Ronald Arvidsson wrote:
Hmm, I often present myself as Scandinavian abroad since many more
people in certain parts would rather know that then one of the
specific countries. I guess also the EU maps showing some countries
and others not show the same ignorance of geography as Europeans
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
- Toralf
Just came across another FS zoom - a 28-105, this time. Not 100% sure
which variant it is, but I think it's most likely to be this one:
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/zooms/short/FA28-105f4-5.6-ii.html
As usual, I would like to ask for opinions on the performance,
reasonable price level
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello Toralf,
Friday, June 3, 2005, 3:31:54 PM, you wrote:
TL I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
TL Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
TL reasonable, don't you think?
TL - Toralf
Thats good
Gonz wrote:
Sign me up too!
rg
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jun 2005, Toralf Lund wrote:
I expect to get one - the FA variant - in the post in a couple of days.
Paid NOK 1000,- for it. That would be about 125 euros, I believe. Quite
reasonable, don't you think?
Very. If you
Yet another used lens I came across: Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX macro (Pentax
version, obviously.)
Anybody here using it? Is it any good? I'd use it mainly for macro work,
probably - instead of a 50mm+macro teleconverter.
- Toralf
Jerry in Houston wrote:
Not everyone agrees .
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Don't flame me, I am just encouraging discussion
Yep. Seems like this person is getting things mixed up a bit...
As a long-time user of the TIFF format for somewhat unrelated purposes,
I feel
Mark Roberts wrote:
Jerry in Houston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not everyone agrees .
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Don't flame me, I am just encouraging discussion
Ken Rockwell is almost as highly regarded as Brad Dobo around these
parts...
Whooa. I just
P. J. Alling wrote:
Oh, Gaud, NO, not KENNY BOY, possibly the worlds LEAST TALLENTED
FAMOUS PHOTOGRAPHER.
I think I'm going to be ill.
He, he...
Having glimpsed through some of the other articles on his web site, it
seems to me that he *sometimes* knows what he's talking about, though.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
As a long-time user of the TIFF format for somewhat unrelated
purposes, I feel most inclined to comment on this note:
Tiffs don't have any of the post-processing advantages of RAW
Which is obviously untrue, since TIFF (unlike JPEG) won't usually
compress data by
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
I would be surprised if in-camera produced TIFFs are 16 bits. They
would be extra-huge if they were. Pentax's RAW files basically
*are* TIFFs (zero padded 12-16 for the -D, and packed 12-12 for
the -DS). The difference is that only a single plane of 6megapixel,
Herb Chong wrote:
but it did exist before most digital cameras existed. there are
several RAW formats as Cory or Toralf describes. image with no
metadata, not even including image dimensions. i thought it was stupid
because the creator had to tell you the number the pixel dimensions
before
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 16:38:13 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
I'm not sure the traditional JPEG files support this kind of
compression [lossless] even in theory.
According to my Encyclopedia of Graphic File Formats (Murray and van
Ryper, 1996) it did.
The JPEG
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
A digital camera RAW file is not a picture, it should be nothing more
nor less than the raw data as read from the CCD (possibly with some form
of lossless compression) so it makes no sense comparing it to image
formats
===
Which, in point of fact, is why most
Yes. And as I was trying to say earlier, there is no law saying that
you have to represent the pixels as read, green and blue values for
the same location to call the data a picture or the format an
image format. The bayer pattern data is just another way to
describe an image. You may
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
Yes. I believe that's right. The article referenced of course
presents the failure to utilise internal interpolation, and that you
have to convert by hand, as an argument against RAW. I'm thinking
that the ideal format would be a file containing the Bayer data as
well
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Jun 2005 at 18:33, Toralf Lund wrote:
Yep. I think those files fit the term raw more properly, though. Using
the term RAW when the file has metadata, i.e. contains a lot besides the
raw pixel data, is counter intuitive, IMO. The fact that the so-called
RAW
I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just
wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare to
the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class for
sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant - I'm assuming
these are all
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
I'm still sort of casually looking for a real macro lens... Just
wondering, how do you people reckon the old f/4 Pentax macros compare
to the newer FA-100 f/2.8? (Just came across one of the former class
for sale; not sure if it is the F, A or original K variant -
Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
It is 90/2.5 1:2 macro and with matching adaptor it is 180/5 1:1
macro. The latter being even more useful because of greater working
distance from the subject - less intrusive!
