Hi,
I've still left a very nice Super A. I have bought it used, but it looks
like new and works fine. There is only some minor brassing on the back.
The rest of the camera has no marks of usage (see pictures on
www.mycroft.de/sale.html). There even is the protection film on the
underside.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 13:47:25 -0400, Herb Chong wrote:
i think the number of people who print from a digital camera is a lot less than 10%
of the images. i would think that 1% is a high number, and most of that small
fraction would be on inkjet printers.
I use a digital camera at work for work
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,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Mark Roberts) wrote:
For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual
focus lens even though it's AF. Brilliant optical performance, too :)
Nice! Bet it's pricey, though, even second-hand.
---
John Dallman
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
The M35/2 shows up on ebay occasionally, the M28/2 also (a fine lens,
too).
I'll keep waiting, then.
There is an A35/2 and an A28/2 (truly rare).
You might also like the A20/2.8.
Yum... The shortest and longest focal lengths are
On 11 Jul 2003 at 9:42, John Dallman wrote:
For wide and fast, consider the FA*24/2.0 - works very well as a manual
focus lens even though it's AF. Brilliant optical performance, too :)
Nice! Bet it's pricey, though, even second-hand.
It actually surprisingly inexpensive for a lens of
when the camera requires a AF lock button to be pushed to hold it, i'm not interested
in holding the button the entire time.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
no it doesn't. it means that prints are irrelevant to the new generation.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: T Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 01:10
Subject: Re: Digital question
These statistics tend to prove what I always figured.
incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know
that they require you to compose first and focus later.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 00:50
Subject: Re: On Manual
Shouldn't it be focus first and compose later?
This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow. But then I usually
don't use a tripod either .-)
DagT
Fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you would know
Are you sure its a generational thing. I don't recall getting very many
prints from slides which account for 95 percent (best guess) of my
personal (as opposed to work related) photo work since 1958. Never
had much use for prints once I discovered slides. I now keep print
film in one
no, and until i determine my final composition, i don't know what is the most critical
thing i want in focus, assuming i don't want everything in focus. if you use a view
camera, you also work the same way.
Herb...
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Is that right, Herb?
If it is, obviously I don't use one regularly...but, when I have used
AF, if the depth of field is going to be narrow, I always use spot
metering, and I see no way one could compose first, and focus second. It
won't work that way.
keith whaley
Herb Chong wrote:
shooting slides is more a pro/am thing than a generational thing. i was introduced to
a Fuji Film marketing person who is the son of a close friend. when i mentioned i shot
slides, he laughed. he figured that slides account for less than 1% of total film
sales of Fuji USA. he didn't know the
OK, so you prepare for a composition, focus, and then go back to the composition.
Life is so much easier when you can focus anywhere on a bright screen...
DagT.-)
Fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED]
no, and until i determine my final composition, i don't know what is the most
Wow,
You're husband works in the Empire State Building? Cool!
Love the pics, BTW.
cheers,
frank
Amita Guha wrote:
I just posted the photos I took of the fireworks last Friday. Some of
them came out pretty decent IMHO. :)
http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/july_4_03/index.html
BR,
You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because walking
is too slow when you don't know how to do it?
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is why I never bothered to buy an AF camera, it's too slow.
__
Indeed, I find it to be a true bargain. It sells at the price not much above
of the 24/2.8 lenses from others. OTOH, it is still not too big, like a
monster truck 24/1.4 from Canon.
BTW, before I got the lens I didn't imagine how much 1 stop faster 24
mm lens can be appreciated in low light.
Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems that there may some
situations that manual focus is faster and more
accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more accurate) than AF.
It ~may~ be that in the majority of situations,
AF works best (and
Let's see him laugh once that KAF2 mount is
surgically embedded beneath his knickers...
Cotty wrote:
Let's put Cotty down for an A 85mm f1.4,
bastardized to fit a Canon DSLR...
which one? Cotty... or the lens? g
ROTFL!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places,
think about what happens when you are using the camera in AF mode. you have to push a
button to say when to focus, usually the shutter button. the interface works quickest
when the time you set focus is when the scene is composed. the manuals for the
beginners all assume this too. besides, a
the camera does the focusing for me and i don't have to think about it most of the
time. if the camera does what i want 99.9% of the time faster than i can do it, it
wastes my time to do it myself unless i decide that it isn't doing what i want. i know
my exposure and focusing systems well
But you can buy a Pentax 2x magnifier to slip over the viewfinder
that at least takes a step in that direction. I think one of the
newer RefConverters has a magnifier built-in, as well.
