Albano Garcia wrote:
Yes, but I want to spend the fewer possible.
Also I'm a bit paranoid of receiving a failing camera.
A lot of people have reported here they have to change
the camera. Imagine the mess of doing it
internationally.
I bought my camera in America, and it failed a month later
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Or I enjoy IKEA when I am there, but they don't deliver?
Whaaat? They deliver in this country. At one point my local branch was
even offering delivery for free if you could prove you'd got there by
public transport...
S
Cotty wrote:
http://www.users.waitrose.com/~greenwitney/recent.html
Coo - I used to live in Cogges. :-) I'm pretty sure the Post Office in
question was still a wheatfield back then though, so I can't say I'm
particularly bothered by the idea of it closing...
S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
on the resignation of Blunkett :-)
Thanks - we'll have Charles Clarke resign next please.
S
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
G gave me some exposure advice which ran counter to what
I'd been doing with the camera, and the results were great - much better
than expected.
Care to share? Compensatory coffee available in London upon
application... ;-)
S
keith_w wrote:
Good article, but I seem to be missing something...
In Figure 8 the author says the tree branches are too sharp.
What the heck does *that* mean?
He proceeds to show a 1.5X insert, to illustrate what he means, and so
far as I'm concerned, it has brought out the detail of the ends
Margus Männik wrote:
I got an old nice Pentax MV. Everything seems to work fine, but I
noticed, that by User Manual longest shutter speed should be 1 second.
My camera gives me also much longer exposures. I tried it at late
evening with lens stopped down to f22, exposure was about 8 seconds
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Time to clean the sensor in the DS ... locked up the mirror and saw the
sensor thingy. It looks like there's a plastic layer over the actual pixel
things. Correct? Is that particularly delicate or is it for protection,
and, therefore, of a durable nature?
The filter in
Trevor Bailey wrote:
I was out this afternoon getting some trigger time with the *ist Ds.
I really liked the look of this Red Native against the bark of the
Spotted Gum (Eucalyptus Maculata) as a back drop.
I welcome all comments on this Image.
I am eager to learn.
David Mann wrote:
For editing and retouching Photoshop is still king of the castle. From
a workflow and organising perspective, Aperture is filling a gaping
hole in the market (IMO).
Interesting - I looked at the quick tour of Aperture they offer you and
thought, That does exactly the
Cotty wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0510/05101201samsung_pentaxdslrs.asp
I think this is big news, or am I wrong? Samsung with Pentax would be a
big player, no?
Could be - or it could mean that Pentax are about to start rebadging
Samsung digicams instead of developing their own. I
Got offered some paid work the other week, and rushed off to eBay and
bought a DA16-45/4 on the prospect - nice lens, isn't it? :-)
Here's an early photo with it on my *istDS, taken during the partial
solar eclipse we had earlier in the week in parts of the UK. You can
see the image of the
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Yeah, it's OK ... ;-)) From what I understand, it's the forum of choice
for many Canon users LOL
They just come here to read all the emails complaining about Pentax and
feel reassured that they chose the right brand... ;-)
S
Don Sanderson wrote:
OK, You asked for it! ;-)
Here are the survey results so far
Without wishing to deprecate the fine work you're doing, will there be a
more statistical set of results published at some point, so we can see
which requests are the most popular, etc?
S
Tom C wrote:
It's us here at the PDML... we secretly target someone and then get a
lurker in the target city to go around and loosen the bolts on
transmisson pans! :)
I'm going out to check mine now.
Those of us with manual gearboxes or (like me) without cars are unfazed
by this new PDML
Charles Wilson wrote:
Just reading how the Fuji S3 camera is going to have a buffer update
offered to customers. Now as an ist D owner wouldn't it be wonderful if
Pentax offered a buffer update for the camera.Sorry I was probably
dreaming.
Well, chances are that Pentax didn't design
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Questions: Is any quality lost when converting or adjusting the white
balance in the converter? Might it be better/simpler just to leave the
camera set to auto white balance? Would so doing have any negative effects
- greater battery drain, slower shooting, whatever?
If
Larry Levy wrote:
I think one of his premises is falacious. He seems to be attributing
logic to their choice of what to include. If recent past is prelude, we
should not expect logical behavior from Pentax. Was it logical to
pre-introduce a full-sized sensor seemingly based on the MZ-S before
Feroze wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26041
I don't know this newspaper, for the UK members is it a real paper or
one of those I saw Elvis rags???
It's not a newspaper, it's an online technology news website. They have
a reasonable reputation for getting things right.