How well does the adaptor work? I mean, does it hurt the performance
in any way? I
Jostein wrote:
Toralf,
I think I've missed both your original posts, so I'll have to answer
you on general basis about AF in my macro shots.
Sorry if I'm repeating stuff from the other thread.
I don't think you are...
That other thread was mainly about how different macro lenses compare to
Toralf Lund wrote:
Jostein wrote:
[ snip ]
I sometimes use AF with my FA100/2.8 macro. The bee shot I posted a
week ago is one example where it worked well. However, AF is even
more useful with manual focus lenses when it comes to macro. Because
of the snap-in focus feature, you can sneak
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 00:39:18 -0400, Scott Loveless wrote:
You lost me right after the smiley. :) Sorry I wasn't any help.
No problem, bud. At this point all help is appreciated. I'm afraid
we're going to have to get serious face time with one of the WINE
Doug Franklin wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 21:32:53 -0400, Mishka wrote:
http://source.winehq.org/source/dlls/winsock/socket.c#L2542
That source code is a perfect example of what's wrong with WINE in my
opinion ... the comments tell you nothing about why it does what it
does and tell
Cotty wrote:
I have just come across a very strange thing, is it happening to you?
OS X.3.8
I use Safari (1.2.4) and normally when I type a search term into the
Google field at top right of the browser and hit enter, the browser page
changes to the Google results. I have the Google
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX and a proper waist-level finder?
I'm not necessarily looking for a finder
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX
Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060701zigview_lcd.asp
Yes, you are absolutely right.
P. J. Alling wrote:
I think it's a bit overpriced for what it is.
Yep. You can get now get some very basic bs digicams for less, can't you?
Perhaps if I glue one of those to the back of my MX-5n...
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Looks like a handy gizmo. I'm bookmarking Intro2020... :-)
P. J. Alling wrote:
P. J. Alling wrote:
Glen wrote:
At 12:17 PM 8/8/2005, Mark Roberts wrote:
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seems to me you want a waist-level finder, plain and simple.
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/focusing/viewfinders/FF-1.jpg
Nah. One of THESE:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Further searching brought up a number of other hot shoe mounted waist level
finders that could possibly do the trick.
Any good links?
Trying to find info on this may serve as a perfect illustration of
what's wrong with the common web search engines. I mean, if you
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
I've been wondering if there is there is any way I might be able to
actually see what I'm doing if I want to shoot from the hip with one of
my Pentax cameras. Are there any good options for this, besides getting
an LX
Cotty wrote:
On 8/8/05, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed:
Yes, that's what I really want, but it won't just fit on any old camera,
right? Unless you really bring out the tools... Has anyone tried that? I
mean, modify other bodies so that the LX viewfinders will fit.
Har
... IS that???) But I
believe someone else mentioned that, too...
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66
Tom C wrote:
I think they probably start looking for ways to downgrade the specs on
the camera they are designing so they can sell it for less...
As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it.
I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body discussed
here. If they
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:51 AM, Toralf Lund wrote:
As long as they downgrade the right things, I'm all for it.
I notice that Canon has removed the pop-up flash on the body
discussed here. If they got rid of the 21 custom functions with 59
values (or whatever), too
P. J. Alling wrote:
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If
I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was
APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine.
Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it,
16x24
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Great for Canon users, doesn't help if you don't own Canon Glass. If
I were starting from scratch I don't think I'd care if the sensor was
APS sized, and then the 12mp Nikon would be just fine.
Surely a 12Mp 24x36 sensor has several advantages over a, what is it,
Herb Chong wrote:
there is one close enough. it's in the Leica R digital back.
Hmmm...
* Image Sensor: 3872 x 2576 Pixels (10 MPixel) CCD-Chip, active
sensor area 26.4 x 17.6 mm, focal length extension factor 1.37
[ From
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, Frank Wajer wrote:
The dark side does it again, another full frame, arghh. Will Pentax
ever release a full frame.
No. They are committed to APS-C for 35mm.
Or maybe they are committed to whatever sensor-size they can get at a
reasonable
Bob Shell wrote:
If it is a hoax, my usually-reliable sources fell for it. Personally,
I don't know if this is or isn't a hoax, but it conforms to the new
Canon we have been getting leaks about for a while.
Could it be a mixture of both? I mean, some clever people having made
these
Mark Roberts wrote:
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bob Shell wrote:
If it is a hoax, my usually-reliable sources fell for it. Personally,
I don't know if this is or isn't a hoax, but it conforms to the new
Canon we have been getting leaks about for a while.
