On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 5:27 PM, wrote:
> My point was your comment about the Pentax forum and intelligent discussion.
>
> MarnieBut, on second thought, according to what you said above, maybe
> this thread doesn't prove intelligence here in PDML as well. Heh.
Exactly...
;-)
cheers,
fr
In a message dated 2/23/2009 2:10:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
knarftheria...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM, wrote:
> Hey, frank? You reading this thread?
>
> If this doesn't qualify as intelligent discussion, I don't know what does.
>
> Marnie ;-) Me, all over my
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 11:55 PM, wrote:
> Hey, frank? You reading this thread?
>
> If this doesn't qualify as intelligent discussion, I don't know what does.
>
> Marnie ;-) Me, all over my head, HS geometry was long ago and far away.
I've been reading it, but have found nothing to add to
This is a strict trapezoïd (translated from french) which mean a
trapezoïd which isn't anything more particuliar than a trapezoïd.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 6:10 AM, ann sanfedele wrote:
>
>
> eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>> papenf
From: "Bob W"
> > They must teach you some strange things in your schools.
> JCO is quite
> > correct - at least, our schools taught us that a rectangle is a
> > quadrilateral with 4 right angles, so a square is a
> rectangle. A rectangle
> > with unequal sides is an oblong.
> >
> > Bob
>
eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
papenf...@juneau.me.vt.edu writes:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can be
In a message dated 2/19/2009 11:41:04 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
papenf...@juneau.me.vt.edu writes:
> Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
> rhombus, or a trapezoid.
>
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can be
accurately called
- A rectangl
Sorry, but every time you get underwater the different media (water vs
air) causes the subjects to appear larger and closer - so you need to
think wider underwater than on air. Positive side effect, the less water
between you and your subject, better the image - even clear and pure
water degrades
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
I (somewhat) hate adding to this pedantism, but a square can be
accurately called
- A rectangle with equal-length sides
- A rhombus with 90 degree corners
- A trapezoid that has (the required) two paral
Cory,
You forgot:
- A parallelogram with all four sides equal, and all four corners equal
(and hence 90 degrees).
:-D
Igor
Thu Feb 19 14:40:45 EST 2009
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> > Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
> > rhombus, or a trapezoid.
> >
> I (som
Not an issue as the vertical size of the mirror would be very close to
a 35mm mirror (needs to handle 25mm instead of 24mm). Pentax couldn't
use the current mirror boxes, but the old *ist or MZ-S mirror boxes
would do just fine.
-Adam
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:16 PM, John Celio wrote:
> If one w
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
> Lets have a contest to see who can come up with the most outlandish
> rumor that gets picked up and spread around.
They've already got the square sensor body in (secret) production. In
order to assuage the sensibilities of certain members of
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:16:42PM -0700, John Celio scripsit:
> If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't
> the size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the
> sensor is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor
> Pentax uses)? This
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 01:16:42PM -0700, John Celio wrote:
# If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't the
# size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the sensor
# is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor Pentax
# uses)? This is
The mirror and mirrorbox would be same same size as the old analog
camera;s. Should be easy. You only need to remove a small part of the
mirror on the left and right.
I think I want this square FF pentax.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 9:16 PM, John Celio wrote:
> If one were to cram a square sensor in
As you wish, JC
MARK !
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night, nowhere in
If one were to cram a square sensor into a 35mm-based body, wouldn't the
size of the mirror need to be increased vertically (assuming the sensor
is the same height and width as the width of the current sensor Pentax
uses)? This is the reason I doubt a square sensor'd dSLR is on the way.
The whole
JC O'Connell
As you wish, JC.
"AS YOU WISSHHH!"
:)
--
*
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, PPSEL-IA*
* Research Associate, Vibrations and Acoustics Laboratory
>
> > They must teach you some strange things in your schools.
> JCO is quite
> > correct - at least, our schools taught us that a rectangle is a
> > quadrilateral with 4 right angles, so a square is a
> rectangle. A rectangle
> > with unequal sides is an oblong.
> >
> > Bob
>
> C'mon, Bob. Yo
I thought it was an asian coin of some sort...
Jostein
2009/2/19 frank theriault :
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM, keith_w wrote:
>
>> C'mon, Bob. You're putting me on, right? Or making jokes.
