My impression is that most who have tried Velvia 100F are dissapointed as
it has neither the sharpness or the color palette of the original Velvia.
It is probably a good film anyway but apparently doesn't meet the
expectations the Velvia name bring.
It seems like the most important design
I've even noticed how differnt lenses may perform in response to various
films. Provia F in particular being a high resolution/low accutance film. It
simply doesn't mate well with all lenses!
Pål
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F because
a lot on this list
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F
because
a lot on this list said it scanned better since Velvia is more color
saturated. And that does appear to be true based on my recent scanning
experience.
I have found the Provia 100F is not as contrasty as other slides,
It's not so much that they prefer to use cheap lenses, more that:
1)they've never used an full metal bodied lens so they don't know
better, and
2)they'd rather pay less than more for the camera / lens package.
Give them time. Let them first discover Pentax, then lure them towards the
Marnie wrote:
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F because
a lot on this list said it scanned better since Velvia is more color
saturated. And that does appear to be true based on my recent scanning experience.
But what does low accutance mean? Huh?
REPLY:
Marnie wrote:
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F because
a lot on this list said it scanned better since Velvia is more color
saturated. And that does appear to be true based on my recent scanning
experience.
But what does low accutance mean? Huh?
REPLY:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
First time I've heard this. I switched lately from Velvia to Provia F because
a lot on this list said it scanned better since Velvia is more color
saturated.
That lot said that it scans better because of its lower Dmax and finer
grain.
cheers,
caveman
The film lenses suck for digital syndrome was immediately apparent
with the full-frame EOS-1ds too. One of the culprits is the bayer
pixels disposition in the sensor, that makes it more sensitive to
colour fringe towards the edges of the image. When the oblique lines
of red or blue
Looking for primes for digital is a wise decision. Waiting for full
frame is even wiser. Personally I couldn't care less for current
Pentax zooms in the *ist d equation. The focal ranges are all
scrambled up to the point of rendering it useless. Trans-standards
become what,
This wouldn't suprise me at all. The first time I scanned film
and viewed at 100%, my first thought was: This scanner is CRAP.
The inkjet prints delighted me with their sharpness compared to
the screen.
Rob Studdert wrote, in part:
When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine
Mark wrote:
If your DSLR effectively multiplies your focal length by 1.5, it also
*divides* the lens' resolution by 1.5. So you'll want to use top-notch
lenses whenever possible. I think the 31mm f/1.8 Limited would make a
fine normal lens for the *ist-D, though!
REPLY:
Perhaps this is a
Alin wrote:
The film lenses suck for digital syndrome was immediately apparent
with the full-frame EOS-1ds too. One of the culprits is the bayer
pixels disposition in the sensor, that makes it more sensitive to
colour fringe towards the edges of the image. When the oblique lines
of red
Harry wrote:
At the moment there is virtually no information coming from Pentax on
possible 'D' type lenses for the digital SLR.
REPLY:
They have promised more lenses in the fall particularly suited for the *istD.
Personally I think it is both focal lenghts and optics optimized for a DSLR.
Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I carry a gaggle of good quality lenses, on which I have
spent too much. I have been awaiting a full-frome digital slr on which
to mount them. Now I may not be able to use some/all of them?
If you've bought top-quality glass I wouldn't worry. It's only
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Tainter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is there a way to know in advance which lenses will/won't
work with a
full-frame digital slr?
I don't think it's a matter of them not working, it's a matter of
finding out some of your lenses aren't as good as others.
Joseph wrote:
JT Hmmm. I am waiting for a full-framer. I won't buy the starkistdee
JT myself, although I may have my lab buy one.
JT This alarms me. I carry a gaggle of good quality lenses, on which I have
JT spent too much. I have been awaiting a full-frome digital slr on which
JT to mount
That depends on what do you intend to use it for.
For general purpose photography (which probably means, if one midrange zoom is
enough and ISO400 and higher is not required), high end digicams are pretty good.