Could
and not profits.
Herb
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 4:11 PM
Subject: Re: OT - Upping the anti
Sometimes the popup flash is useful for a tiny bit of fill.
Yes, but I could easily live without
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 1:11 PM, Toralf Lund wrote:
Yes, but I could easily live without it, especially if it reduced
the price of the camera, or I could trade it in for something else,
like a full frame sensor (well that would not be a direct swap, I
guess
Frantisek wrote:
TL While we're at it: Do you happen to know something about the Jupiter-9, too?
Is it the 2/85mm lens?
Yes.
I did use for a short time the Leica version on
a rangefinder, but I had problems with focusing accuracy (which was a
bit off due to different focusing cams for Leica and
Any opinions on the FA 100/3.5 Macro? i.e this one
http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html
I would assume... Not mentioned on Stan's site, I think.
- Toralf
So, this guy is trying again... See
http://my.qxl.no/accdb/viewItem.asp?IDI=13556944
I've mentioned the item before - fortunately it would appear that there
were no bidders at the time. The price is somewhat reduced, now, but
he's still including the picture of an MZ-5n even though he's selling
[ ... ] MZ-5, and claiming that there are just cosmetical differences between
the two. Just in case I'm the one who's it wrong, isn't that quite
wrong, or downright dishonest? Doesn't the MZ-5n have a number of
updates to the *functionality* compared to the MZ-5? (Bojidar Dimitrov's
I just got this email from a french email address that says I won a
million dollars in US currency from an Austrailian Lottery that I
never entered. Unfortunately a check on Google shows it is a known
scam. Anyone else on the list this (un)lucky?
Let me see... Damn, I've deleted all of those..
Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu wrote:
It could be worse. Most of the spam I get talk about increasing my
breast size confused
Alex Sarbu (in case you don't know, I *am* a male. No, I don't intend
to change that grin)
He, he...
Personally, I'm still not sure how to react to all those offers to buy
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 23:28, Toralf Lund wrote:
I guess you have a point. However, a CCD is a very specific piece of
equipment and transistorized products a vast field of products, so
your analogy isn't entirely valid. Also, I really don't think CCDs have
been changed much
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 22:14, Toralf Lund wrote:
Quite likely, but the digital sensors havent *really* changed a lot
lately, have they?
The CCD technology is some 30 years old...
LOL, that's like saying transistorized products haven't changed a great deal
since the point
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 15 Dec 2004 at 23:44, Toralf Lund wrote:
I think something that's missing from digital cameras, is some way to
make true distinctions in the way the data is captured - analogues to
the way you can choose between BW and colour film, choose different
kinds of film
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because of the quality problems,
and not the design or concept itself, and thus the idea hasn't really
been tried
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: SV: The film is dead
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: SV: The film is dead
Herb Chong wrote:
they tried with the 760m, as Rob said. demand was so low and there
were quality problems with the ones that were produced.
You may then argue that demand was low because
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 at 14:44, Toralf Lund wrote:
No, I don't think so either. Or, it would at least have to some kind of
setup where the same camera could use BW *and* colour sensors. But I
guess the situation might be somewhat different in a few years' time
when (I'm assuming
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 16 Dec 2004 at 16:00, Toralf Lund wrote:
I wouldn't bet on that, though. If there's one thing the development of
digital technology has taught us, it is that, well, it *develops*.
Again it comes back to economies, the relative cost of silicon per area remains
Hello again.
I just found an advert for a used a Pentax body with an M40 lens. I'm
wondering if I should try to talk the guy selling it into giving me the
M40, and selling my M50/1.7 instead along with the body (I'm assuming he
wants to have *some* lens to go with it.) What do you think about a
What are you people's opinion on the MZ-6? I found a new one with a
much-reduced price, so I'm a bit tempted... Seems to me that it's rather
similar to the MZ-5n, but its list price is lower, so there must be
something missing, but what exactly is it? Actually, based on the
specs, it looks
Peter J. Alling wrote:
Manual focus lenses cannot talk to the camera. If the mechanical
linkage to read the lens aperture isn't
present then the lens isn't really usable on the camera.
Like someone else mentioned briefly, that's not quite true; the lenses
would require extra work, but aren't
of the 360fgz.
-Original Message-
From: Toralf Lund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2004 9:19 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MZ-6?
John Whittingham wrote:
Build quality?!
Quite possibly.