I remember that Keppler used a magnifier when comparing manual to
autofocus in a Pop Photo article a few years
You know, if you keeping running around the dinner table you will miss your meal.
Sometimes I even sit down.
DagT
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You weren't born knowing how to walk either. Do you also crawl around, because
walking is too slow when you don't know how to do it?
BR
[EMAIL
Tom wrote:
At least with manual focus you decide what to focus on. But you have heard
this argument from me before. Automation your can not control is worse than
no automation at all.
REPLY:
Well, the AF systems I use enables me to decide whats in focus. In addition, it can
yield sharp images
Alan wrote:
I can't give you any figure, but it's no BS. Really, I consistently obtain sharper
results with my MX than my Z-1p, with tripod or not. Even manual focus with Z-1p
doesn't seem to deliver the sharpness that the MX offers.
REPLY:
Well, it then can't have anything to do with the
Caveman:
Quote: A fascinating test. I'm especially amazed by how poorly the Nikkor 1.8/50
performs at all apertures.
No wonder Brucey doesn't bother with focus. It's all bokeh to him anyway.
REPLY:
Is it too much to ask of you that you for once refrain from insulting persons who use
other
Boris wrote:
Once upon a time, I read somewhere on the net (probably the huge third
party lenses site) that modern AF systems are optimized for 50 lp/mm.
Hence, on that site they would conclude that if you have a fine lens,
AF would take away most of its qualities by lousy focusing. I thought
of
he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Pål Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 08:05
Subject: Re: On Manual and Auto Focus
Well, it then can't have anything to do with the AF
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
Chrome MZ-S with a chrome 43 Limited.
Never have so sharpness been available in so a small and lightweight package.
Pål
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 01:10 AM, T Rittenhouse wrote:
These statistics tend to prove what I always figured. Digital cameras
are
status symbols, not photographic tools.
I actually don't imagine these stats are much different from film
cameras. I mean, how many people do you know that
Herb wrote:
he doesn't want to believe that. this subject came up in the early spring.
Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera could be
out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge difference between
the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have
People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have used
poor versions of it.
People who don't like digital don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have
used poor versions of it.
There's at least a two stop difference in handheld useable shutter speeds
on 11.07.03 14:38, Pål Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still, it can't be about the AF as manual focusing was no better. His camera
could be out of alignment and/or the vibration issue. There really is a huge
difference between the Z-1p and the MZ-S. I have sharp images shout out of a
car
Wow, that's a great argument. Let me try it:
People who don't like Pentax don't have it/have little or no experience with it/have
used poor versions of it.
Gee, it works, it must be true .-)
DagT
Fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
People who don't like AF don't have it/have little or no experience
Hi!
Wendy, I might be interested in this lens. Is it a first generation or
second generation M28/2.8 lens? What is state of the glass, aperture
mechanism? What is filter ring diameter?
Do you accept PayPal? Do you ship to Israel?
I think that it would fit nicely into M35/2.8, FA 50/1.7, Tak K
Hi1
I apologize for fingers that were faster than my brain. Now you all
now that I'd rather have this lens bg.
Boris
===8==Original message text===
wb SMC-M 28mm f2.8 with box. Pristine condition. Aperture ring a little stiff.
wb A little beauty
wb $40
wb
I don't have any figures, but upon reflection, I suspect your correct.
Otis Wright
Herb Chong wrote:
shooting slides is more a pro/am thing than a generational thing. i was introduced to a Fuji Film marketing person who is the son of a close friend. when i mentioned i shot slides, he laughed.
Next month I will be traveling to Western Canada, including Victoria, Vancouver,
Banff, Jasper and Calgary.
As I have never been to that part of Canada, any advice on photo opportunities will
be greatly appreciated by me and by my MZ-5 and OptioS. Any advice on other
activities and dining spots
Hi Richard,
Please stick around as I`ve always enjoyed your pics!
