rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* In Full Uniform - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/444ffc141914cc47?hl=en
* S5 Pro Function Problem - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3c06fbc5f59d6a88?hl=en
* Help with date problem. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e42d8c9b4c58396f?hl=en
* Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough - 14 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
* Missing "return to auto zoom" SB900 - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6c8e885016abb6ff?hl=en
* OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
* Old fashioned battery tester - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: In Full Uniform
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/444ffc141914cc47?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 20 2009 11:10 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"
"Vance" <Vance.Lear@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:37e20b54-f3a5-478f-bcac-7054a3948d71@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
wrote:
> "Caesar Romano" <S...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>
> news:hq58s4lbeu13idkeup10fc5vf3gfjtfspr@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> > <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>
> >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
> >>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
> >>zone
> >>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
> >>latitude
> >>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
>
> >>Thanks for the info,
> >>Dudley
>
> > Hello Dudley,
>
> > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
> > exposure
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
> >http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
>
> > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
> > B&W images.
>
> > Best Regards,
> > C.R.
>
> Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
>
> Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
> light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
> with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
>
> Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
> I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
> difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
>
> The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
> histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is
> shifted
> one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
> wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a
> little
> blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
>
> If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be
> really
> nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
> think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting
> in
> bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
> unnoticeable.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
Vance
Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.
I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display, but
we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to ISO
400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
would cost.
Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
Take Care,
Dudley
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:50 am
From: Vance
On Mar 20, 11:10 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
wrote:
> "Vance" <Vance.L...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:37e20b54-f3a5-478f-bcac-7054a3948d71@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 20, 4:52 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Caesar Romano" <S...@uce.gov> wrote in message
>
> >news:hq58s4lbeu13idkeup10fc5vf3gfjtfspr@4ax.com...
>
> > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:04:16 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> > > <photos.digi...@dudley-hanks.com> wrote Re Re: In Full Uniform:
>
> > >>You said the snow is in zone 5 and should be in zone 7. I am unfamiliar
> > >>with the zone terminology. I take it there are only 7 zones, and each
> > >>zone
> > >>would correspond to 1 stop. Thus, most digital shots would have a
> > >>latitude
> > >>of 7 zones. Is that correct?
>
> > >>Thanks for the info,
> > >>Dudley
>
> > > Hello Dudley,
>
> > > Here is some information about the "Zone" system for photographic
> > > exposure
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_system
> > >http://www.normankoren.com/zonesystem.html
>
> > > I learned it many years ago and find it most useful, particularly for
> > > B&W images.
>
> > > Best Regards,
> > > C.R.
>
> > Thanks, Caesar, I'll check out the info.
>
> > Back when I could see better, I used an inexpensive, but fairly accurate,
> > light meter to supplement the built-in camera meter. Couple the metering
> > with film familiarity, and my exposures weren't too bad.
>
> > Since going digital, I've been struggling a bit with metering. Each camera
> > I've used seems to meter a bit differently from the others, so it's been
> > difficult to get a basic rule of thumb for exposures established.
>
> > The one thing I've got going for me is that I can sort of make out the
> > histograph of the XSi, so I can figure out whether a given image is
> > shifted
> > one way or the other. In the case of this image, though, the histograph
> > wasn't much help since it was scrunched up on the right, with only a
> > little
> > blip to the left indicating Mich's darker colours.
>
> > If there are any techies for Canon or Nikon reading this, it would be
> > really
> > nice if an over-exposure beep could be incorporated into the firmware. I
> > think it would help sighted shooters, as well as us bats, since shooting
> > in
> > bright light can often make the little blinker in the viewfinder nearly
> > unnoticeable.
>
> > Take Care,
> > Dudley- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Dudley, I'm not sure about this, but if I could modify a cheap digital
> light meter to give you a verbal read out, what that be useful for
> you? I might be able to do it with a microcontroller.
>
> Vance
>
> Vance, that would be INCREDIBLE! But, I don't know if I could afford that.
>
> I brought my old meter out today. Of course, I can't read it, so I got my
> daughter to help. It took a while to teach her how to read the display, but
> we seemed to get on the same page after a while.
