I use the Pentax AF-360 FGZ.
I've mostly used it for action photography but I've also used it for
product photos. I mostly use it in A mode when shooting action
because it seems to use less battery power per flash so I have less of a
chance of missing shots. I use the wireless feature a lot
On 30/11/05, Simon King, discombobulated, unleashed:
Just poking my head above the parapet for a moment to say hi.
We had another boy;
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/index.htm
(just click on Tom)
Mother and son are doing well.
Hi Simon,
Nice gallery. Love the first shot. My son was
On 29/11/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
No problemo. Mac PBG3 10.2.4
You're still on v10.2.x??? heavens! (i hope you meant 10.4.2...).
Finger fart. 10.4.2 :-)
Can fingers fart?
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|
On 29/11/05, Bob Sullivan, discombobulated, unleashed:
Apple
is a religion,
Buddhism springs to mind. No god.
They don't say 'the Gates of Heaven' for nothing ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Hi all,
i'm playing with Sigma EF-500 ST flash, and something is not clear for me.
Zoom should be automatic, and match lens focal lenght. So, on my MZ-3,
the only lens in this 28-105 range is M50/1.4 and flash does not
detect it properly.
Or should i use some flash bouncer, or that
Flash zooming only works if the lense does transmit its focal to the
body which means FA/F/FAJ/DA/DFA lense only IIRC.
So with a K,M,A lens, you'll have to set it yourself !
--
Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SFXn,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ...
Op Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:55:43 +0100 schreef Gasha [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
i'm playing with Sigma EF-500 ST flash, and something is not clear for
me.
Zoom should be automatic, and match lens focal lenght. So, on my MZ-3,
the only lens in this 28-105 range is M50/1.4 and flash does not
Cotty wrote on 30.11.05 9:36:
They don't say 'the Gates of Heaven' for nothing ;-)
I thought Gates came here rather from hell :-P
--
Balance is the ultimate good...
Best Regards
Sylwek
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 30.11.05 6:17:
I have no idea what you mean by that. Apple computers have been the
*easiest* computers to connect to the internet and utilize high speed
communications, interoperate with a variety of other systems, since
1986. They were the first computers to include
I didn't see the original. I'll bet it never made it here. This doesn't
do a lot for me. I'm left feeling that I'm looking at this scene from
the wrong angle. I do like the tonality and contrast level.
Paul
On Nov 29, 2005, at 11:12 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Hey, Frank! I never got the
Hi,
Good to hear from you. Nice pics. I love Awake and not Crying. That's
a joy, isn't it?
No real news. Most of us don't expect FF. Both Pentax and Nikon seem to
be doing fine with APS-C.
Paul
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:17 AM, Simon King wrote:
Hi All,
Just poking my head above the parapet for a
So, if i have Automatic Flash, without manual zoom setup, and manual
lens, then i have trouble?
Flash is not mine yet. I'm only testing if it works with my cameras.
Gasha
Thibouille wrote:
Flash zooming only works if the lense does transmit its focal to the
body which means FA/F/FAJ/DA/DFA
The M lenses don't deliver the right information for flash zoom. I
believe it only works with F or later lenses.
Paul
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:55 AM, Gasha wrote:
Hi all,
i'm playing with Sigma EF-500 ST flash, and something is not clear for
me.
Zoom should be automatic, and match lens focal
Thanks,
Looks like i should get a used AF-220 or AF-280.
And it will work better with my 645 as well.
Gasha
Paul Stenquist wrote:
The M lenses don't deliver the right information for flash zoom. I
believe it only works with F or later lenses.
Paul
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:55 AM, Gasha wrote:
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/tom/pages/bedhogtom.htm
uahahahha, this one is very funny, nice idea!!
and nice sons too, congrats.
Danilo.
sorry to break it, but you seem to have no idea of what you are talking about.
appletalk over tcp is nonsense. nowaday apple uses tcp but not appletalk.
those things are completely orthogonal to each other (i suppose, one could
tunnel one over the other, but that a different story)
best,
mishka
Tot you'uns use dem rods 'n chains?
Lik in dat
sado/maso/bondo thang?
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
I gots me a conversion piece of paper on the wall. Now's i cen tell how many
For some reason my eyes ended up watching the boats at the bridge shot. I
kind of like what you have done, but it doesn't do anything with me. (At
least not after a first look).
