On 20 Oct 2003 at 17:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Besides, initial use suggests that for certain forms of photography the
distortion is very subtle and not objectionable, and electronic
compensation may mitigate it further. I'd rather see a $250 14mm lens
or a $1500 full-frame DSLR, but
Escher, another remarkable Dutchman. He didn't need a camera to get his
vision across.
On Sat, 2003-10-18 at 07:04, mishka wrote:
i do prefer a fisheye to a rectilinear wideangle. the pictures semm to look
more natural to me. i guess, i have been mc escher fan for waaay too long g
best,
i do prefer a fisheye to a rectilinear wideangle. the pictures semm to look
more natural to me. i guess, i have been mc escher fan for waaay too long g
best,
mishka
Ouch, that's an expensive way to provide a distorted wide angle view.
Rob Studdert
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
I see an absolutely stunning portrayal of the utterly bland emptiness of
Suburbia. Not a single human in sight. No sidewalks. Only a single car,
directly across the street, indicates the fact that humans may reside here.
Huge lawns separate the
Yeah, whatever, Cotty,
Excuse me while I go grind some coffee beans.
I'm sorry, you want me to put my arm ~where~ in that cow?
cheers,
frank
vbg
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist
fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Cotty [EMAIL
Just went out on the front porch and took this shot with the *istD.
Camera on manual, ISO200, f/11, 1/500 per Gossen Digisix meter.
http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
Comments?
Bill
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 11:01:35 -0400
Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just went out on the front porch and took this shot with the *istD.
Camera on manual, ISO200, f/11, 1/500 per Gossen Digisix meter.
http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
Comments?
Well it looks like a 79k jpeg of a shot across the street. Artistically I rate it a 0. Technically I rate it a 0. Informationally I rate it a 1. However the exposure looks OK, if that was your point. It does make the 16mm fisheye look like a not great 24mm (too much distortion for a rectilinear
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Just went out on the front porch and took this shot with the *istD.
Camera on manual, ISO200, f/11, 1/500 per Gossen Digisix meter.
http://groups.msn.com/BillOwensPhotos/
shoebox.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
Comments?
Bill
Is that a small white
See why I don't usually do critiques?
Yes, because no one can do anything that meets your expectations
It's the moon. I posted this to show how much less distortion there is
using just the center of this lens instead of full frame.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm
Its hard to tell while I'm on my laptop, but it looks a tad underexposed
to me.
Cheers,
rg
Bill Owens wrote:
Just went out on the front porch and took this shot with the *istD.
Camera on manual, ISO200, f/11, 1/500 per Gossen Digisix meter.
PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
It's the moon. I posted this to show how much less distortion there is
using just the center of this lens instead of full frame.
Right. So, if it's a 16mm
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote:
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
It's the moon. I posted this to show how much less distortion there is
using just the center of this lens instead of full frame.
Right. So, if it's a 16mm, it's acting like a 24mm on the *ist D, no? If
correct, it's
I'm curious about the DA lenses too. Figure the Zenit will serve until they
become available.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:27 PM
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
On Wed, 15
: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:17:21 -0400
Well it looks like a 79k jpeg of a shot across the street. Artistically I
rate it a 0. Technically I rate it a 0. Informationally I rate it a 1.
However the exposure looks OK, if that was your point. It does make the
16mm
, don't say anything at all.
The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 13:17
I thought it was Pulitzer material. On second reading it's pure BS after
all.
:-)
Bill
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:42 PM
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
Yeah, Bill,
I'm pullin
. Robert Oppenheimer
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Zenit 16mm Fisheye *istD
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 19:53:46 -0400
Now, I believe you used to be a lawyer, Frank. You have a great future as
an art critic as well.
Bill also does test
19 matches
Mail list logo