S
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
Btw: did you saw the dpreview news? There is a new Sony camera, a
prosumer with the new 10MP APS-C sized Sony sensor. That's the reason
I don't know if I should wait or not (the sensor, not the camera). The
problem is nobody seems to think we'll see a new DS with this
Cotty wrote:
About 2/3rds the way down this page under: A super-sized, two-animal combo
http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-giraffe.html
Giraffes have a small hump on their backs.
Wow - this mailing list is a complete zoological education!
S
Kevin Waterson wrote:
warning: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 30c9ecf8
The package boost-1.33.0-3.fc4 is not signed with a GPG signature. Aborting...
Package boost-1.33.0-3.fc4 does not have a GPG signature.
Is this a good error?
Looks benign to me.
S
Chris Stoddart wrote:
Also I can't
see any concavity/convexity on the filters and they don't seem to alter
the image when you look through them...
It's very very slight. I could only deduce it by looking at the
reflection of a light fitting, as I described. At the very least the
filter
Chris Stoddart wrote:
Or maybe it's concave to make sure it *doesn't* have any effect? If a flat
sheet of glass (re Mike Wilson's suggestion) has the effect of changing
the angle of refraction noticeably at higher angles of incidence (and
this *is* a wide angle lens) then it would make sense
Toralf Lund wrote:
Since the full-frame discussion re-emerged yet another time earlier
today, I thought maybe I'd ask, how about a 36x36 mm sensor? Wouldn't
that be the ultimate size for a 35mm body and lens? I mean, the
elements being circular, surely the lens should handle the same size
Vid Strpic wrote:
My long wanted MIR-47 2.5/20 is here, at last.
Lately, there was a thread here, that speculated problems with the rear
lens assortment with this lens. I just put it on my ME Super, and did a
few shots (I will do more, ofcourse). No such problems, this lens is a
Vid Strpic wrote:
Correction. With rear filter mounted, it DOES interfere with the mirror
;)
Without the filter the situation is normal, and it seems that unlike
Zenitar, this lens does not NEED to have filter mounted to focus
properly. But, we'll see when I develop this roll ;)
If you
Pat White wrote:
As for the AF feature, it sounds useful and very unusual. I've never
heard of any lens with a complete built-in autofocus system that works
with almost any manual camera it can be mounted on. Has anyone heard of
another lens with a similar set-up?
I have a Sigma 70-210
Bob Shell wrote:
Pentax had one of these lenses as well, but as I recall it could only be
used with one special camera body.
Do you mean the SMC Pentax AF35-70/2.8? It didn't have the autofocus
sensor built-in, only the motor. It needed to be mated to the Pentax
ME-F body to autofocus.
mike wilson wrote:
http://www.photoforum.ru/rate/photo.php?photo_id=211000
More to come.
Indeed. Just discovered that there are _four_ people in that
photograph.
I congratulate you. :-)
S
Cotty wrote:
These are the same people that pop into a bar and see there's no Bud on tap.
I think this mailing list should have beer on tap. But not Bud.
S
Fred wrote:
Because of its target market the *ist DS is likely to be used mostly by
people shooting JPEG, as we've demonstrated on earlier pages of this review
there's a vast difference in resolution and detail between JPEG and RAW and
it's obvious therefore that a lot of the detail captured by
Frankie Lee wrote:
Any good in quality and convenience as 'walk around package' ?
Yes.
S
Powell Hargrave wrote:
The Ds has no button battery. Suspect it uses a capacitor to maintain
settings while the batteries are changed. Or perhaps a rechargeable
internal backup battery? I've had the camera sitting with dead batteries
without losing settings.
NVRAM?
S
mike wilson wrote:
What's PLG?
Pentax Losers' Gallery
S
Lewis Matthew wrote:
Is your objection to guns or to volatile/politica/controversial
subjects? If the group moves entirely away from controversy, there won't
be much here - not even about photography.
Guns are very much off-topic and an inflammatory subject besides, given
the extremely wide
Fred wrote:
Is there a need to insult the people who've contributed to the Pentax Lens
gallery ???
Nope, and I wasn't. I was thinking up an alternative meaning for the
acronym, with the intention of mild amusement.
S
Billy Abbott wrote:
I thought you had 2 puddings last time I went there with you...
Did I? Only the profiteroles were any good, according to my review...
S
Glen wrote:
I'm also tired of all the zooms which don't hold their aperture
throughout the zoom range. Is it that difficult or expensive to make a
constant-aperture zoom? I seem to remember that once upon a time, that
was the typical way of building zoom lenses. If they could do it in the
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Steve Jolly wrote:
Personally, I'm guessing that most of the people who want f/2.8 zooms
for their DSLRs have already jumped ship to Canon or Nikon.