>
> As near as I can figure it out, my meter is about two stops off from the
> camera (when the meter is set to ISO 100, the camera needs to be set to ISO
> 400 for accurate exposure of flash readings, at about 20 feet).
>
> I'd be very interested in what you can do with a meter, and how much it
> would cost.
>
> Thanks, Vance, I appreciate that a lot.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let me look into it, Dudley. The speech synthesizer chip only costs
around $24.00 or $25.00 U.S. I can probably modify an older light
meter in your face it with a microcontroller and write a program that
will convert the readings to information the voice generation chips
can use. How much it will cost, I don't know, but I'm awful band good
at doing a lot with very little. I'll see what I can find on the
surplus market.
The question will be how to make it the most usable for you. My gut
instinct is to get a cheap already calibrated and accurate analog
meter and go from there. I could design a light meter from scratch
(they're very simple), but that gets into the hassle of having to
calibrate it.
Digital camera ISO settings don't always equal handheld light meter
ISO settings. However, your two stop difference is a little out of
line. I would tend a suspect your daughter's metering technique. You
also mention maybe going to two stops over when shooting in snow.
With your camera I would try something like 1 2/3 stops for snow. I
noticed that the day was overcast with Mitch's picture, so I would
think that 1 2/3 stops would work under those circumstances because
you only seem to be up about one stop under exposed. On bright sunny
days, with a lot of snow, the "Sunny 16 Rule" is a good place to
start.
I'm sorry we didn't get together when you're out here getting
acquainted with Mitch, though I'm pretty sure you had a lot on your
plate.
In sum, give me about a week or so to look into things.
Regards,
Vance
==============================================================================
TOPIC: S5 Pro Function Problem
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3c06fbc5f59d6a88?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:41 am
From: ASAAR
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 09:08:30 -0700 (PDT), t_p_paterson@hotmail.com
wrote:
>> From what the manual says on page 105, it appears that you have
>> the S5 Pro set to single frame mode (or possibly self timer mode),
>> where only one shot of the bracket sequence is taken for each press
>> of the shutter button. The control panel display will show how the
>> bracketed shots are progressing. The entire set of bracketed images
>> can be taken with a single press of the shutter button when the S5
>> Pro is set to continuous low speed or continuous high speed mode.
>
> Thanks for the pointer - that's what I've been running through. It
> seems that in S mode, it should do frame at a time, in Cl or Ch mode
> it should do the whole sequence when the shutter release is held
> down. But when the Func button is set to Bracket, it should only need
> the release to be pressed once briefly for it to run the full
> sequence. That doesn't happen. Any thoughts?
That's what the manual says, but it didn't mention whether the
Func button has to be held down until all of the shots are taken.
Did you try that? As the S5 Pro is based on the D200, it's
unfortunate that it doesn't have a feature that might help. From
page 90 of the D200 manual :
> Bracketing
> Adjust bracketing settings before starting interval timer photography.
> If exposure and/or flash bracketing is active while interval timer
> photography is in effect, the camera will take the number of shots
> in the bracketing program at each interval, regardless of the number
> of shots specified in the interval timer menu. If white balance
> bracketing is active while interval timer photography is in effect,
> the camera will only take one shot at each interval and process it to
> create the number of copies specified in the bracketing program.
I don't know if there's any difference between the functionality
of interval timer shooting with the D200 and D300, but according to
Thom Hogan's D300 guide :
> The question that usually gets asked next is "how do I do an
> automatic bracket with a single shutter press?" Simple:
> combine it with Interval shooting
. . .
> The D300 provides the ability to have the camera take one or more
> shots at periodic intervals (sometimes called time lapse or step
> photography). Interval shooting can be done with the camera
> unattended, assuming that the camera will stay powered and
> protected from someone changing settings.
> Incidentally, this is useful as it lets me press and leave the camera
> bracketing super-long exposures on night time architectural shots,
> hence the interest - holding the button down for fifteen minutes is
> annoying and I occassionally spoil a shot with shake. I should get a
> cable release.