Actually, now that you mention it, I noticed that the MZ-6 is
slightly
Antonio wrote:
Im holding off on a DSLR for a while, a bit too pricey for me still and do
really enjoy using film. When I do buy a DSLR though I willl be looking at a
FF system (or at least a 1.3x crop) where I can use MF and AF lenses on both
film and digital bodies. I believe Nikon currently
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know if there is a film scanner that
will operate without a PC connection - and save the data on
CompactFlash, SD card or whatever? I know HP makes a flatbed for 10x15
prints, but I'm assuming that scanning the film would be better.
I've been wondering about
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Jens Bladt wrote:
There an image calculator at www.shortcourses.com
whuich can be downloaded here: http://www.shortcourses.com/pixels/index.htm
This will explain, not only about pixels etc., but it can calculatet the
file size (Mb) as well.
Jens Bladt
mailto:[EMAIL
Cotty wrote:
On 22/8/04, The Diabolical Dr Z, discombobulated, offered:
Later,
Zed (33, male, Amsterdam, NL)
Hi Zed, welcome aboard. Film is obsolete, chuck your MZ-6 in the bin ;-)
Yeah. And film is sooo much work. Better to handle your pictures the
digital way. I mean, you may find
The Diabolical Dr Z wrote:
Hello,
After several weeks of newbie lurking, this seems a good moment to
drop in (and introduce myself to the list while I go along). Anyway:
I'm a complete technophobe who generally refuses to use anything made
after ~1980,
Good :-) Our modern society needs more
John Whittingham wrote:
I would guess that the viewfinder info is the same as on the MZ-3/5n,
but I could be wrong...
Probably, but could you make all necessary adjustments to settings without
taking your eye from the viewfinder? The control layout is very different,
for example I find
Alan Chan wrote:
The major issue is that all scans require some degree of enhancement
using photo editing softwares. Straight scans are almost always
disappointing.
Really? Why? I've always thought of film as a fairly consistent medium,
and it shouldn't be too hard to scan it accurately, but
Another slightly OT question:
Does anyone here have any experience with C41 process BW film?
- Toralf
frank theriault wrote:
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another slightly OT question:
Does anyone here have any experience with C41
process BW film?
Yes.
HTH,
frank
Okay, I guess I wasn't the first one to try to be
funny
[ I had commented some other stuff here, then I killed the mailer by
mistake... I don't think I'll bother to write it down again, as I didn't
really say anything of consequence (as usual.) ]
Heheh. You should see the other 99% of my photos. Those would clarify
my comments to an extent that
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Another slightly OT question:
Whoa, questions about photography are OT now? ;-)
It may well be an urban legend, but some people say that there are
straaange equipment out there that uses this medium known as film, yet
is in no way related to Pentax...
Does
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
Billy Abbott wrote:
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004, Toralf Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
Or take your digital PS, review the pictures on the screen on the
back, deleted the ones you don't like and then drop off the memory
card and get back a bag full of prints that you have chosen out of
the ones that you took
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Aug 25, 2004, at 2:40 AM, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
35mm Film is EASIER than digital, that's why a lot of people still use
35mm. Take the pix with autoeverything camera, drop off the film, get a
bag full of prints.
Or take the pix with autoeverything digital camera, drop off
a few that believed the marketing (about simplicity
etc.)... And also, it seems like many people bought their digital camera
for no other reason than that it was digital, if you know what I'm saying...
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
graywolf wrote:
Now we are talking the opposite of convenience. How long does it take
to make those 129 images and stitch them together. And then you show
it on the Internet?
Makes a 20x24 inch camera seem rather convenient to me.
I find it interesting that all the digiheads still have to
Dan wrote:
Quoting Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
And that's 4 times more for equipment that faster becomes obsolete, too.
Of course, the camera won't be less usable just because something better
has been released, but I don't like the idea of spending that much money
on something that's worth
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: More 35mm vs digital (price, upgradability...)
But this reminds me, during the discussions about whether there is
going to be a market for film or not, I've been thinking that surely
there are still many
John Francis wrote:
On Aug 28, 2004, at 12:08 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:09:45 +0200, Toralf Lund wrote:
[...] to get real picture quality, you ought to have enough
information to print at 1200dpi [...]
Most paper can't hold more than 200-300 dpi
Antonio wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that
cannot support film?
Where exactly where you thinking of?
Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's?
Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said
earlier. I'm sure there
this mate who
used it a lot, and mourned its loss... I've forgotten its name, though,
although I seem to remember it was made by Kodak.
