Thanks for the detailed description and information. However, my question
dealt with manual focus lenses. Aren't FA lenses auto focus?
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Herb Chong
not sharp enough. the FA 24-90 is one example. shooting Provia, it isn't
easily distinguishable from any
I'm looking for a manual focus lens to fill the gap between 18mm and 24mm.
What would you suggest, Rob? I almost bought an A20/2.0 until you started
knocking them, and then I decided to hold off a bit.
Errr, what's an AL lens (showing my ignorance again)
Shel
From: Rob Studdert
On 21
Herb,
Are you looking at your results on equal size prints with the
same field of view (8x10s from the results on film with say a
50mm vs a comparable 35mm on the DSLR?) or are you looking at a
pixel for pixel display straight out of the camera and comparing
that to ?? for the film camera?
The
sorry, i have gotten rid of almost all my manual focus lenses and never
intend to go back. they aren't worth it to me.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax
What Sigmas did you found not enough good for *istD?
Thank you
Arthur Grokhovsky
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 1:05 AM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject:
Hey John
Why have you stolen all the beautiful colors from your version of XP?
Everything's gray on your pictures. Are you such a fan of win 98/nt?
;-)
Michael
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 20. Februar 2005 23:48
An:
http://home.fotocommunity.de/mike.a.wilson/index.php?id=529253d=2639601
Not easy to see at the scale presented but this piece of glass has been
produced so that it gradually cracks and disintegrates. You can see
some of the breaks starting.
mike
Michael Heim wrote:
Hey John
Why have you stolen all the beautiful colors from your version of XP?
Everything's gray on your pictures. Are you such a fan of win 98/nt?
;-)
Michael
The XP colors are terrible, and all those bells and whistles eat up ram
like a pig.
The first thing I do on a
I my english so bad?
I know a little bit about computers and I know when i cang change
something and when i can't. And as you wrote, when multiple files
selected, I can't change the values. Even not in the advanced mode.
That's a fact. Maybe you can. I can't. I cant make a double click on the
I think it would depend on the actual machine you were servicing rather than
the number of cylinders employed. I know from personal experience getting 0
clearence on the Desmo closing rockers can be time consuming when you have to
stone the shims down on the wet stone, having said that they're
To get out onto the Internet you need an IP address (a quadruple of
numbers - something that looks like like 192.168.0.100)
To get out onto the Internet you need a UNIQUE IP address
It's unclear
from your message whether you can usually do this, or whether you
only connect to the internet
Maybe the problem is the address of your Proxy Server.
You say you have full access to your local network but no access to the
internet. So your PC doesn't find the way out. If you have a broadband
access, I'm sure you have to tell your PC the name of your providers
Proxy Server.
For example:
I think that's a matter of taste and de gustibus non est disputandum.
I remember a friend of mine wo said he would boycott Windows 95 and stay
at 9.11 because of Graphics. I think he changed later...
one thing was better on 98. The start menu. I changed from the XP start
Menue to the old view.
-- Forwarded Message ---
From: John Whittingham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:58:15 +
Subject: Re: OT - Computer nerds unite! I have a networking problem...
To get out onto the Internet you need an IP address (a quadruple of
numbers
it doesn't matter. the difference between the best lenses and the next
quality is much higher on the *istD than on film. a top lens will still be a
top lens. a good lens on film isn't a good lens on digital anymore. a very
good lens might or might not be. the 1.5 crop factor for switching to
Hi,
Monday, February 21, 2005, 10:54:04 PM, Michael wrote:
I my english so bad?
I know a little bit about computers and I know when i cang change
something and when i can't. And as you wrote, when multiple files
selected, I can't change the values. Even not in the advanced mode.
That's a
i had the 15-30, which wasn't as well corrected in the corners and suffered
from strange bokeh, and the 50-500. i've borrowed others and i find all
Sigmas impart a strange grittiness and bokeh to out of focus areas of the
image, whether film or digital. Pentax lenses don't do this, even the
On 22/2/05, Tan and Steve, discombobulated, unleashed:
Sorry, I am very confusing aren't I?!?! hehe.
Not confusing at all.
A bloody nightmare!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
Thank you.
Do you have an experience with Sigma 2.8/70-200, 4.0/100-300 or
2.8/24-70?
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Grokhovsky
-Original Message-
From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:23 AM
To:
Did you mean the other way around? As stated it would cause the same problem.
I much prefer manual focus.
Nick
-Original Message-
From: David Savage[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or am I the only idiot who manually focuses then composes? :-)
Dave S
On 21 Feb 2005 at 14:29, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'm looking for a manual focus lens to fill the gap between 18mm and 24mm.