Steve Larson
Redondo Beach, California
- Original Message -
From: Richard Seaman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 8:48 PM
Subject: FOR SALE FRIDAY: lenses, now with added sweeteners!
Thank you Joseph. Your tests cured my zoom-phobia. I
have always thought that the since 28-105 PZ has an
excellent reputation as a very sharp lens but it
still wasn't sharp enough when compared to any of my
primes, I have to stick with prime lenses only.
Turns out I was very wrong indeed.
That is exactly the point. And let me add:
Digital allows people to modify their pictures. You can easily
add the date and time (no need for data back any more), you can
even include thoughts or feelings into the image (don't need
to write it in the album), and what is more you can hide
lean out the window and hold the shutter button down. 8-)
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 09:17
Subject: OT: Western Canada
Next month I will be traveling to Western Canada, including Victoria,
- Original Message -
From: Mark Cassino [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nice shot, Jostein!
Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses,
autofocus, etc.
Written by the man with a 400/2.8 and teleconverters HAR! :-)
(I know, I know, you get really close to your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that Pal brought it up, you know I find your derision of other people,
other equipment, and other methods (i.e. digital) extremely tedious. Boring.
Also very juvenile.
If you want a decent argument, here it is. First, let aside Paal Bruce
and lets discuss the
Again, I would argue that the good digital photos end up as prints, so
you should print both and compare those. Comparing a screen image to a
print is essentially useless. It should however, achieve your goal of
once again proving that digital is inferior.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I'm not saying that one is better than another, but it seems
that there may some situations that manual focus is faster and more
accurate (or at least there's a better chance that it will be more
accurate) than AF. It ~may~ be that in the majority
On 11 Jul 2003 at 12:38, T Rittenhouse wrote:
You seem to have missed the never copied from the camera part.
I'd submit that they do get copied from the camera to the 'puter then most
likely are then emailed to all and sundry or at least those at the
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
I need to obtain some English Language manuals for Fuji S1 and Fuji S2, Nikon
D1.
The UK distributors want STUPID prices for these things.
Since the USA distributors probably will not ship outside the US, I was
wondering if someone might devote a few minutes stuck in an automated telephone
It will achieve the stated goal, i.e. compare them in typical use. If
you want to compare the best of each, you may want to compare a 8x10
slide to a print from the best MF digital back. I don't have the money
nor the inclination to do such test.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Again, I would argue that
Mark wrote:
I suspect (and let me hasten to add that this *only* suspicion and not
based on anything I heard from people at Pentax) that the aperture
simulator ring is being removed from the camera bodies to make room for
future electronic contacts - probably for electronically-controlled
lenses.
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.
Anthony wrote:
But to repeat, those operations that are
presently done mechanically to be initiated electronically instead, this
would require the lens to have independent drive mechanisms for focus and
diaphragm.
REPLY:
It could also be as simple as having fully digital camera electronics in
IF you want pdfs, try http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/D1rm.pdf
or
http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_alp.ph
p?p_sid=XPQPMYNgp_lva=p_li=p_page=1p_prod_lvl1=19p_prod_lvl2=23p_c
at_lvl1=24p_search_text=p_new_search=1p_search_type=3p_sort_by=dflt
The fuji stuff evades me
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now that Pal brought it up, you know I find your derision of other people,
other equipment, and other methods (i.e. digital) extremely tedious.
Boring.
Also very juvenile.
I apologize for the post, I should have taken it off list. Publicly taking
you to task is
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
What film, speed, exposure, focal length...? more data please.
Tonghang.
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Amita Guha wrote:
I just posted the photos I took of the fireworks last Friday. Some of
them came out pretty decent IMHO. :)
http://www.beyondthepath.com/photos/july_4_03/index.html
BR, thanks for
I bought this lens about a year ago. It got a major workout last autumn,
when I got to spend November in France. The results have mostly been
very, very sharp. There were, however, two images in which there was
pronounced lateral weakness (left and right in landscape mode). I had
not recorded
What film, speed, exposure, focal length...? more data
please. Tonghang.