Nikon has several that are compatible with the S5 Pro. The MC-36
has a flexible programmable interval timer that might help with the
exposure bracketing, but it would be best to confirm this with
someone else, perhaps even with Fuji's tech. support. If tech.
support balks at discussing Nikon's products, you can tell them that
the S5 Pro manual (page 201, "Usable Nikon accessories") lists the
MC-36, MC-30 and MC-22 Remote Cords.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Help with date problem.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e42d8c9b4c58396f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:57 am
From: Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter wrote:
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <9fadnTbSR4uoeV_UnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I am not inclined to try to decipher a command line interface, given the
>>> nature of such interfaces when combined with a person who doesn't type
>>> very well, and who is unfamiliar with the program. I am sure that the
>>> program would do what I want, but trying to figure it out is more work
>>> than this is worth.
>> there's a windows gui wrapper for it, but i've never tried it and i
>> don't know if it exposes the full functionality of it (my guess is that
>> it doesn't). and if i recall, one of the examples in the help does
>> exactly what you need.
>
> If so, I didn't find it. It seems like such a simple, and 'likely'
> problem, I am surprised it is so difficult to find a quick, easy, free,
> fix for it. Still looking, but thanks for trying.
> I guess I will have to check the time/date in our cameras more often.
> Mine won't even extend the lens until the time/date is set after a
> battery change. My wife's seems to retain the time/date, and so doesn't
> hold up progress that way, but then is subject to having the wrong date
> stay in there for a while.
The GUI for exiftool did the job. Now I have good dates for the files.
Thanks to everyone who replied.
Ron
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Olympus SLR boss says 12 MP is enough
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7694b9e85e8630b7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 2:13 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Alfred Molon wrote:
[]
> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
> and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the
> cube of the (linear) sensor size.
I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to sensor
size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in the 16 - 300mm
range of lenses I use).
David
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 3:07 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <YMWwl.16135$as4.7611@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
> But the Micro 4:3 cameras suffer from many of the drawbacks of P&S
> cameras,
How would you know, given that there is just one model on the market
right now.
If you are referring to contrast AF and the EVF, these are supposed to
be very good in the Panasonic G1. And in any case the minuscule optical
viewfinders in APS-C cameras are nothing to be too proud.
Olympus predicted that in the future contrast AF would substantially
improve and outperform phase AF in terms of accuracy and speed. Whether
this prediction comes true remains to be seen, but if so it would be a
major step forward in camera design, we'd finally have mirrorless
cameras.
> while the 4:3 SLRs aren't much smaller or lighter than the
> smallest APS-C sensor bodies. I.e. the Olympus E-520 body is 16.2
> ounces/52.5 cubic inches, the Canon XSi body is 16.7 ounces/48 cubic inches.
Actually the E420 and E620 are more compact and light - you should pick
these for your comparison. In any case there is not much size difference
in the bodies also because there is not much size difference in the
sensors.
> You're making it out to be full frame versus 4:3 but that's not being
> honest.
You're the one who constantly pulls out full frame cameras saying that
4/3 users are doomed and can't upgrade.
> It's more of APS-C versus 4:3, with the option for the APS-C
> users to move up to the bigger heavier full frame bodies in the future,
> should they choose to do so.
Well no, because many lenses for APS-C cameras are designed for the
smaller image circle and can't be used on full-frame cameras.
> No sense locking yourself into the 4:3
> system unless you're absolutely positive that you'll never want to move
> up in resolution or down in noise.
Unless you buy only full-frame lenses, you are also locked on an APS-C
format camera and have to replace all lenses when you move to a full-
frame camera.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 3:11 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <kfq8s49pm173c9463sf7dtv5p1s0uq359d@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
> But Four Thirds has never actually offered those claimed advantages.
The E420 and E620 are very compact. Much smaller than for instance
Sony's APS-C line of DSLRs.
> The Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs are only very slightly smaller than the
> small APS-C DSLRs from other manufacturers; the Pentax K-m and Nikon
> D40X are tiny cameras.
See above.
> The near-telecentric Zuiko Digital lenses are also surprisingly large
> and heavy.
>
> So the theoretical advantages of Four Thirds have never been delivered
> in practice. Micro Four Thirds might offer them, but only at the
> expense of losing reflex viewing. And the EVF in the Panasonic G1 is
> far from convincing.
