Re: The PDML List Demographic and JCO
Cotty wrote: Ack I've just wet meself. *Canned laughter* S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: K-Mount Accidents?
Bong Manayon wrote: Just curious, has anyone accidentally detached their lens from the body? I once lost a lens belonging to my father that way - it fell off the body halfway up a mountain and was last seen bounding down towards the glacier far below. I comforted my father with the reflection that it would probably reappear at the bottom of the glacier in a few hundred years' time, by which time it would be a valuable antique. I always assumed that was my fault for not mounting it properly though. (The human brain mostly packs up and goes home without you when you get above about 5000m...) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Remote assistant for K10D?
John Whittingham wrote: I guess it's just a matter of waiting then, I hope they do finally release it before they move on to K1D or whatever. It's a real pain - I need to shoot some long stereo timelapse sequences for work, and I was all set to buy a pair of K10Ds until I discovered that the compatible version of Remote Assistant was still vapourware. It's looking increasingly likely that I'll have to buy Canon... :-S S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Remote assistant for K10D?
John Whittingham wrote: No, don't do it, not C***n, the darkside, get a good used pair of *ist D's 8) Much as I'd love to, they just don't have the resolution I need... S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Anyone heard from our friends in the Northern Europe?
David Savage wrote: I've noticed their absence, the fact that DPReview is inaccessible. The roads and trains have been a bit crazy, but the Internet's fine... S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: Stephen Hawking sings
Bob Shell wrote: This is pretty incredibly weird: http://www.stephenhawkingsings.co.uk/ See also http://www.mchawking.com/multimedia.php?page_function=mp3z S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: BW Printing (on a budget)
Mark Erickson wrote: If you really want to go cheap (and by all accounts really good), take a look at Paul Roark's solution for a truly low-cost A4 solution: The Epson C88 and MIS EZ inkset. I use a C82 with those inks, and I have to say, the results are nice. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pop goes the K10D
David Weiss wrote: I figure, hey, I have a few extra lenses, might as well put them on ebay today for $0.15 deal. So I pull out my k10d, flash up, with kit lens, and push shutter button, and POP!, like an old flash bulb sound emits from camera. Camera shutter stuck, camera won't turn off, nothing working. snip About 25 minutes after the initial POP, all seems to be back to normal. Sounds to me like it could be a capacitor shorting and self-healing. Whatever, send it off to Pentax for a thorough probing. :-) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Way OT: File conversion problem
Bob Shell wrote: Well, I sure don't want to do that! Besides, I need the final product to be a searchable Word file. If your criteria are that you want the final document to be a Word file with exactly the same formatting as the original document, I'm afraid that the nature of word-processor documents makes converting between formats with guaranteed preservation of formatting virtually impossible to achieve. You will either have to compromise on one or both criteria, or manually fiddle with margins, font sizes and spacing parameters after the conversion. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT - Prius Fuel Economy
Cotty wrote: http://www.cottysnaps.com/snaps/spare6.html Have you been nicking stuff from the Torchwood set, Cotty? S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: D-Xenogon 35
Sylwester Pietrzyk wrote: On 04.10.2006, at 12:56 , Shel Belinkoff wrote: Lots of companies use Hoya glass, even Leica. I'm sure Pentax is using Hoya glass where appropriate. But SMC is Pentax own, isn't it? ;-) SMC was revolutionary 30-odd years ago, but these days anyone with the right software and a basic understanding of optics can design high performance multi-layer optical coatings. SMC is just a brand. http://www.thinfilmcenter.com/ S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: D-Xenogon 35
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not quite true. Canon lenses will flare in situations Pentax lenses won't. Not all Pentax lenses flare less, but a lot do. It wasn't just hype. Ah, now just because any idiot can design coatings as good as SMC, it doesn't mean that they do. ;-) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: D-Xenogon 35
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not quite true. Canon lenses will flare in situations Pentax lenses won't. Not all Pentax lenses flare less, but a lot do. It wasn't just hype. Ah, now just because any idiot can design coatings as good as SMC, it doesn't mean that they do. ;-) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Exclusive Hands-On Preview: Pentax K10D