What
would you suggest, Rob? I almost bought an A20/2.0 until you started knocking
them, and then I decided to hold off a bit.
I can't suggest anything else at this FL,
Bob W mused:
Hi,
Monday, February 21, 2005, 10:54:04 PM, Michael wrote:
I my english so bad?
I know a little bit about computers and I know when i cang change
something and when i can't. And as you wrote, when multiple files
selected, I can't change the values. Even not in the
Perhaps my standards are low, but I'm quite pleased with the performance of all
my lenses on the *istD. I even like the results I've achieved witht the much
maligned FA 80-320. My manual focus lenses, which are mostly k series glass,
have produced images that please me greatly. I've also had
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert
Subject: Re: FA 20mm samples?
On 21 Feb 2005 at 14:29, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I'm looking for a manual focus lens to fill the gap between 18mm
and 24mm. What
would you suggest, Rob? I almost bought an A20/2.0 until you
started knocking
them, and
On 21 Feb 2005 at 14:35, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
The 16x24mm format of the digital camera should be obtaining the
best part of any given lens' performance, but if you are
expecting that a pixel for pixel inspection of the resulting
image will be sharper straight out of the camera than the
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:15:40 -0500, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
frank theriault wrote on 2/18/2005, 7:24 PM:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3130444size=lg
Nothing overly serious, just a fun pic, but you may comment if so
compelled.
I think you have
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
Perhaps my standards are low, but I'm quite pleased with the
performance of all my lenses on the *istD. I even like the results
I've achieved witht the much maligned FA 80-320. My manual focus
Michael,
Have you tried just typing once you left click on 'Title', 'Subject', etc.
On my PC everything is grayed out until I start typing then the dialogue
box appears.
I'm runing XP Professional Version 2002, Service Pack 2.
It works for multiple files at once, but its not the same as
IPTC
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 07:35:02 +0100, Michel Carrère-Gée
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The filters of Zénitar: they count in the optical formula, it must has
there to have ALWAYS a filter; a clear filter is provided.
Yes! I discovered that. I took off a red filter, and decided to put
nothing on,
On 21 Feb 2005 at 17:42, William Robb wrote:
Rob, what is it about the 20 on the istD that you don't like?
I don't like the AOV of it, I have never cared for the 28mm FL on
35mm (don't much like the 31 on the film cameras either), so I
haven't used the 20 a whole bunch on the digital.
What
Tan and Steve mused:
Hi Alan and John!
Thanks so much for your responses - I should probably clarify a couple of
things.
My PC is connected to the internet via cable (broadband). I use my PC
predominantly, which is how I send and receive emails. My lappy is my
second 'puter and it
- Original Message -
From: Fred Widall
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: Change File Attributes
Michael,
Have you tried just typing once you left click on 'Title',
'Subject', etc.
On my PC everything is grayed out until I start typing then the
dialogue
box appears.
I'm runing XP Professional
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:22:46 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I won't.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
http://webaperture.com/gallery/photos/43609
No comment.
Boris
Geez, Boris pops a new lens on the cam, and goes right out and takes
killer pix with it!
I love
On 21 Feb 2005 at 17:46, William Robb wrote:
This speak to the difference between a real photographer who is in
the business of selling pictures, and those who magnify their images
to 200% on monitor and complain that there is artifacting.
To most people (including many music execs) an
ks Yes, you can see the difference - but it isn't big.
I still think that there is a difference how lenses work on digital
and film. Just ask about the chromatic aberration on FA 2/24*. I have
seen problems on digital with Tokina ATX 20-35/2.8 which was on film a
fine lens. And there are other
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Zenitar Fisheyes and filters (for Dave Brooks)
They should put something in the instructions about that. Or
better
yet, make English or French instructions that I could understand.
Maybe I should send them to Boris for
Michael Heim mused:
Hey John
Why have you stolen all the beautiful colors from your version of XP?
That's not _my_ version of XP - that's Eric's version.
(Although my version of XP does look pretty much like that)
Note that in this image:
http://efeatherstone.dyndns.org/~eric/b.jpg
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:57:37 -0800, Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image1.htm
Goofin' around with an old lens and a new converter.
Added some 100% crops of aberration correction, mainly for Shel.
Powell
200mm handheld at 8 feet? I'd say
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:57:29 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm pretty sure my Zenitar instructions mentioned that.
Or perhaps my brain is turning to oatmeal.
I don't know the same things that you don't know.
I don't know.