>> An oblong is a squashed circle.
>
> I thought oblong was a type of tea?
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
>
>
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 7:40 AM, keith_w wrote:
> C'mon, Bob. You're putting me on, right? Or making jokes.
> An oblong is a squashed circle.
I thought oblong was a type of tea?
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PD
Therefore, if all four sides are equal, then three of those sides are
also equal, so a square is an equilateral triangle. QED.
On Feb 18, 2009, at 23:03 , Larry Colen wrote:
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a
rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all fou
On Feb 19, 2009, at 6:45, keith_w wrote:
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night, nowhere in any of the
definitions does it say that a rectangle has to have
any requirements on side lengths. Its just has to have all 4
corners at
I guess many rumours have some truth behind them - and they hardly come
true anyway.
I'd pass a square sensor for my current uses. For me, the best format
would be 3:4, but I can live with 35mm and with APS formats. About lens
coverage, I believe many FF lens would be easily offered simply by
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:16:38AM -0800, keith_w scripsit:
> Thibouille wrote:
>> Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
>> based on a sensor of 54x54 mm. If this is true, Pentax MF'd better
>> be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed ;)
>>
>> Anyway, rumours ... :p
>
See Larry, we learn all sorts of 'interesting' things here at the PDML. <
with a little sarcasm >
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "Larry Colen"
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Thursday, February 1
- Original Message -
From: "keith_w"
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
Thibouille wrote:
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and L
On Feb 19, 2009, at 7:40 AM, keith_w wrote:
Bob W wrote:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be 90
degrees, the commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that
a rectangle
JC OConnell wrote:
A square is a special rectangle, but it IS a rectangle.
I just googled it last night, nowhere in any of the
definitions does it say that a rectangle has to have
any requirements on side lengths. Its just has to
have all 4 corners at 90 degreees. There is differentiation,
the
Bob W wrote:
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
rhombus, or a trapezoid.
While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be
90 degrees, the
commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that a
rectangle has adjacent
sides of UNequal length.
I think
are just a special rectangle with all four
sides equal lenght.
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
keith_w
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:57 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Am
List
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format. # its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh,
> > Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a square is a
> > rhombus, or a trapezoid.
>
> While all 4 corners of both a square and a rectangle must be
> 90 degrees, the
> commonly accepted (preferred) definition states that a
> rectangle has adjacent
> sides of UNequal length.
>
JC OConnell wrote:
Rectangle Definition :
From Latin: rectus "right" + angle,
A 4-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90°
=
JC O'Connell
As far as you go, your statement is totally correct.
keith whaley
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml
Thibouille wrote:
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed ;)
Anyway, rumours ... :p
A tiny bit smaller than the old time 2 1/4 square format. What would the p
Still, strictly speaking a square is indeed a rectangle.
For all intend and purposes, it is confusing to talk about a rectangle
when it is also a square. But well... ;)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 8:56 AM, keith_w wrote:
> Larry Colen wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell
Mmm Nikon is rumoured to introduce a medium format lineup (MX format)
based on a sensor of 54x54 mm.
If this is true, Pentax MF'd better be cheap enough, and Leica is screwed ;)
Anyway, rumours ... :p
--
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
Photo: K10D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and
Larry Colen wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'
Shit, why don't they go straight to the point and make a circular field
camera? ;-)
I have no problems in rotating a camera 90°, really.
Dario
- Original Message -
From: "John Celio"
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 2:00 AM
Subject: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
http://ww
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 09:50:16PM -0500, JC OConnell wrote:
# Whiz? In what class?, remedial school?
#
# a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
# format.
# its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Oh, c'mon now. Next thing you'll be telling us that a
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 11:13 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
I shot 6x6 extensively for at least ten years, probably longer. Never
fell in love with it.
Paul
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:29 PM, John Mullan wrote:
> There are some advanta
I shot 6x6 extensively for at least ten years, probably longer. Never
fell in love with it.
Paul
On Feb 18, 2009, at 8:29 PM, John Mullan wrote:
There are some advantages to a square format, just ask anyone who
has shot 2 1/4" x 2 1/4" for any extended period. While I love my
645 dearly fo
From: "John Celio"
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea. I
imagine it would be strange to get used to a square view while using a
non-MF camera.