Scott Loveless wrote: On 9/29/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Blessed are the postmakers. What's so special about the postmakers? They shall have posts. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Exclusive Hands-On Preview: Pentax K10D
Cotty wrote: On 30/9/06, Steve Jolly, discombobulated, unleashed: They shall have posts. But what have the postmakers ever done for us?? Well, apart from posts and posts - posts of course, and posts, nothing really. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: First K100D review with samples
Martin Trautmann wrote: Frictionless sounds like some kind of magnetic levetation. This would mean, that when powered on the CCD will lift of the zero-position for a minimum amount of space. This lifting would shift the projection area. AF needs a different focus adjustment. They could retract the sensor supports when they turn the SR on, I guess... S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Asahi ghostless filter
Toine wrote: I can buy an Asahi ghostless filter. Are these filters SMC coated? They're not SMC, they're ghostless, which is an even higher performance coating. (Probably with more layers.) While searching with google someone claimed these filters are curved to prevent flare... I have heard that stated on this list, too. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Pentax Advertising on Steve's Digcams Website
Bob W wrote: That site includes a rather worrying story: http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#gatech Don't throw your film cameras away yet, folks. I saw that a while back, and tbh I really can't see the point. It makes the crazy assumption that all digital sensors reflect IR straight back out of the lens. Even if the system can react fast enough to blind a DSLR (it'll only be able to see the sensor when the shutter's open), you can *trivially* defeat the whole system by putting an IR-reflecting filter in front of your lens at a 45 degree angle. A waste of time, IMO. s -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: PAW 2006 - 23 - GDG
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: This one, taken a couple of months ago, appealed to me strangely ... it seems to be in a new aesthetic vein. I'm not entirely sure how successful it is by itself. http://homepage.mac.com/ramarren/photo/PAW6/23.htm It's a curiously interesting image, Godfrey - I think I like it. I can see a couple of dark streaks running across it on my monitor though - shadows? Artefacts? Art? :-) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Ah I see someone beat me to this. ;-) ;-) S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Enablement PESO: Gameboy Training
Hi folks, Probable list-member Billy Abbott was kind enough to carry an AF-360FGZ back from B+H for me, and this is my favourite photo from my first shoot with it. http://www.elvum.net/gallery/v/misc/pdml/paw/gameboy_training.jpg.html Context: UK computer-game shop Game were holding a competition for the best photo of someone using a Nintendo Gameboy in a weird situation, so a couple of friends and I went down to the local park and made good use of the trees there. It was a very bright day - shooting RAW and having the flash available for fill-in were real helps. Tech stuff: all in the EXIF data. ;-) This one was taken using the 360 for fill-in at 1/1000s (high-speed sync really helped here...) with a Sto-Fen Omnibounce on to keep it a little softer. Comments of all kinds welcome. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I just did a very QD test of extending the protective area of the 16-45 hood, and there appears to be plenty of room for a hood that's either deeper or narrower, or both. So, IMO, a better hood may be available - the standard hood can certainly be improved upon. Film (digital) at 11:00 LOL You could try the paper hood at http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php as a starting point for experimentation - the template alone gives an extra 5mm or so over the plastic one. S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
Steve Jolly wrote: You could try the paper hood at http://www.lenshoods.co.uk/hoods/Pentax-SMC-16-45mm-f-4-DA-ED-AL.php as a starting point for experimentation - the template alone gives an extra 5mm or so over the plastic one. My own experimentation suggests that you can't do much better than that. :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: 24-90 flare [Was: Re: Your Favorite Zoom Lens]
Steve Jolly wrote: My own experimentation suggests that you can't do much better than that. :-) Not without dramatically widening the entrance aperture, anyway... S -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Fwd: Picasso's Camera
Shel Belinkoff wrote: Cools stuff ... I've got an Ansco box camera around here somewhere ;-)) Maybe my pics will improve ... I think you'll have to smash it up a bit first... S
Re: New Lens for ZX-5n ?