I just don't know.
Mine were in Russian, so I
no. i have friends who have the 24-70, but i haven't seen shots using it.
the graininess that i find strange appears on film and digital, so i think
it is a design characteristic.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, February
except that i am selling my images too.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
This speak to the difference between a real photographer who is
Hi!
Of course this information is in the Russian manual of this lens.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Grokhovsky
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2005 2:50 AM
To:
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking for a manual focus lens to fill the gap between
18mm and 24mm.
What would you suggest, Rob? I almost bought an A20/2.0 until
you started
knocking them, and then I decided to hold off a bit.
If you mean for a DSLR body, I would just buy
I'm with you, Paul. And I don't feel that my standards are low.
Godfrey
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps my standards are low, but I'm quite pleased with the
performance of all my lenses on the *istD. I even like the
results I've achieved witht the much maligned FA 80-320. My
manual
Thank you.
I have found 24-70 and 70-200 (both 2.8) pretty good on the film on
my MZ-S. Because I think now about the *istDS, I want to understand should I
change my lens system or no.
Sincerely yours,
Arthur Grokhovski
-Original Message-
Hi Michael, I have just tried that - the XP properties - on JPEGs
which had IPTC info added by IrfanView (which works well). XP didn't
even find the info there, it showed the EXIF well but not the IPTC
tags, although they were named the same! (ie author, keywords,
caption,...). So I guess XP
But... and here I lay myself out for attack... :) The finer details and the
technical nuances do not a good picture make (not saying they don't have the
potential to make may one it better). In the end, as with many things in
life, it's the big picture, the entire composition that often wins
many of the lenses talked about here as being exellent aren't acceptable
for me
Well, ~which~ lenses, Herb?
Fred
.. So on a smaller surface areas more magnification need to be
applied in order to achieve the same print size. As such any
inherent aberrations are magnified. ...
If you were comparing two negatives from different formats, I
would agree with you without question: the smaller format will
show
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:06:41 -0500, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few new birds. Photographed yesterday afternoon around the lake.
2 Northern Cardinals:
http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=1pos=0
http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=1pos=1
A Junco
On 21 Feb 2005 at 17:10, Tom C wrote:
But... and here I lay myself out for attack... :) The finer details and the
technical nuances do not a good picture make (not saying they don't have the
potential to make may one it better). In the end, as with many things in
life,
it's the big
--- Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, I would say
IstD/IstDS (I believe DS has the same finder?) are quite
usable
at manual focus, unlike many other DSLRs. Usable for me is
manual focusing at low contrast low light levels like in a
bar.
On the D100 D70, I can't accurately focus even
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 01:17:47 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.mindspring.com/~pjalling/PESO_--_cyowtfs.html
Not sure I like this one. I like the idea of photographing those cool
old gas pumps while you still can (how much longer will they be
there?), but I have to
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:49:04 +, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://home.fotocommunity.de/mike.a.wilson/index.php?id=529253d=2639601
Not easy to see at the scale presented but this piece of glass has been
produced so that it gradually cracks and disintegrates. You can see
some
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
... No, it doesn't quite translate into the same thing. Digital
printing to a size is purely a matter of pixel density to paper,
not magnification.
This doesn't seem quite right to me.
I don't
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:01:15 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of them try to get away...
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/09.htm
Taken with Pentax *ist DS + FA 31/1.8.
Comments and critique always appreciated.
Nice!
Very nice. Even through the
Given it was working fine previously, I'm going to hazard a guess that it's
nothing to do with the connection or your settings. Did you recently
'upgrade' to XP Service Pack 2?
Cheers,
Ryan
- Original Message -
From: Tan and Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Net [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 17:52:26 -0600, William Robb wrote:
I just tried a couple of the things that Bob said to try, and i am
not getting the dialogues that he says i should be seeing either.
I am wondering if there is something in the way Mike and I have our
versions of XP set up?
Mine is
you're still missing the point. there isn't any comparison of film with
digital going on and it doesn't matter whether printed or viewed on a
monitor. the dividing line between good and excellent lenses moves when
switching to digital. a lens that is very good on a film body won't
necessarily
Nice work, Christian. My favorite is the female Cardinal.
Paul
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:06:41 -0500, Christian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A few new birds. Photographed yesterday afternoon around the lake.
2 Northern Cardinals:
http://www.skofteland.net/displayimage.php?album=1pos=0
A fun shot. I'd like to see it in color as well. Good work.
Paul
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 21:01:15 -0800 (PST), Godfrey DiGiorgi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of them try to get away...
http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW5/09.htm
Taken with Pentax *ist DS + FA 31/1.8.