Herb
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: Sometimes I like
Toralf Lund wrote:
Antonio wrote:
Are you seriously suggesting that there are still markets out there that
cannot support film?
Where exactly where you thinking of?
Where you referring to my post now, or the other guy's?
Personally I feel I know to little about those things, as I've said
Caveman wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
I think the real situation is that the camera does not capture
according to the sampling theorem, i.e. the data has a frequency a
lot higher than half of your sample rate, so you're not going to be
able to reproduce the input accurately (according to Nyquist
Toralf Lund wrote:
Caveman wrote:
[ Long and meaningless discussion... ]
- the real formula computes level at point x,y based on the values
of *all* the samples of the image
What you are talking about here is probably an n-degree polynomial,
where n is the number of pixels or samples.
Or maybe
Caveman wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
And no matter which way you look at it, you cannot extend the
bandwidth. Which is why I say interpolation doesn't change the
resolution.
Depends what your definition for resolution is. If you define it as
the size of the smallest details that can be recorded
Anders Hultman wrote:
Toralf Lund:
They give decent results on prints, though. I have twice ordered
prints
from digital cameras, transfered them via the Internet and gotten them
in the mail.
Do you know anything about their film development service?
Nope. The only contact I have had
And now a question that will reveal my status as a complete novice:
What exactly do the different letters in the Pentax lens designations
mean? I've been looking for an explanation on the K mount info page and
other places, but not found anything...
I understand the difference between an M and
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 1 Sep 2004, Dan wrote:
Sorry I got that wrong - AF was an early foray into autofocus.
F is an FA without MTF information and power zoom capability.
Although all PowerZooms are FAs (or FA*s), not all FAs are PowerZooms
(thankfully).
Why not let the
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Toralf Lund
Subject: Re: The meaning of letters in lens names?
Zenit is an old Soviet brand (for those of you who didn't know.)
I named one of my dogs Zenit.
He, he.
I started wondering if these cameras are actually still being
Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] +47 66 85 51 22
ProCaptura AS +47 66 85 51 00 (switchboard)
http://www.procaptura.com/~toralf +47 66 85 51 01 (fax)
The Diabolical Dr Z wrote:
Well, AFAIK it's an MZ-6 with a data back. So, if you disregard the
data back, this recent thread might be useful:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg198866.html
I might perhaps add that I didn't buy the camera, or at least haven't
done so yet, but I had
Johan Uiterwijk Winkel wrote:
keller.schaefer wrote:
M lenses will work just fine on the MZ-5 (in M or aperture priority
mode) -
because the MZ-5 has the aperture coupler that tells the body how
much the lens
has been stopped down. Even if you don't like doing that ;-) I
recommend you
take the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
I thought I might post a link to a net auction because I thought it was
a bit too much, in several ways. Here it is:
http://my.qxl.no/accdb/viewItem.asp?IDI=13247386
1. It's an MZ-5 with starting price NOK5400,- = 650 Euros or US$780.
2. OK, so a battery grip, a
Steve Jolly wrote:
Mishka wrote:
in other words, i'll have to pay ~$2K and have an inferior system. how
is that cool?
oh, and if i were to shoot bw, iwould have really great 2MP pixies
(from which i will
be able to make 144M files). wow.
No, your bw photos would still be 6MP. I don't think
Steve Jolly wrote:
Mishka wrote:
but of course!
and if you are at it, i would really want to understand how 6 million
pixels (36M of information)
can be grown to 24 (to get a 144M file).
care to explain (i'll do my best to understand)?
It's the process of resing-up an image to a resolution
Hi.
I think I promised someone (Jostein?) that I would tell more about my
experience with Norwegian mail-order developers Fotolabo, and Kodak
Norge. I've now tried them both. In the case of Kodak, I actually sent
the film to Ulles Postfoto (http://www.postfoto.no/), but apparently
Kodak does
Steve Jolly wrote:
Toralf Lund wrote:
Or maybe he does. Of course, most of us know by now that 6MP colour
photos also really have only about 1.5 million-pixel's worth of
unique information, since there are 6 million sensor elements, of
which each captures just one colour component
Don't know about the formal definition, but some advertising lines
certainly are instant classics ;-). I'm still recovering from the
Official digital camera of the Internet slogan in that other thread
(and, in fact, wonder whether Al Gore approved of that statement -
given he's the Inventor
201 - 300 of 994 matches
Mail list logo