chuck wrote: The Pentax 28-105 on my ZX-5n got banged by an errant child. Seems to work OK, except the results have gotten darker, less bright, then they used to be. Could this be a damaged lens? In any case I am up for an upgrade. What are suggested lenses for this camera? Either Pentax brand or other? The power-zoom FA28-105 seems to be generally accepted as the best in that range of focal lengths. See also http://www.stans-photography.info S
Re: Flash for Ds
Joseph Tainter wrote: Brian, the duration between the pre-flash and the flash is very short -- microseconds. If you are looking through the viewfinder you won't notice it. Isn't that because the mirror's up? S
Re: worst day yet for list problems
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: The only way to know what order the posts were made in with this list at present is to switch to digest mode and read the digests. Or use a mail client like Thunderbird and browse the list in threaded mode. That's what I do. S
Re: OT: resizing tif files for photo contest
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi everyone, I would like to enter a photo contest at photolife magazine. They say you can email a digital file, but it has to be under 3 megs. That is fine execept they also say it has to be a tiff at 300dpi and 9x12. I can't get a colour tiff at those specs to be under 3megs, even using lzw compression, which I don't think much of. Does anyone have any insight they could give me. The 3Mb limit is for emailed entries - you can submit larger files by post. (A pedant would point out that 3Mb is three mega*bits*, not megabytes, but let's not go there...) S
Re: worst day yet for list problems (attempt#2)
Jostein wrote: Apologies for eventual duplicates... Yep, got them both. :-) S
Re: Film scanners (ahem)
Juan Buhler wrote: I still have my Polaroid SprintScan 4000, and I'm happy with its results. It is SCSI though, which means I have to use it from my old PC--this is the only reason that PC hasn't been discarded yet. Far be it from me to discourage enablement on this list, but have you considered getting a SCSI adapter for your new computer? S
Re: Epson V700 V750 scanners (re-send)
Jack Davis wrote: Haven't seen this on list. Will keep sending and hoping. It appeared on list. Twice so far, that I can see. Has anyone any experience with, or information about, either the Epson Perfection V700 or V750 scanners? Sorry, no - I have a 3170 Photo and find it adequate for my (occasional) negative-scanning needs though. S
Re: Yo, Mr Listguy?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: I've been running four Yahoo groups for three years. No spam, an excellent record of service (3 downtimes in three years for 1 day each, scheduled), and the only intrusion is that Yahoo puts a trailer on each message post like so: Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- Everything you need is one click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/AHchtC/4FxNAA/yQLSAA/ucIolB/TM ~- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notagroup/ * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ That's insane. I'd rather host the PDML myself than put up with that. :-) S
Re: OT: I'm Done Too!
Paul Stenquist wrote: My youngest daughter graduated from college today. HOO ROO!! Four kids and half a million dollars later, I'm a free man. Twelve years of paying college tuition every semester is no but a memory. No more college home equity loans. No more fall move ins and spring move outs. No more critiquing essays. No more. I'm done. Yikes. I'm glad I live in a country where higher education is still (mostly) state-funded... S
Re: Yo, Mr Listguy?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Because of problems like these, another list I'm on recently moved to being a Yahoo group. All the delivery problems have disappeared. Leaving only the Yahoo problems. ;-) S
Re: Done!
Boris Liberman wrote: Congratulations, Mark! Getting a degree is always great achievement and a milestone. This year it's going to be 10 years since I got mine. I still think that those years that I spent studying were absolutely the best of my life... Consider it a friendly warning ;-). Schooldays are the happiest days of your life is an English truism that makes no sense whatsoever until you leave school. Not that it's necessarily true... :-) S
Re: no messages...
Cotty wrote: I love you and want to have your babies. Call the cops. S
Re: no messages...
Doug Brewer wrote: So yesterday I'm staring at the screen, and it comes to me. The server =is= sending out spam. The script I have to reject HTML/enriched text/etc sends back a bounce message. Many of you have seen these messages-- please send your message in Plain Text..-- so you'll know what happened to your message. Just a thought Doug, but would it be possible to only bounce HTML messages from subscribers? The rest could be ignored - hopefully that would give you the best of both worlds... S
Re: List Question
Tom C wrote: Well THAT'S STUPID! One would think the software would be smart enough to see that the header line had changed and start a new thread. Sometimes you want to change the subject line but keep to the old thread - eg I sometimes add OT: to the start of the subject if my reply is off-topic for the list but still part of that thread. Basically, if you're not replying to an email, don't hit reply! :-) Do you mean I've been screwing up the archives all these years and know one here has SCREAMED THEIR HEAD OFF at me? I don't like to lecture people about netiquette ;-) OTOH, Shel's email client does something weird for him - his replies often start new threads... S
Re: Second attempt: French Review/comparative Pentax A10 vs Sony T9
Thibouille wrote: I thionk it didn't pass through so here it is again. It got through the first time. Email isn't a guaranteed delivery system - you shouldn't assume that your email didn't get to the list just because you don't see it come back to you. S
Re: Pushing Digital