To me this so
Damn!
On Feb 18, 2009, at 18:50 , JC OConnell wrote:
a square IS a rectangle. a square photo format is still a rectangular
format.
its just a rectangle with all four sides equal length.
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
http://web.me.com/jomac/show.me/Blog/Blog.
Rectangle Definition :
>From Latin: rectus "right" + angle,
A 4-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90°
=
JC O'Connell
hifis...@gate.net
-Original Message-
Wow! I was a whiz at plane geometry in grade school, but
pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
Joseph McAllister
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 9:12 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
Wow! I was a whiz at plane geometry in grade school, but I never was
presented the hyp
Wow! I was a whiz at plane geometry in grade school, but I never was
presented the hypothesis of squaring a rectangle, or rectangling a
square!
On Feb 18, 2009, at 17:51 , JC OConnell wrote:
from a technical standpoint, the square format is
the most efficient rectangular format because it
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 8:02 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:00 PM, John Celio wrote:
>
>>
>> http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
>> I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea. I
>> imagine
t] On Behalf Of
John Mullan
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 8:30 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Amusing square-format dSLR rumor
There are some advantages to a square format, just ask anyone who has
shot 2
1/4" x 2 1/4" for any extended period. While I love my 645
There are some advantages to a square format, just ask anyone who has shot 2
1/4" x 2 1/4" for any extended period. While I love my 645 dearly for its
large negative size, the square format is always framed optimally. At 1.3
times the size of a 35mm negative according to the article I guess th
On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:00 PM, John Celio wrote:
http://www.1001noisycameras.com/2009/02/wild-rumor-pentax-k3d-with-a-22mp-square-sensor-dslr.html
I don't know about you, but I think it would be a pretty neat idea.
I imagine it would be strange to get used to a square view while
using a non-
Quoting Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 5/9/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> I think most of us bring a ton of gear to GFM is two fold.
>>
>> 1- To show it off.
>>
>> 2- Its a long way home to get my lens i "should have brought" LOL
>>
>> In the both times attending GFM, i brou
On 9/5/06, David J Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think most of us bring a ton of gear to GFM is two fold.
>
> 1- To show it off.
>
> 2- Its a long way home to get my lens i "should have brought" LOL
3 - To give Those Less Fortunate (TM) an opportunity to fall in lust
with lenses they can't
I still have my 128 and 256 cards in the bag.LOL
Mostly i have Kingston 1gig and Sandisk 2gig Extreme III's.
I remember reading a few years ago, that using smaller cards was
better in the case of data failure and recovery.
His theroy was that if you shoot smaller cards, say 4 1 gig, as
appose
A link that I gave on my press camera webpages, and I have posted here
before. For those who have not read the article, it is kind of bemusing.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/020726.htm
--
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf
"
On 5/9/06, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I think most of us bring a ton of gear to GFM is two fold.
>
>1- To show it off.
>
>2- Its a long way home to get my lens i "should have brought" LOL
>
>In the both times attending GFM, i brought everything but a kitchen
>sink. I have an ex
I think most of us bring a ton of gear to GFM is two fold.
1- To show it off.
2- Its a long way home to get my lens i "should have brought" LOL
In the both times attending GFM, i brought everything but a kitchen
sink. I have an extra one now, so i can bring that along to.:-)
I really only nee
Actually, I've sticking with 512M cards (mostly). I've found that they
work best with my portable CD burner that I use while on Vacation - at
the end of the day, burn all my cards to cd and then I have a RAW CD
backup copy for archive as well.
Course with the family vacations, I haven't been burn
Think of all the gear some people carry today - far heavier and more
cumbersome than a couple of bodies and lenses plus film (which could
usually be purchased just about anywhere, so there was little need to carry
lots of film around as part of stock). When I read about what some people
take to GF
On Sep 4, 2006, at 11:28 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Yeah - those were the days when it was fairly affordable to own two or
> even three high quality cameras and switch between them when one ran
> out of film!
