On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: zoomshot
Subject: *ist D Survey
So how many do we actually have?
Please state when and where obtained;
Sept 26th, Regina.
Oct 1, Seattle, WA (Kenmore Camera)
I just rejoined this list today. I was a
On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Pentax has produced a fantastic digital camera, and at $1500 ($1700
some places) US, is priced about right. I don't like all this
whining on the list re non-A lenses. If you haven't bought a new
lens since 1981, you are not keeping Pentax in
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, arnie wrote:
I was wondering if anyone has any experience with the ist 35mm camera and
how it stacks up vs. the zx-5n. some of the ist's features look very
enticing - 11 point autofocus, advanced flash, 17 custom functions
I own both, although I really haven't used the
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, tom wrote:
Right now the p+s I'd like to get is that Pentax w/ the 24mm.
Which model is this?
One more thing...with digital sensor sizes, it seems to me there's an
opportunity for a new class of p+s, a fixed lens camera with a
seriously fast lens. How about a p+s with a
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
Ryan wrote:
I just got to say I LOVE MY *ist D !!!
The image quality is sharper than I expected,
Please forgive me, but maybe you were expecting too little, since all *ist D
images I've seen so far look more or less blurred (compared to other
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Paul Eriksson wrote:
The wife finally ok'd the purchase but the store said it would be 2-3 weeks
before the next shipment. Now I have to figure out the memory and battery
requirements. I figured that a single 512mb or 1gb card would be sufficient
to start out with, any
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Cameron Hood wrote:
Why on earth would they make a 14-54, a 14, a 14-48, and an 11-22
available so early in their production? The 14-54 and 14-48 seem
especially strange; mind you, Pentax and other companies do make about
600 variations of the 28-70/80/90, but these are
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, John Dallman wrote:
The first is very simple. A majority of the pictures I take are portrait
format. But since the *istD doesn't have a tilt sensor, they come out as
landscape. This leaves me tediously loading, rotating and saving each one
individually. What I'd like is
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
Alex wrote:
Don't forget that I shot these with a 24mm lens, so the depth of field
is very large. Even at f4.5 everything from about 15' to infinity
would be in focus, and nothing in most of these pictures is closer to
me that 15' away.
Good
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Bucky wrote:
I have question about this photo - there are several spines on that flower
that are completely blown out for long stretches. I've downloaded it and
checked it out with the Curves tool in Photoshop. Have you noticed that
this is a problem with the camera? I
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote:
Regarding RAW shots on the *ist D, Rob wrote:
RAW only gives 70 shots even on 1Gb.
[snip]
Rob, promise me you'll do one little test:
1. Take a RAW shot of a nice landscape.
2. Now switch to large/fine jpeg mode and take another shot of same.
3.
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Dario Bonazza 2 wrote:
Good point. The 24mm should become a 36mm, while depth-of field must be
conidered one stop less, hence pictures taken with the 24mm f/4.5 are
like
those taken at 36mm f/3.5, while 24mm f/11 is like 36mm f/8.
However, I was expecting some
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Peter Alling wrote:
The sensor could, (I don't know if it does), actually adjust it's
sensitivity on the fly to insure a better exposure. I'm not sure
I'd like that.
There is a custom function to select that feature. It is called
Sensitivity Correction. The manual says
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Alan Chan wrote:
This has probably been asked before, but I was wondering how good this lens
(SMC M pancake 40mm 2.8) is and what it's worth.. Any experiences to share?
Optically, it is an okay lens imho, good but not great. The problem is that
the focus ring is too
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Ryan Charron wrote:
How can you judge the image sharpness on the *ist D
until you change the setting to maximum sharpness?
That's the first setting I changed since I like things
nice and sharp, then I tone it down in Photoshop if
need be.
The sharpness control in the
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
What's the sharpest aperature for this lens? any opinions?
http://phred.org/pentax/lensgal/m40_28/m40_28.html has tests from
this lens if you want to judge for yourself.
It looks pretty soft at f2.8, better at f4, and pretty good at f5.6
and f8.