The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
vignetting.
Regarding the EVF of the G1, have you actually ever used one? According
to the reviews it's quite good.
Besides, the tiny optical viewfinders of most compact APS-C DSLRs are
not good.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 5:51 am
From: Kennedy McEwen
In article <MPG.242e5242d230e3a998c069@news.supernews.com>, Alfred Molon
<alfred_molon@yahoo.com> writes
>In article <4%Qwl.14767$W06.12508@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> 4:3 is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Kind of like APS film.
>
>It matters to all those who want to have a smaller camera with a large
>sensor.
>
>Smaller sensors allow that.
Even Olympus took several years to directly contradict themselves. Only
their fanbois could manage that in two sequential sentences!
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:15 am
From: Bruce
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <kfq8s49pm173c9463sf7dtv5p1s0uq359d@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> But Four Thirds has never actually offered those claimed advantages.
>
>The E420 and E620 are very compact. Much smaller than for instance
>Sony's APS-C line of DSLRs.
>
>> The Olympus Four Thirds DSLRs are only very slightly smaller than the
>> small APS-C DSLRs from other manufacturers; the Pentax K-m and Nikon
>> D40X are tiny cameras.
>
>See above.
Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>> The near-telecentric Zuiko Digital lenses are also surprisingly large
>> and heavy.
>>
>> So the theoretical advantages of Four Thirds have never been delivered
>> in practice. Micro Four Thirds might offer them, but only at the
>> expense of losing reflex viewing. And the EVF in the Panasonic G1 is
>> far from convincing.
>
>The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
>vignetting.
In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
APS-C DSLRs and lenses.
>Regarding the EVF of the G1, have you actually ever used one? According
>to the reviews it's quite good.
Yes, I have used one. It's better than most EVFs but that isn't saying
much. It is extremely poor compared to a good reflex viewfinder.
>Besides, the tiny optical viewfinders of most compact APS-C DSLRs are
>not good.
Without any doubt, the worst optical (reflex) viewfinders of any DSLRs
were in the Olympus E300 and E330. None of the consumer-grade Four
Thirds DSLRs have had acceptable viewfinders. Only the E1 and E3
were/are at all satisfactory, although I haven't tried the new E30 yet.
I know you're an Olympus fanboi, but your assertions fly in the face of
the facts. The amount of light coming through a Four Thirds lens may be
sufficient to illuminate the small sensor, but it is not enough to
provide a bright reflex viewfinder image at a good magnification.
Perhaps the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds format shows that
Panasonic has finally recognised that fact? Will we ever see another
Panasonic Four Thirds DSLR? I very much doubt it.
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:17 am
From: Bruce
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Olympus predicted that in the future contrast AF would substantially
>improve and outperform phase AF in terms of accuracy and speed. Whether
>this prediction comes true remains to be seen
Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:26 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk>
wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
> []
>> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
>> and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with the
>> cube of the (linear) sensor size.
>
> I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to sensor
> size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in the 16 - 300mm
> range of lenses I use).
You wouldn't be thinking about the 35-100/2.0, would you? The equivalent
lens on FF is the 70-200/4.0 (this gives the same IQ (photon shot noise) and
DoF). But the Oly lens is twice the weight and twice the price. Oops.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:39 am
From: "David J Taylor"
David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> []
>>> Smaller sensors allow that. Not everybody wants to lug around a huge
>>> and heavy full-frame DSLR. Volume and weight of lenses go up with
>>> the cube of the (linear) sensor size.
>>
>> I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to
>> sensor size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in
>> the 16 - 300mm range of lenses I use).
>
> You wouldn't be thinking about the 35-100/2.0, would you? The
> equivalent lens on FF is the 70-200/4.0 (this gives the same IQ
> (photon shot noise) and DoF). But the Oly lens is twice the weight
> and twice the price. Oops.
Oops, indeed!
David
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 7:29 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <p4q9s4ljja6eqk593548gfm9smrevv4pvg@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
> Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
>
> In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
Make a few examples in which Olympus made wrong predictions.
