from the likes on you, especially on
a photography list.
-- Original Message --
From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:
--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/11/04, wendy beard, discombobulated,
> unleashed:
>
> >Last Sunday my son-and-heir was playing in a Soccer
> >dome in Montreal. At best, I was scraping 1/200s @
> 2.8
> >with ISO3200.
> >It just wasn't enough!
> >http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/soccer
På 25. nov. 2004 kl. 23.33 skrev Rob Studdert:
On 25 Nov 2004 at 9:11, TIMOTHY STARK wrote:
Found whilst surfing and lurking! Shots from the new 14:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_14_28_ed_if
Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/31162980/original
It would be interesting to compare the M15mm f3.5 lens to the DA14.
Jonathan
-Original Message-
From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 2:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Samples from 14 2.8
On 25 Nov 2004 at 9:11, TIMOTHY STARK wrote:
> Fo
Some times it helps to shop abit out of the photo supply area.
For instance one of those metal rimmed twist to store car windshield reflectors
makes a great photo reflector (if you get the neutral silver one) at a cost of
$6-7 instead of $40.
Pieces of black formcore (by it cheap at Wal-Mart) ma
On 25 Nov 2004 at 11:45, Paul Stenquist wrote:
> George gave us the url for some adobe white papers these other day.
> They explain the browser and the CS RAW converter in considerable
> detail. I found these to be very valuable and an interesting read. I
> don't agree with everything the autho
On 25 Nov 2004 at 9:11, TIMOTHY STARK wrote:
> Found whilst surfing and lurking! Shots from the new 14:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_14_28_ed_if
Is everyones DA 14 this soft in the corners?
http://www.pbase.com/tcom/image/31162980/original
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AU
The poor in this country are much better off than the middle class in
many countries. We all have much to be thankful for. You can flame all
you want, I won't respond to childish nonsense.
On Nov 25, 2004, at 3:50 PM, Graywolf wrote:
Wow, what a lead in for a long political rant! Instead, I will
One of the secrets of being a good photographer is to be good at choosing
the right gear, isn't it?
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Sylwester Pietrzyk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. november 2004 09:37
Til: [EMAIL PROTECT
Any of the manual focus 50/1.7's. I love the 50/1.4 but I have never had one
that was quite as good as a 1.7 at the same f-stop. I have never used an
autofocus version of those, so can not comment on them.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
--
On 25 Nov 2004 at 12:44, William Robb wrote:
> It's kinda soft in the corners wide open, but you won't likely find a
> sharper 20mm lens in the corners either.
> I had an FA20/2.8 on my LX a while back, and it was about the same as
> the A20/2.8.
Har, don't I wish I could somehow whack a K moun
On 25 Nov 2004 at 10:43, Joseph Tainter wrote:
> Hmmm. This is the first negative comment I have seen on this lens. I
> have ordered the FA 20 f2.8, which has the same optical formula, based
> on rave comments and an online photo showing good sharpness at f2.8.
> Well, come to think of it, that
I have only had that problem on an MX myself. In that case it was cased by a
drop and the pentaprism was knocked askew. It was a farely easy fix.
For the original poster: Yes run some film through it. Always verfy you actually
have a problem before attempting to fix it. Save lot of time, money,
Wow, what a lead in for a long political rant! Instead, I will just offer this:
For all the have-nots in the US, no money, no family, no health, no future,
etcetera, the holidays only last a short while. You can hang in there for a
month and a half. YOU CAN!
Yes, I realize that not many of those
Following up on my earlier post of a test opinion: I disagree with the
praise of the Ricoh 50/1.4 at least when testing my own lenses. I just
finished comparing the SMC-M 50/1.4 with the Ricoh 50. From 1.4 to 8.0 the
Pentax 50 was sharper and had better contrast at every stop. The test setup
was a
On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 09:30:03 -0500, cbwaters wrote:
>I have a hair on my sensor. I tired blowing it off with a squeeze puffer to
>no avail. I couldn't tell if it moved at all. What can I do to get rid of
>it?
>CW
>great, hair leaving my head and going where I don't want it. growing older
>
"...the A20/2.8 goes pretty mushy in the corners"
Look at http://www.digitalfotonetz.de/ --> Pentax digital --> Objektivtest
or direct link:
http://digitalfotonetz.de/img/Testfotos/Objektive/Urs/ausschnitte.jpg
Best, Bernd
That's probably a tuff question. As for MTF tests it must be Pentax-F
1.4/50mm. One of the best 50mm ever made at all.
I have owned several different 50mm Pentax lenses, and I believe my SMC
Pentax FA 1.4/50mm is pretty good.
I guess there was a famous screwmount M42 lens once, wasn't there?
Je
IMO nothing can be judged from a scan made by Epson 3200. I've got an Epson
Perfection 3200 Phot scanner. For film it's not great. It's better for
prints.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Mishka [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt:
People who work with electrnics have compressed air in cans. Try to get a TV
repair guy to blow the hair away.