The concert shots are very good, me think, despite the lack of focus. Or
perhaps it is the lack of focus that makes
Mishka wrote on 30.11.05 13:31:
sorry to break it, but you seem to have no idea of what you are talking about.
appletalk over tcp is nonsense. nowaday apple uses tcp but not appletalk.
those things are completely orthogonal to each other (i suppose, one could
tunnel one over the other, but
On 11/29/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which brings up an interesting poll = how long have you been subscribed
to this list in one continuous period? Doesn't count if you unsub/resub
even for 5 minutes!
I daren't say, I would be such a sad git.
Well, I unsubbed from Yahoo mail to
On 11/29/05, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why I do believe that's good news sir. Take it easy browse the list,
we'll try and keep your spirits up. A bit of humour is required -
laughter is clinically proven to aid recovery ;-)
I agree, Cotty.
Bill, news is either good or bad. Yours isn't
On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably should get a life..
Why start now?
-frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Congrats to you and Mom.
3 kids under 4 years old - time to take a break!
I enjoyed the pictures. Just keep taking them. They will be grown too soon.
Regards, Bob S. (2 boys and a girl, now 26, 24, and 21)
On 11/30/05, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Just poking my head above
On 11/30/05, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Just poking my head above the parapet for a moment to say hi.
We had another boy;
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/index.htm
(just click on Tom)
Mother and son are doing well.
Three kids under 4 is hard work, but incredibly
On Nov 30, 2005, at 2:34 AM, Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote:
I think you're not entirely right. I have been using Mac computers
for about
12 years in advertising. And I think Rob was thinking about pre
Apple Talk
over TCP/IP protocol over Ethernet. As such, even implemented over
100 Mb/s
G'day Simon,
Nothing much new really. SSDD.
Congrats on the new bub. I love the last two shots.
Dave
On 11/30/05, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Just poking my head above the parapet for a moment to say hi.
We had another boy;
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/index.htm
On 11/29/05, Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another photo from our trip to Oxfordshire a couple of
years ago, this one taken from Folly Hill overlooking
Faringdon.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3915892
PZ-1p, FA 24-90, Elite Chrome 100, scanned and
adjusted to match the
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I gots me a conversion piece of paper on the wall. Now's i cen tell how many
rods in a
perch.:-)
European or African?
-Arthur, King of the Britons
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Frank,
I never saw the original. Neither the original nor
your repost are in the archives. The comments I
posted last night aren't on the list or in the
archives this morning, either.
Things seem screwed up in cyber-land.
The essence of my comments was that I rather like the
motion blur,but
On 11/30/05, Simon King [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Just poking my head above the parapet for a moment to say hi.
We had another boy;
http://wwwstaff.murdoch.edu.au/~sking/index.htm
(just click on Tom)
Mother and son are doing well.
Congratulations!
Three kids under 4 is hard work,
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
afford is best.
No.
All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that sufficient
tools will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that
are
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote on 30.11.05 14:36:
I've been using Macintosh since very late 1983, several months before
it was released to the publc (and about a decade before you...:-).
The work I was referring to came about in the time between 1986 and
1988 as that is when I was working for NASA at
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2005/11/30 Wed PM 01:56:23 GMT
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Re: What the F??
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
afford is best.
It won't work necessariy better.
an AF280 is just like you take a Sigma 500 super and force its zoom to
stay at 28mm or so. You won't gain power (that you gain when zooming
the flash head) nothing less nothing more.
2005/11/30, Gasha [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Thanks,
Looks like i should get a used
Apparently yours can, (special talent?)
Cotty wrote:
On 29/11/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
No problemo. Mac PBG3 10.2.4
You're still on v10.2.x??? heavens! (i hope you meant 10.4.2...).
Finger fart. 10.4.2 :-)
Can fingers fart?
Cheers,
Cotty
There are many different definitions of best. The marketing
definition of best may not correspond with
the users definition.
frank theriault wrote:
On 11/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, sure, we are agreed better tools are better. The best tools one can
afford
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell
you that I never use Program, NEVER! ;-)
But above all, thank you for sharing your
knowledge.
Colin
--
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:39:35 +0100
From: Thibouille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably should get a life..
Why start now?
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to what
I have now.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Hi William,
Thank you for your views.
Since 1977 I have been an enthusiast for TTL auto
flash control. That is when I bought two Olympus
OM-2 bodies, and the off-the-film flash control
was a major factor in my choice.