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote:
On 15/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
It's the moon. I posted this to show how much less distortion there is
using just the center of this lens instead of full frame.
Right. So, if it's a 16mm, it's acting like a 24mm on the *ist D, no? If
correct, it's
On Wed, 15 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm, this means it's hard to know ahead of time which lenses will
work well with a DSLR. Because film may not indicate real chromatic
aberration problems. Right?
It sounds like it might be time for a Pentax *ist D lens gallery.
alex
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
And, the 4/3 ratio requires less cropping than the 6MP ratio
and so the net is close to the same pixels per image.
This depends on your final image size. If you are printing 10x8 then
that is pretty close to 4:3. 6x4 is the same ratio as 3:2
I was just cleaning up my office and came across my Hoya R72 IR
filter. I've used this a little bit with my Sony DSC-F717 and thought
I'd give it a try with the *ist D.
From playing around in the house I have to say that it looks
promissing. My only IR sources right now are remotes and
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
I notice I can get a 1 gb micro dive for around $550 Aus while a CF card
costs the same for half the capacity.
In the US there really isn't much of a price difference between
Microdrives and solid state CF right now. Maybe the same is true
in
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003, Bucky wrote:
I played with one yesterday while discussing the D with my friend who works
at the local Enabler shop. It's cute, I suppose, and handles nicely, but I
HATED the interface for setting shutter speed and aperture, having been used
to the Z1p's lovely layout (the
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Keith Whaley wrote:
Bill Owens wrote:
The Computer shows the files to vary in size by as much as one MB from
about 1.9 - 3.02.
C onfused ry
And when these same files are opened in Photoshop, they show 17.3 MB.
EACH?
Photoshop shows the memory taken by the
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, alex wetmore wrote:
I was just cleaning up my office and came across my Hoya R72 IR
filter. I've used this a little bit with my Sony DSC-F717 and thought
I'd give it a try with the *ist D.
From playing around in the house I have to say that it looks
promissing. My only
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am fairly tall, so I need one that goes to at least 55 or 56 with the
column unextended (even taller would be better, but that height would be okay). I
also don't have a lot of upper body strength so I am trying to get one as
near to 2 lb. (or
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Matt Bevers wrote:
This of course doesn't mean that taking a BW photo on a 6MP camera
results in a 2MP file.
If you are using a red, blue, or green filter it effectively does.
Only it is a little worse for red and blue and better for green (there
are 1.5 million red and
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Peter Loveday wrote:
I'm interested to know what the delay is between the shutter firing, and the
image being visable on the LCD screen.
A couple of seconds. It depends on the speed of the card being used
and the size of the image that you are saving because it doesn't
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, Dave Miers wrote:
The previous posts regarding LCD delay reminded me of one of my
major concerns wth Digital Cameras. Both digitals I've owned so far
have a very aggravating shutter delay. Timing your shot and getting
the moment can be a very aggravating problem.
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
Since this camera has a smaller than 35mm frame size
sensor there is a possiblity that pentax will ( or already
has) issue lenses that only cover the smaller sensor.
They have already announced the DA 16-45mm lens that only projects
enough to cover
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, Pat wrote:
John Francis wrote:
I don't do much trimming myself, but I've had good results from my cheap
little Fiskars personal trimmer.
I think one of the ones I saw yesterday was a Fiskars Personal Paper Trimmer
for about $10. It looks like it would fit into a
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Chris Stoddart wrote:
All this talk about the pros and cons of Ilford paper and so on and so
forth gives me opportunity to asks for recommendations for an A3 photo
printer, which I am sure Santa will be bringing me. I'm really torn
between the Canon i9000 and the Epson
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, graywolf wrote:
But then you can find a bulk ink system for most Epson photo printers there is
even one available for the cheap Photo 820.
Yup. I had one of these systems for my Epson 870.