It's all relative. I don't recall considering my Nikon F2 or Leica M
'inexpensive'. (O
Tell me about it. I shot the Canadian International Air Show today with
my D50 and F3/MD4 combo. I got 600+ Large/Fine JPEG's on a 1GB card,
which covered the first 2/3rds of the show (Cloudy, white skies make for
superb compression levels from JPEG) and the last 1/3 of the show with
the F3 and
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>Perhaps the reason the card only held 2 gig was that he was using it
>in a camera that wouldn't write more than 2 gig?
Yep :)
--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mail
Perhaps the reason the card only held 2 gig was that he was using it
in a camera that wouldn't write more than 2 gig?
Paul
On Sep 4, 2006, at 5:50 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> Mark Roberts wrote:
>>
>> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
>> purchasing a K10D in th
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
> camera. Resellerratings.com only showed two cards at this capac
Thibouille wrote:
>K110D compressed ?
>K10D maybe but K110D?
K10D
--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
K110D compressed ?
K10D maybe but K110D?
Thibault Massart aka Thibouille
--
*ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ...
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>Remember when we could only shoot 36 exposures before having to
>reload, without even knowing whether or not any of our photos were
>actually what we expected?
Yeah - those were the days when it was fairly affordable to own two or
even three high quality cameras and s
Remember when we could only shoot 36 exposures before having to
reload, without even knowing whether or not any of our photos were
actually what we expected?
> I get 188 listed on the LCD display on my DS2 with a 2 gig card in it.
> I have yet to shoot that many before downloading, to test the
On 9/4/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting numbers. I get 94 RAW on a 1Gb SD card with the DL/2. Looks
> like there is some more efficient processing going on in the secondary series
> of cameras.
I get 188 listed on the LCD display on my DS2 with a 2 gig card in it.
I hav
In the FWIW Department, the best I've gotten has been 99 exposures on a 1GB
card in the istDS. Usually it's a couple-three less than that.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: mike wilson
> Interesting numbers. I get 94 RAW on a 1Gb SD card
> with the DL/2. Looks like there is some more effic
Mine seem to be just over 10Mb, max.
>
> From: "David Savage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/09/04 Mon AM 10:51:23 GMT
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Subject: Re: Re: Amusing product review
>
> *istD RAW files tend to be around 12-13MB
DS(2)/DL(2) do store not store unnecessary bits that the D does store.
These files aren't compress although.
2006/9/4, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >
> > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 2006/09/03 Sun PM 11:37:58 GMT
> > T
*istD RAW files tend to be around 12-13MB.
Dave
On 9/4/06, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interesting numbers. I get 94 RAW on a 1Gb SD card with the DL/2. Looks
> like there is some more efficient processing going on in the secondary series
> of cameras.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Ma
>
> From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/09/03 Sun PM 11:37:58 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Amusing product review
>
> David J Brooks wrote:
>
> >My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per ca
Digital Image Studio wrote:
>On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Sounds reasonable, but given the signal processing, I *am* hoping for
>> more than 12 bits per pixel. And as Ken pointed out, shooting RAW+JPEG
>> will add a 10-megapixel JPEG to the file: Perhaps another 1-2 Me
On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sounds reasonable, but given the signal processing, I *am* hoping for
> more than 12 bits per pixel. And as Ken pointed out, shooting RAW+JPEG
> will add a 10-megapixel JPEG to the file: Perhaps another 1-2 Meg.
I don't know how practical a R
Digital Image Studio wrote:
>On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> David J Brooks wrote:
>>
>> >My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
>> >on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
>>
>> I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files
On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David J Brooks wrote:
>
> >My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
> >on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
>
> I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files on a 2 Gig card in my
> istD and I'
David J Brooks wrote:
>My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
>on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
I'm stumped on "IMSMC", but I get 144 RAW files on a 2 Gig card in my
istD and I'm hoping for around 150 K10D RAW+JPEG files on a 4 Gig
card. Pe
orget the additional memory to simultaneously store jpegs.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Amusing product review
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg San
My 2Gig Sandisk Extreme III's give me about 330 Jpeg files per card,
on the D200.IMSMC from GFM i got about 170-180 Raw files.
Sir CF
Dave
Quoting Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future.
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra
>that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to
>wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.
>However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure
On 3/9/06, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed:
>As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra
>that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to
>wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.