Later, I moved to Nikon. The excellence of
Nikon's TTL flash control,
Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
DA 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth between the K 24/3.5, the FA
35/2, and the FA 50/1.4. Why? Because the three primes are better tools. Same
photographer, better tools. Prior experience told me that the
Thank you for your views.
Since 1977 I have been an enthusiast for TTL auto
flash control. That is when I bought two Olympus
OM-2 bodies, and the off-the-film flash control
was a major factor in my choice.
I just recently purchased a flash for my -DS but had these
thoughts in mind:
#1. I'm
Nicely captured.
Pleasing color pallette.
The foreground brush is a little districting tho.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Rick Womer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: PESO: Another from Cottyland
Another photo from our trip
If it were lightened I'd be blowing out the bright spot on the LH side.
Not if you use curves, and peg the top end.
Rob, thanks for the suggestion. I haven't been using curves. Tried to get away
using shadow/ highlights.
Will give it a try when I get a round tuit.
Kenneth Waller
Which brings up an interesting poll = how long have you been
subscribed to this list in one continuous period?
Way back when it was still supported by Pentax. Don't recall the exact date.
Dors anybody?
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Doug Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:
I use a Sunpak 282 and a couple of Paterson flat-panel flash units
for the little flash work that I do. I like them because I'm in
direct control of exposure at all times, and have not seen much need
for the automated TTL flash control systems as yet.
Godfrey
You should be able to do it with shadow/highlights as well. The highlight won't
change if you move only the shadow slider. It's pretty much the same thing as
pegging the curve. Also, if you have it in RAW, you can increase overall
brightness without changing the highlight. In fact, you can
They seem like some guys having a rehearsal. No presence, no _visible_
communication.
Didn't you submit another picture of these guys? As I remember you did, and
the next day sent a post telling us to forget that image. I didn't fulfil
your command ;-)
As I remember, that image had exactly the
-Original Message-
:
Which brings up an interesting poll = how long have you been
subscribed to this list in one continuous period? Doesn't count
if you unsub/resub even for 5 minutes!
First time from Jan 2001 till April 2005. I unsubed for
Mark Roberts wrote:
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/29/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I probably should get a life..
Why start now?
I'll get a life when someone demonstrates it would be superior to what
I have now.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and
Wonderful little interview with Weegee. Thanks for posting the link!
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Jack,
My understanding is that RAW gives you more shades of colors in eachpixel and
more opportunity to adjust colors in post production, butjpeg or RAW, you still
have 6 million pixels to work with...no more,no less. So I look on RAW as just
a way to get better post
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
Jack
Digital. Film, unfortunately, is going the way of the dodo bird.
I've never been able to understand that argument. Well, at least not if
it is a question about whether you should switch from film gear you
already have. I can't see why you should
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Jack,
Not sure I understand your question.
A 6.1 Megapixel image can be represented in files of varying size
depending upon the pixel depth as well as how much and what type of
compression you apply. A 1.5M JPEG rendering might have substantial
compression
#4. Advanced exposure control (TTL, P-TTL) would be nice, but since I'd
like to move away from having the flash mounted on the camera, I'd need
expensive dedicated hotshoe cables.
Yes, because you have a DS.
An istD is able to control wireless P-TTL with built-in flash !
On Nov 30, 2005, at 11:30, Toralf Lund wrote:
Good point. One of the reasons why *I* haven't got digital yet, is
that I can't see myself deleting any pictures at all...
For some people though, the fact that digital photos are essentially
free (after the purchase of equipment) tends to
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 11:30, Toralf Lund wrote:
Good point. One of the reasons why *I* haven't got digital yet, is
that I can't see myself deleting any pictures at all...
For some people though, the fact that digital photos are essentially
free (after the purchase
Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Buydig.com has the istDS2 for $749.00 now. Last week it was $779.00, and a
few weeks before that it was $799.00
I've had my *istDS (non-2) from a German dealer on Ebay for 605 euros
plus 10 euros PP.
He's offering them at a rate of 3 to 5 per week.
Prior experience told me that the results would be slightly better with my
best lenses...
In what way?
Just curious
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the F??
Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
DA
There's no question that the original, not-JPEG, uncompressed image
will print better too, the difference is purely a matter of what you
consider as significant.