The bulk ink is great if you are printing _a lot_. If you plan on
printing 4oz of
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote:
On 24/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:
Another advantage of the Canon is that you can easily refill the ink
cartridges. Don't underestimate how much ink will cost you when
making a lot of prints. Being able to trivially refill cartridges is
a real plus.
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
But what about long-time image storage? Well, what about it?
I'm sure my mother-in-law isn't the only person who throws away
the negatives and just keeps a handful of prints for a while.
Photography isn't an archive medium for the masses - it's all
On Sat, 25 Oct 2003, mike wilson wrote:
My (presently) biggest gripe with digital imaging is the cost. For a
process that is not significantly better, except in immediacy of
results, I am expected to pay a very significant premium? No, thank
you. I can do almost the same thing by buying a
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
OK, I've read through the last few digests and learned all about how the
*istD feels, who would like which knobs in different places and so. Don't
you guys take pictures with those things?
Naah - why would we do that?
I'm taking some photographs,
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
When I last posted that live preview caused an increase in shutter
lag I had a few people who doubted this. Here is the design book ...
That just shows that some particular chip designs have this problem.
It doesn't mean that it's an inherent
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, John Francis wrote:
For a more down-to-earth example the Canon PowerShot cameras (from the
3.3Mp G1 to the 5Mp G5) have effectively no shutter lag if pre-focussed,
and have a live LCD display at all times. If a 5Mp point-and-shoot can
do it, I have a hard time believing
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I just saw on TV that gateway has a 5Mpixel
digital PS for $249.99
I think 35mm film's days are really numbered.
Why does a DSLR cost $1250.00 more WITHOUT
a lens???
The CCD in a DSLR has about 10x the surface area (23.4mm by 15.6mm vs
7.2mm by
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Of course digital images can be transfered to positive transparency
film -- slide film if you will. But why not shoot film if you want
film? Real slides will be cheaper and of higher resolution.
Can't imagine why anyone would want to work backwards
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
A few days ago, I was looking as a friends Rollei MF camera with a waist
level finder. Since it's parent's weekend here at the college, I have
also noticed many folks taking shots using the LCD screen and not the
viewfinder (I'm yet to see a film
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 3 Nov 2003 at 22:35, John Francis wrote:
Oops. Make that IR and near-IR, not UV.
There is increased sensitivity into the UV, too, but that causes
things to look more blue, not more red. Proof-read more carefully!
If the *ist D is like most
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, Peter Jordan wrote:
Reading between the lines on some recent posts, people seem to value their
PZ-1p higher than the MZ-S.
My impressions are that the autofocus on the MZ-S is faster (which I
probably don't need as I don't do many action shots), but the user interface
on
I'm getting a remote release for the *ist D and oddly the IR remote
seems to be less expensive than the cable remote. How does the IR
remote work with long exposures in the B mode? Is there any reason to
get the cable remote over the IR remote?
To continue another thread, I stopped by Ballard
On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, [iso-8859-1] Rüdiger Neumann wrote:
You complain at the results with the RAW files. At a german user forum
somebody has done a test with the Pentax Photo Lab and GENZO, a free RAW
format converter.
Here you can see the results in form ot two different pictures:
On 6 Nov 2003, Frits [ISO-8859-1] Wüthrich wrote:
USA pricing for the *ist D:
$1349.99 :
http://www.ccicameracity.com/brproduct.asp?ccode=pistd
$1399.00:
http://www.cameraunlimited.com/webstores/www/stores_app/Browse_Item_Details.asp?Store_id=101page_id=23Item_ID=2920
On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do all *ist D users have access to NASA labs? That's fine!
Dario
You know I've been reading reviews of the 10D (and the *istD).
Well, mainly studying the reviews at dpreview more. I hadn't really
looked in depth yet. And complaints about the
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, graywolf wrote:
This brings up an interesting comparisons that applies to serious
photographers who make their own prints.
Digital: The more expensive the camera or scanner the better
results you get (by a large factor). The more expensive the
software you use the
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Concerning using the *ist D with older analog TTL Flashes. Wondering
if it will work in TTL mode with my AF400T's or AF280T? I assume
manual and Auto mode of the flash would work, but would TTL work?