How about those with the FA*, the Sigma, the Tokina or the Tamron? I
know a couple of them
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Pentax Japan lens list updated 13 July 2005
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036message=14654808
Thanks Godfrey - I see one f/2.8 zoom there. Canon have three, covering
the whole range from 16mm to 200mm. They also have a 35mm f/1.4 prime...
S
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Have you looked at the Canon 35/1.4L, 24-70/2.8L, 16-35/2.8L, and
70-200/2.8L lately? Very fine lenses, but all are monstrously big and
heavy, never mind very expensive.
Read my earlier posts in this thread - that was my other point. :-)
S
Cotty wrote:
Is this the one?
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith
Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good.
S
Cotty wrote:
Is this the one?
http://www.beerintheevening.com/pubs/s/15/159/Dove_Inn/Hammersmith
http://london.openguides.org/index.cgi?Dove_Inn_(Hammersmith) too.
S
Steve Jolly wrote:
Yep, that's it. Been there before - it's pretty good.
Apart from the food.
S
Juan Buhler wrote:
The last two pictures in my photoblog were shot with it:
http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=203
http://photoblog.jbuhler.com/index.php?showimage=204
Bah, now I'm going to have to start saving. :-(
How are you doing your conversions to B+W, by the way?
S
Glen wrote:
I've been playing around with bold colors lately. I thought I would
share an example with everyone and get their initial reactions:
http://mclilith.audioshot.net/photos2005/beech_fork.html
Aii! My eyes!
;-)
Something between the two would probably be my ideal.
S
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Interesting piece: a movie photographed entirely with a Canon 20D still
camera...
Heh - I guess that's one way of achieving HDTV quality :-)
S
Mark Roberts wrote:
That shot looks like a prime candidate for an alternate caption
contest! Any takers?
British shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missile fails to work over long
distances?
S
Derby Chang wrote:
Was a bit off my game this night. I guess I was a little dazzled. Lindy
and Amanda from a fave band of mind back in my uni days, the
Go-Betweens, were playing with their new 6-piece U.N.I.T. They were
playing support for my friend Loene, doing her sexy solo stuff. Both
Cotty wrote:
Winduz is OKwhen it's running right.
If you get into any problems, just re-boot ;-)
Or reinstall...
S
Cotty wrote:
I'm now coming up t town on Wednesday. Have a three o'clock at Chelsea FC
for a stadium tour plus some stamina time in the club shop while my lad
goes mad. Should be free before 6pm so where should we meet up?
Count me in.
S
John Francis wrote:
Why shoot the messenger?
That's the look that gets you on the podium in beauty pageants.
That's the look you want in your model portfolio if you're trying
to get on the short list by submitting an 8x10 to a casting agent.
So why blame the photographer for spotting a
cbwaters wrote:
Those little windows in the back of film cameras that allow one to see
the film canister were a good idea.
Cory
has a Super Program with a Plus-X 125 card in the thingie and an iso
dial set to 400...on exposure 3
Do a mid-roll rewind?
S
http://www.elvum.net/gallery/paw/simplicity
*istDS, Tamron 28-200 f3.8-4.5, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 1/400s
Taken next to Putney Bridge, in London.
All comments and criticisms encouraged. :-)
S
Paul Sorenson wrote:
Agreed - better to replace than repair. Before you do that, though, if
you have access to another monitor, substitute it to make sure the
monitor is the problem and not the video card.
It could also be the cable connecting them...
S
David Savage wrote:
Just heard about the explosions in London thought I'd chime in and
say that my thoughts go out the the English people at this horrible
time.
Thibouille wrote:
I do join everyone to express my sympathy to English and Londonian
people.
Hope none of your relatives were
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Just woke up - it's only about 5:30am here. What's up?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4659093.stm
S
Jostein wrote:
I bet Cotty is called in for extra duty to cover the events, but Oxford is well
out of the action.
Actually, I'm more worried about people like Bob Walkden, Billy Abbot, Malcolm
Smith and Alistair the lurker. Possibly others too. There is actually a good
handful of true londoners
Cotty wrote:
Tell her to get one of these and use the house stereo / radio tuner. I
have one and it works pretty good, and can be used with any radio in the
house or car. Not available in the UK as they contravene UK regs, but it
only has a transmitting area of about 30 feet so it's unlikely to
Malcolm Smith wrote:
If it stated as such, fine. Building massive arenas for one off events are
fine if up front. But have a plan for the future of the sites if you aren't
having the world over to visit every few years, when it's just Aunt Jackie
and her dog.