>However, I don't think I want any c
Not only are prices dropping, but SDHC cards are still relatively new, and
in a month or so there may not only be lower prices, but a greater number
of card brands to choose from, as well as a greater choice in places that
are selling them. The same holds true to a similar extent for card readers.
As a D shooter, I have only one SD card -- a one meg Sandisk Ultra
that I bought for my Panasonic P&S. I'll buy more, but I'm going to
wait until I have the K10 in hand, since prices keep dropping.
However, I don't think I want any cards bigger than 2 gig. I figure
that a lost card or a fai
It's a worthless review. The reviewer doesn't say what camera or other
gear he's using, what his card reader may be, or any of those things. As
you know, if the equipment isn't designed to accept and use the card, the
card won't work properly or at all. Further, the card has no indication
that it
On 9/3/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been shopping for SD memory cards (gr...) in anticipation of
> purchasing a K10D in the near future. I've limited my searches to 4G
> capacity as I expect that'll be my minimum size for use with this
> camera. Resellerratings.com only sh
Bob W wrote:
> I stumbled upon this blog while googling*.
> *3 or 4 years ago that sentence would have been gibberish.
Or overheard in a pub in a farming community?
Malcolm
Those photos are great!
- Dave
On Nov 2, 2005, at 9:21 PM, Jostein wrote:
My eployer, the Norwegian Medicines Agency, went online with a new
website last
night. Not very interesting as such, but on each of the main pages
there is a
microscopy photograph of crystallised substances from medi
My eployer, the Norwegian Medicines Agency, went online with a new website last
night. Not very interesting as such, but on each of the main pages there is a
microscopy photograph of crystallised substances from medicines.
Unfortunately, it's only in the the Norwegian language version of the site
On Nov 2, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Don Williams wrote:
The camera is doing a good job and while its still here and not yet
on its way back to the agents for exchange I've been taking a few
fun shots. All start as big TIFF files but I've converted one to a
small jpg and here it is:
http://persona
Thanks, Don. The explanation is nearly as interesting as the image.
They will sell!
Jack
--- Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm limited by the magnifications
> available. There is no zooming facility
> in a compound microscope. A lower power
> objective doesn't show enough detail.
Pretty. What are we looking at, Don?
D
Quoting Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Very nice picture, Don.
> On the object to the left. it looks like someone printed some sheet musik!
> regards
> Jens
>
> Jens Bladt
> Arkitekt MAA
> http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>
>
> -Oprindelig meddelelse
005 21:20
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Emne: Re: Amusing myself with the *ist D
I'm limited by the magnifications
available. There is no zooming facility
in a compound microscope. A lower power
objective doesn't show enough detail.
The one used for this picture was a
10/0.25 Leic
Very nice picture, Don.
On the object to the left. it looks like someone printed some sheet musik!
regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
Arkitekt MAA
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Don Williams [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 1. november 2005 19:23
Til: pentax-discuss@pdml.
The dolphin is a discontinuity -- a
fault -- in the crystal lattice.
Crystals -- perfect and imperfect --
make incredibly interesting 'modern art'
images. Making them is an art in itself
and a rather hit and miss business. So
when I have a good result I need to be
able to take dozens of pic
I'm limited by the magnifications
available. There is no zooming facility
in a compound microscope. A lower power
objective doesn't show enough detail.
The one used for this picture was a
10/0.25 Leica Fluotar. The image is
salicylic acid (salicylate) crystallized
from 70% ethanol directly o
I see what appears to be a dolphin show on the "thing" on the left.
What is it?
Don Williams wrote:
The camera is doing a good job and while its still here and not yet on
its way back to the agents for exchange I've been taking a few fun
shots. All start as big TIFF files but I've converted o
Don,
Cyber paleontology? Can even imagine fossil impressions.
IOW, very interesting. I was, however waiting to see all of the
rectangular "slab".
How (why) did you do this? =)
Jack
--- Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The camera is doing a good job and while
> its still here and not ye
On 11/1/05, Don Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The camera is doing a good job and while
> its still here and not yet on its way
> back to the agents for exchange I've
> been taking a few fun shots. All start
> as big TIFF files but I've converted one
> to a small jpg and here it is:
>
> http
1 - 100 of 105 matches
Mail list logo