I'd say, go for it, for under $400 one can get a very decent 4MP one. Canon G2
Rüdiger wrote:
So, you think that the entry level lenses like the FAJ 18-35, FAJ 28-80 and
the FAJ 70-300 which are specialy made for the entry level *istD are better
then good the old lenses like the K 2/35, K 1.8/85 or K 2.5/135.
REPLY:
No I don't. Fisrtly, they don't appeal to the same
Tom wrote:
I don't think it's a matter of them not working, it's a matter of
finding out some of your lenses aren't as good as others. You could do
the same thing now by enlarging all your negs to 11x14.
REPLY:
But I also think it is a case of what the lens is good at. As I said in a previous
I'd suggest that, while a person waits, she/he should acquire a nice Pentax
digital PS to use in the meanwhile. That way, when the dream comes true,
you will be that much ahead of the digital darkroom part of the game and
not way behind the power curve.
Just a thought.
Len
---
Looking
Rüdiger wrote:
So, you think that the entry level lenses like the FAJ 18-35, FAJ 28-80 and
the FAJ 70-300 which are specialy made for the entry level *istD are better
then good the old lenses like the K 2/35, K 1.8/85 or K 2.5/135.
REPLY from Pal
No I don't. Fisrtly, they don't appeal to the same
I'd like to see a 5 or 6 meg dp+s with a fixed lens of 28-35mm, with
an aperture of 1.4 or 2, made possible by the smaller sensor. A
companion 75 or 80mm would be nice too.
And a decent optical viewfinder, Tom. And real manual rangefinder focus aids.
I hate to say this, but the Mrs played with
Will lenses such as the Pentax 80-320mm (which according to reports I
have read is slightly soft at the 200-320mm range) be improved with the
advent of the forthcoming Pentax digital SLR?
Digital cameras in general allow you to alter the sharpness, contrast
and saturation settings, and numerous
No.
The dSLR's are more sensitiv to lens quality than film based kameras. Partially, of
course, because of the small sensor chips, as an unsharp photo will have to be blown
more up to obtain the same picture size. Of course it may be fixed to some degree
with USM, but there is a limit before
Harold, the 80-320 at the long end is not much better in the center
than at the corners, and it doesn't improve a lot by stopping down
either. I think it's a nice lens just by this consistency of image
quality. However, I don't think that above 200 mm it'll fit the
sharpness
Harold, the 80-320 at the long end is not much better in the center
than at the corners, and it doesn't improve a lot by stopping down
either. I think it's a nice lens just by this consistency of image
quality. However, I don't think that above 200 mm it'll fit the
sharpness
I think the only one of the scenarios you mentioned that really works
is edge sharpness improvements with small frame sensors.
Otherwise digital is very brutal about showing lens flaws.
When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine for
35mm all of a sudden sucked.
tv
I have been warned by some dSLR enthusiasts (among them the guy mentioned
here: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03070801nikkor1224review.asp)
that some of my lenses, especially zoom lenses, may not be good enough
to use on a digital SLR, even if they are quite good with my current
cameras.
On 10 Jul 2003 at 11:04, tom wrote:
I think the only one of the scenarios you mentioned that really works
is edge sharpness improvements with small frame sensors.
Otherwise digital is very brutal about showing lens flaws.
When the Canon 1DS came out, lenses that seemed perfectly fine for
I have been warned by some dSLR enthusiasts (among them the guy
mentioned here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03070801nikkor1224review.asp)
that some of my lenses, especially zoom lenses, may not be good enough
to use on a digital SLR, even if they are quite good with my current
cameras.
Joseph Tainter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have been warned by some dSLR enthusiasts (among them the guy
mentioned here:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0307/03070801nikkor1224review.asp)
that some of my lenses, especially zoom lenses, may not be good enough
to use on a digital SLR, even if they
31 matches
Mail list logo