IIRC they're building one enormous
mike wilson wrote:
My personal testing (to be published soon) shows that a 5MP sensor
with dedicated optics can match the performance of a 35mm negative
of superb quality coupled to a lens of equally superb quality.
To do what, though? Produce prints up to a certain size, arguably.
You can do
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
However, a few moments with Photoshop ... a Curves Adjustment Layer and
mask does the trick for me.
Fill-in flash would have been another option, I guess...
S
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
Aye, we don't call them Greek in Greece ;-)
We call them Roman in the UK... blame all those busts of Julius Caesar :-)
S
Mark Roberts wrote:
Clarke's original was Any sufficiently advanced technology is
indistinguishable from magic.
With the obvious corollary, Any technology that is distinguishable from
magic is insufficiently advanced. That one gets bandied around a lot
where I work... :-)
S
Boris Liberman wrote:
What would you have used a polariser to achieve? A
darker sky? Enhanced/suppressed reflections in the water?
Here I would be after the clouds and playing with reflections...
Fair enough.
Hehe. Shall I challenge you to come here and show me how far you can go
removing
Cotty wrote:
Imagine a plane coming down and crashing *right* on the border between
Canada and the United States. Literally, half the plane on one side of
the border, and half the plane on the other side. So where do you bury
the survivors?
I'd advise against trying to bury them - they might
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
I've seen A-class extension tubes.
But does anyone make one with the AF mechanism coupled through?
Or would it be better to take a little 1.4xTC and strip the optical guts out of
it?
Doesn't a TC alter the lens aperture information provided to the body?
S
Mark Roberts wrote:
Wanna hear something weird? The only filters I've ever had this problem
with are B+W. All my Hoyas have been fine.
I'd say something about the high probability of this kind of thing
occuring by chance, but Cotty would complain about the lack of maths,
and it's too late to
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
Is anyone aware of any project for running third party software on the
*ist D / DS ?
Any info about its processor and operating system?
I would expect it to be a mixture of DSPs and FPGAs. No need for an
operating system in that case.
S
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hehe. Shel, you made some PS adjustment and it looked more
realistic... No, I am not picking on you, I really am not... It is just
a bit funny in light of most recent longer discussion.
If Shel (or anyone) wants to adjust my photos in PS in the cause of
making
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The pic looks washed out and overexposed. I made a few simple adjustments
in PS - essentially just reducing the exposure by whatever means I could -
and the photo became quite a bit stronger, looking more realistic.
I shall take a proper look at your adjusted version
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
Are you keeping it or do you want to sell/swap it?
It's borrowed from a colleague at work. :-) Having finally obtained
enough batteries(!), I hope to try it on an actual ME-F tomorrow...
S
I spent last week with some friends on a canal boat, touring the
north-west of England at walking pace. Got a few photos I liked; this
is one of bridge 164 on the Trent Mersey canal:
http://www.elvum.net/gallery/paw/bridge164
*istDS @ ISO 400; Tamron AF 28-200/3.8-5.6 @ f9. Raw converted
David Mann wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=storycid=528e=1u=/ap/20050617/
ap_on_hi_te/photo_printing_frustration
I particularly like the implication that a professional photograph is
one that has been sharpened in Photoshop...
S
David Savage wrote:
You are stealing something Bob, Adobe's intellectual property.
No, you're infringing their copyright. Theft is where I remove
something from your possession. Copyright infringement is where I copy
something without your permission. In the latter case you can still
Frantisek wrote:
Ugh ogh... So with your example, you would calibrate everything to
look good only in your room with reddish walls. That's fine if thath's
the _only_ place you will _ever_ see your photographs, and never
print them... That's good for you? You will edit your originals to
look good
Yep, this is the lens from Pentax's abortive 1981 attempt to get a jump
on the autofocus SLR market. The lens is awful wide open and mediocre
stopped down, at all focal lengths. It weighs a ton, the autofocus is
only compatible with the ME-F, and with Pentax DSLRs it only meters in
their
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
??? I find it good, even at 70mm 2.8
Sure you're thinking of the same lens? :-)
S
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
I think I've seen it, there was only this one, no?
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/medium/AF35-70f2.8.html
I mean your pictures do not look worse to me than the ones I take with
my F SMC 35-70mm
Not having seen your pictures, I guess all I can say is that
Joaquim Carvalho wrote:
I have a few F and FA SMC zoom lenses:
FA 28-70 F4
F 35-70 3.5-4.5
F 28-80 3.5-4.5
FA 28-80 3.5-5.6
I've been comparing them on the *ist DS at 70mm wide open and on all of
them I found that the color of a distant colorfull object also appears
on the left of the object.