Comments
Juan Buhler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A truly beautiful shot, Juan!
Perfect timing, and I love the tonal range. How are you
converting your shots to BW?
Thanks Gianfranco!
I use the channel mixer in PS, with 25%, 35% and 40% for R, G
and B
respectively. I had found these values by
GD The D/DS have an excellent viewfinder for manual focus. I can
GD see the critical focus point even with the A24/2.8 or the
I certainly agree! It was quite something to see the trough the finder
of it. Still, I tried the LX just alongside, with the new screen, so
the comparison LX is like big
the FA 24-90 is one example that i still have. it was very good on a film
body and acceptable on the *istD. most of the rest that i used were Sigma
and Tokina lenses and they are gone. the Pentax FA 80-320 was acceptable on
film and is marginal on the *istD. the FA* 24/2 is good on film but not
The FA 35/2 would be your best bet for all of the functionality in the
camera, though all have excellent reputations for their optical
performance. The M may be a bit less expensive used than the K for
equal condition lenses.
Andre Langevin wrote:
From what I´ve heard some older
But... and here I lay myself out for attack... :) The finer details and the
technical nuances do not a good picture make (not saying they don't have the
potential to make may one it better). In the end, as with many things in
life,
it's the big picture, the entire composition that often
Can't argue with you there. Obviously a better product has the potential to
produce a better result.
Overall I haven't been unhappy with any of my lenses on the *ist D. But
then again, I *haven't* made critical comparisons.I know in general that
I try to avoid the zooms I have, unless
LX+SE-60 is the best SLR finder
ever!
I agree. I have that screen in my LX. It's certainly the best SLR finder I've
ever seen, although I admit I haven't seen them all. Unfortunately, I rarely
shoot with it any more, but I pick it up and admire it from time to time. g
Paul
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: AW: Manual Focus Pentax Glass on istD
LX+SE-60 is the best SLR finder
ever!
I agree. I have that screen in my LX. It's certainly the best SLR
finder I've ever seen, although I admit I haven't seen them all.
Unfortunately, I
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:49:04 +, mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://home.fotocommunity.de/mike.a.wilson/index.php?id=529253d=2639601
Not easy to see at the scale presented but this piece of glass has been
produced so that it gradually cracks and disintegrates.
I realise it causes the same problem :-) That's the technique I've
been using for years as well, and I suspect it's a throw back to
microprism split screen focus aids.
What I was asking, does anyone here compose and then focus? I tend to
do it this way in macro shots, where a slight shift in
To me it looks like a fish-eye shot of the plastic comb attachment on an
electric shaver about to give William Robb a haircut. :)
Very nice shot Mike. Beautiful.
Tom C.
From: mike wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: PESO: Sunny
I didn't mean for a DSLR specifically. IAC, the idea of using a zoom is
something I've not come to grips with - I generally don't like them and,
with one exception, sold every one I had - and the small aperture is also
something I've never used, with the exception of a couple of wides in the
3.5
Unless you're making a BIG picture, then, as Kitty Kalen sang, little
things mean a lot.
Shel
[Original Message]
From: Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But... and here I lay myself out for attack... :) The finer details and
the
technical nuances do not a good picture make (not saying they don't
I've defended this lens before, and you know what? I still like it.
It's a great and inexpensive lens for casual picture taking on the
*istD. Here's a shot from the zoo that I snapped a couple of weeks ago:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3139464size=lg
Here's a 100% crop:
All of this arguing will be moot when they
come out with a full frame sensor. FF will
yield better results than APS with the same
lens and Mp. Even more so with average lenses.
As it is you would need lenses with infinite
resolution to look as sharp at APS dimensiona
as FF dimensions.
JCO
WOW!
That's an amazing shot Mike, very dramatic. Would look way cool blown
up and hung on the wall.
Well done.
Dave S
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:07:13 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To me it looks like a fish-eye shot of the plastic comb attachment on an
electric shaver about to give
Maybe they have one in the works. I believe the 28-75 is pretty new.
Looks like a fine performing lens, I wish they (Tamron) would
release a 70- 200 f/2.8 to complement it.
John
-- Original Message ---
From: Amita Guha [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
I think I need to use mine a bit more after seeing that.
Dave S
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:31:28 -0500, Paul Stenquist
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've defended this lens before, and you know what? I still like it.
It's a great and inexpensive lens for casual picture taking on the
*istD. Here's a
Wow! All very nice shots. (:
John Celio
--
http://www.neovenator.com
http://www.newpixel.net
AIM: Neopifex
Hey, I'm an artist. I can do whatever I want and pretend I'm making a
statement.