TTL works fine on the AF280T.
alex
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Did this test.
Using the 200T and 280T in TTL mode, all shots were reasonably well exposed,
though certainly not the same, at F4 and F11 or 13. I also tried one shot
at F11 with the flash head at 90* and one at 0* and they
On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Robert Gonzalez wrote:
John Francis wrote:
Ah, but we *do* know for a FACT that the sensor is being cleared. The
sensor is used to provide live preview on the LCD display, and needs to
be cleared before being used to capture the real image.
Interesting. I know that
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Frits Wüthrich
Subject: Hot pixels
My new Olympus C350zoom camera has an option that should be run once a
year according to the manual. It is called pixal mapping, and what it
does is identify the hot pixels and
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Uh, what are hot pixels?
Defects in the sensor?
Yes, they are pixels which always report that they have seen more
light than they have really seen.
If you look at the picture that I posted from my defective *ist D
you'll see plenty of examples.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, they are pixels which always report that they have seen more
light than they have really seen.
If you look at the picture that I posted from my defective *ist D
you'll see plenty of examples.
alex
Aha, I get it.
When I see those in my
We have this nice lily sitting on our coffee table so I took some
photographs of it last night. I had never had much luck getting a
black background behind an image, but this worked out okay. I used
the Pentax *ist D and either a 50/1.4 or 90/2.5 lens (I wasn't keeping
notes on which lenses were
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Ryan Lee wrote:
Handsome flower.. I think the post processing really adds to it. Like how
the details seems to appear on the bud (I'd personally like a stop or two
more exposure, but that's just me). I'm also not too sure about what
dropping the background to black did to
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, William Robb wrote:
I'm not imagining it as a 35mm lens, since it doesn't cover the format.
The whole point of the small sensors was to enable smaller cameras and
lenses.
The 16-45 takes a 67mm filter, and is larger than the 18-35. I happen to
have that lens, and it is
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Mark Roberts wrote:
alex wetmore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Compared to 35mm lenses in the same size it is small.
For comparison lets look at the Sigma 15-30/f3.5-f4.5.
Well, that's not a fair comparison. For *equivalent focal length*, you
should be comparing it to a 23
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Is this important to know? Will knowing this make for better
photographs? If so, in what way?
If a Pentax RAW file is essentially a TIFF (as I understand your
comment), and Pentax doesn't much compress their RAW files (per comments
on a digital
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
Unless you use RAW. RAW bypasses most of the processing on the camera
and allows you to do the processing on your PC.
RAW is what the camera produces. A Canon will produce a different looking
RAW file than a Nikon or a Pentax
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Tiger Moses wrote:
Is this something we can build?
Do we just go to the $1 store, buy a cheap set of headphone,
cut the headphones off and wire the puppy up?
The *ist D uses the 2.5mm size jack, not 3.5mm.
You can make your own though. Basically when you short the
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
IF DSLR prices don't come down much more than $800 or so, then the
low-end SLR market could be taken over by the ZLR style camera.
HOWEVER, DSLR's could come down if the makers decide to make money on
the lenses and not the bodies. If good ZLR's
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Keith Whaley wrote:
alex wetmore wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
IF DSLR prices don't come down much more than $800 or so, then the
low-end SLR market could be taken over by the ZLR style camera.
If an SLR is a single lens reflex and a DSLR
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
I got a used Tamron 90/2.5 (49mm thread) but it has the wrong Adaptall
mount. I don't know much about these mounts, any references? What I am
looking for is info on whether Adaptall and Adaptall 2 adaptors are
usable with this or only one type.
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
I just read somewhere that Sony ( or maybe it
was minolta?) has a new digicam ( not slr)
with 8Mpixel sensor!
They do. All of the sample photographs released so far have been
pretty terrible though. They are producing an 8mp sensor that is the
same
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
They do. All of the sample photographs released so far have been
pretty terrible though. They are producing an 8mp sensor that is the
same size as the old 5mp sensor and it shows in the quality of the
photographs.
http://www.dpreview.com has
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, mike wilson wrote:
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Are you saying that there has to be a lot of power at both ends of the
connection? That the computers have to match in some way?