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I love how photography has become a numbers crunching exercise for some people. Pick up the camera, focus, press the shutter, and see what happens, see what you get. Perhaps an advantage of digital photography is that it can satisfy both kinds of people. :-) S
Re: Pushing Digital
David Savage wrote: BTW, I have no idea what Gonz is on about either :-) Approximately, he's saying that if you deliberately underexpose, you lose shadow detail. This shouldn't really come as a surprise... S
OT Re: Good Program to Download - Check Windows Security
Gautam Sarup wrote: The legendary Steve Gibson has an interesting story of his own experiences. Legendary he may be , but it's worth pointing out that there are many other internet security experts out there with a very low opinion of him. http://grcsucks.com/ S
Re: Pushing Digital
Gonz wrote: Let me try to explain it non-mathematically. I still prefer underexpose and you lose shadow detail as an explanation ;-) S
Re: OT: Stay Away From This Web Site
William Robb wrote: -- Note: Information of the article is things such as when writing or when publishing, under present conditions there is a possibility of differing. What replies individually concerning the contents of the article, is unable to do. Copyright of the article, the photograph and the diagram etc. is the property of the literary work person. No permission diversion reprinting becomes the Copyright Act violation. When it is necessary, link Hari in this page itself. In connection with business in case of utilization other way please inquire. Say what? That's from the Japanese website with the photo of the prototype K-Mount that got posted earlier in the week, isn't it? S
Re: High Speed Internet Access
mike wilson wrote (regarding static IP addresses): An advantage in some ways but it makes it easier for hackers to target you. It makes it slightly easier for hackers to target you *specifically*, but most hacks are the results of randomised IP address scanning these days - a dynamic IP address gives you no protection here. S
Re: High Speed Internet Access
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I've been quoted a price of $60/mo for HS access. That seems awfully high to me. How does that compare with what you're paying? I'm looking at a quote of £30pcm (about $50?), but that's for 8Mb downstream, 448kb up and a low (20:1?) contention ratio... S
Re: OT: A book
Juan Buhler wrote: A question for you PDMLers: I had the chance to see books made by fastbackbooks.com today, and I'm thinking about self editing one with some of my photographs. Their quality is very nice, they are hardcover, cloth bound little books. lulu.com also offer a number of interesting services to the prospective self-publisher... S
Re: PC Inspector Image recovery info
Powell Hargrave wrote: It should be easy for you to add a Pentax option to the selection menu which uses the TIFF recovery and changes the file extension to .pef. Likely the easiest option addition you ever make. Thanks for you consideration and the fine program with does work almost perfectly recovering Pentax PEF RAW files. To be fair to them, it would be better to have the program detect when a TIFF file was a Pentax RAW file and handle it automatically - otherwise you'll run into problems if you have a mixture of PEF and TIFF files on the same disk - so it's possibly not quite as easy as you might think... S
Re: My first Epson. Please be gentle
Dave Brooks wrote: What was the matte paper suggested.Just a regular Matte.?? I use Epson Enhanced Matte with the MIS inks and it comes out nice. Except when some of the nozzles are blocked, which happens quite regularly, but cleaning the heads before printing usually solves that. S
Re: LONDON PDML SPRING 2006
John Forbes wrote: I'm around at Easter and Mayday. Probably away mid-May. I'm away for Easter and Mayday, but probably around mid-May... and other times. :-) S
Re: OT: New EC law forces Hasselblad to discontinue XPan camera
mike wilson wrote: So How are permanent electrical connections made in cameras that conform? With lead-free solder. http://www.europeanleadfree.net/ S
Re: DFA lenses
Pål Jensen wrote: If USM is included it means that it won't AF on older bodies. Couldn't Pentax use an automatically-disengaging clutch (like they use for manual focus on most of their newer AF lenses) to couple the old-style mechanically-coupled AF to a new USM system? That way it wouldn't slow down the USM system when it wasn't being used. S
Re: good budget news for the UK
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: On Wed, 22 Mar 2006, Peter Fairweather wrote: The kind chancellor of the exchequer has raised the limit in goods that can be imported tax/duty free from outside the EU to 1000! Thanks for the heads-up. Effective from when? Does it apply to used mail-order? Reading the details (such as they are), I think it only applies to goods you bring in to the country with you, not mail-order. No indication of when it might come into effect has been given. S
Re: Snowboard jump
Bob W wrote: Here is the most dramatic. It shows my nephew Rob (16), who is an awesome boarding dude: http://www.web-options.com/Robjump.jpg The shot's perfect, but whatever you used to resize it for the web has messed it up a bit - the diagonals (especially the edge of the snowboard) are very jagged. S
Re: Getting Cinepaint for linux
Cotty wrote: On 8/3/06, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed: Careful, you'll have Cotty writing in Klingon again! ghuH Daq Hegh DaH !! That's not Klingon, that's drunk... ;-) S
Re: New DSLR vs istD size comparison
Juan Buhler wrote: Please use this as further material for more speculation. :) The viewfinder eyepiece looks further back to me, and the pentaprism housing is larger - anyone fancy an even-higher-magnification viewfinder? :-) S
Re: Rawshooter essentials 1.2
Derby Chang wrote: New version out. Hooray, they've fixed the red bug (255,0,0 used to get converted to green in the previous versions). And it's still free http://www.pixmantec.com/purchase/downloads.asp Bibble 4.6 is also out - now with Noise Ninja built-in. I just upgraded - they made some nice user interface improvements, too... S
Re: Panasonic made the camera body I want....