The only thing where they made a mistake was when they chose 18x13.5mm
as the sensor size and shortly after that the whole industry
standardised around the APS-C sensor size (crop factor 1.5-1.7). Had
they chosen a sensor size with a crop factor of 1.5 instead of 2.0 this
entire discussion about the smaller sensors would have never started.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 10:49 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8cetvrhgilalq8o3a4@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
> >The advantage is better optical performance at wide angle and less
> >vignetting.
>
> In theory. In practice, these are problems that largely don't affect
> APS-C DSLRs and lenses.
Well, I have a Sony A350 with the 16-80 Zeiss lens here. Even using a
slim-line polariser filter I get unrecoverable vignetting in the corners
at wide angle. Unrecoverable means that with the RAW converter it is not
possible to remove the vignetting.
It is so bad, that I have to edit the corners manually with the clone
tool. I can post some example if you don't believe me.
In any case, it is obvious that when the image circle is bigger, the
lenses must have a larger diamater to give the same vignetting
performance. That is a simple law of physics.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E620, E30, E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:38 pm
From: nospam
In article <qJ6dnReZivG9dlnUnZ2dnVY3go6dnZ2d@giganews.com>, David J.
Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
> > I used to think that about the volume and weight relationship to sensor
> > size, but it simply isn't reflected in reality (at least in the 16 - 300mm
> > range of lenses I use).
>
> You wouldn't be thinking about the 35-100/2.0, would you? The equivalent
> lens on FF is the 70-200/4.0 (this gives the same IQ (photon shot noise) and
> DoF). But the Oly lens is twice the weight and twice the price. Oops.
the amusing thing is that the 35-100 *is* a 70-200 with a
wide-converter at the rear. there are a few posts at dpreview
describing its design.
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:38 pm
From: nospam
In article <MPG.242f46efd6893bd398c070@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
> > APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>
> Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
>
> (W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
> Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
> Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
> Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
> Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
the nikon is 3.5mm narrower and 3mm taller. that's basically the same
size. the canon is 0.5mm narrower and 7mm taller, also insignificant.
the only advantage to the olympus is that is a little thinner but that
makes no difference once a lens is attached.
> 445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
> 624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
>
> That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
weight and volume of the body alone is irrelevant. attach a lens and
compare.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:45 pm
From: Bruce
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <p4q9s4ljja6eqk593548gfm9smrevv4pvg@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Olympus made an awful lot of predictions about the Four Thirds format.
>>
>> In almost all cases, Olympus have been comprehensively wrong.
>
>Make a few examples in which Olympus made wrong predictions.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would take 25% of the DSLR market.
Wrong. Combined, Olympus and Panasonic have struggled to reach 5%.
Olympus predicted that 5 MP would be enough to attract pro shooters.
Wrong. Canon's pro camera jumped from 4 to 8 MP within weeks of the
introduction of the Olympus E1 and stole the market.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would enable the production of
smaller and lighter lenses with superior optical performance to those
for APS-C.
Wrong. The specialist Canon AF-S and Nikon DX lenses were just as
small, just as light, and performed so well they stole the market.
Olympus predicted that Four Thirds would become the format of choice for
pros because of the small, light and optically superb lenses.
Wrong. The only pros who used Four Thirds for more than a few months
were those who were sponsored by Olympus.
Olympus predicted that many other camera manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.
Wrong. Only Panasonic joined. Panasonic have all but abandoned Four
Thirds and have decided that the only way to realise the benefits of the
small sensor is to make non-SLR cameras without a reflex mirror.
Olympus predicted that many other lens manufacturers would jump on the
Four Thirds bandwagon.
Wrong. Only Panasonic and Sigma joined. Some Panasonic lenses had the
Leica name but they were neither designed nor manufactured by Leica.
None of the Sigma lenses was designed for Four Thirds - they are merely
adapted versions of Sigma's APS-C (DC) lenses using a Four Thirds mount.
Need I continue? The eventual destination of Four Thirds in 2009 is so
far away from what Olympus predicted that you can be sure they would
never have started on this path if they had known how desperately badly
they would miss their predictions.