Powell Hargrave wrote:
Think I'll buy some silver ones and a can of black paint. :)
Hey, I have an M50/1.7 in black - they only made a finite number of
them; maybe I should post that on eBay as a black limited edition
lens... ;-)
S
Mitch Conant wrote:
Has anyone seen this particular Ref Converter?
If so, do you know if it will fit on an ME/MX or an *ist DS?
I suggest you read the relevant bit of Boz's site for full details:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/index.html
The section marked Viewfinder Attachments. It's
Thibouille wrote:
I'm happy now :)
--
Thibouille
--
Z1,SuperA,KX,MX,P30t and KR-10x ...
You forgot to change your sig :-)
S
Cornelius Nuzzlemuff III wrote:
Why is it seemingly so difficult to produce a camera with a full
frame (35mm) sensor, if Pentax and many others have/will have MF
digitals surely one of these sensors could be used, even if it has to
be masked?
The larger the sensor the lower the production
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I don't think the s had pentamirror, but I may be wrong.
The DS has a pentaprism. However, according to the technical specs
linked from that webpage*, so does the *istDL...
S
*assuming my attempts to interpret Swedish don't mislead me - I'm
assuming prism
P. J. Alling wrote:
Old hardware, new software??? Though since it's a different camera
design, maybe new hardware old software...
I'm not sure it's a *very* different camera design... other than a
bigger LCD on the back and slightly different viewfinder optics (the
pentamirror), I don't see
Christian wrote:
Just so it is clear now, Penta mirror is confirmed:
Optical Viewfinder - Penta mirror with Natural-Bright-Matte II focusing
screen
Same size as the *istDS; 1.2oz lighter (mostly due to the pentamirror,
presumably...)
*with* DOF preview.
From the detailed specs, I can only
Dario Bonazza wrote:
Hence, along the crippled KAF mount, now we also have a crippled SAFOX
VIII.
It's great to be in Pentaxdom :-(
They're not phasing out the *istDS, you know.
Personally I find 11 AF points to be overkill. But then again, I only
have one AF lens... ;-)
S
Scott Loveless wrote:
They're usually available for a song, but as much as everyone likes
this lens, don't expect that to last.
If anyone wants to swap my M28/3.5 for an A28/2.8, just get in touch...
:-) It's a fantastic bit of glass, but I want the extra functionality
that A-series lenses
...a full-page Pentax advert containing the following copy:
At Pentax we've been making some of the world's finest lenses for over
50 years. Now, with the *istDS we've created a digital SLR that's
compatible with all of them, with just a few limitations in functions.
Am I the only person to
Mark Roberts wrote:
You thought the Romans left Britain 1600 or so years ago? Wrong! I
spotted this legion in Chester just a few weeks ago:
http://www.robertstech.com/temp/romans.jpg
Someone told them that all roads led to Rome, and they've been wandering
round the one-way system ever
Not a fantastic photographic achievement, but I thought it was kinda
cute. :-)
http://www.elvum.net/gallery/paw/squirrel
Pentax *istDS, SMC-Takumar 135/3.5 at f5.6ish, significant crop from a
horizontal shot.
I'm not 100% satisfied with the 135 as a digital lens - it's adequate,
but it's a
Don Sanderson wrote:
With my modification above some lenses work well, others
give incorrect exposure.
Did you make a list? :-)
S
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mom at 90 - More Hands
http://members.aol.com/eactivist/PAWS/pages/morehands.htm
Beautiful.
S
Tom C wrote:
Because there's still a concept called Freedom of Speech here, as much
as I hate using that grossly overused and abused cliche.
You can say what you like, but other people aren't obliged to appreciate
it and/or respond positively. :-)
S
Mark Roberts wrote:
That's it: With K/M lenses the movement of the lever is directly
proportional to aperture diameter, with A and later lenses it's
directly proportional to aperture *area*.
If that's true then it is quadratic, not logarithmic, no?
Since the area varies with the
frank theriault wrote:
In another 30 years, 1/2 of Britain will be underwater...
Not to worry, we'll just get Lizzie to repossess Canada and all come
over to join you. You already have a London, I hear...
S
William Robb wrote:
I think we've sent her home now. Would you check to ensure she has
arrived safely?
Surely it's her husband you'd want to be careful not to be left with? :-)
S
Kevin Waterson wrote:
I am looking for a lense about 28-100 and f1.8 or f2.8
Does such a creature exist?
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/
S
101 - 200 of 637 matches
Mail list logo