No, it just seems to me that when I access something using a high speed
connection and the site is
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Patrick Wunsch wrote:
I just picked up a used Kodak Ektagraphic III AM slide projector off ebay
and now need a screen to throw the images up on. Any recommendations? I
would prefer a mounted unit versus a tripod stand though.
You can pick up tripod mounted ones at places
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Bill Owens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
f I understand your query correctly, you may not be in playback mode. In
capture mode the Info button shows current settings.
That seems to be the case. How do I get into playback
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003, Len Paris wrote:
I find it comforting to know that I, as a buyer, now have some
protection through eBay and PayPal. I find it interesting that Paul
protests so much.
It makes it impossible to sell items in person to people who pay with
PayPal (unless you want me to ship
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Leon Altoff wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:59:58 -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
1) How many have totally given up shooting film and have moved
completely to digital (That means no film and film cameras in your
equipment cabinet)?
I have 4 camera bodies. *istD, 2 x MZ-S and
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Paul Eriksson wrote:
In January I'm going on a extended phototrip and need som memory storage.
My first thought was a portable harddrive but I've come to the conclussion
that a laptop is a better choise. Now to my question what do you guys/gals
suggest/use? The computer
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Rob Brigham wrote:
Could an MF lens design be translated into an AF lens?
Sure. Pentax and Nikon have both done this.
I don't know how big the lens flange is for 110 Pentax lenses and if
they could stick a AF blade and contacts in there.
And would the lens mount need
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Ryan Lee wrote:
1. It's Pentax- so yay for SMC and resale value etc.., and it's got a small
enough thread for the filter. Only possible negative thing I can think of-
it only goes down to f22.
DOF on a 20mm lens at f22 is already so great that I can't see any
advantage to
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, William Robb wrote:
Agreed about that. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of the world. Of
all the APS sensor sized DSLR's I have seen, the ist D seems to have the
best one, but for sure, the LX is better.
It is the downside of having a smaller sensor. Light is being
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Francis Alviar wrote:
How about an FA 50mm f/1.4 coupled with a 2x extender? Will it be
as sharp as say an FA 100mm f/2.8 macro?
Probably not. The teleconverters are generally designed to work a
variety of lenses and need to make some compromises. The 50/1.4 plus
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Cotty wrote:
The iPod contains a hard drive, but can indeed be used to store images:
'Save a bundle on memory cards the next time you take your digital camera
with you on vacation. When your card is full, simply transfer the images
to your iPod via the handy Belkin Media
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Steve Desjardins wrote:
I'll try it again tonight with my 100-300 zoom set to around 250. BTW,
am I correct in noting that the *istD has no mirror pre-fire?
If you use the 2 second timer it locks up the mirror before starting
the timer.
alex
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Samys is a good store. I have mail ordered from them on several
occasions and have had very good luck. If your brother is in CA right
now, one advantage to using Adorama or BH is that you will not
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003, Matt Sephton wrote:
I am the owner of a Pentax Optio S4 and have just seen that it is possible
to take RAW bayer format images with the camera. I was wondering if
anybody here knows of any tools I can use to read these files or convert
them to another, more manageable
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, J. C. O'Connell wrote:
dumb idea. You have to crawl before you can run.
No point in 645 DSLR unless it were full frame and it
would be much more likely that they would develop and
sell full frame 35mm DSLR, before tackling FF 645DSLR.
A 645-chassis D-SLR with a 35mm
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Bill Owens wrote:
Bill, I think what J.C. is saying is that a 400mm lens designed for a 645
and a 400mm lens designed for a 35mm would both perform exactly the same on
a 24x36 sensor. If that's what he's saying, he's correct.
The FOV is identical. Nothing else is
The only photo club that I've belonged to (http://www.groupf56.com)
didn't allow conversations about gear or equipment at the official
meetings (people did talk about it afterwords). Photographs were
evaluated on the final results, not what means were used to take them.