>The only thing where they made a mistake was when they chose 18x13.5mm
>as the sensor size and shortly after that the whole industry
>standardised around the APS-C sensor size (crop factor 1.5-1.7). Had
>they chosen a sensor size with a crop factor of 1.5 instead of 2.0 this
>entire discussion about the smaller sensors would have never started.
Their mistake was in entering the DSLR market at all, when they had not
developed a new 35mm SLR for over a decade.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:49 pm
From: Bruce
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <9dp9s493dm2jjqgi8cetvrhgilalq8o3a4@4ax.com>, Bruce says...
>
>> Nonsense. The difference in size between the E620 and the smallest
>> APS-C DSLRs is insignificant.
>
>Compare by yourself using the E420, the smallest 4/3 DSLR:
>
>(W x H x D) Body weight (inc. battery & card)
>Olympus E-420 129.5 x 91 x 53 mm 445 g
>Canon EOS 450D 129 x 98 x 62 mm 526 g
>Nikon D60 126 x 94 x 64 mm 544 g
>Sony DSLR-A200 131 x 98.5 x 71 mm 624 g
>
>445g for the E420, 526g for the Canon 450
>624 cubic cm for the E420, 784 cubic cm for the 450D
>
>That is not an insignificant weight/size difference.
Don't be ridiculous. Insignificant is *exactly* what it is.
The owner of my local camera store believes one of the reasons Olympus
DSLRs are difficult to sell is that they are too small for most people.
He says that people who handle the Olympus DSLRs in-store find the
controls too fiddly to operate.
He says that, in contrast, the Nikon D40X and the entry-level Canon
almost fly off the shelves because they handle so well. And as your
figures above comprehensively prove, they are plenty small enough.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Missing "return to auto zoom" SB900
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6c8e885016abb6ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 6:45 am
From: "Focus"
Although I'm very happy with my SB900, I discovered that you can change the
zoom from auto to manual, but you can't go back to auto!
None of the review sites, nor the manual addresses this missing feature. You
have to turn the flash of or the camera (so the flash goes to standby) to
return to auto zoom.
Surely this is an oversight. Perhaps it can be changed with a firmware
update? Or am I missing something?
--
---
Focus
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 12:47 pm
From: me@mine.net
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:45:52 -0000, in rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
"Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>Although I'm very happy with my SB900, I discovered that you can change the
>zoom from auto to manual, but you can't go back to auto!
>None of the review sites, nor the manual addresses this missing feature. You
>have to turn the flash of or the camera (so the flash goes to standby) to
>return to auto zoom.
>Surely this is an oversight. Perhaps it can be changed with a firmware
>update? Or am I missing something?
Why not? You should be able to go back to the same Custom Function you used
to turn it off and turn it back on, as per pC-23 of the manual. TheSB-800
is similar. Are you saying this doesn't work?
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 1:02 pm
From: Yuki
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 13:45:52 -0000, "Focus" <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>Although I'm very happy with my SB900, I discovered that you can change the
>zoom from auto to manual, but you can't go back to auto!
>None of the review sites, nor the manual addresses this missing feature. You
>have to turn the flash of or the camera (so the flash goes to standby) to
>return to auto zoom.
>Surely this is an oversight. Perhaps it can be changed with a firmware
>update? Or am I missing something?
In mine, when you select manual flash zoom, the third programmable button gets
labeled as "zoom" and returns it to automatic.
Firmware 5.02 (from factory), tested in a D700
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: Ping: Stormin Mormon
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9db86ee5d2dc1c69?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 11:15 am
From: Pat
On Mar 20, 3:53 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> C J Campbell wrote:
> > On 2009-03-19 08:33:22 -0700, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us>
> > said:
> >> Hey, are you really a Mormon? If so, I have a question for you.
>
> >> I like drinking Postum on occasion. Seems like they've
> >> discontinued it for a while and you can't buy it any more except
> >> for outlandish prices on Ebay.
>
> > Postum will probably not come back. Few, even among us 'Mormons' (we
> > prefer the term Latter-day Saints, or Saints) ever drank it. Seventh
> > Day Adventists also drank it. Hot chocolate and herbal 'teas' were
> > always more popular and still are. Personally, I hate the stuff.