Mark Erickson wrote: The newly-announced Panasonic DMC-L1 looks like it would be the perfect complement to the limited lens set. too bad it doesn't have a K mount! Looks like a rangefinder. Now I want a K-mount digital rangefinder, damnit... S
Re: OT: Sadness Paranoia in West Virginia
Glen wrote: Am I the only one who thinks this is reckless paranoia at work? I'd have described it as condescending - I wouldn't presume to give basic personal safety advice to near-total strangers, and I'd expect the same from them... If he/she genuinely thinks that there's a particular risk associated with photography or internet forums, then that's reckless paranoia IMO. S
Re: what's the name of the new Pentax 10MP camera?
Adam Maas wrote: How the heck to you pronouce *ist? Pentax is easy to say, *ist isn't (I normally just call it an ist, but that asterisk is a little confusing) According to Pentax, it should be pronounced ist. But I reckon any pronunciation is fair game, given how silly it is... :-) S
Size of new 10MP body
Interesting - I just stuck a 16-45 on my DS body and waved it around until I got approximately the same perspective as the press-release photo of the new 10MP body. Looks like it's going to be a fair bit bigger - I reckon maybe 40% more volume. I wonder what they'll use the room for? S
Re: Microdrive report
Thibouille wrote: Thgouht I would tell ya what I think about my microdrive, maybe some will find that it'll be useful. I'll have to wait for the SD card version ;-) S
Re: Size of new 10MP body
Paul Stenquist wrote: If they shot the camera with a relatively long lens, say a 135, the body would appear larger in respect to the lens than it would through the naked eye. Your experiment is inconclusive at best. Depends how far away you hold the camera, of course. And I was mostly going by the size of the lens mount when the camera was in the correct orientation - focal length won't make a huge difference there. S
Re: Enablement - this is a great list
Bob Sullivan wrote: Now if somebody could point me to an A28/2.0?Regards, Bob S. And I'll have an M35/1.4, while we're about it... ;-) S
Re: New High End DSLR Speculation
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: dick graham Subject: New High End DSLR Speculation Let the speculation start now. This site thrives on second guessing upcoming Pentax products. Now we also thrive on second guessing Pentax's business practices and ethics. 'tis a shame. Can't we go back to dissing classic British sports cars instead? S
Re: New High End DSLR Speculation
Thibouille wrote: That being said they suspect that the Schneider-Kreuznach serie lenses would be manufactured by Tamron (and they guess the actual Pentax 18-55 could be too - I don't beleive this one). It would be interesting to know more about that. Well there's that 6,700sqm (soon to be 12,700sqm) Pentax lens factory in Thailand that's got to be making *something*... or perhaps it'll be too busy with these new lens ranges that we're told to look forward to? :-) S
Re: *ist DL2
Adam Maas wrote: Wonder how they're going to do live LCD preview, although it's a brilliant idea given the number of new DSLR users who complain about the lack. I don't see it claiming that the preview will be live. My guess is that you'll be able to preview the photo by pressing a button - effectively the camera will take a photo and display it on the screen, but not save it to the card. Could be quicker than chimping/retaking in certain circumstances, I guess :-) S
Re: OT: Kodachrome 25
Bob Shell wrote: Funny you should ask that, Scott. Alien Skin Software today introduced Exposure. Part of this Photoshop plug-in is a suite of filters that emulate the look of specific films. Kodachrome 25 is there. They even have a filter to emulate the old GAF 500 slide film from the 70s!! The other part of the suite emulates a wide variety of black and white films. I've been playing with a pre-release version for a little while and have had great fun converting some of my digital shots and scans to the looks of a variety of old films. I just checked and don't see the info on their web site yet, but it should be up later today since this is the embargo date they gave us. www.alienskin.com Looks interesting, but to my mind, $199 is a lot of money to pay for a few photoshop actions or PSP scripts - personally I'd rather put the effort into creating the exact effect I want, rather than pay for someone else's attempt at duplicating the effects of a few old films. S
Re: OT: Kodachrome 25
Dario Bonazza wrote: And then you can put on sale your Jollyplays plug-ins. Heh, you don't think that people might be more tempted to pay me to delete the plugins and then burn the hard disk to ashes? ;-) S
Re: OT - Sloganize your name
Cotty wrote: 'For the Cotty you don't yet know' Argh, there's more than one?!! S
Re: GFM - Can't Make It This Year
P. J. Alling wrote: Can't you convince your employer that you should cover it as a news segment? Only if they move GFM to Oxfordshire ;-) S
Re: 30 years of the K1000.
E.R.N. Reed wrote: Seems my children's school has some of those floppy-using cameras available for the teachers to use. I've had the occasional request from some of the teachers to take pictures for them (with my ever-present camera) -- can't think why ... They are (or were) great for educational use - give every child their own disk, and there's no faff over dumping memory cards to a computer and then working out who took what. Plus they can stick the disk straight into the computer they're using for their DTP lesson or whatever. S
Re: FS: Sekonic Flashmate
Micah Kleit wrote: I bought it in an impulsive fit with some other photographic equipment You'll fit right in here, mate ;-) S (currently enjoying his recent FA35/2.0 enablement)
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Rob Studdert wrote: If only it were that simple. If you put an F, FA or any other new lens behind any on of Pentax's current or past TCs you will find that the lens name/focal length is not registered. Plus some of the current lenses are still only A series, including the fast teles. So they'd have to release some new TCs that passed on the (corrected) information to the body, and possibly some new lenses too. (We wish!) S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Bob Shell wrote: I just tested it in my studio this afternoon with a view camera. Focused on a wall and marked the location of a picture on the wall with a grease pencil on the GG. Moved the back laterally 10mm. Lo and behold, the picture was now exactly 10mm from the grease pencil outline. This is the same no matter what lens I put on the camera. Sorry, but you're wrong. Are you moving the lens with the back? If you only move the back, then of course a 10mm lateral move will result in a 10mm shift in the image. It's when the lens moves with the back (which is the case with all the current cameras that support image stabilisation, AFAIK) that the nature of the lens becomes an issue. S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Gonz wrote: Sorry Steve, I dont believe this is correct. Magnification should have nothing to do with it. Its simple geometry. Imagine a line right down the center of the focal area, now move that line in a parallel way some distance, i.e. 1mm. The entire line, being parallel, by definition is 1mm apart from infinity to infinity. Assuming the line corresponds to a beam of light, you *can't* move it in a parallel way. If it's straight on-axis (which the light will be, if the lens is symmetrical about its axis) it'll be bent off-axis. That's what lenses do - they bend light. S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Gonz wrote: Another way to think of it Steve, is this: (again I'm talking about moving the whole lens/sensor combo) imaging an infinitely long parallel assembly holding a camera perpendicular to an infinite wall with a varying image, as you move the camera/lens along the assembly, if magnification was a factor, eventually you would be looking at things that were way beyond the fov of the lens, i.e. if for every 1mm you moved the camera lens, the image moved 10mm, a magnification of 10, then after 100meters, your lens would be looking at something 1km off the axis. Right, I see what you're talking about now (and hence what Bob Shell was saying earlier in this thread, I think). I agree with what you say above, but please now think of the situation where you have *two* walls, one some distance behind the other. The problem with *lateral* movements is that due to parallax, despite the fact that you're moving the camera sideways at a constant speed, things at different distances from the lens take *different times* to move across the field of view. In the case of the two walls, this means that the closer one will move across the sensor faster than the further one. So you can keep one of them stationary by moving the sensor, but not both. To calculate - and hence correct for - the apparent movement of one of the two walls, you need to know: 1. How far away it is - the lens needs to know the distance to which the lens is focussed. 2. How much its apparent motion will be magnified by the lens. A point on any given wall will flick across the field of view much faster with a longer lens than with a wide-angle. The faster this movement is, the further you will have to move the sensor to correct for it. So the stabilisation system needs to know the lens focal length. If you want to correct for the motion without knowing these facts, you have to move both the sensor *and* the lens. Sheesh - far simpler just to use a tripod, I reckon ;-) S PS I also note that parallax implies occlusion, so if you're in a situation where your lateral shift changes how much you can see of a distant object, you can't correct for it by simply moving the sensor anyway. Perhaps it's better to forget about correcting for lateral movement entirely. Or record everything as holograms and forget about this lens nonsense... ;-)
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Tim Øsleby wrote: Knowing the FL makes it lot easier to make a IS system. But I do believe it is possible to make a more intelligent solution. My idea is something like this: First it measures the camera movements, and makes a rough guess. Then a feedback system (based on data from the image sensor) tells the camera how successful the first estimate was. Based on that information you will have data for a better calculation. (A similar technique has been used with some success in subwoofers in sound systems). Yes, you can do IS that way. Or you could take lots of very short exposures and superimpose them with appropriate shifts and rotations in post-processing. DSLR sensors don't have electronic shuttering though - they're not designed to be read out while the mechanical shutter is open. Adding that facility would increase the sensor noise. S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Bob Shell wrote: Maybe I am missing something, but I would assume that a 1mm displacement of the camera body would produce a 1mm shift in position of the image on the sensor, regardless of lens focal length. No unfortunately it's not that simple. OK, so elaborate on why it isn't. Seems to me that it is that simple, and the Minolta system proves it. A 1mm shift of the camera will only produce a 1mm shift of the image on the sensor if the lens is at 1:1 magnification. That's not true in the general case. Lenses magnify. Different focal lengths magnify by different amounts. This applies to image shifts just as it does to the images themselves. In fact I think the body would need to know the distance to the image as well as the lens focal length in order to convert accelerations into image shifts. S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Bob Shell wrote: I still do not think this is correct. A point projected on the sensor by any lens will move 1mm if the camera body moves 1mm. (Equivalent to moving the sensor 1mm). If that were the case, then moving the camera 24mm (or so) in any direction would result in a total change of picture, since according to your claim, everything that was originally visible on the sensor will have moved 24mm (or so) and will now be off it. You can test this yourself: put any lens on any camera in your posession (I suggest a wide-angle). Look through the viewfinder. Keeping the camera pointing in the same direction, step sideways one step. Can you still see anything that was originally in the frame? If so, I'm afraid that your assumption is incorrect. S
Re: A10: Pentax Image Stabilization is here
Gonz wrote: If the lens/body was moved in a perfect parallel manner, then you are right, 1mm of body/lens movement == 1mm of subject movement. Nope, I'm afraid that's only true at 1:1 magnification. See my explanation in my most recent reply to Bob for a simple test that you can perform that disproves this statement. If you deviate from the parallel motion, then there is a magnification involved which includes the angle of the motion as well as the field of view of the lens. With long lenses, the FOV is very small, therefor any small andular movement seems highly magnified. That *is* true, yes. S
Re: Wonderfull New year message.
Cotty wrote: I've invited Ken to the GFM NPW 2006. Feed him to the bears! S
Re: Skiing with cameras...
Bob W wrote: Please keep the ideas and thoughts coming in. I have a friend who made a living from mountain photography for 20 years, and I plan to discuss this with him soon, but I'm grateful for any information and advice from experienced people. I've done a fair amount of combined skiing and photography. In fact I lost my first digital camera that way (a Kodak DC240) - dropped it in the street in Verbier and the bugger who picked it up decided not to hand it in... I usually have the strap of the camera round my neck and the camera itself tucked inside a pocket of my jacket - keeps it out of the way and reasonably warm, and means I can use it with gloves on without worrying about dropping it down a mountain. (Although I did once have a 28mm drop off my ME Super from the summit ridge of a previously unclimbed Himalayan mountain, but that's another story...) I often use an Olympus Trip 35 for skiing - it's compact, hard to break, cheap to replace, and the solar-powered auto-aperture is ideal for cold conditions, assuming you're more interested in shooting and moving on than stopping to set up a fantastic landscape shot. S
Re: Raw and Sharpness question(s)
Jens Bladt wrote: PErhaps RAW files aren't submited to the on board sharpening in the camera, I don't know, but others may be able to answer this. RAW files are the raw sensor data, plus some shooting information. No in-camera processing occurs. S
Re: Adobe's User-to-User Photography Forum
Shel Belinkoff wrote: I just discovered Adobe's User-to-User Photography Forum this evening. Looks like there are some topics that would be of interest to PDMLers. Where are the threads on beer, cars, guns and GW Bush? :-) S
Re: Kodak EasyShare Picture Viewer $30 thru 12/31/05
Bob Sullivan wrote: It is really quite slick. I popped the SD card out of the *istDs and into the viewer and volla!, there are my pictures. Think of it as a digital version of 'Grandma's Brag Book'. Bet it can't read RAW tho'... S
Re: Rechargeable Li-Ion batteries in DS = poor! :-(
Charles Robinson wrote: This fall I decided to go for it and got the Delkin RCR-V3 batteries. Well, after a few months, I am less than delighted. First the good points: 1. Camera is snappy and responsive (autofocus motor is definitely quicker) Quicker than NiMH or regular CR-V3s? S
Re: Survey: How do you use the Histogram/Blinkies?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Do you feel you understand the histogram? Yes. 2. Do you ever look at the histogram while you are shooting? When? Under what situations? After every shot - I have it set to pop up with the preview image on my DS. (I also find myself trying to chimp on film cameras, but that's another story...) I hope one day to gain such a good understanding of exposure that I never even have to look at the photos after I take them... 3. Do you ever look at the blinkies? When? Under what situations? No, I have them turned off. 4. Do you find one of them (histogram or blinkies) more useful than the other? Do you look at it more? Or do you tend to use both in concert? The histogram tells me if I've blown the highlights or not, and I can see where they are by looking for the lightest bits of the preview image. So I never need to use the blinkies. The way I see it, the blinkies are there as a simpler alternative to the histogram. I appreciate that some people probably find it helpful to use both though. S
Re: Survey: How do you use the Histogram/Blinkies?