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 25. november 2004 15:30
Til: [EMAIL
Kinetronics makes kits which are engineered to solve the problem.
Check out these sites.
http://www.kinetronics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/online-store/scsto
re/LOK_industrial.html?L+scstore+dzwg6364ff0d7f0d+1113915842
http://www.kinetronics.com/cgi-local/SoftCart.100.exe/online-store/scsto
re
On 25/11/04, wendy beard, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Last Sunday my son-and-heir was playing in a Soccer
>dome in Montreal. At best, I was scraping 1/200s @ 2.8
>with ISO3200.
>It just wasn't enough!
>http://www.pbase.com/wendybeard/soccer
Looks fine to me Wend. That with an IS lens?
Cheers
On 25/11/04, Steve Larson, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Hello,
Yo Stevo!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Waterson"
Subject: Re: Scrim System
I had thought of this also. Would be rather cheap using some
plastic tube
and material. Do you have any pointers on this?
What sort of tubing?
What sort of fabric (reflective and diffuse)
Do you have an elastic throug
Joe,
My experience with the FA 20/2.8 on the *istD is good. On 35mm film,
the lens has a problem with droplet distortion towards the corners,
which reduce sharpness of course. With the digicrop this is very much
reduced. I haven't looked meticulously close, but so far I haven't
seen any droplet sy
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone shoot hockey with their digital?
I know my camera and the istD can do present WB for unusual
situations, like this.
Hi Dave, I haven't shot hockey, but our show this spring was in a
hockey arena. I set the white balance off
- Original Message -
From: "Joseph Tainter"
Subject: Re: *ist Ds + A20/2.8 or 24/2.8 - will it work?
"...the A20/2.8 goes pretty mushy in the corners"
Hmmm. This is the first negative comment I have seen on this lens.
I have ordered the FA 20 f2.8, which has the same optical formula
An addendum to my previous post:
What your test has succeeded in demonstrating is that a a full frame
(36x24mm) sensor with about the same resolution as the sensor in the *ist-d
(~6mp @ 15.7*23mm) would have resolution that can compete with (or beat)
35mm provia 100f in terms of resolution and n
I agree with Graywolf's post. It simply doesn't make sense to enlarge both
images so that the magnifications are equivalent. If that were the case,
then one could use the same lens on 35mm and 4x5 film and then claim that
there is no difference between the two. The same comparison could also be
"...the A20/2.8 goes pretty mushy in the corners"
Hmmm. This is the first negative comment I have seen on this lens. I
have ordered the FA 20 f2.8, which has the same optical formula, based
on rave comments and an online photo showing good sharpness at f2.8.
Well, come to think of it, that i
Found whilst surfing and lurking! Shots from the new 14:
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/pentax/smc_da_14_28_ed_if
--- Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I appreciate the finance aspect, but a used 10D
> and a 70-200 with IS
> and you will be very impressed with what you can do
> in a soccer match.
> Hire or borrow and try it ;-)
>
Unfortunately there are some indoor venues that just
aren't light enough ev
George gave us the url for some adobe white papers these other day.
They explain the browser and the CS RAW converter in considerable
detail. I found these to be very valuable and an interesting read. I
don't agree with everything the author says, but it's very informative.
(For example, with P
Thanks Sylwester for that link. That was very
interesting reading!
--- Sylwester Pietrzyk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Pearson wrote on 25.11.04 4:57:
>
> > Which of the many 50mm lenses, made by Pentax, is
> > considered to be the best in terms of image
> quality?
> You may find interes
I just thought (ouch) about that.
Would a "Wild Hair(Hare)" be the evil twin of a "Dust Bunny"???
Don (Sorry, waiting for the damn turkey to thaw!)
> -Original Message-
> From: cbwaters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 8:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject
You're implying that Nikon Capture will process RAW from the *ist D?
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Anyone shoot hockey with their digital?
>
> A friend at work(in our print department)has asked me to take
some shots of his
> young
> lad
I was hoping someone would come up with a tested
solution for you but since they haven't:
**IF IT WERE ME**, and take this with a grain of
salt since I've only done this on mirrors:
I would take a DRY Q-Tip, pull the end out into
a point and very gently try to snag that little
devil and get it loo
70-210 F
300 FA
600 FA
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: What lens do you find is on your *istD most often
Francis, I like the composition but it comes across as underexposed on my
monitor. No details in the bird & very little in the rock. You should have
exposed for the rock and taken the overexposed water.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: PAW
How about a cotton swab with rubbing alcohol?
Maris
cbwaters wrote:
> I have a hair on my sensor. I tired blowing it off with a squeeze
> puffer to no avail. I couldn't tell if it moved at all. What can I
> do to get rid of it?
I misread your question. You asked about checking white balance. If you
shoot RAW, you can just leave it on auto, and you'll come close enough
to easily correct it in conversion. If not, you might want to set it
manually. You can probably find something close enough to white to get
an accurate
1 - 100 of 141 matches
Mail list logo