>
> > You can make your own Postum. A recipe from Mother Earth News calls
> > for you to combine six cups of cracked wheat with a cup of milk, a
> > half cup of molasses, and a teaspoon of salt. Spread it thinly on a
> > cookie sheet and bake until brown in a 300º oven. Be careful not to
> > let it burn. Turn the heat off and leave it in the oven to dry to a
> > crisp. Grind it up in a coffee mill, store in sealed jars, and perk
> > or drip like regular coffee.
>
> > You can get cracked wheat from health food stores. Or you can use a
> > mixture of whole wheat flour and bran.
>
> That's a nice piece of information for Postum users.
>
> Everyone in my extended (is that a necessary modifier?) LDS family
> drank Postum and Dr Pepper in the middle-late 1940s, Layton, Utah and
> thereabouts. What I remember learning is that they were the drinks
> that had no caffeine in them. Now I have to wonder if there was some
> detheobrominated hot chocolate. Seems to me chocolate (Spanish, from
> Nahuatl xocolatl : xococ, bitter + atl, water.) has a significant
> caffeine-like effect due to its theobromine component. Each is a
> stimulant; is one more bannable than another?
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
> thinsp.png
> < 1KViewDownload
Ahh. The fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics. You don't
like caffeine while we serve wine halfway through Mass so the Irish
will come.
I guess I'm one of the few people who actually liked the taste of
Postum. It was a pleasant diversion from tea and coffee. I probably
have a half-dozen types of coffee in the house and maybe a dozen
different teas but sometimes Postum just hits the stop. I guess I'm
going to have to try one of the substitutes.
I wouldn't mind making my own but I don't want to add the brewing stop
every time. I'm wondering about brewing it in bulk and freeze drying/
dehydrating it. Then it would be "instant" like Postum but it would
also probably need some sort of anti-caking agent. I wonder how hard
that would be?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 1:43 pm
From: Allen
Pat wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:53 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-03-19 08:33:22 -0700, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us>
>>> said:
>>>> Hey, are you really a Mormon? If so, I have a question for you.
>>>> I like drinking Postum on occasion. Seems like they've
>>>> discontinued it for a while and you can't buy it any more except
>>>> for outlandish prices on Ebay.
>>> Postum will probably not come back. Few, even among us 'Mormons' (we
>>> prefer the term Latter-day Saints, or Saints) ever drank it. Seventh
>>> Day Adventists also drank it. Hot chocolate and herbal 'teas' were
>>> always more popular and still are. Personally, I hate the stuff.
>>> You can make your own Postum. A recipe from Mother Earth News calls
>>> for you to combine six cups of cracked wheat with a cup of milk, a
>>> half cup of molasses, and a teaspoon of salt. Spread it thinly on a
>>> cookie sheet and bake until brown in a 300º oven. Be careful not to
>>> let it burn. Turn the heat off and leave it in the oven to dry to a
>>> crisp. Grind it up in a coffee mill, store in sealed jars, and perk
>>> or drip like regular coffee.
>>> You can get cracked wheat from health food stores. Or you can use a
>>> mixture of whole wheat flour and bran.
>> That's a nice piece of information for Postum users.
>>
>> Everyone in my extended (is that a necessary modifier?) LDS family
>> drank Postum and Dr Pepper in the middle-late 1940s, Layton, Utah and
>> thereabouts. What I remember learning is that they were the drinks
>> that had no caffeine in them. Now I have to wonder if there was some
>> detheobrominated hot chocolate. Seems to me chocolate (Spanish, from
>> Nahuatl xocolatl : xococ, bitter + atl, water.) has a significant
>> caffeine-like effect due to its theobromine component. Each is a
>> stimulant; is one more bannable than another?
>>
>> --
>> Frank ess
>>
>> thinsp.png
>> < 1KViewDownload
>
> Ahh. The fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics. You don't
> like caffeine while we serve wine halfway through Mass so the Irish
> will come.
>
> I guess I'm one of the few people who actually liked the taste of
> Postum. It was a pleasant diversion from tea and coffee. I probably
> have a half-dozen types of coffee in the house and maybe a dozen
> different teas but sometimes Postum just hits the stop. I guess I'm
> going to have to try one of the substitutes.