It is an interesting
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Jim Apilado wrote:
How many *ist D owners would pledge to buy a brand new DA lens every year so
Pentax can stay in business? That way Pentax would know they made the right
decision. I don't own a *ist D so count me out.
I probably will, at least for a while, but I would
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003, frank theriault wrote:
As I was reading your post, I realized that other than pros, I haven't seen
one DSLR outside of a store. And, when I say other than pros, I mean that
I've seen a few PJ's around, plus I have a couple of friends (okay, more
like acquaintances) who
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color.
This is not true. All photographic file formats store R, G and B
values for each pixel.
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, alex wetmore wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
One thing you are not factoring in to this issue is the output side.
When the output is digital, you have the same basic problem. Each
pixel is only one color.
This is not true. All photographic file
On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Bruce Dayton wrote:
My mistake. I do believe that it is true of the printer though. That
is why the resolution of an Epson is 1440 dpi but the resolution that
we really think of is 300 dpi. This is due to dithering.
It is true of inkjet printers, but printer resolution
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Bob Rapp wrote:
If you do, plan an spending more that a week or two. New Zealand could be
done in 7 days - 10 if you include the North Island.
A 7-10 day trip of New Zealand, including both islands, would be a
terrible shame.
I've spent 7 weeks there over two trips
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One question the i900 has a usb 2 and the other just usb(1.1 i
assume)Will the usb 2 work on the slower 1.1 connections or is an
upgrade in order.
Yes, USB 2.0 devices are backwards compatible with USB 1.1.
I really like my Canon S9000. It
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, tom wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not an easy thing to deal with. Cheap people are just cheap! One
route that I have gone is to quit trying to make money on the prints
and just charge up front for the
I'm going to pick one up from my local dealer today. BH also lists
them as in stock.
alex
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004, Joseph Tainter wrote:
Joseph Tainter a écrit :
Alex, help with a little test, would you? Set the *ist D to mtf (custom
function 1), then test it outside in program mode on a day with good
light. What f-stops do you get at different focal lengths? I got the
following,
On Mon, 1 Mar 2004, Greg Lovern wrote:
I'd like to buy an *ist D and a DA 16-45/4 as a kit, and get the $200
rebate from Pentax. But the only place I see selling them as a kit is
Adorama, which is over $200 more expensive than some other sellers I see
at Pricegrabber.com. Are the less
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Can someone explain to me exactly how RAW works? I understand that it gives
you a file that is captured exactly as you see it, without colour
correction, compression etc. Does this also mean that the
contrast/saturation/sharpness/noise
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004, William M Kane wrote:
We've discussed this issue, and decided that the circle created by
the DA lenses is optimized for the smaller sensor area of the *ist D.
Therefore, the DA will not produce a full frame image on a normal 35mm
camera.
You can see this by mounting
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote:
About standard focal length for the *Ist D.
Is it true, that a normal lens for the *ist D, with a CCD of 23.5 x 15.7
mm is equal to the diagonal of this rectangular square? If yes, the standard
focal length should be 28,3mm.
This calculation (Phythagoras)
On Mon, 8 Mar 2004, Andre Langevin wrote:
You can see this by mounting the DA onto the MZ-5. Through the
viewfinder you'll see that there is severe vingetting up until about
20mm, and there is still some up until the mid to high 20mm range.
Beyond there it looks like it'll work (I haven't
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Madsen wrote:
I will be purchasing a *istD soon and was wondering if anyone has had any
experience yet with the DA 16-45. I know that it will not function well on
my MZ-S so it would be just for the digital. My question is, is it worth it
to buy this lens if it only
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to hear from anyone who has bought and used the cleaning
swabs that Nikon recommend for the same sensor in their cameras. Did
it work?
Last I heard Nikon expressly DID NOT recommend sensor swabs for cleaning
the CCDs on their
1 - 100 of 245 matches
Mail list logo