Not that you can tell much from small web images but I
suppose they're better than nothing.
That's the thing...I appreciate you posting the links, but I can't really
judge the performance of the lens based on those samples. :) I think I'll go
ask over on DPreview. The Sigma is starting to
Gee Frank, is the only way you see some of these posts is after I reply
to them, if that's so I feel so important.
frank theriault wrote:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:22:46 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I won't.
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
Mark wrote:
There's a prize for anyone who can identify *this* bike:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/jakesbike.jpg
;-)
I'm guessing a Kawasaki kz900 with a racing body. I'm on digest so if the
answer has been given already I haven't gotten to it yet.
Butch
What is a 100% crop?
--- Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whoops!
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image1.htm
No not that sharp :)
At 11:39 AM 21/02/2005 , you wrote:
so sharp it cut itself right out of the email?
Cheers
Jens
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 21 Feb 2005 at 20:49, Amita Guha wrote:
That's the thing...I appreciate you posting the links, but I can't really
judge the performance of the lens based on those samples. :) I think I'll go
ask
over on DPreview. The Sigma is starting to look more and more appealing except
for the size.
Exactly. Thanks!
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OTOH, I'm guessing you had to choose between the
exposure you have
there, and completely blowing out the top part of
the building.
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with
On 21 Feb 2005 at 18:30, Rick Womer wrote:
What is a 100% crop?
Really 0% cropped or 100% un-cropped :-)
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
Have you tried simply rebooting everything including router and cable modem?
Sometimes that is all thats needed.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Heim [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 4:04 PM
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: AW: OT - Computer nerds unite! I
On 22 Feb 2005 at 1:43, Frantisek wrote:
I certainly agree! It was quite something to see the trough the finder
of it. Still, I tried the LX just alongside, with the new screen, so
the comparison LX is like big apples to small oranges ;-) I was just
again impressed with LX's finder (I owned
I can post you a some full frame A20/2.8 JPG images at
various f-stops if you
want?
Sure, that would be great!
Amita
I use the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 on the*ist-D and have no complaints. But I
almost always use it in circumstances where I'm not using a tripod and am
shooting at higher ISO settings (like swim meets) - so I'd have to take a
hard look at some of my images taken in more controlled circumstances and
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:12:23 -0500, Peter J. Alling
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gee Frank, is the only way you see some of these posts is after I reply
to them, if that's so I feel so important.
I saw PAW in the subject line, that's why I responded.
But, Peter, you'll always be important to us...
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 18:30:18 -0800 (PST), Rick Womer
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is a 100% crop?
I'm just a city-boy, but I think it may be farm-talk.
As in, We have 50% livestock, 50% crop, or, This year, we sold all
our cattle, so we're going 100% crop.
You know, stuff like that. g
HTH,
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps my standards are low, but I'm quite pleased with the
performance of all my lenses on the *istD. I even like the
results I've achieved witht the much maligned FA 80-320. My
manual focus lenses, which are mostly k
Joe,
My page 115 says:
(F6) Setting both autofocusing and autoexposure metering with the AF button
When you press the AF button, you can autofocus only or autofocus and
lock the autoexposure reading at the same time
.Pentax Function no. (F6)
.Setting No.
(1)...Autofocus only (no AE lock)
At 06:30 PM 21/02/2005 , you wrote:
What is a 100% crop?
Image size is 100% - not reduced to fit on computer screen. A piece of the
large image is cropped out to show detail.
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Image1.htm
i've heard, but not from any reliable source, that Panasonic and Sony are
planning to enter the DSLR market in the next year. yet the people who are
saying this are people who are supposed to be on top of these things. they
aren't sure and i'm not sure either, but there you have it.
Herb...
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This speak to the difference between a real photographer who is in
the business of selling pictures, and those who magnify their images
to 200% on monitor and complain that there is artifacting.
Yeah, right Cotty. I know, I know! :)
--
Mark Roberts
Amen to that, Paul. I've had no complaints from stock houses, individual
publication buyers, or folks buying prints at art fairs and galleries. From
a workflow perspective, I would _much_ rather sell an image shot on the
*sty D for publication than anything shot on film - though I started
That's why I haven't bought into the 'digital lens' 'hype' yet. If a FF
Pentax comes out and it costs 10% of a years income, then forget it. If it
costs 5% of a years income I would have to swallow real hard. If it costs
2.5% of a years income or less, I'll get in line.
Basically, if a
101 - 200 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