Wondering if your statement is based on actual work you've done or ?
Significant, to me, would be if you could notice the
Toralf Lund wrote:
I can't see myself deleting any pictures at all...
IMO -
Its one of the best/easiest ways to improve your photography after the image is
captured.
Kenneth Waller
-Original Message-
From: Charles Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number of
megapixels in regards to final print quality.
Bill
I've been told that a lot of DSLR cameras use only the green channel when
calculating the histogram, instead of the full RGB data. Does the Pentax
*istDS display a true RGB histogram, or not? It seems that there have been
times when the histogram hasn't been entirely accurate for me. I got
Apparent sharpness. The difference between the DA 16-45 and the FA 35/2 stopped
down to f8 or so is only evident at extreme enlargement, but it can be seen. I
could have shot this job with either lens, and it would be just fine for the
client, a magazine publisher. After printing on offset, no
Charles Robinson wrote:
On Nov 30, 2005, at 11:30, Toralf Lund wrote:
Good point. One of the reasons why *I* haven't got digital yet, is
that I can't see myself deleting any pictures at all...
For some people though, the fact that digital photos are essentially
free (after the purchase
In a message dated 11/30/2005 5:57:52 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No.
All one needs are tools suited for the job. I'd say that sufficient
tools will produce results (in the hands of a good photographer) that
are every bit as good as the best tools.
Marnie, I suspect
In a message dated 11/29/2005 2:39:31 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Thats not necessarily true, a really good camera (in the context of
modern digital or film cameras)should produce a technically excellent
product under most every condition with little or no
Bill Owens wrote:
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number of
megapixels in regards to final print quality.
Bill
Bill, thanks for asking that! Let's hope someone
has a good answer :)
best,
ann
In a message dated 11/29/2005 3:03:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We just returned from my appointment at Duke University Medical Center. The
results are basically neutral. The doctor is very pleased with the results
so far, but has scheduled an appointment with a
I'm not an engineer, but I don't think there is a definitive answer. It's a
moving target. Sensor quality varies. It's theoretically possible, although
perhaps not likely, to produce an 8 megapixel APS-C sensor that has less noise
than an 8 megapixel full frame sensor. At the same time, I
Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
importatant than pixel count?
Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is not. A small sensor 2mp
camera is adequate for web use. An astronomer wants a camera that is not
going to generate a noise pixel when the point
About two weeks.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
- Original Message - From: Cotty
Subject: Re: Thank you for subscribing with Affinity Callback
Which brings up an interesting poll = how long have you been
Rob Studdert did a masterful job of describing how sensor site size
effects image capture based on the wavelength of light. From that you
can deduce quite a bit. Maybe he'll repost it.
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Bill Owens wrote:
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the
On Nov 30, 2005, at 13:11, Glen wrote:
I've been told that a lot of DSLR cameras use only the green
channel when calculating the histogram, instead of the full RGB
data. Does the Pentax *istDS display a true RGB histogram, or not?
It seems that there have been times when the histogram
Apples to oranges comparison. I have a 24mm/f2.0 lenses. Will it produce
better results than a 24mm/f.2.8 lens which costs less than 1/2 as much?
In my case yes, because I quite often use it at f2.0. Now let's think
about someone who always uses flash in low light situations and never
goes
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the F??
Sure some novices can get decent pictures with good cameras. But what is
their hit rate of decent pictures? And some total novices have an instinct
for
photography anyway. And some don't.
This goes way
Neutral sounds good to me.
Heel, Bill. Sorry! I meant, heal, Bill. Err..? Bet better soon.
Humor aside, with best wishes and prayers
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Bill Owens wrote:
We just returned from my appointment
I've been shooting 'stuff' with a camera since my first 35mm (Kodak)
received in 1950. I don't know if I've thrown away a hundred images in
all that time.
Boxes and boxes of negs., prints and slides stored everywhere possible.
In the back of closets, under beds, stacked on shelves... Will they
Good question and one I never think to ask.
Jack
--- Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Where is the crossover point where sensor size overtakes the number
of
megapixels in regards to final print quality.
Bill
__
Yahoo! Music
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
importatant than pixel count?
Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is not.
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you asking at what point the signal-to-noise ratio becomes more
importatant than pixel count?
Sounds like a pretty simple question, but it is not.
Or Good Enough, is always good enough.
In cameras, that is often a long way from the most expensive, because
above a certain point you are paying for features you rarely if ever
need, or for marketing image.
An on topic comparison, for 99% of serious photographers a K-1000 is
just as good as
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think that right now in consumer grade sensors a 6mp APS size sensor is
about optimum which may explain why the makers don't seem to be in any
great hurry to increase megapixel counts on the semipro cameras.
Except that some
On 30 Nov 2005 at 18:30, Toralf Lund wrote:
I've never been able to understand that argument. Well, at least not if
it is a question about whether you should switch from film gear you
already have. I can't see why you should replace something that works
just fine just because it will stop
Hello.
Does anyone have any experience with the Tokina AT-X 24-200/3.5-5.6 lens?
It seems to get pretty good reviews (better than a lot of the more common
28-200 super-zooms). Thanks.
Fred
On 30 Nov 2005 at 20:24, Toralf Lund wrote:
Actually, I don't believe for one moment that digital photos are
generally free, either (as I've mentioned before.) I just have too much
experience with management of large amounts of data for that. What can
be said, is that what you decide to
List,
I suppose it really doesn't matter, except to clarify that it's not my
doing..I guess(?)
Why do some postings reproduce themselves and appear a number of times
when the 'send' was only struck once?
cyber stuttering?
Jack
__
Yahoo! Music
On 30 Nov 2005 at 16:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should be able to do it with shadow/highlights as well. The highlight
won't
change if you move only the shadow slider. It's pretty much the same thing as
pegging the curve. Also, if you have it in RAW, you can increase overall
brightness
There's no one definite answer - it's a personal decision.
Obviously, for a given megapixel count, a larger sensor will be better.
The problem comes if you keep the sensor size fixed; does the extra
resolution you get from more megapixels outweigh the decrease in
signal-to-noise ratio (assuming
I just thought you were starting to repeat yourself. :-)
Tom C.
From: Jack Davis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Subject: Why stuttering emails?
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:21:51 -0800 (PST)
List,
I suppose it really doesn't matter, except to
On 30 Nov 2005 at 14:11, Glen wrote:
I've been told that a lot of DSLR cameras use only the green channel when
calculating the histogram, instead of the full RGB data. Does the Pentax
*istDS display a true RGB histogram, or not? It seems that there have been
times
when the histogram
I've been wondering about this myself for a while.
Reviews that I've seen of the Olympus E300 make a big deal about its
8MP resolution in comparison with the 6MP of the *istD, DS etc and
the comparable Nikons and Canons. But the reviews never mention the
smaller sensor size of the Olympus.
All
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
The day that someone can show me that one platform is inherently better
than another is the day I'll eat my Stetson.
You have a Stetson?
:)
On 30/11/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
I just thought you were starting to repeat yourself. :-)
Me too.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 30/11/05, Tom C, discombobulated, unleashed:
I just thought you were starting to repeat yourself. :-)
Me too.
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
On 30/11/05, Christian, discombobulated, unleashed:
Except that some of the lowest noise at higher sensitivities occur on
cameras sudh as the 1DIIn (8MP), 20D (8MP) and Nikon D2X which is supposedly
the very best (12MP - I think) all on APS-C sized sensors.
1DII and 1DIIn are APS-H if I
In a message dated 11/30/2005 12:34:08 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
About two weeks.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
I was going to ask what is the shortest time?
I think maybe 1 week or 1 1/2 weeks
Well now you tell me, after I just ordered the DA16-45!
It hasn't even arrived yet...
Regards, Bob S.
On 11/30/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday I did a shoot in a supermarket. I could have covered it all with my
DA 16-45. But instead I switched back and forth between
Cotty wrote:
On 29/11/05, Doug Brewer, discombobulated, unleashed:
cheers,
frank (who's never had any problem un-subbing or re-subbing in 5 years
on the list)
Which brings up an interesting poll = how long have you been subscribed
to this list in one continuous period? Doesn't count if
No, the smaller the pixel the more noise.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Jack Davis wrote:
Maybe it's a question of a pixel density/noise crossing point?
The more pixels the more noise?
Jack?
--- graywolf [EMAIL
Apparent sharpness.
Although I'm not familiar with either lens, apparent sharpness would have
been my guess.
I always try to put my best foot forward.
Only way to fly.
Thanks Paul
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What the F??
Apparent
1 - 100 of 150 matches
Mail list logo