Dario Bonazza wrote: First, I agree that blown highlights can just be another way to show the right part of the histogram. However, that's not always true: just think of a bright sky in a corner of a backlit building almost filling the picture: the histogram could well describe the light distribution within the backlit building and you'll be fooled by a perfect histogram missing the sky (far right, outside the histogram scale). I thought that the histogram was generated from every pixel of the JPEG image generated by the camera? (PEF RAW files contain such an image too). I don't see how it can miss bits. S
Re: Survey: How do you use the Histogram/Blinkies?
Paul Stenquist wrote: Blown highlights are evidenced in the histogram as values off the right side of the scale. By definition, blown highlights are clipped to the highest value on the histogram. So you should start worrying when you see a sharp peak there. However, the histogram (and apparently the blinkies as well) in the *ist cameras describe the jpeg image. When shooting RAW, some highlights that might shown as off the scale can actually be accommodated. Thus, I look at the histogram as a guide, not an absolute. And of course there are situations where one might wish to include blown highlights for aesthetic reasons. Example: specular highlights on water. Agree 100% with all this. Except that I'm not totally sure that you always get the same leeway every time when shooting RAW. I try to keep all the image data within the range of the histogram (re-exposing if necessary and possible), and use the extra range that RAW can offer as a safety net (and sometimes even that isn't enough). S
Re: Survey: How do you use the Histogram/Blinkies?
Kenneth Waller wrote: I wish that the histogram was like the one in CS - Raw, i.e. broken out into RGB Why? What possible adjustment can you do in the camera that affects the RGB curves? I don't know about in-camera adjustments, but I'd definitely like to know when which of the channels has clipped, and by how much. S
Re: 30 years of the K1000.
Cesar wrote: Anyone want to hazard a guess as to how Pentax will 'acknowledge' the 30th anniversary of the K100? I vote for either a gold-plated 30th anniversary edition, or another DSLR that's really a slightly-modified *istDS. ;-) A digital equivalent of the MZ-M, perhaps? I guess they probably couldn't yet make it cheap enough to sell in that market. S
PESO: English Winter
Took this one a couple of months back when I was out for a walk in Derbyshire with my grandparents. They're both in their eighties, so I get plenty of time to run round taking photos... ;-) I found the high contrast between bright sunshine and long winter shadows quite challenging, but managed to get some shots I liked - this one's probably my favourite: http://www.elvum.net/gallery/v/trips/peaks_agps/agps_peaks12.jpg.html All comments welcome. S
Re: OT -- The travel camera
Scott Loveless wrote: Somewhere between 10 and 30 listers would be great. Who's interested? Any suggestions? Who wants it first? Count me in! :-) S
Re: OT -- The travel camera
Scott Loveless wrote: I have a Pentax IQZoom EZY-R that's ready to go. All I need is a roll of something fast, a small notebook and an address to get it started. Ideally, having a mailing address for anyone who wants to participate would be cool. Each address could be included with the notebook so that when one photographer has taken a photo he/she can simply pick an address and cross off his own. Suggestion: load with slow film and minimise the number of international boundaries the camera crosses to reduce the possibility of x-ray damage... S
Re: O.T.: Time Magazines Best Photos of the Year 2005
Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: That still leaves is without the link. I'll take pity on you all: http://www.time.com/time/yip/2005/ It's prominent on their front page... :-) S
Re: Sony's at it again.
William Robb wrote: At least this time, they may have a point. http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000message=16139935 Their reasoning is a big pile of crap. If you want to stop people from confusing two different kinds of battery, make them a different shape! They admit what I suspect is the real reason though - locking their competitors out of the spares market. Or possibly the existence of spare batteries threatens the planned obselescence of their products... S
Re: Coming to the UK!
John Coyle wrote: Arrive Friday 11/11, but tied up until 15/11 - it would be possible to do something 16-18/11, tied up on 19/11, but free again between 20/11 and 29/11. Tied up again on 30th and leaving for Hong Kong on 2/12, so you can see there isn't much slack! Can't do weekends and I'm in Amsterdam next week, but if anything gets organised for the week 21-25/11 I'll try and come along :-) S
Re: R-CRV3
Leon Altoff wrote: The R-CRV-3 batteries are not recommended for use in the Pentax cameras. They supply too high a current that can cause motors to burn out. How does that work? Do they really have a lower internal resistance than NiMH batteries? S