Kodak Gold 100, f11-16 (I forget which), 50mm-28mm, mostly 6-7 second
exposures.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize for the post,
I didn't felt insulted, from this pov there's no need to apologize.
Your point could have been made better I feel without things like the toilet
paper comment.
That's how a reduction to absurd argument is supposed to work, i.e. get
to some
You mean, not do like that guy Paal Jensen that's currently engaged in a
thread where he states that it's impossible to take sharp photos with
the PZ1p,
REPLY:
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p for six
years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I I
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
A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words
around.
B) I don't mean good as in the best quality possible, I mean good
in terms of the best of a number of photos taken with the same camera.
Say you take 10 pictures of Aunt Bea at her birthday party, 2 have
someone leaning
Caveman wrote:
The most insulting to everyone threads I've been involved were indeed
the digital ones. Here they are in order:
REPLY:
Shes is not refering to your threads but your namecalling to anyone who dare disagree
with you
Pål
My two daughters are traveling to Brazil shortly for a tour with their
symphony. I'm wondering about electrical outlets - for charging
batteries for their digital cameras (One is an Optio - :)). Are the
outlets the same as in the US or do I need some kind of adapter? I
understand that the
Easy. K 50 1.2, on my only body, ME Super. Versatile,
compact, damn fast combo. This is my most used lens,
followed by F 28mm 2.8, and waaay back last is the M
100mm 2.8.
Regards
Albano
--- Jose R. Rodriguez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
For me, it would be hard to beat my SMC-K 50mm f/1.2
on my
My batteries showed up in the mail today and with a little work,
my LX NiCd pack is back in business. I'd ordered 350mAh cells but
changed my mind when I saw how much trimming would be required and
stepped it down to 300 mAh. Total price for parts and shipping came out
to $40 US bringing the
Pål Jensen wrote:
Shes is not refering to your threads but your namecalling to anyone who dare disagree with you
Pål
Quote, please. Otherwise eat your foot.
cheers,
caveman
In my hands, there are rolls that are a complete waste.
I once got what I considered 5 good shots from 1 24-frame roll.
My highest percentage of keepers ever. The old rule of thumb
1 good shot per roll seems to be about average for me.
Matt Bevers wrote:
Am I the only one who shoots film and
Hi!
Thanks for all those who responded, which however excludes some of the
people who still managed to squeeze in some very strange arguments and
wordings. Come, let us at least pretend we're all civilized enough.
Now, to the point of the thread. There're few things that were out of
the scope
I'm about the same - I sometimes get a few more per roll, but often I
like to save these more so I can learn something than because they are
perfect. I'd say I print about 2-3% of what I shoot.
-Matt
On Friday, July 11, 2003, at 02:49 PM, Lon Williamson wrote:
In my hands, there are rolls
Matt Bevers wrote:
A) I didn't say the best I said good please don't twist my words
around.
I said typical use. If you want something else, feel free to perform
your own test.
cheers,
caveman
Hi!
Indeed, Amita, could you please share with us the technical details. I
am sure I will be trying it once we have the next Independence Day -
they have some nice fireworks then...
Wonderful stuff...
---
Boris Liberman
www.geocities.com/dunno57
===8==Original message
From: Caveman
Subject: OT: Digital question
Anyone that has seen some statistics on the viewing media for images
taken with digital cameras ? I mean, what would be the percents of
images viewed:
a) on computer monitors
b) as home made inkjet prints
c) as lab prints
a) 95% (say 5% on
I'm trying to say that typical use is to print the keepers whether
they were shot on digital or film. This is what I was trying to
explain in part B of my previous message, which you chose not to reply
to or even quote in making your snide response. I'll copy it again
here in case anyone
I'm a sucker for zoo shots.
My Sigma 70-300 is a tad short at the long end.
I've compensated with 500mm f8 mirror lenses (Lentar
and Spiratone), but am thinking about faster primes
combined with TCs.
I do NOT need a birdie lens. I don't think I want
to mess with something as long as a 600mm.
God. You're jumping on me even before I'm doing anything ? Do you fear
the results ? Why ? For the moment I'm just noticing that a monitor has
some advantages to a paper print, i.e. being backlit it has higher
contrast and more vivid colors. It's also bigger than the *typical* 4x5
inch minilab
At 18:05 10.07.2003 -0400, you wrote:
Nice shot, Jostein!
Thanks, Mark.
Personally, I think that there is too much emphasis put on longer lenses,
autofocus, etc. The technological solution is only part of the equation -
you'll get better shots by getting close simply because you are not
At 22:39 10.07.2003 +0100, Bob wrote:
Nice shot! I took this one with a lousy LX+A 400/5.6, beanbag on top
of a car (I wasn't exactly stalking).
www.web-options.com/impala.jpg
Wow. Nice mood, Bob. Lovely shot.
I put stalking in the title of the thread, but using cars isn't exactly
stalking in
I said no such thing something thats apparent for all. I've used the Z-1p
for six years and plenty of sharp images shot with it. I I pointed out to
the Alan that if he was having focus problems with his Z-1p it was either
due to a faulty camera or he was experiencing vibration problems. This
-Original Message-
From: Alan Chan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Damn!
You just gave me an excuse to buy another expensive toy. I
need ring Pentax
and see if they could switch that stupid 31 with a brand
new MZ-S. They have
my lens for a month and not a single response from
incidentally, if you used an AF camera regularly with its AF engaged, you
would know that they require you to compose first and focus later.
Herb
Actually, with the MZ-S you can select the sensor you want (2nd sensor from
the right lines up with the subject's eye for vertical portraits, for
Hi Lon,
I have the Pentax A*300 2.8. I use it with a Bogen 444 Carbon One
tripod, so I would assume the 3221 would be fine. I also have Pentax 1.4XL
teleconverter for it.
While it comes with a nice metal case, I recently bought a backpack style
camera bag so that I can get more use
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have found that I now use manual focus 100% of the time on
my DSLR,
even though it has a reasonable AF system, and in fact is the
first AF
camera I have come across. I just got fed up with letting the
camera
decide what was in focus or not.
(...)
In the
tv
Marnie, in reference to tongue-in-cheek comments, I think tongue-in-cheek is
Caveman's default setting. I enjoy his humorous postings, and believe he is
not as cave as you think (cave: Quebec slang, pronounced cav. Correct me
if I'm wrong, Caveman).
Pat White
the fact that you point the camera and look through the viewfinder first constitutes
composition, no matter how temporary. i have a wide selection of focus points on my
two most advanced cameras. nonetheless, i have to point in the general direction of
what i want to photograph to see where the
It's really funny seeing this thread now. I was just checking out the
KEH website, and bought a bargain chrome MX on a complete lark. This
was definitely a collector moment. ;-) I do like little cameras,
however, and this should be a nice match for my 40 pancake, which tends
to lanquish in my
Daniel, it's hard to go wrong when taking pictures in Banff and Jasper.
Those are beautiful spots. Vancouver is nice, and, as Dave mentioned,
Victoria has quite a few picturesque buildings.
If you like, contact me off list and I can show you around Victoria while
you're here.
Pat White
DOH! I just picked one up from KEH (for $126). I should pay more
attention to the list.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
På fredag, 11. juli 2003, kl. 22:27, Hans Imglueck:
May be I missed my point because I used the word painting. Let me
say it this way:
We are already high quality intelligent stereoscopic digital
cameras equiped with a lot of incredible software.
Images are taken, modified and composed within.
Mike,
What were the final cells that you put in - name and numbers,
and where did you get them?
Regards, Bob S.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My batteries showed up in the mail today and with a little work,
my LX NiCd pack is back in business. I'd ordered 350mAh cells but
changed my mind
At 05:07 PM 11/07/2003 -0400, you wrote:
From: Lon Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If it's beautiful, how come you sell it?
Hah! It's because of the Canadian Government I'm selling it.
I'm currently unemployed due to the mega-slump in the high-tech industry.
The government were happy to take my
Great shots. I love FW pics.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Washington and Lee University
Lexington, VA 24450
(540) 458-8873
FAX: (540) 458-8878
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is one plane of focus. The farther you move from it the more out
of focus things are. DOF is determined by what is the maximum amount of
blur considered acceptable at the limits of the DOF. So yes, the
sharpness is not uniform through the DOF.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Finally, I
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