>
> I wouldn't mind making my own but I don't want to add the brewing stop
> every time. I'm wondering about brewing it in bulk and freeze drying/
> dehydrating it. Then it would be "instant" like Postum but it would
> also probably need some sort of anti-caking agent. I wonder how hard
> that would be?
>
Back in the 1930s there were many ads for a coffee substitute featuring
a character with a satanic look about him called "Mr. Coffee Nerves". I
am having trouble remembering if this was for Postum (my strongest
recollection) or some other product. Does anyone recall, or am I the
only one here who is old enough to go back that far?
Allen
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 1:53 pm
From: "Frank ess"
Allen wrote:
> Pat wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 3:53 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
>>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>>> On 2009-03-19 08:33:22 -0700, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us>
>>>> said:
>>>>> Hey, are you really a Mormon? If so, I have a question for you.
>>>>> I like drinking Postum on occasion. Seems like they've
>>>>> discontinued it for a while and you can't buy it any more except
>>>>> for outlandish prices on Ebay.
>>>> Postum will probably not come back. Few, even among us 'Mormons'
>>>> (we prefer the term Latter-day Saints, or Saints) ever drank it.
>>>> Seventh Day Adventists also drank it. Hot chocolate and herbal
>>>> 'teas' were always more popular and still are. Personally, I
>>>> hate the stuff. You can make your own Postum. A recipe from
>>>> Mother Earth News calls for you to combine six cups of cracked
>>>> wheat with a cup of milk, a half cup of molasses, and a teaspoon
>>>> of salt. Spread it thinly on a cookie sheet and bake until brown
>>>> in a 300º oven. Be careful not to let it burn. Turn the heat off
>>>> and leave it in the oven to dry to a crisp. Grind it up in a
>>>> coffee mill, store in sealed jars, and perk or drip like regular
>>>> coffee. You can get cracked wheat from health food stores. Or you
>>>> can
>>>> use a mixture of whole wheat flour and bran.
>>> That's a nice piece of information for Postum users.
>>>
>>> Everyone in my extended (is that a necessary modifier?) LDS family
>>> drank Postum and Dr Pepper in the middle-late 1940s, Layton, Utah
>>> and thereabouts. What I remember learning is that they were the
>>> drinks that had no caffeine in them. Now I have to wonder if
>>> there was some detheobrominated hot chocolate. Seems to me
>>> chocolate (Spanish, from Nahuatl xocolatl : xococ, bitter + atl,
>>> water.) has a significant caffeine-like effect due to its
>>> theobromine component. Each is a stimulant; is one more bannable
>>> than another? --
>>> Frank ess
>>>
>>> thinsp.png
>>> < 1KViewDownload
>>
>> Ahh. The fundamental difference between LDS and Catholics. You
>> don't like caffeine while we serve wine halfway through Mass so
>> the Irish will come.
>>
>> I guess I'm one of the few people who actually liked the taste of
>> Postum. It was a pleasant diversion from tea and coffee. I
>> probably have a half-dozen types of coffee in the house and maybe
>> a dozen different teas but sometimes Postum just hits the stop. I
>> guess I'm going to have to try one of the substitutes.
>>
>> I wouldn't mind making my own but I don't want to add the brewing
>> stop every time. I'm wondering about brewing it in bulk and
>> freeze drying/ dehydrating it. Then it would be "instant" like
>> Postum but it would also probably need some sort of anti-caking
>> agent. I wonder how hard that would be?
>>
> Back in the 1930s there were many ads for a coffee substitute
> featuring a character with a satanic look about him called "Mr.
> Coffee Nerves". I am having trouble remembering if this was for
> Postum (my strongest recollection) or some other product. Does
> anyone recall, or am I the only one here who is old enough to go
> back that far? Allen
I'm sure I remember there being a "Mr Coffee Nerves", but I'm afraid
the visual image is blended with that of "Peter Pain" (Absorbine Jr?).
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Old fashioned battery tester
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aef7f5267962d1e4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Mar 21 2009 1:41 pm
From: sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
On Thu, 19 Mar 2009 08:42:54 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
Somewhat less effective with alkaline batteries.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment